question about using a disc

[gwdixon]

I agree with the folks that say the 3 PH disc should be level when being pulled.

The front gangs have a tendency to dig in and lift the rears just a bit so just a hair of compensation for that by lowering the rears an inch or two from level works for my application.

The lower pins on the 3PH are usually higher than the centerline of the disc's axles so the tractor is trying to pull the disc over. The top link prevents this. On a pull-type disc this is not an issue.

My experience is that if the rears are too high then you get a trenching effect since the rears (in a tandem setup) will not engage enough to throw the dirt back that the fronts have flipped out.

 

[jenkinsph]

I agree with the folks that say the 3 PH disc should be level when being pulled.

The front gangs have a tendency to dig in and lift the rears just a bit so just a hair of compensation for that by lowering the rears an inch or two from level works for my application.

The lower pins on the 3PH are usually higher than the centerline of the disc's axles so the tractor is trying to pull the disc over. The top link prevents this. On a pull-type disc this is not an issue.

My experience is that if the rears are too high then you get a trenching effect since the rears (in a tandem setup) will not engage enough to throw the dirt back that the fronts have flipped out.

^^^^^^ I agree with this 100%

 

[jenkinsph]

A good disk should have enough built in weight in the structure that it will not need additional weight. Thicker blades, heavier spools, stronger frames are a better way to go than adding weights to a light disk.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Thicker blades, heavier spools, stronger frames are a better way to go than adding weights to a light disk.

Without a doubt....but....If you already have a disc that's just a bit too light, or certain conditions demand MORE weight, it sometimes becomes necessary to add a few more lbs.

The best 3-point disc I've ever had the pleasure of using is a model #25 Massey Ferguson. They had an optional "weight basket" where you could pile rocks, place a few suitcase weights, or whatever was heavy and laying around the barnyard. In all but the rarest of occasions, the #25 had PLENTY of weight without adding more. But it was nice to have provisions to add more. You don't ALWAYS need extra weight, and with any 3-point implements, too much weight can be a hinderence.

 

[wolc123]

If you do not need to transport the disc over the road, I would recommend dumping the 3-point disc and getting a pull type. There is absolutely no comparison in effectiveness compared to a 3-point. The pull-type will almost always get the job done burning half or less the fuel. Most folks dont know this so you should have no trouble selling that near-useless 3-point disc on craigslist.

 

[MMagis]

If you do not need to transport the disc over the road, I would recommend dumping the 3-point disc and getting a pull type. There is absolutely no comparison in effectiveness compared to a 3-point. The pull-type will almost always get the job done burning half or less the fuel. Most folks dont know this so you should have no trouble selling that near-useless 3-point disc on craigslist.

You just can't help yourself, can you.

Just so no one gets confused, this is absolutely false. wolc123 has been informed many times on multiple forums that his theories are completely wrong, but he continues to lead people astray. Nothing wrong with pull disks, but they absolutely do not do more work and use less fuel. He simply never understood how to properly set up a 3pt disk and refuses to admit it was his fault, not the equipments.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

If you do not need to transport the disc over the road, I would recommend dumping the 3-point disc and getting a pull type. There is absolutely no comparison in effectiveness compared to a 3-point. The pull-type will almost always get the job done burning half or less the fuel. Most folks dont know this so you should have no trouble selling that near-useless 3-point disc on craigslist.

The idea that a drag type disc uses less fuel is a flippin JOKE. If you use less fuel, you're doing less work...That simple. Some whacko anecdotal "comparison" where you never really compared ANYTHING in a manner that would draw an ACCURATE conclusion doesn't prove squat. There's no comparison alright.....Using a clapped out, worn out antique piece of junk that works about 2" deep may impress you, but some of us actually like to do a good job when we do something.

If you like drag disc's, come here and load up a few. You'll find HUNDREDS of them sitting in fence rows around these parts. No one with a better alternative would consider using one. Too much trouble to load 'em up and haul 'em in for scrap. There's a long list of perfectly good reasons why no one has manufactured a new drag disc in 50 years.....

We used drag disc's way back when I was a youngin'. As soon as ANYTHING came along to allow us to park 'em, we did so. Way too slow and inefficient.... Gangs on a drag disc's tend to float up and down independently with every irregularity in the ground RATHER THAN leveling the seed bed like a rigid frame 3-point disc or a rigid frame transport disc will do. (and that cause and effect of using a drag disc is NOT a good thing if you know anything at all about preparing a seedbed) In order to get a field into decent shape to plant, they often required 4 or 5 trips over the field. When we got the first of our MF #25 disc's, that was cut to 1 or 2 trips....Saving a TON of fuel AND creating a MUCH better seed bed in the process.....So IN THE REAL WORLD, drag disc's result in the burning of substantially MORE fuel to get a seed bed to the same point.......and they waste a LOT of time. You should consider the FACT that NO ONE seems to agree with your ridiculous theory. The ONLY reason why anyone would use a drag disc over a good 3-point or wheel disc is they're cheaper....because there is virtually no demand for them, except for the folks at the smelter.

