Above Capricorn Technologies - agricultural and environmental consultants /managers focussing on agriculture, horticulture, turf, sportsturf, livestock, land and land rehabilitation, erosion management, bioremediation, phytoremediation, water/wastewater and waste management [especially organics] in the tropics
How many times have you
purchased a package of beautiful, red, ripe strawberries from the grocery store
only to have them spoiled by grey fuzz a day or two after you get them home?
That unappetizing fuzz is
called grey mould, and it’s caused by the fungal pathogen Botrytis cinerea.
Other common fungal diseases of strawberry include powdery mildew and
anthracnose. These diseases pose big problems for growers, who traditionally
apply fungicides to control them. And many fungicides are not even an option
for organic producers.
Fortunately, USDA
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists are on the case, looking for
ways to keep strawberries mould free without fungicides.
Ultraviolet-C (UV-C)
irradiation has been studied as a way of killing microbes by damaging their
DNA, but at effective doses, it damages leaves and fruit. ARS scientists
Wojciech Janisiewicz and Fumiomi Takeda discovered a way to sidestep this
problem. They demonstrated that UV-C irradiation of strawberry plants—followed
by a period of darkness—resulted in drastic kill of the Botrytis pathogen, the
powdery mildew fungus, and anthracnose. In fact, the technique increased UV-C’s
killing power 6- to 10-fold, depending on the pathogen, with no damage to the
leaves, flowers, or fruit.
A bonus? The treatment also
reduced spider mite infestations, and that could mean less pesticide use, too.
The scientists think the dark
period following the UV-C treatment deprives the pathogens of the light needed
to activate their DNA-repair mechanisms. They’ve filed a patent application on
the technology, which is now called PhylloLux and includes applications of two
beneficial yeasts. They have also automated the technology for large-scale
applications. The scientists are working with an industry partner to develop a
robot that can treat a field of strawberry plants at night on commercial farms.
Janisiewicz and Takeda work
at the ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station in Kearneysville, West Virginia.
Their method for controlling fungal plant pathogens, and even spider mites,
would greatly reduce product loss to strawberry growers and processors and
reduce pesticide use. It will also benefit consumers who lose strawberries to
mould before they can consume the entire package.—By Sue Kendall, ARS Office of
Communications.
Another smart example of the role of precision horticulture now expanding around the globe.
Bananas continue to be a target plant for breeding using new technologies. The latest is a development that eliminates banana streak virus disease from the plant as well as preventing reinfection, using various gene editing options. This disease is a major problem in parts of west Africa. Read the full story here - https://www.newscientist.com/article/2192461-virus-lurking-inside-banana-genome-has-been-destroyed-with-crispr/ Developments like this continue to be implemented and offer significant potential for food crops especially in areas where some crops are staple foods.......and lowered production can be devasting to the local population. Yes, there are some scientific and policy issues to be considered but there seems to be a better understanding that maybe these approaches with genetic engineering [as a broad approach] offer a real way forward in better plant production. We are likely to see expanded use of the CRISPR gene technology across many crops or even less well developed or unexploited species to develop newer varieties for modern agriculture and improve overall crop productivity.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
scientists in Albany, California, have found a way to streamline the process
that scientists use to insert multiple genes into a crop plant, developing a
reliable method that will make it easier to breed a variety of crops with
vastly improved traits.
The technology is
expected to speed up the process for developing new varieties of potatoes,
rice, citrus and other crops that are better equipped to tolerate heat and
drought, produce higher yields and resist a myriad of diseases and pests. Crops
with greater resistance to pathogens and insects could greatly reduce pesticide
use and prevent billions of dollars in crop losses.
“Making genetic
improvements that were difficult or impossible before will be much easier
because we can now insert not just one or two genes, but multiple genes, into a
plant in a way that will lead to predictable outcomes,” said Roger Thilmony,
an ARS molecular biologist in Albany.
A paper describing
the achievement by Thilmony, James Thomson,
an ARS geneticist in Albany, and Ray Collier, a former ARS postdoctoral researcher,
was published recently in the August issue of The Plant Journal.
The GAANTRY gene
stacking technology will be freely available to anyone interested, and a
commercial firm in the US is planning to use it to introduce multiple genes into potatoes
to make them more resistant to late blight, which is caused by a fungus-like
organism. Late blight can destroy entire fields and force some farmers to spray
fungicides up to 15 times a year.
“We have struggled
to put multiple late blight resistance genes into potatoes for years. They are
very long, complex genes, and with existing technologies it’s been extremely
difficult. But the GAANTRY technology will help us tremendously,” said Craig
Richael, a director of research and development for J.R. Simplot Co.,
an Idaho-based company that produces French fries, frozen vegetables, fertilizer,
turf grass seed and other products.
