# 3 X 3 square vs. 16 X 18 small square



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

I would like some input on the speed and expense of going to 3 X 3 squares.

We run an inline 16 X 18 baler and shoot for 82 - 85 pound bales. We have a New Holland stacker , or harrowbed depending on where you are from. I can round trip the stackyard in 25 minutes to an hour depending on which field I am stacking from. One load is roughly 3 and 1/2 tons. If you are doing the math I will save you the trouble, it's a 1033. We run a hayhead on the S300 bobcat for loading out on customers trailer.

I have some questions and concerns regarding the switch to 3X3's. I am assuming there will be compaction issues at one end of the field or another with the use of the accumulator and the necessary travel to haul the bales off? Has anyone used a Bobcat to gather the bales from the field or do you use a tractor w/ FEL? I am sure that the Bobcat will be good at the stackyard. What price range do you see for a dependable used baler for less than 250 acres? Has anyone compared the time it takes to bale and stack using similar equipment to mine, in comparison to the 3X3's? Do you use a gooseneck trailer or pay someone to run a stack truck?

Last but not least, what am I missing?


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

> Has anyone used a Bobcat to gather the bales from the field or do you use a tractor w/ FEL? I am sure that the Bobcat will be good at the stackyard.


We have used both FEL and skidsteer in the fiield. Either can handle 3 of our 2x3 big squares. Which to use is mostly an operator preference. In the stackyard (for us the barn) the vote goes to the FEL as it can stack a lot higher than a skidsteer.

We haul with a 32' GN trailer and a pair of 16' wagons.

Never did a head to head comparison, but I always thought that we tripled our baling capacity going from little small square (50-60 lb?) to 2x3 big square (500 lb).

Generally we can pick up bales as fast or a little faster than the baler can make them. Only about a 1 mile or less haul though.


----------



## OhioHay (Jun 4, 2008)

This will be our first year doing 3 x 3's. We will load in the field with tractor with FEL. Then at the barn we will use the JCB loadall. Also have a skid loader that I am sure will see some action. For hauling we are going to use 25' goosenecks and 16' wagons. We don't have an accumulator on the baler, so we will have to move through the fields to pick them up. I expect baling time to be about 3x as fast as the 14x16 small square and twice the 4x5 round baler. I hope it works out that way. I think picking up time will be similar to the rounds and small squares with accumulator.


----------



## brandenburgcattle42 (Sep 6, 2012)

I get 10-11 ton on my 30' trailer with my 3x3. 23ton on my semi. I try to get enough trailer to the field to get most of the hay on wheel then my loader guy can move fields while i jocky hay home. No doubt the big squares are faster. Your tons per qubic foot will be so much more so you will haul home lots more per trip. Sell ur wagons for a stinger stack truck. Lol


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

It looks like you're baling at least 12 tons an hour and hauling away at 3-6 tons per hour.

A 3x3 should move you up to what 15-20 tons per hour baling so bottleneck is still going to be your hauling.

Picking 3x3's off the field using some type of loader will be slower per ton than a bale wagon so you need to pick up the tons being moved per trip and cut down trip time to gain capacity.

A long gooseneck on truck is fast if you have loader at the other end. Semi-truck would be faster if you have access.

If you don't get setup in time for 3x3 this season you really should get a self propelled, you would hit 10-20 tons per hour at least, maybe more on short hauls. Is your barn too short for one? If it was a newish one it could be converted to pickup 3x3's with the milstak.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

I used to bale 16x18 bales and pick them up with our 1089 stacker so I had more capacity to stack faster with for the small bales then you do. Went to 3x3 bales in 2012. Found out for grass hay our the accumulator tended to break bales quite a bit. But for stacking with a FEL it's easier. I used a 25 foot gooseneck to stack the hay putting on 24 bales a time. I found it took more time to stack the field with the FEL and gooseneck then it did with the 1089 stacker with the 16x18 bales. However my dad always baled with the small bales and I ran the stacker. With the 3x3 bales I do both baling and stacking so after 2012 I thought stacking with a FEL was a pain and took way to long. 30 minutes to load 30 minutes to unload and maybe 10 on the road. Way to long!. So I got a milstak attachment for the 1089 since the 1089 was just sitting there doing nothing anyways. Now by myself I can bale and stack 3x3s as much or more then I used to be able to bale with the 16X18 inch bale with my dad running the baler and me the stacker. Took the accumulator off the baler and sold it since it was a pain and the milstak works better with single bales. So I don't have to spend time scooping broken bales off the accumulator and rebaling broken bales.


