On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 06:58:29 +0100, Oz
posted:

Mooshie peas writes
On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 17:54:49 +0100, Oz
posted:

Mooshie peas writes
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 14:00:59 +0100, Oz
posted:

Mooshie peas writes
Of course, but it is a well known mechanism of resistance development,
sub-lethal doses that leave the partially susceptible mutants still
alive. Antibiotic treatments are a case in point. The importance of
finishing the full course prescribed, and not stopping when you feel
better.

1) A reminder that bacteria are much simpler than insects, and with a
higher breeding rate.

Of course. But their biochemistry is quite similar, save for the speed
of generation change.

The plant genome is immense by comparison.

Yep, but the biochemistry is surprisingly similar.

No. A small subset is similar.

Well most of the basic pathways IIRC. Sure bacteria don't do some of
the sophistcated stuff that multicelled orgs do, so they don't need
some of the enzymes used there.

2) No farmer applies pesticides in the above mentioned manner anyway.
It varies from typically one to three applications per season.

Of course, again, economics plays a strong role. Antibiotics are taken
on the assumption that reinfection will not occur, whereas pests are
constantly returning.

Indeed. The aim is to prevent significant damage, not to eradicate the
pest for the season (except perhaps weeds).

Sure, the aim is to get as much crop for as little expense as
possible. With farsightedness, a smaller profit might be accepted for
a likely increased profit over the next decade. The aim with pests
might be to eradicate them forever but being pragmatic....

I know of no pests that have ever been eradicated, even in the heady
days when DDT worked very well.

And the aim is to be perfectly good, yet I don't know one person who
is. Doesn't detract from the aim. About the only thing that has been
eliminated is a virus or two, theoretically. Is smallpox still kicking
around?