LIGHT BROWN APPLE MOTH (LBAM) FRAUD CONTINUES.  
 
There have been many dozens of false reports of LBAM damage. Most have been by The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), but some of the false reports have been by people or organizations that have a cozy relationship with CDFA.  
 
The Environmental Impact Report clearly states "No LBAM damage" in California. But the CDFA strategically placed it on only a couple lines within a 3,000 page report, so very few would see it to know the truth. Yet CDFA delivered dozens of false reports of LBAM damage to the media so that millions of people would be fooled.  
 
Note in the first line of this article, it says "Very likely." After four calendar years (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010) of claims of LBAM damage, there still is NOT even one legitimate claim. There continues to be NO DOCUMENTATION of LBAM damage in any County Agriculture Office in the entire state of California.  
 
The CDFA has scores of entomologists, statisticians, DNA technicians and hundreds of others who try to please CDFA for funding, grants, etc. Yet with all of these scientists and others desperately attempting to demonstrate LBAM damage to support CDFA's fraudulent program, there is not a single confirmed documentation of LBAM damage in California.  
 
LBAM is simply another leaf roller that has been living in California for approximately 50 years and is a non-issue regarding crop damage concern to farmers.  
 
But because CDFA is able to take $100's of millions of dollars from taxpayers for this LBAM program, this fraudulent program continues.

Hi Robert,  
 
I think you are saying that I am a liar, and to that end I will respond:  
 
1. I do not believe that UCCE has a "cozy relationship" with the CDFA or the USDA for that matter. The research and extension work that I have done here has been for the most part been conducted by myself and some brilliant and hardworking people from UC Davis.  
2. From what I have seen from my everyday interaction with growers, LBAM has indeed expanded in number in berry crops grown in Santa Cruz county. Last year the numbers of this pest were up in caneberries, and there were several costly field closures because of positive LBAM finds. This year, growers have been very good about deploying pheromone based mating disruption, timely pesticide applications as well as cultural controls. These efforts have been successful and thus far I have not heard of any field closures in caneberries in 2010.  
The question of whether or not this pest will become economic or not I believe is still open, and to be blunt it does not matter to me or the industry because right now the rules say we can't have a single LBAM in the field. That's our threshold.  
3. Surprisingly, LBAM has shown up this year in significant numbers in strawberries, with several positive LBAM finds and consequent field closures across the growing district from Watsonville to Salinas. Growers and crop protection professionals also are reporting multiple finds of the new leafroller in strawberries, and have begun to put into place control measures. Hence, the blog post educating growers and others on the significance of this leafroller.  
4. The pictures always report what appears to be LBAM and so forth, since the ID is not positive. As surely you know by now, there are only two ways to positively identify LBAM: grow them out and id the adults or two send them in for evaluation by the CDFA which of course will ask for the field from which it came resulting in the very real risk of field closure. When we have grown them out, suspect larvae are invariably LBAM.  
Robert, I would appreciate a little more confidence on your part in what we are doing here in UCCE.

Hi Dad.

Dear R. Williams,  
 
In response to your comment above, I think there have been some miscommunications about the intent of this blog and of the motivations for the scientific research that has been done so far. Please allow me to clarify my own position. I think you will find that we are all in closer agreement than has been implied in your above post, but is is important that we are able to speak about this clearly.  
You are probably correct about damage. I also have not seen much quantitative data to support that there has been what we call "economic damage" to a crop here in California yet (at least that I have worked in), although there are a few organic blackberry fields that have come very close and possibly have suffered financial losses. I have no numbers in hand to report, only personal reports from growers.  
However, I think we call all agree on the facts:  
1. The reasoning behind State regulation is not about the current damage levels to the crops we are working in. Although, it's true we don't know what the future damage might be if the population increases, and it has dramatically increased in the last few years, regardless of how long the pest may have already been in California. Believe me, we did not expect this pest to start popping up in strawberry inspections.  
One purpose of quarantines and field shutdowns is to prevent the spread of LBAM to other regions (some international) where it has not yet established. And there are crops that this pest can be economically damaging to, including those in this area, we just haven't necessarily seen the population levels to do that, or have the experiments going to record it.  
Furthermore, even if LBAM was not being regulated by the state, the consequences to growers is severe because of trade agreements. Other countries that we regularly ship to are going to implement their own quarantines, and we have seen this already with some of our markets. Therefore, it is in everyone's best interests for us to have a good understanding of the levels of infestation, how to manage and detect the pest, etc. This is our only bargaining leverage to keep trade going in the short and long term, and to reduce financial loss.  
2. Current regulatory protocol: As part of the regulatory program, State officials ARE shutting down fields based on the detection of LBAM at the threshold of one larva per cooler. After a cooler detection, they will inspect the shutdown field. If they confirm the presence of leafrollers (at a minimum, 1 leafroller), the field remains shutdown until they can confirm that it is LBAM or a native leafroller. If it is LBAM the field remains shutdown until they can no longer detect any leafrollers. This is a very low threshold, and it is understandable that people think it is unreasonable and unmanageable to reach the requirements.  
3. *The consequences of current regulation: Growers are at risk for major financial loss on account of field shutdowns. This is going to continue as long as quarantines are in effect. Regardless of how anyone feels about it, this is the reality of the situation for the moment.  
Since these are the circumstances, Mark and I have been working ONLY to provide growers with the resources they need (data, tactics and recommendations) to be able to deal with the current regulatory climate.  
My interests are to do this with objective information, and to provide the information to growers as quickly and efficiently as possible. All in the hopes that it allows more grower fields to stay open, minimizing financial loss, and trying to ensure that growers are not the ones who pay the price for the current regulatory climate.  
It is the job of people like you to question whether the regulatory situation is serving the public or not and to pursue the best long term solutions for policy. It is the job of scientists like us to come up with practical solutions in the meantime and disseminate that knowledge to the people who need it.  
Lastly, the reason why Mark says "probably" and "likely" so much in these posts is that we are not going to make false claims, but we have a lot of on the ground experience and it is more important to inform growers than withold information simply because we are not 100% sure. From a precautionary principle standpoint, it is helpful for a grower to be able to identify ANY signs of LBAM. If the things we point out end up not being this pest, that's something to be happy about. If it is, then knowing the early signs is of great use.  
Please feel free to contact me any time via email or phone if you would like to have a more in depth conversation. I would be interested to hear your thoughts in a more personable conversation, and outside of a forum intended to benefit growers.  
 
Best,  
Hillary  
 
Hillary Q. Thomas, Ph.D.  
Post Doctoral Scholar  
Department of Entomology  
1 Shields Aveneue, Davis, CA, 95616  
530-752-6663