Biomass transport represents a significant share of the final price of biomass for energy purpose and transport itself requires energy and is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions. We conduct a techno- economic analysis of biomass transport for the main forest wood products in Switzerland (firewood and woodchips), as well as for solid and liquid manure. The first step is to identify the most widely used transport chains from the supplier to the final consumer in Switzerland, using interviews that follow a Mental Models approach. To our knowledge, Mental Models have never been used in the context of logistics chains. Allowing to elegantly capture the point of view of different stakeholders, we therefore, propose a methodology which is applicable when transport current practices are undocumented or unknown. For the 12 identified transport chains of these different types of biomass, we quantify the cost, energy input, and CO2 emissions. For each transport chain, the income from the resource is compared to the transport costs, its primary energy contained to the actual energy input and the avoided CO2 emissions from using substitute fossil energy source to the actual emissions of transport. In Switzerland, transport mainly occurs by road on distances ranging from 1 to 30 km. Results show that transport of woodchips is more performant than transport of firewood, and that solid manure is more interesting that liquid manure, except when underground slurry pipes are used. In the case of Switzerland, the main barrier to biomass transport is cost rather than energy or environmental impacts. Loading and unloading the resource represent a significant share of the final performance, as it can account for up to 56% of total transport costs. Energy required to deliver the forest wood to final consumers represents between 0.3% and 1.8% of the primary energy contained in it, and less than 5% in the case of manure. Some forest wood chains attain the maximum break-even transport distances after 43 km only, whereas others can reach over 400 km. Using agricultural transport for slurry should not exceed 3 km when it comes to costs. However, if only direct energy inputs and CO2 emissions were to be considered, threshold distances would be between 145 to over thousand km. In our analysis, using agricultural feedstock allows to compensate up to 3 time the energy of its transport, whilst considering very conservative methane emissions during biogas production. This demonstrates that cost is the main barrier to transporting biomass for energy and highlights the relevance of its use to tackle current environmental challenges. The results can serve as a start for deeper investigations of biomass logistics chains, be used to identify optimal plant locations and provide, at a local level, useful insights to decision- makers and practitioners.