That is really the market piece of value-added, which leaves, on the other side of the coin—there are always two sides of a coin—the regulatory side.
Should we be looking at this from a regulatory perspective when it comes to these sorts of initiatives? That would be after the pilot program, obviously, has run its course and we can prove.... I want to hear how many times people talk about science-based initiatives. If indeed it's proven to be effective and leads to a better animal that ultimately is not spreading E. coli and if it diminishes it throughout the entire system, is a regulatory approach something we should be looking at versus the market?
I'll be honest with you. Somewhere in that value chain, I don't see anybody paying for it except the primary producer, who ends up saying, “It's three bucks an animal, and why should I do it, because no one really cares?”