DOCSLIB.ORG

Biologically Based Technologies for Pest Control

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Biologically Based Technologies for Pest Control References 1. “Adulterated Food” (342(a)(3)), Title 21 Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. (Food and Drugs 1 to 800) U.S. Code, 1972 Congress, Washington, DC, June 21, 1994. ed. 11. Association of Natural Bio-control Produc- 2. “Agricultural Experiment Stations” (361(a) ers, letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture, to 361(i)), Title 7 (Agriculture 281 to 1099) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Code, 1980 ed. Washington, DC, March 7, 1995. 3. “Agricultural Research Program” (450(i)), 12. Association of Natural Bio-control Produc- Title 7 (Agriculture: 281 to 1099) U.S. Code, ers, “Draft Policy Statement on Quality Con- 1980 ed. trol,” 1995. 4. Aldhous, P., “Malaria: Focus on Mosquito 13. Baker, B., California Certified Organic Genes,” Science 261(121):646–648, July 30, Farmers,CA, letter to the U.S. Department of 1993. Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health 5. Alms, M.J., National Alliance of Indepen- Inspection Service, Riverdale, MD, May dent Crop Consultants and Blue Earth Agro- 1995. nomics, Inc., Lake Crystal, MN, personal 14. Banfield, M.G., An Analysis of the Semio- communication, August 15, 1995. chemical Industry in North America, unpub- 6. Alms, M.J., “Challenges for IPM in the lished master’s thesis, 1991. Future: An Independent Crop Consultant’s 15. Barbosa, P., and Braxton, S., “A Proposed Perspective,” Second National Integrated Definition of Biological Control and Its Pest Management Symposium/Workshop— Relationship to Related Control Proceedings (Raleigh, NC: University Approaches” Pest Management: Biologi- Graphics, 1994). cally Based Technologies, R.D. Lumsden 7. American Society of Agronomy, National and J.L. Vaughn (eds.) (Washington, DC: Certified Crop Advisor—Performance American Chemical Society, 1993). Objectives, 1995. 16. Barnes, R., Executive Vice President, Amer- 8. Andow, D., Associate Professor, Depart- ican Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, ment of Entomology, University of Minne- personal communication, August 15, 1995. sota, St. Paul, MN, letter to the Office of 17. Bassari, J., Vice President, Rincon Vitova, Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Ventura, CA, personal communication,1995. Washington, DC, August 14, 1995. 18. Batkin, T., Manager, California Citrus 9. Andow, D., Associate Professor, Depart- Research Board, Visalia, CA, personal com- ment of Entomology, University of Minne- munication, August 16, 1995. sota, St. Paul, MN, letter to the Office of 19. Beard, A., Acting Head, Emergency Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Response and Minor Use Section, U.S. Washington, DC, March 9, 1995. Environmental Protection Agency, Wash- 10. Aplet, G., Forest Ecologist, The Wilderness ington, DC, personal communication, May Society, Washington, DC, letter to the 5, 1995. | 181 182 | Biologically Based Technologies for Pest Control 20. Beard, J.D., “Bug Detectives Crack the 30. Bolkan, H.A., and Reinert, W.R., “Develop- Tough Cases,” Science 254(38):1580–1582, ing and Implementing IPM Strategies to December 13, 1991. Assist Farmers: An Industry Approach,” 21. Beasley, C., Executive Vice President, Flor- Plant Disease 78(6): 545–550, June 1994. ida Citrus Processors’ Association, Winter 31. Bonanno, A.R., “Grower Needs and Haven, FL, personal communication, Involvement in IPM,” Second National Inte- August 16, 1995. grated Pest Management Symposium/Work- 22. Becker, J.O., and Schwinn, F.J., “Control of shop Proceedings (Las Vegas, NV: ESCOP Soil-Bourne Pathogens With Living Bacteria Pest Management Strategies Subcommittee, and Fungi: Status and Outlook,” Pesticide ES IPM Task Force, April 19–22, 1994). Science 37:355–363, 1993. 32. Bridges, D.C. (ed.), Crop Loses Due to 23. Bedoukian, R., President, American Semio- Weeds in the United States—1992 (Cham- chemicals Association, Danbury, CT, letter paign, IL: Weed Society of America, 1992). to the Office of Technology Assessment, 33. Briggi, N., Director of Marketing, Novo U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, August 15, Nordisk America, Davis, CA, letter to the 1994. Office of Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, February 22, 24. Bellows, T., Professor, Department of Ento- 1994. mology, University of California, Riverside, 34. Brooks, H., et al., Acting Associate Admin- CA, personal communication, August 1, istrator, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. 