A nickel's worth of free advice....Give up on promoting your ridiculous theory. No one is buying it, and it destroys any shred of credability you may have in any other topic.

 

[jenkinsph]

I prefer a pull type wheeled disk because it is usually can have more weight per blade and does a better job of leveling. I don't have one right now because I don't need it. I agree that the fuel consumption is based on the amount of work done and that the old drag disk which are easy to pull don't get much done.

I use tillers in my work because the spaces are generally small and tight quarters. But I should point out that tillers or disks will both do a similar job with similar fuel efficientcy for the same reason FWJ mentions. A disk may be slightly faster than a tiller but not by a wide margin for small plots.

I brought up tillers because the 3pt disk and tillers both share one problem and that is neither do as good a job of leveling as a good pull type disk with a rigid frame. For this reason I will generally till and area up and then run my landplane/grader with straight blades across it to level and smooth it out.

For large areas I would consider a chisel plow or ripper and pull type disks all of these need power to pull and diesel to get it done. This gets back to the fuel used is dependent on the amount of work done.

 

[MMagis]

I brought up tillers because the 3pt disk and tillers both share one problem and that is neither do as good a job of leveling as a good pull type disk with a rigid frame. For this reason I will generally till and area up and then run my landplane/grader with straight blades across it to level and smooth it out.

Actually, I can get a perfectly smooth field with my 3pt disk, if it's set properly. I struggled for a long time, pulling drags and such, trying to get things smoothed out. Once I figured out how my disk needed set up, everything is perfectly smooth.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

One of the perks of being a "horse trader" with regards to implements has been I got to try all sorts of "stuff" over the years. Enough so that I try NOT to lump ALL 3-point disc's, all wheel type disc's, ect, into the same catagories. All men may be created equal, but all disc's arent.....

With wheel disc's, it's my humble opinion that International Harvester knew something John Deere didn't (as an example) IH made several models from the mid 50's on through the late 80's that simply did a better job of stirring dirt and leaving it level. (Models #35/350, 37/370, 45/450/47/470/480/490) I had a few different models of Deere disc's that could take a nice level seed bed and wreck it. (RWA, KBA) For my buck, NO ONE built a wheel disc that was as capable as what IH produced, even to this day.

Same applies to 3-point disc's. And it doesn't take me long to point out that THE BEST mounted disc I've ever used is that MF #25 like the one I still use to this day. The WORST was a Birch brand I had back in the late 70's. It was an attemt to hang the workings of a drag disc under a 3-point mounted frame. Every clod in the field made the gangs rise and fall, leaving a roller coaster effect of a surface. Disc's of ANY sort will do a much better job of leveling with a RIGID FRAME. That concept SHOULD be easy for anyone to understand. (Obviously it isn't for some people....)

This is why I preface terms like "3-point disc" and "wheel disc/transport disc" with the word GOOD......When I'm making generalizations, I'm USUALLY talking about the good models/brands rather than ALL of one or the other.

THAT SAID, I've managed to make my "laundry list" of each type that is capable of doing a good job of building a seed bed. The ones that DON'T make my list, I tend to disregard the fact they ever existed....

And I also tend to think there is a "Darwinian theory" as far as farm equipment goes.....Many types of equipment simply fell into obscurity FOR A GOOD REASON (or reasonS) Drag disc's fit that catagory. They disappeared from manufacturers product lists around 50 years ago based on the FACT there are better choices. (ie, GOOD 3-point and GOOD wheel disc's...)

And now the part that some people will question, and those who understand WON'T question.....Discing is like so many chores we do in life. There's a LOT more to it than what meets the eye. Some people are just better at it than others. They can almost "read the dirt" and make certain adjustments or changes in technique as they go across a field to net better results. It's ALMOST a "black art"....And experience plays a HUGE part. Discing hundreds, if not thousands of acres over a lifetime helps with filling the "data bank". Growing up with a father who'd send me back out to the field to do it all over again if there was the SLIGHTEST problem (in his eyes) is another "learning tool"....

All that boils down to this end result....Some disc's are better than others, some operators are better at discing than others, some disc's put you at a disadvantage, and some people couldn't take ANY disc and do a decent job on a consistant basis.

Disc's are "old school"....They can (and usually do) cause a compaction layer similar to a plow. One of the WORST things you can do to soil is disc in wet conditions. (I wrote a paper on that subject while working on my soil science degree) Disc's have fallen out of favor as a primary OR secondary tillage tool on MOST modern farms. There are far better "tools" to work soil, releive compaction, level and prep a seed bed. Tillers are for the most part very IMpractical for doing so on a large scale. But....Disc's are still very popular for the low tech smaller farmers, food plotters, and a host of other end users.

Cost of implements, and limitations caused by size of tractors makes certain sizes and weights of disc's more popular than others....But there are still choices that fit budgets and fit small tractors that will get the job done and get it done RIGHT. (I never considered any job as done until it was done RIGHT.)