Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
11 March 2022 | Story Prof Frikkie Maré | Photo Supplied
Prof Frikkie Maré is from the Department of Agricultural Economics at the University of the Free State (UFS)

Opinion article by Prof Frikkie Maré, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of the Free State.
In William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, Mark Antony utters the words: “Cry ‘Havoc!’, and let slip the dogs of war,” after learning about the murder of Julius Caesar. With these words he meant that chaos would ensue (havoc) to create the opportunity for violence (let slip the dogs of war).

The recent invasion (or military operation, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin) by Russian armed forces into Ukraine brought the famous words of Shakespeare to mind. Putin cried “Havoc!” and his troops created chaos in Ukraine. This is, however, not where it stopped because the dogs of war have been released into the rest of the world.

What is the impact on South Africa?

The day after the invasion we felt the bite of the dogs of war in South Africa. The rand suddenly weakened against the dollar, oil and gold prices increased sharply, and grain and oilseed prices on commodity markets increased 

This was before the rest of the world started to implement sanctions against Russia, which could be described as a shock reaction due to uncertainty as to how the situation would unfold. In the days after the initial market reaction we saw the markets actually “cool down” a bit, with most sharp initial reactions starting to change back to former positions. This period was, however, short-lived when the world hit back by closing airspace and borders and refusing to import products from Russia or export to them. The sanctions were in solidarity with Ukraine as an attempt to bring the Russian economy to its knees and force the Russians to withdraw from Ukraine.

Although the sanctions against Russia should certainly be successful over the long term, it does not change much in the short term and we will have to deal with the international effects of this conflict. The question then is, how will this affect South Africa?

Although there are no straightforward answers, as the impact will depend on what one’s role is in the economy. One thing for certain is that the total cost will outnumber the benefits. What affects everyone in South Africa, and the starting point of many secondary effects, is the increase in the price of crude oil. Russia is the second-largest producer of crude oil in the world and if the West is going to ban the import of Russian oil we will have an international shortage. Although the banning of Russian oil is the right thing to do to support Ukraine, it will have devastating effects on all countries in the world, with sharp increases in inflation.  

The increase in the price of oil not only drives up the cost of transportation of people and products, but also manufacturing costs. Fertiliser prices are correlated with the oil price, and it will thus drive up the production cost of grain and oilseeds.

Speaking of grain and oilseed prices, the Black Sea region (which includes Russia and Ukraine), are major exporters of wheat and sunflower seed and oil. The prices of these commodities have soared in international and South Africa markets over the past few weeks. Although it might seem like good news for our farmers, the increase in prices are offset by high fertiliser prices and the local shortage of fertiliser. This may lead to fewer hectares of wheat being planted this year in the winter rainfall regions.  

Nothing good is coming from this situation

In terms of agricultural commodities, both Russia and Ukraine are important importers of South African products, especially citrus, stone fruit and grapes.  Alternative markets now need to be found for these products which will affect prices negatively.

Although one needs to write a thesis to explain all the effects of the Russian-Ukraine conflict, the dogs of war have been slipped, and it is clear from the few examples that nothing good is coming from this situation. In short, we will see higher fuel prices (maybe not R40/litre, but R25 to R30/litre is possible), higher food prices, higher inflation and a higher interest rate.  

These factors affect all South-Africans, especially the poor and some in the middle class who will struggle in the short term. The time has come to cut down on luxuries and tighten belts to survive in the short term until there is certainty about how the havoc in Ukraine will play out.

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