The AAIE Conference February 6 and 7 included
presentations about pest management programs either under
study or successfully developed that involve use of organisms
reared by ANBP producers: Matt Hand made the same
excellent presentation he made at the CAPCA Conference in
Anaheim about Avocado Pest Manage-ment, Dr. Nick Mills
presented on Trichogramma sp. in Pears and Cynthia
Treatment of well-proven predatory mite programs did not fare
as well on the agenda. We were exposed again to the
questionable conclusions of number-crunching "meta-analyst'
Douglas Shaw as presented by Ed Show. Shaw apparently
concludes that because researchers who actually conduct
evaluative research are biased by their quest for personal glory,
therefore, society needs creative statisticians like him. The real
truth, he purports, is essentially obtainable by putting all data
of every flavor from the earliest recorded publications into a
blender. Our members suggest that Shaw wrap up his recipe
for determining efficacy of P. persimilis by putting it in the
At its annual election, Jan Dietrick and Steve Nelson were
elected to the AAIE board, Jan as president-elect.
One note of hope for the future of the Medfly campaign comes
from a proposal from the University of California to do the
first concerted classical biological control expedition and study
of natural enemies of Medfly. UCR post-doctoral researcher
Dave Headrick presented at the AAIE Conference on this
proposal. He reviewed the history of attempts to find natural
enemies of the Medfly and why they failed. Some failed
because explorers did not go to the native home that turns out
to be some remote hillsides in the frontier between Kenya and
Tanzania. Another reason classical projects showed poorly
before is the particular organisms that have so far been tried
and the kinds of studies to evaluate them. Single-variable
studies with generalist parasitoids collected in various other
parts of the world can only be expected to manage 20%
The UCR study is begging for $212,000 over 2 years and the
money can't be raised! Note a similar proposal made 14 years
ago cost less than half. In the meantime, the more creative
APHIS gets with quarantine, the more expensive needed
classical projects become. One of these days fruit growers and
governmental trustees may get behind a back-up plan in case
Medfly does not keep getting eradicated by the present multi-
million dollar programs. If Dave makes it as far as the Dar es
Salaam General Post Office, he has a small supplemental
grant to send postcards featuring fruit-filled Medfly-free
Submitted by Jan Dietrick
As the Clinton administration and Congressional law-makers
work on a replacement to the Delaney clause, EPA agrees to
ban 36 cancer-causing pesticides over a 5-year period. One of
the most important pesticide lawsuits in history was filed 6
years ago. The impact is reportedly cushioned by other rulings
and regulations. There is a concensus in Washington that it
would be best if regulators are freed from the current law to
make relative determinations of risk, allowing certain uses of
materials that only cause very low incidence of cancer.
The Association of Natural Bio-Control Producers was formed
in 1990 by commercial insectaries to form a united voice on
regula-tory issues affecting the industry. It is also dedicated to
promoting quality standards and educating the agricultural
and academic communities, the media and the public about
the importance of beneficial arthropods for pest control.
There are 100 members of which 35 are producers and/or
suppliers of bio-control organisms.
Bio-Control Matters is intended to provide members of the
Association of Natural Bio-Control Producers with
information, thought and opinion on biological control
affairs, especially relating to national and international policy.
It advocates the interests of commercial biological control and
the public interest of quality agricultural production and
Bio-Control Matters is open to diverse perspectives and the
exchange of ideas that promote quality mass-rearing and distri-
bution as well as accurate technical information by the
industry. The opinions and viewpoints expressed by
contributors in signed articles and reviews are their own and
not necessarily those of ANBP. Send contributions for
consideration to producing editor Jan Dietrick, P.O. Box
1555, Ventura, CA 93002.
OTA, USDA, APHIS, NEPA, BEBEP, BATS, EPA, FIFRA,
PPA, etc. Welcome to the world of regulatory acronyms.
