1) A survey was conducted of 1,755 farmers in southeast Missouri about their interest in supplying agricultural residue and field crops for a potential biomass energy enterprise. 2) Over half of the 68 respondents stated they would be willing to supply crop residue, though some had concerns it could harm soils. 3) Farmers preferred contractual arrangements to supply biomass over becoming investor-members in an energy enterprise. Most favored three-year contracts. 4) Respondents showed more familiarity with sweet sorghum as an energy crop than other options like triticale or miscanthus.

1. SOUTHEAST MISSOURI BIOMASS STUDY
Ayers, V.H. 1; Boessen, C.2; Gedikogle, H.3; Parcell, J.4; Roach, A.5
1Agricultureand Rural Development Specialist, University of Missouri Extension, Bloomfield, MO 63825; 2Teaching Assistant Professor, University of Missouri Columbia, MO 65211; 3Assistant
Professor of Research, Lincoln University, Jefferson City, MO 65101; 4Professor, Agriculture Economics and State Farm Management Extension, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211;
5Consultant, Value Ag. LLC, Columbia, MO, 65211
Abstract
There has been an increased interest among farmers and business personnel in developing the agriculture biomass industry in Southeast Missouri. The Stoddard County Industrial
Development Authority, with cooperation from University of Missouri Extension funded a biomass study, focusing on Stoddard and adjacent Missouri counties. A survey of 1755 farmers living in
Southeast Missouri was conducted. There were 68 responses included in the final report. More than half of the respondents stated they would supply field residue for a biomass enterprise.
Those who were not interested stated that a biomass harvest would be bad for the soil. Farmers were more interested in supplying biomass by a contractual arrangement than in becoming
member-investors in an enterprise that converts biomass into renewable products. Most farmers preferred three year contracts to supply biomass from their farm. Some respondents were
familiar with energy crops. They were more familiar with sweet sorghum than other crops such as triticale or miscanthus.
60% 57.1% 56.3%
52.6% 51.1%
120% 49.6%
50% 47.7%
% of Residue Preferred to Remove
No response 100.00%
3% 100%
40%
Percent of Respondents
80%
County by County Breakdown of Southeast Missouri Crop Residue Biomass No
Yes
60%
30%
20%
43% 40%
54%
10%
20%
9.09%
0% 0%
I earn sufficient farm income now. It's not good for my ground. Corn Soybeans Wheat Forage/Hay Rice Cotton
Would you be willing to provide Why aren’t you interested in providing Percent of residue you would prefer to remove
field residue for bioenergy production? field residue for bioenergy production? From field.
No
response
6%
No
No response
response 12%
10%
Yes No
38% No 32%
Yes
54% Yes
34%
62%
No
52%
Would you be willing to become a member Would you be willing to become a member Would you be willing to contract to a
investor of a business that converts biomass investor of a firm that converts biomass processor if given adequate information
to methane and electricity? to ethanol? And compensation?
70% 14 13 $300
58.1% $250
Respondents Familiar with Energy Crop
60% 12
$250
A county-by-county breakdown of biomass resources available in the project region. In total, the region has access to 50% 10
$221
Percent of Respondents
$200 $185
more than 768 million bone dry tons of biomass feedstock. Of the counties included in the project region, Stoddard, 40% 8 7
$/acre
32.6% $150 $138 $137
6
Mississippi, New Madrid and Scott counties in the Missouri have the highest amounts of available biomass residues. 30% 6
$100
$100
20% 4 3
$50
10% 7.0% 2
2.3%
0.0% 0.0% $0
0% 0
Sweet sorghum Miscanthus Triticale Others* Corn Soybeans Wheat Hay/Forage Rice Cotton
One year Three years Five years Seven years Nine years More than
nine years
Distribution of Total Biomass Resources What length of contract would you prefer? Energy crops in which respondents were familiar. Respondents’ average expected compensation
per acre for harvesting, storing and providing
in Study Area field residue to a bioenergy producer.
18 17
Logging Residues
0.31% 16 15 $300 $140
$250 $119
14 $120
$250 $109
12 $221
12
Number of Respondents
11 $100
$200 $185
Wheat 10 $79 $77
9.31% $80 $71
$/acre
$/acre
$150 $138 $137
8
$60
6 $100
6 5 $100
Corn $40 $35
34.16% 4
$50
2 $20
2
$0 $0
0 Corn Soybeans Wheat Hay/Forage Rice Cotton Corn Soybeans Wheat Forage/Hay Rice Cotton
Same 5% more 10% more 15% more 20% more Never No response
Soybeans
42.04%
Corn Cobs Respondents expected profitability of biomass com- Respondents average expected compensation per acres Respondents average expected compensation
11.94%
pared to corn production. for harvesting, storing and providing field residue for providing field residue, not including
to a bioenergy producer. harvesting and storing residue.
Cotton
Sorghum 0.02%
2.23%
$160 $150
$60 $56
$140 $131
. No response
Use of Burning by Farmers Surveyed $120
$50
$41
10%
$100 $40 $35
$33
$/acre
$76 $31
$/acre
$80 Yes
$65 $30
$59 $60 37%
$60
$20
No burning Some burning $40
$20 $10
No
53%
Corn 28 13 $0
Corn Soybeans Wheat Forage/Hay Rice Cotton
$0
Corn Soybeans Wheat Rice Cotton
Soybeans 30 0
Respondents’ estimated value of field residue harvest Average value respondents place on N,P and K removed Would you be willing to become a member
Wheat 18 11 and storage. from field residue. investor in a custom harvesting business?
Forage/Hay 11 0
Rice 9 3
Cotton 12 0