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

You are correct in that my bottleneck is hauling, always has been. On a good day in the fields that are close I can pick up and stack 3 loads an hour, if everything goes perfect.

As to the barn, let's just say I can fit anything under it, no matter the size. Someday it might even have a roof. I am trying to make everything pay, and having only bought this place in 2006, and started from scratch, including house, shop, corrals, fencing etc. I don't have a barn yet. I am however in the middle of putting up a horse barn. Mamma's request. One day we will get the hay barn that we want.

I have been looking at the Sp stackers pretty hard. I have to admit that I was looking more to the 1069 than the 1089 w/ milstak. I have never thought about that.

This will be a dumb question I am sure, but how hard is it to switch from milstak to small square and back? My first thought is that I could do both, depending on my customer base, and I could sell the 1033.

It would be good to mention here that my operation is a 1 man show, the acres vary by the year, and mamma helps a lot......with moral support. Thus far the most that I have tackled is just under 250 acres and this year is shaping up to be 150 maybe a hair more. Farming is not my primary income and it depends on how masochistic(sp?) I feel I guess.

How much am I looking at for a reasonably dependable 3X3 baler? I suppose that a 1089 would not be a huge jump from a 1069, other than price and technology. lol.

In a completely unrelated topic, I have two neighbors that are set to retire this year and want out of about 1000 acres of hay ground, most of it lease. They are up in their 70's and getting tired, both have brought up the subject with me. I am not really ready for that much ground, not even close actually. It would open an entirely different can of worms, and frankly, it would ruin what is now my hobby more or less. They both have some nice equipment though.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

Lostin55 said:


> You are correct in that my bottleneck is hauling, always has been. On a good day in the fields that are close I can pick up and stack 3 loads an hour, if everything goes perfect.
> 
> As to the barn, let's just say I can fit anything under it, no matter the size. Someday it might even have a roof. I am trying to make everything pay, and having only bought this place in 2006, and started from scratch, including house, shop, corrals, fencing etc. I don't have a barn yet. I am however in the middle of putting up a horse barn. Mamma's request. One day we will get the hay barn that we want.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure a used 1089 stacker by itself is going to end up costing you more then a used 3x3 baler. Plus don't forget you need around a 150hp pto tractor for that 3x3 baler if you haven't got one. Here's the deal on the Milstak. I have yet to switch back from the milstak to small bales, but it seems relatively simply and with practice I'm sure you can do it in about 45 minutes. With a 1089 they say you can stack 15 bales a load. However you have to either remove the side racks to get the full 15 or just do 14, which is what I do for now. Or do some sort of modification to raise the cross bar a couple inches higher. The 1069 is supposed to only be able to stack 10 I think with a milstak. Not sure if it has the upper crossbar issues or not. Instead of looking into buying a stacker and Milstak I might suggest a pull type big bale stacker if you have a fairly powerful tractor that won't be hooked up to the baler. Milstak has a pull type as well as Proag makes good pull type big bale stackers.


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

A 1069 right now is roughly $35K and a 1089 is roughly $85K. Either way a Milstak is $20K new.

As to tractors, I run a 100 horse JD and a 4440 JD, which should be 135 - 150 horse depending on who you believe.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Just out of curiosity, if you are storing outside, why wouldn't you roadside with the 1033 with a portable backstop? A 1033 that isn't on the road is much closer in speed to a SP when only roadsiding. Could you tarp there? Can a 1033 retrieve stacks?

With your 4440 JD you could haul old flatbeds with a dolly convertor probably could handle 20-30 tons but may want some brakes on that. We pull double 8 ton wagons for our fields that are far away with either the 1 ton or the 100 hp tractor. 16 tons vs 3.5 ton per trip. Teslan is bang on about the big bale stackers but they aren't cheap either.


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

I am assuming that roadsiding is stacking at the field? One of my fields is inside the city limits and owned by the hospital, it will one day be an expansion project. Theft would be high there as it is close to the college horse barn. It is also my poorest hay due to the hours I am allowed to work don't coincide with the dew.

Of all my fields, three are close to the stackyard and the one furthest away has a little spot I could put hay, the others don't have the room. I have considered stacking at the field but worry about it as my neighbors have lost a good bit of hay from doing the same thing. My stackyard is close enough to the house and only has one way in/ one way out, past the house.

