An example, Charlie, would be the development of glyphosate-resistant weeds. They existed in nature, but were rare in the population. Once humans applied selective pressure, those with alleles for resistance began to dominate the population.
I don't think that one applies at all! I was looking for predator/parasite host situations.
But for the sake of debate, lets apply it to Varro, Just been Reading your "Varro Part 1" in ABJ. I will reference what you cited about the Baton Rouge bees. Item 7 in particular, "In my experience resistant stocks still require treating" and Item 3 " resistance of stocks is rapidly diluted".
When we look at GLY, resistance, we need to understand how it takes hold, its not from wild stock, its from the same reason as inoculation or antibiotics fail usually, incomplete application, when you spray and don’t get good kill, those weeds are now able to tolerate coverage.
Lets now look at partial "resistance" being put in play before its "finished" now what we are doing is in fact exactly the same. Partial application of a fix, which allows in this case the parasite an opportunity to adapt once again. And the cycle continues, ad nauseam. You and I both know the level of follow up treatment, and focus on good kills is suspect at best, so by putting out stocks like the BR and the Purdue stuff, when we know it washes out, sure seems to me to be exactly the same recipe of roundup, partial kills and resistance allowing the target species the time it needs to adapt and stay one step ahead.
Does that not completely fly in the face of the theory treating them artificial while we wait for a genetic answer is a bad idea?? Seems to me the "partial rollout" idea of TF ideas aggravates the problem a lot more than chemical treatments as a stop gap.
I took quite a while to digest this one, and have been pondering long and hard why the situation frustrates me so much. In the end its because I see so much of what sure seems to be conflicting theories and practices. In a lot of debate and discussion we see all the possibilities posted in the same article. Last month ABJ had one "bomb vs Bond" interesting article, lots of great input. Not much output. One section in particular made me dizzy.... several have reported success by, taking your best stock that survives, breed it only and in 4-5 years, you MAY (emphisis mine) have some fairly resistant stock that requires minimal treatment. (gota laugh at the idea of losing your bees for a while and maybe it gets better)
This all conflicts of course in general with "mite bombs" (which letting the non restiant ones die would be doing) IPM, to only manage the weaker ones, and of course the blanket treatment concept. So here we are in the GP, spinning like tops.
We have statements like "interference is prolonging the pain" giving credence to the TF hobbyist to set even more mite bombs on one day, and the next day we are all trying to get them in the same boat and treat for mites...... cause the mite bomb we miss are bring down our restiant hives!
Just the view as I see it from the cheap seats!
Charles
***********************************************
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
|
