Biological Control | The Bug Farm

Posts Tagged 'Biological Control'

Our Vision for Sustainable Pest Management – Part 3: Incentivize regenerative organic and ban disruptive chemical pesticides

by Ron Whitehurst, PCA and co-owner Rincon-Vitova Insectaries, Inc.

“Organic” has different meanings, but the particular meaning that is quite valuable for making state policies is its meaning as “the USDA Organic Label” because it is working to help consumers support the farmers who have moved away from chemical input-based farming. From a farmer’s perspective organic

The term “regenerative agriculture” also has varied meanings. “Regenerative” is an important term, because it is becoming increasingly recognized to have greater potential for carbon farming and carbon credits that are not as strong a focus in practices required for organic certification. The U. S. House Agriculture Committee recently held a hearing on “Soil Health Practices and Programs that Support Regenerative Agriculture”. “Regenerative organic” was the term they used to describe farming systems that sequester more carbon. There was agreement during the hearing that ‘standards’ for regenerative beyond those developed for the Regenerative Organic Certification label are not necessary. There are many ways to achieve the performance and economic outcomes beyond being organic that are recognizable and highly meaningful for farmers. The consensus advice among those farmers and their consultants walking this road is to just get started and to keep the metrics focused on what soil, leaf and sap analysis shows the crop needs to build soil microbiology and optimum plant health. The baseline is little or no toxic chemical or artificial nitrogen inputs.

“Biodiversity-based” is another useful term to describe a farming system that is getting off of disruptive pesticides. It is used by the preeminent French agricultural research team at INRA, because it is a descriptive rounding out of the concept of a continuum framework for change. The INRA framework and terms are descriptive without making value judgments, with chemical input-based farming systems at one end of the continuum and biodiversity-based at the other end. Biological input-based systems are the ones in-between.

The INRA farming system framework is useful for those reasons, but we also still need to refer to organic and regenerative agriculture if we are serious about getting off of chemical pesticides because organic is how the market supports farmers, and it is measurable and growing, despite red tape, costs, and sometimes frustrating arbitrary standards in the National Organic Program. Regenerative is the term farmers are using to describe the systems changes that are working well for them to transition away from chemical inputs. Finally, a movement is emerging that is being called “regenerative organic” where the economics are favorable and the resilience value is vital.

Camarillo organic farmer Phil McGrath of McGrath Family of Farmers and his biodiverse habitat border planting.

Transition to organic must be incentivized to scale pesticide use reduction. Public kitchens should be required to spend a gradually increasing part of their budgets on products labeled organic that are grown locally. It is smart to make the most of the developed infrastructure for certifying and inspecting and continuous review of the standards for eliminating use of synthetic pesticides. California’s newly enacted goal of net carbon neutrality by 2045 is going to prioritize investment in organic farms to make more farms sequester more carbon faster. Such farms experience fewer pest problems. The future is bright for achieving ambitious goals, because it is more profitable when farmers learn to grow healthy soils that grow healthy plants that minimize pests. In a future article we will share more of the science behind that.

The state should incentivize farmers to transition including paying organic fees. Subsidizing the costs to be certified organic is a no-brainer. County jurisdictions can also support local organic farmers. A 2016 survey showed that in counties characterized as an “organic hotspot” the median household income was $2,000 higher and the poverty rate was 1.35% lower (Jaenicke, 2016). Counties may offer favored tax treatment, help with Land Conservation Act contracts, and earn income from carbon farming accreditation.

Some organic farmers can meet the minimum standards, but are not building the healthiest soil or producing the healthiest plants that resist pests. The standards and inspections do not go deep enough to ensure systemic changes that are considered regenerative or biodiversity-based. The biological inputs allowed in organic can be costly and disruptive to biodiversity and biological control. Yet, organic certification of acreage is a ready benchmark, because it says that the farmer is moving toward a farming system that serves the state’s goals. Not only should we use the metric of “percent of farm acreage in organic” to measure progress, we should also incentivize farmers to become certified in ANY comparable label, e.g. Real Organic Project, Regenerative Organic Certification, and the Demeter Biodynamic Certification. Consumers keep learning how and why to support the more resilient biodiversity-based farms that protect people and biodiversity.

Our goal can be that organic acreage reaches 30% of all California farmland by 2030 from 4% last year, and to 80% by 2040.

Meanwhile, what do we do with all these toxic pesticides? First, we should develop and promulgate real SPM alternatives and enforce laws that require the consideration of alternatives. Agriculture Commissions provide limited transparency and consistency about compliance with state law to consider alternatives before permitting use of Danger and Warning signal word registered materials.

Create a Community Support Fund to provide direct protections from Danger and Warning signal word registered pesticides. This includes buffer zones, indoor home air purifiers/filters, tarping of all fumigations, personal protective equipment and other actions that minimize synthetic pesticide exposure for people nearby. There is additionally an urgent need for cancer cluster studies and other exposure programs to identify and help communities burdened with chronic health impacts. Decisions on how the fund is spent are the prerogative of those most impacted by pesticide use.

Notify interested people of intent to use pesticides via texts or emails at least 72 hours before site-specific intent to use all Danger and Warning signal word pesticides (not just Restricted Materials). A notification program should be done for all products with potential acute or chronic risk to people on and near the site. Access must be available to those not living nearby, e.g. consultants and migrant laborers who need to know when toxic chemicals are planned before traveling to a farm.

