Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influences on farmer and rancher interest in supplying woody biomass for energy in the US Northern Great Plains

  • Published:
Agroforestry Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

State and federal policy targets for renewable energy production in the US have prompted investigations into the feasibility of different biomass feedstock types for use in transportation fuels or electricity production. Woody biomass systems can be integrated strategically within agricultural systems for multifunctional benefits while building regional biomass supply capacity. In order to assess the potential for biomass-based bioenergy, it is essential to characterize the interest that potential suppliers have in such an endeavor. In the US Northern Great Plains region (North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas), this begins with assessing relevant perceptions of farmers and ranchers. Results from a 2014 survey of farm and ranch operators managing agriculturally marginal farmland indicated that 61% of operators have some degree of interest in woody biomass production. An ordered probit regression was utilized to further investigate how farm system attributes, individual farmer/rancher characteristics, relevant attitudes, knowledge, and perceived constraints affect interest. This study highlights attributes of operators who are most likely to be early adopters of a woody biomass crop and has implications for the development of relevant policy initiatives and management practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Altman I, Bergtold J, Sanders D, Johnson T (2011) Producer willingness to supply biomass: the effects of price and producer characteristics. Paper presented at the southern agricultural economics association annual meeting, Corpus Christi, 5–8 Feb 2011

  • Bland JM, Altman DG (1997) Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 314(7080):572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Brandle JR, Hodges L, Tyndall JC, Sudmeyer RA (2009) Windbreak practices. In: Garrett HE (ed) North American agroforestry: an integrated science and practice, 2nd edn. American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Brant R (1990) Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics 46:1171–1178

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer MJ (2002) Financial agents, water quality and riparian forest buffers. MS thesis. Iowa State University, Ames

  • Davidson R, Mackinnon JG (1984) Convenient specification tests for logit and probit models. J Econom 25:241–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster CD, Gan J, Mayfield C (2007) What is woody biomass? In: Hubbard W, Biles L, Mayfield C, Ashton S (eds) Sustainable forestry for bioenergy and bio-based products: trainers curriculum notebook. Southern Forest Research Partnership, Inc., Athens, pp 23–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner R (2009) Trees as technology: planting shelterbelts on the Great Plains. History and technology 25:325–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelfand I, Sahajpal R, Zhang X, Izaurralde RC, Gross KL, Robertson GP (2013) Sustainable bioenergy production from marginal lands in the US Midwest. Nature 493:514–517

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Geyer WA (2006) Biomass production in the Central Great Plains USA under various coppice regimes. Biomass Bioenerg 30:778–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glithero NJ, Wilson P, Ramsden SJ (2013) Prospects for arable farm uptake of short rotation coppice willow and miscanthus in England. Appl Energy 107:209–218

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH (2012) Econometric analysis, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, Boston, p 1188

    Google Scholar 

  • Gronowska M, Joshi S, MacLean HL (2008) A review of US and Canadian biomass supply studies. BioResources 4:341–369

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo Z, Hodges DG, Young TM (2012) Woody biomass utilization policies: state rankings for the U.S. For Policy Econ 21:54–61

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoque MM, Artz GM, Jarboe DH, Martens BJ (2015) Producer participation in biomass markets: farm factors, market factors, and correlated choices. J Agric Appl Econ 47:317–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurlbut D (2008) State clean energy practices: renewable portfolio standards. NREL/TP-670-43512

  • James LK, Swinton SM, Thelen KD (2010) Profitability analysis of cellulosic energy crops compared with corn. Agron J 102:675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen K, Clark CD, Ellis P, English B, Menard J, Walsh M, de la Torre Ugarte D (2007) Farmer willingness to grow switchgrass for energy production. Biomass Bioenerg 31(11):773–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen JR, Halvorsen KE, Shonnard DR (2011) Ethanol from lignocellulosics, U.S. federal energy and agricultural policy, and the diffusion of innovation. Biomass Bioenerg 35:1440–1453

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jose S (2012) Agroforestry for conserving and enhancing biodiversity. Agrofor Syst 85(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Khanna M (2008) Cellulosic biofuels: are they economically viable and environmentally sustainable? Choices 23:16–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Lezberg S, Danes A, Mullins J (2010) Bioenergy and renewable energy community assessment toolkit. University of Wisconsin, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  • Mabee WE, McFarlane PN, Saddler JN (2011) Biomass availability for lignocellulosic ethanol production. Biomass Bioenerg 35:4519–4529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McConnell M, Burger LW (2011) Precision conservation: a geospatial decision support tool for optimizing conservation and profitability in agricultural landscapes. J Soil Water Conserv 66:347–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milbrandt AR, Heimiller DM, Perry AD, Field CB (2014) Renewable energy potential on marginal lands in the United States. Renew Sust Energ Rev 29:473–481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Netzer DA, Tolsted DN, Ostry ME, Isebrands J G, Riemenschneider DE, Ward KT (2002) Growth, yield, and disease resistance of 7- to 12-year-old poplar clones in the north central United States. General technical report NC-229. St. Paul: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station

  • Paulrud S, Laitila T (2010) Farmers’ attitudes about growing energy crops: a choice experiment approach. Biomass Bioenerg 34:1770–1779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlack RD, Wright LL, Turhollow AF, Graham RL, Stokes BJ, Erbach DC (2005) Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry: the technical feasibility of a billion-ton annual supply. Department of Energy/GO-102005-2135

  • Qualls DJ, Jensen KL, Clark CD, English BC, Larson JA, Yen ST (2012) Analysis of factors affecting willingness to produce switchgrass in the southeastern United States. Biomass Bioenerg 39:159–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranney JW (1986) Short-rotation woody crops program. Annual progress report no. ORNL-6254, Oak Ridge Nat. Lab, Oak Ridge

