# Changing of the Guard



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Last week I decided that I was having too many problems with my 10 year old New Holland round balers, considering how much we have yet to bale this season. Called two local dealers for prices and bought 2 new New Holland Roll-Belt 560 Specialty Crop balers from one of them. They were delivered yesterday and we put them in service today. These are the old balers.














I will try to get a picture of the new balers soon. I will miss the BR series balers for the most part. They make the nicest bales of any baler out there. Unfortunately, I am making more bales in a fall than what a BR series baler can endure, unless it is in perfect shape going into the season. I plan to sell the two balers pictured, but keep my oldest baler around as it is worthless on paper, but still very functional yet if I ever get it put back together, so that will be my old times fix I suppose.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Good luck with the new ones Neil. I hope they give you great service for years to come.

Regards, Mike


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

You will like the new balers. A couple of tips.

When attaching the baler harness to the tractor harness be sure the three locating lugs on the baler connector match the slots in the tractor harness. It is possible to force the connectors together when the lugs are not in the correct position. Most of the time you will only get a CAN message on the screen, but you can also push pins out of the connector.

Copy the page with the fault codes and carry it with you so if a fault code is displayed in the uppoer left of the screen you will know what has happened and what to do. If a code does not clear and you do not know what to do. Turn the operators panel off and back on. A new code will be displayed in the upper left corner. This code will indicate what you need to do. Example, if for some reason the duckbill or knife does not return to the home position you will get a code first which indicates a problem with the net system. Turning the panel off and back on will give a different code which when looked up will tell you the duckbill or knife is not in the home position. I had a guy recently who bought the baler somewhere else call and said he had been trying for hours to get the code to go away so he couold bale. Had him going in under a minute because the code which appeared after restarting the panel clearly indicated what needed to be done. In his case the knife was not home. He ran out of net and I think he pushed the wrong button that moved the knife instead of the duckbill.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

Good luck with your new balers. Just out of curiosity how many bales had each of your 10 yr old balers baled? What type of problems were you experiencing?


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Thanks for the tips mike10! For now I have both books in the tractors, so I should bookmark the error section then. One thing I learned about the CAN system by accident is that the monitor and baler are matched. Can't switch balers and monitors anymore, at least without a some sort of relearning procedure I suppose.

Jim, the two retiring balers have 11,000 (approx) and 12,400 bales on them. That is nowhere near the bales I like to put on a baler before I quit on them, but both of these had a shady past. I think that how a baler is used and cared for early on will greatly influence how it holds up long term. Problems this fall: tailgate roller bearing went out and ruined the roller. That one could have been prevented, my fault. Main stuffer bearing went out. Stuffer shaft came loose in the clamp, had to weld it solid. Broke the end out of a sledge roll. Caught the lock collars cracking on a back wrap roller and had to fix that problem, that maybe could have been seen and fixed preseason, don't know. Also had a reoccurrence of the shoulder breaking that retains the stuffer slip clutch. Throw that in the learning curve category as it was a shop made part that failed, following the OEM failure last fall. The shop made part should have been made of 4140 pre hard, not mild steel. We changed the design of the bushing a little so that mild steel would hold up. One baler started breaking tine bars, both ends. I had put a heavier steel tine on both balers to cope with corn stalks and found out that the tine bolts couldn't handle the increased load and would break. Oh, had a main shaft bearing go too. I had far fewer problems running up to 20,000 bales on my oldest baler than what I had with these two.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

I can see why you would want to change balers. Since I'm in the twilight of my hay baling career I guess I just have to keep baling with my 13 yr old baler that has more bales on the monitor as both your balers combined.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

Neil, what percentage of your bale totals were stalks?......as you certainly well know, that can make a huge difference in the life of a baler versus grass etc.

Regards, Mike


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Vol, I figure that 90% of what I do is corn stalks. What these two balers did before I got them is unknown, but they came from OK. Good chance they did all hay, but may have been sandy soils.

Jim, my oldest baler (not in the pictures) has 23,000 bales on it, used in the same conditions as the other two. Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

Yes I agree that's ironic!


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

The operators panel and baler controller are not matched. I have used the same operators panel, on my test stand, during pre-delivery since 2014 on all the roll belt balers we have sold. I do update the software when new versions are available, but the brains for the most part are in the controller. If you had CAN displayed on the screen after attaching the baler, then you probably did not have the connector oriented right. That plastic housing can allow the connectors to go together without the mating lugs inserting into the grooves of the other connector end.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

I'm sure I had the connectors right. Checked and double checked them. Neither baler would power up properly until I switched monitors.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

The only other thing would be the connector at the bottom of the panels. That connector is hard to lock in place. You need to push the gray or black cover away from the plug so the plug can be completely inserted and locked in the operators panel connector. A bit of a pain. Otherwise, there is no difference in the panels or harnesses or controllers


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

Gearclash said:


> Vol, I figure that 90% of what I do is corn stalks. What these two balers did before I got them is unknown, but they came from OK. Good chance they did all hay, but may have been sandy soils.
> Jim, my oldest baler (not in the pictures) has 23,000 bales on it, used in the same conditions as the other two. Ironic, isn't it?


 what model was your oldest Bailer that has 23000 on it


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

endrow said:


> what model was your oldest Bailer that has 23000 on it


*Its a 2005 New Holland BR780A. I bought it in February of 2008 with 1500 bales on it. The serial number ends in 10500. rjmoses owns SN ending in 10501 if I recall correctly.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

The new balers.


----------



## LukeS (Feb 24, 2015)

I would really like to hear how you like your new balers, we have a 2013 BR7060 and the neighbor has a 2018 RB560 bale slice and we can run circles around his baler in corn stalks, I baled 500 for him this year and it was horrible.


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

LukeS said:


> I would really like to hear how you like your new balers, we have a 2013 BR7060 and the neighbor has a 2018 RB560 bale slice and we can run circles around his baler in corn stalks, I baled 500 for him this year and it was horrible.


 interesting to hear I've never run one of the new balers. What do you thinks holding that are rb560 back, that your BR outperforms it


----------



## LukeS (Feb 24, 2015)

Well honestly I think the stuffer needs improvement for baling corn stalks, I've heard great things about it in hay although I haven't run it in hay yet. I do know that the roller windguard is to heavy for the corn stocks to make it spin so it plugs up way to easily.


----------



## LukeS (Feb 24, 2015)

But I run the BR7060 at 8-9 mph at I'm doing really good to be going 4-5 in the RB560


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

So far my 560s are way out performing the BRs. I’m told the stuffer needs to be retimed from the factory.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

I conversed by email with a farmer that lives close to Dubuque,Ia that averages rd baling 7-10K of cornstalks per yr except this yr was less due to weather related problems. He stated his JD 568 has 75,000 bales on it with approximately 80% being cornstalks.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

Tx Jim said:


> I conversed by email with a farmer that lives close to Dubuque,Ia that averages rd baling 7-10K of cornstalks per yr except this yr was less due to weather related problems. He stated his JD 568 has 75,000 bales on it with approximately 80% being cornstalks.


Why do you have to turn every thread into a color war?


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

I think I have not turned every thread that I've replied to into a color war!!

Sorry that you disliked what I posted but I find it difficult to understand how a late model piece of highly recommended name brand equipment can become virtually unusable in such a a short period of time/bale count.

In the future I will refrain from making replies that have reference to a different color/brand of equipment other than brand in thread.

After all I thought these type forums were called ""discussion forums"" for a reason but I'll abide by your view point.

Jim


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

There is no timing to the stuffer. The slip clutch would make timing useless.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

mike10, apparently on the 560s the auger to stuffer finger timing can make a significant difference in performance. I don’t know any details about it, I will gladly refer you to the dealer I am working with if you want. Both area dealers I talked to are doing this to the Specialty Crop 560s.


----------



## PaulN (Mar 4, 2014)

I have a BR7060 with a 1.5 Meter pickup. I absolutely hate baling corn stalks. It will make a beautiful bale, but the pickup is constantly plugging. On a good day, I can make maybe 15 bales an hour. I notice that the stuffer drive arm has two holes in it. Has anyone ever tried the other hole?


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Interesting. It appears the augers could be bolted on in three different positions since there are three bolts retaining each auger. I have a hard time visualizing how this would improve the feeding. Does the end of the auger line up with the first tine or 1\3 of a revolution away from the first tine.


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

mike10 said:


> There is no timing to the stuffer. The slip clutch would make timing useless.


 thank you I feel better I was wondering what the stuffer could be timed to. Then I was thinking I should ask. But then I was thinking entirely how stupid I would look when someone gave the answer


----------



## LukeS (Feb 24, 2015)

PaulN said:


> I have a BR7060 with a 1.5 Meter pickup. I absolutely hate baling corn stalks. It will make a beautiful bale, but the pickup is constantly plugging. On a good day, I can make maybe 15 bales an hour. I notice that the stuffer drive arm has two holes in it. Has anyone ever tried the other hole?


That's not good. Do you have a roller windguard and the 2 steel plates that go on and windguard tines on yours?


