Why is it so?

[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . .

I am always interested in the thinking behind machinery design.

If anyone is interested in land clearing gear, if you have a few minutes, have a look at these clips.

The two rakes that obviously work well. They utilise the principle of material passing across the face of angled disks.

Nothing new here, various manufacturers have been building them for years.

The latest one though looks like it has been assembled/designed ass-backwards with the frame and carrier arms for the disks in frontof the disk where they could conceivably impede the flow of material and the bearing housings are working right there in the $hit.

It works fine though on those little windrows and looks a well built machine. It could probably roll a bigger windrow if the frame and carrier arms were behind the disks in the conventional position.

Am I missing something here?

Any one care to comment on (what to me) looks to be a step backward in the evolution of a very simple implement

Cheers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBf84oB5Azw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_DG8RWtAUA

 

[td25c]

I get what your saying scrub . Also think the first model with the frame behind the disk blade would work better .

But then again by the time tree limbs & debris get up half way on the rake wheel it's more than likely beyond it's capacity to move the material to the side ..... Rake wheel would stall out at that point . Would take more force to shove the load sideways then the friction ground drive provides are my thoughts on the matter .

 

[clintm]

It look's like the first one was close to being over loaded as it is. The second one with the frame in front seems to allow for the disks to float and follow the ground contour better

 

[Jim D]

Scrub,

The second rake looks like it pivots up (to the rear) when overloaded. The 'trailing' configuration that you noticed, the structure ahead of the rake discs, is probably the simplest way to get that effect.

The second rake looks like a farm implement compared to the first rake; the first rake looks like a land clearing tool.

 

[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . .

As always thanks for replies.

Jim D makes a good point I think.

Cheers.

 

[Oxbow]

They both look like hay rakes on steroids. I think Jim's point is well taken; the second one appears to be built more for left over roots after clearing has been done by other means.

 

[Queenslander]

To me, the second rake is probably nearing the limit of its' capabilities due to a minimum of engineering to counteract side draft.
We have a Western 7, which looks a bit like a smaller version of the Savannah rake, and all the wheels lean into the load, similar to grader steer wheels.
While the Savannah wheels don't appear to lean a lot, it does have that huge disc mounted on the inside to give it some added purchase.

 

[Jim D]

Queenslander and Scrub Puller, the land clearing that you do, is that for planting land or for grazing land? I've wondered how the land in Australia is used.

 

[Queenslander]

Jim
These days, the vast bulk of clearing that is done here is to improve grazing country, the best of the cropping country having been developed many years ago.
There is also very little clearing of maiden country now, compared with what was done in the past.
Most of the country we're clearing now has had some sort of treatment in the past, maybe only a chaining and a fire or two.
It is cleared to tidy up remaining timber on the ground and control regrowth... sometimes to enable a couple of passes with some discs to plant improved pasture.
It's a big subject to cover in only a few sentences.
Cheers, Greg

 

[Jim D]

Greg, thanks!

 

[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . .

Jim D.I have been away from the game for many years now but still maintain an active interest in the machinery and methods.

The vast majority of the land I cleared was virgin country cleared for grazing. As the years ticked by much of what we considered to be "marginal" country only suitable wool and beef production, that is to say thirteen and fourteen inch rainfall country was cleared further for opportunistic cropping . . . I call it gambling not farming.

For grazing the country was pulled with a chain between two or three dozers, some times seeded to get a body of grass and then burnt.
Regular fires were an important management strategy but in dry years it is not possible . . . grass won't grow but a "normal" drought doesn't do much to slow the suckers and regrowth and the country has to be pulled again or raked to maintain production.

The heavy duty "Savannah" style side delivery rakes (shown in the first clip above) are a comparatively recent innovation and can be put into pulled country that has received a reasonable burn . . . costs per acre are less than even our wide conventional rakes on a dozer.

Country can be seeded with improved pasture or silk sorghum (for finishing/fattening) after a single pass with such an implement although several workings and clean-ups with a lighter pinwheel rake working on the same principle would be required before the paddock was clean enough to grow a grain crop.

I only know Queenslander through this board and believe he has a cattle operation and maybe does some contract work from time to time . . . woops where did that come from? I refreshed the page and see he has already responded. (big grin)

Cheers.

 

[Jim D]

Thanks for the reply, Scrub.

I was trying to guess at the cost effectiveness of the rakes in the videos. The cost looked to me to be very high for grazing land, but the effectiveness of them looked too low for good cropland. I hadn't thought of seeding to improve the grazing. Where I am, in Nevada USA, the range land is very arid, probably nothing could be seeded that would grow (i.e. better than the native grasses).

Thirteen inches of rainfall seems like you could have good grasses. But not enough for dry farming.

"Regular fires were an important management strategy but in dry years it is not possible . . . grass won't grow but a "normal" drought doesn't do much to slow the suckers and regrowth and the country has to be pulled again or raked to maintain production." I'm guessing you mean that without the grass, the fires won't spread or are not intense enough to burn the tree regrowth.

