Bio-Based Paths to Prosperity for Small and Medium Forest Landowners: A Pilot Study in Southwest Louisiana

doi:10.4236/ojf.2012.24034

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Open Journal of Forestry

2012. Vol.2, No.4, 272-278

Published Online October 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojf) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojf.2012.24034

272

Bio-Based Paths to Prosperity for Small and Medium Forest

Landowners: A Pilot Study in Southwest Louisiana

Roger Smithhart1, Richard P. Vlosky1, Michael Blazier2, Paul Darby3,

Glenn Hughes4, Dek Terrell5

1Louisiana Forest Products Development Center, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center,

Baton Rouge, USA

2Hill Farm Research Station, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, USA

3Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center,

Baton Rouge, USA

4Forestry Extension, Mississippi State University, Starkville, USA

5Economics Department, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, USA

Email: [email protected]

Received June 14th, 2012; Revised July 23rd, 2012; Accepted August 9th, 2012

Forest biomass has great potential as a biofuel feedstock, but information on forest owner perceptions of

using forest biomass to produce bioenergy is lacking. In this case study, we surveyed 3500 small to me-

dium private forest landowners in southwestern Louisiana to better understand their attitudes and percep-

tions towards harvesting forest biomass for bioenergy production. Results indicate that landowners: 1)

were positive about utilizing biomass for bioenergy, 2) believe viable biomass conversion technologies

exist, 3) had antagonistic or neutral attitudes towards some technological, economic, and policy issues

associated with using forest biomass for bioenergy due in part to lack of information or knowledge, and 4)

felt biomass is a low-value product compared to traditional products. Landowners’ perceptions of partici-

pating in bio-based activities and markets vary among age and ownership size, and 51% of forest land-

owners were willing to participate in management activities specifically geared for bioenergy production.

Keywords: Small & Medium Non-Industrial Forest Landowners; Biomass; Business Potential; Louisiana

Introduction

In recent years, policymakers, legislators, developers, and

energy producers in the United States have been searching for

economically viable renewable domestic energy sources. Hy-

dro-electric, geothermal, wind, solar, and biomass energy are

the most common forms of renewable energy sources that are

being used to alleviate our dependency on fossil fuels. Biomass

is an attractive choice because it is cost-efficient, clean, and

currently the only renewable source of liquid transportation fuel

(Perlack et al., 2005; USDOE, 2010; USDA, 2009).

Biomass energy comes from biological resources such as ag-

ricultural crop residues, fuelwood, charcoal, animal and mu-

nicipal wastes or other biofuels derived from plant material.

Currently in the US, biomass provides about seven percent of

the total energy consumption, supplying 7.3 quads BTU (EIA,

2009). Wood plays an integral role in the biomass energy group

by providing approximately a third of the renewable energy

consumed, or 2 quads BTU in the emerging bio-based markets

(EIA, 2009).

There are several government policy issues associated with

bioenergy in the United States. Government intervention in

energy markets has a long history in the United States, with

some of the earliest efforts dating to World War I policies for

stimulating oil and gas production. Today, there are numerous

subsidies provided to the energy industry. Direct subsidies to

the industry include direct payments to producers and consum-

ers and tax credits for certain activities such as drilling coalbed

methane wells. Indirect subsidies consist of government finan-

cial commitments that affect consumption and production costs,

such as loans or loan guaranties, insurance services, tax exempt

interest on debt, and research and development (EIA, 1992).

Some of these types of subsidies have been recently created for

the renewable fuels market as well. Specific programs geared

towards assisting growers (landowners) are the Woody Bio-

mass Utilization Grants and the Biomass Crop Assistance Pro-

gram funded by the USDA (Perlack et al., 2005; USDA, 2010).

These programs were designed to aid in the supply of biomass

to the market by providing grants addressing the national chal-

lenge of utilizing low-value forest products and by providing

financing to help farmers integrate energy feedstock production

into existing cropland (USDA, 2010). Government mandates

and policy incentives may promote bioenergy demand, which

would create the need for a sustainable supply.

The US South is an area rich in natural resources, accounting

for approximately 40% of the total forest lands in US and pro-

ducing about 55% of the total annual round wood harvest

(Prestemon & Abt, 2002). Of the 200 million acres of timber-

lands in the South, approximately 90% (181 million acres) are

privately owned either by forest industry or non-industrial pri-

vate forest landowners (NIPF) (Conner, 2002). Understanding

the characteristics of these producers should have positive eco-

nomic impacts for individuals, families, and communities

within their regions. A large portion of research within the for-

est industry sector over the past few decades has revolved

around NIPF, which is synonymous with the current term fam-

ily forest owners. Justification of such inquiries is partially

R. SMITHHART ET AL.

attributed to the relative size of forestland owned by this group.

