Continuous combined microwave and hot air treatment of apples for fruit fly (Bactrocera tryoni and B. jarvisi) disinfestation

Apples at 24 ± 2 °C were heated in a pilot scale hot air assisted (40 °C) continuous pentagonal microwave system, to evaluate the effectiveness of this treatment on insect mortality (variety Mutsu) and fruit quality (variety Granny Smith). An average temperature of 53.4 ± 1.3 °C at core, bottom and flesh of the apple was recorded at the end of the treatment. One hundred percent mortality of the most tolerant stage of Queensland fruit fly (Bactrocera tryoni, Froggatt) and Jarvis's fruit fly (Bactrocera jarvisi, Tryon), were observed when the Mortality value (M52, equivalent time of isothermal treatment at 52 °C) at the slowest heating point applicable for each experiment was ≥ 50 min and ≥ 37 min, respectively. Results showed that microwave heat treatment is effective for insect disinfestation without any adverse impact on total soluble solids, flesh or peel firmness of the treated apples. The treated apples recorded a significantly higher pH and lower ion leakage than the untreated apples after 3 or 4 weeks. Therefore, the microwave heat treatment has the potential to be developed as an alternative chemical free quarantine treatment against economically significant insect pests. Industrial relevance Hot air assisted microwave heating of fruits and vegetables, is more cost effective compared to vapour heat treatment and ionising radiation for disinfestation of insects. Microwave treatment is environmentally friendly compared to fumigation and chemical treatments. Hot air assisted microwave disinfestation can be performed at farms or centralised pack houses since the capital cost would be comparatively lower than vapour heat or ionising radiation treatments.

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.

Multijurisdictional fisheries performance reporting: How Australia’s nationally standardised approach to assessing stock status compares

Australian marine wild-capture fisheries are managed by eight separate jurisdictions. Traditionally, fishery status reports have been produced separately by most of these jurisdictions, assessing the fish stocks they manage, and reporting on the effectiveness of their fisheries management. However, the format, the type of stock status assessments, the thresholds and terminology used to describe stock status and the classification frameworks have varied over time and among jurisdictions. These differences complicate efforts to understand stock status on a national scale. They also create potential misunderstanding among the wider community about how to interpret information on the status of fish stocks, and the fisheries management and science processes more generally. This is especially true when considering stocks that are shared across two or more jurisdictional boundaries. A standardised approach was developed in 2011 leading to production of the first national Status of key Australian fish stocks reports in 2012, followed by a second edition in 2014 (www.fish.gov.au). Production of these reports was the first step towards a broader national approach to reporting on the performance of Australian fisheries for target species and for wider ecosystem and socioeconomic consequences. This paper outlines the challenges associated with moving towards national performance reporting for target fish stocks and Australia’s successes so far. It also outlines the challenges ahead, in particular those relating to reporting more broadly on the status of entire fisheries. Comparisons are drawn between Australia and New Zealand and more broadly between Australia and other countries.