 Good morning. Dr. Haas and Steven and Mark. Is Tucker going to be with us as well? Or do you know? Yeah, she is coming. Good morning. Yeah. Good to see you. I think you folks know everybody. So we can get started. The issue that we wanted to, I guess, chat about and learn a little more about was the issue from last week and kind of kept getting into it over the weekend to some degree. I was in regards to the difference between maple testing requirements in Vermont and versus federal regs on testing. And I think that we would be interested in knowing a little bit about that history of, of, of change when, when we did it or when it happened. And what, what the difference is, I know it's very small. And, but in layman's terms, you know what that difference really is. So I, I don't know if who wants to lead off on that. Kristen, I mean, you're the boss, so we'll pick on you. No, do it, do it anyway. You would like, Kristen. Yeah, if Steve knows about it or however you want to do it. Thank you, Senator star and appreciate the opportunity to talk to you and your committee regarding one of our one of Vermont's great products. So this is an exciting topic. And for the record, my name is Kristen Hawes, agency of agriculture director of food safety and consumer protection. And actually, Steve, not, not to put you on the spot, but I know you've done some research on the history of the current regulatory framework. I'm happy to reiterate what you have shared with me, but perhaps since you are the source of that research, may I ask you to provide an overview and that way it's straight from the straight from the sources mouth, so to speak. Yes, but I just came because I love to hear about maple. So that's not really fair. So, absolutely. So we probably all the members of the committee know we lost a lot of our institutional historical knowledge that we had when Henry Marcus retired. So he was a longtime expert, and I'm sure could have easily given you an exact explanation for the density requirements but we, we did look I did do some statutory research and some rule research. And I wasn't, I didn't have a lot of time to find anything definitive, but it is clear to me that at least, at least since 1981, the statute has allowed the agency to to buy rule regulate density. And before that it looked like and I couldn't just the annotated statutes that are that I can find online only go back to 1989. The 1981 version itself, but it looks to me like that statutory rubric in 1981 replaced the law that was adopted in 1947. So I don't we don't really know exactly how long the density standards go back but we know that we've been able to regulate density since at least 1981. Now the current rule that's in effect has been in effect since 1990. There was a rule that preceded it I assume there was, but I'm not certain and I couldn't find the 1990 version of the rule online I'm sure it exists but it wasn't available online. The 1990 rule though is the current rule, and it was amended in 2005 and again in 2014. So in 2000. I'm sorry Senator Starr you're on mute. If it was changed or altered. Yeah, explain that a little bit Steve. Well so we we think and this is from the institutional knowledge that we still have, which is not Henry but others we think that it has not changed since 1990. So we think the standards have been the same but but we're not positive but what I can tell you is that the current standard has definitely been effect in effect since at least 2005. Because I have the 2005 rule and those density requirements are identical to what they are today. We know it's been at least 16 years but we think from talking to people in the agency who have dealt with density that they've been in effect, even longer and since the rules adopted in 1990 and there were no changes between 1990 and 2005 we believe the density standards have been in effect since at least 1990. And so this is nothing new I guess is is the point but we do have a higher we do have a higher sugar content than the USDA requires. And one other interesting side light is that that issue was squarely addressed in 2014 so when we amended the rule in 2014. There's an introductory paragraph to that rule amendment and density was not changed at all but in that introductory paragraph. The agency made explicit that it was retaining the higher density standard, because it to promote the Vermont maple flavor, essentially. We believe and and we think it's probably true that the higher sugar content creates a different flavor and a higher maple flavor. So whether or not that's scientifically true I can't attest to but but we do know that the density issue was was discussed at least and an intentional decision was made in 2014 to leave the higher density standard in place because of this minimum this different rep reputational benefit of having the higher sugar content be the minimum. Does that make sense to everyone what I. Yeah. Just a quick question. Can you speak about rule. Are you talking about a rule that goes through L car or rule that you folks can change at the agency. I mean, how's that work Steve. It's by rule. And so it is, it is something we could change but only by going through the API process. And that's pursuant to an hour legislative authority the legislature gave us that it gave it what it said and this is in section title six is and this was going back to at least 1981. The legislature said that the the agency shall promulgate regulations for grading maple syrup, and that we may promulgate regulations for density. So, so that's at least since 1981 and we know that in the 1990 rule, we prompt we have the basically the same standard since then, and we have created grades and density so we've done that both through the API process and to change that, we would have to go back through the process. So, Senator, I tried to find that out in the current USDA standard was adopted in 2015. So, so and I did not find whether or not there was a standard before and I as I understand it it's not even in statute I think it's a voluntary marketing standard that USDA uses so it's something that you don't you don't have to comply with it at all but if you're going to meet people, then you have to meet that standard, but I did look at a journal that was published at some, I can't think of the name of it now but it's sort of a famous maple sugar makers journal, and I think it was the 2013 copy. And in that journal the only density standard that mentioned was was Vermont standard, and it said all the hydrometers were in a tune to the Vermont standard so I'm guessing and this is a guess and maybe others know that maybe there wasn't a USDA standard, and that people sort of use Vermont by default but that is a guess. Okay. Thank you. Mark, Mark, do you know anything about that history from the extensions point of view. Thank you Senator star and just to introduce myself I'm Marcus heart maple specialist with the University of Vermont extension. So I'm an educator do research and support the maple industry in Vermont and elsewhere. There has been a USDA standard for a long time. I don't have the exact date but I would put it somewhere in the 1940s. Somewhere in there I'm happy to share the reference I have for that. The, the alignment with Vermont standards. I believe the Vermont minimum density is a is close to 100 years old. I think it's been around for a very long time, and I do agree that it was set intentionally to provide that to get to in the weeds but a better mouth feel which would in turn produce better product. True, you would also boil a little bit more to get more flavor so it's a combination of the sensory and the production of syrup with a little more density would make it a better product and my understanding is that the maple industry in Vermont was very intentional about that and and chose to differentiate it. It's true that a lot of these regulations or references are hard to find and I know that there are some cabinets, both at UVM and and at the agency that probably have the answers but I'd be more than happy to dig through when I when I can and provide the committee with any references I can find that aren't aren't available online. Well, yeah, I, we, we all strongly support our maple industry and certainly certainly want to make sure that our maple is the best in the world, not just here in Vermont, or in the US. And, you know, there's reasons why it does taste better and and probably this density level, you know, is there for that very reason. The I'm wondering is there a if, if a package is marked maple spread or maple candy. If the word maple is on there. Does that maple within, you know, they mix cream and other things in. Does that maple have to test at a certain density level is that, am I understanding that correctly or