biosecurity science biosecurity science

ISSUE 78, 15 SEPTEMBER 2007biosecurity

A PUBLICATION OF MAF BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND

BiosecurityBiosecuritysciencescience

Daniel Simberloff on invasive species

Didymo science seminar

Invasive ant workshop

Biosecurityscience

contents

44

2 | MAF BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | ISSUE 78

21211111

Biosecurity magazine

Biosecurity is published six-weekly by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, with regular input from the Department of Conservation, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Fisheries and regional councils. It is of special interest to all those with a stake in the protection of New Zealand’s economic, environmental and social assets from the dangers posed by pests and diseases. Animal welfare issues are also covered. The articles in this magazine do not necessarily refl ect government policy.

For enquiries about specifi c articles, refer to the contact listed at the end of each article.

General enquiries (e.g. circulation requests or information about MAF Biosecurity New Zealand):

Biosecurity Magazine, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, PO Box 2526, Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace, Wellington, New Zealand.

Phone: 04 894 0100

Fax: 04 894 0720

Email: [email protected]

Internet: www.biosecurity.govt.nz

Editorial enquiries:

Editor: Phil Stewart

Phone: 04 384 4688

Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1174 – 4618

MAF Biosecurity New Zealand fax contacts:

Policy and Risk: 04 894 0731

Animal Welfare: 04 894 0728

Border Standards: 04 894 0733

Post Border: 04 894 0736

Enforcement and Audit: 09 300 1021

Investigation and Diagnostic Centres: 04 526 5601

EDITORIALScience: the foundation of biosecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

BIOSECURITY SCIENCEFluorescent fi sh spark GM response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4Daniel Simberloff : Early detection, early action key to

incursion response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6Breeding varroa-tolerant honey bee stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9Didymo science seminar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Spring-fed creeks: something in the water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10River control trial shows promise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11Eff ects on invertebrates not as bad as feared? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Biological control of gumleaf skeletoniser – an update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13Preventing establishment of exotic mosquitoes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14Pacifi c invasive ant taxonomy workshop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16Animal welfare research priorities updated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

FRONTLINE NEWSChina likely source of Asian gypsy moth larva . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19Kiwi snake catchers train with the real thing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Public consultation on dogs code of welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20Food waste regulations an important line of defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22Equine infl uenza update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23A biosecurity curriculum for New Zealand? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24NETS visitors impressed with plastic wrap technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25New database to link invertebrates with host plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25NAWAC and NAEAC annual reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

BIOSECURITY INTERFACEInaugural International Pacifi c Invasive Ant Conference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

BIOSECURITY SYSTEMSFour-way border governance group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28Germplasm and Live Animals Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

UPDATESImport health standard development programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Codes of ethical conduct . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29Codes of welfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30NAEAC annual report available . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

DIRECTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30–31

Cover: Illustration by Words & Pictures.

editorial

Science: the foundation of biosecurity

ISSUE 78 | MAF BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND | 3

Nao

mi P

arke

r

The research, risk assessment, standard-setting and decision making that feed into our biosecurity

and animal welfare systems are built on a foundation of rigorous science. Not surprisingly, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) employs a great many scientists throughout the organisation: at our investigation and diagnostic centres, at the border and in head offi ce. And beyond our own organisation, we work closely with a wide community of scientists. In fact, you can read about the work of some of our science colleagues in the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) and Fish and Game New Zealand in our feature on the recent didymo science seminar on pages 10–12.

In the context of biosecurity, the fi rst branch of science that springs to mind is biology – which is essential in helping us to understand the pests and diseases we’re trying to keep out or manage; but biology is just one of a very wide range of scientifi c disciplines that make up our biosecurity system.

In dealing with a potential new marine incursion – let’s take, for example, the highly invasive Caulerpa taxifolia discussed by Dr Daniel Simberloff on page 6 of this issue – you might draw on the expertise of a very large science team indeed: incursion investigators and incursion response and surveillance teams; marine biologists, taxonomists and molecular biologists to identify the species and understand its ecology; epidemiologists and oceanographic modellers to work out how it might spread; risk analysts, economists, fi sheries scientists and Matauranga Maori experts to assess the environmental, economic, social and cultural impacts and help us to decide how to respond; and social scientists and market researchers to target and communicate our approach.

All of these scientifi c disciplines need to cooperate to identify the best biosecurity solutions. Biosecurity science, like biosecurity itself, is complex, and a coordinated and collaborative approach is essential for innovative and eff ective outcomes. Those solutions may be complex – for example, the development of new technologies for detecting biosecurity risks in containers or multispecies molecular tools for marine surveillance. Conversely, it may be a simple but eff ective practical measure for containing or eradicating a pest, such as the plastic wrapping technique demonstrated at the recent National Education and Training Seminar (NETS – see page 25).

MAFBNZ’s Strategic Science TeamIn recognition of the importance of science to biosecurity, when MAFBNZ was set up in 2004 (then as Biosecurity New Zealand), a new team was established to focus on a strategic approach to science. The fi ve-member team has a mix of sectoral (marine, plant and animal) and more general expertise. The Strategic Science Team’s role is to provide oversight, focus and coordination for biosecurity and animal welfare science. Our work includes: coordination of MAFBNZ engagement in Foundation for Research, Science and Technology (FRST) research programmes; administration of the MAFBNZ operational research programme; provision of scientifi c advice; and the development of science policy. Another major focus of the team has been working with the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology to develop a Biosecurity Science Strategy for New Zealand.

A Biosecurity Science Strategy for New ZealandIn November last year, a draft Biosecurity Science Strategy, developed in consultation with science providers, funders and users, was released for public consultation. We received many valuable submissions and have been incorporating comments into the fi nal version which is planned for release later this year. The science strategy focuses on three key areas:

• direction for science – making sure we identify and communicate our research needs

• delivery of science – making sure our science delivery is as effi cient and eff ective as possible

• uptake of science – making sure we are using science outputs to improve our biosecurity systems.

As well as identifying current science needs and priorities, the science strategy outlines a fundamental change in the way that biosecurity science is prioritised and directed. It describes a biosecurity science system that will ensure that clear advice on priorities is provided to all those involved in biosecurity science. This system will be used to regularly review and identify research priorities as well as advising on the implementation of research outputs.

This edition of Biosecurity includes good examples of the way science is supporting biosecurity. The great science capability that we have in New Zealand, thinking strategically about what we need, and working together will ensure that science continues to underpin and transform New Zealand’s biosecurity systems to handle the constantly evolving challenges we face.

Dr Naomi Parker, Strategic Science Team Leader, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand

■

“Biology is just one of a very wide range of scientifi c disciplines that make up our biosecurity system.”

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE


Fluorescent Fluorescent fi sh spark GM fi sh spark GM

responseresponse

GM status confi rmedInvestigators started by determining whether the colouration of the danios in question was the result of dye or genetic modifi cation. MAFBNZ obtained some of the suspect danios and sent them to the GM Inspectorate at the Central Science Laboratory (executive agency of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Aff airs) in the United Kingdom to test for genetic modifi cation. The results showed that the fi sh contained a red fl uorescent protein not found naturally in zebra danios, conclusively demonstrating that these fi sh were genetically modifi ed.

Why is MAFBNZ responding to the presence of these fi sh?GM organisms are defi ned as new organisms under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 and are not permitted for importation or release in New Zealand without approval from the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA New Zealand). While a limited number of approvals have been given for research purposes on GM zebra danio fi sh within approved contained laboratory facilities, ERMA New Zealand has not approved

their importation or release for the aquarium pet trade. This means that GM zebra danios are not permitted in the aquarium pet industry and, therefore, these fi sh are illegally present in New Zealand. MAFBNZ is charged with enforcing any breaches under the HSNO Act.

Response updateThe MAFBNZ operation kicked off in Christchurch, in response to reports that GM zebra danios were being bred there and sold via online auctions. The Christchurch investigations revealed

Zebra danios (Danio rerio), also known as zebrafi sh, belong to the minnow family (Cyprinidae) and are believed to be native to India, Nepal, Pakistan and Myanmar. The fi sh are named for the fi ve horizontal blue stripes on the side of the body. Males have gold stripes between the blue stripes, and females have silver stripes instead of gold. The zebra danios grow to around 4–6 cm and live for around fi ve years.

In their natural environment, zebra danios live in relatively still, shallow and clear waters with temperatures ranging between 27°C and 34°C. Because zebra danios are tropical, they are considered a low risk for successfully establishing in New Zealand’s waterways. They are approved for importation as a pet aquarium species under the current Import Health Standard Ornamental fi sh and marine invertebrates: fi sornic.all.

This is available on the MAFBNZ website: www.biosecurity.govt.nz/imports/animals/standards/fi sornic.all.htm

Zebra danios are popular aquarium fi sh because they are hardy, easy to keep, attractive, cheap and reasonably easy to breed. A number of other zebra danio varieties including leopard danios, golden zebra danios, and long-fi nned varieties, have been obtained by selective breeding.

Internationally, genetic modifi cations to zebra danios were developed to make them pollutant indicators for environmental monitoring. The modifi ed danios were engineered to become brightly coloured or fl uorescent in the presence of aquatic pollutants (see ‘Role of GM zebra danios in science’). As a spin-off to this research, it was recognised that these fi sh had commercial potential.

Fish that display such unusual colours are highly sought after in the aquarium trade, and fl uorescent GM fi sh became a popular choice for hobbyists. Companies emerged that engineered and bred fl uorescent fi sh of varying colours as the technology developed. The sale of these GM fi sh is, however, often restricted and illegal in many countries.

The illegal spread of red/pink GM danios in the ornamental pet fi sh trade has also recently emerged as a problem overseas. In March 2007, offi cials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Aff airs (Defra) in the United Kingdom confi rmed that unauthorised and illegal red GM danios had been made available for sale in the United Kingdom aquarium trade.

The hunt is on for unusually coloured red/pink genetically modifi ed (GM) tropical aquarium fi sh after MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) was alerted to the sale of potentially modifi ed zebra danio (Danio rerio) fi sh online.

Spot the GM fi sh: some of the colour variants found that are the result of crossing GM and

non-GM zebra danios. (Photo: Rissa Williams.)

Zebra danios a popular aquarium fi sh


many leads, enabling the response team to contact people who had obtained these fi sh and arrange for the fi sh to be euthanased.

The GM fi sh came into New Zealand as a single consignment earlier this year. A total of 210 red/pink GM zebra danios were sold to 14 pet shops throughout New Zealand. MAFBNZ, with assistance from AgriQuality Ltd, has contacted and interviewed pet-shop managers with the aim of tracking down people who may have bought and/or bred from these fi sh.

So far, 333 GM zebra danios have been recovered from 16 of 38 properties visited. All fi sh located have been humanely euthanased using an overdose of an aquatic anaesthetic.

MAFBNZ is enlisting the help of the Federation of New Zealand Aquatic Societies in this response operation. This group is helping MAFBNZ to track down the GM fi sh by distributing information to its members and instructing them how to contact MAFBNZ if they suspect they have the fi sh or know someone who might.

During the investigations, MAFBNZ has established that other colour variations of these fi sh exist. These include red and blue striped variants resulting from a cross between non-GM and GM zebra danios, and a smaller number of bright yellow GM zebra danios. While the yellow-coloured GM zebra danios are similar to the naturally bred golden zebra danio, the GM danio fi sh are noticeably brighter.

MAFBNZ continues to seek any remaining GM zebra danios in the aquarium trade. While eradicating every last GM zebra danio in the aquarium trade will be diffi cult, we hope to recover as many of these fi sh as possible. We need the help of the wider public, in particular the ornamental fi sh community, to ensure that this happens.

If you think you may have genetically modifi ed danio fi sh or know of someone who might, please notify MAF Biosecurity New Zealand on 0800 80 99 66.

For further information on GM zebra danios:

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/gmfi sh

Abi Loughnan, Adviser, Environment and Marine Response, Post Border, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected]

Rissa Williams, Incursion Investigator, Investigation and Diagnostic Centre Wallaceville, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected]

Suzi Keeling, Molecular Bacteriologist, Investigation and Diagnostic Centre Wallaceville, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected]

■

■

■

■

Role of GM zebra danios in scienceGM zebra danios have been used extensively as a vertebrate biomedical research model for studying genetics and development, and could be described as the ‘fi shy’ version of rats and mice for use in research laboratories. Their high fecundity, small size, rapid generation time and optical transparency during early development, make them ideal candidates for research. Zebra danios have been used in aquatic toxicity studies, understanding human disease and the screening of therapeutic drugs.

Researchers originally developed the fl uorescent zebra danios to be used as pollution indicators in bio-monitoring programmes. The fi sh were engineered to fl uorescence in response to pollutants such as oestrogen, heavy metals and toxins. The fi sh will immediately display the colour depending on the type of environment the colour has been specifi ed for.

How are fl uorescent GM zebra danios made?DNA is sourced from other animals that have naturally occurring fl uorescent traits; these can include jellyfi sh, coral and sea anemones. As the GM zebra danios in question were red, the most likely source of the protein was from red reef coral fl uorescent protein. The fi rst coral-derived red fl uorescent protein to be extensively utilised was derived from Discosoma striata and is commonly referred to as DsRed.

