Round baler size. 4x6 vs 5x6

We are looking into buying a new baler with net this winter and can't decide on a JD 468 or a JD 568. The Deere dealer is the closest and pretty easy to work with. We've always had a 5ft baler but if it's easier to haul 4ft we might make the change. My main concern is for selling the bales if people prefer the 4ft or 5ft wide. We're in central KS if that helps any. Thanks!
 
In Ohio you can haul 2 4' bales sised by side on the truck, only one 5' bale as 2 are overwidth.
 
5x6 seems to be used mostly out west. "Here" (Ontario), the vast majority of guys are running 4x5 bales. Fair few 4x6 balers, but most are just making 4x5 with them. I think 4x anything is easier to haul. If you're only using them at home, and you have decent roads to pull a 10' load down, there may not be much advantage. But given you're looking to be selling them, etc., a 4x5 or 4x6 is the most efficient way to move hay in a round bale. Square bales are more efficient yet, But you'd want a 3x4 bale to be efficient on a flat deck, and it takes a sizable tractor to run that.
 
I'll second that. I bought my first round baler in 1979 when the only thing available was a 5 foot width. I either had to haul them overwidth or haul very few on a load. I was more than happy to trade for a 4 foot in 1981.
 
I?m in East Central Ks, I?ve run a 468 since 2013. I like to bale 4x5.5. They haul well, the 468 has been an excellent baler.
 
Ya they are way nicer to haul and with today?s drivers and road traffic I?d much rather have a 4 foot if I was hauling them on the road
 
Many hay buyers just think a bale of hay is just a bale of hay without considering the size. They will pay just as much for a 4 foot bale as they will pay for a 5 foot bale. I seldom see hay sold by weight as it should be.
 
If there's a possibility of making high moisture bales, you'll want a 4' baler... or a BIG loader tractor.
5' wide are nice for getting the hay out of the field quickly and efficiently - more per bale/load, but if you have to haul on any kind of heavily traveled road, 4' are nicer because of staying at 8' wide for a 2-wide load. I have no problem hauling 2 wide with 5' bales from my fields to pasture, but that's short distances on gravel roads.
 
We have a 4x5 baler. Son wants a 4x6 with net wrap also. He wants to make 4x5.5 actually. Our baler won't make a true 4x5 bale. Little short.We sell most of our hay. Most horse people have small tractors. Won't handle 5x6 bales. But most baler in this area are 5x5. We also bale small squares.
 
I sell rounds also, agree with guys below that 4 ft wide is best for selling and transport. You will also likely get more dollar per pound with 4 ft wide. Not much profit in hay these days, at least out here in Mid Atlantic. Doubt buyers would pay the extra for 5 ft wide rounds to make up costs to you. Good luck.
 
I guess it is a little different in every area, so I am not going to say one is better than the other, instead I will share what I use and why.

I use a 5x6 and set the monitor to wrap at 68 inches.
More hay in the bale means less time wrapping and less time hauling.
A dozen sit better on my deck if they are just under 6 foot and I do not need to tie them down.
Hard on belts and bearings if you max out size on every bale.
Majority of my bales never see the road.

If I do have to buy feed I want the heaviest bales I can find, yes I have a scale.
It takes basically the same amount of time and fuel to haul little bales as it does to haul big ones, if I am going to move a few hundred bales 5-10 miles I want 1700 lb bales not 800 lb bales and twice the hauling.
And come winter I am not handling twice as many bales when I feed.

So for me personally little bales would have to be dirt cheap before I would even consider them.

Suppose if you are looking to market your feed to individuals that want a couple of bales at a time then a smaller bale might make them happy.
 
It all depends on the area. Around me here in North-Eastern Iowa 95% of the balers are 5 foot wide balers. We have wide roads and farmers can usually haul them without much trouble from the LEOs. No if you set them on a semi and drop deck you had better be permitted, flagged and every row strapped. LOL

It also depends on how many bales you do each year. We totaled out at just over 45K this year with 5x6 balers. If they had been 4 foot bales we would have been 11K higher in the count.

Hay sells around here by the ton period. Almost non of the hay sold here is by the bale. So the larger size does not hurt you here.
 
I believe a 5" diameter bale you could haul double stack high but 6' would be overheight for road clearance. so sticking with smaller would end up in long run with more weight per load.
 
Having had a JD530 5x6, the only reason I'd want anything smaller would be if I were downsizing to a small operation with small equipment.........which I have done upon retiring. In that regard I have a 5x4 which is a 5x6 choked off at 4' diameter. The reduced diameter for the 5x4 vs the 4x6 (in your question) allows for easier viewing (around the bale) ahead when mounted on the FEL of a smaller tractor.

Given all other things equal, I did some volume dimensioning on different sized bales to see just what you get when comparing the different dimensioned bales. Taking a 5x6 at 141 volume units, a 5x4 as I now have comes in at 63 and a 4x6 113. For a 4x6 choked down to 5.5 it's 95, and choked down to 4x5 is 78 or about half the volume of the 5x6.

On weight, again all things being equal, estimating 1600# for the 5x6 the 4x6 would come in at 1280# and mine, which I can pickup with my Ford 2000 easily with no front weights, equals 715#.
 

We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.

Back
Top