Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Double Bale handler

  • 17-11-2014 9:42am
    #1
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,280 ✭✭✭


    Good morning all.
    Thinking of getting a double bale handler, but not sure if the tractor would be able to handle it. We have a MF 4245, with a single assistor ram on the linkage. We have a loader with a bale handler, so when drawing bales, we have one bale on the back, and one on the loader. Would 2 on the back and one on the loader be a massive strain on the tractor, between the 3 bales, and the extra weight of the double bale handler?


Comments

  • #2
    kay 9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,676 ✭✭✭kay 9


    It be the upper limit of that tractor but will work so long as ya have one on the loader with the two on the back.


  • #3
    Muckit
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,174 ✭✭✭✭Muckit


    As someone rightly mentioned before, make sure to check that there is plenty of oil in the back end! And borrow a neighbours or contractors double handler first to make sure that it'll work! Also make sure no mad play in linkage arm stabilisers.


  • #4
    lab man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭lab man


    bought one this yr great job for dry bales but forget it for wet ones I have a 5465 she wouldnt lift two wet ones an a bale on front no way


  • #5
    9935452
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭9935452


    lab man wrote: »
    bought one this yr great job for dry bales but forget it for wet ones I have a 5465 she wouldnt lift two wet ones an a bale on front no way


    Why do you say that about the 5465, is it not just able to lift two heavy bales off the ground or is it you wouldnt do it to the tractor. The father has a 5460 with a front linkage and so far it has no problem lifting 2 on the back.AFAIK it has a 4.7 tonne lift
    The bale handler is one with paddles so the bales would be a few inches further forward over a trip bale handler which makes a big difference to the weight seen by the tractor.


  • #6
    9935452
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭9935452


    twin_beacon wrote: »
    Good morning all.
    Thinking of getting a double bale handler, but not sure if the tractor would be able to handle it. We have a MF 4245, with a single assistor ram on the linkage. We have a loader with a bale handler, so when drawing bales, we have one bale on the back, and one on the loader. Would 2 on the back and one on the loader be a massive strain on the tractor, between the 3 bales, and the extra weight of the double bale handler?

    My best advice is to borrow a double from a neighbour or a contractor and see how you get on.
    If you do buy i would advise on getting one that is as close to the tractor as possible, and that probably be one with paddles. Back in the day we had an old nuffield drawing bales. we used to borrow a bale handler for it. one had brackets which were 4 inches further forward on it then the other one we borrowed. that one needed 20 stone of weights on the front , the other didnt . 4 inches made a difference.
    in an ideal world the back of the liftarms would be nearly touching the bale. On a fleming double trip bale handler the pins for the lift arms are 7 or 8 inches from the bale


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    twin_beacon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,280 ✭✭✭twin_beacon


    9935452 wrote: »
    My best advice is to borrow a double from a neighbour or a contractor and see how you get on.
    If you do buy i would advise on getting one that is as close to the tractor as possible, and that probably be one with paddles. Back in the day we had an old nuffield drawing bales. we used to borrow a bale handler for it. one had brackets which were 4 inches further forward on it then the other one we borrowed. that one needed 20 stone of weights on the front , the other didnt . 4 inches made a difference.
    in an ideal world the back of the liftarms would be nearly touching the bale. On a fleming double trip bale handler the pins for the lift arms are 7 or 8 inches from the bale

    good idea about borrowing one from the contractor.
    I was looking at a few last weekend, the only one I would consider would be the basic ones with no hydraulics to keep the weight down. I seen some ones at the weekend with a ram for each bale. It wouldn't work for us, too heavy, we only have 2 spools on the tractor and we also use a hydraulic top link.
    If the bales were wet, I would use it anyway, our silage land is boggy. We'll see next summer how we get on


  • #8
    Milked out
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,433 ✭✭✭Milked out


    NH 7840 here with no weights and the double handler would have her rising at the front, full diesel tank has her just about staying down. Hope to get a few weights next year for it


  • #9
    invicta
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 281 ✭✭invicta


    Milked out wrote: »
    NH 7840 here with no weights and the double handler would have her rising at the front, full diesel tank has her just about staying down. Hope to get a few weights next year for it

    Fill the two front wheels with water and drove on!!


  • #10
    Zr105
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭Zr105


    invicta wrote: »
    Fill the two front wheels with water and drove on!!

    I'd rather weights tbh, atleast you can throw them off easily enough and your not lugging around all the weight for no reason burning diesel and the front tires off...


  • #11
    Nekarsulm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,264 ✭✭✭✭Nekarsulm


    I was flicking through "Farm Ideas" magazine in the news agents this evening, and there are pictures of a silage bale carrier a lad made. Two bales on the lifter, which then rises on a forklift type mast. Then two more below them, plus a bale on the front linkage. wonder are they wrapped bales of hay? :D

    Edit, he recommends 150 HP tractor...........


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    invicta
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 281 ✭✭invicta


    Zr105 wrote: »
    I'd rather weights tbh, atleast you can throw them off easily enough and your not lugging around all the weight for no reason burning diesel and the front tires off...

