At a press conference this morning a new location has been announced where citrus canker has been detected - the Marrakai area SE of Darwin.
The Press release is here - http://mediareleases.nt.gov.au/mediaRelease/26747.
As noted, once again as for all others, it is present on nursery stock supplied from a single nursery in the Darwin area.
While there seems to be no detection of the disease on commercial citrus producers so far, the question that is absolutely pertinent has not been openly explored.........what is the origin of the infection in the nursery? Everyone seems to be skirting around this issue, or at least can the identification of possible sources be explained, and also how long it may have been present.
So far the traceback is extending to 12 months before first confirmation, so presumably, it may have been around in the nursery for that period, or up to that period.
While getting on with methodical work locating the movement of material from the nursery continues [ and there seems to be evidence quite a lot have gone interstate], the method of infection is not openly discussed, or argued.
Maybe it was windborne spores .......technically possible, if insects can move into the region from airborne travel in monsoonal weather [ blue tongue insect vectors for example].
Showing posts with label plant biosecurity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plant biosecurity. Show all posts
Friday, June 15, 2018
Thursday, July 09, 2015
Is Biosecurity Adequate in Northern Australia?
There is a lot of future for north Australia that is dependent on effective biosecurity in the region.
Over the past several years the litany of biosecurity breaches seems to be significant :
Over the past several years the litany of biosecurity breaches seems to be significant :
- Panama disease in a major production area of bananas in north Queensland - Tropical Race 4 [ TR4] a highly pathogenic variant
- known areas of the same disease around Darwin, and banning bananas being grown in some NT areas, and restrictions on banana plant movements
- a major effort at eradication of Banana Freckle disease near Darwin after the exotic disease was found in the NT
- Cucumber Green Mottle Mosaic Virus in curcurbits, especially melons, in the NT in 2014 and adjacent states also potentially infected, but not all jurisdictions are looking yet
- an Asian Bee colony discovered in Darwin in the last few days, after hitching a ride on a caravan, but with an absent queen - who is suspected of absconding with a new colony and may be setting up locally [ if that establishes then there will be mayhem]
 |
| Asian honey bees |
- culicoides driven diseases also seem to be increasing - with blue tongue arriving many years ago from wind borne insects, and more recently a few more cases of chikungunya around the north [ at least so far the mosquito involved in spread does not seem to be around]; dengue outbreaks in some locations in north Queensland [ although the Australian derived disease in mosquities - Wolbachia may be a great agent to make a difference] if needed, as well as considerable issues surrounding other mosquito diseases such as Ross River Fever and variants as well as Murray Valley Encephalitis.
We would like to see more agricultural development in the north of Australia, but biosecurity does need to be remembered......and emphasised.
While there has been money marked to be used for improved biosecurity in the north the track record is not all that encouraging. And one must not forget human diseases either.
A meeting this week included a presentation on the dollars to be allocated to biosecurity improvements, R and D, upgraded awareness etc. And presented by someone from outside the north Australia area seemed to leave local north Australia scientists and producers rather underwhelmed. Some stated that industry - a very diverse one at that - is not being adequately consulted or even advised. One thinks of plant based industries - but often just the major ones of temperate Australia, but seems to forget fish farms, prawn farms, crocodiles and other non mainstream animal industries let alone the plant and animal based industries that thrive in the north - nurseries, asian vegetables, sugar, chia, cattle, pastures etc. Are they being assessed adequately for biosecurity threats?
http://www.agricultureminister.gov.au/pages/media-releases/agwp-biosecurity.aspx
http://www.agricultureminister.gov.au/pages/media-releases/12-4-million-for-indigenous-rangers.aspx
These are recent media release on new measures in biosecurity for north Australia, but there is little detail. Finding any information on detail is also VERY difficult, as it seems to be hidden away from easy access.
Biosecurity might not be very sexy in terms of rural development - but it is important, and needs greater highlighting of what is being planned.
A meeting this week included a presentation on the dollars to be allocated to biosecurity improvements, R and D, upgraded awareness etc. And presented by someone from outside the north Australia area seemed to leave local north Australia scientists and producers rather underwhelmed. Some stated that industry - a very diverse one at that - is not being adequately consulted or even advised. One thinks of plant based industries - but often just the major ones of temperate Australia, but seems to forget fish farms, prawn farms, crocodiles and other non mainstream animal industries let alone the plant and animal based industries that thrive in the north - nurseries, asian vegetables, sugar, chia, cattle, pastures etc. Are they being assessed adequately for biosecurity threats?
http://www.agricultureminister.gov.au/pages/media-releases/agwp-biosecurity.aspx
http://www.agricultureminister.gov.au/pages/media-releases/12-4-million-for-indigenous-rangers.aspx
These are recent media release on new measures in biosecurity for north Australia, but there is little detail. Finding any information on detail is also VERY difficult, as it seems to be hidden away from easy access.
Biosecurity might not be very sexy in terms of rural development - but it is important, and needs greater highlighting of what is being planned.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
Biosecurity - Fruit Flies - Taxonomy Improves- Species Combined
Media release: What’s in a name? Everything - if you’re a fruit fly
29 October, 2014
A global research effort has finally resolved a major biosecurity issue: four of the world’s most destructive agricultural pests are actually one and the same.
