# Round baler limits



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

What are your opinions on the limits of a mostly one man operation and a round baler? I live in the red state of PA and we usually do 2 heavier cuttings per year on our grass hay fields.
I have about 210 acres now on 8 fields in a 10 mile radius and it takes many, many consecutive 18 hour days to get the fields baled-up. Darn near the whole month of June and maybe another week into May or July.
Presently, I have 700 850lb 4x5's done and still have one field to go with maybe another 75 on first cut! 
Then it'll have to be done again in late August. 
I'm estimating the bale total at 1300 based on last years total. 1100 will be mushroom hay and 200 for cows/horses. 
I'm doing this almost all by myself-shipping too. I only feed like 20 bales, so it all has to be loaded and trucked by me. Takes a lot of logistics to move equipment from field to field. 
Is it time to make the leap into a 3x4? Since I'm mostly self-taught, I have observed that all the medium and big guys do 3x4's in my area. My thought was to keep the 4x5 RB for the better hay and the rest would be 3x4 big bales. 3x4's also bring 10% more $ per ton.

I feel like the round baler is slowing me down.....3x4 would get me done faster. 
Only other thing I can think of if a 4x6 RB, but I don't know if that would only be a minor improvement in saving time. Then there's also to load height issue with shipping 2x stacked 4x6's....
I'm staying a 1-man op, so hiring help is not an option I can utilize.

Thoughts?


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

Without knowing more details, I think I'd go first 4x6, or maybe 5x6. Bigger bales allow you to move more material with less time and effort. Going larger allows you to make smaller bales as well.

Questions to consider include:

How far are you hauling the mushroom hay? And how are you hauling it?

Same questions for customer hay.

Most important question in my mind is: Why so much is mushroom hay? (I'm guessing you mean unfeedable hay.)

Ralph


----------



## Lewis Ranch (Jul 15, 2013)

With a good baler you can bale more tons/hr with a 3x4 and you can also haul more and easier, and also safer in my opinion. Then again a good used one is twice the cost of a new round baler.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

rjmoses said:


> Without knowing more details, I think I'd go first 4x6, or maybe 5x6. Bigger bales allow you to move more material with less time and effort. Going larger allows you to make smaller bales as well.
> 
> Questions to consider include:
> 
> ...


Mushroom hay:
10 miles each way. 
Hauling method 30' flatbed gooseneck hauling 22 bales at a time (~19,000lbs)
Customer hay:
20 miles each way. Same hauling method. 
"Why so much mushroom hay"? 
As of now, I don't have enough storage for more than 150 4x5's. So the bales sit outside. Mushroom companies are easy to deal with and don't require much other than under 20% moisture and the bales to sit 45 days after baling. No picky horse people. Lots of hay contractors sell their hay to them. It seems like a localized industry


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

The big problem with big square is the need to get them under roof as soon as possible. My opinion, get some part time help.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Lewis Ranch said:


> With a good baler you can bale more tons/hr with a 3x4 and you can also haul more and easier, and also safer in my opinion. Then again a good used one is twice the cost of a new round baler.


I've gotten pretty good at loading/shipping RBs, so I can't imagine how easy big bricks would be. Also not having to worry about finding a flat spot to sit round bales-that is especially time consuming. And not having to sit/wait for bales to wrap. No net wrap to buy and reload (assume twine is far cheaper).
It just seems like I'm never able to BALE enough hay per day or hour. I'm like the only hay contractor left making RBs (which could be a good thing). I'd keep the RB for feed customers.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Gearclash said:


> The big problem with big square is the need to get them under roof as soon as possible. My opinion, get some part time help.


Part time capable help is non existent. 
my big bales would be left stacked outside.
RBs for feed stored inside.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Cost per ton is somewhat higher with a big square. That may be more than offset by a better price per ton on good quality hay.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Twine for big squares is not going to be small fraction the cost of net. 2x3 baler uses 4 350x4000 balls of twine per 200 bales at roughly $30 a ball.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

The mulch market is your best friend for staying a one man operation. If you're making the last of your first cutting in August even after you've started second cutting, what's the big deal? Unless your landowners just won't have that, the easiest thing that I see for you is to leave your fields that are destined for mulch for later sometimes. Rotate between a few which you do that with. The local mulch baron is always making some first cut in August or even September. The yield will be there when you get around to it.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I use big rolls of Tama for $275/roll. I usually get about 300 bales done with one roll. So I'd figure about a buck a bale. 
Mushroom company pays 10% more per ton on big squares, so I'd make about $5,000 more on 500 tons of hay- 500-600 tons is about what my current output is. 
Another factor I didn't mention is fire. Round baler is much more likely to cause fire.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

I came up with $1 bale for 3x4 twine.


----------



## reckelhoff1000 (Jul 15, 2016)

Is your current tractor big enough to switch balers. Never pulled a large square baler but have heard they like to eat your horsepower.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

reckelhoff1000 said:


> Is your current tractor big enough to switch balers. Never pulled a large square baler but have heard they like to eat your horsepower.


I have 1 230HP tractor. I only use it for mowing hay and spreading mushroom compost. I would probably upgrade to a little newer/lower hour unit for pulling a 3x4. Maybe a Puma 210 or a T-7 230


----------



## JMT (Aug 10, 2013)

In my one man operation, baling is one of the least time consuming steps of the process. For me it was mowing (9.5' Moco) and raking (two swathes) that took the time. If I was starting fresh in hilly, strange shaped fields sometimes I would have to mow for 2 days to get enough hay down to have a good full day baling. What really hurts is trying to mow in morning, break to rake some, back to mowing, then switch to baling. I ended up working long long days and then only having enough hay down to bale 30-50 5×6 rounds. Round Baler was was not the inefficient step.

Solution was 16 wheel rake and 16' self propelled Moco. Now taking about 31 feet into one windrow. Can "keep ahead" of the baler, even when mowing, raking, baling in same day.

My advice is to make sure baler is your limiting factor. Going to big square is not going to help if you can't get the hay down in front of it.


----------



## Trotwood2955 (Sep 4, 2012)

I agree with JMT. It's the mowing, tedding, raking that takes most of the time. Are you still raking with a single rotor rake? Might be surprised how much time you could save for baling later that day if you could get done raking sooner. I love our single rotor. Works great for us. But majority of the time my wife does the raking. Often times one of us will be finishing up raking while the other has started baling. If we were a one person show the first thing I'd be upgrading is to a double rotor rake.


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

-Buy cheaper net. Come up here to lancaster county and buy a pallet.

-A round baler wont start a fire if its well maintained. At least MOST of the time

-Big squares left outside will absorb way more water than a round, for figure on getting docked for the top and bottom bales, or tarping piles.

-If you know the hay is going to be going to the mulch barn bale a longer day...no reason you cant bale dry mulch hay after darl and let it sweat down a couple % before delivery.

-Unless you are VERY handy at repairs I cant see how buying a big square baler for primarily mulch hay would pencil out...

-Round balers really are CHEAP to maintain...


----------



## reckelhoff1000 (Jul 15, 2016)

I know you said you are a one man show, but hiring someone to sit on a tractor and rake in front of you would give you a lot more baling time in a day.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

I was making almost 225 acres with a BR740A, sometimes got four cuttings a year. Did it all myself.

