wolc123

That 6 ft Bush-hog squealer is a good machine. I had a 5 footer for about 20 years and what I liked best about it was the quality of the cut it made. It cut grass nearly as neatly as a finish mower with no "streaking". I doubt that the tractor rear tires are loaded, otherwise it probably would not have chains on in the summer, but the treads looks pretty worn. If the tractor's clutch is good, I would say $ 4k would be a good price for the tractor and bush-hog. It looks like a gas engine and I think they were around 48 hp.

I have never tried a hydro for food plot work (just used them for lawn mowing), but I may soon get a chance. My father in law is clearing some land up at his place, in the northern zone. He has a 2 year old, 40ish hp Kubota hydro with a loader and loaded R4 tires. Maybe I will take my 2 bottom plow and 6.5 ft disk up there and see how it does. It works great for clearing snow with the loader bucket swapped out for a hydraulic blade and chains on the tires. If it strikes out on the 2 bottom plow, there is an old 8n Ford for sale a few miles up the road that could probably be had for around $ 1500. I am pretty sure that it don't have draft control on the hydraulics, so the Ford might be a good purchase just to get that.

There is also a decent looking Oliver 550 on CL right now that comes with a 6 ft bush-hog, and a 6.5 ft front snow plow for an asking price of $ 6,300. That is slightly more power than the Ford 600 (Around 40 hp vs 35 for the Ford). It is also a gas, 2wd. As I mentioned earlier, it is much easier to find a decent condition, old 2wd tractor without a front loader than it is with one. The Oliver also has a three point hitch. Either one of those would work great with a 3-point "pond scoop", and a "boom-pole", to do just about anything a front loader would without the traction and wear&tear issues. The Oliver probably also has power steering. 585 area code might be the Darien area. Olivers had a great reputation for quality and durability.

Are you part of the hydro(auto) or manual transmission camp ?

R4's or R1's ?

Wow, that is a ton. Most of the time, I try and minimize the use of my brakes (have about 70k miles on the factory ones on my car now), but I make an exception for deer. I have had hundreds of close calls, but never hit one hard enough to damage my vehicle. The car that I have now (Chevy sonic) is by far the best "deer dodger" that I have had. It will stop on a dime, is extremely agile, and really sticks to the road in the turns. I have lightly tagged a few deer with it, but never hard enough to make a dent or hurt the animal. If I used my pickup truck, to drive back and forth to work everyday, I would have surely pummeled over a dozen. On the curvy road which I travel, I would also need to add about 10 minutes to my commute time and burn more than double the fuel.

Your name makes it clear why you like the hydros. They are great for lawn "mowin" but not so hot for food-plot work. I used a gear tractor for lawn mowing for many years, but since using a hydro, it is very tough to go back to gear. I only use the one I have now when the grass is too thick and I can't spare the power loss from the hydro (I have 15 hp gear and 15 hp hydro lawn-mower tractors, each with a 38" decks, and a 1 acre lawn). I would need to have at least 20 hp on that 38" hydro tractor to get my lawn cut when it gets real thick, but the 15 hp gear mower does not struggle a bit when it does, with the same width deck.

I had it pretty bad a few times long ago, after working on firewood in the woods during the summer. These days, if I do that, I throw all my clothes in the wash and take a luke-warm shower as soon as I get back to the house. Getting rid of that oil, before it soaks in, works very well to keep the rash away. Plain old irish spring soap and water works just fine for that. I also try and do most of the in-the-woods work in the winter, when those little 3-leaf monsters are long gone.

Allis Chalmers was a good "no-frills" brand. I still have an old one, with a tricycle front, that I love for dragging logs out of the woods and for spraying corn. They are still what I think of when I hear "orange" tractors, not them foreign jobs that are so popular these days.

Generally, for food plot work, gear is better, especially for ground-engaging work or when speed control is critical - like for spraying. There are places where the hydro comes out on top and they all include the letter "L" : Loader work, Landscaping, Lawn-mowing, Lazy folks, and Ladies. If any of those describes you or your primary tasks, then you might be better served by a hydro.