When we formed the Association, we had no idea of the
regulatory problems we would be faced with. EPA (FIFRA)
defines biological control agents as pesticides. And now the
new APHIS (BEBEP) proposed rules define biological control
agents as plant pests. ANBP members, university
researchers and USDA researchers have for the past several
years tried to point out to APHIS that biocontrols are not the
problem, but part of the solution to environmental pollution
and pesticide risk. Nevertheless, APHIS pursues the idea that
an environmental assessment must be prepared for each
biocontrol release, if the bio-control agent does not already
have a self-sustaining population at that locality! If we assume
that locality to be a county, and each environmenntal
assessment costs $5,000 (APHIS estimate), and there are
3,000 counties in the US, then we are looking at a potential
cost of $15 million to get permits to release one new
biocontrol agent within the US. There are 137 commercially
available species of biocontrol ogranisms listed from beneficial
suppliers in 1994. We see a regulatory nightmare on the
horizon. The potential cost to producers and suppliers is
mind-boggling. If fully implemented, these rules would put an
end to the use of biocontrols in the US. Vague assurances
that this will not happen are not sufficient. We must have
written assurances from APHIS that we are not going to be
regulated out of existence.
Glenn Scriven, ANBP President
PLANT PESTS: INTRODUCTION OF NONINDIGENOUS ORGANISMS"
Jan Dietrick of Rincon-Vitova Insectaries here takes some license
in a personal viewpoint regarding USDA-APHIS-PPQ-BATS new
proposed plant pest quarantine rules. For official Association
statement or other information, call Dan Cahn, Chair, ANBP
Regulatory Committee or ANBP President Glenn Scriven.
USDA Acting Secretary Richard Rominger assured ANBP
that APHIS proposed regulation will have a positive impact
on this emerging industry". Such was not the impression from
members who reviewed the proposed rules published in the
Federal Register just days before the ANBP Annual Meeting
in Santa Barbara.
At first review, why regulate certain Braconidae and no
Phytoseiidae? All Aphelinidae, Pteromalidae and
Trichogrammatidae, but not Chilopodae, Blattodea or
Culicidae? Because these are rules for plant pest exclusion!
How, then, are parasitoid Hymenopteran genera construed as
pests? With these rules, we can ship centipedes, cockroaches
and mosquitoes and let them go anywhere, but it would be
illegal to let beneficial arthropods loose anywhere where they
aren't already happily reproducing.
The APHIS call to rule-making is explained as resulting from a
Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) report
citing losses in the billions of dollars that can be attributed to
the negative effects of certain nonindigenous organisms....
Therefore, the proposed rules explain, "we [APHIS] are
proposing to establish comprehensive regulations governing
the introduction of those nonindigenous organisms that we
have reason to believe may be plant pests or may result in the
introduction or dissemination of plant pests." The OTA
report does not cite any losses from the importation,
movement or release of beneficial arthropods.
The burden of proof of no negative impact, however, is falling
on our low-budget, low-profit industry. Rincon-Vitova
Insectaries offers a way to perhaps turn the discussion to the
specific issues at hand by offering prizes of assorted proposed-
to-be-regulated organisms to anyone who can name their
worst known negative effect or indirect negative effect (or even
a potential negative effect OR even potential indirect negative
effect). Send entries to RVI, PO Box 1555, Ventura, CA
93002 or FAX to 805-643-6267.
Prizes will be given in each category: (1) known direct negative
effects, (2) known indirect negative effects, (3) potential
negative effects, and (4) potential indirect negative effects. In
addition to loss accounting, include amount and sources of
funds spent on the project and every given location where
effects were noted. APHIS employees may enter, however,
not with the USDA Harmonia or C7 beetle projects, unless
some new negative effect has been discovered that we haven't
wondered about already.
As one settles into a study of the proposed rules, one must
slow down and deeply ponder the definitions. Legal minds
wracked long and hard to come up with sufficiently vague
definitions. Within the global scope of nonindigenous and
"established, interesting scenarios cross the imaginary screen.