Here, the value of range foraging per animal is low, and the acres required per animal is high. There's not enough in it to even transport tractors and a chain. Nothing like land where you would re-pull or rake to maintain production.

Thanks.

 

[Shimmy1]

Thirteen inches of rainfall seems like you could have good grasses. But not enough for dry farming.

Well, here in central ND we have had about 10 in. of precip. since the first of the year. Nowhere near optimal, but we had a great wheat crop, and decent soybean and corn. I think we could have had a much better soybean yield, but some terrible winds toward the end of July raised hell with the plants. We did have pretty good subsoil moisture this spring, that being gone now. If we don't get 50-70 inches of snow this winter, next year might be pretty tough. Point I'm trying to make is you can raise a crop on 13" of rain, but it better come at the right times.

 

[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . .

Jim D. I appreciate the on going conversation.

The Australian eucalypt and wattle species regrowth/suckers seem to maintain growth right through dry times and, as you have realised, grass growth is insufficient to both carry a fire and main some income creating carrying capacity . . . all burning will ever do is maintain some physical control of vegetation mass, it will seldom kill these species.

In the (comparatively) low rainfall country I speak of the safe stocking rates can be highly variable but 50 to 70 acres a cow/calf unit I think would be typical.

This link to a very nice little place I know may be of interest. It is typical of a better style of country with slightly higher rainfall . . .

http://www.gdlrealestate.com.au/properties/residential/Livestock-Qld-Charleville-7434897

The "Mulga" spoken of so highly is a species of Acacia which provides quite good sustenance to keep a herd alive in a drought and of course provides top feed and browse in normal seasons.

Note that 35000 acres has been pulled and 550 acres blade ploughed . . . big money invested right there.

Cheers.

 

[Delmer]

The difference between North Dakota, those parts of Australia, and Nevada, is the evaporation. In North Dakota 20" of rain probably is pretty close to evaporation. In Wisconsin with 30-40" of rain it's close enough, as long as there's something in June and July. Weather stations measure "pan evaporation" but nobody pays any attention to it AROUND HERE.

Scrub or somebody else has mentioned in the insanely high evaporation rates talking about tanks and how they dig them deep. That would never occur to anybody in this area, the pond either leaks or not around here. That 13" that would work in ND wouldn't grow anything in some places. Just think of how much water Shimmy or I carry on a typical day, none for me, I imagine that would be crazy in parts of California or Australia.

Great conversation as always, and since this is Scrub's thread we haven't even gone off topic yet!

 

[Jim D]

Scrub, Thanks!

I grew up in Southern California and eucalyptus had been introduced there in the 19th century. I had forgotten about it but the eucalyptus propagated better than the native trees in the arid climate. They really had spread in the dry parts of SoCal. The eucalyptus there were the shag bark, bushy kind, not the tall skinny kinds. The pictures of Charleville look a little like the the central California costal range where the eucalyptus have grown into the foothill grasslands.

Incongruous as it seems, the avenues in Los Angeles were lined with the very tall skinny palm trees, and the highways in outlying areas were lined with eucalyptus wind breaks.

Nevada sloping range land, not valley bottoms, is probably twice or more the number of acres per animal unit.

35,000 acres of pulled range land, is that sort of improvement an ordinary expense with a known return? Or is that just a gamble? (If it has to be pulled again in the future).


Delmer, they do evap pan measures here, but like you say there isn't really a point, the water disappears. WI is green everywhere. Once I was looking at the Escalante Canyonlands from a mountain overlook. Red sandstone canyons and mountains for a hundred miles, and nothing green. There was an elderly couple there next to me. The lady said to me, with obvious dissatisfaction, "Well, this doesn't look anything like home." I asked her where their home was, and she said "Iowa."

 

[Queenslander]

Took some photos of our old wheel rake as I rode past today.
This rake has a design flaw that is literally a pain in the operator's neck.
Any one like to take a guess?

 

[Mjrdude1]

Would work well if you are double jointed in the neck I guess, lol
I would hate to pull that thing around all day, be much more natural if it angled off to the other side. Much easier to watch.

 

[Queenslander]

Yeah Mjrdude1,
Turning is worst, the rake has to be feathered a little so the tines don't dig in, but not so much that you loose sticks underneath.
Find yourself looking hard left,reaching behind to operate remotes on the right and trying to spin the steering wheel as well.
Wears a bit thin after a long day.

 

[Scrub Puller]

Yair . . .

Jim D. Been off line for a while with computer problems, sorry for slow reply

35,000 acres of pulled range land, is that sort of improvement an ordinary expense with a known return? Or is that just a gamble? (If it has to be pulled again in the future).

Not a gamble with normal seasons and prices and part of an ongoing improvement strategy. The country would most likely have been pulled over several seasons (say) five thousand acres at a time.

Scrub pulling contractors try to work a district on a yearly basis often pulling strips at reduced rates or clearing fence lines to get from job to job.

Cheers.