maintaining - grdc

INTRODUCTION PAGE 3 WHAT THE WHEAT MARKET WANTS PAGE 4 LIVESTOCK NEED CLEAN GRAIN TOO PAGE 6 IN THE AUSTRALIAN CORNER PAGE 8 THE CASE FOR

FENITROTHION PAGE 9 AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO GRAIN HYGIENE RESEARCH PAGE 10 UNWELCOME TO AUSTRALIA PAGE 12 THREE HEADS ARE BETTER THAN ONE PAGE 14 PHOSPHINE RESISTANCE NARROWS OPTIONS PAGE 14 THE EMERGENCE OF

STRONG RESISTANCE PAGE 16 COORDINATED RESISTANCE MONITORING PAGE 17 NEW FUMIGANT OFFERS A GLIMMER OF HOPE PAGE 18 RAPID TESTS FOR

PHOSPHINE RESISTANCE PAGE 19 PDAs ASSIST PEST SURVEILLANCE PAGE 20 INSECTS A PEST IN HARVEST BAGS PAGE 21 IMPROVED STORAGE

TECHNOLOGY TO SLOW RESISTANCE PAGE 22 ROBOTS COULD KEEP RESISTANCE AT BAY PAGE 23 SUPPORT FOR SUCCESSFUL STORAGE

Maintaining market access

GRAIN HYGIENE SUPPLEMENTSEPTEMBER – OCTOBER 2008

GROUND COVER GRAIN HYGIENE2

Clean and green cannot just be an image

Cover photo: Sampling at point of sale (delivery) detects insects that may contaminate export consignments. Grain handlers are urging growers to use on-farm hygiene as the best protection against any form of grain contamination. PHOTO: CHRIS NEWMAN

Ground Cover is brought to you by growers and the Australian Government through the publisher, the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC).

GRDC: 02 6166 4500, fax 02 6166 4599 Write to: The Editor – Ground Cover PO Box 5367, Kingston ACT 2604 Executive Editor: Ms Maureen Cribb, Publications Manager, GRDC, 02 6166 4500

Managing Editor: Brad Collis, Coretext, 03 9670 1168, fax 03 9670 1127, [email protected] Editor: Emma Leonard, 08 8834 1233 Design and production: Coretext, www.coretext.com.au

Advertising sales: Max Hyde, Hyde Media Pty Ltd, 03 9870 4161, fax 03 9870 4163, [email protected] Advertising is subject to terms and conditions published on the rate card, available from Hyde Media, and on the website www.coretext.com.au

Circulation: Ms Maureen Cribb, 02 6166 4500 Printing: Cadillac Printing, Adelaide

ISSN 1039-6217 Registered by Australia Post Publication No. NAD 3994

Disclaimer: This publication has been prepared in good faith by the GRDC on the basis of the information available to us at the date of publication, without any independent verification. Neither the Corporation and its editors nor any contributor to this publication represent that the contents of this publication are accurate or complete; nor do we accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions in the contents, however they may arise. Readers who act on information from Ground Cover do so at their own risk.

The Corporation and contributors to Ground Cover may identify products by proprietary or trade names to help readers identify particular types of products. We do not endorse or recommend the products of any manufacturer referred to. Other products may perform as well as or better than those specifically referred to.

Copyright: © All material published in Ground Cover is copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form without written permission from the GRDC

ARTICLES AND PHOTOGRAPHS BY EMMA LEONARD, UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED

By JOHN DE MAJNIK, Manager, New Grain Products, and PAUL MEIBUSCH, Manager, New Farm Products and Services

Grain hygiene is an issue for the whole value chain, starting in the paddock and ending with the consumer. Because the majority of Australia’s grain is exported, and much of that has been managed by marketing boards, the two ends of the chain have been kept relatively remote.

For some growers deregulation has brought them closer to their market and its demands. It has also increased the number of links in the chain, with more on-farm storage and traders. Both developments make it even more imperative that growers fully understand their customers’ grain hygiene requirements.

Most export and domestic markets have nil tolerance for insects and chemical residues in grain. Weed seeds, pathogens, toxins, sticks and stones can all impact on the end-user, just as much as pesticide residues.

While all contaminants present problems to customers, pesticide failure has the greatest capacity to restrict market access. Therefore, the issues of pesticide resistance and residues are the primary focus of the GRDC’s investment in grain hygiene.

Due to its climate, Australia has a greater reliance on the use of grain fumigants and protectants than most of its trading competitors. For this reason Australia has driven many of the

issues relating to maintaining market access and the use of these products at an international level.

The ability to respond appropriately and rapidly to issues relating to grain hygiene and market access is essential. The National Working Party on Grain Protection (NWPGP) brings together representatives from all sections of the grains industry to build these responses and to negotiate at an international level on behalf of the Australian grains industry.

The GRDC identified the need for closer consultation and representation on regulatory matters and has engaged industry specialist Bill Murray to establish linkages and to ensure the GRDC is better able to prioritise research activities in relation to grain storage. Mr Murray chairs the NWPGP.

In 2007 the GRDC, together with three of the key players in grain storage and handling, approached the recently formed Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity (CRCNPB) to establish a post-harvest integrity research program. It was also proposed that research and extension on stored-grain pest management be integrated into other CRCNPB program areas.

This integrated approach not only helps Australia deliver on its clean, green image, but has resulted in the largest single budget ever available for working on stored grain.

Australia is a world leader in the safe and responsible use of agrichemicals – a fact that supports our clean, green image. However, this responsible attitude restricts the type of products that can be used and makes the requirement for holistic, integrated approaches more critical.

The potential loss of the fumigant phosphine is the greatest challenge in the area of stored-grain pest management. Strong resistance is becoming increasingly common in endemic populations of stored-grain pests. Much effort is being put into monitoring the situation, developing better methods for fumigant application and alternative fumigation products, and in preventing the importation of new pests or pests that are already resistant to phosphine.

Grain hygiene needs to be placed on an equal footing with production issues. This Ground Cover supplement illustrates the impact that poor grain-hygiene practices can have on the customer and the huge effort that the Australian grains industry invests in ensuring continued and developing market access.

ª More information: Dr John de Majnik, 02 6166 4500, [email protected]; Paul Meibusch, 02 6166 4500, [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

John de Majnik

Paul Meibusch

3GRAIN HYGIENE GROUND COVER

MARKET ACCESS

What the wheat market wantsClean grain is one of Indonesia’s top reasons for sourcing wheat from Australia. In the future, insect resistance to storage chemicals could make our largest wheat purchaser think twice about buying our product

“We buy American and Canadian wheat because of its superior protein, gluten and baking quality; we buy wheat from India, China and the Ukraine because it’s cheap; and we buy Australian wheat because it’s clean, dry and white – and this combination of qualities makes it perform very well in a flour mill.” – David Capper, assistant CEO,

PT Eastern Pearl Flour Mills

AFTER SEVERAL YEARS working for Co-operative Bulk Handling (CBH) in positions involved with technical grain quality, and serving on the GRDC’s Western Panel, David Capper has a broad understanding of the grain-hygiene issues faced by the Australian grains industry. However, now he is looking at the issue from the other side of the fence – working in Indonesia for Eastern Pearl Flour Mills.

The first, second and fourth-largest flour mills in the world are all located in Indonesia and this creates a big demand for wheat. The Indonesian milling industry relies heavily on American and Canadian wheat to provide the gluten and baking qualities required for high-end baked products.

However, the qualities that make Australian wheat a preferred choice for Indonesian millers are its low moisture, bright white colour and high extraction. For Australian wheat, a reasonable level of protein and gluten are still expected by the Indonesian market.

The Eastern Pearl flour mill where David works is located in Makassar, Southern Sulawesi, and is part of the Interflour Group. The mill has a maximum production capacity of 2500 tonnes of flour a day.

Each year Eastern Pearl imports approximately 700,000t of wheat. About 20 to 30 per cent of this is sourced from the US and Canada, 60 per cent from Australia (mostly Australian Hard (AH), Australian Premium White (APW) and some Australian Standard Wheat (ASW)) and the remainder is sourced from various countries, including Argentina, India, China and the Ukraine.

“Eastern Pearl produces nine flour products, marketed under various brands, which cater for all types of baked goods, as well as dry instant noodles, biscuit and wafer products,” David says.

Although each product requires specific qualities from the wheat (Table 1, page 4), the requirement for

Flour colour is a key requirement. Colour can be affected by grain stained with mould or fungus.

PHOT

O: B

RAD

COLL

IS


Livestock need clean grain tooResidues and foreign material cause logistical problems and costs to the livestock industries By Jim Cudmore

THE MAJORITY OF cattle lot-feeding enterprises hold no more than 30 days’ supply of grain on site and rely on third parties to store grain during the year. When that grain arrives at the weighbridge the lot feeder does not want any surprises in terms of grain quality or grain hygiene, and they certainly do not want any surprises once the grain has been transferred to their storage facilities.

Sadly, surprises such as pesticide residues, foreign matter and toxins (such as ergot in sorghum) can and do occur, and all cost the lot feeder time and money.

The introduction of the Safe Meat Commodity Vendor Declaration requires the producer or supplier of grain to provide details of how grain has been treated in-crop, post-harvest and in storage prior to being delivered to the end user. This declaration has substantially reduced the occurrence of pesticide-residue issues. Grain sampling at the point of delivery and laboratory screening have further assisted in the prevention of delivery violations.

