{"id":1025,"date":"2026-07-21T08:09:36","date_gmt":"2026-07-21T08:09:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/?p=1025"},"modified":"2026-07-21T08:09:36","modified_gmt":"2026-07-21T08:09:36","slug":"small-beef-herds-when-a-1-0-m-baler-makes-more-sense","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/application\/small-beef-herds-when-a-1-0-m-baler-makes-more-sense\/","title":{"rendered":"Small Beef Herds: When a 1.0 m Baler Makes More Sense"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
Small Beef \u00b7 WA & Tasmania \u00b7 Equipment Sizing<\/div>\n

Small Beef Herds: When a 1.0 m Baler Makes More Sense<\/p>\n

The economic and practical case for right-sizing your round baler \u2014 why 50 to 150 head beef operations often waste money running a 1.25 m machine they don’t need.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

The Over-Investment Problem in Small Herd Baling<\/h2>\n

The 1.25 m round baler has become the de facto standard machine across Australian hay and silage production, and for operations above 200 head or 700+ bales per season, the specification makes sense. But there is a significant cohort of Australian beef operations \u2014 50 to 150 head beef cattle on 200 to 800 hectares in WA’s Great Southern, Tasmania’s midlands and northwest, Victoria’s high country, and coastal NSW \u2014 where the 1.25 m baler is demonstrably the wrong machine, and the operators running one are paying a higher per-bale cost than necessary while simultaneously producing bales that are too large for their feeding and handling equipment.<\/p>\n

The right machine for a 100-head beef operation making 250 to 450 bales per season is not the 1.25 m standard \u2014 it is the 1.0 m round baler, which produces a 200 to 320 kg bale that a 50 to 65 hp tractor can safely handle with a standard three-point linkage bale spike, that two people can roll by hand in an emergency, and that a mob of 80 to 120 cattle consumes in 1 to 2 days without the excessive aerobic deterioration exposure that occurs when a mob takes 4 to 6 days to consume a full 1.25 m silage bale. This article makes the right-sizing argument in detail.<\/p>\n

For the broader question of how to manage feed supply through drought conditions \u2014 the primary silage challenge for small beef operations \u2014 our article on silage baling for beef cattle stations in drought<\/a> covers the strategic planning context.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\"9YG-1.0C<\/p>\n

\n

Bale Size Economics: What Changes When You Go From 1.25 m to 1.0 m<\/h2>\n

Feed-Out Match \u2014 The Most Important Factor for Small Herds<\/h3>\n

The fundamental principle of bale sizing is feed-out match: a bale should be consumed by the feeding mob within 2 to 3 days of opening in summer (3 to 4 days in winter) to minimise aerobic deterioration exposure on the opened bale face. A 100-head beef herd eating 8 kg DM silage per head per day consumes 800 kg DM per day \u2014 enough to eat through a 1.0 m bale (90 to 110 kg DM) in approximately 2 to 3 hours. This is the ideal feedout rate: the bale is consumed before aerobic deterioration can establish on the exposed face.<\/p>\n

The same 100-head mob takes approximately 4 to 5 days to consume a full 1.25 m silage bale (200 to 260 kg DM). In warm conditions (above 18\u00b0C ambient), the exposed face of a silage bale begins aerobic heating within 12 to 24 hours of opening \u2014 and after 3 to 4 days of exposure, the deterioration zone can extend 10 to 20 cm into the bale. For a mob that takes 4+ days to consume a 1.25 m bale, a material fraction of the bale is fed in a deteriorated state, with reduced palatability and elevated yeast activity.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Metric<\/th>\n1.25 m Bale<\/th>\n1.0 m Bale<\/th>\nBetter for 100 Head?<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Fresh weight (silage)<\/td>\n420\u2013580 kg<\/td>\n200\u2013300 kg<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
DM content (45% DM)<\/td>\n190\u2013260 kg DM<\/td>\n90\u2013135 kg DM<\/td>\n\u2014<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Days to consume (100 head, 8 kg DM\/day)<\/td>\n2.4\u20133.25 days<\/td>\n1.1\u20131.7 days<\/td>\n\u2713 1.0 m<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Aerobic exposure risk<\/td>\nModerate\u2013High<\/td>\nLow<\/td>\n\u2713 1.0 m<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Tractor required to handle<\/td>\n75\u2013100 hp<\/td>\n50\u201365 hp<\/td>\n\u2713 1.0 m<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Film cost per bale<\/td>\n$8\u2013$14<\/td>\n$5\u2013$9<\/td>\n\u2713 1.0 m<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Film cost per tonne DM<\/td>\n$35\u2013$65\/t<\/td>\n$40\u2013$75\/t<\/td>\nSimilar \u2014 1.25 m slight edge<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Bales per tonne DM<\/td>\n3.8\u20135.3<\/td>\n7.4\u201311.1<\/td>\n1.25 m ahead on handling count<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n

