11 Sperry New Holland Model 379 Tub Grinder
12 Farmhand Model F890-A Tub Grinder
13 Haybuster Model C-9 Tub Grinder
14 Bearcat Model 4200 Tub-Master Feed Grinder
15 Haybuster Model H-1000 Tub Grinder
747 Bale Processors
Summary of Sperry New Holland Model 379 Tub Grinder (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 0.93 MB)
Overall functional performance of the New Holland 379 was good in both baled and stacked hay and straw. Ease of operation was good, but was reduced by difficulty in unplugging the screen.
Maximum grinding rates with a 51 mm (2 in) screen were about 6.5 t/h (7.2 ton/h) in baled alfalfa, 8.0 t/h (8.8 ton/h) in stacked alfalfa, 6.5 t/h (7.2 ton/h) in stacked barley straw and 7.6 t/h (8.4 ton/h) in baled barley straw. With most tractors, grinding rates were usually limited by tractor power rather than by feeding characteristics.
As with most tub grinders, power consumption was high and specific capacity was low. Specific capacity varied from 0.32 t/kW.h (0.26 ton/hp.h) in stacked alfalfa hay to 0.08 t/kW.h (0.07 ton/hp.h) in round barley straw bales, when using a 51 mm (2 in) screen.
As with most tub grinders, the method of feeding the hammer mill imposed heavy shock loads on the power train and resulted in wide power fluctuations. For example, at the maximum feedrate of 7.6 t/h (8.4 ton/h), with a 51 mm (2 in) screen in round barley straw bales, the average power input was 98 kW (131 hp), however, a tractor with a maximum power take-off output of at least 144 kW (193 hp) was needed to prevent tractor stalling due to the wide power fluctuations. By adjusting the tub governor, smaller tractors could be used at reduced grinding rates.
The New Holland 379 was safe to operate if the manufacturer's recommendations were closely followed. The location of the tub speed control adjacent to the pto shaft required additional caution when adjusting tub speed.
Summary of Farmhand F890-A Tub Grinder (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 1.00 MB)
Overall functional performance of the Farmhand F890-A was good in both stacked hay and straw, but only fair with large round bales. Ease of operation was good.
Maximum grinding rates with a 51 mm (2 in) screen were about 4.2 t/h (4.6 ton/h) in baled alfalfa, 5.4 t/h (5.9 ton/h) in stacked alfalfa, 3.7 t/h (4.1 ton/h) in stacked barley straw and 2.8 t/h (3.1 ton/h) in baled barley straw. Maximum grinding rates with a 25 mm (1 in) screen were about one-half as large as those with a 51 mm (2 in) screen. Grinding rates were limited by feeding characteristics, particularly in round bales.
As with most tub grinders, specific capacity was low. Specific capacity varied from 0.36 t/kW.h (0.30 ton/hp.h) in stacked alfalfa hay to 0.08 t/kW.h (0.07 ton/hp.h) in round barley straw bales, when using a 51 mm (2 in) screen. Specific capacities were reduced by about 50% when using a 25 mm (1 in) screen.
As with most tub grinders, the method of feeding the hammer mill imposed heavy shock loads on the power train and resulted in wide power fluctuations. For example, at the maximum feedrate of 2.8 t/h (3.1 ton/h), with a 51 mm (2 in) screen in round barley straw bales, the average power input was 33 kW (44 hp), however, a tractor with a maximum power take-off output of at least 63 kW (85 hp) was needed to prevent tractor stalling due to the wide power fluctuations. By adjusting the tub governor, smaller tractors could be used at reduced grinding rates.
The Farmhand F890-A was safe to operate if the manufacturer's recommendations were closely followed. The location of the tub speed control adjacent to the pto shaft required additional caution when adjusting tub speed.
Summary of Haybuster C-9 Tub Grinder (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 0.92 MB)
Overall functional performance of the Haybuster C-9 was fair in both baled and stacked hay and straw. Ease of operation was poor.
Maximum grinding rates with a 51 mm (2 in) screen were about 4.5 t/h (5.0 ton/h) in baled alfalfa, 4.8 t/h (5.3 ton/h) in stacked alfalfa, 5.7 t/h (6.3 ton/h) in stacked barley straw and 7.9 t/h (8.7 ton/h) in baled barley straw. Maximum grinding rates with a 25 mm (1 in) screen were about one-half as large as those with a 51 mm (2 in) screen. With most tractors, grinding rates were usually limited by feeding, poor selection of tub speeds and slippage of drive belts.
As with most tub grinders, power consumption was high and specific capacity was low. Specific capacity varied from 0.37 t/kW.h (0.30 ton/hp.h) in stacked alfalfa hay to 0.15 t/kW.h (0.12 ton/hp.h) in round barley straw bales, when using a two inch screen. Specific capacities were reduced by about 50% when using a one inch screen.
