Trends in Predatory Mite Production and Delivery Systems Overview
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Overview • Clear trends in mite production – Move from plant based rearing to factitious host rearing – A move towards generalists Trends in predatory mite production and – Developments in formulation – Developments in delivery systems delivery systems – New factitious host species – Intellectual Property rights • Possible future trends Dr Richard GreatRex – Regulatory pressure (biodiversity) restricts use of new species Syngenta Bioline – Regulatory pressure (crop protection) encourages IPM Plant based production systems Rearing without plants • Limited yield per unit area dependent upon:- • Use a factitious host – a stored product mite – Plant health – pest “carrying capacity” where pest is used • Use a rearing substrate – bran, vermiculite – Rate of growth and cycle time • Rear in controlled environments – Light intensity and seasonality – Yield per unit volume advantages – Plant density – Yield consistency and quality • Limited capacity for treatment per unit area of production • Bulk processing reduces labour requirements • High costs • Higher yield/unit area – Land and facility costs • Lower facility and energy costs per mite/unit control – Energy consumption for heating/cooling, lighting • Less seasonality • Increasing rapidly – High labour costs for production and harvest • Poor for specialist predators – good for generalists • Essential for specialist predators Development of a Biological control product Rearing on factitious prey Amblyline cu CRS • Amblyseius (Neoseiulus) cucumeris and A.(N) barkeri reared on Acarus siro in bran • 1990 - Development and introduction of • Move to Tyrophagus putrescentiae – more vigorous mite, higher ‘CRS’ sachet by Bunting Biological yield potential Control – Works very well for N. cucumeris – Unique product giving continuous release of mites over 6 weeks - predator • Major improvements in production yield and uniformity does not need to establish • Capacity expansion – partial mechanisation of processes – No intellectual property rights • Has been an industrial scale process for >15 years • Competitor copies within 6 months • Development of delivery systems to improve product use and – No market recognition of the difference performance between products: “It’s all Amblyseius cucumeris” – Products are not the same! Impact of formulation and environment on emergence of A. cucumeris from sachets 7000 Growth room new formulation 6000 Greenhouse new formulation 5000 Growth room previous 4000 formulation 3000 2000 Number of mites 1000 0 7 14 21 28 35 42 Days You can blow them So how do you distribute 3131 –– 49% 49% survivalsurvival ofof mites in different crops? Phytoseiulus persimilispersimilis You can distribute them manually You can distribute them mechanically You can re-invent the sachet - Gemini sachets Grower reaction? 30 25 • Not really impressed • Too much labour needed for distribution of the product 20 Introduction needs 20 hours/hectare 15 Labour costs are 50% of the total production costs of chrysanthemums 10 Pest control (total) is 2-3% maximum. 5 Water resistant – contents stay dry 0 More predatory mites, better thrips 3 4 5 6 7 8 control Gemini Standard Patented delivery system An alternative system Percentage ICM in Dutch chrysanthemums Growers have Uses existing spray booms for 100 financialfinancial problemsproblems crop placement inin 20082008 90 700700 haha totaltotal 80% reduction in labour 80 490 ha using ICM Entire bed treated in 5 - 10 490 ha using ICM 70 minutes Bioline share = 80% Better distribution of the predatory 60 mites 50 No trauma to the mites 40 Water resistant 30 Per crop cycle produces 20 8,500 mites/m 5,000 mites/m² 10 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 DesignDesign is is protected protected by by our our existing existing patent! patent! Other distribution systems Factitious prey • Tyrophagus putrescentiae • A very useful Astigmatid mite • Long history of use – even a Chinese Patent! • Permits high density rearing of a few Phytoseiid mite species • Other species will eat them too, but:- – T. putrescentiae is too vigorous – Completely overwhelms cultures – Mass production is not consistent or economically feasible An expanding range of predators and target So how do we move on? pests • Other food sources Prey mites Predatory mites Targets – Artificial diets? – Pollen? Pre- Acarus siro Neoseiulus cucumeris Thrips – Other stored product mites? 2005 Tyrophagus putrescentiae T. tropicus Post- Acarus siro Neoseiulus cucumeris Thrips 2005 Tyrophagus putrescentiae Typhlodromips swirskii Whitefly T. tropicus T. montdorensis Spider mites Dermatophagoides farinae Neoseiulus californicus Eriophyid mites Carpoglyphus lactis Amblyseius andersoni Lepidoglyphus destructor Thyreophagus entomophaga Suidasia spp +++ Adaptive radiation? Development of intellectual property rights PhytoseiulusPhytoseiulus persimilispersimilis TyrophagusTyrophagus putrescentiaeputrescentiae IphiseusIphiseus • Research to develop new species, new rearing systems, and new degeneransdegenerans NeoseiulusNeoseiulus californicuscalifornicus Neoseiulus cucumeris delivery systems is expensive PollenPollen TetranychusTetranychus sppspp • Companies need a return on that investment x DermatophagoidesDermatophagoides farinae farinae TyphlodromipsTyphlodromips swirskiiswirskii • Rapid copying on new ideas destroys value CarpoglyphusCarpoglyphus lactislactis NeoseiulusNeoseiulus californicuscalifornicus – Removes incentive to innovate • Patenting protects investment LepidoglyphusLepidoglyphus destructor destructor AmblyseiusAmblyseius andersoniandersoni – Maintains value and income stream – Facilitates new research and development ThyreophagusThyreophagus TyphlodromipsTyphlodromips – Provides employment for Patent Attorneys! entomophagaentomophaga montdorensis AcarusAcarus sirosiro NeoseiulusNeoseiulus barkeribarkeri Euseius ovalis? Typhlodromalus limonicus? SuidasiaSuidasia spp spp Changing regulation Where next? • View of biological control is changing • Genetic modification? – Seen as a threat to biodiversity • Expanding the range by understanding the biology? – More countries implementing regulation • Greater use in outdoor cropping systems? – Increasing stringency of risk assessments – Increasing cost for producers • Movement into the crop protection mainstream? • At the same time, regulation of conventional crop protection is changing – Directive 2007/128/EC and Regulation 1107/2009 demand implementation of integrated solutions – IPM is compulsory – National action plans due for implementation in 2014 • Conflicting demands • Increasing demand for solutions, increasingly difficulty to bring them to market Summary • Key trends – Move from specialist to generalist predatory mites – Increasing range of factitious hosts – Increasing range of predatory mites – Increasing range of target pests and crops – Development of delivery systems – More efficient and more scaleable production systems – Increasing IP – Increasing regulatory challenges.