We Americans cheer for our favorites and it seems there are times when, call it rivalry or competition, things get rather intense.
The feuding has its share of strong words, but no one is getting hurt so it is a friendly feud.
The common ones are Ford versus Chevy, Coke versus Pepsi, or among us agricultural types, John Deere versus everybody else.
I listened to a lesser-known rivalry when I was growing up between my dad and his two brothers. That one was Harvestores versus stave silos.
His brothers bought four Harvestores over several years, all with blue roofs. A blue roof dates them pre-1967.
During that time my dad was buying stave silos. When he built the last one, there were six of them, with the last built for holding high moisture shelled corn, just like a Harvestore, kind of.
When he bought it from Madison Silo, they told him they could build it but didn't have a way to unload it. You are on your own.
He came up with a loading system of his own design that worked, kind of.
My dad's main complaint about Harvestores was that they were too high-priced for the advantages they offered.
Harvestore liked to emphasize that a farm with a Harvestore was a sign of success. And more Harvestores meant more success.
I wonder if my uncles succumbed to that notion.
My uncles also built two stave silos next to the four Harvestores; all were in use until the early '90s when we quit feeding cattle.
It took about 120 acres of corn each fall to fill them with silage, with one Harvestore storing wet corn, and with about 300 head of cattle, they would be empty in about a year's time.
I had just over 15 years of experience, starting in 1975, to see if my dad was right.
The Harvestores had the advantage of no waste, as they were sealed.
They also required more maintenance because of the breather bags near the roof to equalize pressure between the inside and outside.
Then there was the bottom unloader, which was slow in the beginning, and once a flow was established, still not that fast.
A plastic sheet over the top of the silage in a stave silo greatly reduced any spoilage if it didn't sit too long, with the mice chewing holes in the plastic.
The problem with the top unloader in a stave silo was having to move it from door to door as it emptied the silo. It was more of an inconvenience than anything.
Winter was the biggest problem when the silage froze to the walls. Frozen silage becomes like chunks of wood.
So neither a Harvestore nor a stave silo was trouble-free.
The big difference was capacity. Those two stave silos, which were 20 by 60, held a lot of silage compared to three Harvestores that were 20 by 50 and one at 18 by 60.
Those Harvestores seemed to empty quickly, much more quickly than the stave silos.
Was my dad right about Harvestores being overpriced to what advantages they claimed to possess?
The Harvestore system was good based on my experience, but when compared to a stave silo, they did come in second. A stave silo seemed to offer more for less.
Silage today is stored mainly in bunkers, which offer greater capacity at a lower price. A top or bottom unloader is meaningless when using a rubber-tired loader that is much faster and more versatile.
When I do see Harvestores or silos at a farm site, I check to see if a blower pipe is in place and if there is a pen nearby with cattle in it.
I am looking for activity, especially in late summer or fall, which shows the structure is still in use. A blower attached to the blower pipe is a sure sign.
Very few places show any activity at all. There are many empty, unused silos and Harvestores scattered across farm country.
I sometimes wonder if they are a monument, or possibly a tombstone, to a time that has gone, a time of six-row equipment and 100 horsepower tractors.
The feud is over; nobody won.
Clayton Rye is a farmer from Hanlontown, Iowa. He can be contacted by email at crye@wctatel.net.