Grain will not be accepted at National Feedlot Accredited Scheme (NFAS) feedlots without a Commodity Vendor Declaration. This form is completed by the grower or grain storage agent. Where these businesses have a third party and an independently audited quality assurance (QA) system in place, details of any post-farm treatment will be recorded and can be supplied to the lot feeder.

However, in the past lot feeders have experienced problems with grain residues.

The Australian Lot Feeders’ Association (ALFA) has previously expressed some concern about the potential double dosing of grain with treatments of deltamethrin at different times. The situation could occur where an owner of the grain treats it with deltamethrin and then on-sells the grain to another party who also treats the grain with deltamethrin.

Lot feeders support the use of deltamethrin on grain, but only where whole-of-chain QA can substantiate the record of treatment.

The grains industry has several QA systems

MARKET ACCESS

wheat to be free from foreign matter is universal. All wheat coming into a flour mill is extensively

cleaned. Flour mills use a combination of screening, aspiration and gravity separation to ensure that no foreign material enters the mill. Flour products are not directly affected by grain hygiene, but purchasing wheat containing foreign material does have knock-on effects.

The more foreign material that needs to be removed per tonne of wheat, the lower the overall flour extraction per tonne. Extraction is a very high consideration in the desirability and price of wheat and suppliers providing dirty product quickly lose favour.

Purchases that require cleaning cost the mill in time and, most importantly, energy. This is particularly true for wheat containing rocks or stones. When wheat contains a high percentage of rocks and other foreign material the cleaning system must be run at a much lower capacity, which consumes more energy. After wheat, energy is the second highest cost for a flour mill.

At Eastern Pearl Flour Mills all organic material removed from the wheat during cleaning is hammer milled, mixed with bran and pollard (by-products of the milling process) and steam pressed into stock pellets. If the wheat contains toxins these will be concentrated in the stock pellets and could be dangerous to the livestock fed the pellets.

Another extremely important point is that the Indonesian milling industry relies on the same grain protectants that are used on-farm and in central storage systems in Australia and other countries around the world.

Eastern Pearl Flour Mills stores wheat for up to nine months. Being located in the tropics any small grain insect population can very quickly develop into a large infestation. As the entire supply chain from grower to miller uses the same grain protectants, managing insect resistance is extremely important. In the future, insect resistance to grain treatments, such as phosphine, will become an important characteristic for consideration when buying wheat from a particular location or supplier. □

ª More information: David Capper, +62 81 1410 7754, [email protected]

TABLE 1 A SUMMARY OF WHEAT-QUALITY PARAMETERS REQUIRED FOR KEY PRODUCTS PRODUCED FROM FLOUR MARKETED BY EASTERN PEARL FLOUR MILLS

Bread Gluten is most important, plus water absorption and baking qualities

Dry instant noodle

Colour is of utmost importance, as well as dough stability and extensibility – colour can be affected by grain that is stained with mould or fungus, particularly if it penetrates through to the endosperm

Wafer and biscuit Almost the opposite characteristics to those required for bread – low gluten and low water absorption


MARKET ACCESS

that have been developed, including Grain Care, and ALFA encourages the adoption of these systems by the grains industry.

Many lot feeders use tempering or steam flaking to process grain before feeding it to cattle, therefore it is essential that grain is free from foreign material that could interfere with processing equipment. For example, a knife off the harvester can do significant damage to grain-processing equipment if undetected.

While residues and foreign material cause logistical problems and costs, the receival of sorghum grain containing ergot can cause major production issues. When cattle eat grain

contaminated with ergot, their weight gain and feed conversion can be severely reduced, in some cases by as much as 30 per cent, even with a low level of ergot contamination. During summer, this production loss can be further enhanced in high-heat-load events due to the animal consuming ergot on grain.

Communication and whole-chain QA are seen as vital tools to help grain growers, merchants and storage agents better meet the requirements of lot feeders. □

ª More information: Jim Cudmore, Vice President, Australian Lot Feeders’ Association, 07 4692 2277, [email protected]

A COMMENT FROM THE NATIONAL WORKING PARTY ON GRAIN PROTECTION

BY BILL MURRAY

It is essential that growers have access to new chemicals in their continual battle against stored-grain pests. Deltamethrin has been fully evaluated as a grain protectant by the National Working Party on Grain Protection (NWPGP) and is a valuable chemical in the ongoing fight against insects.

Currently this grain protectant is not available to growers to control insects in farm-stored grain. It has been agreed with the meat industry, including the Australian Lot Feeders’ Association (ALFA), that deltamethrin can be used by bulk-handling companies, and has been employed by them for several years without problems.

The grains industry has been in negotiations with the meat industry and various government agencies for several years regarding the inability of growers to access this valuable grain protectant. In these discussions it has been agreed by all parties that the risk associated with feeding deltamethrin-treated grain to livestock is low if a single treatment is employed. Current discussions are addressing the concerns of ALFA regarding the possibility of grain being treated twice.

ALFA has recently indicated a way forward in these discussions by confirming that better grain treatment compliance is required, and suggesting that this “could be achieved by an addendum to grower supply NACMA* contracts and minor changes to SAFEMEAT Commodity Vendor Declarations”.

The NWPGP considered this advice from ALFA at its June 2008 meeting, welcomed ALFA’s suggestion for progress, and has asked the NWPGP to continue to coordinate meetings with a view to resolution.

* National Agricultural Commodities Marketing Association

ª GRDC Research Code WJM00003 More information: Bill Murray, consultant, W J Murray Consulting Services, 03 9763 8396, [email protected]

Jim Cudmore: pesticide residues and foreign material in grain cause logistical problems for lot feeders, while toxins, such as ergot in sorghum, inhibit productivity.

THE AUSTRALIAN LOT-FEEDING INDUSTRY CONSUMES THREE MILLION TONNES OF GRAIN ANNUALLY – LARGELY SORGHUM, BARLEY AND WHEAT

PHOTO: ALFA


In the Australian corner

THE GRAINS INDUSTRY needs to use grain protectants and fumigants to ensure that grain can be safely stored and presented to customers in a clean, uninfested condition. Due to its climate, Australia has a greater reliance than most of its trading competitors on the use of these products in the storage of grain.

To help ensure the risks associated with the use of pesticides in the food chain are minimised, Codex Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) have been established for many pesticides by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues and recommended to the Codex Alimentarius Commission for inclusion in the Codex Alimentarius as international standards.

Due to its greater reliance on these pesticides Australia has been instrumental in ensuring MRL have been established for the chemicals most important to the export market. Some export markets will only accept grain with residue levels lower than the Codex MRL, but these standards provide a platform for negotiation. Many markets do accept the Codex MRL.

The GRDC identified the need for closer consultation and representation on regulatory matters and engaged Bill Murray to help establish appropriate linkages to ensure the GRDC is better able to prioritise its research activities in relation to grain storage.

Mr Murray chairs the National Working Party on Grain Protection (NWPGP) and represents the Australian grains industry in the delegation to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues.

This GRDC investment is designed to ensure that industry registration requirements are identified and defined, adequately presented to regulatory/registration authorities, and the required action by researchers is prioritised.

Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC)The Codex Alimentarius Commission operates under the United Nations Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO) Food Standards Program. Its objectives are protecting the health of consumers, ensuring fair practices in food trade and promoting coordination of food standards work undertaken by international agencies.

The value of Australian representation at the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues is clearly demonstrated by the recent outcome which ensured that Codex MRL were maintained for chlorpyrifos-methyl, dichlorvos, fenitrothion (see page 8), methoprene and pirimiphos-methyl. These five chemicals are very important for the safe storage of grains in Australia and the loss of Codex MRL for these compounds would have posed significant difficulties for grain storage in Australia as well as adversely affected exports.

While pesticides come up for re-approval on rotation, the threat to revoke the previously mentioned MRL arose unexpectedly. By having direct representation on the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, Australia was informed

Australia is highly reliant on grain protectants and fumigants, but the continued market acceptance of these products does not occur without a fight

MARKET ACCESS

The new, freer – but more fragmented – marketplace increases the importance for grain to be tested for residues at each stage of the value chain.


MARKET ACCESS

NATIONAL RESIDUE SURVEY

The National Residue Survey (NRS) operates as a government-based independent arbiter able to demonstrate that Australian grain meets domestic and international residue standards.

NRS is a voluntary program and is subscribed to by the major grain storers and exporters including AWB, ABB, CBH and GrainCorp. It is funded by a 0.015 per cent farm-gate levy on the value of the majority of grain crops.

Every bulk shipment of grain exported is tested via the NRS and the majority of container and bag exporters have now agreed to be involved.

“The clean, hygienic condition of Australian grains has been promoted and developed through extensive market development over many years,” Bill Murray says, “and it is important that this ‘brand’ image is not jeopardised in a fragmented marketplace.”

Producers of milled products, malt, stockfeeds, oat processors, oilseed crushers and feedlots test grain through the NRS.

Mr Murray believes that in the new, freer but more fragmented marketplace the importance of grain being tested by NRS at each stage of the value chain is even greater.

