Ecological characteristics of feral pig activity, group size and home range size should be considered in any management strategy aimed to control pig numbers or reduce their negative impact. Feral pig activity varies between different habitats and climates. High activity has been reported to occur in early morning and late afternoon in tropical climates (Diong 1982). However, in India pigs have been reported to feed nocturnally to raid croplands (Sekhar 1998, in Wolf and Conover 2003). On Santa Cruz Island (California) the milder weather of fall and late winter causes pigs to be more active in the morning and evening, while the short cool and often rainy days of winter causes midday activity. Pigs on the island were active at night mostly when conditions were warm and dry (Van Vuren 1984, in Wolf and Conover 2003).

In terms of group structure, in North-western Australia mob sizes are generally about 12 or less, although occasionally mobs of 30 pigs are seen. Adult boars are mostly solitary.. In South Carolina the average home range of boars is 226 hectares, while the average for sows is 181 hectares (Wood and Brenneman 1980, in Wolf and Conover 2003).Whereas in Austrailia average home range can vary from 140 hectares for a boar in Namagdi National park , Australian capital territory (McIlroy and Saillard 1989), to 430 hectares for a boar in Western New South Wale (Giles 1980).

Feral pigs are polyoestrous, adult sows have a 21 day oestrous cycle and a gestation period of 112-114 days (Choquenot et al.1996). Estimated litter size is 4.5-6.3 viable young per sow (Twigg et al. 2005, Choquenot et al. 1996) but in good conditions 10 piglets can be born to one sow.

In many highland areas of New Guinea pigs are deliberately placed into gardens at the end of a harvest sequence and prior to gardening to remove remaining sweet potato tubers and to assist in turning and aerating the soil before replanting (Westermann 1968, Paglau 1982, Wood and Humphreys 1982, Tucker 1986, Kohun in hide 2003).

Home ranges of pigs are smaller during the dry season than during the wet season. During the dry season on Santa Catalina pigs preferred cool moist canyon bottoms due to a physiological need for free water. Dense vegetation was more actively sought after than open areas such as grasslands (Baber and Coblentz 1986, in Wolf and Conover 2003). \r\n

The presence of crops in the near area (for example palm dates or oat hay cultivations) provide a food supplement and may greatly increase feral pig density; the close location of cereal crops in one study increased the density of feral pigs almost four-fold (Caley 1993, in Wolf and Conover 2003). Similarly the presence of adjacent palm cultivations in Malaysia was found to increase pigs density by 10 to 100 times (Ickes Paciorek and Thomas 2005). \r\n

High densities of pigs may also be attributed to water availability. The recent expansion in feral pig distribution in Australia has been attributed to the increase in suitable habitats, in particular, an increase in water availability from farm dams and developing forest industries (Spencer and Hampton 2005).

In one study females were found to have about 5 young every 0.86 years with some females having two litters per year. In this study fertility continued to increase with age until it peaked at two to three years of age. 58% of piglets died before weaning (Baber and Coblentz 1986, in Wolf and Conover 2003).

Pigs adapt their diet to best utilise local resources. In the semi-arid rangelands of eastern Australia and in New Guinea feral pigs will regularly hunt and devour lambs (particularly twin lambs (which are weaker) (Choquenot, Lukins and Curran 1997, in Wolf and Conover 2003; Hide 2003). On Horn Island, Mississippi, hogs take advantage of high seasonal abundances of insects, crabs and dead fish (Baron 1982, in Wolf and Conover 2003). On Santa Cruz Island, California, acorns and new growth of grasses and forbs are major components of the feral pig’s diet (Van Vuren 1984, in Wolf and Conover 2003).

In South Carolina fruits, especially acorns are the most common food type consumed in fall and winter; herbage and foliage are most common in the spring; roots are most common in the summer. Invertebrates and vertebrates are also consumed, though they were not as important. The consumption of woody plants may be underestimated in stomach contents surveys as the starches and sap obtained from the roots of such plants go undetected (Wood and Roark 1980, in Wolf and Conover 2003).

In the western South Texas Plains (introduced range) feral pigs have a spring-summer diet that consists mainly of vegetation, while acorns are their winter food source. Their autumn diet consists of roots and corn. Animal matter consisting of deer, morning doves, reptiles and other birds represents a small portion of the hog's diet. Of these, reptiles were the most susceptible to predation (Taylor and Hellgren 1997, in Wolf and Conover 2003).

In one study conducted in Hawaii by Diong 1982, food habits were characterised by (1) an omnivorous diet consisting mainly of plant matter, (2) a staple of tree ferns, (3) a seasonal switch from tree ferns to strawberry guava, and (4) a strong reliance of earthworms as a source of animal protein. The dietary range covered 40 plant species (63% herbaceous species, 33% trees and woody vine). Tree ferns were the most concentrated source of sugar and starch.

A vaccine for pseudorabies and swine brucellosis in fish meal bait may be used in late summer (when natural food supplies are low) to control these diseases (Fletcher et al. 1990, in Wolf and Conover 2003).\r\n

In the mid 1900s New Zealand conservation practitioners applied mainland hunting techniques to eradicate feral pig populations from small islands (<200 ha, Veitch and Bell, 1990, in Cruz et al. 2005). More recently poisoning techniques have been developed to control or eradicate feral pig populations (Choquenot et al., 1990; O'Brien and Lukins, 1990, in Cruz et al. 2005). Hunting and poisoning techniques used in combination, now facilitate pig eradication efforts on larger islands (Lombardo and Faulkner, 2000, Schuyler et al., 2002, Veitch and Bell, 1990, in Cruz et al. 2005).\r\n

In Hawaii, snaring has been used to control pigs within 600–800 km2 fenced enclosures located in remote areas of rain forest in the Haleakala National Park (Maui) (Anderson and Stone 1993). Many people place a high cultural value on pigs (ie: using them as a food convenient food source) so that removing them from designated areas may not be acceptable without a clear idea of the benefits. Snaring would is not always be an acceptable method of control. In addition, the fact that pigs are highly mobile means it is uneconomic for an individual landowners or controlling agency to control them (as pigs as they quickly move in from adjacent properties to replace the removed ones).\r\n

Much wisdom and insight can be gained from the case study of pig removal from Santiago Island in the Galapagos Archipelago (off the coast of Ecuador). Factors that proved critical to the successful eradication of the feral pig on the island were: (1) a sustained effort, (2) an effective poisoning campaign, (3) a hunting program, (4) access to animals by cutting more trails and, (5) an intensive monitoring program. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, hunting effort was low (<500 hunter-days/year), while in the early 1990s effort increased but fluctuated. In contrast, the revised campaign in the mid-1990s resulted in a continuous, minimum annual effort of 1500 hunter-days/year. Hunter access to pigs was critical. Extra trails were cut and goats were not hunted in order to keep vegetation suppressed (allowing hunters and dogs access to all areas of the island). Motivating hunters was a continual challenge, especially when pigs were at low densities. However, social, moral boosting events and financial incentives maintained hunter motivation. While the poisoning campaign killed relatively few pigs compared to hunting, the low cost of the poisoning made such efforts especially cost-effective. The compounds used were toxic to most species, and thus the pros of using them for eradication had to be balanced with the potential impact on non-target species (Donlan et al., 2003a, in Cruz et al. 2005). In 2000, six months after the last pig was shot, the last pig was poisoned following an intensive monitoring effort. A sustained monitoring effort was critical to successful eradication. The lack of such an effort is responsible for many eradication failures (Campbell et al., 2004, in Cruz et al. 2005).