Baling with a compact - minimum size?

[Farmwithjunk]

John Deere web page states the minimum HP required to run a JD348 Baler is
35 @540 RPM.

As is the listed minimum hp on the model(s) 328 and 338. Problem is, 35 hp won't keep it up to speed while feeding hay into it. BTDT, bogged a 60 hp tractor in an average windrow w/a 348.

 

[putt_putt_green]

If your interested, check out my post from a year ago on my trip to Europe where we visited a hobby horse farm on the side of a hill. They used a walk behind round bailer, which I have a picture of.

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/owning-operating/104745-swiss-hobby-horse-farm.html?highlight=swiss+hobby+farm

 

[rankrank1]

John Deere web page states the minimum HP required to run a JD348 Baler is
35 @540 RPM.

Balers come is low, mid, and high capacity models. Anyone considering using a compact tractor to power the baler should stick to the low capacity models in my opinion. I am not real familiar with the 348, but am pretty sure that it is not considered a low capacity unit.

(e.g. Kinda like pulling a camping trailer with a compact pick-up truck: the camper choice has to be properly sized to the truck in order to work. Well the same applies with the baler - stick to the smallest capacity models and it can work under the right circumstances if one plans accordingly).

 

[Rara Avis]

If your interested, check out my post from a year ago on my trip to Europe where we visited a hobby horse farm on the side of a hill. They used a walk behind round bailer, which I have a picture of.

http://www.tractorbynet.com/forums/owning-operating/104745-swiss-hobby-horse-farm.html?highlight=swiss+hobby+farm

You can get the walk-behind round balers from here...
http://www.earthtoolsbcs.com/equipcatalog.pdf

Check out page 4...Item #2...

 

[R W]

As is the listed minimum hp on the model(s) 328 and 338. Problem is, 35 hp won't keep it up to speed while feeding hay into it. BTDT, bogged a 60 hp tractor in an average windrow w/a 348.

35HP did appear way to low, the only person I know with a JD348 runs it with
a 100HP JD.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

35HP did appear way to low, the only person I know with a JD348 runs it with
a 100HP JD.

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)

 

[slowzuki]

An 80 hp International depending on the model could weigh as little as 7-8000 lbs or as much as around 12,000 lbs. The 52 hp IH we had with a loader and cab and 4wd and loaded tires was about 10,000 lb. Could hardly get out of its own way going up hills with 8000 lb of hay behind it.

An open station, no loader L5030 with unloaded tires is 4090 lbs. The cab model is about 4400 lbs or so. The loader w mount brackets is a bit over 1000 lb, the bucket and q/a is 400 lbs, the tires hold 850 lbs of fluid. That puts you at 6650 lbs. I usually take the bucket off at least during haying. Sometimes I take the loader arms off.

Id have to be sitting there watching the scales to belive a 5030 with FEL and cab and even loaded tires goes 6500 lbs!!!! My buddy has an OLD Ford..I think its a "601 PowerMaster"..? ( automatic tranny thingy) and it doesnt move around like the 5030 does with the sq baler and Im mighty sure it dont even get close to 6500 lbs ( no cab on the old Ford...just lots of old cast iron)

His other tractor is a late 80's International ( 80 HP turnbo charged job) but it dont have a cab and the "pansy" ( thats my nickname for him..lol) wants to ride in that AC....lol

 

[chetlenox]

See, now you guys have perked my interest.

I spent last weekend baling my little 13 acre field with my JD 4520 (~3700 lbs, 53HP engine, 45HP at the PTO) using my neighbors in-line Case baler (Hesston design). It was the first time I had used my tractor (we typically use his Case, but it was broken down). I thought it worked just fine. Minimal rock-and-roll, I could control the baler just fine, and could feed the hay at a rate which, to me, seemed reasonable.

Based on this result, I am planning on picking up one of the JD model balers (328, 338, or 348) or maybe a New Holland this winter. I can't imagine there would be that much difference between the Hesston and John Deere balers that the Hesston would work just fine on my little tractor but the JD would require a 100+ hp tractor upgrade?

For example, here is a youtube video of a late model JD being pulled by a small JD cut, similiar to mine... Doesn't seem to be too big of a deal.