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

PaulN said:


> I have a BR7060 with a 1.5 Meter pickup. I absolutely hate baling corn stalks. It will make a beautiful bale, but the pickup is constantly plugging. On a good day, I can make maybe 15 bales an hour. I notice that the stuffer drive arm has two holes in it. Has anyone ever tried the other hole?


A number of things to consider here. 15 bales per hour is pathetic, period. On a good day we could do 40 bales an hour with a 780A or 7090, without the roller wind guard.

First consideration is the stalks themselves. Finely shredded stalks don't feed into a baler as well as coarse stalks. If there is moisture in the stalks they won't feed well. BRs hate damp stalks. These balers do best on dry unshredded stalks, nest best is dry shredded and raked stalks, worst is chopping corn head.

You need to get the windguard set so as to allow the maximum of clearance between the wind guard fingers and the pickup and stuffer tines. I don't advocate removing the wind guard, but some people do. Make sure your pick up tines are healthy.

The other thing that really wakes up the BR balers in stalks is to swap the 17 tooth pick up drive sprocket with a 20 tooth. 17% increase in speed seems to make 25-30% increase in throughput.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

PaulN said:


> I have a BR7060 with a 1.5 Meter pickup. I absolutely hate baling corn stalks. It will make a beautiful bale, but the pickup is constantly plugging. On a good day, I can make maybe 15 bales an hour. I notice that the stuffer drive arm has two holes in it. Has anyone ever tried the other hole?


Changing to the other hole can make a big difference in the feeding through the pickup. All you have to loose in a couple of minutes of your time.


----------



## PaulN (Mar 4, 2014)

LukeS, I do not have a roller windguard, just the tines. I don't know what you mean about the 2 steel plates.

Gearclash, it's been a wet fall and yes, the stalks are damp. I have noticed that one sunny day will make a big difference, but we can't buy a sunny day in November. I do like the idea of changing the drive sprocket.

mike 10, I haven't had a chance to look at the auger end and the first tine. But I do agree, I don't see how that would affect feeding.

I still wonder about the stuffer link. The arm that is attached to the stuffer tube has 2 holes in it. I'm wondering if one of the holes would give it more aggressive movement.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

One set of holes gives the stuffer a more forward range of travel, the other set moves the range of travel more rearward toward the floor roll. I think the more forward travel would be better as cornstalks almost always begin to plug at the point where the travel of the pick up tines and the stuffer meet. Material stops flowing at the wind guard, then the plugging rapidly progresses down until material is jammed between the wind guard and the top of the pick up.


----------



## PaulN (Mar 4, 2014)

Thanks guys, that's the best tip I got all month! I have only a little more to do, but I'm definitely going to try that.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Update on the 560s: as of Saturday evening they have 1100 bales each on the counters. Tuesday noon they had zero. Had a few wrap problems on Thursday, warm dry day that turned up the fact that both balers had a net tail that was too short. One was also stalling the duckbill in the insert position. After much head scratching I found out that the actuator drive gear was engaging too tightly with the duckbill gear. Loosened that up and all was well. The 560s will bale tough cornstalks much better than the BR series balers can, although it is possible to plug a 560. Bale shape is exellent, which is a huge relief to me, I didn't want to give up what we had with the BRs.


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

Tx Jim said:


> I conversed by email with a farmer that lives close to Dubuque,Ia that averages rd baling 7-10K of cornstalks per yr except this yr was less due to weather related problems. He stated his JD 568 has 75,000 bales on it with approximately 80% being cornstalks.


I call bullshit on that. As abrasive as stalks are, at 60000 bales of stalks, those sidewalks are gonna be see thru at this point. Remember, metal is only so durable. I'm sure Deere uses abrasion resistant iron but at that amount of stalks, not much would be left of it.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

They have replacement sides available for the green un's......(they knew they might last a long time  )


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

somedevildawg said:


> They have replacement sides available for the green un's......(they knew they might last a long time  )


I'm sure Vermeer, NH and MF do as well. The point I'm making is at 60000 bales of stalks, there isn't gonna be much left of anything original metal. Burned thru a couple sets of tires too. Belts, you name it it's been replaced I'm sure.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

On my BR740 I find it best to take the windgaurd clear off. However we also shred the stalks then bale em as wet a possible then wrap.

Which sprocket needs changed from the 17 to 20? Gonna bale a hundred yet this fall


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Personal experience is NH balers are not very durable compared to other owners brand said I've read about here and elsewhere. First BR never could be repaired. Dealer is very good and could not get baler to work correctly. Traded on new BR7060 and after only 12,000 grass hay bales, I have ~ $5,000 in repairs for computer box, electric ram, failed bearings that were religiously greased with quality grease and annoying chain issues. Then there's more money spent operator errors, but of course not the baler manufacturer fault. Even dealer service manager admits my baler hasn't been very good to me. 
Of course, there's thousands of satisfied NH baler owners, too. 
The biggest NH advantage is they are cheaper to buy and dealership support.
Keeping mine because when I need a repair I can't make, I have excellent dealer support and it's long been paid off. Feasible that owning 2 NH balers could be an alternative to one really good Krone, McHale, etc.


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

Gearclash,

I gotta 7060 with its sledge roll assembly guts all over my shop floor right now. NH doesnt want to sell just the bearing that goes in the gear that bolts into the end of the two sledge rolls. Did you ever cross that bearing to a generic parts house bearing? I didn't get a chance to pull the bearing out of the gear, but at this point I didn't see a part number on the bearing.


----------



## OhioHay (Jun 4, 2008)

We have had good luck with new Holland round balers....knock on wood. Over 18,000 bales on a 640 and almost 16,000 on a 7060. Have had minimal repairs on both. Both mainly have done dry hay, but both have baled stalks and wrapped bales. I don't know if the fact that we make 4x4.5 bales instead of 4x5's makes a difference. We may trade off the 640 this winter and are really considering a claas. Great local dealer and have been real pleased with our class big square.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

JD3430 said:


> Personal experience is NH balers are not very durable compared to other owners brand said I've read about here and elsewhere. First BR never could be repaired. Dealer is very good and could not get baler to work correctly. Traded on new BR7060 and after only 12,000 grass hay bales, I have ~ $5,000 in repairs for computer box, electric ram, failed bearings that were religiously greased with quality grease and annoying chain issues. Then there's more money spent operator errors, but of course not the baler manufacturer fault. Even dealer service manager admits my baler hasn't been very good to me.
> Of course, there's thousands of satisfied NH baler owners, too.
> The biggest NH advantage is they are cheaper to buy and dealership support.
> Keeping mine because when I need a repair I can't make, I have excellent dealer support and it's long been paid off. Feasible that owning 2 NH balers could be an alternative to one really good Krone, McHale, etc.


Sounds like you keep getting lemons for some reason.

Had no issues with mine other than replacing chains and sprockets this year.

I did have the one issue last year, wire harness moved and when installing a new roll of net the arm with the sensor wheel on it hit the plug and busted it up internally.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Yeah I don't know what the deal is.
2 balers and both did the job, but premature costly failures. Maybe I expected too much? Making mostly 15-20% bales, about 1500/yr doesn't seem like very much to ask from a silage special. Even fell for the "dealer uptime" tune-up for $3,600 in 2016. Replaced some bearings. Still broke multiple times afterward. I know that doesn't guarantee anything. Just irks me that I could have saved that for repairs. 
I'm sure the grass isn't much greener on the other side.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

PaMike said:


> Gearclash,
> 
> I gotta 7060 with its sledge roll assembly guts all over my shop floor right now. NH doesnt want to sell just the bearing that goes in the gear that bolts into the end of the two sledge rolls. Did you ever cross that bearing to a generic parts house bearing? I didn't get a chance to pull the bearing out of the gear, but at this point I didn't see a part number on the bearing.


The sledge gear is probably a proprietary bearing not available from another supplier. NH has it as pn 9808111.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

mlappin said:


> On my BR740 I find it best to take the windgaurd clear off. However we also shred the stalks then bale em as wet a possible then wrap.
> 
> *Which sprocket needs changed from the 17 to 20? Gonna bale a hundred yet this fall *


The drive sprocket for the pickup. The one on the stuffer shaft. Might have to grind a little to get it in place. I would recommend using a good taper lock hub style sprocket as a regular set screw doesn't hold them in place good, use a taper lock that has 3 bolts in, not 2 set screws to lock the hub.


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

Gearclash, You are right on the bearing number. The parts diagram shows that bearing no longer available separately, however my bearing has that number on it, and when I put it in the NH parts system it shows available. Looks like I will give it a try..


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

Gearclash said:


> The sledge gear is probably a proprietary bearing not available from another supplier. NH has it as pn 9808111.


Have you ever tried Malloy Electric in Sioux Falls for bearings?Was sent there years ago when needed a bearing for a Schwartz silage wagon that turned one way but not the other like a ratchet ,they had it on hand!Schwartz was no longer in business and couldn't find anyone else that had it.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

PaMike said:


> Gearclash, You are right on the bearing number. The parts diagram shows that bearing no longer available separately, however my bearing has that number on it, and when I put it in the NH parts system it shows available. Looks like I will give it a try..