1993. Department of Agriculture, Washington, 25. Benbrook, C.M., and Marquart, D.J., Chal- DC, “Biologically Based Pest Control Prod- lenge and Change: A Progressive Approach ucts,” unpublished paper prepared for H. to Pesticide Regulation in California, con- Brooks by industry representatives for a tractor report prepared for the California meeting on cooperation between ARS and Environmental Protection Agency, Depart- the pest control industry and on ARS support ment of Pesticide Regulation (Sacramento, of related APHIS activities, Washington, CA: April 1993). DC, August 8, 1994. 26. Bengston, D., Agricultural Commissioner, 35. Browning, H., State Agricultural Experi- County of Mendocino, Department of Agri- ment Station, University of Florida, Gaines- culture, Ukiah, CA, letter to Richard ville, FL, personal communication, August Rominger, Deputy Secretary of Agriculture, 1995. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washing- 36. Bunn, D., et al., “Consumer Acceptance of ton, DC, February 21, 1995. Imperfect Produce,” The Journal of Con- 27. Birdsall, S.L. and Ritter D., Imperial Valley sumer Affairs 24(2):268–279, 1990. Agricultural Commissioner and Whitefly 37. Burt, M., Executive Officer, Association of Program Coordinator, unpublished report Natural Bio-control Producers, personal on the economic impact of the silverleaf communication, July 21, 1995. whitefly in Imperial Valley, Imperial Valley, 37A.California Department of Food and Agricul- CA, 1994. ture, Organic Program, “Producing, Han- 28. Blehm, J., President, Buena Biosystems, dling, and Processing Organic Products in Ventura, CA, personal communications, California,” Sacramento, CA, 1994. August 3, 1993, October 13, 1994, and May 38. Campbell Soup Company, Integrated Pest 9, 1995. Management Research and Implementation, 29. Bolkan, H.A., “Campbell Soup Company “Economic Profitability and Environmen- Integrated Pest Management,” IPM Monitor, tally Compatible Alternatives,” Products Summer 1994. and Progress Report, 1994–1995. References | 183 39. Cardé, R., Professor, Department of Ento- 48. Ciba-Geigy Corporation, “All About mology, University of Massachusetts, Agree,” advertising brochure, Greensboro, Amherst, MA, letter to the Office of Tech- NC, 1995. nology Assessment, U.S. Congress, Wash- 49. Cibulsky, R., Manager, Licensing/Business ington, DC, July 16, 1995. Development, Abbott Laboratories, North 40. Cardé, R.T., Professor, Department of Ento- Chicago, IL, fax to the Office of Technology mology, University of Massachusetts, Assessment, U.S. Congress, Washington, Amherst, MA, remarks made at the Advi- DC, August 18, 1995. sory Panel meeting on Biologically Based 50. Cofrancesco, A., Research Entomologist, Technologies for Pest Control, Office of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Technology Assessment, U.S. Congress, MS, personal communication, May 12, Washington, DC, July 13, 1995. 1995. 41. Cardé, R., and Minks, A., “Control of Moth 51. Cofrancesco, A., Research Entomologist, Pests By Mating Disruption: Successes and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, Constraints,” Annual Review of Entomology MS, fax to the Office of Technology Assess- 40:559–585, 1995. ment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, 42. Cardineau, G.A., Director, Molecular Biol- August 1995. ogy, Mycogen Corporation, San Diego, CA, 52. Community Alliance with Family Farmers letter to the Office of Technology Assess- Foundation, “BIOS: A New Project Promot- ment, U.S. Congress, Washington, DC, ing Biological Almond Farming,” Davis, August 7, 1995. CA, 1995. 43. Carruthers, R.I. and Onsanger, J.A., “Per- 53. “Company News,” Biotech Reporter spective on the Use of Exotic Natural Ene- 12(1):8, January 1995. mies for Biological Control of Pest 54. “Control and Eradication of Plant Pests” Grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae),” (147), Title 7 (Agriculture: 1 to 280) U.S. Environmental Entomology 22(5): 885–903, Code, 1980 ed. October 1993. 