Tractor Compatibility \u2014 A Real Constraint on Small Properties<\/h3>\n

Tasmania’s beef operations on 300 to 600 hectare hill country farms and WA’s Great Southern beef properties typically run tractors in the 55 to 75 hp range \u2014 appropriate for the farm’s primary tillage, cultivation, and feeding tasks. A 1.25 m silage bale at 480 to 580 kg fresh weight on a bale spike pushes the hydraulic lift capacity of a 65 hp tractor to its safe operating limit, particularly when lifting over a fence or stacking two layers high. A 1.0 m bale at 220 to 300 kg is safely within the lift capacity of the same tractor with meaningful safety margin \u2014 allowing confident, safe operation rather than the cautious low-speed movement that characterises operating at the edge of hydraulic capacity.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

The Right Machine: 9YG-1.0 vs 9YG-1.0C for Small Beef<\/h2>\n

Standard 1.0 m vs C-Type \u2014 What the Difference Means Practically<\/h3>\n

EverPower’s 1.0 m round baler range includes two variants: the 9YG-1.0 round baler<\/a> (standard configuration for hay and silage across a broad range of crops) and the 9YG-1.0C type round baler<\/a> (a reinforced configuration for heavier crop loading conditions). For small beef operations making primarily silage from dense ryegrass or mixed pasture, the 1.0C type’s heavier-duty chamber components handle the sustained high-moisture loading of silage crops without the accelerated wear that lighter construction produces. For operations making primarily hay with occasional silage, the standard 1.0 m is the appropriate specification.<\/p>\n

PTO Requirements and Typical Farm Tractor Fleet<\/h3>\n

The 9YG-1.0 and 1.0C require 35 to 55 hp at the PTO \u2014 placing them within the operating range of the 50 to 70 hp tractors that dominate small-to-mid beef operation fleets in Tasmania and WA’s Great Southern. This compatibility is not trivial: a small beef property running a 65 hp tractor as its primary unit can run the 1.0 m baler, the mower, the rake, and the front-end loader without a dedicated second tractor. Scaling to a 1.25 m baler typically requires either a larger tractor (additional capital cost) or accepting reduced forward speed and throughput (which extends baling time in weather-constrained windows).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\"9YG-1.0<\/p>\n

\n

When to Upgrade: The 1.0 m to 1.25 m Transition Point<\/h2>\n

The right time to step up from a 1.0 m to a 1.25 m baler is when two conditions are simultaneously met: annual bale production exceeds 600 to 700 bales per season (the throughput efficiency advantage of the 1.25 m format becomes meaningful above this volume), and the farm’s tractor fleet has been upgraded to 80+ hp to manage cattle numbers above 150 to 200 head. Below these thresholds \u2014 which describe the overwhelming majority of small beef operations in Tasmania, WA’s Great Southern, and high-country Victoria \u2014 the 1.0 m format is the operationally and economically correct choice.<\/p>\n

\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Herd Size<\/th>\nAnnual Silage Bale Need<\/th>\nRecommended Format<\/th>\nReason<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
30\u201380 head<\/td>\n100\u2013200 bales\/season<\/td>\n1.0 m<\/td>\nTractor fit; feedout match; lower capital<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
80\u2013150 head<\/td>\n200\u2013450 bales\/season<\/td>\n1.0 m or 1.0C<\/td>\nSame logic; silage loading favours 1.0C<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
150\u2013250 head<\/td>\n450\u2013750 bales\/season<\/td>\n1.25 m viable<\/td>\nVolume and throughput justify the step up<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
250+ head<\/td>\n750+ bales\/season<\/td>\n1.25 m preferred<\/td>\nFilm cost per tonne DM becomes more important<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

Common Mistakes When Small Beef Operations Buy Balers<\/h2>\n
\n
\u274c Buying a 1.25 m Machine ‘For the Future’ at Current Herd Size<\/div>\n

The most common capital allocation mistake for small beef operations entering baling. A 1.25 m baler bought for a 100-head herd ‘in case numbers grow’ costs 30 to 50% more in purchase price, requires a larger tractor, and produces bales that the current herd takes too long to consume \u2014 generating real aerobic deterioration losses today while waiting for a future herd expansion that may or may not occur on the anticipated timeline.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\u26a0 Not Accounting for Feed-Out Waste in Bale Size Calculations<\/div>\n

Many small beef operators calculate bale size requirements on the basis of total DM in the bale versus daily intake, without accounting for the aerobic deterioration losses that occur over a 4 to 6 day feedout period from a bale that’s too large for their mob. Actual DM delivered from a 1.25 m silage bale consumed over 5 days in 25\u00b0C conditions is typically 10 to 18% less than the DM the bale contained at opening \u2014 this waste is real and exceeds the film cost saving from the larger format.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
Assuming Small Baler = Lower Quality<\/div>\n

