Yves here. Today’s discussion revolves around the challenges posed by actual wild pigs, specifically the invasive feral hogs that are wreaking havoc across various regions. While invasive species are a global concern, solutions for minimizing their impact are not always viable. Despite appearing tangential to our usual topics (though we’ve occasionally touched on feral hogs), this issue illustrates the damaging interplay between environmental degradation and economic activities, particularly for farmers.
Feral hogs have become such a nuisance that the federal government has initiated a program to fund trapping efforts aimed at controlling their population. However, the authors note a concerning trend: farmers, even when receiving funding, might resort to merely trying to scare the feral hogs away or depending on their neighbors to trap them instead. As a solution, they propose that farmers collaborate to enhance commitment and improve outcomes.
I must admit I was somewhat disappointed that the article did not delve into the histories and successes (or failures) of other pest control initiatives, such as Australia’s rabbit-proof fences. I’m curious to hear your thoughts on this.
By Chris Boyer, Professor and Department Head, Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee; Aaron Smith, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Tennessee; and Eunchun Park, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, University of Arkansas. Originally published at The Conversation
The federal government is injecting millions of dollars into efforts aimed at combating feral hog populations and is contemplating additional investments in the near future. This issue has escalated over the years, but recent federal initiatives provide hope for effective population management.
Feral swine are present in 35 states, as reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The last population estimate, recorded in 2016, indicated that around 7 million feral pigs were roaming across the nation. This number has likely increased since then, as feral hogs breed consistently and can produce two litters of four to twelve piglets annually. Their populations are known to double within just four months.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that feral pigs inflict between $2.5 billion and $3.4 billion in damage annually. Of this, at least $800 million accounts for crop destruction.
In addition to harming crops, feral hogs can transmit diseases to livestock, damage critical infrastructure such as fences and roads necessary for agricultural operations, undermine recreational parks, and cause significant ecological damage to wildlife habitats, water quality, and plant ecosystems.
Controlling feral hog populations is challenging because they traverse vast areas of private land. If neighboring property owners do not collaborate, the pigs will simply relocate rather than being captured or contained. Basic economic theory suggests that landowners might wait for others to invest their time, money, and effort into managing the hogs, leading to a situation where no effective actions take place, thereby exacerbating the problem.
An Initial Test
In the 2018 Farm Bill, Congress allocated $75 million aimed at motivating private landowners to collaboratively combat feral hogs.
This initiative was implemented in selected counties across ten states significantly affected by feral hogs: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Beginning in 2020, the U.S. Department of Agriculture subsidized the purchase of trapping equipment and supported on-farm trapping efforts as well as the restoration of land damaged by hog activities.
Initially set to conclude in 2023, the program was awarded an additional $105 million to continue through 2029, as part of a major budget and immigration package passed by Congress in July 2025. As of September 21, 2026, the government is accepting grant applications from the first $35 million allocation.
The Farm Bill that has successfully passed the House is currently awaiting Senate discussion and proposes to enhance funding by $150 million, extending the initiative through 2031.
A pertinent question to address before committing more funds is the program’s initial effectiveness.
Reducing Hogs’ Damage to Cornfields
Our research team of agricultural economists from the University of Tennessee and the University of Arkansas sought to assess the program’s outcomes.
Utilizing federal data regarding crop insurance claims, we compared crop damage in counties where the program was implemented with those where it was not, analyzing the timeframe before and after the initiative began.
Not all counties reported wildlife-related crop damage. Among those that did, counties without the program had an average of 70 acres (17.5 hectares) impacted by wildlife per policy for corn damage. In contrast, counties participating in the coordinated hog eradication efforts saw this figure drop to an average of 10 acres per policy. This represents a statistically significant improvement, and given the widespread nature of corn production in the area, it indicates a notable reduction in crop losses.
However, when examining crop insurance claims for soybeans, wheat, cotton, and peanuts, we observed no significant difference between counties engaged in hog control and those that were not.
A Way Forward
Corn is reportedly the crop most susceptible to damage from feral swine. This may explain why we observed a statistically significant decline in damage specifically in cornfields.
Additionally, the program’s overall effectiveness might have been limited by the COVID-19 pandemic, which hindered community meetings and outreach efforts that could have facilitated increased landowner participation. The pilot nature of the initiative may also have contributed to a lack of commitment from farmers, who might fear the program’s potential discontinuation.
Our analysis likely underrepresents the program’s benefits, as some farmers experience crop damage too minor to justify an insurance claim, leaving those figures out of our study. Moreover, the research did not account for changes in non-crop damage inflicted by feral hogs on properties, livestock, recreational parks, and environmental aspects.
Our findings suggest that the hog control program has the potential for success and outline several strategies for its enhancement, both in the short and long term. For instance, tailoring efforts specifically to corn-producing counties might yield a higher return on investment. Additionally, promoting participation through expanded outreach could enable the trapping or elimination of a greater number of hogs across larger areas.
While completely eradicating feral hogs remains a daunting challenge, their damaging presence is unlikely to dissipate without sustained efforts. The data indicate that, with careful planning and ongoing investment, the federal government can implement a program that significantly benefits America’s agricultural community.
