30.08.2014 Views

Ekonomiese impak van genetiese verbetering op die ... - Stamboek

Ekonomiese impak van genetiese verbetering op die ... - Stamboek

Ekonomiese impak van genetiese verbetering op die ... - Stamboek

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>Ekonomiese</strong> <strong>impak</strong> <strong>van</strong> <strong>genetiese</strong> <strong>verbetering</strong><br />

<strong>op</strong> <strong>die</strong> veebedryf<br />

<strong>Stamboek</strong> Teeltsimposium<br />

1 Mei 2013<br />

Bloemfontein<br />

Free State


Why we are in the business – or is it that<br />

simple??<br />

Red meat consumption is embedded in the South African culture…<br />

Biltong<br />

Pap en vleis<br />

Indian lamb curry<br />

Braaivleis


Menu<br />

• Realities we must account for<br />

• Evolving meat industry<br />

• The value chain<br />

• Genetics and its benefits


Billions<br />

1950<br />

1956<br />

1962<br />

1968<br />

1974<br />

1980<br />

1986<br />

1992<br />

1998<br />

2004<br />

2010<br />

2016<br />

2022<br />

2028<br />

2034<br />

2040<br />

2046<br />

Realities the global and local meat industry<br />

faces<br />

• P<strong>op</strong>ulation, income growth and the<br />

changing consumer base<br />

10<br />

8<br />

6<br />

4<br />

2<br />

4 %<br />

2 %<br />

0 %<br />

5 % 9 %<br />

34 %<br />

30 %<br />

9 %<br />

0<br />

6 %<br />

1 %<br />

World P<strong>op</strong>ulation<br />

U.S Census Bureau (International Data Base), 2010<br />

7


Change in the composition of <strong>die</strong>ts and nutritional<br />

value and availability<br />

Source: http://www.grida.no/publications/rr/foodcrisis/page/3559.aspx<br />

The demand for grain for use in<br />

intensive livestock production can<br />

increase to more than 50% of total<br />

grain production (Keyzer et al., 2005).


Scale of Importnace<br />

We are not servicing a homogeneous consumer<br />

group (Free State Consumer Survey)<br />

6.0<br />

5.0<br />

4.0<br />

3.0<br />

2.0<br />

1.0<br />

0.0<br />

Price<br />

Quality<br />

Convenience<br />

Health Cons<br />

Food Safety<br />

Traceability<br />

Attributes<br />

Cook time<br />

Packaging<br />

Brand<br />

Tatste<br />

Nut Info<br />

Inferior Conumer (low nutrition) (34.8%) n = 282 At Home (Basics) (23.7%) n = 192<br />

Balanced Consumer (26.6%) n = 216 Value Added Orientated (12.3%) n = 100<br />

High Frequency Consumer (Broad Product Range) (2.6%) n = 21<br />

Source: Botha, F., Taljaard, P., Jooste, A. & Pelser, A. (2007). UFS.<br />

9


Per capita consumption (Kg)<br />

The effect of the recession on meat<br />

consumption<br />

35<br />

30<br />

25<br />

Meat, Beef and Veal<br />

Poultry, Meat, Broiler<br />

Before recession<br />

Strong<br />

increase<br />

During recession<br />

Slight<br />

increase<br />

After recession<br />

Increase<br />

20<br />

15<br />

Increase<br />

Decrease<br />

Constant<br />

10<br />

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011<br />

Source: USDA, 2011


Realities the global and local meat industry<br />

faces<br />

• Changing economic power position in the<br />

global economy<br />

• China, Brazil, India, Africa<br />

130 000<br />

120 000<br />

110 000<br />

100 000<br />

90 000<br />

80 000<br />

70 000<br />

60 000<br />

50 000<br />

International outlook for meat<br />

consumption<br />

Poultry<br />

Pork<br />

Beef<br />

110 000<br />

100 000<br />

40 000<br />

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020<br />

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020<br />

Source: http://www.fao.org/economic/est/commodity-markets-monitoring-and-outlook/meat/en/, 2011; taken from US Meat Export<br />

