Threads - Wheat Streak Mosaic Virus

On 27/5/2003, Toby Fiander posted:

Here is an update on the wheat streak mosaic virus, which is capable at least in theory, of having as devastating an effect on national income as the drought.

There is no doubt, we have the virus.  It is probably not in WA yet and may not be in Tasmania and the Northern Territory.  NSW is still fantasising that the disease is still  eradicable, but overall we are in some trouble.  It is one of the world nasties of cereal grain crops which we have hitherto avoided, but that is a thing of the past.

How it got here is probably no mystery - we imported it last year as part of our "free trade".  There is about to be lots of ducking, weaving and other political movements.


http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=807738D0-D5AF-4050-9F9B4E09EEF484D0

I wonder what this will do to the grain ethanol proposal just announced for northern NSW, among other things.

Peter Macinnis replied:

Interesting.  Free trade was given as the reason why rinderpest, cattle plague, got into Britain in 1865.

What was free traded in our case, Toby?

Toby Fiander responded:

> What was free traded in our case, Toby?

I am searching out more detail at the moment and will report back, unless someone else knows... [thank you, Margaret, in the meant time]

I notice the slightly <characterisation removed> speaker of the SA House of Reps, Peter Lewis, has just gone off the air about it all.  In the past, he has managed to give the facts backwards, but he is a bit of a political litmus paper.

Jim Peacock's remarks broadcast on Saturday are only one line of thought and some of the wheat breeders in NSW think that the widespread nature of the outbreak is due to distribution of plant material (probably wheat) which originated overseas in the relatively recent past.

But it could have been almost any of the grains that were imported on a trial basis because we were having a drought.

BTW, it does not affect rice, but most other grains are at risk.

Toby Fiander added:

The latest finds in NSW are on volunteer plants.  Two so far, and well away from the research area at Tamworth where a plant was found two earlier on, I think.

My theorist's theory is that there was an escape of grain imported for milling probably into roadside areas, which is where NSW is mostly looking for the diseased plants.  It rested on the assumption that there were no outbreaks in places where no grain was imported (I think this means WA and Tasmania).  But the conclusion looks shakey.  This person had consumed alcohol when we were speaking... whereas, of course, my own sobriety was unquestionable (to start with).  Also, there was no update today from that source.  Perhaps it something to do with the sauce - I am uncertain.

I might add that this is the same theorists who are still insisting the outbreak is able to be contained and then eradicated in NSW... [I can't spell eradicable and I think I don't like it anyway] [I also don't believe them about containing the disease.]

At 17:31 27/05/03 +1000, Ray wrote:
>Isn't ironic how the wages of avarice are so often poverty?

Podargus posted:

The virus is considered to be spread by the Wheat Curl Mite, I think the seed route because it is such a low risk is unlikely to be the route for our outbreak.  Do we have any information on where the imported grain was used or processed?  For some reason I think it only went to Queensland, but I might well be getting it mixed with something else.

As for eradication, it certainly looks as if the horse has well and truly bolted.  Not that it will necessarily matter if the arrangements for plant health are anything like animal health.  I am not well informed about what stage plant health are at (they are behind animal health), but unless the industry/government arrangements prove to be different to animal health, there will almost certainly never be an attempt to eradicate anything.

Peter Macinnis replied:

Actually, it was me and not Ray, but no matter -- you are quite correct.

Together, you and I have the basic ideas to form a new political party that will sweep the wimpish Liberals from power by driving the masses to sign up for self-immolation, and bring their own matches :-)

I am deadly serious about pursuing a new crime of conspiracy to avoid taxation, to target those who float schemes designed to bring about unfair and unreasonable benefits to the very rich who can afford them.  This would take down the beneficiaries and the architects -- the people who send funds offshore, juggle accounts creatively, the people who create bogus plantations and all of those other schemes -- not to mention bottom-of-the-harbour deals, and would collect both the principals and those who carry out their commands.  I note that there is a perfectly adequate gaol at Woomera that could be used -- and if the odd rocket strays off the range, well, who would miss a few felons?

Sentences with hard labour would be mandatory, with no remission on account of alleged ills, and 30% of the felons' property would be forfeit, based on a five-year floating average of identified holdings, or estimated at 40 times the felon's identified expenditure (including all expense accounts), whichever was the greater.  Property transferred to family members in the past ten years would be deemed to belong to the felon.

The felons would be permitted to argue their case in court, but would not be allowed legal representation other than that provided by the Public Defender, and entailing not more than one hour of prior study of the papers in the case.  This would be paid for by a fee of 1% of the amount claimed by the Crown, irrespective of the outcome of the case, this money being earmarked to fund the Public Defender's office, with any excess being used to charitable ends.

Those who have the votes can still call the shots in this country.

We seem to have forgotten that.

Peter replied:

> Peter, sensing a degree of sarcastic made to your reply, I'd like to offer a
> solution to the world's fiscal and ecological inequities.

That which is sarcasm when directed at the hearer is a far gentler irony when directed at third parties, and laudable irony when directed against a*holes.  On that basis, what I posted was both dulcet and medal-worthy.

> There is a pre-existing rule prescribed by nature.
>
> "If you can't take it with you, it never belonged to you in the first place,
> and therefore should be property in common to the planet which (with a bit
> of luck if not good management) survives us."

I would add: if you can take it with you, bloody well give it back.

> PS  Is the 'trickle down effect' something similar to the trickle down
> effect of the Murray River at Encounter Bay?

No, it is more to do with Sir Les Patterson's leg, where the poor are in his socks.

But seriously, you need to understand that the principle I outlined is where these people are coming from -- it started with Sir Keith Joseph.  It explains why perfectly good mutual associations need to be turned into shares that people can own.  In its way, it is as vicious and as socially reprehensible as the enclosure of the commons.

> I am deadly serious about pursuing a new crime of conspiracy to avoid
> taxation, to target those who float schemes designed to bring about
> unfair and unreasonable benefits to the very rich who can afford them.
> This would take down the beneficiaries and the architects -- the
> people who send funds offshore, juggle accounts creatively, the people
> who create bogus plantations and all of those other schemes -- not to
> mention bottom-of-the-harbour deals, and would collect both the
> principals and those who carry out their commands.