Ban neonics. They were supposedly proven to have very low mammalian toxicity, but with time we’ve found that neonics are associated with damage to nerve cells and developmental and reproductive problems, including congenital heart and brain defects in which a large part of the skull is absent along with the cerebral hemispheres of the brain. There are also associations with autism and a disorder involving both memory loss and finger tremor. It is ironic that the macho act of spraying pesticides to kill and dominate pests results in effeminized male offspring. Touted as low-risk because users didn’t die immediately and the disastrous effects on pollinators were buried and suppressed through the influence of manufacturers. The EPA has been captured. Harm to reproductive organs was not studied and the other findings have not been taken seriously. [Omidashk et.al. 2022]

Ban glyphosate. FDA scientists determined in 1984 that this active ingredient in herbicides like Roundup is a human carcinogen, but there were internal EPA disagreements about the significance of the finding. A 2001 study again showed malignant lymphoma in mice exposed to glyphosate. A follow-up study concluded glyphosate exposure can result in liver and kidney damage. A literature review in 2015 showed birth defects, tumors and liver damage at doses below the dose that industry tests deemed safe. Other animal studies show endocrine disruption, reproductive and developmental damage, including damage to sperm, damage to DNA, and neurotoxicity. [Robinson, et.al. 2018]

*Diagram of different negative effects of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide. Formulated herbicides with glyphosate are 10 to 100 times more toxic than glyphosate,*
*depending on target species.*

Ban pesticides whose toxicity tests have been determined to have been falsified. The toxicity studies on glyphosate and Roundup have been shown in public records requests from EPA to have been falsified, likewise the studies of Chlorpyrifos effects on pollinators that finally led to California banning it. What other tests were manipulated to pass safety tests? The harmful physiological effects of paraquat and rotenone are undisputed, but the epidemiological studies for relationship to Parkinson’s Disease and cardiac disease are mixed. Is the data from necessary two-year animal studies trustworthy? At least 85 pesticides have been banned in China, Brazil, or the European Union that were still used in the U.S. in 2016 and that number has almost certainly increased.

Ban pesticide formulations that have not been the subject of long-term safety studies. There is strong evidence that adjuvants contained in pesticide formulations can be highly toxic compared to the active ingredient alone. The formulation of herbicides containing glyphosate have never been the subject of long-term safety studies.The actual product that we are exposed to must be tested, otherwise all safety claims are bogus. [Cox and Zeiss 2022]

Ban all pesticides that make people sick. Consider people who don’t have significant input into the decision about whether to register the pesticide. Farmers put toxins into the environment, the commons, that cause their neighbors harm, using a license from the state. Financial considerations have been more important to DPR than protecting public health. Or as Will Rogers, Cherokee and cowboy humorist, said, “we have the best government that money can buy.”

Decrease use of and phase out pesticides that may contribute to cumulative effects, gut microbiome disruption, and Toxicant Induced Loss of Tolerance (TILT) in which the nervous system reacts in a wide array of symptoms after low-level chemical exposures. Dr. Claudia Miller professor emerita at the University of Texas San Antonio raises connections to a wide range of public health diseases in numerous peer-reviewed publications, and the professionally acclaimed book, Chemical Exposures: Low Levels and High Stakes reporting on the failure of the regulatory system to fully evaluate and control for the range of adverse effects of pesticides and complexity of their interactions.

Eliminate all toxic chemical pesticides by 2040 leaving only OMRI-approved products with no exceptions for emergency use for longer than three years. It took decades to finally get rid of methyl bromide after it was banned.

In conclusion, banning toxic pesticides is easy when we are achieving the economic and resilience benefits of transition to regenerative organic agriculture and biodiversity-based farming systems. Citizens of California are asking the state for relief from harm. Do not register toxic, hazardous, pesticides that make people sick and cause reproductive harm. Include actions to protect communities, particularly when we are just beginning to meet long-range reduction targets. Our system of evaluating toxicity and negative effects of pesticides is flawed. Particularly if we know these pesticides are causing harm, then the time to ban them is immediately. If the Roadmap aims for a 90% reduction in residues in soil, we need to start now, as the pesticide half-life must be taken into account, with some more persistent than others.

References

Cox, Caroline and Michael Zeiss. “Health, Pesticide Adjuvants, and Inert Ingredients: California Case Study Illustrates Need for Data Access”. Environmental Health Perspectives, 130:8, Aug 2022.

Delta Institute and Earth Economics (2017). “Valuing the Ecosystem Service Benefits from Regenerative Agriculture Practices–Farmland LP 2017 Impact Report”.

Jaenicke, E. Penn State Ag Economist. (2016) U.S. Organic Hotspots and their Benefit to Local Economies prepared for Organic Trade Association https://ota.com/sites/default/files/indexed_files/OTA-HotSpotsWhitePaper-OnlineVersion.pdf

Omidakhsh, Negar, Julia E. Heck, Myles Cockburn, Chenxiao Ling, Jerome M. Hershman, and Avital Harari, “Thyroid Cancer and Pesticide Use in a Central California Agricultural Area: A Case Control Study”, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2022, XX, 1–9

Robinson, C., Antoniou, M., and Fagan, J. GMO Myths and Truths, 2018. Pp 149-162.

