round bales

[lilhoss]

Does anyone use a LA 723 loader to handle round hay bales? I am looking at a L3130 and a L3830 with a 723 loader and want to handle 5 foot bermuda hay bales. I don't know exactly what they weigh, some are much heavier than others. It would be nice to be able to handle larger bales if I needed to. I have spoken to several dealers and most say no problem but one (St Louis area) says it may not be big enough. This dealer says the loader will lift the bales but there may be a problem lifting them high enough to stack.

 

[texasjohn]

See my equipment below, it'a about 50hp.... I handle 100 or so round bales annually, 1500 LBS each... acquiring them and feeding them... my opinion is that my equipment is the MINIMUM that can be used to safely handle heavy round bales. Critical to safety is using a hay spike .... cobbeling up something on a bucket will not work (you likely were not anticipating doing this, just making my opinion known) Key, also, is REAR WEIGHT. I achieve this by having a 3ph hay fork on the rear, loading a bale on the rear FIRST then on the FEL spike, plus 200 lbs extra weight on the rear fork, plus liquid in rear tires. Without this weight, nose dives are imminent. My opinion is that 4 wheel drive is also critical to safety.

Net... if you are only going to do a smaller number of bales, a rear fork is a better deal than a FEL spike. If you are needing to lift bales very high to load them on a trailer, then a FEL approach is mandatory. I just looked at your profile (thanks for filling it out)... for 5 acres and miniture horses.... looks like you are going to be messing with just a few large bales... I definately recommend NOT using a FEL for this, but either a rear fork or a 1 bale hay buggy... they come from a simple 2 wheel plus spike and manual winch to more complex ones. It tales MUCH less tractor to mess with bales from the rear than from a FEL. Cheaper equipment, too.

Bottom line, I think that a L3130 is a little light/small for what you are wanting to do VIA FEL although I haven't checked the specs compared to my machine...... best idea would be to locate someone in your area who has this machine, or larger, and the bale size you are anticipating on handling... and go drive that machine and see how it feels and handles. That's the only way to be comfortable with your decision... before you buy.

 

[Worksmart]

lilhoss - I use a 3830 & 723 w/quick attach at my parents place.......had the farmer across the street drop off a couple 5'? round bales. Put the pallet forks on in place of the bucket to move the bales......no problem but wouldn't want to do it every day...carried them as low as possible...was not very comfortable raising any more than necessary......Rhino 6' box blade on the back for ballast.......have no idea of the weight of the bales.....as texasjohn says...if u are only handling a few I think u'd be o.k........but I would go with a 3830 over the 3130 for sure.........Chuck

 

[lilhoss]

Thanks, texasjohn and worksmart for the good information. I had pretty much decided on the 3830 over the 3130 but now I am worrying that the 3830 is not big enough. I will not use the tractor often but if it is not big enough to move the bales I really don't need it. I would really like to be able to remove bales from the back of my pickup, pick them up off a flat bed trailer and stack them at least two high for storage.

 

[N80]

You might want to look at the 5040.

 

[Worksmart]

lilhoss - The whole issue is the ballast. I only had a box blade. The tires are NOT loaded. The loader is plenty strong enough. Loaded tires I'm sure would make a big difference on the 3830. For the amount of bale handling you indicate you will be doing, I think the 3830/723 would suffice but definitely with more ballast. Chuck

 

[N80]

The lift capacity of the LA723 is between 1400 and 1800 pounds depending on where it is measured from, with 1400 being the practical limit. With bales weighing 1500 pounds I'd say that was pushing the limits of the loader too.

 

[Croomrider]

I have never lifted a round bale, but for 2k more than the L3830 with LA723 you could get an L4330 with LA853 loader. I think that is the same basic setup that texasjohn has except the tractor is 7 HP less. You don't need the HP to move bales. Of course you would have to ballast right.

CR

 

[texasjohn]

OK... you've defined your requirements:

"I would really like to be able to remove bales from the back of my pickup, pick them up off a flat bed trailer and stack them at least two high for storage."

My opinion is that you need an LA853 loader to do this. Your most CRITICAL requirement is to be able to stack 2 high. This means lifting a heavy bale very high, hay spike required, my opinion, not pallet forks, and LOTS AND LOTS of ballast. It's the high lift that defines the hydraulic power you need. So, look at the specs at MAXIMUM LIFT HEIGHT.... that is what will determine what loader you need.

Let me be explicit, I will NOT lift a bale high (and 2 bales high is very high) UNLESS I have a bale on the rear of my tractor for ballast in ADDITION to other ballast weight that I have, including fluid filled tires. Then, it's a breeze. I am sure that on totally flat ground with good traction and 4WD you can do it with less ballast, but farm/ranch conditions are NEVER that way... it is very often slick, uneven, rainy, slanted ground when you MOST need to use the tractor.

Fundamentally, your requrement regarding hay bales is the same as mine was..... the 5030 and LA853 loader are exactly what I need and are safe, but I wouldn't want to do it with less loader or less total properly distributed weight. My equipment is very capable of doing that job and safely, but I can tell that for me anything less would be a constant struggle and worry about doing something wrong that would quickly turn into a serious problem. For me, it is a perfect functional match.... not oversized for the job, nor undersized... and I think I know the difference both ways.

It's a lot of money. If funds are less important, then I can highly recommend my set up. If you need to use less tractor and can live with pulling bales out of your pickup and off the trailer with ropes (as I used to do), and not stacking them, then I, again, recommend you look into a 2 wheeled hay buggy that can be pulled behind either a pickup or your tractor on the trailer hitch. If your 2 bale high lift requiremets are firm, then you MUST get a loader capable of lifting 1500 lbs to max height... remember that when first baled hay weighs a lot more than when fully dry... and when rained on it again weighs a lot more... from my experience, consider 1500 lbs the weight of a round bale, leave some room for weight of the quick attach, hay spike, etc. and you will be OK.

 

[N80]

lilhoss, is there any reason you are tied to the large round bales? There are balers that make small round bales, I'm guessing 3-4 feet in diameter? Most smaller hirse farms around here purchase square bales. Either one would cut down on your tractor requirements significantly.

Also, can someone please explain to me why everyone says not to use pallet forks for moving round bales? I've heard this several times and don't understand. My B-I-L uses pallet forks on both of his larger JDs for moving bales. He is a cattle rancher and told me recently that he gets 400-500 bales in a good season (I'd guessed around 200 earlier). He keeps the forks a certain width apart and scoops the bales up very efficiently, he transports them this way and stacks and loads them too. He often asks me to do so as well. What is the danger? What do I need to know?

 

[texasjohn]

500 bales.... 2 larger JD tractors.... he's moving serious amounts of hay with really big tractors.

Thus, I guess, he's got really long tines on his pallet forks and has lots of experience with them... and room to maneuver with the hay. Pallet fork tines typically are shorter than you would need to completely control a bale of hay although you CAN get really long ones, they are extra expensive.

For me, the answer is physics.

Pallet fork/tines weigh more than a hay spike. Hay spike = more payload and lower hydraulics need.

All pallet fork tines I've ever seen are wobbly and even simply slide side to side for width adjustment. I've never used a pallet fork for hay moving, but would worry about the stability of carrying a bale when its supporting member is inherently movable. Hay spike is fixed, stabs way INTO a bale and has small tines that prevent rotation of the bale.

Pallet forks ride on the bottom of the bale, thus seems to me that lowering a bale to the ground then pulling backwards would result in scraped ground, damaged bale/string and difficulty in creating a long roll of bales, end on end, tight together to prevent water entering the ends where the bale is vulnerable. Also, seems you would have to destroy ground/grass/bottom of bale to slide pallet forks under a bale to pick it up. Hay spike is IN the bale of hay and you simply lower the bale into place whereever you want then take the weight off the spike and back up. Bale stays exactly where you placed it... not drug around any. To pick up a bale, stab the spike into the end of the roll, just above center so it is bottom heavy and doesn't want to roll, lift and go.

To carry a bale on pallet forks, they would have to be tipped up to keep the bale from rolling off (which seems to me could happen easily if tractor was not properly ballasted and tipped forward unexpectedly) and this would obscure the drivers vision on many smaller tractors and also raise the center of gravity. With a spike, the bale can be carried "flat" just off the ground, thus minimally obscuring driver's vision and at maximum stability with lowest possible CG.

That's my logic. Other's logic may vary. Somebody who spends a lot of time moving hay with pallet forks please explain how they do it to avoid the things I've mentioned.

