Freep:
I'm in the market for a field cultivator.
I like the Dirt Dog and Fred Cain styles that are being discussed here, but have additional questions to pose.
First, with regard to this style of cultivator, should I assume that increased weight represents a generally higher quality implement? I assume that a bit of additional weight is not going to make much difference in terms of the power it takes a tractor to pull one; that the number of tines and the width of each of those tines will determine how much power I need to pull it. I ask because the DD and FC cultivators are not readily available in my area (PNW) and shipping one from EA would cost $400. What I
do have available in the area is Braber, which weighs nearly 20% more than the Dirt Dog Jeff specced out for us:
Braber Equipment - Heavy Duty Spring Loaded Tine Cultivator --- even paying tax and the higher price, it would be cheaper than the others discussed here.
Field Cultivators constructed like the DD and FC brands, utilize parabolic tine shape and tractor forward motion to pull tines/points into the soil. With Moldboard Plows, this self-sinking action relying on implement orientation is known as "suck" i.e. "plow suck". You regulate Field Cultivator "suck" the same as "plow suck" by adjusting Three Point Hitch Top Link in/out. Additional weight will be positive. While I have never seen a Braber implement, the picture shows a stout piece of equipment.
Another reason I'm interested in the weight and its affect on performance is that I've found a lightly used 9-tined version for sale at a
slight discount. I would neither need nor be able to pull this, but it appears that I could simply remove 2-4 of the tines and have a wider, slightly heavier version of a 5-7 tined version. I could feasibly even sell those tines to defray part of the cost, which would again be cheaper because it is used and because I would pay no tax. This, to me, looks like the sort of equipment that can be assessed used fairly easily. Is any part of my logic flawed here?
If the frame is no wider than your rear tire spacing this should be OK.
Personally, buying new, I buy the optimum size/weight gear. For instance, though it would have been easier to order a Fred Cain F/C from everything attachments.com, at the time I was ready to buy ETA offered only a 60" frame width. I needed a 66" frame width, so even though it was a hassle to order the Dirt Dog APP because I had to drive forty miles one way to pick it up from the nearest Dirt Dog dealer, I elected to do so. I remain happy with the decision.
I also run across two other types of field cultivators and would like to see what others have to say about them. First,
this style is lighter and has no springs. I assume it is just a very light duty version without the customization potential of those discussed above.
A spring-protected Chisel Plow is a primary cultivation conservation plow. A spring-protected Field Cultivator is a lighter duty primary cultivation conservation plow/aerator, sized for compact tractors. A Row Crop Cultivator is a tertiary cultivation implement for disrupting (little, baby) weeds in soft, moist, well prepared row crop/garden beds.
These S-tined styles seem to be the most popular. The sales language suggests that the tines vibrate to better destroy clods. They look less durable than the DD/FC style that has been discussed here earlier, and are lighter in weight. Does anyone have ideas to share regarding the various merits and demerits of the S-tined cultivators in relation to the spring loaded cultivators?
I use a heavier S-tine Cultivator. This is an another implement for secondary cultivation. The primary "fail safe" point on this springless design is the generic clamp bolts, which are about 75 cents each to replace. The secondary "fail safe" point is the generic clamp itself, about $3.50 each, including shipping. I have shovels, as opposed to points, for dirt contact. I break 3-4 bolts per season, one clamp per season and perhaps one S-tine every-other-season. Strangely, I have never replaced a shovel.
As bolts, clamps and S-tines distort individually, the tines no longer align in a straight row as shown in PHOTO #1. Still cultivates well as draft force resistance aligns spring-tines when sunk. PHOTOS #1 - #4
(Do not expect to use a Braber/DD/FC Field Cultivator for weed disruption. The tines/points are too narrow. Nor can points be replaced with shovels. The tines are too narrow for necessary plow bolts.)
I buy the highest quality equipment, then use it hard at times, if the job requires it.
THREAD LINK:
https://www.tractorbynet.com/forums...rd-crossings-modular-tool-bar.html?highlight=
Finally, Jeff posted a
picture of the tine depth in another thread. How much of that 17 in ground-to-frame tine can you expect to actually embed into the earth? Put another way, if depth is important, what sort of measurements should we expect to see in the tines on a
field cultivator?
My L3560 (R4 tires, inflated with air) pulls the five DD APP tines 14" deep in Florida sandy-loam. It has only failed to penetrate once. That was attempting to aerate a horse compacted dry pasture. In tougher soils, moist soil would be necessary, or in dry soil a true Chisel Plow behind a heavy 100-horsepower tractor. PHOTO #5
Since June 2015 total repairs to the hard used DD/APP has been one (1) tine point, which cost $7.95 plus shipping.
FREEP: A pleasure to consider your well thought out, well paragraphed post.