The Ruminant Veterinary Association of South Africa (RuVASA) has pledged the support of private veterinarians following the recent briefing by Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen on the national strategy to contain foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). However, the association has cautioned that gaps in consultation and unresolved questions around vaccine rollout could compromise implementation on the ground.
By Lebogang Mashala, editor at African Farming
RuVASA CEO Dr Dave Midgley acknowledged that the strategy has been criticised in some quarters as overambitious, but said private veterinarians are accustomed to operating under real-world constraints.
“As private veterinarians, RuVASA members are problem-solvers,” said Midgley. “We arrive at a sick animal, identify the problem and its possible causes, and then come up with solutions. This is not about debating whether the strategy is realistic or not, but about how we can assist the minister under the realities that exist at ground level.”
Although RuVASA has committed to supporting the national effort, Midgley expressed concern about what he described as insufficient consultation with key stakeholders, including private veterinarians who are central to disease control and animal health services.
He also questioned the exclusion of Limpopo from the list of priority provinces identified for the initial rollout of FMD vaccinations. The minister named Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal and North West as priority areas.
“Limpopo is home to almost a quarter of South Africa’s buffalo population, and the majority of the country’s game farms are located in the province,” said Midgley. “Given the role of buffalo as reservoirs of foot-and-mouth disease, Limpopo should clearly be included as a priority.”
Proper Consultation is Needed
Midgley warned that making commitments without adequate consultation risks undermining implementation. “If promises and commitments are made without engaging the people working at ground level, we are going to run into serious problems,” he said.
He further emphasised that the current outbreak differs markedly from previous experiences with the disease. “Foot-and-mouth disease is causing havoc. We are dealing with a virus that is far more aggressive than anything we have seen before,” he explained.
“Recently, we said FMD does not kill cattle but rather kills farmers and communities. Now we are seeing dairy cattle with such severe lesions that they must be euthanised, cows aborting and calves dying from tiger heart disease. These clinical signs were previously reported in overseas outbreaks, but never before with our local SAT 1, SAT 2 and SAT 3 strains.”
Responding to concerns that communal and smallholder farmers may be unfairly excluded from vaccine access, Midgley rejected the notion of deliberate bias. He stressed that vaccination is only one component of disease control.
“Vaccination is not the be-all and end-all. It is just one part of the armoury against foot-and-mouth disease,” he said.
He explained that vaccine allocation decisions are complicated by limited supply and the nature of the vaccines themselves. The Botswana Vaccine Institute (BVI) vaccine, which has been the primary option available, is a killed vaccine that requires a primary dose followed by a booster four weeks later.
“If you have 1 000 doses, you can effectively vaccinate only 500 animals. If the booster is not administered, the first dose is wasted,” Midgley said. “This makes decisions about where and how vaccines are used extremely complex.”
With government unable to procure sufficient vaccine stocks, some sectors have stepped in to finance their own supplies. Feedlots and the dairy industry, including organisations such as the Milk Producers’ Organisation (MPO), have funded vaccines for their members.
“This is not about giving certain industries an unfair advantage,” said Midgley. “It is a consequence of poor governance. Government simply did not have the funds to vaccinate all susceptible animals.”
Questions around Additional Vaccines
Midgley noted that the minister has since confirmed that additional vaccines will be permitted to enter the country, but questions remain about who will fund and manage the rollout.
“The reality is that officials must decide where the disease is causing the greatest damage and deploy vaccines accordingly, based on sound information,” he said.
He highlighted feedlots as high-risk environments because of the rapid spread of infection among densely stocked animals, whereas dairy cattle require protection from both welfare and production perspectives. Stud animals also warrant prioritisation, not only because of their monetary value but also because of the genetic resources they represent.
“At the same time, communal farmers depend on their livestock for their livelihoods, and commercial farmers supply the meat consumed daily by South Africans,” Midgley said. “Complicating matters further is wildlife, particularly buffalo, which become permanent carriers once infected. Entire communities and provinces rely on tourism and the game industry for income.”
Midgley concluded that the success of the national FMD strategy will depend on meaningful collaboration, transparent decision-making and a realistic appreciation of conditions on the ground.
FMD | Send your questions, comments and advice to online@africanfarming.com
Also read:
FMD strategy to be tackled in four phases over 10 years
Municipalities also have legal responsibilities to help curb FMD
From crisis to prevention: New Proudly SA disinfectant proven to kill FMD virus
