Skip to main content
Log in

From researcher to farmer: The use of extension programs to transfer biological control technology in developed countries

Du chercheur au cultivateur : mise en place de programmes de vulgarisation pour le transfert de technologies en lutte biologique dans les pays industrialisés

  • Published:
Entomophaga Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Effective use of biological control by the pest manager requires knowledge of the biologies of the pests and natural enemies, and their interactions with their environment and agronomic practices. Manufacturers provide information for products such as microbial pesticides and entomophagous arthropods used in augmentative biological control. However, information about process-oriented methods such as classical (importation) biological control and conservation of natural enemies is not often available to the farmer. Governmental extension programs are one method for providing practical biological control information, but availability in developed countries varies considerably. Examples of transfer of biological control information are provided for New Zealand, Canada, and Australia.

In the United States, the Extension Service, a branch of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, provides partial funding and coordination for pest management educational programs conducted at the national, regional, state and local levels. In a twelve-state region of the North Central United States, university extension and research entomologists have developed a coordinated program to educate county extension personnel, farmers, and private consultants about the use of biological controls in pest management. The details of this model program are discussed.

The paper concludes with a discussion of the educational constraints that must be overcome to successfully increase the adoption of biological control.

Résumé

Afin d’utiliser au mieux la lutte biologique, tout responsable doit connaître la biologie des nuisibles et celle de leurs ennemis naturels, ainsi que leurs interactions avec l’environnement et les pratiques agronomiques. Les compagnies fournissent, certes, des informations concernant des produits comme les pesticides microbiens ou les arthropodes entomophages mis en oeuvre dans le cadre de la lutte biologique augmentative. Lorsqu’il s’agit de procédures plus complexes, comme la lutte biologique classique (importations) ou la conservation d’ennemis naturels, les informations adéquates ne sont en revanche pas souvent mises à disposition des cultivateurs. Les programmes gouvernementaux de vulgarisation représentent un bon moyen pour véhiculer des informations pratiques en matière de lutte biologique, mais leur degré de développement varie considérablement entre les pays industrialisés. Des exemples de transfert organisé d’informations en lutte biologique sont décrits tels qu’ils existent en Nouvelle-Zélande, Australie et Canada.

Aux Etats-Unis, le Service de Vulgarisation du Département Américain de l’Agriculture (USDA) finance et coordonne en partie des programmes de formation en gestion des populations de nuisibles aux niveaux national, régional, d’un état, voire local. Dans 12 états de la région centre-nord des Etats-Unis, les entomologistes responsables de la vulgarisation et de la recherche universitaires ont développé un programme coordonné de formation en matière d’utilisation de la lutte biologique dans la gestion des nuisibles s’adressant aux responsables de la vulgarisation dans les comtés, aux cultivateurs et aux consultants privés. Ce programme modèle est décrit en détail.

En conclusion, les contraintes qui doivent être surmontées en termes de formation afin d’augmenter de manière significative l’adoption de la lutte biologique sont discutées

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anon. - No date. Loosestrife on the loose. -Illinois Natural Hist. Surv., unnumbered publ.

  • Corrigan, J. E. - - 1995. No date. Biological control of purple loosestrife: severe plant damage observed at release sites after three generations of beetle activity. -Biol. Control Lab., Univ. of Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delfosse, E. S., Lewis, R. C. &Hasan, S. - 1995. Release of Uromyces heliotropii in Australia: A key agent in the integrated pest management system for common heliotrope. - In:Delfosse E. S. &Scott, R. R. (eds). Proc. Eighth Internat. Symp. on Biol. Control of Weeds. -DSIR/CSIRO, Melbourne, 329–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, C. R. &Ford, R. E. - 1992. Integrated pest management in the corn/soybean agroeco- system. In:Zalom F. G. &Fry, W. E. (eds). Food, crop pests, and the environment. -APS Press, St. Paul, Minn., 13–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzner, M. S. - 1993. The role of education in the transfer of biological control technologies. In:Lumsden R. D. & Vaughn, J. L. (eds). Pest management: biologically based techologies. -Amer. Chem. Soc., Washington, DC., 382-33 387.

  • Freeman, T. E. & Charudattan, R. - 1984.Cercospora rodmanii Conway, a biocontrol agent for water hyacinth. -Univ. Florida, Gainesville Tech. Bull. 842, 18 p.

  • Frisbie, R. E. - 1989. Critical issues facing IPM technology transfer. In: Proceedings, National Integrated Pest Management SymposiumNVorkshop, Las Vegas, Nevada, April 25–28, 1989. -Communications Services, New York State Agric. Exp. Sta., Cornell Univ., Geneva, N.Y 157–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisbie, R. E., Hardee, D. D. & L. T. Wilson, L. T. - 1992. Biologically intensive integrated pest management: future choices for cotton. In:Zalom F. G. & Fry, W. E. (eds.). Food, crop pests, and the environment. -APS Press, St. Paul, Minn., 57–81.

  • Frisbie, R. E. &McWhorter, G. M. - 1986. Implementing a statewide pest management program for Texas, U.S.A. In:Palti J. &Ausher, R. (eds). Advisory work in crop pest and disease management. -Springer-Verlag, N.Y., 234–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grieshop, J. L, Zalom, F. G. &Miyao, G. - 1988. Adoption and diffusion of Integrated Pest Management innovations in agriculture. -Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer., 34: 72–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grindell, J, M. - 1995. Biological control of weeds extension programmes in New Zealand. In:Delfosse E. S. &Scott, R. R. (eds). Proc. Eighth Internat. Symp. on Biol. Control of Weeds. -DSIR/CSIRO, Melbourne, 617–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, D. E. & Raworth, D. A. - 1991. Beneficial insects and common pests on strawberry and raspberry crops. -Agric. Canada Publ. 1863/E, 33 p.

  • Van Lenteren, J. C. - 1989. Implementation and commercialization of biological control in West Europe. In: International symposium on biological control implementation, proceedings and ab- stracts. -N. Amer. Plant Protect. Org. Bull. No. 6, 50–70.

  • Wintersteen, W., Giles, K., Higley, L., Rice, M. & Obrycki, J. - 1992. Biological control of the alfalfa weevil in Iowa. -Iowa State Univ. Ext. Publ. Pm-1484, 3 p.

  • Wright, R. J.—1995. Biological control of insect and mite pests. -Univ. Nebr. Ext. Publ. G95-1251-A, 4 p.

  • Zalom, F. G., & Fry, W. E. - 1992. Biologically intensive IPM for vegetable crops. In:Zalom F. G. & Fry, W. E. (eds). Food, crop pests, and the environment. -APS Press, St. Paul, Minn., 107–165.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. L. Mahr.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mahr, D.L. From researcher to farmer: The use of extension programs to transfer biological control technology in developed countries. Entomophaga 41, 387–404 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765792

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02765792

Key-words

Navigation