Posts Tagged ‘ IPM ’

Powerful handheld microscope

Spectrum Technologies have released the IPM Scope CAM – an upgraded version of the IPM scope. Previously, users had to transfer images and videos to a computer for viewing, now they can view them on a built-in screen before they are transferred.

Fine details of plant disease symptoms, insects or anything else too small to see with the naked eye can be clearly defined with IPM’s versatile 3-25X magnification. Instead of straining to look into a tiny eyepiece, the IPM Scope CAM is placed over the leaf and the magnified image can be viewed on the screen or transferred to a computer via a SD card/USB cable. Once the image has been transferred to a computer, it can be magnified up to 300X.

The IPM Scope CAM combines a digital camera (5.1 mega pixels), precision optics and LED lighting into a powerful handheld microscope.

For further information contact:
John Morris Scientific Pty Ltd,
PO Box 447, Willoughby, NSW 2068 Australia
Freecall: 1800 251 799
Fax: (02) 9417-8855

Issue 113: Meet Biological Services

July/August – 2010
Author: Stephen Goodwin and Marilyn Steiner

Few greenhouse growers in Australia would be aware of the history of Biological Services, nor of James Altmann’s passion for biocontrol and his dedication to integrated pest management in greenhouse crops.

James Altmann and Biological Services have come a long way since the mid 1990s. Over recent years he has worked tirelessly to improve the company’s range of biocontrol agents and to achieve success with them, often under challenging growing conditions. These days, Biological Services has an impressive list of products for all the key pests of greenhouse crops including thrips, whitefly, aphids, two-spotted mite, fungus gnats and shoreflies, and the company deserves recognition as the leading biocontrol producer and IPM practitioner for the greenhouse industry in Australia. Not content with this achievement, James continues his search for new biocontrol agents for greenhouse crops through ongoing research.

The Company
James Altmann is Managing Director of Biological Services, while his wife Simone supervises the business administration. As the saying goes: “Behind every successful man, there is a good woman!” The business is based in the small country town of Loxton, on the bank of the Murray River in South Australia, about 3 hours inland from Adelaide. Biological Services has the distinction of being the first commercial insectary in Australia, set up in 1975 to produce Aphytis melinus for the control of red scale in citrus.

A young James Altmann came under the influence of Dr Noel Richardson, one of the SARDI researchers responsible for the introduction of Aphytis parasites into Australia in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1978 Noel was the entomology lecturer at Roseworthy College in Roseworthy, South Australia, where James developed an interest in agricultural entomology under his tutelage. James graduated from there, later undertaking a graduate diploma in plant protection at Queensland University, where he met Simone, who was also studying for the same qualification. An enduring interest in entomology and in particular biocontrol saw them eventually purchase Biological Services in 1987, servicing the Riverland, Sunraysia and Murrumbidgee Irrigation citrus areas of Southern Australia with an IPM scouting service (Fruit Doctors Pty Ltd) and providing red scale parasites from the insectary. These days the business employs 15 full- and part-time staff, comprising James and Simone, three admin staff, a greenhouse and insectary manager, and the remainder responsible for the rearing of beneficials, production of nursery plants, and harvest and despatch of products.

While we have known James for many years now, we quickly came to appreciate his qualities, still evident today, that make him so good at what he does. Biocontrol production is a business, a science and a passion for James. He has an enquiring mind, a great eye for insect and mite identification and an ability to work out effective rearing methods for his bugs, an absolute necessity if a business such as this is to succeed and prosper. Dan Papacek of Bugs for Bugs at Mundubbera, Queensland, and Lachlan Chilman, Manchil IPM Services in WA, also have the same qualities, but more about them and their IPM businesses in future articles.

Australian greenhouse crop producers can rest easy. James is a cluey bloke with a strong interest in what he does, which is a good recipe for success. He doesn’t just sell beneficial bugs, but knows their strengths and weaknesses and can advise how best to use them in a range of crop IPM programs, under the multiplicity of growing conditions that exist in Australia.

Any grower passing through South Australia should make a point of visiting James. He is always happy to talk about his bugs and your issues, but make sure you ring ahead as he is a busy man and of course to give the red wine time to breathe. He is reputed to have a magnificent wine cellar!

Development of the greenhouse biocontrol business
In 1988, James introduced the spider mite predator Typhlodromus occidentalis into his insectary, mainly for use in stone and pome fruit crops. It has also been used in some greenhouse situations where temperatures are high and humidity is low. James saw the tremendous progress and success that was occurring with practical biocontrol programs in the greenhouse industry overseas and made a decision to put Biological Services into this field in Australia.

In the 1990s he established his first cultures of biocontrol agents specifically for greenhouse pests (Table 1), and received a Churchill Fellowship to study mass rearing techniques for biocontrol agents in the US and Canada. He commenced with the introduction in 1992 of the imported greenhouse whitefly parasitoid Encarsia formosa, with further introductions of new biocontrol agents continuing to this day and most likely into the future, such is his commitment to this industry. We used to say that Australia didn’t have the comprehensive range of biocontrol agents available overseas. While we still have not quite reached this point, through the efforts principally of Biological Services, the list continues to grow and more comprehensive IPM programs for key pests are now available for the major greenhouse and hydroponic crops.

The Australian greenhouse industry is small compared with that in most other developed countries. This makes it difficult for biocontrol producers to develop new biocontrol agents at the rate they are introduced into commercial production overseas, as it is an expensive business to set up and returns are relatively small. It also takes a lot of R&D to develop a new organism and each one needs to be learnt from scratch as intellectual knowledge is closely guarded by overseas companies rearing similar organisms. As Australia is a small market, Biological Services has focused on trying to develop new products rather than duplicating those already produced by other insectaries in this country. Where possible James also engages in research collaborations with universities and government research institutions, but resources in this area are dwindling with public sector funding cuts.

We have been collaborating with James since the mid-1990s. During this time, while we were looking for new, effective biocontrol agents for western flower thrips (WFT), Frankliniella occidentalis, we discovered the ground dwelling predatory mite Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Hypoaspis-M), previously, but incorrectly, referred to as Hypoaspis miles overseas. It is very useful for fungus gnat larval control, and thrips larval and pupal control on the ground. We developed a small-scale rearing method as a starting point to commercial production and passed this on to James. In 1998 he added this beneficial to his business.

