Comparative life cycle assessment of five different vegetable oils
Ivan Muñoz*, Jannick Hoejrup Schmidt, Randi Dalgaard
2.-0 LCA consultants, Skibbrogade 5, 1, 9000, Aalborg, Denmark. Tel. +45 333 22822
* Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this work was to evaluate from cradle to gate the environmental performance of five vegetable oils: palm oil, soybean oil,
rapeseed oil, sunflower oil and peanut oil, using a consequential approach and including indirect land use change. The impact assessment
focused on greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions, land use and water consumption. For GHG emissions, rapeseed oil and sunflower oil were
the best performing ones, followed by soybean oil and palm oil and with peanut oil as the oil with the highest impact. Focusing on water
consumption, sunflower oil was the oil with the smallest impact, followed by rapeseed oil, palm oil and soybean oil, and with peanut oil
as the oil with the largest contribution. Regarding land use, palm oil and soybean oil were the oils associated with the smallest contribu-
tion, followed by rapeseed oil, and with sunflower oil and peanut oil as the oils with the largest net occupation of land.
Keywords: Palm oil, Soybean oil, Rapeseed oil, Sunflower oil, Peanut oil.
1. Introduction
The aim of this study was to evaluate the environmental impacts of a number of the major vegetable oils:
palm oil, soybean oil, rapeseed oil, sunflower oil and peanut oil. Different vegetable oils systems are associated
with different quantities of co-products, mainly oil meals, which are used as animal feed. When studying market
responses related to changes in demand for the different oils and when substituting different oils, it is a challenge
to address the interactions among oils and with the feed markets. The studied product systems were identified
using a systems perspective approach where likely market responses and substitution effects are considered.
Previous research on comparative life cycle information on vegetable oils is relatively limited. Examples are
Arvidssona et al. (2013) and Schmidt (2010). A larger number of studies exist within the field of biodiesel (e.g.
Menichetti et al. 2009), which are most often limited to focus only on GHG emissions compared to mineral die-
sel (Mentena et al. 2013).
2. Methods
2.1. Goal, scope and functional units
The purpose of the study was to obtain environmental information on different major vegetable oils, to pro-
vide decision support for situations where different vegetable oils can be used, i.e. where the oils are substituta-
ble. A functional unit of one ton refined (neutralized, bleached and deodorized; NBD) vegetable oil at refinery
gate was used.
2.2. Consequential life cycle inventory modelling
The consequential modeling principles are comprehensively described in Ekvall and Weidema (2004) and
Weidema et al. (2009). This approach was consistently applied throughout the study. The attributional approach
would fail to comply with the purpose of the study, which focuses on predicting the environmental consequences
of choosing different oils.
Production of refined vegetable oils is characterized by being associated with several by-products where the
major ones are the oil meals from the oil mills and free fatty acids (FFA), which are a by-product from the refin-
ing process. Both the oil meals and FFA are used as animal feed. Schmidt at Weidema (2008) identified two ma-
jor segments of the global generic animal feed market; namely feed protein and feed energy. Therefore a change
in supply of oil meals and FFA will substitute these two products in proportion with their protein and energy
content. Since the attributional approach only estimates/approximates the effects from downstream processing of
by-products and product substitutions by applying an allocation factor on the upstream effects, this approach
does not reflect actual cause-effect mechanisms in the market. The technique for performing the substitution cal-
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
886
culations for vegetable oil systems is demonstrated in several studies, e.g. Dalgaard et al (2008) and it is also im-
plemented in ecoinvent v3 (ecoinvent Centre 2013).
2.3. System boundaries
The inventories were established to represent 2011. The production functions for oil mill and refinery opera-
tions were regarded as being relatively constant over time, so data for 2005-2010 were used to represent 2011.
The study followed the same cut-off criteria as the ecoinvent v2.2 database (ecoinvent 2010). This implied
that inputs of services (such as cleaning, accounting, lawyers, marketing, business travelling), research and de-
veloping (laboratories, equipment, offices etc.), and overhead (overhead energy, office equipment etc.) were not
included. Further, the use of pesticides was not included in the study. Indirect land use changes (iLUC) were in-
cluded (see section 2.3).
