Bio-Control Matters

Glenn Scriven, President    Dan Cahn, Vice President
Lee Ann Merrill, Secretary-Treasurer
Board:   Jake Blehm, Jan Dietrick,  John Freeman, 
Carol Glenister, Tom Roberts, Don Elliot
Appointments and Committees 
Regulatory Committee:  Glenn Scriven, Don Elliott,Dan Cahn
QC Committee:  	Sinthya Penn, Carol Glenister, Lee Ann Merrill
1996 Annual Program Coordinator:  Jan Dietrick
Corporate Sponsorship/PR Committee:  Jake 
Blehm, John Freeman, Mac Burt, Tom Roberts, Sinthya Penn Editorial
Committee:  	Jan 
Dietrick, Carol Glenister, Glenn Scriven, Tom Roberts and MacClay Burt

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
BANS  36  
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 
environmental protection. 
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.
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

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-
living population. 
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 
trivial lawsuit.

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 
environmental lawsuits. 
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 
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 
label states. 
  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 
the research.
  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 
on-farm activities.
  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.     
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 
toward IPM.
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 
can work?
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,
commercial production 
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
legneri augmentation 
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, 
CA 95814-5624.

Bio-Control Matters A Publication of the Association of 
Natural Bio-Control Producers  - Winter to Spring 1995

Bio-Control Matters
News Quarterly 
of the Natural Bio-Control 
Spring  1995