Our Vision for Sustainable Pest Management Part 2: Defining how SPM actions relate to each other- Rev 9/23/22

Published September 6, 2022 Biological Control , RVI , SPM (Sustainable Pest Management) Leave a Comment
Tags: Biological Control, IPM, SPM

by Ron Whitehurst, PCA, and co-owner Rincon-Vitova Insectaries, Inc.

DEFINITIONS ARE CRITICALLY IMPORTANT

We sometimes hear people talk about “biologicals” as if the word is interchangeable with biological control. It is an example of lack of understanding about the full meaning of biological control in the transition away from conventional chemical control. Agreement on the vocabulary for agroecology, insect ecology and biological control is essential for productive conversations and successful pest management.

We like to use definitions from Biological Control by Natural Enemies (1974) by Paul DeBach modified by Huffacker and Dahlston to include antagonists of plant pathogens. These align with those used by David Headrick, Professor of Agricultural Entomology, Biological Control of Agricultural Pests, Vertebrate and Insect Pest Management in the Plant Protection Science Program at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo.

In a recent personal communication, Dr. Headrick wrote:

“Definitions are critically important, and I am particularly frustrated by the blurring of the lines on what is and isn’t biological control throughout the industry. I agree with the definitions of biological control that you have provided below. It is important to consider the difference between natural control and human-aided biological control, with biological control being the use of populations of natural enemies (imported or naturally occurring) to control or reduce populations of pests with various methods.”

Our mentor Deke’s understanding about biological control drew on countless hours of discussions over many years including on skin-diving trips. Here are UC entomology researchers Everett “Deke” Dietrick (l) with Paul DeBach (center) and Blair Bartlett (r), Moro Beach ~1948.

Our mentor Everett J. “Deke” Dietrick favored Paul DeBach’s terms and ideas. Deke, Paul, Blair Bartlett and a few other eminent biocontrol entomologists shared a love of not just biological control, but also enjoyed a long friendship and lively discussions while searching for the perfect skin diving cove between Laguna and Cabo Pulmo. Such conversations animated their lunch hour handball games at the Riverside Citrus Experiment Station (now UCR) as well as field trips including with Evert Schlinger, Robert van den Bosch, Fred Legner, Dan Gonzales, and others. This cadre of biocontrol entomologists helped Deke develop the clarity and confidence to leave the University of California and become the first consultant in California relying solely on biological control by natural enemies to manage pests. This was before the invention of the term “IPM or Integrated Pest Management”. He called what he and enthusiastic consultant associates did for farmers “Supervised Control”.

The birth of IPM and EBPM (Ecological-Based Pest Management) and the ‘Path of a Paradigm’ will be a later deep dive in this series for those interested in a sufficiently broad conceptual framework for talking about transition. But first, let’s agree on the terminology.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEFINITIONS:

Biological control, when considered from the ecological viewpoint as a phase of natural control, can be defined as the action of parasites, predators, and pathogens and antagonists in maintaining another organism’s population density at a lower average than would occur in their absence. [DeBach, 1974]

Note: It can be measured, human manipulation is not implicit and it does not include plant selection for resistance to pests. Biological control by natural enemies is central to transition from chemical input-dependent systems. When monitoring shows that there are enough natural enemies so that biological control is working, the complexity of phenomena may be too costly to measure and assess what actions are critical. The greater the biodiversity, the greater the complexity of interactions, the greater likelihood of a good ratio of natural enemy populations over pest populations. (See monitoring)

Applied biological control is the study, importation, conservation, and augmentation of natural enemies for the regulation of population densities of other organism’s abundance below the level of economic injury. Applied biological control can be achieved in differing degrees of economic importance which have been distinguished as partial, substantial or complete.

Natural control (sometimes called naturally occurring biological control) may be defined as the regulation of populations within certain more or less regular upper and lower limits over a period of time by any one or any combination of natural factors. [DeBach, 1974]

Augmentative biological control is the mass collecting or rearing and release of natural enemies (predators, parasites and pathogens) to control pests in a timely seasonal or inundative manner to prevent population increases, or to suppress a pest population, sometimes called inundative releases to differentiate from colonizations.

Classical or importation biological control is the foreign exploration, importation and colonization of natural enemies of a pest of exotic origin that lacks natural enemies to suppress their populations.

Conservation biological control is about conserving natural enemies either by reduction/elimination of toxic pesticides or enhancing/modifying the environment to invoke/enhance/supplement natural control.

Note: This is a useful definition that covers all of the newer terms like ecological pest management in regenerative organic agriculture, farmscaping, biodiversity-based agriculture, and so on, that work by conserving biological control.

Biological control monitoring consists of skills and tools to assess the ratio of the pest and natural enemy populations to indicate whether biological control is increasing or decreasing. Each farming and cropping system has relevant observable phenomena that can be identified, counted, recorded, and compared with samples from other sites or time scales. Sometimes visual inspection, sticky or pheromone traps are sufficient. Sometimes a sweep net is essential and sometimes a vacuum insect net is the only way to observe the presence of important natural enemies. Identification of organisms follows monitoring of the insect ecology. The required accuracy in counting sample contents and the precision in identification depends on the level of consequence for cost-effective decision-making.

Biological action level is the density of key pests relative to the biological control at a particular stage in the crop cycle and the pest cycle that suggests that the application of one or more natural enemies will help ensure that the pest population stays below economic injury levels.

Note: David Headrick explains that the timing of applications of natural enemies, i.e. the biological control action levels, has to be carefully thought through and monitoring has to be more intensive than for chemical control action levels.