how, how does that work. Senator, I think probably Tucker or Dr. Haas could answer this better but I, but what I do know is that if it's if it says maple, it has to be a complete maple product. So it has to be, you know, it has to be 100% from maple sap boiled. Nothing added. There is a great a there is great a characterization and then there's a processed characterization and I believe the density requirement for processed is lower. So I think the density requirement could be less for something used for maple flavoring but Tucker or Dr. Haas might better answer that or Mark. Yep. One of you folks want to take a crack at that. I think you should be willing to hear the, you're the current agency subject matter expert on questions like this so go for it. That's little, Tucker's little Henry. Tucker has been working very hard and has done a great job on making sure that things are as they should be out there. So, yeah, he's a wealth of knowledge on this as is Mark. I think he likes to be called Henry though. Yeah, I feel lucky enough to have received some training from Henry before he he retired so. So to answer your question, Senator, the density requirements relate only to maple grade a maple maple syrup. There is a processing grade density for that but when it comes to something like a maple candy, or maple butter, maple cream, the density requirement doesn't doesn't apply to those products there. They're going to be a much higher density as a, you know, not, not a liquid product. So candy and spreads and all those things lollipops and those things are different than the actual fluid maple syrup. What's the difference Tucker between the density level of our our maple syrup compared to if you went to using a federal reg or bought some from a state that only used the federal regulation. Yeah, thank you that's a good question. It's, it's fairly minimal. There are two different metrics that are different scales that you can measure density by. There's the bomb a scale and then the bricks, you can think of these as it's similar to inches and centimeters where you know you've got two different scales but they're that you can make. It's either either is fine to use. It's perhaps easiest if I put it in terms of the brick scale and compare it. Well, the other thing to keep in mind is that the temperature of the syrup when you're measuring it is important to that measurement. So, you have to choose one of the scales and then also have a reference temperature. The easiest probably to make the comparison at the reference temperature of 68 degrees Fahrenheit, and also a brick 68, 68, 68. Okay. At 68 Fahrenheit using the bricks scale. The USDA standard is 66.0 and Vermont standard. When you make the conversion is 66.5. It's pretty small and I mean the difference is pretty close. And yeah, yep. So my, my next question would be if it's so close, why, if I wanted to make maple, why would I not go with the, with the Vermont standard, especially living here in Vermont. Rather than the federal standard. I mean, we're talking must be talking about pennies a gallon difference in costs or savings. Right. I guess the simplest answer is that there is a cost savings, even though it's going to be small. If you, I guess it depends on how much, you know, syrup you're producing if you're producing, you know, gowns and gowns of syrup then that difference will be greater based on the volume that you're selling but if you're a smaller producer it's that's going to be pretty minimal difference. Yeah, well, I mean, I, I could figure that out. You know, we have some, some producers that do 10,000 gallons certainly the big one up in island pond Vermont I, I can't even guess how many thousands of gallons they make. But if, if you were their size and could save a half a point, but that half a point on 66 of in a gallon you're healthy in a gallon you'd be down, down to maybe three right point three. Because you've got 30. If you took the degrees can you ever change that to 100 Tucker, so that you could calculate out the savings. Yeah, I, you actually asked me to do some of this math beforehand. So I did try and, and, and make that calculation and if I, if I did it correctly, it equates to less than 1%. Yeah, by, if you point eight point five, and use the 66 you know you're down there pretty darn long. And so, yeah, that's, that's split and pennies I would say. But anyway, questions from the committee in regards to this whole discussion. The, so we're talking about a very slight difference between the federal level and our state level. And the, I guess the next question is, have, have you, do you ever get any request. from the feds to do a testing for them or do they have anybody that even goes around and checks maple at all, or maybe it imports or if you're exporting or, or something. Is there any knowledge about about that. No. Senator I was just going to say that I'm, I'm not aware in the 14 years that I've been with the agency of that being a program that that is ongoing out there. And so what we would do when there was a demand for it, our team under Henry Marcus's guidance, used to do periodic inspections and grading of bulk containers of maple for for the private sector and we would charge a fee for the service for that. So that activity went on not that that is, I realize that's different than what you're asking about but I just mentioned it as a additional sort of scope of work that we used to do but then that demand dried up and and so we haven't done that in quite some time but Mark maybe you, maybe you have history on this. Yeah, I'll say that the, the, the only federal presence I'm aware of is through inspections of sugar houses related to fisma, which is food safety it's not serve quality. And my understanding, and there have been sugar houses in Vermont that have been inspected by FDA consistently, not a huge amount but enough to get folks attention. And this is based on food safety, they wouldn't necessarily be checking syrup density. Yeah, as a matter of, as a matter of course, what this might be a just a historical artifact but I believe that the reason why the Vermont law is what it is, is because that bomb a scale was the dominant scale at the time. And that range goes from 36 to 37 bomb a. And in, if you look at the Vermont statute it still says bomb a and then bricks is sort of in parentheses so I think we might be looking at as a fairly old artifact that the other industries, the other states and the federal law just just didn't use bomb a it wasn't in there relatively late, you know Vermont was early in adopting maple regulations compared to the federal so that's my, that's my perspective. So, you know Vermont, Vermont tours and, you know, farmers that actually farmers were the first ones I would say that really, you know, did in the spring you automatically tap what maples you could and, and made maple syrup to to, you know, for your family and the cell to make a little I know, I know I had plenty of years growing up when in the late fall you'd you'd after the wood and all that was put away you do Christmas trees. And then you had a little time off but then you'd get ready for sugaring in the spring and as just a constant one job to the next to the next. But, you know, I think over over the years are maple sugar makers association along course with all their members have done a good job of promoting a excellent product and, and I would expect that that you know some of them older Well, our forefathers pushed this stuff along to stay a, you know, a little bit ahead of the rest of the pack and, and the But the issue that we wanted to get clarified one of our or a couple of our fellow senators were asking questions and in regards to and, and so they mentioned it to me and I felt that we should We should look into this to see what the difference is and, and what the cost difference could add up to or, or, but it's a pretty minute issue I think. Sharon to call more. Thank you, Mr Chair. So I'm really blown away by the fact that point six degrees. And I realize this is a pretty subjective kind of evaluation, it's kind of like, who has the best apples in the country. Well, I guess it depends on who you ask and who has the best corn tasting products. Anyway, I'm glad that we do. And I really do think we do but I'm just absolutely amazed that it comes down to such a it's not infinitesimal but it's pretty darn small difference and congratulations to the sugar makers for promoting it and being able to market it as this Obviously better product. I mean, I'm not sure I can tell if you gave me something from New York State or something from Vermont that I'd be able to say that's definitely better tasting maple and that must be because it's from Vermont so it's pretty amazing and thank you all for coming in because this is a this is pretty interesting stuff to me. I doubt column or if you could tell because you live too close to New York and probably already getting some of that cheaper syrup anyways. Mr chair I only buy Vermont maple syrup. Any, any other questions from from the committee or do any of you have anything else you'd like to to express or offer. I would also add for your committee's additional context or awareness if anyone is interested and I can send the link to Linda, or whatever your preferences on that front but on our website. Tucker has done a really nice job of making available to the general public and to you all. If you so choose a summary from the 2020 inspections retail maple inspections that he completed, as well as a quite detailed inspection protocol such that if anyone were to have any questions about, Hey, what is, what does Tucker do when he goes into Hannaford or to the co op and and goes to inspect a lot of maple syrup. It spells that out so I, if that would be of interest to you it is available on our website and we intend to do the same thing at the conclusion of the 2021 this year's maple maple inspections just to help inform the industry as well as consumers of sort of the generic set of findings we don't highlight any individual business findings or producer findings but instead capture that data in a in a quantitative, yeah quantitative format and post it so that people can have an idea of what those findings are so I can send Linda the the web link if you would like or send it directly to you Senator star. Just send it to our, our, you know, web link for Linda and then she'll get it to all of us. You know, I, I thought you were going to announce that you're gonna have the maple festival and then you come out with all this stuff. I mean, we could have been going to a party if you're to announce the maple festival was on. Come up. They sent an email today of revised. We love the maple festival my mom ran the parade there for like 10 or 15 years. Are they going to do it or not. No, they're going to do something but not the traditional. Yeah, that's really quite a, quite a shindig. Yes, Mark. Sorry, sorry to interrupt Senator. I do want to just say, even though the number, the absolute number in difference in density is small. There is a difference in mouth feel and I think it's important for folks to recognize if you grade syrup at contest like at the maple festival and you taste hundreds of samples. There is a difference and so the viscosity. It's different. It's not a linear relationship so when you get little differences in density at syrup level, it can make a difference so I appreciate the small number and units but it can have an effect in the sensory perception of syrup and I know that's pretty far in the weeds. But I, it is, it is, there is an effect there. I could say. A positive effect I would take. For sure. Yeah, for sure. And the other thing to point out is that the regulation has a range of from 66 nine to 68 nine bricks so there is a pretty broad range that's acceptable for density and syrup. I'm not saying at the low end but there is, there is a range on the high end as well so it's, it's not a one point that bullseye they have to hit as far as meeting the standard. So there is some leeway in there. Thank you, Senator sir I just wanted to add that the, it's our experience that the maple sugar producers are very interested in this standard as well and as as recently as 2019. They were telling us about their desire to have this enforced, because they do and I think there's a good amount of advertising that they and others do that touts the higher standard and in terms of the viscosity difference and to Senator Colin Moore's point. And that is apparently a notable difference and I'll be happy to taste test to find out. But but in Tucker's calculation, the, the amount of SAP is really pretty minuscule for that difference in density and so if Tucker's calculated what for the average of when the sugar content is that average and it takes about 40 gallons to boil of SAP to boil one gallon of syrup it's only about three gallons more SAP to reach the Vermont standard. So that's really you know in terms of the economic differential it seems pretty minuscule for the for retaining that advantage that that producers have kind of fought for I think. I'll say that this committee was lucky enough to, at one time have a former legislator Carol Branigan on it and then we used to have Harvey Smith from the House committee come in, and they both had sugar. They both made sugar and I could taste the difference between the two and there was a contest about who was better and all that kind of stuff seems like there was a maybe a third or fourth person involved to I don't remember. But you know, you think about, you think about this whole issue. I'm a syrup maker and, and Dave Marvin wants to come along and buys my syrup. He's going to get syrup that should test 6.6 right. And if, if he takes and does whatever he does to it and sells that for and so it cuts it down to to just 66 instead of 6.5. He's the one that's making the money on it isn't the sugar maker because we all, we all are at the same standard and usually as far as I know other than the grade. If you meet the certain grades you get paid the same price if you're from Franklin County or from Orleans County. So, you know, somebody's going to make some money by the looting that's it really isn't quite right. So, but anyways, anything else from any of you folks. Well, I just wanted to say that there is actually a differentiation for bulk syrup being sold. It's actually a lower minimum density for bulk syrup. I believe it's 65.9 to your to your point about a producer would be advantageous to meet. If they sold it in bulk, which close to 90% of Vermont syrup is sold in bulk. Now, that's changed in the last. I would say in the last 3040 years it's gone from about roughly 5050 to now close to 90%. So, but there is a differentiation for for bulk syrup. Is that reason because of the volume that we make has increased but yet our population and people eating maple is hasn't grown a whole heck of a lot. Is that why it moved up to quite well, we haven't done a whole lot of research to understand why but I think the best explanation is that the big growth we've seen in the industry in the last 25 years has been in the larger sized operations and it's very difficult to market syrup retail takes a lot of money and time. And I think a lot of those producers are content and have developed businesses that can be successful, but selling to a packer. That's my, that's my understanding. Any other questions, statements. If not, you know, thanks a lot, folks for coming in and, and this is very helpful and will will pass the word around that we looked into it and, and, and I think people will appreciate that. So, good enough and so thanks again and we'll, we'll see you sometime along. Thank you for having us. Thank you. I've enjoyed being surrounded by experts. It's been easy gig for me. So this is awesome. Thank you. Thank you all. Take care. Well, the boss as long as you have good help, you don't need to know everything just hire good help. Yeah, thank you folks. Thank you, Mark. Appreciate it. Sure. So committee, I don't know if, if we got to, if, if we had any of our folks from yesterday come back today or not. Gail, we got anybody in the waiting room. There is no one in the waiting room right now. Yeah. Yeah, from Graham, Mr. Cherry sent it about 1020 this morning. Yeah. What, what did he, he sent an email Brian. Yeah, he sent it to everybody. We're sincerely grateful for your willingness to take testimony on as 25. We offer here some bullet points about making canis cannabis and agricultural and look forward to chatting with you again. So my guess is that they will be coming in. Well, I didn't I mentioned that we would try to work them back in today. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, but I think I did tell my loving right around the loving. You did. Did you folks get your. Did you get copies of what, what we received from Michelle. No, no. I think only you got or you and Chris maybe. Yeah. Because what we got from Graham is pretty long and involved. I mean it's like a whole discussion. I mean, I think that what we were hoping to get from Michelle was something kind of short and direct. We did. Could you do that Chris, because I doubt if Gail has that. No, I don't. Yeah, so it is short. I don't know. If you can see that, but it's, you know, it is pretty short and there's only either two items in that language or three that I, that I think that we might be interested in chatting about. And we don't want to. You go and load up a whole pickup load up serious going to throw it back it up to the dump and dump it. You send him something that he can use he may, you know, simple and short and direct. We might, we might, you know, get it added in. So I just sent you the language and I'm trying to open it up now. Senator Pearson, did you include Linda in that. No, but I will send it to her and to you right now. Should this be posted on the committee page, Senator star. Not really. Okay. We're going to talk about it first and see if. Yeah, he wants to do it once we chat about it. But this is just for our discussion purposes for the purpose of. Going through on the request of the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee that he wanted us to look at the ag part of the cannabis. I'm not sure what you have, Mr. Chair, but what Chris said is two pages long. Yeah. Well, this isn't the, isn't the bulk of it. On this very first page where it raises, raises the minimum are the small guys from 1000 to 1500 square feet. And then down. And it shall. A couple of lines cultivator licenses. And shall include production limits. And then down and be it near the bottom. At the largest. Maximum size would be 10,000 square feet. 30,000. You're looking at the first draft. Yeah, I thought it was 10 to. Now I think. No, we have no limit now. They were these. We have talked in the past about 10,000. The suggestion from some of the folks yesterday was 10,000. That seemed very small to me. And, you know, I, but I'll confess, I don't really have a clue. What I quarter of an acre, Chris. Yeah. So, I mean, you know, as the cap, the biggest. So, so here, here's where I thought through, and this is why I landed at 30,000. In Massachusetts. The smallest. Level is 5,000 square feet. We're proposing going from 1,000 to 1,500. So that's about a third of. Of what Massachusetts does. In Massachusetts, the cap is 100,000 square feet. Oh, but two acres. Yeah, two. That's big. So I, I decided to stick with the third of Massachusetts. So, so both of them are scaled to about a third of Massachusetts. So 30,000 square feet. That's not even an acre. It's about two thirds of recorders. Yeah. Yeah. What's an acre 43,000 42 43. Depends on who's running the ruler. Yeah. So anyway, I mean. I'm open to discussing it, but it just. This does not seem to me to be a runaway operation here. We need. You know, if anything, there's a risk in other states. Excuse me of running out of product. So I don't know. Anyway, that's the logic would just went on both levels with about a third of what Massachusetts has permitted. See, like, if you went to the 30,000. Square feet. That would that be indoor Chris or outdoor, because you could build a building over that if you know, if you wanted, you know, without a whole lot of costs. About a third of what Massachusetts is. It's silent on indoor outdoor. And even on the small end, it's silent, right? But yeah, I'll have a question, Bobby. Who? Gail. Oh, that's, that's all right. I was just going to let you know that the witnesses have joined us. Okay. Oh, okay. Yeah, you let them in. Anyway, I mean, the. I'm reminded that one of the challenges here is the premise in the law has been that. We're charging the board to kind of figure out roughly how much they think we need and therefore how many permits and what kind of permits are needed to achieve. The volume of the expected business. And in, in historically over the last many years. The legislature's tried to come up with, you know, you should have this many small permits, this many medium, this many big, and as it was advancing. I think that the, the feeling was. The board will figure out the lay of the land. They'll figure out therefore how many permits in each category and the fees that will go along with it because after all. You need the fees to raise the money to handle it. And, and, and so the risk that we have here is that disconnect between all of those moving parts. If we're injecting ourselves. So anyway, trying to come up with some logic. I just went with a third of what they're doing in Massachusetts is figuring that we would want to have a smaller scale than our neighbors to the south. And one hour, both on both ends, or do they have a top end on theirs too, Chris? Yeah, a hundred thousand square feet. Yeah, so we went a third on the low end and a third on the upper end. We went a third of theirs on both of ours. So that put us at 1500 on the low end. And 30,000 square feet on the upper end. Maximum size. So. And is there. Have you looked at. The board would determine how many. Of each of those is, is allowed. So that's my understanding of the, of the law. Yes already. So you could. If you hung back and didn't get. Didn't get in. You could be excluded from participating because. The board could feel that the market is full. Am I stating that right? Well. They wouldn't issue you a license if, if the market was full. And I'm a year or two behind. I'm a year and a half of applying and getting in. The board, if everything was full, the board could. Regulate the supply of that. Of that product or of the growers that are supplying the market. As far as I understand it. Yeah. Yeah. And we're not addressing that here. I think that's probably more likely that more businesses come in because we're. We're making sure that although at the small end, we're making them bigger. So it's hard to know, but. No, but I think overall Chris, you're right. We're clearly favoring smaller. If you had. A plot that was 10,000 square feet. I mean, you're going to be able to have more than eight or 10 plants. I mean, those things really get bushy. You know, I thought they had to have like six feet or something around them, you know, to have a roll down through. To, you know, a pathway and. You're going to have many plants on. On 10,000 square feet. So anyway, I mean, it's impossible to know. Entirely. What, what we're saying here is there's an entry level, a craft level that's a little bit easier to get into requires less capital. So it's presumably easier for, for, you know, different kinds of folks to get in BIPOC and others. We give them a head start in the, in the structure in terms of the timing so that. The, the hope has always been that that gives them an entry into the market, not just that they can be up and running, but that they actually can sell their product and. Create some business relationships that are meaningful. You know, there's not a lot of guarantees here, but that is the vision. That's farming. There's no guarantee. I'm sure a lot of our vegetable growers would like this kind of. I'm on advantage, but we could say, we could say the vegetable growers of Franklin County can start selling their. Vegetables three months ahead of Chittin County. See if that would help. They'll probably cross pollinate their carrots with a little cannabis and say, Hey, I've got some carrots that'll spike you up here. You work the other way, Bobby. The, so guys, we've got. Jeffrey and, and Josh back. I don't, Maddie's with us. I don't have Graham's with us or not, but. Good to see you guys back. We. We did get a change. Some changes done to the bill. That. I don't know if you. Have you guys been in so you could hear. Chatting or do just get in. I've been in for a few minutes, but I think it might be helpful if you're willing to just share. The language that you're looking at either verbally or otherwise, because we don't have access to that. So it's hard to know what you're referring to. Well, that's just as well. It's better if you don't see it. I think we've also submitted some of our own. So we're happy to just. Well, I. Gail, did you get a copy of that? Chris sent. I did, Mr. Chair. Is that something that. That you could pull up on the screen. That. I don't know how deep we've. I think. Chris, did you have those changes on the first page? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know if it's. Made. So we can do just the little section or do we need to have. I think, I think you've got a little longer because in talking to Michelle, she remembered she had to loop in the current use. Peace. You can't just change it in the amounts, but you also have to change it in. The permission for current use. So. So I think that's why the. I don't know if that was a little longer. Bobby, but. I could email it or Gail could. It probably be easiest just to post it to the website, I think, and that way. Yeah, then you guys could pull it up, right? Maddie. Yeah. I will have to. I don't have access to your page. So let me notify Linda. And in the meantime, why don't I put it on my screen to share. And, but basically. What, what we have gotten done so far. Yeah, yesterday we talked about the. The small growers. Being. Being cat doubt. If you go over to. Page two. We increased that number from. A thousand square feet to 1500 square feet. So that our small craft people. You all could grow a little bit larger crop. And. And, you know, even 1500 feet is. What's that a little strip 30 by 50. You know, which is, is not very big. I don't know. We were talking before you folks came on. About how much Roma. A plant actually has to have. And keep it separated from. From the next plant. But I know I, I've looked at some hemp fields. They've got to be at least four or six feet apart. Is cannabis plant. Do any of you know how much room you need for a canvas plant. I can take that chair start and thanks for asking. And good to see everybody again. Good morning. Almost good afternoon. Yes. Indoor considerably less spaces needed. We're talking a foot to two feet, maybe. Three feet max. I want to say indoor whereas outdoor. Yes. The spacing would be anywhere from we had said. Nine to 15 feet, which of course would. Proclude, you know, smaller plots, but larger plots with larger plants need more spacing. So you're right. We're talking a foot to two feet. Five, 10, 15 feet for outdoor indoor. Not so much a foot to two feet. So could you use. Say it. Yeah, you go tell somebody. Four or two. I mean, we're better off to use the larger number if we can. You know, not that that would be in any rules or laws, but it would. For the people that are skeptical about the whole situation. It would seem to me if we use the. Maximum footage it would. It would. Certainly sell those people. On the idea while this isn't too bad. So could you use. Three feet indoors and I mean, just roughly thinking. And maybe six. See, we didn't differentiate between inside. And outside. We've left. We've left that language sort of alone. Chris. Well, Bobby, I. I went around and around with Michelle on this. Because as I've said, you know, I think it's a good idea. I mean, I would love to find us a way to be encouraging outdoor. Growth. Gross. It was hard. And as soon as you touch it one place, you know, suddenly we're not looking at a two page thing. We're sending sears quite a complicated. Situations. So, you know, given that we've had a half a day to deal with this. I'm not, I'm certainly very supportive of us doing that. But it is. You know, especially now that we're limiting or we're putting numbers down. Do we mean those to be outdoor numbers or indoor numbers? We would have to make some decisions and, and, and I'm not. You know, I was also trying to say to Michelle, just direct the board, they can figure out different tiers based if it's indoor or outdoor. She sort of thought that they could already do that. Massachusetts. They delineate that way along with the fees, but not with the tier. So, so there's, it's cheaper if you're going to be outside reflecting. That you're less resource intensive, I guess, but anyway. It's complicated. What can I tell you? And I failed to do it. And I'm sure people have ideas of how we could do it. I do as well. But it will not be a, you know, a short memo if we, if we try to craft those solutions. Oh, I think we're better off to leave it vague. If you go outside, you're going to grow bigger plants. But if you've got 1500 feet instead of a thousand, you should. Yeah. Yeah. Shouldn't you still be able to a small craft grower, cultivator, wouldn't he be able to still make a buck or two? If we could get rid of this product. You guys. If I may send it, or I can quickly speak. This is Graham. Thanks for the policy director. I'm sorry to hear a little noise in the back. I have my 11 month old daughter with me. So this is, there is language in the bill currently around, you know, what the number of square feet, the thousand square foot rule. And it doesn't, as you said, distinguish between indoor and outdoor. And that is what we find extremely problematic because assuming it goes to the CCB. And as we're saying, they can make all these distinctions. If it's legislatively mandated that the lowest license of a thousand square feet, then they can't, for example, say, well, for outdoor, like outdoor growing, the smallest license should be 4,000 square feet. And that's what our point is. And that's what we're recommending. We're recommending that the large, the small craft here for outdoor would be 4,000. And the small craft here for indoor would be 1,000. So the reasons that Jeffrey just mentioned, as well as the crop loss that Josh would talk about yesterday and just all of, all of those things. And I'll pass over to Jeffrey or Josh or to respond more. I just want to quickly, Oh, sorry. Oh, I just wanted to add. If you don't mind, Josh, go after me, I echo the urgency though of my colleague and I wanna provide some context here. These are simplifications of the law by inserting a four to two to one ratio. We think it provides clarity where there is currently uncertainty for farmers and small businesses. And we are not plucking this out of thin air. These are firm precedent that you find in agrarian states, Northern California, parts of Oregon. You may not see it necessarily in Massachusetts. You'll see it in Maine, where they have like Vermont, a larger agricultural community, they embrace these simplified standards out of the gate using legislation. I just wanna provide that context. Sorry, Josh. No, thank you. I also, for further context, a few other things to think about with the difference between outdoor and indoor and mixed light growing. Outdoor growing, you're only getting one harvest per year. So while your plants may be larger and you may be getting more product, you're banking on one harvest, maybe two if you're doing light deprivation in a mixed light situation, but you need to have a greenhouse in order to do that process. Whereas indoor, you can rotate harvests through separate rooms and have more steady supply through the season. Also in terms of price per pound, indoor product is generally regarded as higher quality. So while it's much more expensive to invest in an indoor grow, the poundage that you get is worth more on a weight basis than if you were growing outdoors. So these are some of the dynamics here that definitely need to be taken into consideration. And while I agree, it can get complex if that gets too narrowly defined at a broad level, distinguishing outdoor mixed light and indoor differentiation on the basis of size of grow or anything like that, I think it can be a pretty straightforward exercise. And I think the language that we provided in bullet point form is relatively simple. So just wanted to throw that out there. Yeah, I would just echo what everyone said. And I'd be interested to know maybe a little bit more Senator Pearson about what's particularly complicated about that and whether our language is helpful and really providing some clarification. I would also just say, this is the first time that we've been able to take up this bill with the ad committee and we're really grateful to be able to do so. And I think that this issue of defining indoor versus outdoor cultivation and putting some parameters around those is really one of the main cruxes of what we're trying to get at with looking at this more as an agricultural product. And frankly, myself, I haven't been as deeply engaged in this issue for as many years as my colleagues here have, but this is one of the few areas where I have had conversations, for example, with Senator Polina and previously Senator Zuckerman around how the agricultural aspect of this could really be addressed. So I think this is something that's worth putting a little bit of effort into, if nothing else. See, I don't know how complicated Sears, Senator Sears has gone on us to get, make this into, but I would presume that on most small farms or places where they might get into producing hemp or cannabis that a lot of these places have got a building that's 30 by 50 and they could do inside growing pretty easy. Whereas if they put this outside, it's got to be fenced in in a secure manner and you've got to have protective devices to monitor and keep track of everything. And I was personally, I was more interested in getting that number, trying to get that number up to a size that a person could make some money at if you increase the size by 50%, go from 1,000 to 1,500, it makes quite a difference in the end result or it should on how much money you might be able to make off from being a little craft cultivator and being able to use 1,500 feet. But no one has mentioned yet how much, if everything worked perfect, how much you could do on 1,500 feet. I think we talked a little yesterday about 1,000 square feet. Any estimates on 1,500 feet? Nope. I would just quickly say, Senator, just to address what you said about the farm having like a facility that can convert to an indoor growing facility, that's a significant undertaking and a lot of farms I think would prefer