The
Exploitation and Conservation of Dioscorea sylvatica in South Africa, c.
1950–1963
William
Beinart and Rebecca Beinart
 |
Image 1: Dioscorea sylvatica growing,
Buffelskloof, Mpumalanga, 2019. Photo: R. Beinart. Thanks to John and Sandie
Burrows
|
Introduction
Our major focus concerns the relationship between Boots Pure Drug Company, a British pharmaceutical firm, and the South African conservation authorities whose responsibility it was to protect indigenous plants. Conservationist concerns were well-developed in South Africa by the 1950s (Beinart, 2003). These had taken shape primarily around wildlife, soil and veld. For more than a century, botanists had been strongly aware of the uniqueness and diversity of South African flora. Although the Division of Botany in the national Department of Agriculture was an important site of research, plant protection was in part devolved to the four provinces. They all had provincial ordinances protecting wild flora and in the 1950s, small administrations were attempting to develop policy. We illustrate how officials approached large-scale plant-extraction and discuss differences between the provinces. Our main evidence concerns the Natal Parks Board where officials took their duties seriously and tried to develop scientifically-based arguments in favour of conservation.
Our major focus concerns the relationship between Boots Pure Drug Company, a British pharmaceutical firm, and the South African conservation authorities whose responsibility it was to protect indigenous plants. Conservationist concerns were well-developed in South Africa by the 1950s (Beinart, 2003). These had taken shape primarily around wildlife, soil and veld. For more than a century, botanists had been strongly aware of the uniqueness and diversity of South African flora. Although the Division of Botany in the national Department of Agriculture was an important site of research, plant protection was in part devolved to the four provinces. They all had provincial ordinances protecting wild flora and in the 1950s, small administrations were attempting to develop policy. We illustrate how officials approached large-scale plant-extraction and discuss differences between the provinces. Our main evidence concerns the Natal Parks Board where officials took their duties seriously and tried to develop scientifically-based arguments in favour of conservation.
Cortisone and Plant
Hunters
The development of hormone
based drugs, such as the pill and cortisone, in the 1940s put a premium on
finding cheap methods of manufacture (Marks, 2001). Scientists in the United States turned to
plants — the source of many medicines – and found that wild Mexican yams Dioscorea
mexicana and Dioscorea
composita contained diosgenin from which
hormone medicines could be synthesised.
The successful treatment of rheumatoid arthritis with cortisone in 1949
triggered a global
plant rush to find additional sources.
Wild yams had long been
identified botanically in South Africa and had been used as food and medicine
by African people. D. elephantipes and D. sylvatica are among
those species that grow partly above ground and form a thick, defensive
covering that has been compared to elephant skin or tortoise shell. (Image
1) D. elephantipes (Latin for
elephant’s foot) was found both to the north of Cape Town and in drier
districts going eastwards. D.
sylvatica, identified as a
different species, was also called elephant's foot or, in isiZulu, ufudu (tortoise) and ingwevu (old and grey). D. elephantipes grew larger in size,
over a metre in diameter, with more marked surface furrows in irregular
pentagonal patterns. (Image 2) The external surface of D. sylvatica
tended to be smoother and the tendrils died away in winter.
 |
Image 2: Dioscorea elephantipes
growing in Kirstenbosch, 2020. Photo: W. Beinart
|
Alerted by a visiting US
botanist, Dr L.E.W. Codd in Pretoria took a particular interest in D.
sylvatica. He collected specimens and herbarium holdings showed that it was
found from the Eastern Cape north to the former Eastern Transvaal, Zimbabwe and
Zambia. In 1952 D. elephantipes was collected in Clanwilliam and tested
at the University of the Witwatersrand. (Image 3). A Johannesburg company requested permission
from the Cape provincial administration to harvest 500 tons in order to
manufacture diosgenin.
 |
Image 3:
Herbarium label including reference
to tests for diosgenin.
Credit: SANBI National Herbarium.
|
The
Cape Province Wild Flowers Protection Ordinance (15 of 1937) provided some
safeguards and all Dioscorea were listed as protected species. Officials recognized the medical value and
licences were issued, but with strict limits on the quantity extracted. Douglas Hey, first director of the new
Department of Nature Conservation (1952), was cautious and deputed an officer
to map the distribution of the species. Research depended on local knowledge
and was complicated by the diversity of names such as ncaka/taka, broodboom as well as olifantsvoet. Concentrations were found in Namaqualand, in
Clanwilliam and near Cango, where it grew in colonies in kloofs near
boulders. The plant was not scarce but
no-one seemed to know how long it took to achieve maturity. When licensees
sought bigger allowances, 100 tons a month, Hey refused. He feared extinction and pointed to the fate
of yellowwood and stinkwood, as well as the passenger pigeon in the United
States.
