# Inline Baler for Timothy hay



## RockyHill (Apr 24, 2013)

We're wanting to add a baler this year, especially for our timothy. Jeff has wanted to try an inline and I've been researching everything I can find. Not a lot of them run around here so getting first hand experience recommendations is tough.

Here are the models that I've been looking at: Hesston 4590; New Idea 7215; Agco 7115; Case 8545; Challenger SB36/1840; MF 1839; MF 1840

Jeff was talking with someone that said the MF1840's new auger design would be the only one that wouldn't give problems with timothy. He had problems with a MF1839 balling up in from of the pickup. This was from an individual baling straw and thought the long stem would be similar. This wasn't anyone selling a baler so there was no financial incentive on his part.

Our JD348 is our "standard" and whatever running with it has meet or exceed its abilities. We can go with another 348 and avoid the learning curve.

Since I'll be the one operating the newcomer, I need all the help I can get. Apparently since Jeff got the sp bale wagon I get to choose me a baler.

Shelia


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I just bought an 1840 to do timothy with, the 1839 has an auger reversing kit available to address this.


----------



## RockyHill (Apr 24, 2013)

slowzuki said:


> I just bought an 1840 to do timothy with, the 1839 has an auger reversing kit available to address this.


I had been following your discussion; didn't want to derail it.

Any idea of the cost of the reversing kit?

Thanks,

Shelia


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

How many bales per year do you expect to put on the machine?


----------



## RockyHill (Apr 24, 2013)

somedevildawg said:


> How many bales per year do you expect to put on the machine?


We've been baling 12 to 14,000 but will have more acres in timothy. Plan to run two balers with the timothy. Orchard grass will have a fall cut that may only use one baler so thinking probably no more than 10,000. Need a machine that will get the job done. Have to have good bales.

Shelia


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

How many bales a day? The fellow who sold me the 1840 said in grass hay if his bales per hour on the counter was over 600 he would shear main shear bolts. He tried to stay under 400. Shortish bales as he was towing a bale baron.


----------



## RockyHill (Apr 24, 2013)

slowzuki said:


> How many bales a day? The fellow who sold me the 1840 said in grass hay if his bales per hour on the counter was over 600 he would shear main shear bolts. He tried to stay under 400. Shortish bales as he was towing a bale baron.


Probably 200-300 an hour (we fully go with southern slowness  ). For us two old folks 1,000 a day is a full day. Another baler operator is to be able to get more hay in the barn with each cutting.

Shelia

Shelia


----------



## VA Haymaker (Jul 1, 2014)

IMHO - if you are set on an inline, I think the MF1840 is the cat's meow from what I've read, no first hand experience with it.

Ultimately your capacity is going to be limited by how much flake size and variability in length you can live with - with that flake size, i.e. 3" vs 5", etc, not necessarily one baler over the other.

Probably not a concern, but with an inline, your string is going to be on the cut side of the bale. If you are mixing bales - is that a customer concern?

I really like our JD348 and it spits our as good looking bale as any baler IMHO. Commonality between balers would be nice - to some extent.

I would not be afraid of an MF1840 and/or another JD348.

Good luck,

Bill


----------



## RockyHill (Apr 24, 2013)

leeave96 said:


> IMHO - if you are set on an inline, I think the MF1840 is the cat's meow from what I've read, no first hand experience with it.
> 
> Ultimately your capacity is going to be limited by how much flake size and variability in length you can live with - with that flake size, i.e. 3" vs 5", etc, not necessarily one baler over the other.
> 
> ...


Yep, the 1840 looks good; somehow the newest/most $$$ always has an appeal.

Flake size isn't a huge concern to our buyers. We try for consistent flakes; have one customer that buys 200 bales a year that wants little flakes, other than that what we're doing seems satisfactory.

Our main timothy buyer thinks the inlines are the best balers so the string position isn't a problem there. Have wondered about mixing the bales though.

The commonality has a lot of advantages. Our timothy buyer's thoughts about the inlines is probably where the consideration was given toward going that route. He's good with our 348 bales so there is not a need to change for him.

Guess a lot of it comes down to making a fairly major purchase and looking for what would be best (within reasonable $$$s).

A lot of this goes back to 1976. I was ordering an Oldsmobile Cutlass and I was familiar with eight track tapes and didn't have a clue about those new fangled cassettes. Probably the only one of those '77s that had an eight track player 

Shelia


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

I'd vote for another 348, a machine you know, know the nuisances. Inter-changeable spare parts, operators can switch machines with little variances and same old, same old bales, etc.

Or go all inline balers. Eliminating the possible question from any customer and differences. But I'm spending someone else's money too. :huh:

My two pennies (maybe only one today).

Larry


----------



## paoutdoorsman (Apr 23, 2016)

RockyHill said:


> Jeff was talking with someone that said the MF1840's new auger design would be the only one that wouldn't give problems with timothy. He had problems with a MF1839 balling up in from of the pickup. This was from an individual baling straw and thought the long stem would be similar. This wasn't anyone selling a baler so there was no financial incentive on his part.
> 
> Shelia





slowzuki said:


> I just bought an 1840 to do timothy with, the 1839 has an auger reversing kit available to address this.


What's the theory behind this? I understand some models were upturning augers and some were downturning, but balling up in front of the pickup would simply be too much ground speed in relation to the amount of crop, correct?

Shelia, I have a pair of Hesston 4590's. One of which did about a third of my small bale production in 2017 pulling an accumulator. The second one I picked up last fall and has a thrower. It has turned out to be an all winter project that keeps getting put on the back burner because of other projects.  But back on topic, I baled my wheat straw, 1/3rd of my Timothy, 1/2 my brome , and small percentage of my alfalfa with the 4590. It was new to me. I had no issues with the pickup/feed, and was very impressed with the baler. I also used it to bale in front of a Bale Baron that we demo'd for a day. The Baron required a consistent 32" bale, and the 4590 punched them out with ease. I stacked my Deere 336 bales, and the 4590 bales in the same mows and have not found it to be an issue with buyers at all. I believe sharp knives at the proper clearance is important.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

I have baled Timothy for 6 years with a 1839 and have had none of the issues that have been mentioned. They are great balers.....I went from a Deere to a Hesston and if I bought another baler it would be another Hesston.

Regards, Mike


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

paoutdoorsman said:


> What's the theory behind this? I understand some models were upturning augers and some were downturning, but balling up in front of the pickup would simply be too much ground speed in relation to the amount of crop, correct?


In my experience the issue isn't in front of the pickup it's the extreme change of direction in crop flow with the 1839 or similar auger direction. It shows up more in damp, long crop naturally. Just bale dry crop at a reasonable pace and never have an issue.

I'm with Larry on this one. Both brands are a good choice but I would pick one or the other to keep things simple.


----------



## Snow Farmer (Aug 30, 2011)

We use a Hesston 4570 inline, works well for us in timothy, though we don't do near the volume you do. I think the augers are great, we can go quicker with them feeding hay in compared to our old Massey. But the Hesston will pack up and throw a shear bolt on the flywheel if you don't slow down enough for the really thick windrows. I try to always slow way down when the going gets 'thick' it beats unpacking the hay when a shear bolt breaks. As with any baling, good raking makes it easier.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

In this case, if probably try to find another 348 to keep things consistent.....good luck


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

RockyHill said:


> Yep, the 1840 looks good; somehow the newest/most $$$ always has an appeal.
> 
> Flake size isn't a huge concern to our buyers. We try for consistent flakes; have one customer that buys 200 bales a year that wants little flakes, other than that what we're doing seems satisfactory.
> 
> ...


Nope still plenty of 8 tracks in '77....however, if it'd a been a 80+ you woulda had a unicorn


----------



## IH 1586 (Oct 16, 2014)

RockyHill said:


> Yep, the 1840 looks good; somehow the newest/most $$$ always has an appeal.
> 
> Flake size isn't a huge concern to our buyers. We try for consistent flakes; have one customer that buys 200 bales a year that wants little flakes, other than that what we're doing seems satisfactory.
> 
> ...





somedevildawg said:


> Nope still plenty of 8 tracks in '77....however, if it'd a been a 80+ you woulda had a unicorn


I installed an 8 track in my 1992 pickup in 1998. Wanted to listen to my dads 8 tracks and that was the only thing he had left that played them.


----------



## Maxzillian (Sep 11, 2014)

paoutdoorsman said:


> What's the theory behind this? I understand some models were upturning augers and some were downturning, but balling up in front of the pickup would simply be too much ground speed in relation to the amount of crop, correct?


The down-turning augers could cause issues in some crops (typically those with long, tough stems) in which the augers would pinch the crop between themselves and the auger pan. This would make it difficult for the stuffer to pull material from the pickup which would result in shaggy looking bales, poor capacity and lots of broken shearbolts. Back when the 4590 first came out, it was largely aimed at those baling alfalfa; the down-turning augers were known for not fluffing up the alfalfa as much which led to less leaf loss.

Probably in the last decade or so, the 4590 (now the 1839 and all of its cousins) became more popular for grass hay producers and that demand spawned the up-turning auger kit which eventually became standard equipment on the 1840. The up-turning augers keep the material out of the pinch point between the auger and pan.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

SVFHAY said the keywords....."damp hay". If you bale dry hay you will be good to go. If you bale high moisture hay, you will need to be slow to go.

Regards, Mike


----------



## VA Haymaker (Jul 1, 2014)

Very interesting replies. I'm kind of surprised anyone would recommend another 348 regardless of common parts. I really like mine and would definitely recommend another one. Just when I read posts on various forums, they sound slower than a New Holland BC5070 and the 1840 almost to the extent, IMHO, they are a dinasour design and out of vogue with the commercial hay farmer of today. One thing for sure, there are a ton of parts, parts balers and Internet forum support for JD balers with their common design going back in many ways to the 14t.

But.....

I think a 1840 would be a great baler to try.

Curious - what kind of a physical challenge for an older person or say my wife to clear the stuffer in the event of a sheared bolt in heavy, higher humidity hay?


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

To clear the stuffer chamber you take the door off the backside of the lower stuffer chamber. It is held on by two short bolts. Then you turn the flywheel backwards to help relieve any pressure that is on the plug allowing for it to be removed more easily. On a hot humid day it can be very tiresome to have to do it more than once.

Plugs are highly uncommon in dry hay.....under 20% moisture. I have gotten myself a workout by trying to start baling alfalfa before it is under 25% moisture using a preservative. It pays to wait another hour....and it is amazing what a difference one hour can make. I have learned that in the summer that means that I can usually start baling alfalfa that was windrowed the day before about 11:00 a.m. Alfalfa is some tricky stuff. It can make you say words that you regret. It can take years before you feel like you are beginning to master it. It is much easier to deal with when it is mixed with grass hay like Orchard. Baling is so much easier.

Very few problems baling grass hay with a inline baler if it is dry. Second cutting grass hay you can make quite large windrows and run a pretty good pace.

Regards, Mike


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I plugged my 348 badly in some wet straw once. Have plugged several types of round balers as well. Its never much fun.


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

I can't speak for any of the models with the downturing augers as I have only had experience with the 1840 and 1837 which both have the upturning augers. They are great balers and make really nice consistent looking bales with no adjustments required. Not to say that NH and JD balers can't make as consistent of a bale but in varying crop conditions it is more difficult and adjustment may be needed.....at least with the NH 5070 I had. To me the consistency of the bale is by far the best attribute to an inline baler.

As far as the cut side being on the bottom of the bale with an inline I see that as a non issue.....if a customer has a problem with that and doesn't buy otherwise good hay because of it that is not a customer I would have wanted to deal with anyway. I had been selling hay out of an inline baler for about three years alongside the bales out of my NH and never had a single issue.

The only thing I could possibly say against the 1840 is you can't over feed it like you can a NH 5070 without shearing stuffer bolts. When over feeding the NH the bale quality suffered greatly though. Most of the time it wouldn't be an issue because you don't really want to overfeed the baler anyway but I ran into some mature first cut alfalfa last year that was a rank, tangled up mess and I raked the windrows a little too large and it was a nightmare to bale......whole box of stuffer bolts on that field. Really it was a matter of tangled up clumps of hay getting pulled into the baler all at once more than actually trying to over feed it. I'm pretty certain I could have baled that hay with the NH 5070 without shearing a whole box of stuffer bolts......I attribute that due to the design and length of the NH feed system the clumps have more of a chance to get broken up before entering the bale chamber.

With all that being said I wouldn't hesitate to buy another 1840 and would still choose it over another 5070.

Hayden


----------



## FarmerCline (Oct 12, 2011)

leeave96 said:


> Very interesting replies. I'm kind of surprised anyone would recommend another 348 regardless of common parts. I really like mine and would definitely recommend another one. Just when I read posts on various forums, they sound slower than a New Holland BC5070 and the 1840 almost to the extent, IMHO, they are a dinasour design and out of vogue with the commercial hay farmer of today. One thing for sure, there are a ton of parts, parts balers and Internet forum support for JD balers with their common design going back in many ways to the 14t.
> But.....
> I think a 1840 would be a great baler to try.
> Curious - what kind of a physical challenge for an older person or say my wife to clear the stuffer in the event of a sheared bolt in heavy, higher humidity hay?


 I had the opportunity to operate a friends JD 348 last summer. Really liked the baler a lot and I think in most haying conditions the capacity wouldn't be much less if any than an 1840. Probably lower capacity than a NH 5070 simply because like the 1840 I don't think you can get away with over feeding it like you can with the 5070. When not over feeding the 5070 I don't think their would be much if any difference in capacity between the three balers. Bale consistency was better with the 348 than the 5070 I had. I would buy a 348 before another 5070 and would be a close second choice to the 1840.

Hayden


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I’ll see if we can find a 575 or 5070 in the neighbourhood this summer to get a 348, 1840 and the NH in the same field at the same time.


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

leeave96 said:


> Very interesting replies. I'm kind of surprised anyone would recommend another 348 regardless of common parts. I really like mine and would definitely recommend another one. Just when I read posts on various forums, they sound slower than a New Holland BC5070 and the 1840 almost to the extent, IMHO, they are a dinasour design and out of vogue with the commercial hay farmer of today. One thing for sure, there are a ton of parts, parts balers and Internet forum support for JD balers with their common design going back in many ways to the 14t.
> 
> But.....
> 
> ...


I haven't owned a 348 for a long time but I really liked the one I had. The Deere is the best choice if your gonna use a thrower and it will turn out the best looking bale with fewer broken shear bolts when rebaleing. I think it's the only one with a multiluber option too.

The Hesston makes the most consistent bale and would be my choice for an offset accumulator like a Steffen or a Holeshler(?), everything in a narrow row to fit between windows and bale groups.

The NH will flat outbale the others across a wide crop variety but bale consistency and leaf loss are issues.

Unplugging a Hesston is more time consuming and physically demanding than the others in my opinion.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

slowzuki said:


> I plugged my 348 badly in some wet straw once. Have plugged several types of round balers as well. Its never much fun.


I plugged my previous Deere behind the auger badly a time or two by trying to go too fast. One of the plugs was the worst plug I ever tried to remedy. It took almost an hour before I was baling again.

Regards, Mike


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Every time I've plugged my 348 or 336, its been the pickup/stripper bars area that was the fight to unplug. Usually I could cut the hay out of the auger area without much trouble.

EDIT - I remembered why they always plugged there, no gauge wheel, all my pickup plugs are from crashing the pickup/stalling it, and plowing the windrow several feet before the tines lift off and restart, dragging the wad in.

I do remember an old IH baler we used at the neighbours, they baled ground the floods and the auger was damaged from trash/driftwood. Darned thing would get wrapped up all around the auger like crazy.



Vol said:


> I plugged my previous Deere behind the auger badly a time or two by trying to go too fast. One of the plugs was the worst plug I ever tried to remedy. It took almost an hour before I was baling again.
> 
> Regards, Mike


----------



## RockyHill (Apr 24, 2013)

For now we decided to go with another 348. The main reasons are for familiarity with the balers and to not have mixed cut sides of bales being picked up together. We do want to try an inline and probably will go with a MF1840 (and one just showed up on craigslist after we bought the 348.)

We'd been looking online and had been to look at one last Monday that wasn't quite as good as the picture looked. Last Tuesday I was helping Jeff with something at the barn and when I was finished with my part I ask if he needed anything else. He said off handedly "go buy us a hay baler". I asked if he wanted red or green. So, I come back to the house; call about two that were online  locally. Went to look at the two on Thursday; went Friday to make the purchase. The chain was missing from the hydraulic pickup and the paint is worn on the stripper bands from being used in straw. So I ask for the chain, a can of paint, and a bottle of grease for multi-luber and it be brought to the farm. Dealer didn't have that kind of chain in stock so offered a log chain (with hooks on both ends) along with the paint and grease and of course the customary cap.

Still need to find a side drop bale chute (should have negotiated that too).

Monday morning it is here:

































Sure hope this thing works!

Shelia


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Nice looking baler!


----------



## Wethay (Jul 17, 2015)

That is a nice looking baler. Not much paint missing, any idea how many bales were through it? I hope it gives you years of trouble-free service.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

With the last picture, I immediately thought of dueling banjos, then I notice that the two balers seem to be getting along quite well together. Nice to kin folk getting along well.

Looks like a good deal and shouldn't be any problems, other than the 'who gets to go first' into the hay fields. 

It's sometime nice to have interchangeable spare parts, by using the same model (reducing your inventory cost even). I hope you get many satisfactory seasons from it.

Larry


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Looks good! Commonality of machinery makes life easier!


----------



## VA Haymaker (Jul 1, 2014)

That's a nice baler - but I'm a bit biased having a JD348 myself.

With the exception of a pan kicker, wagon hitch and wagon chute, you got everything. I think JD might even offer a light kit too, but can't remember.

I see hydraulic pick-up lift, hydraulic pick-up position, hydraulic bale tension, cat-5 driveline, multi-luber, gauge wheel and the larger twine box (it looks like your current 348 from the pic angle has the older/smaller one).

We have all those options on our 348, except the only thing hydraulic on ours is the bale tension and pan kicker that we added at the end of last year. We have a wagon hitch too.

As I said, I'm a bit biased and I have no gripes with any make of today's square balers, but IMHO, the 348 is a very good baler. Ours pounds out beautiful bricks - it is a pleasure to operate. Classic design going back to the 50's with the 14t. The 348 has been in continuous production for probably 30 years now. Loads of parts and in our back-yard, much internet support for troubleshooting given it's long design history.

Hope you have a great season baling with it and many years of good service out of it to come.

Bill


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I’m jealous of that large twine box, that’s one of my few gripes about my 348.


----------



## RockyHill (Apr 24, 2013)

Wethay said:


> That is a nice looking baler. Not much paint missing, any idea how many bales were through it? I hope it gives you years of trouble-free service.


 Thanks, this one is a 2013 and the other one on the lot was a 2015 - from two different farms. Dealer said the '15 had about 45,000 but wasn't sure on this one but thought it was about the same. About the only wear is the ends of the teeth and not much there.



r82230 said:


> With the last picture, I immediately thought of dueling banjos, then I notice that the two balers seem to be getting along quite well together. Nice to kin folk getting along well.
> 
> Looks like a good deal and shouldn't be any problems, other than the 'who gets to go first' into the hay fields.
> 
> ...


 Thought if they would get along in a confined space, surely out in the field they'd be OK 



leeave96 said:


> That's a nice baler - but I'm a bit biased having a JD348 myself.
> 
> With the exception of a pan kicker, wagon hitch and wagon chute, you got everything. I think JD might even offer a light kit too, but can't remember.
> 
> ...