just to do what they know how to do and grow outside in a reasonable amount of space that makes sense for their farm. A lot of folks also don't have structures like that that are readily usable or adaptable to such a use. So I think that, to answer your question on 1,500 square feet, I mean, if you take what Jeffrey just said about, two to three feet between plants indoor and 10 feet, let's say between outdoor plants, you get at least some idea about the number of plants. And I don't have any amount of production, but just to remind you that the numbers we came to were based on some surveys and studies of Burant growers and cultivators currently. So it was meant to reflect what would be a reasonable livelihood for a small scale of producer. And that 1,000 square feet we suggested was specifically for indoor in that survey. I don't know if you ran some quick numbers if you had a 30 by 50 to do 1,500 square feet, you could go 10, roughly 10 plants, yeah, three plants long, which would be, and then you could go five wide or four some, you know. So, sorry, I just want to offer some context on what you asked for about the finances surrounding the different sizes and projected harvests. I just did some quick back of the envelope calculations. So if you're growing a plant outdoors in Vermont, banking on a pound of usable product from that plant is a good goal that you can reliably hit if you grow well. It's not guaranteed, sometimes it's less, but that'd be a successful harvest. Outdoor product in a mature market, I think from what we see in other states, reasonably could hit $800 a pound. That's if you're growing higher quality for outdoor product in a mature market. So that is $120,000 a year in revenue for a 1,500 square foot outdoor plot. That doesn't include any costs the farmer is gonna undertake, any labor costs, any water, any nutrients, any soil, any compost, any fencing, if that is in the bill, although we of course hope that that is removed as a requirement for outdoor grows. If you're growing indoor and you get three poles a year from 1,500 square feet, and if that is all flower, mind you, some of that will have to be vegetative growth, so these could very well be inflated numbers. Three harvests a year indoors. You're talking about significantly more revenue if that product fetches a higher price at market, if we take $1,800 a pound for a wholesale number, which again is generous in a mature market. You're looking at $810,000 of revenue a year as that size company. Once again though, you have electricity costs, you have equipment costs, things breaking all the time, you have labor costs, so you can definitely run a business, a profitable business at that scale indoors, but you can see the difference in the cash and the revenue for outdoor grow operating at 1,500 square feet versus an indoor grow operating at 1,500 square feet, and therein is why from a farmer's perspective, differentiating outdoor indoor is so important. If we're silent on this, you can do either as long, if it isn't talked about, it's kind of silent. So if your Graham just said, well, you'd rather grow outdoors, well, hell, if you could generate $800,000 compared to $100,000, you can build quite a building for a couple of hundred thousand dollars, I would think. I built a, just built a 40 by 70 building for $130,000, and it's all insulated, whiteed, they heated, the whole nine yards. Totally. And I could have two levels to grow hemp or cannabis on if I put a floor in the middle. So why would you wanna fool around outdoors unless you wanted to build a market? I don't know what the thinking is. Well, we got, I believe it was 60% of respondents, growers that responded to VGA survey in the state plan on growing outdoors. I think it's also important to remember extracts are a huge element of the industry and that extracted product is gonna require a lot of supply going in, a lot of bulk supply, which outdoors is perfectly suited for. So when we're thinking about supporting a market, while yes, it certainly is incentivizing if you can afford to invest in indoor cultivation and go through the hiccups and risks.com with indoor cultivation, it's a more fragile environment than growing outdoors. It's definitely incentivizing for people to do that, but we of course are like Senator Pearson said, I think there's a lot of good reason to try to encourage outdoor growing and there is a lot of the market that will have demand for outdoor growing and the scale that's required to feed the supply in the state from an extraction product perspective, I think should just be reasonably considered when we're thinking about what a farmer growing outdoors should be able to do in participating in the market. So, Chris? I would just say that it's important to remember these small licenses are held under a lighter regulatory touch. So we are working hard to see if we can't introduce people into the universe. And I guess I have a question for Graham, it's too bad Maddie had to leave, but I was in meetings that maybe people didn't see where we had to fight like hell with other counterparts to get 1,000 square feet of outdoor land used that's in current use to be maintained in current use, 1,000 square feet. So the proposal that we will now you would have us take back to make that 4,000 or whatever, 6,000 square feet and go, it's just not gonna happen. And so I get that that's not what you want us to tell you, but there will become a strategy point here of do we have any bill at all or do we ask for everything we want and get nothing or do we make some improvements and continue to advance this? And that's not fair and life is filled with these choices in our jobs and it's not fun for any of us, but that is the reality. So my question Graham, have you even once talked to Janet Ansell about increasing the threshold that she would be open to allowing in current use because that is what we're talking about as we talk about these changes in numbers, even shifting to 1,500 is it gonna be a battle with her? But at least- I think we could win that one Chris. I think so too, but it won't, it's not just her, but she represents a lot of folks in the other, well obviously she's powerful on the committee but it's just a tricky dynamic that I have to, it's part of my calculation as I try to think of the right move here. But Graham, do you have any indication that she's interested in being more flexible than she was five months ago? I mean, as I said, I reached out to Janet via email I think a month ago or so after I last, one of the times we spoke and you recommended I did and I will remind you that Janet Ansell is my personal representative, but I'm here in my professional capacity working at Royal Vermont. So I understand that she has a particular positionality and power within the state house as well. She responded, like I said yesterday, she wasn't in charge of agricultural issues until you told us yesterday that she was sort of critical in taking apart what you're talking about now. We didn't know specifically, we can't see inside those committees of conference to see who does what, at what point. She told me that she's not on an agricultural committee, she only does money stuff and she doesn't deal with these types of issues. I'm happy to talk with her about that. Current use is a money thing, right? So this is where she gets her hooks into it. I'm not trying to, you know, that's the reality that we're working in. Well, let me just complete my response. But I will reach out to her. I have her phone number now and she's invited me to call her and I can have that conversation with her. But I think from our perspective as well, you know, represent what is the needs of our members and of the agricultural community. And I think to not differentiate between indoor and outdoor use and to not create a scale difference really makes very little sense in the ways that we've all put forth. And I think that, you know, it's really unclear and there'd be clear inequity if we have a thousand square foot in law, but it's not differentiated in the CCB itself can't actually make a different craft license number for when they do differentiate because a thousand square feet is already in law and it's mandated. And that's a concern we have as well. And our strategy, I guess is like I said, is just to push. We weren't involved in this conversation very much. We've been trying to be involved and we hope that this year, if that happens that we can go into dance committee and speak to her and say, you know, we're representing our community. This is why this makes sense and have a conversation about it. But, you know, last year we really weren't able to be a part of that conversation. Josh, did you have something? Yeah, and I just wanted to add on to that, you know that these policy positions are really coming from a perspective of advocating for, you know what we see as the bulk of the Vermont industry, the local Vermont businesses, the in-state owned businesses especially. And, you know, I think if Janna Ansel is gonna strike these things from it then we can do our job in advocating for why this makes policy sense in her committee with that stuff in the bill because it's based on merit. So if we're here agreeing that these things make sense and that they would be right but that Janna Ansel wouldn't approve of them then I would ask that we let Janna Ansel not approve of them instead of not putting them in now because we don't think she's gonna approve of them. Well, I got a few more years in this business than you had, Josh. I've been at this for 40 odd years passing stuff in Montpelier. And the odd of compromise is probably the greatest asset that a legislator can have. And you learn that you don't always get the biggest bite of the apple the first time you go to bite it but yet you go back a year or two later and you get another bite and you get another bite and whereas if you don't get that first little bite you're never gonna get anything you guys start all over again. And if we get going, if we can get that 1500 feet get a cap on the top so the big guys don't rob the market and then if we find in a year or two that, hey, this is all working really slick we could use the little guys could use a little bit bigger plots they could be outside. I've never seen a bill that we couldn't amend and that most of them get amended and usually the second year you always do a review of any major legislation that you passed the year or two before just to make leveling out adjustments. And so the second time around if things are going well it's much easier to make those adjustments and move to where you really wanna should have been in the first place but it takes you a year or two to get there and I'd rather get a little bite at the apple than no apple at all. And Janet's in a position where hell she could stop the whole show as being chair and there's no denying that that's just the way the rules and the way it works. It's like Nancy Pelosi in Washington almost. You know. But anyways, other comments, other comments, Jeffrey? If I may really fast Graham just to just to cap this topic from my perspective to underscore what other states have told us is basically that one to four ratio stands. So in terms of production and a livelihood we should expect roughly 1,000 square feet inside is equivalent to ultimately the end of the day 4,000 square feet outside. So it would be, Vermont would be the exception if we did not have acknowledgement and differentiation between indoor and outdoor. So I just want to underscore that and I do understand process, but I also think it's mindful to be aware of what the industry is doing and what other states have told us. Vermont is not leading this. So there are lessons learned from other states. So I'll just leave it at that and Graham I do believe you follow up. Yeah. Well, I just want to speak to the if I may just want to speak to the max production cap that you mentioned senators are, I think if you all put out a max production cap I think I heard you say around 30,000 square feet without differentiating between indoor or outdoor it would be very hard for our coalition to support because we're recommending a max production cap of 10,000 square feet for indoor production and 40,000 for outdoor production. So if you put in 30,000 without differentiating you're essentially tripling what we think is appropriate for indoor production being allowed. And which makes it even more inequitable for outdoor production, which is the opposite of our intention. So that's a concern I'm expressing and I think it's the same at the baseline. And I don't know if it's possible simply to put in the ratio that Jeffrey is recommending as a standard in the law itself. But I'll leave it there. Well, I would just say I don't I'm open to putting in larger amounts for outdoor and the commensurate change to current use. That's fine with me. I think it's a real role of the dice, but that doesn't bother me if you're comfortable with the gamble that we don't get anything. I'll follow your lead. I mean, if I may Chris, Senator Pearson, if it would help, we do have sister organizations in other states. We can bring policy directors to these conversations if it would be helpful with Ansel and others who can speak to this indoor-outer differentiation that they've been operating under for several years. But we're welcome to bring those resources if that's helpful from other states. Well, it's not for me to say what's helpful with her. She's an opponent of this. You guys, it's an inconvenient reality that we face that has held us back for years, okay? I mean, I've been pushing this when I was in the house in 2014, I forced a floor vote on this. She was opposed. I mean, you don't like the reality, I don't like the reality, but that's just what we're dealing with. So if you wanna say to Janet, you're gonna, we're gonna now make you say that 45 hundred square feet of outdoor is part of current use, go for it. You guys make that call and I'll back you up. I think it's gonna be and I think you'll get zero bill, but that's your choice. If you go 1500 indoor, that's 6,000, that's outside, I mean, hell, they won't cut it, you can't, that's a, you know, pushing, that'd be pushing an acre, I believe, and they aren't gonna buy that. But hey, yeah, I got some people that wanna grow this stuff, but I haven't got personally a freaking dog in the fight. So, and, you know, I don't even know if I've, I don't think I've ever voted for this in the first place because I felt that we had enough drugs floating around out there without legalizing another one to pump into whoever, then I have to rehabilitate everybody, I mean, yeah. But anyhow, if, I don't know, I... Bobby, Bobby, it's Anthony. Oh, your picture, okay. Yeah, something's weird with my iPad, and I can't seem to get my video on. I've been listening, though, to this whole conversation. I've just been also been dealing with some semi-emergency stuff going on at my other committee, but I just wanted to chime in and say that I think that we all, well, should take to heart what Christopher and others have been saying about the difficulty of moving this bill forward at this point. It's kind of an inconvenient truth that we have to deal with. It's not really up to us to pass the bill that we wanna pass, it's what we can pass. I think that the idea of differentiating the indoor and outdoor, we could do that in maybe in a simple way, given what Michelle gave us, where we just say 30,000 is outside X 10,000's inside or something like that. But I guess all I'm saying is we're down to the wire here, and we've been talking about this bill for five years, and we're coming pretty close to having to stop the conversation and bite the bullet and say what we wanna do. And I would just caution us to try to come up with something that is doable, because there are people who would rather just see the bill die in the vine, and I would hate to see that happen. Sorry, I can't see you all. I can see you, but you can't see me. Oh yeah, you can see that? Yeah, I see that. I don't know. But I think at this point in time, I think at this point in time, it's really important to keep it relatively simple. I mean, the I committee got this bill, the I committee got the bill just the other day for the first time ever, which is unfortunate. But I don't think we can afford to have these like long winding conversations about what we really hope to have, because we're basically down to have another, we have like an hour to like work this out between today and tomorrow. We just don't have the time or the ability to like work it too much more. Well, I thought it was one to four, Anthony, not one to three. Well, sure, whatever. Yeah, that's fine, whatever works. Well, whatever works, you wanna, I mean, we have numbers that kind of support, I thought one to four. If you grow inside you, you'll have 10,000 feet, but if you grow outside, you could, you should be able to go 40,000 feet. And that's what other states have done and what has worked is, I think, am I right on that guys? Sorry, that's correct. Correct. California, Oregon, Maine, there are several of the more agrarian leaning states and territories of states that have adopted that sort of ratio. In fact, there are other parts of Oregon that have a five to one. So it varies, but we thought a four to one was appropriate for Vermont. Yeah. I don't know if anybody wants to, committee members, any of you wanna make a suggestion or a motion to propose that? And then if it carries, we'll have Michelle