The Apparent and Intrinsic Shape of the APM Galaxy Clusters

We estimate the distribution of intrinsic shapes of APM galaxy clusters from the distribution of their apparent shapes. We measure the projected cluster ellipticities using two alternative methods. The first method is based on moments of the discrete galaxy distribution while the second is based on moments of the smoothed galaxy distribution. We study the performance of both methods using Monte Carlo cluster simulations covering the range of APM cluster distances and including a random distribution of background galaxies. We find that the first method suffers from severe systematic biases, whereas the second is more reliable. After excluding clusters dominated by substructure and quantifying the systematic biases in our estimated shape parameters, we recover a corrected distribution of projected ellipticities. We use the non-parametric kernel method to estimate the smooth apparent ellipticity distribution, and numerically invert a set of integral equations to recover the corresponding distribution of intrinsic ellipticities under the assumption that the clusters are either oblate or prolate spheroids. The prolate spheroidal model fits the APM cluster data best.Comment: 8 pages, including 7 figures, accepted for publication in MNRA

Justice Beyond Borders? Australia and the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC) came into being on 1 July 2002. A four-person team opened an office in The Hague and will collect reports and allegations of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity until judges and a prosecutor are appointed towards the end of 2003. Although the court was heralded by many states and international lawyers as the most important positive development in international law since the formation of the United Nations, it did not get off to an auspicious start. The Bush administration was concerned that US military forces operating overseas would be particularly vulnerable to what it described as 'politicised' prosecutions. It therefore insisted that not only would it not be a part of the ICC, but also that it would not sanction the continuation of UN peacekeeping operations. Closer to home, the Australian Senate only ratified the ICC's founding treaty, the Rome Statute, after a bitter debate that split both the Liberal and National parties. This was the case even though the Howard government-and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in particular-had been a leading advocate of the court and ratification of the Rome Statute had been a Liberal Party election promise in 2001. The cost that Downer, and pro-ICC Attorney-General Daryl Williams had to pay in order to appease restive conservative backbenchers, the National Party, and an increasingly reluctant (and pro-US) Prime Minister and secure the ratification was a declaration that reaffirmed the primacy of the Australian judicial system over the ICC. The declaration insisted that no Australian would be prosecuted by the court without the consent of the Attomey-General, and asserted Australia's right to define what is meant by the crimes of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. We argue that although Downer and Williams should be commended for their commitment to international justice, the declaration attached to Australia's ratification was unnecessary and unhelpful. The first and third aspects of the declaration were unnecessary: the principle of complementarity enshrined in the Rome Statute means that the ICC already recognises the primacy of domestic jurisdiction, and the crimes covered are already considered to fall under universal jurisdiction, as the Nuremberg, Tokyo and more recent Pinochet trials showed (see Weller 1999). The second is unhelpful because it contravenes both the letter and the spirit of the Rome Statute. We will begin, then, by tracing the development of the ICC debate in Australian politics. In 1998, the government was an enthusiastic advocate of the court but by 2002 an alliance of an ardently pro-US Prime Minister, vocal right-wing parliamentarians and their supporters, and The Australian (and its foreign affairs editor Greg Sheridan in particular) combined to put ratification in doubt. Contrary to Prime Minister John Howard's claims, this debate was not well informed. Instead, it was characterised by hearsay, inaccuracy and scare-mongering. The subsequent section of the article demonstrates this by focusing on the background to, and creation of, the Rome Statute

Nutritional, Health, and Technological Functionality of Lupin Flour Addition to Bread and Other Baked Products: Benefits and Challenges

Lupin is an undervalued legume despite its high protein and dietary fiber content and potential health benefits. This review focuses on the nutritional value, health benefits, and technological effects of incorporating lupin flour into wheat-based bread. Results of clinical studies suggest that consuming lupin compared to wheat bread and other baked products reduce chronic disease risk markers; possibly due to increased protein and dietary fiber and bioactive compounds. However, lupin protein allergy has also been recorded. Bread quality has been improved when 10% lupin flour is substituted for refined wheat flour; possibly due to lupin-wheat protein cross-linking assisting bread volume and the high water-binding capacity (WBC) of lupin fiber delaying staling. Above 10% substitution appears to reduce bread quality due to lupin proteins low elasticity and the high WBC of its dietary fiber interrupting gluten network development. Gaps in understanding of the role of lupin flour in bread quality include the optimal formulation and processing conditions to maximize lupin incorporation, role of protein cross-linking, antistaling functionality, and bioactivity of its γ-conglutin protein