The construct, or DsRed, is usually introduced into the animal’s genome through microinjection or electroporation of the recombinant DNA fragment into fertilised eggs or early embryos. The process of inducing transgenesis is relatively ineffi cient using microinjection. Only about one percent of microinjected eggs will stably incorporate the DsRed into their genome and subsequently transmit the transgene to progeny. If successful, the end result is off spring that possess a new brightly coloured trait.

Awaiting the big OE: a suspect GM zebra danio fi sh that was sent to the United Kingdom for testing. (Photo: Rissa Williams.)

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE


challenges?

Simberloff : I would rate insects, aquatic pests and terrestrial plants as the most troublesome, in that order. As far as environments are concerned, the dogma is that islands and disturbed areas are the most vulnerable. I would qualify that by saying that environmental disturbance from natural processes like fi re or wave action doesn’t usually open the way for invasive species.

In this context it’s interesting to look at the species interactions between the Old World and the New World after Europeans started crossing the Atlantic. Seventy species of ground beetle were introduced to North America from Europe, but only four North American beetles established in Europe. A great number of human diseases were brought to the Americas, but only one – syphilis – crossed to Europe in return.

Biosecurity: Without human intervention, can species invasions sometimes follow the same pattern as a disease epidemic, where there is an explosive growth in pest numbers followed by a fall as competition, predators and disease take their toll? In other words, do some invasions resolve by themselves?

Simberloff : A lot of invasive species populations explode and then decline somewhat, but not a great deal. The cane toad in Australia [Bufo marinus] is an example of this. One instance of a species collapse was the case of Elodea canadensis, Canadian waterweed. It was introduced to Britain in the 1840s and quickly became a

huge problem, clogging rivers and canals. By the late nineteenth century the weed population collapsed. Unfortunately it is very unusual for this to happen with an invasive species. Sitting back and waiting for nature to establish a new equilibrium isn’t a good option – passive management doesn’t work!

Biosecurity: We’re good at detecting and intercepting problem insects like Asian gypsy moth and painted apple moth, but what about plants? Is there scope for improving early detection?

Simberloff : Yes there is. After all, plants don’t move around – but new plants do have a way of fi tting in with their

green surroundings. The secret with plant invasions is to have well-trained surveillance personnel and a well-informed public. One example of the need for vigilance and acting early is the ‘killer algae’, Caulerpa taxifolia. [See ‘8 least wanted’ Biosecurity 70:12.] This seaweed found its way into the Mediterranean in the 1980s. When it was fi rst discovered, there was a patch of just one square yard. Nothing was done, and it now covers more than

4,000 hectares of the coasts of France, Spain, Italy and Croatia. It’s devastated the Mediterranean ecosystem, but there is also some good news about Caulerpa taxifolia. In 2000 it was discovered in two places in California, near San Diego and Los Angeles. A Southern California Caulerpa Action Team was set up and they have managed to wipe it out by covering the weed beds in tarpaulins and pumping in chlorine or bleach. The weed hasn’t been seen there since 2002, and last year it was declared eradicated.

One thing we need in the United States is an emergency pest line, like your exotic disease and pest hotline. Unfortunately we don’t have an eff ective national framework there for surveillance.

Biosecurity: Do you have other examples of successful eradication or pest management programmes that others could learn from?

Simberloff : Huge numbers. Unfortunately we only tend to hear about the failures, but there are many examples to show it can be done. Interestingly, the tools used for successful pest eradication are often quite blunt instruments – not necessarily a ‘scorched earth’ policy, but labour intensive. The key is to get started early. A lot of agencies in the United States spend too long studying a problem, losing valuable time. Sometimes the best strategy is ‘just do it’!

The ‘Alberta Rat Patrol’ is one of the most famous examples of how an invasive pest can be stopped in its tracks. Even today, 50 years after the Norwegian rat [Rattus norvegicus] fi rst started crossing into Alberta on its westward march, it’s front

Interview: Daniel Simberloff

Early detection, early action key to incursion responseHuman attempts to deal with invasive species have resulted in everything from glorious success to unmitigated disaster. The consequences of our attempts to deal with exotic intruders – usually introduced courtesy of human activity – contain some salutary lessons for our own biosecurity systems. Dr Daniel Simberloff , Nancy Gore Professor of Environmental Studies and Director of the Institute for Biological Invasions at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, is a world expert on the threats posed by invasive species and has witnessed his share of both successes and failures in attempts to deal with them.

He was in New Zealand in July as keynote speaker at the Conserv-Vision conference in Hamilton. Biosecurity editor Phil Stewart spoke to Professor Simberloff about dealing with invasive species.

Biosecurity: Globally, what types of organisms and environments present the greatest

Daniel Simberloff : Early intervention key to dealing with invasive species.

“The tools used for successful pest eradication are often quite blunt instruments – not necessarily a

‘scorched earth’ policy, but labour intensive.”


page news if a rat is found. [See sidebar.]

In the United States the sand burr [Cenchrus echinatus] has been successfully eradicated after it got into the Hawaiian Islands in the 1960s. That was done by hard work on the ground – a combination of weed pulling and spraying with glyphosate.

In Western Australia they’ve managed to eradicate Kochia scoparia, which was infesting thousands of hectares over a linear distance of 800 kilometres. It was deliberately introduced in the early 1990s as a forage plant for livestock, because it fl ourishes in irrigated saline soils. It quickly spread, and an eradication programme was started in 1992, using herbicides and hand pulling. The last specimen was seen in 2006.

Biosecurity: You say that some fairly basic pest control methods can be eff ective, but are there any new technologies under development that really excite you?

Simberloff : Certainly it’s not always possible to use a scorched earth approach, and there is some very good science being applied now. A great example of this is the control of the sea lamprey [Petromyzon marinus] in North America’s Great Lakes. They colonised all the upper Great Lakes from the 1920s after they got in through shipping canals. They’re a very aggressive parasite, responsible for three global species extinctions. They have been controlled quite well with lampricides and by weirs preventing access to spawning streams, and numbers are well down from their peaks in the 1950s. However, there are some non-target impacts and fears that current methods may not retain their eff ectiveness. There has been some exciting new work led by Professor Peter Sorensen at the University of Minnesota, where they have isolated and synthesised a ‘migratory’ pheromone released by the lamprey’s larvae. They have also discovered a second ‘sex’ pheromone. There’s good potential for these to be used to disrupt the lampreys’ spawning or help attract them into traps.

Alberta patrol sends rats packing

Alberta, Canada, is no place to set up home if you’re a rat. The Alberta Rat Patrol has a hostile welcome prepared for the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), a major crop pest in Canada that also causes a lot of damage to man-made structures. After its introduction to the east coast in about 1775, the rat started its westward march across Canada, following European settlers as they set up communities and farms. When the fi rst rats made it across the border from Saskatchewan into Alberta in 1950, the people and government of Alberta were ready.

The provincial government launched an aggressive control programme that has successfully kept Alberta rat free for more than 50 years. Achieving this success in other parts of the world would be almost unthinkable, but a number of favourable factors lined up to help the cause:

• A far-reaching piece of legislation enacted in the 1940s put heavy obligations on individuals and municipalities to deal with anything designated as a pest.

• To this day, Alberta is sparsely populated, and rats in this rat-unfriendly environment (they can’t survive the winters outside man-made structures) need to be around people. This meant rat control operations could be focused on inhabited places.

• The bulk of the control eff ort was limited to a relatively small area.

• It was a new problem. People never became accustomed to rats in the province (they still have trouble recognising a rat) and never became complacent. A public education programme continues to keep the people of Alberta alert to the danger of rats and ready to report any sightings.

• Local authorities and individual citizens were empowered to deal with the problem.

• The start of major control operations coincided with the availability of warfarin – a relatively benign toxin compared with the hazardous poisons it replaced.

This success story remains a source of pride for the people of Alberta. A measure of this success is that the discovery of a rat infestation in Edmonton or Calgary receives full media coverage.

Today, the province’s defence against invading rats is focused on the Alberta Rat Patrol, a dedicated team of rat hunters armed with shotguns, rat poison and a fi erce pride in Alberta’s rat-free status.

While this fi ghting force can never lower its guard, they have proven that, with the right measures in place, and by acting early, it is possible to keep a major pest at bay.

Source: The History of Rat Control in Alberta, prepared by John Bourne, Alberta Government Agdex 682-1.

www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3441■

In your dreams, rats: This wheat silo in Alberta, Canada, is strictly off limits to rats, which have been kept out of the province thanks to the eff orts of the Alberta Rat Patrol. Photo ©iStockphoto.com/Bart Broek.

Sea lamprey, Petromyzon marinus: Encouraging progress in the battle to contain this pest in North

continued on page 8

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE


Another example of good science at work can be seen in the Galapagos Islands. Island Conservation, a California-based NGO, and an Australian doctoral student, Karl Campbell, showed that using hormone implants in sterilised female ‘Judas’ goats to prolong their oestrus could increase their effi ciency in attracting bucks. This helps with locating and clearing remnant feral herds when population densities are low. Eradicating populations of introduced mammals is very important to these island conservation programmes.

Biosecurity: We often hear encouraging reports about success with biological controls at a localised level, but this doesn’t often seem to translate to major pest population collapses. Are we expecting too much of biological control?

Simberloff : There are some successful examples, usually in rangeland or agriculture. But only about 10 percent of well-funded biological control projects give some degree of economically signifi cant control. And as we know, biological control measures can have some very negative outcomes. Cactus moth [Cactoblastis cactorum] is a prime example. It was successfully introduced from its native Argentina to control prickly pear cactus in Australia, but there have been disastrous consequences from its use for the same purpose in the Caribbean. It island-hopped to the mainland United States where it now threatens many native and rare Opuntia cactus species.

Biosecurity: Didymo is a major invasive species issue for us in New Zealand, yet it appears to be also turning into a nuisance in its native territory in the northern hemisphere. How common is it for native species to suddenly turn bad?

Simberloff : The instances of this are minuscule compared with problems cause by introduced species. It does happen, though, usually through some environmental change. Elymus athericus, a European shore plant, used to be limited to a range in a band less than a metre wide, but it has suddenly started to invade seaward areas. It is now overwhelming other native plants such as the salt marsh species traditionally grazed by sheep. An increase in atmospheric nitrogen is thought to be the cause.

In the United States some conifers occasionally invade grasslands and prairies, probably as a consequence of forest fi re suppression.

Biosecurity: In your experience, can public opposition to spray programmes constrain successful pest eradication or management?

Simberloff : No. Malathion gets used for spray programmes in California, and Foray 48B [also used in New Zealand moth eradication programmes] is used extensively in British Columbia and Washington state. There is always a certain level of complaint – for example, that it kills other Lepidoptera, or that the spray causes allergic reactions – but it has never been to the extent that a programme is stopped. In the United States, especially, the economic stakes are very high, because of the impacts of these pests on forestry or agriculture.

Biosecurity: What’s your assessment of New Zealand’s biosecurity system for border control, monitoring and incursion response?

Simberloff : It’s better than anywhere else! Of course even with the best system there are always better ways to do things, and I think your Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment pointed that out.

Biosecurity: What do you see as New Zealand’s biggest biosecurity challenges?

Simberloff : Probably the pests that don’t have a direct eff ect on agriculture or tourism. Because their impacts aren’t understood doesn’t mean they won’t be harmful. Early warning of new incursions, good training and a well-informed citizenry are key. New Zealand has publicised biosecurity issues far better than places like Europe, where it is hardly discussed, so you are well set up to keep improving your biosecurity system.

Biosecurity: If you had to name the world’s worst invasive species, what would it be?

Simberloff : I’d actually name four!* The

two worst plants are Miconia calvescens, a huge problem particularly in Hawaii and Tahiti, and Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). Brazilian pepper now covers hundreds of thousands of hectares in Florida, and is a problem in many subtropical regions.

For animals I’d start with the rosy wolf snail, Euglandina rosea. It eats other snails and was introduced in the Pacifi c to control the introduced giant African snail,

Achatina fulica. Unfortunately it prefers the smaller native species. The second animal is the small Indian mongoose, Herpestes auropunctatus. It was introduced from India to Jamaica, Hawaiian Islands, Mauritius, Fiji, Okinawa and its off shore islands and other places in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to help control rats and snakes. It has killed off 30 to 40 endemic species and has proven almost impossible to eradicate.

I hope we can learn from these examples.*Of these four, one (Brazilian pepper) is present in New Zealand.

www.issg.org/database/species/search.asp?st=100ss&fr=1&sts=

■

Small Indian mongoose, Herpestes auropunctatus: Responsible for 30 extinctions.

Photo: USDA Forest Service.

Adult cactus moth, Cactoblastis cactorum: Now threatens rare species in North America.

Simberloff : continued from page 7


bee- and pollination-related projects, has been breeding honey bee stock that displays resistance to varroa (Figures 1 and 2), to provide a more sustainable control option. The project is part of a programme funded by the Sustainable Farming Fund, HortResearch, National Beekeepers’ Association, ZESPRI and individual beekeepers.

The aim of the breeding project has been to select stock that display a genetically inherited trait called delayed suppressed mite reproduction (SMRD). Varroa reproduce inside the brood cells, feeding on developing honey bees. Varroa in hives with high levels of the SMRD are, however, not able to reproduce.

The initial honey bee stock was sourced from beekeepers throughout the North and South Islands and assessed for the ability to suppress varroa reproduction. The best ten queens were selected for breeding. Each successive year the best queens were inbred using artifi cial insemination to increase the percentage of SMRD expressed. This was done using a closed mating population, where virgin queens were artifi cially inseminated with semen from drones (male honey bees) produced by their mother (Figure 3).

