Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
04 August 2021 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Johan Barnard
Experimental farm
The Paradys Experimental Farm donated 428 bales of animal feed to farmers who lost veld in the Fauresmith and Tierpoort districts.

“I wish I had more to give.” These are the words of Johan Barnard, Junior Lecturer and manager on the Paradys Experimental Farm of the University of the Free State (UFS) after he donated the last of 428 bales of animal feed to a farmer from the Tierpoort area this morning (4 August 2021).

After large parts of the Paradys Experimental Farm were destroyed by veld fires three years ago and 24 famers came out to help fight the fire, Barnard believes in planting a surplus of food that would enable him to share with farmers in need. Last year, he donated bales of animal feed to farmers in the Hertzogville district whose veld was destroyed.

Sharing resources

More recently – less than a month ago – veld fires destroyed thousands of hectares of land in the Tierpoort and Fauresmith districts. Barnard, who helped to put out the fires and saw the destruction, decided to make the extra animal feed available to the farmers who needed feed for their animals.

Together with research and teaching and learning, the community is one of the university’s focus areas. “As a university, we are sharing our knowledge. The destruction brought about by the veld fires has created an opportunity where the university can also share its resources,” says Barnard.

When he made the decision to help, the feed was, however, still on the fields and had to be cut, processed, and baled. But where there is a will and a community that stand together, there is a way.

The farmers in the Koppieskraal district brought their tractors and machinery to cut, rake, and bale the sorghum and grass. BKB contributed fuel to cover the running costs of the tractors and machinery.

Once the animal feed was baled, Barnard contacted Jack Armour, operations manager at Free State Agriculture, who not only spread the word to farmers that animal feed was available, but also provided fuel to deliver the bales to the farms destroyed by fires. Since last week, volunteers have come to collect the animal feed and distribute it to the farmers.

Barnard, who believes it is difficult to put a price value on the animal feed provided by the university, says to the farmers who received it, the value of these bales is priceless.

A priceless gift

Besides the thousands of hectares of pasture destroyed during the raging fires, farmers also lost a significant number of sheep and cattle. When Leon Kruger, Lecturer in the Department of Animal Science, on the experimental farm, saw the devastation caused by the fires, he posted on Facebook that he was available to assist in treating the animals.

Together with two government veterinarians and a colleague from the Glen Agricultural College, Kruger drove hundreds of kilometres to farms in the south and southwestern Free State to help farmers treat animals affected by the fires.

He says they have treated more than 800 animals, including sheep and cattle. “We treated the animals one by one, administering antibiotics and pain medication, as well as ointment to the burned areas. This difficult ordeal was, however, a baptism of fire for all of us; we are not familiar with burn wounds. A friend in Australia helped to compile criteria to classify the different degrees of burn wounds and we treated the animals accordingly.”

“Seeing the suffering of the animals was one of the most difficult ordeals I had to experience,” states Kruger, who helped several farmers save their animals during this time where they have already lost so much.


News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept