Quality Aspects of Mass-Reared Insects

  • E. F. Boller
  • D. L. Chambers
Part of the Environmental Science Research book series (ESRH, volume 11)


Control of the quality of mass-produced industrial goods is a matter of survival for any industrial enterprise that has to compete on the market. A constant survey of the market situation provides feedback to the factory where quality, design, or price levels have to be adjusted in order for the company to remain in business. The impression that quality control of mass-produced insects has received only scant attention until recently indicates that these basic rules of the marketplace apparently do not apply to this special category of mass production. That those in charge of insect rearing may lack this concern of industrial product management may be caused by several factors. First, in most cases there is no market and there is no producer-competitor-customer situation enforcing a constant improvement of the end product, because mass-reared insects are usually produced and used by the same institution—often by the same individuals. Secondly, the definition, monitoring, and manipulation of quality in mass-reared insects is a relatively difficult matter; and it is heavily influenced by personal judgment and not least by a general lack of knowledge with regard to the characteristics that enable the insect to perform its intended role in pest control.


Quality Control Procedure Quality Aspect Sterile Insect Technique Quality Control Program Mass Rear 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References Cited

  1. Boller, E. 1972. Behavioral aspects of massrearing of insects. Entomophaga 17: 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bush, G. L. 1975. Genetic variation in natural insect populations and its bearing on massrearing programmes, p. 9–17 In Controlling Fruit Flies by the Sterile-Insect Technique. Vienna: IAEA/FAO Panel Proc. Ser.Google Scholar
  3. Bush, G. L., and M. D. Huettel. 1976. Population and ecological genetics, p. 43–9 In V. L. Delucci, ed. Studies in Biological Control. International Biological Programme, 9. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  4. Bush, G. L., R. W. Neck, and G. B. Kitto. 1976. Screwworm eradication: Inadvertent selection for noncompetitive ecotypes during mass rearing. Science 193: 491–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chambers, D. L. 1975. Quality in mass-produced insects, p. 19–32 In Controlling Fruit Flies by the Sterile-Insect Technique. Vienna: IAEA/FAO Panel Proc. Ser.Google Scholar
  6. Chambers, D. L. 1977. Quality control in mass rearing. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 22: 289–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coluzzi, M. 1971. Problèmes théoriques et pratiques liés à lf élevage et à la production de masse des Culicides. Ann. Parasitol. 46: 91–101.Google Scholar
  8. DeBach, P. 1965. Some biological and ecological phenomena associated with colonizing entomophagous insects, p. 287–303 In E. G. Baker and G. L. Stebbins, Eds. The Genetics of Colonizing Species. Academic Press, N.Y. 588 p.Google Scholar
  9. DeBach, P., and B. R. Bartlett. 1964. Methods of colonization, recovery and evaluation, p. 402–426 In P. DeBach, ed. Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  10. Deevey, E. S. 1947. Life tables for natural populations of animals. Quart. Rev. Biol. 22: 283–314.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the Origin of Species. Columbia Univ. Press. 364 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Doutt, R. L. 1964. Biological characteristics of entomophagous adults, p. 145–67 In P. DeBach, ed. Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
  13. Doutt, R. L., and P. DeBach. 1964. Some biological control concepts and questions. Ibid. p. 118–42.Google Scholar
  14. Fried, M. 1971. Determination of sterile-insect competitiveness. J. Econ. Entomol. 64: 869–72.Google Scholar
  15. Hathaway, D. O., L. V. Lydin, B. A. Butt, and L. J. Morton. 1973. Monitoring mass rearing of the codling moth. J. Econ. Entomol. 66: 390–3.Google Scholar
  16. Herzog, G. A., and J. R. Phillips. 1974. Selection for a non- diapause strain of the bollworm, Heliothis zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Environ. Entomol. 3: 525–7.Google Scholar
