On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Paul Cherubini <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> "historically 90% of all biological control attempts have failed."

Since you give no details, we don't know whether you are referring to
research, which generally fails, or actual commercial applications.
Regardless, it is still worth studying and moving in the direction
away from chemicals. I support the use of chemicals *if all else
fails*. I don't have the book in hand but here is an additional
excerpt:

> Ann Hajek discusses the reasons why biological control is used, and describes different use strategies and associated safety issues, as well as how best to integrate biological control with other types of pest management. She goes on to describe the basic biology of the different types of natural enemies, and gives examples of successful biological control programs. Throughout this book the ecological relationships that make control possible are emphasized and the major strategies for the use of different types of natural enemies detailed, with discussions of the specific conditions under which each strategy is successful in controlling pests.

ANN E. HAJEK is an associate professor in the Department of Entomology
at Cornell University, where she teaches a lower-division course on
natural enemies, and a graduate course on invertebrate pathology. She
has worked on numerous different types of natural enemies and their
use to control pest populations. Her research program centers
currently on fungal diseases of insect pests, emphasizing the gypsy
moth and the invasive Asian longhorned beetle.

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************