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.