We like to think that 1999 was a turning point for greenhouse biocontrol in Australia. In that year we brought five overseas IPM and biocontrol experts to Australia (see our article PH&G Issue 104 January/February 2009, Biocontrol is Good Agricultural Practice, for a picture to remind you of the visiting group). Amongst these were representatives of biocontrol companies from the UK and The Netherlands. Over the course of one week they participated in industry workshops in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide and Melbourne and did much to lift awareness of, and enthusiasm for, IPM and biocontrol in greenhouse crops. James also benefited from this experience. In 2001 he introduced a second soil predatory mite Hypoaspis aculeifer (Hypoaspis-A) through the efforts of Dr Irene Vänninen, a Finnish researcher who spent a sabbatical working in Dr Dave Walter’s lab at Queensland University. She identified that this strain had a higher propensity to feed on thrips than any other soil predatory mite in her studies or previously reported in the literature.

In 2003, we found and recommended a further three beneficials to James: Neoseiulus cucumeris (thrips), Aphidius colemani (aphids), Dalotia coriaria (fungus gnats, shorefly, thrips). All have since been put into commercial culture and use. Currently, James is in the process of adding the native parasitoid Eretmocerus warrae (greenhouse whitefly) as well as Neoseiulus wearnei (two spotted mite) and Aphelinus abdominalis (aphids) to the list of available biocontrol agents. Neoseiulus wearnei is a spider mite predator that can tolerate hot, dry conditions. Assumed to be a native of Australia, it was collected from a sprayed stonefruit orchard in Renmark, SA, after the heat wave in 2009. This predator should work very similarly to Neoseiulus californicus overseas, as it is possible that these species may be one and the same. It will be a good backup for Phytoseiulus persimilis in summer, which is not as effective in hot, dry conditions.

It is worth noting that the Australian Environmental Protection & Biodiversity Conservation Act makes it exceedingly difficult to import overseas biocontrol agents into Australia. For this reason all of the biocontrol agents in Table 1 were obtained from naturally occurring populations in Australia.

Biological Services is presently collaborating with Lachlan Chilman of Manchil IPM Services in the development of another native biocontrol agent: the predatory bug, Orius armatus (see our article PH&G Issue 110 January/February 2010, Predatory bugs to enhance biocontrol in Australia). For us, this is an exciting new development because Orius feeds on all life stages of thrips, including adults. Various Orius species are produced throughout the world, and while we have been aware of O. armatus for some time, it is only now that it has become commercially available to growers of various crops and particularly of capsicums in Australia.

Biological Services’s IPM Programs
We thought we might provide IPM programs for two crops as examples of what Biological Services has to offer in 2010.

Tomato is the major greenhouse crop in Australia and its IPM program revolves mostly around the control of greenhouse whitefly and releases of Encarsia formosa. Initial pre-infestation releases are made at low rates in a preventative manner until whitefly is detected in the crop. Once whitefly occurs, higher rates are recommended to ensure Encarsia establishes quickly and evenly through the crop. Biological Services has recently added Eretmocerus warrae, a greenhouse whitefly-specific parasitoid, to its product range. This native parasitoid is able to withstand very hot summer temperatures that do not favour Encarsia. It also appears to fly well during dull conditions, which may make it useful in colder months, when low light levels can occur. James has been able to establish it in a range of crops and environments and believes that it will be a useful companion to Encarsia. This parasitoid is widespread in southern Australia. The strain selected by Biological Services, collected at Virginia in South Australia after a severe heat wave in March 2009, was close to greenhouses that were sprayed regularly with harsh pesticides. Currently, Biological Services is offering Eretmocerus to selected growers on a trial basis in 2010, to determine how it performs in crops and the best release strategy (see our article in PH&G Issue 112 May/June 2010, Eretmocerus warrae – new Australian biocontrol agent for greenhouse whitefly nears market).

Capsicum was selected because it has a range of important pests and also because biocontrol agents can be supported by ample nectar and pollen provided in the flowers in times of sparse pest numbers. James reports that IPM programs for capsicums have previously been working well in areas with low WFT pressure. Where WFT pressure is moderate/high, virus transmission is inevitable, requiring pesticide applications that interfere with the biocontrol program. However, the recent collaboration with Manchil IPM Services to develop Orius armatus as a key predator, capable of lowering WFT to sub-economic levels, produced some excellent results in the first year of trial releases in 2009-10. More widespread commercial releases are planned for 2010. Introductions of N. cucumeris for thrips and broadmite establish quickly and easily, as do Aphidius for aphids, Hypoaspis and Dalotia for fungus gnats and thrips ground-dwelling stages, and P. persimilis for two spotted mite.

Where WFT is the major pest Hypoaspis-A is recommended, however, if thrips numbers are low and fungus gnats predominate Hypoaspis-M is used. So now nearly all the major pests have the potential to be controlled biologically. This allows other naturally occurring beneficials into the crop, such as Anystis mites and apple dimpling bug, Campylomma liebknechti, which also feed on thrips. Extra research is required on these organisms to quantify their importance as potential biocontrol agents, and whether they can be reared in insectary conditions for release into crops. The need for spraying in capsicums has now been dramatically reduced, and only compatible pesticides are recommended to redress pest/beneficial imbalances and to minimise impact on beneficials.

Biological Services has recently revitalised its website and comprehensive information on each biocontrol product covering life history and biology, crop use, environmental preferences, application information, monitoring for success, handy tips and pesticide compatibility can be found at

Challenges for Biological Services
The extreme summer heat at the insectary site at Loxton and greenhouse production sites across the country calls for special packaging and transportation arrangements to ensure biocontrol agents are in top notch condition on arrival at their destination. Biological Services dispatches all products on Mondays and Tuesdays and uses Express Post or couriers to deliver direct to the customer in most instances. Those districts with several greenhouse producers may have a distributor to service them. However, this is generally not the case. Biological Services has many small, relatively isolated clients, spread throughout this vast country from tropical to temperate zones, rather than aggregated in specific growing precincts. This makes delivery challenging, particularly in summer. Biocontrol deliveries by Express Post should be picked up as soon as they arrive and released straight away, not left in the mailbox in the sun.

The insectary site is isolated from commercial growing areas, which in any case are far flung, so James developed a production greenhouse at Loxton for trialing his IPM programs and to conduct early crop trials with new biocontrol agents. It is also used to demonstrate, to commercial growers, pesticide-free crops growing in close proximity to where the pests are reared in massive numbers. This is the best example of IPM in practice a grower could hope to see.

As an aside, it has enabled him to open up a new business opportunity as the local township has taken quite a shine to his fresh vegetables.

The demand for new biocontrol agents continues. A predatory bug for whiteflies, available in most other countries, would be a valuable addition. Unfortunately, a project application we submitted to HAL in 2009, to initiate research into this topic, was unsuccessful, largely because funding for vegetable R&D has been cut back. We will persevere.

