This tickled me somewhat!
http://www.fwi.co.uk/machinery/bedfordshire-farmer-makes-a-success-of-controlled-traffic.htm
Mr Barnes admitted to deviating from the true traffic lanes a few times for a few jobs which is fair enough to keep the costs down but Tim Chamen came back with this:
You may have read an article in Farmers Weekly (UK publication) recently (5 May) about Barnes Farming and their CTF system, which they have operated since around 2010.
Robert it appears has been having problems with spreading of the light fraction on his combine (as do many others) and some of his clients have expressed concerns about this. In a pragmatic approach (and in the present absence of any improvements to combines) he has elected to switch the combine in alternating years between his main 12 m traffic lanes to those at 6 m, which are used for a proportion of his drilling each year. He also elected, for reasons of reliability, not to purchase the extra length of unloading auger that would avoid having to run his chaser “off track” during the unloading process.
These moves are unfortunate but understandable while the issues above are sorted, but they will be seriously compromising the potential and actual benefits he had been and could be getting from this CTF system. The update to CTF Case Study 9 (available to members) shows this graphically as well as the two photos alongside (or below on mobiles) which illustrate just how much damage one pass of the chaser does on non-trafficked soil. Rainfall infiltration will also be seriously compromised in this wheel track, which will actually be well over 200 m long for each unloading event if Robert’s estimate of 2 minutes for this operation is correct.
As far as the extra positioning of the combine on his 6 m traffic lanes is concerned, recent evidence from two sets of on-farm trials has shown just how much extra yield is lost due to the combine compared with where just the drill and rolls/cultivators have run. In a winter barley crop the extra loss was 23% and in winter wheat it was over 18%.
As far as the combine is concerned, Robert admits that he is compromising his CTF system because he can’t address the key issue of poor spreading performance. This is not confined to one particular machine, most combines with wider cutting platforms suffer from the same issue, as we heard from Keith Challen at one of our recent CTF days. In his case, he has added a second chopper to facilitate extra chop and spread but does have a cultivator in his system, which Robert does not. Keith has however also paid the price of an increased power requirement on his combine, which has been achieved by re-mapping the engine.
I believe that combine manufacturers should face the challenge of designing something better. Trying to spread light fraction effectively by throwing and blowing are doomed to failure because they are trying to defy the laws of physics. They should “grasp the nettle” and try a different approach!
So, if you are having a problem with your CTF system, ask the question, is it because CTF isn’t working or is it because something else in your system is compromising it? All agree that the principles of CTF are right and bring great benefits to soils and crops but “Rome wasn’t built in a day” and some weaknesses in the supporting systems need to be addressed for it to be able to perform at the highest and most sustainable level.
If you are interested in on-farm research assessing the benefits of CTF, would you be willing to “chip in”?
NIAB have been running some trials on a farm in Cambridgeshire but need £5000 to complete the work, which aims to assess the impact of CTF on soil structure and crop responses under different traffic lane intensities.
CTF Europe and Dale drills have already funded trials on traffic lane compared with bed yields involving 8 farms and are about to make results available to our members. But we need to support this more "in-depth" study, so we are hoping some of you will contribute to the work of NIAB. There are two ways you can do this. First by joining Smart Agri-Systems (if you are not already a member, just £30 annual membership) and second, by making a donation using the form on our Sponsors page. Any contribution you make will be acknowledged in the work and on any pages relating to it.
Our sincere thanks in anticipation of a bevy of new members, the re-joining of others and hopefully some generous sponsors!
Kind regards
Tim Chamen
P.S. Be sure to visit the SWMC Facebook page at:
https://www.facebook.com/improvingyoursoils/
Was this really necessary?
http://www.fwi.co.uk/machinery/bedfordshire-farmer-makes-a-success-of-controlled-traffic.htm
Mr Barnes admitted to deviating from the true traffic lanes a few times for a few jobs which is fair enough to keep the costs down but Tim Chamen came back with this:
You may have read an article in Farmers Weekly (UK publication) recently (5 May) about Barnes Farming and their CTF system, which they have operated since around 2010.
Robert it appears has been having problems with spreading of the light fraction on his combine (as do many others) and some of his clients have expressed concerns about this. In a pragmatic approach (and in the present absence of any improvements to combines) he has elected to switch the combine in alternating years between his main 12 m traffic lanes to those at 6 m, which are used for a proportion of his drilling each year. He also elected, for reasons of reliability, not to purchase the extra length of unloading auger that would avoid having to run his chaser “off track” during the unloading process.
These moves are unfortunate but understandable while the issues above are sorted, but they will be seriously compromising the potential and actual benefits he had been and could be getting from this CTF system. The update to CTF Case Study 9 (available to members) shows this graphically as well as the two photos alongside (or below on mobiles) which illustrate just how much damage one pass of the chaser does on non-trafficked soil. Rainfall infiltration will also be seriously compromised in this wheel track, which will actually be well over 200 m long for each unloading event if Robert’s estimate of 2 minutes for this operation is correct.
As far as the extra positioning of the combine on his 6 m traffic lanes is concerned, recent evidence from two sets of on-farm trials has shown just how much extra yield is lost due to the combine compared with where just the drill and rolls/cultivators have run. In a winter barley crop the extra loss was 23% and in winter wheat it was over 18%.
As far as the combine is concerned, Robert admits that he is compromising his CTF system because he can’t address the key issue of poor spreading performance. This is not confined to one particular machine, most combines with wider cutting platforms suffer from the same issue, as we heard from Keith Challen at one of our recent CTF days. In his case, he has added a second chopper to facilitate extra chop and spread but does have a cultivator in his system, which Robert does not. Keith has however also paid the price of an increased power requirement on his combine, which has been achieved by re-mapping the engine.
I believe that combine manufacturers should face the challenge of designing something better. Trying to spread light fraction effectively by throwing and blowing are doomed to failure because they are trying to defy the laws of physics. They should “grasp the nettle” and try a different approach!
So, if you are having a problem with your CTF system, ask the question, is it because CTF isn’t working or is it because something else in your system is compromising it? All agree that the principles of CTF are right and bring great benefits to soils and crops but “Rome wasn’t built in a day” and some weaknesses in the supporting systems need to be addressed for it to be able to perform at the highest and most sustainable level.
If you are interested in on-farm research assessing the benefits of CTF, would you be willing to “chip in”?
NIAB have been running some trials on a farm in Cambridgeshire but need £5000 to complete the work, which aims to assess the impact of CTF on soil structure and crop responses under different traffic lane intensities.
CTF Europe and Dale drills have already funded trials on traffic lane compared with bed yields involving 8 farms and are about to make results available to our members. But we need to support this more "in-depth" study, so we are hoping some of you will contribute to the work of NIAB. There are two ways you can do this. First by joining Smart Agri-Systems (if you are not already a member, just £30 annual membership) and second, by making a donation using the form on our Sponsors page. Any contribution you make will be acknowledged in the work and on any pages relating to it.
Our sincere thanks in anticipation of a bevy of new members, the re-joining of others and hopefully some generous sponsors!
Kind regards
Tim Chamen
P.S. Be sure to visit the SWMC Facebook page at:
https://www.facebook.com/improvingyoursoils/
Was this really necessary?
