How it works is:  If you don't have bugs before they get there to sell you their services, you will after you turn them down.  Then you will need them.

Sounds a lot like this superweed problem.  And the antibiotic resistant bacteria problem, created by the drug corporations.  

But even superweeds yield to a string trimmer mounted on a plugin robot.  Turns those agrichem frankenstein weeds into mulch.  Program it to mow between the rows.

Agrichem mob goes down the road and targets another farm, passing yours by.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

This is a perfect example of biodiversity/natural selection in action.  Most weeds are susceptible to glyphosate (roundup) but there will always be a few that have genetic immunity. Just like some people got sick and died of the 1918 flu but not everyone did. AIDs and ebola kill most people infected, but not all people infected. Those that survive reproduce.

Keep spraying one herbicide, or more importantly just herbicides with the same mode of action, often enough and soon there will only be resistant weeds left since only they will be able to grow, reproduce and spread.

This principal doesn't just apply to chemical agriculture it applies to all agriculture.

Where only tillage is used to control weeds other resistant patterns  develop. Some weeds won't germinate until they are  exposed to flashes of sunlight caused by tillage. If you always plant early then late germinating weeds will quickly become dominant. If you plant late then winter annuals or early germinating weed populations grow.

If the early bird  gets the worm then soon the only worms you will find are ones that sleep late.

Life on earth isn't static and never was. The faster a population reproduces the quicker they will adapt to any changes in their environment. Since insects reproduce faster than weeds they gain immunity to common pesticides quicker than weeds become immune to herbicides. Since bacteria and fungi reproduce faster than both, anitbiotic and fungicide resistance develops quicker than pesticide or herbicide resistance.

Darwin got it right. Lorne0406

lorne0406

The evolution of herbicide-resistant weeds is not unique to glyphosate. Populations resistant to synthetic auxin herbicides were documented as far back as the 1950s. Resistance to triazines and acetolactate synthase inhibitors accompanied the extensive use of these two herbicide classes in the 1970s and 1990s, respectively. However, it wasn't until the anti-biotech movement in the 1990s that the term "superweed" entered regular rotation. "Superweed" is not a scientific term; it is an insidious media buzzword that has no place in any serious discussion of agricultural or weed management issues.

That being said, it is important to view glyphosate-resistance in a broader context.
The current development of glyphosate-resistant weeds comes as a surprise to no one given its current level of use, however the rate of resistance evolution is low relative to other herbicide classes. And new cases of resistance to herbicides other than glyphosate have essentially ceased in the last three years. So the overall rate of development of herbicide-resistant weeds has actually declined as a direct result of the widespread use of glyphosate-based weed management.

A couple other points to consider: 1) The increased use of glyphosate, a relatively safe compound, has been accompanied by a decline in the use of other less eco-friendly herbicides such as atrazine. 2) Chemical weed management in general, and glyphosate in particular, has enabled the continued growth of no-till agriculture, which has a myriad of benefits for both farmers and the environment.

Chemical weed management has its benefits and its weaknesses, just like every other human endeavor. Resistance is an inevitable consequence of any repeatedly used pest management tactic, chemical or not. Growers have dealt with resistance by rotating management tactics and incorporating new ones, and will continue to do so in the future. Herbicide resistance is a problem, but to characterize it as some sort of corporate conspiracy is absurd, and the use of imflammatory rhetoric in its discussion undermines the development of broader scientific understanding.