I would agree with at least 30 HP. Talk to a couple of dealers in your area to see what they have that would have all the attachments that you might need. I have an old Ferguson TO 30 that handles most of the chores around the barn and property. I use it for plowing snow, brush hogging, finish mower, and dressing up to long driveways each spring. There are other things I would like to do with it, but can't do to its age and availability of enough hydraulic pressure to do the job. My suggestion would be to buy as much HP as you can afford and still be small enough to get into all the areas you need to. There is nothing worse than needing the HP and it not being there. You might want to think about a back blade or front blade attachment vs snowblower. My experience with snowblowers on a gravel drive have not been good. They tend to pick up and throw a lot of gravel.

docgj

I have a 30 Hp, hydrostatic, four wheel drive tractor with a front loader, rear mount back blade, post hole digger, and brush hog. It has moved hundreds of tons of various fills and manure. I have used it to dig a foundation, knock down a building, move trees and whatever I can't lift by hand. It is an irreplaceable tool, not just handy, but necessary. This weekend for instance, we are expecting a load of 20 tons of pea gravel. Next week we will have a delivery of 35 yards of sawdust. I could not contemplate moving those materials without this machine, and both tasks will only involve a couple of hours labour, and maybe five dollars of diesel fuel.

I chose this tractor, because I needed the most amount of HP I could get in a smaller framed machine, featuring a five foot wide bucket. I have space limitations in which I can use my front loader, and this tractor best suited my requirements. I have all the power I need for this sized tractor. The 4WD is a necessity when using the front loader, and gives me the same traction as a larger 2 WD tractor. 

It is our second tractor with a front loader, and switching from a gear drive to a hydrostatic transmission has been a revelation. For front loader work, which is probably 80% of our needs, the hydro is the only way to go. I can dig, move and load, faster, easier and with more precision. If I were using the tractor for continuous open field work, a geared transmission might be more efficient. But for a horse farm environment, and mostly front loader work, the hydro is by far the most convenient.

A friend of mine who lives in the snow belt area of upstate NY, has a similar machine with full environmental cab and a large, rear mounted snow blower. The hydrostatic allows him to move into a five foot drift at what ever ground speed is applicable. Each of our machines has a three range transmission with infinite speeds. In the past, his 1/4 mile driveway has been impossible to keep open using a plow. Now he sits in heated comfort, while his tractor moves tons of snow every minute.

I'm sure many people will now start the green vs orange debate and tout their favourite brand. Your local dealer is important for back up services, as no machine is maintenance free. I would stick with the big brands and disregard the Asian offerings. The owners I know with them, are generally disappointed in long term reliability, constant maintenance, short term dealer lives, and the lack of availability of parts for aging equipment.

The right tractor is worth its weight in gold. The wrong one can be dangerous, frustrating and expensive. Choose wisely and you'll smile each time you use it.

Something you might consider.  The construction industry is still depressed and lots of construction workers have been dumping their equipment. Prices are cheap on used skid loaders.  this may not do all you want. So maybe not appropriate. But I find skid loaders very handy at cleaning manure up in tight spaces, I have hay spears to load and unload large bales of hay, They have various attachments available.  rotortillers, wantamakers, snowblades, brush hogs etc.  they do a poor job at planting, or managing crops. But do an excellent job of clean up and manipulating earth.

I let my brother in law use my skid loader a couple of times to clean out his calf pens and he was so imrpessed he bought one.

I was wondering when the brand flaming would start and by whom. Now we know.

My Kubota is a 30 hp machine, with an aprox 3 point hitch lifting capacity of about the same as your round bales. For constant usage for this specific purpose, I would recommend a larger machine with more capacity. I never feel comfortable running any type of machinery at its maximum capacity. If your tractor tipped in a rut or hill side while traveling with that load, it might be dangerously close to up ending. It would be easy to counter balance with a load of something in the bucket, but the stresses on an undersized machine would be large.

I would think a 40 HP machine with front loader and rear spear, would be ideal for your purposes. If you are considering a Kubota, this would be a "L" series, definitely 4 WD. If your chores are mainly open field work, a geared transmission would be ideal. If confined areas and the front loader are your priorities, the hydrostatic transmission is a perfect accessory.

A question would be, can you keep your larger tractor and purchase a second smaller one? Around here, large used tractors are less expensive than the newer smaller ones by a large margin. If you like what you have and it works well, trading it on something smaller might be a mistake. Unless you get a large allowance on a trade in, it might be more economically feasible to retain.

