OP
Snapper Head
Silver Member
Flusher - that is a very good idea, as it makes perfect sense (which is why I didn't think of it).
Big Al
Big Al
I have a 39 PTO horse power Kubota cab tractor with 4x4 hst and FEL. I routinely stack, unstack, and transport round bales in excess of 1000 lbs using a hay spike on the FEL. Due to tractors limited reach I can only stack round bales three rows high but there is no more height available in my hay barn so that is not limiting form me.
I do require a counterweight on the 3PH to safely handle the heavier bales. My box blade works fine and doesn't stick out so much as a brush hog so it is not a hassle maneuvering in restricted space. Kubota prohibits loading the tires on this model tractor (Grand L4610HSTC) but the same tractor without a cab can have loaded tires and I think that would remove the need for a counter weight. Oh... I do have three sets of cast iron rear wheel weights, the most kubota authorizes.
I will be getting a hay spike for the 3PH so I can haul 2 bales at the same time, one in front and one in the rear. The one in the rear will be the counter weight for the one up front so I won't need an added counter weight/implement on back.
Tractors smaller than mine can handle bales on the 3PH but go much smaller and you won't have good bale handling via the FEL (my preferred) arrangement. The drill is this: Back up to a bale and spear it with rear spike and then spear one with front spike and reverse the order when dropping off bales. First drop off the front one and then the rear one.
There is nothing wrong with getting a bigger more powerful tractor than you need but "right sizing" is more economical and then there are maneuvering issues. I assume horses implies barn, stable, loafing shed and so forth. Going just a little larger can make access difficult or impossible sometimes.
Here is a challenge for anyone who thinks my tractor is too small for your situation. Name some tasks that the OP will routinely do that my tractor can't do well enough to be cost and time effective. Then if there are any such tasks, estimate how much tractor is required to handle them and let us consider how much close in maneuvering will be lost. If it were me, I'd hate to have to manually handle all the "close in" horse related tasks just to get a larger tractor unless there were tasks that I did a lot that required it.
This tractor is about 7 years old and has never had an FEL problem except a damaged hose when I was rampaging in the woods logging and poked the hose with a broken limb. I am ranching 160 acres and think my tractor is a good fit size and HP wise. It is big enough for most tasks and not too big to get in close when I need to do so.
Pat
Pat,
Thanks for the feedback. I will only be stacking 2 high in the hay barn, and I have the luxury of being able to design the layout because I will be expanding the currently very small one into one that will hold about a half dozen bales.
Your admonition about "right sizing" is exactly where my starting point was. I think we can all agree that a bigger tractor is never a bad thing, but there are times when it is not the best thing. I may end up owning more than one tractor, but for now, I have to buy the best tool for the job.
Big Al
If you are going to be double stacking round bales, you will need plenty of tractor, capacity, and weight. Also, the wider the better for stability. It will be very risky if you have 1000+ pounds up ten feet off the ground and the tractor is not on perfectly flat terrain if it doesn't have a wide stance.
Ken
Al, This is an example of differing views. Ken's experience is apparently different from mine. I have been stacking 1000 lb + round bales 3 rows high for several years with my previously described little Kubota with 39 PTO HP.