The oils were inventoried from cradle to gate (at refinery). Each of the five oil product systems included three
product stages: 1) oil crop cultivation, 2) oil mill, and 3) refinery. Generally, the oil mills supply crude oil and oil
meal (feed energy and feed protein) and the refineries supply refined oil and free fatty acids (feed energy). How-
ever, the palm oil system includes an additional step, since the kernels from the fresh fruit bunches are sent to
another oil extraction step. As an example, Figure 1 shows the process diagram and mass balance for the palm
oil and rapeseed oil systems. When solving the inventory problems related to multiple product output systems
using substitution, it was necessary to identify which one of the co-products was the determining one. The latter
is defined as the one for which a change in demand leads to a change in supply. In short, for all oils, except the
soybean oil system, the oil was the determining co-product. For soybean oil though, it is the demand for the pro-
tein meal that determines the supply, not the demand for the oil. Therefore, the modeling of soybean oil did not
directly involve the cultivation and processing of soybeans. Instead, a change in demand for soybean oil would
affect other users of soybean oil, which would then have to compensate with another oil. The most likely com-
pensation oil was palm oil since this was identified as the marginal one (Schmidt and Weidema 2008). This
meant that the environmental impact from demanding soybean oil was similar to that of palm oil. The identifica-
tion of determining products and byproducts is summarized in Table 1.
Figure 1. Process diagrams for palm oil (left) and for rapeseed oil as an example of all other oils (right). NBD:
neutralized, bleached, deodorized, FFB: fresh fruit bunches, CPO: crude palm oil, CPKO crude palm kernel oil,
FFA: free fatty acids, PO: palm oil, PKO: palm kernel oil, PKM: palm kernel meal, RSM: rapeseed meal,
CRSO: crude rapeseed oil.
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
887
Table 1. Determining products and by-products in the five oil production systems. Palm oil sys-
tem
Soybean oil
system
Rapeseed
oil system
Sunflower
oil system
Peanut oil
system
NBD oil Determining Byproduct Determining Determining Determining
NBD palm kernel oil Byproduct n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Protein meal Byproduct Determining Byproduct Byproduct Byproduct
FFA Byproduct Byproduct Byproduct Byproduct Byproduct
n.a.: not applicable.
For the substituted systems caused by the by-products, the marginal supply of feed energy and feed protein
were identified as barley and soybean meal in Schmidt and Dalgaard (2012, 63-64, 85). Furthermore, Schmidt
and Dalgaard (2012), identified the marginal suppliers of barley and soybean meal as Ukraine and Brazil.
The inventoried regions of the five oils were identified as the country/region with the highest increasing trend
in production volume of the oil crops from 2001 to 2011 (FAOSTAT 2013a), as this trend indicates which re-
gion could be a good candidate for the marginal one, i.e. the country/region that is likely to supply a change in
demand for a specific oil. It was assumed that the oil mills and refineries are located in the same region/country
as the cultivation of the oil crops. The chosen regions were:
Fresh fruit bunches: Indonesia/Malaysia
Soybean: Brazil
Rapeseed: Europe (EU27)
Sunflower: Ukraine
Peanut: India
2.4. Indirect land use change (iLUC)
In the current study an advanced cause-effect based iLUC model described in Schmidt et al. (2012) is ap-
plied. This model was developed by 2.-0 LCA consultants through a larger project (2.-0 LCA consultants, 2014)
supported by a large range of industries (e.g. Unilever, DuPont, TetraPak, Arla Foods, DONG Energy, United
Plantations), universities (e.g. Swedish University of Agriculture Sciences, Aalborg University and Copenhagen
University) and other research related organisations (e.g. The Sustainability Consortium, the ecoinvent LCA da-
tabase, the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) and the Japanese National Agricultural Research Cen-
ter) plus several others.
This model considers land as capacity for biomass production. There exists a market for land, which is called
the land tenure market. Since crops can be grown in different parts of the world and since crops are traded on
global markets, it is argued that this market for land is global. The ‘product’ traded on this global market is ca-
pacity for biomass production. It should be noted that this capacity can be created in different ways:
1. Expansion of the area of arable land (deforestation)
2. Intensification of land already in use (through e.g. increased use of fertilizers)
3. Crop displacement, i.e. someone reduces consumption, e.g. induced by increases in prices, in order to al-
low others for using the biomass production capacity (social impacts)
The third point above is assumed to be zero because LCA considers long-term effects of changes in demand.
