A Summary of the Fillmore Citrus Protective District

Between Interstate 5 and US Highway 101 runs California State Highway 126, from Castaic Junction to Ventura.  The road follows the course of the Santa Clara River which created a fertile valley that has supported post-settler agricultural production since the first planting of citrus trees in 1874. 

From the beginning, the few hundred growers in the region fought insect pest infestations that ranged from being a nuisance to nearly wiping them out of business.  Their approach to pest management was unique and has remained an effective system that has successfully weathered many pest-related setbacks.  They joined together in 1922 to create a type of insurance company against yearly pest damage.  This collaborative approach spread the risk of economic loss across all growers in the group to minimize or avoid catastrophic loss to any one individual.  The set up was straightforward. A district of growers was elected to a board of commissioners and they hired a general manager.  Pest management decisions were made by the manager with input from the board and approval by the district membership.  Each grower paid a share into the pest management fund which was then used to manage pest problems throughout the district. 

The organization and implementation were insightful at the time and perspicacious for what was to come.  Graebner et al. (1984) described their philosophy: “Area growers hoped to gain economic benefits by forming a cooperative district and acting as a collective group, rather than as individuals.  Apparently, they recognized the benefits to be gained through cooperation because pests do not recognize property boundaries.” 

In reading through its history, one can see the whipsaw effects of a constant influx of invasive insect species like California red scale, citrophilus mealybug, and black scale.  Each of these pests were initially managed with insecticide applications, including cyanide fumigations.  The effects of using the organophosphate insecticides parathion and malathion were disastrous for overall pest management. The broad-spectrum nature of the product wiped out all types of insects, including the natural enemies keeping other pests in check.  The solution lay in a truly integrated approach and with a twist – an areawide integrated approach – with all growers on the same page, making this unusual approach and organization so unique. 

One of the beneficial spin offs of the Fillmore project was the development of an insectary (a natural enemy rearing facility) to create and distribute a ready supply of natural enemies to target the three species mentioned above.  All three pest species were the subject of biological control introduction programs. However, the natural enemies established for their control needed to be supplemented every year to keep pest populations below economically damaging levels because of various biological and environmental factors. In other words, augmentation biological control was born. 

The result was a massive yearly production of the parasitoid wasp, Aphytis melinus, for red scale; a ladybeetle, Cryptolaemus montruzieri (mealybug destroyers), for mealybugs; and another parasitoid wasp, Metaphycus helvolus, for black scale.  And with cooperation with all growers in this areawide approach, the natural enemies could be deployed without risk of being killed by an unexpected pesticide application. 

When it comes to integrated pest management, or IPM, the key is to integrate living natural enemy organisms in an environment that often requires insecticide applications.  The Fillmore Citrus Protective District has managed that with skilled professional pest control advisors and managers for just over 100 years and counting.  It is a testament to the benefits of working together towards a common goal. 

Sources

L. Graebner, D. S. Moreno, J. L. Baritelle, The Fillmore Citrus Protective District: A Success Story in Integrated Pest Management, Bulletin of the Entomological Society of America, Volume 30, Issue 4, Winter 1984, Pages 27–33, https://doi.org/10.1093/besa/30.4.27