Economic injury level is the number of insects (amount of injury) that will cause yield losses equal to the cost of insect management – generally used for pesticide application decisions.

Chemical action level or threshold is the pest density at which the pesticide application should be done to prevent an increasing pest population from reaching the economic injury level.

Beneficial organisms in the context of SPM are predators, parasites, and pathogens and their antagonists contributing to biological control. The term does not typically include fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles, and mammals, but it can.

Natural enemies in the context of SPM refers collectively to all of the predators, parasites, and pathogens and their antagonists that reduce numbers of pest insects and mites, and may include fish, amphibians, birds, reptiles, and mammals, e.g. bats and other rodents. Organisms can have key roles as predators and may also transport beneficial parasites and pathogens in biodiversity-based farming systems. [UC-IPM]

Biologicals are products derived from naturally occurring microorganisms, plant extracts, insects or other organic matter that may be categorized as 1) biostimulants to enhance plant growth and productivity, 2) biopesticides to protect plants from pests, or 3) biofertility or plant nutrition products.

Note: A “biological” is an input whereas “biological control” is its larger sense a characteristic of the ecosystem. Biologicals are often products viewed as alternatives to chemical pesticides. They may still disrupt biological control by negative impacts on natural enemies.

Biopesticides are certain types of pesticides, 1) biochemicals, 2) microbials, and 3) Plant-Incorporated-Protectants (PIPs) derived from such natural materials as animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals. [US-EPA]

Biological control entomology is the applied branch of zoological study dealing with insects and loosely including other arthropods (e.g. spiders and mites) for the purpose of controlling pests through conservation, importation, colonization and augmentation of beneficial organisms. Biological control deals principally with insects because most pest species are insects and most insect pests have natural enemies.

Biological control phytopathology and entomo-pathology are branches of study dealing respectively with the interaction between pathogens and plants and between pathogens and insects.

Biodiversity-based farming systems rely on re-designing the site-, space-, and time-specific practices and production approaches to create a high biological diversification and intensification. It is knowledge-intensive with outcomes of greater productivity and fertility from less exogenous inputs, and greater resilience to external impacts. This approach introduces a paradigm shift in expectations. It requires integration of interconnected processes, including influences of chemicals and/or low and very low short low-frequency waves, as well as integration of organization levels in ecological systems, such as landscape level populations and communities. [Duru, et. al. 2015]

Biological input-based farming systems rely on external biological more than chemical inputs to increase efficiency in combination with incremental substitution changes or system adaptations, such as organic fertilizers, and low-risk biological and botanical pesticides that mimic natural phenomena in biodiverse agroecosystems. This approach may integrate conservation, colonization and/or augmentation biological control [Duru, et. al. 2015]

Chemical input-based farming systems rely on external chemical inputs and technologies for improved efficiency and yield, that often include the use of Haber-Bosch-based nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus fertilizers and chemical pesticides that optimize yield while limiting pollution. This approach may integrate conservation, colonization and/or augmentation biological control. Prohibition of nitrogen run-off may lead to use of cover crops in sensitive areas or in landscape features to prevent water pollution. Larger farm sizes and economies of scale may be required to afford the cost of technologies, such as sensors, spray equipment with targeting ability, drones, robots, satellites, cultivars and animal breeds. [Duru, et. al. 2015]

Efficiency/substitution approaches are economically driven practices within a chemical or biological input-based farming system. They are often top-down, developed by companies selling products or advisors that have evaluated products to meet expectations of greater profits by greater efficiency and use of technologies and innovations that reduce costs. [Duru, et. al. 2015]

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) IPM is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment. [UC-IPM]

Sustainable Pest Management (SPM) is an agroecological approach within a spectrum of continual improvement to prevent, minimize, and manage pests in ways that protect human health and are environmentally sound, socially equitable and just, and economically viable. Pests are managed by combining biological, cultural, physical (including the use of new technologies that can improve detection, precise interventions, and plant resistance to pests), and, only when absolutely necessary, chemical tools, in a way that minimizes economic, health, and environmental risks.

Organic as a labeling term indicates that the food or other agricultural product has been produced by approved methods. USDA organic regulations require the application of a set of cultural, biological, and mechanical practices that foster cycling of on-farm resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. These include maintaining or enhancing soil and water quality; conserving wetlands, woodlands, and wildlife; and avoiding use of synthetic fertilizers or pesticides, sewage sludge, irradiation, and genetic engineering.

Regenerative agriculture has been called a land management philosophy. It involves the development of biodiversity-based farming systems focused on agroecological principles and practices that

minimize soil disturbance;
cover soil by mulching and multi-species cover crops or pasturage to prevent erosion and minimize weed growth;
rotate crops to increase nutrient cycling, soil fertility, and water retention;
increase plant diversity to conserve wildlife, pollinators and biological control and increase soil microbial abundance;
keep living roots in the soil as much as possible to protect soil microbes and retain water and nutrients; and,
integrate animals into the farm as much as possible that adds nutrients and builds soil organic matter.

It draws on knowledge from agroecology, agroforestry, organic practices, and holistic and rotational grazing. It offers increased yields and profit, improved watersheds, and enhanced ecosystem services, such as restoration of small water cycles, carbon drawdown and potential for accreditation for carbon and “eco” credits, resilience to climate instability, and better health and vitality for farming communities.

