Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
09 May 2022 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Stephen Collett
Prof Linus Franke delivered his inaugural lecture on the topic Contested Science for Sustainable Agriculture.

Conducting research on weed control for India at the Scottish Agricultural College in Scotland, studying soybean at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Nigeria, and working with genetically modified crops at Agrosystems Research, Dienst Landbouwkundig Onderzoek (DLO) in Wageningen in the Netherlands, grain legumes in sub-Saharan Africa, and potatoes in South Africa. 

These are some of the agricultural practices that Prof Linus Franke, Academic Head of the Department of Soil, Crop and Climate Sciences at the University of the Free State (UFS), has seen and experienced in several countries, which contributed to his extensive knowledge on this matter.

More specifically, sustainable agriculture is his passion and the focus of his life’s work. In celebration of his academic career, this was also the topic of his inaugural lecture: Contested Science for Sustainable Agriculture, delivered on the Bloemfontein Campus on 4 May 2022.

With years of experience in the field, he reflected on sustainable agriculture, firstly stating that it would be good if we could have discussions on sustainable agriculture and the future of agriculture based on empirical evidence. “However, the reality is that ideology and a strong involvement of non-specialists is unavoidable,” he says.

Secondly, he adds, it would be a major improvement if we could move away from embracing universal principles for farming practices and forcing them into a local context. “It would be better if local contexts and aspirations could guide the way in which general production principles are applied.” Adding to that, he states the importance of measurements. “If you want to embrace the concept of sustainability, you must be able to measure it.” 

Solutions to environmental problems 

In his lecture, he took the audience back to years ago when he was doing his master’s research on organic farming systems, excited about organic agriculture as an approach that holds the promise of tackling major environmental problems in a radical manner. This bout of excitement about the prospects of organic agriculture was, however, short-lived. Fed up with the “dogmatic and anti-science attitude and the tribalism in the sector”, he saw his flirt with organic agriculture as youthful foolishness.

After spending years in India and Nigeria, Prof Franke produced reports on the sustainability and trade impacts of genetically modified crops. People in the organic and green movement, however, have expressed opposed views. “In their eyes, I was one of those short-sighted scientists unable to recognise the dangers of genetically modified (GM) crops.”
Investments in regenerative agriculture have become a means to reduce the pressure to invest in curbing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use elsewhere. – Prof Linus Franke

This made him wonder what drives these polarised discussions on GM crops and sustainable agriculture in general. “I learned that the strong and almost irrational position that the green movement has taken against GM crops and in favour of organic agriculture is merely a reflection of underlying emotions and preferences,” he says.

He explains two different lines of thinking about how to deal with the ecological challenges associated with agriculture, namely looking at nature to find solutions to environmental problems associated with agriculture, versus the idea that technology will come to our rescue. “The ecological problems we face in relation to agriculture are caused by modern farming technologies. Genetic modification is seen as an extension of the technologies that were responsible for the problems in the first place. To solve the problem, we need to look back at nature, learn from nature, and apply ecological principles to farming. You could argue that this view is rather unscientific and techno phobic. But believing that new technologies will come to recue us in the looming ecological crisis is equally based on a gut feeling, there are no guarantees that this will happen.”

Regenerative agriculture

Despite the strong position taken by the green movement in favour of organic agriculture, the organic movement became stagnant. “In Europe it represents only 5% of the total agricultural production and in South Africa it never really took off. GM crops have been relatively easily accepted here.”

GM crops and organic agriculture may not be major issues in South Africa, but regenerative agriculture has become a big topic and the discussion and dynamics around regenerative agriculture resemble those around organic agriculture.

Prof Linus Franke delivered his inaugural lecture on the topic Contested Science for Sustainable Agriculture. (Photo: Stephen Collett) 

"Over time, new approaches to agriculture have emerged, promising radical improvements in sustainability. Including conservation agriculture, holistic grazing, permaculture, and agro-forestry, these new approaches are grouped under the flag of regenerative farming and are attracting much attention. This has stimulated interest in using knowledge of ecological processes to improve agricultural production. 

“This is truly positive,” states Prof Franke. “It is great to see farmers in South Africa coming together and thinking about ways to apply some of these principles in their farming practices.”

Many of these approaches have proven their merits, but only under certain conditions. “Although many see regenerative farming approaches as globally applicable solutions to the big ecological challenges of today, it is important to take note of the context and the empirical evidence of the claimed benefits. Inspiration by nature does not necessarily lead to farming practices that are ecologically superior,” he says. 

Conservation agriculture, for instance, worked on large-scale mechanised crop farms in Australia and the Americas and it gained a firm foothold in the Western Cape. “But in Africa, including South Africa, conservation agriculture is widely promoted among smallholders, often with disappointing results,” he says.

Another challenge he addressed during his lecture, was that of expectations of regenerative agriculture being way beyond what farmers actually achieve. He found that large food corporations had announced major investments in regenerative agriculture, and by doing so, hoped to reduce their carbon footprint regarding production activities. The big issue here is that it is highly uncertain and questionable whether these improvements in carbon sequestration can be achieved. Prof Franke believes that for some companies, investments in regenerative agriculture have become a means to reduce the pressure to invest in curbing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel use elsewhere.

Watch recording of the Inaugural Lecture below:




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