A 1033 cannot retrieve stacks, I have tried to anyway and met failure.

I like the idea of the big trailers and there are plenty around.

I looked at the milstak website and like the pull behinds for my size of operation. The problem that I am faced with right now is to bite the bullet and go to the 3 X 3 or stay with the small squares, or do both? The SP 1069 is affordable and would speed things up a lot for the small bale stacking.

Change is always difficult, and by nature I am resistant to it. The wife wants to stay with small squares but I have not figured out why yet. It is still up in the air for me. My existing customer base is also all small square, although there is a large market for 3X3.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

I'll say its really the market that matters, here the only thing worth selling is small squares. JD3430 has a really good thing going near him selling rounds. I have heard several folks in the west say the price per ton on big squares is higher than any other form.

Here a serviceable 3x3 is still 30-40K and its got some miles on it. A low end self propelled stack wagon is 10-15K.

They are kind of rare but stack retriever bodies for 3-5 ton trucks are fast for moving roadsided hay to where ever or for delivering it later.

A 3x3 and big bale retriever scales up to 1000 acres a lot easier than an older stackwagon.

Not sure about round bale prices out there but with your limited hp the highest capacity would be a newish 5x6 round baler with netwrap.

I was asked about going from my current 100 acres to nearly 500 acres of 2-3 ton per acre hay. I run two square balers together already so I'd have to make major changes to my operation. I might take on 60-100 acres of it but I just can't take it all without dumping 50K into a bale baron or similar. Also not interested in hiring enough help to handle that much hay.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

slowzuki said:


> I'll say its really the market that matters, here the only thing worth selling is small squares. JD3430 has a really good thing going near him selling rounds. I have heard several folks in the west say the price per ton on big squares is higher than any other form.
> 
> Here a serviceable 3x3 is still 30-40K and its got some miles on it. A low end self propelled stack wagon is 10-15K.
> 
> ...


I suspect since Lostin55 is sort of in the same area as I that the rounds bring less money then big square or small square by quite a margin.


----------



## MT hayer (Mar 1, 2014)

I never have been around the wagons you people use. They look like a nice out fit. I seen the milstack arm, looks like it works. Several people have recommended to me to get your wagon first and then the baler. They are tougher to find. 
I have ran the pro Ag square bale machine, tough to beat. I would highly recommend a 160 or bigger tractor for the baler. Sure the tractor will run it, most ptos will last a while, but your ring gear takes a beating from the constant movement back and forth. The humor is all gone when the baler is running and your in gear not going anywhere...... Are you all flat ground? The 44 might be light for one, just something to think about....


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

Only thing ill add to all this great info is if your lookin at gettin a sp balewagon id get the 1089. The front end is built a lot heavier than a 1069. It sounds like you might do both big and small squares and that 89 will handle the big squares a lot better. Ive heard a 69 will take a milstack but the 89 were more made for it


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

Teslan is correct. In this area round bales are considered cow hay at best and rarely bring even decent money. The squares have the market, increasingly the 3X3X8's. There is a huge market for small squares. A lot of guys around me are actually shipping hay down to near Teslan to the auctions just to move the hay earlier in the year. The 3x3 ship better than the 4x4's, for reason of square footage per load.

All of my ground is irrigated, and while not perfectly flat, it is just a very gentle slope. The 4440 is a little lighter than one would like but several neighbors run 3x3's with them. Most everyone runs duals on them.

Around here 20K buys a really decent 1049 super and 35K buys a pretty nice 1069. I am having trouble figuring the correct value of a 3x3 because the prices are all over the map. Local jockey says 15-25K buys a decent one.

As to the question of expanding, it is more a pipe dream than anything else. I could do it but I would tie up the other side of my life with it and that isn't something I really want to do. I should say that I live two separate lives, working in the oilfield I work a 14/14 day rotation and am gone half of the time. I have always told my wife that if she could just find a boyfriend that works the opposite hitch and would pick up my slack, we could have more fun when I am home.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

Lostin55 said:


> Teslan is correct. In this area round bales are considered cow hay at best and rarely bring even decent money. The squares have the market, increasingly the 3X3X8's. There is a huge market for small squares. A lot of guys around me are actually shipping hay down to near Teslan to the auctions just to move the hay earlier in the year. The 3x3 ship better than the 4x4's, for reason of square footage per load.
> All of my ground is irrigated, and while not perfectly flat, it is just a very gentle slope. The 4440 is a little lighter than one would like but several neighbors run 3x3's with them. Most everyone runs duals on them.
> Around here 20K buys a really decent 1049 super and 35K buys a pretty nice 1069. I am having trouble figuring the correct value of a 3x3 because the prices are all over the map. Local jockey says 15-25K buys a decent one.
> As to the question of expanding, it is more a pipe dream than anything else. I could do it but I would tie up the other side of my life with it and that isn't something I really want to do. I should say that I live two separate lives, working in the oilfield I work a 14/14 day rotation and am gone half of the time. I have always told my wife that if she could just find a boyfriend that works the opposite hitch and would pick up my slack, we could have more fun when I am home.


I ran a 3x3baler for 5 yeaes thinking 3x3 bales were the best square fottage possible. I relized i was wrong. 3X4 is really better of the two. The 3x4 is much denser then the 3x3 and you only have to approach the trailer twice compared to three times. Also the 3x4 is much more stable on a trailer. But the 3x3 is easier to handle for customers with smaller loaders. Not tryin to change ur mind just more stuff to think about


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

bbos said:


> I ran a 3x3baler for 5 yeaes thinking 3x3 bales were the best square fottage possible. I relized i was wrong. 3X4 is really better of the two. The 3x4 is much denser then the 3x3 and you only have to approach the trailer twice compared to three times. Also the 3x4 is much more stable on a trailer. But the 3x3 is easier to handle for customers with smaller loaders. Not tryin to change ur mind just more stuff to think about


Did you upgrade balers when you went from 3x3 to 3x4? That could be your density improvement.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

That might help but i hauled loads of both 3x4s and 3x3s and the 3x4 always were heavier on the same trailer. Other 3x3 owners have told me the same thing. Althoughyou might be right newer balers will probably make heavier bales. My 3x3 baler was a 2006 krone pig pack 88


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

Now you guys have gone and thrown more options out there. Once I make up my mind I will be full of indecision. Would a 3X4 not render my 4440 useless for baler tractor? I know that a 3x3 would be pushing it. A 3x4 would surely require at least 160 hp? So I guess it comes down to a 1069 vs. a 1089, a 3x3 vs. a 3x4, a milstak vs. fel and trailers, and a larger tractor. I am sure the accountant is having heart failure if he is reading this, and he farms as well.

The bitter truth is that it will be difficult to cash flow all of these changes, and I have to arrive at a solution that least upsets my wife.

I am having trouble with the theory on bale weights. Assuming a cross section of trailer has 6- 3x4x8 bales or 9- 3x3x8 bales, that is 576 CubicFt vs 648 CF. Is the density enough to offset a difference of 72 cf , or 9% more hay,per 8 foot section of trailer? That would be impressive.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Teslan might be able to answer this out of my own curiousity, if you stack a block of 3x3's in the field with a loader can you retrieve the stack with a 1089 wagon with just the sides out a bit wider?


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

Your cross section and cubic feet aren't quite right because 3x3s aren't actually that wide. (Nor are they that high but neither are the 3x4s)


----------



## Gearclash (Nov 25, 2010)

3x3 bales are usually 32" wide by 35" tall. 3x4 are 47" wide by 35" tall, if my memory serves.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

Lostin55 said:


> Now you guys have gone and thrown more options out there. Once I make up my mind I will be full of indecision. Would a 3X4 not render my 4440 useless for baler tractor? I know that a 3x3 would be pushing it. A 3x4 would surely require at least 160 hp? So I guess it comes down to a 1069 vs. a 1089, a 3x3 vs. a 3x4, a milstak vs. fel and trailers, and a larger tractor. I am sure the accountant is having heart failure if he is reading this, and he farms as well.
> The bitter truth is that it will be difficult to cash flow all of these changes, and I have to arrive at a solution that least upsets my wife.
> I am having trouble with the theory on bale weights. Assuming a cross section of trailer has 6- 3x4x8 bales or 9- 3x3x8 bales, that is 576 CubicFt vs 648 CF. Is the density enough to offset a difference of 72 cf , or 9% more hay,per 8 foot section of trailer? That would be impressive.