  17. Hirsch, J. (ed.) 1967. Behavior-Genetic Analysis. McGraw-Hill, N.Y. 522 pp.Google Scholar
  18. Huettel, M. D. 1976. Monitoring the quality of laboratory-reared insects: A biological and behavioral perspective. Environ. Entomol. 5: 807–14.Google Scholar
  19. Leppla, N. C., M. D. Huettel, D. L. Chambers, and W. K. Turner. 1976. Comparative life history and respiratory activity of “wild” and colonized Caribbean fruit flies. Entomophaga 21: 353–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lewis, W. J., Donald A. Nordlund, H. R. Gross, Jr., W. D. Perkins, E. F. Knipling, and J. Voegele. 1976. Production and performance of Trichogramma reared on eggs of Heliothis zea and other hosts. Environ. Entomol. 5: 449–52.Google Scholar
  21. Mackauer, M. 1972. Genetic aspects of insect production. Entomophaga 17: 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mackauer, M. 1976. Genetic problems in the production of biological control agents. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 21: 369–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mackauer, M., and R. van den Bosch. 1973. General applicability of evaluation results. J. Appl. Ecol. 10: 330–5.Google Scholar
  24. Messenger, P. S., and R. van den Bosch. 1971. The adaptability of introduced biological control agents, p. 68–92 In С. B. Huffaker, ed. Biological Control. Plenum Press, N.Y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Parker, F. D., and R. E. Pinnell. 1974. Effectiveness of Trichogramma spp. in parasitizing eggs of Pieris rapae and Trichoplusia ni in the laboratory. Environ. Entomol. 3: 935–8.Google Scholar
  26. Parsons, P. A. 1967. The Genetic Analysis of Behaviour. Methuen’s Monographs on Biological Subjects. Methuen, London. 174 pp.Google Scholar
  27. Raulston, J. R. 1975. Tobacco budworm: Observations on the laboratory adaptation of a wild strain. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 68: 139–42.Google Scholar
  28. Remund, U., E. F. Boiler, A. P. Economopoulos, and J. A. Tsitsipis. 1976. Flight performance of Dacus oleae reared on olives and artificial diet. Z. ang. Entomol. 81:Google Scholar
  29. Ridgway, R. L., R. E. Kinzer, and R. K. Morrison. 1974. Production and supplemental releases of parasites and predators for control of insect and spider mite pests of crops. Proc. Summer Institute on Biological Control of Plant Insects and Diseases. Univ. Press, Jackson, MS. p. 110–116.Google Scholar
  30. Rössler, Y. 1975. Reproductive differences between laboratory- reared and field-collected populations of the Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata. Ann. Entomol. Soc. Am. 68: 987–91.Google Scholar
  31. Steiner, L. F., and L. D. Christenson. 1956. Potential usefulness of the sterile fly release method in fruit fly eradication programs. Proc. Hawaii Acad. Sci. 3: 17–8.Google Scholar
  32. Stinner, R. E., R. L. Ridgway, and R. K. Morrison. 1974. Longevity, fecundity, and searching ability of Triahogramma pretiosum reared by three methods. Environ. Entomol. 3: 558–9.Google Scholar
  33. Southwood, T. R. E. 1966. Ecological Methods. Methuen, London. 391 pp.Google Scholar
  34. Tamaki, G., J. E. Turner, and R. L. Wallis. 1972. Life tables for evaluating the rearing of the zebra caterpillar. J. Econ. Entomol. 65: 1024–7.Google Scholar
  35. Van Abeelen, J. H. F. 1974. The genetics of behavior. Frontiers of Biology. Vol. 38, North Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam. 450 pp.Google Scholar
  36. Vinson, S. B. 1976. Host selection by insect parasitoids. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 21: 109–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wagner, R. P., and R. K. Selander. 1974. Isozymes in insects and their significance. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 19: 117–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. F. Boller
    • 1
    • 2
  • D. L. Chambers
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Swiss Federal Research StationWädenswilSwitzerland
  2. 2.Insect Attractants, Behavior and Basic Biology Research LaboratoryAgricultural Research Service USDAGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations