Â鶹ÊÓƵ

        In general terms farmers have been rather open to adopting new technologies.
        That adoption may not come overnight, but there are always those willing to take the plunge, going back to the first farmers to hang up their horse harness and opt for a tractor.
        I am sure there were neighbours who thought them mad when they traded perfectly good horses for a smoke sputtering mechanical contraption, but in time tractors revolutionized farming.
        In my time, which extends past a half century now, we have seen similar dramatic changes into farming.
        We went from straw-bedded hogs kept a few head to a farm, to multi-thousand-sow units with tons of technology running feeding, monitoring, and electrical within the barn.
        We went from an era where 50 per cent of farms were left fallow each year, to one where continuous cropping is near universal.
        I can remember many farmers thinking early adopters of direct seeding were destined to fail.
        Global positioning system tech followed something of similar pattern, as did acceptance of genetically modified canola varieties, although I would suggest the broader acceptance of both was quicker.
        In my mind farmers are now much more ready to try the innovative as they work to enhance returns.
        There is however a technology adoption curve, said Tracy Greier, with Farm Credit Canada. She spoke to farmers in Canora Jan. 28, and said only about 2.5 per cent are innovative, first-in adopters, with 13.5 per cent in soon after as early adopters.
        The bulk follow, once the bugs have been work out thanks to the efforts of early adopters, with the last 16 per cent lagging behind the majority.
        Those numbers are likely universal, whether talking direct seeding tech for farmers, of flat screen televisions for the general public.
        Some people want the gadgets the day they come out, others take a wait and see, and some lag waiting for the day it finally makes sense for them to take the plunge.
        I suppose I fall into the lag pool. I tend to be satisfied with something that has worked for decades. As an example the telephone.
        Yes I understand the cellphone offers connectivity all the time, but I question how critical that is. I have more years behind me than ahead, and I can’t point to a single time where a cellphone would have been more than a convenience, as opposed to a must.
        Certainly farmers or anyone in rural Canada has some added safety with a cellphone, if they have coverage, but a cellphone does not take the place of a winter survival gear in the trunk, yet how many cellphone users venture out in winter with no more than running shoes on their feet?
        So while new technology has benefits, they need to be weighed. Farmers need to understand that tech is a tool.
        Too often we fall into that murky area where the tool becomes a time consuming toy, like a cellphone where you take pictures and play games, and consume time with fun apps. 
        That said, farmers are great at maximizing what tech can provide them, but as more and more must have gadgets arise, (do we really need a computer toothbrush to measure how we brush?), we need to be sure we are adopting out of need/benefit rather than hype and advertising.