Factors Influencing Engagement, Perceived Usefulness and Behavioral Mechanisms Associated with a Text Message Support Program

Introduction Many studies have now demonstrated the efficacy of text messaging in positively changing behaviours. We aimed to identify features and factors that explain the effectiveness of a successful text messaging program in terms of user engagement, perceived usefulness, behavior change and program delivery preferences. Methods Mixed methods qualitative design combining four data sources; (i) analytic data extracted directly from the software system, (ii) participant survey, (iii) focus groups to identify barriers and enablers to implementation and mechanisms of effect and (iv) recruitment screening logs and text message responses to examine engagement. This evaluation was conducted within the TEXT ME trial—a parallel design, single-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 710 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). Qualitative data were interpreted using inductive thematic analysis. Results 307/352 (87% response rate) of recruited patients with CHD completed the program evaluation survey at six months and 25 participated in a focus group. Factors increasing engagement included (i) ability to save and share messages, (ii) having the support of providers and family, (iii) a feeling of support through participation in the program, (iv) the program being initiated close to the time of a cardiovascular event, (v) personalization of the messages, (vi) opportunity for initial face-to-face contact with a provider and (vii) that program and content was perceived to be from a credible source. Clear themes relating to program delivery were that diet and physical activity messages were most valued, four messages per week was ideal and most participants felt program duration should be provided for at least for six months or longer. Conclusions This study provides context and insight into the factors influencing consumer engagement with a text message program aimed at improving health-related behavior. The study suggests program components that may enhance potential success but will require integration at the development stage to optimize up-scaling

