Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Welfare Capital of the World...KY
    2009 Mahindra 3316 HST-2008 Mahindra 7010 cab - 2004 Mahindra 6000 4X4

    Default Sqaure Baler advantages disadvantages

    Anyone check out the current issue of hobby farm? They had an article in there about small sqaure balers. They had the 2 agco offerings and one fromm deere and one from new holland. Now since I was considering buying a new or slightly used one I read up. I was just wondering what would the advantages disadvantages of each be? I can already see that the Massey and agco heston are cranking a few more strokes per minute. Does that mean faster baling times? I can also see where there could be less stress overall on an inline. It for sure would seem it would be easier to keep the thing on the windrow if it was riding behind you. However I know that the deere and new hollands are tried and true and I notice the deere has a lot more pickup teeth which could lead to getting more of what you're trying to bale. I also notice that the 2 have wider pickup widths than the inlines, which would help you stay on the windrow. Parts are prevelent in my area for all. So which one is most reliable? Fastest? Overall does the best job?
    I want to hear what you see as advantages disadvantages of each.

  2. #2
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    New Brunswick, Canada
    Kubota L5030 HSTC, MF 5455, Kubota M120, Allis Chalmers 7010

    Default Re: Sqaure Baler advantages disadvantages

    Hi, I've heard good things about all the current major brands of small square balers. JD and NH have had them perfected a long time. The inlines have been around a while too. Try one first, the cut ends of the flakes are at the top and bottom which some people don't like.

    More strokes per minute plus big hay feed throat = high output

    More teeth on pickup = better pickup (mostly for alfalfa and other legumes)

    Wider pickup = bigger windrows on high capacity models or just less neck twisting on low capacity models.

    Inline baler equals pain in the neck to watch but they are pretty reliable and the pickup follows you.

    I like John Deere balers, some like NH. The knotters are almost identical. We also use an older MF high capacity baler but it has weird knotters, I don't know how to work on em.

    I find the JD baler to be smoother and not rock the tractor so much. If I fixed the bent stripper tooth guide it would be practically silent when baling.

    Most balers are pretty loud though.

  3. #3
    Super Member RickB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Eastern NY
    Case 885, Ford 4000

    Default Re: Sqaure Baler advantages disadvantages

    Interesting article, but not much substance. A review of each baler's spec's reveals that curved pickup tines are not an Agco exclusive, and Agco's 61" pickup is the narrowest of the subject machines. Number of pickup teeth is related to the number of bars and pickup width. The centering augers Agco uses are behind the pickup, not in front as suggested. Deere has the widest pickup AND more bars, hence more teeth. The "rotary flow action feeding system" referenced in the article is actually an erroneous combination of two separate systems used on NH balers. The award winning rotary feeding system is not a feature of the 565. The 'Flow Action' feeder, used by NH for 40 years or more, is. Plunger speed is not the limiting factor in low capacity machines, input HP will probably be. In fact, NH has reduced plunger SPM over the last 20 years on high capacity balers for good reasons. Each machine has its merits, and should be evaluated as such.

  4. #4
    Elite Member JasG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Kubota L3240

    Default Re: Sqaure Baler advantages disadvantages

    I am not a farmer, but have worked for them since I was 12. Full time through my teen years and in my spare time since. At 14 I was doing the bailing for a hay broker that sold over 25000 bails of his own hay a year. Since then I have always helped someone every summer since.
    I have used both brands of baler; I have put several hundred thousand bales through Deere balers over the past 17-18 years. Only about 25000-30000 through New Holland over the same period of time. Both brands are very rugged reliable machines. Both make bulletproof knotters. There are some huge differences that to me make a Deere a better machine. First difference is with the feed systems. The Deere uses an auger, the New Hollandís use one of 2 systems that I know of and both seem to get more ends of the hay in the twine area than a Deere. The second difference is in the throwers. The New Holland belts spin on the bail until it is pulled from the chamber. This seems to strip the leaves off of some of the clover. The John Deere kicker does not do this. If you compare two bails side by side from the same field you can see the difference. If you ever plan on selling hay, call a broker to see if they have a preference. In our area due to the difference some of the brokers do. I have never heard of a guy rejecting Deere bails, but New Holland I have. I have heard that the 7 series from Deere had problems and to avoid if possible. I donít know what the problems were; I used one for a short period of time without a problem. 80% of the Deere baling I have done was with 2 Deere 336 bailers, both had kickers.

    I would have to give the New Holland thrower the advantage in hilly terrain where you must travel up and down slopes. The kicker some times sends bails straight up going down hill. In small fields or areas where there is allot of turning, I would give the advantage to the Deere kicker.

    I have never used any other brands. Just remember, these are my opinions, I don't want to start a Deere, NH fight.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
© 2016 TractorByNet is a registered trademark of IMC Digital Universe, Inc. Other trademarks on this page are the property of their respective owners.