I'm so glad you asked that question because it was one of my points.
We have very innovative farmers, so it is actual people who are moving the edges. We actually have, in our system, disincentives for change. I agree with crop insurance, and I agree with advance payments, particularly with high fertilizer costs and things like that, but the guy who is putting in a crop like switchgrass or miscanthus, who is actually moving the bar forward for a whole new realm of crops, has to wait two and a half years before he'll get cashflow, because it takes that long to get up on these perennial crops.
The farmer has land rental costs, fertilizer costs, etc., and that farmer is about $1,000 in the hole before cashflow begins. He's taking a risk to move into a whole new world of change. He's innovating, if you like. It's a high risk, and yet if I want to just grow corn again, my normal corn, wheat, or soybean, I get the advance payment, I get my crop insurance, and all that.
We should, in my opinion, have a pool of money that allows for farmers to de-risk the actual risks that farmers run trying some of these new crops, transitioning to organic, or whatever. Allow those opportunities. Cap it so you don't have everybody going crazy, but in my opinion we need to level the playing field so that we're not creating disincentives for the farmers who are actually trying to make a change by doing something different.