    Have had Ford 6610(4wd),JD64 andClaas577,front wheels fully ballasted at all times--Away more stable pulling,way safer on high ground,way better traction,and way smoother on the road.As for ware on tyres and burning extra diesel,I don't think there is any great difference.;)


  • #13
    f140
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 875 ✭✭✭f140


    invicta wrote: »
    Have had Ford 6610(4wd),JD64 andClaas577,front wheels fully ballasted at all times--Away more stable pulling,way safer on high ground,way better traction,and way smoother on the road.As for ware on tyres and burning extra diesel,I don't think there is any great difference.;)

    Is get over the extra diesel and the tyre ware but its the stress on the front axle long term is what would get at me


  • #14
    Zr105
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭Zr105


    invicta wrote: »
    Have had Ford 6610(4wd),JD64 andClaas577,front wheels fully ballasted at all times--Away more stable pulling,way safer on high ground,way better traction,and way smoother on the road.As for ware on tyres and burning extra diesel,I don't think there is any great difference.;)

    If you need the weight the whole time then fair enough, but if he can manage atm for most part without then why have all the weight on it. One tractor here used to always have the weights on, but rarely has them now, much easier on everything without the weight when you don't need it, you can see the black skuffs off the tires when the weights are on,


  • #15
    Milked out
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,433 ✭✭✭Milked out


    Zr105 wrote: »
    If you need the weight the whole time then fair enough, but if he can manage atm for most part without then why have all the weight on it. One tractor here used to always have the weights on, but rarely has them now, much easier on everything without the weight when you don't need it, you can see the black skuffs off the tires when the weights are on,

    Yeah the neighbours tractors both have weights on full time and the front tyres on those machines does wear faster. Would get enough to keep things comfortable for bales and fert on the steeper fields and take em off again after


  • #16
    lab man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭lab man


    9935452 wrote: »
    Why do you say that about the 5465, is it not just able to lift two heavy bales off the ground or is it you wouldnt do it to the tractor. The father has a 5460 with a front linkage and so far it has no problem lifting 2 on the back.AFAIK it has a 4.7 tonne lift
    The bale handler is one with paddles so the bales would be a few inches further forward over a trip bale handler which makes a big difference to the weight seen by the tractor.

    she just wont even try lifting them without even the bale on the loader so i put it on the tm 125 lifted the no prob i think there isnt enough oil capasity in the back end of the masseys


  • #17
    9935452
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭9935452


    lab man wrote: »
    she just wont even try lifting them without even the bale on the loader so i put it on the tm 125 lifted the no prob i think there isnt enough oil capasity in the back end of the masseys

    i find that a small bit odd to tell the truth. the fathers 5460 was lifting 2 bales not a bother. Bales were off a fusion but were dry.
    Neighbour with a 5455 and a loader was drawing wet bales with the same bale handler and had no problem
    ive even had an ursus 912 drawing dry bales with 220kgs of weight up front. No problem lifting them and she is only 80hp


  • #18
    lab man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭lab man


    big difference between a class made bale and a fusion made bale alot silage more in a class made bale, it wouldn't be far off half a bale extra withn both bales imo i kno by bringing them on the bale trailer and as for welger bales smaler again


  • #19
    Zr105
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,453 ✭✭✭Zr105


    lab man wrote: »
    big difference between a class made bale and a fusion made bale alot silage more in a class made bale, it wouldn't be far off half a bale extra withn both bales imo i kno by bringing them on the bale trailer and as for welger bales smaler again

    I wouldn't go by size to be honest, there'll easily be as much in either the mchale or the welger as there is in the class.. Throw them all on a weigh bridge and you may be surprised


  • #20
    Dunedin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,447 ✭✭✭Dunedin


    9935452 wrote: »
    4 inches made a difference.


    4 inches would make a huge difference........ imagine arriving home some night with an extra 4 inches - she'd be well impressed. :D:D:D:D:D


  • #21
    st1979
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 936 ✭✭✭st1979


    yep mchale has heaviest bales around here (neighbour weighs bales in feeder). claas are definitely larger but mchale are heavier. and locally people reckon fusion is putting even more in than standard mchale due them being wrapped immediately. One of my bailer men who has a normal mchale reckons he can put as much as a fusion in the bale but when it is let out the net gives so he can't wrap them.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    toyotad4d
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17 ✭toyotad4d


    dose anyone know how much weight can a front axle of a tractor can handle iv a case mxu 125 with front linkage and was thinking of getting a double bale handler for the front linkage but would this be too much weight for it im baleing with mchale f550 baler and bales are chopped


  • #23
    keep going
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,551 ✭✭✭keep going


    twin_beacon wrote: »
    Good morning all.
    Thinking of getting a double bale handler, but not sure if the tractor would be able to handle it. We have a MF 4245, with a single assistor ram on the linkage. We have a loader with a bale handler, so when drawing bales, we have one bale on the back, and one on the loader. Would 2 on the back and one on the loader be a massive strain on the tractor, between the 3 bales, and the extra weight of the double bale handler?

    used to have 2 on back and one on the front on 80 hp nh and no problems,wet or dry,fusion or anything else.in fact theres a lovelly balance to it and you can still make good headway and take it nice and though at the same time.reckon its much better balance than one on the back and frony


  • #24
    9935452
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭9935452


    toyotad4d wrote: »
    dose anyone know how much weight can a front axle of a tractor can handle iv a case mxu 125 with front linkage and was thinking of getting a double bale handler for the front linkage but would this be too much weight for it im baleing with mchale f550 baler and bales are chopped

    Double on the back too??
    You could be pushing it to the limit , would the front linkage lift that weight comfortably? Whats the lift capacity of your front linkage?
    But id say it could be doable . A front linkage would be carrying the weight reasonably close to the tractor compared to a big loader which would carry the bale further forward.
    It would probably have a similar weight on a front axle to a loader with a shear grab full of silage,
    If you are going to do it my advice is to get a double that is as close to the tractor as possible. A lot of bale handlers are 6to 10 inches from the lower pins to the back of the bale. I made one recently which is 3.5 inches which allow a smaller tractor to use it with ease.
    That and make sure the axle is well greased


Advertisement