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
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).
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