Impact on varroaEach year, an increase in percentage of suppressed mite reproduction has been observed, with the latest results revealing that 80 percent of varroa in one of the lines do not reproduce. This is an important step forward. However, we have only been selecting for a trait, so although we have culled any lines that have not bred well, have been overly aggressive or have had high levels of disease, we do not know how these bees will perform in relation to honey, propolis or pollen production.

High SMRD queens cannot simply be introduced to hives around New Zealand,

because with every generation of queens

that mate with drones that do not carry

the SMRD gene, the tolerance of these

colonies to varroa will reduce. The only way

to maintain and improve this stock on the

mainland is with a breeding programme

utilising artifi cial insemination. The

reliance on artifi cial insemination makes

such a system expensive to operate, and

continued funding is required to maintain

the gains made.

Isolated colony to maintain resistant stockBecause of this, we have been searching

for a place to maintain the stock as a closed

population with minimal management.

This requires an area where the bees will

be isolated from all other managed and

feral colonies, to ensure that the lines

maintain their genetic resistance to varroa.

To this end, we are moving the most

resistant stock onto Great Mercury Island,

off the coast of the Coromandel peninsula,

where there are currently no other honey

bees. It is hoped that the bees will form a

self-sustaining population with high levels

of the SMRD gene. This population will be

used to provide stock to beekeepers on the

mainland which, over time, hopefully will

become one useful tool in the fi ght against

varroa.

Acknowledgement: Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite for permission

to move our honey bee colonies to Great Mercury

Island and providing staff and transport to assist

with the trial.

[email protected]

■

■

Breeding varroa-tolerant honey bee stock

By Michelle Taylor and Harlan CoxThe Horticulture and Food Research Institute of New Zealand Limited

Uncontrolled, varroa (Varroa destructor) will usually kill bee colonies within a year. Varroa is controlled mostly through the use of synthetic miticides, but this approach is not sustainable in the long term. Overseas, varroa has quickly built up resistance to these chemicals, resulting in large hive losses.

Varroa-resistant bees bredOver the past three years, the honey bee research unit at HortResearch, among other

■

Figure 1: Adult varroa mite

Figure 2: Adult varroa mite on a newly emerged honey bee

Figure 3: Artifi cial insemination of a virgin queen bee

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE


Joint research by Fish and Game New Zealand1 and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

(NIWA)2 has attempted to isolate the reasons why didymo seems to fi nd it diffi cult to establish in spring-fed creeks – this is despite the creeks being exposed to didymo where they join didymo-aff ected rain-fed rivers. The work was initiated after Fish and Game New Zealand staff , who were carrying out drift dives for fi sh surveys, had noticed the phenomenon.

Stu Sutherland and Maurice Rodway of Fish and Game New Zealand presented the fi ndings of their research at the didymo science seminar.

The research involved placing didymo that had been grown on artifi cial substrates into spring-fed creeks, and placing similar substrates in the adjacent rivers under similar fl ow conditions. In all cases, the river systems had been invaded by didymo since 2004.

The researchers said that, in all instances, they found that the didymo in the spring-fed creeks died or disappeared from the artifi cial substrates, while the colonies placed in the main river sites generally stayed healthy.

They considered a number of factors that might help explain why didymo found the creeks diffi cult to colonise, mainly focusing on water chemistry.

The spring-fed creeks generally had higher levels of nitrates, alkalinity (measured as calcium carbonate), calcium and, to a lesser extent, magnesium than the main rivers. Organic carbon, on the other hand, was lower in the creeks.

Maurice Rodway said the water chemistry diff erences, especially in calcium and alkalinity, may play a part in the discrepancy, but a combination of factors is likely to be responsible for the poor survival of didymo in the spring-fed creeks.

He said another, less likely, factor was grazing by invertebrates but there was no clear evidence from their research to support this. Competition from other algae was also a possibility, but algal levels in the spring-fed creeks tended to be low for other algae, and not just for didymo.

The research report suggests several further lines of enquiry based on the

encouraging results from this survey, including:

• a more detailed look into the chemistry of the water in the spring-fed creeks, testing the eff ects on didymo of manipulating in-stream alkalinity through use of quarried limestone – an inexpensive and low-risk option

• controlled experiments in artifi cial stream systems, varying alkalinity, calcium, magnesium, nitrate and other chemical constituents

• collating more general information about the water chemistry of spring-fed creeks in diff erent areas, in order to help with risk assessment in various places as more becomes understood about the eff ect of spring water on didymo.

Report authors:

Stuart Sutherland,1 Maurice Rodway,1 Cathy Kilroy,2 Bill Jarvie1 and Graeme Hughes3

1 Fish and Game New Zealand, Southland Region 2 National Institute of Water and Atmospheric

Research (NIWA), Christchurch 3 Fish and Game New Zealand, Central South Island

Region

For a full copy of the research report:

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/didymo-research-reports

■

■

Spring-fed creeks:

Is it something in the water?The failure of didymo to thrive in spring-fed creeks could open research avenues into alternative methods for controlling the algae in a wide range of freshwater environments.

Artifi cial substrates at Wash creek, Southland. Photo: Fish and Game New Zealand.

Spring-fed creek fl owing into the Oreti River. Photo: Fish and Game New Zealand.

DIDYMO SCIENCE SEMINARA good part of the world’s expertise in the distribution, impacts and control of the invasive alga Didymosphenia geminata could be found in Wellington on 24 July. The MAF Biosecurity New Zealand-hosted seminar provided an opportunity to present fi ndings from the MAFBNZ didymo science programme to the didymo technical advisory group and long-term management partners.

In this feature we look at three of the presentations: • an investigation into why didymo

grows poorly in spring-fed creeks• the results of the fi rst in-river trial for a

possible didymo control tool• a study of the impacts of didymo on

invertebrate life.

Peer-reviewed reports from the seminar will be made available on the MAFBNZ website as they are fi nalised:

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/didymo■


The trial, carried out in February this year, measured the impact of the chelated copper product, Gemex™ on didymo in Princhester Creek, in the Te Anau basin. The impacts of the

treatment on invertebrates and fi sh were monitored following the single treatment, with tests also carried out on algae, water quality and sediments.

Speaking at the didymo science seminar, Sue Clearwater of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) outlined the highly anticipated results of the trial, which were detailed in a paper prepared by herself and colleagues Phillip Jellyman, Barry Biggs, Neil Blair, Chris Hickey and John Clayton.

She explained that the river trial was the culmination of an intensive process to identify and test if there were potential control agents that were eff ective, feasible and low risk. Ten possible biocides were initially selected and screened in artifi cial channels at the Monowai River in Southland, along with trials of diff erent contact times. This list was whittled down to four products which were eff ective against didymo. The biocides were trialled at various concentrations, with an exposure time of 60 minutes in all cases. At the same time, the eff ects of these biocides were tested against non-target species at NIWA’s facility in Hamilton.

As these trials were completed, the choice was narrowed down to a chelated copper compound (Gemex™), which appeared to have a low impact on non-target species, while making a signifi cant dent in didymo colonies at a concentration of 20 mg Cu/L (as chelated copper).

The next step was the river trial at Princhester Creek and pre-treatment monitoring started in January 2007. On completion of a satisfactory exploratory trial run, with the release of a non-toxic red dye into the stream to test distribution and fi nalise the water-quality monitoring regime, the ‘live’ trial applying Gemex™ could start in early February.

Sue Clearwater said the portable setup for releasing the product into the river had been developed in preparation for a rapid response, and the diff user hose with fl ow meter and pump for precision dosing was ideal for the trial.

Eight monitoring sites were set up in Princhester Creek, including one control site upstream. The tracer dye was again used, and a precise dose of Gemex™ was released for one hour. As expected, the concentration of copper began to decrease further downstream, as the compound was adsorbed by the mats of didymo, and the product dispersed and diluted.

Nonetheless, the impact on the didymo was signifi cant, with good levels of suppression shown up to 3 kilometres downstream of the release site. At a site 0.3 kilometres below the release, where there was an early-stage didymo infestation, no live didymo cells at all could be found 42 days following the treatment.

Further downstream the combination of dilution, thicker mats of didymo and possible ‘re-seeding’ from an infested tributary meant the treatment was progressively less eff ective, but there was some eff ect on didymo nonetheless. Live didymo cell density in the mats was reduced after treatment and other algae species were beginning to colonise them. As expected, the dead mats of didymo did not degrade after treatment, and physical disturbance, such as a fl ood, would have been needed to dislodge them.

The impact of the copper on non-target species appeared to

be minimal, Sue said. “The only exception was some juvenile rainbow trout at two monitoring sites 2–3 kilometres downstream. However, in future, it may be possible to mitigate the eff ect on young trout by manipulating water hardness with lime.”

The treatment did not appear to signifi cantly aff ect native galaxiid fi sh species; a temporary decrease in numbers was recorded at one site.

Results of the trial suggested Gemex™ has the potential to eliminate didymo from a waterway with minimal impact on non-target species if the infestation was detected and treated in the very early stages.

She said that copper does not biomagnify in aquatic food webs and there was minimal evidence of it in sediments tested in Princhester Creek.

“Gemex™ shouldn’t be seen as a long-term solution, however, because long-term use would result in copper accumulation in sediments in downstream environments such as lakes and estuaries.”

Chris Bicknell, Didymo Response Manager MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, says that while it appears Gemex™ has some potential as an emergency control measure, it is not a ‘silver bullet’ for removing didymo.

“We believe chelated copper is likely to be useful only in waterways with low levels of didymo and rivers below a certain size/fl ow. More research needs to be done about where and when it can be used and any possible eff ects it may have on non-target species such as molluscs, eels, koura (freshwater crayfi sh) and other algae.

“The best way to control the spread of didymo is for all freshwater users to check, clean and dry their equipment between waterways. It makes better sense to prevent it getting into waterways in the fi rst place than trying to remove it once it’s there.”

A full report on the control trial study should be available in September at:

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/didymo-research-reports■

River control trial shows promiseThe fi rst river trial of an algaecide for didymo has shown promising results.

Neil Blair (NIWA) watches as a non-toxic tracer dye is released in a preliminary trial to test distribution and fi nalise the water-quality monitoring schedule. Photo: Kevin Trainor,

Southern Technical Services Ltd.

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE


New Zealand’s rivers support a large recreational trout fi shery that draws tourists from around the world.

Fears that didymo might seriously reduce a river’s capacity to support trout have been allayed to some extent by the results of a Cawthron Institute study, carried out for MAF Biosecurity New Zealand in Southland’s Oreti and Mararoa rivers.

Preliminary research by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) had shown that high didymo biomass was associated with a greater density of invertebrate life in aff ected rivers, although the proportion of smaller invertebrates was greater. This qualifi cation is important for trout, because the smaller their individual prey, the greater the energy they have to invest in feeding on them. This energy demand could limit trout growth and aff ect the health of the fi shery as a whole. Nevertheless, even though the research showed that there was a higher proportion of small invertebrates, the greater density all round meant that even the larger invertebrates that trout prefer were also more abundant at sites aff ected by didymo.

The Cawthron Institute research, carried out by Karen Shearer, Joe Hay and John

Hayes, sought to quantify the eff ects of didymo infestation on the drift of invertebrates, and how this may aff ect trout growth potential.

The researchers carried out drift sampling by using submerged nets at two sites in the Oreti River and one site in the Mararoa River, fi rst in autumn and then again in winter 2006. The upstream site in the Oreti was intended as a didymo-free control. However, the alga had invaded there by the time the winter sampling was done, although its eff ect on invertebrates appeared minimal.

The researchers found that, in the didymo-aff ected rivers, the invertebrate drift density and biomass was actually highest at the sites with intermediate (in autumn) and highest (in winter) levels of didymo biomass. But the survey also confi rmed that the invertebrate biomass contained a higher proportion of smaller species than is usually found in non-aff ected rivers, an eff ect that was more pronounced where volumes of didymo were higher.

While this eff ect was observed, the researchers said that, based on bioenergetics modelling, their results did not show that didymo aff ected invertebrate drift enough to negatively aff ect growth potential of drift-feeding brown trout.

This is encouraging news for anglers, but the Cawthron Institute researchers said that their results had to be interpreted with caution, because they were based on sampling in autumn and winter only, and limited to three sites.

In his presentation to the didymo science seminar, Joe Hay said trout energy requirements are much higher during the warmer months, and measurements taken throughout the year would be needed for a full picture of the eff ects of didymo on invertebrate life and trout growth potential.

He said there was no evidence yet that didymo was having an adverse eff ect on the abundance or size of trout. At this stage, negative eff ects for anglers were matters of aesthetics and inconvenience (fouled fi shing lures and the need to clean equipment). Indeed, anecdotal accounts from Fish and Game New Zealand suggest that there had been excellent mayfl y hatches (an important source of trout food) and good fi shing in some didymo-infested rivers last summer.

Nonetheless, more research was needed to provide enough information for making management decisions. Joe Hay recommended additional drift sampling and trout growth modelling in summer. He further noted that Fish and Game New Zealand, in addition to its routine monitoring of trout abundance by drift diving, was planning to sample trout populations to assess size and age structure and growth, which ultimately would help to provide a better understanding of the impacts of didymo.