If your only going to make mulch bales then big squares might be the way to go, however don't dare leave em out too long, they soak water up like a sponge if you get a downpour.

Never seen a round baler fire around here.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Trotwood2955 said:


> I agree with JMT. It's the mowing, tedding, raking that takes most of the time. Are you still raking with a single rotor rake? Might be surprised how much time you could save for baling later that day if you could get done raking sooner. I love our single rotor. Works great for us. But majority of the time my wife does the raking. Often times one of us will be finishing up raking while the other has started baling. If we were a one person show the first thing I'd be upgrading is to a double rotor rake.


I have been contemplating a double rake, too. In heavy hay, my single rotor rake can make a pretty big windrow. Enough to keep my round baler occupied. If I were to combine 2 rows together, sometimes the hay might be too heavy and force me to drive the baling tractor slower. The other thought is that in my situation, raking into single rows seems to help speed up the drying process. A decent amount of my fields are damp ground. If I combine rows, they seem to stay damp since there's a lot of hay and breeze/sun don't penetrate those thick rows easily.
Still I'm intrigued by the double rake idea. Wonder if a double rake and a 4x6 might be a compromise to explore?
I like the idea of being able to make a 5.5-6' bale for mushroom and a smaller 5' bale for my feeder customers


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

JMT said:


> In my one man operation, baling is one of the least time consuming steps of the process. For me it was mowing (9.5' Moco) and raking (two swathes) that took the time. If I was starting fresh in hilly, strange shaped fields sometimes I would have to mow for 2 days to get enough hay down to have a good full day baling. What really hurts is trying to mow in morning, break to rake some, back to mowing, then switch to baling. I ended up working long long days and then only having enough hay down to bale 30-50 5×6 rounds. Round Baler was was not the inefficient step.
> Solution was 16 wheel rake and 16' self propelled Moco. Now taking about 31 feet into one windrow. Can "keep ahead" of the baler, even when mowing, raking, baling in same day.
> My advice is to make sure baler is your limiting factor. Going to big square is not going to help if you can't get the hay down in front of it.


I like your ideas, but I can't get a 16' SP down the road. It also won't get through a lot of the fields gates, driveways, etc.
If I were on 1-2 100-200 acre parcels, I'd be in a 16' SP, but I have 8 fields ranging from 9-40 acres. 
Also, I seem to have no trouble staying way ahead with mowing. I have fields cut 1-2 weeks ahead of baling. I have an 11' Pottinger mower on the front of my tractor and it moves fast. I have considered adding a rear wing mower and adding another 10' of cutting, but cutting do ant seem to be slowing me down.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

A 4 x 5 bale has volume of 78.5 cuft and a 4 x 6 bale has a volume of 113 cuft and a 5 x 6 has 141 cuft of volume. Now you have to consider if you can get just as much or more tonnage on the truck by changing bale size. As long as you can get just as much tonnage on the truck you can cut your number of bales down by a minimum of 25% and at least 40% for the 5X6 bales. The 5 ft bale is probably not the best choice to transport in your area.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

A lot of people don't do the math to know that there is way more volume of hay in a 6' bale vs 5' bale

there are @1.45 5' bales in a 6' bale of same width and density. There are @78ish cubic feet in a 5' bale and 113 ish cubic feet in a 6' bale...by volume. That's a little short of 2 @6' bales equaling 3 @5' bales.

The 6' bale is only @1.24 x the circumference of the 5' bale...so in theory, your net wrap would take 1.24x as long to apply the same wraps, but you would have 1.45 x the amount of hay...so wrapping less bales would equate to less overall time stopped wrapping the hay. More time spent cramming hay into its throat, less bales to handle,...

...something to chew on

Mark

Feel free to correct my ideas with unthought-of considerations.


----------



## Northeast PA hay and beef (Jan 29, 2017)

What round baler are you using now? Maybe get something newer. We just got our new nh 450 crop cutter this spring and can really bale quickly with it. I baled 323 4x5 bales in 6 hours with it today. With the new drop floor plugging the baler is not an issue. We ran double windrows today and i was still moving around 7 mph with it. And with crop cutter bales pack tighter and are heavier than non cut bales. 
Maybe the premium you get for the big squares would pay off if you were 3 times the size you stated. But at your size the extra money for a big sqaure baler would take about 10 years to get it back, and then you have a 10 year old baler. I would maybe upgrade to a newer 4x5 that you will bale much faster with. On a flat thick field you can bale 50 bales an hour with them.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

All I have is a 25' v-rake, even rank first cutting in August if its one of those years gets raked with it, makes some mighty big rows, never had a problem getting them to feed. However, my tires are set clear out, if your driving on the row it tends not to feed as well. I've had the suitcase weights on the front of the tractor pretty well polished up from baling a late first cutting. I'd rather drive slower anyways with a bigger row, easier on the equipment and the operator.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

You just need one of these,

http://www.continuousbaling.com/en/


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I'm using a 4 yr old BR7060 sileage special with xtra sweep pickup.

If a bigger round baler is the answer, then what I'd really like is a very rugged baler. One made for bad ground. 
Wide & tall tires, or maybe even tandem bogies (4 tires) would better. 
I think a 6' bale double stacked might be able to be shipped without hitting the underpasses, I think my trailer deck is 32" high.


----------



## hog987 (Apr 5, 2011)

I also run a one man operation spread over 20 miles and put up 1000-1200 ton of hay In 4x5 round bales. I have room to expand but need to up grade equipment first. The main bottle neck os getting things dry enough between the rains. Than the next bottle neck is the rake right now. I could get a bigger rake and discbine before the bottle neck would become the baler.


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

Stepping up to a big square baler is probably a move in the right direction, because it's probably only a matter of time until your mulch buyer will not accept round bales. I have heard many already do not. We pay somebody to run a big square baler on our farm probably can't own one and Supply the labor for what it works out to. We bail for our dairy farm with a br7060 round baler it is also a good thing to have that way of my custom guy can't show up and it looks like rain we can do it with our round baler.,, quite a few years ago I rented a 4 x 6 round baler and found a bails or terrible top-heavy on Hills NFL roll just a little they'll probably fall over with the flat side up. Imo I do not think you want five foot Wide bales in Pennsylvania,,


----------



## Beav (Feb 14, 2016)

your baler is not your problem you can make 200 to 300 4X5 bales a day easily with a good baler. discbine to cut with 10 or 13 foot I can cut heavy first cutting grass 5 minutes after an inch of rain and never plug. get different rake twin rotary maybe. Get a round bale trailer Go Bob pipe makes a 36" twin basket that holds 18 bales self unloading and don't need to strap the bales down load and go single stack overpass no problem.We bale about 250 acres sm squares and rounds we get 3 to 4 cutting on Alfalfa and 2 cuttings on grass hay, there are 3 of us but 2 have full time jobs. We sell all of our hay for feed no mushroom hay yet. I could round bale 30 to 40 acres a day with our equipment by myself. Cut 8 to 10 acres an hour rake same and bale 7 mph you can get a lot done in one day. load and haul on rainy days once your into the mushroom hay


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Even if you only made 66" bales you would cut down @ 15% in the number of bales and you may actually get more tonnage on the truck depending on height limits for 72" bales.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Increasing the tension on the bale in dry hay will also cut down on the number of bales, but not as much on your bale as it would for a larger diameter bale. Both have the same core size..


