Low Horsepower tractor hay balers

[rankrank1]

I have a NH 638 in the barn specifically for 4-4's in twine and it has acid application as well. It will run full bales of 12% forage with less than 40 pto input all day.

I am not doubting you. I simply stated successful baling with low hp requires careful selection of the baler - sounds like your baler is a winner for low hp.

I would equate picking a baler to towing a camper with a pick-up truck. If all you have is a full-size truck with a v6 engine it will successfully pull a camper if you pick the right camper for your conditions. Lots of hills go smaller baler if hp limited, plan to pull a wagon go smaller yet with low hp, etc.

Also not to cloud the issue, but hp is only part of the equation. My Kubota for example is 26 max PTO hp but it has a low torque engine. Works great on PTO loads like mowing but put a plow behind it and it falls on its face. Many older tractors with lower hp but with more torque will out plow it on drawbar loads. That said, My little Kubota does pretty well on my 1960 New Holland 65 compact baler. The NH 65 or a Ford 520 are absolutely the 2 smallest balers you can get cheaply though - short of going with the high priced mini balers which were specifically built for itty bitty tractors

Here is an older picture, I plan to bale tomorrow and will try to take a newer pic - hopefully my wife will not paint herself out of the next pics like she did on these pics- LOL. I had some more pics, but lost many of my pics due to a computer crash - was only able to recover what i had uploaded to photobucket.

 

[5030]

I am not doubting you. I simply stated successful baling with low hp requires careful selection of the baler - sounds like your baler is a winner for low hp.

I would equate picking a baler to towing a camper with a pick-up truck. If all you have is a full-size truck with a v6 engine it will successfully pull a camper if you pick the right camper for your conditions. Lots of hills go smaller baler if hp limited, plan to pull a wagon go smaller yet with low hp, etc.

Also not to cloud the issue, but hp is only part of the equation. My Kubota for example is 26 max PTO hp but it has a low torque engine. Works great on PTO loads like mowing but put a plow behind it and it falls on its face. Many older tractors with lower hp but with more torque will out plow it on drawbar loads. That said, My little Kubota does pretty well on my 1960 New Holland 65 compact baler. The NH 65 or a Ford 520 are absolutely the 2 smallest balers you can get cheaply though - short of going with the high priced mini balers which were specifically built for itty bitty tractors

Here is an older picture, I plan to bale tomorrow and will try to take a newer pic - hopefully my wife will not paint herself out of the next pics- LOL

Absolutely. If you stopped mid bale with the 638, there would be no way you could get the bale rolling again. You'd have to eject it. If I had the M9 hooked to the 638 (which I do ocassionally), I can pick it up mid bale, no problem because it has the torque rise that a smaller engine don't.

I had an older NH Hayliner 66, the same bailer that NH sold with a Wisconsin engine on (Amish love 'em)... and it could be run quite well with my friend's Farmall A and the Farmall made maybe 20 pto horses on a good day. I sold it to a Doctor and his wife with a few acres of hay that they fed their nags with. he was going to run it with his TC35 Boomer, plenty of tractor for the Hayliner.

I will say that my new NH 575 high capacity square bailer really throws a tractor around and you 'know it's back there' all the time.

 

[BeeferMan]

It is NOT true that all new/modern small square balers are high capacity balers that require high horse power. The current model New Holland model BC5050 requires 35 hp.

What will probably make that a non-option will be the price, not the hp requirement.

We have run a NH 311 (mid 80's small square baler) behind a Ford 600 without any problems. Flat field, not using the thrower. More weight would be better for sure, but no problem in the hp department...

 

[Duffster]

On small square bailers, knotters are generic, that is, basically the same no matter what name is on the unit or the color.

MF has a very unique knotter.

Good luck towing your wagons. :laughing:

 

[houstonscott]

Sorry, this one works.

AGRIQUIP.com

HS

 

[flusher]

MF has a very unique knotter.

Good luck towing your wagons. :laughing:

Yep, the MF SureTie knotter is quite a bit different from the JD and NH knotter designs-- a more compact design and pretty easy to setup and maintain. I spray the two knotters in my MF124 baler with WD-40 every month or so to keep them fresh and clean.

 

[rankrank1]

It is NOT true that all new/modern small square balers are high capacity balers that require high horse power. The current model New Holland model BC5050 requires 35 hp.

What will probably make that a non-option will be the price, not the hp requirement.