Markets are becoming increasingly fussy, some analysing for residues down to three decimal places (for example, 0.001). There have been several instances in the past two years where a major market has complained vigorously about the presence of very low levels of pesticide in an Australian commodity. In those situations the market did not have a Maximum Residue Limits (MRL) established for that particular commodity/pesticide combination.

Between 2000 and 2006, 22,752 bulk export samples were tested and 99.98 per cent had residues below Australian MRL – we cannot afford to tarnish this excellent record. Participation in the NRS provides a valuable snapshot of the pesticide residue condition of Australian grain, and allows grain exporters to validate their QA systems against NRS results.

NRS data are also used to support new and continued regulatory reviews of important crop and post-harvest chemicals. With so few new post-harvest protectants and fumigation options in development, it is extremely important to supply supporting data and ensure that international MRLs are not lost. The NRS is an operational section of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.

ª More information: www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/nrs

FIGURE 1 NATIONAL WORKING PARTY ON GRAIN PROTECTION COMPOSITION AND RELATIONSHIPS

National Working Partyon Grain Protection

CRC for NationalPlant Biosecurity

• GRDC• ABB• CBH• GrainCorp

• APVMA• FSANZ• State legislation• Codex • Markets

Regulation

Participants

• ABB• AWB• CBH• GrainCorp• GRDC• GCA• Flour Millers’ Council• Stockfeed Manufacturers• ALFA• Oilseeds – AOF• Pulse Australia• Maltsters• Dairy Australia• CSIRO• University of Queensland

Government:• APVMA• National Residue Survey (NRS)• Departments of agriculture

Chemical Companies:• DOW• Bayer• BOC• Sumitomo• FMC etc

and able to respond quickly and effectively.Part of this ability to respond with appropriate

information in a timely fashion is facilitated by the two-way flow of information between the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues and industry, which in Australia occurs through the NWPGP.

The wide representation on the NWPGP (Figure 1) allows the working party to consider issues relating to insect-infestation trends, pesticide residues, research, marketing requirements, commercial issues and MRL.

Speaking with one voice both at a national and international level is vital. The results being achieved by the current grains industry infrastructure in relation to grain hygiene suggest the regulators are hearing and listening to Australia’s arguments. □


“ THE CLEAN, HYGIENIC CONDITION OF AUSTRALIAN GRAINS HAS BEEN PROMOTED AND DEVELOPED THROUGH EXTENSIVE MARKET DEVELOPMENT OVER MANY YEARS.” – BILL MURRAY

The Australian grains industry produces 30 to 40 million tonnes of grain each year. Approximately 65 per cent of this is exported at an export value of $6 billion per year. Australia has secured 15 to 18 per cent of the world export market. Due to its climate Australia has a greater reliance on the use of grain fumigants and protectants than most of its trading competitors


The case for fenitrothionMany grain growers would be unaware of the huge effort made by the Australian grains industry to maintain Maximum Residue Limits for chemicals used for grain hygiene in stored grain By Bill Murray

IN APRIL 2008 the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues recommended that the Maximum Residue Limit (MRL) for fenitrothion would be six milligrams per kilogram, a reduction from the existing 10mg/kg, and that the MRL for maize would be deleted. The MRL for unprocessed wheat bran was raised from 20mg/kg to 25mg/kg. This news was received by the Australian grains industry with enthusiasm, as there had been a strong possibility that the international MRL for fenitrothion would be deleted. The Australian grains industry, through a GRDC project, was instrumental in achieving this result.

Fenitrothion is a broad-spectrum organophosphorus insecticide that is widely used in the eastern states of Australia as a grain protectant on stored cereal grains and as a storage structural treatment throughout Australia. It is the preferred organophosphorus treatment for malting barley, and it is also used in association with wheat.

The maintenance of an international MRL for fenitrothion was an exceptionally good outcome for all who store grain post-harvest, both on-farm and in bulk storage, and for maintaining market access. Fenitrothion has had an international Codex MRL for many years, and losing that status would have had significant ramifications, particularly with those

Australian markets that default to Codex MRL. Additionally, many important markets, such as Japan, which have fenitrothion MRLs in their own legislation, would reconsider their own position if Codex had decided to delete its international MRLs.

The process of supporting a chemical at Codex is extremely complex, and the Codex Review procedure is very thorough and precise and requires the input of detailed information about the chemical.

The fenitrothion Codex MRLs for cereal grains were almost deleted in 2002, but an intervention from the Australian delegation ensured their maintenance until consideration could be given by the manufacturer about its support for the chemical.

Manufacturer’s support was provided in 2003, and this set in train a series of events leading to the current 2008 recommendation to keep the MRL for cereal grains in place at a reduced rate.

In 2004 additional new data had to be supplied for residues in meat and milk, and information was also required to ensure that dietary intake calculations met the required Codex standards. Despite the provision of this information, the chemical was scheduled for further toxicological and residue review in 2007.

Complex calculations were submitted in 2007 to demonstrate that acceptable dietary intake requirements

MARKET ACCESS

Export wheat loading at CBH Kwinana terminal.

PHOTO: BRAD COLLIS


An integrated approach to grain hygiene researchThe addition of the Post-Harvest Grain Integrity program to the CRC for National Plant Biosecurity strengthens Australia’s ability to ensure market access is maintained

BIOSECURITY IS A two-way street. In one direction there is the importation of pests and pathogens that threaten Australia’s agricultural and horticultural industries; in the other direction there is the export of pests and pathogens that can limit market access. However, the terms import and export are not limited to international borders, as issues of biosecurity relate equally to the movement of grain between farms, stores and domestic markets.

The Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity (CRCNPB) is the central coordinating body for plant biosecurity research across all Australian states and territories. Established in 2005, this CRC brings together partners from research, government, education and industry to provide a non-competitive platform for the development and delivery of solutions in the field of plant biosecurity.

In 2007, following an approach from the GRDC and three key players in grain storage and handling, ABB Grain, CBH and GrainCorp, the Post-Harvest Grain Integrity program was established.

“The grains industry felt a new model was needed for managing grain hygiene and saw the CRCNPB already had participation from the key research organisations involved in this area,” says Dr Simon McKirdy, chief executive officer of the CRCNPB.

Dr McKirdy believes the integration of the existing partners with commercial players who work across the value chain is good for the development, delivery and adoption of biosecurity solutions, as well as for maintaining market access.

“This integrated approach helps Australia maintain its clean, green image and meet this market expectation,” he says. “It also means investment in stored-grain research has doubled. We have the largest budget that has ever been available to work on stored-grain hygiene challenges, from the farm gate to the market.”

The increasing resistance to phosphine in stored-grain pests and the potential loss of this cost-effective,

BIOSECURITY

were met, based on the representative 13 cluster diets utilised by Codex as a global dietary intake benchmark.

From 2002 through to 2008 there was a need for direct, ongoing consultation with the manufacturer, the generation of additional information, the need for industry consultation through the National Working Party on Grain Protection (NWPGP), and coordination of national grains industry meetings to determine responses to issues.

This coordination and representation on the Australian Delegation to Codex was undertaken through the GRDC project ‘Coordination of Regulation of Grain Storage Chemicals’. There was extensive input into the process by the NWPGP and a range of grains organisations which were concerned that the international MRL might be lost.

It is extremely difficult to establish MRLs and it is most important to ensure that they are not lost through lack of support. The post-harvest grain-storage sector has determined, through ongoing industry consultation, that it will not apply grain protectants and fumigants to stored grains destined for export unless those chemicals have international MRLs established through the Codex process.

Dr Raj Bhula, of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, played a most important role in assisting the grains industry in this matter, as she has done with previous Codex issues. Dr Janis Baines, of Food Standards Australia New Zealand, provided dietary intake support; Kevin Healy, of the National Residue Survey, supplied residue monitoring data; and GrainCorp’s Phillip Clamp and Matt Head made a major contribution on behalf of the NWPGP. These participants and the Australian delegation to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, led by Ian Reichstein, of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, provided essential elements that helped achieve the successful result in 2008.

It is essential that all users of fenitrothion and other grain-storage chemicals understand that it is extremely important to ensure that chemical residues are within national and international levels and below levels established in particular markets. Pesticide residue violations in the international marketplace can cause severe market disruption, financial penalties, loss of commodity reputation and even loss of a specific market.

Irresponsible use resulting in residues above MRLs, or above market contract requirements, would quickly make the hard work of the delegation worthless and again put pressure on the ability of the Australian grains industry to deliver hygienic grain to the market. □


Dr Simon McKirdy, CEO of the CRC National Plant Biosecurity: integrating work on stored-grain hygiene challenges into the CRC has enabled investment in this area to be doubled.

THE INCREASING RESISTANCE TO PHOSPHINE IS THE GREATEST THREAT TO GRAIN HYGIENE THAT THE INDUSTRY FACES

PHOT

O: C

RCNP

B


Unwelcome to AustraliaA single incursion of khapra beetle highlights the range of contingencies and responses required for containment and eradication By Rob Emery

BIOSECURITY

HAVING A HOUSE shrink-wrapped to aid fumigation was just part of the response that was required for an incursion of khapra beetle, found in April 2007 in a suburban home and personal effects of a family that had migrated to Perth, Western Australia, two weeks before the discovery.

