# Minimum Tractor HP for small Round Balers?



## mpropst

Hi Folks. I'm in the market for a newer/used tractor, and we are switching over from square bales to round bales, probably about 100-120 a year. Anyway, I know I want a tractor with a loader, and maybe 4WD, but that's not a hard requirement, but I'm wondering what's the lowest amount of HP I can use to successfully run a small 4x4 or 4x5 Round Baler...also, do you recommend any specific (small) round baler over another? I'm on flat ground and am only rolling orchard grass. 

Your expert advice is appreciated.


----------



## slowzuki

The smallest 4x4 balers can run on 40ish hp but are much faster with 65 hp or better.


----------



## r82230

Welcome to HT, mpropst.

NH Utility 450 literature says as little as 40HP, NH regular 450 baler says 60-100HP, JD 449 baler literature says 45HP, JD459 baler literature 55HP. I don't think you will find many NH Utility or JD449 balers, more likely the regular NH450 and JD459, so the common tread is at least 55-60HP.

IMHO, a 4x5 baler 60HP with an older tractor (25-30 years old), would be maybe OK, with a newer 60HP tractor, too light in the rear end (might be a maybe OK as far as ponies under the hood). I think you would be much happier with 75-85HP and you wouldn't be puckering up something trying to stop the full baler, like you would with a smaller (lighter) tractor. And you would be really smiling with a 100-120 ponies, under your rear end.

I pull a 5x5 baler around with a 115HP tractor, when the baler is full the tractor knows there is something behind it. In a extreme pinch I could hook up a 70HP, but the coal would be rolling (and I would be going slower). Flat ground or not you don't just need to be able to pull the baler, but stop it without having to change your drawers very often.

Lastly you didn't mention what you are cutting with, but if you ever end up with a disc mower (some call a discbine), you will appreciate the 100HP even more.

My couple of pennies today.

Larry


----------



## mpropst

Thanks Gentlemen. So a disc mower requires more HP also than a regular old mower/conditioner? I would think it would be less since it's so much smaller and is a 3-point connection versus a pull-along on wheels like my dad's old Mow/Co


----------



## BWfarms

mpropst said:


> Thanks Gentlemen. So a disc mower requires more HP also than a regular old mower/conditioner? I would think it would be less since it's so much smaller and is a 3-point connection versus a pull-along on wheels like my dad's old Mow/Co


There are 3 point sickle bars too. However it takes more power to turn each cutter assembly on a disc mower. The 'bine' term as haybine or 'moco' as in mower conditioner is brand specific but essentially the same. This add on a little more complexity from the 3 point style. The pull types (either sickle or disc) have different conditioning options from flail to roller (metal or rubber). Then we get into pto and hydraulic drive lines followed by center pivot or swing arm. It's best to go to a dealership and see the differences first hand. Of course, it will probably look foreign to you, so a salesman or woman on hand helps...sometimes.


----------



## bool

Yes, a disc mower or mower-conditioner needs much more power than a sickle mower or mower-conditioner. At least twice the power for the same width, and that would be still a bit underpowered. Say three times to be happy and comfortable.

My main tractor is a NH TS100 (100 hp). It pulls my Claas rollant 66 round baler (5' x 4') no problem, though if I try to put too much hay in the bale it bogs down quickly (the baler is a fixed chamber machine). Looking at the specifications in the various brochures, it seems variable chamber round balers (with belts) need less power than fixed chamber machines.

This season I cut with my neighbour's Krone Easycut 280CV mower-conditioner (9', flails, 3 point linkage) and I would not have wanted any less power. I also would not have wanted any less weight. I added 6x45kg weights to the front of the tractor and needed them. When I was cleaning the Krone yesterday before putting it away for the season the weights were not on the front of the tractor and the right rear tyre was well flattened by the weight of all that machine hanging of the right rear corner of the tractor.

The TS100 handles my own Taarup 305 mower-conditioner (7', flails, 3pl) more easily, but I doubt my JD 2130 (70hp) would be happy driving the Taarup. My guess is adding a conditioner (whether flails or rollers) adds between one-third and one-half to the power requirement of a disc mower.

In comparison, my old NH 461 sickle-bar mower-conditioner (9', rollers) could be run comfortably with 35 or 40 hp. When I hook it up to my TS100 I use ecomony PTO speed (1100 engine rpm) and the tractor hardly knows it's there.

So I would suggest you need at least 80 hp, preferably 100, unless you are very careful in your choice of equipment. I do cut a bit more than you (100 or 120 acres a year, 300 5x4 hay rolls and 400 4x4 silage rolls this season) but not massively more.

To me, the warning sign in your question is "lowest amount of HP I can use to successfully run". A smaller tractor is more nimble, but being underpowered is no fun at all and can be dangerous. It also leaves no room for expansion. And where I am you can buy a second-hand 100 hp tractor for not much more than a 50 hp tractor.