Regenerative organic encompasses organic farming and then raises the bar, prioritizing building soil health as a way to fight climate change. A holistic system, regenerative organic sees the well-being of earth, humans and animals as interconnected. High standards for animal and worker welfare are critical. It does not mean that the farm has Regenerative Organic Certification; it means that the farm is striving to apply these principles. [Patagonia Provisions]

Regenerative Organic Certification (ROC) is a label that can be added to organic certification for farms that meet higher standards in three areas: Soil Health & Land Management, Animal Welfare, and Social Fairness. Producers can choose to meet a beginning set of criteria (Bronze), an intermediate (Silver) or the highest achievable level of regenerative organic production (Gold). There are additional fees for ROC certification.

Real Organic Project (ROP) is a label that can be added to organic certification for farms that grow their plants in healthy, living soil and raise their animals humanely and on pasture to help consumers differentiate farms that are growing their animals and crops to both the letter and spirit of the certified organic standards. There is no fee for ROP certification.

Demeter Biodynamic Certification is a label that indicates that a comprehensive organic method has been used that requires the creation and management of a closed system minimally dependent on imported materials, and instead meets its needs from the living dynamics of the farm itself. The standard reflects the characteristics of biodiversity-based farming systems. There are fees to become certified.

REFERENCES

DeBach, P., Biological Control by Natural Enemies, Cambridge University Press, 1974.

Duru, M., Therond, O., Martin, G. et al. How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35, 1259–1281 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1

Huffaker, C.B. and D. L. Dahlsten, “Scope and Significance of Biological Control”, in Bellows, T. S. and T. W. Fisher, Ed: Handbook of Biological Control, Academic Press, 1999.

We Don’t Need GMO Corn

Published November 1, 2012 Ecology , Label GMOs Leave a Comment
Tags: Biological Control, GMO, pesticides

When tiny corn earworm caterpillars start hatching and munching and the farmer sprays with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), the little worms ingest some of the Bt bacterial spores. Bt reacts in their guts to make a toxin that eats holes in the gut walls, so they get sick and die, but the risk to animals and people is low. Bt in this form is a natural biological pesticide spray approved for organic crops. It washes off and degrades rapidly. Rincon-Vitova sells dry granular Bt for a backup control against caterpillar pests that get past the predators and parasites.

Corn Pests Can Be Managed Cost Effectively Using Biological Methods

Corn earworm and European cornborer are key pests of corn in different regions. Before big corporate agribusiness and bad farm policies put so many small to medium sized farmers out of business, they used crop rotations and early planting as part of integrated pest management. Much more can be done than has been with using adult suppression and habitat enhancement for predators to set the stage for good biological control. Coleomegila maculata and other predatory beetles and bugs can eat many egg masses before they even hatch. Likewise, green lacewing larvae and other predators contribute to biocontrol of caterpillars.

Patenting Seeds Creates Profit Motive Favoring Unnatural Methods

Big corporations are unlikely to ever own these farming tools. US patent law has not yet been perverted to allow the likes of Monsanto to mess with the genes of beneficial insects and mites, engineering little M’s on their dorsal thoraces. (Some entomologists have undoubtedly dabbled with the genes of predators and parasites, but it’s been easier to persuade farmers to pay the big bucks for GMO seed than GMO beneficials.) Monsanto that owns the seed and the Roundup herbicide figured it was losing potential Roundup profits, so it is now stacking the “Roundup gene” with the “Bt gene” onto the corn genome.

Now, whether they grow corn, soy, canola, sugar beets, or alfalfa hay, farmers can sign a technology use agreement (a contract) to buy a lot more Roundup from their seed company and make their weeds into superweeds (resistant to glyphosate) a lot faster. These are the trends leading to big monocultures of GM crops and superweeds replacing natural cultural and biocontrol strategies, with a loss of the knowledge and skills for biological farming.

Rincon-Vitova Promoting Biocontrol in Corn for Fifty Years

Trichogramma, a micro-wasp that lives on moth eggs, is the foundation of biological systems for growing corn and cotton. It is relatively inexpensive to produce in adequate numbers to prevent most of the moth eggs from becoming caterpillars. My father Everett J. “Deke” Dietrick began mass rearing this egg parasitoid in 1960. “Trichos” can give 70-95% control when used in a biological farming system. That means no repeated blanketing of the farm with Roundup that reduces soil ecology and fertility, and harms the diversity of biocontrol hosts and sources of pollen and nectar for resident natural enemies. Habrobracon hebetor is produced as a second line of defense against caterpillars in Central Asian cotton and the same could be done in corn here. See page 23 of Sacha Greenberg’s resume where he describes leading such a project.

The best way for farmers to have Trichogramma when they need it is to cooperate to support a regional insectary to grow Trichogramma, as well as something like the Bracon wasp or another larval parasitoid to be ready in case Trichogramma and naturally occuring predators don’t clean up the moth eggs and small worms fast enough. The insectary will grow enough so all supporting farms in the region to get the recommended amount, but it is released in the hotspots wherever the moths are laying eggs and the larval parasites where larvae are not coming under biological control. A third line of defense is Bt and other virus based insecticides can be developed or sourced as a last resort on problem areas, like Gemstar or isolates of polyhedrosis virus

Such natural methods have been proven safe and effective for decades. Our customers grow sweet corn with few or no worms and rarely or never even resort to Bt sprays. Bottom line: pests can be cost-effectively managed in corn without genetically engineering the corn plant to be a pesticide and tolerate repeated applications of Roundup to the whole field.