I just got that bearing from the local NH dealer this fall, they had it on hand, wasn't even made of unobtanium if the price is an indication.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

OhioHay said:


> We have had good luck with new Holland round balers....knock on wood. Over 18,000 bales on a 640 and almost 16,000 on a 7060. Have had minimal repairs on both. Both mainly have done dry hay, but both have baled stalks and wrapped bales. I don't know if the fact that we make 4x4.5 bales instead of 4x5's makes a difference. We may trade off the 640 this winter and are really considering a claas. Great local dealer and have been real pleased with our class big square.


I'm at 11,000 + bales on a 2013 baler making dense full size 4x5's.
With the pressure cranked and full chamber bale size, I don't know if that's what's causing failures. Otherwise it's greased, oiled, blown off, probably over-maintained and religiously stored inside. Never wrapped hay. 
I have a really good Claas dealer, too. (MM Weaver) They've been tempting me with a new baler, too.


----------



## OhioHay (Jun 4, 2008)

JD3430 said:


> I'm at 11,000 + bales on a 2013 baler making dense full size 4x5's.
> With the pressure cranked and full chamber bale size, I don't know if that's what's causing failures. Otherwise it's greased, oiled, blown off, probably over-maintained and religiously stored inside. Never wrapped hay.
> I have a really good Claas dealer, too. (MM Weaver) They've been tempting me with a new baler, too.


It would seem that a smaller bales would be easier on the baler, but the baler is a 4x5, so should be made to handle that.


----------



## Tx Jim (Jun 30, 2014)

OhioHay said:


> It would seem that a smaller bales would be easier on the baler, but the baler is a 4x5, so should be made to handle that.


Making smaller diameter bales on a belt type baler built to make larger diameter bales does put less stress on brgs,rollers & belts.


----------



## IH 1586 (Oct 16, 2014)

JD3430 said:


> I'm at 11,000 + bales on a 2013 baler making dense full size 4x5's.
> With the pressure cranked and full chamber bale size, I don't know if that's what's causing failures. Otherwise it's greased, oiled, blown off, probably over-maintained and religiously stored inside. Never wrapped hay.
> I have a really good Claas dealer, too. (MM Weaver) They've been tempting me with a new baler, too.


Where do set your monitor? I used to set at 60 on my JD but now I back it off to 58. End product measures in from 58.5 to 60 pending size of windrow and time to stop. Just not worth stress to make oversize bales every time and a bale at 61 is oversize.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

An update on the New Holland 560s. We are nearing one full year of ownership and operation. They were put in service in 2018, the Tuesday before Thanksgiving. When the weather shut us down for the fall a week later each baler had 1500 bales on it.

Today I had the dealer that sold me the balers come out to replace the belt declutches under warranty as both had failed, as in slipping under load failed. I might post pictures sometime of the failed parts. Suffice it to say they are junk. They were replaced with new delcutch drives but the declutch itself is now inoperable and the movable jaw is locked in place with a length of pipe. We had the mechanism that operated the declutch fail on both balers about 2 weeks ago and since then had run about 1000 bales through each without the declutch operating, no problems. I felt that was grounds for disabling the declutch permanently to avoid the hassle they create. We simply do not have time for declutches to be failing. The dealer was agreeable to that as they have done the same. Hopefully that is the end of the declutch problems. New Holland should have eliminated the declutch on the 560 right away. Everybody I talk to has had chronic problems with them. The dealer needed to know the total bale count on each baler for warranty reasons, one is at 4700 and the other is at 4850.

Most of the net wrap problems have been sorted, the only real issue left to solve is why the net doesn't always spread fully.

I am convinced that these balers are not as friendly to a rookie operator as the BR series.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Thanks for the update. The declutch is probably one of those legacy components that the company was afraid to change. While you have issues, I have yet to replace a declutch on a 560 baler but we are not baling thousands of corn stalk bales. Many have been running without the declutch for years for various reasons. The purpose of the declutch was to prevent scuffing the net when using low hydraulic flow tractors causing the tailgate to raise slowly. It was a solution no longer needed for most operators.

As for the net spread, there is one more update which can be done to your balers. I can not remember the details. Your dealer should be able to find the information. It involves adding a plate to the side sheets, I think.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

I think the reason for declutch problems are two fold. First seems to be the increased loading that the 560 puts on the delclutch drive. These balers pull harder than the BR series, and that makes the declutch harder to disengage when the door opens. My local dealer stocks dozens of the connector links and bushings for the roller chain that operates the declutch. The problem is compounded by the ability of these balers to do more bales in a day than the older balers which inevitably means the greasing interval for the declutch gets stretched out. Last fall on Thanksgiving day the two balers each did more than 450 bales.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

You are correct on your assumptions. When the capacity is increased, as on the 560, more stress and strain are put on the components. That equates to higher horsepower requirements if baling at the capacity of the baler. For us, I can not say I have seen the additional power requirements. That is the difference between different parts of the country.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

A word of advise to anybody considering doing a declutch delete on New Holland round balers. Don't be afraid to do it if your tractor has the hydraulic capacity. But be aware that without a knife roll sledge follower you may have trouble with damp trash hairpining between the scraper and the follower roll, which can become severe enough to cause belt slippage. I had heard this was possible, now I have seen it happen.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Have you ever sharpened the scraper. If I suspect a baler will be making wet hay, I will put an edge on the scraper along with adding to the length so the scraper is a tight fit between the sledge frame sides. Since the scraper, from the factory, has a square edge, the gap between the scraper and the roll is wider at the top of the scraper then the bottom which hairpins material as the roll rotates from the top to the bottom. With the edge sharpened the top of the scraper is now closer to the roll with a wider gap below.

For those interested, I have a post in my repair thread.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

mike10 said:


> Have you ever sharpened the scraper. If I suspect a baler will be making wet hay, I will put an edge on the scraper along with adding to the length so the scraper is a tight fit between the sledge frame sides. Since the scraper, from the factory, has a square edge, the gap between the scraper and the roll is wider at the top of the scraper then the bottom which hairpins material as the roll rotates from the top to the bottom. With the edge sharpened the top of the scraper is now closer to the roll with a wider gap below.
> 
> For those interested, I have a post in my repair thread.


Sharpening the scraper sounds like a good idea. I will try that.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

IH 1586 said:


> Where do set your monitor? I used to set at 60 on my JD but now I back it off to 58. End product measures in from 58.5 to 60 pending size of windrow and time to stop. Just not worth stress to make oversize bales every time and a bale at 61 is oversize.


I keep monitor at 60". Everything you say makes sense, but buying a baler and having to baby it doesn't. I need to make as close to a 4x5 @1,000lbs as possible for transportation efficiency.
Make the damn 4x5 baler so it'll happily crank out bales on the 60" setting for 30,000 bales or get out of making round balers.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Who cares what you have to set the monitor for to end up with the correct result? I have never in 12 years of NH baler ownership set my 72" balers for 72" and yet the bales usually are at or slightly under 72". There are too many variables that determine what the final bale size is. Throw a tape measure in the cab next time you are baling and check what the actual bale size is. You need to average the horizontal and vertical measurements. It's not ever worth the risk of making an oversize bale that maxes out the take-up arm travel. That will wreck a baler right quick. If everything is set right, you can set your monitor for 58" and the bale will be an actual 60" when you dump it.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I care! If you are selling me a 60" baler for 25-30k, then it better damn we'll make a 60" bale on the monitor and the physical product dumped out of the ass end, too!
Who wants to buy a baler, bring it to a field and begin worrying about backing off making a 60" bale or setting the monitor at 60" when you just paid NH for a 60" baler!
Does the owners manual say "bale capacity 60". CAUTION: set monitor at 58" so you don't break the baler"!?!?
Maybe you better set your tractor at 1950 RPM because at 2000 RPM the engine might grenade? 
Maybe you also should only load your 10k GVWR pickup to 9900 or the rear axle will break?
Who wants a china doll baler that might break if the monitor set at 60" even if calibrated correctly?
A 60" baler better be able to be set at 60" and make a 60" bale all day long or it's false advertising.

If there's "variables", as you say, then build the baler to handle the variables, don't force the owner to set the monitor at 58". Or make the monitors max setting 58"!


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

"A 60" baler better be able to be set at 60" and make a 60" bale all day long or it's false advertising."

The problem is if everything is calibrated perfectly to actual bale size you would have to stop instantly the instant the full bale alarm begins to sound. Because that is very hard on the tractor we don't try to do that. You can buy a Vermeer 605N Cornstalk Special, it has a declutch on the pickup that stops the pickup at full bale size. Then you can set the monitor to full bale size and not fill it past that. But I can tell you declutch tales of woe . . .

Edit to add. What you need to do is have your friendly New Holland dealer play with the bale size potentiometer calibration until your 60" monitor setting agrees with the finished bale size. What he will need to do is make the bale size "hit" 60 with the pot when in reality the bale size is about 59 or 59 1/2" actual. Then by the time you are stopped the bale will be 60 or 60 1/2" actual and everybody will be happy.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

From a trick I did with my 644, I set the monitor to make a 58" bale when it read 60", basically because I had the expeller roll on my 644 and the ears on it would cut the net if I made 60", but leaving the monitor at 58" droves me nuts. I did the same on my BR740A and most of the time since I have a bigger tractor on it by time I get stopped the bales still average 59-60" when the monitor reads 60".