YouTube - Baling Hay

Let me know what ya'll think, but it seems to me the requirements for a small square baler might be over-exagerated by everyone but JD and New Holland (who both say 35hp for their low-capacity models). Maybe the folks commenting are just used to running through 100+ acre fields and just need the speed that only high-horsepower can provide.

Chet.

 

[zzvyb6]

Chet, you must be crazy, EVERYBODY knows you need 100+hp to run a baler. Why, I read that right here on this forum. You just might be laughed right out of the Waffle House for using your "garden" tractor for that purpose. Man, get some sense. What will the neighbors say? I believe I also read that there's a lot of jerks out there when it gets done.

Just because some of us do it don't mean that ordinary regular folks will get away with it. We are crazy, that's our excuse. But for you to do it will require you to join the club as a dues payin' member...

The videos of ancient JD tractors running 336 balers were made with PhotoShop or sumpin. Couldn't possibly be real. Notice how many of them there are?

 

[flusher]

See, now you guys have perked my interest.

I spent last weekend baling my little 13 acre field with my JD 4520 (~3700 lbs, 53HP engine, 45HP at the PTO) using my neighbors in-line Case baler (Hesston design). It was the first time I had used my tractor (we typically use his Case, but it was broken down). I thought it worked just fine. Minimal rock-and-roll, I could control the baler just fine, and could feed the hay at a rate which, to me, seemed reasonable.

Based on this result, I am planning on picking up one of the JD model balers (328, 338, or 348) or maybe a New Holland this winter. I can't imagine there would be that much difference between the Hesston and John Deere balers that the Hesston would work just fine on my little tractor but the JD would require a 100+ hp tractor upgrade?

For example, here is a youtube video of a late model JD being pulled by a small JD cut, similiar to mine... Doesn't seem to be too big of a deal.

YouTube - Baling Hay

Let me know what ya'll think, but it seems to me the requirements for a small square baler might be over-exagerated by everyone but JD and New Holland (who both say 35hp for their low-capacity models). Maybe the folks commenting are just used to running through 100+ acre fields and just need the speed that only high-horsepower can provide.

Chet.

Here's another data point just to make this very interesting thread a little more complete:

The recommended minimum pto hp for my MF-124 two-twine square baler is 30 hp. PTO speed is 540 rpm that gives 80 strokes per minute on the plunger (30" stroke length). It weighs 3060 lb and the pickup width is 56 inches, which, I think, qualifies it as a small or medium size baler.

I have a 1964 MF-135 diesel (45 hp engine, 37 hp pto) and a new Mahindra 5525 (55 hp engine, 45 hp pto). The MF-135 weighs about 4500 lb with filled rear tires. The 5525 weighs 5370 lb without filled tires and probably around 5600 lb filled. The 5525 does OK with the baler. Haven't tried the MF-135 yet with the baler.

 

[Soundguy]

since we will have to be compairing new and old.. some of the semantics don't apply straight across the board. If you look at hp and weight.. the 3k is much closer to a CUT of today.. than a utility model of today.. vs what it was designed to be back in 65 when it was new.. etc.

Soundguy

I've owned a couple 3000's. One was bought new in 1973 and stayed with me until 2 years ago. They were (a) "pre-compact tractor" era, (b) adjustable track width to accomodate row cropping to a degree, (generally NOT a feature emphsized with a traditional "compact tractor" of today) and (c) considered a mid-sized utility tractor in their day. Ford touted them as a general purpose utility tractor for small or large farms in sales brochures of the day. In the 60's and 70's, many small farmers still used 35 to 45 hp tractors as their primary "big tractor". The 3000 wasn't even the smallest of Fords utility line-up "back in the day". Long and short, they were marketed primarily towards small farmers as "farm tractors".

A 3000 may compare in hp and to some degree, in physical size to some of todays bigger compacts, but they are a tried and true utility tractor from a past era.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

since we will have to be compairing new and old.. some of the semantics don't apply straight across the board. If you look at hp and weight.. the 3k is much closer to a CUT of today.. than a utility model of today.. vs what it was designed to be back in 65 when it was new.. etc.

