Thanks for the question.
Throughout COVID, particularly with the amount of fertilizer we import from Russia and Ukraine, there was a large disruption and a lot of worry within the sector around having enough nitrogen to grow a crop. The focus for the sector, at the time, was to try to ensure that the funds—the extra tariffs—would go into supporting farmers in the future, as far as being able to ensure they have the crop nutrients they need. There are obviously a lot of ways for the sector to reduce nitrogen. Pulses are one way, because we fix the nitrogen from the fertilizer, but there are a lot of other beneficial management practices that can be focused on.
I'd say the big concern for us around that was more in the phrasing of it. We always like to think about not just reducing fertilizer but the efficient use of fertilizer. The one thing that gave us pause in there.... Certainly, supporting the ability to reduce nitrogen or at least increase the efficiency of nitrogen use is very important, but any kind of target or perspective that says, “Thou shalt reduce the amount of fertilizer or nitrogen you use to a certain level” is very concerning for the sector. I think you would have seen that with certain fertilizer targets the government was proposing a few years ago as well. It's highly sensitive because we are looking to maximize our yields. We are exporting to the world, ultimately.
While it is important to recognize that, it is also important that we do it in a right way, one that recognizes we still need these inputs. We are just looking for ways to maximize their efficiency.