 

[N80]

I don't spend a lot of time moving hay with a pallet fork but I've done it a number of times with his tractors. But I guess I should clarify a few things. First, the forks don't slide easily. It takes a pretty good effort to get them to move at all. So that isn't an issue at all. Second, these things might not actually be pallet forks. There are two of them but they are longer than pallet forks and they are round like a bale spike, but they are otherwise set up just like pallet forks. He does not 'poke' the bales with them, he scoops underneath them and tells me to do the same.

I guess his tractors are big enough and ballasted well enough, 90-100 hp 1980-ish Ag tractor w/ filled tires and wheel weights, that with a bale on the front it doesn't feel bouncy or tipy going down the road or across the fields.

When I've moved bales visibility isn't an issue.

He lines them up, stacks and loads them with no problems, but as you say, if you use a tool long enough you probably get good at it even if it isn't the right tool. But, he has this set up on both loaders and I'm assuming he could afford a spike if he wanted one.

Sorry for the hijack, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't being asked to do anything dangerous.

 

[texasjohn]

ah ha.... I do understand now what he's using.... yep, not pallet forks but a hay fork. I have exactly the same thing.... but it's on a rear 3 point hitch...long round fixed width tines slide below the bale, lift it up and go..mine is a Priefert. It's the long tines that make the difference... pallet fork tines are flat and much shorter than the round hay fork tines. The large tractor is a big deal... my CUT... without counter ballast becomes dangerous with a bale on the FEL. TIPPY, TIPPY,TIPPY! With a 1500 lb bale in my rear hay fork and a 1500 lb bale on my FEL hay spike... things get real smooth going over the ground... all that weight makes the tractor ride like a cadillac

 

[EastTexFrank]

Lots of good, sound advice from texasjohn but as N80 said the simple answer would be square bales or 1000# round bales.

We use hay forks front and back to move and feed large round bales and have done it for years without any problems but the smallest tractor we use them on is 57 hp. Also you can't afford to get distracted. A couple of years ago, the ranch manager on a near bye place was moving large bales with a front hay fork. His cell phone rang and as he was answering it, he forgot he still had his hand on the FEL lever. He raised the FEL to it's full height and the bale came off backwards, bounced on the hood, smashed the canopy and trapped him in the seat. Luckily he had his phone in his hand so was able to call for help. He wasn't badly hurt but was stuck there for a couple of hours. I think that may be one of the reasons why many people say to use a bale spike instead of forks but, as I said, we've use them for years without mishap and long may it continue.

 

[N80]

I think, but I'm not sure, that his have a fairly high 'back' on them that the bale rests against and should prevent one rolling off backwards. I might be wrong, but I'm heading down there in an hour or so and will probably help him on the farm some over the weekend so I'll see then.

 

[slowzuki]

Picture of that exact thing right on the fel warning label.

His cell phone rang and as he was answering it, he forgot he still had his hand on the FEL lever. He raised the FEL to it's full height and the bale came off backwards, bounced on the hood, smashed the canopy and trapped him in the seat.

 

[texasjohn]

EastTexFrank , thanks for clearly describing one safety difference between a bale spike and a pallet fork. I got a wild hair one day and decided to see if I could triple pile round my round bales... 2 high was fine... but gotta be REAL careful about level ground and no holes to fall into... plus plenty of rear ballast. Getting the 3rd bale that high with my tractor was getting scary.... and it missed lifting it past the top of the 2 nd bale with the bale spike level by about 6-8 inches. I could curl it even further into the air, but dragging it off the spike got more dicey than I wanted to do...thus, I decided that 2 high is the max for my L5030 tractor. I would never have attempted this except that I was using a FEL hay spike (couldn't slip back on me), known ground, excessive rear weight ballast, extreme care and attention during the experiment....

 

[N80]

I spent some time helping my B-I-L this weekend. (Unfortunately part of that time was unloading 100 square bales from a trailer into the hay loft. It is a lot harder than it looks!)

TexasJohn was right, the things on his loaders are hay forks. He also told me that he cut 800 (!) round bales this year and plans on getting another 200 in the next few weeks. He also told me that with his baler (old Vermeer) he has options in terms of bale diameter and he usually keeps his bales between 5 and 5.5 feet for easier handling. The baler will go to 6 feet. He says that at 5.5 feet they weigh a little more than 1000 pounds when dry. So, selecting the right size bale for the right size tractor might be an option for those with lighter tractors.