11<br />

Federation<br />

90 000<br />

80 000<br />

70 000<br />

60 000<br />

50 000<br />

40 000<br />

International outlook for meat<br />

consumption – Excluding China<br />

Poultry<br />

Pork<br />

Beef


Realities the global and local meat industry<br />

• Climate change<br />

• Resource availability<br />

faces<br />

• Arable land capable of sustaining intensive to<br />

moderately well adapted cultivation amounts to<br />

about 12.6 % of South Africa’s land<br />

– Of this, only 2 % (2 446 million hectares) is<br />

prime agricultural land<br />

– A further 11% can be added<br />

12


AT-25C<br />

AT-30<br />

DE-1100<br />

DE-1400<br />

FR-70C<br />

FR-80<br />

FR-85<br />

ES-90<br />

ES-180<br />

IE-25<br />

UK-40<br />

UK-105<br />

SE-60<br />

SE-80<br />

NO-45<br />

HU-150T<br />

HU-880T<br />

CZ-350<br />

UA-410<br />

CA-170<br />

US-240<br />

US-500<br />

AR-700<br />

AR-1000<br />

AR-730<br />

AR-800<br />

BR-400<br />

BR-1070<br />

CO-240<br />

MX-120<br />

CN-2<br />

ID-2<br />

ID-4<br />

ID-3<br />

ID-30<br />

AU-500<br />

AU-540C<br />

AU-700<br />

AU-1100<br />

ZA-200<br />

ZA-250<br />

ZA-400<br />

calves per 100 cows & year<br />

120<br />

International competitiveness: Calving<br />

percentages<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

40<br />

20<br />

0<br />

Source: Agribenchmark, 2009


Feb-08<br />

Apr-08<br />

Jun-08<br />

Aug-08<br />

Oct-08<br />

Dec-08<br />

Feb-09<br />

Apr-09<br />

Jun-09<br />

Aug-09<br />

Oct-09<br />

Dec-09<br />

Feb-10<br />

Apr-10<br />

Jun-10<br />

Aug-10<br />

Oct-10<br />

Dec-10<br />

Feb-11<br />

Apr-11<br />

Jun-11<br />

Aug-11<br />

Oct-11<br />

Dec-11<br />

Feb-12<br />

Apr-12<br />

Jun-12<br />

Aug-12<br />

Oct-12<br />

Dec-12<br />

Index Jan 2008 = 100<br />

Realities the global and local meat industry<br />

faces<br />

• Changing cost relations (sustainability)<br />

150<br />

140<br />

130<br />

120<br />

110<br />

100<br />

90<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

Primary agriculture inflation<br />

Food manufacturing inflation<br />

Food and non-alcoholic beverage inflation<br />

Source: Stat SA, 2013<br />

14


AT-25C<br />

AT-30<br />

DE-1100<br />

DE-1400<br />

FR-70C<br />

FR-80<br />

FR-85<br />

ES-90<br />

ES-180<br />

IE-25<br />

UK-40<br />

UK-105<br />

SE-60<br />

SE-80<br />

NO-45<br />

HU-150T<br />

HU-880T<br />

CZ-350<br />

UA-410<br />

CA-170<br />

US-240<br />

US-500<br />

AR-700<br />

AR-1000<br />

AR-730<br />

AR-800<br />

BR-400<br />

BR-1070<br />

CO-240<br />

MX-120<br />

CN-2<br />

ID-2<br />

ID-4<br />

ID-3<br />

ID-30<br />

AU-500<br />

AU-540C<br />

AU-700<br />

AU-1100<br />

ZA-200<br />

ZA-250<br />

ZA-400<br />

International competitiveness: Income<br />

US$ per 100 kg live weight<br />

700<br />

600<br />

500<br />

Government payments<br />

Weaner and transfer to beef receipts<br />

Breeding livestock receipts<br />

Cull animals and slaughter receipts<br />

400<br />

300<br />

200<br />

100<br />

0<br />

Source: Agribenchmark , 2009


BR-1070<br />

AU-1900<br />

AU-700<br />

BR-400<br />

AR-730<br />

AR-1300<br />

