To your point about the right rate, you wouldn't reduce your fertilizer application in all circumstances if you're following that system. There are parts of Saskatchewan, and other provinces as well, where farmers are not applying sufficient fertilizer to meet the needs of the crop. It is based on scientific recommendations. We quoted the Canola Council, and for years the Canola Council has had a concern about under-fertilization of canola in that province, because there are limited acres that can go to canola every year due to the rotation requirements. The canola industry has to supply the crushing plants in foreign markets like Japan. Certainly there's lots of scientific evidence that shows it's not reducing fertilizer that's important; it's getting the right amount of fertilizer to meet the replacement needs of the plant.
In certain cases, yes, there may be too much fertilizer being applied, but in other cases, farmers have not been applying enough. I think that goes for other nutrients as well. For example, with potash, you don't get the immediate reward from applying potash, but over time, if you don't have a proper balance of nutrients, including potash, you don't get the yields you want. So there's probably an under-utilization of potash in certain areas of Canada as well.
Right now, we have a good general level of fertility in Canada. But if you go back to the Dirty Thirties, one of the major contributing causes of the dust bowl was the fact that we had been mining the soil for decades in Canada. When you had a dry spell, there was not the carbon in the soil to hold the dirt, and it all went up into the sky. We're not at that point—far from it—but over time, you can't mine the soil. It's a zero-sum game. You can't just harvest crops without putting back what you've taken out.