Bioenergy Crop Production in the United States: Potential Quantities, Land Use Changes, and Economic Impacts on the Agricultural Sector
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
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.
- 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. CrossRef
- 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. CrossRef
- 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.
- 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.
- 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. CrossRef
- Mann, L. K. and V. R. Tolbert (2000), ‘Soil Sustainability in Renewable Biomass Plantings’, Ambio 29(8), 492-498.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Bioenergy Crop Production in the United States: Potential Quantities, Land Use Changes, and Economic Impacts on the Agricultural Sector
Environmental and Resource Economics
Volume 24, Issue 4 , pp 313-333
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Additional Links
- agricultural income
- bioenergy crops
- Conservation Reserve Program
- hybrid poplar
- land-use changes
- Industry Sectors