For a copy of the full report:

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/didymo-research-reports■

Didymo eff ects on river invertebrates: not as bad as feared?One of the many downsides of a didymo infestation is its potential impact on invertebrate life – and, therefore, on the trout that rely on them for a food source.

Drift net used for gathering samples of drifting invertebrates. The ‘trash rack’ upstream kept fl oating clumps of didymo out of the net. Photo: John Hayes, Cawthron Institute.


Biological control of gumleaf skeletoniser – an update

By Dr Lisa Berndt – Ensis Forest Biosecurity and Protection

Gumleaf skeletoniser, an Australian

■

moth, continues to create problems in the greater Auckland region on eucalypts and a range of amenity tree species. As this pest gradually spreads to other areas of New Zealand the need increases for long-term management solutions. A recent funding boost from the Sustainable Farming Fund could help Ensis scientists to bring such solutions to fruition.

Biological control researchThe Gum Leaf Skeletoniser (GLS) Stakeholder Group has obtained Sustainable Farming Fund (SFF) support for research into the biological control of gumleaf skeletoniser (Uraba lugens). This project will be conducted by Ensis, with assistance from members of the Farm Forestry Association and the Eucalypt Cooperative. The research will also be supported by MAFBNZ, regional councils, and other members of the GLS Stakeholder Group.

Work on biological control of gumleaf skeletoniser has been under way for some time at Ensis, funded largely by MAFBNZ (see Biosecurity 69:13). To date, Ensis scientists have identifi ed and imported potential biological control agents from Tasmania and South Australia for further testing. The three-year funding commitment from SFF will allow scientists to complete this work.

Promising parasitoidsThe project will run from August 2007 to August 2010. During this time, host range testing will be conducted in quarantine in Rotorua on the most promising parasitoid species from Australia. The host range

testing will enable scientists to identify which parasitoid is most suitable to target gumleaf skeletoniser in New Zealand, and to determine the safety of releasing the selected species in this country.

Ensis entomologists have narrowed the potential agents down to two parasitic wasps: Cotesia urabae and Dolichogenidea eucalypti (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Both wasps are known to attack only gumleaf skeletoniser caterpillars. They lay their eggs inside the host caterpillar and the parasitic larva eventually emerges, killing the host.

Twitching the net curtains and a dash of honeyOne of the main challenges in the research so far has been to develop methods to rear the parasitoid in the quarantine laboratory. Like any organism, these wasps respond to subtle cues in the environment to fi nd food, hosts and mates. In an artifi cial laboratory environment some of these cues are missing, and scientists have to develop techniques through trial and error to enable the insects to behave normally.

The two wasp species under trial, for example, initially showed no interest in mating, making rearing problematic. A solution was found in some net curtains, of all things. To communicate their interest in the female wasp, it seems that the male sings a song of vibrations, carried to the female through the surface she is standing on. By giving the pair some mesh curtaining to serenade on, rather than a plastic container, mutual interest was restored. A bit of honey given to the female also helped fuel the fi res of passion.

The gumleaf skeletoniser is an Australian moth, which feeds on large number of Eucalyptus species. The

spread of this insect will have long-term implications for eucalypt growers, due to loss of productivity caused

by defoliation. It can also be a nuisance to the public because the caterpillars have hairs that can cause

itching or a rash on skin contact.

Dr Lisa Berndt working with the gumleaf skeletoniser

Love behind the curtains – a male C. urabae (with raised

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE


Exotic mosquitoes pose a potential risk to public health, the economy and New Zealand’s native fauna. They are intercepted at our borders every year, entering the country using a variety of pathways which must be monitored to prevent them from establishing.

Within the port environment, import pathways include incoming aircraft and ships, risk

cargoes such as used cars and machinery, and passenger luggage (Frampton, 2004). Points of entry are no longer confi ned to ports, but have extended to include de-vanning sites where shipping containers are opened, inspected and unloaded at many locations around the country. Systems which direct the monitoring and response activities have been established to minimise the likelihood of an exotic mosquito successfully establishing in New Zealand.

Interception responses involve collaboration between several organisations cooperating to prevent the establishment of exotic mosquitoes within New Zealand. The Environmental Health Protection Guidelines produced by the Ministry of Health detail each organisation’s responsibilities to ensure a rapid response each time there is an interception.

Port surveillanceRoutine mosquito surveillance at air and sea ports is conducted as both a preventative measure and means of early detection of exotic mosquitoes. This work is carried out by local public health units (PHUs) for the country’s 12 district health boards (DHBs) under direction from the Ministry of Health (MoH). Carbon dioxide-baited light traps, ovitraps and tyre traps are utilised, in addition to larval sampling and regular treatment of all suitable breeding habitats within the port environs. Traps are generally put throughout the ports, but higher-risk zones such as risk good inspection areas are targeted for increased surveillance.

The port surveillance system proved its worth in March this year when a routine collection from a light trap at the Ports of Auckland produced an adult male Aedes

albopictus (= Stegomyia albopicta) (the Asian Tiger mosquito).

Figure 1: Suspected exotic mosquito interception. 16/5/2007. This blue drum contained damaged larvae of Culex pervigilans and Cx. quinquefasciatus. (Photo: Shaun Yu, Auckland DHB.)

Mosquito larval specimens are often collected at ports, in artifi cial container habitats such as tyres and drums (Figure 1). Although the specimens collected in these containers are usually species already present in New Zealand, the containers also provide habitat for any container-breeding exotic species which may arrive at the ports. It is therefore important to remove all containers where possible, or alter them so they can no longer retain water and become a breeding site. Examples of modifying containers so they no longer provide suitable mosquito habitat include fi lling them with soil or sand and/or drilling holes at the base of the containers so water cannot accumulate.

PHU Health Protection Offi cers (HPOs) conduct regular audit surveys of potential mosquito breeding habitats at air and sea ports, in an attempt to control the number of containers and reduce the amount of habitat available for exotic mosquitoes. This is usually less of an issue within airport environments, which generally have fewer containers lying about.

All mosquito specimens are collected, processed and forwarded to the MoH-contracted mosquito entomologists at the Southern Monitoring Services New Zealand Biosecure Entomology Laboratory (NZBEL) for identifi cation. The results of the audit surveys and identifi cations of any mosquitoes found are forwarded to the Port Manager and the removal or modifi cation of risk containers discussed. The Port Manager arranges for the removal of any risk containers, where possible.

An audit survey carried out at the Ports of Auckland in April 2007 identifi ed a range of potential mosquito breeding habitats.

Many of the containers surveyed were found to contain live mosquito larvae in large amounts of water (Parkinson, 2007).

De-vanning sitesExotic mosquito interceptions also occur at de-vanning sites. The insects fl y out of shipping containers when they are opened for inspection or are being unloaded. All mosquito specimens collected at these locations are treated as potential exotic interceptions until they have been identifi ed by the NZBEL entomologists.

Container habitats which are suitable for mosquito breeding are often found within de-vanning site environments. Operators are encouraged to keep these environments as clean as possible to minimise the chance of an incursion at their site and reduce the number of false alarms.

Interception responsesThe MoH has a memorandum of understanding with MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ, which incorporates the former MAF Quarantine Service) to look for mosquito biomass during routine shipping and cargo inspections (Figure 2) (Ministry of Health, 2004). If any mosquito specimens are found by MAFBNZ during these inspections they are treated as a potential exotic species. An HPO from the local PHU is contacted to coordinate the initial response under the direction of the MoH (Senior Adviser John Gardner, or in his absence, the Environmental Health Team Leader Sally Gilbert) as outlined in the Environmental Health Protection Guidelines (Ministry of Health, 2004). The initial response generally includes:

• commencing an activity log

• advising the MoH (if not already informed), MAFBNZ and the NZBEL

• collecting the sample from the MAFBNZ staff if they have one or collecting one themselves

• processing the sample for shipment and forwarding it by same-day courier (where possible) to the NZBEL

• entering the sample details into the online national mosquito surveillance database (Cane and Disbury, 2007)

• contacting any other stakeholders

Preventing the establishment of exotic mosquitoes in New Zealand

By Rachel Cane, Amy Snell and Mark Disbury, New Zealand Biosecure■


aff ected by the event, e.g., local port authority if at a port or landowner/occupier if elsewhere

• undertaking an urgent delimiting survey of the area including checking all existing traps, inspecting and treating, mitigating or eliminating potential habitat

• establishing enhanced surveillance of the area by placing additional traps and maintaining enhanced monitoring

• organising immediate treatment of risk goods through the MAFBNZ or interception site as required

• identifying owners of risk goods

• confi rming availability of treatment products and equipment and sampling gear

• assessing human resource requirements

• responding appropriately, depending on the mosquito life stages present

• contacting the shipping agent and obtaining voyage details including transit ports and onward destinations (domestic and foreign)

• advising another PHU if a contaminated shipping vessel has moved on to berth or unload in their area

• producing a situation report (SITREP) of the incident which is forwarded to the Chief Technical Offi cer and the NZBEL as soon as possible.

Following preliminary identifi cation from the entomologists, the MoH provides advice on treatment and enhanced surveillance to the PHU. If all specimens are identifi ed as New Zealand native or endemic mosquitoes, then relevant parties are notifi ed that no further response action is required and the enhanced surveillance is terminated. However, if an exotic species is identifi ed, knowledge of the behaviour and life history of that species is used to target the enhanced surveillance. For example, the chemical octenol would be used to attract female Aedes vigilax (= Ochlerotatus vigilax) but not Aedes aegypti (= Stegomyia aegypti), while ovitraps would be used to attract egg-laying female Ae. aegypti but not Ae. vigilax. Following a confi rmed interception, enhanced surveillance is carried out by the local PHU for three to four weeks.

Specimen identifi cationThe NZBEL has a well-established system for responding to suspected interceptions. Specimens are forwarded by same-day courier where possible, frequently on nights and weekends. An on-call roster ensures there is always a qualifi ed mosquito entomologist available.

The on-call entomologist collects the specimens direct from the Wellington Airport cargo depot and takes the

specimens to the NZBEL in Lower Hutt, avoiding extra delays with couriers. All specimens are examined using either a stereo (adults) or compound (larvae) microscope and identifi ed as native (or established), or exotic. The entomologist is required to provide a preliminary identifi cation to the MoH as soon as possible after receiving the specimens. After telephoning this through, all species are identifi ed in full using dichotomous keys.

Photographs are taken of relevant taxonomic characters of identifi ed exotic mosquito specimens (Figure 3) and these are emailed to an Australian mosquito expert for confi rmation (Disbury et al., 2007). Once received, the MoH is contacted with the confi rmed identifi cation and the result is entered into the online national mosquito surveillance database (Cane and Disbury, 2007).

Often more than one species is intercepted. It is therefore important to accurately

identify all specimens to enable targeted treatment and surveillance programmes for the exotic species which represents the largest threat. This was highlighted in March 2005, when large numbers of mosquito larvae were found in water contained on a concrete pump truck at the Ports of Auckland (Figure 4). It was discovered there were three exotic species present: Tripteroides bambusa (179 larvae), Uranotaenia novobscura (fi ve larvae) and

Figure 2: Interception of live Aedes albopictus larvae found on a garbage truck at the Ports of Auckland, imported

Figure 3: Photograph showing a key taxonomic characteristic for identifying exotic mosquito specimens. Aedes alternans –

Figure 4: Interception of live Tr. bambusa, Ur.

continued on page 16

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE


one larva of the disease vector species Aedes (Finlaya) japonicus. The response needed to be targeted towards Ae. japonicus, which is an unwanted organism and poses the highest public health risk.

Recent interceptions

Since January 2007, there have been 16 mosquito interception responses from New Zealand air and sea ports and de-vanning sites. Six of these have involved exotic mosquito species: Ae. albopictus has been intercepted three times, Culex sitiens twice, and Ae. aegypti, Ae. vigilax

(Figure 5) and Aedes alternans (=Mucidus alternans) all intercepted once. Four of the exotic interceptions occurred at the Ports of Auckland, involving three collections of larvae from risk goods and one adult caught in a light trap (Ae. albopictus mentioned previously). The remaining two interceptions each involved two species of live adults captured on a plane ex Australia arriving at Christchurch International Airport. The planes were being disinsected on arrival and these interceptions emphasise why disinsection of aircraft is so important.

It is important that surveillance of air

The two main perpetrators both originated in South America, and are now in the midst of a massive

invasion campaign across the Pacifi c. The red imported fi re ant (Solenopsis invicta, RIFA) and the little fi re ant (Wasmannia auropunctata, LFA) wreak devastation wherever they colonise by delivering painful stings to humans, compromising food security and causing local extinctions of native species. Adding to their menace, once these noxious insects establish viable populations in a new region, eradication is often prohibitively diffi cult.

Early detection goalIn order to stop the spread of invasive ants across the Pacifi c, the Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community (SPC) is implementing the Pacifi c Ant Prevention Programme (PAPP). One activity of the PAPP is to eff ect early detection of invasive ant incursions by training the governments of Pacifi c island countries in the running of standard surveillance protocols at high-risk sites, such as ports of entry and other transportation hubs. While the programme is being actively implemented across the Pacifi c, few of the islands have

the resources to identify the hundreds of specimens collected during surveillance.