BOL  Gard

Jiminy cricket!  1500lb round bales!  eek!  No, using my regular Kubota, I would refuse to try to move one that large, period.  We use ours all winter to put out grass hay (bermuda, bahia mix) round bales, I carry one up front with the hay spear, and one on the rear on the three point hay fork.  They weigh approx 700 lbs more or less.  This is on level ground.  I am the most careful of women carrying round bales, they are carried so low they are practically sweeping the grass, and I am exceptionally diligent about avoiding stumps or holes.  The weight is counterbalanced front and back, but any side hill situation would get me, I fear, so I am the poster child of safety when carrying these loads.

Our Kubota is an 80's model, so can't speak for or against the new ones today. 

I shopped for 6 months or so back in 1999/2000 and was told over and over that Kubotas were mainly bought and used by non pros.That very seldom did you see them doing large heavy work like other brands.I found  them to be the least expensive but not that much less then New Hollands and the New Hollands were much better priced then Deers but had as good a reputation.Was told by many that Kubotas were the first to rattle and have things fall off and were not usually re-bought when the time came to replace.

We had our first Kubota for 27 years and then had a selector problem for the 4 WD. When it went into the shop for its first repair, I was hooked by the new tractors I passed. I essentially bought a modern replacement, for the tractor I already had used the pants off for all those years. The kicker was that I settled on a total depreciation of $3000 for all the years I owned that tractor. I traded it for that much less, even while needing repairs.

Three decades have changed the technology more than a little. The hydrostatic transmission is one of the largest changes I fully embrace. The newer front loaders raise higher, have larger buckets, roll back further and use a single operation lever. That took some practice to change from my old two handled control levers. The chasis have a lower center of gravity, lowering the tip over potential when traveling with a load. The hydraulic pumps have a higher volume, the power steering units are integral, there are multiple PTOs; the changes are many.

I looked long and hard at every brand when I bought my first Kubota. They had the most amount of features, the best performance, and an enviable reputation. Three decades later, it's still the same. The only worthy competitor in my area is John Deer. Three years ago, when I bought our second tractor, John Deer had no direct modern competitor with comparable motors, transmission or brakes in my size and demanded a premium of $2k to boot. My high trade in value made the new purchase a no brainier.

I don't buy things based on what my friend's great uncle's, first niece's brother's friends say about the product. I go by past performance, and reputations based on personal ownership.

Because of the satisfaction I enjoyed with my first Kubota, I now own three of their machines. for a total of four Kubotas in my buying history.

"Was told by many that Kubotas were the first to rattle and have things fall off and were not usually re-bought when the time came to replace."

So much for that ill informed theory. If you research the Kubota brand, you will find that it is also an engine and transmission supplier, for many other well known brands of industrial machinery and marine power plants.

In the smaller tractors, JD has used various brands of motors, whatever supplier is the least expensive. In our area, they are selling cheap tractors in the big box stores, discount stores and whomever can come up with a basic inventory. They have stripped their long time dealers of those sales and a positive reputation.

My three Kubotas are a 30 hp 4 WD small farm tractor, a diesel lawn tractor, and a diesel RTV, which is a 4 WD utility vehicle with a hydraulic dump bed. All three have hydrostatic transmissions, more features than any of their competitors, absolute reliability and nothing rattles or falls off, except the driver when he's tired.

Yes I like Kubota. I have never been more satisfied with an industrial line than I am with it.  

Gard

There isn't any Kubotas in my area.  It's all big farming where I live.  Red and Green is all you see around here.  One guy has a New Holland and one has a smaller McCormick 4 wheel drive that they feed cattle with.  Both are way too big for me.  That's why I was wondering what you guy's had for small working tractors.

What do you guy's do with your manure?  Do you have a small spreader too?  At least I can put mine out in the fields in the spring. Most of it I give away on Craig's List for gardens and such.

Since we are throwing names out...  I like the little John Deere 790 4x4 tractor, it carries 5' attachments but does not have some of the fancy stuff like the orange and blue tractors have.  Like the hyro or sync shift, the 790's are gear driving. 

As gard stated with the small tractors the 4x4 is a must with or without a loader.

I have the same tractor(5yrs old), I traded in a Ford 4400 ind. and the 33HP does the same work as the 50HP tractor used too and with the hydro, does it faster.  I feed 700-800 pound round bales and it handles them fine. With the 4x4 I can use it at times that the old one had to sit due to the soft ground. Definatly worth the investment.

AQHA 123,

Congratulations on your new tractor. Hope you have many years of enjoyment!

docgj

If I were buying today, I would choose the same one.

One thing you might want to consider before taking delivery, is to have the rear tires liquid filled. The additional weight will give you increased traction and an excellent counter weight when traveling with a full bucket load.