Big square bales.

farisfat · 11-12-2017 10:43PM #1

7/3/2 squares,man selling them recons theirs one and a half round bales in them.
Anyone with any experience of them.

White Clover · 11-12-2017 10:58PM

farisfat wrote: »

7/3/2 squares,man selling them recons theirs one and a half round bales in them.
Anyone with any experience of them.

He's a cheeky fecker! 1.134m3 in the square, about 1.5m3 in a round.

I used both last year. There was more in the rounds even though the squares were packed better.

J.O. Farmer · 11-12-2017 11:07PM

White Clover wrote: »

He's a cheeky fecker! 1.134m3 in the square, about 1.5m3 in a round.

I used both last year. There was more in the rounds even though the squares were packed better.

I bought some this year and the man selling them said there was the same in both the round and squares. He was charging the same price for both that they weren't the real big squares.

At the time I had been asking him about squares and he didn't know if he'd have any of them for me but he said he'd rounds from the same land at the same money.

Dakota Dan · 11-12-2017 11:29PM

White Clover wrote: »

He's a cheeky fecker! 1.134m3 in the square, about 1.5m3 in a round.

I used both last year. There was more in the rounds even though the squares were packed better.

Spot on, I see you didn't forget about pi r squared after leaving school.

fergus1001 · 11-12-2017 11:46PM

White Clover wrote:

He's a cheeky fecker! 1.134m3 in the square, about 1.5m3 in a round.

Bigger area in the round but higher density in the square

Y'all need to do your sums better

Water John · 11-12-2017 11:50PM

Then, the only thing is, to weigh the 2 of them.

fergus1001 · 12-12-2017 12:00AM

Water John wrote:

Then, the only thing is, to weigh the 2 of them.

Exactly the comparison figure you need is kg/m3

It's the only reliable comparison

selectamatic · 12-12-2017 12:02AM

Aren't 7x3x2 bales generally called coffin bales?

8x4x4 or 8x4x3 are what's known as big squares.

Water John · 12-12-2017 12:03AM

Well on White Clover's figs, the sq would need to be one third denser.

charolais0153 · 12-12-2017 12:18AM

Assuming 4x4 bale. .6m is radius. 1.2x .36=.432x3.14= 1.35m2

2.1x.9x.6=1.134.

Only needs to be 19%more dense

fergus1001 · 12-12-2017 12:18AM

Just done a quick search they are both the same around 140-180 kg

If you look at the centre of a round they are not packed tight at all a square is consistent all the way through

But the advantage is they are handler in the shed and also to split

Water John · 12-12-2017 12:19AM

I'm more dense.

White Clover · 12-12-2017 08:45AM

fergus1001 wrote: »

Bigger area in the round but higher density in the square

Y'all need to do your sums better

Why didn't you quote the remainder of my post?

You're just repeating what I said!

White Clover · 12-12-2017 08:47AM

charolais0153 wrote: »

Assuming 4x4 bale. .6m is radius. 1.2x .36=.432x3.14= 1.35m2

2.1x.9x.6=1.134.

Only needs to be 19%more dense

Rounds nowadays are closer to 1.35m in diameter than 1.2m

Dakota Dan · 12-12-2017 09:42AM

fergus1001 wrote: »

Bigger area in the round but higher density in the square

Y'all need to do your sums better

Maybe you can throw up the formula for density, but in reality it depends on the tension of the baler, how long is a piece of string.

Water John · 12-12-2017 10:31AM

Ah Mickey, you didn't have to agree with me.
Weigh is the only solution.

Dakota Dan · 12-12-2017 10:40AM

Water John wrote: »

Ah Mickey, you didn't have to agree with me.
Weigh is the only solution.

You don't need to weigh them to know that the man the op was buying from was talking through the arse of his britches.

fergus1001 · 12-12-2017 11:20AM

White Clover wrote:

You're just repeating what I said!

Nope you were talking about volume Not density

White Clover · 12-12-2017 11:31AM

fergus1001 wrote: »

Nope you were talking about volume Not density

And I also said that the rounds were lasting longer than the square. That implies that there was more straw in the rounds.
That is the question the op was asking. No?

Water John · 12-12-2017 11:35AM

Yes, know White Clover was on volume. Of course density comes into play then. Same as the guys in another thread, measuring the pit of silage. Do you then divide the cu ft by 45 or 50? Wagon silage v's precision chop.

You can weigh the 2 bales but you can weigh the whole pit of silage.
Weight is what you are always buying. Obviously, quality then comes into the equation.

Mooooo · 12-12-2017 11:53AM

8×3×2 We normally get and they're generally around the 14 euro mark

larthehar · 12-12-2017 01:31PM

I heard a few lads giving out about the squares being a lot harder to shake out around the house if you don.t have a straw chopper.. anyone any experiences? Thinking of moving to squares next year..

Mooooo · 12-12-2017 01:41PM

If you're bedding big open sheds round are handler but if doing smaller pens tgat wouldn't take a full bale or if feeding the squares are handler as you can take what you want in the leaves. Find the squares tidier for calf pens and feeding in diet feeder. 're how easy it is to spread it depends on straw quality really. Biggest advantage to squares is you'd store twice the amount of straw to the same space over the rounds be it on a trailer or in the shed

fergus1001 · 12-12-2017 07:03PM

For squares

LxBxW

2.13x0.91x0.6= 1.16M3

Weight/M3
140/1.16= 120kg/m3

For rounds:

3.14 x Radius^2x Height

3.14x0.609^2x1.219= 1.41 m3

Weight/m3
140/1.41= 99.29kg/m3

Square bale is winner winner chicken dinner For transporting

All weights and values are based on teagasc data

Zr105 · 18-12-2017 12:06AM

An 8*4*3 square is somewhere around 1.5 rounds alright but there’s no way a 3*2 unless in a rediculously long length could be up around 1.5 rounds

Big square bales.

Comments