# New Holland 2x3x8 balers



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

I was just visiting the NH website and noticed they are now making their new model of big baler in a 2x3 size. What do you all think? Better size then 3x3? Better size then 3 string small squares? I figure they should weigh 500 lbs.


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

Interesting I'm always home behind in the . what is the model number


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

Typo I am always on behind the times. What is the model number.


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

Typo I am always on behind the times. What is the model number.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

endrow said:


> Typo I am always on behind the times. What is the model number.


Big baler 230


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

We have found with the old 2x3 NH bale that they are a good deal more forgiving for elevated moisture levels than what the 3x3s seem to be. More along the lines of small bales.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

Gearclash said:


> We have found with the old 2x3 NH bale that they are a good deal more forgiving for elevated moisture levels than what the 3x3s seem to be. More along the lines of small bales.


Interesting, though I wonder if some of that difference could be attributed to modern mid-size balers packing the hay tighter.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

8350HiTech said:


> Interesting, though I wonder if some of that difference could be attributed to modern mid-size balers packing the hay tighter.


I've often wondered as balers start packing the bales tighter and tighter if that will mean more spoilage. Most of the baler makers advertise their balers making the bales like bricks. I'm not sure I like that so much.

But this New Holland 230 for most purposes should pack it as tight I would think as the 3x3 and 3x4. Same set up. Just smaller plunger and chamber.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

Also, what's the point in a 2x3x8? Why not just make a 3x3x6?


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

8350HiTech said:


> Also, what's the point in a 2x3x8? Why not just make a 3x3x6?


Not sure. The bales would be more stable when stacking. Like the 3x4 bales are. I've actually heard rumors from several hay buyers that if you make a 3x3x4 bale they will sell really well.


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

Sure would be a lot of handling though. I think it would be hard to talk someone making a larger package into smaller ones. Picking/stacking efficiency goes away. I make bundles and am set up to do it effectively so 1050 to 1100 pound package. When I get involved stacking rounds or 3x at 700-900 lb., it seems to take a lot longer to move equal tons..


----------



## hillside hay (Feb 4, 2013)

It would be a grat flake size for horse owners and small cattlemen. In my neck o the woods a Claas 1150 is worth its weight in gold. Plus one could put the hay trolley back in use to handle them up in our old dairy barns


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

I think they might be ok. I think a hay buyer could get more of them onto a smaller trailer then even 3x3s. I would pick up 4 at a time for loading semis instead of 3 and I would pick up 3 for loading smaller trailers at a time. As for stacking out of the field. I think I could still pick them up with my mil stak attachment on my NH stacker and I would be able to haul 21 at a time. Also those hay buyers with the little 40 hp tractors with a fel could handle them easier. It will be interesting if a market could develop for them here. As it is I wonder if 4x4 balers are sort of going away. I see more 3x4 bales stacked around then anything else.


----------



## OhioHay (Jun 4, 2008)

We bought a class 2100 just for the smaller bale size. It makes a 27.5x 31.5 bale. We deal with the Amish and it is an easier to handle. Bales weigh about 550 lbs. Two people can actually drag a bale


----------