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

mike10 said:


> Increasing the tension on the bale in dry hay will also cut down on the number of bales, but not as much on your bale as it would for a larger diameter bale. Both have the same core size..


So a 5.5 -6' bale can be denser than a 5' bale? That interests me.
I have my pressure cranked as much as I can. I think I can stack 66" bales and ship them no problem. 72" bales might even work.


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

I found 4 x 6 bales are a real pain. They are unstable, and almost dangerous. They will flip down onto the flat side very easily. I would be concerned in your area with leaving bales of that size in the field. Some kid tries to climb up on it and it flips down and crushes them. Not to mention all the ones that flip onto the flat side when coming out of the baler. The flat side will not be exposed to the rain unless you take the time to flip them back up...


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

If the same pressure on each baler, the bale will not be denser, but a larger percentage of the bale will be compacted tighter on the larger bale. The core is a larger percentage of the smaller bale then the larger bale.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

PaMike said:


> I found 4 x 6 bales are a real pain. They are unstable, and almost dangerous. They will flip down onto the flat side very easily. I would be concerned in your area with leaving bales of that size in the field. Some kid tries to climb up on it and it flips down and crushes them. Not to mention all the ones that flip onto the flat side when coming out of the baler. The flat side will not be exposed to the rain unless you take the time to flip them back up...


looking at 4x6 baler but setting it at 66"
Really like the looks of the Krone V-1800 has tandem axles and varaible chamber 4'-6'. I also like the rotary feeder roll on top. Expensive, though.
Overall, the NH baler experience hasn't been all that great. Spent quite a few thousand (not including swallowing the rock) on out of warranty repairs after only 5,000 bales.


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

JD I think you have a pretty sweet thing going on. Being that close to the mushroom yard gives you the option of rounds that wouldn't be viable if you were farther away. Your able to use smaller trucks too. Just a whole lot less risk than the guys who are 100 mile out and need 1000 + acre and a semi on the road year around.

I was watching a OLF video the other day and he was talking about driving that 8530 and Krone baler an hour and twenty minutes one way to fix an ac leak. $275,000 worth of equipment in NJ traffic. Seems a little stressful.

I think I would rather trade for new round baler than for used a big square.

Now if you were confident you were going to double or triple acerage or that they wouldn't accept rounds any longer than the decision is easy. As being discussed there may be other areas to increase efficiency with less risk.


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

Another thought, what happens when there is an oversupply, do they just drop price or cut some guys off? Would it be the round bales?

A local dairy processor just gave 30 day notice to a dozen farms here, some families had 50 year business history with them. Doesn't seem right as others have quietly expanded herds and continue to sell milk to that company from the same neighborhood.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

SVFHAY said:


> JD I think you have a pretty sweet thing going on. Being that close to the mushroom yard gives you the option of rounds that wouldn't be viable if you were farther away. Your able to use smaller trucks too. Just a whole lot less risk than the guys who are 100 mile out and need 1000 + acre and a semi on the road year around.
> I was watching a OLF video the other day and he was talking about driving that 8530 and Krone baler an hour and twenty minutes one way to fix an ac leak. $275,000 worth of equipment in NJ traffic. Seems a little stressful.
> I think I would rather trade for new round baler than for used a big square.
> Now if you were confident you were going to double or triple acerage or that they wouldn't accept rounds any longer than the decision is easy. As being discussed there may be other areas to increase efficiency with less risk.


You nailed it. I will probably end up with another 100 acres in another 2-3 years. I might be better off increasing the size and efficiency of the round baler. I have 2 primary buyers and a bunch of small guys, but my operation is growing each year.
The thing I like about staying in the round baler is it's much cheaper and keeps me in a smaller tractor.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

SVFHAY said:


> Another thought, what happens when there is an oversupply, do they just drop price or cut some guys off? Would it be the round bales?
> A local dairy processor just gave 30 day notice to a dozen farms here, some families had 50 year business history with them. Doesn't seem right as others have quietly expanded herds and continue to sell milk to that company from the same neighborhood.


Most buyers want to mix round and square bales to vary the strand length of the hay, so rounds should always be sell-able, no gaurantees of course. 
Now I'm wondering if a 5' wide bale would be an option, too. The problem with all these decisions is once you make them usually you're stuck with them. I'm going to see if a local dealer will let me demo a Krone 1800. I might also check into Vermeer.
The 5' wide bale would be stable on my sloped fields. I don't think shipping will be a big deal. Going down the road 10' wide doesn't seem to bother cops as long as it's agriculture crops


----------



## Lewis Ranch (Jul 15, 2013)

There is no way I'd consider another round baler if I was in your shoes. The big squares are easier to handle, faster, less liability and the best part is they bring more money. It's a no brainer. It's like saying my sickle mower works let me buy a bigger one instead of going with a disc mower. Just my 2 cents


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

I don't think the capacity difference between a good round baler and a 3x4 is as different as a sickle vs disc mower. I think a good 5x6 round will at least come close to a 3x4. I run a 2x3 big square and my 5x6 rounds will comfortably do double of what the big square will, and I don't have the fastest round balers out there. And a 3x4 will cost double of a round baler up front. I'd rather handle squares though.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Within my own custom stalk baling business I have found the most capacity gains by switching to bigger rakes and from baler pickup modifications.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

gearclash,
Do you ship the 5x6 bales on a flat trailer? I usually place 12 4' wide x 5' high bales on the trailer tilted slightly inward. Then I put my second layer of 10 bales on top. I would think if I went to the much larger 5' wide by 5-6' tall bales I would only legally be able to carry a single upper row down the middle of the lower double row. I don't have the knowledge if I would be able to carry the bales at 10' wide without causing issues. 
The nice thing about a 5' wide bale is its a lot more stable than a 4' x 5-6' wide bale
Thing that's great about the 3x4's is the ease and safety of stacking and trucking. 
You really have me thinking about a 5x5-6' baler. 
Next best would be 4'x5-6' with the flexibility to make a 5-6' tall bale depending on need/conditions


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Most 5x6 here do ship on a flat trailer, 96 or 102 wide deck. If the haul is short most guys go 2 bales wide on the first layer, 1 bale on the second layer without any straps. That is not DOT acceptable. Highway loads are usually 2 bales wide on both layers and securely strapped. I don't haul many 5x6 my self, frankly of all the bale shapes and sizes put there they are the worst to handle in my opinion. I would dread hauling 10' wide loads in what I imagine your area to be like.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

A full size 5x6 round of hay baled tightish is a heavy bugger! 1800lb easily.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

JD3430 said:


> The 5' wide bale would be stable on my sloped fields. I don't think shipping will be a big deal. Going down the road 10' wide doesn't seem to bother cops as long as it's agriculture crops


All depends, we used to have ten foot wide hay racks, got enough grief over em we cut em down to 9' 6", now guys are using tens again with no apparent problems&#8230;.for now.