Roger


----------



## MtnHerd

We ran a Vermeer Rebel 5420 (which only requires 40 pto hp with the restrictor plates, but recommends 50 pto hp) up until this year with a 4x4 John Deere 5205 (around 50hp at the pto). It always pulled it, just had to go to low first sometime in haylage on the steep hills. Also, would have to be careful and not have a full load in the baler on the steep sections or it would run away. This year I bought a 4x4 Ford 5640 with a cab (around 65 pto hp and probably twice the weight) and it has been much nicer. I still have to gear down a couple gears on the steepest sections, but most of he time it chugs right along. The other big difference is running the 3 point hitch disc mower. The Ford handles it so much better when it is up in the air. As far as when it is cutting, I can't tell a lot of difference, the John Deere always performed pretty well cutting, it just wanted to flip over when I had to lift the mower on a hill side. With you being flat I would say the 5205 would work great, but I wouldn't want to go any smaller. All of the dry hay I roll are 4x5's and all of the haylage is 4x4, but much heavier than the 4x5 dry hay.


----------



## Troy Farmer

I would not want to go less than 70 PTO hp for a 4x5 baler. A 4x4 you could probably do ok with 40 PTO hp. I ran a 634 NH (4x4) for about 3 years then moved up to a 644 (4x5) with hydraulic pressure. The extra foot on a round bale makes a lot of difference. 
As far as disc mowers, I operated a krone AM 243 3 point (7' 10" cut) with a 2555 JD cab 2wd with loader. I would not have wanted any lighter of a tractor. The tractor was more than enough power wise but when you raised the mower for transport, it was a load on the right rear. The 3 pt disc mower hp requirements are higher per foot of cut than a trailed disc mower w/o conditioner because of the tractor having to "drag" the mower. 
If you want to go with a smaller tractor you may want to mount the mower on a caddy or consider a trailed cutter.


----------



## mpropst

thanks Gentlemen. I was looking at a few newer JD 5075s, Kubota M7060s and Mahindra 5570s, but it looks like I need to look heavier if I want to run a decent sized disc mower and any round baler larger than a 4x4...I'll keep looking.....thanks


----------



## 2ndWindfarm

Flat ground... Only 120-140 rounds a year.. 4x4 or 4x5? Sounds like my operation to a "T". I'm running a JD 458SS with a JD5075M on Timothy hay. Have rear wheel wts. And leave the 563MSL loader on the tractor while baling. Tractor's pretty much on 10K for weight.
Only problem I have is rough fields in 6th gear. So, I usually run in 5th gear. With the low production numbers I have... What"s the big hurry??
IMO - my small square baler - JD 347 is just as much a HP workout as the 458 round baler. That said... I bale the small squares in 7th gear; so they're popping out the back end pretty fast!
One caveat would be higher moisture hay and heavy bales. I haven't worked the baler in anything above 10-12% moisture hay and been keeping my bales down around 4x4.5 as well.


----------



## 2ndWindfarm

Cutter aspect... I've been using an older, Kuhn FC 250 with the heavy "finger" flails about 7 years, now. Just over 8' cut. It will pull the tractor down a bit right on startup but will mow anything in B range that keeps you in the seat!
I used to have a smaller Kuhn 3pt disc mower. It was a PITA to hook up and keep adjusted when cutting. IMO - save up your nickels and dimes for either a caddy or a pull-type disc mower.
I really like the gyro gear box with a 2-point quick hitch attachment. Nearly square turns at the end of the field with no driveline-pto shaking and rumbling!


----------



## JD3430

I did 2 years with a Kubota M-7040 pulling a NH BR7060 sileage special round baler. 
No problems, but hills I had to gear down, especially with full chamber.
Be careful going downhill. Make sure you have an escape plan for any hill you decide to descend.


----------



## CaseIH

Welcome to haytalk mpropst,

My two cents would be nothing under 100 HP. I am there right now, I tried to go smaller and ended up painting myself into a corner. I have a 80hp (70 PTO) tractor, and a 75hp (65 PTO) they do what I need to do, for the most part, don't get me wrong, but in my opinion it never hurts to have a little extra. When you start looking at these round balers you will find most like at least 60hp, with my tractor it is working the snot out of it when your in heavy hay, or silage baling, which I like to play with from time to time. Go 100 HP and you can hook most of these balers to them and be good to go! Trust me, you will never say, "dang I wish I had a little less" LOL! It just doesn't work like that!! 100 HP and thats the bottom....

Good Luck!


----------



## RockmartGA

I think as a general rule of thumb, if you add 50% to the manufacturers minimum HP requirements, you'll be much happier and safer at the end of the day. For example, a baler that recommends 50 HP, I'd prefer to have a tractor at least 75 HP to pull it. As others have said, you'd probably be even happier at 100 HP.

That said, for the number of bales per year you indicated, you could make do with a 50-75 hp utility tractor. Probably not ideal, but there are a lot of folks doing exactly that. Also remember that a 4x5 baler is packing in approximately 50% more hay than a 4x4 baler. That final one foot of diameter is where the extra hp requirements come into play.


----------



## JD3430

Small tractors are real easy on fuel and should cost less to buy and repair. 
One thing about hay farming is you need to keep your costs low or your profits will go away real fast. Fuel is now on its way back up.


----------



## 8350HiTech

People often say they want a baler for a certain amount of bales per year but you really need to consider how many you intend to make per day or even per hour. If you want those bales all made in one three hour window it will take a completely different setup than if you want to make 20 on six different days throughout the season.


----------



## JD3430

8350HiTech said:


> People often say they want a baler for a certain amount of bales per year but you really need to consider how many you intend to make per day or even per hour. If you want those bales all made in one three hour window it will take a completely different setup than if you want to make 20 on six different days throughout the season.


Fair point. That also takes Tedder and rake into consideration. Teddding I'm ok, but I would love to speed up my raking process.


----------