Scientists over
the years have modified the genetics of soybeans, corn, canola and other crop
plants to develop varieties that tolerate specific herbicides and resist insect
pests. But those traits were controlled by one or two genes, and in most crop
plants, important traits such as cold and drought tolerance, yield and seed
production are almost always controlled by multiple genes. Inserting more than
two or three genes into the same site on a plant chromosome has been
notoriously difficult.
The researchers’
unique platform stabilizes large “stacks” of DNA needed for conferring key
traits, allowing researchers to insert suites of genes “so precisely that no
unintended DNA is added or lost during the process,” says Thomson.
“Before this,
assembling 10 genes to insert into a new line would be difficult or impossible,
but this technology basically stabilizes the stack and makes for results that
are more stable and much easier to predict,” Thilmony said.
This technology offers some very smart options for plant improvement, and is potentially likely to be assessed similarly as the CRSPR system whereby derived plant lines are not assessed as GM plants, easing regulatory approvals.
The Agricultural
Research Service is the U.S. Department of Agriculture's chief
scientific in-house research agency. Daily, ARS focuses on solutions to
agricultural problems affecting America. Each dollar invested in agricultural
research through the ARS results in $20 of economic impact. That is a very good return on the investment. I wonder if those returns are achieved in Australian institutions? [ modified from publicly available press release of ARS ]
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].
Viruses are incapable of reproducing without the help of a host, whose cells copy their genetic material and fabricate the building blocks of new virus particles.
By Claire Asher | February 1, 2018
Most plant viruses are transmitted by insect vectors that cause damage to the plant and create an entry point for pathogens, or that tap into the phloem to feed. Once inside, viruses use the handful of genes in their tiny genomes to orchestrate the plant cells’ machinery, while evading the plant’s defenses. Below is a generalized depiction of this infection process for RNA viruses, the most common type of plant virus.
Some viruses can infect plants when aphids and other insects tap into the phloem to feed. Such insect vectors can also pick up virus particles and carry them to new plant hosts.
Other viruses infect plant cells through a wound site created by a leaf-munching insect such as a beetle.
Viral capsid shell opens to release the viral genome, which is translated into proteins that direct the formation of a viral factory from membranes of the endoplasmic reticulum and other organelles.
Antiviral proteins, such as those in the Argonaute family, patrol cells for invading pathogens, but they cannot break into the viral factories.
Viral RNA is replicated and exported to the cytoplasm.
Viral RNA and newly assembled viral particles move to other cells through plasmodesmata, which can be widened by virus-encoded movement proteins.
Some virus particles enter the plant’s transport streams.
------------------
This article infographic on virus attack on plants is also relevant to turf grasses. There are quite a few virus diseases of relevance to turf, and this article offers some information on what happens with a generic infection, although some other pathways are also possible.
The article was first published in the online edition of The Scientist, late February 2018.
The olive groves of southern Italy are under threat from an insidious disease that potentially threatens olive production throughout Mediterranean regions of Europe, including the bulk of Italy. Last summer many infected groves were destroyed by burning - that is a serious move! The article linked to below provides more information - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/italy-s-olive-trees-didn-t-have-to-die/?WT.mc_id=SA_ENGYSUS_20160407 and there are further articles around in the scientific press as well. There are links to other articles from this report in Scientific American online.
Olives - Italy
It is certainly very serious for world olive production, particularly in Europe and north Africa, although it may be beneficial to commercial producers in Australia, USA and Chile for example. Fruit is not affected, only the tree, and that reduces yield, often to nil. Some varieties seem to offer a degree of resistance or tolerance based on some studies in Italy, but that is not total immunity. While removal by burning the infested olive groves has been the most common option, there are some questions being asked about alternatives. Substantial heavy pruning may offer some options to manage the bacterial disease. However, it does not appear that a reasonable overall solution has been developed. Biosecurity issues require strict movement controls on trees and planting materials as well as measures to prevent host insect movement. Management of the groves to reduce or remove sites for the insect to live are also needed. This whole problem is likely to prove difficult, with growers and tourists being potential, maybe even unwitting, dispersal agents. This is a very serious plant pest and will require a major effort to manage the problem, for many years to come, and there will be further developments, no doubt. Losses are already substantial, and likely to be worse before any improvement.
Catastrophe is looming for the banana industry. A new strain has emerged of a soil-borne fungus known as “Panama disease” which can wipe out entire plantations – and it is rapidly spreading around the world. Farmers in Australia, Latin America and across Asia and Africa all fear the worst.
The fungus is almost impossible to stop or eradicate. It moves through soil, so contamination can be as simple as infected dirt travelling from one farm to another on the sole of a shoe, or as complex as soil particles blowing on the wind across long distances – even across oceans, in theory.