AU-500<br />

UK-40<br />

AU-540<br />

CO-240<br />

ZA-250<br />

US-500<br />

ZA-200<br />

ZA-300<br />

US-240<br />

FR-70C<br />

CN-2<br />

FR-80<br />

ID-SU-1C<br />

HU-150T<br />

FR-85<br />

DE-1100<br />

CA-170<br />

DE-1400<br />

ES-160<br />

ES-90<br />

HU-880T<br />

AT-30<br />

UK-100<br />

IE-25<br />

SE-80<br />

ID-SU-2C<br />

NO-45<br />

AT-25C<br />

SE-60<br />

International competitiveness: Costs<br />

800<br />

US$ per 100 kg live weight<br />

700<br />

600<br />

500<br />

400<br />

300<br />

200<br />

100<br />

0<br />

Source: Agribenchmark , 2008


Feb-08<br />

Apr-08<br />

Jun-08<br />

Aug-08<br />

Oct-08<br />

Dec-08<br />

Feb-09<br />

Apr-09<br />

Jun-09<br />

Aug-09<br />

Oct-09<br />

Dec-09<br />

Feb-10<br />

Apr-10<br />

Jun-10<br />

Aug-10<br />

Oct-10<br />

Dec-10<br />

Feb-11<br />

Apr-11<br />

Jun-11<br />

Aug-11<br />

Oct-11<br />

Dec-11<br />

Feb-12<br />

Apr-12<br />

Jun-12<br />

Aug-12<br />

Oct-12<br />

Dec-12<br />

Feb-08<br />

Apr-08<br />

Jun-08<br />

Aug-08<br />

Oct-08<br />

Dec-08<br />

Feb-09<br />

Apr-09<br />

Jun-09<br />

Aug-09<br />

Oct-09<br />

Dec-09<br />

Feb-10<br />

Apr-10<br />

Jun-10<br />

Aug-10<br />

Oct-10<br />

Dec-10<br />

Feb-11<br />

Apr-11<br />

Jun-11<br />

Aug-11<br />

Oct-11<br />

Dec-11<br />

Feb-12<br />

Apr-12<br />

Jun-12<br />

Aug-12<br />

Oct-12<br />

Dec-12<br />

Index 2008 = 100<br />

Index 2008 = 100<br />

Regulated prices and increasing food prices<br />

240<br />

145<br />

220<br />

200<br />

180<br />

Water and other services<br />

Electricity and other fuels<br />

135<br />

125<br />

Processed<br />

Unprocessed<br />

160<br />

140<br />

115<br />

120<br />

105<br />

100<br />

80<br />

95<br />

60<br />

85<br />

Price increase from February 2008 to December 2012<br />

Water and other services – 49 % Processed food products – 46.7 %<br />

Electricity and other fuels – 147.7 %<br />

Unprocessed food products – 36.5 %<br />

Stat SA, 2013<br />

17


Dec-07<br />

Feb-08<br />

Apr-08<br />

Jun-08<br />

Aug-08<br />

Oct-08<br />

Dec-08<br />

Feb-09<br />

Apr-09<br />

Jun-09<br />

Aug-09<br />

Oct-09<br />

Dec-09<br />

Feb-10<br />

Apr-10<br />

Jun-10<br />

Aug-10<br />

Oct-10<br />

Dec-10<br />

Feb-11<br />

Apr-11<br />

Jun-11<br />

Aug-11<br />

Oct-11<br />

Dec-11<br />

Feb-12<br />

Apr-12<br />

Jun-12<br />

Aug-12<br />

Oct-12<br />

Dec-12<br />

Feb-13<br />

Crude oil (US$/barrel)<br />

Fuel price (R/litre)<br />

Fuel prices<br />

160<br />

140<br />

120<br />

100<br />

80<br />

60<br />

Crude oil<br />

Petrol 95 ULP Gauteng<br />

Diesel 0.05% S Gauteng<br />

13<br />

12<br />

11<br />

10<br />

9<br />

8<br />

Feb 2013 – Diesel price =<br />

R11.29/l<br />

18 cent increase from<br />

January 2013 translate to<br />

an additional R1.78 million<br />

expenditure for farmers on<br />

an annual base!!<br />

40<br />

20<br />

7<br />

6<br />

Mar 2013 – Diesel price =<br />

R11.88/l<br />

0<br />

18<br />

5<br />

58 cent increase from<br />

February 2013 translate to<br />

an increase of R5.84 million<br />

in expenditure for farmers<br />

on an annual base!!