55. Cooper, K., “Effects of Pesticides on Wild- 44. Cate, J.R., and Hinkle, M.K., Integrated Pest life,” Handbook of Pesticide Toxicology Management: The Path of a Paradigm, Volume I, W.J. Hayes Jr. and E.R. Laws Jr. National Audubon Society (Alexandria, VA: (eds.) (San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Weadon Printing, Inc., July 1994). Inc., 1991). 45. Centre For Agriculture and Biosciences 56. Coulson, J.R., “The TAG: Development International, Using Biodiversity to Protect Functions, Procedures, and Problems,” Reg- Biodiversity: Biological Control, Conserva- ulation and Guidelines: Critical Issues in tion and the Biodiversity Convention (Wall- Biological Control: Proceedings of a USDA/ ingford, Oxon, UK: 1994). CSRS National Workshop, R. Charudattan 46. Charudattan, R., and Browning, H.W. (eds.), and H.W. Browning (eds.) (Gainesville, FL: Regulations and Guidelines: Critical Issues University of Florida, 1992). in Biological Control—Proceedings of a 57. Coulson, J.R., and Soper, R.S., “Protocols USDA/CSRS National Workshop (Gaines- For the Introduction of Biological Control ville, FL: University of Florida, 1992). Agents in the U.S.,” Plant Protection and 47. Chow, F., Supervisory Chemist, Biopesti- Quarantine, Volume III, R.P. Kahn (ed.) cides and Pollution Prevention Division, (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Integrated Pest Managemnent ~~R, Him4 T
    Integrated Pest Managemnent ~~r, him4 t. I~­ f4 ,..,.. 9,.. i Ulf U k gA, fi 0I,. i f. Council on Environmental Quality Integrated Pest Management December 1979 Written by Dale G. Bottrell K' Preface For many centuries human settlements, both agricultural and urban, have had to contend with a variety of unwanted and sometimes harmful insects, weeds, microorgan­ isms, rodents, and other organisms-collectively, "pests." During the use of chemical last four decades, p'sticides has become the predominant method of controlling these unwanted organisms in much of the world, including the United States. synthetic Production of organic pesticides in this countty alone has increased from less than 500,000 pounds in 1951 to an estimated 1.4 billion pounds in 1977. A decade ago, there was rising public concern over the accumulation pesticides of in the environment, with resulting adverse effects on some fish and wildlife populations and hazards to human health. In response to the problems, the Council on Environmental Quality undertook a study of alternative methods Integrated of pest control. Pest Management, published in 1972, stimulated increased national and international interest in integrated pest management-IPM-as an cient, economically effi­ environmentally preferable approach to pest control, particularly in agriculture. Since then much has been learned about the effects of pesticides, and programs have been developed which put the concept of IPM into practice. began a In 1976 the Council more comprehensive review of integrated pest management in the United States, giving attention to the potential for IPM programs in forestry, public health, urban systems and as well as in agriculture.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Pest Control
    ■ ,VVXHG LQ IXUWKHUDQFH RI WKH &RRSHUDWLYH ([WHQVLRQ :RUN$FWV RI 0D\ DQG -XQH LQ FRRSHUDWLRQ ZLWK WKH 8QLWHG 6WDWHV 'HSDUWPHQWRI$JULFXOWXUH 'LUHFWRU&RRSHUDWLYH([WHQVLRQ8QLYHUVLW\RI0LVVRXUL&ROXPELD02 ■DQHTXDORSSRUWXQLW\$'$LQVWLWXWLRQ■■H[WHQVLRQPLVVRXULHGX AGRICULTURE Biological Pest Control ntegrated pest management (IPM) involves the use of a combination of strategies to reduce pest populations Steps for conserving beneficial insects Isafely and economically. This guide describes various • Recognize beneficial insects. agents of biological pest control. These strategies include judicious use of pesticides and cultural practices, such as • Minimize insecticide applications. crop rotation, tillage, timing of planting or harvesting, • Use selective (microbial) insecticides, or treat selectively. planting trap crops, sanitation, and use of natural enemies. • Maintain ground covers and crop residues. • Provide pollen and nectar sources or artificial foods. Natural vs. biological control Natural pest control results from living and nonliving Predators and parasites factors and has no human involvement. For example, weather and wind are nonliving factors that can contribute Predator insects actively hunt and feed on other insects, to natural control of an insect pest. Living factors could often