Faced with huge losses to a global industry, many have called for a new strain of disease-resistant “superbanana”. However, this would be just another temporary fix. After all, the world’s most popular banana, the Cavendish, was itself the wonder fruit of its day, being introduced in the 1950s after an earlier strain of Panama disease destroyed its predecessor.
Panama disease causes banana plants to wilt and die. Scot Nelson
The fungi simply adapted and fought back, though, until the Cavendish also became susceptible. Panama and other diseases will continue to do so until we seriously reform how we grow and market bananas.
The banana industry is its own worst enemy. The huge farms where most exported bananas are grown are ideal for pests. These plantations are monocultures, which means they grow only bananas and nothing else. With very few shifts between crops over the years, and lots of tropical sunshine, there is an abundant and year-round supply of food for pests without any breaks, in time or space, to disrupt the supply and lower the disease pressure.
Banana producers spend a third of their income on controlling these pests, according to a study I published in 2013. Chemicals to control microscopic but deadly worms are applied several times a year. Herbicides that control weeds are applied up to eight times a year, while bananas may be sprayed with fungicides from a plane more than 50 times per year in order to control Black Sigatoka, an airborne fungus.
And those bags that are wrapped around each individual banana bunch? They’re lined with insecticides to serve as both a physical and chemical barrier to insects feeding on and damaging the skins.
All of this amounts to approximately one litre of active ingredients for every 18.6 kg box of bananas that is exported to consumers in the global north. It’s a huge, long-running problem for the industry and the new strain of Panama disease may just be the nail in its coffin.
Or maybe this is the wake-up call the export banana industry so desperately needs.
Searching for the superbanana
Given the way the fungus spreads, containment and quarantine are hardly long-term solutions. Some experts, especially those entrenched in the business of growing export bananas, argue that we need to breed or genetically modify a new type of banana that is resistant to the latest strain of Panama disease.
But this is harder than it sounds. Modern bananas – the tasty yellow ones – don’t exist in nature; they were bred into existence around 10,000 years ago. They reproduce asexually, which means they don’t have seeds and every banana is a genetic clone of the previous generation.
This lack of genetic variation makes breeding a new banana particularly challenging. If one Cavendish is susceptible to a disease, all others will be too. When all bananas are clones, how do you create the genetic variation from which traits for better disease resistance can be identified and nurtured?
Identical bananas – and only bananas – for miles on end. underworld / shutterstock
A new banana would also have to be tasty, durable enough to withstand long voyages without bruising, and bright yellow. Looks really do trump pest-resistance. A new type of banana introduced during a previous Panama disease panic back in the 1920s was rejected by consumers for going black on the outside, even when it was ripe and sweet inside.
Saving the banana
Today, banana growers are in a fight for survival, continuously applying newly-formulated fungicides in an effort to keep ahead of the diseases. But they are acutely aware that they are losing ground. While breeding a new banana staves off the current problem, history has already shown that this doesn’t get to the root of the problem, which is the design of the production system.
We need to ditch the massive farms. Around the world, millions of small-scale farmers already grow bananas in a more organic and sustainable way. Alongside bananas are cacao, avocado, mango, corn, orange, lemon and more. A mix of crops creates more stable production systems which rely on fewer, if any, pesticides and generates diverse income sources, handing local people greater food sovereignty. Farms where bananas are mixed in with other crops are also more resilient to climate change which is likely to hit banana-producing regions – developing countries – harder than most.
Yes, this would mean fewer bananas are grown. Sustainable agriculture simply can’t keep up with the megafarms. But if we learned to ignore the odd blemished or undersized banana, then the actual amount sent to market need not drop at all.
The farmers themselves should be okay as they’ll make up their income by producing different crops. Breaking the dominance of the banana multinationals should also distribute wealth among more farmers and empower the regions where they’re grown. As a consumer, ask yourself this: isn’t that a far better way to spend your money?
This is but one view, and a variety of views is always worth hearing. There is a lot of research occurring to deal with the proliferation of Panama Disease TR4. Agricultural science research focused on solutions!.
Also relevant is a need to improve the nutrition quality of bananas in regions especially where it is a staple food eg Uganda and other parts of Africa. Progress is being made, supported by the Gates Foundation. Loss of bananas as a crop in these regions would be a very serious issue. Genetics are at the forefront of the scientific work to find a solution.
The picture worldwide with bananas is far from the gloom and doom portrayed in this article. It might not be all beer and skittles, but a lot of bananas are still being produced and shipped around the world.
