3 places to consider tracks instead of tires, with Scott Shearer

Tracks certainly don’t eliminate compaction, and they usually cost substantially more than wheels, but research at The Ohio State University shows there are several specific applications where tracks offer a productivity or yield advantage in the old tracks-versus-wheels debate.

Scott Shearer of The Ohio State University stopped by to chat following his presentation on compaction at the 2025 CropConnect Conference in Winnipeg. He described the three places he sees the strongest case for switching from wheels to tracks:

1. Tractors with tracks generally have less slippage. In heavy-pulling situations, this can result in noticeable productivity and fuel efficiency gains, notes Shearer. “We don’t eliminate slip, but there’s less slip, and we actually see probably a 10 to 15 per cent reduction in fuel cost associated with that,” he says.
2. Grain carts/buggies cause compaction and yield reductions in the following crop, whether on wheels or tracks, but Shearer and his team of researchers at Ohio State have found there’s a reduced yield hit from carts on tracks when compared in unfavourable soil conditions. “We see less of an impact with track machines than we do with wheeled machines, so there is a potential there in terms of a yield impact from tracks on a machine,” he says.
3. Central-fill planters are another application where the yield benefit of tracks has proven to be significant, specifically in the pinch rows along the wheel path in the middle of the planter, says Shearer. “What we’re seeing there is a five, six, seven bushel per acre yield improvement by going to tracks, and we’ve done it for a couple years,” he says, noting their theory is tracks may result in better seed-to-soil contact, especially in dry conditions.

Watch/listen to Scott Shearer discuss these three scenarios where he sees a case for switching to tracks:

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | RSS | All Podcasts