yesterday I had the privilege of going up to middlebury in to Floyd Bontragers, he is the man who builds the poor boy power carts, it was a very interesting trip, these things are tractors and the horses are the transmisions, he had one in there he was building with a 160 hp cummins engine on it, it was being set up to run a 9 ft tiller, he also had a regular cart in there that had a 120 hp cummins on it, with both 540 and 1000 pto as well as duel hyd. on it,

Call me crazy, but that would be like putting a engine on a cross cut saw. Might as well use a chainsaw. There comes a point where you are going backwards. I sure enjoy the peace and quiet, except for the clinking of the heel chains. LOL.

S D Mannies, I agree with you. Better ground-driven equipment would make more sense than trying to imitate the costly highpower agriculture. When they pass our farm on their huge tractors, especially the ones with tracks, they remind me more of warlords who wage war against nature than care-takers of the earth.

they got bigger engines on them than my biggest tractor

If you are going to pull a tractor across the field with a team you might just as well drive the tractor unless your team needs exercise.

I agree with Jim S. If you are going to use motors then use the whole thing. If you are not then don't use any. My opinion is that real horse power and ground driven equipment is the best way to go.

i love my pioneer 35 hp pto cart. Use it for 7ft haybine ,allis chalmers 6ft combine ,268 NH square baler, one row corn picker, pto fluffer,. yes the engine is running, but at the most it costs $1.00 acre in gasoline costs and i am still using all my horses. ear plugs are a must. Been using now 3 years cost $9000 brand new and i love the tongue system. Iuse anywhere from 3-6 horses.

This is a subject that can make for great debate. I, along with Jonathan Lawton, built one that I use. It is about 33 horsepower. I use it with 2 or 3 horses. I haul all my composted manure in a 125 Pequea spreader. I brush hog, mow hay with an I&J mower, square bale with a New Holland 268 baler, and this coming season will use it on my round baler.

Like Arlee says, I burn very little fuel. I can find all sorts of three point equipment and use my tractor when I need to keep up, because my off farm job got in the way.

I do have ground driven equipment too, but I sure like my powercart for many jobs. Oh yea, and I farm much more sustainably than my big tractor neighbors.

It depends on the scale of what needs doing. Larger operations in the hundreds of acres need heavier equipment. You do what you have to do to pay the rent, so to speak. There are several economic advantages to using horse traction to operate motorized equipment, vs. tractors. I like seeing farmers go from using tractors to using horses. The PTO forecarts allow that transition to be done more reasonably, when the farmer already has the equipment he was pulling around with the tractor.

It takes several years to go from all tractors and power equipment, to all ground driven equipment, unless you either stop working as much land right away, or have lots of other workers available to help. But the motorized forecart has helped us in that regard here. I have the same one Arlee has, only a few years older.

If someone is just starting out, with a fresh business plan ... And we need LOTS of that ... Then I would suggest a PTO forecart would not be the best way to go, probably. But if one is trying to de-industrialize from tractors to animal traction, these machines can be a valuable asset for transitioning.

The other side of the coin is, Amish farmers going from ground driven animal traction to more power equipment and tractors. It's a very interesting trend, that gets into some complex economics, when you start figuring it out.

I'd like a power cart like arlee has. That's still thrifty yet useful.
There are times when ground drive is not practical.
Ground driven baler in heavy grass, more acreage, running a swather, and so on.
But I also will agree that the huge power carts seem like overkill.

I asked the amish farmer that I hauled the tiller for why you would want to go to a tiller, he said he is not wearing his horses out near as fast with it compared to plowing and disking. the engine does most of the work, so he can pull a 9 ft tiller with 4 horses,

I used a tiller once. Had it behind a 4020JD. Didn't need to really pull it, the tines pushed it along. Had a book once explaining the economics of the different farm equipment - college textbook. Some equipment has too much draft to be used to be used effeinctly with horses, can't get the power or maybe the speed to work with a single span of horses. A chisel plow needs the power of 3 horses per foot. A mower works best if the strokes can increse in the tough places while ground speed stays the same. You can mount a small moter on a mower and have any speed combo you want. The old ground drive combine used 33 head so as to get up the hills but only 27 when they added a motor.
It requires study to determine when and how much the horse to motor ratio should be. Myself I would want the motor mounted on the implement so I could turn shorter and reduce the weight of steering front axle. Why have to hook more horses than you really need to? Just make it so you swap motors around.

