Status, challenges and tools for identification and diagnosis of Peronosclerospora and Sclerophthora of regulatory concern for graminicolous crops

Graminicolous Downy Mildew (GDM) diseases caused by the genera Peronosclerospora (13 spp.) and Sclerophthora (6 spp. and 1 variety) are poorly studied but destructive diseases of major crops such as corn, sorghum, sugarcane and other graminoids. Eight of the 13 described Peronosclerospora spp. are able to infect corn. In particular, P. philippinensis (= P. sacchari), P. maydis, P. heteropogonis, and S. rayssiae var. zeae cause major losses in corn yields in tropical Asia. In 2012 a new species, P. australiensis, was described based on isolates previously identified as P. maydis in Australia; this species is now a pathogen of major concern. Despite the strong impact of GDM diseases, there are presently no reliable molecular methods available for their detection. GDM pathogens are among the most difficult Oomycetes to identify using molecular tools, as their taxonomy is very challenging, and little genetic sequence data are available for development of molecular tools to detect GDM pathogens to species level. For example, from over 15 genes used in identification, diagnostics or phylogeny of Phytophthora, only ITS1 and cox2 show promise for use with GDM pathogens. Multiplex/multigene conventional and qPCR assays are currently under evaluation for the detection of economically important GDM spp. Scientists from the USA, Germany, Canada, Australia, and the Philippines are collaborating on the development and testing of diagnostic tools for these pathogens of concern.

The Ethics of a Co-regulatory Model for Farm Animal Welfare Research

Standards for farm animal welfare are variously managed at a national level by government-led regulatory control, by consumer-led welfare economics and co-regulated control in a partnership between industry and government. In the latter case the control of research to support animal welfare standards by the relevant industry body may lead to a conflict of interest on the part of researchers, who are dependent on industry for continued research funding. We examine this dilemma by reviewing two case studies of research published under an Australian co-regulated control system. Evidence of unsupported conclusions that are favourable to industry is provided, suggesting that researchers do experience a conflict of interest that may influence the integrity of the research. Alternative models for the management of research are discussed, including the establishment of an independent research management body for animal welfare because of its public good status and the use of public money derived from taxation, with representation from government, industry, consumers, and advocacy groups.