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Mine is calibrated correctly-well at least now it is... I broke the upper roller because I didn't have it calibrated correctly. I was making 62" bales. That's on me for not calibrating, but I still don't want a 58" bale. My trailer is 30' long for a reason.

If I could buy a baler all over again, I'd buy a 4x6 and make 60-62" bales. I can hang the last bale 2' over the back edge.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

That is why we push 5x6 balers. There is no way in hell, pardon my French, that the operator can make exactly 60" bales every time, to many variables. Windrow size, unlevel bale, going down hills, uneven windrows, and operator fatigue. It does little good to measure the outer diameter of the bale if the middle of the bale contains more hay, which is most of the time. A giant caliper would come in handy. 5ft wide balers are more prone to over filling the center of the bale but it also happens with 4 ft balers. Is it possible to make a perfect bale, only if the windrow is perfect and the operator is on his toes.

The things that plague square baler bale shape are exactly the same with round balers.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

mike10 said:


> That is why we push 5x6 balers. There is no way in hell, pardon my French, that the operator can make exactly 60" bales every time, to many variables. Windrow size, unlevel bale, going down hills, uneven windrows, and operator fatigue. It does little good to measure the outer diameter of the bale if the middle of the bale contains more hay, which is most of the time. A giant caliper would come in handy. 5ft wide balers are more prone to over filling the center of the bale but it also happens with 4 ft balers. Is it possible to make a perfect bale, only if the windrow is perfect and the operator is on his toes.
> 
> The things that plague square baler bale shape are exactly the same with round balers.


You make a good point. If my 4x5 bales are 850-875lb, a 5x5 version would be 1,100lbs.

My trailer can carry 10 tons of hay. I presently load 23 @ 850lb bales. Thats 20,000 lbs.

I could reduce my baling time, loading time and more importantly, my precarious load balancing with 5x5 bales. I would do 12 on the bottom butted-tightly and 6 on the top in a single row, which makes for a lot less tippy top row. 18 5x5 bales @ 1,100lb is 19,800lbs. Load faster and safer. Less trips back and forth, too.

If I did a 4x6 baler and made a 62" bale, it would be taller, tippier and the bales would hang over the tailgate further on a 30' trailer.

On my 102" wide trailer, 5x5 bales butted tight would overhang only 10" on each side.

I think a 5x5 bale is the ultimate size for my situation, but I dont think NH makes a 5x5 silage special


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

I would strongly suggest to go to a 5x6 baler to make your 5x5 bales. Make 62, 64, 66" or larger bales and get even more capacity on your trailer. Most people in our area only make 66 to 68" bales.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

mike10 said:


> I would strongly suggest to go to a 5x6 baler to make your 5x5 bales. Make 62, 64, 66" or larger bales and get even more capacity on your trailer. Most people in our area only make 66 to 68" bales.


Agree, Only reason I wouldnt do 5x6 is because its a 7,500lb baler. A 5x5 is a 5,900lb baler. I think my 125HP Kubota would struggle on hills with a 7500lb baler and a full chamber, even if set at 60".

I am looking for a clean low bale count 5x5 sileage net wrap baler


----------



## Trotwood2955 (Sep 4, 2012)

JD what models are you keeping an eye out for? I didn’t think there were many just 5x5 balers out there. And trouble is in those models the Deere version (558, 559 etc) isn’t going to have adjustable density, if that matters to you, and the NH 5x5 don’t have a wide pickup for whatever reason. I don’t know if other brands even have a 5x5.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I have really good Claas & AGCO dealer and Krone dealers....
What about Vermeer?
I'm 100% not loyal to any brands.


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

I wasn’t happy with the net wrap system in my MF 2956A. It was miserable trying to keep it working fully while baling stalks. Don’t even remember what all I ended up doing to get it to work. Don’t miss it in the least. There’s a reason my dad wouldn’t speak to me for a few days after I pulled my first Hesston baler home all those years ago.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

Gearclash said:


> [font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]"You can buy a Vermeer 605N Cornstalk Special, it has a declutch on the pickup that stops the pickup at full bale size. Then you can set the monitor to full bale size and not fill it past that. But I can tell you declutch tales of woe . . .


im pretty sure the declutch is activated by the netwrap system not anything to do with bale size indicator.I have accidentally oversized some bales and mine does not decluch.At 74" a warning comes up on the screen and buzzer is going.You also have to reset the screen back to home. By touching the green check mark.

I have to change the full bale setting s in different crops.Faster it's feeding in the more the bale will grow from time the full bale buzzer goes off until I get stopped.Had to set mine on 66" baling stalks and by time I get stopped I end up at 71-72"

In hay my full bale buzzer is set at 68-70" depending on how heavy the hay is.

There is no way I'd set my bale size without taking into account windrow size and speed of travel.


----------



## Trotwood2955 (Sep 4, 2012)

I don’t think Claas or Krone make a 5ft wide baler. Vermeer does but think you’d have to go back a ways to get a dedicated 5x5. The Vermeer 5x6 is probably going to weigh in the heaviest followed by NH and then Deere (I’m not sure on other brands). You might look into the Deere models as they may be lighter weight for your hills than you think. Especially if you are going to stick to a 5ft tall bale.


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Mar 14, 2015)

In heavy hay I set my monitor 2-4" smaller than my desired bale size. Crusing at 5-7 mph by the time the buzzer goes off, I shift to neutral, and slam on the brakes I end up with a correct size or larger bale.

If you want to set the monitor at the desired bale size and make exact bales then just set your travel speed to .5mph sp that went the buzzer goes off very little hay is fed into the chamber after it says stop.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

My baler sends a "pre-full" warning before it hits 60". I just shift down a few gears and I'm able to make a 60" bale.
NH just discontinued its 5x5 baler. It was only available as a dry baler-no silage special.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

JD3430 said:


> Agree, Only reason I wouldnt do 5x6 is because its a 7,500lb baler. A 5x5 is a 5,900lb baler. I think my 125HP Kubota would struggle on hills with a 7500lb baler and a full chamber, even if set at 60".
> 
> I am looking for a clean low bale count 5x5 sileage net wrap baler


I am running 5x6 balers with a 115 hp 2wd tractor. It just laughed at the BR780A and BR7090, hills and all. Now with the 560s I can tell the tractor is closer to the limits of what it can do. The 560 is heavier than its predecessor and it seems to take a little more pto HP. This is a tractor with a CDC turbo 5.9l engine that is the equivalent of a Cummins, so it does have a pretty good punch for its rating. I don't think you would notice much difference between a 5x5 or a 5x6 if you have the bale set to the same size on each. I would have to think part support could be better on some 5x6 parts just because there are far more of them.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I think Deere is my only option on a 5x5 silage
I have little knowledge of Deere round balers
Hardly know where to start. 
I'm all set up for NH balers. Both tractors have Bale command plus monitors. Both have harvest tec wiring. 
Maybe the older 5x6 is worth a shot? A 7090? 
Can always sell it if it doesn't work out


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Were I you I would be more worried about the transport width of 2 5’ wide bales than I would be about any other facet of making 5’ bales. And I would spend exactly 0 time looking for a 5x5 baler. Go 5x6, lots more to pick from.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Gearclash said:


> Were I you I would be more worried about the transport width of 2 5' wide bales than I would be about any other facet of making 5' bales. And I would spend exactly 0 time looking for a 5x5 baler. Go 5x6, lots more to pick from.


For the last 6 years, I have been placing 4' wide bales spaced about 1&1/2-2' apart on the bottom, and the double upper row bales butted tight side by side so there's less chance of falling off. I only had a few of the many many hundreds of bale loads get tippy when I load and transport this way.
If I did 5'x 5' bales and butt the bottom double row tightly together, it's the same width, but now the upper row is just a single row in the middle, which won't be nearly as tippy as a double upper row.
So why would transport be a "worry", when it's less top heavy and less tippy?
In the picture, the bales are overhanging 8-12" over the edge of a 102" wide trailer. (The back pair is butted because the mega ramps are only 96" wide). 
If they were 5x5's they'd overhang only 6-8" on a 102 wide trailer. So I can go down the road at a little narrower width, too.

While I do agree a 5x6 baler is a more versatile choice with greater selection, the 1500 extra pounds shoving me down steep hills is a safety consideration and the pulling a 5x6 up a hill with a 1100lb bale is going to require dropping a gear or 2 compared to a 4x5 baler I currently use. A 5x5 baler is lighter than a 5x6.


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

Just because the baler is capable of making a 6’ bale, doesn’t mean you have to make a 6’ bale


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

JD3430 said:


> *For the last 6 years, I have been placing 4' wide bales spaced about 1&1/2-2' apart on the bottom, and the double upper row bales butted tight side by side so there's less chance of falling off.* I only had a few of the many many hundreds of bale loads get tippy when I load and transport this way.
> If I did 5'x 5' bales and butt the bottom double row tightly together, it's the same width, but now the upper row is just a single row in the middle, which won't be nearly as tippy as a double upper row.
> So why would transport be a "worry", when it's less top heavy and less tippy?
> In the picture, the bales are overhanging 8-12" over the edge of a 102" wide trailer. (The back pair is butted because the mega ramps are only 96" wide).
> ...


