As the foot-and-mouth disease virus spreads like wildfire, decision-making and the implementation of solutions continue to lag behind, hamstrung by administrative processes designed for a different era – and managed by officials who appear more intent on flexing political muscle than on solving the problem.

By Jasper Raats, senior journalist at African Farming and Landbouweekblad 

At recent foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) information days organised by the Ruminant Veterinary Association (RuVASA) and in follow-up discussions with role players, farmers, veterinarians and red meat industry stakeholders stressed that FMD has grown from an animal health issue into a multi-layered crisis affecting cash flow, market access, cattle genetics and ultimately food security. What makes the situation even more complex is the apparent disconnect between science, on-farm realities and the state’s policy frameworks, which do not seem to be moving at the same pace or in the same direction.

Why the Current Vaccination Model Won’t Work

Experts agree that vaccination is the most effective tool available to the sector, but say it can only work if rolled out rapidly, at scale and in a realistic manner – and if policy is adapted to the current endemic reality.

Dr Karen Nel of Design Biologix, which has been appointed the South African agent for the Argentine animal health company Biogénesis Bagó’s FMD vaccine, is concerned that the scale of the challenge is being underestimated. “South Africa has between 12 and 14 million cattle, but only about 200 state veterinarians, supported by a limited number of animal health technicians.”

Dr Danie Odendaal, director of the Veterinary Network, confirms Nel’s estimate and says that even with the assistance of the approximately 800 animal health technicians employed by the state, it is simply not possible to conduct a countrywide vaccination campaign solely through the state veterinary service. Even if every state veterinarian and animal health technician were vaccinating full time, the timeframe would be unacceptably long. Each individual would have to vaccinate 12 000 cattle spread across the country. Even with the help of about 400 private veterinarians, it remains an impossible task.

Farmers Want to Vaccinate Their Own Cattle

One of the questions that repeatedly surfaced in a recent survey conducted by our sister publication, Landbouweekblad, was why farmers are not allowed to vaccinate their own cattle, given that they have been doing so for years against diseases such as brucellosis. Odendaal, who also serves on the ministerial advisory committee for FMD, says this is possible – but not without oversight. “FMD vaccine is oil-based and must be administered correctly to prevent complications and poor protection.” His proposal is a farmer-under-supervision model, where private veterinarians provide training, monitor farmers’ technique and oversee the process.

Both Odendaal and Nel warn that a system allowing only state veterinarians to vaccinate is not practically feasible and will lead to further delays and frustration. They say that training farmers to vaccinate their own cattle is the only viable solution. Nel adds that veterinarians will still be overwhelmed with work and, together with animal health technicians, will likely continue to handle vaccinations in communal areas.

Who Gets the Vaccine First?

The allocation and rollout of vaccines is another major source of tension. Farmers interviewed by African Farming view it as unfair when lower-risk operations gain access ahead of producers in active outbreak areas. Nel explains that the ministerial task team determines the rollout framework, not the distributors, but argues that it makes more epidemiological sense to prioritise outbreak zones or hotspots. Vaccinating feedlots, dairies and other high-risk operations within infected areas first, she says, is a more targeted use of limited resources than attempting to cover the entire country simultaneously.

Odendaal says it is unrealistic to expect a vaccination rollout according to a neat, predetermined list that treats all sectors equally. He explains that the first consignments will inevitably be controlled by the state and primarily deployed where active outbreaks are occurring, regardless of whether these involve commercial, communal, stud or feedlot systems. All provinces have already submitted demand figures that far exceed the initially available quantities, making prioritisation unavoidable.

This may create tension, as farmers outside these hotspots feel overlooked, but Odendaal says this is epidemiologically the only sensible approach when supplies are limited.

Only once larger volumes of vaccine doses become available – possibly from mid-March – can a more structured rollout system follow, which would also allow for preventative vaccination in high-risk areas and production systems. By then, Odendaal says, financial arrangements, permits and logistics should be better resolved, reducing pressure on the state’s centralised control.

He stresses, however, that even then vaccines cannot simply be distributed without oversight. The state will likely require full traceability of every dose, from importation to administration. In his proposal, private veterinarians become the linchpin of the distribution chain. They would receive vaccines, train farmers, supervise administration and report on how many animals are vaccinated, as well as where and when. This, he says, creates a workable compromise between state control and practical implementation.