The khapra beetle (Trogoderma granarium) is one of the most serious pests of stored grain and is a regulated quarantine pest in most countries. It is nominated as one of the 100 worst invasive species

worldwide, and infests grain and cereal products, particularly wheat, barley, oats, rye, maize, rice, flour, malt and noodles, although it will feed on almost any dried plant or animal matter.

Khapra beetle’s importance lies not only in its capacity to cause serious damage to stored commodities, but also the impact it has on trade for countries that have established infestations. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) estimates that the potential economic impact of khapra beetle in WA alone would range between $46 million and $117 million a year due to lost market access.

While Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) port inspectors regularly intercept khapra beetle in vessel holds, the

Perth incursion was the first on the mainland. This made the discovery of greater concern and the need for total eradication essential.

The khapra beetle incursion was initially reported because the family was disturbed by the presence

easily administered product, which is widely accepted by overseas markets, is considered the greatest grain-hygiene threat faced by the industry. Consequently much of the CRCNPB’s investment is focused on methods to maximise the life of this product and to develop new technologies to control pests in the supply chain, helping to ensure the continued supply of quality, clean grain to the market.

These grains projects are undertaken through the five science and technology programs of the CRCNPB, including the Post-Harvest Grain Integrity Research Program, and are reported in this Ground Cover supplement.

The CRCNPB has seven programs. The first five focus on innovative science research activities, while the sixth develops education and training programs in plant biosecurity. The seventh program facilitates the delivery and adoption of the CRCNPB’s science and technology outputs. □

ª GRDC Research Code NPB00004 More information: Kate Scott, communications officer, CRCNPB, 02 6201 2882, [email protected]

PLANNING FOR THE WORST

BY SHARYN TAYLOR

Australia’s geographic isolation has, in the past, provided a degree of protection from exotic pest threats, and the grains industry is free from many pests that affect agriculture in other countries. However, rapid growth in trade and movement of people is increasing the risk of new pests becoming established in our crops.

One of the key tools an industry has in preparing for an incursion of exotic pests is the development of contingency plans specific to each pest. These plans provide detailed information on life cycles, potential distribution, survival strategies and methods for surveillance and sampling. Contingency plans form the basis of the development of response plans in the event of the detection of an exotic pest, assisting with the rapid response, eradication, containment or management.

Contingency plans are being developed through the Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity with funding from the GRDC. These plans will target key pest threats based on the overall risk rating identified in the National Biosecurity Plan for the grains industry and also on the value of crop production. This will ensure that all high-risk pests of major grain crops will be covered by a contingency plan, enhancing preparedness of the grains industry for potential biosecurity threats.

ª More information: Dr Sharyn Taylor, program manager, Plant Health Australia, 02 6260 4322, [email protected].

au

KHAPRA BEETLE: A SERIOUS PEST OF ALL STORED GRAIN The khapra beetle is classified as a high-risk exotic pest by the National Grains Industry On-Farm Biosecurity Program, impacting on market access and production costs.Main issues with khapra beetles:n �adults have wings but do not fly;n �insects are spread in infected grain;n �insects are only 2 to 3mm long;n �it can damage up to 30 per cent of grain

before it is noticed;n �phosphine fumigation is not very effective;n �larvae can survive more than a year without

food; andn �its existence reduces the number of overseas

markets.


BIOSECURITY

A COMMERCIAL PEST CONTROLLER RECOGNISED THE SUSPICIOUS BEETLES

Fumigating the two-storey Perth residence: before (above) and after shrink-wrapping for the control of an incursion of the exotic stored-grain pest khapra beetle.

of beetles, larvae and cast skins throughout their belongings, which had taken six weeks to arrive by container ship. They sought help from a commercial pest controller who recognised the suspicious beetles from various literature and reported it to the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (DAFWA), who sent an inspector to collect specimens.

Adult and immature specimens from a breeding population were identified by the DAFWA taxonomist and these were later confirmed by CSIRO Entomology in Canberra.

Immediate and uncompromising action was taken through industry and government collaboration to quarantine the home, with the family being moved to a hotel with only the clothes they were wearing. The fumigation was managed by the Co-operative Bulk Handling Group using methyl bromide at the internationally agreed khapra beetle rate of 80 grams per cubic metre. To achieve this type of fumigation in a two-storey suburban home provided some interesting challenges.

The two-storey home was shrink-wrapped to ensure a high standard of sealing so that gas concentrations were maintained and monitored for 48 hours. Two days later holes were cut in the shrink wrap and the aeration process commenced. Within 12 hours methyl bromide concentrations had fallen to below the threshold limit, but pockets of higher concentrations remained. A further six days of aeration were required, so security guards were employed to protect the open house.

Professional cleaners were engaged as soon as the house was habitable. Unfortunately the house still had a malodour and the ‘decaying body smell’ attracted many blowflies and flesh flies to the house, adding to the residents’ displeasure.

After extensive gas testing throughout the house the malodour was found to be dimethyl disulphide, most likely to have formed from a reaction between the fumigant and sulphur in the poorly refined carpet underlay.

The carpets were removed, and industrial fans and an ozone generator were used to try to remove the smell. Eventually a forensic cleaning company was employed to clean the whole house and contents, while the family dealt with washing and dry cleaning all clothing, sometimes multiple times to totally remove the odour.

Six weeks after the detection of khapra beetle the family were able to return to their home.

The container in which the family’s possessions had arrived was traced by AQIS and inspected on arrival in Norway by AQIS officials, but no khapra beetle infestation or food residues could be found. Trace-back work has so far not indicated where the infestation took place.

Although the incursion was successfully controlled and no khapra beetles have been recorded in the first

12 months of a two-year trapping program, much was learnt about the logistics, costs and unforseen chemical reactions associated with achieving this outcome for a single incursion. The identification of this incursion by a commercial pest controller reinforced the importance of communication to all potentially involved parties within and external to the grains industry. □

ª More information: Rob Emery, senior entomologist, DAFWA, 08 9368 3274, [email protected]

PHOT

OS: E

NTOM

OLOG

Y BR

ANCH

, DAF

WA

BIOSECURITY

Three heads are better than oneVigilance, rigour and collaboration will underpin the life of phosphine and the development of new grain-hygiene management solutions

MAINTAINING AUSTRALIA’S REPUTATION on the domestic and international market as a supplier of high-quality grain, free from insect infestation, is the key issue for all players in the grains industry. To achieve this, the right tools are required.

“Our capacity to administer effective pest-control measures using existing practices to satisfy customer demands is facing some challenges,” says Neil Barker, GrainCorp’s technical research manager. “At the moment the industry is finding instances of increasing insect resistance to phosphine, which is driving the use of alternative (and more costly) control measures.”

These concerns are shared by the other two major bulk handlers, ABB Grain and the CBH Group.

By becoming industry partners in the Cooperative

By becoming industry partners in the CRC for National Plant Biosecurity, GrainCorp, ABB Grain and the CBH Group are signalling the seriousness with which they are treating the matter of phosphine resistance.

Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity (CRCNPB), GrainCorp, ABB Grain and the CBH Group are signalling the seriousness with which they are treating the matter of phosphine resistance. The wealth of experience up and down the value chain, and resources available to these companies, can support more complete and innovative programs of research.

One issue that grain handlers struggle with, and hopefully one that will be addressed through the CRCNPB, is the lack of rapid tests and suitable sampling systems for grain as it is delivered to the silos.

“While we can rapidly assess loads of grain for quality traits (for example, protein and screenings), it is often difficult to test for contaminants and foreign material as there is either no rapid test



GRAIN STORAGE AND HANDLING NOW INVOLVES SIGNIFICANTLY MORE PLAYERS

available or they typically occur at such a low frequency that they may not be detectable on initial inspection,” explains Geoff Masters, quality and technical services manager, ABB Grain.

An additional issue is that grain storage and handling now involves significantly more players than in previous decades, and so the risk of ‘getting it wrong’ becomes much greater. The system is being put under continued pressure to break vital fumigation protocols in order to access grain stores more frequently by a multitude of customers.

“Growers need to understand that just because a chemical can be used legally in Australia, this does not mean a maximum residue limit (MRL) is set by the importing country,” Mr Masters says. “Using a chemical off-label escalates a residue issue to the next level of seriousness.”

The bulk handlers have rigorous internal training programs and procedures relating to how chemicals are used. They also undertake extensive chemical-residue testing programs to detect previously unidentified chemicals that have been applied prior to delivery to bulk stores. Grain is regularly inspected for the presence of insects and resistance monitoring is undertaken on insects detected. Stores are regularly inspected and maintained.

If current levels of market access are to be maintained, the same level of rigour is required on-farm and at all storage and delivery facilities. Growers must ensure their silos are suitable for the proper storage of grain and that they commit the time and effort to maintain their grain. This will involve, among other things:n �ensuring the bins are clean and free of residues

and are capable of being properly fumigated;n �that the grower regularly monitors

the grain for insects;n �that the silo surrounds are kept clean; and n �that fumigations are monitored.

“It is a measure of our vigilance in the past that has led us to the successful development of a large export grains industry over the past 50 years,” Neil Barker says. “This vigilance must continue.”

Directly and through in-kind contributions, the three major bulk-handling companies are significant contributors to the CRCNPB. There are a number of critical research activities being undertaken and/or developed through the CRCNPB, including resistance management, and new and alternative chemicals and insect control mechanisms. However, all players consider the education of growers on the implications of resistance to phosphine and their role in minimising the impact to be a major issue.