If you are doing that then you will be all set to haul 5' wide bales. You might like loading the trailer better with 5 footers even. I do wonder if you will give up some tonnage overall with a 5' wide bale if you place a single wide row on the second layer. Your best bet for load tonnage and overall baler satisfaction would be to use a 5x6 baler set to about 66". That should be the happy medium between fewer bales and a load that stacks denser.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Gearclash said:


> If you are doing that then you will be all set to haul 5' wide bales.  You might like loading the trailer better with 5 footers even. I do wonder if you will give up some tonnage overall with a 5' wide bale if you place a single wide row on the second layer. Your best bet for load tonnage and overall baler satisfaction would be to use a 5x6 baler set to about 66". That should be the happy medium between fewer bales and a load that stacks denser.


But how?

66" would only allow for 5 rows of bales on a 30' trailer-so only 10 on bottom and only 5 on top. Wouldnt that weigh less than 18) 5x5 ( 60") bales??

I was thinking a 62" bale...pushed up nice & tight...would be almost perfect. It would still result in 1' overhang past end of trailer, but I can handle that. Trailer is 30' 6 rows on bottom of 62" bales is 31'

18) 1,100-1,150 would be perfect.


----------



## Aaroncboo (Sep 21, 2014)

So theoretically if you got a 5x6 baler and only made them for 4ft round would that be the same amount of hay as a 4 x 5 that's 5 ft round and 4 ft wide?


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Now I'm seeing the 5x5 & 5x6 5' bale is actually 61.5" not 60".
4x5 bales are actually only 46.5" wide, not 48".
Never knew that...
That's going to make my load a little wider than I originally thought


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

JD3430 said:


> But how?
> 
> 66" would only allow for 5 rows of bales on a 30' trailer-so only 10 on bottom and only 5 on top. Wouldnt that weigh less than 18) 5x5 ( 60") bales??
> 
> ...


I was recommending the 5 x 5.5' bale purely from a theoretical point of view. I wasn't thinking about trailer length.

Now for some numbers. I am going to assume bale density is equal always. A 4x5 bale is 78.5 cubic ft, 22 on a load is 1727 cu ft. A 5x5.5 bale is 117 cu ft, a load of 15 is 1755 cu ft. A 5 x 62" bale is 104.8 cu ft, a load of 18 is 1781 cu ft.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Aaroncboo said:


> So theoretically if you got a 5x6 baler and only made them for 4ft round would that be the same amount of hay as a 4 x 5 that's 5 ft round and 4 ft wide?


Diameter usually trumps length. A 4x5 bale is 78.5 cubic feet, a 5x4 bale is 62.8 cubic feet.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

JD3430 said:


> 18) 1,100-1,150 would be perfect.


IMO No.Ive made some bales 5x5 bales for horse market.They suck.More bales to pickup.Less tons per hr with the baler.It just costs more to make a 5' bale then a 6' bale.5' bale adds bale count to monitor also,go to trade it's how many bales on machine just like miles on a vehicle.

30' trailer 14-5x6 Bales is perfect.Depends on the hay it could be to much weight for trailer so could make slightly shorter.I max out my trailer axles with 14 bales with 24,000 on them.

To me it's a nobrainer but then again I'm not concerned about width at all.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

swmnhay said:


> IMO No.Ive made some bales 5x5 bales for horse market.They suck.More bales to pickup.Less tons per hr with the baler.It just costs more to make a 5' bale then a 6' bale.5' bale adds bale count to monitor also,go to trade it's how many bales on machine just like miles on a vehicle.
> 
> 30' trailer 14-5x6 Bales is perfect.Depends on the hay it could be to much weight for trailer so could make slightly shorter.I max out my trailer axles with 14 bales with 24,000 on them.
> 
> To me it's a nobrainer but then again I'm not concerned about width at all.


Maybe in your operation that's true, but I don't make or market hay the same way you do. What works for you, doesnt work for everyone else.

80% of my bales are not made for the horse market and the 10% that are don't want a 6' diameter 1500lb bale. It's too hard for them to handle. A 5x6 wont fit in the Hay Huts my customers use, either. The remaining 10% are to feed cows and the feeder wont accept a 6' diameter bale, either.

I'm coming from a 4x5 bale, so a 5x5 bale will lower my bale handling time by 20%.

1500 4x5's now becomes 1200 5x5's. A load of 23 4x5's now becomes 18 5x5's.

But I do think a 5x6 baler might be the way to go. More balers to select from and I like the idea of not pushing a baler to its limits on bale size.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Gearclash said:


> I was recommending the 5 x 5.5' bale purely from a theoretical point of view. I wasn't thinking about trailer length.
> 
> Now for some numbers. I am going to assume bale density is equal always. A 4x5 bale is 78.5 cubic ft, 22 on a load is 1727 cu ft. A 5x5.5 bale is 117 cu ft, a load of 15 is 1755 cu ft. A 5 x 62" bale is 104.8 cu ft, a load of 18 is 1781 cu ft.


I'm really liking the efficiency of that 5' x 62" bale.

(I'm guessing a 61.5" x 62" bale is about 110 cu ft.)

A few other things to consider:

On hilly ground, a 5x5 will be more stable.

Will my current dual bale spear set up work-gotta check spear length- I think they're 36"....

When I lift 2) 900lb 4x5's, rear of tractor is fairly stable, but I think wheel weights will be needed and that's going to add another $1,000 to the budget- I dont do fluid or 3pt weights..


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Spear length shouldn't be an issue. I use 39" OAL spears on every bale that comes on the yard and I've about seen it all for bale size and quality. Regarding loader stability, that extra foot of bale sticking out in front of you will get your attention.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

JD3430 said:


> Maybe in your operation that's true, but I don't make or market hay the same way you do. What works for you, doesnt work for everyone else.
> 
> 80% of my bales are not made for the horse market and the 10% that are don't want a 6' diameter 1500lb bale. It's too hard for them to handle. A 5x6 wont fit in the Hay Huts my customers use, either. The remaining 10% are to feed cows and the feeder wont accept a 6' diameter bale, either.
> 
> ...


You have ALWAYS told us on HT your major market was mushroom hay!I wouldn't of given the advise I did if it was for horse market,

It's not difficult to make some 5x6 for mushroom hay and what you need for horses at 5x5.Thats what i do 5x6 for feedlots as heavy as I can make because they want them big,its less bales to handle.I might make 100 bales and that i go by scale on baler and set bales size to shoot for a 1000 lb bale.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

swmnhay said:


> You have ALWAYS told us on HT your major market was mushroom hay!I wouldn't of given the advise I did if it was for horse market,
> 
> It's not difficult to make some 5x6 for mushroom hay and what you need for horses at 5x5.Thats what i do 5x6 for feedlots as heavy as I can make because they want them big,its less bales to handle.I might make 100 bales and that i go by scale on baler and set bales size to shoot for a 1000 lb bale.


Right! and the 80% I spoke of is mushroom/mulch hay. I dont want a 5x6 bale because it's* too heavy* for my tractor. A 5x6 mushroom/mulch hay bale @ 20% would weigh 1500lbs or more. I cant go buying another bigger tractor to handle them! So no matter who the customer is, my tractor *cant handle* *bales that big 2 at a time*. I dont want to go backwards and do 1 bale at a time.

You always tell me you have bigger equipment than me and maybe yours can handle a 5x6 bale, but mine cant!

I dont know why its so hard for you to understand that I want to make a 5x5 bale to keep my weight ~1,100lbs so for these reasons:

1) my loader can lift them

2) My horse customer hay huts can handle them

3) they fit in cattle hay feeder

4) less tippy on truck and less tippy in field.

I can jump from a 4x5 to a 5x5 with my current equipment, but I cant jump to a 5x6.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Yup, full size 5x6 are big. 20% moisture hay in a 5x6 is going to be more like 1800-2000lbs +, especially if the baler is cranked tight. I've taken some of my own bales across the scale at 1800, and the baler what nowhere near its max pressure setting.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Gearclash said:


> Yup, full size 5x6 are big. 20% moisture hay in a 5x6 is going to be more like 1800-2000lbs +, especially if the baler is cranked tight. I've taken some of my own bales across the scale at 1800, and the baler what nowhere near its max pressure setting.


Thank You!

5x5, or to be technical 61.5" x 60-62", ought to be just right for MY situation.

If my bale weight average on a 20% bale is 875 and my average bale weight on a 14% bale is ~800, adding 20-25% weight when making a ~5x5 should be right around 1050-1100.

Another good thing about a 5x6 is that if in the event I do come into a larger loader tractor, I could make 5.5-6' x 5' bales. Dont think itll ever happen, but it's better than being limited to a 5x5 baler.

Now the NH 5x6 balers weight still has me bugged. I will be pulling a baler that weighs 1300 more pounds and the bale will weigh about 200 more lbs.


