> However, if one only applies pesticides as needed, 
> one would expect to use less than if applied 
> as a pre-emptive routine.

But the amount used in the "pre-emptive" seed treatment is such a tiny
amount, how could it be more than ANY "application" to something larger than
a seed?
At risk of seeming to shill for those same multinationals that are accused
of having everyone else but me on their payroll, here's a graphic from
Syngenta which seems to make the same point I was trying to make:

http://www3.syngenta.com/country/ca/en/corporate-responsibility/stewardship/
beehealth/Pages/SAI.aspx
http://tinyurl.com/p7eb2eh

As Dad says, "Nothing makes a graphic point as graphically as a graph."


And seed treatment is an entirely different kettle of fish from "IPM".

Seed treatments are like placing barbed wire and minefields - as long as
your enemy does not come by, no one gets hurt.

IPM is a more direct engagement of the enemy, where you are choosing between
air strikes and sending in an armored battalion.

Yes, it would be stupid to carpet-bomb an area BEFORE the enemy shows up,
hence IPM.

But don't confuse seed treatments as being some sort of abrogation of IPM,
one still would use IPM if the pests showed up in number.


Fair warning to the agri-industrial complex: Go ahead and try to buy me,
you'll wake up the next morning to find that I have bought YOU, and sold all
of your boring assets on the recycled metal market.  I live in Manhattan,
where we can do a fully-leveraged buy-out from any ATM machine!  :)


3rd Inning, 3-0 
Go SF Giants!

             ***********************************************
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