All it takes is for somebody in the government to realize al those unmolested ten foot wide loads of hay is unclaimed revenue and they'll cut down on ten foot loads in a hurry.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

JD3430 said:


> gearclash,
> Do you ship the 5x6 bales on a flat trailer? I usually place 12 4' wide x 5' high bales on the trailer tilted slightly inward. Then I put my second layer of 10 bales on top. I would think if I went to the much larger 5' wide by 5-6' tall bales I would only legally be able to carry a single upper row down the middle of the lower double row. I don't have the knowledge if I would be able to carry the bales at 10' wide without causing issues.
> The nice thing about a 5' wide bale is its a lot more stable than a 4' x 5-6' wide bale
> Thing that's great about the 3x4's is the ease and safety of stacking and trucking.
> ...


But could you retain the customers that purchase your quality hay if you went to a big rounds?


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Great points and great questions!
In PA, agriculture can be 10' wide. Heck I'm already 10' wide because I keep the 4' bales about 8-10" past the edge of the trailer 
Then the upper layer I butt tightly together side by side. Seems to help keep the upper rows from tumbling off in transit. What I was thinking is a 5x5 would be much more stable and I could butt the bottom layer together tightly., then run a single layer on top. So 12) 5x5's on bottom and 5) 5x5's single row on top. I would think 17) 5x5s would be same or heavier than 22) 4x5's.

@ feed customers: I don't see it being a problem. Only 1 has a hay hut. Bales are same diameter. 
I have 1 customer I'd have to change the way I fill his barn. 
Maybe 5x5-6' and a twin rake is the solution ?


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

Try the rake first.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Might not be a bad idea.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

OK, The volume of a 4x5 is 76.5 using the actual width of the baler.

The volume of a 4s6 is 109.5 using the actual width of the baler

The volume of a 5x6 x 66 is 120 using the actual width of the baler

The volume of a 5x6 72" is 143.6 using the actual width of the baler

For weight I am just picking an easy number per cu ft of 15lbs.

The weiight of the 4x5 is 1140

The weight of the 4x6 is 1642

The weight of the 5x6x66 is 1800

The weight of the 5x6x72 is 2154

22 bales of the 4x5 is 25080 lbs

22 bales of the 4x6 is 27914

17 bales of the 5x6x66 is 30600

17 bales of the 5x6x72 is 36618


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

So as long as we're spending my money, let's talk twin rakes a bit
I know zilch about them. Am I raking 2 windows together or raking 2 single windows at the same time?
I'd like one that fold so you don't have to remove a bunch of tines for roading. 
Which is better for smaller, rough fields? 
What's a good brand to look for? I see a lot of Claas folding rakes around here.

Like this? 
https://www.tractorhouse.com/listings/farm-equipment/for-sale/18579527/claas-liner-1550-twin


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

JD3430 said:


> So as long as we're spending my money, let's talk twin rakes a bit
> I know zilch about them. Am I raking 2 windows together or raking 2 single windows at the same time?
> I'd like one that fold so you don't have to remove a bunch of tines for roading.
> Which is better for smaller, rough fields?
> What's a good brand to look for? I see a lot of Claas folding rakes around here.


You should have the option of singles or doubles with a side delivery double. (Or a "double" that is less than two full rotor sweeps) 
Mine has 9' (?) rotors so it doesn't require anything to road it other than fold the curtain up and that is a hydraulic function.

You could also look into a wheel rake and use it on mulch hay and continue to use the single rotor on good hay. You'd have less money in those two rakes than you would in one double rotary.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

8350HiTech said:


> You should have the option of singles or doubles with a side delivery double. (Or a "double" that is less than two full rotor sweeps)
> Mine has 9' (?) rotors so it doesn't require anything to road it other than fold the curtain up and that is a hydraulic function.
> You could also look into a wheel rake and use it on mulch hay and continue to use the single rotor on good hay. You'd have less money in those two rakes than you would in one double rotary.


What double rotary are you running? Do you like it?


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

JD3430 said:


> What double rotary are you running? Do you like it?


Taarup. Same as Vicon, Kubota, NH. I know you haven't been well pleased with yours but mine has been pretty much what I expected. (I also admit to having only moderate expectations for a $3500 rake)


----------



## Trotwood2955 (Sep 4, 2012)

I like HiTech's suggestion. You could get a brand new high capacity wheel rake for probably $10-12k or a cheaper carted one. Use that for the mulch hay and keep the rotary for the premium horse and cattle hay.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

$3500?? Was it trashed? 
They are like $22,000 new!
Found one at Ceresville NH but in the teens


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

Hitech sniffs out the deals...


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

JD3430 said:


> $3500?? Was it trashed?
> They are like $22,000 new!
> Found one at Ceresville NH but in the teens


Not really. Neighbors bought on a consignment auction and discovered it made a noise. I have some labor in it but the noise was mostly solved by actually putting oil in the gearbox and replacing some bushings. Otherwise it has seem some welding by the previous owner but that all seems solid and they even painted over the welds. Respectable enough for me.

It has become a popular rake around here because of the NH dealer. I know of at least 5 relatively close plus one more with Kubota paint.

If not for the deal I got (fell into), I'd probably have a single rotor plus a carted wheel rake.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Can you get the job done in smaller fields? Looks tough to turn
I know nothing about wheel rakes. Are they a PITA to run? What's the downside to them?


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

JD3430 said:


> Can you get the job done in smaller fields? Looks tough to turn
> I know nothing about wheel rakes. Are they a PITA to run? What's the downside to them?


I mow four acres for the commander at the VFW, ted those four acres with a six basket tedder and rake those four acres with a 12 wheel v-rake then bale it. That 4 acres is in three fields, the only disadvantage to my v wheel rake is that it isn't a 14 wheel rake.

If you gave me a brand new hydraulic bridge hitch and two brand new NH rolabar rakes I'd promptly park em in the yard as ornaments.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

This seems like a great square baler option
http://www.northcountrytractor.us/List/Tractor/ForSale/19418005


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

Not a bad looking baler....personally I would look for a JD 100 baler . That would keep the forum active for a bit..


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Per auctiontime results on BB9080s there still almost 10k too high. The harvest tec applicator is worth something though.

Yes, by all means, get a 100. Even better, buy a NH D2000. You will likely never want to own a big square again. Lol!


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

I don't know. I have heard some people really like the D2000. I think there was someone in the chat section that was wanting to buy one at auction a few weeks back and it brought big money. Like 20k I was thinking...

Now the JD 100, I don't know anyone that seeks them out...


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I've also looked at several used 5x6 RBs and they are very affordable. I'm sure its because its not easy to market a 5x6 to a diverse buying crowd. That doesnt matter if I'm shipping mushroom hay. Just need a BIG bale.

I'm pretty sure I could buy a newer, clean used 5x6 RB and a clean used twin rake for under $30K.

Probably wouldn't have to change a thing tractor-wise if I keep the bales at 5x5 or 5x5.5.

I think the biggest question is the shipping width.

Still, there's no disputing the fact that the BTO's around here run 3x4's. And no disputing they pay 10% more for 3x4's. I'm not a BTO yet, but I want to get there.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Gearclash said:


> Per auctiontime results on BB9080s there still almost 10k too high. The harvest tec applicator is worth something though.


