4 ms·
> One three-year study in Australia recorded cashew yields 49% higher in plots patrolled by ants compared with those protected by chemicals. Nut quality was hig
by 11thEarlOfMar 11y ago
> One three-year study in Australia recorded cashew yields 49% higher in plots patrolled by ants compared with those protected by chemicals. Nut quality was higher too, so net income was 71% higher with ants than with chemicals.
With results like these, there must be some reason why this was not discovered and put to widespread use already. What are is down side? Containment? How to keep them from spreading to unwanted areas, like the farm house?
- chepin 11y agoIt seems that the ants do not transmit diseases, unlike other insects.
- TsiCClawOfLight 11y agoMaybe I'm cynical, but I would say Monsanto.
- heliumcraft 11y agoPoe's law?
- niklasni1 11y agoI think invoking Monsanto falls under Godwin's.
- ZoeZoeBee 11y agoYou can use pesticides to keep the pests out of the farmhouse, Always best to keep the help separate ;)
- NeutronBoy 11y agoAt least in Australia, the existing equivalent case study is Cane Toads, which didn't turn out so well. I can understand why people may be hesitant to try with ants.
- MaysonL 11y agoNot to speak of rabbits…
- clord 11y agoCane toads are introduced. Are you telling me Australia has no ants?
- NeutronBoy 11y agoAll ants aren't native to all areas. This article is talking about transplanting weaver ant nests (which are native to tropical areas) from one area to another. The risks are still there. You can't take fruit between some areas in Australia because of the risk of fruit flies - I wouldn't be so quick to write off the possibility that certain species of ants might carry a similar risk. Northern Queensland certainly has some nasty ants that we don't have in the more southern states.
- PhasmaFelis 11y agoThis is a good point. Humans have a long history of deliberately introducing invasive species to control pests, and it almost always ends in disaster.