preying on numerous species. Parasitic insects lay include a fungus or pathogen that naturally controls a pest. their eggs on or in the body of certain other insects, and Biological pest control does involve human action and the young feed on and often destroy their hosts. Not all is often achieved through the use of beneficial insects that predacious or parasitic insects are beneficial; some kill the are natural enemies of the pest. Biological control is not the natural enemies of pests instead of the pests themselves, so natural control of pests by their natural enemies; host plant be sure to properly identify an insect as beneficial before resistance; or the judicious use of pesticides.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Control and Agricultural Modernization: Towards Resolution of Some Contradictions
    Agriculture and Human Values 14: 303±310, 1997. c 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands. Biological control and agricultural modernization: Towards resolution of some contradictions Miguel A. Altieri, Peter M. Rosset and Clara I. Nicholls ESPM-Division of Insect Biology, University of California, Berkeley, USA Accepted in revised form June 12, 1997 Abstract. An emergent contradiction in the contemporary development of biological control is that of the prevalence of the substitution of periodic releases of natural enemies for chemical insecticides and the dominance of biotechnologically developed transgenic crops. Input substitution leaves in place the monoculture nature of agroecosystems, which in itself is a key factor in encouraging pest problems. Biotechnology, now under corporate control, creates more dependency and can potentially lead to Bt resistance, thus excluding from the market a key biopesticide. Approaches for putting back biological control into the hands of farmers (from artesanal biotechnology for grassroots biopesticide production Cuban style to farmer-to-farmer IPM networks, etc.) have been developed as a way to create a farmer centered approach to biological control Key words: Biological control, Environmental policy, IPM programs Miguel A. Altieri is Associate Professor, University of California, Berkeley. General Coordinator of the UNDP sponsored program Sustainable Agriculture Networking and Extension (SANE) promoting capacity building in agro- ecology in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chairman of the CGiAR-NGO committee to encourage partnerships among NGOs and International Agricultural Research Centers to scale-up agroecological strategies. Peter M. Rosset is the Executive Director of Food First ± The Institute for Food and Development Policy, based in Oakland, California.
    [Show full text]
  • Plant Extracts As Biological Control Agents Jagessar RC* Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Guyana, South America
    www.biogenericpublishers.com Article Type: Review Article Received: 07/10/2020 Published: 09/11/2020 DOI: 10.46718/JBGSR.2020.05.000123 Plant Extracts as Biological Control Agents Jagessar RC* Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Guyana, South America *Corresponding author: Jagessar Rc, Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of Guyana, South America Abstract Over the years, synthetic pesticides have been used by farmers to control and eradicate pests, with a view to increase crop production and productivity. However, scientists have found that synthetic pesticides are detrimental to the environment, are expensive, non-biodegradable and can increase pest resistivity. To continue to mitigate pest control in crops, there has been the use of organic pesticides as biological controllable agents against pests in crops. Such a practice is easier, less costly, eco and environmentally friendly and eliminate pesticide residues etc and make agriculture, agricultural products and market sustainable, and increase food security around the globe. The use of plant extracts as bio-controlling agents or “green agrochemicals” should be intensified, so that there is a gradual phasing out of synthetic organic pesticides. This article, gives a mini review of the use of plant extracts as natural pesticides or biological control agents against disease inducing pests that destroy agricultural crops. Keywords: synthetic pesticides; crop production and productivity; organic pesticides; biological control.