Biosecurity programs, cultural and agronomic interventions and management are somewhat mitigating the disease spread in areas known to have the disease, but it is spreading slowly - absolutely correct. And it is a steady "war "between plant disease and plant varieties - across many different crops, with new disease resistant varieties produced regularly across many crops yet the diseases continue to adapt and infect crops that are either not resistant, or the disease adapting to forma modified strain. It has been that way for thousands of years. Genetics at work, Even if more difficult in a cloned variety.
But banana demand in many regions also is expanding. It is a fruit of choice quite often in many countries, so pressure to develop solutions is high. And there may well be multiple solutions.
One of the relatively common ailments seen in palms around
Darwin is the death and damage in the stems of multi stem palms. Think golden cane palm, some Rhapsis palms,
sealing wax palms and similar plants common in many gardens. It does seem to be more common over the past
year or so, possibly as a result of less dry season irrigation to palms due to
cost issues.
While there can be a few causes, with stress often related
to poor irrigation management, a common problem here and also in Florida USA
can be plant disease. Unfortunately a
cure is not available – except by removal of the infested plant, burning NOT
composting the plant material, and removal and landfill disposal of the remnant
stems out of the ground – AND then DO NOT replant a palm in the area.
Typically stress, commonly through lack of dry season water, will
rapidly escalate the problem, which could be festering along, and not being
noted, as afterall, palms do shed leaves quite readily!
Water stress is not the cause of the stem
dying but it does exacerbate the disease problem, and may act in concert with the
disease leading to severe and rapid escalation
of the disease cases.
If you see the palm stem bending and breaking just below the
crown shaft area [ the top part where new leaves emerge] , new leaves emerging
and appearing brown or dying, cracks in the stem, and at times breaking near
the base [ less common in multi stem palms] it might well be this disease.
All that can be done is to remove the infected leaves and
dispose of into the landfill [ NOT as greenwaste] or burn them [ preferable],
and removing the leftover leafbases and roots, and disposing of them in the
same way.
While not highly infectious, it is common to see spread
between nearby plants, and removing the source of infection is prudent. Infection via wounds on the palms - at transplanting or even cutting fronds off is seen as a common entry pathway for the disease.
In Florida, this disease and another one [ Ganoderma butt rot or
canker] [ also see -http://abovecapricorn.blogspot.com.au/search/label/palms
] are a common problem in newly transplanted palms in landscape development,
and examples of some of the problems are seen in these reports by Prof Monica
Elliott - https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pp100on
Ganoderma andhttps://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pp143on Thielaviopsis. Both diseases are present in palms around the north of Australia. The photos below are of Thielaviopsis trunk rot photographed in Darwin in late 2015.
General view - typical of appearance with disease - brown and damaged leaves and stems
common appearance of split palm trunk with Thielaviopsis disease
broken stem below crown shaft in golden cane palm
Commonly seen stem damage on golden cane palms
The disease and pest problem with palms is significant in Florida, with calls to diversify the plants used in landscaping. However, like here, if in the tropics palms are expected to be seen!
Locally, we need to be aware and wary of the disease issue with palms, and minimise spread. For example, wait for palm leaves to fall, rather than cutting them off, if possible, and take care with sanitising equipment between plants - for example an antiseptic dip or spray - always a simple, but effective biosecurity measure.
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 :
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?
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.
Do you like chocolate? Delicious not so sweet dark chocolate?
Over the past few years we have seen increases in interest in wine varieties, followed by new and different olive oil flavours. Coffee is going the same way, with new blends, varieties and types offered in the market place, to titillate and entrance consumers and coffee lovers.
Watch this space..........chocolate may be next!
Recently reports of work by USDA staff in conjunction with several other agencies as well as commercial choclate company partners have been chasing new and different types of cacao.......the source tree for chocolate.
While West Africa is the source of much of the world supply of cacao, the centre of diversity is actually in south America, and up into lower central america, areas now being investigated for additional genetic diversity in cacao.
The researchers found hundreds of new cacao tree samples during the trips. One of these, discovered by collaborators from Maranon Chocolate, was Pure Nacional, an old, very rare, and highly coveted variety that has garnered a great deal of interest from makers of fine-flavoured chocolates. Chocolate is produced from cacao.
This industry covets new and unique flavour sources.
Usually, cacao trees are found along rivers, but these gems were found at a higher altitude than normal, and in Peru instead of Ecuador or Venezuela.
The industry flourished in Africa as commercial plantation trees in the new World succumbed to some nasty plant diseases. These new collections may offer some advantages for Peru to create a niche industry for the new cacao varieties.
This article appeared in a recent on-line edition of Queensland Country Life. It is an important issue and needs a wide readership as the use of glyphosate is of considerable importance for weed control, plant health and overall yield performance.