Say a flea-ridden Tom walks down an alley, hitchhikers
hopping off of him onto his new girlfriend at a place where
the old renters had never created an environment for hosts
(e.g. never owned a dog or catfood dish). This would legally
constitute a non-exempted release of a regulated non-
indigenous organism into an area where it has not formed a
self-sustaining, free-living population at a given location.
Tom better have three permits.
It has taken six years of diligent effort by APHIS legal defense
team to arrive at these 19 pages of small print. Protections are
needed, per BATS officials, in case of lawsuits by
environmentalists. Meanwhile many benign and possibly very
useful proposals for importation of beneficial organisms,
including many long-standing renewals are currently being
delayed or denied for months on end. APHIS actions have
been and are hurting our businesses, not to mention
obstructing the promotion of biological control.
Some of our members feel fairly well assured that with
precedented organism exemption lists, supposedly like we
have in California, or even courtesy permits (whatever those
are), our industry could live with these rules. But read what
the rules actually say. Permit applications are necessary for
every importation, every movement, and every release into
"any given location where there is no self-sustaining, free-
APHIS rules require detailed reporting about established
range and previous releases, environmental impacts, host
specificity under natural and artificial conditions, etc., etc.
APHIS somehow estimates it will take a Ph.D. level researcher
and staff about two weeks to prepare this information at a cost
of about $5,000 per permit application.
How long will it take who to decide based on what data
whether Trichogrammatoidea bactrae tried in a San Luis
Obispo tomato greenhouse for pinworm or on acres of organic
cabbage in Kern County or on peaches in Fresno County
could become established? Why must we ostensibly spend
$15,000 answering APHIS questions for these three
customers when California regulators already figured out it is
safe to release? Which is more legal to use on pepper aphid in
a Kansas City greenhouse: the indigenous pear psyllid
predator Deraeocoris brevis or a to-be-banned-someday
pesticide? Has Chrysoperla rufilabris made a permanent
home yet in Montana; is Chrysoperla carnea established on
Long Island; is Chrysoperla comanche established in
vineyards along the Blanco; can Amblyseius fallacis definitely
be found in the higher elevations of central Idaho? Could the
new offices of BATS be big enough to hold these files?
The State of California has an exemption list published in
Section 3558 of the California Plant Quarantine Manual
(1983). It covers all genera containing proven commercial
biological control agents, including proven exotics, and an
assortment of insects shipped to zoos to feed the reptiles. The
Code prohibits shippers from shipping these in conjunction
with host organisms. Moreover, California Department of
Food and Agriculture officials give prompt consideration to all
new applications through a well-tested, convenient process.
What does the State of California know that APHIS doesn't?
Here is some speculation:
California has a 100 year tradition of using biological control
organisms and appreciates their value in repeatedly successfully
saving California farmers from exotic pest invasions.
California, while having the largest diversity of microhabitats and
endemic species of any part of the country, yet has no record of
any negative effects from the many many releases of exotic
beneficials in the state.
California has appropriately knowledgeable staff including at least
one entomological taxonomist supporting the permit office and
they apparently have no great difficulty networking with
appropriate entomologists to find out enough to make a wise
California knows that making up rules is not the way to stop
people from suing. Actually, these APHIS rules seem to beg for a
The proposed rules have many elements that are vague and
confusing. In addition, vague promises of expanding the
exemption lists leave us concerned about how they are going
to be reinterpreted by every new administrator under every
new round of budget and staffing cuts and threats of
Everyone's common priority must be sustainable agricultural
productivity while avoiding risks to public health and the
environment. Hopefully, USDAs mission is to find ways to
spend its resources fostering collaborations, incentives and
management strategies toward such a common priority.
Submitted by Jan Dietrick
Copies of 7 CFR Part 335: Plant Pests: Introduction of
Nonindigenous Organisms, call Dr. Matt Royer, Chief
Operations Officer, BATS, PPQ, APHIS, USDA 301-436-
8896 (or 301-734-8896 in March).
