Feral hogs destroy crops, encroach upon green spaces, destroy habitat of endangered species, and can be aggressive towards humans. Despite individuals suffering losses from feral hogs, affected individuals often take little action despite control and eradication technologies existing. This study describes what is known about the economic problem associated with feral hogs and the institutional structure surrounding eradication efforts. We argue that institutions at both a national and local level are necessary to control feral hogs.
Although irrigation is a common practice in pecan (Carya illinoinensis) orchards, the effects of different methods of irrigation on young tree growth, nut quality, and nutrient uptake have not been estimated. Five irrigation systems and one nonirrigated control system were established. Tree performance was characterized by change in trunk diameter, weight per nut, average kernel percentage, and total trunk diameter growth. Nutrient uptake was determined by foliar levels. The five irrigation systems were a microsprinkler with a 35-ft diameter, a microsprinkler with a 70-ft diameter, two subsurface driplines irrigating for 2 days/week alternating between water for 2 hours and no water for 2 hours, two subsurface driplines irrigating 1 day/week for 20 hours continuously (LI2), and four subsurface driplines irrigating for 10 hours continuously for 1 day/week (LI4). Irrigation systems affected foliar levels of potassium (K), boron (B), and manganese (Mn) levels. Irrigation system did not affect change in trunk diameter or kernel percentage. A spatial Durbin error model was estimated to use trunk diameter estimates from all trees in the orchard. This model found the trunk diameters of nonirrigated and LI4 system trees to be significantly less than those trees that were irrigated by the LI2 system. When observations were pooled over all years, LI4 trees had individual pecan nut weights that were significantly less than all other systems.
PurposeThe authors determine the effectiveness of the Rainfall Index Annual Forage Program (RIAFP) in offsetting yield risk of winter annual forage growers. The authors also evaluate the effectiveness in reducing risk of potential alternative weather indices.Design/methodology/approachThe RIAFP is designed to compensate forage producers when yield losses occur. Prior research found weak correlation between the rainfall index and actual winter annual forage yields. The authors use long-term small-plot variety trials of rye, ryegrass, wheat, triticale and oats with rainfall recorded on site and measure the correlation of the index with actual rainfall and actual yields. The alternative indices include frequency of precipitation events and of days with temperature below freezing.FindingsThe correlation between actual rainfall and the current RMA index was strongly positive as in previous research. Correlations between forage yields and monthly intervals of the current RMA index were mostly statistically insignificant, and many had an unexpected sign. All indices had some correlations that were inconsistent across time intervals and forage variety. The inconsistent signs suggest a nonlinear relationship with weather and forage yield, indicating that rainfall can be too much or too little. The number of days below freezing has the most potential of the three measures examined.Practical implicationsProducers should view the winter forage RIAFP as a risk-increasing income-transfer farm program. A product to reduce the risk for forage producers may need to use a crop growth simulation model or another approach that can capture the nonlinearity.Originality/valueConsiderably more data were considered than in past research. Past research did not consider alternative weather indices. The program should be continued if its goal is to serve as disguised income transfer, but it should be discontinued if its goal is to reduce risk.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.