# Square Hay Bales Grapple



## Palmettokat (Jul 10, 2017)

Looking for input on grapple for small square hay bales. Looking for reviews on positive and negative the options and designs. How well they work in the field to accumulate the bales if they do, how tight they are for stacking for hauling and in the barn. Will be used on Front end loader.

Oh ,10 bale size.

Thank you.


----------



## stilsonian (May 27, 2015)

We have owned two grapples and accumulators in the last few years. First was a top-drop Haymaster 8 bale. We had used it for the last 15+ years and it did what we asked of it while we were doing less than 5000 bales a year. Once we started doing more (15k-20k a year), it began to show it's age and we wound up welding on it more than we used it at the end.

Last year we went to Moultry to the expo and spoke with the guys at Parrish AgriTurf Hay Systems (out of Alabama). We had been looking for a 10 bale and had really fallen in love with their setup after seeing some videos. We watched it run in the field, spent 2 hours talking to them in the demo field and bought one on the spot. It too is a ground drag accumulator that hooks to the baler with it's own proprietary mount (our Deere 348 baler needed a new ramp to work, which was provided for free). The Accumulator is VERY well built, the frame is extremely sturdy, everything is greasable, the attachment design (we were concerned at first) works great & never misses a bale on tight corners, and it works in transport mode (meaning no raising/lowering hubs to go from transport to working and vice versa).

The grapple is equally well made. The tines are over-curved so they penetrate the bale fully and don't drop any when rolling over bumpy terrain. The cylinder uses whatever hook-up you specify (we used this as an opportunity to convert from skidsteer style couplers to ISO 8010-4 because the skidsteer style were a major PITA to connect on the old grapple) and the speed is plenty fast. We grapple with a M9540 Kubota with the HD LA1353 loader and it doesn't even know the grapple and bales are on there. Not sure how you'd fair with a small loader, but this grapple isn't lightweight (it's very stout) and the weight of the bales (500+#) added to it might make for a see-saw ride on a small loader.

We too grapple from the trailer to the barn and it does great at this too. This grapple has a rigid packing bar on the RH side, so if unloading from the trailer, start at the back left of the trailer and work forward (repeating for each layer). Once you get the hang of it, it's faster than two guys with a hay elevator. Really is.

My only complaint about the grapple (I have none about the accumulator), and this is specific to 2-4-4 packed grapples, is that if you grab a pack with the two horizontal bales at the end (away from the loader), then you will often pull the inside string off the bale(s). What happens is that the tines penetrate so deeply that they will deform the string, and once you lift the pack, the weight of the bale pulls that string off. It's not a flaw technically, and we work around it by grappling with the horizontal bales close to the loader and just loading from both sides of the trailer, but it is worth mentioning.

Lastly, I have used a Kuhns 10 bale setup for a season and do agree it is just fine for most folks, but I did not like the height of it, the additional stress on the plunger, or the mess it made if a string mistied. We chose not to buy one though I do understand why some do....the benefits of not dragging the bales are legitimate, but we don't have fields that have wet conditions or high levels of ash, so for us, dragging works just as well (the bales are clean on the bottom, they just look "combed").

So, I would highly recommend the Parrish system (or any style like it) as it has exceeded our expectations and has been worth every penny. Not knocking the other styles (Kuhns, Hoeschler, etc...), but this style works best for us and is less fuel than single baling and accumulating/grappling with a Maxilator. That was long-winded, but it's fresh in my mind. Plus, I'll never have to reply about accumulators/grapples again as I can now reference this reply


----------



## Beav (Feb 14, 2016)

Have a Kuhn 1036F 10 bale accumulator works great for us kuhn 510 grapple same load wagons and off load into barn JCB 525-60 telehandler in the field to load and skid steer to stack in the barn. Bought Hoescher 8 bales used once and sold it could never figure it out. I don't agree on the plunger stress because we just reduce the pressure on the hydroformatic chamber to off set the weight of the bales in the chute but I could be wrong. yes broken bales are a PITA and bales need to be consistent 38" to 42" long. What do your local dealers sell is as something to consider too. Good luck


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

There is no additional stress on the plunger from the ramp. You make the same tension bale as what the rails provide.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

slowzuki said:


> There is no additional stress on the plunger from the ramp. You make the same tension bale as what the rails provide.