The CBH Group has led the way in sharing its knowledge and experience of the use of phosphine fumigation techniques with growers through the ‘Phosure’ campaign.

“‘Operation Phosure’ is delivered in Western Australia through the Better Farms IQ team by CBH to help prolong the life of phosphine in order to save growers and the industry significant costs associated with switching to alternative fumigation methods,” says Ern Kostas, manager of grain protection at the CBH Group.

The program includes information and demonstrations on how to manage on-farm storage, gauge if fumigation has been effective, and free sealed-silo checks and resistance testing.

It is inevitable that the level of resistance to phosphine will make its use impractical. However, delaying this day as long as possible is logical for the whole industry as phosphine is the most cost-effective, easily used and widely accepted fumigant, and currently there is nothing on the horizon that is its equal. Working together is considered to be essential to maximise the life of phosphine and to develop new solutions for grain-hygiene management. □

ª GRDC Research Code NPB00004 More information: Neil Barker, GrainCorp, [email protected]; Geoff Masters, ABB Grain, [email protected]; Ern Kostas, CBH Group, [email protected]

IMPORTING RESISTANCE

BY ROB EMERY

Many overseas countries have grain insects with strong resistance to phosphine. Australia’s intense reliance on phosphine to export insect-free grain is threatened by the importation of insects with strong resistance. The mixing of introduced resistant populations with endemic grain-storage pests in Australia presents a huge threat to the Australian grains industry, which has invested so much in managing resistance. The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS), working with state departments of agriculture, provides the front line of defence against such importations.

In recent years the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia, has been testing grain insects from overseas intercepted at ports and at post-entry quarantine intercepts for resistance to phosphine.

One new strain of rust-red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) collected from muesli made in the UK was tested over the past year and found to have weak resistance. There was also a quarantine sample received containing rice weevils (Sitophilus oryzae) in wheat in a heat bag originating in China. These insects are currently in culture for resistance testing. Strongly resistant stored-grain insects have also been found in samples collected from a vacuum cleaner bag from Oman and polished rice from China.

The importation of resistant strains could threaten a huge investment by bulk handlers in phosphine fumigation infrastructure, as well as many years of work in resistance management.

BIOSECURITY


Phosphine resistance narrows options

PHOSPHINE IS UNIQUE. There is no alternative that possesses the combined attributes of phosphine: accepted by all markets (except organic) internationally as a residue-free or no-residue treatment; easy to apply as a gas or a solid that decomposes to a gas when in contact with moist

air; multi-commodity registration and cost-effective (out of patent and produced in India and China).

The main disadvantage of phosphine is that it is a slow-acting poison and requires extended contact time at appropriate concentrations if adult and immature insect stages are to be killed. The use of phosphine with poor delivery systems and in unsealed silos is resulting in insufficient concentrations and exposure time, leading to poor kill rates and the development of resistance.

Strong resistance to phosphine by beetle pests threatens its continued effectiveness.

TABLE 1 RESISTANCE TO REGISTERED GRAIN TREATMENTS IN COMMON INSECT PESTSTREATMENT LESSER GRAIN BORER RED-RUST FLOUR BEETLE RICE WEEVIL SAW-TOOTHED GRAIN BEETLE FLAT GRAIN BEETLE

Phosphine Strong resistance detected Strong resistance detected Strong resistance not

detected Strong resistance detected Strong resistance detected

Methyl bromide No known resistance No known resistance No known resistance No known resistance No known resistance

Dichlorvos, e.g. DDVP500® Resistance common No known resistance No known resistance No known resistance No known resistance

Pimimiphos-methyl, e.g. Actellic® Resistant Resistance detected Resistance detected Resistance common No known resistance

Fenitrothion, e.g. Fenitrothion 1000® Resistant Resistance detected Resistance detected Resistance common No known resistance

Chlorpyrifos-methyl, e.g. Reldan® Resistant Resistance detected Resistance detected Resistance common No known resistance

Methoprene, e.g. IGR®, Diacon® Resistance common No known resistance Not effective No known resistance No known resistance

The emergence of strong resistanceUNTIL THE MID-1980s phosphine was regarded as a back-up for grain protectants. However, since this time domestic and international markets increasingly required nil or very low chemical residues on grain, shifting the emphasis from grain protectants to fumigants. Phosphine was the only viable replacement and, consequently, its use has increased dramatically. At least 80 per cent of Australia’s grain is fumigated with phosphine.

The increased use of phosphine went hand-in-hand with an increased frequency of resistance in all five major target insect pests (Table 1). At first resistance was not a major concern for the industry and was referred to as ‘weak’ or ‘moderate’.

Since 1997 strong resistance has been recorded in four of the five major grain insect pest species – lesser grain borer, rust-red flour beetle, saw-toothed grain beetle and flat

grain beetle – but not rice weevil.Genetic research revealed that

weak resistance was controlled by one major gene and that it was this gene plus the selection of a second resistance gene that produced the new strong resistance type.

Strong resistance requires the presence of the two resistance genes in an insect.

Through our national resistance monitoring program, trends for

PESTICIDE OPTIONS

Phosphine is a cost-effective, easily administered fumigant that is widely accepted by overseas markets but is under threat from increasing resistance By Pat Collins


THE USE OF PHOSPHINE WITH POOR DELIVERY SYSTEMS AND IN UNSEALED SILOS IS RESULTING IN POOR KILL RATES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF RESISTANCE

Rice weevil

phosphine resistance are available for all of Australia (see article above).

The weak resistance gene is now very common in many population samples, showing frequencies of up to 100 per cent resistant insects. Although much less common than weak resistance, the frequency of strong (two-gene) resistance is increasing each year and it has now been detected in all states of eastern Australia (Queensland, NSW, Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania).

Recently, a very high level of resistance has been detected in the flat grain beetle. This resistance may threaten control even in sealed storages.

Managing resistance to phosphineEvolution of this new strong resistance is a major challenge to the grains industry.

It has caused the complete redevelopment of phosphine protocols, which have now flowed on to product registrations.

However, the good news for growers is that this resistance can be controlled if they fumigate in gas-tight (sealed) storage. Fumigation in unsealed storages will not be successful and will only exacerbate the problem by selecting for resistance.

The key to managing resistance to phosphine – to ensure that even

resistant insects are destroyed – is to:n �use the fumigant only when

absolutely necessary; andn only fumigate in sealed silos.

In addition, growers can reduce selection pressure by using cooling aeration to reduce insect population growth and assiduous hygiene to limit insect populations around the farm. □

– Pat Collins

AT LEAST 80 PER CENT OF AUSTRALIA’S GRAIN IS FUMIGATED WITH PHOSPHINE

PESTICIDE OPTIONS

The only alternative fumigant currently available to treat grain is methyl bromide and its use is restricted to quarantine/pre-shipment because it is an ozone depleter. If new alternatives are developed to market release they are expected to cost five to 20 times more and require market and regulatory acceptance.

Grain protectants are residual chemicals that are designed to protect grain against insect infestation for up to nine months. They are best applied on freshly harvested grain. Protectants are used on about 20 per cent of grain, but few markets accept grain treated with residual chemicals (grain protectants). Growers need to ensure that any intended market accepts the use of protectants.

Grain protectants are becoming rarer: resistance in insects is rapidly making most of them obsolete and, because the market for grain protectants

is small, replacements are not being developed commercially. Protectants play a key role in providing an alternative treatment against resistance to phosphine, but this advantage is being lost because of resistance to the protectants. □

ª�GRDC Research Codes DAQ00090, CRC30116 More information: Dr Pat Collins, leader, Post-Harvest Integrity Research Program, CRC Plant Biosecurity, 07 3896 9433, [email protected]

Lesser grain borerSaw-toothed grain beetleFlat grain beetle

Rust-red flour beetle

PHOTOS: CHRIS FREEBAIRN, QDPI&F

FIGURE 1 PHOSPHINE RESISTANCE – THE NATIONAL SITUATION

sampling locations over the past 25 yearsweak resistance to phosphine has been foundstrong resistance to phosphine has been foundlocations of new very strong resistance in Cryptolestes spp. (flat grain beetle)

Coordinated resistance monitoringImproved integration of resistance monitoring will help the grains industry react quickly to new resistances By Pat Collins

THE RELIANCE OF the grains industry on phosphine and a limited range of grain protectants to maintain freedom from insect infestation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future because of the high cost of alternatives. However, experience has shown that the efficacy of these materials can be seriously jeopardised by the development of resistance in target pests.

To assist in the management of this threat, the grains industry needs information on the distribution, frequency and strength of resistance. A nationally coordinated resistance monitoring program has been developed through the CRC for National Plant Biosecurity (CRCNPB) – an initiative supported by the GRDC – to provide this assistance. The program will provide industry with: an early warning of the emergence of new resistances; information on spread of known resistance; assessment of the likely impact on industry of new resistance developments; and diagnosis of control failures.

The project combines the expertise of scientists from each of the three major regions: Dr Manoj Nayak from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (QDPI&F) (Northern), Dr Joanne Holloway from the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) (Southern) and Rob Emery from the Department of Agriculture and Food, Western Australia (DAFWA) (Western).