From 1993-2003, this group increased by 11%, and studies

indicate this trend persists (Butler & Leatherberry 2004; Hodg-

den et al., 2003). Despite NIPF land ownership increases, the

average area of individual land ownership has decreased due to

fragmentation. According to the USDA (2010), the majority of

private forestlands are less than a thousand acres.

While consistencies appear among landowner characteristics

(e.g. age, income, education, ownership size), landowner moti-

vations for ownership and management objectives indicate a

range of diversification, as suggested by the annotated review

of Hodgen et al. (2003). Atop the list of reasons identified for

owning forestland include asset for heirs, part of residence,

recreation/personal enjoyment, and aesthetics while timber

production remains relatively low (Butler & Leatherberry, 2004;

Hodgden, 2003; Measells et al., 2005). However, studies done

in Louisiana indicate timber production to be the main reason

for owning forestland (Perera, 2008; Vlosky, 2000). Recent

studies have also shown that NIPF landowners have a low

knowledge level of biomass harvesting, production, policies,

and economics (Almquist, 2006; Oxarart, 2008; Shaw, 2009).

Motivations for management objectives and harvest intensities

also vary among determinant factors such as size of ownership,

length of ownership, presence of structures and absenteeism

(Conway et al., 2003; Hodgden, 2003; Perera, 2008).

Given the potential of the South US to provide forest bio-

mass as biofuel feedstocks and its land ownership patterns, it is

imperative to understand small and medium landowner will-

ingness to participate in bio-based product management activi-

ties. With the guidance of the previously mentioned research,

we hypothesized that landowners would be willing to partici-

pate in such activities. The objectives of the study was 1) to

develop a baseline understanding of the role that current forest

products play in the supply chains from producers to consumers

within the focal region, 2) to identify prerequisites and willing-

ness to shift existing production to potentially higher value bio-

based alternatives, and 3) to discern the willingness to plant

bio-based forest species dedicated to producing bio-based

products.

Study Context

Louisiana, the study region, is typical of southern states, with

NIPF landowners accounting for about 62% ownership of the

13.8 million acres of forestland (LSU AgCenter, 2009). Lou-

isiana is rich in renewable natural resources readily available

for bioenergy production from the forestry industry. Approxi-

mately 4289 million kwh 1 (5.43 gigajoules) of energy can

potentially be produced from woody biomass residue in Lou-

isiana (de Hoop, 2006).

The purpose of this research was to survey small and me-

dium private forest landowners (SMAPFLs) in the US Gulf

South using Louisiana as a pilot state in order to identify cur-

rent and potential business positions as well as identify will-

ingness to participate in new cellulosic bio-based management

activities. Small forest landowners are defined as those having

between 10-139 acres and medium producers as those having

140-999 acres (USDA, 2009). The survey encompassed a

five-parish region in Southwest Louisiana (Vernon, Rapides,

Beauregard, Allen, and Calcasieu) which has considerable for-

est resources but a relatively low intensity of forest utilization

(Figure 1). The study region chosen has characteristics similar

to the land base in the Gulf South. Intentions were to develop

methods that could be utilized throughout most of the US

South.

Survey Methods

The survey portion of this research was focused on develop-

ing qualitative and quantitative information on the forestry

sector. It was a survey of 3500 small to medium forest land-

owners with forest ownership within the focal region chosen by

random sample from tax roll data. Information gained from the

survey was further analyzed to characterize the populations and

regions as well as given rating scale data to aid in managerial

decision making. This understanding and knowledge ensures

landowners have access to all current and emerging markets in

order to make informed decisions regarding participation in

cellulosic biomass-based business endeavors.

The primary target of preliminary research for developing the

survey was scientific journals and periodicals. However, other

professional publications of relevance were chosen with con-

sultation. The survey for forest landowners had four sections

containing questions involving issues relevant to ownership,

biomass knowledge, biomass market and policy implications,

and socio-demographics. All surveys contained a cover letter

with information about biomass, the survey, and a return enve-

lope. Survey procedures, follow up efforts, and data analysis

were conducted in accordance with Tailored Design Method

(Dillman, 2000).