 We've been well pleased with the 348. Our timothy buyer (a reseller) really likes the inlines; that was part of the initial considering one. He is fine with our bales and he agreed that his customers probably would question the differences between the cut side/twine.

The hydraulic pick-up, hydraulic tongue position, multi-lube, and gauge wheel were requirements. We just switched the first baler from hydraulic tension to an air bag but will leave this one for now. I kinda wanted a larger twine box but all our fields are close enough to not be too much of a problem. That was a bonus. We will be able to just have the extra twine for which ever baler need it.

We still need the side turn bale chute (and another baler operator). There was a side turn chute but the owner kept it, probably for his new baler.



slowzuki said:


> I'm jealous of that large twine box, that's one of my few gripes about my 348.


 Some of the ones I'd seen Tractor House had them and I thought they looked good. Our fields are close by so about the only time we've needed the extra room is when start baling with twine about to run out. It will be handy to have extra twine (or no telling what I'll stash in there)


----------



## Wethay (Jul 17, 2015)

Some of the ones I'd seen Tractor House had them and I thought they looked good. Our fields are close by so about the only time we've needed the extra room is when start baling with twine about to run out. It will be handy to have extra twine (or no telling what I'll stash in there) 

I have always thought that three roles of twine per side would be just great. My fields are small and close but it seems that often one side or the other is just about ready to switch over when you start a new field. My current baler does not have a multi-Luber so I grease my knotters a small amount, often. I figure adding twine is a good time to at least knock the chaff off the knotters, and maybe add a bit of grease. I have wondered how many times I would find the big twine box getting in the way if I had it.


----------



## IH 1586 (Oct 16, 2014)

RockyHill said:


> Thanks, this one is a 2013 and the other one on the lot was a 2015 - from two different farms. Dealer said the '15 had about 45,000 but wasn't sure on this one but thought it was about the same. About the only wear is the ends of the teeth and not much there.
> 
> Thought if they would get along in a confined space, surely out in the field they'd be OK
> 
> ...





Wethay said:


> Some of the ones I'd seen Tractor House had them and I thought they looked good. Our fields are close by so about the only time we've needed the extra room is when start baling with twine about to run out. It will be handy to have extra twine (or no telling what I'll stash in there)
> 
> I have always thought that three roles of twine per side would be just great. My fields are small and close but it seems that often one side or the other is just about ready to switch over when you start a new field. My current baler does not have a multi-Luber so I grease my knotters a small amount, often. I figure adding twine is a good time to at least knock the chaff off the knotters, and maybe add a bit of grease. I have wondered how many times I would find the big twine box getting in the way if I had it.





slowzuki said:


> I'm jealous of that large twine box, that's one of my few gripes about my 348.


With twine, depending on type and size you use, can you get single ball to fit. I am looking at switching from 9000 plastic to 7200 plastic and one brand I've looked at offers it as single or double ball.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I’ve checked out the bigger spools, we run 9000 poly and there is room for the bigger spools but no body brings them in here.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

slowzuki said:


> I've checked out the bigger spools, we run 9000 poly and there is room for the bigger spools but no body brings them in here.


That's interesting, a friend of mine used 12,000 poly and had to import it from Canada. He would get a bunch and split with others. His wife told me customs was the hardest part every year. He quit doing hay last year and it turn out he couldn't get the twine anymore.

Larry


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Grand harvest is pretty much the only stuff carried around our area. 9000/130 lb.

I see on other sites they sell a 12,000 170 lb and a 10,000 / 120 lb as well but they aren't brought in to our stores.

The fellow who had my baler ran the 170 lb twine as he was using a bale baron and it held up to rougher handling and also really high density straw baling that the 130 could not hope to work for.


----------



## r82230 (Mar 1, 2016)

Yep, now you mention it, it was 170# stuff. He and his neighbors all had throwers and loved the stuff. One time he told me the only time he had a broken bale, seem to have a lot to do with the idiot tying the balls together.

Larry


----------

