Agricultural Education ‘Rebooted’ in Australia

Agricultural education in Australia was in the doldrums for several decades in the latter part of the 20th Century and more recently. Some of this can be attributed to poor industry leadership, particularly in relation to recognition of the value of education and training in the sector. Consequently, agriculture lost community respect and was not seen by the emerging generation as the industry sector of choice for careers. For most of this Century there has been a concerted effort to change the public perception of the sector and the causal dynamics involved and it is pleasing to report that agriculture has been ‘rebooted’ to a positive paradigm with an encouraging outlook. The circumstances for the fall and rise of agriculture comprise the basis for this paper

Strengths and Weaknesses of National Agricultural Research Systems: Attracting the Next Generation of Grasslands Researchers

In the 1960s and 1970s the world faced up to the poverty and hunger facing a significant proportion of the global population, which at the time was around 4 billion people. The efforts of Norman Borlaug and the Green Revolution resulted in food production increasing as the technologies and knowledge known at the time were directed to that task. The success of the Green Revolution was such that governments and the world communities turned attention to other issues and agricultural development slid down the list of priorities. The world population is now over 7 billion and projected to be over 9 billion by 2050. FAO (2012b) estimates that around 870 million people were under-nourished (in terms of dietary energy supply) in the period 2010–12; one in eight people globally. Food production will need to increase by 50 to 70% by 2050 to meet food security demands and this increase will have to be achieved through productivity gains given the limitation on global productive lands. Food production faces competition from biofuels, mining and urban sprawl for those lands, making productivity gains an even greater imperative

Genetic Variation for Weed Competition and Allelopathy in Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.)

Rapeseed (canola, Brassica napus L.) is the second major oilseed crop of the world and provides a source of healthy oil for human consumption, meal for stock markets and several other by-products. Several weed species afflict the sustainable production and quality of canola. Various agronomic practices such as crop rotation, stubble management (e.g. burning), minimum tillage, application of herbicides and cultivation of herbicide resistant varieties have been deployed to minimise yield losses. There is no doubt that herbicide-tolerant cultivars enable management of weeds which are difficult to control otherwise. However, widespread usage increases the risk of herbicide resistance. This is becoming a major impediment in sustaining high crop productivity. Allelopathic and weed competitive varieties are potential tools to reduce the dependence on herbicides and could be grown to suppress weed growth in commercial canola. Genetic variation and ‘proxy’ traits involved in both crop competition as well as allelopathy have been reported. Further research is required to link genetic variation in weed competition and allelopathy, and genetic/genomic marker technologies to unravel effective alleles to expand breeding activity for weed interference in canola

Vitamin D Supplementation and Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND Observational studies support an association between a low blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, whether vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of diabetes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned adults who met at least two of three glycemic criteria for prediabetes (fasting plasma glucose level, 100 to 125 mg per deciliter; plasma glucose level 2 hours after a 75-g oral glucose load, 140 to 199 mg per deciliter; and glycated hemoglobin level, 5.7 to 6.4%) and no diagnostic criteria for diabetes to receive 4000 IU per day of vitamin D3 or placebo, regardless of the baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. The primary outcome in this time-to-event analysis was new-onset diabetes, and the trial design was event-driven, with a target number of diabetes events of 508. RESULTS A total of 2423 participants underwent randomization (1211 to the vitamin D group and 1212 to the placebo group). By month 24, the mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in the vitamin D group was 54.3 ng per milliliter (from 27.7 ng per milliliter at baseline), as compared with 28.8 ng per milliliter in the placebo group (from 28.2 ng per milliliter at baseline). After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the primary outcome of diabetes occurred in 293 participants in the vitamin D group and 323 in the placebo group (9.39 and 10.66 events per 100 person-years, respectively). The hazard ratio for vitamin D as compared with placebo was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.04; P = 0.12). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes not selected for vitamin D insufficiency, vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of 4000 IU per day did not result in a significantly lower risk of diabetes than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; D2d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01942694.

Vitamin D Supplementation and Prevention of Type 2 Diabetes

BACKGROUND Observational studies support an association between a low blood 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and the risk of type 2 diabetes. However, whether vitamin D supplementation lowers the risk of diabetes is unknown. METHODS We randomly assigned adults who met at least two of three glycemic criteria for prediabetes (fasting plasma glucose level, 100 to 125 mg per deciliter; plasma glucose level 2 hours after a 75-g oral glucose load, 140 to 199 mg per deciliter; and glycated hemoglobin level, 5.7 to 6.4%) and no diagnostic criteria for diabetes to receive 4000 IU per day of vitamin D3 or placebo, regardless of the baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level. The primary outcome in this time-to-event analysis was new-onset diabetes, and the trial design was event-driven, with a target number of diabetes events of 508. RESULTS A total of 2423 participants underwent randomization (1211 to the vitamin D group and 1212 to the placebo group). By month 24, the mean serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level in the vitamin D group was 54.3 ng per milliliter (from 27.7 ng per milliliter at baseline), as compared with 28.8 ng per milliliter in the placebo group (from 28.2 ng per milliliter at baseline). After a median follow-up of 2.5 years, the primary outcome of diabetes occurred in 293 participants in the vitamin D group and 323 in the placebo group (9.39 and 10.66 events per 100 person-years, respectively). The hazard ratio for vitamin D as compared with placebo was 0.88 (95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.04; P = 0.12). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among persons at high risk for type 2 diabetes not selected for vitamin D insufficiency, vitamin D3 supplementation at a dose of 4000 IU per day did not result in a significantly lower risk of diabetes than placebo. (Funded by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and others; D2d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01942694.

Herbicide-Resistant Crops: Utilities and Limitations for Herbicide-Resistant Weed Management

Since 1996, genetically modified herbicide-resistant (HR) crops, particularly glyphosate-resistant (GR) crops, have transformed the tactics that corn, soybean, and cotton growers use to manage weeds. The use of GR crops continues to grow, but weeds are adapting to the common practice of using only glyphosate to control weeds. Growers using only a single mode of action to manage weeds need to change to a more diverse array of herbicidal, mechanical, and cultural practices to maintain the effectiveness of glyphosate. Unfortunately, the introduction of GR crops and the high initial efficacy of glyphosate often lead to a decline in the use of other herbicide options and less investment by industry to discover new herbicide active ingredients. With some exceptions, most growers can still manage their weed problems with currently available selective and HR crop-enabled herbicides. However, current crop management systems are in jeopardy given the pace at which weed populations are evolving glyphosate resistance. New HR crop technologies will expand the utility of currently available herbicides and enable new interim solutions for growers to manage HR weeds, but will not replace the long-term need to diversify weed management tactics and discover herbicides with new modes of action. This paper reviews the strengths and weaknesses of anticipated weed management options and the best management practices that growers need to implement in HR crops to maximize the long-term benefits of current technologies and reduce weed shifts to difficult-to-control and HR weeds