Abstract
Modern agriculture faces the challenge of balancing crop productivity with sustainability. The EU's Farm to Fork Strategy targets a 50% reduction in the use and risk of chemical pesticides by 2030, and the U.S. MAHA Commission's report advocates for more targeted pesticide application. However, farmers remain reluctant to reduce pesticides due to concerns about efficacy and profitability. Natural enemies and biopesticides show promise as alternatives to chemical pesticides, yet adoption remains limited and economic frameworks to optimize their use yet to be developed. This paper examines when farmers can reduce pesticide by using commercial natural enemies or biopesticides. We develop a bioeconomic model incorporating farmers' decisions on natural enemy augmentation and biopesticide use. The model extends the Natural Enemy-Adjusted Economic Threshold (NEET) framework and integrates more realistic non-linear predation dynamics. The results indicate that a subsidy on commercial natural enemies is required to make them an economically viable substitute for pesticides at low pest densities. Additionally, the linear predation assumption that is common in the bioeconomics literature leads pesticides to be triggered too soon.