2004<br />

2005<br />

2006<br />

2007<br />

2008<br />

2009<br />

2010<br />

2011<br />

2012<br />

Transport costs<br />

1.1.<br />

1.2.3.<br />

1.2.2.2.<br />

Rand<br />

1400000<br />

1200000<br />

1000000<br />

Rand<br />

4500000<br />

4000000<br />

3500000<br />

3000000<br />

Rand<br />

4500000<br />

4000000<br />

3500000<br />

3000000<br />

800000<br />

2500000<br />

2500000<br />

600000<br />

400000<br />

200000<br />

0<br />

Capital Cost Fixed Cost Running Cost<br />

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012<br />

2000000<br />

1500000<br />

1000000<br />

500000<br />

0<br />

Capital Cost Fixed Cost<br />

Running Cost<br />

2004 2006 2008 2010 2012<br />

2000000<br />

1500000<br />

1000000<br />

500000<br />

0<br />

Capital Cost Fixed Cost Running Cost<br />

2-axle vehicles: 6-axle vehicles: 7-axle vehicles:<br />

Capital cost: 18.4 %<br />

Fixed cost: 37.8 %<br />

Running cost: 126.4 %<br />

Source: Max Braun Consulting Services, 2013.<br />

Capital cost: 38.3 %<br />

Fixed cost: 53.3 %<br />

Running cost: 133 %<br />

Capital cost: 40.4 %<br />

Fixed cost: 57.5 %<br />

Running cost: 174.6 %<br />

19


Percentage of total costs<br />

Costs at retail level<br />

100<br />

90<br />

1.45 0.61<br />

3.63<br />

1.63<br />

80<br />

70<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

51.46<br />

9.69<br />

2.78<br />

12.04<br />

16.71<br />

Retailer costs<br />

Other<br />

Other consumables<br />

Animal Transportation<br />

Certification costs<br />

Land costs (rental)<br />

Packaging costs<br />

Water and other utilities<br />

Electricity<br />

Labour costs<br />

Bron: NAMC (2010)<br />

Nota: Examples of other consumables are knives, blades, sharpeners etc.<br />

20


New things on the radar…<br />

Health concerns<br />

Environmental<br />

concerns<br />

Animal care<br />

Source: USDA, 2011


Evolving meat industry


2000/01<br />

2001/02<br />

2002/03<br />

2003/04<br />

2004/05<br />

2005/06<br />

2006/07<br />

2007/08<br />

2008/09<br />

2009/10<br />

2010/11<br />

Percentage<br />

Position of the red meat industry in South Africa<br />

% contribution to gross value of agricultural production<br />

60<br />

50<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

ANIMAL PRODUCTS HORTICULTURE FIELD CROPS<br />

Source: DAFF, 2011<br />

23


2000/01<br />

2001/02<br />

2002/03<br />

2003/04<br />

2004/05<br />

2005/06<br />

2006/07<br />

2007/08<br />

2008/09<br />

2009/10<br />

2010/11<br />

Rand (thousand)<br />

Position of the red meat industry in South Africa<br />

30 000 000<br />

25 000 000<br />

20 000 000<br />

15 000 000<br />

10 000 000<br />

5 000 000<br />

Gross value of selected livestock products<br />

Catlle and calves Sheep and goats Pigs Milk Broilers<br />

Source: DAFF, 2011<br />

24


Per capita consumption (Kg)<br />

Meat consumption, beef consumption vs<br />

poultry consumption<br />

35<br />

30<br />

25<br />

20<br />

2000 – 2011:<br />

Per capita consumption of poultry<br />

51 %,<br />

per annum,<br />

3.5%<br />

2000 – 2011:<br />

Per capita consumption of beef<br />

1.05 %,<br />

per annum,<br />

0.1%<br />

15<br />

10<br />

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011<br />

Meat, Beef and Veal<br />

Poultry, Meat, Broiler<br />

Source: Own calculation based on different sources


Transition of the industry (example of beef)<br />

1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s<br />

OPPORTUNITY<br />

DRIVEN<br />

PRODUCTION<br />

DRIVEN<br />

COST DRIVEN<br />

CONSUMER<br />

DRIVEN<br />

- Low and inconsistent<br />

quality meat.<br />

-Grain farmers market<br />

grains alternatively<br />

and started feeding<br />

younger animals.<br />

-Trade in cattle<br />

controlled by<br />

auctioneers.<br />

Source: Ford<br />

