Big Square Question

[smallrancher]

Just curious what the average 3*3*8 would weigh. Thanks!

 

[Bez>]

Just curious what the average 3*3*8 would weigh. Thanks!

3x3x8 = 72 ft cubed

5x4 bale has 78.5 feet cubed

Bet someone finds I have made an error in my math!! 8)

My round bales weigh in at around the 800 mark - suspect the large square is similar.

One thing for sure - all bales will weigh in at different weights due to moisture content and grass type.

Only way to know for sure is weigh them.

So, no matter what someone suggests - before you pay - if you buy on weight - put them on a scale.

If you are picky you might want to test them for nutritional value as well. Any feed store can do this for you. Some charge and some do it for free if you buy your minerals from them.

Have fun,

Bez>

 

[smallrancher]

thanks Bez!

 

[msscamp]

Just curious what the average 3*3*8 would weigh. Thanks!

Our 3X3X8's routinely weigh right around 800 lbs.

 

[Bez>]

So this dumb guy managed to make a reasonably accurate edumicated guess?

Thanks msscamp

Bez>

 

[mnmtranching]

Just curious what the average 3*3*8 would weigh. Thanks!

Our 3X3X8's routinely weigh right around 800 lbs.

Yup, I've bought a few all weighed, right on.

 

[msscamp]

So this dumb guy managed to make a reasonably accurate edumicated guess?

Thanks msscamp

Bez>

No problem. Dumb? I think not. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[dcara]

3x3x8 = 72 ft cubed

5x4 bale has 78.5 feet cubed

Math is right but statements are gramatically wrong (even though we all know what you meant). It should read

"5x4 bale has 78.5 cubic feet", or something to that effect. To say it has 78.5 feet cubed is the same as saying it has 78.5 feet x 78.5 feet x 78.5 feet, which is the same as 78.5 feet on each side .

Do you have a pressure setting on your baler? If so what do you set it to and why? I'm trying to learn a little more about why others bale the way they do.

 

[Herefordcross]

It's funny how the 3x3 balers can vary weight wise. The NH we use weighed in at a pretty consistent 780lbs. 7 1/2' long. My friends JD is running about the same weight for 3x3x6's.

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

More "Cubic" trivia:

A 3x3x8' square bale has 72 Cubic Feet of hay.

A 4x4x8' square bale has 128 Cubic Feet of hay.

So...4x4x8 is almost 2X as large & heavy as a 3x3x8' bale.

 

[dcara]

RAB - IMO, I don't think I would say "almost 2X as large", but I due agree with almost as heavy part. The 4x4x8 is only 30% bigger on two sides. Part B would be twice as large as part A if each side of part B were twice as long as the corrisponding side of part A. If you don't consider all sides then you have to stick with saying that its twice as long, or twice as high, or twice as deep, but not twice as large.

Taking a 2x2x2 cube and doubleing the "size" to 4x4x4 cube increases the volume (and weight) by 8 times!

To double a cubic volume you only have to increase the cubic size by roughly 25%. So a bale 3.75ft x 3.75ft x 10ft would weigh twice as much as a 3 x 3 x 8, likewise would a 4.2 x 4.2 x 8. But neither is twice as large

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

RAB - IMO, I don't think I would say "almost 2X as large", but I due agree with almost as heavy part. The 4x4x8 is only 30% bigger on two sides. Part B would be twice as large as part A if each side of part B were twice as long as the corrisponding side of part A. If you don't consider all sides then you have to stick with saying that its twice as long, or twice as high, or twice as deep, but not twice as large.

Taking a 2x2x2 cube and doubleing the "size" to 4x4x4 cube increases the volume (and weight) by 8 times!

To double a cubic volume you only have to increase the cubic size by roughly 25%. So a bale 3.75ft x 3.75ft x 10ft would weigh twice as much as a 3 x 3 x 8, likewise would a 4.2 x 4.2 x 8. But neither is twice as large

Ok...

Basic math: Cubic feet is cubic feet. 3x3x8 = 72 CF. 4x4x8 = 128 CF. (Formula: CF = H X W X L).

A 3x3x8 bale would be "twice as large (CF Volume) at 144 CF). 128 CF for a 4x4x8 is only 16 CF less than Two 3x3x8 bales (i.e., 72 CF). When I said "almost" I meant "almost"... ;-)

 

[dcara]

You'll note in my post that I agreed with your "2x heavy" comment since that relates directly to volume. But you stated

So...4x4x8 is almost 2X as large & heavy as a 3x3x8' bale.

. Your statement implys both size and volume. In fact it implys a linear relationship between size and volume which is mathematically incorrect. Volume and symetrical size size have a cubic, square, or some other non-linear relationship. Thats why a 4x4x8 bale is only 30% higher and wider than a 3x3x8. Not almost 2x as large. Math does have its own language so you might consider this just semantics.

 

[tytower]

Well I'm gonna take your word for it and let you both do the lifting

 

[Running Arrow Bill]

You'll note in my post that I agreed with your "2x heavy" comment since that relates directly to volume. But you stated

So...4x4x8 is almost 2X as large & heavy as a 3x3x8' bale.

. Your statement implys both size and volume. In fact it implys a linear relationship between size and volume which is mathematically incorrect. Volume and symetrical size size have a cubic, square, or some other non-linear relationship. Thats why a 4x4x8 bale is only 30% higher and wider than a 3x3x8. Not almost 2x as large. Math does have its own language so you might consider this just semantics.

Ok...whatever...we're obviously not on the same page, so I'll close my book and move on... ;-)