What can the United States learn from Spain's Pork Sector? Implications from a Comparative Economic Analysis, September 2005

This study provides a comparative economic analysis of the primary production of pork and its marketing channel in Spain and the United States. The focus on Spain is due to the profound growth and transformation of its pork sector over the last 20 years, compared with other major players in the world market for pig meat. The analysis reveals a number of similar characteristics but also important differences between the two countries. The significant expansion of Spain’s pork production sector stemmed from a number of factors that apply, to a relatively large extent, to some U.S. states (in particular, North Carolina) but do not apply to the U.S. pork production sector as a whole. This implies that it is unlikely that the U.S. pork production sector as a whole will mimic an expansion driven by the same type of factors in the future. Likewise, it seems highly unlikely that the U.S. consumption of pig meat will expand in the future based on the same driving forces behind the sharp increase in Spain’s domestic demand for pig meat over the last 20 years. The analysis also indicates that Spanish pig producers are currently being subjected to more stringent environmental and animal welfare regulations than their U.S. counterparts and that these regulations are becoming increasingly more restrictive. It would not be surprising to see similar trends emerging in the United States, leading to a substantially more restrictive regulatory environment for U.S. hog producers.

Tree and Brush Control For County Road Right-of-Way, Ocotober 2002

This manual summarizes the roadside tree and brush control methods used by all of Iowa's 99 counties. It is based on interviews conducted in Spring 2002 with county engineers, roadside managers and others. The target audience of this manual is the novice county engineer or roadside manager. Iowa law is nearly silent on roadside tree and brush control, so individual counties have been left to decide on the level of control they want to achieve and maintain. Different solutions have been developed but the goal of every county remains the same: to provide safe roads for the traveling public. Counties in eastern and southern Iowa appear to face the greatest brush control challenge. Most control efforts can be divided into two categories: mechanical and chemical. Mechanical control includes cutting tools and supporting equipment. A chain saw is the most widely used cutting tool. Tractor mounted boom mowers and brush cutters are used to prune miles of brush but have significant safety and aesthetic limitations and boom mowers are easily broken by inexperienced operators. The advent of tree shears and hydraulic thumbs offer unprecedented versatility. Bulldozers are often considered a method of last resort since they reduce large areas to bare ground. Any chipper that violently grabs brush should not be used. Chemical control is the application of herbicide to different parts of a plant: foliar spray is applied to leaves; basal bark spray is applied to the tree trunk; a cut stump treatment is applied to the cambium ring of a cut surface. There is reluctance by many to apply herbicide into the air due to drift concerns. One-third of Iowa counties do not use foliar spray. By contrast, several accepted control methods are directed toward the ground. Freshly cut stumps should be treated to prevent resprouting. Basal bark spray is highly effective in sensitive areas such as near houses. Interest in chemical control is slowly increasing as herbicides and application methods are refined. Fall burning, a third, distinctly separate technique is underused as a brush control method and can be effective if timed correctly. In all, control methods tend to reflect agricultural patterns in a county. The use of chain saws and foliar sprays tends to increase in counties where row crops predominate, and boom mowing tends to increase in counties where grassland predominates. For counties with light to moderate roadside brush, rotational maintenance is the key to effective control. The most comprehensive approach to control is to implement an integrated roadside vegetation management (IRVM) program. An IRVM program is usually directed by a Roadside Manager whose duties may be shared with another position. Funding for control programs comes from the Rural Services Basic portion of a county's budget. The average annual county brush control budget is about $76,000. That figure is thought not to include shared expenses such as fuel and buildings. Start up costs for an IRVM program are less if an existing control program is converted. In addition, IRVM budgets from three different northeastern Iowa counties are offered for comparison in this manual. The manual also includes a chapter on temporary traffic control in rural work zones, a summary of the Iowa Code as it relates to brush control, and rules on avoiding seasonal disturbance of the endangered Indiana bat. Appendices summarize survey and forest cover data, an equipment inventory, sample forms for record keeping, a sample brush control policy, a few legal opinions, a literature search, and a glossary.

Row Crop Response to Topsoil Restored on Borrow Areas, HR-186, Supplemental Report, 1982

Borrow areas are created where soil is needed to provide fill for construction projects. This research evaluated (1) the changes in row crop productivity resulting from removal of soil for highway construction in Iowa and (2) restoration methods which included: depth of topsoil, subsoil tillage, manure application, and two years of legume growth prior to row cropping. The research was carried out from 1977-1981 at four locations. Corn and soybean y1elds from borrow areas have been below, equal to; and greater than yields from undisturbed, neighboring farmland. Little or no yield increase was noted from restored topsoil at coarse textured sites. At finer textured sites, a marked yield increase of both crops occurred after the addition of 6 inches of topsoil but little added yield increase resulted from restoring 12 inches of topsoil. Subsoil tillage has shown little or no beneficial effect on crop yields. The manure treatment has resulted in a corn yield increase but only in the first year after application.

Row Crop Response to Topsoil Restored on Borrow Areas, HR-186, 1982

Borrow areas are created where soil is needed to provide fill for construction projects. The changes in row-crop productivity resulting from removal of soil for highway construction in Iowa and restoration methods, which included addition to topsoil, subsoil tillage, manure application, and 2 yr of legume growth before row cropping, were evaluated. The research was carried out from 1977 to 1981 at four locations. Corn and soybean yields from borrow areas have been below, equal to, and greater than yields from undisturbed neighboring farmland. Little or no yield increase was noted from restored topsoil at coarse-textured sites. At finer-textured sites, a marked yield increase of both crops occurred after the addition of 6 in. of topsoil but little added yield increase resulted from restoring 12 in. of topsoil. Subsoil tillage has shown little or no beneficial effect on crop yields. The manure treatment has resulted in a corn yield increase but only in the first year after application.