Results

Response Rate, Respondent Demographics,

and Profile

Of the 3500 surveys mailed, 449 were either undeliverable,

inappropriate due to respondent being deceased, non-forest

landowner, or unwilling to participate in the survey. There were

a total of 162 unusable surveys and 942 usable surveys, for an

overall adjusted response rate of 28.2%. T-test statistics were

used to compare continuous variables, and chi square tests were

used to compare categorical data between first and second

mailing in order to investigate non-response bias. Approxi-

mately 93% of the questions were not significantly different;

therefore, the research results can be considered a fair repre-

sentation of the sample frame.

Figure 1.

Study region.

R. SMITHHART ET AL.

274

Over 76% of the respondents were males (n = 679), and ap-

proximately 73% were 55 years or older (n = 663). A little over

52% earned a college degree (n = 679), and the largest per-

centage (19%) were in the highest income category (over

$150,000). Approximately 80% of the respondents resided in

the state of Louisiana where they owned forestland (n = 726).

The general tendency of these SMAPFLs was to acquire land

rather than to dispose or sell their forest lands. Over 63% of the

respondents owned less than 80 acres of land (n = 798) (Figure

2). The majority of respondents (85%) chose the individual

ownership category (n = 784).

indicate landowners’ uncertainty toward the state of techno-

logical advancements in the conversion of wood biomass to

bioenergy. Such responses could also indicate a general lack of

knowledge landowners have on the emerging bio-based mar-

kets.

Slightly over 63% of respondents have positive attitudes of

using biomass for bioenergy (n = 915) while 82% agree that we

should use residual wood waste from forest harvesting activities

for bioenergy production (n = 900). Almost 50% of respondents

would supply wood biomass to bio-refineries capable of pro-

ducing energy for local (n = 899) and state (n = 900) needs

while 45% would supply wood biomass for national energy

needs (n = 898). Despite the perceived affinity for biomass,

only 43% of respondents agree that a bioenergy market will be

competitive compared to conventional energy markets (n =

903). The mean level of agreement for the statements “Residual

wood waste from forest harvesting activities should be used for

bioenergy production” and “a bioenergy market will be com-

petitive compared to the conventional energy market” on a 5

point scale are 4.2 and 3.3, respectively.

Biomass Perceptions and the Impetus for Policy and

Markets

Questions were asked to discover landowners’ knowledge

and perceptions on biomass concepts and utilization (Table 1).

The majority of the responses from the questions either had the

highest chosen value as “neutral” or was heavily clustered

around neutral. The high numbers of neutral responses coupled

with a majority of responses not in the appropriate direction

Figure 2.

Number of acres owned by percent of respondents in region, n = 789.

Table 1.

Landowner knowledge of key biomass concepts.

Survey Questions Strongly

Disagree

Somewhat

Disagree Neutral Somewhat

Agree Strongly Agree

Economically viable technologies exist for converting

biomass to bioenergy. 4% 10% 30% 38% 18%

Agricultural biomass harvesting and collection will not

require extra personnel and equipment. 13% 30% 32% 18% 6%

Agricultural biomass transportation can be done with

traditional agricultural equipment. 6% 14% 34% 36% 11%

Converting agricultural biomass to bioenergy is a simple

process that can be done at most agricultural processing

facilities.

5% 17% 40% 28% 11%

Agricultural biomass requires utilizing entire crop as well

as residual feedstock. 7% 19% 40% 27% 8%

R. SMITHHART ET AL.

Just over 40% of respondents agree that harvesting biomass

negatively impacts wildlife habitat (n = 912). Almost 40% dis-

agree that harvesting negatively impacts both air and water

quality (n = 909) and soil quality (n = 908) while over 47%

disagree that it will reduce growth production on standing tim-

ber (n = 899). Looking at market and policy issues, approxi-

mately 60% of the respondents agree that tax credits should be

given to landowners, biomass harvesters, and companies that

utilize biomass intended for energy production (n = 904).

Around 41% of respondents agree government subsidies should

be provided to companies for selling biomass (n = 901) while

almost 45% agree that incentive programs should be provided

to supplement costs of establishing biomass tree species (n =

901). Over 62% of respondents agree that grants should be

awarded for research and development capable of advancing

biomass production technologies (n = 905).