As with most tub grinders, the method of feeding the hammer mill imposed heavy shock loads on the power train and resulted in wide power fluctuations. For example, at the maximum feedrate of 7.9 t/h (8.7 ton/h), with a 51 mm (2 in) screen in round barley straw bales, the average power input was 54 kW (72 hp), however, a tractor with a maximum power take-off output of at least 86 kW (116 hp) was needed to prevent tractor stalling due to the wide power fluctuations. By adjusting the tub governor, smaller tractors could be used at reduced grinding rates.
The Haybuster C-9 had several potential safety hazards. No conveyor safety support straps were provided for transport and the conveyor winch was potentially dangerous as it did not use a friction drag clutch. No ladder or inspection platform was provided for tub access or servicing.
Tub support rollers and several belt pulleys were not shielded. If the tub speed was not properly adjusted, the Centrifugal clutch on the tub drive could overheat and present a fire hazard.
Summary of Bearcat Model 4200 Tub-Master Feed Grinder (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 0.95 MB)
Overall functional performance of the Bearcat 4200 was good in both baled and stacked hay and straw. Ease of operation was good.
Maximum grinding rates with a 51 mm (2 in) screen were about 11.0 t/h (12.1 ton/h) in baled alfalfa, 3.4 t/h (3.7 ton/h) in stacked alfalfa, 7.8 t/h (8.6 ton/h) in stacked barley straw and 7.5 t/h (8.3 ton/h) in baled barley straw. Maximum grinding rates with a 25 mm (1 in) screen were about one-half as large as those with a 51 mm (2 in) screen. With most tractors, grinding rates were usually limited by tractor power rather than by feeding characteristics.
As with most tub grinders, power consumption was high and specific capacity was low. Specific capacity varied from 0.16 t/kW.h (0.13 ton/hp.h) in stacked alfalfa hay to 0.08 t/kW.h (0.06 ton/hp.h) in round barley straw bales, when using a 51 mm (2 in) screen. Specific capacities were reduced by about 50% when using a 25 mm (1 in) screen.
As with most tub grinders, the method of feeding the hammer mill imposed heavy shock loads on the power train and resulted in wide power fluctuations. For example, at the maximum feedrate of 7.5 t/h (8.3 ton/h), with a 51 mm (2 in) screen in round barley straw bales, the average power input was 100 kW (134 hp), however, a tractor with a maximum power take-off output of at least 151 kW (202 hp) was needed to prevent tractor stalling due to the wide power fluctuations. By adjusting the tub governor, smaller tractors could be used at reduced grinding rates.
The Bearcat 4200 was safe to operate if the manufacturer's recommendations were closely followed. The location of the tub speed control above the pro shaft required additional caution when making adjustments to tub speed.
Summary of Haybuster Model H-1000 Tub Grinder (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 0.80 MB)
Overall functional performance of the Haybuster H-1000 was very good in both baled and stacked hay and straw. Ease of operation was very good.
Maximum grinding rates with a 51 mm (2 in) screen were about 13 t/h (14.3 ton/h) in baled alfalfa, 16 t/h (17.6 ton/h) in stacked alfalfa, 10 t/h (11 ton/h) in stacked barley straw and 18.6 t/h (20.5 ton/h) in baled barley straw. Maximum grinding rates with a 25 mm (1 in) screen were about one-half as large as those with a 51 mm (2 in) screen. With most tractors, grinding rates were usually limited by tractor power rather than by feeding characteristics.
As with most tub grinders, power consumption was high and specific capacity was low. Specific capacity varied from 0.27 t/kW.h (0.22 ton/hp.h) in stacked alfalfa hay to 0.20 t/kW.h (0.16 ton/hp.h) in round barley straw bales, when using a 2 inch screen. Specific capacities were reduced by about 50% when using a 1 inch screen.
As with most tub grinders, the method of feeding the hammer mill imposed heavy shock loads on the power train and resulted in wide power fluctuations. For example, at the maximum feedrate of 18.6 t/h (20.5 ton/h), with a 51 mm (2 in) screen in round barley straw bales, the average power input was 94 kW (126 hp), however, a tractor with a maximum power take-off output of at least 160 kW (214 hp) was needed to prevent tractor stalling due to the wide power fluctuations. By adjusting the tub governor, smaller tractors could be used at reduced grinding rates.
The Haybuster H-1000 had several potential safety hazards. No conveyor safety support straps were provided for transport and the conveyor winch was potentially dangerous as it did not use a friction drag clutch. No ladder or inspection platform were provided for tub access or servicing and the tub support rollers were not shielded.
