Thought I'd share a little more info on how I came to buy the JD348 baler. I've been contemplating a second baler even though I felt the New Holland 68 is now in great shape. We're making horse hay - or at least that's the goal and one day extra (or more) can turn your prized horse hay and the revenue that comes with it to goat or worse, mulch hay. We sell everything, no more livestock on the farm, so quality and appearance are paramount.
In the mix of all this was the thought that we'd move up in hp - currently, our max is 50 PTO, and we wanted more capacity in this second baler than we could handle with 50 PTO hp so that if/when we up the hp, we'd have a baler that could take advantage.
We are also, over time, going to 9ft cutting widths and with it rakes. It just cuts down overall effort on the limited time we have after work. Don't know to what extent you folks combine windrows, but I could see us combining 2 - 18 ft windrows going into the 348 with the appropriate hp in front of it.
We also wanted additional capacity and throughput if/when we move away from towed behind wagons to an accumulator/grapple system or a bale basket. Really the bottle neck is not the baler, it's how fast the bales get stacked on the wagon. With enough hp, we can go to the races with the 348 using a bale basket or accumulator grapple. We wanted that potential available when/if we go there. I think the 348 has it.
We considered a JD 328 or 338 or earlier variants that were 80 strokes per minute. We looked at New Holland 565 and BC5050 balers, but they are 79 strokes per minute. The 68 baler we have is 60-65 strokes per minute. We want 12-15 flakes per bale. To get that, we have to drive in 1st low on either the JD or MF we have. Not a problem, the 68 now cranks out a great looking brick bale, but it is somewhat slow - especially if your fields are going to yield much more hay - which we are on the path of doing. On the New Holland front, we looked at the 570/BC5060 balers - which I especially liked. Also considered a 575/BC5070, but felt the hp demands and overall weight of the baler made it less attractive. The 570/575 and BC5060/70 balers are 93 strokes per minute, similar to the JD 348. So from a bale quality standpoint, we wanted the higher strokes per minute of 93. The JD gives us that and with it 12-15 flakes per bale at a higher bale output capacity. Same flakes in as the NH68 cranks out, just more of them per hour.
In the end, we narrowed our choice to the JD348 or a New Holland 570/BC5060. The deciding factors that pushed us to the JD were the following: the JD348 has a wider pickup and more tine bars/pick up teeth, but the baler overall width is comparable to the 570/BC5060. The second thing is hp requirements. Not sure I fully understand the hp requirements and how the manufacturers glean them, but the JD348 minimum hp is 35. I've got 50 PTO max to work with. The 570/BC5060 requires 62ish hp minimum, if I remember correctly. The 575/BC5070 requires, I think, 75 minimum PTO hp - 40 more hp than required of the 348. Seems like I read that the JD balers with the flywheel on the side vs direct on the face of the PTO, like the New Holland, has some kind of gear reduction that reduces hp input - but could never verify this.
So for us, the JD 348 was IMHO the best fit for our hay making - we'll see. I especially liked the BC5060/70 balers. Such a simple, yet high capacity feeding system. They are very much heavy duty balers. What I like most about them is service access. I've never seen a new anything that was designed for service and repair as these BC balers. They have abundant flip up hood/access panels everywhere. I would absolutely recommend a BC5060 or BC5070 baler and who knows, one of these days we might own one.
Once we locked the JD348 (or a decent 347) on our radar, we waited/watched for a deal. That happened on December 31, 2015 and we brought it home.
That's what I think I know about our baler buying decision and the thought that went into it.
YMMV.
Bill
In the mix of all this was the thought that we'd move up in hp - currently, our max is 50 PTO, and we wanted more capacity in this second baler than we could handle with 50 PTO hp so that if/when we up the hp, we'd have a baler that could take advantage.
We are also, over time, going to 9ft cutting widths and with it rakes. It just cuts down overall effort on the limited time we have after work. Don't know to what extent you folks combine windrows, but I could see us combining 2 - 18 ft windrows going into the 348 with the appropriate hp in front of it.
We also wanted additional capacity and throughput if/when we move away from towed behind wagons to an accumulator/grapple system or a bale basket. Really the bottle neck is not the baler, it's how fast the bales get stacked on the wagon. With enough hp, we can go to the races with the 348 using a bale basket or accumulator grapple. We wanted that potential available when/if we go there. I think the 348 has it.
We considered a JD 328 or 338 or earlier variants that were 80 strokes per minute. We looked at New Holland 565 and BC5050 balers, but they are 79 strokes per minute. The 68 baler we have is 60-65 strokes per minute. We want 12-15 flakes per bale. To get that, we have to drive in 1st low on either the JD or MF we have. Not a problem, the 68 now cranks out a great looking brick bale, but it is somewhat slow - especially if your fields are going to yield much more hay - which we are on the path of doing. On the New Holland front, we looked at the 570/BC5060 balers - which I especially liked. Also considered a 575/BC5070, but felt the hp demands and overall weight of the baler made it less attractive. The 570/575 and BC5060/70 balers are 93 strokes per minute, similar to the JD 348. So from a bale quality standpoint, we wanted the higher strokes per minute of 93. The JD gives us that and with it 12-15 flakes per bale at a higher bale output capacity. Same flakes in as the NH68 cranks out, just more of them per hour.
In the end, we narrowed our choice to the JD348 or a New Holland 570/BC5060. The deciding factors that pushed us to the JD were the following: the JD348 has a wider pickup and more tine bars/pick up teeth, but the baler overall width is comparable to the 570/BC5060. The second thing is hp requirements. Not sure I fully understand the hp requirements and how the manufacturers glean them, but the JD348 minimum hp is 35. I've got 50 PTO max to work with. The 570/BC5060 requires 62ish hp minimum, if I remember correctly. The 575/BC5070 requires, I think, 75 minimum PTO hp - 40 more hp than required of the 348. Seems like I read that the JD balers with the flywheel on the side vs direct on the face of the PTO, like the New Holland, has some kind of gear reduction that reduces hp input - but could never verify this.
So for us, the JD 348 was IMHO the best fit for our hay making - we'll see. I especially liked the BC5060/70 balers. Such a simple, yet high capacity feeding system. They are very much heavy duty balers. What I like most about them is service access. I've never seen a new anything that was designed for service and repair as these BC balers. They have abundant flip up hood/access panels everywhere. I would absolutely recommend a BC5060 or BC5070 baler and who knows, one of these days we might own one.
Once we locked the JD348 (or a decent 347) on our radar, we waited/watched for a deal. That happened on December 31, 2015 and we brought it home.
That's what I think I know about our baler buying decision and the thought that went into it.
YMMV.
Bill
