Definitely.
I think the methods of data collection would be different between animals and humans. On the animal side, we have focused on collecting that information right on the farm level. That's where the most credible data occurs. There are a couple of different reasons for collecting the information on the agriculture side. One is, obviously, to figure out use and use trends, but also, now that we are at the stage of implementing reduction strategies, to determine the impact of those strategies.
As I indicated, the Public Health Agency of Canada reports have helped monitor the success of our ban on category I for preventive use. That will be needed going forward. That's one reason why we need to expand the surveillance, to make sure that we are covering the whole country and to understand what's going on in the domestic market.
I think there is also a comparison that needs to be made between animal and human use to understand the differences. From the CIPARS studies, we know that the types of antibiotics used in poultry production are different from those used in humans. The most frequently used antibiotics on the human side, the fluoroquinolones and the cephalosporins, are not being used in poultry production. Those are very important aspects to understand when you are looking at resistance patterns, the impact of agriculture, and the interaction with humans.