Seems like you can get away with less horses in the hitch if you have a powered pto but still get the awesome traction that comes from animal power. At the same time you still have a very economical system to run as far as fuel is concerned.

Ryan, it isn't the traction that is awsome. That is reserved track machines with big grousers. It is the reserve energy stored as gylogen in the muscles giving them the greatest overload capacity on this earth. No other source of power has this power available at the source, other animals store it in the liver in much smaller amiunts.
In past studies, the bigger the horse, the greater it's traction up until 1600 pounds when the increase starts decreasing.

I didn't mean to sound like I am opposed to mounting small engines on equipment, that certainly often makes it easier for the horses. I do not think that pulling big motors behind horses is the way to go. For one, it supports the monoculture's obsession with huge fields and thereby leads away from the diversified form of sustainable farming in the long run. I am also afraid that big motors may cause less attention to the horses' capacities since they require larger hitches. People have overlooked the distress of individual horses within larger hitches , especially if they are on the inside!

I'm a fan of mixed power. Some places a tractor just works better. Other places straight horse power works better. Horse power will always be cheaper if you don't figure the extra time it takes. Sometimes a tractor is the worst choice. As far as power carts there is a point where you are just kidding yourself saying you're horse farming. I think that point is going to vary from man to man. But I figure to each their own, use what you want. Just don't tell me or anyone else how they should do it.

Well said bill smith.

I am all in favor of taking steps toward keeping fossil fuel in the ground, and over the longer haul these motors will likely become obsolete. And I definitely see your points, Klaus. Continuing on the path of the industrialized agriculture model that is so flawed, is not sustainable.

It is that same path, I believe, that has resulted in too much land being worked by too few farmers, using imprudent methods. It seems to me, that like the big banks and other "too big to fail" entities, there needs to somehow be a breaking up of large-holders, and an influx of small-holders.

The dominance of large agribusiness corporations that have flourished in the past 70 years or so, has made victims of everyone except themselves.

Klaus what is your idea of a large field? And what do you classify as a large multiple hitch?

T Payne, that is some profound thinking. I agree on all counts, although I do have a powercart.

We need small farms, small farmers and small farm communities. Local monies staying local and supporting many livelihoods for the good of us all.

Arlee, I wrote "huge fields" and I think it varies with the crop one grows what can be considered "huge". But definitely any field of one crop that is as big as an entire farm used to be can be considered "huge". If you want an acre figure , here it is : 80 acres ( Now I said that may be variable). I'd rather see farmers have many different smaller fields with diversified crops than take the simplified approach of two crop rotation. There are many reasons for that, economic, ecological, animal welfare and even social.
As to the hitches, given that we humans have a limited field of perception and also attention span I would rank anything over 4 horses a "large hitch" especially under field and work conditions where we focus more on the work getting done than on the horses. It is totally different from driving a six- or eight-up around the arena for a few minutes when you have a team pulling an implement over the field for several hours, especially when you have a motor roaring right next to you. Under these circumstances one cannot even hear the horses breathing or coughing. My point was that big hitches combined with big motors lead into the agricultural dead end where industrialized agriculture finds itself now and as Thomas writes it is a "flawed" and " not sustainable" system.

I'm no fan of agribiz or gigantic corporate anything, but we live in a reality that demands access to inexpensive foods. That's where agribiz wins out over the family farm. We simply cannot produce a product at the price they can. Quality is not an issue for a lot of consumers, they shop price- period. Changing that is tilting at windmills I'm afraid.

