260 likes | 587 Views
Economic Impact of Cogongrass on Private, Non-industrial Forest Owners in Florida. Nandkumar Divate Agribusiness Dr . Michael Thomas Dr. Moses Kairo Dr. David Harding Dr. Kome Onokpise . Introduction. Native to southeast Asia Infests nearly 500 million acres worldwide
E N D
Economic Impact of Cogongrass on Private, Non-industrial Forest Owners in Florida NandkumarDivate Agribusiness Dr. Michael Thomas Dr. Moses Kairo Dr. David Harding Dr. Kome Onokpise
Introduction • Native to southeast Asia • Infests nearly 500 million acres worldwide • Found on every continent • Except Antarctica • Tropical and subtropical areas, limited spread to northern temperate regions • Considered to be one of the worst weeds
Introduction to U.S. • First appearance • Grand Bay, Alabama • Escape from crate packing in 1912 • Intentional introduction • Mississippi as a possible forage in 1921 • Florida introduction 1930s and 1940s • However, little economic (forage) benefit
Worldwide Distribution The general distribution of Imperata cylindrica throughout the world, depicted byareas of white. (Based on information fromHolm et al., 1997.)
Cogongrass infestation in the southeastern United States Points of introduction
Objectives • Develop an instrument to survey owners of private, non-industrial forestland in Florida and conduct a statewide sample of private, non-industrial forest owners in Florida. • Use the sample results to document the direct impact of cogongrass on; • - lost forest inventory and reduced forest regeneration and productivity, • - and the direct economic impact of control efforts. • Apply these estimates of direct economic impact to an input/output economic model and extrapolate the indirect and induced effects of these losses to the economy at large.
Methodology • A mail survey was designed and sent to 2800 forest owners • It asked forest owners about their knowledge of the spread, impact, and control techniques of cogongrass. • The instrument has four sections.
Methodology • Economic impact of cogongrass will be estimated with input/output (IO) • IO analysis tracks direct, indirect and induced economic effects from • lost forest productivity and • expenditures use to control cogongrass. • Results are reported regional and statewide • Extrapolate the indirect and induced effects to the economy at large.
Data • Source for List of Private non industrial forest owners • Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, School of forest research and Conservation, University of Florida • 2832 woodland owners in Florida. Targeted Survey Population
Survey Results Source: Survey questionnaire
Reason For Owning Woodland Source: Survey questionnaire
Cost share Program Participation • 57% respondents cost-share program. • 52 % Used in last five years. Source: Survey questionnaire
Relative importance of common weeds found in Woodlands Mean on the index of 1 to 5
Source of information about Cogongrass • 51% respondents are familiar with cogongrass. Source: Survey questionnaire
Cogongrass control • 78% Tried to control • Average cost of control $81.56 per acre. • Major chemical – Roundup (83%). Source: Survey questionnaire
Private non-industrial forest owners area distribution in Florida. Source: Florida division of forestry’s, forest inventory and analysis factsheet (2007).
Cost of control model • Regional cost of control (RCi) can be calculated as follows RCi = ƒ (Ii, Ai, Pi, Ci) (1) Where: Ii = Cogongrass infestation rate for region i. Ai = number of acres of woodland owned by private non- industrial individuals in the region i. Pi = proportion of woodland owners trying to control cogongrass in region i. Ci = average cogongrass control cost for region i. (For region i, i = northeastern, northwestern, central & south)
IMPLAN analysis • State wide average Impact $14,933,490. Source: IMPLAN analysis results
Detailed IMPLAN analysis Source: IMPLAN analysis results
CONCLUSION • Cogongrass was ranked by Private Non-industrial Forest Owners as the most common forest weed across the state of Florida. • Private Non-industrial Forest Owners are more willing to control Cogongrass using Chemical control rather than Mechanical control. • With Cogongrass’s continued spread, it will likely generate more economic losses to the woodland industry.