1. FAO-University of Pretoria Network for Worms in Africa FAO-University of Pretoria Network for Worms in Africa Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases University of Pretoria, South Africa Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases University of Pretoria, South Africa J.A. van Wyk

2. FAO-UP Network for Africa 1.New homepage 2.Drive to increase members in Africa 3.Importance of worms to the resource-poor 4.Electronic Conference III: –Problems facing the poor –Potential of new technology –Decision-support software to “side-step” problems with Technology Transfer ? 5.Conclusions

3. FAO-University of Pretoria Network for Worms in Africa Present network commissioned by my predecessor Serious limitations –Space per item reported –No indication of visitors to web page –Service provider unsatisfactory New web page being developed (not yet completed)

6. New FAO-University Pretoria Homepage More space per item More interactive Improved collection of hyperlinks Added information on epidemiology & management by region (WormBoss the model, although slowly – lack of funds) Selected members to add and edit material Possibly limited personal service, but difficult (lack of funds)

7. FAO-UP Network for Africa 1.New homepage 2.Drive to increase members in Africa 3.Importance of worms to the resource-poor 4.Electronic Conference III: –Problems facing the poor –Potential of new technology –Decision-support software to “side-step” problems with Technology Transfer ? 5.Conclusions

8. Drive to Contact Institutions in Africa Almost complete frustration –Some names –Many more promises than actual results BUT –E-mails & letters sent out & Internet requests –Less than 10 % reaction –Practically no contact details AND Even FAO Network in North Africa no reaction

9. Drive to Contact Institutions in Africa Some excellent personal contacts being followed up Each African embassy being targeted Personal e-mail to every member in Africa Published articles to be searched

10. FAO-UP Network for Africa 1.New homepage 2.Drive to increase members in Africa 3.Importance of worms to the resource-poor 4.Electronic Conference III: –Problems facing the poor –Potential of new technology –Decision-support software to “side-step” problems with Technology Transfer ? 5.Conclusions

11. Electronic Conference III : Automated Technology Transfer To Resource-Poor Farmers FAO-UP Network for Worms in Africa J.A. van Wyk Department of Veterinary Tropical Diseases, University of Pretoria [Suggestion of A. Nari]

12. Importance (comparative) of worms to the poor (Perry et al. ILRI 2004) Consulted range of experts working with the resource-poor farmers in Africa and South-East Asia through workshops (both on the ground and electronic) Took into account the dominant animal species in the entire region Considered all veterinary conditions causing losses to these farmers

13. Veterinary condition (all farm animals) Index (range 0-100) Rank (of 43 conditions) Gastro-Intest. Worms Neonatal deaths Foot-&-Mouth Disease External Parasites Haemonchus (own right) 100 67 64 63 42 1 st 2 nd 3 rd 4 th 11 th Importance (comparative) of worms to the poor (Perry et al. ILRI 2004)

14. FAO-UP Network for Africa 1.New homepage 2.Drive to increase members in Africa 3.Importance of worms to the resource-poor 4.Electronic Conference III: –Problems facing the poor –Potential of new technology –Decision-support software to “side-step” problems with Technology Transfer ? 5.Conclusions

15. Problems of Resource-Poor: No access to modern technology Infrastructure poor to non-existent Few if any trained extension personnel Long distances between points of help Landline systems not dependable Internet inaccessible to the poor E-mail erratic if available

16. Resource-Poor: Funds & services inaccessible & incorrect advice Sample analysis Money for drugs to treat all animals Accessibility of drugs Knowledge of correct worm management Marketing pressure from drug firms once development starts to succeed Same sort of drug use propagated by many companies (to sell at any cost) that landed & is landing commercial farmers in trouble

17. Prominent advertisement May 2003, South Africa 8 Drenches of sheep per year ! 3 of these comprised combinations of different drugs Closantel recommended for 5 of the treatments Only  30 days/year no selection ? Prominent advertisement May 2003, South Africa 8 Drenches of sheep per year ! 3 of these comprised combinations of different drugs Closantel recommended for 5 of the treatments Only  30 days/year no selection ? EXAMPLE OF MISLEADING PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL

18. RECOMMENDATIONS IN ADVERT OF MAY 2003 IN SOUTH AFRICA :

19. ------------------------------------------------------- Averred that farmer still satisfied after 20 years! Costs < 0,5 kg prime lamb in South Africa ------------------------------------------------------- Inflation on anthelmintics over 3 decades < 25 % of general inflation in South Africa What chance few poorly funded researchers ! ------------------------------------------------------- Averred that farmer still satisfied after 20 years! Costs < 0,5 kg prime lamb in South Africa ------------------------------------------------------- Inflation on anthelmintics over 3 decades < 25 % of general inflation in South Africa What chance few poorly funded researchers ! MISLEADING ADVERT: DRENCHING PROGRAMME

20. “COMMERCIAL PRESSURE” When communal farmers develop commercially : Company reps flock to the region Extension officers encourage this out of ignorance Good results with programmes recommended since still little worm resistance (as initially in case of commercial farmers) Then incredibly difficult to get turn- around to targeted selective treatment [J.A. van Wyk, personal observations 2005]

21. Extension Officer Training “Jack of all trades” Cannot be up to date on all new developments in all fields No expert on worm management Not au fait with radical changes in worm management in last decade, following on resistance escalation Their advice on worms thus “dangerous”

22. FAO-UP Network for Africa 1.New homepage 2.Drive to increase members in Africa 3.Importance of worms to the resource-poor 4.Electronic Conference III: –Problems facing the poor –Potential of new technology –Decision-support software to “side-step” problems with Technology Transfer ? 5.Conclusions

23. How to overcome problems ! Where infrastructure very poor: New technology or combinations perhaps applicable ? MAKE IT PRACTICAL: Potential & not complete practicality necessary now !

