# tractor size hp for use on big square baling



## bunkhouse (Aug 10, 2013)

To all , Question I have is . Can I use a john deere 2950 with 85 HP. on baling with large square baler ? Land is mostly flat except for a slight hill grade of about 6 to 1 grade. Their is a 986 IH tractor 105 HP. with duel PTO that I can get, and I know that the IH can square bale just fine. Reason why is I am looking at both tractors tonite and need to make a decision. Thanks. Please let me know soon as possible !!!

John


----------



## aawhite (Jan 16, 2012)

Do you mean a 16 x 18 square baler? Cause any of the big balers (3x3, 3x4, 4x4) would eat that tractor alive.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

You're best bet between the two will be the IH with duals.......or was it duals....


----------



## bunkhouse (Aug 10, 2013)

a square baler a like IH 8575 for 3x4x8 bales .


----------



## bunkhouse (Aug 10, 2013)

The deere 2950 is a 6 cyl. Turbo


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

bunkhouse said:


> The deere 2950 is a 6 cyl. Turbo


I have no experience with big squares, but.....I think weight is the biggest issue, but hp needs to be higher as well for that baler I believe.....either tractor have duals or mfwd, etc.


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

Neither of them are heavy enough or have enough horsepower, in my opinion. The pto will not like it much either.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I think you would just barely be able to run a 2x3 old style baler on that hp. Most people running 3x4 would be up into 140-200 hp in a large frame tractor not a small frame one.


----------



## Jay in WA (Mar 21, 2015)

I run a 2170 3x4 baler on a JD 8110. Its short on power in lighter hay when pushing it. I would not even consider what your looking at.


----------



## bbos2 (Mar 20, 2015)

160 hp minimum on 3x3. 180 is better even on flat ground. I ran a 3x3 on a 160 and it had its hands full but did get the job done


----------



## Uphayman (Oct 31, 2014)

I run a jd 4960 on a 3x3. You could use that size tractor (2950).....to move it from one spot to another in the shed.


----------



## bbos2 (Mar 20, 2015)

Missed the post saying it was 3x4. I think 200 hp would be more the size you need. Maybe get by with 180 but I wouldn't want to go that small


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

85-100 hp would only be adequate for a 2x3 baler and then only barely if there are steep hills involved. A typical 3x3 baler weighs 15,000 lbs. Tractor weight is as important as hp.


----------



## Farmerbrown2 (Sep 25, 2018)

Friends of mine run a new 3x4 hesston on a IH 1466 lots of weights and turned up , got there hands full.


----------



## bunkhouse (Aug 10, 2013)

Decided on JD 4430 Quad 140 HP. we will turn up the hp down the road IF I get a big square. Thanks everyone for the input. May end up with 3x3 square baler down the road anyway.

Long day tomorrow getting 6x6 rounds out of fields. Good haying to everyone.

Thanks

john


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

bunkhouse said:


> Long day tomorrow getting 6x6 rounds out of fields. Good haying to everyone.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> john


What RBaler produces 6x6x's?

Ralph


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Never seen one either Ralph, surely the OP meant 5x5......

That 4430 will please you, plenty of weight......


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

May have been 5x6, they seem popular out west in Canada.


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

somedevildawg said:


> Never seen one either Ralph, surely the OP meant 5x5......
> 
> That 4430 will please you, plenty of weight......


Never heard of one either. But, there's a lot of things I've never heard of---so that's why I asked. A 6x6 could be kind of cool.

Ralph


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

JD 530 is apparently 6x6, nh 851 chainer 5.5x5.5

I'm not so sure that 530/535 are 6x6, I'm seeing reference to 5x6.

How about an NH 858? 7.5 x 5.5 ft.


----------



## bunkhouse (Aug 10, 2013)

Sorry for misprint on bale size !!! Bale size is 5x6 not 6x6 as previously stated . 44 bales for 13 acres on orchard grass fields, not bad over 2.0 tons per. acre. I just, don't like big rounds !!!!!!

john


----------



## danwi (Mar 6, 2015)

I think with the 4430 the drawbar can be a little weak for a big square baler. Alot of people put a support up to the 3 point arms.