I think that harvest tec is worth about 5K. I wouldn't have much use for it.


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

JD3430 said:


> Can you get the job done in smaller fields? Looks tough to turn
> I know nothing about wheel rakes. Are they a PITA to run? What's the downside to them?


 we have a bunch of tiny fields there is no problem with a carted wheel rake you got a big high-capacity rake tiny fields are a little tricky. I have no problems raking super-heavy hey with a standard carted wheel rake V12


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

endrow said:


> we have a bunch of tiny fields there is no problem with a carted wheel rake you got a big high-capacity rake tiny fields are a little tricky. I have no problems raking super-heavy hey with a standard carted wheel rake V12


 but what I wanted to add is it has to be t e d d e d


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Mar 14, 2015)

I used to have a 5' wide baler. Sold it off and went back to a 4' because transportation was a pain in the butt. Customers complained they were too hard to haul, and too heavy to lift. I hated hauling them home from my away fields because I have to drive through the middle of two small towns that have parking on both sides of the street so it can be a real tight squeeze at 10~11' foot wide, especially when the other people on the road aren't paying attention at all.


----------



## Dan_GA (Dec 29, 2015)

I work a day job with a rotating schedule of 4, 10 hour days. Couple weeks of 1st shift, couple weeks of 2nd, couple weeks of 3rd... repeat. I farm about 125 acres (of grass fields) combined within a 7 mile radius of my farm part time when not working my day job. All by myself with little to no help. Wife makes fuel runs when I need them sometimes, but beyond that it's just me. About a third of that is Bermuda which requires cutting/baling about every 4 weeks. I keep up by myself just fine, with a JD 5065E and a 4x5 Vermeer 5410 Rebel net wrapper. It's a good low hp requirement baler, but drum turns slower so can't bale as fast as the bigger balers. I've lost 2 bearings in 2 separate baling days and still managed to keep up. Granted you're doing a little over 200 acres, but you cut less often than we do down here so I wouldn't think you'd have a problem keeping up.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Dan_GA said:


> I work a day job with a rotating schedule of 4, 10 hour days. Couple weeks of 1st shift, couple weeks of 2nd, couple weeks of 3rd... repeat. I farm about 125 acres (of grass fields) combined within a 7 mile radius of my farm part time when not working my day job. All by myself with little to no help. Wife makes fuel runs when I need them sometimes, but beyond that it's just me. About a third of that is Bermuda which requires cutting/baling about every 4 weeks. I keep up by myself just fine, with a JD 5065E and a 4x5 Vermeer 5410 Rebel net wrapper. It's a good low hp requirement baler, but drum turns slower so can't bale as fast as the bigger balers. I've lost 2 bearings in 2 separate baling days and still managed to keep up. Granted you're doing a little over 200 acres, but you cut less often than we do down here so I wouldn't think you'd have a problem keeping up.


It's not that I cant keep up, its that I'd like to expand to 250-300 acres and I find that 4x5 round bales are a small package. Would like to get into a bigger bale for better efficiency.

I'll probably end up with 1300 round bales or about 550 tons.

If I could reduce it to 1000 bales or less in a bigger package, it would save days of time bringing in bales, loading and shipping them.

Those saved days could be used to cut/bale more acres of hay.

With the width restrictions of most states, you would think a 4'-6" wide bale would be a perfect size


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Beav said:


> your baler is not your problem you can make 200 to 300 4X5 bales a day easily with a good baler. discbine to cut with 10 or 13 foot I can cut heavy first cutting grass 5 minutes after an inch of rain and never plug. get different rake twin rotary maybe. Get a round bale trailer Go Bob pipe makes a 36" twin basket that holds 18 bales self unloading and don't need to strap the bales down load and go single stack overpass no problem.We bale about 250 acres sm squares and rounds we get 3 to 4 cutting on Alfalfa and 2 cuttings on grass hay, there are 3 of us but 2 have full time jobs. We sell all of our hay for feed no mushroom hay yet. I could round bale 30 to 40 acres a day with our equipment by myself. Cut 8 to 10 acres an hour rake same and bale 7 mph you can get a lot done in one day. load and haul on rainy days once your into the mushroom hay


One downside to mushroom hay (other than low price per ton) is that they make you wait 45-60 days in the bale before you can bring it in. So if I make bales on 6/1, they cant be delivered until 7/15-7/30. Lots of rainy days I'd like to be delivering hay, but cant. They want it to sweat out, and then some.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

JD3430 said:


> One downside to mushroom hay (other than low price per ton) is that they make you wait 45-60 days in the bale before you can bring it in. So if I make bales on 6/1, they cant be delivered until 7/15-7/30. Lots of rainy days I'd like to be delivering hay, but cant. They want it to sweat out, and then some.


Deliver it next year on the rainy days.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Your baling time seems long - small squares about 10 ton hour max, 4x5 twine hits about 20, 4x5 net is about 30, 5x6 net modern is 60 tons per hour right on par with a 3x4 baler. 4x4 square can hit 70.

These are by field perfect raking numbers but still.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

8350HiTech said:


> Deliver it next year on the rainy days.


You don't understand. It can rain all it wants, but they won't take much any hay until August. 
All my mushroom hay is sold from August-March. And it's delivered rain or shine. Feeder bales sold year around, but in clear weather.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

slowzuki said:


> Your baling time seems long - small squares about 10 ton hour max, 4x5 twine hits about 20, 4x5 net is about 30, 5x6 net modern is 60 tons per hour right on par with a 3x4 baler. 4x4 square can hit 70.
> These are by field perfect raking numbers but still.


That's about what I do. 30 bales/hr. Course chains popping off, driving to find flat spots to drop bales on my hilly fields slows things down a bit. Drop a bale haphazardly in some of my fields and you could be looking at an insurance claim on someone's house or car.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

JD3430 said:


> You don't understand. It can rain all it wants, but they won't take much any hay until August.
> All my mushroom hay is sold from August-March. And it's delivered rain or shine. Feeder bales sold year around, but in clear weather.


Maybe I was unclear. I meant deliver deliver this year's hay next year. My point is if you have year-old hay on hand you should be able to deliver outside of your current window. If your particular buyers are literally buying zero hay April through July, that's one thing, but I know there is mulch hay being delivered somewhere year around. You just need carry over of last year hay in order to be able to do it. I've already sent one (and two) year old hay during that window. Guess it's going to a different farm.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

No year old hay on hand other than the few dozen I hold on to for feeder customers. I usually have no mushroom hay by Christmas. 
I think the hay you see heading to Kennett Square and Avondale during the summer is year old hay.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

If you're sold out of mulch by Christmas it isn't an issue. In your original post you listed trucking as something else that was keeping you busy so that's why a few of us were suggesting trying to widen the delivery window. If you're getting the hay made and then delivered by that time, obviously we can rule out delivery scheduling as something that needs fine tuning. At least for now. If you do pick up the acreage, that may force your hand into delivering all year.