-Movement towards<br />

more intensive feeding<br />

of cattle.<br />

-Industry expanded<br />

dramatically.<br />

-Stakeholders start<br />

taking cognizance of<br />

consumer needs.<br />

-Industry controlled by<br />

three large companies.<br />

-Industry experience<br />

effects of deregulation<br />

and liberalization.<br />

-New environment<br />

increased risk and<br />

lowered prices.<br />

-Three big companies<br />

disinvested.<br />

-Industry re-orientated<br />

to produce more costefficiently.<br />

-Movement towards<br />

direct buying and selling<br />

of animals.<br />

Question is whether the industry has<br />

become sufficiently value driven??<br />

-Industry realized the<br />

importance of the<br />

consumer.<br />

-Greater emphasis in<br />

providing consistent<br />

quality, adding value,<br />

the devel<strong>op</strong>ment of<br />

standards and<br />

increased<br />

involvement in chain.<br />

-Feedlot industry<br />

stimulated by<br />

achieving better<br />

economies of scale.


The value chain is the key!!


Source Roduner (2005)<br />

28


Example of a value chain<br />

Consumers<br />

Input suppliers<br />

Retailers<br />

Producers<br />

Marketing<br />

Segments<br />

Processors<br />

Traders<br />

Production<br />

Segments<br />

Abattoir<br />

Feedlots<br />

Product flow<br />

Financial flow<br />

Information flow<br />

Source: Adapted from Schroeder, 2003


Dualistic value chains: Formal market<br />

30


Dualistic value chains: Informal market<br />

Source: Van Rooyen et al.<br />

32


And somewhere we have to strike a balance<br />

??!!??<br />

Source: Photo at Groblersho<strong>op</strong> abattoir


Where does genetic<br />

improvement fit in??


There has been progress, but also some<br />

uncertainties<br />

• Management<br />

• Environment<br />

• Externalities


Why genetic improvement? - Consumer<br />

– Looking for value for money<br />

• Willingness to pay<br />

– Quality (e.g. tenderness)<br />

– Changing consumer behaviour<br />

• Buying cuts vs buying portions<br />

• Positioning according to LSM groups<br />

– Major question – does genetic improvement do<br />

something for the poor consumer


Why genetic improvement? – Retailers<br />

• Establishing brands<br />

– Brand attributes, e.g.<br />

• Optimal growth without growth stimulants<br />

• Free range, i.e. adaptability, reproduction<br />

• Procurement<br />

– Early 2000’s: 80% carcass, 20 % in primary cuts, no value<br />

added products.<br />

– Currently: 50% carcass, 30 % in primary cuts, 20 % valueadded<br />

products.<br />

• Focus on productivity and sustainability<br />

• Preference for certain breeds


Why genetic improvement? – Feedlots,<br />

Processing<br />

• Feed conversion ratio (Avg daily gains vs cost<br />

of feed)<br />

• Yield per carcass<br />

– Focus on <strong>op</strong>timal carcasses


Why genetic improvement? - Producer<br />

• Enhanced growth attributes<br />

– Feed conversion<br />

– Pre and post weaner growth<br />

• Enhanced reproduction<br />

– Number of calves per cow<br />

– Survival attributes<br />

– Milk production<br />

– Longlivity


What does the evidence suggest?<br />

• Earlier South African evidence<br />

– Rate-of-return estimates (1994-92):<br />

• General (1994-92): 5% (???)<br />

• Animal Health (1947 -82) : >36%<br />

• Animal production (1947 – 94): 11-16%<br />

• Dairy, beef, mutton, and pig performance and progeny<br />

testing schemes (1970 – 96):<br />

– National Dairy Cattle Performance and Progeny Testing Scheme<br />

51%,<br />

– National Beef Cattle Performance and Progeny Testing Scheme<br />

44%,<br />

– National Mutton Sheep Performance and Progeny Testing<br />

Scheme 54%<br />

– National Pig Performance and Progeny Testing Scheme 14%.<br />

Cited from Mokoena (1998) & Liebenberg, F (2012)