Soundguy

Utility tractors of ANY generation are still utility tractors. What constitutes a utility tractor isn't so much physical size or horsepower, but it's intended use. The 3000 was and still is a general purpose utility tractor. The fact that a utility can do many of the same functions as a compact or vice versa, there are still a good many fundamental differences. There's also still a vast number of utility tractors built today that aren't any bigger, and in some cases, even SMALLER than the 3000. The size and horsepower range of what constitutes a utility tractor has expanded upwards along with the times, but still takes in those smaller general purpose tractors too. But in the end, a tractor is a tractor is a tractor and I suppose we can call 'em anything we want, just like we can USE 'em for whatever we want.


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

 

[slowzuki]

I'll be the first to admit, that Ford 3000 will probably still be going when my 5030 is in the scrap heap. Its is simply built stronger where it counts for farming. Pull the axles and you'll likely see planetaries and large axle shafts. The gears in my Kubota are probably just big enough to do exactly what was needed, I'd bet the 3000 has oversized square cut gears and may have shared its tranny with a larger machine.

I know farming with a CUT can reduce its lifespan but shoot, most compacts die a mundane death of parts going obsolete with low hours on the clock at an old age.

Utility tractors of ANY generation are still utility tractors. What constitutes a utility tractor isn't so much physical size or horsepower, but it's intended use.

 

[Soundguy]

I not going to argue with you.. It's pointless.. as many of us here know.... but if you want to split hairs.. get the guy to read the model ID code off the 3000, and let FORD tell you what it was designed for, when it rolled off the assembly line..... unless the 2nd digit is a '4'.. it is not a utility tractor. I'd bet that the 2nd digit is a '2' meaning it is an agricultural all purpose machine. ( Vs Highway, LCG, RICE, Row Crop, Vineyard, NF, Utility, or industrial ).

soundguy

Utility tractors of ANY generation are still utility tractors. What constitutes a utility tractor isn't so much physical size or horsepower, but it's intended use. The 3000 was and still is a general purpose utility tractor. The fact that a utility can do many of the same functions as a compact or vice versa, there are still a good many fundamental differences. There's also still a vast number of utility tractors built today that aren't any bigger, and in some cases, even SMALLER than the 3000. The size and horsepower range of what constitutes a utility tractor has expanded upwards along with the times, but still takes in those smaller general purpose tractors too. But in the end, a tractor is a tractor is a tractor and I suppose we can call 'em anything we want, just like we can USE 'em for whatever we want.


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

 

[Farmwithjunk]

I not going to argue with you.. It's pointless.. as many of us here know.... but if you want to split hairs.. get the guy to read the model ID code off the 3000, and let FORD tell you what it was designed for, when it rolled off the assembly line..... unless the 2nd digit is a '4'.. it is not a utility tractor. I'd bet that the 2nd digit is a '2' meaning it is an agricultural all purpose machine. ( Vs Highway, LCG, RICE, Row Crop, Vineyard, NF, Utility, or industrial ).

soundguy

Let's see... The POSSIBILITIES are, Highway, Rice, Row crop, Vineyard, NF, UTILITY, Industrial, OR agricultural ALL PURPOSE (Seems One of us, maybe ME, mentioned that one already...) . WHAT? NO mention of your CUT?

OK, let's let FORD tell us? Is it a CUT as you contend?

 

[tjkadar]

This is one of the most informative and entertaining thrreads going right now. I'm posting in order to not miss anymore posts.

I think, what is being said here, is you need to match your haying equipment to your tractor to your fields. What might work well for one person is not necessarily going to fit another's needs. Baling hay is part science, part art, part mechanical wizardy, and part luck. The type of grass, density, windrow size, moisture, and speed all play a part in what you need in a baler and tractor.

Just remember, if it was easy, everyone would be doing it.

 

[Soundguy]

Let's see... The POSSIBILITIES are, Highway, Rice, Row crop, Vineyard, NF, UTILITY, Industrial, OR agricultural ALL PURPOSE (Seems One of us, maybe ME, mentioned that one already...) . WHAT? NO mention of your CUT?

OK, let's let FORD tell us? Is it a CUT as you contend?

I believe it was you that pointed out that the term "CUT" is realitively new to the tractor world. Nowadays we divide tractors up into categories based on more or less, size and HP... the real small lawnmower jobs are SCUT.. then move up into the 30's hp rang.. and you get CUT.. get higher into the 48+ or so range and you hit utility.. and then it gets even fuzzier where AG starts... .. maybee 80? One of the areas you see the breaking points are the lift category size.. IE.. cat 0, 1, 2, and 3. It's not a real stretch to call cat 0 tractors scut, cat 1, cut, and cat 2 utility.. etc.. etc..

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.

The 3000 was a cat 1 tractor. While you could do lots with a 3000.. there is a big difference in being able to do something, and being able to do it well.. or doing it in an ideal situation. 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.


As a test.. i used my ford 850 on my 10' mower. I scooped up a concrete counterweight into the loader bucket as 'ballast'. My rear 3pt lift will groan, but get the mower lifted and resting on it's rear wheels in 'mowing' position.
The engine will spin up the 10' mower too.. just got to slip the clutch a bit. With all this empirical evidence .. I can say.. that yes.. my ford 850 will run a 10' mower in a flat pasture clipping bahial grass tops.. Is it ideal? Heck no.. it's crazy.. but it works. Big difference in 'possible' and ideal. Sure.. you can bail hay and pull a wagon with a 3000.. I've -seen- it done with a JD-B ( 28hp ) chugging can smoking and popping the whole way.. it the driver would have had a thermos of milk with him, the top inch of it would have churned to butter after 10 minutes... but it WORKED!

A 3000 is simply not what we are calling a utility class of tractor these days... If it had a cat 2 hitch, more hp, and a 4000 decal on it.. then yeah.. getting warmer there...

soundguy

 

[Modn]

Id have to be sitting there watching the scales to belive a 5030 with FEL and cab and even loaded tires goes 6500 lbs!!!! My buddy has an OLD Ford..I think its a "601 PowerMaster"..? ( automatic tranny thingy) and it doesnt move around like the 5030 does with the sq baler and Im mighty sure it dont even get close to 6500 lbs ( no cab on the old Ford...just lots of old cast iron)

His other tractor is a late 80's International ( 80 HP turnbo charged job) but it dont have a cab and the "pansy" ( thats my nickname for him..lol) wants to ride in that AC....lol

Actually the old 601 and the L5030 are pretty close for weight:3255 lbs for my '55 Ford 860 (600/601 bigger sister), and 3745 lbs for my L5030HST both without cab, loaded tires or any front loader. I bought mine due to knowing the 860 could accomplish anything I wanted to do (don't know about the baler gig as I'm not interested). They are very close in overall dimensions/power/weight.

 

[Farmwithjunk]

I believe it was you that pointed out that the term "CUT" is realitively new to the tractor world. Nowadays we divide tractors up into categories based on more or less, size and HP... the real small lawnmower jobs are SCUT.. then move up into the 30's hp rang.. and you get CUT.. get higher into the 48+ or so range and you hit utility.. and then it gets even fuzzier where AG starts... .. maybee 80? One of the areas you see the breaking points are the lift category size.. IE.. cat 0, 1, 2, and 3. It's not a real stretch to call cat 0 tractors scut, cat 1, cut, and cat 2 utility.. etc.. etc..

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.

The 3000 was a cat 1 tractor. While you could do lots with a 3000.. there is a big difference in being able to do something, and being able to do it well.. or doing it in an ideal situation. 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.


As a test.. i used my ford 850 on my 10' mower. I scooped up a concrete counterweight into the loader bucket as 'ballast'. My rear 3pt lift will groan, but get the mower lifted and resting on it's rear wheels in 'mowing' position.
The engine will spin up the 10' mower too.. just got to slip the clutch a bit. With all this empirical evidence .. I can say.. that yes.. my ford 850 will run a 10' mower in a flat pasture clipping bahial grass tops.. Is it ideal? Heck no.. it's crazy.. but it works. Big difference in 'possible' and ideal. Sure.. you can bail hay and pull a wagon with a 3000.. I've -seen- it done with a JD-B ( 28hp ) chugging can smoking and popping the whole way.. it the driver would have had a thermos of milk with him, the top inch of it would have churned to butter after 10 minutes... but it WORKED!

A 3000 is simply not what we are calling a utility class of tractor these days... If it had a cat 2 hitch, more hp, and a 4000 decal on it.. then yeah.. getting warmer there...

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" )

 

[JiminGa]

I spent several thousand hours on a Ford 3000 over the years and I am sure it was as much or more a tractor as say a new JD 5103... no way I would compare it to a cut other than maybe physical size. that tractor pulled stumps, disc harrowed fields and rotary cut a whole lot of acres.