While the issue is aimed at broad acre farming it is probably of as much or more relevance for the urban use of glyphosate, especially by local councils, where the indiscriminate use is seen as great waste areas around the local posts and trees, often resprayed every year, even though there is NOTHING growing, and the bare areas are getting larger!!
Glyphosate is a very good agrochemical.........more careful use is needed.
There has also been a series of articles I have seen suggesting that glyphosate has even more sinister effects, including effects on people. Some of these have been a bit outrageous, but often there can be some truth hidden within the rants.
However, the issues with more general nutrition effects have a degreee of documentation. But it is about over use........and not sensible usage, including various rotation systems.
Maybe the Otto von Liebig's and the scientists at Rotheamstead of the 1800s were right afterall about sensible sustainable farming!!
Glyphosate: friend or foe?
MATTHEW CAWOOD
05 Sep, 2011 04:00 AM
Glyphosate, the chemical underpinning the world's most productive farming systems, may becoming an agent of harm, a visiting US scientist believes.
"Glyphosate has been a very powerful tool for us in weed control, but it's been seriously abused by continued overuse," said veteran American plant pathologist, Dr Don Huber. "I feel that's one of the main reasons that we're seeing a lot of other factors come to threaten the sustainability of our production."
Dr Huber links glyphosate to the increasing severity of diseases like fusarium and take-all, and the explosion of Goss's wilt of corn and Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS) in soybeans in America's mid-west.
Now retired from his career as a plant pathologist at Purdue University, but retaining the title of Professor Emeritus, Dr Huber is in Australia to air those concerns at the invitation of Owen McCarron, director of the IPM Masterclass series.
If it is allowed to accumulate in the soil, glyphosate doesn't just kill weeds, Dr Huber told Rural Press.
The chemical is a strong chelator, meaning that it can bind positively-charged mineral ions in the soil to its own molecules, making the mineral unavailable to plants. It is known to have an affinity for copper, zinc, manganese and molybedenum, among others.
"Glyphosate can make a number of elements unavailable for the plant to use, so there are many of the physiological functions of the plant that are compromised," Dr Huber said "In that compromise period that plant becomes very susceptible to diseases, fungal diseases especially."
Glyphosate also affects important soil organisms in different ways, according to Dr Bob Kremer, a microbiologist with the USDA's Agricultural Research Service and adjunct professor at the University of Missouri.
In the soil, where it is carried by spray, rainfall or plant roots, the chemical is an energy source for some microbes - including those responsible for its degradation in the soil - but a killer of others.
Among the organisms that flourish in the presence of glyphosate appear to be certain strains of fusarium, which in European studies were shown to multiply in the presence of the compound, Dr Kremer told Rural Press.
That appears to line up with old Canadian research which found that wheat sown in fields that had been fallowed with glyphosate was more susceptible to fusarium head blight than control wheat plantings.
"(The researchers) hypothesised as the susceptible weeds died, it built up the fusarium populations and then when the wheat was planted later, there was a higher instance of fusarium head blight compared to fields that did not receive glyphosate treatment," Dr Kremer said.
Other organisms are suppressed by glyphosate, including the rhizobium bacteria reponsible for nodulation in legumes and the the algaes that are an important soil glue.
But Dr Kremer said the research needed to clarify these effects isn't being done. When he wants to interpret some of his own observations, he often has to look at research done decades ago.
And yet, he acknowledged, some of these processes, and glyphosate's chelation effect, have the potential to be highly damaging to crop profitability.
Dr Huber became interested in glyphosate when, after a long career in plant pathology, he and his colleagues saw crop diseases that had been adequately managed for decades suddenly burgeon out of control. Goss's wilt of corn, for instance, was first discovered in the US in 1969, but only in the past few seasons it has emerged as a major pest of the Mid-West corn belt.
Dr Huber believes that genetic modification for glyphosate resistance contributes to disease vulnerability.
"Just the presence of the glyphosate resistance gene reduces the efficiency of the plant for many of the micronutrients - like manganese, iron - up to 30 or as much as 70 per cent, depending on the original variety," he said. "When glyphosate is applied there will be an additional reduction in uptake and efficiency of micronutrients that are immobilised by the chemistry."
He is calling for "much more prudent use, and certainly much greater research to establish glyphosate's safety".
"There are a lot of indicators that it's not nearly as benign a product as we thought. With the growing residues that we're finding in our soils and crops and feedstocks, there's a very serious concern for the health and safety aspects of the products."
* Dr Huber will be talking in Bendigo, Vic. on September 5 and Corowa, NSW, on September 7. For more information call Oen McCarron on 0419 006 100 or email owen@ipmmasterclass.com
Producers are advised to follow good on-farm biosecurity measures to protect their livestock and crops from the constant threat of pests and diseases.
Being aware of biosecurity means keeping animals safe from disease and ensuring continued market access for produce.