Case study:<br />

Economic Value of Improvements in Beef<br />

Tenderness by Genetic Marker Selection<br />

Weaber, R.L. and Lusk, J.L. (2010) – Amer. Jour. of Agric. Econ.<br />

• Over time much research focusses on postharvest<br />

interventions<br />

– Aging<br />

– Electrical stimulation, etc<br />

• However,<br />

– Techniques as costly<br />

– Consumer acceptance issues<br />

• Research focus on pre-harvest strategies to<br />

improve tenderness<br />

– 12% to 43% of variation in steak tenderness is under<br />

genetic control (Minick et al, 2004; Koots et al, 2004)


Case study:<br />

Economic Value of Improvements in Beef<br />

Tenderness by Genetic Marker Selection<br />

• Methodology involve, amongst others,<br />

– The Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) method<br />

• Correlation between variations in animals DNA and<br />

WBSF at slaughter (Casas et al, 2006; Schenkel et al, 2006)<br />

– Genetic simulation model<br />

• Mean WBSF values projected over a 20-year period as a<br />

result of six different strategies<br />

Weaber, R.L. and Lusk, J.L. (2010)


Case study:<br />

Economic Value of Improvements in Beef<br />

Tenderness by Genetic Marker Selection<br />

• Methodology involve, amongst others,<br />

– Different strategies, for example<br />

• Non Aggressive selection strategy (50% of good<br />

performing bulls)<br />

• Mild aggressive strategy (30% of good performing bulls)<br />

• Aggressive strategy (10% of good performing bulls)<br />

Weaber, R.L. and Lusk, J.L. (2010)


Case study:<br />

Economic Value of Improvements in Beef<br />

Tenderness by Genetic Marker Selection<br />

• Different strategies: RESULTS<br />

Item 50% 30% 10%<br />

Year 1 4.61 4.61 4.61<br />

Year 20 4.50 4.45 4.37<br />

Reduction in mean WBSF (kg) 0.11 0.16 0.24<br />

Reduction in mean WBSF (%) 2.5% 3.6% 5.4%<br />

Monetary value (billion) $5255 Benefits $7603 can $11332 be<br />

added through<br />

post slaughter<br />

interventions –<br />

not permanent<br />

• Benefits distributed throughout the chain:<br />

– 31% to consumers<br />

– 10% to retail<br />

– 3% to packers<br />

– 7% to feedlots<br />

– 49% to producers<br />

Weaber, R.L. and Lusk, J.L. (2010)


Performance changes in poultry and livestock<br />

following 50 years of genetic selection<br />

• Several sources of data used to illustrate:<br />

– Changes in efficiency have:<br />

• reduced the amount of feedstuffs<br />

required to produce a unit of product<br />

• the amount of waste produced,<br />

compared to the inefficiencies in the<br />

1950s.<br />

Havenstein, G.B (2006)


Performance changes in poultry and livestock<br />

following 50 years of genetic selection<br />

- 85-90 percent of the change in growth rate has been due to genetic selection,<br />

- only 10-15 percent of the change is due to improvements in nutrition and<br />

nutritional management.<br />

Havenstein, G.B (2006)


Performance changes in poultry and livestock<br />

following 50 years of genetic selection<br />

Cattle inventory and beef production<br />

Havenstein, G.B (2006)


Concluding remarks<br />

• Partnering<br />

“You must earn with your partner, and not<br />

from your partner”<br />

- Ashish Thakkar (CEO KARA Group)<br />

• Productivity Gap versus the Opportunity<br />

Gap<br />

“If you don’t lead change, you will become a<br />

victim of change”<br />

– Henry Ford


Thank you<br />

Contact details:<br />

Dr A Jooste<br />

Tel: +27 (0) 83 307 3703<br />

E-mail: andrej@potatoes.co.za<br />

Acknowledgments:<br />

Prof Esti Koster<br />

Heiko Koster<br />

Helena Theron<br />

Gerhard Schutte<br />

Frikkie Liebenberg


“Well-fed pe<strong>op</strong>le have many<br />

problems, hungry pe<strong>op</strong>le only have<br />

one”<br />

Traditional Chinese proverb

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!