I know what you mean information can be overwhelming. But at least you see all the angles. Just based on my experiance 160horse tractor wouldbe needed regardless. I ran a 4640 with duels on my 3x3 and it handled it good but there were times i wish i had a little more. 
I got by really well with 2 skid steers amd goosenecks for my big squares. And i really like my 1089 for small squares. I think u said u have a pull type for little bales so your setup there. If u buy a big square u could get by for awhile with your current tractor. As for hauling... if you dont have to go far ive seen people hook 2-3 flat bed bale wagons with the standard removed. That way you woildnt have to buy trailers rightaway. Just lookin for the cheapest way to get started. You can always expand down the road. Hope this kinda helps!
Also like i said before i think a load of 3x4s is a heivier load but i even seen guys stack 3x4s on edge of trailer 3 wide then go 2 wide 2 high from there if your lookin for max load. That would be 7 3x4s per row and still be under hieght laws


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

slowzuki said:


> Teslan might be able to answer this out of my own curiousity, if you stack a block of 3x3's in the field with a loader can you retrieve the stack with a 1089 wagon with just the sides out a bit wider?


I haven't tried it, though I should. It might be a good idea to take off a few of the load rack and rolling rack tines to get under the bales easier as they aren't all needed anyways. It would be easier to do with a 3x4 load then a 3x3 load I'm sure as they are wider and less apt to fall off the back. I'll try it once this summer and find out if I can. Maybe just try with 6 bales first or so. I'm wondering if the hydraulic cylinders are good enough to pull all the weight back very often though. You wouldn't have to set the sides out wider as how it is the tables are about 6 inches wider on each side of the bale how it is on the 1089. If one was going to buy a used NH stacker and Milstak for just stacking large squares the 2 wide stackers are much better. Like the 1095 and newer.

And Lostin55. If you most of your customers have smaller loaders or whatever they may not be able to handle the larger 1200 +/- lb bales of the 3/4. I've found very few smaller livestock owners have a loader that large, while even a little 40 hp tractor with a FEL can handle one 3x3 (barely).


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

I might be wrong but i dont think the cylinders on a stackwagon bed can pick up a stack. When stacking amd the bes is tipped back i know there is a point of no return. Lol


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

bbos said:


> I might be wrong but i dont think the cylinders on a stackwagon bed can pick up a stack. When stacking amd the bes is tipped back i know there is a point of no return. Lol


I've had it pretty low with small bales and brought it back, but with small bales there is the point of no return when the bales start falling the other way. Of course I never tried actually going back down after the small squares were all the way back because that would just result in a huge mess.  I was just thinking about trying to retrieve the big bales. If the strings were down you probably would snag and snap quite a few. But if you stacked them in the field with a loader with the strings on the side then they wouldn't catch.


----------



## SVFHAY (Dec 5, 2008)

Lostin, I can't add much to conversation beyond this, identity your market and know pricing of different product for a few years back to see any trends. If your angle is strictly efficiency and scale that's cool, but you are now playing in the big pond.

Now not to hijack the thread but teslan has my curiosity stirred. Why did your accumulator break strings on grass but not alfalfa? Or did I misinterpret something?


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

SVFHAY said:


> Lostin, I can't add much to conversation beyond this, identity your market and know pricing of different product for a few years back to see any trends. If your angle is strictly efficiency and scale that's cool, but you are now playing in the big pond.
> 
> Now not to hijack the thread but teslan has my curiosity stirred. Why did your accumulator break strings on grass but not alfalfa? Or did I misinterpret something?


Nope. I have no idea why. Alfalfa never broke strings, not one. Grass hay 1 out of 20 bales it seemed sometimes. All 4 strings usually not just one or two. Also they were never broken in the chamber. Only after they came out and were on the accumulator. And I tried different strengths of string also. When we took it to the dealer to take off and sell the baler tech suddenly decided he knew why it was breaking strings something about the angle coming out of the baler! I was like why the heck didn't you tell me this a year and a half ago when I was complaining about it to you and you told me to quit complaining that there was nothing wrong and the accumulators were great. A neighbor that bales with 4x4 bales says he never uses the accumulator part when baling grass, straw or oats. Just goes to manual and sends them off the back. Then the problem was if you didn't pay real close attention and miss one broken bale then when the other came out it would break pushing on the broken one. Since getting the rolling chute before 2nd cutting last year I haven't broken one grass bale or alfalfa. This is with a MF accumulator on a MF baler. Maybe other brands are better?