----------



## hog987 (Apr 5, 2011)

The problem is all in the mindset. You feel like baling is slowing you down. I feel like iam finally getting something done when baling. No need to change equipment just change how you look at things


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

8350HiTech said:


> If you're sold out of mulch by Christmas it isn't an issue. In your original post you listed trucking as something else that was keeping you busy so that's why a few of us were suggesting trying to widen the delivery window. If you're getting the hay made and then delivered by that time, obviously we can rule out delivery scheduling as something that needs fine tuning. At least for now. If you do pick up the acreage, that may force your hand into delivering all year.


I probably should have said delivering feed hay, which I only deliver in clear weather.

I also have contract field mowing I am doing during spring/summer, too. I cut 8 housing developments and customer fields with my CX-15. Also a couple of the farms I hay have steep areas cut with CX-15. They are 8-10 hrs each. 
Lots of hooking up/unhooking.


----------



## cannonball (Jun 23, 2012)

JD3430 said:


> What are your opinions on the limits of a mostly one man operation and a round baler? I live in the red state of PA and we usually do 2 heavier cuttings per year on our grass hay fields.
> I have about 210 acres now on 8 fields in a 10 mile radius and it takes many, many consecutive 18 hour days to get the fields baled-up. Darn near the whole month of June and maybe another week into May or July.
> Presently, I have 700 850lb 4x5's done and still have one field to go with maybe another 75 on first cut!
> Then it'll have to be done again in late August.
> ...


maybe a 4 x6 with this rake

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWSR8p2K_C4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWSR8p2K_C4

http://balerconnection.com/for-sale-2/


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

So just a quick update:
I talked to the local truck/carrier enforcement cops at a burger joint yesterday. Three of them were taking a break from pulling trucks over. I told them my intentions of carrying 5' wide bales side by side at 120" wide on a 102" flatbed trailer. 
All 3 said no problem in PA. They said they would waive me through one of their pull over zones. One suggested an orange flag on each rear corner of the trailer. They all said in PA, agricultural machinery and crops are permitted to be wider than the usual maximum of 102".
One of them advised me the exception is if there is a possible way to run the load down the road narrower, that I would be obligated to chose the narrower way.
I told him I intended to load 5' wide bales side by side. He said "why can't you carry 1 single row on the trailer"? I replied that I'd only be able to carry 6 bales on a 30' long trailer which would be useless. That seemed to leave open the option of forcing me to carry only one single row. 
We paused and then they all agreed it was silly to force that on me and said "you're fine, with 2 rows at 120" " 
I feel better about the 5' baler now.


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

Interesting..so when do you have to have "wide load" signs on front and back? Is this because it is your own person crop...vs a commercial operation??

Local dealer has to have wide load signs front and rear even if hes only 103" wide. At some additional width he has to have escort car...maybe that's cause its commercial even though he is hauling ag products....??


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Must be your own crop. I don't think that makes a lot of sense, but they did ask me "is it your own crop"? Right at the beginning of the discussion


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

Own crop (or own equipment) is different than hauling commercially.

A few years ago when I bought my tedder, I arranged for one of my cousins to haul it home as a backhaul. I went along and helped unload his load of hay. Once we had the tedder loaded the hitch stuck out more than we wanted on the passenger side. Before we left we made sure to get our story straight. "The last name on the tedder paperwork is the same as on the truck decals and we're brothers, officer. Totally brothers". We didn't get pulled over though.


----------



## chevytaHOE5674 (Mar 14, 2015)

It maybe ok to legally haul 120" wide but just for kicks though drive your normal route and really pay attention to things like street side parking, narrow bridges/tunnels, etc. I was perfectly legal hauling 120" wide just made for a white knuckle ride every time because 99% of the other people on the road aren't paying attention, people winging there doors open from the sides of the street, trying to pass when there isn't room etc. I make more trips with 4' bales but I load them up and cruise without much extra concern, with the 5' bales it was a constant watch both side of the trailer for idiots on the loose, and I live in a small rural area that has probably less vehicles in our entire 1300 square mile county than you do in one of your towns.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

chevytaHOE5674 said:


> It maybe ok to legally haul 120" wide but just for kicks though drive your normal route and really pay attention to things like street side parking, narrow bridges/tunnels, etc. I was perfectly legal hauling 120" wide just made for a white knuckle ride every time because 99% of the other people on the road aren't paying attention, people winging there doors open from the sides of the street, trying to pass when there isn't room etc. I make more trips with 4' bales but I load them up and cruise without much extra concern, with the 5' bales it was a constant watch both side of the trailer for idiots on the loose, and I live in a small rural area that has probably less vehicles in our entire 1300 square mile county than you do in one of your towns.


Good idea.

I do have some tight back country roads, but no towns with parked cars or anything too crazy. If I'm legal and I'm careful, I'll be OK. Wont be nearly as wide as the 11'-6" wide discbine I drive down the same roads.

I kind of like the idea of 12) 5x5 1100lb bales in 2 rows of 6 on bottom and 1 row of (5) in the middle up top. Weighs about the same as 22) 4x5 bales at 825lbs each, but 5x5's less "tippy".


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

So looking a bit closer at 5x5 or 5x6 balers: I'm not really crazy about my ownership experiences with NH balers, but I've been looking at 7080/7090 round balers under $12-$14,000.

I have found several in acceptable condition. I am also assuming (improperly) that a BR7090 5x6 baler can make a bale 5' to 6' in diameter.

The reason why I thought I might stick with NH is because I think (could be wrong) it uses same monitor and plug as my BR7060. So if I hooked up a 7080/7090 to my tractor with the 7060 monitor in the cab, it would work??? I think the monitor reads the computer in the baler, so 2 BR balers, although different units of different size, could share 1 monitor?

Case-IH may/may not also work since Case-IH balers are made by NH.

The bigger 7080/7090 baler monitor could be installed in another tractor so it would be ready to go if the tractor with the primary monitor goes down.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

Your operators panel would work with any bale command baler from 1996 until 2015 including the CIH models.

You can wrap any size bale with the BR balers.

My recommendation would be to go with a 5x6 baler. You can then have a wide pickup and the ability to make bigger bales. The bigger diameter the less bales and more weight on trailer.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

https://www.tractorhouse.com/listings/farm-equipment/for-sale/17197915/2009-new-holland-br7090

I like this baler. Has auto chain oiler. One less thing to worry about. Says it comes with "standard monitor". Is this not the same as "bale command plus"?

Looks like it was used to bale cornstalks, which I think is harder on a baler though.


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

JD3430 said:


> So just a quick update:
> I talked to the local truck/carrier enforcement cops at a burger joint yesterday. Three of them were taking a break from pulling trucks over. I told them my intentions of carrying 5' wide bales side by side at 120" wide on a 102" flatbed trailer.
> All 3 said no problem in PA. They said they would waive me through one of their pull over zones. One suggested an orange flag on each rear corner of the trailer. They all said in PA, agricultural machinery and crops are permitted to be wider than the usual maximum of 102".
> One of them advised me the exception is if there is a possible way to run the load down the road narrower, that I would be obligated to chose the narrower way.
> ...


Having your local enforcement guys sign off on this is great, would put my mind at ease.

I can assure you that interpretation of the rules is not universal in the keystones state having paid the fine on small bale loads. Forget what the width was, I hauled many that were worse. There are some exemptions from time to time but you could be written up most of the time if they felt like it.