In the long term, suppliers will adjust their production to match demand, and unless the production costs are
higher, the prices will remain unchanged.
The capacity for biomass production needs to be measured in an appropriate unit. An obvious option for a
reference flow of a land-tenure activity would be occupation of land (ha yr). However, this approach does not
take into account that the potential production on 1 ha yr land in e.g. a dry temperate climate is very different
from the potential in wet tropical climate. Another option would be the potential Net Primary Production (NPP0),
measured in kg carbon, which was the solution adopted.
As it can be seen in Figure 2, the model accounts for emissions related to both expansion (deforestation) and
intensification of land. The proportion between expansion and from intensification is calculated based on the to-
tal NPP0 on new arable land and total NPP0 (carbon in crops) from an increase in fertilizer use in one year. All
inflows to the land-market tenure activity are measured in kg NPP0 (as kg carbon). The NPP0 from expansion is
determined based on general NPP0 per ha yr figures (Haberl et al. 2007) and figures on annual increase of arable
land. The NPP0 from intensification is calculated as the carbon in crop produced via intensification during one
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
888
year. The intensification is determined based on crop yield dose-response figures for fertilizer input (Schmidt
2008) combined with information on which crops and where intensification takes place (data from FAOSTAT)
and current fertilizer levels for these crops (IFA 2013).
Figure 2. Conceptual representation of the iLUC model used in the study.
When the occupation of land causes deforestation, a critical point is often to decide the period of time over
which the deforestation emissions should be allocated or 'amortized'. The current model does not operate with
amortization. If only expansion is considered, occupation of 1 ha in 1 year will cause 1 ha deforestation. After
the duration of 1 yr, the land is released to the market for land, i.e. to other crops, which can then be grown with-
out deforestation. Hence, the occupation of 1 ha yr is modeled as 1 ha deforestation in year 0 and -1 ha defor-
estation in year 1. In order to model the GHG effects of this intermediate acceleration of deforestation, the meth-
od described in Kløverpris and Mueller (2013) is used.
Overall this iLUC model has several key characteristics that make it superior to many of the other existing
models: is applicable to all crops (also forest, range, build etc.) in all regions in the world, it overcomes the allo-
cation/amortization of transformation impacts, and it is based on modeling assumptions that follow cause-effect
relationships and standard modeling consistent with any other LCA-processes. It is acknowledged though that
this is one among many other models, and that there is currently no consensus in the LCA community on how to
model iLUC. Therefore, the contributions to results from iLUC are reported separately.
2.5. Life cycle inventory data sources
The oil crop (and barley) yields were estimated for 2011 by linear regression over the period 2001-2011 with
use of data from FAOSTAT. For oil palm a weighted average of Malaysia and Indonesia was applied, based on
area cultivated: 40% MY and 60% ID. Fertilizer inputs are identified in the following data sources: Oil palm
(Schmidt 2007), Soybean (Dalgaard et al. 2008), rapeseed oil (Plantedirektoratet 2004), Sunflower (FAO 2005),
Peanut (Diwakar 2004; Talawar 2004), and Barley (FAO 2005). The fertilizer mixes of different sources of N, P
and K are identified at the country level in IFA (2013). Diesel consumption was obtained from Dalgaard et al.
(2008), Cederberg et al. (2009) and Schmidt (2007). Water use for irrigation was modeled using data from AQ-
UASTAT (FAOSTAT 2013b) and FAOSTAT (2013a). Oil palms are not irrigated and <1% of the area with
barley and sunflower in Ukraine is irrigated. Irrigation data for rapeseed in EU27 were approximated by non-
crop specific data for Germany and France. For the iLUC model, the potential productivity of the occupied land
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
889
was estimated based on Haberl et al. (2007). N-related emissions for all crops (NH3, NOx, N2O, NO3, N2) were
estimated based on a N balance, using the methodology from IPCC (2006).
In average 18% of the cultivated oil palms were assumed to be grown on peat, based on Agus et al. (2013). It
should be noticed that this proportion may not reflect the marginal producers of palm oil, but the current average.