24. We have some potential answers Clinical evaluation for worm effect –FAMACHA© –Body Condition Scoring –DAG (diarrhoea) Score BUT –Difficult to apply optimally (need graded drenching proportions at different stages of worm season) –Technology Transfer problems as above –Poverty getting worse –Serious opposition from drug firms to maintain sales

25. Technology Transfer: New systems with potential ? Wireless systems –Mobile (cellphone) via country networks –Mobile via satellite (e.g. “Greenstar” for monitoring and controlling farm implements & actions like amount of fertilizer applied per section of each field) –Radio (GPRS – Global Package Radio Service) Any others ?

26. CELLPHONES THE ANSWER FOR SOME REGIONS ? More cellphones per capita in developing than developed nations Africa’s “cellphone revolution” (Finance24, 17 Apr 2005) – 82 million cellphones –More cellphone users than fixed line (First region of world to achieve this) GSM (“Groupe Speciale Mobile”, or wireless) : effects in developing nations twice that in their developed counterparts

27. FAO-UP Network for Africa 1.New homepage 2.Drive to increase members in Africa 3.Importance of worms to the resource-poor 4.Electronic Conference III: –Problems facing the poor –Potential of new technology –Decision-support software to “side-step” problems with Technology Transfer ? 5.Conclusions

28. Software for “side-stepping” problems with technology transfer ? SUGGESTION ON WHAT TO DO : Develop decision-support software to help farmer at ground level with targeted selective treatment Enter data on climate, animal species + class, region, pasture (type & history) Get specific recommendation on –Intervals between clinical evaluations –Proportion animals to treat –Drugs not to use (e.g. resistance, residual action) –Risk involved

29. USE OF SUGGESTED DECISION- SUPPORT SOFTWARE Develop multifactorial system centrally Add region-specific data e.g. worm species Run via satellite or similar to farmers and/or their advisers Proportions of animals graded according to reigning worm challenge Keep up to date with latest developments

30. Train the trainer/adviser by example ? Must adviser be an expert parasitologist - perhaps not ? Rather supply information via software and perhaps adviser will learn by example of decisions generated by software ? “Top-up” with short information pieces also supplied on computer Communal/poor farmer : no computer, but single adviser with computer can relay information (cellphone, or else whatever is being used now) ?

31. Advantages of a centralised decision support system Little physical infrastructure required (e.g. no landlines & relatively small numbers advisers) No dedicated computer expert for each local area network The adviser need not be an expert parasitologist Relatively cheap (few experts at a single central point) Change in approach to parasite management easily instituted without much re-training Counterbalance against “irresponsible” recommendations by some drug marketers

32. Disadvantages of centralised system Who decides on content of central system (will probably have competing systems ?) How is a “central” body of experts to be maintained to ensure continued development of policy Still have the problem of accessibility of drugs, etc., even for selective treatment

33. What is the next step ? Firstly, I’m no expert - do not have all, or perhaps even some of the answers Lets organise a group to look into this matter and include computer experts Incredible potential for help for the poor But where will the funding come from

34. FAO-UP Network for Africa 1.New homepage 2.Drive to increase members in Africa 3.Importance of worms to the resource-poor 4.Electronic Conference III: –Problems facing the poor –Potential of new technology –Decision-support software to “side-step” problems with Technology Transfer ? 5.Conclusions

35. FARMER CONFUSED BY MULTITUDE OF OPINIONS [Next slide by FA.S. Malan, Intervet, South Africa)

36. INDUSTRY Drug Companies Sales Team Technical Vets Publications FARMER Private Vets Personnel Vet Shops State Vets A.H.T. Universities, Specialists Animal Scientists Outlets: Coops Farmer Study Groups Media INFORMATION FLOW

37. INDUSTRY Drug Companies Sales Team Technical Vets Publications FARMER Private Vets Personnel Vet Shops State Vets A.H.T. Universities, Specialists Animal Scientists Outlets: Coops Farmer Study Groups Media INFORMATION FLOW

38. FAO-University of Pretoria Network for Worms in Africa: Conclusions Companies will possibly be dissatisfied with some things said here HOWEVER Radical changes will come, no matter what “Balance of power” now with drug companies (money poured into marketing and advertising) But I suggest effective decision support software will go a long way to negate this It must just be in place before the last drug is finally destroyed by over- and incorrect usage propagated in the media