Benefits to Farmers from GE Crops Unsupported

Charles Benbrook’s recent analysis shows more use of herbicide in GM crops. So why are farmers opting for Bt/Roundup Ready corn instead of using safe and effective biological pest control? Why aren’t farmers organizing to have predators and parasitoids and biological materials? Why do many farmers only know about the Bt option promoted with billions of annual profits of Big Biotech? The Union of Concerned Scientists corrected a wrong impression about GM crops offering better yields. The potential for an increase in yield is only 5%. There are reports of GM crops needing more water and being less drought resistant. This report requires a subscription to ISIS to see comparative photos. There is no yield advantage if that season’s corn borer pressure is so low that the farmer would not have treated for it anyway. Biotech funded research touts higher yields, but common sense says they may be more clever at manipulating study designs than genomes!

You will see negative reports and comments about the papers in the above paragraph. The biotech industry is threatened by this data that shows that biotech crops fail in providing any value to farmers. The biotech cheerleaders are all heaping derision on the studies and ad hominum attacks against the researchers. But these independent research studies are peer-reviewed and the way science works, these data stand until another peer reviewed study is published that challenges the data questioning the economic viability of GMOs for farmers. All of the people dissing these studies are not peers and their comments in no way negate the facts – GMO crops have failed, are failing, and offer no improvement/benefits for the future. GMO Myths and Truths: An evidence-based examination of the claims made for the safety and efficacy of genetically modified crops done by top world experts explains the findings of all relevant peer reviewed studies in 123 pages.

Meanwhile On the Farm

Still farmers are gambling on a mixed hand dealt by Casino Monsanto. “Next year might be a bad worm year. I figure even though Bt seed costs a lot more, it might pay off. What if I’m the only field with nonGMO and the moths know it! Besides, the guy said he’d give me some discount on Roundup if I sign up. Hey, they have a stacked version so I don’t have to weed the field. I’ll spend less on the Roundup than I MIGHT have to spend if there turns out to be cornborer pressure this year.”

Everyone else the farmer talks with favors playing the GMO corn card: Farm Advisors, the banker, the insurance broker, the incentives and subsidies from the USDA, and, most of all, the folks at the coffee shop. Channels carrying independent information for wise long-range economic decisions are drowned out by a culture driven by a lot of money and peer pressure and sometimes by threats from the seed monopoly to go along or face the possibility of not being able to source nonGMO seed. It takes courage for a farmer to buck such forces. Critical thinking is required to weigh the longer term costs and benefits related to resistance and social and economic benefits for the farmer, the environment and consumers.

Eating GMO Corn

AND meanwhile American families have been kept in the dark for the past decade eating increasing amounts of Bt corn—sugar flakes and KIX, pancake syrup, snack bars, chips, tortillas and tamales, cornbread, soft drinks, ice cream and starting this year, fresh, frozen and canned corn. Bio Ag Biotech and the FDA say Bt gene in the corn we eat is destroyed during digestion and it’s never made anybody sick, but no safety tests have been done. Steven Druker’s Altered Genes, Twisted Truth – How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science, Corrupted Government, and Systematically Deceived the Public documents the suppression of GMO food safety concerns of scientists within the FDA.

So, how DID Bt toxin end up in the the blood of over 90% of pregnant women and over 80% of fetal cord blood in that study in Canad a? What IF the Bt gene that makes the toxin that eats holes in caterpillar guts transfers to human gut bacteria, engineered moreover into the corn genome so the “on switch” to make the toxin is always turned on? What HAPPENS if Bt toxin is being continuously produced in our guts by our own bacteria? There is no barrier between the mother’s blood and the fetal brain. Bt toxin could be eating holes in the developing brain matter of the unborn.

We Aren’t Keeling Over in Large Numbers, But…

The Biotech industry says the food is safe because there has not been one person drop dead yet from eating it. One question that comes to my mind however is the reported steady rise in gut problems in the US. Dr. Robyn Bernhoft, M.D. recently spoke at an educational forum at Ventura College. He said, “The reason people get autoimmunity, or allergies, or asthma, frequently, is gut problems. The animals fed GMO corn and soy all have problems with their gut. They have breakdown in gut integrity, they have food leaking into their bloodstream, they have thickening of the lining of their gut that looks to some pathologists like precancerous lesions. When humans get breakdown of the gut integrity they start absorbing partially digested food into their bloodstream. The immune system has to deal with that… This is where the tremendous rise in allergies comes from.”

One expert in bowel problems observed a direct relationship between escalating digestive symptoms and increasing test loads of fructose. It was not in the report, but the fructose was probably made from GMO corn. I wonder how closely the consumption of high fructose corn syrup relates to digestive problems on the rise, like Celiac disease, acid reflux, GERD, colitis and Crohn’s? Soy allergies are also increasing associated with digestive issues (not to speak here of the other varied reproductive problems, infertility, and implications for SIDS). Over 90% of the soy in food is engineered to be Roundup Ready and contains unsafe levels of Roundup that has recently been linked to mammary tumors, kidney and liver problems, and premature death in the first ever long-term peer reviewed study. Autistic spectrum disorder parallels the rise in GMOs in the US diet. The gastrointestinal lining of children with autism has abnormal appearing villi similar to those in rats fed genetically engineered feed. See what Jeffrey Smith has compiled about the connections between autism and GM foods.

