I'd agree with the comments above. One other thing is how legible it is when it is reduced in size. The namestyle might be ok but I'm wondering if the rest of the logo just merges together at a smaller size.
i like the design, but i agree with other posters that it might not be legible when its smaller. This image looks like it would be great on a sign, but i can see it as a letterhead or on a b-card. you know what i mean?
Looks nice (and particularly farm-shoppy). I think if the small version in the image is the minimum size then it's fine and the very minor front wheel of the tractor issue would be easily corrected by tilting the front of the tractor down a bit so that the two overlap.
For me all you need is the tractor on the right (with the fixed front wheel) and cow on the left (maybe a smaller cow next to it) You don't need the trees clouds and birds to show that this is a farm and as others have said it could merge together on smaller sizes.
It's not to do with the 'folksy' feel, it's to do with the fact that it doesn't work as a logo - it has too many elements and when it's reduced down it's too complicated and doesn't read well. i like the concept, but I think the illo could be simplified, still keeping the feel of the thing but making it work harder and better.
I'd argue that it has a certain simplicity; not in terms of being reduced to a small number of elements or anything like that, obviously, but in terms of the simple, naive approach (I'm referring here to naive in the context of naive art rather than the more common definition). I'm not trying to make the case for this being the right or wrong way to go but I believe that it's a valid and appropriate one in the sense that it broadly meets my expectations for something like a farm shop. There is, of course, the valid objection that it may not be fit for the intended range of applications but if these involve it being reproduced at a size no smaller than the small example provided, I think it's fine.