Baling with a compact - minimum size?

[Soundguy]

So, let's get this straight. YOUR definition of a "utility tractor" would be it should be able to power a 10' rotary cutter?


(Can you say "Grasping at straws in a feeble attempt to make a weak arguenment w/ thesaurus in hand" )

i didn't say that at all.. I demonstrated a difference between 'can do something' and 'ideally doing something'. My 850 'can' power a 10' mower. It's about 15 hp and a couple thousand pounds away from being able to do it adequately.

No where in my post did i say that my definition of a cat 2 tractor was one that could pull a 10' mower. You are the one grasping there buddy.. Those words do not appear in any part of my message. Oh.. and no thesaurus needed thank you very much. You solely declaring my argument weak, does not make it so. The facts stand.. when the 3000 was out.. it was the smallest frame tractor ford had.. the 2000 was just a bit detuned.... It's larger brothers the 4000 and the 5000 are much closer to what we now call a utility tractor in hp, weight, and hitch capacity and category... with the 2000/3000 falling easilly into CUT range today, again.. with respect to hitch and hp/weight.

soundguy

 

[Farmwithjunk]

i didn't say that at all.. I demonstrated a difference between 'can do something' and 'ideally doing something'. My 850 'can' power a 10' mower. It's about 15 hp and a couple thousand pounds away from being able to do it adequately.

No where in my post did i say that my definition of a cat 2 tractor was one that could pull a 10' mower. You are the one grasping there buddy.. Those words do not appear in any part of my message. Oh.. and no thesaurus needed thank you very much. You solely declaring my argument weak, does not make it so. The facts stand.. when the 3000 was out.. it was the smallest frame tractor ford had.. the 2000 was just a bit detuned.... It's larger brothers the 4000 and the 5000 are much closer to what we now call a utility tractor in hp, weight, and hitch capacity and category... with the 2000/3000 falling easilly into CUT range today, again.. with respect to hitch and hp/weight.

soundguy

I'll give you one thing, you're entertaining me with your obscure theories and "clinical testing results".

The boat Christopher Columbus sailed across the Atlantic in was not any bigger than most modern day house boats or day cruisers. So, by your theory, would you say Chris 'scoverd America in a house boat or a day cruiser?

 

[slowzuki]

I don't have the numbers in front of me but the 2000 and the 3000 don't appear to be the same at all. Maybe I'm being tricked by tire sizes.

Anyways, yes, today they are not a big tractor, but in the mid 60's the hp wars hadn't started and tractors sort of topped out at 60-70 pto hp.

I don't want to get into a pissing match about it but most CUT's will not make it to say 5000 rated pto hours pulling a baler and rack vs most little 3000 type tractors would be fine to that age.

I'll gladly keep my CUT though as it does so many other things so much better!

Lets peer back to ford in 1965.. their smallest tractor was the 2000.. basically the same tractor as the 3000... move up and you got the 4000.. then the 5000.. etc.

I contend that a 3000 does not compair to what we call a utility tractor today.. but rather to what we call a CUT.. both in weight and HP.
soundguy

 

[Soundguy]

The 3 cyl ford 2000/3000 were very similar machines..

soundguy

I don't have the numbers in front of me but the 2000 and the 3000 don't appear to be the same at all. Maybe I'm being tricked by tire sizes.

 

[Soundguy]

I think that has more to do with tractors being made cheaper today then yesterday... smaller engines.. less overdesign.. etc. Loot at the ci to hp ratio on older tractors compaired to todays. More ci per hp then... IE.. more cast iron back then. " They knew how to build them' and took pride intheir work back then.. that is becomming less and less common now..


soundguy

I don't want to get into a pissing match about it but most CUT's will not make it to say 5000 rated pto hours pulling a baler and rack vs most little 3000 type tractors would be fine to that age.!

 

[Farmwithjunk]

I don't have the numbers in front of me but the 2000 and the 3000 don't appear to be the same at all. Maybe I'm being tricked by tire sizes

The 2000 and 3000 were basically the same chassis. Most (all?) 2000's were void of the options that made a 3000 a much better overall tractor. I've never personally seen a 2000 with live power, although I'd just about bet there were some. The 3000 had a good bit more power, more than the ratings would indicate. Some 3000's came w/o live power too, but generally speaking it was almost a standard feature. Most late model 3000's had the 8-speed tranny. Most (all?) 2000's had 6 forward speeds.

