DOCSLIB.ORG

9.1 2 Role of Agricultural Practices in Fugitive Dust Emissions, Final Tte Report, June 8,1991 MRI Project of California Air Resources Board

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
9.1 2 Role of Agricultural Practices in Fugitive Dust Emissions, Final Tte Report, June 8,1991 MRI Project of California Air Resources Board 9.1 2 Role of Agricultural Practices in Fugitive Dust Emissions, Final Tte Report, June 8,1991 MRI Project of California Air Resources Board. I I The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the contractor I and not necessarily those of the California Air Resources Board. The men- tion of commercial products, their sources, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as actual or implied en- I dorsement of such products. I I I I THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES I IN FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS I I FINAL REPORT June 8, 1981 I HXI Project No. 4809-L I I For I California Air Resources Board P. 0. Box 2815 1800 15th Street P Sacramento, California 95812 I Attn: Dr. Robert Grant I MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE 425 VOLKER BOULEVARD, KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI 641 10 0 816 753-7600 I (I I I I. ABSTRACT For the San Joaquin Valley, the Sacramento Valley, and the Imperial Valley, Midwest Research Institute quantified the impact of agricultural 'I operations on fugitive dust emissions. Thirteen tests were performed in the spring of 1980 to quantify emission factors from discing, land planing, and vehicles traveling on unpaved farm roads. Six tests were performed in I the fall of 1980 to quantify emission factors from sugar beet harvesting. Since fugitive emissions from a given operation can vary depending on physical properties of the soil or equipment, and depending on climate, pre- I dictive equations were developed to relate total, inhalable and fine partic- ulate emission factors to important independent variables. Significant re- lationships were determined between the emission factor and the soil silt I content. An inhalable particulate emission inventory performed for the three valleys showed that in 1978, agricultural operations produced 148,000 Mg/ 'I year of fugitive dust less than 15 pm in aerodynamic diameter. Field crops yielded the most significant emissions while soil preparation was the most significant category of operations. I Two categories of control techniques were suggested: (a) those that included control equipment to be added to the farm implement and (b) those that included operational modifications. Control efficiencies and poten- I tial emission reductions were estimated for these control techniques. 1 I I 1 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was performed by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) over a period extending from July 1979 to April 1981. The project leader and pri- mary author of this report was Mr. Thomas A. Cuscino, Jr. He was assisted in the writing of this report by Mr. John S. Kinsey and Mr. Richard Hackney The emission factor quantification portion of this work was directed by Mr. Russel Bohn of MRI. Other members of the MRI field sampling team were Mr. David Griffin, Mr. Thomas Walker, and Mr. Frank Pendleton. Some preliminary visibility impact measurements were collected by Mr. Ward Saunders and Ms. Susan Knauss of Meteorology Research, Inc. and Environ- mental Systems and Services, respectively. Valuable assistance on the identification of agricultural operations and .control techniques was provided by KVB, Inc. under the direction of Mr. R. Michael Roberts with assistance from Mr. Michael J. Berlant and Mr. Douglas Dale. Finally, preparation of a glossary of agricultural terms was performed by Professor Monte McKibbon of the Orange Coast College in Santa Ana, Cali- fornia. This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. A8-125-31 by HRI under the sponsorship of the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Dr. Robert Grant of CARB monitored project performance. Work was completed as of March 31, 1981. Approved for: MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE &&4d~q*&& %dM. P. Schrag, Director Environmental Systems Department June 8, 1981 2 1 I CONTENTS 'I Abstract .............................. 1 Acknowledgments ........................... 2 Figures ............................... 4 Tables ............................... 7 I Summary and Conclusions ....................... 11 Recommendations ........................... 15 I 1.0 Introduction ....................... 16 1.1 Project objectives .................. 22 1.2 Report structure................... 22 2.0 Survey of Agricultural Operations and Equipment ...... 23 (I 2.1 Identification of significant agricultural areas ... 23 2.2 Identification of agricultural operations by crop . 23 2.3 Identification of time schedule for cultural opera- I tions by crop ................... 25 3.0 Measurement of Size-Specific Emission Factors ....... 