Expanding demand for an ever-increasing range of biocontrol products has put pressure on facilities to house the various cultures and packing areas. New biocontrol agents often start out in life as ‘pets’, but there is a limit to the number of these that can be maintained and developed by a small company. Fortunately, the SARDI (South Australian Research & Development Institute) research station at Loxton has allowed Biological Services to utilise some of its research insectary assets that are no longer used, presenting additional greenhouse and controlled temperature space. This is very timely for Biological Services and James is extremely appreciative of SARDI’s support.

Biological Services was a financial supporter of the industry application to introduce the bumblebee Bombus terrestris onto the mainland and in the research program into the native bluebanded bee Amegilla cingulata, both efforts failing to deliver a commercial outcome for this industry. He provided greenhouse facilities for the researcher to test the crop pollination capacity of the latter species and is disappointed at the continuing lack of a pollinator for tomato and other greenhouse crops.

However, Biological Services is still keen to develop a bumblebee production facility if they are ever given the ‘green light’ by the Federal Government. A biological pollinator would be very attractive to many greenhouse producers. Any growers utilising bees would need to modify their pesticide use, meaning their pest control would have to be biologically based. Therefore it would immediately help reduce pesticide use, which is of benefit to the grower, farm workers, and ultimately the consumer and the environment.

As the business grows, one of the bigger challenges facing Biological Services is to develop packaging systems that will make delivery into the crop easier for growers and more efficient and reliable in terms of releasing the biocontrol agent at the targeted site (see our article in PH&G Issue 105, March/April 2009, Putting Bugs in their Place).

James is always available to talk to growers about their pest problems and an IPM program to suit their needs. He can be contacted on Ph 08 8584-6977/0427 846 977; fax 08 8584-5057; or at – further information can be obtained at

About the authors
Since their retirement from NSW DPI, Stephen Goodwin and Marilyn Steiner have established a new business on Mangrove Mountain on the NSW Central Coast. Biocontrol Solutions is a consulting company in the area of IPM in protected crops, particularly in the development and use of biocontrol agents. Marilyn and Stephen between them have over 50 years’ experience in the field. Email:

Issue 104: Biocontrol is Good Agricultural Practice

January/February 2009
Authors: Stephen Goodwin & Marilyn Steiner

Some of the 40,000ha of greenhouse industry in the Almeria region, Spain.

©2008 Google – Imagery ©2008 TerraMetrics

Reproduced with special permission Google Earth

Biocontrol has emerged as an essential component of Good Agricultural Practice (GAP1) in greenhouse vegetable crop production, as food safety establishes itself as the key driver in the supply chain. In this article we offer a snapshot of recent movements in the world of biocontrol and greenhouse vegetable food production. Food safety may be king, but biocontrol is the loyal servant for greenhouse producers to deliver this goal to Australian consumers. While Australian growers may not have quite the same abundance of biocontrol agents commercially available to overseas greenhouse vegetable producers, there are distinct signs of improvement and excitement about future prospects. By Stephen Goodwin & Marilyn Steiner

Biocontrol has come a long way
In the early period of biocontrol development and use, biologically based Integrated Pest Management (IPM) was simply regarded as a possible alternative to pesticides that would overcome pesticide resistance problems. This is a justifiable reason for anyone to consider trying this new approach and many greenhouse vegetable growers did. The number of biocontrol agents commercially produced for greenhouse crop use has expanded dramatically since the appearance of the two foundation species, Encarsia formosa for greenhouse whitefly, and Phytoseiulus persimilis for two-spotted mite, back in the 1970s. In a 2000 survey, 29 biocontrol agents were identified as in common use against 19 key pest species in Canada2. This is typical of experiences in Europe and elsewhere. These are produced by a number of companies worldwide, including the Dutch company Koppert; and Biobest (Belgium); Syngenta Bioline and BCP-Certis (UK); Bio-Bee (Israel); Applied Bionomics (Canada), and others. Interestingly, the first to recognise the commercial opportunities of biocontrol were the greenhouse growers, the Kopperts in The Netherlands and the Buntings in the UK. Thirty years later, the annual global turnover in biocontrol agent sales (producers and distributors) is estimated at AUD$74 million.

What was going on in Australia during this time? In 1999, we brought a number of biocontrol specialists to Australia for a series of interstate workshops to showcase IPM developments in protected cropping overseas. One of those speakers was Karel Bolckmans, Director of R&D with Koppert Biological Systems, who had this to say about biocontrol then3:

“Biological pest control is well established in European greenhouse vegetable production, and has been the cornerstone of IPM for the last 30 years, (and) that as well as its environmental benefits, IPM adoption has given European growers significant savings in labour and costs.”

Mr Bolckmans explained “that biological control isn’t (about) total control of pests, but rather effective management of the pests, a concept with which growers need to become familiar. There is,” he said, “an ‘acceptable level’ of pests in certain crops – for instance a tomato plant can lose a third of its leaves to leaf miner, without the crop being affected.

“It is essential,” Mr Bolckmans said, “for growers to keep records, which show insect patterns over a year, and in which parts of the greenhouse, pest outbreaks start. Critical to the successful use of biological control agents is the timing and method of release.”

According to Mr Bolckmans, ”biological control without some form of chemical control is almost impossible, but it is possible to use low toxicity sprays, such as spray oils, insecticidal soaps and garlic preparations. Spraying technique and timing are very important, and it’s useful to detect ‘trouble spots’ in the house, since these can often be spot-treated with sprays.”

Mr Bolckmans said that “introducing IPM to a greenhouse enterprise is quite complex and cannot be done without technical support.” Echoing the comments of the other speakers, he said that “for growers converting from chemicals alone to IPM, it’s a case of ‘weaning off’, not going cold turkey.”

We like to think these speakers whetted the appetite of Australian growers and others for biocontrol as there was increased interest both from growers and producers of biocontrol agents. Despite this, development of this industry has been slower than elsewhere, due mainly to the lesser demand for its products by the relatively small greenhouse industry. Of the 10 local producers, Biological Services in Loxton, SA, is the leading national supplier to the protected cropping industry, with seven products available and others planned. In New Zealand there are two biocontrol producers that have only a small range of biocontrol agents, but service a greater area. New Zealand has bumblebees ( Bumblebees are sensitive to many pesticides, so biocontrol becomes an imperative.

