The Rural Voice, 1980-03, Page 8language. The hardware and software is
already complete for the project and
programs have been designed for dairy
operations and then converted into the
machine's language.
Farmers can't destroy their programs by
mistake since they are burned into the
micro -processor.
Moe Freeman said SEMEX wanted a
system that provided instant turnover
because "you want the dairyman to spend
his time utilizing the information, not
putting it in (the computer)."
If the dairy farmer wants daily outputs
on information such as reproduction, then
Mr. Freeman said he'll likely have to spend
about 15 minutes a day keying in the
predictions about on-farm computers.
While agreeing he thinks it's the coming
trend, he said farmers would be advised to
wait for at least two or three years, since
greater advances in computer technology
will be made soon. One of these advances
will be greater storage capacity on the
machines, meaning they can be used for
more programs. He said with the less
expensive models, in particular, there
must be some real improvements made,
and that you only get what you pay for,
both input and output wise.
Mr. Beane said it could take six months
for a farmer to write his own progam
for a computer and added
program% .or one model won't always fit
Not everyone predicts
wide acceptance of computers
material. Should the records only be
required on a weekly basis, then he'll likely
spend one hour a week recording the data.
All the farmers who are taking part in
the program are doing so on a voluntary
basis. They must be within driving
distance of Guelph so SEMEX can service
the machines in case of difficulties. In the
circulation area of the Rural Voice, only
one Kirkton area farmer is taking part in
the experiment.
Mr. Freeman said farmers taking part in
the project may be able to use additional
space on the terminals for their own
calculations.
The SEMEX general manager predicts
that in the 1980's, we'll see a lot more
on-farm computers as more and more small
businesses are finding applications for
micro -computers. He said with the cost of
computer hardware coming down, we
should see programs designed for beef
herds, cow -calf operations and swine herds
as well as for the dairy industry. But, he
cautioned, computers really can't do
anything a farmer can't do with his own
calculations. The main advantage Moe
Freeman sees for on-farm computers is the
"instant turnaround." He said, "If you can
lower your calving interval by about six
days in a 100 cow herd you can justify an
on-farm mini -computer on that basis
alone."
But while on-farm computers may be
the record-keeping method of the future for
`farmers, not everyone is predicting they'll
gain wide acceptance in the next few years.
Lawrence Beane, who operates the
Tri -Town Bookeeping and Computer
Service in Clinton, is more cautious in his
PG. d THE RURAL VOICE/MARCH 1980
into another model.
Mr. Beane said servicing the machines
can also prove to be a problem. His own
bookeeping service now has a number of
farmers' accounts on their computer and
Mr. Beane said all the farmer has to do is
send them the raw data, which the farmers
can even toss in a shoebox if they want to.
Mr. Beane then transfers this information
to the computer.
While sounding a note of caution about
predictions of a rush to on-farm computers.
Lawrence Beane admits it could be just like
the snowmobile craze and catch on to the
point where almost every farm has one.
Another man who's had some practical
experience with computers is Ron
Urquhart, an Arva pork producer, who
uses a terminal on his farm that's
connected to the Canfarm computer in
Guelph.
Mr. Urquhart types in information about
his sows and this goes to Guelph. A
printout comes back on the telex -like
terminal with information on what sows
should be bred, which should be heat
checked, etc.
The farmer didn't initially start with the
Canfarm system. Instead, he purchased his
own on-farm mini -computer and hired a
programmer "who didn't know a darn
thing about pigs" to design a program for
his three farms. The program was in
computer language and Mr. Urquhart said,
"in my opinion, not worth a damn for
on-farm use." In even blunter terms, Mr.
Urquhart considers his experience with the
on-farm model"a bloody disaster."He said
he had had some training in computers,
but was no wizard, and put a lot of
cn
0)
c
m
Farm and Commercia
■
d
1
1
■
O
F■ -
H
O
W
W
z
W
z
W
(I)
a
Ken Janmaat, Seaforth
527-1858 after six
0