Other statistical tests were used to see if demographics are

related to key respondent perceptions. Respondents’ ages were

significantly related to beliefs that harvesting wood biomass

negatively impacts wildlife habitat, air and water quality, and

soil quality (Table 2). Also, the size of ownership had a statis-

tically significant relationship with the environmental impacts

of harvesting biomass. The positive direction of the ρ(rho)

value suggests that as respondents’ age increases so does their

belief that harvesting biomass negatively impacts the environ-

ment. In contrast, the negative direction of the ρ(rho) value

suggests that as the amount of acres owned by respondents

increases so does their tendency to disagree that harvesting

biomass negatively impacts the environment. This should be an

important note for energy producers, entrepreneurs, and policy

makers as this study as well as previous research suggests the

majority of private landowners are older individuals with rela-

tively small parcels of land. All items compared to respondent

age in Table 2 are highly significant except the belief that har-

vesting wood biomass will reduce growth production on stand-

ing timber (ρ(rho = 0.065).

Concerning market and policy issues, respondents’ ages were

significantly related with whether or not respondents believe

tax credit or government programs should be provided for bio-

mass establishment, selling, and utilization (Table 3). The size

of ownership showed a significant relationship with whether or

not respondents believe tax credit or government programs

should be provided for biomass establishment, selling, and

utilization. The negative direction of the ρ(rho) values suggests

that as age increases so does respondent’s tendency to disagree

that government programs or incentives should be provided for

the utilization, selling or establishing biomass. The positive

direction of the ρ(rho) values suggests that as ownership size

increases so does respondent’s tendency to agree that govern-

ment programs or incentives should be provided for the utiliza-

tion, selling or establishing biomass. This is another important

note for energy producers, entrepreneurs, and policy makers as

research suggests the majority of private landowners are older

individuals with relatively small parcels of land.

Table 2.

|NIPF landowners perceptions of environmental issues and socio-demographics.

Age Acres Owned

Biomass Issues n ρ(rho) p-value n ρ(rho) p-value

I believe harvesting wood biomass negatively impacts

wildlife habitat 884 0.126 0.000 884 –0.175 0.000

I believe harvesting wood biomass negatively impacts air

and water quality 909 0.115 0.000 909 –0.237 0.000

I believe harvesting wood biomass negatively impacts

soil quality 908 0.092 0.000 908 –0.245 0.000

I believe harvesting wood biomass will reduce growth

production on standing timber 873 0.051 0.065 896 –0.165 0.000

Table 3.

NIPF landowner perceptions of biomass markets/policies issue and socio-demographics.

Age Acres Owned

Biomass Issues n ρ(rho) p-value n ρ(rho) p-value

Tax credits should be given to landowners, harvesters, and

companies that utilize biomass for bioenergy 904 –0.142 0 896 0.382 0.01

Subsidies should be provided as an incentive to companies

for selling biomass residues from forestry and mill opera-

tions

901 –0.104 0.002 898 0.443 0.005

Incentive programs should be provided to supplement the

costs of establishing biomass tree crop species 901 –0.147 0 898 0.156 0.034

R. SMITHHART ET AL.

Other concerns included the motivations for the forest com-

munity to be involved in bio-based markets. When asked what

prerequisites would it take for respondents to participate in a

biomass to bioenergy market, 21% choose “profit”, 20% chose

“doesn’t harm wildlife habitat”, 20% chose “doesn’t cause

erosion”, 18% chose “doesn’t deplete the soil of nutrients”,

15% chose “knowledge and training”, 4% chose “it might upset

existing sectors that use the same raw materials (e.g. chips for

pulp/paper), and 2% chose “other” (n = 942). The top com-

ments suggested in the “other” option for participating included

“professional services provided”, “ensure sustainability and

reforestation”, “cooperative workshops provided”, and “must

help local markets”.

Management Issues

Approximately 66% of the forest landowners reported they

harvested trees from their property during the span of their

ownership. The top three products harvested were fuelwood for

personal use (32%), pulpwood for sale (28%), and sawlogs for

sale (26%) (n = 941) (Figure 3). Out of 410 respondents, 71%

plan to harvest trees for their personal use from their land

within ten years or in the distant future.

Out of 780 respondents, 89% plan to harvest trees for sale

from their land within ten years or in the distant future. Ap-

proximately 88% of respondents did not have a written forestry

plan and 12% did (n = 687). A little over 64% of respondents

with written forestry plans claimed someone else prepared the

plan. Foresters or forestry professionals were the highest re-

sponse given when asked who prepared the plan.

