Modern farming faces interoperability problem

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 20/04/2024 (560 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Five years ago, farmers reacted with a mix of excitement and scepticism as they watched the world’s first fully autonomous platform purported to replace the tractor roll out at the Ag in Motion farm show.

However, even if they were enthusiastic about the technology, which was conceived and designed by SeedMaster right here in Western Canada, few saw it replacing their tractors or their place in the driver’s seat any time soon.

One farmer summed it up by saying he still had trouble getting his home computer and printer to talk to each other. He couldn’t imagine what it would take to manage the connectivity between this technology and all the pieces he would have to attach to it.

It’s a problem many of us can identify with — getting supposedly “smart” pieces of technology in our homes and vehicles to collaborate and deliver on their promised benefits.

That inability for technology to communicate back and forth, referred to in the industry as “interoperability,” has become a growing concern as the innovation pipeline explodes with new pieces of equipment designed to make farming more precise and productive.

There’s a widening disconnect between the big manufacturers of the main equipment lines such as John Deere and New Holland, and the independent manufacturers who create specialty add-on implements such as headers for combines or seeders that connect to their tractors.

In the past, hooking these pieces together was only about making sure the farmer had the correct hydraulic hose couplers, but those days are fast disappearing in the digital age. “As combines, tractors and other large equipment have become increasingly digitalized, manufacturers have begun to limit access to the software,” Anthony Rosborough, assistant professor of law and computer science with Dalhousie University and Carlo Dade of the Canada West Foundation say in a briefing paper released last month.

“The large U.S.-based multinationals that manufacture combines and tractors have rapidly introduced proprietary and/or digitally encrypted digital interfaces that block access by anyone not authorized by the manufacturer,” the brief says.

Essentially that means all accessory implements must be purchased through that manufacturer.

It’s all perfectly legal under Canada’s Copyright Act, so any independent “shortline” manufacturer who invests into reverse engineering the necessary compatibility would get their knuckles rapped through litigation. Even if they broke the code, it would only work until the mainline manufacturer released a mandatory operating system update.

This scenario also applies to farmers who want to do their own repairs. It’s no longer about driving to town to pick up a spare part. The digital operating system is locked down, forcing them to wait — often at critical times — for support through the manufacturer’s dealer network.

Copyright laws are designed to support innovation, but in this case, they stifle it.

The consequences of not addressing this issue have dire implications for the 500 or so shortline equipment manufacturers in Canada, many operating in the West.

Generating about $5.6 billion in revenue and creating more than 17,000 jobs, often in rural communities, they are not only vital to the western Canadian economy, but important to keeping Canadian farmers ahead of the pack in the global productivity race.

Plus, these manufacturers have seen double-digit growth in export sales over the past decade, mainly to the U.S. and Australia.

Shortline manufacturers thought they were making progress last year when Parliament passed the private member’s bill C-294, an act to amend the Copyright Act, to require mainline manufacturers to play fair.

However, that bill now appears stalled in the Senate.

Once that passes, provincial governments will also have to amend their legislation.

Then came this week’s federal budget which, on one hand, acknowledges interoperability and right-to-repair as issues that need addressing, but on the other, only promises to embark on consultations.

Dade isn’t the only one wondering why more consultations are needed when legislation is passed and the path forward already clear.

“That bill had all-party support. So why not just instruct the government senators to pass the bill that’s languishing,” he said this week. “Seems like an unnecessary exercise.”

Laura Rance is executive editor, production content lead for Glacier FarmMedia. She can be reached at lrance@farmmedia.com