Standardising bull breeding soundness evaluations and reporting in Australia

There is substantial variation in bull breeding soundness evaluation procedures and reports in Australia; the situation is compounded by difficulties in interpretation and the validity of many reports. In an effort to overcome this, the scientific literature was reviewed [Fordyce G. In: Fordyce G, editor. Bull fertility: selection and management in Australia. Eight Mile Plains, Australia: Australian Cattle Vets; 2002] and the needs of stakeholders were considered in preparing a manual, Evaluating and Reporting Bull Fertility [Entwistle KW, Fordyce G. Evaluating and reporting bull fertility. Eight Mile Plains, Australia: Australian Cattle Vets; 2003.] that outlined standards for assessing and reporting bull breeding soundness. A new recording and reporting system, called Bull Reporter, is based on standards from this manual and groups bull fertility traits into five summary categories: Scrotum, Physical, Crush-side Semen, Sperm Morphology, and Serving. The client will generally select which categories they wish to have included in the evaluation to suit their specific purposes. While there is adequate room for comments, the veterinarian is not required to make an overall judgment of whether the bull has normal capacity to sire calves under natural mating management, but ensures the standards for each selected category are met. Professional, standardised, easy-to-read reports are produced either electronically [Entwistle KW, Fordyce G. Evaluating and reporting bull fertility. Eight Mile Plains, Australia: Australian Cattle Vets; 2003.] or manually. A bull owner or their agent signs the certificate to affirm that bulls have not undergone procedures to rectify faults which may have otherwise caused them to fail the standards. An accreditation system for assessing sperm morphology was established because of its demonstrated relationship with pregnancy rates and because of the difficulties in achieving consistent and accurate assessments among laboratories. It is considered that Bull Reporter is applicable to beef and dairy bulls across all levels of management, genotypes and environments throughout Australia, with substantial potential for application elsewhere in the world.

Will biological control of Lantana camara ever succeed? Patterns, processes & prospects

Despite biocontrol research spanning over 100 years, the hybrid weed, commonly referred to as Lantana camara, is not under adequate control. Host specificity and varietal preference of released agents, climatic suitability of a region for released agents, number of agents introduced and range or area of infestation appear to play a role in limiting biocontrol success. At least one of 41 species of mainly leaf- or flower-feeding insects has been introduced, or spread, to 41 of the 70 countries or regions where lantana occurs. Over half (26) of these species have established, achieving varying levels of herbivory and presumably some degree of control. Accurate taxonomy of the plant and adaptation of potential agents to the host plant are some of the better predictors of at least establishment success. Retrospective analysis of the hosts of introduced biocontrol agents for L. camara show that a greater proportion of agents that were collected from L. camara or Lantana urticifolia established, than agents that were collected from other species of Lantana. Of the introduced agents that had established and were oligophagous, 18 out of 22 established. The proportion of species establishing, declined with the number of species introduced. However, there was no trend when oceanic islands were treated separately from mainland areas and the result is likely an artefact of how introductions have changed over time. A calculated index of the degree of herbivory due to agents known to have caused some damage per country, was not related to land area infested with lantana for mainlands nor for oceanic islands. However, the degree of herbivory is much higher on islands than mainlands. This difference between island and mainland situations may reflect population dynamics in patchy or metapopulation landscapes. Basic systematic studies of the host remain crucial to successful biocontrol, especially of hybrid weeds like L. camara. Potential biocontrol agents should be monophages collected from the most closely related species to the target weed or be phytophages that attack several species of lantana. Suitable agents should be released in the most ideal ecoclimatic area. Since collection of biocontrol agents has been limited to a fraction of the known number of phytophagous species available, biocontrol may be improved by targeting insects that feed on stems and roots, as well as the agents that feed on leaves and flowers.

Biodiversity, biosecurity and integrated pest management

Breaches of biosecurity, leading to incursions by invasive species, have the potential to cause substantial economic, social and environmental losses, including drastic reduction in biodiversity. It is argued that improving biosecurity reduces risk to biodiversity, while maintaining stable ecosystems through biodiversity can be a safeguard against biosecurity breaches. The global costs of invasive alien species (IAS) have been estimated at around US$350 billion, while alien invertebrate and vertebrate pests and weeds are estimated to cost Australia at least $7 billion a year. A striking, current, example is the incursion by Myrtle Rust (Puccinia psidii) an organism which can infect all members of the Myrtaceae, the most important family in the Australian flora. Myrtle rust was first detected on a property on the central coast of New South Wales in late April 2010. Two years later the disease has been detected in numerous locations in Queensland and New South Wales ranging from commercial plant nurseries and public amenities to large areas of bushland. This particular breach of biosecurity will, inevitably, diminish biodiversity of flora and fauna over large areas of the continent. Integrated pest management (IPM), an enrichment of diversity in managing invasive and other pest species, offers the best opportunity to address problems such as these. Australia's response to increasing biosecurity risk is comprehensive and includes national networking of scientists engaged in a complex program of biosecurity research and development, including studies of IPM. This network is being enhanced by the development of international linkages.