CO2 emissions from peat were estimated as 43 t CO2 per ha yr (for average drainage depth) based on a review of
several studies (Agus et al. 2013b; Melling and Henson 2011; Hooijer et al. 2010; Hooijer et al. 2012). N2O
emissions from peat oxidation were calculated by using IPCC (2006).
The inventories for oil extraction in the mills were based on Schmidt (2007), Dalgaard et al. (2008) and Dal-
gaard and Schmidt (2012) for soybean oil, palm oil, palm kernel oil and rapeseed oil. For sunflower and peanut
oils the meal/oil ratios were obtained using statistics on global oil and meal production from the period 00/01 to
05/06 (Oil World annual 2005). The milling operation includes thermal energy inputs, electricity inputs (as well
as outputs exported to the grid), transports, water inputs, and capital equipment (mill). The by-products from the
milling process e.g. empty fruit bunches, meal, are utilized as fertilizers or feed and thereby substitute mineral
fertilizer or feed energy (barley) and feed protein (soybean meal) on the market.
The inventories for the refining process are based on Schmidt (2007) and Schmidt and Dalgaard (2012).
These refineries supply refined oils and FFA (free fatty acids). The latter is used for livestock feeding and there-
by substitute feed energy on the market.
The ecoinvent database v.2.2 (ecoinvent 2010) was used to model the background system (production of fer-
tilizers, and other materials, energy, and capital goods. This database version is not linked using consequential
modeling. However electricity profiles used in the foreground system (Europe, India, Brazil, Indonesia, Malay-
sia, World) were defined using a consequential approach, as explained in Schmidt et al. (2011).
Inventory data for marginal sources of feed protein (soybean meal from Brazil) and feed energy (barley from
Ukraine) were obtained from Dalgaard and Schmidt (2012) and Schmidt and Dalgaard (2012).
2.6. Life cycle impact assessment
Life cycle impact assessment focused on three indicators, namely global warming, land occupation and water
consumption. Global warming is calculated using IPCC’s GWP100 (Forster et al. 2007). Biogenic CO2 was in-
cluded as CO2 stored in oils. Biogenic CO2 emissions originating from iLUC were also included. Land occupa-
tion is used in this study as an early midpoint indicator for impacts on biodiversity, and it includes only occupa-
tion of arable land. With regard to water consumption we used the terminology from the Water Footprint
network (Hoekstra et al. 2011), however only ’blue’ water (irrigation) is included in the impact assessment,
whereas ’green’ water (rain water) as well as ’grey’ water (pollution) were excluded. Water consumption was
assessed with two complementary approaches, namely consumption in volume (m3), and consumption after
characterization using the Water Stress Index (WSI) from Pfister et al. (2009), measured in m3-eq.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Results per ton of oil
Figure 3 shows the results of the impact assessment. The results for soybean oil and palm oil are equal. This
is explained by the fact that soybean oil is a dependent co-product, thus an extra demand for soybean oil does not
affect the soybean oil production, but instead the production of palm oil. The GHG emissions include in all oils a
credit due to the embedded carbon in the oils, of 2.8 tons CO2 per ton oil. It is common in many studies to omit
this short-term storage of carbon in products, given that it is expected to be compensated by an equal emission at
the end of life. In order to compare our results with studies using this approach, the GWP results in Figure 1
would need to be changed by means of adding 2.8 tons CO2 per ton oil, for all oils.
When iLUC emissions are considered, the overall GHG emissions are considerably higher for peanut oil
compared to the others. This is mainly because the land occupation per ton refined oil is high (as shown in the
land occupation graph in Figure 1). High land occupation results in high iLUC-related GHG emissions. When
iLUC emissions are excluded, the overall GHG emissions are reduced for all oils, and the ranking changes
slightly, with sunflower oil as the best performer, whereas when iLUC is included rapeseed oil is the best per-
former. For the other oils, iLUC does not affect the ranking.
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
890
The results for blue water use show that palm oil, soybean oil and peanut oil have a net consumption of water
while rapeseed oil and sunflower oil are associated with a net water saving. This may seem surprising because
both rapeseed and sunflower are irrigated. However, the by-products of rapeseed oil and sunflower oil, i.e. the
oil meals, displace soybean meal, barley, and palm oil. Since soybeans and barley are irrigated more than rape-
seed and sunflower, the net use of water becomes negative. Palm oil is associated with a low water use because it
is not irrigated, however it is not zero due to contributions from the oil mill, refineries, production of chemicals,
fertilizers, machinery, etc. When the WSI is applied, it does not change the ranking of oils as compared to blue
water by volume.