----------



## swmnhay (Jun 13, 2008)

JD3430 said:


> Right! and the 80% I spoke of is mushroom/mulch hay. I dont want a 5x6 bale because it's* too heavy* for my tractor. A 5x6 mushroom/mulch hay bale @ 20% would weigh 1500lbs or more. I cant go buying another bigger tractor to handle them! So no matter who the customer is, my tractor *cant handle* *bales that big 2 at a time*. I dont want to go backwards and do 1 bale at a time.
> 
> You always tell me you have bigger equipment than me and maybe yours can handle a 5x6 bale, but mine cant!
> 
> ...


I'd sooner pickup one 1800# bale then 2 1000# bales.It will be way faster.You wouldn't be going back wards at all

Im giving you advise not bragging how I do it and thats what HT is about.

But then do you want advise or just someone to agree?


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

I looked up the advertised shipping weight on the NH BR7000 series balers. You are right that the 5x5 weighs 1500 less than a 5x6. Knowing what I do about those balers, I am a little suspicious that the 5x5 is actually built a little lighter as I see no reason there should be that much weight difference. Maybe mike10 can shed a little light on that. IMO, you won't have a problem with a 5x6 baler. As I said earlier, I pull them with a 2wd 115 hp tractor that is not especially heavy. We don't have the steep hills here like some parts of the country but I do go road ditch hopping with this rig sometimes and so far I haven't ever got in trouble with it. Sometimes we are crawling up or down some pretty steep stuff with maybe a near full chamber and I have yet to get pushed around. I do like the bigger heavier tractor with big tires and MFD better for this job but the lighter 2wd with cookie cutter rears will do it well enough.


----------



## carcajou (Jan 28, 2011)

One thing to consider, going to a larger diameter bale spoilage can be dramatically less. It also takes up a lot less bale yard space.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Another thought in the "positive" column:

A 5x6 would be 1000RPM.

My 4x5 is 540 RPM.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

JD3430 said:


> Another thought in the "positive" column:
> 
> A 5x6 would be 1000RPM.
> 
> My 4x5 is 540 RPM.


5x6 can be either. I've had both and I'd rather have 540. Less vibration if things are getting a little loose and the 540 CV will last about twice as long as the 1000. The 1000 pto is too light on the BR series balers.

5' wide baler means you should have a uniform 5' wide windrow. That can be difficult to accomplish in light crop. Depends a lot on crop conditions and your rake. The other thing related to this is you should have your tractor wheels set for at least 5' between the inside of the sidewalls, 6' is better.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Gearclash said:


> 5x6 can be either. I've had both and I'd rather have 540. Less vibration if things are getting a little loose and the 540 CV will last about twice as long as the 1000. The 1000 pto is too light on the BR series balers.
> 
> 5' wide baler means you should have a uniform 5' wide windrow. That can be difficult to accomplish in light crop. Depends a lot on crop conditions and your rake. The other thing related to this is you should have your tractor wheels set for at least 5' between the inside of the sidewalls, 6' is better.


Wow, thats solid info! Thanks. ]

If making a smaller 5' diameter bale, will having the lighter-duty 1000 PTO be less of a problem than making 6' bales? Or is it more of an issue with simply engaging the PTO and turning that prematurely wears it out?

I guess I'll give back some fuel economy on the weight of the baler and higher PTO HP requirement, too. Thinking that might negate the 1000PTO fuel savings?

Found this: https://www.tractorhouse.com/listings/farm-equipment/for-sale/150469505/2013-new-holland-br7090


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Mar 14, 2015)

Personally I'd want a 540 baler also. Any wear in a 1k shaft shows up as a huge vibration.

As for that baler at Swiderski in Appleton take everything their sales dept says with a grain of salt. Last year they had a BR7070 that was low bale count, perfect condition ready to go yadda yadda yadda. So i made the 4 hour trip to find the baler in question missing parts in the pickup, chain tensioner sprocket replaced with a chunk of oak, welding all over it, etc. Salemans said "it is what it is take it of leave it" and walked away.

After looking over all 4 of the BR7070s they had on the lot ranging from expensive to very expensive I wouldn't have given 100 bucks for anyone of them.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Yeah I was kind of expecting that. Need to hear that sort of feedback.

I would rather buy local. Not a ton of 5x6 selection in my area. Theres a newer roll belt 5x6 specialty crop, but its 27K.

https://www.messicks.com/used/roundbalers/107461

I was trying to find something decent for 15-18.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

I prefer the 540 also, but there are some considerations for going 1000. The biggest is weight, the 1000 is much easier to handle. Many larger tractors only come in 1000 so that will be a consideration in future tractor purposes. The cons are you can expect the 1000 to wear out faster since it is making two revolutions for each on revolution of a 540. The lightness of the shaft should not be much of a consideration as far as holding up since you can put twice the torque through a 1000 than a 540 of the same size. So theoretically a 1000 only needs to 1/2 as strong as the 540.

Why the 5x5 NH is 1500 lbs lighter is a matter of small differences adding up. The rolls are the same the pickup is the same for a standard 5x6. The 5x5 also has one less tailgate roll, I am thinking without looking. the belts are shorter and the frame is shorter. The standard wheels are smaller on a 5x5. The net system is the same as is the gearbox. The pto drive shaft is smaller though.

After a customer had 3 5x5 balers over the 10 years, I finally convinced him to go with the 560. He was in recently and said he hated to admit it, but I was correct. Baling with a 5x6 baler is much better. His problem was tractor also. It wasn't that he did not have a big enough tractor, but the tractor he wanted to use was smaller. When you are limited in the number of big tractors, you have to make decisions on where to use it. He did get a new ts3.130 or 140 so he uses that on the baler now. That would compare to your Kubota, JD. He does a lot of custom work in the area so he gets on some steep hills, I seen it. FWD is a must in those cases and that size tractor.


----------



## carcajou (Jan 28, 2011)

Better have a good hitch too. There is a lot of hitch weight on the newer 5x6 JD and Vermeer balers. I don't know about the NH balers.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

carcajou said:


> Better have a good hitch too. There is a lot of hitch weight on the newer 5x6 JD and Vermeer balers. I don't know about the NH balers.


My current BR7060 weighs in at 5615lbs

BR 7090 weighs in at 6920 (+1,305)

But I don't have a spec on the weight of a BR7090 "specialty crop" model. I would think even heavier.

Bale is going to weigh more, too.

Man I wish they offered brakes. It would be incredibly helpful and safer on steep hills

One of the reasons I thought the 5x5 is ideal is because its a lighter baler.

Pretty sure Deere has a 5x5 silage special baler.


----------



## carcajou (Jan 28, 2011)

I've never needed brakes even on real hilly ground, but many times wished i had more hp.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

carcajou said:


> I've never needed brakes even on real hilly ground, but many times wished i had more hp.


Are you running a 5x6? how much tractor HP do you have in front of it? 5x6 needs minimum 80PTO HP, but that's flat ground. I have 115 PTO, but a few nasty hills


----------



## stack em up (Mar 7, 2013)

I ran 153 hp on my MF 2756 and 2956, seemed adequate although as far as power goes, mores the better!


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Time for another update on the 2018 New Holland Specialty Crop 560 balers. Last fall our stalk baling season got cut severely short by the weather and the crop conditions. In the last 12 days we have been able to complete most of the baling work that should have been done last fall. One year ago today, each baler had about 1500 bales on the counter. As of today, each machine has about 7,000 bales on it. For the most part, the balers have been trouble free. A few net wrap hiccups here and there. One baler needed the net roll brake release linkage tweaked, and we also had some trouble with ferrous dust building up on the duckbill home position sensor and causing wrapping errors. We did have a starter roll chain break this week. I sharpened the follower roll scraper and so far we have not had problems with trash hair pinning on the scraper. The declutch delete has worked out well so far.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Have you any idea where the ferrous dust was coming from. What were the symptoms when this occurred? I would think there would have to be alot of the dust to make the sensor sense the duckbill was always in the home position.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

mike10 said:


> Have you any idea where the ferrous dust was coming from. What were the symptoms when this occurred? I would think there would have to be alot of the dust to make the sensor sense the duckbill was always in the home position.


The ferrous dust comes from our soils. I was warned about this problem by the dealer tech when he came out to set the balers up when they were new. It seems to be a problem mainly when baling cornstalks in very low humidity conditions when the raking and baling processes can significantly aerosolize soil dust. The symptom of this problem is the wrapping cycle will start normally but then shortly after it starts the monitor will show an error and say to stop the baler. The baler will not stop wrapping if the PTO is not shut off. There will be an error code, I can't remember any more what it was. It is not a code that gets stored. All the magnetic sensors on the baler will get this buildup on them, it seems the duckbill home sensor is the first to get fooled. It takes at least a couple hundred bales for that dust to build up to levels where it causes problems. I'll see if I can get a picture of a sensor with dust buildup on it.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

I would say this is at least halfway to malfunctioning. The duckbill must be lowered somewhat manually to see and clean the sensor.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

That is interesting


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Another update on the 2 2018 New Holland 560 Specialty Crop round balers. Never in my life have I made so many bales in one year! As mentioned above, we baled stalks this spring, then baled some hay this summer, but not a large amount really, then made a lot of bales this fall. Looked at the bale counters today and one baler has just over 10,000 bales and the other just over 13,000 bales. No serious problems so for. Tweaked some things this summer, most notably welding the starter roll rods fully. It was very dry this fall so ferrous dust buildup on the sensors was a chronic problem. Sensors need to be cleaned daily to guarantee trouble free operation. Also learned that the net roll counter sensor attracts ferrous dust and will malfunction. Had a bearing on a net roll counter lock and cause an over wrapped bale. Couple chain idler bearings needed to be replaced as well. Pretty easy to keep them on hand and replace them as needed. The ones to watch are the on the starter roll drive chain and the sledge roll drive chain. They get net wrap in them which takes out the seal.