Project staff collect insect pest samples from farms, grain merchants and central storages across all grain-production regions of Australia. The insects are then subjected to a battery of tests in the laboratory to determine their resistance status. In 2007-08 a total of

2980 insect strains were collected from across Australia.Although the overall frequency of weak resistance to

phosphine remains high in lesser grain borers, rust-red flour beetles and rice weevils, the detection of strong resistance in several populations of flat grain beetles in eastern Australia signals the emergence of a very serious resistance issue. The level of this resistance is the highest ever detected in Australia, surpassing levels previously detected in the lesser grain borer and psocids. The CRCNPB is now undertaking a project to develop fumigation protocols that will effectively contain and eradicate these strongly phosphine-resistant pests.

In eastern Australia resistance to S-methoprene in lesser grain borers is common, but the lack of resistance to S-methoprene in the saw-toothed grain beetle populations is good news. Fenitrothion remains effective against rice weevil and rust-red flour beetles.

Resistance is assessed using a ‘discriminating dose’ (DD) method. DDs are concentrations of test chemicals established to discriminate between certain resistance types. Often two doses are used: the first separates susceptible from resistant individuals and is used to test if the insect is resistant; the second dose is used to search for new and significant resistance when an existing resistance is weak or not economically important.

The Australian Grain Insect Resistance Database (AGIRD) continues to be the mainstay for the collation of resistance data. The AGIRD database currently holds data from NSW DPI, QDPI&F and DAFWA for 52,648 assays (46,740 in 2007) on 26,194 strains (22,995 in 2007) from 8559 sites (7771 in 2007). Background information and the AGIRD database can be found at www.agric.wa.gov.au/content/PW/INS/PP/SP/agird.htm. It is fully accessible for data input and querying over the internet.

Under the leadership of the CRCNPB the work of the three laboratories is integrated. If new resistance is detected, it is confirmed by at least one sister laboratory. Inter-laboratory cross-checks are carried out to benchmark the nationally agreed methodology. Quality of results is assured by exchanges between laboratories of reference susceptible and resistant strains and regular meetings/workshops. The three laboratories are developing a common manual for sampling and testing for pesticide resistance. □

ª��GRDC Research Codes CRC300116 More information: Dr Darryl Hardie, leader, Surveillance Research Program, CRCNPB, 08 9368 37997, [email protected]

THIS RESISTANCE IS THE HIGHEST EVER DETECTED IN AUSTRALIA

PESTICIDE OPTIONS



New fumigant offers a glimmer of hopeAlternative fumigant products are needed throughout the supply chain, and GLO2, based on naturally occurring chemicals, shows promise

THE USE OF two naturally occurring chemicals has resulted in a fumigant that offers considerable health, safety and environmental advantages over currently available products, while also providing high levels of pest control. Having made the breakthrough and developed the new fumigant, CSIRO Entomology and the GRDC have founded a project to compile the comprehensive data required to achieve product registration by the Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA).

Phosphine has been the mainstay of insect control in stored grain since the 1950s. However, the need to find a new fumigant has been driven by an increasing number of insects showing signs of phosphine resistance, and by other fumigants – methyl bromide and carbon disulphide – being phased out due to health and/or environmental concerns. Furthermore, changing patterns of grain handling indicate that a growing need for on-farm storage and fumigation requires a different solution to those traditionally used. This is leaving the whole grain storage and handling chain with a lack of fumigation products for grain, equipment and buildings.

CSIRO Entomology has carried out several successful GRDC projects investigating fumigant alternatives. The most promising for Australian farm use is GLO2, the working name for a GRDC–CSIRO patented product containing 95 per cent ethyl formate and five per cent of a naturally occurring synergist.

GLO2 offers a suite of advantages over current fumigation products:

1 Pest control – high levels of efficacy in eradicating major grain pests at all life

stages have been recorded. The different chemistry to phosphine and other registered fumigant products offers an effective alternative method of dealing with insect resistance.

2Formulation – GLO2 is formulated as a liquid, so it can be easily transported and

sprayed directly onto grain in stores or during loading. It readily vaporises and is suitable for use in both sealed and partially sealed silos. GLO2 breaks down into compounds that naturally occur in grain, leaves virtually no residues and has no effect on grain quality.

3Speed – GLO2 is a fast fumigant. Fumigation takes overnight to a few days to complete,

with a short withholding period and no need for forced aeration on smaller silos.

4Spectrum of use – in addition to fumigation of grain on-farm and in

bulk stores, GLO2 is expected to be suitable for fumigating infrastructure, such as buildings and equipment.

5Safety – in comparison to other fumigants GLO2 is safe and simple to use, and no

specialised handling skills are required.

6Environmentally friendly – neither GLO2 nor its breakdown products contribute to

greenhouse gases or deplete the ozone layer.It is expected that GLO2 will be

registered and on the market by 2011. □

ª��GRDC Research Code CSE00040 More information: Paul Meibusch, GRDC new products manager, 02 6272 5525; David Adams, business development manager, CSIRO Entomology, 02 6246 4001

Yonglin Ren of CSIRO Entomology has been instrumental in the development of a new fumigant for the grains industry.PHOTO: REBECCA THYER

POTENTIAL NEW REGISTRATIONS

A pesticide more commonly used in crop pests has been assessed for its use as a protectant for stored grain

BY GREG DAGLISH

A ‘soft’ insecticide used in the control of crop pests that degrades rapidly in the environment and has minimal impact on non-target species is currently being assessed as a protectant for stored grain.

Research undertaken at the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (QDPI&F) laboratories and funded by the GRDC showed that this naturally derived insecticide has potential as a protectant against the lesser grain borer (Rhyzopertha dominica), a species known to develop strong resistance to phosphine and commonly used protectants.

Developed by Dow Agroscience, it is produced from the fermentation products of a bacterium that normally lives in the soil. Laboratory experiments using resistant strains of a range of pest insects established that this insecticide was most effective against the lesser grain borer. It was confirmed that it provided long-term protection in a large-scale field trial in Victoria.

Registration of this material as a grain protectant in Australia has been delayed because some international authorities have not yet agreed to maximum residue limits (MRL) for grain and grain products.

There is a range of insecticides from newer insecticide chemical groups that are being used in agriculture. Some of these may have potential as grain protectants. Research needs to be done to examine these opportunities.

ª��GRDC Research Codes DAQ00090, DAQ00080 More information: Dr Greg Daglish, principal entomologist, QDPI&F, 07 3896 9415, [email protected]

PESTICIDE OPTIONS


Rapid tests for phosphine resistanceKnowing the extent of a resistance problem is the first step in control

CURRENTLY THE ONLY method for detecting and monitoring insects with resistance to phosphine is to treat insects with a ‘discriminating dose’ (DD) of phosphine and count the survivors. This method is laborious and slow, as it can take months to breed enough insects from each collection before exposing them to phosphine.

Two research teams are working on developing rapid tests for phosphine resistance. One is using genetic differences and the other protein differences as a method of distinguishing susceptible and resistant insects.

Dr David Schlipalius, of the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (QDPI&F) and the Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity (CRCNPB), has established that two major genes are responsible for higher-level resistance in the lesser grain borer (Rhyzopertha dominica). Individually each of these genes is weak, but when present in the same insect they act synergistically to give a much higher resistance.

This high-level resistance can be controlled by appropriate concentrations and exposures to phosphine and is relatively rare because it requires this two-gene resistance mechanism.

DNA markers that are very close to these resistance genes within the lesser grain borer’s genome have been found and are being used

to target and identify the resistance genes.A second reference species, the rust-red flour

beetle (Tribolium castaneum), has been added to the project as the genome of this species has recently been sequenced in the US. Having this additional genetic information will help fast-track this research.

Within the next two years it is hoped that DNA tests for genetic resistance can be incorporated into the national resistance monitoring program. The research team also plans to use the DNA test in ecology projects designed to identify the major factors involved in breeding phosphine resistance in wild populations.

At CSIRO Entomology, Dr Peter Campbell is investigating proteins as a means of rapidly differentiating susceptible and resistant insects. He is also working with lesser grain borer and rust-red flour beetle.

Previous research had suggested that susceptible and resistant lesser grain borer have different levels of the protein arginine kinase. Neither the site of action nor mechanisms of resistance to phosphine are known, but arginine kinase has a function in improving cell respiration by enabling an extra energy store. As phosphine is known to only be toxic to insects that are actively using oxygen, it appeared this protein was worth further investigation.

Dr Campbell repeated the original experiments using a more robust research method and with a wider range of sources of resistant and susceptible lesser grain borer. His study, which involved two years of work, was not able to support the original findings. Nonetheless it was decided to persist for the remaining year of the project with a related approach. Rather than extracting the protein from the whole insect, it was decided to focus on the proteins found in the mitochondria. Mitochondria are found in every cell and play a crucial role in energy conversion and respiration. Various lines of evidence suggest that mitochondria are likely sites of crucial differences between susceptible and resistant insects.

During this year of breeding-up insect populations, grinding and centrifuging to extract the mitochondria and protein analysis, Dr Campbell is optimistic that this research could reveal a lead for the development of a rapid method to identify and distinguish resistant insects.