Bill, take the subsidies out of the system (which are paid by the consumer anyway) and watch how quickly it collapses. Consumers need to be educated about the real price of food which is much, much higher than what they see at the store.

And I should add that around 40% of the food we produce in the US is wasted anyway. The entire system needs changing. The waste occurs at all parts of the system, at the production level as well as at the distribution and consumption level. Just imagine the pesticides and antibiotics that would not be poured into the environment and our bodies without that waste.

No argument on the waste. Think of the hogs and poultry we could raise off the waste from McDonalds alone! Subsidies, yeah, they are an issue. But one mans subsidy is another mans tax break/incentive/grant. I'm involved in the periphery of a local marketing program here that is funded off a tax payer grant. We also have a mobile chicken processing rig that funded the same way. (The chicken rig is a complete disaster BTW, should have gone back to the builder on day one) Any way, It's certain there are thousands of similar programs funded with taxpayer dollars across the nation. It's all a form of subsidy, isn't it? Just because it supports what you or I "like" doesn't make it something else.

We've had a "cheap food" policy in the US for decades. I don't see that changing.

The average mother at the grocery store shopping for her family is still going to try to stretch the money as far as possible.
No getting around the fact that the organic
type stuff is more expensive right now.
I like the idea of more people working at farming on reasonable scale. Just not sure it's realistic at this point in time.

No, change tends to be more gradual than it is instantaneous. Smaller steps in a different direction can add up over time, if they are taken. You know the old saying, "The longest journey begins with a single step." There will always be those who claim that any vision for bringing about a change of direction amounts to jousting with windmills. But the lessons of Don Quixote tell us that fear is what holds us back. Fear of change shouldn't hold us back from taking steps, in my opinion.

I would like to know more about where these big motors mentioned in the opening post are going. Any idea, Dave?

Bill, from previous discussions you'll probably remember that I am not against subsidies when they are used to provide a safety net as a minimum income stabilization. I am against those that provide money on a per unit of production basis( i.e. per bushel for example) as they send the greatest amount of money to the largest producers and thereby just continue to support overproduction of commodities, not the production of real food.

It's not fear of change in policy that leaves you trying to poke a windmill, it's fighting Washington.

Klaus, so if they took that money and gave it to small farmers, the same amount of money overall, that would somehow be "better"? The logic escapes me at the moment.

Important distinction Klaus.

Couldn't agree more.

The form of subsidy Klaus mentions is part and parcel to the bigger-is-better syndrome that has many parts of our economy reeling. It can be thought of as the put-your-eggs-in-one-basket program.

Very risky.

I understand that "eggs" thing is kinda stupid. I've just always felt that leaving the money in the taxpayers pocket would put more money into the economy than any subsidy or gov't program. Take $100.00 from Joe Sixpack and what percent of it actually gets tot he subsidy, grant or whatever? Joe would be better off with that money in his pocket to spend where he needs to. The idea that you can tax a country into prosperity never works, and that's what subsidies, grants, the many thousands of programs, etc all end up trying to do. I know not everyone agrees, but it makes no sense to take needed funding from one person and give it to another in the hopes that they will turn $1.00 into $10.00. Usually that $1.00 turns into money lost.

Since you posed a question, Bill, I am trying to answer it. I also wanted to let a few days pass by as you referred to difficulties with the logic " at the moment" which makes me hopeful that with some more time the logic won't "escape" you any more.
1) I do not know, quite frankly, if we need the same amount of money to stretch this income safety net, but I do know, that now the money largely is bestowed on the wrong farms, since it encourages overproduction. monoculture together with all the other negative consequences for environment and rural communities. By the way, the big agri- corporations like Monsanto, DuPont profit even more from the system than the farms which have to work largely with borrowed money just to keep the system running.
2) Yes, I'd rather see a large number of smaller farmers supported , because here the multiplier effect of money spent would be greater(goes to more families and thereby has more impact on the surrounding local economies) plus we could build up more localized agricultural infrastructure. In addition, if smaller implements are used we won't have to see the clearing of so many ditches, strips of trees etc. which now is done to provide room for oversized equipment.
I could go on with the examples, but I hope I made the logic a bit more transparent, that does not mean more acceptable if the reader is bound to a certain ideology.
If you want to call what I propose an ideology, so be it, I'd rather adhere to ideas that mean the smallest harm to the environment and also to farm animals, but the greatest benefit for the largest number of people.

Now we are back to the arguement about which is best, socialism, facism, or capitalism.

Looks that way Dale.

Klaus, the problem comes back to forcing people to pay more in the paradigm you present. The little guys, you and me, can't produce a product at the cost the big operations can. I don't think subsidies would change that. I believe you'd have to tear the whole thing down and start over to have it fly. And yes, both of us, everyone, adheres to an ideology. You and I share much of the same ideology, we just differ on who should administer it.

For the readers, who still follow this discussion, here are some definitions, taken from The American Heritage Dictionary:
Capitalism: An economic system characterized by freedom of the market with increasing concentration of private and corporate ownership of production and distribution means, proportionate to increasing accumulation and reinvestment of profits.
Fascism: A philosophy or system of government that advocates or exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with an ideology of belligerent nationalism.
Socialism: A social system in which the producers possess both the political power and the means of producing and distributing goods.
As you can read for yourself, the labels do not make the issues go away, and so Dale, we will have to continue to try and find practical solutions.
I am pleased to read, Bill, that we "share much of the same ideology" and I am confident that we can minimize our differences as to "who should administer" when we try to find practical and pragmatic answers.

capitalism is an economic system charactorised by tranactions in a competitive market not by government.
fascism is economics controled by government.
socialism is eonomics controled goveernment and politics.

These definitions came out of a older dictionary. Notice the shift in meaning from 1989.

HAR! Well done Dale! Re-defining a term based on current political sentiment is nothing new!

From Websters- Capitalism-a way of organizing an economy so that the things that are used to make and transport products (such as land, oil, factories, ships, etc.) are owned by individual people and companies rather than by the government

I think I could eliminate the use of the PTO forecart if people working for starvation wages, minimum wage, could be paid a higher wage, and be able to take advantage of the choice of local clean food for better nutrition and better health, along with lower negative environmental impact in its production.

That's my self interest in my support for the Fight for Fifteen.

Tom, we all could do better if our tax load was cut in half.

You make the assumption that by upping min wage the people wouldn't be cut from the workforce to keep the business open and that they would choose to use their money on the products you think they'd buy. There is zero guarantee of any of that. If there was then raising the min wage to $50.00 @hour would fix everything.

Dale, that's the surest way of making certain people have more money in their pocket. But that would mean someone else might lose their job in gov't or that some program might not get funded, say, for studying the drinking habits of Chinese prostitutes (true story, we paid for that study).

I agree, Dale, except when we have to pay taxes to support Walmart workers, who can't make it on minimum wage and have to rely on public assistance such as food stamps, Medicaid, and other income supplements, while the Waltons pocket hundreds of billions, that puts the pressure on your and my taxes in an unbalanced way to stay higher than they should be.

If you put the money in the pockets of the little guy in the morning, the big guy will have it all back by sundown. But at least the little guy will have had a chance to touch it. I think Will Rodgers said that, or close.

It doesn't seem right to me, that the only two ways to avoid taxes are to either be dirt poor, or filthy rich.

Tom, the state of Washington has a minimun wage of $10 and one county is going to $15 in 3 years. All the Walmart personel I've talked to make $14. It is the fast food joints that have people making min wage and collecting welfare.
Get a raise and get into a higher tax bracket. That is the goal of politicians that have income tax. Wa don't have income tax,just sales tax and the Dems are crying they need one to give the state employes a raise. Corruption in government is our biggest problem.

