What's the smallest practical HP/Tractor you'd consider?

[Egon]

Surely sounds like you had a plan Pat!

 

[aczlan]

I want to make it clear that 1000 lb + round bale handling can be dangerous and should not be attempted with substandard or insufficient equipment. My tractor is near the low end of what I would feel safe and prudent to use to do the job of stacking 1000 lb round bales three rows high. Similarly transporting a bale on the spike requires you to be mindful of the laws of physics to keep a good margin of safety.

My Kubota can not lift 1000 lbs on the FEL unless there is a significant counter weight on the 3PH as instead you lift the rear tires up into the air. I have 3 sets of cast iron Kubota wheel weights on the rear wheels which is the max recommended. My rear tires are not liquid filled as that practice is prohibited in my cab tractor as per the manual. The wheel weights help for many tasks but don't do squat for lifting loads near the FEL max capability. Either my HD brush hog (I cut 4-5 inch trees) or my HD box blade (6 footer that weighs about 1300 lbs) is used as a counter weight. I prefer the box blade as it does not limit maneuvering so much in close spaces.

Ok, so as I understand it, you handle 1000-1300# bales and your tractor is on the edge of what it can do with as much weight as you can pile on the back, so if the OP wants to be able to handle 1000-1200# bales regularly, or larger (ie:closer to 2000#) bales he should (while he is buying and can go larger for less than it would cost you to go larger) think about going to a larger framed tractor, not that what he wants to do cant be done with a L4630 size tractor, but it could be done faster and in many cases safer with a larger framed tractor.

IMO if you KNOW that you will be handling 1000-2000# bales of hay you should look for a tractor with a loader rated for 2500#+, and a tractor that weighs at least 5000# unballasted, that way if you get a "buddy bale" that was off and weighs more than the rest, or you need to pick up a 2000# cow to drag it out of the barn when it dies (not trying to be morbid, but my wife worked for years as a diary herdsman at a diary that milked 400+ head of cows, it happens) or whatever you will have the capacity to do so safely and efficently.

Aaron Z

 

[john_bud]

Pat; there was a time in some places where a 40 Hp. tractor was considered quite sufficient for farming 320 acres or so for one man. This would include tillage,seeding, haying, harvesting and all those other good things that need be done on a working farm. Seems like there would have been more time back then??

Not more time, just fewer distractions with places like TBN on the computer!

jb

 

[aczlan]

Pat; there was a time in some places where a 40 Hp. tractor was considered quite sufficient for farming 320 acres or so for one man. This would include tillage,seeding, haying, harvesting and all those other good things that need be done on a working farm. Seems like there would have been more time back then??{/quote]
Not more time, just fewer distractions with places like TBN on the computer!

I would also say that they weren't handling 1-2000# round bales, they generally had small square bales IIRC.

Aaron Z

 

[Egon]

they generally had small square bales IIRC.

Most used Farmhands and made hay stacks which were in turn moved to the feeding area with a stack mover.

Come the small square bales it got really labour intensive till the big round bales arrived and with them bigger tractors to handle them.

The Hay stacks were possible because the farms were still smaller and usually in one piece so the moving was easy on the farmers own land. He did not have to go out on public roads. The bales could be transported much greater distances on public roads.

Now remember folks I am only talking about the little area where I had some exposure!

 

[Farmwithjunk]

Let us assume for just a minute that the OP actually has some purpose for asking what the SMALLEST PRACTICAL HP/TRACTOR is, that we would consider for his stated use. It's good we can cover all the possibilities, all the various other options, and all the other personal opinions. But just out of courtesy to the OP, shouldn't we actually answer his question? (as some have)

Way back in the beginning of this thread, I gave my opinion. Apparently, by the response from the OP at a later stage, my answer (as well as a few others) wasn't quite distinct enough. So... Here I am again!


HP, as it relates to size/weight isn't ALWAYS a linear relationship. Especially so when you go back a few years. Once upon a time, it wasn't UNcommon to find large framed, somewhat heavier tractors that were relatively low in HP compared to others approximately the same physical size and weight. An often overlooked point when considering a loader tractor for use essentially as a "fork lift" is physical size. (length primarily) A LONGER wheel based, longer chassis tractor can handle a heavy load with more inherent stability than a short wheelbased tractor. Most of todays "modern" tractors tend to be shorter than the "old school" utility and row crop AG tractors of a few years ago. With 2 tractors of the same weight, but one (let's say) 10" longer wheel based, the longer one will handle a comparable load on the forks (hay spear?) better than a shorter tractor as a rule of thumb.

HP isn't quite as critical for lifting bales. In the sense that higher HP tractors are USUALLY larger than smaller HP tractors, the high HP tractor sort of wins by default. But again, it's not the HP that takes the prize.

OK.... I've always believed in having "adaquate" HP, but NOT going nuts with added power that you don't need. Bigger HP numbers require certain implements to be of much more strength. That relates directly to higher COST. All things equal, I'd rather err on the side of SLIGHTLY too big than SLIGHTLY too small. But why not get it right where you want it?

Buying new; HP = Dollars. MORE HP = MORE dollars. With some, money is no object. With others, it's an insurmountable object. No point in looking for a much more expensive tractor than your budget will allow. It doesn't matter if that new tractor can raise TEN round bales at once if you can't justify the cost. Likewise, if it can't raise ONE bale, it doesn't matter how cheap you can buy it.

Buying used; Certain sizes of used tractors have a higher demand. The 35 to 45 hp class seems to have the biggest audience. Larger tractors MAY cost more, but proportional to size, their cost may actually be less. ($$$ per HP) Once you get to a certain point though, that relationship seems to start changing direction. BIG hp is popular with full time farmers who have a full time USE for that power. So, From my experience, the best bargains seem to fall in the area of 20 to 40 year old, 50 to 75 hp, and generally what is considered an AG "chore tractor". Tractors in that group can generally handle a loader quite well. A loader that is more than adaquate for lifting 1000 to 2000 lb round bales.