As with many things, it can take a disaster or some other event of similar magnitude, to capture peoples’ attention. These events can have the effect of ‘forcing’ action, as opposed to under normal conditions drawing the curious or more knowledgeable who seek to be ahead of the pack, to adopt change. The former usually results in larger scale change acting faster, which is what biocontrol needs right now in this industry in Australia, but what might ‘force’ this to happen here? Overseas, there are some recent examples of major impacts that have forced changes to the perception of biocontrol.

Good and bad impacts can benefit biocontrol
Marketing Advantages in Biocontrol and IPM
Food safety is the main driver of IPM in on-farm practices and the key non-price concern in international food retailing4. It provides a strong incentive for the adoption of IPM and biocontrol particularly in the protected cropping industry. There are market benefits to be had. The European wholesaling conglomerate, The Greenery, the largest producer group in Europe with 1,500 Dutch producers and more than 1,000 suppliers overseas, recognised the marketing advantages of embracing IPM and GLOBALGAP5 in their business.

The Greenery label guarantees food-safety as its highest priority. To be marketed under the The Greenery label, fresh produce must meet the minimum requirements of the national MRL6 of the country of destination, contain no traces of illegal compounds, and meet minimum GLOBALGAP standards. Failure to comply means rejection of produce. To achieve this The Greenery encourages IPM practices. Extensive pesticide residue analysis is conducted by The Greenery and its suppliers as the basis for produce acceptance. Major retail clients include the UK supermarkets TESCO and SAINSBURYS.

However, the different specific non-regulatory demands of retailers can be a problem, for example, the German supermarket ALDI has set a maximum number of active compounds per product group, a maximum of 80% of the sum of MRLs and a maximum of 80% of the sum of the ARfDs7, whereas another German supermarket REWE, has set a maximum of 70% of the MRL per active compound and a maximum ARfD per active compound. The Greenery put in place a program of pesticide reduction during 2007-09, with IPM having a central role in the introduction of greater sustainability and residue reduction amongst cooperating growers.

Any grower who wants to be GLOBALGAP certified, will need to produce according to GAP. While IPM8 is in the GAP guidelines, it is not strongly stated. Currently, there are not very strong initiatives to reduce pesticide usage to levels below the official Maximum Residue Limits.

Pesticide Scandal in Spain
In a recent interview9, Karel Bolckmans confirmed that greenhouse vegetables were still the main market for the biocontrol industry. In both Northern Europe and North America, practically all greenhouse vegetable growers are using biocontrol. However, between 2000 and 2005, the industry stagnated. The market for biocontrol agents was saturated; there were no outstanding new products on the horizon. During that period, Koppert and some other companies such as Syngenta-Bioline tried very hard to open up the market in Southern Europe (Mediterranean), without much success.

Protected cropping existing cheek by jowl with coastal suburbia in Almeria region, Spain.

Capsicums grown in the Almeria region, Spain, were the source of the pesticide scandal in 2006.

Capsicum is the main crop grown in 40,000ha of greenhouses in Almeria region, Spain.

The biocontrol programs of Northern Europe initially introduced there were found to be unsuitable in the extended periods of hotter temperatures and greater pest pressures of this area. Then, in 2005, Koppert launched a new product called Amblyseius swirskii (Swirskii)10, a predatory mite mainly for whitefly control, and this created new possibilities in the Mediterranean and Israel. Interestingly, Swirskii has similar characteristics to the Australian native predatory mite Transeius montdorensis, originally developed by the authors at the Gosford Horticultural Institute and now sold in Australia by the Beneficial Bug Company at Richmond. Besides being a good predator, a new off-plant rearing method has enabled the large numbers needed to be reared cost-effectively, and opened the way for similar mass-rearing methodology to deliver other key predatory mite species into the market place.

Richard GreatRex, field development manager, Syngenta Bioline, UK, Dan Papacek, Bugs for Bugs, Mundubbera and one of the authors,

Marilyn Steiner, checking a Spanish capsicum crop for predators, particularly Swirskii.

It has become clear now how much Swirskii has completely altered the IPM landscape in Southern Europe and Israel, providing greater opportunities for greenhouse vegetable producers, but this wasn’t the reason for the upsurge in the adoption of biocontrol. There was another reason that ‘forced’ the adoption of IPM to greater heights.

In 2006, Greenpeace published a detailed report on the pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables in German supermarkets. In the German supermarket LIDL, produce from the Almeria region in Spain was found to contain residues of an illegal pesticide not permitted for use in the EU. This was the sensational headline, but Greenpeace also found, across supermarkets representing 75% of the German market, that 2% of fruit and vegetable samples contained pesticide residues above the acute reference dose ARfD and residues of three or more pesticides in 44% of samples.

Low technology greenhouses abound in Almeria region, Spain.
Note greenhouses perched on the hillside in the background.

The Spanish press reported that 30% of peppers exported from Spain contained traces initially of the illegal pesticide isophenfos-methyl, and later isocarbophos11, both chemicals imported from China. The residues were not detected at a level that might pose a possible risk to people who consumed the peppers. Nonetheless, some UK and German supermarkets switched to Israeli and Turkish imports, sending shockwaves through the Spanish protected vegetable industry in the Almeria region. Overnight, it triggered a 1,500ha reduction in the area of peppers in Almeria. Fifteen people were arrested in Spain and 4,000kg of illegal pesticide seized. This food scandal quickly caused a turnaround in the mentality of the Spanish growers and authorities, forcing the vast majority of growers to switch to IPM employing biocontrol agents. EU supermarkets demanded ‘residue-free’ produce.

The majority of the Spanish vegetables on which Greenpeace found residues of illegal pesticides were either GLOBALGAP certified or certified under some other quality scheme. This was a shock to European supermarkets. As a result, GLOBALGAP convened a working group to develop stronger IPM guidelines. It will probably be 2009 before they are fully functional and it is anticipated that they will have a considerable impact when released9.

Since the eruption of the pesticide scandal, there has been a dramatic increase in the adoption of biocontrol in pepper crops, the main crop of the region, to 7,000ha. This was in no small part due to Spanish government subsidies available for 50% of the cost of biocontrol purchases through marketing organisations. Koppert, Syngenta-Bioline, Biobest and BCP-Certis are all active in this rapidly expanding market, scrambling to meet the sudden upsurge in demand for biocontrol products. BCP-Certis reported good control in the 2007 season by Swirskii (whitefly predator), Orius laevigatus (thrips predator) and Eretmocerus mundus (whitefly parasitoid), with pest levels remaining low throughout the season, and later pest influxes well-controlled by established populations of biocontrol agents. The Spanish greenhouse industry was ‘forced’ into wholesale adoption of biocontrol as their markets dried up, but the interesting fact is that biocontrol was clearly shown to work on a large scale, in a traditionally pesticide-dependent industry.

