[Tim Harrigan]

Sabine: I would like to see a video of you moving round bales:). I move 5×4 round bales (850 to 900 lbs) on either a sled or stoneboat by myself. All you need is a chain and a hand hay hook. It works best for me if I load it with a flat end on the boat. If the bale is laying on its side, pull the sled or stoneboat up next to the bale. Unhook and back the team up to the bale, perpendicular to the sled, with the sled between the team and the bale. Put the hay hook in the bale about 1/3 of the way down on the opposite end from the team. Run the chain over the top of the bale and link to the handle of the hay hook. Hook to the team and take a step or two forward. The bale will flip up on end on to the sled. Reverse the process to unload. A stoneboat is nice with only a little snow, a higher sled with runners is better with deeper snow. Next time I move a bale I will take few pictures.

Donkeys or small mules could pull it for sure if they know how to pull against any resistance at all. If they are just used to pulling you around in a little wheeled cart it might be a problem 🙁 but if they actually pull things they should be fine :D. Regarding the pull, round hay bales typically weigh about 11-12 lbs/cubic ft. You may have noticed other posts where I have said that we pretty consistently measure the pulling force in the chain at about 40% of the weight of the sled or stoneboat on bare, firm ground. So with my bales plus the stoneboat the total load weight is about 1000 lbs, pull in the chain is 1000 x 0.40 = 400 lbs. Rod’s 4×4 bales would need less than 300 lbs of pull. If the sled is on snow on level ground less than 10% of the weight of the load is measured as pull in the chain. So the pull with the 1000 lb load will only be about 100 lbs or less. In that case you might want to worry more about getting run over by the sled than pulling it. With Howie’s wheeled bale mover only about 5% of the weight would be measured as pull in the chain or 50 lbs or so. But a sled might be better in snow, depends on how much you get.

[Tim Harrigan]

There are two issues with this team, one is the frequency of work and the other is the load. It is hard to get them out when the weather is bad but you will have to make it a priority. With most teams, the less you ask them to do the less they want to do. If they know they will be working everyday they will settle down and work better for you. Most teams are a bit of a pain the first time you get them out after not working for a while.

The other issue is the weight. I would tend to follow the plan to ramp up the weight, but mostly ramp up the frequency and distance. If you are on snow with a sled 700 or 1000 lb is not much of a load. You might want to put some light brakes on the sled to increase the resistance a little, I like 5/16 chain just to slow my sled or stoneboat down a little on hardpack or frozen ground. You probably saw the brake discussion over the last few days so get something ready that is appropriate.

If you are hauling a sled over a snow covered surface a 1000 lb sled is only going to take about 75 lbs pulling force to keep it moving so it is not going to be a great conditioning tool. It is hard to be specific without seeing the conditions. It is mostly simple though, more time in the yoke, more distance, enough weight so running seems like a bad idea.

[Tim Harrigan]

Nice arch, Don. I like the ease of breaking it down for loading on a wagon or truck. And it looks like the hitch point could be easily raised by replacing it with another one if the work called for it. And how do you keep your head warm? I’m looking for tips.

[Tim Harrigan]

Rock on. FUH2.:)

[Tim Harrigan]

Carl, thanks for posting this and the pics. I really enjoy these practical inventions that arise from necessity. The chains you have are a little heavy for the work I do, not a lot of hills around here and I rarely skid out logs like that but the concept can be adapted to many uses with attention to the principles of load balance and drag that you mentioned. I use a couple of 5/16 chains on the bottom of my stoneboat (flat bottom, full contact) running from the hitch hole at the front running to the back and angled out to the end of the boat. When it is icy it keeps the boat from running up on the heals of the team down slope and also from side shifting downslope when traveling across a slope. Good alternative use for choker chains, scours them nice and clean too. Heavier chain is better in deeper snow. I would be interested in pics showing dimensions, looks like a good blacksmithing project.

[Tim Harrigan]

Good enough. You will find out soon enough about the correct depth of tillage, sounds like it will be fine.

[Tim Harrigan]

Moldboard plow draft is not particularly predictable because it depends on the soil, soil moisture, sod or tilled ground, etc. Width of cut is important but so is depth. The key is how much soil you are inverting. So if you go with a 10 inch and keep the depth to 4-5 inches you should be OK. I suggest conditioning your horse by gradually loading up a sled or stoneboat to about 1000 lbs, that should create an equivalent pulling force. This will tell you a lot about how he will react to the resistance. And, run your furrows across the short width of the field. If you prepare him ahead of time and use some sense you will be OK. Logging horses pull loads greater than that on a regular basis.

[Tim Harrigan]

John: We cut those groundhogs some slack one day a year. He really needs to keep his head down the other 364.

[Tim Harrigan]

Geoff: Yes, it is important to evaluate over a range of environments, we generally looked at 2 year increments, more would be better. It seems that potential benefits would be most likely in extreme weather years, for example very wet years if the tillage improved drainage. When it is hard to detect changes in most years it is further hard to assess the cost:benefit of these operations. Subsoil tillage is power intensive and so expensive to do or custom hire. If you only see benefits 2 years out of 10 that needs to be considered in the investment consideration. Again, I am not critical of anyone doing it if they have determined that it works for them, but I would like to see some in-field, side-by-side results to base that decision on. If one just buys the machine and goes to work they become invested in it and it becomes hard to assess objectively.

Is a 1% increase in soil OM in 10 years the best we can hope for? I am sure that is not exactly the number, but probably a good ball park number. Biological transformations in the soil are very complex and my knowledge of soil ecology is limited. Building OM is not as easy as turning under 3 tons of corn stalks to chalk up a 3 ton increase in OM. OM, nutrients and other things were extracted from the soil to create that 3 tons of corn stalks so there is a lot of cycling going on. Microbes degrade the corn stalks and contribute to building soil OM, and in doing so respire moisture, heat, carbon dioxide, ect. So there are losses. The microbes live on the decaying plant material so some of the 3 tons goes to support the microbial community. Some of the 3 tons goes to the subsequent crop. So when you account for all the losses that go into sustaining the system only a small part, if any, of that 3 tons goes into restoration.

The rate of OM formation will be influenced by soil temperature and moisture so my guess is it will be even tougher to achieve 1% in 10 years in more arid climates such at CO. Probably a little faster in GA. Probably faster if you are importing OM such as with compost. I think the bottom line is that you can lose it fast but the building process is very slow. Topsoil is built from the subsoil below. The rate of topsoil formation is slow, I have read estimates in the range of 1 inch in 250 to 500 years. It seems like a good idea to protect it.

[Tim Harrigan]

Most young calves are quick. They should be pulling a few hundred lbs on a sled or stoneboat. If they are working a little bit they will not be so interested in racing around.

[Tim Harrigan]

Rod: The 2.5% rule-of-thumb is just ball park. Young, growing calves will eat 4% if they have access to good hay or pasture and grow fast but not get fat. Older steers can satisfy their maintenance needs with much less than 2.5% with average quality hay, maybe 1.5%. But when they just stand around all day with access to hay, they eat. That rule of thumb is 2.5% of forage dry matter, not hay. By my estimate your bales probably weight about 550 lb at 85% dm, and your feeding losses could easily be 10%. So consumption is about 550 x .85 x .9 = 420 lbs dm over 7 ox days or 60 lb/day. That is about 3% of body weight per day. That does not surprise me for free-choice feeding. You could probably cut them back if practical, or feed them your poorer quality hay. Just keep an eye on them, if they are 2000 lb each they have a ways to go before they waste away.

[Tim Harrigan]

The interest in slot tillage in row crops started in the midwest probably 15 years ago. The deep slots are formed in the fall and provide planting zones the following spring. The process was promoted by a very interesting story about why yields were stagnating;restrictive soil layers, lack of soil quality insufficient microbial activity. The machinery companies tuned in to the concerns being discussed and this was their solution to improve soil quality. Oh, and it sold subsoilers.

In our on-farm work with farmers we heard many anecdotes of great yields with this system, but in several side-by-side trials we failed to detect any yield increases compared to other zone-tillage or chisel plowing planting methods. That did not seem to matter though, and slot planting took on a life of its own. The story was good. It offered a solution that was acceptable to the power needs of modern farming. Like Eric said, no one wanted be a luddite. Proof? Who needs proof?

Many meaningful and beneficial options like adding organic carbon from manure applications or cover crops are not acceptable to most crop farmers. Modern tillage equipment is designed to allow farmers to control soil temperature and moisture so entire fields are ready for planting on the same day. Manure, cover crops, those are just more operations, more management, more opportunity to lose control. Carl captured it, mostly weather watchers. Thats just the way it is when you have 8000 acres of corn and beans to run. So a good story with a simple solution looks pretty good. Their perception of soil quality problems are correct, but their range of suitable solutions are somewhat limited when they relie primarily of subsoil tillage.

Soil respiration is a measure of microbial activity but in our work we have not pursued it as the best measure of a balanced and active soil. The reason is it can be manipulated fairly easily by tillage, moisture, etc. so a measure of respiration is more like a snapshot than a reliable indicator of a longer-term stable and sustainable state. Our approach is to incorporate practical and effective management options, manure, cover crops, low-disturbance tillage of the topsoil, permanent vegetative cover with botanical diversity where practical,etc. We know these things will improve soil quality. And, our goal is not to maximize microbial communities but to produce sustainable yields of grass and pasture. So that tends to be the focus of our measurements and assessment.

A real challenge is that as we look for effective management and assess the list of practical options it is not a ‘pick one’ selection. A few years ago we did some calculations and determined that the best we could do to raise soil organic matter with no-till cropping, returning all crop residue, and applying manure would be a 1% increase in ten years. It is no surprise that our cropland soil organic matter is 2% or less and fence row OM is 10-12%. And that is measureable, not just a good story.