35 3.1 Selection of agricultural operations and test sites . 35 I 3.2 Sampling equipment and techniques .......... 40 3.3 Emission factor calculation results ......... 49 4.0 Determination of Predictive Emission Factor Equations ... 104 4.1 Predictive emission factor equations ......... 104 I 5.0 Evaluation of Promising Modifications to Agricultural Practices to Minimize Fugitive Dust ........... 120 5.1 Modification to agricultural operations ....... 120 5.2 Minimization of wind erosion emissions ........ 123 5.3 Projected impacts of modifications in agricultural practice on IP emission inventory ......... 134 References ............................. 146 Glossary .............................. 148 Abbreviations ............................ 153 Appendices A . Survey of agricultural operations ............. 154 B . 1978 IP emissions inventory ................231 I . 3 I. FIGURES I: Number 1 Identification of California Counties ...... 17 2 California's Major Field Crop Areas and Important Field Crops of Each Area. ................. 20 3 California's Major Fresh Market Vegetable, Melon and Potato Producing Districts. ........... 21 4 Major Agricultural Counties of California ........ 24 5 1978 Acreage of Harvested Field and Seed Crops in the Saa Joaquin Valley. .................. 26 6 1978 Acreage of Harvested Vegetables in the San Joaquin I' Valley. ........................ 21 7 1978 Acreage of Harvested Fruit and Nut Crops in the San I Joaquin Valley. ................... 28 8 1978 Acreage of Harvested Field and Seed Crops in the Sacramento Valley .................. 29 I 9 1978 Acreage of Harvested Vegetables in the Sacramento Valley. ........................ 30 I 10 1978 Acreage of Harvested Fruit and Nut Crops in the Sacramento Valley ................ 31 I 11 1978 Acreage of Harvested Field and Seed Crops in the Imperial Valley .................... 32 I 12 1978 Acreage of Harvested Vegetables in the Imperial Valley. ..................... 33 I 13 1978 Acreage of Harvested Fruit and Nut Crops in the Imperial Valley ................. 34 14 MRI Exposure Profiler .................. 41 I 15 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height for Test N-1 ......................... 65 I I 4 I I1 I I FIGURES (continued) 1 Number & 16 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height for Test I N-2 .......................... 66 17 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height for Test I N-3 .......................... 67 18 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height for Test N-4 .......................... 6a I 19 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 1 m Height for Test N-5 ......................... 69 ,I 20 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 3 m Height for Test N-5 .......................... 70 21 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 1 rn Height for Test I N-6 ......................... 71 22 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 3 m Height for Test I N-6 ......................... 72 23 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height for Test I N-7 .......................... 73 24 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height for Test I N-8 ......................... 74 25 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height for Test I N-9 ......................... 75 26 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 1 m Height for Test N-10 .......................... 76 I 27 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 3 m Height for Test N-10. ........................ 77 I 28 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 1 m Height for Test N-11, ........................ ia 29 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height for Test I N-12 .......................... 79 30 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height and 5 m 3 Downwind for Test R-1 ................. 95 31 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height and 5 m I Downwind for Test R-2 ................. 96 I 5 1 I FIGURES (concluded) I Number 32 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 m Height and 5 rn I Downwind for Test R-3 ................. 97 33 Particle Size Distribution of'IP at 2 m Height and 5 rn Downwind for Test R-4 ................. 98 I 34 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 q Height and 5 q Downwind for Test R-5 ................. 99 I' 35 Particle Size Distribution of IP at 2 rn Height and 5 m Downwind for Test R-6 ................. 100 I!I 36 Plot of Measured TP Emission Factor Versus Silt Content with Potential Predictive Equations Depicted ........ 111 I 37 Plot of Measured IP Emission Factor Versus Silt Content with Potential Predictive Equations Depicted ........ 112 I' 38 Plot of Measured FP Emission Factor Versus Silt Content with Potential Predictive Equations Depicted ........ 113 39 Surface Soil Moisture of Yo10 Loam in Davis, I California. ...................... 114 - 40 Effectiveness of Tree Windbreak ............. 131 I I I I I I I 6 I I I I TABLES Number I 1 Ranking of Counties by Harvested Crop Area ...... 18 2 Emission Factor Values and Predictive Equations Relating I to Agricultural Sources. ............... 36 3 Potential Test Sites--Soil Preparation Operations. ... 30 I 4 Potential Test Sites--Harvesting Operations. ...... 39 5 Field Equipment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Machinery Cost Estimates
