https://www.slashgear.com/2238061/company-making-no-tech-tractor-maximum-repairability/
America's agricultural sector is a key component of the country's economy, and critical to maintaining ongoing food supplies. Statistics tell an interesting story, where the number of farms has steadily dropped since the early 1980's, while also tripling output between 1948 and 2021. One of the reasons fewer farmers have been able to produce more has to do with advances in equipment technology. Today, there are several major tractor brands to choose from, though they rank differently in terms of things like reliability and resale value. However, it seems tractor manufacturers may have taken the idea of high-tech farming a bit too far for many farmers. This is evident when looking at the ongoing surge of sales within the older used tractor market.
One Canadian company, Ursa Ag, has noticed this trend and decided to go against the industry, relying on basic fundamental operation over today's complex software, autosteer, GPS, and connectivity features. It isn't just smaller farms interested in investing in these basic machines, but also massive players in the U.S. dairy industry looking to equip their fleets. Ursa Ag is said to be tripling production of its new "no frills" machines in an attempt to keep up with demand. Speaking with 404 media, Doug Wilson with Ursa Ag conceded that cutting-edge agricultural equipment does have its place, "But that technology is needed for 5 percent of what a farm does. There are so many applications for tractors on farms that don't require technology."
One of the biggest reasons is cost. For around half the money of a new John Deere, you could get a new Ursa Ag. Saving money on equipment is crucial for farmers, as crop farm profit margins over the last few years have hovered around 5%, which doesn't leave much room for added expenses. North American Equipment Dealers Association CEO in 2024, Kim Rominger, confirmed that technology is "absolutely" responsible for the increasingly higher prices seen on equipment, per Manitoba Cooperator.
Another major factor influencing many farmers has to do with the repairs. Older or more basic machines don't have as many fancy features or sensors, making them easier for farmers to repair when something goes wrong. Imagine the frustration of a situation where a faulty internet-connected sensor on your tractor brings everything in the field to a halt.
More concerning are recent actions by John Deere, which have put customer rights into the spotlight. Litigation surrounding the right to repair has been ongoing, with a John Deere lawsuit ending in $99 million payout for farmers. Essentially, some manufacturers don't want their customers to have access to the software tools required to fix the latest tractors. Without access, farmers aren't able to work and repair the machines they purchased. Instead, brands like John Deere want all repairs funneled through the company's own service department.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 27, @07:53AM (14 children)
> For around half the money of a new John Deere, you could get a new Ursa Ag. Saving money on equipment is crucial for farmers, as crop farm profit margins over the last few years have ...
Thailand is currently implementing a system of subsidized food for the populace, because food's so 'spensive these-days. The problem is, it's not going to get cheaper, and it can't subsidize *more* as the price continues to go up - even the current subsidization is causing problems.
The focus on "cheaper" is not a solution. Tractors *should* dive themselves (John Deere): it increases productivity. Apparently large, factory-farms find that double-price tractors *more* than pay for themselves. Of course, in this case, more productive farms means more food, means we throw away more and prices plummet. People don't need to eat more (in fact, given the popularity of GLP-1 blockers(blockers?), people need to eat less). Instead, in this case, efficiency is key, fewer farmers are needed, fewer tractors overall, where keeping other land arable is desirable but actual farming is unnecessary (only for emergencies).
Again, this is people trying to live in the past and make more of what-they-had-before. The true focus should be on robotic farming, in-city hydroponics, automated food production, so that no one actually has to do this manual, labor-intensive job.
Like solar power, it's the only reasonable way forward. Lets move away from Vinyl records, the popularity of casettes and the Walkman went out of style, and everyone will continue to embrace the future - because it's just generally better, using the market as evidence. John Deere, even if they're a terrible horrible corporation, has the market cornered because their automated tractors provide more value for the farms willing to pay for them. John Deere, in turn, extracts every-last-dollar-minus-one, to ensure that it's one-dollar more profitable to use their tractors. (It's more profitable to use John Deere!!) This article is about small farms who don't need so much, and want cheaper, because hey they're small *shrug*. It's a niche market, but it's not the future.
Go ahead, post your arguments below.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Thursday August 27, @09:49AM (1 child)
The enabler for the productivity of large tractors is large fields. The problem is, we now know that large fields terminally damage the ecosystem, so productivity will rise, until it falls off a cliff.
What we need is not more productive agriculture (there is enough food produced in the world to feed everyone, what we have is a distribution problem that is not being solved by the badly regulated market), but more sustainable agriculture, where ecosystems are not made vulnerable and subsequently destroyed. Sustainability is the key to long-term survival - we don't have a convenient other planet to move to after we have rendered the current one uninhabitable by humans.
Focussing solely on productivity externalises an awful lot of costs that should actually be included in the accounting.
Go ahead, post your arguments against this below.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday August 27, @11:09AM
> large fields terminally damage the ecosystem so productivity will rise, until it falls off a cliff.