    [Show full text]
  • Weed Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed Symposium
    Weed Biocontrol: Extended Abstracts from the 1997 Interagency Noxious-Weed Symposium Dennis Isaacson Martha H. Brookes Technical Coordinators U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Morgantown, WV and Oregon Department of Agriculture Salem, OR June 1999 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Many of the tasks of organizing a symposium such as this — and there are many — are not obvious, and, if they are handled well, the effort that goes into them can easily be overlooked. Sherry Kudna of the Oregon Department of Agriculture Weed Control staff managed most of the arrangements and took care of many, many details, which helped the symposium run smoothly. We truly appreciate her many contributions. We also acknowledge the contributions of the presenters. They not only organized their own presentations and manuscripts, but also assisted with reviewing drafts of each other’s papers in the proceedings. Several of the presenters also covered their own expenses. Such dedication speaks well of their commitment to improving the practice of weed biocontrol. Both the Oregon State Office of the Bureau of Land Management and the USDA Forest Service made major contributions to supporting the symposium. Although several individuals from both organizations provided assistance, we especially note the encouragement and advice of Bob Bolton, Oregon Bureau of Land Management Weed Control Coordinator, and the willingness to help and financial support for publishing this document from Richard C. Reardon, Biocontrol/Biopesticides Program Manager, USDA Forest Service's Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team, Morgantown, WV. We thank Tinathan Coger for layout and design and Patricia Dougherty for printing advice and coordination of the manuscript We also thank Barbra Mullin, Montana State Department of Agriculture, who delivered the keynote address; Tami Lowry, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, who helped format the document; and Eric Coombs, who provided the photographs of weeds and agents that convey the concepts of weed biocontrol.
    [Show full text]
  • Commercially Available Biocontrol Agents
    25th Year of Publication Volume XXV, Number 7/8, July/August 2003 Commercially Available Biological Control Agents By William Olkowski, Everett Photo courtesy of USDA Dietrick, Helga Olkowski and William Quarles s environmental effects of chemical pesticides are A becoming better understood, there is increasing pressure to replace the more toxic materials. In some cases, biological controls can help reduce, or sometimes replace, these toxic chemicals. Biocontrols are especially useful for crop produc- tion in greenhouses, and are well adapted to the needs of organic agri- culture. Biocontrols can be released in parks and landscapes to relieve pest pressures in municipal IPM pro- grams. Biocontrols also have a home in the backyard garden. The beneficial insects and mites produced by the biological control A Trichogramma sp. wasp is ovipositing inside the egg of a caterpillar. The industry can be divided into two developing parasitoid will prevent the pest caterpillar from developing. general groups: predators and para- sitoids. [Herbivorous weed biocon- parasitoids also feed directly on the are more selective than predators trol agents that are collected and pest organism through wounds and generally feed only on one sold commercially, microbials, and made when they insert their eggs, group, and often on only one devel- beneficial nematodes will be covered and so have two modes of killing opmental stage of the pest. For in future articles.] Predators such pests. example, Trichogramma miniwasps as the spined soldier bug, Podisus The most widely produced para- only attack the eggs of moths and maculiventris, minute pirate bug, sitoids are various Trichogramma butterflies. Because they have a Orius tristicolor, and the convergent species, which attack caterpillar more limited range of prey, and lady beetle, Hippodamia convergens, eggs.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Natural Enemies for Biological Control of Pest Insects
    An Introduction to Natural Biological control Enemies for Biological Control of Pest Insects Use of natural enemies to keep unwanted pest populations low Anna Fiedler, Doug Landis, Rufus Isaacs, Julianna Tuell Dept. of Entomology, Michigan State University Natural enemies Lady beetles (Coccinellidae) Predator • Predators: eat many prey • Most adults and larvae feed in a lifetime, feeding both on soft-bodied insects. These as young and as adults. may be important in aphid • Parasitoids: specialized population control. insects that develop as a • Adults are rounded, and young in one host, range in size from tiny to ¼ Scott Bauer eventually killing it. inch long. Color ranges from • Pathogens: nematodes, black to brightly colored. viruses, bacteria, fungi, • Larvae are active and protozoans. elongate with long legs, and look like tiny alligators. Mary Gardiner Soldier