City,County,State And Federal employes are on Welfare Because that money is TAX DOLLARS and that is where all welfare comes from. They are also the highest paid employes in there work environment and have more benefits than anyone else . if you cut taxes there pay checks would have to be cut by at least the same percentage. And they will be in the other welfare line the next day to.

Washington State is out in front on raising the minimum wage, and I think the benefits will become apparent as time goes on.

I could not agree more, Dale, about corruption. Government goes up for sale to the highest bidder while the people watch "reality" on television, basically asleep at the switch.

I would like to grow more vegetables and fruit, and do less field work. I know the demand is there, but people who would like to be customers are typically working multiple jobs just to get by on cheap, lowgrade groceries. That's what's going on in my neighborhood, at least. I have customers for whom money is no object on one end, and those with much thinner wallets who sacrifice a lot to obtain clean local food on the other end.

That's why I say if more people could be paid a living wage, I could stop selling hay for race horses for a living, grow more food for people, and do away with the motor i use to make hay.

The problem is that we have a lot of unskilled, unmotivated, entry level workers out there. We also have a lot of people with higher education in fields that have no openings or that have a degree and no work ethic or skill. Meanwhile, technology moves forward and keeps taking those mundane, boring "put bolt a in hole B" jobs harder and harder to find. Raising the min wage to $10 or 15.00 an hour isn't going to fix the problem. As a retired educator told me the other day, "The problem is we have too many rocket scientists already." So how do we tear down a service based economy, rebuild it into a production economy and rig it so that there are going to be enough jobs that provide a decent living for everyone AND make it so that our pampered, self absorbed, lazy and spoiled population doesn't get bored or have to sweat or bend over? You figure that out and I'll gladly help you into office. Meanwhile, the vast, vast majority of people out there have no interest in good food vs cheap food, in farming at all or in thinking beyond this weekends big game/race/drunk. Big agribiz outfits aren't going anywhere anytime soon and we need to use appropriate tech where we can. If that means a power forecart, fine. If it means horses and tractors and a skid steer, fine. Personally, I don't see the sense in a 150hp engine and 6 horses mixed together, but if that works for someone, more power to ya!

We are not the only ones in the over educated fix. Friends from Kimberly, BC, say mine used to employ 2000 men, the smelter 2000 but now each only 200 and has twice the production. Their paper mill got computers and when a valve is replaced with a computerised one, another man loses his job.
Our schools keep teaching kids longer

With all the implemented technological advances, where is the improvement in standard of living that seems reasonable to expect?

Doesn't an improvement in SoL require the same set of standards to judge the improvement? IOW, compare our spending and savings habits, our auto ownership and housing ownership in, say, 1975 with today. At that time people didn't have credit cards, didn't have auto loans at 2% and never a home loan at less than 4%. They didn't eat out all the time and saved for items rather then buying it now. You have had an improvement but juggling the numbers would drive a saint to drink.

I think you hit on something important there, Mr. Smith.

Since 1980, the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) of real wages has fallen, as the economy enjoyed enormous growth, up to 2008. Much of the shortfall of PPP has been made up for by consumer debt.

In other words, instead of businesses paying out wage increases, banks have lent necessary funding for essential living expenses to workers.

Yeah, that's not new news. The tech bubble back in the 90s when every body was buying computers? Funded off credit cards almost entirely. New cars that cost $40K or more? 0-3% financing helps, but the truth is people don't ask what it costs, they ask what the monthly payments are. Used to be that a credit card was a rare thing to see. I think I saw maybe 2 in several years in private business back in the early 80's. We mostly saw them for gas purchases at the gas station and often they were fleet cards. Today you have people living off credit cards, maxing one out and then getting another at a higher rate to cover the first one and then adding even more debt. Remember "30 days, same as cash"? That was all the credit most people had. Times have changed.

You also have to add in the deliberate devaluation of the dollar to you thinking. In a world market, which we really didn't have 30-50 years back, currency values matter.