Interesting article... a few thoughts.
2) It's interesting the article doesn't distinguish between ester and amine formulations of 2,4-D, as that makes a tremendous difference in volatilization potential.
3) Drift is drift. Know your product and application method, you as an applicator are liable. There is a time to treat, and a time not to treat.
There is a need for both broader use of existing formulations and more prudent use of existing ones. Interesting dynamic...
Excellent points Dan, and right on target.
IMO, the two most significant factors that prompt "resistance issues" are:
-"Saving money by cutting dose-rates". Low-end dose-rates may indeed kill the most susceptable members of a target-population (whether weeds, insects or pathogens). However, pests that survive low-dose treatments often do so by virtue of a genetic trait that provides them with an elevated "tolerance". They, in turn, pass this trait along to their descendants. Multiple generations repetatively exposed to the low-dose approach eventually results in a surviving population that possesses a highly magnified genetic tolerance to the substance, which ultimately transitions into a fully resistant population - at any dose-rate. For this reason, most medications instruct the user to take the fully prescribed number of tablets/dosages, even though the patient may feel better after only a few capsules.
-Failure to rotate chemistries (as Bill previously mentioned). The most successful way to avoid resistance (toward insecticides, herbicides, fungicides and medications) is to rotate chemistries - and more specifically, modes-of-action. Most pesticides fall into one of a few catagories based on their mode-of-action (ie "how they work on the targeted pest"). Repetitive use of the same product, or even multiple products that occupy the same mode-of-action catagory, can easily cause the entire catagory to loose its effectiveness.
Bottom line: Although the lowest possible pesticide dose-rate may ostensibly seem "good for the environment", the long-term decline in the pesticide's efficiency and practical utility is put at risk; and any new products "in the pipeline" (under development) are innately more expensive than those that must be replaced due to efficacy issues.