Crop Updates 2007 - Lupins, Pulses and Oilseeds

This session covers forty eight papers from different authors: 2006 REGIONAL ROUNDUP 1. South east agricultural region, Mark Seymour1 and Jacinta Falconer2, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Cooperative Bulk Handling Group 2. Central agricultural region, Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture and Food 3. Great Southern and Lakes region, Rodger Beermier, Department of Agriculture and Food 4. Northern agricultural region, Wayne Parker and Martin Harries, Department of Agriculture and Food LUPINS 5. Development of anthracnose resistant and early flowering albus lupins (Lupinus albus L) in Western Australia, Kedar Adhikari and Geoff Thomas, Department of Agriculture and Food 6. New lupins adapted to the south coast, Peter White, Bevan Buirchell and Mike Baker, Department of Agriculture and Food 7. Lupin species and row spacing interactions by environment, Martin Harries, Peter White, Bob French, Jo Walker, Mike Baker and Laurie Maiolo, Department of Agriculture and Food 8. The interaction of lupin species row spacing and soil type, Martin Harries, Bob French, Laurie Maiolo and Jo Walker, Department of Agriculture and Food 9. The effects of row spacing and crop density on competitiveness of lupins with wild radish, Bob French and Laurie Maiolo, Department of Agriculture and Food 10. The effect of time of sowing and radish weed density on lupin yield, Martin Harries and Jo Walker, Department of Agriculture and Food 11. Interaction of time of sowing and weed management in lupins, Martin Harries and Jo Walker, Department of Agriculture and Food 12. Delayed sowing as a strategy to manage annual ryegrass, Bob French and Laurie Maiolo, Department of Agriculture and Food 13. Is delayed sowing a good strategy for weed management in lupins? Bob French, Department of Agriculture and Food 14. Lupins aren’t lupins when it comes to simazine, Peter White and Leigh Smith, Department of Agriculture and Food 15. Seed yield and anthracnose resistance of Tanjil mutants tolerant to metribuzin, Ping Si1, Bevan Buirchell1,2 and Mark Sweetingham1,2, 1Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, Australia; 2Department of Agriculture and Food 16. The effect of herbicides on nodulation in lupins, Lorne Mills1, Harmohinder Dhammu2 and Beng Tan1, 1Curtin University of Technology and 2Department of Agriculture and Food 17. Effect of fertiliser placements and watering regimes on lupin growth and seed yield in the central grain belt of Western Australia, Qifu Ma1, Zed Rengel1, Bill Bowden2, Ross Brennan2, Reg Lunt2 and Tim Hilder2, 1Soil Science & Plant Nutrition UWA, 2Department of Agriculture and Food 18. Development of a forecasting model for Bean Yellow Mosaic Virus in lupins, T. Maling1,2, A. Diggle1, D. Thackray1,2, R.A.C. Jones2, and K.H.M. Siddique1, 1Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, The University of Western Australia; 2Department of Agriculture and Food 19. Manufacturing of lupin tempe,Vijay Jayasena1,4, Leonardus Kardono2,4, Ken Quail3,4 and Ranil Coorey1,4, 1Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia, 2Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Indonesia, 3BRI Australia Ltd, Sydney, Australia, 4Grain Foods CRC, Sydney, Australia 20. The impact of lupin based ingredients in ice-cream, Hannah Williams, Lee Sheer Yap and Vijay Jayasena, Curtin University of Technology, Perth WA 21. The acceptability of muffins substituted with varying concentrations of lupin flour, Anthony James, Don Elani Jayawardena and Vijay Jayasena, Curtin University of Technology, PerthWA PULSES 22. Chickpea variety evaluation, Kerry Regan1, Rod Hunter1, Tanveer Khan1,2and Jenny Garlinge1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 23. Advanced breeding trials of desi chickpea, Khan, T.N.1, Siddique, K.H.M.3, Clarke, H.2, Turner, N.C.2, MacLeod, W.1, Morgan, S.1, and Harris, A.1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, 3TheUniversity of Western Australia 24. Ascochyta resistance in chickpea lines in Crop Variety Testing (CVT) of 2006, Tanveer Khan1 2, Bill MacLeod1, Alan Harris1, Stuart Morgan1and Kerry Regan1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 25. Yield evaluation of ascochyta blight resistant Kabuli chickpeas, Kerry Regan1and Kadambot Siddique2, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia 26. Pulse WA Chickpea Industry Survey 2006, Mark Seymour1, Ian Pritchard1, Wayne Parker1and Alan Meldrum2, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Pulse Australia 27. Genes from the wild as a valuable genetic resource for chickpea improvement, Heather Clarke1, Helen Bowers1and Kadambot Siddique2, 1Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, 2Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia 28. International screening of chickpea for resistance to Botrytis grey mould, B. MacLeod1, Dr T. Khan1, Prof. K.H.M. Siddique2and Dr A. Bakr3, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2The University of Western Australia, 3Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute 29. Balance® in chickpea is safest applied post sowing to a level seed bed, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture and Food, 30. Demonstrations of Genesis 510 chickpea, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture and Food 31. Field pea 2006, Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture and Food 32. Field pea variety evaluation, Kerry Regan1, Rod Hunter1, Tanveer Khan1,2 and Jenny Garlinge1, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 33. Breeding highlights of the Australian Field Pea Improvement Program (AFPIP),Kerry Regan1, Tanveer Khan1,2, Phillip Chambers1, Chris Veitch1, Stuart Morgan1 , Alan Harris1and Tony Leonforte3, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3Department of Primary Industries, Victoria 34. Field pea germplasm enhancement for black spot resistance, Tanveer Khan, Kerry Regan, Stuart Morgan, Alan Harris and Phillip Chambers, Department of Agriculture and Food 35. Validation of Blackspot spore release model and testing moderately resistant field pea line, Mark Seymour, Ian Pritchard, Rodger Beermier, Pam Burgess and Leanne Young, Department of Agriculture and Food 36. Yield losses from sowing field pea seed infected with Pea Seed-borne Mosaic Virus, Brenda Coutts, Donna O’Keefe, Rhonda Pearce, Monica Kehoe and Roger Jones, Department of Agriculture and Food 37. Faba bean in 2006, Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture and Food 38. Germplasm evaluation – faba bean, Mark Seymour1, Terri Jasper1, Ian Pritchard1, Mike Baker1 and Tim Pope1,2, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, , 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 39. Breeding highlights of the Coordinated Improvement Program for Australian Lentils (CIPAL), Kerry Regan1, Chris Veitch1, Phillip Chambers1 and Michael Materne2, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2Department of Primary Industries, Victoria 40. Screening pulse lentil germplasm for tolerance to alternate herbicides, Ping Si1, Mike Walsh2 and Mark Sweetingham1,3, 1Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture, 2West Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, 3Department of Agriculture and Food 41. Genomic synteny in legumes: Application to crop breeding, Phan, H.T.T.1, Ellwood, S.R.1, Hane, J.1, Williams, A.1, Ford, R.2, Thomas, S.3 and Oliver R1, 1Australian Centre of Necrotrophic Plant Pathogens, Murdoch University, 2BioMarka, University of Melbourne, 3NSW Department of Primary Industries 42. Tolerance of lupins, chickpeas and canola to Balanceâ(Isoxaflutole) and Galleryâ (Isoxaben), Leigh Smith and Peter White, Department of Agriculture and Food CANOLA AND OILSEEDS 43. The performance of TT Canola varieties in the National Variety Test (NVT),WA,2006,Katie Robinson, Research Agronomist, Agritech Crop Research 44. Evaluation of Brassica crops for biodiesel in Western Australia, Mohammad Amjad, Graham Walton, Pat Fels and Andy Sutherland, Department of Agriculture and Food 45. Production risk of canola in different rainfall zones in Western Australia, Imma Farré1, Michael Robertson2 and Senthold Asseng3, 1Department of Agriculture and Food, 2CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 3CSIRO Plant Industry 46. Future directions of blackleg management – dynamics of blackleg susceptibility in canola varieties, Ravjit Khangura, Moin Salam and Bill MacLeod, Department of Agriculture and Food 47. Appendix 1: Contributors 48. Appendix 2: List of common acronym

