MILK SA: R & D FIVE-YEAR PLAN [AN OUTLOOK TOWARDS 2020].
Project PRJ-0080 Report July-Sept 2015.
Compiled by Programme Manager: R & D.
1. POINT OF DEPARTURE:
1.1. Statutory resolution: “To give effect to the purpose of designated levies to R & D as per
Regulation R57 of 30 January 2009, which states: “Research and development are
required to promote not only the viability of the dairy industry but also to promote the
achievement of the other objectives of the Act as set out in section 2 (2) of the Act:
Research is fragmented and action is required to ensure coordination and that research
and development are functional in respect of the strategic direction of the industry,
namely broadening of the market for milk and other dairy products, improvement of
the international competitiveness of the South African industry, and empowerment of
previously disadvantaged individuals. Furthermore, action is required to promote the
practical application of local and international research and development in South
Africa”.
1.2. Application: R & D in practice will address primarily national and international
competitiveness, since broadening of the market and empowerment of the previously
disadvantaged heavily rely on respectively, promotion and consumer education and
training and extension. This does not exclude R & D, but prioritised projects are
expected to be rare. R & D to increase competitiveness must address a demonstrable
problem, risk or need which impacts on profitability, sustainability and continuous
improvement of the dairy industry. Therefore the R & D must be solution focussed,
which makes arguments about applied versus fundamental or basic mostly irrelevant.
2. R & D FIELDS IDENTIFIED AND STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENTS:
The fields identified at R & D Forum Meetings in 2010/2011 and subsequently adapted are:
- Feed sources and animal nutrition
- Dairy products and nutraceuticals
- Genetics, physiology and reproduction
- The environment
- Markets and techno-economics
- Animal health, bio-security and welfare.
- Food safety and quality
Details of priority subjects of the field are in Annexure 1.
The Research Project Evaluation Committee (RPEC) has access to expertise associated with
the fields for guidance and advice (also in Annexure 1). A National Producer Work Group
feeds in demonstrable problems/needs to the RPEC, as provided by similar constructed
provincial work groups, for evaluation and allocation to suitable expertise and capacities to
be developed into R & D protocols where appropriate. Through networking and official
agreements, such as MoA’s with provinces and the ARC and the SESCORD initiative, their R &
D agendas are aligned to the national goals and objectives of the industry. In terms of
funding, the agreements allow access to government funds, in addition to strengthening
the possibility of obtaining access to dedicated funding sources as made available by DAFF,
DTI and DST and administered by the NRF. This may contribute significantly towards
supplementing a comparatively low levy allocation to R & D, thereby supporting a
sustainable R & D programme. The network requires continuous strengthening towards
2020 to ensure effective service to the industry.
3. R & D FIELDS SERVICED BY CURRENT PROJECTS:
3.1. Animal health, bio-security and welfare:
3.1.1. Fasciolosis (liver fluke) – Project by UP (Onderstepoort) started in 2015 and is
envisaged to be completed in 2017.
Title: Fasciola hepatica: Impact on dairy production and sustainable
management on selected farms in South Africa.
Project leader: Dr Jan van Wyk, BVSc.
Total budget: R967 626 (2015 – R701 183; 2016 – R266 443)
Objectives in brief: Investigation of prevalence, seasonal cycling, mode of
transmission of the parasite and management programmes followed by farmers,
and in addition, anthelminthic efficacy.
Comment: Project continuation/direction in second year will depend on results
obtained in first year.
3.1.2. Mastitis
3.1.2.1. Project by UP (Onderstepoort) started in 2015 and is envisaged to be
completed in 2018.
Title: Resistance to available antibiotics in lactating cows with mastitis.
Project leader: Dr Martin van der Leek, BVSc, MS
Total budget: R1 391 500 (2015 – R514 616; 2016 – R561 184; 2017 –
R315 700).
Objectives in brief: Characterization and prevalence of mastitis-causing
organisms, testing in vitro sensitivity of the organisms, establishing antibiotic
resistance and observing mastitis management programmes on farms.
Comment: Project continuation/direction in subsequent years will depend
on results obtained in first year.
3.1.2.2 Project by UKZN (Plant Pathology) started in 2013; involvement by Milk SA
from 2015 and is envisaged to be completed in 2018.
Title: Investigating alternative methods such as bacteriophages and
bacteriocins to control mastitis organisms.
