Best baler for hayledge/silage round or square

[paul&mandy]

As above but what's the most dense bale to wrap, can be round or square. Just trying to work out if a 6string square is heavier and uses less or more wrap than a modem round chopped bale to wrap.
Basically tons per roll of wrap is the key.
Do these 6stringers even have choppers? We have a 4 string cutter

 

[d williams]

As above but what's the most dense bale to wrap, can be round or square. Just trying to work out if a 6string square is heavier and uses less or more wrap than a modem round chopped bale to wrap.
Basically tons per roll of wrap is the key.
Do these 6stringers even have choppers? We have a 4 string cutter

What size four Stringer?? Could you double wrap ?? Yes 6 string chop but eat plastic

 

[Simon Chiles]

As above but what's the most dense bale to wrap, can be round or square. Just trying to work out if a 6string square is heavier and uses less or more wrap than a modem round chopped bale to wrap.
Basically tons per roll of wrap is the key.
Do these 6stringers even have choppers? We have a 4 string cutter

As a wild guess I’d imagine that a 5ft chopped round bale would be the most efficient in terms of the amount of plastic used/bale weight. Big square bales always look inefficient in terms of wrap to my way of thinking. @Mainbale will probably know the answer to this.

 

[Andrew]

We have some 25% moisture silage, 120*90*1.8m approx 900kg.
But you have to put 6 layers on with squares.

Personally, in my opinion choppers in balers are a waste of time, they drink diesel, reduce throughput, are worth less secondhand, and break regularly, the extra vibration also causes more failures throughout the baler.
(We have run a Krone cutter and non cutter alongside each other, and MF cutter and non cutter alongside each other).
It certainly doesn't increase bale weights in silage anyway.

 

[paul&mandy]

What size four Stringer?? Could you double wrap ?? Yes 6 string chop but eat plastic

80x90 I know what you mean if a 80x70. Not sure if doable though.

 

[paul&mandy]

We have some 25% moisture silage, 120*90*1.8m approx 900kg.
But you have to put 6 layers on with squares.

Personally, in my opinion choppers in balers are a waste of time, they drink diesel, reduce throughput, are worth less secondhand, and break regularly, the extra vibration also causes more failures throughout the baler.
(We have run a Krone cutter and non cutter alongside each other, and MF cutter and non cutter alongside each other).
It certainly doesn't increase bale weights in silage anyway.

We have a cutter now, do these 6 stringers have choppers or just cutters. Just never seen 1 with a chopper.

 

[paul&mandy]

As a wild guess I’d imagine that a 5ft chopped round bale would be the most efficient in terms of the amount of plastic used/bale weight. Big square bales always look inefficient in terms of wrap to my way of thinking. @Mainbale will probably know the answer to this.

Yes that what I was thinking too.

 

[Andrew]

We have a cutter now, do these 6 stringers have choppers or just cutters. Just never seen 1 with a chopper.

No, cutters. All the cutters are basically the same, just wider with more knives in a 4ft throat machine. Think one of the Krones can have a lot more knives though.

We've also experimented with 120*70*1.8m, double stacked and wrapped in one with a McHale 998.

We had to bale the bales lighter as double bales were too heavy for the wrapper. There was also a lot more handling damage. Even if the bales had been denser I don't believe there would have been any saving on wrap.

 

[Richard Smyth]

Tube wrap is the go I reckon. Did 2000 bales for first time this year with cutter on a mf. 900 kg average weight wrapped in tubes 2 high. Customer probably wants to do 4000 next year.

Even running the knives in for his hay as it speeds the process up in the mixer wagon.

 

[paul&mandy]

No, cutters. All the cutters are basically the same, just wider with more knives in a 4ft throat machine. Think one of the Krones can have a lot more knives though.

We've also experimented with 120*70*1.8m, double stacked and wrapped in one with a McHale 998.

We had to bale the bales lighter as double bales were too heavy for the wrapper. There was also a lot more handling damage. Even if the bales had been denser I don't believe there would have been any saving on wrap.

I remember yrs ago we managed to wrap some 120x130 Hesston's. I can't remember how it was done but can't be a lot more difficult than a round bale?

Are your massey balers XD? Just wondering what hp you need for them?

 

[Andrew]

I remember yrs ago we managed to wrap some 120x130 Hesston's. I can't remember how it was done but can't be a lot more difficult than a round bale?

Are your massey balers XD? Just wondering what hp you need for them?

Can wrap a hesston easily enough, double stacked quads are 120 x 140.
The problem is baling anything other than dry stuff, the stuffer doesn’t have the power to throw wet grass right to the top of the bale chamber.

We run 300hp on the XDs, although regularly put them behind 220hp too. It’s only going uphill or in thin crops you notice the lower output.

 

[James]

Only round baler here but have never been asked to chop haylage