A note about the declutch delete. It turns out that for whatever reason, even a declutch that is not being used as a declutch will fail. Presumable at some point during the baling cycle the jaws separate and slam back together again and over time the jaws will begin to chip out until there is no jaw left to engage. We replaced the declutch style drive with the one piece sprocket that I think is from the 2019 models. So far so good on them.

Ran across one other bit of idiocy, the first smooth roll that the net runs across after coming off the net roll. The bearing system that holds it in place is pitifully weak and fails. Fortunately it is not a crippling failure, just one of those things that can be put off till there is time to fix it.

Hate to think about it but I think the CVs in the PTO are wore out and need to be replaced. Really wish I could just scrap the CV idea. They are nice when they are new but just don't last long enough.

Pick up tines are getting near the end of their useful life as well. Those of you that bale only hay will get far more life out of them that I do. For what it's worth I have not replaced a single tine yet. Each baler is missing a few. By comparison, my first baler made it to about 8,000 bales before I tossed the whole set of tines (NH OEM steel tines) and replaced them.


----------



## say hay (Jun 5, 2020)

I wonder what mike 10 thinks about the heavier driveline on the specialty crop plus? I also wonder what is different about the duckbill on 2021 models.


----------



## say hay (Jun 5, 2020)

What are warning points?


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

say hay said:


> What are warning points?


Big brother is watching.... waiting for you to call someone a guy (when it was really a female) or perhaps callling someone a sissy (which makes you a bully, can't have those..) or maybe you once said that someone like, say....Nancy Pelosi, was ugly when everyone knows she's way more beautiful than Melania. Things like that....Big Brother will come down from on high and place warnings on your account, any guns in the household are subject to seizure and to re-education camps you will go......
(I'm just speculating but in today's upside down world, anything is possible.  )


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Did welding the starter roll rods take care of the net wrapping on that roll?

I have yet to see net get into the idlers on the 560 balers. I would suspect dull knives or low net tension.

Counter roller bearings I have seen some lock up. What I have seen is the extra net put on the bale is not form the counter roller not turning and thus not counting, but the locked bearing adds additional drag to the net roll and the duckbill motor will stall.

The small smooth roll bearing problem, I have not seen. I did not think the net made much contact with that roll, but I have not sat down and actually watched what purpose it serves.

The declutch was probably worn by the time you disconnected the linkage, but the one piece sprocket will solve that issue.

1000 rpm cv drive lines wear out twice as fast as 540 cv drive lines and you are probably right the end of their life is near.

The rubber mounted pickup times seem to go on forever without a failure. In your less than optimal conditions, I was wondering how they were holding up.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

mike10 said:


> *Did welding the starter roll rods take care of the net wrapping on that roll?*
> 
> Yes it did.
> 
> ...


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Thanks for the info. I took a look at a 560 I have in the shop with 14000 bales on it to see when the small roll comes into play. The bearings on the roll in this baler are ok, but I can see in your conditions the small bearings may be more likely to fail because of the dirt.

How is the rough surface of the belts holding up. The baler I have here has laced belts and there appears to very little if any wear to the rough surface.

With the bottom of the duckbill several inches below the side opening where the chains are located you must have a very long tail for the net to reach the chains. I have also moved some duckbill stops for a longer tail, but have not seen the net in the chains and idlers. It appears it would not be too hard to add a cover to close off that opening.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

mike10 said:


> *Thanks for the info. I took a look at a 560 I have in the shop with 14000 bales on it to see when the small roll comes into play. The bearings on the roll in this baler are ok, but I can see in your conditions the small bearings may be more likely to fail because of the dirt.*
> 
> The bearings themselves don't go out. What happens is the outer race of the bearing starts to wobble in the end of the tube. Then the funky little plastic self aligning thing that holds the tiny little shaft that goes in the bearing gets mangled. To me it looks like the solution is to double up the little bearing. Incidentally, I stopped to look at a used NH 560 on a local dealer lot. It had the same problem.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

One other odd problem that appeared this fall. Strictly a crop condition/operator thing. On one of the first fields we did, we ran into problems where the net would not start wrapping. Everything seemed normal with wrap system. Turned out that there was so much fine stalk material falling out the front of the sledge roll area that there was trash stacked up from the top of the wind guard on up behind the trash baffle and in front of the sledge rolls into the area the duckbill has to pass through. The solution was to push the balers as hard as they would take the crop in and not plug the pick up. Never had that problem on another field.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Those sledge frame wear plates can slice the net on the ends. I had to remove the wear plate one side on a baler to correct the problem. The wear plates were not protruding and had no sharp edges, but removing the wear plate took care of the problem. The down side is you need to watch for sledge frame wear like on the BR balers. What I observed is the net would be over the edge on the first revolution but on the second revolution the net started coming apart.

If you are slicing the net on the ends of the bale, that may be where your net in the idlers is coming from. The loose net gets everywhere.and on the ends of the rolls.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Typical bale with one edge of the net shredded.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Look familiar. Removing the wear plate on that side took care of the problem. I have not looked into what exactly on the wear plate is catching the net except I could not see any spot where the net could catch. The other area I thought might be the cause is the anti wrap brackets welded over the floor roll. In fact that was where I was planning to start until I received information from NH that they had heard from another dealer the wear plate was the cause.

It reminds me of when a customer asked why he had the problem and no one else since they were the same baler. I told him same is not the same as identical. We have three children, they were made using the same procedure with the same equipment, but they turned out similar, but different.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

I am wondering of worn wear plates causes it as I don't recall seeing this irritation until more recently. When the balers were new I don't think they shredded the edge. It doesn't always happen now either.

Thank you much for your input!!


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Follow up on the wear plates/shredded net wrap on the edges. So I replaced the wear plates on the baler I am currently using. They were worn pretty noticeably. Approximately 13,500 bales on them. I would recommend replacing them sooner, maybe at something like 10,000 bales. So I had been thinking about this deal for a while before replacing the wear plates. The belt edge that runs against the wear plate tends to wear also and get rough. Some of this I think comes from the small gap that there is between the wear plate and follower roller. I think the belt tends to try to cut into that gap. My thought was that just replacing the wear plate was not going to be entirely satisfactory as the worn belt edge would still try to squeeze into that gap and result in net damage and/or belt damage. So I swapped belts 1 and 2 and belts 7 and 8 so there are now fresh square belt edges against the new wear plates. 700 bales since that and so far so good. Need to tweek the belt tracking a little it looks. As a side note, belt tracking on these balers is impressive. The original belt guides are still in yet with minimal wear. BRs would be on guide 2 or 3 by now. 

If I could suggest a change to NH, I would say that wear plate should be inset in the take up arm to eliminate the gap between the plate and the follower roll.

Also, I was warned that the bolts retaining the plates are a bear to get out. Knowing that, I used an air chisel with a socket adapter on it. The adapter has a hex on it for an open end wrench. The idea is to hammer and put wrench torque on a fastener at the same time. Hammered like crazy and applied some judicious wrench effort at the same time. None of the wear plate bolts twisted off or spun the hex drive out.

It took as long to change the wear plates as it did to swap the belts around. I think the whole deal can be done in about an hour.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Old and new wear plates.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Belt tracking is another reason I recommend customers install premium belts from a 560 into their older balers. In the abrasive conditions you are in The inserts held up well but were definitely due to be changed


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Another incident worthy of mention. Code 104.04 (right bale shape sensor low voltage or shorted to low voltage) turned up at one point. Soon became persistent anytime the chamber was empty. Oddly, that shape sensor seemed to work normally other wise. Had the same code on the same baler last year and that POT was bad. Attempting to recalibrate that POT failed, showed the --- indicating out of range reading. After some head scratching and messing about it become apparent there was nothing wrong with the POT, it was a mechanical problem allowing the POT to fall too low in its travel range. Pulled the shape sensor assy and disassembled it. The pin that the bale sensing bar pivots on has a worn spot in it and that allows the bar to move too far out of the chamber, and that in turn moves the POT into a range that is unacceptable to the controller. For now I turned the pin 180* but it should be replaced. There is also a bushing in the bar that should be replaced.

