Quote:
Originally Posted by Chimera  I think the case you present about tolerance and residual build up is only valid in case of half hearted attempts at mite eradication. A snake has it's own defense against mites which is to soak in it's water bowl thus drowning the mites.
I think if people follow all the basic steps in mite eradication the exposure to TOD on the part of the snake can be minimised. If each attempt to eradicate mites is followed through to completion then the potential for genetically passed tolerance to TOD is removed. |
People have said this with every erradication attempt known to man. Inevitably an egg or mite will survive and pass on resistance. Hence why we have a synthetic pesticide industry. For the chemical to remain effective resistance issues need to be understood. Even in Agriculture the days of calender or preventitive spraying is over. IPM and pesticide group rotations are used to minimise resistance build up.
Insects can become resistant in a relatively short period of time as because of the many generations they have anually.
My argument is against the use of it as the only treatment and the use of it as a preventitive. You never should spray if the problem isn't there. If you cocentrate your efforts on cultural control such as enclosure design (making habitat unsuitable for mite reproduction), cleaning and quarantine then the need for spraying will be only in an emergency.