----------



## Three44s (May 21, 2016)

The 4430 is a fine tractor but it's not a great choice for a large square. I run the tails off 16X18's with ours and could see it on a round baler in a heartbeat.

I don't have a lg square but it simply does not run with the big dogs mentioned by other responding folks here that do have them.

My .02 worth

Best regards

Three 44s


----------



## haybaler101 (Nov 30, 2008)

I pull a NH 3x3 on a CIH 7220 magnum. Tractor is 2 wheel drive and factory stock @ 160 hp I think. Duals are never taken off of the tractor. The baler absolutely man handles the tractor on hills. The tractor is weighted to about 20,000 lbs. power is not as much of an issue as traction, stability, and stopping.


----------



## Jay in WA (Mar 21, 2015)

A 4430 is not enough on a big square baler. Too light, short on power, and the drawbar is going to break. Buy a large frame row crop for the big baler. Years ago I ran a 4x4 baler on a 4450. Got by but would never do it again. Broke the drawbar mounting bolts and the drawbar.


----------



## bunkhouse (Aug 10, 2013)

Some design engineer out there will one day design a square baler a little bit bigger than a round baler . The round baler produces a large bale compared to the size of the machine. The weight and size of square baler is stupid for the size of a bale !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like I said, some engineer and more than likely raised on a farm will make a fortune on a patent for design concept.

Maybe a large frame tractor down the road, we'll see.

John


----------



## Three44s (May 21, 2016)

bunkhouse,

I don't get the comparison of a round baler ...... it's rolling the hay and never gets the same compression as the plunger on a square of any size.

So I doubt that an engineer can alleviate the need for a more better tractor to handle the large squares.

Best regards

Three 44s


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

bunkhouse said:


> Some design engineer out there will one day design a square baler a little bit bigger than a round baler . The round baler produces a large bale compared to the size of the machine. The weight and size of square baler is stupid for the size of a bale !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Like I said, some engineer and more than likely raised on a farm will make a fortune on a patent for design concept.
> 
> Maybe a large frame tractor down the road, we'll see.
> 
> John


Its already been done. New Hollands D1000 2x3 weighs around 10,000 when in field operation. That's only 2,000 more than a 5x6 round with a full hay bale in it. I have a CIH legacy Maxxum on a 5x6 round baler, brother has a CIH legacy Maxxum on a D1000. Both handle the baler behind it well. The D1000 was made from the late 80s to mid 90s. NH dropped that bale size until 2014 when the Big Baler 230 was introduced. No # in the specs on the weight of the 230, only a 110 hp power requirement.


----------



## lidaacres (Oct 11, 2014)

My NH BB330 has a triple reduction gear box and *seems* to not require the power my CIH 8575 with a double reductions gear box. To actually run the baler. Not to mention it has a much larger fly wheel. However; it is really heavy, and has significantly more tongue weight than the Case baler so you need a larger/heavier tractor than the Case machine required. Don't run a big baler with too small of a tractor. It is dangerous and hard on your tractor.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I'm beginning to wonder if my JCB @ 200HP would handle a 3x4..... I have hills.....
It's not exactly a new tractor. 17 years old and 7300hrs.
Kinda starting to like the way those RBs can take some rain out in the field, though


----------



## Jay in WA (Mar 21, 2015)

200 HP will be fine.

I was baling last night with my MF 2170. 2.25 ton alfalfa, 29' windrows, 8+ MPH. JD 8110 with a chip 26 flake bales. 70 bales per hr. Would bog down a little on the hills but just fine on the flat ground.


----------



## bunkhouse (Aug 10, 2013)

To three44s : You didn't read my post correctly . I was talking about the size of a round baler compared to what it produces. The square baler size vs. size of bale . That is why a design engineer could make a lighter and smaller machine to produce a square bale , thus a tractor with traction { duels } and less hp. say 150 hp. could pull baler with more ease. I did not talk about function mechanisms . Who designed the airplane , train , car , light bulb . GET IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OH and by the way I inspected fighter jet's and was around engineers 7 days a week. They designed jets smaller in size and carry more weapons than larger fighter jets built in the past. There you go , different and more functions in a smaller air frame, with more advanced S__T than you could imagine.You are not talking to a country hoosier...........