Summary of Bale Processors Report (Evaluation Report - PDF File - 3.01 MB)
Bale King Vortex 2000 Bale Processor
Jiffy Model 920 Bale Shredder
Highline Bale Pro 7000 Cattleman Series
Highline Top Gun
Boss Two Square Bale Processor
Hesston BP25 Bale Processor
Patz Model 9184 Bale Chopper
Depending on the size, shape and design of the bale chamber or table the processors processed round bales and/or big square bales and/or loose material all. All round bale processors handled big round bales easily. The big square bale processors held the square bales easily. Sometimes processors without a fully enclosed chamber had some material loss that dropped out of the chamber opening as the bale broke up near the end of processing. The material type and moisture content was a limiting factor of all processors. All processors handled dry hay and straw bales at all machine settings available. All processors required slowing the material feeding rate, to minimal settings, to reduce power requirements, plugging and stress on the machine when processing high moisture materials. Processors with a secondary fan and deflection spout were not designed to process wet material due to plugging. Some processors with deflection chutes could process wet material at the maximum PTO speed, minimum material feeding speed and with the proper deflection chute and attachments. On processors with secondary cutting knives, the rotor jammed at times when silage material plugged the fully extended knives. Some units had difficulty feeding the round bales into the processing rotor under certain circumstances. The processors that fed the bale by a revolving tub and bale gripper arms sometimes lost hold of the bale or would tear pieces off the bale without turning the whole bale. Eventually the arms would clutch the bale and continue processing. At times the processors with 2 bale feed rotors above and to either side of the processing rotor were not able to clasp smaller round bales. The bale would lodge on the rotor guard rods and the rotor chewed a piece out of the bale center. Eventually the processor would bounce enough to realign the bale and the feed rotors would start processing again. If for any reason the operator is required to enter the bale processing area the power supply unit should be shut off completely. Processors with a material push gate caused the bale to jam at times between the feed rotor, processing rotor and push gate at excessive feed speeds. The push gate and feed rotors are easily reversed remotely from the tractor cab and processing was able to continue when a bale jam occurred.
All processors were easy to operate once the operator gained experience, and the manuals for each machine were simple and easy to follow. A detailed operators manual is required for the more complex machines. Processors with adjustments for feed rotor speed and spacing, material cutting length, aggressiveness, material deflection and bunk feeding were simple to operate. Some processors had adjustable feed rotors by loosening bolts and raising/lowering the rotors in slotted tracks. Processors with cradling chambers had simple adjustments for the cradle speed (material feeding speed), and processing aggressiveness. Some processors required raising or lowering the rotor by manually adjusting the bolt tensioners on each rotor bearing to change the amount of exposed flail to adjust material cutting length and aggressiveness. Processors with adjustments for feed rotor and bale push gate speed, material cutting length and bunk feeding were simple to operate. Processors with adjustments for chamber rotation speed (material feeding speed) and direction, material cutting length, distribution and material deflection were simple to operate. Some processors required adding/removing or raising/lowering individual knives on the rotary disc to adjust the material cutting length and aggressiveness.
The main material cutting length and processing aggressiveness settings varied with all processors and are listed as follows:
- Changing the rotor guard rod clearance above the rotor flails
- Raising or lowering the rotor clearance
- Changing the number and height of cutting knives
- Controlling the speed and direction of the tub rotation
- Controlling the material feeding speed of the bale pusher, cradle cycle or feed rotors into the processing rotor
Secondary adjustments to control material cutting length and processing aggressiveness were:
- Varying the height of a secondary cutting knife assembly
- Varying the PTO speed
The distance and uniformity of processed material spread varied with the settings of each processor. All machines worked sufficiently for their purpose. Some processors are designed more for spreading feed or finely cut bedding material, which takes more time, less power and results in smaller distribution patterns. Other processors are designed for aggressive round bale processing to spread material far distances for covering hog lagoons, sugar beet piles, hilltops, etc. resulting in high power requirements. Some processors are designed for very quick and aggressive big square bale processing for feeding or heavy bedding. Again the power requirements are higher and the spread pattern is limited. The majority of processors are designed for aggressive round bale processing for feeding or controlled bedding and spread straw more evenly at greater distances.
Power take off speed (rpm), torque (ft-lbs), hydraulic flow (gpm) and pressure (psi) were measured during each run to determine maximum and average horsepower (hp). The maximum horsepower occurred when wet or hard clumps were processed or the material feeding and processing rate was too high and aggressive. The maximum horsepower numbers were only for short time periods unless the feeding and processing rate settings were incorrect for the type of material.
All the processors had PTO shear bolts or a slip clutch assembly to prevent major damage if plugging occurred. Only two shear bolts broke and the slip clutch disengaged a couple of times throughout all tests and was likely due to operator error. |