Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
14 March 2023 | Story Prof Frikkie Maré | Photo Supplied
Prof Frikkie Mare
Prof Frikkie Maré is the Academic Departmental Head: Agricultural Economics, University of the Free State

Opinion article by Prof Frikkie Maré, Department of Agricultural Economics, University of the Free State.
President Cyril Ramaphosa recently announced a state of disaster due to the electricity crisis and the appointment of the new Minister of Electricity in the Presidency, Dr Kgosientsho Ramokgopa. Although there are many arguments for and against the state of disaster and the position of a Minister of Electricity, I think all South Africans agree that drastic measures must be taken to improve the current situation. However, I do not think the state of disaster, or the Minister of Electricity will bring any quick fixes to the table, and therefore we have to assume the crisis will remain in the short to medium term.

The Cause of the Crisis

As South Africans, our biggest crisis at this stage is load shedding. We are confronted with darkness daily, or even twice or thrice a day. Although the impact of load shedding varies according to the time of day it is implemented, it generally hinders us from doing our work, preparing food, and relaxing in front of the television after work. It directly impacts the quality of life of those who need electricity for oxygen machines for them to breathe. It causes damage to our electrical appliances, especially due to power surges when the electricity is turned back on. In short, load shedding is disrupting our lives. It is a nuisance we do not need, and the sooner it ends, the better.

Load shedding may be be a crisis for us as citizens, but it is Eskom’s solution to keep the national grid from collapsing. Thus, the real cause of the crisis is not load shedding but the inability of Eskom to supply enough electricity to meet the demand. The second big concern is the rising cost of electricity in South Africa. From 2007 to 2022, electricity prices increased by 653% in an attempt by Eskom to increase revenue to try and catch up with its heavy debt burden while simultaneously trying to maintain the current power stations and add some new generation capacity.

The problem

South Africa, up until load shedding started in 2007, was always praised as one of the countries in the world with the most stable electricity supply, and electricity was priced among the lowest in the world. Our economy thus developed around the national grid and is heavily reliant on it. Given the above, our food system faces three problems. First and most visible is load shedding that is causing interrupted national power supply and increasing production and processing costs as fuel generators and solar power must be relied on. Secondly, the cost of food production, processing, and distribution increases sharply as national electricity prices increase. Third, new investments in the food chain are discouraged as it is heavily reliant on electricity, which there is not enough of.

The impact

Over the last number of months, the media was full of the impact of load shedding on the food system in South Africa. Visually it ranged from photos and videos of withered irrigated crops which failed as there were not enough hours of electricity to supply water. There were pictures of chicken farms full of dead broilers that died when the heating and ventilation systems could not function during load shedding. Many articles also warned that load shedding would hurt food security in South Africa as it would not be possible to produce or process enough food.

These reported impacts of load shedding on food security caused quite a frenzy among consumers as people tend to run with what is announced in headlines without reading or understanding the context. Consumers immediately fear a situation where there will be insufficient food in South Africa as the headlines read that food security is under pressure.  

Yes, although all the photos, videos and articles in the news might be true and certainly do impact food security, we must also remember that food security is a combination of the availability and affordability of food.  

The impact of load shedding on food production depends on the type of production system. While load shedding has a minimal impact on extensive red meat production, it can be detrimental to intensive systems like poultry production, especially if electrical heating is used to regulate the temperature. It also negatively affects producers relying on irrigation to water their crops as the quality and quantity of the crop will be influenced.

The effect of load shedding can be severe on certain primary producers and even cause farming operations to close. Still, it will not necessarily result in a food shortage in the country as our primary agricultural sector is diverse. However, the price of certain commodities will increase due to a lower supply and higher production costs, negatively influencing food affordability.

The larger problem with load shedding can be found in terms of processing the food, especially fresh produce reliant on a sustained cold chain. For food safety and quality reasons, fresh produce must be kept at constant temperatures, and processors and distributors thus have no choice but to use expensive private electricity generation, further pushing up the cost of food.

Another problem is that, for example, the cold rooms of processors are connected to generators, as power failures might happen even when load shedding is not a problem. Still, the processing line cannot operate without grid-supplied electricity. Although there is thus enough food in the country on a commodity level, these commodities cannot be processed into final food products as fast as in the past. This bottle-neck effect further reduces the supply of food products and increases their price.

We often forget about the impact of load shedding on the consumers’ food choices. If you need electricity to prepare food, the availability of electricity at the time you need to prepare it will affect what you eat. The problem is that more affordable foods usually take longer to prepare, while the quick-to-prepare, ready-to-eat fast foods are expensive. The higher demand for these more expensive products due to load shedding puts further upward pressure on the price of food.

So where are the monsters?

The electricity crisis impacts all roleplayers in the food value chain, from primary producers to final consumers. Although load shedding is the most visible monster here, the fast-increasing price of electricity and the general electricity shortage that discourages future investment are also lurking in the dark and contributing to problems in the overall food system. In my opinion, the electricity crisis currently does not yet threaten food security in terms of availability. Still, it is creating a monster in terms of food prices (inflation) and thus making food less affordable.  

Although private solar power and fuel generators do assist in alleviating some of the influences of the electricity crises, it is not the solution. The problem with solar power, for users requiring large amounts of electricity, is that it is too expensive to install storage capacity (batteries) to use during the night. You also have a problem when it is overcast and rainy, so solar is a mere addition to supplement the national grid during the day. On the other hand, fuel generators can supply electricity 24 hours a day. Still, only the fuel cost to generate 1kW is double what Eskom charges, making it too expensive in the long run.

In my view, the only option to ensure the sustainability of the food value chain in future is to get the national electricity grid functional again. There are many short-term solutions, but none is currently sustainable enough to provide affordable energy needs. Although it will certainly take time to get Eskom fully functional again, I do not think we will run out of food in South Africa. However, we must tighten our belts to be able to afford food while the monsters lurk in the dark.


For more information contact Frikkie Maré at MareFA@ufs.ac.za

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