The 1.0 m round baler produces silage of identical fermentation quality to the 1.25 m format \u2014 the bale diameter does not affect fermentation chemistry. The density achievable in a 1.0 m bale (160 to 210 kg DM\/m\u00b3) is in the same range as the 1.25 m format. The quality difference between formats is entirely a function of the operator’s management \u2014 moisture control, inoculant use, film layers, and wrapping timing \u2014 not of bale size.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Frequently Asked Questions<\/h2>\n
\nCan I use the same silage film rolls on a 1.0 m baler as on a 1.25 m baler?<\/span>+<\/span><\/summary>\n
No \u2014 silage film roll width must match the bale width. A 1.0 m baler uses 750 mm width film (the film overlaps at 50% to cover the 1.0 m bale face with each revolution). A 1.25 m baler uses 750 mm film on a wider bale, requiring more revolutions per layer to achieve the same coverage. Practically, 750 mm film rolls are used on both formats, but at different revolution counts per layer \u2014 confirm with your wrapper manual the correct revolution count for each bale width.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n
\nHow does bale transport change with 1.0 m vs 1.25 m bales for a remote beef property?<\/span>+<\/span><\/summary>\n
1.0 m bales at 220 to 300 kg fresh weight can be transported on a standard farm trailer (two rows across, two layers high = 4 bales per trailer) with a 65 hp tractor without exceeding trailer capacity. 1.25 m bales at 450 to 580 kg require a heavier trailer and a 90+ hp tractor for the same loading configuration. For remote WA or Tasmanian properties moving silage from production paddock to feeding area over rough tracks, the lower bale weight of the 1.0 m format reduces the tractor and trailer specification required for safe transport.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n
\nWhat is the capital cost difference between a new 1.0 m and 1.25 m round baler?<\/span>+<\/span><\/summary>\n
At 2025 import prices for EverPower equipment in Australia, the 9YG-1.0 round baler is priced approximately 25 to 35% below the 9YG-1.25A variable-chamber round baler. For a 100-head beef operation with a 5-year ownership horizon and 350 bales per season, the lower capital cost of the 1.0 m machine improves the payback period by 1.5 to 2.5 years compared to the 1.25 m machine \u2014 a meaningful difference when the operation is not generating the bale volumes that justify the higher capital in the first place.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n
\nCan a 1.0 m baler handle sorghum silage for a Queensland small beef operation?<\/span>+<\/span><\/summary>\n
Yes \u2014 if the sorghum is pre-chopped by a forage harvester before baling, the 9YG-1.0C type can handle the resulting chopped mass. The 1.0C type’s reinforced chamber construction handles the higher density and PTO load of chopped sorghum silage better than the standard 1.0 m. PTO requirement for chopped sorghum is at the upper end of the 1.0C’s rated capacity (50 to 55 hp) \u2014 ensure your tractor is at least 65 hp to have adequate reserve. For Queensland operations routinely baling whole-plant sorghum above 80 bales per season, the step up to a 1.25 m or 2.24 m machine becomes justified by throughput.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n
\nIs there a second-hand market for 1.0 m round balers in Australia?<\/span>+<\/span><\/summary>\n
Yes \u2014 1.0 m round balers are actively traded in the second-hand market on platforms including PastureMap, AgTrader, and Machinery Trader, with the Goulburn Valley, Western District, and southeast SA showing consistent listing and sale activity. Well-maintained 1.0 m balers at 5 to 8 years old sell for 40 to 60% of their original price \u2014 a more active resale market than the 1.25 m format in rural areas with large proportions of small-to-medium livestock operations.<\/div>\n<\/details>\n<\/div>\n

\"9GS-5.0<\/p>\n

\n
EverPower Baling Machinery \u00b7 Condell Park NSW 2200<\/div>\n

Discuss Right-Sizing Your Baling Equipment<\/h2>\n

Tell us your herd size, annual bale target, and tractor horsepower \u2014 we’ll advise whether a 1.0 m or 1.25 m machine is the right investment for your operation.<\/p>\n

Request a Quote<\/a> About EverPower<\/a><\/div>\n
+61 2 9708 3322<\/a>  |  \u2709 sales@silage-baler.com<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Small Beef \u00b7 WA & Tasmania \u00b7 Equipment Sizing Small Beef Herds: When a 1.0 m Baler Makes More Sense The economic and practical case for right-sizing your round baler \u2014 why 50 to 150 head beef operations often waste money running a 1.25 m machine they don’t need. The Over-Investment Problem in Small Herd […]<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1025","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-applications"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1025","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1025"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1025\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1031,"href":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1025\/revisions\/1031"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1025"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1025"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/silage-baler.com\/da\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1025"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}