  • Roos A, Rosenqvist H, Ling E, Hektor B (2000) Farm-related factors influencing the adoption of short-rotation willow coppice production among Swedish Farmers. Acta Agric Scand 5:28–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg NJ (2007) A biomass future for the North American Great Plains: toward sustainable land use and mitigation of greenhouse warming. Springer, Dordrecht, p 200

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg NJ, Smith SJ (2009) A sustainable biomass industry for the North American Great Plains. Curr Opin Env Sust 1(2):121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossi AM, Hinrichs CC (2011) Hope and skepticism: farmer and local community views on the socio-economic benefits of agricultural bioenergy. Biomass Bioenerg 35:1418–1428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Secchi S, Tyndall J, Schulte LA, Asbjornsen H (2008) High crop prices and conservation Raising the Stakes. J Soil Water Conserv 63:68A–73A

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SHAZAM Analytics (2011) SHAZAM Reference Manual Version 11 and Software, ISBN 978-0-9570475-0-1

  • Sherrington C, Bartley J, Moran D (2008) Farm-level constraints on the domestic supply of perennial energy crops in the UK. Energy Policy 36(7):2504–2512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skelton P, Josiah SJ, King JW, Brandle JR, Helmers GA, Francis CA (2005) Adoption of riparian forest buffers on private lands in Nebraska, USA. Small-scale For Econ Manag Policy 4:185–203

    Google Scholar 

  • Skevas T, Swinton SM, Hayden NJ (2014) What type of landowner would supply marginal land for energy crops? Biomass Bioenerg 67:252–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DJ, Schulman C, Current D, Easter KW (2011) Willingness of agricultural landowners to supply perennial energy crops. Paper presented at the agricultural & applied economics association’s 2011 AAEA & NAREA Joint Annual Meeting, Pittsburgh, 24–26 July 2011

  • StataCorp (2017) Stata statistical software: release 15. StataCorp LLC, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • Strong N, Jacobson MG (2006) A case for consumer-driven extension programming: agroforestry adoption potential in Pennsylvania. Agrofor Syst 68:43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tian Y (2013) Logistics of biomass feedstock: the key to biofuel production. Biofuels 4:9–11

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tindall DB (2003) Social values and the contingent nature of public opinion and attitudes about forests. For Chron 79(3):692–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyndall JC (2009) Farmer perspectives on the production of switchgrass as a bioenergy feedstock: a 2008 Iowa survey. Biocomplexity in the bioeconomy: the natural and industrial ecology of biobased product. Prepared for the office of bio-renewable programs. Iowa State University

  • Tyndall JC, Schulte LA, Hall RB (2010) Expanding the US Cornbelt biomass portfolio: forester perceptions of the potential for woody biomass. Small-scale For 10:287–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyndall JC, Schulte LA, Hall RB, Grubh KR (2011a) Woody biomass in the U.S. Cornbelt? Constraints and opportunities in the supply. Biomass Bioenerg 35:1561–1571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tyndall JC, Berg E, Colletti JP (2011b) Corn stover as a dedicated feedstock in Iowa’s bio-economy: an Iowa farmer survey. Biomass Bioenerg 35:1485–1495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau (2010) State area measurements and internal points coordinates

  • U.S. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (2013) Renewable portfolio standard policies

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture (2012) Online US summary and state data

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (2011) Fact sheet: biomass crop assistance program

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (2015) FY2015 biomass crop assistance program. Fact sheet

  • U.S. Department of Energy (2011) U.S. billion-ton update: biomass supply for a bioenergy and bioproducts industry. Agricultural and biosystems engineering technical reports and white papers

  • U.S. Department of Energy (2015) Northern Great Plains climate change and energy sector: regional vulnerabilities and resilience solutions. Summary in brief

  • U.S. Forest Service (2012) State & private forestry fact sheet

  • U.S. Geological Survey (2013) National map small scale

  • U.S. National Agricultural Statistics Service (2012) Table 8. Land: 2012 and 2007. In 2012 census of agriculture—state data. Washington: USDA. for KS, NE, ND, & SD

  • U.S. National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA-NASS) (2013) Acreage. USDA, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdivia C, Poulos C (2008) Factors affecting farm operators’ interest in incorporating riparian buffers and forest farming practices in northeast and southeast Missouri. Agrofor Syst 75:61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villamil MB, Alexander M, Silvis AH, Gray ME (2012) Producer perceptions and information needs regarding their adoption of bioenergy crops. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 16:3604–3612

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wen Z, Ignosh J, Parrish D, Stowe J, Jones B (2009) Identifying farmers’ interest in growing switchgrass for bioenergy in southern Virginia. J Ext 47(5):1–10

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • White H (1980) A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica 48:813–838

    Google Scholar 

  • Xue C, Zhao XQ, Liu CG, Chen LJ, Bai FW (2013) Prospective and development of butanol as an advanced biofuel. Biotechnol Adv 31(8):1575–1584

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the United States Department of Agriculture, North Central Region, Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, Project Number: LNC12-346.

Funding

Funding was provided by National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Grant No. ID0EYKAE1454).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Natural Resources Ecology and Management, Iowa State University, 339 Science II Hall, Ames, IA, 50011, USA

    Ashley M. Hand & John C. Tyndall

  2. Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, Alabama A&M University, 100 Drake Dr., Normal, AL, 35762, USA

    Troy Bowman

Authors
  1. Ashley M. Hand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Troy Bowman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John C. Tyndall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Troy Bowman.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hand, A.M., Bowman, T. & Tyndall, J.C. Influences on farmer and rancher interest in supplying woody biomass for energy in the US Northern Great Plains. Agroforest Syst 93, 731–744 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0170-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10457-017-0170-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation