Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Years
2019 2020 2021 2024
Previous Archive
18 June 2019 | Story Leonie Bolleurs | Photo Leonie Bolleurs
Dr Christine Engelbrecht from the Agricultural Research Council
Dr Christine Engelbrecht from the Agricultural Research Council presented the keynote lecture on climate dynamics, predicting that El Niños will double in frequency towards the end of the century.

The world will need nearly double the current food supply by 2050 to feed an ever-increasing world population. This is a mammoth, almost impossible task.

Building on knowledge

According to UFS Rector and Vice-Chancellor, Prof Francis Petersen, if we approach challenges such as these with scientific level-headedness, systematically build on knowledge and experience gained, and draw on similar inputs from other specialist fields, the seemingly impossible becomes possible.

“To what extent do we integrate our knowledge across sectors – within the university and outside the university; on the continent as well as globally?” he asked the 300-plus delegates, which included animal scientists, students, and various other role players in the livestock sector, at the 51st South African Society of Animal Science (SASAS) congress on the Bloemfontein Campus of the University of the Free State (UFS). 

Willingness to adapt to new strategies


The theme of this year’s congress was: Managing the ecological footprint of livestock through efficient production. The congress provided a platform for discussions on the impact of livestock production – bringing in elements of critical thinking, as well as the willingness to adopt new strategies. 

During the congress, workshops on topics such as silage, predation management, intensive sheep production, prickly-pear utilisation, and animal welfare provided delegates with the opportunity to discuss challenges faced by the South African livestock producer.

Dr Christine Engelbrecht (Meteorology) from the Agricultural Research Council presented the first keynote address, focusing on climate dynamics. 

“We have high-impact weather systems across Southern Africa. It is projected that strong El Niños are to double in frequency towards the end of the 21st century,” said Dr Engelbrecht. 

She further predicted temperature increases of between 4 and 7 degrees Celsius in the interior before the end of the century. Over the Free State, Northern Cape, and North-West Province, we can expect shorter frost seasons, significant increases in maximum temperatures for both summer and winter, as well as more frequent El Niño-induced droughts. 

Ecological footprint of food

Improved production outputs need to be achieved by using less land, water, and available energy, while ensuring that the degradation and pollution of natural resources are limited. A scientific approach would be a viable option to improve the efficiency of livestock production.

SASAS President, Prof Este van Marle-Köster from the University of Pretoria, pointed out that all food had an ecological impact.

Dr Frikkie Maré, Head of the Department of Agricultural Economics at the UFS, presented a keynote lecture on managing the footprint of beef through efficient production. Comparing the water footprint of different cattle breeds, his question was what could be done to reduce this. 

Animal welfare was introduced to the congress for the first time. Prof Cathy Dwyer from Scotland’s Rural College presented a session on, ‘Can animal welfare contribute to improved production efficiency?’

The oldest conception of animal welfare is the five freedoms adapted to the five welfare needs of animals, namely a suitable environment, a suitable diet, exhibiting normal behaviour patterns, being with or being apart from other animals, and protection from pain, injury, suffering, and disease. Studies demonstrate that animal welfare can be an important and effective part of production efficiency, and that animal welfare should be seen as an integral component of improving the sustainability of livestock. 

Prof HO de Waal from the Predation Management Centre at the UFS presented a session on the impact of predation on livestock production, with the tile: The need for coordinated predation management in South Africa – quo vadis? He said: “The current approach to predation management is fragmented and uncoordinated. Solutions for the management of human-wildlife conflict require a South African institutional memory. Most of the information on predation and the hunting of predators is held by specialist predator hunters and farmers. In a system of coordinated predation management, farmers and government are equal partners, each with specific responsibilities.”

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