And one other bizarre incident -- continues my love/hate relationship with electronics -- changed net wrap once and when I tried to rewrap the bale the duckbill actuator wouldn’t do a thing. Nothing. Didn’t respond to manual command either. Got this odd error to the effect of open circuit to the actuator. What in the world?? Well, it said open circuit so let’s look for an open circuit . . . After a few minutes searching -- some how, something in the spare net roll compartment at the front of the baler had managed to uncouple the main power connector to the actuator . . . and I had just taken that roll out to use it.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

But, all that electronic stuff is what farmers want. At least that is what we hear from the manufacturers. For the most part the problems have not been too bad, just confusing. Had a bale shape problem like you mentioned only it was the small link between the sensor arm and pot. The link would go over center and the sensor arm would appear to be working correctly. This was on an early model before NH changed the amount of sensor arm that remains in the bale chamber. I still take a look at the balers though when they come in for service.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

This is an excellent way to stall an actuator







. . .


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

I think NH should hire you to field test their machines. By the way, you may have done it intentionally, but you are missing the jam nut from your brake adjustment eyebolt.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Good chance the stop nut went AWOL fairly early on in the career of the baler when we were still sorting out net wrap adjustments. 

Regarding the field testing . . . well, in one year my balers might bale alfalfa, grass, wheat hay, winter rye hay, soybean straw and corn stalks, each of which has different characteristics. And we have sometimes baled in the most extreme conditions when others might just leave the baler parked.

A point of interest for you, this baler just turned over 14,000 bales -- on the original rubber mounted pickup tines. I am impressed.

One other thing -- the PTOs needed to be replaced -- I don’t like to pay CNH’s markup on vendor parts like these -- contacted discbinedr as he has sold me drivelines for the BRs -- the exact replacement for these balers was on indefinite backorder (!!). He did some digging and found that the Bondioli and Pavisi G7 driveline would work as a front half replacement for the Roll Belt 560 Specialty Crop 1000 rpm PTO -- however it is NOT a free rotation female half, and the shield fits together different than the original. The lack of free rotation is not a concern with the 1000 PTO but it would be a real handicap on the 540. The G7 substitute was less expensive also.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

If you got 14000 out of a 1000 shaft, you did pretty good. It is hard to convince customers that 1000 ptos wear out faster than 540. After all they make twice the revolutions.

If you have not, I would replace the right drive roll bearing and the bearing behind the triple sprockets. Same bearing part number.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

And another new one. A 2” rock in the wrong place can stop the stuffer cold. Couldn’t dislodge the rock in the field either. This would appear to be one of the reasons the local dealers retime the augers on the over shot feeder. The factory timing must have made this problem more prevalent. Really can’t see from the front of the baler that a rock is stuck in there. Either have to feel back there or look underneath.


----------



## Ray 54 (Aug 2, 2014)

That's not that much of a rock. From first picture I was think about twice of the one your holding. I got million of that size I better stick with my 1970's wire tie.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

An update on the pair of New Holland 560 Specialty Crop round balers, purchased new November of 2018. 

As of this writing they have approximately 15,000 and 17,000 bales each. We are at a point where they are going to need some serious money spent on them. Up till now we have only replaced some lower dollar wear items, plus the PTOs due to the CV joints being worn out. Before next season they will need new pickup tines. The originals are done for. The rubber is fatigued out, some have broken, and the tips of the tines are significantly worn. I have noticed with some interest that the first tines to fail have been the “special” tines that are missing that outer rubber rib to clear the tine bar support disc. Methinks all the replacement tines will be of the standard part number, with only part of the one rib ground off where needed. Also most of the chains and some of the sprockets need to be replaced. NH uses an obscure brand of chain from the factory, but it is a very durable chain. 

Another problem that will need attention this winter is the smooth stationary roll right behind the stationary net spreader spiral roll. The bearing arrangement for that smooth roll does not hold up. I will post pictures of them. We have had a significant amount of trouble with the net not wanting to start wrapping. I am convinced that these smooth rolls not functioning properly is at the root of this problem. When the duckbill is inserted and the bale is beginning to grab the net, the net is making a near 90 turn around that smooth roll. I think if that roll can’t turn, there is too much friction in the system and the bale and fixed chamber roll can’t generate enough pull to overcome that friction and get the net started. This problem comes and goes and I think it has some to do with how much pressure the tension system has in it when the wrap cycle starts. 

One other problem we ran into at the end of the season was the take up arm reset spring links breaking. Poor design in my opinion. As with the big BR series balers, the 560s will also function fine with one tension spring missing. Turn the pressure up a hundred psi or so on the hydraulic tension system and carry on. Pictures of this also.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Pictures.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Pictures of my fix for the smooth net roller bearing problem, see post #141 in this thread. I add a second small bearing. The bearing is 7mm wide so I cut the counterbore of the roller 4mm deeper and cut 3mm from the shoulder of the little bushing the connects the little bearing to the support bolted to the frame. I used retaining compound Loctite to keep the bearings in the roller as the bore gets loose from the bearing wobbling all over. That little plastic bearing looking thing has to be replaced as well.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

I am impressed. 17,000 bales and there is negligible wear on the belt guide. The BR balers would burn through these things every 5000 bales or so.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Gearclash said:


> Follow up on the wear plates/shredded net wrap on the edges. So I replaced the wear plates on the baler I am currently using. They were worn pretty noticeably. Approximately 13,500 bales on them. I would recommend replacing them sooner, maybe at something like 10,000 bales. So I had been thinking about this deal for a while before replacing the wear plates. The belt edge that runs against the wear plate tends to wear also and get rough. Some of this I think comes from the small gap that there is between the wear plate and follower roller. I think the belt tends to try to cut into that gap. My thought was that just replacing the wear plate was not going to be entirely satisfactory as the worn belt edge would still try to squeeze into that gap and result in net damage and/or belt damage. So I swapped belts 1 and 2 and belts 7 and 8 so there are now fresh square belt edges against the new wear plates. 700 bales since that and so far so good. Need to tweek the belt tracking a little it looks. As a side note, belt tracking on these balers is impressive. The original belt guides are still in yet with minimal wear. BRs would be on guide 2 or 3 by now.
> 
> If I could suggest a change to NH, I would say that wear plate should be inset in the take up arm to eliminate the gap between the plate and the follower roll.
> 
> ...


I want to post another follow up to this. I had a baler shredding the net again on one side. Checked the wear of both sledge frame wear plates. One showed wear (the side that was shredding the net) the other was like new. Lower belt guide wear showed all the belts wear tracking in the direction of the worn sledge plate, so I bumped the belt tracking toward the unworn side. Net shredding mostly went away.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Since we are finished baling for this year I thought I would update this thread again. The two 2018 NH 560s are now at 22,600 and 22,800 bales. We did have to spend some money on them this year, most notably new pickup teeth and new chains and sprockets on the left side. We will need to replace more chains and sprockets on the right hand side of the balers before next season, but that is considerably less $$$$ than the left side. The other upcoming problem is that the side sheets are wearing through, so I will need to put liners in them this winter. If I buy new balers again I will put liners in them after the first year of use rather than wait until the original sides have holes in them. The wear seems to make the side sheets bubble in odd places. The problem that I noted at the top of this page with the smooth net wrap roller is still not resolved, that is also something that will have to be addressed this winter. Really irks me how NH thought those frail little bearings and plastic mounts were going to hold up to any kind of use. I am also starting to see more bearing failures, so I will have to check them more frequently for incipient failure. I also put new infeed discs in shortly before the end of the season. That is another thing I could kick an NH engineer over. There are no prepunched holes in the side sheet for the replacement discs like there are on the BR series balers. And, to the best of my knowledge, the 560s use two different infeed discs from the factory, but there is only one replacement PN and that is supposed to be a one size fits all deal. I was all around not impressed. While I was replacing the infeed discs, I also replaced the ‘eyebrows’ over the starter roll; they were wore almost to nothing in the middle. That is something that NH doesn’t even sell as a replacement part so far as I can tell, so I cut my own. The ‘eyebrows’ over the floor roll will need to be replaced this winter as well. The hardware for the bale shape sensors all needs to be replaced as well; the wedges are worn, the pins they pivot on are worn, the plastic clip on the linkage is worn, and the potentiometers have occasionally been failing.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

While the eyebrow brackets are not listed in the parts book they may still be available, but you need to know where to look. I put a set in last year in a bale slice baler where I removed the slice starter roll with a standard starter roll. Bale slice balers did not use the eyebrow brackets. I can not remember if I took them out of our stock or if I ordered them. I think I ordered at least one. If I get a chance I may look it up.

The first year production of the BR balers did not have the eyebrow bracket. Installing them was part of a PIP at that time. I knew the part number was in the service bulletin at that time, but I did not do a search if they show up in any parts catalog.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Those eyebrows are pretty easy to make with 5/16” plate steel and plasma cutter with a circle cutter jig. What I maybe should have done was use AR400 steel instead of mild steel, but it might not make much difference.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

The part number for the eyebrow bracket is 87039466. Should be less than 30.00 and are available. For some reason every model br and roll belt baler is listed but not the 560, but the only diagram that calls out that number is the BR780 prior serial number, in other words first production. While the part is in that parts list the number is not called out in the diagram.

The eyebrows for the floor roll are also available.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Until NH came with the moisture sensors the plates were always welded into place. They caution against just bolting the plates in place because the hole would go through a box beam so there would be not enough support for the nut on the outside. There are probably ways to get around this, but would require fabrication and thus changes to the frame which I am sure NH would not advise since it changes the original design.


----------