Not saying you shouldn't do it, just that you are open to harassment. Cops are one thing, lawyers are another.


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

JD3430 said:


> https://www.tractorhouse.com/listings/farm-equipment/for-sale/17197915/2009-new-holland-br7090
> 
> I like this baler. Has auto chain oiler. One less thing to worry about. Says it comes with "standard monitor". Is this not the same as "bale command plus"?
> 
> Looks like it was used to bale cornstalks, which I think is harder on a baler though.


That baler is net, so its gotta have the bale command monitor, but it also has the old school stripe decal for the twine wrap that a bale command baler wouldn't normally have... I think...

That baler is going to have some wear on it. My baler has 22K bales on it, and I don't have all the paint worn off the pickup bands like that one...

You might want to watch the local auctions. I have seen some 5 ft BR series balers for WAY less than that.


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

https://stlouis.craigslist.org/grd/d/br-new-holland/6165328024.html

A little rougher baler, but half the money..


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Years ago here, we'd all laugh at the guys hauling in round bales to the auctions, barely sold for enough to cover their gas to haul em. Eventually prices for rounds did come up though.

Then one spring just as we were to start first cutting threw my back out while carrying a calf and slipped, Dad was already working in town on a major construction project for 60 hours a week, so went a bought a ragged out round baler and made first cutting, then still couldn't get enough help so ended up baling all the hay in rounds. After a few years got a NH644 and kept planting hay, got up to 225 acres but that wasn't feasible with questionable weather, it could be done but the chances of making premium hay on all those acres was slim to none. With premium round bales though most often than not wasn't worth considering going back to squares so we didn't.

I'd rather have 125 acres worth of premium hay sitting in the barn than 225 acres worth of average hay, the 225 acres takes longer to make and sells for less, when all said and done your most likely losing money on the 225 compared to 125 acres of premium.

Long and short, rather than trying to figure out a way to make more mulch hay, why not figure out a way to make more off the hay you already have, even if that required investing in something like a re-baler so you could turn your good rounds bales into the bricks idiots like to pay too much for? If the horsey folks think round bales will kill a horse, then fine, just sell em squarified round bales.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

The rake/baler combo's are cute and would have to be a tremendous time saver in some area's, but wouldn't work here most of the time, raking is usually required to get that last bit of toughness out so it doesn't sit too long and get bleached out.


----------



## mike10 (May 29, 2011)

The 7090 is missing the pickup cylinder. The twine decal is right. Corn stalks in the pickup.

The 780 had a wide pickup at one time.

Expect to spend some money for repairs on anything you buy.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

mlappin said:


> Years ago here, we'd all laugh at the guys hauling in round bales to the auctions, barely sold for enough to cover their gas to haul em. Eventually prices for rounds did come up though.
> 
> Then one spring just as we were to start first cutting threw my back out while carrying a calf and slipped, Dad was already working in town on a major construction project for 60 hours a week, so went a bought a ragged out round baler and made first cutting, then still couldn't get enough help so ended up baling all the hay in rounds. After a few years got a NH644 and kept planting hay, got up to 225 acres but that wasn't feasible with questionable weather, it could be done but the chances of making premium hay on all those acres was slim to none. With premium round bales though most often than not wasn't worth considering going back to squares so we didn't.
> 
> ...


All good points, but I dont have any serious inside storage. Mushroom hay can sit outside for a long time, then be hauled in.

I like your "125 acres of premium hay versus 200 acres of average hay" comparison, because all that hay would require inside storage. If I had extensive inside storage, I'd reduce my acreage, as you suggest.

I have almost zero inside storage (Im working on it, but in my area farms are VERY expensive to buy.) so my best strategy for now is average hay in high quantity.

So the reason for the 5x5 is if I made 1500 round bales at 4x5, I'd make 1100 5x5 round bales. Thats 400 less trips in/out of the fields and 400 less bales to load/unload!! Thats probably a week of time per cutting saved. Less compaction on fields, ltoo. Less tractor wear & tear and less fuel.

I'd keep the 4x5 for the best hay, probably baling 100-150 nicer 4x5's which is the limit of my inside storage.

I could be talked out of it, but it sounds like a great way to put more hay in a bigger package that my current equipment can handle, no bigger tractor required, and would allow me to keep baling should one baler go down, which happens often enough to be a consideration. If I went to a 3x4 square baler, I'd have to spend a lot more money on the baler itself and a more expensive tractor and probably a twin rake.

I agree it would be better to make 125 acres of quality than 200 acres of quantity *IF* I had enough storage for 500-100 round bales, but I don't. I'm working on moving, buying a small farm where I could build a pole barn for 500-100 round bales to be stored.

I've made some beautiful hay off some of my fields every year, only to try to put it on pallets outside, cover with tarps and end up with ruined bales.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

PaMike said:


> That baler is net, so its gotta have the bale command monitor, but it also has the old school stripe decal for the twine wrap that a bale command baler wouldn't normally have... I think...
> 
> That baler is going to have some wear on it. My baler has 22K bales on it, and I don't have all the paint worn off the pickup bands like that one...
> 
> You might want to watch the local auctions. I have seen some 5 ft BR series balers for WAY less than that.


I think the paint missing is from corn stalks.

That's just asking price and really just more of an example of what I'm looking for. I havent really scratched the surface yet.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

You have no area you could put up a temporary hoop building? Our first ones are 15 years old now, no property taxes on em as they are considered a temporary structure. The original two 38x72x18's used treated 2x10's under the feet and ground anchors, my 42x96x16 I placed on the 2x2x6 concrete blocks, still considered temporary. If we did pony walls with posts, then it's considered permanent and placed on the property tax rolls. I could have asphalt put in em and it would still be considered temporary, if I do concrete now it's considered permanent. I've found scraping all the top soil off, then placing railroad rock works just as well, if I have problems with pallets freezing down then it's time to place a few inches of top rock down as I'm getting too much organic matter on the floor from chaff.

I get a little less than 300 bales in a 38x72 and almost 500 in my 42x96.

Now strange enough, my cousin lives in the county south of us, his grain truck plates for a 54,000lb plate is several hundred dollars less than ours is for a 48,000lb plate. His property taxes are also lower, but if he puts up a hoop building it will be taxed the same as a comparable sized pole barn no matter how its anchored or the floor.

Location, location, location


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

No I don't have any place to put up a hoop building. I'm hoping to move somewhere that I can and keep my better half happy.
A 10-15 acre "farm" sells for 1.2-1.5 million. Most have a pretty useless 200yr old barn. Nice to look at, but no good for round bale storage. So you have to build a 60x100 so that's even more $$$$.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

JD3430 said:


> I agree it would be better to make 125 acres of quality than 200 acres of quantity *IF* I had enough storage for 500-100 round bales, but I don't. I'm working on moving, buying a small farm where I could build a pole barn for 500-100 round bales to be stored.
> 
> I've made some beautiful hay off some of my fields every year, only to try to put it on pallets outside, cover with tarps and end up with ruined bales.


Two things here:

1: I'd not place all my eggs in one basket, I store hay in three different hoop buildings, makes for ease of segregation for starters. And, god forbid if you ever have a hay fire, you don't loose all your hay if it's in separate buildings. Doesn't even have to be from wet hay, electrical issue for example. My friend had two buildings to store hay in but they were close enough together when one went so did the other.

