- This topic has 84 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by Anonymous.
- April 9, 2013 at 11:17 am #78414
I agree Roscoe,
I googled up the weight of a small square baler at about ~3000 lbs, but this seems to vary a lot. Put that weight on ground drive wheels, and you have enough weight to do alot of work. Working forward from the I and J model, the light duty cart weighs 750 lbs and is for 2 horses. The heavy duty cart might be pulled by 4 horses and weighs 1500 lbs. The ground drive converted mowers I have read about use 8 horses, and, low and behold, they weigh 3000 lbs. Anyone else see a pattern here? This is another clear demonstration of just how important weight is. This means that if you are going to build a GD cart for a baler, you have to pull 3000 lbs for the cart + 3000 lbs for the baler. Even at 10% rolling resistance on the flat, this is 300 lbs draft (maybe two horses worth) more draft than would required if the ground drive was on the implement. This is a big difference, that only gets bigger with hills. This is a great point, Roscoe. To put it another way, these ground drive things run on weight, so any weight that is not over the drive wheels is a waste. A forecart design is intrinsically limited here, as the whole concept is to pull something behind it on wheels of it’s own. No wonder that historically drive wheels (or bullwheels) were always on the thing they power.
PS. It might be possible to make a heavy duty cart that would still take alot of weight from a baler (or other implement), by moving the support wheels of the baler far rearward, to make it very “tongue heavy” and incorporating a hitch design for that very heavy tongue. This could also be done for other heavy duty implements that run off of PTO, but how many of these are there?April 9, 2013 at 12:20 pm #78418
All these heavy weight numbers out there now Im back to the mini baler site. The small balers are made to be pulle4ed by a 20 hp tractor,,,,they have up to a 56 in feed,,and weight around 2000lb. The biggest one is 2208(?)
They can be fitted with a center pick up so you can straddle the windrow. Even add rake wheels. Or a long bale shute and wagon hitch.
The only part I disagree with is the price 14-15,000April 9, 2013 at 1:28 pm #78419
As much as I like the weight/horse pattern, it might be a red herring here. Even if the baler weighs 3000 lbs, it doesn’t mean that it needs to weigh 3000 pounds. They designers of the PTO baler were clearly not thinking of making a machine that would be applied to ground drive horse systems… Still, the weight and extra traction can’t hurt, especially if you are hauling around a baler anyway. I saw a couple videos of the I&J heavy duty forecart being used on a small square baler, and it seemed to work in the videos with 4 horses. I suspect that these demos represent the situation SOME of the time, if the windrows are well lied out, conditions are right, etc. I suspect that the power is just enough in this situation, though, and they clog from time to time, which leads to time consuming futzing. Does this sound about right? This would explain why the GD baler conversion refered to by Donn earlier is a more effective design. There is more weight is on the drive wheels. The extra weight allows for extra horses (like 8) without sliding the wheels, and this provides the needed torque to get through rough stuff, even though it takes less than 8 horses worth of power on average. It is a clever use of that extra power (on average) to draw a wagon to collect the bales behind, like is recommended in the GD baler design. That way, the 2-4 horses worth of extra “on demand” power is always there for the baler when it needs it, but it is effectively “scavenged” by the wagon when it is not needed by the baler. The wagon is heavy and has a lot of momentum, so having a brief extra power draw from the baler won’t stop it.April 9, 2013 at 1:54 pm #78421
Whats your input on these small balers?April 9, 2013 at 2:11 pm #78422Donn HewesKeymaster
Short of spending days in the field with these GD baling systems i think Andy’s anylisis is about right. I remember having a friend that had an early teamster 2000. it seemed like a good machine and they liked it. But it would not run the brush hog they had hoped it would. I have always felt that for gd carts the weight needs to match the task. Watch next week for pictures of the Case vc tractor. I am hoping it is the perfect platform for pulling my tedder. I brought it home yesterday and with in 5 minutes we had locked up the transmission! Should be fun.April 9, 2013 at 6:13 pm #78423EliParticipant
Just a thought on weight as long as you remove it in winter you can add water to your wheels for weight and remove it when you don’t. I know I saw an adaptor for a garden hose some place and a paddle pump will take most of the water out. And it puts the weight where you need it and is easy on the budget. EliApril 9, 2013 at 9:11 pm #78424Steven QParticipant
On your setting up a still and running your forecart on a homebrew, have you ever considered Bio-diesel, I have considered it, but that is about as far as I got to thinking about it. Seems at first like a good idea, all the fuel needed could be produced on farm etc.. if you ever ran short of bio diesel you could run regular diesel.
The things I don’t know in regards to feasibility are what volume of crops to produce biodiesel would be necessary, I mean if all you could grow would be rapeseed to produce biodiesel to run your forecart, that would be a bit ridiculous, but if you could grow a section of rapeseed to produce enough biodiesel to run you forecart everything you need it for than it is worth looking into.
I am not a chemist, but have been told that producing biodiesel is not rocket science and very doable.
SteveApril 9, 2013 at 9:44 pm #78425
I know a guy who runs straight fryer grease in a car..Justs warms and filters well. He does ok,just smells like French fries!April 9, 2013 at 10:08 pm #78426near horseParticipant
Steve – one issue on the bio-d front using rape/canola is crushing/pressing the seed and then doing the transesterification (you need ethanol or methanol and sodium or potassium hydroxide). So there’s some input cost both in expendables (reagents) and equipment (press and reactor). The equipment can be homebuilt if needed but not so the chemicals.
Good part – r/c is pretty high in oil(I think in the 30 – 40% range); the meal left over after pressing is a) good livestock feed (plenty of protein) b) can be resold at $2-300/T. Also, rape/canola can be grazed (if careful).