The goal of the Pacifi c Invasive Ant Taxonomy Workshop held from 26–28 June this year in Suva, Fiji, was to train Pacifi c islanders to identify their own ant specimen samples without having to incur the fi nancial costs and time delays of shipping them to overseas specialists. Training a person to identify diff erent genera and species of ants during a three-day workshop is no easy task. Ants are tiny animals that require delicate specimen preparation, powerful microscopes and reliable taxonomic guides before an accurate identifi cation can be made. The success of the workshop depended on getting the right participants together with the right trainers at a venue with the right facilities.

Collaborative eff ortAn impressive collaborative eff ort by MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ), SPC and the University of the South Pacifi c (USP) brought together more than 30 enthusiastic participants, three experienced trainers and an ideal venue for this fi rst-of-its-kind workshop. Despite coming from 13 countries, the participants quickly formed a cohesive group of talented entomologists, quarantine offi cers and university students.

Pacifi c invasive ant taxonomy workshop By Eli Sarnat,1 Disna Gunawardana,2 Cas Vanderwoude3 and Megan Sarty2

Edward O Wilson, elder statesman of the environmental movement and world-renowned entomologist, once referred to ants as “the little things that run the world”. Invasive ants, however, might deserve the less reverent epithet as “the little things that ruin the world”. At least, that’s the way many people across the Pacifi c are beginning to feel. Increasingly, ant invasions from foreign regions are threatening the national economies, public health, environmental integrity and overall quality of life of Pacifi c island countries and territories.

■

Figure 5: Blood-fed Aedes vigilax female collected live on a fl ight from Australia at Christchurch International Airport on 4 March 2007.

continued from page 15


The trainers – Dr Cas Vanderwoude, Dr Disna Gunawardana and Eli Sarnat – all came from diff erent backgrounds but were united by a deep passion for ant biology. Their individual specialties combined for a complementary set of training skills. There are not many places in the Pacifi c islands where over 30 microscopes, 15 laptop computers and a fully equipped laboratory can be secured for a three-day workshop. Fortunately, USP is just such a place, and their involvement was a critical component of the course.

The workshop was offi cially opened with an eloquent portrayal of the situation facing Pacifi c island countries given by the Acting High Commissioner of New Zealand, Her Excellency Ms Joanna Kempkers. After gracious opening remarks by the Pacifi c Island Network for Taxonomy Programme (PACINET) Coordinator Gilian Brodie and Tim Markwell (USP, Biology Division), the morning session continued with presentations ranging from the causes and consequences of ant invasions to the PAPP surveillance programme to a crash course in ant taxonomy terminology. The laboratory work began with Cas Vanderwoude demonstrating point-

mounting ant specimens, Disna Gunawardana demonstrating how to sort samples, and Eli Sarnat introducing the participants to an interactive computerised Lucid key to Pacifi c invasive ants that was developed for the workshop.

Hands-on experienceThe next two days of the workshop emphasised hands-on experience with specimen identifi cation. The use of high-resolution digital images of specimens and the user-friendly identifi cation software allowed the participants to make positive identifi cations without having to learn the sometimes complicated jargon of ant taxonomy or search through arcane literature references. The full-colour printed manual with excellent illustrations and a traditional dichotomous key given to

the participants proved an excellent supplement to the Lucid key,

as it allows users to make their identifi cations, even

without access to the software.

To fi nish the course, the participants were given a short lab practical test to

determine how well the instructors had conveyed

the information and how well the students absorbed

it. The participants were asked to identify projected images and pinned specimens of

the two target species, in addition to the many similar-looking species with which they are often confused. The results of the tests were outstanding, far exceeding the expectations the trainers.

Following an intense three days of staring at little ants through microscopes, participants enjoyed a convivial fi nal night’s closing ceremony, presentation of certifi cates and barbeque at the SPC facilities.

Although the test results were outstanding and the participants voiced a strong confi dence in their ability to identify target invasive ant species and genera, the real test of the workshop’s success will come when the participants have a chance to put their new skills into action on the borders of their own countries. One thing, however, is for sure: the Pacifi c Invasive Ant Taxonomy Workshop has made the Pacifi c a safer place (although not for ants).

Dr Disna Gunawardana, Scientist (Entomology), Investigation and Diagnostic Centre, Plant Health and Environment Laboratory, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 09 909 5718, [email protected]

1 University of California, Davis2 MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) 3 Vanderwoude Consulting, New Zealand

■

Laboratory practical session.

Participants at the three-day workshop.

Interactive software was a successful learning tool at the

taxonomy workshop.

and sea ports continues to protect New Zealand’s borders. To ensure that vigilance in the detection of exotic mosquitoes is maintained, reviews of surveillance activities at these sites should be conducted by experienced personnel.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to acknowledge the offi cers from the PHU, DHB and MAFBNZ for their involvement with each interception and to thank John Gardner and Sally Gilbert of the MoH for reviewing this article. Thanks also to Shaun Yu (Auckland DHB) and Garry Higgins (MAFBNZ) for permission to use

their photographs, and Abnesh Chetty and Shaun Yu for their assistance with some of the procedural details.

ReferencesCane, R. and Disbury, M. 2007. Online national mosquito surveillance database. Biosecurity 73(2): 24–25.

Disbury, M., Cane, R.P. and Russell, R.C. 2007. Remote identifi cation of exotic mosquito specimens using digital photography. Australian Journal of Entomology (in press).

Frampton, E.R. 2004. Pathways of entry and spread of exotic mosquitoes with particular reference to southern saltmarsh mosquito, Ochlerotatus camptorhynchus. Ministry of

Health, Wellington.

Ministry of Health. 2004. Environmental Health Protection Guidelines, Version 4.0: June 2004. Internal Report.

Parkinson, M. 2007. Audit survey for mosquito habitats at Ports of Auckland on 23 April 2007. Internal Report for Auckland Regional Public Health Service Ref: Q080_15_05.

Snell, A., Cane, R.P. and Disbury, M. An update on exotic mosquito interceptions in New Zealand (in prep).

BIOSECURITY SCIENCE


NAWAC’s decision making takes account of, and seeks to fi nd a balance within, the range of

social, ethical, economic and animal management considerations of animal welfare. Scientifi c knowledge is, however, critical in informing those decisions and in providing a justifi cation for the decisions taken. Indeed, science now provides much of the evidence for developing animal welfare standards both in New Zealand and overseas.

Code reports (which accompany codes of welfare when recommended to the Minister) detail the rationale for recommendations in the codes. Recent experience has shown that the code reports will increasingly have to demonstrate the scientifi c justifi cation for the stances the Committee takes. While NAWAC makes extensive use of research published in other countries, consideration of practices more relevant to New Zealand requires science-based information generated in New Zealand, including advice on any key gaps in, or limitations of, information generated in New Zealand or overseas.

Because of the importance of science to its decision making, NAWAC recently commissioned an update of its research priorities, which were last determined in 2002. A draft set of priorities was circulated

to stakeholders for comment and ranking in terms of importance. NAWAC considered the responses and has recently outlined its research priorities. The main issues identifi ed relate to codes of welfare. NAWAC’s immediate research priorities are:

• the welfare and performance of New Zealand broilers compared with international standards

• comparison of current cage systems with alternative cage (including enriched) and non-cage systems for layer hens

Animal welfare research priorities updatedThe National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) is heavily dependent on scientifi c knowledge to inform its recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture on animal welfare. Also, part of its statutory role is to inform the Minister of animal welfare research requirements.

Readers may remember Dr Ian Dacre, former Senior Adviser Animal Welfare and Chair of the National Animal Welfare Emergency Management Group (NAWEM; see Biosecurity 75:18–19). Ian will shortly be leaving his current position at Massey University to take up the post of Disaster Management Operations Director, Asia, for the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA). Ian will initially be based in London but will spend most of his time travelling to lead educational initiatives and coordinate disaster management responses throughout Asia. A large part of WSPA’s work is in disaster relief and

emergency management, including the provision of urgent veterinary treatment, disease containment, mobile clinic dispatch and rebuilding destroyed infrastructure essential to the ongoing maintenance of animal health and welfare. NAWEM is sorry to see its enthusiastic Chair leave, but looks forward to stronger links with WSPA’s Disaster Relief Team as a result.

PEOPLEIN BIOSECURITY

• the wider use of pain relief when undertaking painful husbandry practices

• aggression in sows, especially following mating, and ways to manage it through feeding and housing systems, genetic improvement and stockmanship

• body condition score of dairy cattle and the point at which welfare is compromised and suff ering occurs

• objective assessment of animal welfare outcomes, including determining the key measure, monitoring animals and assessing compliance and performance

• humane slaughter methods for crabs, rock lobsters, crayfi sh and eels.

These and other research needs will be considered in the light of all available funding sources in New Zealand.

The research priorities document also lists New Zealand practices that may require justifi cation, and lists strategic issues in three key areas: the needs of animals, achieving change, and animal welfare guidelines. Of the specifi c issues under these headings, stakeholders identifi ed lameness in dairy cows and the linkage between food safety and welfare as the highest priorities.

For a copy of the document, email the NAWAC Secretary:

[email protected] ■

Body condition score for dairy cattle is among NAWAC's research priorities. Photo: Clive Dalton.


The Biosecurity Monitoring Survey team found a mature larva of a lymantriid moth on the underside

of a loaded container leaving the Ports of Auckland during a survey. It was identifi ed as gypsy moth, Lymantria dispar (Lepidoptera: Lymantriidae) by morphological characteristics, and genetic testing confi rmed that it was the Asian form of the species, usually known as Asian gypsy moth (AGM).

The larva was dead and desiccated, but intact, and still brightly coloured with a shiny clean cuticle. It had not been attacked by arthropods that often shelter underneath containers. This suggests that this larva was from the 2006 breeding season.

The container was loaded in Sydney on 7 September 2006 with packages of high-density polyethylene, and arrived in Auckland 12 September, destined for de-vanning at a transitional facility in South Auckland. AGM is not present in Sydney, indicating that the larva must have originated from a previous voyage of the container.

The lessee of the container, Mediterranean Shipping Company (AUST) Pty Ltd, provided information on the container’s movements during the two-and-a-half years prior to its departure from Sydney. The date range was chosen in view of the apparent freshness of the larva. During this period, the container had completed 36 voyages. From June 2004 – October 2005, it was mainly used on southern European and Mediterranean routes, with more recent voyages including China.

AGM occurs throughout temperate Asia, although the boundary between the ‘Asian’ gypsy moth and ‘European’ gypsy moth is not strictly defi ned. Most interceptions at the New Zealand border are from far eastern Asia, especially Russia and Japan. With the most likely origin of the larva being eastern Russia, Korea, northern or central China or Japan, four voyages stood out as possibilities (see Table 1).AGM larvae are present in China mainly

during April, May and June. The exact timing of hatching and development depends on altitude and latitude as well as weather, population density and other local conditions, making the exact timing diffi cult to predict. It is likely that this larva, being mature, would be prospecting for a pupation site towards the end of the two-

month larval growth window.

The most likely origin of this specimen is China in 2006. Both the nine days at Busan in June 2004 and the 30 days at Yantian fi t the time frame. It is unlikely, however, that the larva would have arrived in such excellent condition after two-and-a-half years of exposure to the elements, decay and predation. Although Yantian (near Hong Kong) is further south than the reported range of Asian gypsy moth in China, the available details only indicate that the container entered and left China via Yantian; it may have travelled elsewhere within China during the 30 days between arrival and departure. It is likely that the larva crawled onto the container at some place either inland or north of Yantian.

The periods ashore at Shanghai and Chiwan, in October 2005 and January 2006, respectively, are when AGM is dormant

as egg masses; live larvae would not be present during these months. The evidence suggests that the larva originated in the Yantian region during June–July 2006.

Information from this interception will be used to re-evaluate MAFBNZ’s sea container risk profi le and inform risk analysis for AGM.

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/gypsy-moth

Dr Grant Knight, Analysis and Profi ling Group, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, [email protected]

Melanie Newfi eld, Risk Analysis Group, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, melanie.newfi [email protected]

■

■

■

China likely source of Asian gypsy moth larvaThe value of good record keeping – and good detective work – has been demonstrated with the naming of the port of Yantian, China, as the likely pathway of an Asian gypsy moth larva found on a sea container in Auckland.

Table 1: Most likely voyages to be source of AGM larva on container

Discharge port Arrival date Loading port Days ashore

Busan, South Korea 28/05/2004 Busan (transhipment) 9

Shanghai, China 17/10/2005 Shanghai 18

Chiwan, China 8/01/2006 Chiwan 37

Yantian, China 25/06/2006 Yantian 30

FRONTLINE NEWS

FRONTLINE NEWS


Public consultation on draft Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare The National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) has recently released the draft Animal Welfare (Dogs) Code of Welfare for public consultation. The closing date for submissions had not been fi nalised at the time of printing, but is likely to be in the beginnning of November 2007. Codes of welfare help owners or persons in charge of animals to meet their obligations under the Animal Welfare Act 1999. The Act requires people who own or who are in charge of animals to meet the animals’ physical, health and behavioural needs and to alleviate pain

Snakes are excluded by law from entering New Zealand. There are no exceptions, which is why they are not

found in zoos, research establishments or accompanying visiting entertainers.

The risk of a snake incursion is very low. Records dating back to the 1930s show that few snakes have arrived as hitch-hikers in cargo or aboard a ship or aircraft. But should a snake cross our border undetected and manage to establish here, the consequences are potentially extreme.

While anxiety about the risk to humans from venomous snakes is understandable, equally signifi cant is the threat to small mammals and New Zealand’s native bird

life. Furthermore, an introduced snake could be a vector for ectoparasites or zoonoses (diseases transmittable from animals to people).