Figure 3. Results for five different refined vegetable oils, per ton refined oil. Global Warming includes biogenic
carbon sequestration in the oil.
With regard to land occupation, the highest contribution for all oils is caused by the crop from which each of
the oils is extracted. Other contributions are related to substitutions caused by by-products. Even accounting for
substitutions, it is the land occupied by the oil crop itself the one that determines the main impact. The best-
performing oils are palm oil and soybean oil, followed by rapeseed oil. Sunflower oil and peanut oil, in this or-
der, are the ones with the highest land occupation.
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
891
3.2. Sensitivity analyses focused on GHG emissions
A number of sensitivity analyses were carried out, with a focus on GHG emissions. They are summarized in
Table 2.
Table 2. Sensitivity analysis summary. Parameter Description Sensitivity analysis outcome
Palm oil: FFB yields Oil palm is cultivated with Malaysian and Indonesian yields re-
spectively, rather than weighted average.
Low sensitivity, ranking un-
changed
Palm oil: Share of oil palm area
on peat soils
Default share of peat (18%) compared to cultivation on mineral
soil (0% peat), 11% peat (Malaysian average) and 22% (Indone-
sian average).
Low peat share leads to palm
oil with similar GHG emis-
sions to rapeseed oil
Palm oil: CO2 emission factor
for peat soils
Default emission factor of 43 ton CO2/ha yr compared to 27.5 and
85.5 ton CO2/ha yr
Sensitive but ranking un-
changed
All oils: Fertilizer manufactur-
ing (nitrous oxide emissions
from nitric acid)
Default emission factor is 8.39 g N2O/kg HNO3 compared with
4.5 g N2O/kg HNO3 (IPCC default value) and 1 g N2O/kg HNO3
(representing best available technique).
Low sensitivity, ranking un-
changed
All oils: Source of marginal bar-
ley (feed energy)
Marginal supplier of barley (Ukraine) changed to Argentina. Low sensitivity, ranking un-
changed
All oils: iLUC model Default iLUC proportion between transformation and intensifica-
tion is 37% and 63%, respectively. This is changed to transfor-
mation and intensification being 90% and 10%, respectively.
Low sensitivity, ranking un-
changed
The most significant individual sources of uncertainty related to GHG emissions were identified as the share
of oil palm grown on peat, and the CO2 emission factors for peat soils. If the share of peat is very small, the
GHG emissions for palm oil become close to rapeseed oil. In the future, when the palm oil expansion may take
place in other regions than Indonesia and Malaysia, the issue of peat may change if this will take place in e.g.
Africa or Latin America.
3.3. Uncertainties in water use
The data used for water consumption are often not crop-specific. Hence, these data are associated with signif-
icant uncertainties. Substantial uncertainty is also associated with the determination of WSI values, given that
the exact location where crops are grown is not known in detail, and average values for regions, countries or
groups of countries need to be used.
4. Conclusion
A consequential cradle-to-gate LCA has been carried out on five major vegetable oils. The environmental
impacts assessed were GHG emissions, water consumption and land occupation. When we look at the environ-
mental impacts of demanding an additional ton of oils, we see clear tradeoffs. Rapeseed oil and sunflower oil
perform best in GHG emissions, sunflower oil in water consumption and palm oil and soybean oil in land use.
The poor performance of peanut oil stands out in all impact indicators.
It was found that iLUC emissions have a substantial contribution to GHG emissions, especially in those oils
with relatively low yields. As for water consumption, the use of WSI factors didn’t change the ranking of oils,
but mainly increased the differences between them.
5. References
2.-0 LCA consultants (2014) Indirect land use chnge model (ILUC) http://www.lca-
net.com/projects/ilucmodel/ (accessed 11/04/2014).