beetles Predaceous ground (Cantharidae) Predator beetles (Carabidae) Predator • Adults feed on nectar and pollen and • Most are predaceous on are often found at flowers. insects in and on the soil as • Some adults eat aphids, insect eggs adults and larvae. and larvae or feed on both flowers • Adults are most active at and insects. night, dark in color, with long • Adults are elongate, with red, orange, legs. or yellow and black patterns on head • Larvae are often in leaf litter and abdomen. Adults are ¼ to ¾ inch or soil and are elongate. long, with soft wing covers. Susan Ellis • Some feed on seeds and can Debbie Waters, Univ. of Georgia • Larvae are dark, flattened and reduce the number of weed elongate. Larvae feed on eggs and seeds in agricultural systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Potential of Bacterial Chitinolytic, Stenotrophomonas Maltophilia, In
    Jabeen et al. Egyptian Journal of Biological Pest Control (2018) 28:86 Egyptian Journal of https://doi.org/10.1186/s41938-018-0092-6 Biological Pest Control RESEARCH Open Access Potential of bacterial chitinolytic, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, in biological control of termites Faiza Jabeen1*, Ali Hussain2, Maleeha Manzoor1, Tahira Younis1, Azhar Rasul1 and Javed Iqbal Qazi3 Abstract Termites are important pest of crops, trees, and household wooden installments. Two species Coptotermes heimi and Heterotermes indicola are the major species of termites that results in great economic loss in Asia including Pakistan. Chitinases have drawn interest because of their relevance as biological control of pests. The study was performed to screen chitinolytic bacteria from dead termites and to determine their chitinolytic activity in degrading chitin content of termites. Ten isolates were obtained forming clear zones on chitin-containing agar plates. One isolate (JF66) had the highest (3.3 mm) chitinolytic index. Based on sequence of 16S rRNA gene, the isolate was identified as Stenotrophomonas maltophilia with (99%) similarity under Accession number KC849451 (JF66), and DNA G + C content was found to be (54.17%). S. maltophilia (JF66) produces chitinases upto 1757.41 U/ ml at 30 °C and pH 6.0 employing diammonium phosphate as a nitrogen source. Chitinase gene was also extracted and gets sequenced that confirmed its presence. Whole culture and different concentrations of crude enzyme of the isolate were tested on the chitin covering of termites. Mortalities showed that crude enzyme of isolate could degrade chitin of both species of the termites C. heimi and H. indicola. Chitinase produced by S.
    [Show full text]
  • Pest and Disease Management: Organic Ecosystem
    Pest and Disease Management: Organic Ecosystem Pest and Disease Management: Organic Ecosystem Pest and Disease Management in Organic Ecosystem General Immense commercialisation of agriculture has had a very negative effect on the environment. The use of pesticides has led to enormous levels of chemical buildup in our environment, in soil, water, air, in animals and even in our own bodies. Fertilisers have a short-term effect on productivity but a longer-term negative effect on the environment where they remain for years after leaching and running off, contaminating ground water and water bodies. The use of hybrid seeds and the practice of monoculture has led to a severe threat to local and indigenous varieties, whose germplasm can be lost for ever. All this for "productivity". In the name of growing more to feed the earth, it has taken the wrong road of unsustainability. The effects show - farmers committing suicide in growing numbers with every passing year; the horrendous effects of pesticide sprays, pesticide contaminated bottled water and aerated beverages are only some instances. The bigger picture that rarely makes news however is that millions of people are still underfed, and where they do get enough to eat, the food they eat has the capability to eventually kill them. Another negative effect of this trend has been on the fortunes of the farming communities worldwide. Despite this so-called increased productivity, farmers in practically every country around the world have seen a downturn in their fortunes. This is where organic farming comes in. Organic farming has the capability to take care of each of these problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Pest Control 1 Biological Pest Control