Project leader: Prof Mike Laing, PhD
Total budget: R2 352 891 (2015 – R771 294; 2016 – R761 355; 2017 – R
820 242).
Objectives in brief: Classify and determine efficacy of bacteriophages
against Staphylococcus aureus; isolate bacteriocins from Staphylococcal and
Streptococcal strains; do in vitro screening and efficacy tests; test promising
isolates in vivo; develop commercial products.
Comments: Promising bacteriophage isolates were identified in a PhD study
(Iona Basdew) in 2013. These are further challenged and quality control
done in 2015; other possibilities are investigated to develop a mix to
facilitate non-adaptation by mastitis pathogens.
3.1.3. Disease monitoring – Project by Veterinary Network (V-Net), started in 2014, is
envisaged to continue for a number of years, but will be evaluated annually.
Title: National disease monitoring and extension system for the Dairy Industry.
Project leader: Dr Danie Odendaal, BVSc
Total budget: R394 000 for 2015
Objectives in brief: Outbreaks and general occurrence of diseases are monitored
throughout the country with the aid of some 120 private veterinarians; a report
programme is developed to facilitate timely report and reaction; application to
cell phone is investigated.
Comments: Success and application methodology are evaluated every year to
determine continuation, efficacy and development of adapted or new
methodology.
3.2. Food safety and quality
Microbial contamination of milk – Project by UP (Main Campus), started
in 2013 and completed in 2015.
Title: Characterization of coliform bacteria and Escherichia coli from retail bulk
milk to determine the prevalence of possible pathogenic types.
Project leader: Prof Elna Buys, PhD.
Total budget: R100 000.
Objectives in brief: Characterization of colifoms; pathogenic and
commensal E.coli for relatedness of strains from various strains, their
virulence and antibiotic resistance.
Comments: The project is in the final stages of completion; there remains an
objective of stochastic modelling, but this will be determined by requirements of
the Dairy Standards Agency (DSA) which initially expressed the need for the
project. The DSA has also requested a detailed report for submission to the
Department of Health.
4. PROJECTS SUPPORTED WITH NO DIRECT FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS:
4.1. Döhne, Eastern Cape – Low-input (Once-a-day-milking), as model for emerging farmers
and a Livestock Development Project
4.2. Elsenburg and other stations, Western Cape – Silage potential of small grains,
legumes and within intercropping systems for milk production.
4.3. Fort Hare – Animal welfare studies at Amadlelo facilities.
4.4. Fort Hare/Döhne – Benchmark project for milk production for emerging farmers in the
Eastern Cape.
5. R & D PROGRAMMES IN PROCESS OR TENTATIVELY APPROVED:
5.1. Feed sources and animal nutrition, plus Food safety and quality:
5.1.1. Milk flocculation:
5.1.1.1. The effect of cow nutrition on milk flocculation
5.1.1.2. The significance of proteolytic psyghrotrophs as a cause of
milk flocculation/protein instability
5.1.1.3. The impact of proteases and chemicals on milk flocculation
Comments: The programme has already been accepted; anticipated date of
commencement is 2016; projects 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.1.3 may be consolidated as
they may portray sequential events in the milk collection line.
5.2. Genetics, Physiology and Reproduction:
5.2.1. Genetic and performance monitoring:
Motivation: The Dairy Industry must support and encourage progress in the SA
Dairy Herd in terms of output, efficiency and economic sustainability. The
proposal is to consider a genetic improvement/performance programme
with development and ownership of an extensive database that include
automated systems, in addition to milk recording data (where
appropriate). Furthermore, it is proposed to eventually link the genetic
improvement/performance programme with the National Disease
Monitoring and Extension programme. With comparatively low cost
interface development in the Logiχ system, the data sets can be linked
with even more benefits to the individual farmer as well as the National
Herd.
Nature of project: Statistical trend monitoring of participating farmer results
over time to establish progress of critical indicators.
Anticipated date: 2016, long term, but evaluated annually.
5.2.2. Selection based on Residual Feed Intake (RFI):
Motivation: Using this method, heifers within large herds can be selected on
growth rate that will carry through to milk production. This will reduce rearing
cost and identify efficient replacements. If cows are selected on this basis, it will
improve the feed/milk ratio. Additional merit is RFI is repeatable on different
diets, it is robust, cows with lower intake have lower GHG emissions and they
show improved immunity.
Nature of project: Demonstrations and monitoring on farm.