    MACHINERY COST ESTIMATES by William F. Lazarus May 2012 The tables in this publication contain estimates of farm machinery operation costs calculated via an economic engineering approach. The data are intended to show a representative farming industry cost for specified machines and operations. Machine costs are separated into time-related and use-related categories. Use-related costs are incurred only when a machine is used. They include fuel, lubrication, use-related repairs and labor. Time-related costs, also often referred to as overhead costs, accrue to the owner whether or not a machine is used. Overhead includes time-related economic costs: interest, insurance, personal property taxes, and housing. There are no personal property taxes in Minnesota. Depreciation is both a use- and a time-related cost. Depreciation will be related to use to the extent that increased annual usage shortens years of life and/or reduces salvage value. While not entirely use-related, depreciation is included along with operating expenses and labor costs in the columns labeled "use-related cost/acre". OVERHEAD COSTS: Time-related costs are prorated over a 12 year economic life except where otherwise indicated. Trade-in values are estimated based on American Society of Agricultural Engineers formulas. Income tax implications are ignored. A housing charge of 67 cents per square foot of shelter space needed per year is made. A four percent “real” (inflation-adjusted) interest rate is used in the cost estimates. This real rate is calculated by taking a nominal rate charged by lenders, minus a measure of the inflation rate per year expected over the years of ownership.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 2016 Report
    SPRING 2016 REPORT MacDon Industries, Ltd. Adam McKay Seth Cleary Carson Brian Andrew Farrand OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 1 List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... 2 List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. 3 List of Equations ...................................................................................................................... 3 Mission Statement .................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 Customer Requirements ...................................................................................................... 9 Technical Requirements .................................................................................................... 11 Equipment Requirements ....................................................................................................... 11 Standards ................................................................................................................................. 12 Windrower Capabilities .........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Equipment Quick Reference Guide
    AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE Vehicle Valuation Services, Inc. 1 South 450 Summit Avenue Suite 185 Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181 ______________ 888.475.9975 Fax: 888.475.9935 www.vvsi.com Vehicle Valuation Services, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Not To Be Reproduced. TABLE OF CONTENTS Farm Tractors page 3 – 4 Tractor Attachments Page 5 – 6 Lawn Tractors/Mowers page 7 Combines page 8 – 10 Miscellaneous page 11 – 14 Center Pivots Page 15 [Press ctrl+f to bring up search tool] FARM TRACTORS Conventional Farm Tractor Basic Features EROPS CAB (Enclosed Roll-Over Protection) Counterweight 3 FARM TRACTORS – Cont. Farm Tractors are machines used for pulling or pushing agricultural machinery. These are typically equipped with a PTO [Power Take-Off] and 3 point hitch. The 3 point hitch is used to attach an implement (attachment) to the tractor. The PTO is used to power the attached impalement. Farm tractors can be two-wheel drive or four-wheel drive, and may have single wheels, dual wheels, or may have Tractor with Dual Wheels crawler tracks. They may also be gas or diesel powered. Tractor with Tracks 3 Point Hitch Tractor with Single Wheels 4 FARM TRACTORS – Cont. Tractor Attachments Front Loaders are buckets which attach to a frame at the front of the tractor. The size of the buckets vary, and may also be equipped with bale spears for transporting hay bales. Bale Spear Loaders are similar to traditional front loaders except with a Tractor with Front Loader hay bale spears instead of a bucket. Spear size and configuration vary. Fork Loaders are similar to traditional front loaders except with forks instead of a bucket.