Pesticide Scandal in China
Closer to home, China has recently been in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons. Recent melamine-contaminated milk products have occupied the news, but earlier in 2006, the same year that Greenpeace exposed the Spanish pesticide scandal, it was also busy conducting pesticide residue testing of vegetables produced in China. It was reported that some of the vegetables sold in Hong Kong’s leading supermarkets were dangerously high in pesticide residues. The small selection included mostly leafy vegetables and tomatoes that tend to absorb pesticides. More than 70% of tomatoes tested were found to have the banned substance lindane (banned in Australia also) and almost 40% of the samples had a mix of three or more types of pesticides12. In one tomato sample, five different pesticides, including lindane, were detected. Thirty per cent of all samples exceeded international Codex standards13.

Australia is a major trading partner with China. In 2007-08, Australia imported $11 million worth of fresh vegetables, mainly garlic and snow peas, and $35 million worth of frozen vegetables, mainly mixed vegetables, beans, peas, spinach and sweet corn14. If fresh tomatoes containing these pesticide levels found their way into this country, aside from consumer health concerns, they could have the potential to seriously damage the reputation of fresh tomatoes produced here. Currently 40% of fresh tomatoes are produced hydroponically in Australia, with the remainder field grown. This is speculative fear, but in an open market economy presently there is nothing to prevent Chinese tomatoes from entering Australia if wholesale markets determined a need to outsource produce from overseas, or if China were to become proactive in seeking entry for its produce into Australia.

In 2006, the Australian consumer journal Choice15 published an article on pesticide use in fruit and vegetables in this country. It reported that all foods sold in Australia must comply with the Food Standards Code, which defines MRLs for pesticide uses. It posed the question; “Can we be sure that our food complies with the regulations?” To examine this question, we obtained NSW data for one of the key commodities of the protected cropping industry, cucumbers. Cucumbers are almost exclusively greenhouse-produced in Australia. These data were provided to the authors by the Australian Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Industries, which administers the nationwide FRESH TEST program. Between 2002-2007, violations where the MRL was exceeded or an unregistered chemical was detected, ranged from 2.59-11.9%, averaging 7.3% per annum16. Of course, there can be reasonable explanations for the higher levels, such as periods when seasonal conditions favoured insect pests and/or diseases that required greater frequency of pesticide application. This can bring with it the risk of mistakes being made. However, since 2005 it is encouraging to note that the percentage of violations has declined. While produce imported from countries such as China, known to have a less stringent approach than Australia to the use of agricultural chemicals, is a concern, clearly there is room for improvement by Australian greenhouse growers as well.

Results of pesticide residue testing of cucumbers from the NSW Freshtest Program. Violations are either exceeded MRLs or illegal use of pesticide.

Results of pesticide residue testing of cucumbers from the NSW Freshtest Program. Violations are either exceeded MRLs or illegal use of pesticide.

Marketing IPM in Australia
Are there any ‘forcing’ issues that might benefit the adoption of biocontrol in Australia, besides the obvious one of a scandal involving pesticide residues? The best opportunity to make greenhouse and hydroponic producers ‘want’ to accept biocontrol as an essential business decision is through the marketing of an IPM Brand. This will require the current strengthening of the IPM guidelines in GLOBALGAP, due out in 2009, to be taken up by local quality assurance schemes. It is hoped that the revised IPM guidelines will make it compulsory for biocontrol to be adopted as the preferred pest management tactic in an IPM strategy.

While GLOBALGAP is the internationally recognised standard, in Australia FRESHCARE is the on-farm food safety program that provides independent verification for an enterprise seeking certification. A concise account of the development in, and present state of, on-farm assurance schemes in Australia was presented at the 2007 national conference of the Australian hydroponic and greenhouse industry.4 Apparently, Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) is in the process of introducing Primary Production and Processing (PPP) Standards, although to date none has been introduced for horticulture. If this does come about, it should also contain strong statements about biocontrol and IPM, and not simply ‘encourage’ growers. If PPP and FRESHCARE enforce biocontrol in IPM then the development of a ‘Green Marketing Strategy’ is a strong possibility.

Australian Biocontrol in the Protected Cropping Industry
Positive stimulus in IPM will be just the thing that the biocontrol industry has been looking for. Increased demand for biocontrol agents will improve the economic viability of an industry that struggles to catch up with overseas developments, not just in the range of biocontrol products, but also in the technology used in packaging and crop distribution. Over the past 5 years there has been unprecedented investment in large-scale, modern greenhouse technology in Australia. The largest completed development is 20 ha, with two other projects of 26 and 33 ha, underway. This is bringing significant new interest in biologically based IPM. Biological Services, an insectary based in Loxton, SA, has taken the lead in the development of its product range, expanded production capacity and introduction of business efficiencies in mass rearing, packaging and crop delivery systems for growers. It is hoped that this will lead to the production of a complete range of biocontrol agents in the near future. Significant progress has been made in delivery systems for biocontrol agents overseas, which was imperative for today’s large operations. It is heartening to note that the Protected Cropping Advisory Group to the industry R&D funding body, Horticulture Australia Limited (HAL), has new biocontrol agents as its second R&D priority.

The authors wish to thank Jennifer Lewis, BCP-Certis; Karel Bolckmans, Koppert Biological Systems; Richard GreatRex, Syngenta-Bioline; Martin Clark, EO, Australian Chamber of Fruit & Vegetable Industries; Ian James, private consultant economist to Ausveg; and Alan Norden, Australian Pesticides & Veterinary Medicines Authority, for providing information that assisted this article. Google Earth is thanked for the image of the Spanish greenhouse industry.

About the authors
Since their retirement from NSW DPI, Marilyn Steiner and Stephen Goodwin have established a new business on Mangrove Mountain on the NSW Central Coast. Biocontrol Solutions is a consulting company in the area of IPM in protected crops, particularly in the development and use of biocontrol agents. Marilyn and Stephen between them have over 50 years’ experience. Email:

1. Good Agricultural Practices are “practices that address environmental, economic and social sustainability for on-farm processes, and result in safe and quality food and non-food agricultural products” (FAO COAG 2003 GAP paper). The scope of these four pillars varies widely.

2. Gillespie, D. 2002. Biological and integrated control in vegetables in British Columbia: The challenge of success. Bull. IOBC/WPRS 25(1): 73 – 76.

3. Practical Hydroponics & Greenhouses, Issue 45, 1999: Greenhouse IPM – Around the World, pp. 58-63.

4. Ekman, J. 2007. Risky business – managing on-farm assurance. Proc. Moraitis Hydroponics 2007 Australian Hydroponic and Greenhouse Industry National Conference, pp.101 – 103.