I would think that depends on how much tension the baler is set for, unless there's a hay dog that catches the bale upon leaving the chamber.....


----------



## stilsonian (May 27, 2015)

slowzuki said:


> There is no additional stress on the plunger from the ramp. You make the same tension bale as what the rails provide.


There is additional stress. Theoretically, there has to be. The plunger drives the flake rearward and each stroke pushes the tied bales out of the chute. When dropping on the ground, there's usually 2 tied bales to drive out depending on chute length. These bales add work to the plunger/tractor with each stroke....mechanically they have to. So, if 2 add work, then even more bales adds more work.

Not true? Would a bale chute a mile long, with over 1500 bales in it make it harder on the plunger? Sure it would. You be hard pressed to find anything to drive such a load, let alone vertically. So, if there's a theoretically insurmountable load at that amount, then there is additional work added by each bale. I never said the tractor or baler couldn't handle the load of a Kuhns setup for many years. Sure it can, but there IS additional work required....to think otherwise is foolish.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

stilsonian said:


> There is additional stress. Theoretically, there has to be. The plunger drives the flake rearward and each stroke pushes the tied bales out of the chute. When dropping on the ground, there's usually 2 tied bales to drive out depending on chute length. These bales add work to the plunger/tractor with each stroke....mechanically they have to. So, if 2 add work, then even more bales adds more work.
> 
> Not true? Would a bale chute a mile long, with over 1500 bales in it make it harder on the plunger? Sure it would. You be hard pressed to find anything to drive such a load, let alone vertically. So, if there's a theoretically insurmountable load at that amount, then there is additional work added by each bale. I never said the tractor or baler couldn't handle the load of a Kuhns setup for many years. Sure it can, but there IS additional work required....to think otherwise is foolish.


I like your logic.

I also like to argue, so...

It is obvious that it takes pressure (supplied by the plunger) to drive the bales up the Kuhns' chute..that's a no-brainer for me.

Also a consideration is: the force to drive the bale thru the chamber is variable depending on how tight the chamber is cranked (without anything attached to the baler). Most people that I read about who operate a Kuhns (I have a drag-type accumulator and not a Kuhns) back their chamber pressure off...way off, to make the same density bale as without the Kuhns. I can crank my chamber so tight that the bales break the knots as soon as they make it out of the chamber; by that I would offer that the back-pressure of the Kuhns ramp (as long as it is not making the bales knot-popping tight) could be less than total drag that I can make by cranking my chamber down?

Is it possible that the pressure needed to drive the bale thru the less-tight chamber + kuhn ramp is equal to the tighter chamber without the ramp? I would think that the back-pressure of bale chamber or bale chamber+ramp is measurable by the weight/density of the bale....so, if one can make the same density bale with the ramp and less chamber pressure, then the ergs needed to make the bale (the plunger work-load) would be the same?

Mark


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

I don't know why it wouldn't have a dog to catch it at some point.....


----------



## Westernstar (Jun 27, 2017)

I just bought a 10 bale kuhns accumulator and grapple and love them. I agree that the weight of the bales is offset by loosening the artificial pressure usually necessary to make a tight bale. I have some small steep hills and it handled them well. I have the flat chute and it's nice to be able to manually retie a bale in the chute,if your watching it's easy to spot a loose string. I did 960 bales this morning and picked them all up and stacked them in the barn. 150 bales at a time on a 24' gooseneck


----------



## stilsonian (May 27, 2015)

glasswrongsize said:


> I like your logic.
> 
> I also like to argue, so...
> 
> ...


Very good counterpoint. There are going to be some constants regardless of bale tension (such as chamber friction, side resistor pressure, etc..), but I would be interested to see what the pressure levels would be in driving nearly triple the bales vertically with the Kuhns setup (with lowered bale tension) versus a conventional baling method (straight drop or ground accumulation) with standard bale tension. My initial thought is the weight of the bales (static pushing weight with some actual gravitational weight of the highest bales) would exceed the pressure of 1-2 bales driven conventionally. BUT, I have been wrong before (don't tell my wife) so I wouldn't bet a paycheck on it. At the end of the day, there probably isn't much in it between the two, but for our sake, we felt the Parrish unit better suited our needs and way of thinking.