do the number and add that to the proposal that we're gonna send to Sears. So more than just the concept though, when Michelle and I spent about half an hour about it last night trying to figure out how to do it simply, it wasn't simple. So it's not just the concept. I think, do we wanna say, here's the small end indoor. Here's the big end indoor. The board can figure out a commensurate that's roughly four to one relationship for outdoor. Do we wanna express it as empowering them to do that? Do we wanna direct them to do that? I think they're already empowered, but I think we could probably make that more plain. How do you wanna deal with the tax implications? Should there be commensurate fee adjustment or is it in this tier, the fee is X and you're indoor or outdoor at those? There are a lot of questions to unpack. And as Sam Polina says, we got 12 minutes now and no lawyer to help us. So that was why we... All those issues, I mean, the whole beautiful part of this process is we can look at maybe just the quick agricultural issues and push it along. I just, I think you keep it, I guess where I am is let's get to a place where we can move it and let the process continue to play out. So what does that mean? I would just get the thing out of our committee with slight adjustments like your amendment or something else to move it. I mean, I don't have a dog in this fight, like Bobby said, I've just honestly not that 100% that interested in the topic and don't wanna spend that much time on it, but also don't wanna kill it. You could just say, since we're only writing a memo back, you're summing the language, we also encourage you to figure out some way to direct the board to knowledge that outdoor grows should be bigger. What could you do? Share with us. My only dog in this fight is I don't want our growers, farmer growers to end up like our dairy guys. You know, we can help. I think we're gonna figure that out in a day or two, Bobby. That's my thought is, you know, that's a lot of work. But if we cap the damn size that somebody can get to be, we've taken care of that. And there's plenty of money where we cap that for anybody to be able to survive and do okay, but it allows more growers because if you let one guy grow four acres, I mean, just think of the number of little guys you're pumping out of the way. And then they corner the market, they start selling cheaper and they crowd the little guys more and the little guys more and pretty soon, the big guys have got the whole show. I'm fine putting that cap in. I think, again, it has a long ways to go, but if that's a recommendation here, I can live with that. Me too. I don't much care about the minimum. I don't see that that, who cares? But the max. Yeah, I think the max is way more important. Yeah. And I'm sympathetic to Chris's question about the current use, but I don't know that that's our business here. I mean, we, I don't know. Well, that's a whole nother fight. And what the hell, if it is taken out, what's a big deal on a little plot, 30 by 50? I mean, it ain't gonna cost the farmer 20 bucks. So I mean, more a year in taxes. I mean, I don't know why there's a big fight over that anyways. If we aren't talking about big bucks here. I think it's wrapped up in whether or not it's considered agriculture and some of those questions, but the Senate has historically gotten its way on that one. It's certainly agriculture, but say, how long are you gonna argue over the change in your pocket if somebody's stealing the dollar bills out your back pocket? You wanna be able to count here a little bit. So we'll try to wrap this up tomorrow then, Mr. Chair. What do you wanna do? Well, as soon as we can get Michelle going, if we'll talk to her about these numbers and put it into a form that we can send this year. So yeah, we'll wrap it up in the morning. We're kinda lucky because one of the members of Senate Judiciary is not here today, Senator White. So they won't be taking a vote on it until tomorrow anyway. Oh, good. And of course, they're a morning committee. So, Josh, you had a question? Graham, if you wanna jump in, then I can go after you. Oh, Graham's a head. Oh yeah, he's got his little yellow hand up. We just go like this, so I really see the hand. Go ahead, Graham. Thank you, Senator. Just in light of you asking for recommendations and describing the limitations that you're facing, if you're just writing a memo to Senate Judiciary and that's what you're resending, I think that one to four ratio is important from our perspective. And when you speak to the cap being important to you, I think, as I said, we would not support a cap unless it was articulated via indoor or outdoor because we would see it potentially making it more inequitable for outdoor producers if it was just stated that 30,000 square feet, for example, was the cap without stating that that was for outdoor production explicitly. So, if you're just writing a memo, I think those are the most important things for us if you wanna do the floor and the ceiling and just the indoor outdoor ratios. And I understand the directive for us to compromise and think instead of that more, and I would just remind the committee too that we originally had like five or six pages of proposed amendments, including our racial equity amendments, they were almost 20 pages or more than 20 pages. And this is our only opportunity we've ever had to speak to an actual committee on this. But we do appreciate it. We understand your limitations. We have really tried to compromise and really tried to isolate and prioritize what we're speaking with you about. And I think those are recommendations that I think could go to the Senate Judiciary Committee. So, one to four indoor, outdoor, and no cap, did I hear you say, Graham? Well, it's the rule. Sorry. I was just gonna say we support the cap at the ratio of one to four, 10,000 feet indoors and 40,000 feet outdoors. Yeah. Yeah, Josh? Yeah, I just wanted to call out one thing that it sounded like we had common ground around a few minutes ago, which is reducing the cap for indoor grow down to 10,000 square feet, which is our recommendation. And I think more appropriate, even going off of Massachusetts, their population is about 10 times larger than us. So if 30,000 square feet was one-third, 10,000 square feet would be one-tenth, and that's in line with the population difference between the two states. So, and then if, so if it was 10,000 square feet, indoor cap with outdoor grows being allowed to be four times larger than indoor grows, that would be quite simple language that achieved the differentiation between outdoor and indoor and set those caps. And I do appreciate this committee being so concerned about capping the production and protecting the small farmers because I certainly, for one, I'm in agreement that that's very important. So I want to express that acknowledgement. Just to follow up on that, a little bit of industry insight. We, I agree the 10,000 indoor cap is what we should be reaching. Chair star in the industry, when you get into the 30,000 square foot for indoor cultivation, that's when you get into the factory farm type activity, which we're trying to avoid in the state. That is the large sort of output of cannabis indoor. That's that 30,000, that's what we're trying to avoid. Let's cap that at 10,000. I just want to put it out there. That's what the industry sees. So 10, 10 inside 40, yeah, 10, 40, yeah, one to four. Yeah. Committee, anything else that you'd like to add or talk about? I would just say, I'm not convinced 10 is the right number. No, we'll talk about that. Sure. And looking for my schedule for tomorrow. Yeah, we've got just a couple of things right at nine o'clock. And then we'll try to get this issue wrapped up, you know, by mid-morning and get get get it down to Senator Sears. If we could get hold of Michelle later today, maybe we could get her to start drafting up some language once we chat again. So anything else for this morning? Good, everybody. Well, thanks, guys, for showing back up today. I don't know if we're going to wear that soil all out plowing it here. We may not be able to even grow any cannabis if we keep plowing that dirt. We're going to ruin it. But no, I think we made, you know, we're making some headway and and hopefully it'll help help our small growers and our regular growers. And and so if you want to punch back in, you know, if you're around, you want to get in tomorrow morning, you know, that's great. We should be. We should be able to be on to this by nine thirty or well, quarter to ten, maybe. So with that, if there's no other business, I'll join the meeting and thank you again for you guys for your time and in your help and and we'll hopefully see you tomorrow. See you. See you, other guys.