Our snake catchers are a small but diverse group of men and women on call around the clock and armed with special equipment and training.

They are scattered throughout New Zealand. Many are frontline biosecurity inspectors working at ports, airports and transitional facilities. The group also includes staff from the Department of Conservation, a privately contracted herpetologist, detector dog handlers, an investigator from the Wildlife Enforcement

Group and scientists and epidemiologists from MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) Investigation and Diagnostic Centres.

The snake catchers’ tool bag includes snake hooks, tongs, catch bag and fi rst-aid gear. Traps can also be used to capture snakes. The correct clothing and protective equipment, such as gloves and goggles (to protect against spitting snakes) is essential. Detector dogs trained to scent reptiles are available if required.

Training is the key to maintaining the snake catcher’s skills. A basic understanding of snake biology and recognition of diff erent behaviours, especially threatening

and distress. These requirements are only written in general terms: codes of welfare provide the detail in minimum standards of care and recommendations for best practice.

The draft dogs code was written by a group convened by the New Zealand Companion Animal Council, in consultation with NAWAC. Animal welfare organisations, breeders, farmer representatives, local authorities and veterinarians were consulted during the development of the draft code.

All dogs are covered by this code, including

pets, show dogs, working dogs or those used for breeding or sport. The minimum standards and recommendations for best practice in the code relate to ownership, food and water, containment and shelter, sanitation, breeding, health, behaviour, tail-docking, transportation and euthanasia. The recommendations for best practice set out standards of care and conduct that it is hoped all animal owners will aspire to and that, if followed, will lead to better animal welfare outcomes.

For copies of the draft code and details on how to make a submission and closing date, visit:

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/codes/welfareor Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Pastoral House, 25 The Terrace, Wellingtonor email: [email protected]

Contact:

NAWAC Secretary, MAF, PO Box 2526, Wellington

■

■

Kiwi snake Kiwi snake catcherscatchers traintrain with with

thethe REALREAL THINGTHING

By Jaimie Baird

Being employed to catch snakes in New Zealand, one of the few countries in the world with no snakes, may seem to have limited potential as a career option. Indeed, we don’t have full-time snake catchers, but a small group of handlers is trained to deal with venomous snakes should one ever breach our biosecurity defences.

■

Jaimie Baird, Quarantine Inspector, Nelson gets acquainted with a non-venomous diamond python.


behaviour, is essential knowledge. Detecting snakes involves recognising the correct signs. Snakes can secrete themselves in extremely small and inaccessible spaces, making safe capture very challenging. Our team must comply with animal welfare requirements and use humane methods to euthanase a captive live snake. If something goes wrong and someone is bitten, the snake catcher needs specialist fi rst-aid skills.

Eff ective training requires that students learn practical handling skills with real snakes. As we have no snakes in New Zealand for practice, training takes place in Adelaide, South Australia. The principal of Living with Wildlife, Geoff Coombe, has worked with MAF since 2001 to provide training and refresher courses for our snake catchers. Geoff has also presented staff training sessions in New Zealand, minus his snake entourage. As well as being a trainer, Geoff mentors the kiwi snake catchers. He has trained more than 3,500 snake handlers using some of Australia’s most venomous snakes without anyone being bitten. This is an impressive safety record that promotes participant confi dence.

Kiwi snake catchers will continue to prepare for a job it is hoped they will never do. All New Zealanders play an equally important role in the system by remaining alert to the possibility of a snake in New Zealand and reporting any sightings.

For fi rst-aid recommendations in the event of a snake bite, see Biosecurity 46:13.

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/publications/biosecurity-magazine/2003

Jaimie D Baird, Quarantine Inspector, MAFBNZ, Nelson, phone 03 545 7774, fax 03 545 7775, [email protected]

■

■

What to do if you fi nd a snake!Snakes do not seek out human contact. They like shelter and small confi ned spaces.Don’t:

• try to catch or attack the snake.

Do:

• remain calm (easy to say!)

• avoid movement if the snake is close to you

• throw a cover over the snake – use a soft item of clothing like a jacket

• contain the area to prevent escape

• stop others from approaching

• immediately telephone the disease and pest hotline on 0800 809 966 to report your fi nd.

A trained kiwi snake catcher, using appropriate equipment and recognised safe techniques, will be available to do the job.

This venomous Mulga snake interprets the boot and leg as non-threatening (like a tree), while seeking a place to hide. Garry Redshaw from the Wildlife Enforcement Group, Auckland, knows to remain

FRONTLINE NEWS


A number of signifi cant livestock diseases, including FMD, are spread through contaminated meat and meat products. The practice of feeding food waste is common in the pig

industry and transmission of disease to pigs could allow it to spread widely before it became apparent.

As a second line of defence, therefore, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) introduced the Biosecurity (Meat and Food Waste for Pigs) Regulations 2005 to mitigate the risk of transmission of exotic livestock diseases should these ever enter New Zealand. The regulations ban the feeding of risk food waste to pigs unless it has been treated to 100°C for one hour. Done properly, the treatment will kill pathogens of concern.

Food waste regulations – some specifi csUnder the regulations, risk food waste is anything that contains meat or may have come in contact with meat. ‘Meat’ means all animal tissue (including bones), either raw or cooked, including those derived from chicken, fi sh, snail, etc. The defi nition does not cover egg, milk/milk products and rendered material (such as meat and bone meal), which may be fed to pigs without treatment.

Businesses that generate risk food waste are prohibited from distributing or trading in these materials unless they are sure that the collector will not feed the food waste to pigs or that the waste will be treated beforehand.

In practical terms, the treatment recommended in the regulations can be achieved by boiling the risk food waste for one hour – starting from the point the food waste begins to bubble – with frequent stirring.

Table scraps are also a risk if they contain, or may have come in contact with, meat. Commercial food waste – for example, meat pies, even though they may have been cooked at temperatures higher than 100°C but for periods shorter than one hour – must also be treated as per the regulations prior to feeding them to the pigs unless the Director-General of MAF has approved the commercial cooking standard as compliant with the regulations and notifi ed it in the Gazette. Green waste, such as vegetable wastes from the supermarket, may be fed to the pigs without any treatment if they do not contain, or are not contaminated by, meat.

MAFBNZ recently adopted a three-pronged approach to strengthen the implementation of these regulations, comprising communication, compliance monitoring and a review of the regulations.

CommunicationTo build on communications carried out soon after the regulations were introduced in 2005, MAFBNZ is currently implementing a comprehensive programme to educate relevant sectors of the livestock industry about the regulations. The programme is directed at pig owners, as well as the commercial food waste generators and distributors, through radio, print, email and the web. To ensure a wide reach across various communities, some of

this material will be in diff erent languages, such as Maori, Samoan, Chinese and Tongan.

The New Zealand Pork Industry Board and New Zealand Food Safety Authority are collaborating with MAFBNZ in this campaign.

Compliance monitoringVerifi cation of compliance with the food waste regulations has received a special boost this fi nancial year. The Enforcement and Audit Group (formerly known as the Compliance and Enforcement Group) of MAFBNZ has received funding specifi cally for this purpose. A full-time staff member has been appointed to monitor compliance by external stakeholders and enforce these regulations.

Regulations reviewThe Biosecurity (Meat and Food Waste for Pigs) Regulations 2005 are also being reviewed to seek more robust operational methods for implementing them. The Enforcement and Audit Group is conducting this review, with the report expected in October this year.

Penalty reminderIt is an off ence to feed untreated risk food waste to pigs. Under the Biosecurity Act 1993, individuals could be fi ned up to $5,000 and corporations up to $15,000.

For more information about the food waste regulations:

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/foodwasteor email [email protected]

■

Food waste regulations an important line of defenceWhile New Zealand has robust border biosecurity measures in place to mitigate the risk from exotic livestock diseases, an incursion of something like foot and mouth disease (FMD) would have disastrous consequences for our livestock industries and economy.


Equine infl uenza updateFollowing notifi cation from the Australian Government that horses in New South Wales had contracted equine infl uenza, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) last month halted all imports of horses from Australia. Interim emergency import requirements for horses from countries with endemic equine infl uenza have now been introduced, to further reduce the risk of the virus entering New Zealand.

MAFBNZ Director Post Border, Peter Thomson said the introduction of pre- and post-export testing measures will further protect the horse industry.

“New Zealand is free of equine infl uenza and has never had an outbreak of the disease. Therefore, the detection of the virus in vaccinated horses, that may not display symptoms, is extremely important to prevent the disease being introduced here. The introduction of additional testing will confi rm whether imported horses are free of virus.”

As we went to press, equine infl uenza had been found on 375 properties in New South Wales, aff ecting around 3,500 horses. The disease had also been detected in Queensland, but no other States or Territories had been aff ected. On 4 September it was announced that all test results from horses imported to New Zealand from Australia, and horses in contact with these animals, were negative for equine infl uenza.

Restrictions currently in place Suspension of horse imports from AustraliaThe suspension of horse imports from Australia remains in place until further notice. MAFBNZ is yet to determine the conditions under which imports from Australia could resume.

Horse equipment entering New ZealandAll horse equipment that arrives in New Zealand from Australia will be directed by MAF to a treatment facility for cleaning, disinfection and/or fumigation.

PassengersAlthough the risk of passengers bringing the virus into New Zealand on clothing is low, quarantine inspectors will question anyone who has visited an infected area or had contact with horses in Australia, and may search their luggage to check whether clothing and footwear is clean.

Horse imports from countries with endemic equine infl uenzaHorses entering New Zealand from countries with endemic equine infl uenza are now required to be tested for the virus prior to export and again in post-arrival quarantine.

Imported horse semenSemen itself does not pose a known risk, but the containers carrying it could. As a precaution, outer coolant containers carrying the semen can no longer be released into New Zealand and semen will be transferred to New Zealand coolant containers at the border.

Precautions you can take• If you are returning from Australia clean all footwear, clothing and

equipment prior to departure.

• Declare any contact with horses in Australia on your passenger arrival card and make yourself known to a quarantine inspector.

• When a horse (especially one from overseas) arrives on your property, keep it separate from other horses for 14 days.

• If a horse develops a deep, dry cough or high temperature contact your vet or the MAF Biosecurity exotic pest and disease hotline 0800 80 99 66 immediately.

What is equine infl uenza?Equine infl uenza (EI) is a highly contagious viral disease which can cause rapidly spreading outbreaks of respiratory disease in horses, donkeys, mules and other equine species. It is not transmissible to humans. The disease is not generally fatal to horses, although it may kill old or infi rm horses or young foals.

The main symptom is a deep hacking cough, but horses may have a temperature or a runny nose. They can take weeks to recover fully.

The virus is usually spread by:

• direct contact between infected and susceptible horses

• indirect contact with contaminated tack or equipment

• susceptible horses occupying buildings or vehicles recently occupied by diseased horses

• contact between contaminated horse handlers and healthy horses.

The disease could have potentially serious economic consequences, especially for the horse racing industry.

FRONTLINE NEWS


Building national capacity in biosecurity is a key priority for New Zealand. In response, the university

sector has recently launched a range of undergraduate and postgraduate courses that address pertinent biosecurity issues (see also Biosecurity 74:15 March 2007).

Auckland, Canterbury, Lincoln and Waikato universities are leading the way, and off er a breadth of subjects that deal with issues ranging from possums to pitch canker. These are all good signs of a thriving learning environment, but could it be better? Quite possibly, because many of these initiatives are occurring simultaneously and independently, overlap in content and build on regional, rather than national, expertise.

One size won’t fi t allBiosecurity is a multidisciplinary subject spanning both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems, involving policy makers, economists, statisticians, ecologists and taxonomists, to name a few. The subject is also relevant to many stakeholders, each with specifi c needs and levels of understanding. Designing and implementing training courses in biosecurity thus becomes a challenging task, since it is unlikely that one size will fi t all.

Across the Tasman, the fi rst steps have been taken to develop an Australian biosecurity curriculum. This initiative, supported by the Australian Collaboration and Structural Reform Fund (CASR) is led by Queensland University of Technology and involves a consortium of four other universities: Adelaide, Charles Darwin, La Trobe and Murdoch. The Australian Cooperative Research Centre in National Plant Biosecurity is also behind the curriculum and is contributing funds.

The proposed degrees will be at the postgraduate certifi cate, diploma and masters levels. The collaborative approach will ensure a more complete training experience and establish a national standard that will be recognisable to key stakeholders such as the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service.

Collaboration plannedIf building national consensus about biosecurity training is a challenge, then attempts to coordinate training provision across international borders would appear

ambitious indeed. However, this is one of the aims of the quadrilateral scientifi c collaboration in plant biosecurity (QUADS). The QUADS initiative provides a framework for scientifi c cooperation in research, training and technologies regarding phytosanitary issues and plant protection across Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

Recently, QUADS hosted a meeting in Brisbane to discuss what a QUADS biosecurity curriculum should include and the topics that could be standardised across all four countries. Topics identifi ed encompassed risk assessment, emergency response strategies, surveillance and diagnostic technologies, policy and legislation, invasion biology and impacts. Not surprisingly, the proposed Australian biosecurity curriculum is being examined as a possible model for an international curriculum.

Where we fi t inSo where does New Zealand fi t among these training initiatives? As a member of QUADS, we are ensuring that our considerable expertise is refl ected in the structure and content of any international curriculum. However, there is potentially much to be gained from considering a New Zealand biosecurity curriculum.