Crop Updates 2006 - Lupins and Pulses

This session covers sixty six papers from different authors: 2005 LUPIN AND PULSE INDUSTRY HIGHLIGHTS 1. Lupin Peter White, Department of Agriculture 2. Pulses Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 3. Monthly rainfall at experimental sites in 2005 4. Acknowledgements Amelia McLarty EDITOR 5. Contributors 6. Background Peter White, Department of Agriculture 2005 REGIONAL ROUNDUP 7. Northern agricultural region Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture 8. Central agricultural region Ian Pritchard and Bob French, Department of Agriculture 9. Great southern and lakes Rodger Beermier, Department of Agriculture 10. South east region Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture LUPIN AND PULSE PRODUCTION AGRONOMY AND GENETIC IMPROVEMENT 11. Lupin Peter White, Department of Agriculture 12. Narrow-leafed lupin breeding Bevan Buirchell, Department of Agriculture 13. Progress in the development of pearl lupin (Lupinus mutabilis) for Australian agriculture, Mark Sweetingham1,2, Jon Clements1, Geoff Thomas2, Roger Jones1, Sofia Sipsas1, John Quealy2, Leigh Smith1 and Gordon Francis1 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture 14. Molecular genetic markers and lupin breeding, Huaan Yang, Jeffrey Boersma, Bevan Buirchell, Department of Agriculture 15. Construction of a genetic linkage map using MFLP, and identification of molecular markers linked to domestication genes in narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus augustiflolius L) Jeffrey Boersma1,2, Margaret Pallotta3, Bevan Buirchell1, Chengdao Li1, Krishnapillai Sivasithamparam2 and Huaan Yang1 1Department of Agriculture, 2The University of Western Australia, 3Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics, South Australia 16. The first gene-based map of narrow-leafed lupin – location of domestication genes and conserved synteny with Medicago truncatula, M. Nelson1, H. Phan2, S. Ellwood2, P. Moolhuijzen3, M. Bellgard3, J. Hane2, A. Williams2, J. Fos‑Nyarko4, B. Wolko5, M. Książkiewicz5, M. Cakir4, M. Jones4, M. Scobie4, C. O’Lone1, S.J. Barker1, R. Oliver2, and W. Cowling1 1School of Plant Biology, The University of Western Australia, 2Australian Centre for Necrotrophic Fungal Pathogens, Murdoch University, 3Centre for Bioinformatics and Biological Computing, Murdoch University, 4School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, SABC, Murdoch University,5Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznań, Poland 17. How does lupin optimum density change row spacing? Bob French and Laurie Maiolo, Department of Agriculture 18. Wide row spacing and seeding rate of lupins with conventional and precision seeding machines Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Murray Blyth, Department of Agriculture 19. Influence of row spacing and plant density on lupin competition with annual ryegrass, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Murray Blyth, Department of Agriculture 20. Effect of timing and speed of inter-row cultivation on lupins, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Steve Cosh, Department of Agriculture 21. The interaction of atrazine herbicide rate and row spacing on lupin seedling survival, Martin Harries and Jo Walker Department of Agriculture 22. The banding of herbicides on lupin row crops, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Murray Blyth, Department of Agriculture 23. Large plot testing of herbicide tolerance of new lupin lines, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture 24. Effect of seed source and simazine rate of seedling emergence and growth, Peter White and Greg Shea, Department of Agriculture 25. The effect of lupin row spacing and seeding rate on a following wheat crop, Martin Harries, Jo Walker and Dirranie Kirby, Department of Agriculture 26. Response of crop lupin species to row spacing, Leigh Smith1, Kedar Adhikari1, Jon Clements2 and Patrizia Guantini3, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3University of Florence, Italy 27. Response of Lupinus mutabilis to lime application and over watering, Peter White, Leigh Smith and Mark Sweetingham, Department of Agriculture 28. Impact of anthracnose on yield of Andromeda lupins, Geoff Thomas, Kedar Adhikari and Katie Bell, Department of Agriculture 29. Survey of lupin root health (in major production areas), Geoff Thomas, Ken Adcock, Katie Bell, Ciara Beard and Anne Smith, Department of Agriculture 30. Development of a generic forecasting and decision support system for diseases in the Western Australian wheatbelt, Tim Maling1, Art Diggle1,2, Debbie Thackray1, Kadambot Siddique1 and Roger Jones1,2 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture 31.Tanjil mutants highly tolerant to metribuzin, Ping Si1, Mark Sweetingham1,2, Bevan Buirchell1,2 and Huaan Yang l,2 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 2Department of Agriculture 32. Precipitation pH vs. yield and functional properties of lupin protein isolate, Vijay Jayasena1, Hui Jun Chih1 and Ken Dods2 1Curtin University of Technology, 2Chemistry Centre 33. Lupin protein isolation with the use of salts, Vijay Jayasena1, Florence Kartawinata1,Ranil Coorey1 and Ken Dods2 1Curtin University of Technology, 2Chemistry Centre 34. Field pea, Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 35. Breeding highlights Kerry Regan1,2, Tanveer Khan1,2, Stuart Morgan1 and Phillip Chambers1 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 36. Variety evaluation, Kerry Regan1,2, Tanveer Khan1,2, Jenny Garlinge1 and Rod Hunter1 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 37. Days to flowering of field pea varieties throughout WA Mark Seymour1, Ian Pritchard1, Rodger Beermier1, Pam Burgess1 and Dr Eric Armstrong2 Department of Agriculture, 2NSW Department of Primary Industries, Wagga Wagga 38. Semi-leafless field peas yield more, with less ryegrass seed set, in narrow rows, Glen Riethmuller, Department of Agriculture 39. Swathing, stripping and other innovative ways to harvest field peas, Mark Seymour, Ian Pritchard, Rodger Beermier and Pam Burgess, Department of Agriculture 40. Pulse demonstrations, Ian Pritchard, Wayne Parker, Greg Shea, Department of Agriculture 41. Field pea extension – focus on field peas 2005, Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture 42. Field pea blackspot disease in 2005: Prediction versus reality, Moin Salam, Jean Galloway, Pip Payne, Bill MacLeod and Art Diggle, Department of Agriculture 43. Pea seed-borne mosaic virus in pulses: Screening for seed quality defects and virus resistance, Rohan Prince, Brenda Coutts and Roger Jones, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 44. Yield losses from sowing field peas infected with pea seed-borne mosaic virus, Rohan Prince, Brenda Coutts and Roger Jones, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 45. Desi chickpea, Wayne Parker, Department of Agriculture 46. Breeding highlights, Tanveer Khan 1,2, Pooran Gaur3, Kadambot Siddique2, Heather Clarke2, Stuart Morgan1and Alan Harris1, 1Department of Agriculture2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3International Crop Research Institute for Semi Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), India 47. National chickpea improvement program, Kerry Regan1, Ted Knights2 and Kristy Hobson3,1Department of Agriculture, 2Agriculture New South Wales 3Department of Primary Industries, Victoria 48. Chickpea breeding lines in CVT exhibit excellent ascochyta blight resistance, Tanveer Khan1,2, Alan Harris1, Stuart Morgan1 and Kerry Regan1,2, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 49. Variety evaluation, Kerry Regan1,2, Tanveer Khan1,2, Jenny Garlinge2 and Rod Hunter2, 1CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 2Department of Agriculture 50. Desi chickpeas for the wheatbelt, Wayne Parker and Ian Pritchard, Department of Agriculture 51. Large scale demonstration of new chickpea varieties, Wayne Parker, MurrayBlyth, Steve Cosh, Dirranie Kirby and Chris Matthews, Department of Agriculture 52. Ascochyta management with new chickpeas, Martin Harries, Bill MacLeod, Murray Blyth and Jo Walker, Department of Agriculture 53. Management of ascochyta blight in improved chickpea varieties, Bill MacLeod1, Colin Hanbury2, Pip Payne1, Martin Harries1, Murray Blyth1, Tanveer Khan1,2, Kadambot Siddique2, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 54. Botrytis grey mould of chickpea, Bill MacLeod, Department of Agriculture 55. Kabuli chickpea, Kerry Regan, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 56. New ascochyta blight resistant, high quality kabuli chickpea varieties, Kerry Regan1,2, Kadambot Siddique2, Tim Pope2 and Mike Baker1, 1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 57. Crop production and disease management of Almaz and Nafice, Kerry Regan and Bill MacLeod, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 58. Faba bean,Mark Seymour, Department of Agriculture 59. Germplasm evaluation – faba bean, Mark Seymour1, Tim Pope2, Peter White1, Martin Harries1, Murray Blyth1, Rodger Beermier1, Pam Burgess1 and Leanne Young1,1Department of Agriculture, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 60. Factors affecting seed coat colour of faba bean during storage, Syed Muhammad Nasar-Abbas1, Julie Plummer1, Kadambot Siddique2, Peter White 3, D. Harris4 and Ken Dods4.1The University of Western Australia, 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3Department of Agriculture, 4Chemistry Centre 61. Lentil,Kerry Regan, Department of Agriculture, and CLIMA, The University of Western Australia 62. Variety and germplasm evaluation, Kerry Regan1,2, Tim Pope2, Leanne Young1, Phill Chambers1, Alan Harris1, Wayne Parker1 and Michael Materne3, 1Department of Agriculture 2CLIMA, The University of Western Australia, 3Department of Primary Industries, Victoria Pulse species 63. Land suitability for production of different crop species in Western Australia, Peter White, Dennis van Gool, and Mike Baker, Department of Agriculture 64. Genomic synteny in legumes: Application to crop breeding, Huyen Phan1, Simon Ellwood1, J. Hane1, Angela Williams1, R. Ford2, S. Thomas3 and Richard Oliver1,1Australian Centre of Necrotrophic Plant Pathogens, Murdoch University 2BioMarka, School of Agriculture and Food Systems, ILFR, University of Melbourne 3NSW Department of Primary Industries 65. ALOSCA – Development of a dry flow legume seed inoculant, Rory Coffey and Chris Poole, ALOSCA Technologies Pty Ltd 66. Genetic dissection of resistance to fungal necrotrophs in Medicago truncatula, Simon Ellwood1, Theo Pfaff1, Judith Lichtenzveig12, Lars Kamphuis1, Nola D\u27Souza1, Angela Williams1, Emma Groves1, Karam Singh2 and Richard Oliver1 1Australian Centre of Necrotrophic Plant Pathogens, Murdoch University, 2CSIRO Plant Industry APPENDIX I: LIST OF COMMON ACRONYM