    Biological pest control 1 Biological pest control The current scope of this article does not include composting techniques. For these see Composting: Destroying pathogens, seeds, or unwanted plants or Mulch: Mulching (composting) over unwanted plants. Biological control is a method of controlling pests (including insects, mites, weeds and plant diseases) using other living organisms. It relies on predation, parasitism, herbivory, or other natural mechanisms, but typically also involves an active human management role. It can be an important component of integrated pest management (IPM) programs. There are three basic types of biological pest control strategies: importation (sometimes called classical biological control), augmentation and conservation. Natural enemies of insect pests, also known as biological control agents, include predators, parasitoids, and pathogens. Biological control agents of plant diseases are most often referred to as antagonists. Biological control agents of weeds include herbivores and plant pathogens. Types of biological pest control There are three basic types of biological pest control strategies: importation (sometimes called classical biological control), augmentation and conservation.[1] Importation Importation (or "classical biological control") involves the introduction of a pest's natural enemies to a new locale where they do not occur naturally. This is usually done by government authorities. In many instances the complex of natural enemies associated with a pest may be inadequate, a situation that can occur when a pest is accidentally introduced into a new geographic area, without its associated natural enemies. These introduced pests are referred to as exotic pests and comprise about 40% of the insect pests in the United States. The process of importation involves determining the origin of the introduced pest and then collecting appropriate natural enemies associated with the pest or closely related species.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Organic Insect Pest Management: Be a Better Entomologist Or Pay for Someone Who Is
    insects Review The Future of Organic Insect Pest Management: Be a Better Entomologist or Pay for Someone Who Is David Headrick Horticulture and Crop Science Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407, USA; [email protected] Simple Summary: The Federal National Organic Program (NOP) guidelines for pest management can be viewed as constraining to certified organic growers giving them a “limited toolbox” rela- tive to non-organic crop production systems. Certifying agencies work with individual growers in setting boundaries for acceptable pest management tactics and enforce compliance for annual certification, but the knowledge required to have a successful insect pest management program can be overwhelming for growers. Traditional grower educational programs are challenged in providing the needed one-on-one training and follow up to ensure growers successfully master current and adopt newly developed pest management tactics. Gaps in the guidelines, such as monitoring, if included, could aid in grower adoption of practices that inform better decision-making and efficacy. This review promotes the idea that these issues can be overcome by utilizing experiential learning programs to educate growers and paid professionals, such as a pest control advisor. If the pest control advisor is a valued partner in the educational and extension process, they can be an effective advocate, educator, mentor, and assessor reaching more growers than education/extension programs alone, thus, achieving the NOP’s philosophical goal of a production system managed to respond to site-specific conditions. Citation: Headrick, D. The Future of Abstract: Insect pest management in certified organic production systems presents considerable Organic Insect Pest Management: Be challenges for growers.
    [Show full text]
  • Biologically Based Technologies for Pest Control
    The Context 2 he way pests are managed in the United characteristics that differentiate them from most States is changing. A growing emphasis conventional pesticides:1 is on reducing the reliance on conven- ■ narrow spectrum of action, that is, affecting tional pesticides. Strong public opinion T only one or a narrowly defined class of organ- coupled with legislative and executive actions by isms; state and federal governments is driving this ■ relatively low probability of harmful environ- change. Farmers, foresters, ranchers, homeown- mental impacts; and ers, and others who seek to prevent excessive ■ general lack of significant adverse impacts on pest damage are increasingly aware of the short- human health.2 comings of many conventional approaches to pest control. Yet their need for effective methods These BBTs for pest management are biologi- is acute. Meeting this need with a diversity of cal control, microbial pesticides, pest behavior- pest control tools and techniques poses a signifi- modifying chemicals, genetic manipulation of cant challenge. It is in this context that Congress pest populations, and plant immunization (box has asked the Office of Technology Assessment 2-1). The tools raise a unified set of technical and (OTA) to examine the current and potential policy issues. BBTs comprise a significant part future role of biologically based technologies of the “reduced-risk pesticides,” “biopesticides,” (BBTs) in the nation’s pest management prac- and “biorational pesticides” that are receiving a tices. good deal of attention in federal and state policy The OTA assessment covers a group of tech- initiatives.3 nologies that are grounded in an understanding OTA’s assessment takes a critical look at of pest biology and generally have the following these BBTs.
    [Show full text]