MAFBNZ, in its draft Biosecurity Science, Research and Technology Strategy for New Zealand (MAFBNZ Discussion Paper No. 2006/04), identifi es the need for highly trained professionals and scientists to underpin the science capacity required to protect New Zealand from damaging pests and diseases. It is likely that a national biosecurity curriculum would deliver this aim far more successfully than any one of the proposed courses

on off er. More importantly, a validated national standard would be a valuable asset both nationally and internationally. Developing the international market is important not only because it is larger, but also because, increasingly, protecting New Zealand requires improved biosecurity management off shore.

Initially, both MAFBNZ and the relevant universities could agree on what a national curriculum might off er, highlight the key gaps in existing provision and identify diff ering stakeholder needs. Ideally, this fi rst step should be followed by collaborative development of compatible modules across universities (especially if catalysed by government funding) and subsequent marketing of a national biosecurity curriculum.

Phil Hulme is Professor of Plant Biosecurity, National Centre for Advanced Bio-Protection Technologies, Lincoln University, phone 03 325 3696, [email protected]

■

A biosecurity curriculum for New Zealand?

By Phil Hulme, Lincoln University■

Participants at the recent QUADS Biosecurity Curriculum meeting in Brisbane, 7-8 June 2007. Back row from

left: Deb Cousins (Australian Biosecurity Cooperative Research Center for Emerging Infectious Diseases;

observer), Glynn Maynard (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry), Tony Clarke (Queensland

University of Technology), Peter Whittle (Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries), Lindy

Hyam (Plant Health Australia), Gordon Gordh, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Front row from left: Philip Hulme (Lincoln University), Bill Lanterman (Canadian Food Inspection Agency),

Kim Plummer (La Trobe University), Kirsty Bayliss, Cooperative Research Center for National Plant

Biosecurity (CRCNPB), other attendees not shown Vanessa Brake (Australian Quarantine and Inspection

Service), Simon McKirdy (CRCNPB), and Sue McKell (CRCNPB). Photo: Kirsty Bayliss.


NETS visitors impressed with plastic wrap techniqueNo, Wellington Harbour wasn’t the scene of MAF Biosecurity New Zealand’s (MAFBNZ’s) latest marine incursion response, but a demonstration of the latest marine pest control techniques.

The demonstration, part of the Biosecurity Institute National Education and Training Seminar (NETS) conference held in July, involved a dive team wrapping wharf structures and a

15-metre vessel in plastic sheeting. The wrapping, or encapsulation technique, has been refi ned through a number of MAFBNZ-partnered applied research activities. It has been successfully applied as a means of controlling a pest sea squirt Didemnum vexillum in the Marlborough Sounds and Nelson (see Biosecurity 76:6), and is currently being used in Bluff Harbour as part of biosecurity eff orts to keep marine pests out of Fiordland.

The method works by starving pest organisms on the wrapped structures of oxygen and light. The annual NETS conference is traditionally the domain of

biosecurity practitioners working on land-based biosecurity. The demonstration provided a unique opportunity for delegates to gain fi rst-hand experience of how pests can be controlled in the sea. Delegates were impressed by how easily and quickly the structures and vessel were wrapped.

Bruce Lines from Diving Services NZ Ltd and John Willmer from MAFBNZ were on hand to provide an overview and answer any questions on the technique.

Called Plant-SyNZ (pronounced plant signs), the database pulls together information that has traditionally

been scattered in scientifi c literature, biological collections and scientifi c libraries – making it accessible to all New Zealanders via the web.

The project has been made possible by Crop and Food Research and Landcare Research, with the support of the Terrestrial and Freshwater Biodiversity Information System (TFBIS) programme administered by the Department of Conservation.

Research leader Dr Nicholas Martin, of Crop and Food Research, says the database was originally developed to keep track of information about leaf mining insects and gall forming insects, as well as mites, but has grown to the point that it is now a

broad insect–plant database, linking New Zealand plants with their insect and mite

herbivores.

The database can be searched by plant or by herbivore name and produces easily digestible

reports.

Nicholas says the information will help those

in many diff erent fi elds, including biosecurity, education and ecology.

He says the database, which already contains the names of 1,386 plant

species, 2,482 insect and mite species and 6,209 herbivore–host plant associations, will continue to expand.

A possibly unique feature of Plant-SyNZ is the reliability index used to score each host association. The quality of information supporting a host association varies from excellent (insect reared on host plant) to

poor (adults found sitting on host plant). Each association is given a score from 0 to 10, with 10 being excellent evidence and 0 a mistake in the literature.

Another feature of the database is its direct link to the plant databases hosted by Landcare Research; it will eventually also link to Landcare’s invertebrate database. Eventually, users will be able to move from the plant databases through Plant-SyNZ to the invertebrate names database and vice versa.

The database is supported by web pages that explain the concepts and tools used.

There will be information coming to the database from the government-funded science programme, Better Border Biosecurity, about herbivores found on New Zealand plants overseas.

www.crop.cri.nz/home/plant-synz

Dr Nicholas Martin, phone 09 845 9010, [email protected]

■

■

New database to link invertebrates with host plantsA free, easy-to-use insect and host plant database will assist amateur and professional people with research into native plants and native ecosystems.

Photo courtesy

The Taire neatly wrapped in plastic during the demonstration at Port Nicholson marina. Photo: Mike Harre.

FRONTLINE NEWS


Bruce Philip has joined the Post Border Directorate of MAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) as an Adviser in the Plant Response Team.

Before joining MAFBNZ, Bruce

worked for 10 years as a technician in the Gene-Based Insect Science Team at HortResearch in Auckland. This work involved testing the effi cacy of novel insecticidal proteins against pest insects, including gypsy moth in the United States and pine shoot tip moth in Chile, and more recently, researching environmental impacts of transgenic plants.

He has an MSc in Entomology from the University of Auckland.

Emmanuel Yamoah has joined the Post Border Directorate of MAFBNZ as an Adviser. He will be working with the Plant Response team, preparing for, and responding to, incursions of organisms aff ecting plant health.

Emmanuel holds Masters degrees in Agronomy and Agroforestry and has worked with The New Zealand Vegetable and Potato Growers Federation as a tomato grower/team leader. His PhD thesis on biological control of gorse using insects as vectors of a fungal pathogen has been submitted to Lincoln University.

Ivan Veljkovic has been appointed as Senior Adviser, Exports Group (Plants), in the Border

Standards Directorate. The team secures market access and looks after operational aspects of New Zealand exports of plants and plant products. Ivan will be working on

facilitating exports of apples to Taiwan and Australia and reviewing the importing countries’ phytosanitary requirements.

Ivan joined MAFBNZ in December 2002 after working as a researcher in the Plant Diseases Department of the Institute for Plant Protection and Environment in Belgrade, Serbia. After a short period in the forestry imports area, Ivan moved to the MAFBNZ Plants Response Team, Post-clearance, in July 2003 and spent most of his time managing the Dutch elm disease response programme in Auckland. He was also involved with major New Zealand moth responses such as Asian gypsy moth

in Hamilton and fall webworm and painted apple moth in Auckland. He also worked on, or managed, a number of medium- and small-scale responses, like New Zealand exotic termites, Impatiens Necrotic Spot Virus, potato wart and numerous post-border and new-to-New Zealand detections.

Victoria Allison has joined the Data Analysis team in the Border Standards Directorate as a data analyst. Before joining MAFBNZ in April 2007, Victoria was a Foundation for

Science, Research and Technology Post-Doctoral Fellow at Landcare Research. At Landcare, Victoria studied shifts in soil microbial community composition and processes along

nutrient gradients, including the Franz Josef glacial chronosequence, and in sand dune sequences at Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Before working at Landcare, Victoria was a post-doctoral fellow at the Argonne National Laboratory, Chicago, United States. There, she coordinated several large-scale global change projects in agricultural, forest and prairie systems. Victoria gained her PhD in Ecology from the University of Michigan, and an MSc in Marine Science and a BSc in Botany from the University of Auckland. She is married with two little girls, Amelia and Eva.

Anthea Craighead recently joined the Analysis and Profi ling group of the Border Standards directorate as a data analyst. She will be primarily analysing patterns in risk pathway slippage as indicated by post-border interceptions, and developing options for

closing gaps in these pathways. Anthea holds a PhD (University of Cambridge, United Kingdom) in plant sciences and an MSc and BSc (both from the University of Auckland). She is currently

undertaking an extramural BBS through Massey University.

For her MSc, Anthea studied the cellular mechanisms determining fl ower colour, and for her PhD, she studied potassium physiology in plants from both an organ and cellular perspective.

PEOPLEIN BIOSECURITY

NAWAC and NAEAC annual reports These two key Ministerial advisory committees recently issued their 2006 annual reports.

The bulk of the work done by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee (NAWAC) in 2006 was on

codes of welfare, with two codes issued during the year (one for deer and one for companion cats) and several at various stages of development. NAWAC Chairman Dr Peter O’Hara said the Committee has been exploring “ways of expressing minimum standards in codes as welfare outcomes to be achieved, rather than prescribing standards for facilities”. The Committee also held a successful workshop investigating pain relief for farmed animals, and planned and encouraged research needed for the 2009 review of the layer hen code of welfare.

The National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) advises the Minister of Agriculture on animal use in research, testing and teaching. During 2006, NAEAC continued to promote the concepts of humane science and continues to pursue improvements by encouraging alternative non-animal testing when possible. For instance, it held a National Workshop for Animal Ethics Committees, awarded its annual Three Rs Award recognising excellence in the humane use of animals in research, testing and teaching to Dr Craig Johnson from Massey University. It also considered Maori perspectives on research, testing and teaching and the use of foetal animals and animal tissue in research. NAEAC’s annual report also contains the 2006 animal use statistics for New Zealand.

Copies of the annual reports are available at:

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/nawac

and

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/animal-welfare/naeac

or by request from:

[email protected]

■

■

■


Simon O’Connor, MAFBNZ Senior Adviser, was a keynote speaker, with a presentation that focused on the

Pacifi c Ant Prevention Programme.

He says attendees from the mainland United States were mainly concerned with everyday pest management issues around the ever present red imported fi re ant (RIFA, Solenopsis invicta). “To put this in perspective, the RIFA control industry in the United States makes the New Zealand’s possum control eff orts look like a picnic,” he says.

Attendees from Australia, New Zealand and Pacifi c Islands (including Hawaii) had more of a ‘take no prisoners’ approach to invasive pests, and tended to focus on prevention of entry and establishment, with an uncompromising approach to eradication, Simon adds.

In addition to Simon O’Connor’s keynote speech, New Zealand was represented through Disna Gunawardana’s (MAFBNZ Investigation and Diagnostic Centre – Plant Health and Environment Laboratory)

presentation on the current RIFA eradication attempt, and Lester Matson’s (AgriQuality Ltd) presentation on the surveillance and mapping technologies. Both presentations were well received and showed just how seriously we manage invasive ant incursions.

Nacanieli Waqa from the Secretariat of the Pacifi c Community (SPC) gave an excellent presentation on Operation Kadridri (see Biosecurity 75:10). He demonstrated what can be done to prevent the evolution of unmanageable RIFA incursions through eff ective information sharing, cooperation, rapid response and political support. The capability to conduct this emergency surveillance work was the result of the preliminary implementation of the Pacifi c Ant Prevention Programme, of which MAFBNZ has been a strong advocate and supporter.

During breaks from conference proceedings, many of the New Zealand and SPC attendees took time to view fi rst hand the impacts of little fi re ant

(LFA, Wasmannia auropunctata) that is established in the Hilo region of Hawaii’s big island. Under the kind and expert guidance from Hilo local, Pat Conant, we saw fi rst hand LFA ‘farming’ the honeydew-producing homoptera on squash, taro, citrus, guava, kava, coconuts, palms, bananas and macadamias.

The New Zealand contingent was very impressed by the conference and came away with a new appreciation of our biosecurity legislation, incursion response and surveillance capability and the political awareness and support for invasive ant issues.

For further information on little fi re ant:

www.issg.org/database/species/ecology.asp?fr=1&si=58

Simon O’Connor, Senior Adviser, Border Standards, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, phone 04 894 0539

■

■

INTERFACE

Inaugural International Pacifi c Invasive Ant ConferenceMAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) staff were among a large contingent of New Zealanders attending the inaugural International Pacifi c Invasive Ant Conference (IPIAC) held in Hawaii during May. Hosted by the United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Plant Protection and Quarantine (USDA, APHIS, PPQ) and the Hawaii Department of Agriculture, it was a very well run conference, held at an excellent venue.

Disna Gunawardana describes New Zealand’s RIFA eradication eff orts.

New Zealand attendees at the International Pacifi c Invasive Ant Conference. From left: Phil Lester (Victoria University), Megan Sarty (MAFBNZ), Disna Gunawardana (MAFBNZ), Graham Burnip (MAFBNZ), Lester Matson (AgriQuaility), Olwyn Green (MAFBNZ), Chris Green (Department of Conservation), Viv Van Dyk (Flybusters Insect Control Ltd),

Nacanieli Waqa discusses Operation Kadridri.

BIOSECURITY SYSTEMS


The rise in global terrorism, avian infl uenza, red imported fi re ant and other biosecurity threats have all

demanded detailed responses in the face of steadily increasing passenger and trade volumes.