Agus F, Gunarso P, Sahardjo B H, Harris N, van Noordwijk M and Killeen T J (2013a), Historical CO2 emis-
sions from land use and land use change from the oil palm industry in Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New
Guinea. Reports from the Technical Panels of the 2nd Greenhouse Gas Working Group of the Roundtable on
Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Accessed January 2014:
http://www.rspo.org/file/GHGWG2/5_historical_CO2_emissions_Agus_et_al.pdf
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
892
Agus F, Henson I E, Sahardjo B H, Harris N and van Noordwijk M, Killeen T J (2013b), Review of Emission
Factors for Assessment of CO2 Emission from Land Use Change to Oil Palm in Southeast Asia. Round Table
on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO). Kuala Lumpur. Accessed November 2013:
http://www.rspo.org/file/GHGWG2/3_review_of_emission_factors_Agus_et_al.pdf
Arvidsson R, Persson S, Fröling M, and Svanström M (2013) Life cycle assessment of hydrotreated vegetable oil
from rape, oil palm and Jatropha. Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 19, Issues 2–3, January–February
2011, Pages 129–137
Cederberg C, Flysjö A, Sonesson U, Sundh V, Davis J. (2009) Greenhouse gas emission from Swedish con-
sumption of meat, milk and eggs 1990 and 2005. SIK-report 794, The Swedish Institute for Food and Bio-
technology, Göteborg
Dalgaard R, Schmidt J H, Halberg N, Christensen P, Thrane M and Pengue W A (2008), LCA of soybean meal.
International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 13 LCA (3) 240-254
Dalgaard R and Schmidt J H (2012), National and farm level carbon footprint of milk ‐ Life cycle inventory for
Danish and Swedish milk 2005 at farm gate. Arla Foods, Aarhus, Denmark. Accessed October 2012:
http://www.lca-net.com/ArlaLCI
Diwakar (2004) Fertiliser needs of some crops. Groundnut.
http://vasat.icrisat.org/crops/MN/OrganicFAQs/fertilizerneed.htm (Accessed May 2013)
Ecoinvent (2010) Ecoinvent data v2.2. Final reports Ecoinvent v2.2 No. 1-25. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle In-
ventories, Dübendorf.
Ecoinvent Centre (2013) ecoinvent data v3.0. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories, St. Gallen, retrieved
from: www.ecoinvent.org.
Ekvall T and Weidema B P (2004) System Boundaries and Input Data in Consequential Life Cycle Inventory
Analysis. Int J LCA 9 (3): 161 – 171
FAO (2005) Fertilizer use by crop in Ukraine. Land and Plant Nutrition Management Service, Land and Water
Development Division. Food and Agriculture Organization Of the United Nations (FAO). Rome
FAOSTAT (2013a) FAOSTAT, Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Accessed May 2013:
http://faostat.fao.org/
FAOSTAT (2013b) Aquastat. Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations. Accessed May 2013.
http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/main/index.stm
Forster P, Ramaswamy V, Artaxo P, Berntsen T, Betts R et al (2007) Changes in atmospheric constituents and in
radiative forcing. In: Solomon S et al (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of
working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cam-
bridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 129–234
Haberl H., Erb, K.H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Bondeau, A., Plutzar, C., Gingrich, S., Lucht, W., Fischer-
Kowalski, M (2007) Quantifying and mapping the global human appropriation of net primary production in
Earth's terrestrial ecosystem. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 104: 12942-
12947. http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/socec/inhalt/1191.htm (Accessed April 2013).
Hoekstra A Y, Chapagain A K, Aldaya M M and Mekonnen M M (2011) The Water Footprint Assessment
Manual - Setting the Global Standard. Water Footprint Network. Earthscan
Hooijer A, Page S, Canadell J G, Silvius M, Kwadijk J, Wösten H, and Jauhiainen J (2010) Current and future
CO2 emissions from drained peatlands in Southeast Asia. Biogeosciences, 7, 1505–1514, 2010
Hooijer A, Page S, Jauhiainen J, Lee W A, Lu X X, Idris A, and Anshari G (2012) Subsidence and carbon loss in
drained tropical peatlands. Biogeosciences, 9, 1053–1071, 2012
IFA (2013) Statistics. International Fertilizer Association. http://www.fertilizer.org/ifa/HomePage/STATISTICS
(Accessed May 2013)
IPCC (2006), 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Volume 4 - Agriculture, Forestry
and Other Land Use. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme, Eggleston H S,
Buendia L, Miwa K, Ngara T and Tanabe K (eds). IGES, Japan. Accessed March 2013: http://www.ipcc-
nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/vol4.html
Kløverpris J, Mueller S (2013) Baseline time accounting - Considering global land-use dynamics when estimat-
ing the climate impact of indirect land-use change caused by biofuels. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18: 319–330
Menichetti E, Otto M (2009) Energy balance and greenhouse gas emissions of biofuels from a life-cycle per-
spective. in R.W. Howarth and S. Bringezu (eds) Biofuels: Environmental Consequences and Interactions
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
893
with Changing Land Use. Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment
(SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22-25 September 2008, Gummersbach Germany.