Copies of OTA report: Harmful Non-Indigenous Species
in the US, (OTA-F-565, Washington, DC; US Government
printing Office, Sept. 1993).
FEBRUARY 5, 1995
SANTA BARBARA, CA
Notes from Panel Presenters and Forum:
Pesticide Policy and the Bio-Control Industry"
Larry Elworth, USDA Special Assistant for Pesticide Policy,
with a 15-year background as a Pennsylvania apple grower, is
now working for the Clinton Administration. He is trying
to improve cooperation between USDA and EPA to help
promote IPM. He reported difficulties bridging between
EPA and USDA scientists. USDA has excellent scientists
who do not understand how EPA administrators approach
things. Doing away with the Delaney clause that bans a lot of
pesticides is the high-profile discussion, but there are others:
Registrations: EPA is getting a better idea of agricultural needs
and USDA is more effectively anticipating grower needs related to
pesticide regulation. USDA is trying get EPA thinking about
what materials we positively want to register. He said it is hard for
EPA to make tough decisions, but it will make determinations
now within 18 months.
Research: We need new programs using competitive grants. For
example, the problems with the methyl bromide phase-out need to
be prioritized. Grower and practitioner groups must be involved
up front in designing the research into alternatives.
Technology transfer: We need new ways to educate about new
ideas. IPM systems require different skills and different thinking
within the grower community.
Paul Gosslein, Assistant Director of California's Department
of Pesticide Regulation, reported similar changes are going on
in Sacramento as in Washington with pressures to downsize
and streamline. Environ-mental quality standards won't
change, but processes have to change CAL-EPA is rethinking
the values and goals they have as a regulatory agency. A lot of
numerical goals have been kicked around. Defining and
achieving goals is more effective through cooperation keeping
within the overall mission toward environmental protection.
The report Challenge and Change" led to a new report on
pest management practices to reduce risk and they are working
now on these specific initiatives:
Registrations: CAL-EPA now accepts applications the same time
as US-EPA. There is an ombudsman to help facilitate
applications. They are getting away from using efficacy questions
to guide registration determinations. For example, soil
amendments with pesticide properties should be tied to the US-
EPA exemption process. We need to drop the barriers where we
don't really need them. Companies should just provide whatever
data they have and the product needs to stay within whatever the
Technology transfer: Several ideas will help get it going:
PCA Continuing Education: Biological pest management
continuing education credits will be required (4 hrs). They are
working to define what the courses will be.
Demonstration Grants: Funds are now available for projects,
especially modeled after the BIOS program, to get reduced risk
practices into the field, tapping into the existing experience
and knowledge that is already on-going.
IPM Innovators: A program started last year began with
defining what is a reduced risk system. BIOS is one example.
CAL-EPA will continue to work with the leaders of new
systems and beyond with other groups and replicate their
knowledge and philosophy.
Don Elliott of Applied Bionomics, LTD, reviewed
developments in Canada which have resulted in the
registration of biological control products and the use of
grower pest management plans. While there is good
communication between the biocontrol industry and
regulators, the regulatory activities of multiple departments
have been demanding and the benefits for agriculture and the
environment are not clear.
Joanne Wheatley, Professor, from Cal Poly University at
San Luis Obispo called for undergraduate training in
biological control for prospective practitioners and growers.
She said there is not an acceptable textbook on biological
control and theirs is the only college or university that offers
an undergraduate course.
Stan Xervas, Manager of Fillmore Insectary, noted the need
for soft pesticides and that new approaches are needed.
Beneficials cannot be plugged into the place of chemical
pesticides. Increasing reporting requirements is not always
appropriate. Historically, the success of the citrus cooperative
biocontrol programs depended on researchers being able to
get appropriate new beneficials through importation and this
needs to continue.
Kate Burroughs, owner of Harmony Farm Supply, was
originally a PCA making recommendations for non-toxic
materials. In 1980 when even Safer soap was hard to come
by, she decided she needed to supply the materials she was
recommending. Solving grower problems, Harmony Farm
Supply grew. Here are Kate's ideas regarding pesticide policy:
If a Material is Safe, Let's Say So: We need to have more safe
materials put on the approved list so their use would not need to
be documented. She explained that if she recommends using
something on restricted list, it is seen by the growers as some sort
of limitation on the use of that product. Also, growers who want
to use basically harmless materials in a holistic biointensive
integrated program should not have to sort out why regulators
have placed them on a restricted or illegal list. We need to go
beyond even the current exemption process and come up with
some generic level where we can say this material is safe enough.
Stop Evaluating Safety with Efficacy Standards: Requiring proof
of efficacy often distorts the role of a material in a whole system
with several tools together being efficacious even if the use of each
one separately is not appropriate. Organic and sustainable
technologies are quite different from the simplistic pesticide
approach and small or subtle inputs can sometimes make all the
Join More Powerful Voices to Policy-Makers: Kate reported on a
new movement that took shape at the 1995 Ecofarming
Conference, the Organic Suppliers Advisory Council (OSAC).
One of its recent actions is to question CAL-EPA about recent
rulings that agricultural wastes are toxic. The mission of the
Organic Suppliers Advisory Council is to try to develop a dialogue
with regulators over issues like these. Kate encouraged biocontrol
producers and distributors to join the Organic Trade Association
(OTA) that becomes membership in OSAC. The council's
coordinator is attorney Suzanne Vaupel who is working with
regulators. Membership includes a regulatory newsletter and
news alerts to get people to hearings and involved.
Kevin Olsen is Manager of Technical Services and Insectary
Manager for S & J Ranch. The ranch uses six beneficial
insect species as biocontrol agents on 5,000 acres of citrus,
5,000 acres of almonds and 1,500 acres of pistachios. Kevin
is concerned about the following issues:
Registration: EPA needs to speed the process for soft materials.
The non-toxic ant bait, LOGIC, has proved much more cost-
effective than Lorsban treatments on his ranch and registration in
states outside of Texas has been needlessly stalled for over 4 years.
The so-called fast track has been so jammed, it's become a regular
University Extension Must Focus on Technology Transfer: USDA
needs to financially support extension. Front-line farm advisors
are doing too much research and should be doing more with
extension. Funding tracks guide this choice of priorities so that
there are no human resources left for helping growers learn from
Keep the Federal IPM Initiative Practical: The federal
government should be careful how it initiates the IPM initiative.
Let's not create an extra bureaucratic layer. Let's financially
support the entities already involved, and lets make sure the IPM
coordination teams keep our interests in mind!
Pinpoint Problems before Defining Solutions.
Aid Both Large and Small Farms: Small growers have bigger risks,
sometimes a family's entire livelihood. Larger farms can be more
innovative and have an easier time installing biocontrol projects
on larger tracks. For this reason, the small farm must not be
overlooked as a target for technology transfer. Large growers also
benefit when the farm advisor helps the small farmers.
Cynthia Lashbrook explained,Since we and our neighbors
live on our farms, we are eager to reduce pesticide use. In
addition to transitioning her almonds from conventional to
organic 6 years ago, she is a PCA working with 30-60 growers
who want to leave their land to future generations. They want
to see quail and red-tail hawk back on their property. Here are
her policy recommendations:
Cooperation between Cooperative Extension and Growers: The
growers in her area have tried alternative strategies at their own
risk, and a lot of the methods they're using don't have a lot of
documentation. There is a needed and growing partnership of
UC Coop Extension with the farmers who started these systems on
their own, and with researchers and independent PCA's. People
involved in agriculture from all angles need to work together to
try to succeed with fewer chemical inputs.