Now, back to that question by the OP. What is the SMALLEST tractor I'd consider? Since there is that relative size/weight to HP thing to consider, and what I seem to think presents itself as the best bargains, I'd look for NO SMALLER than 45hp, an AG utility/small row crop/"chore tractor, something weighing in at a minimum of 5500lbs (ballasted weight). IMHO, with what he speaks of as his needs, I see no real need to go any larger than 60 or 70 hp, but don't forget that "too big is better than too small" concept.

 

[Egon]

I'd be kinda curious to see what kind of used tractors one could find on the dealers lots in Washington State? Then one could really start dispensing information.

 

[IslandTractor]

Sorry, I didn't intend to be so non-specific. It isn't a holder for a chilled beverage but it is a beverage holder that chills your beverage.

The Tim Taylor signature model of the Binford BelchFire 5000 is the one with it standard (part of an accessory package upgrade, the one with the JATO/RATO bottle holders and associated control electronics. I suppose you could retrofit one to a lesser model or get some cheap Chinese after market substitute if you don't worry about voiding your warranty.

Pat

If I risk voiding my warranty anyway, I may just hold out for the full six pack version. I'd be afraid otherwise that a one beer task could turn into a longer mission away from the cooler. So, taking Soundguy's good advice, I think it would be wise to have a little excess capacity in this situation. Ya can never have too much horsepower or beer (though it is wise to keep them separated).

 

[schmism]

Now, back to that question by the OP. What is the SMALLEST tractor I'd consider? Since there is that relative size/weight to HP thing to consider, and what I seem to think presents itself as the best bargains, I'd look for NO SMALLER than 45hp, an AG utility/small row crop/"chore tractor, something weighing in at a minimum of 5500lbs (ballasted weight). IMHO, with what he speaks of as his needs, I see no real need to go any larger than 60 or 70 hp, but don't forget that "too big is better than too small" concept.

I know NH so ill toss out a NH that is almost perfectly matches that description

TN55/60/65 roughly 50hp small AG tractor weighin in at ~4800lbs (unballasted) with loader, cab, MFWD can be had used for ~$20K the 32LA loader has 2500-3000lb lift capacity and still a fairly physically small tractor good for maneuverability for chores around the barns.

But as others have pointed out its not a CUT.. but a small AG tractor. but for your needs it would seem the (used) price range and type is a perfect fit.

 

[patrick_g]

Ok, so as I understand it, you handle 1000-1300# bales and your tractor is on the edge of what it can do with as much weight as you can pile on the back

******
No, it will carry a lot more on the back but I don't need it.

, so if the OP wants to be able to handle 1000-1200# bales regularly, or larger (ie:closer to 2000#) bales he should (while he is buying and can go larger for less than it would cost you to go larger) think about going to a larger framed tractor, not that what he wants to do cant be done with a L4630 size tractor, but it could be done faster and in many cases safer with a larger framed tractor.

******
Why not suppose 3000 or 4000 lb bales since that would make the case for bigger and more powerful even better?

Note: I am stacking and retrieving those 1000 lb + bales 3 rows high. The OP did not mention that and may only work bales at ground level or off a short trailer.

To be really efficient I am considering getting a bale spike for the 3PH to be able to carry two bales to the herd at one time and save a trip. I have plenty of tractor to do that.
******

IMO if you KNOW that you will be handling 1000-2000# bales of hay you should look for a tractor with a loader rated for 2500#+, and a tractor that weighs at least 5000# unballasted, that way if you get a "buddy bale" that was off and weighs more than the rest, or you need to pick up a 2000# cow to drag it out of the barn when it dies (not trying to be morbid, but my wife worked for years as a diary herdsman at a diary that milked 400+ head of cows, it happens) or whatever you will have the capacity to do so safely and efficently.

Aaron Z

I have buried someone elses big dead cow and did it with my tractor including digging the hole. It was no problem.

Maybe before we assume facts not in evidence we should let the OP tell us if he expects to deal with 2000 lb bales and if the bales he will deal with will be in the ground or stacked. I surely don't see any of those MONSTER bales being used around here. I have seen some ENORMOUS round and square bales passing through on trucks but have never personally seen or heard of anyone around here using any locally.

If in fact he was constrained to deal with 2000 lb bales and especially if he was stacking them or taking them down from a stack then I would surely advise more tractor even for bales at or above about 1500 lbs. A larger tractor with 50-70 HP properly equipped and specked would be a good starting point in that case and I doubt he would need to get close to 100 HP but this is conjecture and speculation and is NOT answering the question that was asked by the OP. If we re frame his question so as to drive the results of an analysis to suit our purpose instead of his we are not serving his needs. Lets try to help the guy instead of getting hung up on personal prefs not related to the question at hand.

If someone thinks the OP's question is "out of line" then they should make that case and not just ignore him and inject their answers to the question(s) they would rather he had asked because it fits some personal point of view they want to promote.

Are his questions being honestly answered in a straightforward manner or being recast to suit someones need to make a certain point? I stand by my contention that he has not asked to do as much as I have done with my tractor for several years on more land that he has.

That leaves the following question unanswered:

Why does he NEED a lot more tractor than has been terrifically adequate for my needs to do less than I do?

Hypothesizing much larger bales, or working in burning fields, or underwater brings in lots of enhanced requirements BUT does not relate to what the guy asked.

Why must we decide the answer in advance of analysis and then contort the problem until working it will produce the assumed answer?

Pat