Classical and augmentative biological control against ... - IOBC-WPRS

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter 8 Identified difficulties and conditions for field success of biocontrol. 4. Socio-economic aspects: market analysis and outlook Bernard Blum 1 , Philippe C. Nicot 2 , Jürgen Köhl 3 and Michelina Ruocco 4 1 International Biocontrol Manufacturers Association, Blauenstrasse 57, CH-4054 Basel, Switzerland 2 INRA, UR407, Unité de Pathologie Végétale, Domaine St Maurice, 84140 Montfavet, France 3 Wageningen UR, Plant Research International, Droevendaalsesteeg 1, P.O. Box 69, 6700 AB Wageningen, The Netherlands 4 CNR-IPP, Istituto pel la Protezione delle Piante, Via Univrsità 133, Portici (NA) Italy With estimated sales amounting to only 200 Mio€ in Europe in 2008, the market for biological control agents appears to be extremely small compared with the 7 000 Mio€ turnover achieved with chemical pesticides. However, very important efforts have been undertaken for the development of biocontrol agents. The OECD estimated that 5 000 Mio$ have been spent worldwide in public research for biocontrol during the last 40 years. This amounts to a yearly average of 500Mio$, not far from the 600 Mio$ spent yearly in research by the agrochemical industry, but with a comparatively poor result! In the Conference on biological control organised in 2003 by IBMA in Béziers, France, the major stakeholders (farmers, retailers, distributors, regulators etc.) have provided a list of gaps considered to play a role in preventing wide adoption of biocontrol products. This list was meant to cover all potential explanations, but provided neither figures nor priority ranking, making it difficult to prioritize actions for improvement. It was however a general opinion that the complicated and costly system of registration was the major reason of the problem. As a result, important efforts have been undertaken to convince the regulators to adopt more facilitating procedures for the registration of biologicals. These efforts were not without effect and the newly adopted “Pesticides package” makes it easier, under certain conditions, to register biologicals. In the meantime, several EU member states have adopted easier registrations tracks, such as the Biopesticides Scheme in the UK, for example. In reality, the unique assumption that the current regulations in Europe significantly hamper the development and the use of biologicals does not seem to be proven by the facts. During a very long period, the biologicals were not subject to registration and very few products were brought successfully to the market. At the same time countries such as the USA, New Zealand or Japan have adopted very liberal registration procedures, but the sales of biologicals remain marginal. In the frame of ENDURE, it has been therefore decided to get a detailed and quantified idea on the gaps which, in Europe, restrain the adoption of biologicals, especially at the users and commercial levels. In order to achieve this objective, a Pan-Europa survey was undertaken from 2007 until 2008, with the assistance of the public opinion organisation Agridata. Methodological approach: survey of European farmers Since no validated data were available about the real market and the use of biological control agents in Europe, it has been necessary to build up a form of electronic map of the European agriculture and of the distribution of the potential users. 62
Chapter 8 A survey was carried out to evaluate the size of the biocontrol market in Europe and to identify key factors that could influence its future evolution. This study included four main steps: - Localisation of the main crops and cropping systems. Using the data from EUROSTAT and national statistics a model of European agriculture was constructed. - Randomised sampling of farmers and retailers. The model was used for the selection of 12 production systems (Table 18) located on 25 sites in 9 countries (Table 19) where 2000 farmers and 21 retailers were identified. - The selected sample was contacted by phone directly and a questionnaire (Table 20) was sent to those who agreed to participate in the survey. A total of 675 full responses were obtained and analysed. - Complementary survey. In order to validate the process, more specific data was collected in a survey concerning the biological control of wood diseases of grapevine in France Table 18: Production systems selected for a survey of factors influencing biocontrol use in Europe (source IBMA) Type of cropping system Large arable crops Multicropping arable crops dominant animal production dominant Fruit production orchards grapes Tomato production protected field Geographical sub-categories North, South Mountains, North, South Mountains, North South Table 19: Geographical distribution of sampling sites for a survey of factors influencing biocontrol use in Europe (source IBMA) Country number of sampling site Austria 2 Denmark 1 Germany 4 Greece 2 France 4 Italy 4 Poland 3 Spain 3 United Kingdom 2 63
Page 1 and 2:
IOBC OILB WPRS SROP In te rn atio n