Administrative Funding to Organize Expertise for Grower
Groups: The BIOS program (28 growers in Merced and 25 in
Stanislaus Counties) benefits from a mixture of expertise to come
up with a management plan for each farm. The most important
part is the interface of all the expertise. The California BIOS bill
will move the process into other crops. Where we need the
funding in the BIOS projects is in the administration of the
projects to strengthen the flow of information and to set up the
A Whole-systems Approach in Research: Researchers need to
learn how to study with new statistical models to help show the
value of different treatments. There is nobody that's going to
make a bunch of money off of many of these products and systems
and their value is very hard to prove because of the nature of
complex systems. Right now the growers and extension people
and farm advisors don't think holistic strategies based on
complexity are real, because they seem so far from our usual
experience. No two farms can be treated alike. The same
augmentative releases with Trichogramma in an orchard with a
bare ground agri-desert understory may not have the same
resulting low damage counts as a farm with a cover crop. We need
guidelines on how to make biocontrol releases as successful as
Pest Management Zones: Problems come up where you have a
small block surrounded by pesticide users. We need pest
management zones to protect from drift and expand diversity of
untreated habitat. BIOS is a regional support group for learning
methods, monitoring and identification of natural enemies.
Within the meetings, the farmers interact and talk. It helps them
balance the pesticide-oriented coffeeshop talk and being hit by
chemical sales oriented PCAs who recommend sprays when there
is no potential for economic damage. A farmer standing alone
and reading only the trade magazines is not as comfortable as a
farmer who comes to the BIOS group and can get alternatives
first-hand from experienced growers. ANBP members help the
pest control advisors working with the BIOS growers with how to
make successful releases of biocontrol organisms.
Commodity Boards Should Support Use of Alternatives: It is
terrible to see boards, packers and funders knocking people who
are pulling out pesticides. These growers should pull a premium
and get benefits from growing products with less pesticide instead
of being penalized.
Carol Glenister spoke on behalf of the ANBP Regulatory
Committee and is President of IPM Labs. She shared a
chronology of the year's activities trying to educate APHIS
about what regulations are appropriate for importation and
movement of beneficial organisms. She explained that
pesticide policy is being approached two different ways.
Neither agency has a clear and direct mandate to implement
regulations of biological controls.
EPA: Our products are legally defined as pesticides, then they
are exempted from regulation as pesticides, because it is held that
they are already adequately regulated by APHIS.
APHIS: Our products are called pests according to the only
laws available to APHIS by which to make regulations.
This year we experienced the first withdrawal of a permit for
movement of an indigenous organism. The ANBP white
paper on convergent lady beetles explained that there was no
good reason why the permit was withdrawn and APHIS
reconsidered its decision for existing permitholders because of
the damaging impact on their businesses. Key points are:
If they seek to require pure cultures, no other commodities are
required to be so pure.
Fear that lady beetles might be over-fished is unfounded and
already comes under the jurisdiction of Fish and Wildlife, not
Users say they buy them because they work and new research
shows that they do.
One ironic example of a much-talked about negative
environmental impact is the Harmonia lady beetle released by
APHIS that traveled over 20 years and overwinters in people's
homes creating a temporary nuisance.
SOME COMMENTS IN THE
Bill Olkowski (Bio-Integral Resource Center): We are
concerned about how to bring about pesticide use reduction
to protect surface and ground waters and keep methyl bromide
from damaging the ozone layer. The regulatory effort needs to
be geared to real problems. The current activity from APHIS
on the movement of biological control organisms looks like
harassment rather than responsible regulatory activity.
Everett Dietrick(Rincon-Vitova Insectaries): We want you
to take some common sense back to Washington.
Larry Elworth(USDA): Common sense in Washington?
You're right, our priority needs to be on more education and
less legislation, for consumer awareness, teaching the end-user
and more effective incentive systems for the private sector
Bob Luck (UCR): How does the discussion of policy fit
into actual programs? I can't release Aphytis in citrus without
controlling all the other pests in the system. The PCA and the
grower have to want to work with the program. It has to be an
"US" show. We are talking as though IPM is some sort of
definable state. It is really an on-going process. It takes
cooperation to put together research. Sole funding can't come
just from government. We need to hang out some carrots to
the commodity groups. Grower-funded programs would be
the top priority, because they could leverage tax dollars.
Paul Gosslein (CAL-EPA): Nothing is worth anything if it
relies on an infusion of government funding. We want to
avoid more licensing systems. While alternative technologies
are evolving, emphasis should be on management programs
in which biologicals are going to be conserved. How can the
state help identify and disseminate good models of how this
Recorded and summarized by Jan Dietrick
Goniozus legneri Gordh
Biological control scientist Dr. Fred Legner imported this
Hymenopteran ectophagus larval parasitoid of the Bethylidae
family from Argentina and Uruguay in 1979-80. It was
released in a study in the San Joaquin Valley for control of
navel orangeworm, a pest of almonds, walnuts, pistachios,
pecans, dates, carob and loquat. The docile wasp will
inoculate all trees within one month of an initial inoculation
and spread to at least 8 surrounding trees within 3 months
and up to 1,000 feet within 8 months. It overwinters
wherever no broad-spectrum pesticides are used, responding
in spring to increasing navel orangeworm densities. Even
light oils can be harmful to Goniozus wasps and they are
difficult to establish in the presence of pesticide drift.
Releases may begin mid-April or sooner, but may also be done
from July and after harvest to enhance control for the next
season. Mummy almonds removed from the trees during the
dormant season should be placed in window-screened, water-
protected containers and hung in tree scaffolds in the orchard,
protected from any dormant sprays. The Goniozus wasps can
then escape through the screen, leaving pest moths behind.
Goniozus legneri was first produced commercially by
Rincon-Vitova Insectaries in the
early 1980's, but the University Extension was still promoting
dormant oil sprays and
pesticides, so the growers did not get help from Farm Advisors
to learn how to use this
beneficial insect to their advantage. With no demand among growers,
was discontinued. A decade later Bo-Biotrol started commercial production and
now three insectaries including ANBP member Foothill Ag Research, now
produce the beneficial
for the nut orchard market in the San Joaquin Valley.
California almond grower and Pest Control Advisor Cynthia Lashbrook
made the February 1995
cover story in Nut Grower for successful use of commercial Goniozus
in her growers orchards.
Submitted by Jan Dietrick
Biological Control with Egg Parasitoids, Ed. E. Wajnberg and
S. A. Hassan, CAB International on behalf of IOBC. CABI,
Wallingford, Oxon OX10 8DE, UK, or in North America:
University of Arizona Press, 1-800-426-3797 ($77.37).
Papers coming out of the IOBC meetings in Europe:
Designing and Implementing Quality Control of Beneficial
Insects: Towards More Reliable Biological Pest Control", Report
of the Second Workshop, Evora, Portugal, 17-20, 9/94, J. C. van
lenteren, Department of Entomology, Wageningen Agriculture
Univiversity, P.O. Box 8031, 6700 EH Wageningen, The
Basic Statistical Tools for Quality Control Workers and
Molecular Methods for Identifying Species (or even strains) Used
for Biological Control, E. Wajnberg, Laboratoire de Biologie des
Invertebres, Unite de Biologie des Populations, INRA - 37 BD du
Cap, 06600 Antibes, France (email: wajnberg@antibes inra fr)
Broadening the Base: Financing Safer Pest Management Systems
in California", by Charles Benbrook for California EPA,
Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pest Management Advisory
Committee (PMAC). A discussion of projects and scenarios,
legislation affecting access to funding, private foundations, federal
budget process, program goals, funding levels, guidelines and
application instructions, details on appropriated levels of USDA
research and extension programs. Copies obtainable from James
W. Wells, Director, DPR, 1020 N. Street, Room 100, Sacramento,
Bio-Control Matters A Publication of the Association of
Natural Bio-Control Producers - Winter to Spring 1995
of the Natural Bio-Control