Priority list of endemic diseases for the red meat industries

This report provides a systematic review of the most economically damaging endemic diseases and conditions for the Australian red meat industry (cattle, sheep and goats). A number of diseases for cattle, sheep and goats have been identified and were prioritised according to their prevalence, distribution, risk factors and mitigation. The economic cost of each disease as a result of production losses, preventive costs and treatment costs is estimated at the herd and flock level, then extrapolated to a national basis using herd/flock demographics from the 2010-11 Agricultural Census by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Information shortfalls and recommendations for further research are also specified. A total of 17 cattle, 23 sheep and nine goat diseases were prioritised based on feedback received from producer, government and industry surveys, followed by discussions between the consultants and MLA. Assumptions of disease distribution, in-herd/flock prevalence, impacts on mortality/production and costs for prevention and treatment were obtained from the literature where available. Where these data were not available, the consultants used their own expertise to estimate the relevant measures for each disease. Levels of confidence in the assumptions for each disease were estimated, and gaps in knowledge identified. The assumptions were analysed using a specialised Excel model that estimated the per animal, herd/flock and national costs of each important disease. The report was peer reviewed and workshopped by the consultants and experts selected by MLA before being finalised. Consequently, this report is an important resource that will guide and prioritise future research, development and extension activities by a variety of stakeholders in the red meat industry. This report completes Phase I and Phase II of an overall four-Phase project initiative by MLA, with identified data gaps in this report potentially being addressed within the later phases. Modelling the economic costs using a consistent approach for each disease ensures that the derived estimates are transparent and can be refined if improved data on prevalence becomes available. This means that the report will be an enduring resource for developing policies and strategies for the management of endemic diseases within the Australian red meat industry.

Low-dose methyl bromide fumigation as a quarantine disinfestation treatment for nectarines against Queensland fruit fly (Diptera:Tephritidae)

White nectarines (Prunus persica var. nucipersica) were fumigated with methyl bromide (MB) at a nominal treatment dose of 18 g m-3 at 18°C for 5 h and 30 min as a quarantine disinfestation treatment against Bactrocera tryoni, the Queensland fruit fly. Three large scale trials were conducted against each of the four immature lifestages, eggs and first, second and third instars. There were no survivors from the estimated 43,614 eggs, 41,873 first instars, 41,345 second instars and 33,549 third instars treated, thereby resulting in an efficacy of GROTERDAN99.99% mortality at the 95% confidence level for each lifestage. Of the 12 trials reported herein, the highest concentration of MB, sampled from the chamber headspace analysed by gas chromatography, was 18.7 g m-3. The maximum chamber temperature from 5 min readings was 19.7°C and the maximum fruit core temperature was 19.5°C. The treatment time for all trials was exactly 5.5 h. Thus the recommended treatment dose to disinfest nectarines from B. tryoni is 19.0 g m-3 MB at 20.0°C for 5.5 h. Fruit quality trials were conducted on white nectarines at three combinations of treatment parameters: 15 g m-3 MB at 19°C for 5.25 h; 18 g m-3 MB at 19°C for 5.5 h and 21 g m-3 MB at 19°C for 5.5 h. The fruit were stored at 0, 4 and 8 days at 4°C and 8 days at 4°C followed by 4 d at 22°C. They were then were assessed for skin colour, flesh colour, skin defects, flesh defects, fruit weight loss, flesh firmness, total soluble solids, titratable acidity and rots. There was no significant difference between untreated control and MB treated fruits in any of the parameters measured. Thus the treatments did not have adverse effects on fruit quality.