Farmers’ Willingness to Produce Alternative Cellulosic Biofuel Feedstocks Under Contract in Kansas Using Stated Choice Experiments


Many studies have assessed the technical feasibility of producing bioenergy crops on agricultural lands. However, while it is possible to produce large quantities of agricultural biomass for bioenergy from lignocellulosic feedstocks, very few of these studies have assessed farmers’ willingness to produce these crops under different contracting arrangements. The purpose of this paper is to examine farmers’ willingness to produce alternative cellulosic biofuel feedstocks under different contractual, market, and harvesting arrangements. This is accomplished by using enumerated field surveys in Kansas with stated choice experiments eliciting farmers’ willingness to produce corn stover, sweet sorghum, and switchgrass under different contractual conditions. Using a random utility framework to model the farmers’ decisions, the paper examines the contractual attributes that will most likely increase the likelihood of feedstock enterprise adoption. Results indicate that net returns above the next best alternative use of the land, contract length, cost share, financial incentives, insurance, and custom harvest options are all important contract attributes. Farmers’ willingness to adopt and their willingness-to-pay for alternative contract attributes vary by region and choice of feedstock.

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

Fig. 1


  1. 1.

    Two focus group sessions were held at the Annual Risk and Profit Conference in Manhattan, KS in the summer of 2010. Participants who were identified as farmers were invited to attend the focus group session, of which 12 participated.

  2. 2.

    The version of software used was SAS 2008. Windows, Version 9.2. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.

  3. 3.

    The D-Efficiency (Treatment D-Efficiency) for the corn stover, sweet sorghum and switchgrass choice experiment designs were 93.52 (80.27), 87.12 (70.96), and 91.73 (77.61), respectively.

  4. 4.

    The number of observations for each stated choice experiment is equal to the number of usable surveys times 5, since each respondent answered 5 choice questions for each experiment.


  1. 1.

    U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2013) Cellulosic biofuels begin to flow, but in lower volumes than foreseen by statutory targets. Today in Energy. Accessed 28 June 2013

  2. 2.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2013) EPA proposes 2013 renewable fuel standards. Accessed 28 June 2013

  3. 3.

    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2011) Regulatory announcement: EPA finalizes 2012 renewable fuel standards. EPA-420-F11-044. U.S. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Accessed 28 May 2013

  4. 4.

    U.S. Congress, House of Representatives (2007) Energy independence and security act of 2007. Title II-energy security through increased production of biofuels; Subtitle A -renewable fuel standard. Wikisource. Accessed 27 May 2013

  5. 5.

    Babcock, Bruce A, Philip W Gassman, Manoj Jha, and Catherine L Kling (2007) Adoption subsidies and environmental impacts of alternative energy crops. Briefing Paper 07-BP 50, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development, Iowa State University. Accessed 27 May 2013.

  6. 6.

    De La Torre Ugarte DG, English BC, Jensen L (2007) Sixty billion gallons by 2030: economic and agricultural impacts of ethanol and biodiesel expansion. Am J of Agric Econ 89:1290–1295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gallagher PW, Dikeman M, Fritz J, Wailes E, Gauthier W, Shapouri H (2003) Supply and social cost estimates for biomass from crop residues in the United States. Environ Resour Econ 24:335–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Graham RL, Nelson R, Sheehan J, Perlack RD, Wright LL (2007) Current and potential U.S. corn stover supplies. Agron J 99:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Larson JA, English BC, Lambert L (2007) Economic analysis of the conditions for which farmers will supply biomass feedstocks for energy production. Final Report for Agricultural Marketing Center Special Projects Grant 412-30-54, Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, University of Tennessee. Accessed 30 August 2012

  10. 10.

    Nelson R, Langemeier M, Williams J, Rice C, Staggenborg S, Pfromm P, Rogers D, Wang D, Nippert J (2010) Kansas biomass resource assessment: assessment and supply of select biomass-based resources. Research report prepared for the Kansas Bioscience Authority. Olathe, KS

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    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. U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Perrin R, Vogel K, Schmer M, Mitchell R (2008) Farm-scale production cost of switchgrass for biomass. Bioenerg Res 1:91–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Propheter JL, Staggenborg SA, Wu S, Wang D (2010) Performance of annual and perennial biofuel crops: yields during the first two years. Agron J 102:806–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Walsh ME, de la Torre Ugarte DG, Shapouri H, Slinsky SP (2003) Bionergy crop production in the United States. Environ and Resour Econ 24:313–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Rajagopal D, Sexton SE, Roland-Holst D, Zilberman D (2007) Challenge of biofuel: filling the tank without emptying the stomach? Environ Res Lett 2: Accessed 30 August 2012

  16. 16.

    Rajagopal D, Zilberman D (2007) Review of environmental, economic and policy aspects of biofuels. Policy Research Working Paper No. 4341. Sustainable Rural and Urban Development Team, Development Research Group, The World Bank. Available at: Accessed 30 August 2012

  17. 17.

    Wolfe, AK, Downing ME, Hoagland CS (2012) The perennial question: farmers’ choices and the biofuel future. ONRL/TM-2012/231. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US. Department of Energy. Accessed 24 May 2013

  18. 18.

