contractor cost per acre of making wagon silage??

st1979

frazzledhome wrote: »

I was the one who mentioned 5 yrs as a way of costing your money. Regardless of how much you get for it as a trade, the money your allowed by the dealer is yours and you've invested in the machine.

I really dont understand. Does this mean if you buy a wagon for 50k it cost me 10k per year over 5 years. What happens in year 6 when i sell it for 35k did i make a profit or did my wagon actually cost 3k plus interest per year

frazzledhome

st1979 wrote: »

I really dont understand. Does this mean if you buy a wagon for 50k it cost me 10k per year over 5 years. What happens in year 6 when i sell it for 35k did i make a profit or did my wagon actually cost 3k plus interest per year

50k will cost you 1k aprox per mth if financing so thats 12k per yr or 60k over 5 yrs. Interest 10k

Trade machine for 35 get another for 50 you are now financing 15k but the 35 is yours as you've paid finance company for it with first wagon

If you got 10 yrs out of the machine and got 20 as a trade in your cost per acre would be small

sandydan

frazzledhome wrote: »

50k will cost you 1k aprox per mth if financing so thats 12k per yr or 60k over 5 yrs. Interest 10k

Trade machine for 35 get another for 50 you are now financing 15k but the 35 is yours as you've paid finance company for it with first wagon

If you got 10 yrs out of the machine and got 20 as a trade in your cost per acre would be small

thats where you can get caught for tax on 20k if you have written machine off in depreciation so tread carefully here

td5man

http://m.farmersguardian.com/65463.article?mobilesite=enabled

Greengrass1

td5man wrote: »

http://m.farmersguardian.com/65463.article?mobilesite=enabled

What HP have you got running your wagon?

td5man

Greengrass1 wrote: »

What HP have you got running your wagon?

125 but 80-90 would be plenty.

murrak123

kencoo wrote: »

if you were a contractor why would you opt to buy a self propelled over a wagon? surely it would cost way more plus the extra lad to drive it?

How much more extra ground would you be able to cover with a self propelled constantly liftiing grass into trailers? More acres = more money

simx

murrak123 wrote: »

How much more extra ground would you be able to cover with a self propelled constantly liftiing grass into trailers? More acres = more money

Harvester, several tractors and loader= more machines, more drivers, more expense Vs tractor and wagon and loader or maybe two wagons

Timmaay

How much does 2nd cut precision cut cost yous?

simx

Timmaay wrote: »

How much does 2nd cut precision cut cost yous?

Hearing €90/€95 around here

Timmaay

simx wrote: »

Hearing €90/€95 around here

I'm on the right side of that so ha.

Milked out

100/acre here

td5man

15/acre here .

Timmaay

td5man wrote: »

15/acre here .

Including wages, deprication, capital, maintenance repairs etc ?

td5man

Timmaay wrote: »

Including wages, deprication, capital, maintenance repairs etc ?

Wages; I'm a farmer
Depreciation; Hopefully scrap value will increase.
Maintenance; Bit of grease if it's lucky

sandydan

kencoo wrote: »

if you were a contractor why would you opt to buy a self propelled over a wagon? surely it would cost way more plus the extra lad to drive it?

if hauling grass long distances, around here some draws are 4 miles or more each way, that knocks the living daylights out of wagons and chains. also farmers see wagon men charging same as self propelled some precision men are prepared to lengthen chop so farmers go for faster cutting alternative,another crib but i think its codswallop is wagon silage has to be buckraked - like was done when buckraking with ford 4000s long ago- differently to precision chop and modern loader drivers aren't prepared to break up the loads and take it up in small rakes-, just bulldoze the lot up onto pit and not pack it properly- like i said i think it either codswallop or propaganda by self propelled owners

9935452

sandydan wrote: »

5-6 lt/acre,that's very economic fuel consumption. had a MF188, would burn 15lt/acre on single chop .had ford 5000 with 66 engine burning 20 litres/acre in wet grass on single chop 15 years ago before i went to contractor for silage cutting.wonder what would self propelled consumption per acre be like.

You are not thinking that the crop was mown as well, using probably 5 litres an acre.

keep going

sandydan wrote: »

if hauling grass long distances, around here some draws are 4 miles or more each way, that knocks the living daylights out of wagons and chains. also farmers see wagon men charging same as self propelled some precision men are prepared to lengthen chop so farmers go for faster cutting alternative,another crib but i think its codswallop is wagon silage has to be buckraked - like was done when buckraking with ford 4000s long ago- differently to precision chop and modern loader drivers aren't prepared to break up the loads and take it up in small rakes-, just bulldoze the lot up onto pit and not pack it properly- like i said i think it either codswallop or propaganda by self propelled owners

Have you made wagon pit, my view is bulldozing is not agreat job and its better to carry it and if the man on the pit is not good you may have more problems with wagon silage compared to precision which almost anything and does do.

sandydan

keep going wrote: »

Have you made wagon pit, my view is bulldozing is not agreat job and its better to carry it and if the man on the pit is not good you may have more problems with wagon silage compared to precision which almost anything and does do.

more or less what im hearing too

freedominacup

sandydan wrote: »

more or less what im hearing too

Wagon chop lengths are much shorter now than even a couple of years ago. A teleporter would be under a bit of pressure with a big wagon on a short draw but any artic loader made for the job could be operated by a novice.