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

Teslan said:


> Nope. I have no idea why. Alfalfa never broke strings, not one. Grass hay 1 out of 20 bales it seemed sometimes. All 4 strings usually not just one or two. Also they were never broken in the chamber. Only after they came out and were on the accumulator. And I tried different strengths of string also. When we took it to the dealer to take off and sell the baler tech suddenly decided he knew why it was breaking strings something about the angle coming out of the baler! I was like why the heck didn't you tell me this a year and a half ago when I was complaining about it to you and you told me to quit complaining that there was nothing wrong and the accumulators were great. A neighbor that bales with 4x4 bales says he never uses the accumulator part when baling grass, straw or oats. Just goes to manual and sends them off the back. Then the problem was if you didn't pay real close attention and miss one broken bale then when the other came out it would break pushing on the broken one. Since getting the rolling chute before 2nd cutting last year I haven't broken one grass bale or alfalfa. This is with a MF accumulator on a MF baler. Maybe other brands are better?


I run a phiber accumulator and 95% of what i bale is grass and straw. We had the same issue of broken bales so i literaly drove my truck behind it to see why it was breaking bales. We noticed the trigger was being tripped too soon. It seemed to be because grass and straw are not dense like alfalfa "bricks" are. So the bales sometimes come out in a slight angle downwards hitting the button too soon. We turned the trip button down so the bale had to come all the way out of the chamber to cycle the accumulator. This helped us a ton! I hate chasing bales around the field when im use to the accumulator. It still breaks a bale every once in a great while but not near as bad as it did b4 the ajustment. Maybe something to consider


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

bbos said:


> I run a phiber accumulator and 95% of what i bale is grass and straw. We had the same issue of broken bales so i literaly drove my truck behind it to see why it was breaking bales. We noticed the trigger was being tripped too soon. It seemed to be because grass and straw are not dense like alfalfa "bricks" are. So the bales sometimes come out in a slight angle downwards hitting the button too soon. We turned the trip button down so the bale had to come all the way out of the chamber to cycle the accumulator. This helped us a ton! I hate chasing bales around the field when im use to the accumulator. It still breaks a bale every once in a great while but not near as bad as it did b4 the ajustment. Maybe something to consider


I don't think there is a way to adjust the trigger on a Hesston accumulator. It's at the very end of the accumulator and I think the bale was far enough out every time, but maybe I'm wrong. Doesn't matter anyways as we sold that accumulator anyways and have a rolling chute. Works better with the Milstak attachment to have the bales on the field in singles anyways.


----------



## Lostin55 (Sep 21, 2013)

Teslan you are correct, again. Most of my customers couldn't handle anything bigger than a 3x3. We have already talked about part of the reason behind all of this. There are still regular loads heading your way and they are cash flowing well at the auctions. It involves much less hassle and can be arranged on a schedule vs waiting for a call. A good return at any rate and lump sump to boot.

SVFHay, As to playing in the big pond, it doesn't bother me much, I live in deep water half of the year anyway. My tolerance to risk is good and you are correct about me looking for efficiency and scale. That is the driving force behind everything I am trying to do. What I do not want to do is marry myself to an oversized expansion and multiple employees, I deal with enough drama at my day job.

Bbos, a 1033 for what it is worth will lift a full load back up. Granted, it is a pull behind but it's hydraulics have the power. Getting it into position to use the power, and the sideboards, prevent it from accomplishing the task with any regularity.

I have the trailer capacity to make it work, and the skidloader as well. There again, just looking at efficiency.

I have learned a lot about the different options from this thread, and I thank all of you for input. It has been interesting to say the least.


----------



## hay hauler (Feb 6, 2010)

Dont think it would be easy to steal the 3x3 of the field, so could field stack....?

In my experence you will be much faster if your buy a newer 3x3. The old ones around here are much slower, dont see a gain except the bigger bale to load out from the stack, less manual labor.

1089 or newer for a millstack. the 1069 has frame problems as it is.

3 mile tips in our 1049 with average 2+ loads a hour so 260-290 bales a hour. Buy a nice wagon if its your first, or have a winter to fix it up. There a lot of work to fix up.

And honastly i think a good trailer and a backhoe with do what ya want pluss ya get a nice tool for the off season. If you could set up a hill or something to side dump of the trailer only need one machine in a way. Use to do that with round bales.

Seams like the big bailers are good if your going for high production and putting up a good bit of acres.

Just my oppinion...


----------