Cornell University, Ithaca NY, USA. (http://cip.cornell.edu/biofuels/), pp 81-109
Melling L and Henson I E (2011) Greenhouse Gas Exchange Of Tropical Peatlands - A Review. Journal of Oil
Palm Research, Volume 23, Pages 1087-1095
Mentena F, Chèzea B, Patouillarda L, Bouvart F (2013) A review of LCA greenhouse gas emissions results for
advanced biofuels: The use of meta-regression analysis. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 26
(2013) 108–134.
Oil World (2005), Oil world statistics. ISTA Mielke GmbH, Hamburg
Pfister S, Koehler A and Hellweg S (2009) Assessing the Environmental Impacts of Freshwater Consumption in
LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol., 43 (11): 4098–4104
Plantedirektoratet (2004) Vejledning og skemaer. Gødningsplanlægning, gødningsregnskab, plantedække, har-
moniregler, ændringer i ejer- og brugerforhold. 2004/2005 (English: Guidance and forms. Fertiliser manage-
ment, fertilizer accounting, crop cover, regulations, changes in ownership and user aspects. 2004/2005). Min-
istry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries of Denmark
Schmidt J H (2008) Development of LCIA characterisation factors for land use impacts on biodiversity. Journal
of Cleaner Production 16 (2008): 1929-1942
Schmidt J H (2007), Life assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of
rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg.
http://vbn.aau.dk/fbspretrieve/10388016/inventoryreport
Schmidt J H, Weidema B P (2008) Shift in the Marginal Supply of Vegetable Oil. International Journal of Life
Cycle Assessment, 13 LCA (3) 235-239
Schmidt J H (2010) Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Rapeseed Oil and Palm Oil. International Journal of
Life Cycle Assessment 15:183–197
Schmidt J H, Merciai S, Thrane M and Dalgaard R (2011) Inventory of country specific electricity in LCA –
Consequential and attributional scenarios. Methodology report v2. 2.-0 LCA consultants, Aalborg.
http://www.lca-net.com/projects/electricityinlca/
Schmidt J H, Dalgaard R (2012) National and farm level carbon footprint of milk ‐ Methodology and results for
Danish and Swedish milk 2005 at farm gate. Arla Foods, Aarhus, Denmark. http://www.lca-
net.com/ArlaMain
Schmidt J H, Reinhard J, and Weidema B P (2012) A model of indirect land-use change. Paper presented at the
8th International Conference on LCA in the Agri‐ Food Sector, 1‐ 4 Oct 2012, St. Malo, France
Talawar S (2004) Peanut in India: History, Production and Utilization. Peanut in local and global food systems
series report no. 5. Department of Anthropolgy. University of Georgia.
http://www.worldpeanutinfo.com/documents/IndiaProduction.pdf (Accessed May 2013)
Weidema B P, Ekvall T, Heijungs R (2009) Guidelines for applications of deepened and broadened LCA. Deliv-
erable D18 of work package 5 of the CALCAS project.
http://fr1.estis.net/includes/file.asp?site=calcas&file=7F2938F9-09CD-409F-9D70-767169EC8AA9
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
894
This paper is from:
Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Life Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector
8-10 October 2014 - San Francisco
Rita Schenck and Douglas Huizenga, Editors
American Center for Life Cycle Assessment
The full proceedings document can be found here:
http://lcacenter.org/lcafood2014/proceedings/LCA_Food_2014_Proceedings.pdf
It should be cited as:
Schenck, R., Huizenga, D. (Eds.), 2014. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Life
Cycle Assessment in the Agri-Food Sector (LCA Food 2014), 8-10 October 2014, San Francisco,
USA. ACLCA, Vashon, WA, USA.
Questions and comments can be addressed to: [email protected]
ISBN: 978-0-9882145-7-6