5. GLOBALGAP (formerly known as EUREPGAP formed in 1997), announced in September 2007, is the key reference for GAP in the global market place. It is a pre-farm gate standard that translates consumer requirements into agricultural production practices.

6. MRL – Maximum Residue Limit is the maximum concentration of pesticide residue legally permitted in or on food commodities. MRLs are established for specific pesticide/crop combinations.

7. ARfD – Acute Reference Dose is the amount of a chemical that can be consumed in a single meal without causing harm. In the UK, it is usually set 100 times lower than the acute No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) established from laboratory tests.

8. The concepts of GAP, Good Farming Practice and Good Plant Protection Practice are used interchangeably. These may include Integrated Farming Systems, Integrated Crop Management and IPM, but the EU has no common definition with minimum standards, causing some confusion. In 2006, an EU-wide definition of IPM was proposed and that from 2014 all farms shall comply with the general principles of IPM as a minimum. The proposed definition of IPM following that of the FAO is: “Careful consideration of all available pest control techniques and subsequent integration of appropriate measures that discourage the development of pest populations and keep plant protection products and other forms of intervention to levels that are economically justified and reduce or minimise risks to human health and the environment. Integrated pest management emphasises the growth of a healthy crop with the least possible disruption to ago-ecosystems and encourages natural pest control mechanisms.” Integrated Crop management is a similar concept to IPM, but adopts a more holistic approach as the name suggests (i.e. it is not just about pests).

9. Biocontrol Files, Issue 13, March 2008.

10. Practical Hydroponics & Greenhouses, Issue 93, 2007: A New Star is Born, pp. 22-28.

11. Jennifer Lewis, BCP-Certis, pers.comm.

12. Patton, D. Greenpeace raises alert over pesticides in Giangzhou fresh produce. AP-Foodtechnology, 20 June 2006.

13. Patton, D. Pesticide residues still high in Chinese vegetables. AP-Foodtechnology, 25 April 2006.

14. Ian James, consulting economist, pers. comm.

15. Pesticides in Fruit and Veg. Choice, April 2006, pp. 25-27.

16. Martin Clark, Australian Chamber of Fruit & Vegetable Industries, pers. comm

Issue 99: Green Solutions for Greenhouse Pests

March/April – 2008
Authors: Marilyn Steiner & Stephen Goodwin

In the third in a series of articles on pesticide use in an IPM environment, the authors give an update on pesticides for use with natural enemies, and highlight a strategy that will give growers the best return.

In a previous issue (Issue 97, November/December 2007) we discussed the need for a ‘Made in Australia’ minor use initiative. We also need to expand the range of pesticides available to Australian growers for use in IPM programs. In the article mentioned, we took issue with the broad definition of the term ‘reduced-risk’ pesticides as used in the USA and Canada, which embraces products with less risk to people than traditional existing products, but which nevertheless can be highly detrimental to natural enemies.

Does it really matter if the pesticides are doing a good job, you ask? Well, yes. These new generation materials may be just as prone to developing resistance problems in their target pests as the old ones, plus they are far too expensive to develop, manufacture and buy to have gathering dust on the shelf after a short effective life. How soon we forget that the reason for investing all that effort in finding a better predator or parasite wasn’t just because we were all eco-freaks, but because we had worked existing pesticides to death and they were no longer effective.

Degrees of safety: reduced-risk, biorational, or biopesticide?
The term ‘reduced-risk’ is falling out of favour these days. Now the in-phrase is ‘biorational’. This too is a term that is lacking a rigorous definition. Try this one: the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identifies biorational pesticides as ‘inherently different from conventional pesticides, having fundamentally different modes of action and consequently, lower risks of adverse effects from their use’. Or this one: ‘pest control products that are relatively non-toxic to people with few environmental side-effects’. Biorational pesticides have been equated with ‘least toxic pesticides’ and ‘biopesticides’.

Minimum risk pesticides are different again. Biopesticides, on the other hand, are actually specifically regulated in the USA and thus the EPA has formed a committee to determine what makes the list.

Officially, biopesticides are subdivided into microbials such as Bacillus thuringiensis, plant-pesticides such as Bt cotton, and biochemical pesticides such as pheromones and IGRs, at least, some of them. Registration is generally faster than for more conventional pesticides, though safety is not compromised.

For the purpose of this article, let’s settle on ‘biorational’, and assume no or only minor effects on natural enemies goes along with safety to fish, fowl and Homo sapiens.

An update on pesticides for use with natural enemies
For our own list, we have selected a range of biorational materials that have (so far) a good track record of safety to a range of natural enemies used in greenhouses (see Table 1 and Table 2). We have endeavoured to cover insecticides and miticides, but not fungicides, most of which are safe. On a scale of 1 (no toxicity) to 4 (very toxic), we disqualified any active ingredient that scored 3 or 4 in two or more key natural enemy categories. These are predatory mites (e.g. Phytoseiulus persimilis, Neoseiulus cucumeris, Stratiolaelaps [Hypoaspis] scimitus), predatory beetles (e.g. Cryptolaemus montrouzieri), predatory bugs (e.g. Orius, Macrolophus), lacewings (e.g. Mallada, Chrysoperla) and parasitoids (e.g. Encarsia formosa, Aphidius colemani).

This list is compiled to narrow the field for you when searching for additional information. It should not be considered gospel, because many factors impinge on whether a product can be used with minimum impact or not. Even water can be harmful if you apply it at high pressure or often enough. Note that only active ingredients in italics have one or more registrations within Australia. It is not okay to use an unregistered product or one that is registered but not on your crop; however, it is legitimate to canvass for new products and uses and support their registration. Interested in other products in the list? Contact your Department of Agriculture or Primary Industry for information on how and where to get some action.

Multiple choice in sites of activity
At one time we were restricted to inorganic, organophosphate, organochlorine and carbamate insecticides. Nowadays pesticides are classified into nearly 30 main groups depending on their mode of action. CropLife Australia provides a listing for Australian registered products.

The lethal mechanism is still unknown for some actives, for example flonicamid (Aria®), Group 9, a broad-spectrum pesticide not yet available in Australia, but with a good safety profile for natural enemies. The new miticide acequinocyl (Kanemite®) is listed as in Group 20; it acts on mitichondrial electron transfer. Another new miticide, spiridiclofen (Envidor®), is in Group 23, an inhibitor of lipid synthesis, with a slightly better safety profile than its close relative spiromesifen (not listed in Tables). The ability to rotate between pesticides with different modes of action, while preserving natural enemies, is the key to long-term resistance management. Our current choices in a greenhouse environment are very limited and likely to remain so unless we lobby hard for change.

