An exploratory study on the commercialisation of heat pump-fluidised bed drying technology

Fluidised bed-heat pump drying technology offers distinctive advantages over the existing drying technology employed in the Australian food industry. However, as is the case with many other examples of innovations that have had clear relative advantages, the rates of adoption and diffusion of this technology have been very slow. "Why does this happen?" is the theme of this research study that has been undertaken with an objective to analyse a range of issues related to the market acceptance of technological innovations. The research methodology included the development of an integrated conceptual model based on an extensive review of literature in the areas of innovation diffusion, technology transfer and industrial marketing. Three major determinants associated with the market acceptance of innovations were identified as the characteristics of the innovation, adopter information processing capability and the influence of the innovation supplier on the adoption process. This was followed by a study involving more than 30 small and medium enterprises identified as potential adopters of fluidised bed-heat pump drying technology in the Australian food industry. The findings revealed that judgment was the key evaluation strategy employed by potential adopters in the particular industry sector. Further, it was evidenced that the innovations were evaluated against a predetermined criteria covering a range of aspects with emphasis on a selected set of attributes of the innovation. Implication of these findings on the commercialisation of fluidised bed-heat pump drying technology was established, and a series of recommendations was made to the innovation supplier (DPI/FT) enabling it to develop an effective commercialisation strategy.

Comparison of the indirect haemagglutination and gel diffusion test for serotyping Haemophilus parasuis

The aim of this study was to compare the use of indirect haemagglutination (IHA) and gel diffusion (GD) tests for serotyping Haemophilus parasuis by the Kielstein-Rapp-Gabrielson scheme. All 15 serovar reference strains, 72 Australian field isolates, nine Chinese field isolates, and seven isolates from seven experimentally infected pigs were evaluated with both tests. With the IHA test, 14 of the 15 reference strains were correctly serotyped – with serovar 10 failing to give a titre with serovar 10 antiserum. In the GD test, 13 reference strains were correctly serotyped – with antigen from serovars 7 and 8 failing to react with any antiserum. The IHA methodology serotyped a total of 45 of 81 field isolates while the GD methodology serotyped a total of 48 isolates. For 29 isolates, the GD and IHA methods gave discordant results. It was concluded that the IHA is a good additional test for the serotyping of H. parasuis by the KRG scheme if the GD methodology fails to provide a result or shows unusual cross-reactions.