In
view of these restrictions, attention switched to D. sylvatica, which
predominated in the wooded kloofs of upland eastern Transvaal and Natal and
also had a higher diosgenin content (Image 4).
In about March 1953, commercial digging began; Codd (1960) also started
experiments in cultivation.
 |
| Image 4: D. sylvatica habitat, Buffelskloof, Lydenburg, Mpumalanga. Photo: R. Beinart. |
Extraction and Conservation
in Transvaal and Natal
Boots, based in Nottingham, was a huge pharmaceutical enterprise,
marketing their brands across the British Empire, with a branch in South
Africa. In 1953 Boots started to produce cortisone from Mexican diosgenin. They were keen to find a supply independent
from the expensive dollar-based American route. Hearing about South African
experiments, they invested into a Johannesburg factory through a subsidiary
called Biochemico that produced and exported diosgenin made from D.
sylvatica. By the end of 1956, an
estimated 2,000 tons had been harvested from a few districts in the eastern
Transvaal and they were processing about 100 tons a month (Image 5).
 |
| Image
5: Boots advert, The Chemist and Druggist, 14 July 1956. Credit: Walgreens Boots Alliance Archive |
The Transvaal had also
passed Ordinances for the protection of flora. Officials were, however, more
generous in their licensing. Biochemico
employed contractors who supervised teams of African workers to dig the
tubers and paid the farmers £2–3 a ton.
Landowners also used their own workers and received £7–8 a ton for
tubers delivered at the roadside.
 |
Image 6: ‘Commercial exploitation of Dioscorea sylvatica, Eastern Transvaal, c.1958’
Credit: SANBI National Herbarium |
Some extraction was done without license. A
Director of Biochemico recalled: ‘I have heard some hair-raising stories of how
the early collectors used to hi-jack the easily accessible roots near the main
trunk highways. Something almost akin to
cattle-rustling used to take place’. (Image 6).
In 1956, Biochemico approached the Natal provincial administration for permission to harvest D. sylvatica. They were exporting diosgenin to the United States as well as Britain and could not meet demand. Their botanist had found ‘dense colonies’ and ‘numerous big tubers’ in kloofs between about 1,200 and 1,800 meters on the escarpment in districts from Bergville to Newcastle. Jack Vincent, an ornithologist, was senior officer in the Parks Board. In matters botanical, he consulted A. W. Bayer, professor at the University of Natal, and they had promoted cycad protection. Bayer met company representatives and thought that Natal could contribute to a major global pharmaceutical development. Provincial politicians were sympathetic: Biochemico were initially granted generous permits to extract 80 tons from each of 9 farms. Vincent wanted strict conditions; it was difficult for officers, who had done no surveys and had no experience of such plant-mining, to conceive that this little-known tuber was present in such quantities.
In 1956, Biochemico approached the Natal provincial administration for permission to harvest D. sylvatica. They were exporting diosgenin to the United States as well as Britain and could not meet demand. Their botanist had found ‘dense colonies’ and ‘numerous big tubers’ in kloofs between about 1,200 and 1,800 meters on the escarpment in districts from Bergville to Newcastle. Jack Vincent, an ornithologist, was senior officer in the Parks Board. In matters botanical, he consulted A. W. Bayer, professor at the University of Natal, and they had promoted cycad protection. Bayer met company representatives and thought that Natal could contribute to a major global pharmaceutical development. Provincial politicians were sympathetic: Biochemico were initially granted generous permits to extract 80 tons from each of 9 farms. Vincent wanted strict conditions; it was difficult for officers, who had done no surveys and had no experience of such plant-mining, to conceive that this little-known tuber was present in such quantities.
The Parks Board employed
its first ecologist, C. J. (Roddy) Ward, in the 1950s to research largely on
the vegetation of Imfolozi/Hluhluwe. His work there supported the view that
these areas were becoming overstocked and fed into the famous rhino
translocation project. Ward was instructed to survey farms on which elephant’s
foot had been dug. His first report in
1957 recorded that 310 tons had been taken from Boscobell (Image 7) and
Baboonsdell in Newcastle, which exceeded the agreed quota by 150 tons. These figures shocked Ward. (Image 8).
 |
| Image 7: Boscobel farm in 2020. Photo: W. Beinart |
 |
Image 8: Pile of tubers ‘approximately 26 tons weight’, Leopard’s Kloof, Natal,
1957.