Straightforward measures built into everyday practice will go a long way toward protecting your farm and your future, and animal owners should assess the risks to their animals and act to reduce the risks as much as possible.
Five main risks identified for livestock are: 1. Purchased livestock brought onto the property
The movement of new animals onto your property represents the highest risk of introducing disease into your herd or flock. Inspect the animals carefully for disease before buying them.
Always request the history and supporting paperwork, such as the vendor declaration or national health statement, before you buy the animals. Isolate new animals to make sure they are disease and weed free before mixing with your stock.
2. Stray animals Poor fencing can allow stray livestock, and wild or feral animals to mix with your stock and introduce disease. Keep all gates shut and check fences regularly.
3. People People can carry animal pests and diseases. Ask all visitors where they have been previously; whether they've had contact with other animals, or been abroad and possibly brought diseases home. Keep a register of all visitors.
Restrict visitor access to your property and make sure they don't go near animals unless they have clean clothes and have disinfected hands and footwear.
4. Vehicles and equipment Vehicles and equipment can carry pests and diseases. Control the entry of vehicles onto the property and ensure they stay in a designated vehicle area. Use your own vehicles to transport visitors or material around the farm. Clean and thoroughly disinfect any second hand equipment purchased and brought onto the farm.
Maintain clean and disinfected equipment and do not share with other animal owners.
5. Feed and water Feed and water can contain pests and diseases. Always request some form of commodity vendor declaration with purchased feed. Keep feed in a clean dry storage area and ensure it does not become mouldy. Make sure that water sources are not contaminated by wild or feral animals or birds.
Major outcomes of having farm biosecurity plans in place include:
improved profitability through the reduction of diseases, less need for expensive chemical treatments or vaccinations and improved animal production.
Farm biosecurity plans can reduce the risk of introducing pests and diseases onto a property that are already present on your neighbours farm or elsewhere
Good planning now will also reduce the impact of the next disease emergency.
There is absolutely no doubt that the rapid and wide geographical spread of emergency diseases can be controlled more easily if all livestock owners or farmers begin to practice farm biosecurity.........NOW.
Most of the practices are simple and easily implemented on any farm, and are applicable to both livestock and plant based operations.
No one disputes that bees die overwinter, especially in tough winter conditions. The real argument is whether the so called CCD - syndrome is really a disease or just the sum of many issues occurring.
An Australian has now added a more realistic tone to the debate. It is worth reading.
--------------------------------
[reproduced off Qld Country Life on line]
A new unexplained disease is supposedly laying waste to honeybees in the United States, but one of the world’s leading bee pathologists, CSIRO’s Dr Denis Anderson, is yet to be convinced that it’s actually happening.
Dr Anderson is a leading expert on a tangible bee threat, the varroa mite, but the well-travelled scientist can’t buy into the story of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), the malaise that is supposedly behind the death of up to a third of US honeybee hives last winter. “CCD is a recently invented term for an old disorder: winter losses,” Dr Anderson suggested. "And we all know that losses over winter are due to a range of factors, from varroa to nutrition and management.”
Commercial beekeepers in the US have always accepted winter losses of 10-20 per cent, Dr Anderson said. Bees die in times of hardship, like everything else. The difference is that since the alarm was raised about bee deaths in 2006-07, and CCD was employed as a cover-all term for the issue, detailed statistics have been recorded on losses.
Dr Anderson has some issues with this.
One is that deaths from hives maintained by amateur beekeepers are being lumped in with hives kept by professionals. Amateurs tend to have higher losses because their hives are less closely managed. Another is the question of baseline. For the last few years bee death statistics have been used as evidence for the presence of CCD—but Dr Anderson points out that prior to 2007, statistics on honeybees were less rigorously maintained, so there is no firm basis for comparison.
He is also wary of the fact that the CCD surveys in the US are being conducted by the same research agencies that are receiving funding to investigate CCD. “It’s a bit like putting a politician in charge of their own popularity polling,” he said.
His own view is that CCD is being inappropriately being applied as a single symptom to hive failures that are in reality caused by a range of different challenges. “We need to get rid of the term ‘CCD’ and deal with each event as a separate issue,” Dr Anderson said. “There are enough problems out there for bees—no need to invent another one.”
In this, Dr Anderson is in accord with bee researchers, pro-CCD or not.
US researchers investigating the CCD phenomenon acknowledge that it doesn’t appear to have a single cause, and no single cause has emerged as being more likely than another.
The United Kingdom’s National Bee Unit has investigated winter bee deaths, and concluded that the UK doesn’t have CCD but is losing bees for a range of other reasons.
Pesticides are a frequently-cited potential culprit in CCD. In Dr Anderson’s view pesticide exposure was possibly behind the intial CCD alarm raised in 2006 by a Pennsylvania apiarist.
He has met the apiarist, who again made the news in reports of 2010 bee losses, and notes that he hasn’t moved his hives from the area where the initial losses were incurred.
A US study published last month found that American bees carry a high load of pesticide and metabolite traces: 121 different chemicals were found in 900 hive samples. But the authors still warned against jumping to conclusions. “While exposure to many of these neurotoxicants elicits acute and sublethal reductions in honey bee fitness, the effects of these materials in combinations and their direct association with CCD or declining bee health remains to be determined,” they wrote.
I think the title is misleading. As the Dr Anderson says: "There are enough problems out there for bees—no need to invent another one." A better title would be: Bee "Colony Collapse a myth"? Also I doubt very much that amateurs are affecting the losses. For one thing many amateurs tend not to report losses. Most of the ones I know are doing OK and often know the reasons for losses. But bad summer/winter = high loss anywhere. Surely in question (and not really mentioned in this article) should be some of the high density, commercial migratory practices which put a massive artificial strain on bees. We take their honey and feed them corn syrup, lock them up in warehouses over winter, ship them thousands of miles, and treat them with chemicals and acids. With nature you get what you put in my view. Posted by jon, 17/05/2010 7:36:03 PM
This is indeed a very well written article which I tend to agree with. Having spoken to a number of beekeepers myself, all of whom appear to be in agreement that this CCD is tantamount to scaremongering! None of the beekeepers are put off continuing with their hobby as all agree that to incur losses amongst their hives is to be expected. It just makes for better beekeepers the following season. However, let us not forget that our honey bees are vital for our very way of life and we do all need to be aware of this. Lets hope its the CCD theory that dies out and not them or us. Too many theories without real foundation is not what we need, more help for beekeepers who should seek it is the only real answer in my opinion. Janette from: http://www.health-benefits-of-hon ey.com Posted by Janette Marshall, 18/05/2010 12:55:23 AM
Dr. Anderson is arguing semantics. He is also lumping pesticide loss, nutrition, genetics and what not... into the term "winter losses". I.e., he is commenting as if this is something "normal." It's not normal. And it is not just an issue in the USA. Pesticide usage is at an all time high. All pollinators are in steep decline, and there are serious issues with genetic diversity and other factors with honey bees. CCD is just a grouping of similar symptoms that were simply not something that was common in the past. Not this common. I have met and know some of the researchers looking into the problem. They are not being disingenuous. Sure, they may or may not be on the right trail, but they, at least the ones I know, are not being unethical. Call it "winter losses" but "winter losses" are significantly higher now. Help us, Dr. Anderson. Conclusively determine *why* winter losses are truly higher (and they are), Dr. Anderson. That would helpful. And then let's try to solve it together. Call it "MPD"? Massive Pollinator Decline? Semantics. -tawster, beekeeper Posted by tawster, 18/05/2010 4:04:32 AM
Or just like everything else, we are shipping them out of the country. We are sending most of ours to USA. Posted by pm in waiting, 18/05/2010 7:35:03 AM.
----------------------------------------
Loss of pollinators IS a big issue for many in agriculture. The article does raise a few notable issues for pondering though.
Hygiene, hygiene, hygiene - but only after palms die. If you have unexplained falling, rotting palms, then one of these two diseases may be involved.
They occur in the NT, as well as many tropical regions around the world.
Ganoderma Butt Rot of Palms · Ganoderma butt rot is caused by the fungus Ganoderma zonatum. This fungus degrades or rots the lower 1-1.5m of the trunk. · All palms are considered hosts of this fungus. This fungus is not a primary pathogen of any other plant species. · Symptoms may include wilting (mild to severe) or a general decline.
The disease is confirmed by observing the basidiocarp (conk) on the trunk. This is a hard, shelf-like structure that will be attached to the lower 1 - 1.5m of the palm trunk. However, not all diseased palms produce conks prior to death. · A palm cannot be diagnosed with Ganoderma butt rot until the basidiocarp (conk) forms on the trunk, or the internal rotting of the trunk is observed after the palm is cut down. · The fungus is spread by spores, which are produced and released from the basidiocarp (conk) [seen upside down in the left photo]. · Conditions that are conducive for disease development are unknown. · There are currently no cultural or chemical controls for preventing the disease or for curing the disease once the palm is infected. · A palm should be removed as soon as possible after the conks appear on the trunk. Remove as much of the stump and root system as possible when the palm is removed. · Because the fungus survives in the soil, do not plant another palm back in that same location.
