BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 3 Dec 2002 09:20:21 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (47 lines)
> The scenario above would have been quite different if we had had another
98%
> control chemical (of a completely different chemical makeup) to alternate
> with Apistan would it not George?  Be honest.
>
> How long in your estimation would Fluvalinate taken to become ineffective
if
> alternated with another 98% control chemical ( we did have two completely
> different chemicals available at the start of varroa mite treatment in the
> U.S. - Coumaphos & Fluvalinate) ?
>
> Bob
>

There is an alternative scenario never discussed among conventional Western
farmers and others in agriculture.  The underlying assumption behind
wholesale use of pesticides is a desire to achieve a nearly 100% control
over pests (desirable, but not practical).  The long term costs for such
control efforts is now obvious - greatly increased resistance.  One of the
principle tenets in sustainable agriculture is the assumption of loss - that
is, that you will not get a 100% marketable crop (or survivable hives?)

An assumption among many organic farmers is a loss factor (around 20%,
sometimes less).  When a farmer plans on such losses, and uses pesticides
only when absolutely necessary (usually spot treatments), the probability of
resistance is greatly lowered.  This, in fact, is one of the great fears
among organic farmers - the widespread use of BT bio-engineered foods is
likely to eliminate BT's usefulness over time, thereby eliminating a
powerful ally against pests.

This mode of thinking inserts some thorny questions into the fray.  If, for
instance, beekeepers deliberately withheld treatment for about 20% of their
hives, it is likely that resistance would be, at worst, put off for a
considerable amount of time, and, at best, prevented entirely.  The
assumption here, of course, is that commercial beekeepers would be expected
to sacrifice up to 20% of their stock to prevent resistance, which, of
course, would drive honey prices up.

I would suggest that it all boils down to short term vs. long term costs - a
debate in which Western agriculture has never willingly participated.


Regards,


Todd.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2