Credit: Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife archive
|
As he monitored extraction
over the next year, Ward thought that Biochemico’s subcontractors often broke
the rules by exceeding quota, collecting across the boundaries of neighbouring
farms and digging tubers smaller than the required 8 inches in diameter. Local African workers, who knew where
‘ingwevu’ was located, were paid per bag of tubers removed and this increased
the incentive to get high returns from any particular area. (Image 9)
 |
| Image 9: Slide taken in 1959, showing collection of Dioscorea sylvatica. Credit: Photo by M Peretz, Boots; thanks to Liz Peretz |
Ward returned regularly to the main digging areas, especially around Muller’s Pass in Newcastle. Aside from trying to monitor compliance with permits, he investigated the reproduction of the plant and its capacity to regenerate after extraction. He was not initially opposed to extraction, but realised that wild D. sylvatica may have to serve as the long term base for cortisone. Its preservation ‘would be in the interests of the whole human race’.
Ward’s eight reports were
probably the first scientific study of the plant in its habitat – though they
were not published (Image 10). He
noticed that in the first couple of years, the seeds produced only one leaf and
grew in humus and leaf mould without sending down significant root
systems. There seemed to be high losses
from rainfall that washed away their fragile bed, or from desiccation;
extraction and tramping exacerbated the problem. The plant seemed to survive
well in between rocks, sheltered from fire. (Image 11). Ward also came to the
conclusion that only fully mature plants produced a large quantity of fertile
seeds. For this reason, he was keen to
increase the diameter of protected plants.
 |
Image 10: Drawings by Ward for his observations on D. sylvatica
Credit: Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife archives
|
 |
Image 11: D. sylvatica growing in between
rocks at Buffelskloof. Photo: R Beinart, 2019.
|
D. sylvatica could also regenerate from the tuber if enough was left in the
ground. However, the remnants of tubers harvested in the rainy summer season
(October to April) were more susceptible to rotting and fungus. He thus favoured a closed season in these
months, which would also allow for more general recovery and seed setting by
mature plants. Biochemico, with Bayer’s support, objected successfully to a
closed season, arguing that this would increase their costs. The number of new
permits was, however, reduced and the total monthly weight was generally under
100 tons during 1958 and 1959.
Nevertheless, Ward became increasingly alarmed about the consequences of
large-scale exploitation and he also tried cultivating tubers and scattering
seeds.
In 1959 Ward noted that he
had regularly found undersized tubers at the digging sites. (Image 12) With
Bayer and Vincent, he travelled to the key areas of extraction to investigate
further. Bayer changed his mind after
this journey: ‘I must admit that once I saw the number of undersized tubers on
the heap at Bramhoek … I just felt disgusted that … the party we are dealing
with is dishonest’. Permits were stopped at the end of January 1960 despite
Biochemico’s forceful representations.
Ward’s persistent ecological work halted extraction of a resource that
was of great importance to Boots.
 |
Image 12:
Measuring roots Credit: Ezemvelo KwaZulu-Natal Wildlilfe archives
|
There were only three
years of harvesting from Natal, with a recorded amount of about 2,200 tons. As
noted, an estimated 2,000 tons had been extracted from the Transvaal up to 1956
and Codd (1960) recorded a further 2,553 tons in the three years 1957–1959. In total, it is likely that over 6,700 tons
of D. sylvatica were extracted.
Boots were proud of their
early venture into cortisone production, set up a dedicated factory and
mentioned their source of supply in advertisements. (Image 13) It is surprising that they were so careless
with their licenses. In 1958, Miss A. P. Wilson, recently retired as head of
the British horticulture division, visited southern Africa to survey
possibilities for cultivation. Codd, who
had initiated plantings in 1953, found that D. sylvatica was
slow-growing; tubers grew to 1lb. (0.45 kg) in three years. (Image 14) The bigger, wild tubers may have been over 50
years old. Wilson nevertheless worked with farmers in Lydenburg and Newcastle to start plantations at sites likely to have the most suitable climate. She
took seeds back to Nottingham and by 1961 could report D. sylvatica
plants with a diameter of 4–5 inches.
 |
| Image 13: Boots cortisone factory, Nottingham, 1959. Credit: Wallgreens Boots Alliance Archive |
 |
| Image 14: Seeds from D. sylvatica plant, some also used for cultivation in Pretoria. Credit: SANBI National Herbarium. |
But by early 1960, when their supply of wild D. sylvatica from Natal was cut off, farmed quantities were insignificant and production of diosgenin in Johannesburg ceased. Boots switched back to a Mexican supply. By 1963 diosgenin was synthesised from other sources and the need for Dioscorea dwindled. The South African wild yam chase ended. Wilson donated a D. sylvatica plant to Kew botanical gardens where it still survived in 2018. (Image 15).
 |
Image 15: Living specimen of D. sylvatica at Kew Gardens, donated by Boots in 1962.