As far as the bale density being the gauge for workload, I see it more like pushing a 3000 lb car on flat ground with under-inflated tires vs pushing a 3000 lb car uphill with properly inflated tires. You still pushed a 3000 lb car, but one might be more work than the other. The question is, is it the additional friction from the low tires or the gravitational impact of pushing uphill? In this case, the car is no gauge for workload.

Good conversation...not "argument".


----------



## stilsonian (May 27, 2015)

somedevildawg said:


> I don't know why it wouldn't have a dog to catch it at some point.....


I overlooked this, sorry. Assuming you're talking about the hay dogs...keep in mind that the hay dogs are for end bale formation and hay retention during bale chamber filling. As the plungerhead makes it's rearward stroke, the weight/pressure of the forming bale as well as all tied bales are still felt by the plungerhead. It's the plunger that "drives" the bales out. The hay dogs just hold things in place during the forward stroke and pre-compression stroke of the plunger. Crucial, yes....but not really assisting much in the overall impact of the pressure on the plunger.

I think of them (hay dogs) more like the teeth on a ratchet strap or hand winch. You still have to crank down the strap/cable with the same force, but the holding teeth make sure nothing unwinds while you rest or pause. That's my Southeast Georgia logic at least.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

somedevildawg said:


> I don't know why it wouldn't have a dog to catch it at some point.....


I had plans to do something similar. I was going to use a live-axle and drive a conveyor to drag the bales to the top; it would be ground driven off of the accumulator. At the same time, I intended to use conveyor-type rollers on the bed of the accumulator to lower the friction coefficient so as to be able to lower the overall height of the accumulator.

I still have the material list and plans around her somewhere. I came across the Rafter M accumulator and grapple for 2 kilobucks first. It does a fine job, except in real heavy hay when the bales are too close together; the first bale is not thru the "gate" before the next bale enters. I have had to get off the tractor and pull the bale thru the gate; if using a Kuhn, gravity would pull the bale down even if I had to clutch the tractor to give it time to do it. On my drag-type, the bales being stationary and the accumulator providing relative motion of the bale is sometimes a PITA.

...not this year though. It's so dry that I've been putting postage stamps on with a paperclip to conserve water.

Skip A Rope, Mark


----------



## stilsonian (May 27, 2015)

glasswrongsize said:


> I had plans to do something similar. I was going to use a live-axle and drive a conveyor to drag the bales to the top; it would be ground driven off of the accumulator. At the same time, I intended to use conveyor-type rollers on the bed of the accumulator to lower the friction coefficient so as to be able to lower the overall height of the accumulator.
> 
> I still have the material list and plans around her somewhere. I came across the Rafter M accumulator and grapple for 2 kilobucks first. It does a fine job, except in real heavy hay when the bales are too close together; the first bale is not thru the "gate" before the next bale enters. I have had to get off the tractor and pull the bale thru the gate; if using a Kuhn, gravity would pull the bale down even if I had to clutch the tractor to give it time to do it. On my drag-type, the bales being stationary and the accumulator providing relative motion of the bale is sometimes a PITA.
> 
> ...


I too have had a similar issue in really heavy windrows. On our old accumulator, we added a heavier spring to "snap" the main gate to it's correct side faster to help with this issue. With the Parrish unit, we haven't had many issues with this yet, though I suspect it's due to a better gate flip system and the fact that the extension chute is nearly parallel with the ground so the exiting bale has no gravity assist in falling into the accumulator prematurely. Our old one was sloped downward so the bale would slide as soon as it could....sometimes too soon.

We baled yesterday in a field that produces very well for us and usually the windrows are very dense (presenting the problem above). We've gotten proactive in how we rake to make the windrows just a little bit lighter (adjust rake width in or just leave the outer wheel on one side raking nothing). Doing so makes the bales come out about perfect speed. See below.


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Palmettokat said:


> Looking for input on grapple for small square hay bales. Looking for reviews on positive and negative the options and designs. How well they work in the field to accumulate the bales if they do, how tight they are for stacking for hauling and in the barn. Will be used on Front end loader.
> 
> Oh ,10 bale size.
> 
> Thank you.