Respondents were asked about their perceptions of current

management activities as well as management of biomass for

bio-based products. Over 77% of the respondents believe they

practice sustainable forestry (n = 895). When asked about spe-

cific activities, a little over 80% did not use herbicide treat-

ments (n = 908) and almost 72% did not use prescribed burns

(n = 910). Over 74% of the respondents say that none of their

management costs involve burning or removing slash piles or

harvesting residues from harvesting activities (n = 901). Over

52% of respondents either somewhat or strongly agree that

wood biomass harvesting will help diversify the management

activities of their timberland (n = 896).

Approximately 51% of the respondents would be willing to

participate in managements activities specifically geared toward

biomass production (e.g. short rotation woody crops) (n = 874).

Overall, 62% of respondents had a positive perspective regard-

ing using biomass for bioenergy (Figure 4).

Using the Pearson chi square test, forest type was signifi-

cantly related to willingness to plant short-rotation woody crops

(chi2 = 30.257, p = 0.000, n = 874). The forest types included

natural hardwoods, natural pines, mixed hardwoods and pine,

planted hardwood, planted pines, and other. The majority of

respondents (55%) owned mixed hardwoods with the second

highest forest type being planted pines (16%) (n = 941). The

willingness of landowners to participate in biomass manage-

ment activities was rather evenly distributed across all catego-

ries except for two in particular. A little more than half of the

Figure 3.

Respondents’ product utilization from harvested trees, n = 941.

Figure 4.

Percentage of NIPF landowner answering “What is your overall opinion of using

biomass for bioenergy?” ( n = 924).

276

R. SMITHHART ET AL.

respondents with natural hardwoods answered “no” as opposed

to those answering “yes”. In contrast, more than half of the

respondents with planted pine answered “yes” as opposed to

those answering “no” when asked to participate in biomass

management activities. This suggests that respondents already

involved in intensive management activities (i.e. planting pines)

are more willing to participate in planting dedicated biomass

energy crops.

Conclusion

Results indicate the majority of landowners believe that

economically viable technologies exist for converting wood

biomass to bioenergy. They also tend to believe that wood

biomass harvesting and collection doesn’t require extra per-

sonnel and equipment, can be transported with traditional

equipment, and can be easily converted to bioenergy at most

pulp/paper or saw mills. The high numbers of neutral responses

could indicate landowners’ ineptitude toward the state of tech-

nological advancements in the conversion of wood biomass to

bioenergy. Such responses also underscore the insufficient

amount of knowledge landowners have on the emerging

bio-based markets. These individuals should be looked at as an

ideal base for administering information as well as involving in

future discussions from the forest industry.

In general, a rather large amount of landowners feel positive

about using wood biomass for bioenergy. Despite their per-

ceived affinity, only about half are willing to supply biomass

feedstock or participate in bio-based activities and even less

believed a bioenergy market will be comparatively competitive

to conventional energy markets. Therefore, a clear gap exists

between the desire to utilize wood biomass and the perceived

viability of bio-based markets.

Results from this study indicate those landowners’ percep-

tions of environmental, market, and policy issues were influ-

enced by several socio-demographic variables. Results indicate

that older landowners believe that harvesting biomass will

negatively impact wildlife habitat, air, water, and soil quality.

They also believe tax credits, subsidies, and incentive programs

should not be provided for biomass establishment, selling, and

utilization. In direct contrast, results shows that larger land-

owners do not believe that harvesting biomass will negatively

impact wildlife habitat, air, water, and soil quality and do be-

lieve tax credits, subsidies, and incentive programs should be

provided for biomass establishment, selling, and utilization. As

mentioned earlier, most of the landowners surveyed were older

individuals, with only a small percentage being medium to

large landholders. This is an important note for policy makers,

legislators, and local officials to take forward when creating

policies intended to foster the development of bio-based mar-

kets.

Most forest landowners harvested trees from their property

during their ownership, with two of the top products pulpwood

and sawlogs. Also, the majority of landowners (89%) plan to

harvest trees for sale from their land within the next ten years or

in the future. Despite the seemingly large amount of current and

future production, a startling amount of landowners (88%) do

not have written forestry plans. This coincides with the fact that

the majority of landowners in southwestern Louisiana did not

use intensive management methods such as prescribed burns

and herbicide treatments nor did the majority have any of their

costs involve removing or burning slash and residue piles from

harvesting activities. The long-term commitment of bio-based

facilities will likely depend upon the availability of supply

within the area. It is important to stay abreast of current and

future forest production and subsequent products in order to

realize the potential amount of biomass supply.