The 2000 came with 12.4X28 rears. SOME 3000's came with 12.4's, but 13.6X28's were optional, along with 14.9X24's.

The 3000 did LOOK bigger. Maybe it was just knowing the difference that made them appear larger, but over-all measurements were almost identical. Weights were very close. The 3000 had a few standard features that gave it a few more lbs.

I owned a 3000 gas (1973) for 33 years. Flat wore it out. (loader tractor all those years. I trashed the front end) I sold it and bought a 1970 3000 diesel. Kept it for 2 years. It had a few "issues" and my heart wasn't into rebuilding it, so away she went. But, had I known in 1973 just how much more tractor the 3000 diesel was over the gasser, I doubt I would have bought a gasser. At the time, I wanted a gas tractor for winter feeding. The thought was gassers were easier to start. The 3000 gas was a cold natured beast. 99 time out of 100, I'd end up feeding with my MF150 diesel. It would cold start when nothing else would.

 

[wolc123]

The Ford 3000 is certainly a CUT by my standards. I owned a 3000 gas and a 2000 diesel and there was no noticeble difference in the power of the (2) machines. Each struggled with a 5 foot rotary mower in thick conditions. The only difference was that I could get a lot more work done per gallon of fuel with the "smaller" deisel so, being the cheapskate that I am, I much preferred that tractor. The JD 4120 that I have today does better with a 6 foot rotary mower in the same field conditions and it is considered a CUT. Because I can run faster, with a wider cut, I can knock out the same mowing job in just over half the time it took with the Fords. The 4120 outclasses and outworks those old Fords in every category imaginable and is significantly heavier, wider, longer, and taller. In the old days (prior to about 1980) the CUT category simply did not exist. Heck, even my 8 hp Farmall Cub could not be called a CUT back then because no one had yet coined the term. I think the ability to run a 10 foot rotary mower in moderate field conditions is right in the ballpark of where a CUT looses the "C". Back to the original question, I would say that the 43 hp, gear, JD 4120 CUT is just about right to run a small, square baler. With a hydro (less efficient) you would want to go up at least to a 4320. Hp is not all that matters on a baler, and I do not believe a JD 3720 (also around 43 hp) is enough tractor to run a baler because it is simply to small and light.

 

[AKfish]

Certainly an interesting discussion... have learned some great information (historical) regarding older model tractors and how they might "stack up" against the newer models that are on the market today.

Appears that the newer tractors are certainly able to run a baler and pull a bale wagon - the remaining question is "how long and at what degree of efficiency/adequacy"?

I'd guess.... after hearing from several reknown "tractor lawyers" hereabouts that the "jury is still out" on that question!!!

AKfish

 

[Soundguy]

Each struggled with a 5 foot rotary mower in thick conditions. .

Well... I'm not surprised the 3000 struggled.. if it was some good tall lush thick grass... I know lush grass is harder to cut than stemy weeds. I've breezed thru 6' and 7' tall stemmy weeds yet had 2' of grass choke down my ex-nh 1920 (33hp ) and a 5' mower. Might i ask what trans you had? 4spd? maybee?

soundguy

 

[Diamondpilot]

Sounds like a lot of work to make $450 bucks gross profit, but I guess it's better than letting it sit.

Actually it was not, only maybe a hour of work each time. The guy that bought the bales picked it up so all I had to do was pick it up out of the field. If I did not have it baled I would have had to bush hog it so what the ****. This year there is no money in hay. I offered it to the guy just last week if he simply paid the cost of having it baled and he picked it up. He told me no thanks, he could get it delivered for about the same money. We have been blessed with rain this year, about every 3 days. I have seen some baling for the second time this year.

Chris

 

[Soundguy]

We are getting so much rain here in florida.. I'm considering bailing part of my bahia pasture.. I'm having to cut it weekly!

soundguy

 

[slowzuki]

I think the problem is the only 2000 I've seen is the smallest of everything offered and the 3000's around here are the largest most optioned out of the series. I didn't even know the 2000 was available in diesel. The 3000 the neighbour had appeared to have the identical transmission as the Ford 5000, non-sychro 4 speed w reverse, 2 ranges.

Both didn't have true live pto but rather a two stage clutch.

I do know that despite similar pto hp ratings, the neighbours 3000 will pull a 9 ft haybine up hills that I have to drop the speed back in my L5030. I think the older lower speed diesel must have a flater torque curve or something. I know mine weighs more which hurts it too but its got more total hp too.

