Trichogramma use have been developed during 1980–1990. During 1991–1994, the
Trichogramma was considered as an effective BCA in pest control. The results of
BC using Trichogramma were successful or at least promising (Ebrahimi et al.
1998). In 1995–2001, the development of BC in rice fields and subsequent crops
began. Numerous insectaries were developed, the pesticide subsidies were allocated
for the development of the BC plan, mass production is practically refined experienced, but on the other hand, the release methods were not optimized and the storage
method was the same as before, except for some details. The issue of quality control
(QC) began to emerge and the private sector gradually started collaboration during
which problems appeared. During this time, efforts were made to maintain and
enhance the BC in the country. The plan to reduce pesticide use was turned into a
program for the Optimal Utilization of Fertilizers and Pesticides (OUFP), and this
change in attitude, as well as decrease of subsidies to pesticides, were combined with
the use of BC. However, there were problems with financial allocation. It was
determined that a percentage of mass rearing and application costs of the agents
would come from farmers with an annual increase until it covers the costs, and the
producer be in direct contact with the farmer. Despite these problems, development
continued. While the formal appearance of the BC program seemed good more
serious problems arose and the process was further refined.
Since 2001, the BC development in the rice fields has stopped; the two Ministries
of Agriculture and Jihad have been merged, a High Council for Pesticides and
Chemical Fertilizers use Reduction has been abolished and so the coordination
center was dismantled. Thus the oversight, planning, and procurement of BC were
lost; credits shifted and allocation changed; research and implementation were
separated with BC measures continued only with the efforts of a few true proponents
of its development. Some rice farmers have taken a negative insight into BC
approach as research budgets related to methods of developing and removing the
bottlenecks were insignificant and in fact, credits did not move to the relevant
research plans.
The problems with the use of Trichogramma are not limited to mass production,
and there are various other issues, including planning and monitoring of essential
barriers. We don’t have Trichogramma post-release data in quantitative form, and
we don’t know where we succeed or failed or by how much (Attaran and Dadpour
Moghanloo 2011).
Organizing a single and specific planner and supervisor, pushing subsidies to the
production of healthy crop rather than producer, removing government purchases of
BCAs, maximizing producer responsibilities (i.e. mass production, release, and
packaging), and the necessity of forming major producers and/or aggregating
small producers into a large subset are among the most important issues which
need thoroughly examining in the Trichogramma application.
17 Analytical Approach to Opportunities and Obstacles of Iranian Biological. . .
607
Trichogramma was considered as an effective BCA in pest control. The results of
BC using Trichogramma were successful or at least promising (Ebrahimi et al.
1998). In 1995–2001, the development of BC in rice fields and subsequent crops
began. Numerous insectaries were developed, the pesticide subsidies were allocated
for the development of the BC plan, mass production is practically refined experienced, but on the other hand, the release methods were not optimized and the storage
method was the same as before, except for some details. The issue of quality control
(QC) began to emerge and the private sector gradually started collaboration during
which problems appeared. During this time, efforts were made to maintain and
enhance the BC in the country. The plan to reduce pesticide use was turned into a
program for the Optimal Utilization of Fertilizers and Pesticides (OUFP), and this
change in attitude, as well as decrease of subsidies to pesticides, were combined with
the use of BC. However, there were problems with financial allocation. It was
determined that a percentage of mass rearing and application costs of the agents
would come from farmers with an annual increase until it covers the costs, and the
producer be in direct contact with the farmer. Despite these problems, development
continued. While the formal appearance of the BC program seemed good more
serious problems arose and the process was further refined.
Since 2001, the BC development in the rice fields has stopped; the two Ministries
of Agriculture and Jihad have been merged, a High Council for Pesticides and
Chemical Fertilizers use Reduction has been abolished and so the coordination
center was dismantled. Thus the oversight, planning, and procurement of BC were
lost; credits shifted and allocation changed; research and implementation were
separated with BC measures continued only with the efforts of a few true proponents
of its development. Some rice farmers have taken a negative insight into BC
approach as research budgets related to methods of developing and removing the
bottlenecks were insignificant and in fact, credits did not move to the relevant
research plans.
The problems with the use of Trichogramma are not limited to mass production,
and there are various other issues, including planning and monitoring of essential
barriers. We don’t have Trichogramma post-release data in quantitative form, and
we don’t know where we succeed or failed or by how much (Attaran and Dadpour
Moghanloo 2011).
Organizing a single and specific planner and supervisor, pushing subsidies to the
production of healthy crop rather than producer, removing government purchases of
BCAs, maximizing producer responsibilities (i.e. mass production, release, and
packaging), and the necessity of forming major producers and/or aggregating
small producers into a large subset are among the most important issues which
need thoroughly examining in the Trichogramma application.
17 Analytical Approach to Opportunities and Obstacles of Iranian Biological. . .
607