    [Show full text]
  • Design and Development of a Tractor Mounted Grain Windrower Erwin Roy Johnson Iowa State College
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1948 Design and development of a tractor mounted grain windrower Erwin Roy Johnson Iowa State College Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Acoustics, Dynamics, and Controls Commons, and the Bioresource and Agricultural Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Johnson, Erwin Roy, "Design and development of a tractor mounted grain windrower" (1948). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 16303. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/16303 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. DB61Q1 A*) MSVELOIWirr OF A TRACTOR HOOTTK) ORAm WIKDBOIfKR Krwln R» Johnson A ThO0ls Svibnlttod to tho Gra<Swto Fftcnlty In Partial FnlflllsMut of The ItoqnlroBiantt for th« T>e|^«e of SSABTFR OF SCTERCF •tjor Snbject: Agrlcttltural Engineering Signatures have been redacted for privacy lova State Collefo 1948 -11- TABU? OF COmTBTS Fage XHTB<:®IXmON 1 !bipoTtaiie« of Corool Qrains •••••«•*••• 1 l&iTTostiBC Fraeodnros for Smll Orals 1 Boasona for Vlndrovlsg Orals la Icm ••••«• 2 ffiftchlnes tTsod to Wlsfirov Grala ••••••••• 3 Vlndrower Grain Losses 8 OBJFCTIVF^ 12 FrVTF^ (F LITFPATtB^T? ..• 13 SUHVKY OF
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Developing a Business Plan for Farms and Rural Businesses
    Building a Sustainable Business A Guide to Developing a Business Plan for Farms and Rural Businesses Developed by the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture (MISA) Published by Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) HA6NDBOOK Handbook Series Book 6 Building a Sustainable Business A Guide to Developing a Business Plan for Farms and Rural Businesses Developed by: the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture Saint Paul, MN Published by: Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) College Park, MD Project Coordinators This publication was developed by the Minnesota Institute for Gigi DiGiacomo, Economic Consultant Sustainable Agriculture in cooperation with the Center for Farm Debra Elias Morse, Consultant Financial Management, with funding from the Minnesota State Robert King, University of Minnesota Legislature. Authors This publication was co-published by the Sustainable Agriculture Gigi DiGiacomo, Economic Consultant Research and Education (SARE) program, under a coopera- Robert King, University of Minnesota tive agreement with USDA’s National Institute of Food and Dale Nordquist, University of Minnesota Agriculture (NIFA). Contributors To order copies of this book ($17.00 plus $6.95 shipping and Vern Eidman, University of Minnesota handling), contact: (301) 779-1007, [email protected] or visit the Debra Elias Morse, Consultant SARE WebStore at www.sare.org/WebStore; or contact (800) Susan McAllister, Marketing Consultant 909-6472, or [email protected]. This publication can be viewed Kenneth Thomas,
    [Show full text]
  • Adoption of the Combine on the Northern Plains *
    Copyright © 1980 by the South Dakota State Historical Society. All Rights Reserved. Adoption of the Combine on the Northern Plains * THOMAS D. ISERN Since the harvest is the most intense phase of farming, some of the most noteworthy agricultural adaptations pertain to it. The combine, which won the favor of farmers on the northern Great Plains only after the machine had been altered to meet their special conditions, provides a good illustration of this adaptation process. The manner in which use of the combine was extended into the northern plains, some years later than into the southern plains, also shows that although the northern plains and the southern plains share much of a common culture and agriculture, the regions also display important differences. Decades before the combine came to the plains, farmers there had developed methods of harvesting and threshing distinct from those used in other regions. In the late nineteenth century, use of the binder was standard practice in the prairies just to the east. As a result, migrating farmers introduced the binder, a humid- area institution, into the subhumid and semiarid plains, where it often proved unsuitable. On the plains, where rainfall was incon- sistent, straw was sometimes too short to tie good bundles. The binder, with its slim swath, was too narrow-gauge for the exten- sive agriculture of the Great Plains. Binding, shocking, stacking, and threshing also required too much hand and horse labor. Plains farmers, therefore, turned to the header, which cut a wider swath, worked well in short straw, and required less handling of the grain.
    [Show full text]
  • Organic Thatching Straw: an Opportunity for Welsh Producers?
    Organic thatching straw: an opportunity for Welsh producers? Authors: Andrew Trump, Organic Arable Philip Jones, Independent Researcher Date: April 2013 Correction to statement on page 5 Under Section 5.1 Species and varieties for thatching straw (Page 5 para.1) We state that (heritage varieties) can be ‘given away’ – this statement is incorrect It has been drawn to our attention that: “The Seed Marketing (Wales) Regulation 2012 states that „giving away‟ seed of a non- listed variety is considered as „marketing‟ and that this is prohibited by legislation (Part 1, Regulation 2(1) refers). Marketing is defined by the sale, holding with a view to sale, offer for sale or any disposal, supply or transfer aimed in each case at commercial exploitation of seed to third parties, whether or not for consideration. The varieties listed in the publication would also need to be on a National List or Common Catalogue (Part 3 regulation 10(a)) before it can be marketed.” We apologise for this item of misleading information Page ii Acknowledgements The authors wish to thank The National Thatching Straw Growers Association and their Secretary, Stephen Letch in particular The National Society of Master Thatchers The staff at Rushall Farms for their contribution to the case study. The Better Organic Business Links (BOBL) project, run by Organic Centre Wales, is a four year project designed to support the primary producer in Wales and grow the market for Welsh organic produce in a sustainable way. The aim is to develop markets for organic produce whilst driving innovation and promoting sustainable behaviours at all levels within the supply chain, to increase consumer demand and thence markets for organic produce, especially in the home market, and to ensure that the primary producers are aware of market demands.
    [Show full text]
  • Off-Highway and Public-Use Gasoline Consumption Estimation Models Used in the Federal Highway Administration
    OFF-HIGHWAY AND PUBLIC-USE GASOLINE CONSUMPTION ESTIMATION MODELS USED IN THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Final Report for the 2014 Model Revisions and Recalibrations Publication Number – FHWA-PL-17-012 June 2015 Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the United State Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided highway-quality information to serve Government, industry and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility and integrity of its information. FHEA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Contents LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... xi ACRONYMS ..............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Alfalfa Harvesting Costs: Implications for Custom Harvest Charges
    AN ANALYSIS OF ALFALFA HARVESTING COSTS: IMPLICATIONS FOR CUSTOM HARVEST CHARGES Karen Klonsky, Steve Blank, Kate Fuller, Steve Orloff, and Dan Putnam1 ABSTRACT This paper reports an analysis of the overhead (ownership) and operating costs (fuel, repairs, and labor) associated with different alternatives for alfalfa harvest equipment complements. Specifically, costs are calculated for one harvest operation for small bales using a swather with a cutter bar header, small bales using a swather with a rotary header, large bales with a cutter bar header, and large bales with a rotary header. Using a rotary mower lowers costs per cutting per acre by $3.54. Large bales are less expensive to bale and roadside than small bales by $7.48 per cutting per acre. Therefore, the least expensive combination is large bales with a rotary mower. Key Words: alfalfa, hay harvest, cost of production INTRODUCTION Alfalfa hay harvesting costs are a significant concern to the grower, representing about half of total costs. Growers have the option of owning their own harvest equipment, hiring a custom operator to perform harvest operations, or a combination of the two. Also, many growers harvest their own hay and run a custom harvest business in addition to their own farming operation. New technologies introduced into alfalfa harvest equipment have created more options for custom harvest businesses and farmers. In particular, the use of large bales is increasing in response to demand from dairies. Also, rotary mowers are increasingly replacing cutter bar (sickle bar) mowers. These changes require additional equipment. In particular, a cutter bar header requires a swather with less horsepower than a rotary header.
    [Show full text]
  • Pocahontas Machinery Consignment Auction WEDNESDAY June 13Th, 2012 @ 9:00 A.M
    Pocahontas Machinery Consignment Auction WEDNESDAY June 13th, 2012 @ 9:00 A.M. AUCTION LOT LOCATED ON HWY 3 EAST, JUST SOUTH OF NAPA AUTO PARTS STORE, POCAHONTAS, IA JD 12’ 3pt disc Palomino Pop Up Camper, Good Hitt & Miss 11/2 hp motor ’01 Kawasaki 1100 STX D.I. 3 Seat Jet Tractors, Skidloaders Head Trailers Planters and Drills MM steel sign Ski, W/ Trailer & Antique Tractors JD,Allis,IH,Oliver, coaster wagons ’81 Mallard 26’ Camper, Sleeps 6, Air, Hull 32’ Single Axle, New Kinze 2300 12RW, Interplant AC 8’ Disk Awning, Good Cond. JD 317 Skid loader, Good Cond. J&M 30’ 4 Wheels CIH 955 8RN Planter Walk Behind 1 Bottom Plow ’72 Starcraft 18’ Boat JD 8640 3pt, Pto, Duals JD 7200 12-30 w/no till coulters Walk Behind All Wood Plow JD 4440 QR, Duals, Power Beyond Wagons & Grain Carts CIH 950 12 row, VF IH 3hp 1 Cyl. Gas Engine JD 4440, 18.4.38 CIH 950 16 Row 20” Planter Pump Jack & Pump Misc. Items JD 4630, 18.4.38 White 5100 8RW Wheel Weights Harley Davidson Elec. Golf Cart Parker 7255 Wagon, T.T. IH 1066 W/ Red Cab, Duals JD 520 Drill W/ Drag ’82 Honda Aspencade, 42K 2- Brent 640 Wagons, T.T. IH 1066 5,760 Hrs, White Cab, New Flex Coil 12RN ST, W/ Air Cart 28L26 Combine Tires and Rims Brent 620 Cart, Green Semi’s, Straight Trucks, Motor and Good Rubber JD 1.6 Bu. Boxes 1770 16.9.26 Tires and Rims Brent 470 Grain Cart IH 766 Gas, WF, 3pt, 4,850 Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Larsenauction Steinhausen 8-21-19.Pmd
    AUCTION The following items will be offered for sale at public auction to be held on our farm located at 9901 SW 12th Street, Lincoln, NE, (the intersection of West Rokeby & SW 12th). From Hwy. 77 and Rokeby Road: 2 miles West or from Denton, NE: 6 miles East and 2 miles South on SW 12th Street on: Saturday, September 21, 2019 Lunch by Homerun BBQ Starting at 10:00 a.m. RST Porta-Potties Tractors & Skid Steer JD 5420 w/JD541 Loader, (bucket & bale spear), 1,138 Hrs., SN:LV5420P346528 JD 4230, Cab, 3 Hyd. Outlets, 6,070 Hrs., SN:4230W031649R JD 4010, 5,581 Hrs., SN: 401021T2639 JD 3020, 4,181 Hrs., SN: T113R120545R JD 50, SN: 5020281 Bobcat S-205, w/72” Bucket, 1,995 Hrs., SN:528411411 68” Grapple Bucket 72” Snow Bucket Bobcat Post Auger Bobcat Bale Spear Equipment & Tools JD 825i Gator, Dump Bed, 248 Hrs., SN: IM0825GSCBM023926 Exmark Lazer XP 27HP Diesel, Zero Turn Mower, 60" Deck, 365 Hrs. Leon #690 loader w/Grapple, (3020-4020 brackets) JD #348 Square Baler, SN: E00348T310926 M-C Mo. 9E, 9' Rotary Scythe Swather, SN: 55629 Rowse 9' Pull-Type Sickle Mower; JD #622 Hay Rake, Hyd. Drive; Maxilator Bale Accumulator; 20' & 12' Bale Elevators; 16' Hayrack w/Kory 6072 Gear; (4) Other Hayracks; 20’x8' Tandem Axle, Tilt Bed Trailer, Steel Floor, Beaver Tail, 6,0001b Axles; Boss 1 5' x 14' Bumper Hitch Stock Trailer; 6’x12' Utility Trailer; 5’x8' Utility Trailer; JD BW, 18' Tandem Disc; JD TWA, 11' H.D. Disc w/Notched-Cone Blades; Bush Hog #268, 8' 3 Pt.
    [Show full text]
  • A Smarter Way to Better Hay. Table of Contents
    A smarter way to better hay. Table of Contents Celebrating 60 Years | 4 Overview | 6 Technology | 10 Performance | 14 Comfort | 18 Headers & Transport | 20 Hay Tools | 28 Value & Financing | 30 Service & Support | 31 Specifications | 32 The WR9800 Series Windrowers. Now the most advanced windrower in hay Seven decades of firsts is also the easiest to use For almost 70 years, Hesston has been dedicated to Quality hay and grain starts here – with the latest creating innovative products that produce one thing: evolution of Hesston® WR9800 series self-propelled quality hay. We’ve been recognized as the self-propelled windrowers. They bring the industry’s most windrower innovator since 1955. Other industry firsts sophisticated technology to the field – making them have included the first hydrostatic windrower, the first the easiest, most efficient windrowers to operate, center-pivot mower-conditioner and the first big square whether you’re an experienced hand or a first-timer. baler – which had nearly 50 individual patents of its own. The WR9800 series windrowers. Another leap No wonder we’re the number one choice of hay forward, from the company that invented the category. professionals across North America. The Hesston WR9800 series windrowers. Another promise kept. Because that’s what we do. Because that’s what you need. And because that’s what makes all the difference. Go to www.Hesston.com to learn more | 3 a Celebrating the 60th anniversary of the first self-propelled swather. Since our first self-propelled swather rolled into the field 60 years ago, times have changed. So have the windrowers Hesston has produced - all 100,000 of them.
    [Show full text]