>If we applied IPM to ourselves, we would stop vaccinations and wait for the diseases to develop.
> I do not think that is a valid argument.  Vaccinations do not impact beneficials or the environment.

The issue sort of hinges on what the goal is. If the goal is to reduce the use of pesticides overall, then the use of pesticides to prevent an outbreak that is practically assured would be justified because, as James said, it takes less material to prevent infestation than to remediate it. 

The context is also of utmost importance. If your bees, for example, are surrounded by diseased or infested hives, it would make perfect sense to protect your investment by basing your practices on the infestation rate in the environment, not just the rate in your hives. We don't live in a vacuum.

The thing that IPM was trying to move away from initially was using pesticides where there is no need for them. An integrated approach implies using whatever means necessary, but pesticides as a last resort. If biological or other controls can prevent pest outbreak, then pesticide use is avoided. 

Again, if the goal is the reduction of overall use, you could justify integrating prophylactic treatment into your pest management. Especially if experience over time has shown that the damage incurred by waiting will be excessive. The thing that makes humans different from the rest is that we can anticipate the future and prevent harm.

Integrated pest management has always been viewed as a pragmatic approach, not an ideology. Going organic or "treatment free" is a philosophical decision, which some choose to make. Many of us regard pesticide free as an admirable goal but one that can only be approached and perhaps never achieved. Pest control is a fact of nature, that's why bees have stingers.

PLB

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html