Damo810

9935452 wrote: »

You are not thinking that the crop was mown as well, using probably 5 litres an acre.

What are you mowing with? Burning hardly a litre an acre here with 5'6 and 100hp tractor

simx

Damo810 wrote: »

What are you mowing with? Burning hardly a litre an acre here with 5'6 and 100hp tractor

My tractor (90 hp) used roughly 5/6l/ac driving a 10ft conditioner mower last year

pajero12

sandydan wrote: »

if hauling grass long distances, around here some draws are 4 miles or more each way, that knocks the living daylights out of wagons and chains. also farmers see wagon men charging same as self propelled some precision men are prepared to lengthen chop so farmers go for faster cutting alternative,another crib but i think its codswallop is wagon silage has to be buckraked - like was done when buckraking with ford 4000s long ago- differently to precision chop and modern loader drivers aren't prepared to break up the loads and take it up in small rakes-, just bulldoze the lot up onto pit and not pack it properly- like i said i think it either codswallop or propaganda by self propelled owners

I push up wagon silage aswell as p.c and this just ain't true, it's impossible to pack a pit the same way as precision chop, with the self propelled the grass almost levels itself off the rake, with the wagon you wouldnt get to climb the pit unless you broke it up

sandydan

pajero12 wrote: »

I push up wagon silage aswell as p.c and this just ain't true, it's impossible to pack a pit the same way as precision chop, with the self propelled the grass almost levels itself off the rake, with the wagon you wouldnt get to climb the pit unless you broke it up

my apoligies for branding all with same brush,:o. if on hire you must be busy. seen drivers back off pit over loads with machines and bulldoze up pit and switch off to go on mobile phone , i also know a number of farmers who have banned mobile use by loader drivers in pits. one incident springs to mind. an in-law of farmer remarked to driver "pit could do with packing more" (precision chop)and was asked "who is paid for driving loader" pit like hayreek under plastic following spring with massive waste by walls.he's not only one baling since, different contractor though.
what you say is true of longer chopped silage packing

sandydan

freedominacup wrote: »

Wagon chop lengths are much shorter now than even a couple of years ago. A teleporter would be under a bit of pressure with a big wagon on a short draw but any artic loader made for the job could be operated by a novice.

why do wagons need to be capable of holding an acre of grass anyway, arent they creating problems like field compaction,tearing of ground in soft conditions, drawbar fatigue etc

sandydan

9935452 wrote: »

You are not thinking that the crop was mown as well, using probably 5 litres an acre.

well i did pass a stupid remark i guess;)
contractor told me yesterday his TM 135 was best he'd ever used agitating and slurry spreading as well as mowing with JD 10 auto, reckoned my 399 would guzzle by comparison,:eek: same sized tractor just different HP and yes New Holland

9935452

Damo810 wrote: »

What are you mowing with? Burning hardly a litre an acre here with 5'6 and 100hp tractor

Mowing with a 140hp landini and a 10 ft conditioner mower burning a gallon an acre. FYI a gallon an acre is considered fairly good for a conditioner mower. I have heard of lads burning up to a gallon and a half an acre.
A conditioner takes a good bit more power to run it

9935452

sandydan wrote: »

well i did pass a stupid remark i guess;)
contractor told me yesterday his TM 135 was best he'd ever used agitating and slurry spreading as well as mowing with JD 10 auto, reckoned my 399 would guzzle by comparison,:eek: same sized tractor just different HP and yes New Holland

They aint the same size a TM 135 is 135HP which is more than likely turned up at the injection pump so 160/165hp. 399 is around 105hp.
They are a different size as well
Most contractors round here wouldnt let a 10ft mower out without less than 140HP on it. The 399 would be just about be able to run a 10ft but not comfortably. It would burn a lot more juice as it would constantly be under pressure.

Greengrass1

9935452 wrote: »

They aint the same size a TM 135 is 135HP which is more than likely turned up at the injection pump so 160/165hp. 399 is around 105hp.
They are a different size as well
Most contractors round here wouldnt let a 10ft mower out without less than 140HP on it. The 399 would be just about be able to run a 10ft but not comfortably. It would burn a lot more juice as it would constantly be under pressure.