These pressures have led to signifi cant changes in work practices, including the deployment of more sophisticated technologies. This requires a coordinated approach across the border agencies to ensure that the benefi ts of technology and effi ciency improvements can be realised.

This inter-agency coordination is overseen by the Border Sector Governance Group. The work programme is being led by Comptroller of Customs, Martyn Dunne, but also involves the Chief Executives of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Department of Labour and the Ministry of Transport.

The project’s scope is not about setting up a single border agency; rather, it is about fi nding effi ciencies and opportunities for greater cooperation, including shared investment, within the existing framework.

The Comptroller of Customs and the Director-General of MAF convened and co-chaired well-attended forums with industry stakeholders in Auckland and Wellington last month, and stakeholders’ initial

response to the initiative was positive.

A separate forum was held with the more than 20 other government agencies that have a role or an interest at the border. These agencies come from a wide range of perspectives. For example, the Ministry of Fisheries is interested in the movements of foreign fi shing vessels, while the Ministry for Culture and Heritage needs to know that no protected objects are being smuggled out of the country, and the Ministry of Health that no pandemic diseases are being admitted.

The governance group covers the three work streams – strategic, operations and information systems. The fi rst step has been to establish what is happening now, as a baseline for building better work processes.

For the strategic work stream, this has meant developing an agreed defi nition of ‘border’ and ‘border management’. This is not as simple as it sounds – the respective agencies tend to see the border diff erently, and even to locate it in diff erent places.

The next step is to develop a conceptual framework to guide a more integrated ‘whole-of-New Zealand’ approach and to improve service delivery and eff ectiveness from a ‘border system’ perspective.

The operations work stream has done

an exhaustive analysis of the processes currently in use at the border. From this, four areas have emerged as likely to off er the most scope for closer inter-agency integration:

• intelligence/risk assessment

• common functions (for example, primary and secondary processing at air and sea ports and vessel clearance)

• support functions (including shared investments in equipment and offi ce space and greater cross-agency standardisation)

• trans-Tasman, especially potential improvements in process effi ciency and the move to a seamless system.

Customs, Immigration and MAF are all engaged in signifi cant upgrades to their information systems infrastructure. Key to the work in this stream is ensuring that the various design proposals permit the greatest possible inter-operability and alignment between systems by following agreed international and New Zealand standards.

Denise Hing, Project Manager, [email protected]

■

Four-way border governance group The main border agencies – Customs, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, the Immigration Service, Aviation Security Service and Maritime New Zealand – have begun to work much more closely in recent years in response to new work challenges.


Why the project is necessaryRecent reviews have identifi ed signifi cant limitations in the current standards and system for export of germplasm and live animals. These have become apparent since the recent European Union Food and Veterinary Offi ce (EU FVO) audit of bovine germplasm exports, as well as the MAFBNZ Compliance and Enforcement Group audits of germplasm centres in general. The audits identifi ed issues with:

• the legal framework of the standards and the way they are written

• the audit systems

• specifi c technical issues.

A loss of integrity and confi dence in export systems for one area, such as live animals and germplasm, also has the potential to fl ow through to other animal products, such as meat and dairy exports. There is a need to maintain consistency and confi dence in the systems for export of animal products as a whole.

Focus of the projectThe objective of this project is, by 1 July 2008, to deliver a revised system and standards for the delivery of export certifi cation for live animals and germplasm that retains existing strengths and addresses identifi ed weaknesses.

The project will particularly focus on:

• ensuring roles and responsibilities are clearly defi ned and clear processes adopted when authority is delegated

• development of the revised standards

• ensuring eff ective audit systems for all participants in system

• managing delegated authority

• competency requirements where authority is delegated

• clarifying technical requirements, but within an overall focus on outcomes and consistent with sound science and world organisation for animal health (OIE) guidelines.

Consultation MAFBNZ is committed to consulting aff ected parties. The live animal and germplasm industry covers a diverse range of products (for example, semen and embryos, livestock, bees, day-old chicks, cats and dogs) and is spread throughout the country. MAFBNZ will develop drafts of the roles and responsibilities of participants in the export system, and possible changes to the current guidelines; these will be taken out for industry consultation. Following this fi rst consultation, the revised standards will be developed and put out for formal consultation.

To comment about the review, or any other areas you think should be addressed, send an email with the subject title ‘GLAS FEEDBACK’ to:

[email protected]■

UPDATES

Import health standard development programmeThe import health standard development programme for the year starting July 2007 is now available. There are a total of 88 items on the programme, 67 in progress from last year and 21 new items. Requests for similar commodities are only listed once on the programme.

This year, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand received 211 requests for standards to be developed, compared with 264 last year.

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/ihs-funding

Codes of ethical conduct – approvals, notifi cations and revocations since the last issue of Biosecurity

All organisations involved in the use of live animals for research, testing or teaching are required to adhere to an approved code of ethical conduct.

Codes of ethical conduct approved: Nil

Transfers of codes of ethical conduct approved: Nil

Code holder name changes: Nil

Amendments to codes of ethical conduct approved: Nil

■

Notifi cations to MAF of minor amendments to codes of ethical conduct: Nil

Notifi cations to MAF of arrangements to use an existing code of ethical conduct:• Animal Health Research Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal,

code expired)

• Argenta Manufacturing Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Bayer New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• BioLogic Scientifi c Consulting Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Bomac Research Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Caledonian Holdings Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Elanco Animal Health (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Fort Dodge New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

Germplasm and Live Animals Export Zoosanitary Certifi cation System and Standards ProjectMAF Biosecurity New Zealand (MAFBNZ) is the New Zealand competent authority for live animals and germplasm. It is MAFBNZ’s responsibility to set the specifi cations and standards required for the certifi cation and export of live animals and germplasm in accordance with the Animal Products Act 1999 (APA). These standards cover the responsibilities and functions of exporters, recognised agencies and persons, authorised persons, germplasm centres, and centre and team veterinarians. The New Zealand Food Safety Authority is the government agency that administers the APA.

UPDATES


• Four Rings Enterprises Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Intervet NZ Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Kahne Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Mason Consulting (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Merial New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Novartis New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Virbac New Zealand Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Virionyx Corporation Ltd (to use PharmVet Solutions’ code) (renewal, code expired)

• Ward, Christopher (to use Waikato Institute of Technology’s code)

Codes of ethical conduct revoked or expired or arrangements terminated or lapsed: Nil

Approvals by the Director-General of MAF for the use of non-human hominids: Nil

Approvals by the Minister of Agriculture of research or testing in the national interest: Nil

Linda Carsons, Senior Policy Adviser, Animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0370, fax 04 894 0747, [email protected]

Codes of welfare – update on development, issue and consultation since the last issue of Biosecurity

Codes of welfare issued 2007: • Deer

• Companion cats

■

Consultation on codes of welfare:• Commercial slaughter: recommended to Minister

• Dairy cattle: submissions being reviewed by NAWAC

• Dogs: public consultation opened September 2007 (see item this issue)

Codes of welfare under development:• Transport in New Zealand

• Sheep and beef cattle

• Temporary housing (including boarding establishments)

Cheryl O’Connor, Programme Manager Animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0371, fax 04 894 0747, cheryl.o’[email protected]

NAEAC annual report availableThe 2006 annual report of the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee (NAEAC) was published recently.

If you would like a copy of the report go to:

www.biosecurity.govt.nz/naeac-publications

or contact:

Kirsty Grant, Executive Coordinator Animal Welfare, phone 04 894 0366, fax 04 894 0747, [email protected]

■

■

■

Pest watch: 19/06/2007 – 04/08/2007Biosecurity is about managing risks – protecting the New Zealand environment and economy from exotic pests and diseases. MAF Biosecurity New Zealand devotes much of its time to ensuring that new organism records come to its attention, to follow up as appropriate. The tables below list new organisms that have become established, new hosts for existing pests and extension to distribution for existing pests. The information was collated during 19/06/2007 – 04/08/2007 and held in the Plant Pest Information Network (PPIN) database. Wherever possible, common names have been included.

ANIMAL KINGDOM RECORDS 19/06/2007 – 04/08/2007

Validated new to New Zealand reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by Comment

No new to New Zealand records during this period.

New host reports


No new host records during this period.

Extension to distribution reports


Anthidium manicatum (wool carder bee)

Duranta erecta (golden dewdrop, skyfl ower)

Auckland IDC (general surveillance) Two adult males collected.

Katarina Kontopos, Team Support Offi cer, MAF Biosecurity New Zealand, ph 04 894 0281, [email protected] ■

PLANT KINGDOM RECORDS 19/06/2007 – 04/08/2007

Validated new to New Zealand reports

Organism Host Location Submitted by

Rhexocercosporidium panacis(fungus: rusty root, the rust)

Panax quinquefolium (American ginseng)

Bay of Plenty IDC (general surveillance)

Isotenes miserana (insect: orange fruitborer)

Clothing Auckland Landcare Research

Sadwavirus strawberry mottle virus (SMoV) Fragaria x ananassa (strawberry)

Mid Canterbury IDC (general surveillance)

Carlavirus Narcissus symptomless virus Narcissus pseudonarcissus cv. ‘Twilight Zone’ (narcissus)

Wanganui Crop & Food Research

Potyvirus Wisteria vein mosaic virus (WVMV) Wisteria sinensis (wisteria)

Taranaki IDC (general surveillance)


DIRECTORY

Austrosalomona falcata (insect: olive-green coastal katydid)

Yard Northland IDC (general surveillance)

Signifi cant fi nd reports


No signifi cant fi nd records during this period.

New host reports


Glomerella acutata (fungus: anthracnose)

Tradescantia sp. Auckland IDC (general surveillance)

Corylus avellana (hazelnut)

Auckland IDC (general surveillance)

Crocosmia x crocosmiifl ora (Montbretia)


Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip tree)

Bay of Plenty Ensis (high-risk site survey)

Phoma glomerata (fungus: stem blight)

Quercus canariensis (Algerian oak, canary oak)


Zorion opacum (insect: fl ower longhorn)

Corynocarpus laevigatus (karaka) Chatham Islands Ensis (special survey)

Nambouria xanthops (insect: no common name)

Eucalyptus nitens(no common name)

Bay of Plenty Ensis (ad hoc collection)

Trimmatostroma betulinum (fungus: no common name)

Betula papyrifera (paper birch)

Mackenzie Ensis (exotic forest survey)

Parasaissetia nigra (insect: nigra scale)

Olearia ilicifolia hybrid(no common name)

Buller Ensis (high-risk site survey)

Nectria hoheriae (fungus: no common name)

Hoheria angustifolia (mountain lacebark)

Hawke’s Bay Ensis (high-risk site survey)

Strepsicrates macropetana (insect: eucalyptus leafroller)

Eucalyptus macrandra(no common name)

Wanganui Ensis (high-risk forest survey)

Coscinoptycha improbana (insect: guava moth)

Malus sylvestris var. domestica cv. ‘Red Delicious’ (apple)

Northland Landcare Research

Colletotrichum dematium (fungus: anthracnose)

Hemerocallis fulva (orange day lily)


Colletotrichum capsici (fungus: anthracnose)

Ophiopogon sp. (mondo grass) Auckland IDC (general surveillance)

Glomerella cingulata (fungus: anthracnose, bitter rot)

Epidendrum sp. (orchid) Auckland IDC (general surveillance)

Vitex lucens (puriri) Auckland IDC (general surveillance)

Iris sp. (iris) Auckland IDC (general surveillance)

Phoma exigua var. exigua (fungus: blight, gangrene, leaf spot, mouldy core, stem spot)

Olea sp. (olive) Auckland IDC (general surveillance)

Phytophthora citricola(fungus: phytophthora root rot)

Ficus rubiginosa(Port Jackson fi g)


Phytophthora inundata (fungus: no common name)

Acacia longifolia (Sydney golden wattle)


Aphelenchoides ritzemabosi (chrysanthemum foliar nematode)

Galinsoga quadriradiata (galinsoga)


Heliothrips haemorrhoidalis(insect: greenhouse thrips)

Meryta sinclairii (puka) Auckland IDC (general surveillance)

Lindingaspis rossi (insect: circular black scale, Ross’s black scale)

Melaleuca diosmifolia(no common name)

Northland Ensis (ad hoc collection)

Verticillium dahliae(fungus: verticillium wilt)

Cardamine hirsuta(bitter cress)


Extension to distribution reports


Nambouria xanthops (insect: no common name)

Eucalyptus nicholii(no common name)

Hawke’s Bay Ensis (high-risk site survey)

Staninwardia breviuscula (fungus: no common name)

Metrosideros umbellata(southern rata)

Westland Ensis (high-risk site survey)

Parlatoria fulleri (insect: no common name)

Griselinia littoralis (broadleaf )

Bay of Plenty Ensis (high-risk site survey)

Trimmatostroma betulinum (fungus: no common name)

Betula papyrifera (paper birch)

Mackenzie Ensis (exotic forest survey)

Parasaissetia nigra (insect: nigra scale)

Olearia ilicifolia hybrid(no common name)

Buller Ensis (high risk site survey)

Leucaspis podocarpi(insect: no common name)

Podocarpus hallii (Hall’s totara)

Mackenzie Ensis (DOC survey)

Exotic disease and pest emergency hotline: 0800 809 966

Animal welfare complaint hotline: 0800 327 027

www.biosecurity.govt.nz

biosecurity science biosecurity science

Documents