Abstract In order to achieve the targets defined in the European Union's “Low Carbon Roadmap”, the “Energy Roadmap 2050” and the “Bioeconomy Strategy”, an enhanced use of biomass is required; not only for energy but also for material uses. In this context and to facilitate targeted resource and energy policy measures, profound knowledge of the status quo of biomass utilization is of crucial importance. The core objective of this paper is to provide complete flow diagrams of the biomass streams within the Austrian economic system from a meso-scale perspective, taking into account all types of uses. Contrary to material flow accounts (MFA), internal streams (e.g. due to biomass processing and transformation, recycling and reuse of residues and by-products, stock changes of end-consumer products) are explicitly taken into consideration and quantified. This approach reveals gaps and inconsistencies in statistical data and facilitates conclusions about quantities not recorded in statistics. Furthermore, the structure of biomass use is visualized and the extent of biogenic material reuse and recycling is revealed. The results show that biomass imports to Austria surpassed exports by about 15% in 2011 (based on dry mass). The distribution of biomass among the different uses depends on whether direct consumption or final uses are considered. In the latter case, which is considered more appropriate, inland biomass consumption was distributed as follows: 7% human food, 18% raw material, 38% energy and 37% animal feed. Exports are primarily composed of wood products. Contrary to common assumption, energy recovery is still usually the ultimate step of cascadic biomass use rather than primary purpose, or based on by-products. Judging from wood quantities being processed and consumed and foreign trade data, domestic wood supply according to felling reports (and stated as “domestic extraction used” in official MFA data) is clearly underrated. Conversely, domestic feed production according to MFA data is inconsistent with official animal feed statistics and appears to be overestimated by at least 30%.