Subsoil tillage is not even on my list of sustainable options for pasture management.

[Tim Harrigan]

If your question is should you set the pace for the team, the answer is yes. Are they pulling anything?

[Tim Harrigan]

I am pretty practical in my approach to these solutions to perceived problems. Landscapes and soils are so variable that management needs to be on a field specific basis. These subsoil plowing operations are power intensive but if the results justify the effort that is OK. My only requirement is that there is a clearly defined problem that the plowing will solve. That could be breaking a plow pan such as Jason mentioned although in the northern states we have annual freezing and thawing that help alleviate that problem. Some soils have natural restrictive layers that might limit infiltration and root growth. The coastal plains soils in the southeast have a distribution of soil particles that cause them to set up pretty tight and require deep tillage on an annual basis, at least for row crop production. So there are cases when deep tillage is justified.

Tillage is a physical intervention with rapid effects. Is it possible to oversell it? The discussion often turns to soil quality and the need for robust microbial communities. No question that biological activity is important, biological activity builds soil aggregates which allow soil to carry vehicle and animal traffic, convert organic matter and mineral nutrients to plant available form, provide a balance of pests and pathogens and other benefits that build soil quality. Do we need to loosen and oxygenate the subsoil? Jason is correct, the subsoil is not particularly biologically active, at least not compared to the topsoil where the nutrients and organic matter are concentrated. Microbial communtities are dynamic and arise in response to specific favorable conditions. Tillage can provide rapid and desireable changes in the physical environment, but we can not assume the effect on microbial communities will be the same. A rapid change in temperature and oxygen may cause a flare-up of microbial respiration that quickly consumes available nutrients. Like fanning glowing embers to a flame only to quickly die out when the fuel is gone. The changes are unlikely to be sustainable as the change in environment causes one community to die-off and perhaps be replaced by another less desireable one. And, tillage induced physical changes are not particularly structurally stable. There will be ongoing changes in the microbial community as the soil reverts to the initial conditions over time.

In pasture and hay ground tillage may have a role but it should be secondary to enhancing the natural conditions that build soil quality and sustain microbial and biological communities. Obvious things are earthworm activity, freezing and thawing to alleviate soil compaction, root growth and the addition of organic carbon from compost and manure to feed biological activity and build soil organic matter, and pasture management that sustains botanical diversity including a mix of grasses and legumes.

The rhizosphere is the area at the interface of the soil and plant root under the influence of the root. This is the zone of intense microbial and biological activity. Manure, compost, a diverse plant community, managing animals to maintain a dense vegetative cover, a diverse mix of grasses and legumes, these are the things that are critical in sustaining biologically active soil. Roots support biological activity and when they die and decay they create channels for water infiltration and oxygen penetration. Tillage induced pores are immediate but not structurally stable. They will collapse easily when retrafficed by animals or vehicles. Natural pores develop more slowly but are stable and give the soil carrying capacity. It is best to not make simple assumptions about the effects of tillage on biological activity in soil, particularly the ability to create favorable changes in the microbial community.

I am not endorsing or discouraging the use of subsoil tillage tools. I am suggesting that is easy to fall into the over-tillage trap if tillage is not focused on solving specific and measureable problems. Restrictive soil layers can be located with a shovel. If the only benefit of deep tillage is to improve infiltration and reduce runoff that is fine but subsoil tillage is not a replacement for managing the pasture. Over-grazing and allowing too many animals on saturated soils are two of the most detrimental things for pasture ground. If you pasture animals east of the Mississippi you can’t get away with not having a sacrifice lot for holding animals at certain times of the year.

If you farm with draft animals, subsoil tillage will challenge the ability of your animals. If it moves your soil quality ahead, that is fine. But if there is not a clear reason for doing it then it might be recreational tillage. I suggest dragging pastures for that. Even if you identify a problem that subsoil tillage might alleviate you should still seek proof of the benefits. Subsoil one-half of the field, or better yet make 4 or more strips of alternating plowed and unplowed land. If you fertilize, treat the plowed and unplowed areas the same. Then observe closely over the year for evidence of better infiltration, greater growth, drought tolerance, greater botanical diversity etc. One more thing. In many areas of the northeast the topsoil is shallow and overlays bedrock. Subsoil plowing may improve infiltration and in doing so provide a straight shot for manure nutrients and other contaminants to move directly to groundwater. So be careful if there is anything in the pasture that you do not want in your well water.

[Tim Harrigan]

John: Actually, Watt overstated his estimate of horsepower by 50% so as not to over promise what his steam engines would deliver. And it looks to me like his uninflated estimate was probably pretty good. So is it actually very difficult for a horse to deliver 1 hp on any type of sustained basis. His marketing approach was the opposite of what we typically see today which seems mostly to be overpromise and underdeliver.

[Author]

Posts