Odendaal points out that a functional network of about 400 private veterinarians already exists that regularly reports disease information. This network could be mobilised relatively quickly to distribute vaccines and monitor vaccinations – something the state’s own structures cannot achieve on their own. In this model, the state remains the custodian of policy and oversight, while execution occurs through existing private capacity.

He adds that one of the biggest misconceptions among farmers is that vaccines will remain scarce. He anticipates a scenario where the initial rounds are tightly controlled, but volumes increase rapidly once imports from multiple suppliers begin to flow. At that point, he believes, the challenge will shift away from availability and towards logistics, coordination and administrative speed.

Import Approvals Offer Cautious Optimism

Against this backdrop, news of new import permits has injected fresh momentum into the vaccination effort. On Monday, 19 January, Dunevax Biotech received the import permit required – together with a Section 21 permit – to bring vaccines into the country. This paves the way for the importation of 1,5 million doses of FMD vaccine from Turkey. If logistics proceed smoothly, the first shipment could arrive in South Africa by the end of February.

In parallel, Design Biologix’s application for a Section 21 permit to supply vaccines from Biogénesis Bagó is already under way. Once this permit and the import permit are granted, Design Biologix will import an initial shipment of about 1 million doses, with further imports to follow.

Nel points out that even 1 million doses constitute a massive logistical operation, and that 12 million doses are in an entirely different league in terms of scale. “The vaccine itself is only one part of the picture. The cold chain, transport, insurance, handling facilities, syringes, needles and safe disposal of waste must all function simultaneously.”

She also emphasises that imports of this magnitude cannot occur without financial certainty. Hundreds of millions of rand are involved, and no private company can finance this upfront without confirmed orders and funds in the bank. Each dose must already have a destination before it is imported. The limiting factor is therefore not manufacturing capacity, but permits, payment, planning and logistical coordination – issues that only the state can address.

Also read: Laboratory analysis confirms O strain in smuggled FMD vaccines

Rules No Longer Fit Reality

Dr Paul Morris, an FMD expert and member of the presidential advisory committee, warns that vaccines alone will not resolve the crisis unless policy is adapted at the same time. He says South Africa can no longer operate as though it were a disease-free country. Legislation and regulations must be updated to reflect an endemic reality where ongoing vaccination becomes part of routine management.

For farmers, however, marketing remains the central question. How long after vaccination may animals be slaughtered and sold, and when is quarantine lifted? Morris says current protocols were largely written for an FMD-free country, whereas South Africa has lost that status. He describes the situation as a team that has been shown a red card but continues to play as though the rules have not changed.

New research indicates that meat from vaccinated animals is safe for human consumption and that high-risk material is mainly confined to the head and lymph nodes. This means carcasses do not necessarily need to be deboned. If these findings are translated into policy, waiting periods for slaughter could be significantly shortened and the flow of animals to markets could begin to normalise.

The Hidden Cost: Fertility and Production Losses

Fertility and production losses are a particular concern for stud and dairy farmers. Drawing on his experience in Argentina and other countries worldwide, Dr Rodolfo Bellinzoni, director of innovation at Biogénesis Bagó, says vaccination itself has no negative impact on fertility. The disease, however, has a significant effect on pregnancy rates, weaning weights and calf mortality. In dairies, young calves are especially vulnerable due to the high viral loads present in milk. His recommendation in a crisis such as South Africa is currently facing is to vaccinate the entire herd rather than waiting for ideal conditions that may never materialise.

Bellinzoni explains that their approach relies on high-potency vaccines with cross-protection. “The FMD virus mutates continuously and spreads faster than administrative processes. A vaccine must therefore not only address today’s variant, but also provide protection against new variants that may emerge tomorrow. International experience shows that large-scale emergency vaccination campaigns can be successful when the right product and planning come together.”

Morris also emphasises the importance of sharing local virus samples with international reference laboratories to ensure vaccines remain optimally matched. On Thursday, 22 January, Minister of Agriculture John Steenhuisen demonstrated progress when samples of the virus from local outbreaks were sent to The Pirbright Institute in the United Kingdom for the first time since 2011.

For farmers, the latest developments mean that the vaccine tap is finally beginning to open – but the success of the campaign will still depend on the state. Increasingly, voices within agriculture are questioning whether officials in the relevant government departments are deliberately slowing processes. Meanwhile, South Africa’s R80 billion livestock industry, food security and rural stability remain at risk.