Surveillance in Far North Queensland (FNQ)

The Discussion Paper sought to understand how growers feel about the current surveillance methodology and frequency.

Grower feedback

ABGC response to feedback

Surveillance is seen as the most important part of the new Program.

Surveillance will remain a key priority of the new Program.  A surveillance strategy is yet to be finalised.

Growers are comfortable with the current surveillance methodology, however efforts should be made to shorten the amount of time spent on-farm for greater efficiency.

The new surveillance strategy will closely follow Biosecurity Queensland’s current surveillance methodology, with investigations under way to realise efficiencies wherever possible.  

All FNQ farms should continue to be surveyed once in 12 months, and ‘high risk’ farms every 3 months.

The new surveillance strategy will closely follow Biosecurity Queensland’s current schedule for FNQ and ‘high risk’ properties, however it will require annual review according to risk profile and Program capabilities, and in accordance with the escalation of the disease.

Surveillance on infested properties (IPs) must continue.  Where the IP is fully compliant, build capacity for that grower to take on more responsibility for ongoing self-surveillance.

The new surveillance strategy will explore the individual IP’s capability to self-survey for disease management.  Where possible that property’s rotation for Program surveillance may decrease according to risk profile, and in accordance with the escalation of the disease.

Sampling and diagnostics

The Discussion Paper sought to understand if samples should continue to be collected from infested properties and sent to a laboratory for diagnostics, and who should reasonably fund the cost of sampling and diagnostics.

Grower feedback

ABGC response to feedback

Most growers felt it important to know the rate at which the disease is spreading so requested that samples should continue to be collected from infested properties and sent to the laboratory for diagnostics.  Whereas other growers felt it safe to assume under certain guidelines that experienced IP growers could self-diagnose and destroy suspect plants without the need for diagnostics which would save resources for higher risk detections.

The strategy for sampling and diagnostics will include trigger levels for review in the face of disease escalation.

Growers do not wish to self-fund diagnostics and believe that the Queensland Government can help share responsibility through a co-funded diagnostic arrangement.

The ABGC has written to and met with Minister Furner to request a co-funding arrangement that would support the Queensland Government supplying in-kind laboratory support for diagnostics.

Destruction of infected plants

The Discussion Paper sought to understand how growers feel about the current destruction protocol.

Grower feedback

ABGC response to feedback

Most growers didn’t demonstrate a strong understanding of how infected plants are currently destroyed, however trusted that the current method should continue based on the slow rate of disease spread.

The ABGC will use the results of research on the destruction protocol as commissioned by the Panama TR4 Program Management Board to guide future decisions.

Some IP growers suggested that, with further investigation, smaller destruction zones might be considered.

The ABGC will use the results of research on the destruction protocol as commissioned by the Panama TR4 Program Management Board to guide future decisions.

Compliance of infested properties (IPs) and a Code of Practice (Code)

The Discussion Paper sought to understand how growers feel about a Code of Practice with mandatory measures to manage compliance of infested properties, and voluntary measures to mitigate disease spread.

Grower feedback

ABGC response to feedback

Ensuring high-risk farms in Tully Valley are prepared should continue to be a priority for ABGC. Both in terms of reducing the risk of becoming TR4 positive, but also preparing them to manage the impact of a positive detection.

 Yes. Agreed.

Growers are comfortable identifying good biosecurity practices such as footbaths, boot exchanges, zoning and fencing/ barriers as voluntary provisions that could be included in a Code, however not all had implemented them on their farm.

The Code will encourage all growers to implement on-farm biosecurity measures on their farms wherever possible and the ABGC will continue to support growers with this.

Growers are not comfortable commenting on mandatory provisions that should apply to IPs, except to stop soil and plant movement off the farm.

The ABGC acknowledges that stopping the movement of soil and plant material are key objectives in containing the disease, and is in regular consultation with IPs to determine mandatory measures within the Code.

All growers want ongoing government involvement for hard enforcement of non-compliant IPs if required.

The ABGC has garnered key support and early engagement from Queensland Government stakeholders to have mandatory measures of the Code adopted into legislation.  Development of the Code is funded by the Panama TR4 Program Management Board which is comprised of equal government and industry representatives.  Government stakeholders are also included in the Code reference group to ensure it stays on course for adoption.