How is the tractor hunt going ? I see there is a decent-looking Ford 600 listed on craigslist, located in West Seneca right now. $ 4000 or best offer, fully restored. From the pictures, it looks like a decent restoration, and the rear tires and oil pressure look pretty good. 12 volt conversion is a bit of a concern, regarding compression, but is handy for running something like a 12 volt sprayer pump. It is a model 600 - per the hood emblem (probably a 1954 or 1955), which had slightly better "live" hydraulics than on the 1953 "Jubilee" model (the first year that was offered, also the first year without a flat-head engine). If the clutch and hydraulics are good and the compression is ok, then $ 3,500 would be a pretty good price. It lacks a front loader, 4wd, and power steering, but the "live" hydraulics (much stronger than the "non-live" hydraulics on an n-series) would work good for a rear loader, like the one I made for my Ford 2000. Ford got the overhead valve engine operating efficiently by the time the 600 came around in 1954 (The 1953 Jubilee burned a little more gas than the 1952, 8n flat-head, doing the same work). My neighbors have used a 600 almost continuously, since it was new, for pulling hay wagons around. The hydraulics have not worked on it for as long as I can remember. They never bothered fixing it, because that's not needed for pulling hay wagons. "Everything works" on the one on craigslist. I would hook something heavy up to the hitch and make sure it lifts it and holds it up for a while, before making an offer.

All of the "Name-changers" will have to compete in the new "piebald, antlered-doe" division.

Not sure about G-man, but I prefer wheat: Rye grows better in low ph (acidic) soil, but it costs more than wheat and is tougher to find. Rye also takes less nitrogen out of the soil than wheat, which might be important if you want to follow up with something that needs a lot of N (like brassicas or corn) the following year. I like wheat better, mainly because it draws deer better, as you have experienced. The facts that it is cheaper and easier to find are nice bonuses. I don't worry about the nitrogen, because I always use the wheat as a "nurse crop" for white clover, which fixes it's own nitrogen anyhow. Since I did not get to plant my corn this year, I have plenty of high-nitrogen fertilizer left to use with my wheat.

I bet growalot would come back if Belo/Pigmy were to offer up himself as a sacrifice and accept a lifetime ban. A side benefit is that we would be rid of our last hard-driven anti-crossbow member. I find it strange that a guy who complains all the time about racism has no problem picking on women.

I agree that, depending on condition, the 3000 would be best. I owned its little brother (a 2000 diesel) for about 15 years. Those little Ford three-cylinder diesels are very efficient, and even though diesel usually cost more per gallon, it ended up costing me less to bush hog my farm with that than it did with the 8n, using the same 5-foot "squealer". My 2000 also lacked live hydraulics, but again, no issue there after adding an overrunning coupler. It's biggest advantage over the 8n was the live hydraulics, which were also way stronger than those on the 8n. With my home-made rear-loader, my 8n could only lift the empty pond scoop, out at the end of the boom. With the 2000, I could fill it with topsoil or rock, and use it to load dump trucks, after adding a bit of ballast to the front of the tractor (a couple 200 pound steel plates). The power steering was also nice on the 2000, and would probably be a necessity with a front loader. What I did not like about that little diesel was that it was hard to start. It needed a real big battery, and I had to have the starter rebuilt twice over those 15 years and about 1500 hours of operation. Whenever the temperature was under about 60 degrees, it needed a shot of either to start quickly. It did not have a block heater of glow plugs, which might have cured that issue. I always parked it for the winter and used my gas-powered 8n for snow plowing. I also have some experience with a couple gas-engine Ford 3000's, one owned by a neighbor who I helped with hay, and another by my first employer. They felt somewhat underpowered, compared to my 2000 diesel, but they definitely started a lot better in the winter. I spent many hours plowing snow with one.

There has been no action from Doc on this site since May 2. That might leave you as our only hard-driven anti-crossbow member. Do you suppose he died, or moved to Oregon as I suggested a few times ?