2: Only two ways have I ever had any luck storing hay under tarps. Get it bone dry then bale so you avoid the sweat but hope you can sell it by the bale as they won't have any weight to em. The other way is I fill the building I normally store first cutting in, then fill the building I store third and fourth cutting in, after the first cutting hay has sat for 6 weeks or so move it out of the third and fourth cutting building and stack it under tarps, its sat long enough by then its well past going thru a sweat. If I want a horrendously snowy and icy winter then no better way to guarantee that than by storing hay under tarps, is so much fun dealing with that crap trying to get hay out from under them in the dead of winter.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

JD3430 said:


> https://www.tractorhouse.com/listings/farm-equipment/for-sale/17197915/2009-new-holland-br7090
> 
> I like this baler. Has auto chain oiler. One less thing to worry about. Says it comes with "standard monitor". Is this not the same as "bale command plus"?
> 
> Looks like it was used to bale cornstalks, which I think is harder on a baler though.


That is nearly a twin of my 7090 except mine does have the lift cylinder, mine does not have the oiler, and does have the 5 bar pickup and expeller roll that the specialty crop balers have. Similar bale count as well.

Biggest things that stalks take their toll on is pickup teeth and chains.


----------



## hog987 (Apr 5, 2011)

Just a thought. If you want more weight in a bale. Maybe look at a 4x5 baler with crop cutter. I have never ran one but have been told they can have up to 20% more weight in the same size bale.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Just thinking the whole big picture and it seems like a 2nd, bigger RB might not only make a bigger bundle of hay, but also "bale" me out of a jam if my 7060 goes down. Unlike a big square baler, its only a small fraction of the cost.
Bet I'll still be wishing for a 3x4, but we want to buy a farm and money's too tight.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

JD3430 said:


> Just thinking the whole big picture and it seems like a 2nd, bigger RB might not only make a bigger bundle of hay, but also "bale" me out of a jam if my 7060 goes down. Unlike a big square baler, its only a small fraction of the cost.
> Bet I'll still be wishing for a 3x4, but we want to buy a farm and money's too tight.


Have you considered a 4x4? Way cheaper than used 3x4. You'd get your 10% extra at the mushroom farm. A 4910 would do what you want and you'd still have the RB if it crapped out


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

It's funny, I was just watching a guy make 4c4's. I haven't even considered it.
Why so cheap? Bales too heavy?


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

JD3430 said:


> It's funny, I was just watching a guy make 4c4's. I haven't even considered it.
> Why so cheap? Bales too heavy?


One local guy sells all of his mulch (which is a lot) in 4x4x6 bales. Those wouldn't be so heavy. I think there isn't a market for the used balers because there are a very limited number of people who want the 4x4 package. Lucky for you, mushroom farms are included in that segment of the market.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

That's something to consider.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

4x4 also aren't quite as efficient in volume per load but you're so close that 3x4 three high or 4x4 two high would both be more efficient per load than round bales. I know older 4x4 aren't known for making as dense of a bale but again your proximity makes that much less of an issue.


----------



## PaMike (Dec 7, 2013)

Interesting point...

I am sure there is an independant shop somewhere in our area that works on big squares. I just dont know who it is. I bet you could pick up a used big square cheap this winter on auctiontime, send it to an independant shop and have it gone over for fair money...

Maybe you need to get Stackemup to find a baler out his way, go over it for you, then send it east....


----------



## Tim/South (Dec 12, 2011)

JD3430 said:


> They all said in PA, agricultural machinery and crops are permitted to be wider than the usual maximum of 102".
> One of them advised me the exception is if there is a possible way to run the load down the road narrower, that I would be obligated to chose the narrower way.


The Troopers here call it "an adjustable load". The hauler elected to exceed the width limit. They will not bother a person hauling 4x5's if they stay off the interstates.


----------



## labdwakin (Jun 21, 2016)

my $.02... Sticking with a 4 foot wide round bale will keep your salability. However, going up to a 5 1/2 ft or 66 inch height will increase your volume per bale by enough to be worth the effort. I'm looking to move up to a 4x5.5 net wrap baler eventually myself.

I'd wait on the big square baler until I had the dry storage for them. These guys have more collective experience with large hay operations than I've ever found in another group. From what I've read, they all agree that at a certain point you have no choice but to go with large squares if you're doing it all yourself.

The twin wheel rakes can be very maneuverable. We've used both 8 and 10 wheel V rakes here with hydraulic fold for roading and some of the wheel V rakes have adjustable width in raking configuration so you can adjust your double windrow for how heavy or light the cutting is. Some of the fields we cut are as small as the ones you're talking about cutting so I understand your maneuverability problems and wouldn't worry about it much.

I've been eyeing the Vermeer R23 hydraulic motor bar type V rakes but haven't made myself pull the trigger yet because the tedder and wheel rakes we use now work so well and get us out of a field quickly. Hope this helps.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I was talking with a farming friend that brought up a valid point about 4x4's.

I would only be able to stack 2 layers tall, since 2 layers on my trailer is about 11'. I have some 12'-6" overpasses.

3x4 bales could be stacked 3 layers high, so transportation efficiency is probably best with a 3x4.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

JD3430 said:


> I was talking with a farming friend that brought up a valid point about 4x4's.
> I would only be able to stack 2 layers tall, since 2 layers on my trailer is about 11'. I have some 12'-6" overpasses.
> 3x4 bales could be stacked 3 layers high, so transportation efficiency is probably best with a 3x4.


Aren't you only going ten miles or so? Either way the efficiency beats your round bales handily. Also depends on whether you care to be legal as it wouldn't be difficult at all to be overweight with 3x4s that have been sitting outside. You might even be over with 4x4.

Also keep in mind you're dealing with nominal dimensions. I don't think you'll be a full foot taller with 3x4, though you'd surely be denser considering you'd probably be looking at a little bit newer baler.

Which is more important to you? Six inches in transport height or 1/3 savings in time moving bales off of the field. (Obviously that doesn't factor in the lesser upfront investment of the 4x4)


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Yeah, the 4x4 baler is cheaper


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

What's your best guess on the weight of a 4x4?


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

I think the actual height of the 3x4 and 4x4 bales is only an inch or less under nominal. And yes, 3x4 is a better trucking size because they can legally stack 3 high on most trailers vs 2 high with 4x4. For what it's worth, on of the few livestock growers here that insists on making big square corn stalk bales has gone from 4x4 to 3x4. Not sure why as trucking height should be of little concern.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Gearclash said:


> I think the actual height of the 3x4 and 4x4 bales is only an inch or less under nominal. And yes, 3x4 is a better trucking size because they can legally stack 3 high on most trailers vs 2 high with 4x4. For what it's worth, on of the few livestock growers here that insists on making big square corn stalk bales has gone from 4x4 to 3x4. Not sure why as trucking height should be of little concern.


Looks like a 4x4 is more of a consideration borne from the cost of the baler being a lot cheaper.

From my preliminary research, a 4x4 is 1/2 the price of a comparable 3x4.


----------



## richard m (Jul 10, 2013)

,


----------