Photo: R Beinart.
|
Conclusion: Plant
Vulnerability and Plant Protection
The system of licensing
for the harvesting of protected plants had not previously been tested on the
same scale. The Cape effectively prohibited commercial exploitation; Natal
monitored it more closely than the Transvaal. Vincent and Ward increasingly
doubted that sustainable harvesting was possible and the interests of a
multinational company were successfully countered by conservation officials. The
province’s approach was not entirely consistent because indigenous vegetation
was simultaneously being destroyed through the expansion of sugar, commercial
forestry and coastal development. In
Lydenburg too, forestry had a larger environmental impact than harvesting of D.
sylvatica. But this episode was
important in developing strategies for plant protection.
Commercial extraction in
the 1950s made an impact on reserves of D. sylvatica. Longer-term assessment must also take
into account usage in African medicine, although this was far smaller in scale. The SANBI Red List of South African Plants states
that about 16 tons were traded annually in Durban markets in the 1980s and
perhaps a similar amount in the Faraday Street market in Johannesburg in the
early 2000s (Williams et al.). The
species is assessed as Vulnerable. In some
areas, it has probably not recovered from depletion in the 1950s. We visited Sterkspruit near Lydenburg, where D.
sylvatica, once plentiful, was harvested.
It is now part of a provincial nature reserve. The oldest ranger, Lazarus Seerame, knew the
plant and took us on an hour-long walk into the hills to find the only specimen
that he had seen. It is, however, partly protected by the breadth of its range
from the Western Cape to Zambia.(Image 16)
 |
| Image 16: Site of D. sylvatica plant, Sterkspruit, Lydenburg Photo: R. Beinart 2019 |
For
a fuller version of this paper: William Beinart and Rebecca Beinart ‘From
Elephant’s Foot …to Cortisone’: Boots Pure Drug Company and Dioscorea
Sylvatica in South Africa, c. 1950-1963’,
South African Historical Journal, 71, 4 (2019), 644-675.
We have used:
Cape Archives, Provincial
Administrator (CA, PAF), file NC/A2
Ezemvelo
KZN Wildlife archives, Pietermaritzburg
SANBI National Herbarium, Pretoria
Wallgreen
Boots Alliance Archive, Nottingham, UK
W. Beinart, The Rise of Conservation in South Africa:
Settlers, Livestock and the Environment 1770-1950 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2003).
L.
E. Codd, ‘Drugs from Wild Yams’. African Wildlife 14, 3 (1960), 215-227
L.V.
Marks, Sexual Chemistry: A History of the Contraceptive Pill (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 2001).
V.L. Williams, D.
Raimondo, N.R. Crouch, A.B. Cunningham, C.R. Scott-Shaw, M. Lötter & A.M.
Ngwenya,
‘Forest Elephant's Foot: Dioscorea sylvatica Eckl.’, National Assessment: Red List of South African
Plants version 2020.1. Accessed on 2020/07/03
About the authors:
William
Beinart is emeritus professor at St Antony’s College,
University of Oxford. His recent publications
include Prickly Pear: The Social History of a Plant in the
Eastern Cape (Wits University Press, 2011, with Luvuyo
Wotshela); African Local Knowledge (Wits
University Press, 2013, with Karen Brown); Searching
for Rights and Freedoms in the Twentieth Century (Pearson,
A-level textbook, 2015 with Edward Teversham) and Rights to
Land (Jacana, 2017, with Peter Delius and Michelle Hay).
Rebecca Beinart is an artist, educator and
curator based in Nottingham, UK. An ongoing engagement
with community, ecology, knowledge-making and the politics of public space runs through her practice. Since 2017 she has been developing the Urban Antibodies project, tracing the development
of pharmaceutical drugs based on plants, supported by Arts Council
England and Wellcome Trust. She works as the Engagement Curator at Primary (www.weareprimary.org/), an artist-led space in Nottingham, running a public programme of
commissions, workshops and events.
No comments:
Post a Comment