|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Nov 11, 2024 0:22:29 GMT
|
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,350
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Nov 11, 2024 17:02:29 GMT
Wheat? Barley? Not a criticism at all >> the fields are so small. I understand that larger fields are not possible because of the general lay of the hills, woods and creeks. |
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Nov 11, 2024 17:28:36 GMT
Wheat? Barley? Not a criticism at all >> the fields are so small. I understand that larger fields are not possible because of the general lay of the hills, woods and creeks.
That's a huge field for us Kentuckians; quite a few of them there is barely enough room to get the equipment in and many of them are dangerously steep.
Most fields around here are so small that the beans are loaded in smaller trucks, and quite often in Gravity-bed Wagons, and then hauled to wherever the big truck is at and dumped into an auger that then loads it into the big truck.
Having such small fields to work with adds a lot of extra handling, time, and expense compared to those big fields where the truck pulls away from the combine and heads straight to the elevator. |
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,350
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Nov 11, 2024 17:46:56 GMT
Thank you. I should have known. Barley made no sense as it's such a short-season crop. Yes, work efficiency would be compromised because of the extra moves. Us flatlanders from the Great Plains are no used to seeing small fields. Most irrigate fields around here are 160 acres although pivot irrigation systems only cover about 130 to 150 acres. (Potatoes, sugar beets, corn, wheat, alfalfa, etc) Dryland fields are much larger with many being full sections (640) acres. |
|