    Hipple PC, Duffy MD (2002) Farmers’ motivations for adoption of switchgrass. In: Whipkey A, Janichm J (eds) Trends in new crops and new uses. ASHA, Alexandria, pp 252–266

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Kelsey KD, Franke TC (2009) The producers’ stake in the bioeconomy: a survey of Oklahoma producers’ knowledge and willingness to grow dedicated biofuel crops. J Ext 47: Accessed 30 August 2012

  21. 21.

    Marra A, Jensen KL, Clark CD, English BC, Menard RJ (2012) Information sources and farmers’ attitudes toward switchgrass production as a biofuel feedstock.” J Ext 50: Available at: Accessed 24 May 2013

  22. 22.

    Paulrud S, Laitila T (2010) Farmers' attitudes about growing energy crops: a choice experiment approach. Biomass Bioenergy 34:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    White SS, Selfa T (2012) Shifting lands: exploring kansas farmer decision-making in an era of climate change and biofuels production. Environ Manag 51:379–391

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Epplin FM, Clark CD, Roberts RK, Hwang S (2007) Challenges to the development of a dedicated energy crop. Am J of Agric Econ 89:1296–1302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Wilhelm WW, Johnson JMF, Hatfield JL, Voorhees WB, Linden DR (2004) Crop and soil productivity response to corn residue removal: a literature review. Agron J 96:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Bhat CR (1998) Accommodating flexible substitution patterns in multidimensional choice modeling: formulation and application to travel mode and departure time choice. Transp Res Part B 7:455–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Greene WH (2007) NLOGIT Version 4.0: reference guide. Econometric Software, Plainview

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) (2007) 2007 Census Publication. USDA. Accessed 3 February 2009

  31. 31.

    Green PE, Krieger AM, Wind Y (2001) Thirty years of conjoint analysis: reflections and prospects. Interfaces 31:S56–S73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Hanley N, Wright RE, Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment: design issues, current experience and future prospects. Env and Res Econ 11:413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Train KE (2003) Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Lusk J, Fields D, Prevatt W (2008) An incentive compatible conjoint ranking mechanism. Amer J Agric Econ 90:487–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Roe B, Sporleder TL, Belleville B (2004) Hog producer preferences for marketing contract attributes. Am J of Agric Econ 86:115–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Fewell JE, Lynes MK, Williams JR, Bergtold JS (2013) Kansas farmers’ interest and preferences for growing cellulosic bioenergy crops. J Amer Soc Farm Manag Rural Apprais 76:131–152

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Nguyen N, Miller AJ (1992) A review of some exchange algorithms for constructing discrete D-optimal designs. Comput Stat Data Anal 14:489–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Cook RD, Nachtsheim CJ (1989) Computer-aided blocking of factorial and response-surface designs. Technometrics 31:339–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kansas Farm Management Association (KFMA) (2010) 2010 enterprise summaries. Accessed 1May 2013

  40. 40.

    Greene WH (2012) Econometric analysis, 7th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Wilhelm WW, Doran JS, Power JF (1986) Corn and soybean yield response to crop residue management under no-tillage production systems. Agron J 78:184–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Gunther TP (2011) Establishment of swtichgrass in corn across a landscape gradient: establishment, yield and quality of biomass feedstock. MS Thesis, Iowa State University

  43. 43.

    Song F, Zhao J, Swinton S (2009) Switching to perennial energy crops under uncertainty and costly reversibility. Amer J Agric Econ 93:768–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Aust J Exp Agric 46(2006):1407–1424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Blanco-Canqui H, Lal R (2009) Crop residue removal impacts on soil productivity and environmental quality. Crit Rev Plant Sci 28:139–163

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Hess RJ, Kenney KL, Wright CT, Perlack R, Turhollow A (2009) Corn stover availability for biomass conversion: situation analysis. Cellulose 16:599–619

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Anand M, Archer DW, Bergtold JS, Canales E (2011) Balancing feedstock economics and ecosystem services. In: Braun R, Karlen D, Johnson D (eds) Sustainable feedstocks for advanced biofuels: sustainable alternative fuel feedstock opportunities, challenges and roadmaps for six U.S. regions. Soil Water Conservation Society, Ankeny

    Google Scholar 

Download references


The funding for the primary portion of this project came from the South Central Sun Grant Initiative and Department of Transportation (Award No. DTOS59-07-G-00053), with additional funds from the National Science Foundation, EPSCoR Division, Research Infrastructure Improvement (Award No. 0903806), and a National Science Foundation Grant From Crops to Commuting: Integrating the Social, Technological, and Agricultural Aspects of Renewable and Sustainable Biorefining (I-STAR; Award No. DGE-0903701).

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jason S. Bergtold.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bergtold, J.S., Fewell, J. & Williams, J. Farmers’ Willingness to Produce Alternative Cellulosic Biofuel Feedstocks Under Contract in Kansas Using Stated Choice Experiments. Bioenerg. Res. 7, 876–884 (2014).

Download citation


  • Adoption
  • Contract
  • Corn stover
  • Sweet sorghum
  • Switchgrass
  • Willingness-to-pay