Regards

MR. JOHN


----------



## bunkhouse (Aug 10, 2013)

I will more than likely get a warning for that post but it will be worth it. What my point was, product's get better in most part all the time. You are driving a tractor VS. holding horse reigns that is pulling a plow !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who designed the tractor ? Get my point ? The aircraft people that I worked with everyday was asked by management to help lighten the aircraft and try to improve functions all the time. We helped re-design the F-18 super hornet from the old f-18 a,b,c and d models. I inspected and sold over 400 jets to the government over 30 years and there will be always an area for improvement. There is always hope.

Have a nice day. You never know what a person on this forum has done in the past.

John


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

There is not military money available or even that much interest in building lightweight big square balers. It's not like planes where every pound counts.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Stand easy bunkhouse......the market will dictate when and if the manufactures decide to go that direction again......lets just suffice it to say "you need an ass load of tractor to handle today's large square balers....."

Cash flow, investors, market.....here in the private world that's how things move......Uncle Sam, as you well know, has deeper pockets and spends it like a drunken sailor (no offense to the Navy, just a well earned figure of speech


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

somedevildawg said:


> Uncle Sam, as you well know, has deeper pockets and spends it like a drunken sailor (no offense to the Navy, just a well earned figure of speech


...and one to which I can attest!!  (only difference: this sailor was spending his OWN money) 
73, Mark


----------



## hillside hay (Feb 4, 2013)

Bunk house, the best way I could think to reduce the weight of a large square baler would be to change the compaction process all together. Would be awful spend though. Kinda like F-22 money when you can get by with an A-10.


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

For the benefit of the doubt I am going to assume that several adult beverages were consumed prior to your posting last night. Otherwise, I think you may have overreacted to a simple statement on the part of another member.
Any way that you cut it, a modern large square baler requires a large frame tractor and a lot of horsepower. You can get by with a smaller tractor much in the same way that you can always shoot from the back of a horse, once.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

Bear in mind that large square balers are capable of generating higher density bales than a round baler. It takes driveline mass and chamber structure to make that pressure. I'm sure one of the reasons that the NH D1000 is a lightweight big square is that it is not really capable of generating the bale density of the 3x3 and larger. I think there will be a trend toward heavier round balers rather than lighter big squares. Trying to make a 4x4 big square as light as a 5x6 round (about the same cubic volume by the way) would be a job best suited for NASA, to borrow a phrase.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

The progressive generations of large squares have kept upping the densities they can achieve from what I've read. That means they have to keep gaining structural weight if they are running at similar speeds as the loads are increasing.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I could care less about weight, size, HP required. 
I want one that will wrap a "dry" round bale or square bale for a reasonable coast. 
IOW, I want to make bales without the cost/hassle of building a barn, shipping to barn.storing them, then getting them back out and loading.


----------



## TJH (Mar 23, 2014)

JD3430 said:


> I could care less about weight, size, HP required.
> I want one that will wrap a "dry" round bale or square bale for a reasonable coast.
> IOW, I want to make bales without the cost/hassle of building a barn, shipping to barn.storing them, then getting them back out and loading.


3430 for the foreseeable future the only remedy for what you want is to quit haying. The one that comes up with that one will become the richest person in the world.


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

JD3430 said:


> I could care less about weight, size, HP required.
> I want one that will wrap a "dry" round bale or square bale for a reasonable coast.
> IOW, I want to make bales without the cost/hassle of building a barn, shipping to barn.storing them, then getting them back out and loading.


Well, you can use film wrap instead of net wrap, but that apparently has flaws also.