Bad part – rape/canola can yield up to 3000# per acre but is really susceptible to bugs (flea beetles) and weed pressure. Commercially they spray and baby it a lot. Harvest – combine.
BUT – you can also try other oilseeds that are a bit more robust (how about mustard) but might be lower in oil content. There has been some research into using mustard seed meal as a pesticide by spreading it on the soil surface. I don’t know what the result was.April 9, 2013 at 11:13 pm #78427EliParticipant
I thought about biodiesel but I don’t use enough to justify it time or money wise. And a still sounds like so much fun. I guess I watch to much moonshiners. I haven’t drank in 24 years so I guess the still is out. I drive my company truck as much as possable. I only put 6000 miles on my truck in 4.5 years. And about 22000 on my bike in the same and 150000 on my work truck. EliApril 10, 2013 at 9:51 am #78430Steven QParticipant
Good to know that the waste product is not really a waste product and that would help offset the cost of growing etc. Any infrastructure investment would have to be seen as a long term investment to be paid by the use of limiting off farm fuels. As well the waste meal could also reduce off farm feed etc.
Still not clear on the volume of raw seed that would be required to produce bio-diesel and have not been able to find that information, I realize it would depend entirely on the type and quality of the seed being used, but there has to be a range or rough estimate.
In regards to powered forecarts, I have not always seen the point, I mean if you are running on fossil fuels, and don’t have religious limitations, why not just use a tractor? I though you could produce those fuels on farm, it in my mind makes the scenario a bit more logical.
3000lb/35%=1050lbs of oil? Is the math that simple? I guess refining the oil would reduce the final product as well? Like I said I am no rocket scientist.
SteveApril 10, 2013 at 10:26 am #78431
“In regards to powered forecarts, I have not always seen the point, I mean if you are running on fossil fuels, and don’t have religious limitations, why not just use a tractor?”
This is a good question and an excellent point that I think is worth time answering. I’ll start with a short answer and see if anyone wants more details as to my logic. The short answer is that, in my mind, an internal combustion engine is really good at producing rotational, high rpm power. This is exactly the kind of power that is easy to apply to complex machines with lots of little moving parts that rattle and hum (balers, combines, etc). The internal combustion engine also produces this power at a relatively light weight, so it is not much to haul around. Moving heavy things, for an internal cumbustion engine, requires weight and traction (which removes the lightweight advantage of the IC engine) and alot of gearing (and associated drivetrain losses) to reduce a high rpm engine speed to a slow ground speed. It also requires the hauling around of traction devices (big tires) that make this possible, which happen to (by no accident) lead to ground compaction. Engines without this weight and tration devices are not good at moving stuff. Think of a 20 HP self propelled lawn mower. These produce tons more power than a single horse could dream of, but a single horse can pull much much more than that lawn mower could dream of (more weight, better traction). The lawnmower is another good example, because we can all relate to them and they give you an idea of just how much power is put to cutting grass, how much is devoted to hauling the machine and/or peoople around. It’s clear that the self propelled or riding mowers have a much larger power requirement per foot of cut. This is because (for reasons I can explain in detail, but might be boring) internal combustion engines used to transport must produce much MORE power than they need on a regular basis. For complex machines with a defined load, the IC engine can produce just enough. Animals used for transport can produce just as much power as they need, because they have internal physiological reserves that can be tapped when they need a little more power for a short time. Perhaps this shouldn’t be suprizing, because animals are naturally good at moving themselves around on unpredictable natural terraign and so adding an implement/or wagon doesn’t ask them to do things that they are good at. Conversely, the bulk of this thread demonstrates the myriad challenges on converting the animals ground force into high rpm rotational force to run complex machines. I see a hybrid systems as a good way to let the IC engine do what it is good at and the animals do what they are best at too. I hear what you are saying about still consuming gas, but these hybrid systems consume much much less gas. I am a believer in peak oil, but I think we are a long way off from not having enough oil to run things like chainsaws and other small engines that might be used to power (but not propel) a baler. That said, I will admit the noise does interupt my spirit of Zen when working animals. Taking care of 8 horses, when I only need 8 for a few days of baling and 6 of them sit the rest of the year, would also ruin my spirit of Zen. 😉April 10, 2013 at 10:52 am #78437Donn HewesKeymaster
Speaking as one who bales about 2500 to 3000 bales a year with a gas powered PTO cart I can tell you why I do it. I like it. I have used this set up for about 6 years now. I don’t like running a tractor. Not for a minute; not for a day.
My PTO cart has a quiet honda motor, and uses 5 gals. of gas for every 1000 bales produced. It is good challenging work for a team of four when loading a wagon towed behind the baler. I work flatish ground with some side hill, therefore I must be careful when turning at the ends of the fields to not let a heavy wagon push me all over. Fun challenging, honest and we fill about three to five wagons a day. That is mostly governed by how many we want to put in the mow!
I have run a haybine (didn’t like it as much as the sickle bar mower); and a combine. I just bought another AC all crop combine and am looking forward to running that with the PTO cart.April 10, 2013 at 12:46 pm #78438
Did anyone see my post about the smallbalers ?April 10, 2013 at 1:32 pm #78440
I did see it, but was not sure how to react to the small balers. They seem to work conceptually in the same way as regular balers do. This means that if youa re going 4 mph down a windrow, they have to bale that windrow at 4 MPH. You can’t slow down and give the baler more time with a tractor. I suppose you could make the windrows thin and also very even, but this seems hard. If you could make them thin and even, a regular baler would be fine too. It is possible on paper to pick up half the windrow, and then come back and pick up the other half. This seems like it would be hard to do in the real world, but perhaps possible. If this was possible, though, it would probably also be possible on a regular small baler too. I turned this around a couple times in my head, and wasn’t able find a way that the small balers help a lot, but could certainly have missed something. Do you think they would, JL? If so, why?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.