The majority of landowners either somewhat or strongly

agreed that wood biomass harvesting will help diversify the

management activities of their timberland. More exacting, a

narrow majority of landowners (51%) would be willing to par-

ticipate in management activities specifically geared towards

biomass production such as short rotation woody crops. When

asked what it would take to participate, the majority report

profit, with assurance that no harm will be done to the envi-

ronment following close behind. Thus, there is an inherent need

for landowners to be reassured of the profitability of bio-based

products and that no harm will be done to the environment

during their production. Additionally, the apparent scarcity of

intensive management activities coupled with the lack of writ-

ten forestry plans beckon the overall need for professional as-

sistance. For those unconsciously managing their forests or

unwilling to participate in biomass management activities, the

invaluable services of educational programs should be provided

in order to help diversify their portfolios and bolster rural

economies.

REFERENCES

Almquist, B. (2006). Environmental group perspectives on woody

biomass utilization related to hazardous fuels reduction. Eugene, OR:

University of Oregon.

Butler, J. B., & Leatherberry, C. E. (2004). America’s family forest

owners. Journal of Forestry, 102, 4-14.

Conner, R. C., & Hartsell, A. J. (2002). Forest area and conditions.

Southern forest resource assessment—Technical report (pp. 357-

402). Asheville, NC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southern Research Station.

Conway, M., Gregory, C., Amacher, S., Sullivan, J., & Wear, D. (2003).

Decisions nonindustrial forest landowners make: An empirical ex-

amination. Journal of Forest Economics, 9, 181-203.

doi:10.1078/1104-6899-00034

de Hoop, C. (2006). Biomass energy resources in Louisiana. Baton

Rouge: Louisiana Forest Products Development Center, LSU Agri-

cultural Center.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). The tailored design method. New York, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Energy Information Administration (1992). Federal energy subsidies:

Direct and indirect interventions in energy markets. EIA Service

Report SR/EMEU/92-02.

Energy Information Administration (2009). Annual energy review. US

Department of Energy. URL (last checked 20 March 2012).

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/overview.pdf

Hodgden, B., Cusack, C., & Tyrrell, M. (2003). Literature review: An

annotated bibliography on family forest owners. In Sustaining family

forests initiative wingspread conference: Yale program on private

forests, Racine, 6-8 October 2003.

LSU AgCenter (2009). 2008 Louisiana summary of agriculture and

natural resources. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Ag-

ricultural Center.

Measells, M. K., Stephen, C., Grado, H., Glenn, H., Michael, A., Dunn,

J. I., & Zielinske, B. (2005). Non-industrial private forest landowner

characteristics and use of forestry services in four southern states:

Results from a 2002-2003 mail survey. Southern Journal of Applied

Forestry, 29, 194-199.

Oxarart, A. (2008). Exploring written communication techniques for

complex natural resource issues. Gainsville, FL.

Perera, P. K. P. (2008). Non-industrial private forest landowners and

R. SMITHHART ET AL.

US home center retailers’ attitudes and perceptions of forest certifi-

cation, the school of renewable natural resources. Baton Rouge:

Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.

Perlack, R. D., Wright, L. L., Turhollow, A. F., Graham, R. L., Stokes,

B. J., & Erbach, D. C. (2005). Biomass as feedstock for a bioenergy

and bioproducts industry: The technical feasibility of a billion-ton

annual supply. US Department of Energy. doi:10.2172/885984

Prestemon, J. P., & Abt, R. C. (2002). The southern timber market to

2040. Journal of Forestry, 100, 16-22.

Shaw, D. S. (2009). Landowners’ knowledge, attitude, and aspirations

towards woody biomass markets in north Carolina. Raleigh: North

Carolina State University.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2009). Census of

agriculture. United States Department of Agriculture.

USDA (2009). President Obama issues presidential directive to USDA

to expand access to biofuels. URL (last checked 14 December 2010).

[email protected].

USDA (2010). Biomass crop assistance program for FSA. URL (last

checked 14 December 2010).

http://www.apfo.usda.gov/FSA/webapp?area=home&subject=ener&t

opic=bcap.

United States Department of Energy (USDOE) (2010). US department

of energy: Energy efficiency and renewable energy.

Vlosky, R. P. (2000). Certification: Perceptions of non-industrial pri-

vate forestland owners in Louisiana. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana

State University Agricultural Center.

278