the prevention of chronic diseases through ehealth a practical overview

Disease prevention is an umbrella term embracing individual-based or population-based interventions aimed at preventing the manifestation of diseases (primary prevention), reducing the impact of a disease that has arisen (secondary prevention), or mitigating the impact of an ongoing illness (tertiary prevention). Digital health has the potential to improve prevention of chronic diseases. Its application ranges from effective mHealth weight-loss intervention to prevent or delay the onset of diabetes in overweight adults to the cost-effective intervention on the provision of mental-health care via mobile-based or Internet-based programs to reduce the incidence or the severity of anxiety. The present contribution focuses on the effectiveness of eHealth preventive interventions and on the role of digital health in improving health promotion and disease prevention. We also give a practical overview on how eHealth interventions have been effectively implemented, developed, and delivered for the primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention of chronic diseases

A Mixed Blessing: Monetary Enlargement within the Maastricht Policy Framework

Governments of most accession countries in Central and Eastern Europe initially expressed keen interest to adopt the Euro as soon as possible. The fervour seems to have cooled somewhat in the meantime. This paper will argue that there are good reasons for mixed feelings. While monetary enlargement would have considerable advantages for accession countries, present conditions create unwarranted risks for the prospective member states. These risks could be contained by changing the Maastricht conditions. Zusammenfassung Die meisten mittel- und osteuropäischen Beitrittsländer bekundeten ursprünglich, sie wollten sobald wie möglich nach dem EU-Beitritt auch der monetären Union beitreten. Der Eifer hat inzwischen nachgelassen. In diesem Beitrag wird argumentiert, dass es gute Gründe für diese gemischten Gefühle gibt. Einerseits verspricht die monetäre Osterweiterung erhebliche Vorteile für die Volkswirtschaften in den Beitrittsländern. Andererseits beinhalten die derzeit geltenden Beitrittsbedingungen große Risiken für diese Volkswirtschaften. Diese Risiken könnten durch eine Reform der Maastrichter Beitrittskriterien deutlich verringert werden