It is not immediately obvious whether a DNA-based or protein-based test would be the most rapid and portable for use on-site. If the industry is lucky it may have a choice of two methods of rapid phosphine resistance testing. Alternatively, both methods may be required to fully understand how resistance occurs. □

ª��GRDC Research Code CRC20080 More information: Dr David Schlipalius, research scientist, QDPI&F, 07 3896 9680, [email protected]; Dr Peter Campbell, experimental scientist, CSIRO Entomology, 02 6246 4394, [email protected]

The genome of the rust-red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) has recently been sequenced in the US. Having this additional genetic information will help fast-track genetic and proteomic detection and monitoring tools.

MONITORING AND DIAGNOSTICS

PHOTO: CHRIS FREEBAIRN, QDPI&F


PDAs assist pest surveillanceTechnological developments are being harnessed to improve stored-grain pest management By Rob Emery

THE COLLECTION OF surveillance information in relation to grain-storage pests and exotic-pest incursions has been laborious, fragmented and inefficient. First, the same data can be collected by several groups all using their own recording systems; second, much of the data is recorded on paper before being loaded into databases, which is both time-consuming and prone to errors; and third, the lack of structure makes data integration and sharing difficult.

As part of the Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity’s (CRCNPB) Surveillance Research Program, a project to develop a nationally integrated system that will digitally collect and collate plant-pest surveillance information has been initiated. In particular, this information relates to the presence/absence of exotic plant pests. A new project will further develop this technology for grain-storage pests, resistance to pesticides and fumigation treatment records and so on.

Such digital pest-monitoring systems will be available for use by all parties currently involved in the collection and use of this data, including state departments of agriculture involved in resistance monitoring, bulk handlers, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and Plant Health Australia.

The systems will have built-in validation rules to ensure data integrity and BioSIRT compliance, and will have the capacity to interface easily with other BioSIRT systems.

To make the technology work effectively the correct software and hardware has been sourced. While hardware has not presented too much of a headache, the same cannot be said for sourcing off-the-shelf software. Nevertheless rapid progress has been made, a functioning prototype has been built and a deployed system is planned for 2009.

A personal digital assistant (PDA) has been selected as the recording hardware to allow it to be carried into awkward sample sites. After product evaluation the Ipaq RX5965 Travel Companion was selected for prototype development. This unit is relatively cheap and runs Microsoft Windows Mobile 5.0, which provides good interconnectivity with desktop PCs. It also has built-in Bluetooth, Wifi internet, Sirfstar III GPS and TomTom navigation. Data entry through the touch-screen keyboard was found to be rapid and accurate and screen visibility in daylight is clear.

A system has been devised that allows preparation of sampling itineraries using Google Earth on

a desktop PC. These itineraries are uploaded to the device and can be used with TomTom to provide in-car voice navigation to locate traps.

Connectivity to the internet allows the remote uploading and downloading of data, as well as accessing Google Maps in the field to view streets and imagery of the area surrounding the sample location.

At the heart of the system is database software that allows rapid, consistent data entry, storage and sharing. The addition of a portable printer, barcode reader and software that develops itineraries on-the-fly enables the PDA to improve the logistical efficiency of surveillance.

Each trap has a barcode and this is read and uploaded to the PDA before sample data is logged. Each specimen sample collected in the field has a unique barcode label printed on the spot. PDAs generally support only one Bluetooth serial port connection, but because the barcode reader is for incoming data and the printer is for outgoing data, support for two devices has been working.

The barcoding system can be used in the laboratory and other places for cross-checking sampling information held on the system and to trace samples through the system, providing a chain of evidence if required. These processes also provide auditing of personnel through date, time and exact location, and work performed.

In recent testing 15,883 records were imported into the PDA application, validated and integrity checked from 15 disparate databases. The system has been successfully tested in the field. A CRCNPB workshop in early August brought together grain handlers and biosecurity researchers from various state and Commonwealth agencies to develop a phase two project to develop custom applications and roll out the technology for the stored grains industry in Australia. □

ª��GRDC Research Code DAW00129 More information: Rob Emery, project leader, CRCNPB, 08 9368 3247, [email protected]

DIGITAL PEST MONITORING SYSTEMS WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ALL PARTIES

MONITORING AND DIAGNOSTICS

Replacing a pen and paper with a PDA allows Michelle Chami, technical officer of the DAFWA Grain Insect Resistance Testing Laboratory, to do more than record. Connected to a barcode reader and printer, the PDA is able to identify the trap, store the recorded information in a nationally agreed format, and print a barcode that allows the sample to be tracked right through the testing system.

PHOT

O: D

AFW

A


Insects a pest in harvest bags

POLYMER-MEMBRANE-BASED HARVEST BAGS provide a cost-effective grain-storage option. However, serious concerns have been raised over grain spoilage, contamination and out-turned processing quality. In response the GRDC and CSIRO undertook a project to evaluate the limitations and risk of this technology under Australian conditions.

The evaluation consisted of four elements: a detailed literature review, field studies in Australia, a review of harvest bag trials in Argentina (where more than 20 million tonnes of grain a year is stored in this system), and a comparison with the performance of grain-bunker storage in Australia.

Harvest bags have been promoted as providing non-chemical insect control and grain-quality management. This is based on the premise that the bag is sealed to achieve gas-tightness for the duration of the storage – that is, more than five minutes half-life pressure decay time – and that hermetic conditions are created.

A hermetic atmosphere refers to an atmosphere with raised carbon dioxide (CO2) and low oxygen (O2) concentrations relative to the natural air. In such an atmosphere insect life is less easily sustained and can be killed depending on the ratio of the gases at a certain temperature. For example, research has shown that atmospheres containing two per cent O2 and 15 per cent CO2 at 26˚C were far more effective against adults and eggs of certain grain storage pests, than atmospheres with five per cent O2 and 15 per cent CO2.

The change in the atmospheric composition

within a sealed harvest bag can be generated by the pests. As the pests respire they will use up O2 and expire CO2, altering the balance of the gases, but only if the bag is gas-tight.

While the hermetic effects can be proven in controlled conditions, in the field the situation was found to be unreliable.

If a hermetic atmosphere is to be created in a harvest bag unacceptably high numbers of insects have to be present. It is estimated that fewer than 10 live insects per kilogram of grain are required to achieve hermetic conditions in a well-sealed bag. However, even half this amount is unacceptable to the industry. So this system is seen as a fragile insect-control approach in Australia.

The second limitation relates to achieving sufficient gas-tightness and then sustaining this throughout the storage period. If gas-tightness is not achieved in the first place a hermetic atmosphere can never occur. If it is achieved, but oxygen is allowed to enter at a later date, due to physical damage to the bag, insect populations may flare.

The field studies found that appropriate levels of gas-tightness were not being achieved on-farm. It is recommended that pressure testing is carried out regularly throughout the storage period.

At present there is no appropriate dispensing arrangement for the use of phosphine in harvest bags. The insertion of phosphine tablets directly into the grain results in the membrane being penetrated, is not

HERMETIC EFFECTS IN THE FIELD WERE UNRELIABLE

ON-FARM STORAGE

Although harvest bags offer flexible, cost-effective storage, questions have arisen about grain hygiene and quality at out-turn By James Darby


The field studies found that appropriate levels of gas-tightness were not being achieved in harvest bags on-farm, thus not achieving the hermetic conditions that can kill insect pests.

Improved storage technology to slow resistance

PHOSPHINE, THE MOST widely used fumigant on-farm and in bulk storage, kills insects slowly. Insects require a minimum time to acquire a sufficient quantity of fumigant to die. Higher phosphine concentrations can reduce this time, but only if well distributed throughout the grain stack. This time period is affected by temperature – cool bugs take up phosphine more slowly as they are less active. Higher concentrations have been shown to kill all insects, irrespective of their resistance status.

It has been established that a wide variety of fumigant concentrations and exposure periods occur throughout grain stores and between different types of fumigation systems. Therefore, for phosphine to remain effective, better application techniques are required. Consistent increased concentrations will be very effective.

Research has shown that the time taken for fumigants to move by passive distribution into grain masses in well-sealed stores ranges from two to 15 days. The size and shape of the store, pressure relief details, weather incurred, filling extent, grain conditions and amount of fumigant applied all influence this distribution period. Generally, distribution times are longer the greater the distance that the fumigant has to penetrate into the grain mass.

Other work has established that a wide range of grain temperatures can occur at harvest across Australia, depending on weather, although 25˚C to 35˚C is common for winter crops harvested in summer. Once stored, grain will slowly change temperature over weeks in response to external weather, warming in summer and cooling in winter. Substantial temperature gradients occur between the perimeter and centre of a store. Insects thrive at 25˚C to 30˚C, which is the ideal temperature for fumigation, while temperatures of 15˚C or less effectively stop insect populations growing.

Another factor that could contribute to variation in insect kill is sorption. This is the process whereby grains slowly remove phosphine from the air. In most cases sorption is negligible, but with certain grains, such as sorghum, paddy rice and canola, sorption may affect doses required for successful fumigation.

The use of a combined fumigation and aeration system is proposed as a method to overcome these problems and improve insect control, particularly for large grain stores, of 200 to 2000 tonnes.

Poor application techniques, even in sealed silos, are resulting in ineffective fumigation and increasing phosphine resistance. Integrated fumigation and aeration systems offer a solution By James Darby

ON-FARM MANAGEMENT

permitted according to the phosphine label and will result in phosphine-tablet residue being left on the grain.

