For one thing, one of the problems we have right now is that these programs have a tendency to go on for three years on funding, whereas most of these research projects...for instance, to develop a variety, we're looking at ten to twelve years. It needs to be on an ongoing basis. You can't be doing this stuff in three-year or four-year shots. You've got long-term research projects. You can't keep good research staff around if they think they're going to spend all this time getting the project started or into the main vein and then all of a sudden funding is cut and they have to go somewhere else. We've lost a lot of good researchers because of that type of thing. That's one thing. We need stable, long-term funding.
The other problem we've had, which I've mentioned, is that agronomics research has been the one thing.... It's easy to look at funding at the varietal end of things. Private companies like to fund the varietal end of things because that's an easy win for a company. If I were an investor in a company, that's what I'd want to fund too. Get money from sales of seed. But the part that doesn't get covered is agronomics. Here we play into talking about doing things better for the environment and whatever. Because of the way we're seeding now, with lower-impact seeding, we could cut back a lot on some of the inputs that are being done, if it were properly targeted to where it has to go. This is becoming a buzzword in the fertilizer industry, mostly because they want us to feel friendly towards them after last year--the right product at the right time and the right place. With GPS and variable seeding technology and variable rate technology, you're able to do that, to be able to say, okay, this hill needs a little bit more fertilizer, so we'll put it on there. But the agronomics research for that has not been done and is not being done. That's where it's being shortchanged. So agronomics would be the second.