That 8n would be an ok pick for a food plot tractor depending on condition. It's biggest weakness is the lack of live hydraulics, as explained in my earlier post. If the clutch is good and it has not been converted to 12 volts and still starts good on 6, then $ 2 k would be a fair price. The $ 2.4 k asking price seems a bit on the steep side, based on the worn and weather checked rear tires. Even though it lacks live hydraulics, it will do ok on a 5 foot bush-hog if you add an overrunning coupler on the pto (those are only about $ 75 at Tractor Supply). The pre-1948 n-series (9n's & 2n's) lacked position control on the hydraulics which made them much worse on a bush-hog. That 1949 8n would have a front distributer and no proof/hourmeter which makes maintenance a little more difficult than the later models, like my own 1951. There are some things that I like better about my 8n than just about any modern one, including: 1) Parts availability - since the Ford n-series was produced in greater numbers than any other make/model, nothing else comes close here. 2) Durability/Simplicity - The fact that it has been 70 years since they have been made and so many are still in service is pretty good "proof" of that. 3) Ease of attaching implements - This was the first mass-produced tractor with a 3-point hitch and it's compact size makes hitching up almost any implement an easy task. 4) Silent running, efficient gasoline motor - Gas has almost always been less expensive and easier to get than diesel. It also does not need a block-heater for smooth starting on the coldest days of winter. 5) Ease of getting on or off the seat from the left or right side - This is a big advantage for many tasks, such as operating a planter where seed and fertilizer must be added. 6) Has "draft" and "position" control on the hydraulics.

I don't think they will sell too many of those. They look like they would be tough on the lower back and it must get hotter than heck inside under the hot sun. Sometimes common sense is absent with the design/marketing folks and that looks to be a pretty good example of that.

It is entertaining to watch some Democrats and all of the left-wing media grossly underestimate the intelligence of minority voters. As they boldly continue their attempts to stir up a race riot, real progress is being made to push minority voters "back home" to the Republican party. Black unemployment is now at an all time low, and Trump carried a higher percentage of the black vote than any Republican Candidate since Eisenhower (the Republican president who desegregated the military and sent in the Army to get blacks into a racist-Democrat controlled southern state school). These are facts that are easily verified by all people. Should it be any surprise that they (blacks) are now returning to the party of Lincoln and freedom ? I will ask this question: What has the Democratic party actually got done lately for African Americans ?

I think that would be ugly, and a temporary solution at best. Most boating supply stores carry a 2-part epoxy that is mixed and spread over the cracks, for a permanent fix. I used that stuff to repair a couple dings on the bow and stern of my Winona 17 ft kevlar canoe about 10 years ago and it has held up very well. If you are concerned about the looks, this stuff can be sanded and painted, such that know one will know there was a repair.

Not a bad machine. My father has the next smaller model (in a 2wd) and it has been pretty dependable. He has used it for about 20 years, mostly to cut about 10 acres of lawn. The deck wore out completely this year, and he picked up a big zero-turn. His ground is very well drained and 4wd is not necessary over there. I put in a couple small foodplots over there with it. It does ok with turf tires, pulling a 6 ft disk. He puts chains on it in the winter for snowplowing. He also has my grandad's old JD M over there, with loaded R1 tires, which I use with the stock 2-bottom plow for breaking new ground. That was the first tractor on our farm, replacing a team of horses back in 1951. The 955 is actually a "rebadged" Yanmar tractor, mostly made in Japan. Personally, I prefer the "real" JD's like that old M, or my own own 4120. I bought it new in 2005, when you could still get a small tractor with an American-made JD-Powertech engine. Other than a needing a new starter and battery, the 4120 has been trouble free. With R1 tires (rears loaded), and 4wd, the traction force that it can develop, in all conditions, is amazing. It will push mountains of snow with no chains and I have never got it stuck in the mud. On the few times that I came close, it was very easy to pull or push myself out with the loader. The only thing I miss on it is "draft" hydraulic control while plowing dirt. A 2-bottom plow is the only food-plot tool that I have which benefits from "draft" control. That allows the plow to maintain uniform depth over uneven conditions. That is why, as long as the ground is fairly dry, I still like to use my 1951 Ford 8n for plowing food plots. As long as I keep that little lever under the seat in the "down" position (for draft control), that tractor maintains amost perfectly uniform plowing depth. It is another story when it is wet however. It is amazing to see the wakes roll off the plow as I pull it right thru holes of standing water with the 4wd, R1-tired, JD 4120, while never breaking traction.

