Evaluation of a warfarin bait for controlling invasive wild pigs (\u3ci\u3eSus scrofa\u3c/i\u3e)

BACKGROUND: Wild pigs (Sus scrofa) cause widespread environmental and economic damage, and as a result are subjected to extensive control. Current management strategies have proven insufficient, and there is growing interest in use of toxicants to control invasive populations of this species. In 2017 a low-dose warfarin bait was federally approved for use in controlling wild pigs in the United States. However, no states have allowed use of this bait due to unanswered questions regarding welfare concerns, field efficacy, and non-target impacts. RESULTS: All captive wild pigs fed 0.005% warfarin baits in no choice feeding trials succumbed in an average of 8 days from exposure. Behavioral symptoms of warfarin exposure included vomiting, external bleeding, abnormal breathing, incoordination, and limping. Postmortem examinations revealed hemorrhaging in organs and muscles, particularly the legs, gastrointestinal tract, and abdomen. Warfarin residues in tissues averaged 1.0mg kg-1 for muscle, 3.9mg kg-1 for liver, and 2.8mg kg-1 for small intestines. Field testing revealed wild pigs required extensive training to access bait within pig-specific bait stations, and once acclimated, exhibited reluctance to consume toxic baits, resulting in no mortalities across two separate field deployments of toxic bait. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest wild pigs are susceptible to low-dose warfarin, and warfarin residues in pig tissues postmortem are generally low. However, although warfarin-based baits are currently approved for use by the US Environmental Protection Agency, further improvements to pig-specific bait delivery systems and bait palatability are needed, as well as additional research to quantify efficacy, cost, and non-target impacts prior to widespread implementation

Genes as Tags: The Tax Implications of Widely Available Genetic Information

This paper examines how progress in genetics\u27 specifically, the proliferation of knowledge about the human genome\u27 may influence the feasibility and desirability of a tax that is based on individual human endowments or ability. The paper explores various forms that such a genetic endowment tax-and-transfer regime might take and identifies some of the benefits and costs of such a regime. The authors take no position on whether a genetic endowment tax would be desirable or not. However, one contribution of the paper is to observe that current law in the U.S., which restricts the use of genetic information by insurers and employers, is equivalent to a form of genetic endowment tax. The paper also notes that, in the absence of a government-mandated transfer policy with respect to genetic endowments, private insurance markets may arise to fill the gap, allowing individuals to purchase insurance against the possibility of a bad genetic draw

Nonstandard Errors

In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty-nonstandard errors (NSEs). We study NSEs by letting 164 teams test the same hypotheses on the same data. NSEs turn out to be sizable, but smaller for more reproducible or higher rated research. Adding peer-review stages reduces NSEs. We further find that this type of uncertainty is underestimated by participants

Non-Standard Errors

In statistics, samples are drawn from a population in a data-generating process (DGP). Standard errors measure the uncertainty in estimates of population parameters. In science, evidence is generated to test hypotheses in an evidence-generating process (EGP). We claim that EGP variation across researchers adds uncertainty: Non-standard errors (NSEs). We study NSEs by letting 164 teams test the same hypotheses on the same data. NSEs turn out to be sizable, but smaller for better reproducible or higher rated research. Adding peer-review stages reduces NSEs. We further find that this type of uncertainty is underestimated by participants