We have run a NH 311 (mid 80's small square baler) behind a Ford 600 without any problems. Flat field, not using the thrower. More weight would be better for sure, but no problem in the hp department...

True, NOT ALL modern mainstream balers require high horsepower, but most of them do. Regardless even the smallest modern mainstream ag balers are higher capacity than the ones from the 1950's and 1960's and therefore they do require a little more hp. People in the 1950's and 1960's were baling with 20-25 horsepower tractors as that was the common size tractor back then. If you slip up and actually buy a high cpacity modern baler then look out as results will not be pretty.

Your Ford 600 has more torque than my Kubota as well as the OP's Kubota. 35 horsepower from a true ag tractor is different than 35 horsepower from a compact tractor and differnt yet again from a 35 horsepower lawnmower type engine. (i.e. ag tractor has lots of engine torque, compact tractor has some engine torque, and the lawn mower type engine has almost no torque).

If I was the OP:
a) NH 65 or Ford 520 are absolute smallest mainstream vintage square balers available but not easily found as not many were sold . NH easy parts - Ford hard to get parts for.
b) NH any number between and including 66-273 (except the 77 which is a behemoth albatross) ("Supers" on the 2 digit models preferred for better plunger bearings - rollers instead of wood). (66 also has other wood in it in a wadboard - some people love the 66 some people hate them).
c) John Deere 14T or 24T (prefer the 24T over the 14T as it has a better pick-up).
d) There are a few a Massey's I would look at too if price was cheap.

 

[5030]

MF has a very unique knotter.

Good luck towing your wagons. :laughing:

I never considered MF. No one has any of that brand around here.

I'll be towing this weekend by the way.

Guess I'll have to break down and take some pictures.

MF tractors were unique as well. One reason thay arn't acceptable here. Parts and ancillary items are a PITA.

 

[5030]

True, NOT ALL modern mainstream balers require high horsepower, but most of them do. Regardless even the smallest modern mainstream ag balers are higher capacity than the ones from the 1950's and 1960's and therefore they do require a little more hp. People in the 1950's and 1960's were baling with 20-25 horsepower tractors as that was the common size tractor back then. If you slip up and actually buy a high cpacity modern baler then look out as results will not be pretty.

Your Ford 600 has more torque than my Kubota as well as the OP's Kubota. 35 horsepower from a true ag tractor is different than 35 horsepower from a compact tractor and differnt yet again from a 35 horsepower lawnmower type engine. (i.e. ag tractor has lots of engine torque, compact tractor has some engine torque, and the lawn mower type engine has almost no torque).

If I was the OP:
a) NH 65 or Ford 520 are absolute smallest mainstream vintage square balers available but not easily found as not many were sold . NH easy parts - Ford hard to get parts for.
b) NH any number between and including 66-273 (except the 77 which is a behemoth albatross) ("Supers" on the 2 digit models preferred for better plunger bearings - rollers instead of wood). (66 also has other wood in it in a wadboard - some people love the 66 some people hate them).
c) John Deere 14T or 24T (prefer the 24T over the 14T as it has a better pick-up).
d) There are a few a Massey's I would look at too if price was cheap.

Old JD's are getting hard to come by unless worn out.

Far as torque, that large round hunk of cast that's on the front (or side) of the bailer called the flywheel, precludes the need for substaintial torque rise.

Even the newest NH square bailers have V Belt grooves machined in the flywheel, for a reason I imagine.....

 

[MHarryE]

Old tractors did have more torque. For example, my Kubota L5740 is a 57 net hp engine with 166 lb.-ft. torque at 1900 rpm. A Farmall M has almost exactly the same torque, 163 lb.-ft. at 900 rpm. I have never run a baler with my Kubota but I am pulling a disc we bought back in 1957 when we bought a Case 400 Super Diesel which I believe is a 54 HP tractor. I agree that the flywheel that really drives the plunger through its stroke negates the need for a lot of torque rise. The old Wisconsin engines used on those old balers didn't have much torque rise but they did get the job done.

As for knotters, old McCormick-Deering binders used a knotter similar to the New Holland knotters, but IH used a different knotter on their old balers. I believe the Deering patent for that knotter had run out and for some reason IH chose to go with a cost reduced knotter design on the 45 baler. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the Deering design had a stripper that stripped the bill hook while the new IH design relied on the bale moving along through the chamber to pull the twine off the bill hook. From what I have read the JD 14 used a knotter similar to the NH so both would be better deals than the IH 45 or 46.