Search

Abstract South Africa produces both marine and freshwater aquaculture species, with a combined production output of 5418 tons of food fish in 2015. Key aquaculture species reportedly cultured include four marine species – abalone, dusky kob, mussels and oysters and seven freshwater species – tilapia, trout, catfish, marron crayfish, carp, koi‐carp and ornamental species. The study aims to quantitatively assess the SWOT factors (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) of major aquaculture species of South Africa to determine their aquaculture development and market potential. Key food fish species – abalone, dusky kob, mussel, oyster, salmon, trout, tilapia, catfish and marron crayfish, were selected and subjected to qualitative and quantitative SWOT analyses by adapting the quantified SWOT analytical method coupled with the multi‐attribute decision‐making method MADM (SWOT‐MADM). Trout and tilapia are positioned in quadrant I, showing a combination of competitive strengths and market opportunities. Abalone, oyster and marron crayfish are situated in quadrant II; thus, they possess market opportunities but weak in competitive strengths as aquaculture species. Salmon and dusky kob are positioned in quadrant III; both species are weak in competitive strengths and faced with more threat factors rather than market opportunities. Mussel and catfish are in quadrant IV; both species thus have competitive strengths but are facing more threats than opportunities. Catfish recorded the highest competitive strengths due to internal assessment factors such as low FCR, ability to tolerate very high stocking density, rapid growth rate, high survival rate, hardiness and versatility of production systems and locations. Abalone and marron crayfish, on the other hand, both exhibited more market opportunities compared to other key aquaculture species due to external assessment factors like high pricing and good financial indicators. The study is expected to add to the existing body of knowledge and in guiding aquaculture industry stakeholders to make informed decisions with regards to the feasibility of aquaculture species in South Africa.

Introduction: The objective of this systematic review is to determine the benefits and harms of heel lifts to any comparator for lower limb musculoskeletal conditions. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid AMED, Ovid EMCARE, CINAHL Plus and SPORTDiscus were searched from inception to the end of May 2024. Randomised, quasi‐randomised or non‐randomised trials comparing heel lifts to any other intervention or no‐treatment were eligible for inclusion. Data was extracted for the outcomes of pain, disability/function, participation, participant rating of overall condition, quality of life, composite measures and adverse events. Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach at the primary time point 12 weeks (or next closest). Results: Eight trials (n = 903), investigating mid‐portion Achilles tendinopathy, calcaneal apophysitis and plantar heel pain were included. Heel lifts were compared to exercise, ultrasound, cryotherapy orthotics, stretching, footwear, activity modification, felt pads and analgesic medication. No outcome was at low risk of bias and few effects (2 out of 47) were clinically important. Low‐certainty evidence (1 trial, n = 199) indicates improved pain relief (55.7 points [95% CI: 50.3–61.1], on a 100 mm visual analogue scale) with custom orthotics compared to heel lifts at 12 weeks for calcaneal apophysitis. Very low‐certainty evidence (1 trial, n = 62) indicates improved pain and function with heel lifts over indomethacin (35.5 points [95% CI: 21.1–49.9], Foot Function Index) at 12 months for plantar heel pain. Conclusions: Few trials have assessed the benefits and harms of heel lifts for lower limb musculoskeletal conditions. Only two outcomes out of 47 showed clinically meaningful between group differences. However, due to very low to low certainty evidence we are unable to be confident in the results and the true effect may be substantially different. Registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42022309644. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]