Skip to main content
Log in

Bioenergy Crop Production in the United States: Potential Quantities, Land Use Changes, and Economic Impacts on the Agricultural Sector

  • Published:
Environmental and Resource Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energyjointly analyzed the economic potential for,and impacts of, large-scale bioenergy cropproduction in the United States. Anagricultural sector model (POLYSYS) wasmodified to include three potential bioenergycrops (switchgrass, hybrid poplar, and willow). At farmgate prices of US $2.44/GJ, anestimated 17 million hectares of bioenergycrops, annually yielding 171 million dry Mg ofbiomass, could potentially be produced at aprofit greater than existing agricultural usesfor the land. The estimate assumes highproductivity management practices are permittedon Conservation Reserve Program lands. Traditional crops prices are estimated toincrease 9 to 14 percent above baseline pricesand farm income increases annually by US $6.0billion above baseline.At farmgate prices of US $1.83/GJ, anestimated 7.9 million hectares of bioenergycrops, annually yielding 55 million dry Mg ofbiomass, could potentially be produced at aprofit greater than existing agricultural usesfor the land. The estimate assumes managementpractices intended to achieve highenvironmental benefits on Conservation ReserveProgram lands. Traditional crops prices areestimated to increase 4 to 9 percent abovebaseline prices and farm income increasesannually by US $2.8 billion above baseline.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, D., R. Alig, J. M. Callaway and B. A. McCarl (1994), ‘Forest and Agricultural Sector Optimization Model: Model Description’. Final Report for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

  • De La Torre Ugarte, D. G. and D. E. Ray (2000), ‘Biomass and Bioenergy Applications of the POLYSYSModeling Framework’, Biomass and Bioenergy 18(4), 291-308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delucchi, M. A. (1997), ‘A Revised Model of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity’. University of California, Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, UCD-ITS-RR-97-8.

  • Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI) (1999), The Rainbow Book: A Summary of the November 1998 FAPRI Baseline. University of Missouri.

  • Garten, C. T. Jr. and S. D. Wullschleger (2000), ‘Soil Carbon Dynamics Beneath Switchgrass as Indicated by Stable Isotope Analysis’, Journal of Environmental Quality 29, 645-653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, W., M. R. Dicks, B. T. Hyberg, S. Webb and C. Ogg (1988), ‘Land Use and Soil Erosion: A National Linear Programming Model’. Technical Bulletin 1742, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ince, P. J. and A. N. Moiseyev (2003), ‘Some Forestry Implications of Agricultural Short Rotation Woody Crops in the United States’, in L. Teeter, ed., Forest Policy for Private Forestry-Global and Regional Challenges, chapter 17, Wallingford, UK: Cabi International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Z., C. W. Wood and D. I. Bransby (2000), ‘Soil Management Impacts on Soil Carbon Sequestration by Switchgrass’, Biomass and Bioenergy 18, 469-477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, L. K. and V. R. Tolbert (2000), ‘Soil Sustainability in Renewable Biomass Plantings’, Ambio 29(8), 492-498.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCarl, B. A., C. C. Chang, J. D. Atwood and W. I. Nayda (1993), ‘Documentation of ASM: The U.S. Agricultural Sector Model’. Unpublished Report, Texas A&M University, Available online at HTTP: ageco.tamu.edu/faculty/mccarl/asm.htm.

  • Ray, D. E. and T. F. Moriak (1976), ‘POLYSIM: A National Agricultural Policy Simulator’, Agricultural Economics Research 28(1), 14-21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slinsky, S. P. and K. H. Tiller (1999), ‘Application of an Alternative Methodological Approach for Budget Generators for Research’. Published Abstract, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 31(2), 401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tolbert, V. R., F. C. Thornton, J. D. Joslin, B. R. Bock, W. Bandaranayake, A. E. Houston, D. D. Tyler, D. A. Mays, T. H. Green and D. E. Pettry (2000), ‘Increasing Below-Ground Carbon Sequestration with Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Production of Bioenergy Crops’, New Zealand Journal of Forestry Science 30(1/2) 138-149.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agriculture Statistical Service (1999a), Census of Agriculture-1997. Washington, DC.

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, World Agricultural Outlook Board, Office of the Chief Economist (1999b), Agricultural Baseline Projections to 2008, Staff Report No. WAOB-99-1. Washington, DC.

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (1999c), The Conservation Reserve Program, 18th Signup. Washington, DC.

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2001), Agricultural Outlook, ERSAGO-278, Washington, DC.

  • U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Energy Information Administration (2000), Annual Energy Review, 1999. DOE/EIA-0384(99), Washington, DC.

  • Walsh, M. E. and D. A. Becker (1996), ‘BIOCOST: A Software Program to Estimate the Cost of Producing Bioenergy Crops’, ‘96. Nashville, TN, pp. 480-486.

  • Wang, M., C. Saricks and D. Santini (1999), ‘Effects of Fuel Ethanol Use on Fuel-Cycle and Greenhouse Gas Emissions’. Argonne National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Research, ANL/ESD-38.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Walsh, M.E., de la Torre Ugarte, D.G., Shapouri, H. et al. Bioenergy Crop Production in the United States: Potential Quantities, Land Use Changes, and Economic Impacts on the Agricultural Sector . Environ Resource Econ 24, 313–333 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023625519092

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023625519092

Navigation