The cost of Bt corn to public health needs to be examined. A recent study suggests that Bt toxin probably has the ability to eat holes in animal and human intestinal lining as it does in the insect gut. It was shown that Bt toxin in a dish with human cells pokes holes in them, causing leakage of cell contents, the same mode of action that kills the caterpillars. See Dr. Galland’s post about types and causes of leaky gut where undigested food particles go into the blood and lymph systems?

Doctors are saying patients get better when they stop eating GMOs. Leaky gut syndrome is associated with allergies, autoimmune disorders, inflammation, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s and autism. When the Bt gene is engineered into every cell of every kernel of corn and then it is eaten by animals and humans throughout every day, Monsanto has taken Bt to a very scary level. There have been no safety studies, BUT doctors are just starting to talk about GMOs, and especially corn products. While Americans are blindly eating Bt and Roundup Ready corn and having more digestive problems that underlie related diseases that are on the rise, the producers of GMO corn-based food products are spending over $44 million to try to defeat a California ballot initiative to require labeling of the food. In the European Union where GMOs have been labeled for years, seven countries – Austria, Hungary, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Germany and Bulgaria have banned Bt corn.

DNA and mRNA in the Food Chain Affects the Consuming Organism

There was no economic or practical reason for agriculture to go down this dangerous path. The pests that evolved with natural corn can be managed with the natural enemy complex that evolved with those pests. Organisms that eat corn, from caterpillar to human, have evolved in physiological systems involving thousands of metabolites in a corn plant and in what eats the corn plant. As it turns out, new research about micro RNA suggests that the human body is affected by the genes of the plants we eat. We want to apply the precautionary principle to halt genetic manipulation of food and animal feed until the implications are known. It is well within the farmer’s means to grow corn that respects the elaborate relationships in the biochemical and physiological makeup of the corn and organisms that eat corn.

Vote for Labeling and Vote with Your Food Dollars (Ways to Avoid GMO Corn)

We have been fighting for over a year to achieve regulations that honor our right to know if the Bt gene was engineered into corn and corn-based foods. Until labeling happens, we encourage you to do your best to stop eating Bt corn. It’s easy to avoid high fructose corn syrup with many alternative sweeteners. There are other delicious and inexpensive grains and starches, like rice, oats, barley, millet, amaranth, tapioca, pumpkin, winter squash and root vegetables. As time passes that you don’t eat GMO foods and your gut lining starts to heal, it should be safe to eat more wheat again without the risk of undigested gluten protein passing into the bloodstream causing allergic responses.

We love corn, so we buy from local farmers who protect their corn from contamination by Bt gene. Since we don’t eat meat, we don’t think about the increasing amount of GMO fed to livestock, and we do invest in only organic dairy and eggs. We are OK with the limit for organic food being .9% GMO contamination. It’s easy to find reasonably priced organic corn chips, but organic or NonGMO Project Verified corn tortillas are hard to find. La Guera Tamalera-White Girl Tamale Maker sells everything on-line out of LA to make organic non-GMO tamales! Trader Joe’s has organic polenta that isn’t expensive. It is a bit of a challenge, but not really difficult to avoid GMOs and it does not have to raise your food budget. Moms for Safe Food is a resource. Just plan to prepare more whole foods, less processed foods, and make room for a few organic versions of corn and soy foods you really like by reducing meat, junk food, soft drinks and alcoholic beverages that aren’t that healthy anyway!

Buying organic and nonGMO corn products supports those farmers using the proven safe natural biological farming methods. Vote with your food dollar for nonGMO biological corn production.

We Don’t Need GMO Cotton

Published October 31, 2012 Label GMOs Leave a Comment
Tags: Biological Control, GMOs, pesticides

This is a story about why we do not need genetically engineered cotton. GMO cotton has bacterial genes inserted into the cotton plant genome with the “on-switch” gene permanently turned on so every cell of the cotton plant continuously produces pesticide. Bt cotton produces 10,000 times the amount of Bt toxin that would be sprayed on the crop.

I know something about pest control in cotton. My entomologist/applied insect ecologist Dad, Everett (Deke) Dietrick, had me learn to drive in cotton fields. I dropped him on one end of a field and picked him up at the other end so he could monitor the insect ecology through the field. He did research at the University of California on biological pest control. He quit the University because the pesticide companies pressured the University to make sure nothing relevant was done or published about biocontrol. He set up an insectary business — growing a tiny wasp that kills cotton bollworm eggs. He was successful. Cotton growers in Coachella and Imperial Valley’s stopped spraying pesticides and sales of pesticides went down.

Scientists from the Soviet Union heard about his success. He had an open door policy and they came to visit. The Soviets learned and improved on Deke’s biological control program and applied it in a string of 80 insectaries throughout the cotton producing region covering six Central Asian countries. A couple decades later I was invited by the World Bank and by Mercy Corps to go to Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to help the people who took over those insectaries to privatize them. I took this photo in a biofactory in Turkmenistan where they were growing Habrabracon hebetor as a second line of defense for cotton bollworm to back up the Trichogramma releases.

