MOLINE, Ill. — In the fall of 2018, amid a slew of right-to-repair bills, the California Farm Bureau Federation (CFBF) reached an agreement with the Equipment Dealers Association (EDA) that required implement dealers, most notably John Deere, to include making repair manuals, diagnostic tech and other service tools widely available to farmers by 2021. Previously farmers were not able to access any of the information which would allow them to access service manuals, product guides, on-board diagnostics and other information that would assist a farmer or rancher identify or repair problems with the machinery. What the agreement would not do, however, would be to allow farmers to access proprietary software of the equipment.

 Instead of placating those with opposing views, however, the agreement only further ignited an already-hot topic about how far farmers could go when repairing their own equipment. A subsequent article in the international tech publication, Wired, lambasted the CFBF for blitheyly signing away a farmer’s right to access or modify the source code of any farm equipment software without first going through a dealer. According to the article, the CFB/EDA deal solidified a dealer’s stranglehold on what farmers in that state could and could not do when working on their equipment.

Jamie Johnson, a California farmer and president of the CFBF said that while what they accomplished wasn’t perfect and did not pacify both sides, it was an improvement of anything which had been achieved. 

“Farmers and ranchers have benefited from the development of ever-more-precise and efficient

machinery that helps us produce more food while making the most effective use of the land, water, people and other resources needed,” said Johnson at the time. “As that equipment has grown increasingly complex, it has become increasingly difficult for farmers to make repairs themselves—in part because manufacturers want to guard the software and code that allows the machines to operate. Because of that, they had also restricted access to other information that would be helpful—such as the on-board diagnostics and product guides. Our memorandum of understanding is a first-of-its-kind agreement that took a set of working principals and committed them to paper, signed by organizations seeking to lift those restrictions and expand that access for farmers.”

The incident was just a sample of the drama which is currently playing out in 20 states which have had, or currently have, legislation on the table that would allow farmers in their states more control on the work they can do on their equipment. Recently the Nebraska Farm Bureau, which represents 58,000 member families, voted 176 – 1 on a  vote to formally endorse the right of its constituents to repair the products they own, and set strong standards for any legislation or agreement with equipment manufacturers. Then in January of this year, the American Farm Bureau Federation, voted to endorse their members’ ability to repair their equipment.

Increasingly, modern farm machinery relies on software. That has changed the game for farmers in particular, who have often learned to repair their own machinery. Now, many times, farmers are forced to wait for a dealer representative to diagnose and repair the problem. However, opponents of Right to Repair bills across the country say that the reason for this is not because they don’t want the farmers to have the ability to fix their own stuff, but because the new technology which accompanies modern equipment could render that equipment useless if things like sensors aren’t properly installed or if there is tampering involved.

“’Right to repair’ legislation is not about giving farmers the right to repair their equipment, they already have the ability to make most repairs,” explains Stephanie See, director of state government relations for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM). “The issue here is illegal tampering, and we believe it is important that farmers understand the risks so they do not become victims and pay the cost of illegal tampering. Equipment manufacturers invest considerable resources in the research and development of advanced agricultural equipment that help farmers maximize their productivity.” 

U.S. military troops are finding themselves more and more in this situation as the Pentagon equipment purchases have begun to lean more on civilian contracts. The contracts makes some equipment, such as the Medium Tactical Vehicle Replacement medium truck and the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle, dependent on servicing solely by the vender lest the warranty be voided for the vehicle; a policy not best suited for serving overseas.

Not all farmers think that the upgraded equipment modifications are for the best, even with concessions made by the AEM. In fact some see it as unnecessary. 

“It’s not the farmer’s fault the equipment is so complicated,” says Illinois producer Jenny Sauer-Schmidgall. “I can see (the AEM’s) argument, but in any industry, an employee can tamper with a piece of equipment. It’s no different with farmers. This is just a way to continue to make more profit by making the farmer dependent upon the dealership. Farmers aren’t the dependent type, we are autonomous. We do things on our own, our way, and we aren’t going to be at the mercy of anyone, let alone a dealership. If you take away the ability for us to repair our equipment, then we will not progress and learn how to do things for ourselves.”