It is nice that name change does not "unblock". The "block" feature is a great way to get a positive ID on the name-changers. TF's chart is accurate on Stormy/Hawk, so I am guessing that the others are also correct.

Outch, that would make it tough to keep the cost of venison under $ 1.00 per pound. That is always my goal, when it comes to food-plots, after subtracting all input costs. I don't usually count the cost of the tractor though, since one of those is needed for property maintenance, even if you do not put in food plots.

This is the first year in more than 20, that I did not get any field corn planted for the deer. Between the wet weather and a couple "huge" barn dismantle/construction projects, I was not able to get it done in time. I finally got a couple of acres disked up good yesterday,. I will put in about 1/4 acre of turnips in early August and the remainder, a combination of white clover, wheat, and soybeans, in late August. Adding some soybeans to plots planted then don't do much for hunting season (unless the first hard frost is real late), but they draw the deer deer to the plots like candy once they start to sprout. The wheat and turnips should hold them thru hunting season. The white clover wont draw many until the following years. Last year I took a lot of coons out of a few acres of corn, but no deer, so I don't suppose I will miss it that much this year. Hopefully, the turnips and wheat will pan out. My wheat was a complete failure last year (I used some old seed). This year, I am buying some fresh stuff. I have plenty of fertilizer ready to go since none was used on the corn.

Something like a Ford 2000, or 3000 would be just about right for you, and might be found used, in good condition, for around $ 4000. These were made with gas and diesel engines, were around 28 and 35 hp, were very reliable, and still have good parts availability. They are two wheel drive, which is not the best on a front loader, but will do a great job on a five foot brush hog. When I had one of those, I made a rear loader, using a 3-point pond scoop, a 3-point boom, and a couple pieces of angle iron. It worked surprisingly well. The problem with a front loader, on a rear-wheel drive tractor, is that you loose traction as you add weight to the loader. Because of that issue, most old two-wheel drive tractors with front loaders have had the snot pounded out of them, as owners try and use "momentum" to fill the bucket, resulting in busted welds and lots of wear and tear. The rear loader eliminated that issue. It is not that difficult to find a good, used 2 wheel drive tractor that has never had a loader on it. Finding one with a front loader, in good condition, is much tougher. You might find a good condition 9n, 2n, or 8n Ford for under $ 2000, but those are horrible on a bush-hog because they lack live hydraulics. An over-running coupler will get them around the issue of no live pto, but the lack of live hydraulics (means you can't lift the implement when your foot is on the clutch) is a real handicap on a bush hog. That said, there are few tractors that perform better on a 2-bottom plow than an old Ford n-series. Their hydraulics were simple and nearly indestructible. In between the n-series and the 2000/3000 Fords, were the Jubilee and the 600 series. These get you live hydraulics, but that was a bit less dependable than the non-live system on the n's, and not quite as good of parts availability as the n's or the 2000/3000 series. My the time the 2000/3000 sreies came along, they got all the bugs worked out of the hydraulics. G-man is correct with his recommendation of Ag (R1) tires. Around 90 % of modern, 4wd CUT's are sold with industrial (R4) tires, which provide traction on soft ground almost as bad as turfs, quickly loading up and becoming "slicks" when a little mud is contacted. A 2wd tractor, with loaded R1 tires, will produce about the same traction force on soft ground as an equal weight 4wd tractor with R4 tires. That is quite a waste of an expensive front drive axle in my opinion. When buying an old tractor, check out the condition of the rear tires and clutch. Either of those is big money to replace. If you go real old (like a Ford n-series), look for one that still starts good on 6-volts. Those that have been converted to 12 volts were often to make up for weak compression. Good luck