I agree, but I'm a technology optimist so I prefer a solution that can deliver productivity *and* sustainability.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PiMuNu on Thursday August 27, @11:11AM (5 children)
> in-city hydroponics
This always seemed a bit weird. The idea is that we build a big solar/wind farm and reservoirs to bring power and water to high rise hydroponics in cities to grow crops. It doesn't seem efficient to me.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by shrewdsheep on Thursday August 27, @11:50AM (1 child)
OTOH it gives back room to nature. If there is an abundance of energy, I see this as a good option. However, that abundance is certainly way out in the future (if ever).
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Thursday August 27, @01:57PM
> If there is an abundance of energy
Agree. I am coloured by the UK, where I live, having pretty much highest energy costs of anywhere in the world.
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Thursday August 27, @03:17PM
It is in some ways less efficient because of how physics works. However, there's a ton of wasted energy involved in things that just don't need to be done with indoor farming. And if done correctly, there should be less wasted food in the process.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday August 27, @03:20PM (1 child)
"Parks for urbanite hipsters who are scared of actual parks and actual nature"
I'd think a well run hydro facility COULD be quite visually attractive and park-like. Probably won't be in practice, but could be a nice place to visit, hang out, eat your lunch, etc.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday August 28, @08:36AM
Doesn't sound like an efficient way to run it. The things I have seen are high value short shelf-life products (lettuce and friends).
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Thursday August 27, @12:19PM
Whose case are you talking about? When you're in a situation where expensive food truly is a problem (rather than something to complain about because big number bad), then you're in a case where human labor is relatively cheap. And that means the cheaper tractors and cheaper resulting food are actual solutions. Automating away cheap human labor isn't the solution then. In the typical developed world situation where human labor is expensive (along with a variety of self-inflicted, good intentioned policies/regulations that make that problem worse), then sure, you're in a case for automating away that expensive labor. Automation to increase the productivity of the labor you need to have becomes a solution.
Thailand isn't in the latter case.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 27, @12:46PM (3 children)
The US has subsidized food prices forever, heavily since WWII.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by aafcac on Thursday August 27, @03:19PM (1 child)
I wonder how long until those are massively cut back in order to fund tax breaks for the greedy.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 27, @03:58PM
Our local grocery store chain is leading the charge, tripling prices in the last 10 years for their own profit, pretty soon they'll be able to kill off the farm subsidies and just absorb the price difference in the retail profit padding.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday August 28, @02:44AM
That may (may) explain a bunch of things. Like
It'll be interesting to see how subsidies, tariffs, and Ozempic et al. interact in the food sector in the next couple years.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by istartedi on Thursday August 27, @10:26PM
The problem is not fundamentally the self-driving. It's the lock-out that comes along for the ride. Make a self-driving tractor/car with a Big Red Switch (TM) so we can shut it off if we don't need it, and give us the encryption keys so we can update the software ourselves (at our own risk, of course). If John Deere did that, nobody would have a problem with them.
Large factory farms are another matter. Some other comments have the down-side of that pretty well covered.
There is no "true focus". The phrase implies a sort of "everybody will do it this way" mentality, whereas the reality is that there's room for streaming MP3s and vinyl.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Ingar on Thursday August 27, @08:19AM (6 children)
The 50% tariff suddenly makes sense.
Love is a three-edged sword: heart, soul, and reality.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday August 27, @11:29AM (5 children)
Considering what a John Deere would cost in Canada. With that in mind, building a "no tech" tractor should be fairly simple shouldn't it? Just bring out the 50-100 year old design plans. Update things that have improved over the years as far as metallurgy and components. No need to add any computers. Just mechanical parts. You have the work tractor and the farm tractor. John Deere makes the latter. For everyday farm usage you have your normal tractor. The one that you use to lift things, haul things, dig things, bring food and water to the fields etc etc. There is no need for a gps driver and being able to drive in perfectly straight lines etc for that.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Thursday August 27, @12:50PM (3 children)
"No tech" in this context grinds my gears...
I made a big "No software" device once, it still was full of tech: motor, pulleys, belts, gears, roller-bearings - that's all tech, just not a series of digitally stored instructions - but, in a very real sense, cam-rollers are still "stored instructions" for valve timing.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday August 27, @01:49PM (1 child)
I would assume in this regard the "no tech" is no digital tech in the digital version. Not that no tech is used. After all isn't everything tech of some level or advancement. But here I at least assumed it was that there was no little black (or green) John Deere boxes in the tractor to make sure that the tractor can only be maintained by the once with the special John Deere approved screwdrivers and testing harness. So it doesn't have to be the clockwork tractor of gears, chains and sprockets. After all even that is tech.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 28, @12:27AM
I'm very tempted to adopt a W123 Mercedes - all mechanical systems, after you get it started you can remove the battery and drive cross country, just don't shut the engine off for refuelings...
It's a damn shame they quit making "simple" systems like that - wiring and insulation is a very real vulnerable point in anything that uses them.
🌻🌻🌻🌻✌️ [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 31, @10:51AM
Yeah, but updating the firmware is a bugger.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 27, @11:57PM
I think 50 year old designs are about max. Many, many farmers died when tractors failed them, right into the 1970s. The single biggest culprit, I believe, were the tricycle designs, which easily roll over in more situations than most can even dream of. Bad PTO designs killed a lot of farmers too. Starting right around the time when rollover cages became mandatory, the "state of the art" started paying off in saved lives.