Page 3 and 4:
Preface One of the Research Activit
Page 5 and 6:
LORITO Matteo UNINA, Dip. Arboricol
Page 7 and 8:
List of Tables (continued) Table 17
Page 9 and 10:
Contents Chapter 1 Potential of bio
Page 11 and 12:
Chapter 1 Potential of biological c
Page 13 and 14:
Chapter 1 To allow for the analysis
Page 15 and 16:
Chapter 1 Table 4: Microbial specie
Page 17 and 18:
Chapter 1 Table 4 (continued) T. lo
Page 19 and 20:
Chapter 1 Table 4 (continued) Cupri
Page 21 and 22: Chapter 1 other was aiming at ident
Page 23 and 24: Chapter 2 Table 5: References extra
Page 25 and 26: Chapter 2 Table 6: Biocontrol agent
Page 27 and 28: Table 7 (continued) Chapter 2 Hemip
Page 29 and 30: Chapter 2 Bacillus thuringiensis: 2
Page 31 and 32: Chapter 3 - financial; since the de
Page 33 and 34: Chapter 3 Pathogens and Nematodes a
Page 35 and 36: Chapter 3 [Remark: Estimating the s
Page 37 and 38: Chapter 3 100% 80% 60% P = Phytopha
Page 39 and 40: Chapter 3 0,25 4 0,20 % dedicated t
Page 41 and 42: Chapter 3 Table 9: Recent introduct
Page 43 and 44: Chapter 3 Table 9: Recent introduct
Page 45 and 46: Chapter 4 The survey was limited to
Page 47 and 48: Chapter 4 Table 11 (continued) Othe
Page 49 and 50: Chapter 4 SCLPs are included in ann
Page 51 and 52: Chapter 4 laminarin is available on
Page 53 and 54: Chapter 5 (EC) No 1109/2009. Tests
Page 55 and 56: Chapter 6 Identified difficulties a
Page 57 and 58: Chapter 6 Table 12: Evidence for, a
Page 59 and 60: Table 13: Trichoderma-based prepara
Page 61 and 62: Chapter 6 Many preparations have be
Page 63 and 64: Chapter 6 Persistence, physiologica
Page 65 and 66: Chapter 6 Harman, G. E. (2006) Over
Page 67 and 68: Chapter 6 Sharon, E., Bar-Eyal, M.,
Page 69 and 70: Chapter 7 purification, formulation
Page 71: Chapter 7 Business profitability Co
Page 75 and 76: Chapter 8 80 70 60 %of supply %of a
Page 77 and 78: Chapter 8 efficacy and the price of
Page 79 and 80: Conclusions and perspectives reduct
Page 81 and 82: Appendices For Chapter 1 Appendix 1
Page 83 and 84: Appendix 1 B O Milsana + Brevibacil
Page 85 and 86: Appendix 1 Strawberry (target patho
Page 87 and 88: Appendix 1 Fruits - postharvest (ap
Page 89 and 90: Appendix 1 Legumes (Fabaceae) (targ
Page 91 and 92: Appendix 1 Miscellaneous crops (tar
Page 93 and 94: Appendix 1 Lecanicillium muscarium
Page 95 and 96: Appendix 1 Bedini, S., Bagnoli, G.,
Page 97 and 98: Appendix 1 Dik, A., and Wubben, J.
Page 99 and 100: Appendix 1 Gerlagh, M., Amsing, J.
Page 101 and 102: Appendix 1 Jing, W., Tu, K., Shao,
Page 103 and 104: Appendix 1 Li, G. Q., Huang, H. C.,
Page 105 and 106: Appendix 1 Morandi, M. A. B., Maffi
Page 107 and 108: Appendix 1 Rabea, E. I., Badawy, M.
Page 109 and 110: Appendix 1 Sutton, J. C., Liu, W.,
Page 111 and 112: Appendix 1 Zahavi, T., Cohen, L., W
Page 113 and 114: Appendix 2 Powdery mildew on grapes
Page 115 and 116: Appendix 2 Powdery mildew on cucurb
Page 117 and 118: Appendix 2 Askary, H. (1998). Patho
Page 119 and 120: Appendix 2 Malathrakis, N. E. (2002
Page 121 and 122: Appendix 3. Inventory of biocontrol
Page 123 and 124:
Appendix 3 References on biocontrol
Page 125 and 126:
Appendix 4. Inventory of biocontrol
Page 127 and 128:
Appendix 4 Grapes (target pathogen
Page 129 and 130:
Appendix 4 References on biocontrol
Page 131 and 132:
Appendix 4 Robak, J., and Ostrowska
Page 133 and 134:
Appendix 5 Cherry (target pathogens
Page 135 and 136:
Appendix 5 Successful inhibition in
Page 137 and 138:
Appendix 5 Smilanick, J. L., Denis-
Page 139 and 140:
Appendix 6 showed protein content o
Page 141 and 142:
Appendix 6 El-Khallal, S. M. (2007)
Page 143 and 144:
Appendix 6 Liu, Q., J. C. Yu, et al
Page 145 and 146:
Appendix 6 of tomato wilt pathogen
Page 147 and 148:
Appendix 6 incognita, respectively.
Page 149 and 150:
Appendix 7. Number of references re
Page 151 and 152:
Appendix 8. Collection of data on a
Page 153 and 154:
Appendix 8 Camporese & Duso, 1996 T
Page 155 and 156:
Appendix 8 8.5 Fungi [5 species] Re
Page 157 and 158:
Appendix 8 Berner & Schnetter, 2002
Page 159 and 160:
Appendix 8 Morandi-Filho et al., 20
Page 161 and 162:
Appendix 8 Marshall D.B. & Lester P
Page 163 and 164:
Appendix 9 9.2. Details on the use
Page 165 and 166:
Appendix 9 References 1. Abd-Rabou
Page 167 and 168:
Appendix 9 50. Gariepy TD, Kuhlmann
Page 169 and 170:
Appendix 9 97. Langewald J, Neuensc
Page 171 and 172:
Appendix 9 146. Roltsch WJ, Meyerdi
Page 173 and 174:
Appendix 10. Substances included in
Page 175 and 176:
Appendix 10 Chemical Dimoxystrobin
Page 177 and 178:
Appendix 10 Chemical Prosulfocarb '
Page 179 and 180:
Appendix 10 Natural other Abamectin
Page 181 and 182:
Appendix 11. Invertebrate beneficia
Page 183 and 184:
Appendix 11 11.2. Invertebrate bioc
Page 185 and 186:
Appendix 11 Coccinella septempuncta
Page 187 and 188:
Appendix 11 Trichogramma brassicae
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Appendix 11 Diglyphus isaea Digline
show all

Classical and augmentative biological control against ... - IOBC-WPRS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?