Green is not black and white
You should note that there are sometimes major differences in response to pesticides between insects and mites in the same general category. For example, the whitefly parasitoid Encarsia formosa is generally more sensitive than the aphid parasitoid Aphidius colemani, but there may also be regional differences in natural enemy response due to strain differences or acquired resistance. A pesticide may act quite differently on different life stages of the natural enemy. It’s a safe bet that death within the egg or pupal stage will probably not be noticed. Effects can be immediate, with twitching and toes upturned, or chronic, with apparent survival but reduction in feeding rate, egg laying, survival time, motility, mating urge, etc.

Most of us don’t hang in for the long haul. It shouldn’t be too much of a surprise that knocking off most of the pests can also lead to starvation and a sudden drop in the population that may be mistaken for pesticide toxicity. For more detailed information on effects of pesticides (including fungicides) on a wide range of natural enemies, check the websites of Koppert (, recently revamped and much easier to use; Biobest (, usually good but not working well on Vista at time of writing, and the local Australasian Biological Control (

Developing a strategy that will give you the best return
The general characteristics of most biorational pesticides are that they have short residual activity with low persistence, and are more targeted products with a narrow spectrum of activity against pests. Another common characteristic is that most are far too expensive to waste! Therefore think prevention rather than cure, a back-up for natural enemies rather than a replacement for them. You might also consider your strategy for their use in the context of present and past global warfare. Conventional warfare is about area-wide bombardment. However, we have all seen how well-targeted guerrilla tactics, using minimal resources, can achieve the same end with far less collateral damage. Some do’s for a successful outcome:

• Do tailor each specific treatment to the most susceptible pest stage and monitoring to get the timing right.
• Do assess which natural enemies are critical to management of the pests you have, and check the right products are on hand to have least effect.
• Do target pesticide usage efficiently, using good spray technique.
• Do monitor before and after each application to assess effectiveness against the pest, any effect on key natural enemies, and the need for follow-up treatment.
• Do use spot treatments rather than area coverage so as to leave refuges for natural enemies.
• Do deploy the troops before the pests get out of hand.

The range of pesticides now available and their relative safety to both people and the environment is far better than it used to be. The focus is on environmentally friendly products, with fast-track incentives to keep them coming. Let’s all keep the pesticide companies on track by using their products in a well-informed manner and by preserving their useful life as long as possible, in a truly integrated approach. Finally, let’s continue to lobby the APVMA to introduce a special registration classification for biorational pesticides that are truly environmentally friendly.

About the authors
Since their retirement from NSW DPI, Marilyn Steiner and Stephen Goodwin have established a new business, Biocontrol Solutions, located on Mangrove Mountain on the NSW Central Coast. Biocontrol Solutions is a consulting company in the area of IPM in protected crops, particularly in the development and use of biocontrol agents. Marilyn and Stephen between them have in excess of 50 years experience. Email:  Ω

PH&G March/April 2008 / Issue 99

Issue 82: IPM Practices for Outdoor Growers

May/June -2005
Author: Michael O’Dea

Following a cancer scare, MICHAEL O’DEA moved to south-east Queensland where he established an eco-friendly, outdoor hydroponic facility, adopting IPM practices and biocontrols to grow pesticide-free lettuce, herbs and Asian greens for the health food market. His story first appeared in the November/December 2004 issue of Practical Hydroponics & Greenhouses. Here, the grower gives us an update.

Well, 10 months later;how did we go? What were our goals and did we achieve most of them? To answer the first question, it is necessary to review our objectives, which are best summarised in an article authored by Dr Porter and published in Practical Hydroponics & Greenhouses (Impact of Global Market Drivers, Sept/Oct 2004). This article highlighted a number of issues that will influence future food production practices worldwide.

In his article, Dr Porter said that in the future, food will be produced using very different technologies than are used today. “Public concern over food safety (particularly chemical residues) and environmental flow of pesticides and nitrates into the environment are having a huge impact on crop production systems,” he said.

Dr Porter pointed to water conservation and water use efficiency as other major problems facing the world and, of course, is a major issue here in Australia. He also points to energy audits on production and anti-GMO sentiment as market drivers that will force growers to conform to stringent quality assurance guidelines to meet food and environmental safety standards;standards that are already embraced by many northern European countries. “In the next decade, ‘clean and green’ will mean zero pesticide residues in food and will require proof that crop production practices do no harm to the ecosystem, otherwise growers will face the prospect of environmental tariffs,” Dr Porter said.

We figured that people have to eat and they will want nutritious, pesticide-free food. We attended a nearby Saturday morning grower market on the Gold Coast for three weeks and we sold out of our product very quickly. The consumer reaction to the pesticide-free, no soil organisms, no herbicide concept was really positive, and it gave me a chance to explain to customers that we were not organic, but a viable alternative.

Unfortunately, the other growers didn’t see it that way and complained we had taken a lot of business away from them (which was true). The market organisers decided to listen to these growers;not the customers. We were not invited back.

Marketing-wise, a lot of what we did was guesswork. We knew we could grow a good product because we had undertaken formal training at Burnley College, Victoria, and had 20 years experience as commercial growers. What we did not have was knowledge of the varieties the market wanted, which meant we wasted time growing the wrong varieties. It also took some time to grow the right crop to suit the climate. We are still learning. As Rick Donnan has said many times in his column, Reader Inquiries, hydroponic technology represents only 10% of skills required to grow a marketable crop;the other 90% is based on knowing your crop and having the growing skills.

We now deal with a wholesaler at Rocklea Market, Brisbane, and a supermarket chain. We also supply restaurants direct. In a way, that suits me fine as we no longer spend all day at a market, which can be time-consuming.

The majority of hydroponic growers know how efficient hydroponic systems are in terms of water and fertiliser use. In our case, we use 700 litres of water to produce $100 worth of produce as opposed to the scandalous 750, 000 litres of water to produce $100 worth of rice. As well as the usual fertilisers, we add in our own organic ‘herbs and spices’ to get optimum crop health, and we do not dump water every so often.

We use town water which is chlorinated. Our water quality is atrocious and hovers around EC 0. 8-1. 2 – the water contains a lot of dissolved solids. In spite of the handicaps, we still produce an excellent product.

Our water and fertiliser costs are small. There is also no run-off into the environment – we recycle the water. If we need to bleed solution, we irrigate fruit trees and potted herbs.

Hydroponic and greenhouse growers have many advantages over traditional soil growers. I can’t see why hydroponic growers need GMOs, because we do not need to weed, and we can spray on friendly Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to aid in controlling a number of harmful insects, if we need to. We do not need to use ozone depleting methyl bromide – our production level per sqm is far higher than can be achieved by growing in the ground. We use very little in the way of pesticides, and hydroponic growers are allowed organic inputs, such as Eco Oil and soap sprays to counter insect pests and diseases. We grow our crop in polyethylene channels;we do not use PVC.

In Europe, especially in Scandinavia, many crops are grown hydroponically without the use of pesticides using biocontrols to keep pest problems in check. Water and nutrients are also recycled.

Our objective at the Squeaky Green farm is to avoid the use of toxic chemicals on the vegetables we grow to give consumers a pesticide-free product. To achieve this, we use biocontrols to keep most of our pests under control. We release hypoaspis predatory mites every fortnight to keep fungus gnats and thrips under control. We were given some rove beetles ages ago by Biological Services in Loxton, SA, to control fungus gnat, thrips and shore flies, and we still see these beetles in the media when we are working around our crop. We keep a constant look out for pests in the crop and eveyone who works at Squeaky Green monitors the crop for pests and beneficials during their work routines. A daily record is kept of the status of the crop, where beneficials are released, and where pests are found.

Because we use friendly bugs, they put a constraint on what we can use in the way of sprays. If we have to use sprays, then they have to be biorationales. We did start off by using pyrethrums, which are an allowed organic input, but we found it tends to knock off beneficials as well as insect pests.

We have found we get a very good influx of aphidius parasitic wasps to control aphids (Myzus persicae). We also get a variety of ladybird (Hippodamia convergens) that feed on aphids. We are exploring the possibilities of growing banker plants to keep a population of parasitic wasps on hand.

We have found ants are our biggest problem – the ants farm the aphids for their honeydew secretions. We use boric acid and sugar as a bait, and greasing around the legs of the tables tends to keep the numbers down.

As far as the aphids are concerned, if we keep a careful eye on our Asian veggies, we know where the aphids are and we can get rid of them by spraying them with Eco Oil. I only use a small pack to spot spray hot spots. We did get some large brown aphids (Uroleucon sonchi) on our lettuce in the winter months, but they seemed to disappear by spring.

We also release green lacewings fortnightly and they do a great job of cleaning up anything they can get their fangs into; including my arm.

Micheal and Jant O’Dea inspect the crop for pest.

I have seen a few whitefly on our sticky traps, but numbers have never increased, so maybe the lacewings are eating any nymphs. We have a resident population of brown frogs in our flood and drain trays.

I think our worst problem is going to be Rutherglen bugs (Nysus vinitor) in late spring/early summer. We struggled with them in 2004. Many conventional growers have the same problem. Complete exclusion is possible but it restricts the air flow around the crop too much. Has anyone got any help on this topic? I have talked to a number of entomologists in the IPM area and they all tell me Nysus vinitor is very hard to control biologically, as are mirrids, another sucking insect. I do have some strategies in mind, such as growing a trap crop which I can use to attract the bugs away from our veggies.

The Vortex Bug Bin light trap is most effective inside the netting

Lepidopterous caterpillar pests are not a problem for us as we use netting, and we also use a Vortex Bug Bin light trap. We started off by putting the light trap inside the netting, but we have since moved the trap just outside the netting. This device has proved invaluable to us because it traps so many bugs. I do not know all the bugs it traps but I did have a talk to Dr Richard Drew at Griffith University, Qld, who has worked with the light trap. He is enthusiastic about its ability to trap bugs of the crop-eating kind.

This innovative product has enormous potential in many areas of crop production including vegetables, turf, macadamias, lychees, cotton, and anywhere where the Coleoptera beetle and Lepidoptera caterpillar are a problem for growers. Redlands nursery just outside Brisbane has used the Vortex light trap for four years and they say they could not do without it now.

According to evaluation tests carried out by CSIRO Entomology at the Australian Cotton Research Institute, Narrabri, NSW, the overall results of the Vortex light trap were positive. The data shows that Helicoverpa caterpillar densities were substantially reduced within and around the array of Vortex light traps. It must be stressed that this work only involved two fields over part of a single season. Such unreplicated experiments require cautious interpretation because other (unknown) factors could contribute to the differences shown. The CSIRO study showed promising results, but it also highlights the need for careful evaluation in the future.

The Squeaky Green farm specalises in pesticide-free Asian herbs and lettuce.

‘Clean and green’ will mean zero pesticides in fresh produce with no harm to the environment, and some kind of proof to show that these standards are achieved. Labels on food to indicate that it is produced in a sustainable way is one way to demonstrate proof. For example, in Belgium, over 2,000 growers market under the Flandria label, where the motto is ‘Quality Vegetables – Approved by Nature’. In Australia, Freshcare does address grower accreditation to some extent.

So far, we are not really emphasising the fact that the Squeaky Green farm is pesticide free. I need more time to find out how far into the season we can go with no pesticides. We have had to use azoxistrobin to treat small amounts of septoria and pythium.

We use a bio-friendly trichoderma fungi in the water to suppress disease organisms and it appears to work really well. I have a microscope and I can diagnose the most common fungal pathogens by the shape of the spores. On the subject of diagnosis, I use a 12x magnification lens, which I bought off my optician, to identify insect pests and diseases.

We had a touch of albugo (also known as white rust) on the Asian greens. It only appeared on one plant variety and we have stopped growing this crop until the weather conditions are no longer conducive to the disease.

Our quality has been excellent all the way through the season and we have gained sales by having a better quality product than the ground growers. By the end of the year, in time for summer, we will have 5,000 sq. metres of production area.

What we do need is like-minded growers to try and achieve ecologically sustainable standards and to put together a label that consumers will recognise.

For soil growers, there are some encouraging technologies being used to conserve water and nutrients. Dr Richard Stirzaker from the CSIRO has invented a soil probe which enables ground growers to monitor nutrient usage where water is in the soil profile. The device is called FULL STOP and can be used to give precise water and nutrient doses. Mulch techniques have also been developed to avoid disturbing soil profiles. By growing a cover crop, the resulting problems of bare earth can be avoided.

It is up to us as growers to start to implement sustainable growing systems, and here at Squeaky Green, we have a lot of answers to the problems we have experienced so far. It would be good to get some kind of Internet chat room going for likeminded growers.

I would like to thank my wife Janet and daughter Nicola for helping to achieve our goals. Without their eagle eyes, we would not be able to be Squeaky Green.

For further information contact Michael O’Dea at email: