In addition to what Patti has commented on, I'd like to focus on the business risk management portion a little more.
As I mentioned in my presentation, we're generally happy with AgriInvest and AgriInsurance. It's the AgriStability that farmers lack confidence in, and it is a potential downfall. There's an uninsured risk out there, and the risk of real damage. Farmers don't want to come hat in hand for an ad hoc program; they would like a stable, predictable program. I think that is what AgriStability was set up to be, but we've seen a consistent reduction in farmers' confidence in terms of using it.
We see a number of reasons for that. It's an insurance program that you pay into, and I don't think that's the end of the world, but it's very difficult to administer. You have to go to an accountant to get the forms done to actually apply for it—that's in addition to your premium—and farmers have seen a lack of predictability in that.
I know the comment has been made in the past that you don't buy house insurance expecting your house to burn down, but if it does burn down, you do expect the payment out of it. That's the way that a lot of farmers have begun to feel about AgriStability: that you're paying for an insurance that's probably never going to trigger. Plus, it's expensive to administer.