Stalk bale users would be delighted to have a weatherproof bale, if the cost was reasonable.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I'm really beginning to wonder about the cost of a large round bale barn, property, electric, insurance, maintenance, etc. And the cost to truck balls from field to said barn
Versus
A sophisticate baler, like a McHale, that could bale and wrap bales so they can just stay where they are in rows in the field. 
Something tells me the baler would be cheaper, but how would dry bales sweat? I know they wrap bale age bales, but don't "dry" bales have to sweat?

What if dry, or treated bales were allowed to swear, then they were wrapped? What about the spoilage spots on the bottom after 3-5 days of sitting? Would they mold the bales once they were wrapped?

Sorry for hijacking


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

There is a guy here that tube wraps dry hay. He doesn't have a barn. Lets them sweat then wraps. I'm skeptical myself, I've heard of more failures doing this than success.

I hate tarps but at least you can see how the bales are before you sell them.

Maybe you need a GFC air barn so they can sweat in the tube then you move the fan to the next tube.



JD3430 said:


> I'm really beginning to wonder about the cost of a large round bale barn, property, electric, insurance, maintenance, etc. And the cost to truck balls from field to said barn
> Versus
> A sophisticate baler, like a McHale, that could bale and wrap bales so they can just stay where they are in rows in the field.
> Something tells me the baler would be cheaper, but how would dry bales sweat? I know they wrap bale age bales, but don't "dry" bales have to sweat?
> ...


----------



## socohay (Jul 21, 2015)

So what would the opinions be on either an ac 220 or an ac 7045 with a 3x3 8575?


----------



## lidaacres (Oct 11, 2014)

Don't know a thing about Allis Chalmers tractors, but the bit of research I did it appears that a 7045 would be the more suitable of the 2. As long as you had it properly weighted up. That's probably a similar tractor size wise that I ran my 8575 with. You just need to be cautious on hills so the tractor doesn't get pushed around. It's like anything common sense is fairly important.


----------



## hillside hay (Feb 4, 2013)

So I got to thinking as I headed down a steep hill with a small square baler(2500lbs) and a full kicker rack(200 55 lbs ) plus whatever the wagon weighs. I had 13,500 + lbs behind a 90 HP 10000 tractor. That is very close to what a large baler weighs and the weight isn't an issue.
So my thinking is that needing a 20,000 lb + tractor for a large square is to help ground the mass of the plunger. I have noticed I can make a better bale with my bigger tractor than say a d-17 which has more than enough power for the baler but 3000lbs lighter. Call me crazy? Sun get to me on the old OS tractor?


----------



## Jay in WA (Mar 21, 2015)

A large square baler loaded with hay and twine is well over 20,000 lbs. 50% heavier than your little baler setup. Now add in the fact that your baling at roughly 3 times the speed that your little baler is running.

Years ago I baled with a Hesston 4900 on a JD 4450. It got spooky in the hills. No way I would ever want to go back to that setup.


----------



## hillside hay (Feb 4, 2013)

15 mph on the rock piles out here you would.need a 5pt harness to stay on the seat. No one doubts the requirements for the current large square balers. Keep in mind that 13,500 is offset from the tractor drawbar.
The OP was theorizing and I'll continue in that track. Now I realize it's a static load moving a puddly 5 mph but bringing wagons down from the top we routinely hook two together. Again, weight not an issue. That puts it a little over 20,000 lbs.
No way will a100 HP tractor ever run a 3x4. A little redesign on the balers may someday reduce the need from say a 280 mag to a 180.
Currently the large square operations run as follows: 3x3 180 mag or puma,3x4 240-280 mag, 4x4 380.
Rare to see a setup that isn't CaseIH. For whatever that's worth.


----------



## Jay in WA (Mar 21, 2015)

I run a 3x4 on a JD 8110 165 pto hp. Looks like they have plenty of tractor.

The balers are not going to get any lighter either. Last thing I want is a baler that's built too light and falls apart.


----------



## deerezilla (Nov 27, 2009)

I use a krone 1290 high speed hdp on a Jd 8335r dulled up on all four. I control the baler. Before that I used a Jd 8100 that I knew I had that baler behind me.


----------