I'm speaking from memory here, and memory may be faulty. But no matter the actual dates, those old tractors killed a lot of people.
And, I think we should simply shoot the son of a bitch who suggests bringing back manually cranked diesel engines. I spent many an hour beating up my hands, especially my knuckles, trying to crank an old John Deere C model - and rarely got it running.
And, that reminds me of another fact: back in the day, tractors lasted 20 to 50 years. There was so little to break, they just DIDN'T break!
Alternative für Deutschland
(Score: 5, Informative) by caseih on Thursday August 27, @02:18PM (2 children)
These tractors are targeted at smaller ranchers and farms as chore tractors more than broad-acre tillage or planting tractors. Front-end loader, moving hay bales around. And there is a definite but small market for such a tractor. Something simple and reliable that can run for years without issue is attractive. Most farmers says they want such a tractor, but when it comes down to it, there are reasons why the major colors remain attractive even as prices climb.
I've seen and sat in the Ursa tractors at ag shows. Although this tractor is marketed as "made in Canada" it's more accurately described as "assembled in Canada" (much like how Apple describes their products). This machine is mostly made by a Chinese OEM to Ursa's specifications. You can buy the exact same machine on Alibaba under a number of different brands, with several different engine options. It's my understanding that Ursa sources Cummins engines in North America and mates them to the chinese transmission, frame, etc. Ursa's engines are Tier 4 and fully computer controlled with a standard Cummins ECU, although completely self-contained; no computers or sensors anywhere on the rest of the tractor. The transmission is a simple manual transmission, which is used by most Chinese tractors in this horsepower range. The axles are made by a European company. Any decent heavy duty mechanic can work on these tractors and their engines. I've looked these machines over at Ag Shows and they seem to have decent build quality. Castings are good. Frame is decent, cab is okay.
As I alluded to their market is small. Most farmers will say they want a tractor like this. But they really don't. To a certain extent horsepower is horsepower. But when it comes down to it, the same technologies that cause so much heartburn when they fail (and right to repair and all that) also make a farmer's like much more comfortable when spending long hours in them. Electric-over-hydraulic controls are easier to use and smoother. CVT transmissions (and also powershift) are so much nicer than manual for loader work, tillage, etc. Integrated autosteer, etc. By the way CVTs are mechanically simple and brilliant, though they require computer control over the engine.
If Chinese vendors would start offering CVTs then I might consider one from Ursa. Until then my 20 year old Deere with IVT is still preferred (closing in on 9000 hours). I had some major electrical problems but the dealer tech knows his stuff and found and repaired all the mouse-eaten junctions and it's back to its reliable self. The Ursa equivalent to my tractor is still $200k CAD. That's less than half the price of a major brand, but I can find decent used machines for that price point. I think most small farmers are going to buy good used machines over the new Ursa. But as I said they do have a small market and I wish them well and welcome the options they provide.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Thursday August 27, @07:56PM (1 child)
I would have thought a smaller, no-frills tractor would be a good option (or conversion) for the Slate truck [slate.auto]. High-torque, low-speed seems like it would be a sweet spot for tractors, but I don't really know much about that.
(Score: 4, Informative) by caseih on Thursday August 27, @11:52PM
Yes it is a good option for some. I myself have a couple of small, no-frills tractors (CaseIH Farmall, no electronics other than engine ECU) that are used for a variety of purposes including yard work and stationary PTO operation. But for field work where I spend hours and hours doing many different tasks, I prefer my older Deere with the nicer cab and much nicer transmission. And the thing is you can buy a used tractor with the bells and whistles for the same cost as the Ursa. That's Ursa's competition, not brand new expensive units.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bloodnok on Thursday August 27, @03:28PM
As others have pointed out, automation of agricultural machinery is a boon for the farmer. What is not a boon is anything that locks you in to a particular technology or prevents you from repairing your own equipment.
Self-driving, even on relatively small fields can make your life easier and your work more productive. Tom Lamb is a farmer and YouTuber. Many of his latest videos are about adding or enhancing self-steering on various tractors, combines, etc. Some of these machines were self-steer capable, some already had self-steering which was not great, and some had to be fitted out from scratch.
What has been most interesting to me is that the cost of adding RTK steering (basically a form of differential GPS as far as I understand it), including the addition of a base station is less than the cost of upgrading an already self-steering machine using the vendors' locked-in technology. Everything Tom has done has been using commodity hardware and free software. As a bonus, he has greater precision, greater functionality and generally far better, free, software to work with. What's not to like?
It's also pretty entertaining. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/@Tomlamb980 [youtube.com]
__
The major
(Score: 2) by jb on Friday August 28, @06:41AM
For their own sake I really hope it's not a listed company, because what they're doing sounds very important...
...but "ursa" is Latin for "bear" (which may well scare off investors!).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jman on Friday August 28, @11:49AM
August 16, 2026: John May, CEO of John Deere, contacts 1600 Pennsylvania.
August 17, 2026: White House announces a ten thousand percent tariff on farm equipment from Canada.