For twenty years some of the world’s most damaging pest fruit flies have been almost impossible to distinguish from each other. The ability to identify pests is central to quarantine, trade, pest management and basic research.
In 2009 a coordinated research effort got underway to definitively answer this question by resolving the differences, if any, between five of the most destructive fruit flies: the Oriental fruit fly, the Philippine fruit fly, the Invasive fruit fly, the Carambola fruit fly, and the Asian Papaya fruit fly. These species cause incalculable damage to horticultural industries and food security across Asia, Africa, the Pacific and parts of South America.
The Philippine fruit fly was formally recognised as the same species as the Asian Papaya fruit fly in 2013. The latest study goes further, conclusively demonstrating that they are also the same biological species as the Oriental and Invasive fruit flies.
These four species have now been combined under the single name: Bactrocera dorsalis, the Oriental fruit fly. The closely-related Carambola fruit fly remains distinct.
Professor Tony Clarke, Chair of Fruit Fly Biology and Management from the Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre (PBCRC) and the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), believes the integrated multidisciplinary nature of the project leaves little doubt the species are identical.
“More than 40 researchers from 20 countries examined evidence across a range of disciplines, using morphological, molecular, cytogenetic, behavioural and chemoecological data to present a compelling case for this taxonomic change,” he said. “This outcome has major implications for global plant biosecurity, especially for developing countries in Africa and Asia,” said Professor Clarke. “For example, Invasive (now Oriental) fruit fly has devastated African fruit production with crop losses exceeding 80 per cent, widespread trade restrictions with refusal of shipments into Europe and Japan, and significant economic and social impacts to farming communities.”
Keeping exotic fruit fly out is a major concern for Australian biosecurity agencies. While an outbreak of Papaya fruit fly near Cairns in the mid-1990s inflicted $A100 million in eradication and industry costs, current estimates rate the Oriental fruit fly as the biggest threat to Australian plant biosecurity, with the total cost to the nation of an invasion estimated at $A1 billion.
Combining the four species will mean a major reassessment of Australia’s exotic fruit fly risk.
“Globally, accepting these four pests as a single species will lead to improved international cooperation in pest management, more effective quarantine measures, reduced barriers to international trade, the wider application of established post-harvest treatments, improved fundamental research and, most importantly, enhanced food security for some of the world’s poorest nations,” said Professor Clarke.
The paper, B. papayae, B. invadens, and B. dorsalis synonymy, is published today in the journal Systematic Entomology: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12113/abstract and is a collaboration between 33 research organisations in 20 countries, supported by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
More information and interviews: Tony Steeper, PBCRC Communications Manager, 0417 697 470, t.steeper@pbcrc.com.au
For twenty years some of the world’s most damaging pest fruit flies have been almost impossible to distinguish from each other. The ability to identify pests is central to quarantine, trade, pest management and basic research.
In 2009 a coordinated research effort got underway to definitively answer this question by resolving the differences, if any, between five of the most destructive fruit flies: the Oriental fruit fly, the Philippine fruit fly, the Invasive fruit fly, the Carambola fruit fly, and the Asian Papaya fruit fly. These species cause incalculable damage to horticultural industries and food security across Asia, Africa, the Pacific and parts of South America.The Philippine fruit fly was formally recognised as the same species as the Asian Papaya fruit fly in 2013. The latest study goes further, conclusively demonstrating that they are also the same biological species as the Oriental and Invasive fruit flies.
These four species have now been combined under the single name: Bactrocera dorsalis, the Oriental fruit fly. The closely-related Carambola fruit fly remains distinct.
Professor Tony Clarke, Chair of Fruit Fly Biology and Management from the Plant Biosecurity Cooperative Research Centre (PBCRC) and the Queensland University of Technology (QUT), believes the integrated multidisciplinary nature of the project leaves little doubt the species are identical.
“More than 40 researchers from 20 countries examined evidence across a range of disciplines, using morphological, molecular, cytogenetic, behavioural and chemoecological data to present a compelling case for this taxonomic change,” he said. “This outcome has major implications for global plant biosecurity, especially for developing countries in Africa and Asia,” said Professor Clarke. “For example, Invasive (now Oriental) fruit fly has devastated African fruit production with crop losses exceeding 80 per cent, widespread trade restrictions with refusal of shipments into Europe and Japan, and significant economic and social impacts to farming communities.”
Keeping exotic fruit fly out is a major concern for Australian biosecurity agencies. While an outbreak of Papaya fruit fly near Cairns in the mid-1990s inflicted $A100 million in eradication and industry costs, current estimates rate the Oriental fruit fly as the biggest threat to Australian plant biosecurity, with the total cost to the nation of an invasion estimated at $A1 billion.
Combining the four species will mean a major reassessment of Australia’s exotic fruit fly risk.
“Globally, accepting these four pests as a single species will lead to improved international cooperation in pest management, more effective quarantine measures, reduced barriers to international trade, the wider application of established post-harvest treatments, improved fundamental research and, most importantly, enhanced food security for some of the world’s poorest nations,” said Professor Clarke.
The paper, B. papayae, B. invadens, and B. dorsalis synonymy, is published today in the journal Systematic Entomology: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/syen.12113/abstract and is a collaboration between 33 research organisations in 20 countries, supported by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.
More information and interviews: Tony Steeper, PBCRC Communications Manager, 0417 697 470, t.steeper@pbcrc.com.au
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)