I saw that they knew what they were doing and the system worked great, just like it did in Coachella and Imperial Valleys 30years earlier before the pesticide companies helped the pink bollworm move into the area (pesticide sales went back up). Bayer pesticide company sales reps in Turkmenistan were pushing pyrethroid pesticides. The pest control experts knew that would cause terrible secondary pest outbreaks and get them on the pesticide treadmill. They knew pesticides would mess things up. Their focus was on sales numbers verses helping the farmers.

The Soviets proved in a huge area of central Asia, what my father had proved earlier–that it is possible to manage all pests of cotton, including cotton bollworm and tobacco budworm, in those two regions without pesticides. Meanwhile we watched as genetically engineered cotton was introduced with the Bt toxin engineered into the DNA of the plant. We knew that it is absolutely not necessary. Bt cotton was not created to solve an agricultural problem or bring a better technology. The best technology, natural biological control, was known and systematically destroyed. Bt cotton was created solely to increase profits for Monsanto.

Farmers have been and are being denied access to knowledge about cost-effective methods because pesticide companies literally burned the books on biocontrol. Monsanto and friends (that bought up all the seed so they can engineer the genomes and patent them) profit from pushing Bt seed on farmers that don’t return benefits. They control the universities and much of the farm press. Natural methods aren’t patentable, and do not provide a profit margin that allows us to do competitive marketing. Farmers need a strong desire to transition off pesticides when they don’t really have strong support from the universities. Farmers who are in a learning mode can do it.

Farmers and consumers: stop falling for the biotech lie that society needs the GMO seeds they are manipulating and patenting. Since government regulators are in biotech’s pocket, all we can do is reduce our use of what they have to sell. Stop buying GMO cotton – buy organic cotton, hemp, linen, silk, and wool or other fibers coming on the market. There is the thrift shop and creative ways to recycle fibers, like Patagonia’s Synchilla from soda bottles. With GMOs labeled, eating less GMO food is also going to have an impact. We need to boycott GMOs so we are not supporting the pesticide/GMO seed monopoly and for the sake of our health and the health of our environment.

Jan Dietrick – October 29, 2012

Everett J. “Deke” Dietrick 1920 – 2008

Published January 22, 2009 Ecology , History , RVI Leave a Comment
Tags: Biological Control, Deke Dietrick

Everett "Deke" Dietrick

Our founding entomologist Everett “Deke” Dietrick died on December 23 at age 88. For over 40 years he mentored many who went on to build successful careers and businesses promoting biocontrol and sustainable agriculture. He did biocontrol research for the University of California, quit when the funding ran out (with a family of five small children including me), and began selling advice as well as growing and selling good bugs. He pioneered both the practice of ecologically based pest management and the insectary industry helping people at all stages on the path away from CCC (conventional chemical control) towards BC by NE (biological control by natural enemies).

Sometimes called the “Father of Commercial Biocontrol”, Deke inspired field advisors to identify markets and insectary teams working for Rincon-Vitova Insectaries, Inc. to innovate mass production systems for beneficials. The goal was often to jumpstart the predators and parasites on vulnerable farms in transition and sometimes to combat a key pest. However, in many situations the main value of the beneficials was to keep farmers from killing them with pesticides. By including releases with monitoring and forecasting, he helped many farmers in over 50 crops in many countries get off of the ‘pesticide treadmill’. He helped entrepreneurs to sell biocontrol in Central America and the Mexican government to establish its network of insectaries. How his work inspired the development of the Soviet biofactories in the Amu-Darya cotton belt is a story in itself. He started D-Vac Company as a separate break-even family business to provide an international scientific standard for sampling arthropods and a tool for applied insect ecologists.

Highly regarded not just by biocontrol researchers and a counter-culture movement of farmers rediscovering organic methods, he was also honored by professionals in the Association of Applied IPM Ecologists that he helped found, and by business people in the Association of Natural Bio-Control Producers. The latter serves the industry that Deke encouraged through decades of sharing of insights and encouragement and watching employees learn, leave and start their own businesses. The insectary business was an economically independent outlet for demonstrating the value of biocontrol. Dietrick saw the Fillmore Insectary, a regional cooperative, as a more sustainable model for providing biocontrol resources to farmers.

Deke sweep sampling to monitor beneficial and pest insect populations, 1993

_
Unlike Robert van den Bosch who published an exposé The Pesticide Conspiracy and Don Dahlston who spoke at public hearings against the malathion bait sprays for Medfly, Dietrick kept a lower profile, concerned about risking an attack on the business. He did spend hours with activists, teaching them enough to ask penetrating questions and speak out. “They were burning the books on biocontrol” was his description of the powerful influence of the pesticide industry. He said that he did what he did because there was nobody else who could do it. He also maintained that he only did things that were fun. Deke’s memoirs (to be published) tell about the mentors who prepared him for this role and the challenges he faced. More by and about him is available at dietrick obituary at rinconvitova.com.

Wearing his trademark white canvas hat shading his twinkling eyes, he was a familiar figure at the Ventura Farmer’s Market and was appreciated by so many around town for his engaging spirit. Contributions in his memory can be sent to the Dietrick Institute for Applied Insect Ecology, PO Box 2506, Ventura, CA 93002 to help edit videos of him teaching in the field. A 501c3 non-profit organization, the institute http://www.dietrick.org offers training in ecologically based pest management in recognition of what a legend he is within our field.

« Previous Page — Next Page »

The Bug Farm

Posts Tagged 'Biological Control'

Our Vision for Sustainable Pest Management – Part 3: Incentivize regenerative organic and ban disruptive chemical pesticides