Introduction
With the development of technology and the onset
of the associated information revolution, man
has come to know that his unrestrained encroachment
into the processes of nature has caused irreversible
damages to the world’s last surviving ecosystems.
Hence, the modern man is aware of the hazardous
effects of pesticides: the slow degrading action
of the chemical fertilizers that can render vast
stretches of land useless, and that he as a final
consumer of food will accumulate in his body,
the same poisons that he had used to kill insects
and pests. It therefore was quite obvious that
man would try and find out solutions that would
help him to maximize agricultural produce while
ensuring that the delicate balance in nature was
least disturbed. This is perhaps the reason why
man took his calculated step into the realm of
bio-control mechanisms, which was seen as a clean
alternative to chemical pest control mechanisms.
The impetus towards using bio-control was based
on the idea that if nature had definite established
systems of controlling species population, then
man too could use this knowledge selectively so
that he could eliminate some species while preserving
others.
Analysis
Bio-control mechanisms usually employ one species
against another species. The main trick is to
develop huge numbers of beneficial species that
causes least harm to man while causing maximum
damage to the pest. Scientists found out that
releasing huge number of animals that consume
human pests in nature would eliminate those species
that cause maximum damage to man and his economical
interests. Scientists and ecosystem experts believe
that the unhindered multiplication of a species
will eventually make it a pest. For example, rabbits
may help to keep the balance of an ecosystem,
but if they are not controlled in numbers, they
will soon wipe out the ecosystem. Bio-control
mechanisms strive to keep the number of the pests
under control by making the target species fight
for its survival.
Bio-control was and is considered to be a novel
technique by many because it uses no chemicals,
is safe to humans, and does not interfere with
the cycles of nature, as when he was using pesticides.
Bio-control would only mean that man would be
selectively magnifying one natural aspect of nature's
cycle. Breeding selective species would be much
more cost effective than developing new chemicals.
For example, it is estimated that in the United
States, the use of bio-control techniques is helping
farmers to save more than 88 million dollars each
year, which otherwise would have to be spent on
chemicals and its management costs [Soper,1991]
In addition, the prospect of chemicals becoming
obsolete in the near future is also considered
to be a drain on vital resources. Farmers usually
have to rotate chemicals for maximum efficiency
or even may have to discard chemicals and go in
for more costly options once pests become accustomed
to those chemicals. However, in the case of bio-control
mechanisms, these costs are considerably reduced
because no species ever becomes resistant to its
natural predator [Becker, 1992].
Social impact of chemicals is also a very important
factor that has encouraged bio-control mechanisms
in favor to chemical substances. Many parts of
the world are considered as glaring examples of
man's bad chemical management practices. It is
believed that in many parts of the world, the
use of chemicals has so much destroyed the ecosystem
that the natural vegetation may take years to
reclaim lost ground. The effects of these chemicals
on man and animals are very grave. Man and animals,
thanks to their body fat cells, can accumulate
these chemicals, which will have a severe residual
action on them for years. In addition, using bio-control
organisms can effectively stop the squabbles between
communities that invariably arise when natural
resources like water bodies and air are polluted
by the farmers. On the political front, bio-control
mechanisms may to a certain extent enhance good
relations between communities that may not look
eye to eye on matters concerning resources management
and their effective use.
I believe that bio-control is a better alternative
to chemicals even though both the systems interfere
with nature. While I would not vouch entirely
for bio-control techniques, especially in a huge
commercial scale, I would say that bi0-control
methodologies are far better when we consider
the adverse effects of chemicals on nature. Bio-control
technologies are in fact part of nature's plan
of controlling certain species that has the potential
to reach unmanageable proportions. Hence, we no
longer need to use a chemical that has a broad
spectrum effect. This means we no more have to
use those chemicals that in addition to killing
the pest, also kill lots of useful animals. Additionally,
chemicals accumulate in the human bodies and can
induce reactive responses in the human body for
many years. This means that chemicals are not
a solution; it is a desperate measure to get rid
of a species and in the process, many other beneficial
species will also be killed. On the contrary,
biological control is a solution for a specific
species. This means that bio-control mechanisms
are designed to eliminate a threat while chemicals
give rise to unmanageable threats.
The stress on diversity is a very important factor
that makes bio-control a hot favorite for scientists
and nature lovers. In fact, many nature scientists
had recently aired the apprehension that overuse
of bio-control mechanisms may alter the natural
balance to such an extent that it may spawn new
unmanageable problems. However, the main tactics
of scientists working on bio-control methodologies
is to use controlled numbers of a lot of organisms,
which ensures diversity of the ecosystem. Scientists
are already discouraging the use of a few well
known species and maintain that the use of more
diverse species will continually keep pests in
control. This will also enhance the ecological
diversity of an area because new species will
be encouraged to set up home in such ecologically
thriving ecosystems. This is in marked contrast
to the use of chemicals, which effectively destroys
all the species: harmful or not to commercial
agriculture, in an area [cook, 1993]
Recently a lot of unethical practices are being
practiced by chemical pesticide companies due
to the competition posed by the bio-control mechanisms.
For example, prominent chemical companies in the
United States have been actively encouraging the
development of plants that can withstand higher
levels of toxins. These plants, which are weeds,
will then be able to withstand normal herbicide
levels thereby compelling the farmer to use higher
doses of the chemicals [Rissler, 1991]. This example
proves how much unethical the chemical businesses
can get in spite of the dangerous after-effects
of these chemicals on the ecosystem. Bio-control
measures, though initially costly, would be able
to provide a clean alternative for reducing all
those pests that affects our commercial crops
in a bad way. This is because the main aim of
bio-control mechanisms is to reduce pests, not
eliminate them. This important difference in perspective
is enough to prove that bio-control mechanisms
are beneficial to the environment as a whole.
In fact I would say that bi0-control is the best
alternative among many that helps us to maximize
our agricultural profits while ensuring that we
are not guilty of destroying the environment in
doing so.
|