The 2000 and 3000 were basically the same chassis. Most (all?) 2000's were void of the options that made a 3000 a much better overall tractor.

 

[patrick_g]

If the OP still cares...

Here is current pricing for some small round and square balers.

IHI Brand Hay balers

Sales Price

THB 1031 $13,999.00

THB 2031 $14,999.00

MRB 855NW $ 9,800.00

MRB 855TW $ 9,500.00

TRB 910 $14,999.00

IHI Brand Hay Rakes

MGR 2220 $ 3,500.00
MGR 2630 $ 4,500.00

IHI Brand Drum Mowers

MDM 1010 $5,550.00
MDM 1350 $7,350.00


REESE Drum Mowers

1600 5? cut $4750.00

2070 6? cut $5300.00

Tonutti Hay Rakes

2 Wheel Mounted $550.00

3 Wheel Mounted $750.00

3 Wheel Mounted $995.00


This is current pricing at...


Small Farm Innovations (Caldwell Texas) There are other distributors in GA etc.

979-200-1473

To tool up to bale hay is not a trivial investment. You can buy full sized used equipment for less than this small stuff new but... I have seen a lot of people have a lot of grief with a lot of used/abused equipment.

MY friend who has been baling me had a slight problem. His son was baling on my friends place and the baler caught fire and burned to a crisp. I am now searching for someone else to bale for me. The going rate this season is 25/bale to bale your field IF THE FIELDS ARE NOT TO SPARSE so as to take a lot of driving around to make a bale.

Pat

 

[POC]

Sorta like the age old question of what is a pond and when does it become a lake?

A pond becomes a lake when the sunlight no longer reaches the bottom. There may be acreage limitations also.

 

[SPYDERLK]

I hooked one up behind my Massey, which dyno's at 47 hp. Made 'er grunt at VERY slow speed in light grass windrow. Hooked it to my 2440 Deere (60hp) and lit into a windrow at a more respectable speed. Had black smoke rolling. I hit a spot where windrow was doubled. RPM's dropped considerably.

The 348 is for sale. (Belongs to a neighbor) He's switching to rounds. I was interested until I found out how much he was asking

The 348 is Deere's biggest square baler. It's considered a high capacity model. With sufficient hp, you can pack the hay through it. seller runs his with a 4230 Deere (100 hp) or a 1086 IH (130hp)

Sounds like you must be really hauling to use so much HP- was the black smoke from the bale chute? With my IH 37 I go down a 4' wide windrow at between 4 and 5 mph spitting out a firm 14x18x36" bale about every 50'. This takes less than 27ptohp and the tractor isnt shaking. Thats about as fast as my baler will pick up hay- I just verified this on 200 bales of primo orchard grass hay. The screw bounces and the feed mechanism just wont feed it to the paw any faster unless I rev the baler higher and then I run into knot problems. I really dont need any more speed for a private operation, but I know I could get more out of the baler with some adjustments to this mechanism.
larry

 

[steveky]

I'm using a 32 hp Kubota L3010 and a Case / IH 8420 round baler and it works great. The baler makes a 4x4 bale, weights around 400 lbs or so. Was using an old worn out #3 MF baler and it pulled my tractor hard. I was really surprised at how easy this little tractor handles this baler. I'm using it on about 10 acres of rolling hills, nothing too steep and it works great. And the bales are small enough to push them around by hand if you need too.

Steve

 

[patrick_g]

A pond becomes a lake when the sunlight no longer reaches the bottom. There may be acreage limitations also.

Gee, thanks for the info. Yesterday I had 12 ponds. And today at least three of these are lakes. Those particular water features are always so muddy I'm sure light does not penetrate to the bottom very well.

There is an extinction coefficient. If light penetrates even a little below the surface then light makes it to the bottom, perhaps at a seriously reduced intensity but at least a few photons make it. Think of it like Zeno's paradox where you go half the distance to your destination every time period. You get closer and closer but you never go all the remaining distance to your destination, just 1/2 so you never get there no matter how long you try.

With light, a given distance through the turbid water will cut the intensity in half. That distance again will be 1/4 the light and after that distance again 1/8 the initial light. The light will get seriously dimmer but NEVER goes quite to zero. For most practical purposes we can say light doesn't make it to the bottom BUT that isn't precisely true.

Gee, I wish it were true. I'd have such wonderful bragging rights if I had several lakes and some ponds and not just 12 ponds.

Pat