10ft cond mower here on 105hp MF. Doesn't phase her at all. Reved up to 1900 though

9935452

Greengrass1 wrote: »

10ft cond mower here on 105hp MF. Doesn't phase her at all. Reved up to 1900 though

Push it on a bit and see if she comes under pressure. do you cut much hilly ground.How many acres per hour do you cut?
I was picking silage with a silage wagon behind a 105HP JD and a 10ft jd mower. I was picking a good bit faster than he was able to cut. He couldnt go up a gear , The tractor didnt have enough power

Greengrass1

9935452 wrote: »

Push it on a bit and see if she comes under pressure. do you cut much hilly ground.How many acres per hour do you cut?
I was picking silage with a silage wagon behind a 105HP JD and a 10ft jd mower. I was picking a good bit faster than he was able to cut. He couldnt go up a gear , The tractor didnt have enough power

Well she's at the 1000rpm at that so no need to go further. No hilly ground apart from a few banky bits.
That I couldn't tell ye tbh . we only do our own now so don't go as hard at it. What would be the norm?
I'd be well able to go up a gear no bother. 2c is the gear we work in. Pron 8-10kmh

9935452

Greengrass1 wrote: »

Well she's at the 1000rpm at that so no need to go further. No hilly ground apart from a few banky bits.
That I couldn't tell ye tbh . we only do our own now so don't go as hard at it. What would be the norm?
I'd be well able to go up a gear no bother. 2c is the gear we work in. Pron 8-10kmh

Depending on ground conditions anything from 4 to 8 acres an hour.
Hilly ground will have 100hp on its knees especially in a heavy crop.
I had 160hp on a mower in a level field once and was able to mow at 25-30k, flat out in top gear just to see what it could do. That was in a heavy 1st cut and it was skinning the ground at that.

I reckon if you drove something with more power you would see a big difference.

A local contractor had to chip a 170hp valmet to 200hp to drive a 530 JD mower

sandydan

9935452 wrote: »

They aint the same size a TM 135 is 135HP which is more than likely turned up at the injection pump so 160/165hp. 399 is around 105hp.
They are a different size as well
Most contractors round here wouldnt let a 10ft mower out without less than 140HP on it. The 399 would be just about be able to run a 10ft but not comfortably. It would burn a lot more juice as it would constantly be under pressure.

i know what you are saying and you are right,but his point slagging MF399 they are more or less physically same size, he recons tm135 has tighter turning circle etc
better resale value and he has no value on anything other than New Holland,as when MF went from 300 series massey they went downhill for a while ie 3000 series etc etc oh my poor head listening to his rant twould make a dog bite his father if he knew him:eek:
oh BTW why such large wagons needing so much HP

9935452

sandydan wrote: »

i know what you are saying and you are right,but his point slagging MF399 they are more or less physically same size, he recons tm135 has tighter turning circle etc
better resale value and he has no value on anything other than New Holland,as when MF went from 300 series massey they went downhill for a while ie 3000 series etc etc oh my poor head listening to his rant twould make a dog bite his father if he knew him:eek:
oh BTW why such large wagons needing so much HP

The 399 probably has a better resale value, 390/399s are making stupid money. I like NH but most have been turned up too much. I know of 1 contractor who had a TM 135 on triple mowers and turned up to 190HP to run them.

I assuming you are asking why contractors are buying massive wagons. Bigger wagons mean more acres done in a day meaning more money

sandydan

9935452 wrote: »

The 399 probably has a better resale value, 390/399s are making stupid money. I like NH but most have been turned up too much. I know of 1 contractor who had a TM 135 on triple mowers and turned up to 190HP to run them.

I assuming you are asking why contractors are buying massive wagons. Bigger wagons mean more acres done in a day meaning more money

would expect that of contractors, but farmers without HP in yard for buckraking ,bigger load more compaction of load leading to increased time and effort to break up and buckrake,compaction if field also, know one guy traded up and hadn't hp enugh to move floor while picking up so next stop bigger tractor, then loader ,talk about spiral of cost let alone extra time in yard and cost ,for what.. i recon he was fine size he had,no real time difference to put to other financial-ally gainful task imo

9935452

sandydan wrote: »

would expect that of contractors, but farmers without HP in yard for buckraking ,bigger load more compaction of load leading to increased time and effort to break up and buckrake,compaction if field also, know one guy traded up and hadn't hp enugh to move floor while picking up so next stop bigger tractor, then loader ,talk about spiral of cost let alone extra time in yard and cost ,for what.. i recon he was fine size he had,no real time difference to put to other financial-ally gainful task imo

If there is only 1 wagon , the man in the yard shouldnt be under massive amount of pressure. Bigger wagons are also got for longer draws.

On modern wagons the floor is moved by hydraulics , so any tractor should have the hydraulic power to move the floor.
I assume he didnt have the power to pack/push up his load.
We have a pottinger on a tm155, if we put it on 130hp the tractor in under pressure. I know a man who has the same wagon and runs it on a landini blizzard 95 and reckons he has no problems pulling it