From sals@rain.orgThu Mar 2 00:13:07 1995 Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 18:11:08 -0800 From: sal schettino To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: Bio-Control Matters 1995 ANBP ANNUAL ELECTION RESULTS 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 APPLIED INSECT ECOLOGISTS MEET 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 deep-freeze. At its annual election, Jan Dietrick and Steve Nelson were elected to the AAIE board, Jan as president-elect. CLASSICAL MEDFLY PROPOSAL 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% parasitism. 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 bazaars. Submitted by Jan Dietrick EPA SETTLEMENT BANS 36 PESTICIDES 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. ABOUT ANBP 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. EDITORIAL PURPOSE 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. PRESIDENT'S CORNER 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- 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 determination. 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). HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE CONFERENCE 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 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 difference. 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 track. 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 possible. 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 USDA. 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 OPEN FORUM: 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 BENEFICIAL PROFILE: 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 NEW RESOURCES 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 Netherlands. 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 2 Bio-Control Matters News Quarterly of the Natural Bio-Control Industry Winter- Spring 1995