If one is worried about locking out all the risk, one can already have the grain priced at a profit even at the high rents.  If I were worried about yield risk, I'd go farm  in Illinois where "yield risk" means 180 bu instead of 220 instead of here where it means 40 instead of 120.  I'll bet the standard deviation of our yield average is at least twice what it is in the high producing counties of IL. 

I don't know much about farming in the corn belt, but I know quite a bit about farming outside of it.  I know what it takes to make a little money here, with very high yield variability and relatively low yields.  I know what our land costs here.  I know enough math to figure out the value of the extra bushels which can be expected there and the extra input costs associated with them, and I can see that their return is higher then ours by an amount greater then the "super high" rents I hear about, so if they can't afford to pay that then we should be getting paid to farm land here.  Their "extra" 100 bushels above and beyond our average yield is worth $350 per acre, so therefore if one assumes that we make a profit here (which we must, as most of us who are farming here have been doing it for 30 years or better) they should be able to pay $350 more then we do, minus their extra fertilizer and harvest costs.  So far, I have not seen a "super high" rent which is $350 greater then what we are paying here.  There's a reason that land costs more to control in the corn belt....because it's worth more.