Anticipated date: 2016, open-ended.
5.3. Animal health, bio-security and welfare:
5.3.1. Programme: Biological control of Fasciola and nematodes
5.3.1.1. Project proposal: UKZN (Plant Pathology)
Project leader: Prof Mark Laing, PhD
Project title: Integrated control of Fasciolosis of livestock.
Budget: R300 000 per year for 3 years.
Comments: Application to Research & Technology Fund of the DAFF at NRF;
commencement date 2016; funding specifications indicate a 4:1 ratio
between RTF and industry partner (Milk SA).
6. PROPOSALS TOWARDS 2020:
6.1. Animal health, bio-security and welfare:
6.1.1. Mastitis: The disease should be addressed from different angles.
6.1.1.1. From the results of item 3.1.2.1., the pathogens dominant in specific areas
should be known. This may allow R & D associated with vaccine
development, either through local testing of imported vaccines or via own R
& D.
6.1.1.2. Genetic progress against the disease may be obtained through
crossbreeding, or preferably within breed using genomic/SNP analysis.
6.1.2. National Disease Monitoring and Extension Programme: A value-adding
development could be development of rapid on-site diagnostic tools. Such
equipment and identification methodology (e.g. for FMD and RVF) have been
developed by Bio-Sciences of the CSIR in association with Australia’s CSIRO. This
should be further investigated.
6.1.3. Lameness: The condition is one of the most devastating and costly, and often
neglected by farmers. Farmers may lose up to one-third of the milk yield of an
affected cow. It is also a serious animal welfare issue and therefore the Dairy
Industry should be seen to do work in this area, even though there are many
programmes elsewhere in the world.
6.2. Environment:
6.2.1. Pasture establishment in the south-eastern seaboard: Monoculture pasture
species has implications for bio-diversity, ecosystems, eutrophication and water
sources. Heavy fertilization and cattle manure may also cause pollution.
Outeniqua Research Station has a R & D and monitoring programme. It is
important that this programme continue and it should be promoted through the
SESCORD initiative. Item 6.3.1. is important here.
6.2.2. Carbon and water footprint: Although figures and knowledge are mostly
available, the DEA is required to report regularly to the IPCC on mitigation, which
requires updated figures. The envisaged government pressure which may lead to
taxation could require actual measurements to demonstrate decreasing trends.
This may also require an inventory and documentation. Outeniqua Research
Station has capacity to measure GHG and such work there should be supported.
6.3. Feed sources and animal nutrition:
6.3.1. Pasture cultivar testing/selection: The ARC facility at Cedara is expected to be
revived and programmes resumed. Outeniqua is expected to continue. SESCORD
should provide guidance.
6.3.2. Forage and roughage sources: For pastures Item 6.3.1. is important. Sustainable
establishment, evaluation and improvement of forage sources and storage as
quality silage and hay sources should always be considered.
6.3.3. Concentrate supplementation: Supplements are expensive and the inclusion of
less-starch concentrate feed sources that could improve cost effectiveness must
be encouraged, also to combat the continuous burden of sub-clinical acidosis
(both in TMR and pasture-based systems).
6.4. Dairy products and nutraceuticals:
6.4.1. New products to support patients: HIV/AIDS and cancer treatment has major
implications, amongst others Candida albicans infections. Treatment with
antibiotics have limitations. If products containing probiotics can be developed
instead, which can be used regularly candida infections can be prevented.
Probiotic strains that are effective have already been selected and effectively
incorporated in a maize-based drink at the TUT. Indications are that a milk or
milk-product substrate could be as or more effective which makes such a
possibility an attractive proposition. Irrespective of the viability and impact on
broadening of the market, it is important that the Dairy Industry is seen to make
a contribution to the well-being of patients and communities at large.
6.5. Food safety and quality:
6.5.1. Preventing/removing biofilms in milk lines: Bioflim and spore-forming organisms
are implied in unsatisfactory shelflife of longlife milk. They are also associated
with mastitis-causing pathogens and because of protease activity with the
enormous problem of milk flocculation. Biofilms are traditionally removed with
sanitizers or with steam sterilization, UV and hydrogen peroxide depending on
position in the milk line, structure of equipment and practicality. Biofilm
formation and spore-forming organisms are increasing, which indicates that
current methods and probably sanitizers on the market are less effective.
Therefore new/other sanitizers and alternative methods should be considered.