I have followed the "losses to weeds, apthogens, insects literature"
for 20 years and do not think, on the whole, it supports the conclusion that
pest losses have gotten worse, and indeed in the developed world, major crop
losses are now rare. What is amazing though, is that losses have remained
roughly comparable despite the several hundred fold increase in pesticide
use, coupled with increasingly sophisticated delivery mechanisms and other
technology. The bottom-line is clear -- the chemical component of the pest
management "tool box" is much, much more extensive and powerful than 2
decades ago, and is relied upon 3X or more heavily, yet its about as hard
(and way more costly) for most farmers to manage pests. What gives?
The answer is also clear and abundantly documented in the
literature. Modern agricultural systems, from glasshouse size, to a few
acres, to 20,000 acre fields, are specialized, very nutrient rich (lots of
free energy for pests), genetically narrow, and are in many other respects
"made to order" for the pathogen or pest of the day. We have managed
agriculture as if pests do not matter but alas, Nature bats last and always
gets another turn. We will continue to have more and more trouble managing
pests as long as farmers rely on narrow, largely chemical based pest
management systems. These points are made in great detail in the Illinois
paper/talk I did in January, accessible in pdf format at
<www.pmac.net/IWFS.pdf>.
chuck
Charles Benbrook 208-263-5236 (voice)
Benbrook Consulting Services 208-263-7342 (fax)
5085 Upper Pack River Road benbrook@hillnet.com [e-mail]
Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 http://www.pmac.net
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail