South Africa: Farmers and State Clash Over Cattle Disease Response

The Agricultural Research Council has not sent foot and mouth disease samples to an international centre since January John Steenhuisen, when he was Minister of Agriculture, announced that South Africa had resumed sending samples from animals infected with foot and mouth disease (FMD) to the Pirbright Institute in the UK. This was important because Pirbright, the world reference laboratory for FMD, analyses these samples and publishes the results. It tests the efficacy of FMD vaccines against the currently circulating strains, a process known as vaccine matching, so that manufacturers can update their vaccines to be more effective. Keep up with the latest headlines on WhatsApp | LinkedIn The Agricultural Research Council (ARC) veterinary research campus in Onderstepoort did indeed send 11 samples to Pirbright in January, the first time it had done so since 2011, despite the current FMD epidemic starting in 2019 or 2020. Pirbright analysed these samples and published the findings in its first quarterly report of 2026. Pirbright published its second quarterly report for the year last week and no new samples from South Africa are described in it. We sent questions to the ARC who effectively confirmed that no further samples have been sent to Pirbright since January. Farmers who have been battling FMD argue this is not good enough. Andrew Morphew, a dairy farmer in the KZN Midlands and spokesperson for FMD Response SA, a coalition of farmers, is worried the ARC has a conflict of interests because it is trying to be a vaccine producer but also has the responsibility of collecting data that FMD vaccine manufacturers need. "It's a major concern for all of us," said Friedl von Maltitz, a cattle farmer in Ficksburg, Free State. He explained that the ARC won't have the capacity to produce enough FMD vaccines for the country for at least a couple of years. South Africa has 12 to 14-million cattle. The country is in the worst FMD epidemic in its history. Vaccines are effective, but not perfectly so. The more animals that are vaccinated, the less virus there will be in circulation, and the slower the disease will spread. Morphew and many other farmers , as well as vets and scientists we have spoken to, argue that the most effective way to get on top of the epidemic is to vaccinate as many cattle as possible over a 30 to 60-day period, twice a year for the foreseeable future. This would optimally reduce the amount of virus in circulation. But to do that, 25-million vaccine doses will be needed annually. (There's also a complication of giving a booster dose, after about a month, to first-time vaccinated animals. Another complication, one vet told GroundUp, is that we should consider vaccinating all cloven-hoofed farm animals, including sheep, goats and pigs. There are over 20-million sheep in the country, so that would be a huge increase in the number of vaccines needed.) The vaccines are mainly being imported from two companies, Biogénesis Bagó in Argentina and Dollvet in Turkey. Between them they can easily produce enough doses for South Africa's cattle. There has been progress. Minister Willie Aucamp, Steenhuisen's replacement, said earlier this month that 23-million vaccines have been imported. Almost the entire dairy herd (over one-million cows) of the country has been vaccinated at least once this year. While this vaccination system cannot be implemented perfectly, the closer to it the more the disease can be brought under control. This year, after more than two decades, the ARC also started producing vaccines. While this may seem a welcome development, it's at the root of Maltitz and Morphew's concerns. Even in the most optimistic forecasts, the ARC cannot produce nearly enough vaccines for the country. It is a far smaller producer than Biogénesis and Dollvet. The vaccines from these overseas companies must therefore be regularly matched against - and adapted for - the strains of FMD circulating in South Africa fo