A mechanism for introducing phosphine into harvest bags is needed. Pressure testing is well known and should be used to prove the seal of harvest bags. Reliable distribution of phosphine is needed to ensure disinfestation of the large proportion of the grain held in the surface layer where grain experiences large changes in temperature and moisture accumulation. This large fluctuation of conditions also makes harvest bags unsuitable for the longer-term storage of malting barley (longer than four months).

Growers considering the use of harvest bags as a cost-effective storage option should consider how they might address the following limitations and grain-hygiene-related issues identified by this study:n �a reliable insect disinfestation capability

with harvest bags is not available;n �insects detected at out-turn pose

considerable logistical problems;n �mixing of solid phosphine preparations

with grain breaches label requirements;n �use of residual chemicals to control

insect infestation is limited to where sufficient permanent storage capacity is available to turn and treat grain; and

n �bags are difficult to sample for insect infestation. □

ª��GRDC Research Code CSE00035 More information: download a copy of the full study from http://cms.csiro.au/resources/HarvestBagReport.html

PHOTOS: NEIL MCALPINE


Such a system would actively move the fumigant through the grain, ensuring good distribution and removing the reliance on passive distribution, which can be inadequate in stores greater than 200t, even if fully sealed. Aeration provides the ability to control grain temperature so fumigation is applied to warm grain, which is then cooled. Reducing grain temperature after fumigation suppresses insect development, provided temperatures of less than 20˚C, and finally less than 15˚C, are achieved. As with fumigant distribution, all the grain within the store needs to be cooled to such temperatures for insect suppression to be effective.

It is expected that an integrated aeration and fumigation system will significantly reduce the variation in fumigant concentrations and temperatures, helping to ensure that all grain within the store receives the correct exposure time to the fumigant.

A feasibility study on developing an integrated aeration-fumigation system was completed in 2005. The benefits of such a system are detailed below. This study compared the cost of an integrated fumigation and aeration system against existing systems, mainly

ON-FARM MANAGEMENT

sealed or unsealed silos with aeration or systems with separate aeration and fumigation systems. The study established that an integrated system would cost between $0.50 and $1.50 per tonne of grain, if the total cost is amortised over the 10-year life of the system.

In 2006 the GRDC commissioned a project to develop an integrated aeration-fumigation system. This project now is being undertaken by the Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity (CRCNPB). The initial two years of the project focused on modelling the four ‘rate’ components of the fumigation process using phosphine and three other gaseous fumigation products. The four rate components are insect population mortality, fumigant distribution, grain temperature and fumigant sorption.

A key component was to define the mortality response of grain-storage insects exposed to phosphine under varying and non-continuous doses. This was partly done from the literature, but additional data was required and further experiments were conducted.

Based on the modelled data, an industrial-scale prototype integrated aeration-fumigation system is being developed and constructed in collaboration with an equipment manufacturer. It is planned to trial this prototype with 2008 winter crop wheat.

The developed system will enable phosphine to be applied according to label rates, allowing for differing grain temperatures and the required periods for purging grain of intergranular and desorbed phosphine. The phosphine label recommends treatment exposures of seven days for grain temperature “above 25˚C”, “10 days for 15˚C to 25˚C”, and not fumigating when the temperature is less than 15˚C. Following the exposure period ventilation is required to purge air and remove desorbed phosphine. Aeration systems reduce the ventilation period to one day, as described on the label. □

ª��GRDC Research Code CRC50059 More information: James Darby, senior research engineer scientist, CSIRO Entomology, [email protected]

Robots could keep resistance at bayNew tools are being developed to reduce reliance on prophylactic pesticide treatments, which provide short-term risk mitigation but increase resistance

BY DARRYL HARDIE

THE AUSTRALIAN GRAINS industry is highly reliant on the prophylactic use of phosphine and other grain protectants in bulk and farm grain stores to control insects. Inevitably this type of use results in more applications than may be required and multiple applications of the same product to the same parcel of grain. Such practices generate resistant populations of storage pest species.

The main reason for the prophylactic use of these products has been the inability, at numerous levels within the industry, to accurately determine the presence and population size of the target species within stored grains.

The current systems of manual sampling and

BENEFITS OF THE INTEGRATED SYSTEM OVER THE STANDARD PASSIVE DISTRIBUTION OF PHOSPHINE IN SEALED STORES, OR STORES SOLELY FITTED WITH AERATIONn �Fumigate effectively in the range of sealed silos typical of industryn �Faster complete fumigation (not partially fumigated leaving eggs etc)n �Can accommodate any initial grain temperaturesn �Improves predictability and reliabilityn �Provides cooling after fumigation to prevent routine repeat fumigationsn �Actual disinfestation of grain, not solely suppressing infestations

FOR PHOSPHINE TO REMAIN EFFECTIVE, BETTER APPLICATION TECHNIQUES ARE REQUIRED


Support for successful storage

Delivering information to growers on managing all aspects of grain storage is part of the objectives of the Grains Knowledge Network project.

ON-FARM MANAGEMENT

visual detection of adult pests provides a very limited view of the whole storage. Coupled with ineffective and/or often inherently dangerous wired monitoring systems to measure fumigation levels in storages, the problem has been further compounded.

To address the use of prophylactic treatments as a means of risk mitigation, a new project has been initiated by the Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity (CRCNPB). The aim of this project is to develop wireless hardware systems and technology to monitor the presence of grain insects and fumigation levels within grain stores.

Acoustic, light, reflectance, temperature and

pheromone sensors will be investigated. Embedded sensor networks and robotic samplers, which are potentially more cost-effective and likely to be able to penetrate large grain bulks, will also be investigated.

All these systems are innovative for the post-harvest grains industry and have the potential to remotely deliver accurate and safe information on the presence of grain storage pests and fumigant levels within grain bulks. The project runs until 2010 and progress will regularly be reported back to industry.

ª��More information: Dr Darryl Hardie, leader, Surveillance Research Program, CRCNPB, 08 9368 3799, [email protected]

Management of insect resistance to phosphine, the most widely used chemical associated with insect control, is a looming biosecurity and grain-hygiene issue for the industry. If the Australian grains industry is not able to control the spread of phosphine resistance to many of the common pests of stored grain, it runs the risk of damaging its reputation as an exporter of high-quality, insect-free grain, effectively reducing bargaining power for our produce.

The Grains Knowledge Network project is a new initiative from the Cooperative Research Centre for National Plant Biosecurity to develop a strategy to improve awareness of this issue and contribute to the management of phosphine

resistance. This two-year project, which started in August 2008, aims to assess methods for delivering information to growers, including the impact this work has on changing the way growers manage phosphine resistance.

“In order to retain market access, in many situations on-farm practice needs to change and improve,” says Plant Health Australia program manager Dr Sharyn Taylor.

“This project aims to quantify adoption of best management practice in relation to grain storage to identify if there are limitations in current knowledge-delivery programs and help demonstrate to the market that the Australian grains industry takes the issue of grain hygiene

very seriously through the whole value chain.”This project will link with another new

initiative from Plant Health Australia and the Grains Council of Australia called the Grains On-Farm Biosecurity Program. Within this program, grains biosecurity officers based in Western Australia, South Australia, Victoria and Queensland will deliver information to growers on the risks associated with the introduction and spread of new pests. These officers will also provide information on practical methods for improving farm biosecurity.

ª��More information: Dr Sharyn Taylor, program manager, Plant Health Australia, 02 6260 4322, [email protected]

EXOTIC PESTS FACT SHEET

Level 1, Tourism House | 40 Blackall Street, Barton ACT 2600 | PO Box 5367, Kingston ACT 2604 | t. +61 2 6166 4500 | f. +61 2 6166 4599 | e. [email protected] | w. www.grdc.com.au

IMPACT ON

■ Market access ■ Production costs

■ Hosts are wheat, durum and triticale■ Blackened seeds crush relatively easily■ Infected grain has a fishy smell ■ Import restrictions in over 45 countries■ If established in Australia, would reduce grain price

by $20 to $55/t

Exotic pests NATIONAL GRAINS INDUSTRY ON-FARM BIOSECURITY PROGRAM

EXTREME RISK | KARNAL BUNT - The most serious pest for the wheat industry

IMPACT ON


■ Adults have wings but do not fly■ Insects are spread in infected grain■ Insects are only 2-3 mm long■ Can damage up to 30% of grain before it is noticed■ Phosphine fumigation is not very effective■ Larvae can survive over a year without food■ Reduces the number of overseas markets

HIGH RISK | KHAPRA BEETLE - Serious pest of all stored grain

IMPACT ON


■ Many overseas countries have grain insects with ‘strong resistance’ to phosphine

■ Phosphine gas is main fumigant used in stored grain■ Threat to exports because resistant insects can survive fumigation ■ Poor fumigation also increases selection pressure■ Need regular testing of live insects by entomology laboratory■ Early detection is the key

HIGH RISK | PHOSPHINE-RESISTANT STRAINS OF STORED GRAIN INSECTS - Pest of all stored grain

PHOTO: PaDIL

PHOTO: CHRIS FREEBAIRN, QDPI&F

Exotic Plant Pest Hotline 1800 084 881

For further information visit www.planthealthaustralia.com.au or contact:

■ Lisa Sherriff (02) 6260 4322 Email [email protected]■ Sharyn Taylor (02) 6260 4322 Email [email protected]

maintaining - grdc

Documents