The positives are:

I can bale faster with accumulator than I can with wagon riders stacking hay

No need for wagon help that might not show

Accumulator is never hung over and is on-time

I feel that I can stack a wagon tighter with the grapple than by hand onto a wagon that is constantly rocking or tipping from side to side while following contours of the ground. I have a removable "crowd bar" on my grapple to tighten up the grab.

3 people make it work best for me (1 raking, 1 baling, and 1 loading wagons), but I never have 3...usually just two (and it still works fine). Sometimes, it is just me---that works fine too; just lower volume in a day than with 2 or 3.

The downside

When riding a wagon with a hayhook, when the baling is done, so is the loading. Last year it got me. I had about 400 bales of OG/Lesedeza on the ground...I had JUST finished baling and was starting to load. Up pops a quick shower and gets 400 bales of GREAT hay wet.

The baled hay has to sit on the ground a while prior to being loaded and it can pick up some ground moisture if it is there (unless you have enough help to chase the baler with a grapple)

Bottom line, if I didn't have a grapple, I wouldn't sell any hay or hay as much ground as I do. There is no other way that my dad (71 years old) and I could bale small bales. We do 5-7k small bales a year on average.

...and big bales just don't pay here.

Mark


----------



## IH 1586 (Oct 16, 2014)

glasswrongsize said:


> I feel that I can stack a wagon tighter with the grapple than by hand onto a wagon that is constantly rocking or tipping from side to side while following contours of the ground. I have a removable "crowd bar" on my grapple to tighten up the grab.


That is a challenge I would take you up on. I can't stack wagons with a grapple as good as I can by hand. I can stack them good enough to get them back to the barn without falling off but thats about it. A good hand stacked wagon is all tied together front to back and will rock back and forth as one unit where grapple grabs are the same. Depending on how the bales are setup you alternate the grabs on the wagon which does help alot.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

stilsonian said:


> I overlooked this, sorry. Assuming you're talking about the hay dogs...keep in mind that the hay dogs are for end bale formation and hay retention during bale chamber filling. As the plungerhead makes it's rearward stroke, the weight/pressure of the forming bale as well as all tied bales are still felt by the plungerhead. It's the plunger that "drives" the bales out. The hay dogs just hold things in place during the forward stroke and pre-compression stroke of the plunger. Crucial, yes....but not really assisting much in the overall impact of the pressure on the plunger.
> 
> I think of them (hay dogs) more like the teeth on a ratchet strap or hand winch. You still have to crank down the strap/cable with the same force, but the holding teeth make sure nothing unwinds while you rest or pause. That's my Southeast Georgia logic at least.


You assumed incorrectly....I was suggesting fabricating a set of dogs much like the dogs on a stackwagon to suspend the weight in the vertical chute.
But I was talking about the kuhns unit....


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

IH 1586 said:


> That is a challenge I would take you up on. I can't stack wagons with a grapple as good as I can by hand. I can stack them good enough to get them back to the barn without falling off but thats about it. A good hand stacked wagon is all tied together front to back and will rock back and forth as one unit where grapple grabs are the same. Depending on how the bales are setup you alternate the grabs on the wagon which does help alot.


I will throw in that hand-stacking leaves more options to tie the load together and I tend to forget that everyone's operation is not like mine. My fields are mostly flat, but some places take two people on the wagon: 1 to hold the stack while going on a hill or thru a dip or whatever, and another to stack the hay on the ever-shifting load. I feel that it's hard to keep the load tight while rocking the load; don't get me wrong, I can stack it and tie it enough to stay, but the load is looser.
Also I tend to forget that everyone's accumulator/grapple set up is not like mine...mine is a 10 bale flat.

I load rack wagons from the right side because my crowd bar in on the right. I also alternate where the tie bales are. I put more hooks on the grapple to handle the tie bales when they are on the far side from me. Actually, I put more hooks on the near side, too. The first year, I was dropping too many tie bales when loading and it was even worse unloading.

I usually (unless I'm gonna run out of wagons) stack 100 to a wagon (5 high). I alternate the ties for the first 4 rows, then on the fifth grab, I pull up to the grab with the ties away from me, then I pick up the 4 bales closest to me; I pick them up and drive forward and drop them on the other side of the tie bales. Now, I have the tie bales in the middle for the top level. I use 2 ratchet straps per load---front to back. That seems to work great for me and I haven't lost any bales that way.









When I unload into the barn, I set the top grab (with the tie bales in the middle) to the side and (by hand) arrange them like in the last diagram.

Anyone using the 10 bale grab will soon realize that there is a split right down the middle that does not tie the two halves together. When I stacked across the barn, I never had a problem. With the new barn and stacking in rows front-to-back, anything over about 8 high, the stack would start to split and there was nothing to hold the two halves together. By placing a hand-arranged grab (like the last diagram) the fifth grab up from the ground and another on the top stack, I can go 10 high in the barn.

I believe, rather than hand arranging two grabs per load, I will get some snow fencing and cut it to fit the grab. I could just throw it down between the grabs at the 5th or 6th layer.

Trying to become more and more efficient is a constant struggle/strive.

On my rocking/rolling ground, I can keep the wagon's stack tighter then if hand stacking on a moving wagon....not necessarily more stable than hand-stacking, but tighter.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I think folks don't understand the main dynamic of the baler. For a given hay moisture the bale density is proportional to the load on the plunger face. This is how large square balers run the bale tension feedback system. The plunger doesn't care if the load on the plunger face comes from friction on the sides of the chamber or the inertia of the mass of bales climbing a chute.

The friction of the chute is still enough in baskets and kuhns accumulators the bales never reverse direction, even when first filling the chute with puffballs. There are no dogs needed.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

slowzuki said:


> I think folks don't understand the main dynamic of the baler. For a given hay moisture the bale density is proportional to the load on the plunger face. This is how large square balers run the bale tension feedback system. The plunger doesn't care if the load on the plunger face comes from friction on the sides of the chamber or the inertia of the mass of bales climbing a chute.
> The friction of the chute is still enough in baskets and kuhns accumulators the bales never reverse direction, even when first filling the chute with puffballs. There are no dogs needed.


Are you saying those folks that claim having to loosen up on the tension are lying? ...Isaac Newton discovered a force that will reverse those bales back down that chute....I don't know to what extent it happens, but I will defer, having never operated a kuhns unit.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

No I'm saying the sum of the friction, inertial and gravitational forces are equal when you create the same density bale.

There is static and dynamic friction in the chamber, the dynamic friction is a function of speed through the chamber, there is the inertial force which is complex as it's a linear spring mass with damping, then as you climb inclined chute you have gravity.

All complicated but end result is how hard the first bale gets smashed together in the first bale length.


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

I agree, it should be the same but I wanted to clear it up as some may have construed that differently....I see no difference in loosening the tension enuf in the baler to accomadate for the increased friction created by the addition load.


----------



## Palmettokat (Jul 10, 2017)

Just for the record I went into this sure would be getting the WR Long grapplator but when I got the correct price priced a Maxilator and it is to be delivered this week. (may not have either name spelled correct but near enough a search should find them)

A word of caution here: missed the WR Long comes two ways with and without removable rails. To me necessary for tight stacking with the grapple function (the rails need to be removed) but the rails are required for the accumulation. Was doing my pricing from an online seller and they sell the one with the fixed rails and there is a few hundred dollars difference between the two units.

Best I can compare there is a thing or two I liked about each unit compared to the other. Liked there is storage on the WR Long unit for the rails when removed and like the fact the Maxilator has more hooks for the two crosswise bales. Oh I also like it was just over $1,300 less.

I really felt like getting very good price and I wanted it to see how high I can stack for the planning of a barn. But will not have hay for a while of my own but and you will like this: my good friend who will be doing my baling said I can come test it and get proficient with his hay. I mean what a great friend! Seriously look forward to doing just that. Working with friends and family is hard to beat.


----------



## gkuhns (Aug 1, 2008)

somedevildawg said:


> I agree, it should be the same but I wanted to clear it up as some may have construed that differently....I see no difference in loosening the tension enuf in the baler to accomadate for the increased friction created by the addition load.


This is correct. The amount of force experienced by the plunger and the density of the bale have a direct cause and effect relationship. The plunger/knotter mechanism don't really care what is causing the back pressure. The chamber, however, determines the density of the bale. With the chute, we are using energy that would have otherwise been wasted in the compression chamber to transfer the bales to the top of the accumulator. The plunger has no idea that there is a chute behind the chamber. In short, loosened chamber + chute = normal chamber.


----------