Thielaviopsis Trunk Rot of Palm · Thielaviopsis trunk rot is caused by the fungus Thielaviopsis paradoxa. · Due to this disease, the palm trunk either collapses on itself or the canopy suddenly falls off the trunk, both without warning. The palm canopy often appears healthy prior to collapse. · Except for “stem bleeding,” which is common in coconut and some single stem palms, there may be no symptoms prior to collapse of the palm. · Only fresh trunk wounds will become infected by the fungus, so disease management includes limiting man-made wounds to the palm trunk, especially the upper third of the trunk. · If the disease is detected early, cutting out the rotted, infested wood followed by spraying the wound site with a fungicide may be useful. · There are no other methods to prevent or cure this disease. The palm should be removed immediately, and the diseased trunk portion destroyed but not recycled.
Thielaviopsis paradoxa is a fungus that can infect any part of a palm, and so can cause numerous diseases. In Florida, the two most frequent (and usually lethal) Thielaviopsis diseases observed in the landscape and field nursery are a bud (heart) rot and trunk rot.
Unfortunately, there often are no visible indications that a palm has Thielaviopsis trunk rot until either the trunk collapses on itself or the canopy suddenly falls off the trunk. The canopy often appears normal and healthy.
Thus, there are no symptoms that can be used to predict which palms are infected and which ones are not. In most cases, the trunk rot is occurring in the upper half of the trunk. This may occur because the number of lignified fibers are greatest in the lower trunk and least in the upper trunk. As indicated previously, this fungus prefers to rot non-lignified or lightly lignified plant tissue. “Stem bleeding” is a common symptom of Thielaviopsis trunk rot observed on single stem palms eg coconut, royal palms. This stem bleeding is a reddish-brown stain that runs down the trunk from the point of infection.
Thielaviopsis trunk rot usually occurs quite randomly, with only a few palms in the landscape being affected. However, there are situations where high numbers of palms in a single landscape can become diseased, for reasons that are not always clear. In all situations, there has to be a fresh wound to the palm. Wounds can occur naturally, such as trunk cracks due to excess water uptake. Insects (such as beetles), birds (sapsuckers pounding on the trunk), rats, and other mammals can cause wounds. Blowing objects during a wind storm can strike a trunk and cause a fresh wound.
Humans cause wounds with nails and climbing spikes, or during the digging and transplanting process.
Humans also create wounds when trimming leaves that are not yet dead. Leaf petioles are cut as close as possible to the trunk. If a leaf petiole has any green color associated with it, the leaf is still living. When that still living petiole is cut, a fresh wound is created that may be infected by the fungus. Trunks can be easily wounded during the trimming process with the careless use of the pruning tool. Pulling a leaf off the trunk, when the leaf petiole still has green tissue, can create a fresh wound.
The fungal pathogen can spread from palm to palm as follows. First, if spores are produced on diseased palm tissue, these spores can be moved by wind and water to fresh wounds. The spores may also be moved about by insects or rodents. Second, the spores that can survive in the environment, especially soil, for long periods. Fresh wounds could become infected via contaminated soil.
Except for the stem bleeding, there are often no outwardly visible symptoms that indicate which palm in the landscape or field nursery has Thielaviopsis trunk rot. Thus, there are no proven strategies for preventing this disease. Once the palm has collapsed, remove it immediately as it is a source of fungal spores.
If one does observe the initial stages of the trunk rot, such as the stem bleeding, it would be useful to cut out the area of rotted wood (if it is not too large a trunk area) and spray the wound thoroughly with a fungicide labeled for Thielaviopsis diseases. Examples include, but are not limited to, products with the active ingredients thiophanate methyl or fludioxonil. The goal is to prevent the fungus from infecting the fresh wound made when you cut out the infested, rotted wood. All tools used to remove the rotted wood must be cleaned with a disinfectant. [Banrot is a possible trade name]
Examples of disinfectants include: 1) 25% chlorine bleach (3 parts water and 1 part bleach); 2) 25% pine oil cleaner (3 parts water and 1 part pine oil cleaner); 3) 50% rubbing alcohol (70% isopropyl; equal parts alcohol and water); 4) 50% denatured ethanol (95%; equal parts alcohol and water); 5) 5% quatenary ammonium salts. Soak tools for 10 minutes and rinse in clean water. For chain saws, soak chain and bar separately.
Diseased trunk material should be destroyed and should not be recycled in the landscape. Chipping and then spreading the infested material in the landscape could spread the fungus to healthy palms. If the trunk is chipped, it should be placed in a properly constructed and monitored compost heap, or taken to a landfill or incinerator.
[partially sourced from extension articles - Monica Elliott et al, Uni of Florida; all photos from Darwin]
Recently reports of work by USDA staff in conjunction with several other agencies as well as commercial choclate company partners have been chasing new and different types of cacao.......the source tree for chocolate. 
