ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUESTED BY UNITED STATES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY: AGRICULTURE INPUT 

Data submitted by MPOB – inputs for RFS 2 

Date: June 4, 2010. 

1. Age and Yield Profiles of Oil Palm in Malaysia 

a. The survey on oil palm age profile and yield profile from 1 year old to

more than 44 years old (Figure 1) was completed in 2006 and in 2009 by 

MPOB.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 >44

Age

Area (ha)

 Figure 1.Malaysian Oil Palm Age Profile 2009 

b. Table 1 shows area of oil palm by age categories. Almost 43% of oil 

palm trees in Malaysia in 2009 are between 9-18 years, which is the most 

productive years of oil palm life cycle. About 8% was immature area, while 

another 8% was more than 25 years old. 

Table 1: Oil Palm Area according to age category, 2009 

Age Category Area (ha) % 

< 2 372,855 7.95 

3 – 8 1,132,104 24.13 

9 – 13 1,137,515 24.25 

14 – 18 879,224 18.74 

19 – 25 804,048 17.14 

> 26 365,414 7.79 

Total 4,691,160 100.00
c. The survey conducted in 2006 gathered information about the average

FFB yield, (conventional variety) with respect to specific age (Figure 2). It 

shows that at age 3, the average yield is 5.25 tons/ha., increasing to 21.58 

tons/ha at age 8 and to 23.28 tan/ha at age 13. The yield decline slowly to 

18.06 tons/ha at age 25, to 17.12 and 13.09 tons/ha at age 30 and 35, 

respectively. 

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 25 28 31 34 37

Umur

Tan/ha/th

Figure 2.Malaysian Oil Palm Yield Profile 2009

2. CROP YIELD (HISTORICAL) 

a. Table 1: FFB Yield by regions 2000-2009 (tonnes/hectare) 

Year 

Peninsular 

Malaysia Sabah Sarawak Malaysia 

2000 18.44 19.48 12.83 18.33

2001 19.17 21.04 12.37 19.14

2002 17.45 20.57 12.65 17.97

2003 19.02 21.32 12.91 18.99

2004 18.05 21.4 13.92 18.60

2005 17.65 22.99 14.69 18.88

2006 18.71 23.1 15.48 19.60

2007 17.59 23.02 15.71 19.03

2008 19.63 23.02 16.22 20.18

2009 19.36 21.15 15.29 19.2

2
b. PALM OIL YIELD (HISTORICAL) 

State 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

 P.Malaysia 3.38 3.54 3.27 3.58 3.47 3.40 3.60 3.40 3.85 3.86

 Sabah 3.91 4.33 4.45 4.56 4.56 4.91 4.88 4.89 4.85 4.52

 Sarawak 2.64 2.62 2.74 2.75 2.94 3.17 3.33 3.30 3.41 3.24

 Sabah/Sarawak 3.64 3.92 4.04 4.05 4.11 4.38 4.39 4.38 4.38 4.06

 MALAYSIA 3.46 3.66 3.59 3.75 3.73 3.80 3.93 3.83 4.08 3.93

CPO yield has increased nationally by 13.6% from 3.46 in 2000 to 3.93 in 

2009. By regions, Sarawak recorded the highest increase of 22.7% compared 

to Peninsula (14.2%) and Sabah (15.6%). 

3. PROJECTED OIL PALM YIELD 

Projected Crop yield (tons of Fresh Fruit Bunches/ha/year): Yield Profile over

productive period of palm oil life cycle of 25 years. 

Age profile of

palm tree 

(years)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

DxP (previous) 7.53 12.55 16.57 19.08 19.83 20.34 20.34 20.09 20.09 19.93 19.58 19.58 19.58 19.33 19.08 18.83 18.58 18.33 18.08 17.83 17.58 17.33

DxP (present) 8.03 16.32 22.09 25.61 27.62 28.87 29.63 30.13 29.88 29.63 29.38 28.87 28.87 28.12 27.87 27.62 27.37 27.12 26.87 26.62 26.37 26.12

new variety

clone 9.80 19.91 26.95 31.24 33.7 35.22 36.15 36.76 36.45 36.15 35.84 35.22 35.22 34.31 34.00 33.70 33.39 33.09 32.78 32.48 32.17 31.87

Yield Profile of FFB/hectares

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Age

FFB (ton/ha/yr)

DxP (previous) DxP (present) clone

3
Percentage change in crop yield (historical vs. current) and (current vs.

projected-new variety clonal material) over productive period of palm oil life 

cycle of 25 years is shown in table below. 

Age Profile of

palm tree 

(years)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

% change:

previous vs. 

current (DxP)

6.6 30.0 33.3 34.2 39.3 41.9 45.7 50.0 48.7 48.7 50.1 47.4 47.4 45.5 46.1 46.7 47.3 48.0 48.6 49.3 50.0 50.7

% change:

current vs.

clone

22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0 22.0

Based on current DxP yield and at the optimum productive cycle, the average 

yield is 30 tons, about 50% above the historical yield and using clonal 

material, the average yield will top 22% over the current DxP variety. 

4. PLANTED AREAS (HISTORICAL) 

a. Oil palm area has increased nationally by 38% from 3.4 mil. ha in 2000 

to 4.7 mil. ha in 2009. During this period, Sarawak recorded a significant

growth of 154%, the highest increase compared to Peninsula (22%) and 

Sabah (36%). 

Year P. Malaysia Sabah Sarawak Total 

2000 

2009 

2,045,500 

2,489,814 

1,000,777 

1,361,598 

330,387 

 839,746 

3,376,664 

4,691,160 

 

% Change 22 36 154 38 

 

b. In terms of planted hectarage, palm covers only 14.7% of the total land 

area of about 32 million hectare of which 13.2 million ha comes from 

Peninsular Malaysia, 7.44 mil. ha from Sabah and 12.4 million ha from 

Sarawak. In terms of agriculture crops, palm covers 46.4 % of 10.1 million

hectares identified for agriculture development, of which 40% of agricultural 

land is in Peninsular Malaysia, 65% in Sabah and 47% in Sarawak. 

4
Area (Mil. Ha) % Area (Mil. Ha) % Area (Mil. Ha) % Area (Mil. Ha) %

Not Suitable for Agriculture 18.5 57.0 5.6 42.6 4.44 59.7 8.5 68.5

Arable land:

        Suitable 10.14 6.2 2.1 1.8

        Marginal 4.03 1.3 0.83 2

Sub‐total 14.17 43.7 7.5 57.0 2.93 39.4 3.8 30.6

Total Area 32.45 100.7 13.16 99.5 7.44 99.1 12.4 99.2

Malaysia Pen. Malaysia Sabah Sarawak

 Sources: 

• http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Asia‐and‐Oceania/Malaysia‐LOCATION‐SIZE‐..

• http://www.unccd.int/cop/reports/asia/national/2002/malaysia‐ eng.pdf

5. HAVESTED AREA 

a. Harvested areas (historical) (in hectares) 

Year Total 

Mature Immature Total 

2000 2,941,791 434,873 3,376,664

2001 3,005,267 493,745 3,499,012

2002 3,188,307 481,936 3,670,243

2003 3,303,133 498,907 3,802,040

2004 3,450,960 424,367 3,875,327

2005 3,631,440 419,934 4,051,374

2006 3,703,254 461,961 4,165,215

2007 3,764,389 540,524 4,304,913

2008 3,915,924 572,033 4,487,957

2009 4,075,502 615,458 4,690,960

5
b. Future Projection of Oil Palm Areas (hectares) in Malaysia until 2022 

Peninsular Malaysia East Malaysia* Total - Malaysia 

year 

mature immature total mature immature total mature immature total

2006 2,092,690

2007 2,099,385 262,672 2,362,057 1,665,004 277,852 1,942,856 3,764,389 540,524 4,303,913

2008 2,149,444 260,575 2,410,019 1,766,480 311,458 2,077,938 3,915,924 572,033 4,487,957

2009 2,196,644 293,170 2,489,814 1,879,058 322,288 2,201,346 4,075,702 615,458 4,691,160

2010 2,203,800 290,820 2,494,620 1,980,800 342,800 2,323,600 4,184,600 633,620 4,818,220

2011 2,297,200 290,300 2,587,500 2,003,600 351,400 2,355,000 4,300,800 641,700 4,942,500

2012 2,317,290 294,190 2,611,480 2,016,800 362,700 2,379,500 4,334,090 656,890 4,990,980

2013 2,347,300 292,130 2,639,430 2,015,800 388,320 2,440,120 4,399,100 680,450 5,079,550

2014 2,390,800 293,100 2,683,900 2,053,300 397,400 2,450,700 4,444,100 690,500 5,134,600

2015 2,432,100 296,100 2,728,200 2,075,100 411,200 2,486,300 4,507,200 707,300 5,214,500

2016 2,465,200 299,500 2,764,700 2,120,300 426,000 2,546,300 4,585,500 725,500 5,311,000

2017 2,497,200 305,810 2,803,010 2,152,000 433,000 2,585,000 4,649,200 738,810 5,388,010

2018 2,532,800 304,500 2,837,300 2,249,400 437,800 2,687,200 4,782,200 742,300 5,524,500

2019 2,530,200 304,980 2,803,010 2,278,600 445,100 2,723,700 4,808,800 750,080 5,558,880

2020 2,531,250 300,760 2,837,300 2,315,200 455,100 2,770,300 4,846,450 755,860 5,602,310

2021 2,586,490 250,810 2,837,300 2,349,800 420,500 2,770,300 4,936,290 671,310 5,602,310

2022 2,606,900 230,400 2,837,300 2,398,900 371,400 2,770,300 5,005,800 601,800 5,602,310

* covers Sabah and Sarawak 

Due to limited land availability for agriculture development it is projected that 

the total area under oil palm will be restricted to 5.6 million hectares by 2022.

6
OIL PALM LANDUSE 2002-2003 AND 2008-2009 

2002 - 2003 2008 - 2009 
2002 - 2003 2008 
2002 -2003 20
OIL PALM LANDUSE STATISTICS based on Remote Sensing 

Area of oil palm (ha) 

Region 

2002-2003 2008-2009 

Peninsular Malaysia 2,320,938 2,503,682 

Sabah 1,069,694 1,340,317 

Sarawak 420,844 1,167,173 

Total 3,811,476 5,011,172 

Note: 

• Satellite image Landsat was used for 2002-2003 and SPOT 10 for 

2008-2009 

• Normally areas detected by remote sensing (RS) are higher by 5-10% 

because areas taken by RS are inclusive of unregistered and 

unplanted areas (roads, drains, offices, quarters etc). 

• Official land use for palm oil (as published by MPOB) in 2009 was 4.69 

million hectares. 
6. FERTILIZER APPLICATION WITHIN THE OIL PALM INDUSTRY.

a. Table 1: Fertilizer usage and soil carbon 

Category 2010

(kg/ha/yr) 

2022 

(kg/ha/yr) 

Improvement Source/

assumption 

Fertilizer Use 

Nitrogen 99.9 kg N * 

72.2 (MPOB 

Data based 

on LCA study) 

76 kg N 24% improvement 

(2% per year) due to 

improvement in 

management 

practices (utilization 

of EFB, POME, 

leguminuos cover 

and Biochar) 

*IFA 

(2006/2007);Use

d in final RFS2 

Phosphorous 35.7 kg P2O5* 

58 kg P2O5

(MPOB Data 

based on LCA 

study) 

27.1 kg 

P2O5

24% improvement 

(2% per year) due to 

improvement in 

management 

practices (utilization 

of EFB, POME, 

leguminuos cover 

and Biochar and 

accumulation from 

the previous years) 

*IFA 

(2006/2007);Use

d in final RFS2 

Potassium 234.9 kg K2O* 

238 kg K2O 

(MPOB Data 

based on LCA 

study) 

178.5 kg 

K2O 

24% improvement 

(2% per year) due to 

improvement in 

management 

practices (utilization 

of EFB, POME, 

leguminuos cover 

and Biochar) 

*IFA 

(2006/2007);Use

d in final RFS2 

Soil C 40 kg C/ha 41kg C/ha 3rd Generation 

2.40%, build up of 

below ground root 

biomass. 

 Khalid (2009) 

Per Comm. and 

Chan, K W 

(2009) Soil and 

Carbon 

sequestration: 

11
b. Good Agronomic Practice: Nutrient Recycling to Reduce Fertilizer 

Inputs 

• In 2001, MPOB has introduced an innovative technique of planting oil 

palm during replanting. 

• The technique is to plant oil palm seedlings into the residue row of old 

palm biomass (Figure 3). 

Figure 3: Innovative Replanting Technique - Young Palms Planted 

into Residue Row of Old Palm Biomass 

• A large amount of biomass available during replanting contains

significant amount of nutrient, which can be recycled to the succeeding

young palms. 

 

c. Field Evaluation 

• A field trial on nutrient recycling was conducted over a five-year period in

Rengam Estate, Kluang, Johor. The soil type is Typic Paleudult and 

known as Rengam Series, an inland sedentary soil from granitic parent 

materials. 

• The trials results of five year old palms under two different rates of 

fertilizer i.e. 100% (Agronomic highest rate) and 50% rates are shown in

Tables 3 to 5. 

12
Table 2: Quantity of fertilizer at agronomic highest rate 

Year (kg palm-1) 

Fertilizer 1 2 3 4 5

SOA 1.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 4.0

PR 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 2.50

MOP 0.50 1.00 1.50 3.00 3.50

Kieserite 0.50 1.00 1.50 1.50 2.00

Table 3: Leaf nutrient contents of 5-year old palms at different rates of 

fertilizer 

Fertilizer Rates* Nutrient Content (%) 

N P K Ca Mg

100% 2.89 0.160 1.25 0.68 0.42

50% 2.85 0.159 1.30 0.62 0.41

LSD (0.05) 0.34 0.014 0.16 0.09 0.06 

Note: * Fertilizer rates with respect to Table 2. 

Table 4: Vegetative growth of 5-year old palms at different rates of 

fertilizer 

Fertilizer Rates* Frond Length 

(cm) 

Total Leaf Area 

(m2

)

Frond Dry Wt 

(kg)

Palm Height

(cm)

100% 474.33 6.33 2.50 76.55

50% 479.13 5.95 2.71 75.68

LSD (0.05) 37.21 0.92 0.56 24.67

Note: * Fertilizer rates with respect to Table 2.

Table 5: FFB yields** for three years harvest under two different rates of 

fertilizer 

FFB (t ha-1yr-1) Bunch No. Palm-1 yr-1 Fertilizer Bunch Wt. (kg) 

Rates* Year

1 

Year 2 Year 3 Year 

1 

Year 

2 

Year 

3 

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3

100% 4.51 7.58 16.82 8.97 12.08 15.58 3.38 5.68 9.74 

50% 5.30 8.45 20.29 9.21 11.90 16.86 3.92 6.40 10.71 

LSD (0.05) 1.89 2.89 4.29 2.39 3.80 4.13 0.70 1.47 1.62 

Note: * Fertilizer rates with respect to Table 2. 

** Yield recording started at 30 months after field planting.

 

• The palm performance of five years old palm planted using innovative 

replanting technique (Figure 4) and the statistics in Table 5 suggests that 

reduction of fertilizer by 50% from agronomic highest rate did not affect

oil palm yield production. 

13
• The oil palm fertilizer recommendation for the innovative technique is 

shown in Table 6. 

Figure 4: Five Year Old Palms Planted under Innovative Replanting 

Technique are as good as Palms Planted under Standard Estate 

Practice 

Table 6: reduction in fertilizer rate of oil palm adopting innovative 

replanting technique 

Year (kg palm-1) 

Fertilizer 1 2 3 4 5

SOA 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.0

PR 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.25

MOP 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.50 1.75

Kieserite 0.25 0.50 0.75 0.75 1.00

Benefits 

• Oil palm growth and FFB production were not affected by 50% 

reduction of fertilizer rate from the normal estate rate. 

• Besides reduction in cost of production, less fertilizer application would

at the same time minimise impact on the environment. 

Conclusion 

Oil palm biomass available during replanting contains significant amount of

nutrients which can be recycled to the succeeding young palms. After five 

years of planting, the innovative replanting technique of oil palm could reduce 

14
chemical fertilizer inputs by 50% without affecting the growth and yield of 

succeeding oil palms. 

 

7. OIL PALM BIOMASS UTILISATION 

On the average, the distribution of the biomass (per hectare, dry weight) 

would be as follows: 

• Empty Fruit Bunches (EFB) (1.55 tonnes) 

• Oil Palm Trunks (OPT) (74.48 tonnes), 

• Oil Palm Fronts (OPF) (10.40 tonnes), 

• mesocarp fibers (1.63 tonnes) 

• kernel shells (0.94 tonnes). 

By 2020 it is estimated that about 5.6 million hectares will be planted with oil 

palm. Based on the above assumptions, the estimated biomass available 

would be as follows (based on the 4% replanting rate): 

• EFB (8.68 mill tonnes), 

• OPT (16.68 mill tonnes), 

• OPF (2.33 mill tonnes), 

• Mesocarp fibres (9.13 mill tonnes) 

• Kernel shells (5.26 mill tonnes). 

Indirectly, should we calculate the availability of the biomass based on per 

tonne FFB (10.59 dry wt per hectare), the ratios would be as follows: EFB 

(0.15 tonnes), OPT (0.063 tonnes), OPF (0.039 tonnes), mesocarp fibres 

(0.154 tonnes) and kernel shells (0.016 tonnes). 

As far as for the EFB, the pattern of the utilization in 2020 would be likely to 

be dominated for the bio-fertilizer and bio-energy sources. Currently, from the 

415 oil palm mills in Malaysia, more than 50% has ventured into the

production of bio-compost of bio-fertilizer and this number would be increased

by 2020 perhaps up to 80%. This number also would be changed once the 

15
energy Act has been revised (electricity pricing) in which the mills can 

produce the electricity from the biomass and biogas and supply it to the grid. 

The bio-energy also can be produced from the mesocarp fibres and palm

kernel shells. Other industries that are anticipated to be demanding for the 

EFB are the Medium Density Fibre Board (MDF) and pulp industries.

Currently in Sabah for example, Eco-pulp has commissioned a pulp plant that 

could produce 25,000 tonnes of pulp per year (estimated from 125,000 tonnes

of EFB). This capacity will be increased in the future. Another industry that 

will be demanding for the EFB is the MDF. Currently there are about 14 MDF 

plants in Malaysia producing about 1.2 million meter cube, which is about 5%

if wood based products exports. With the depleting of the rubber-wood and 

other tropical wood sources, we are anticipating the industry to be utilizing the

oil palm biomass, particularly the EFB in their production lines. 

The demand of the OPT for palm plywood industry is anticipated to be 

increasing. In the IMP3 (Industrial Master Plan) for 2006-2010, the export of 

the timber products would be targeted to grow at an annual rate of 6.4%, to 

reach RM53 billion by 2010. Plywood shares around 28.5% of the total value. 

With the constraint to use raw timber in the wood products in the near future, 

there would be a tremendous growth of palm plywood industry by 2020. 

Examples of the some the plywood companies/mills using OPT as raw 

material are: 

Company Capacity (m3/mth) OPT used (18 ft)/mth 

1. Central Kedah, Sungai 

Petani 

600-650 1500-2000

2. Bintang Plywood, Kluang 

Johor 

1300-1500 5000-5500

3. Nippon Palm, Kluang, 

Johor 

1000-1500 2000-2500

16
By 2020, it is also anticipated that the OPT and OPF would be limited for 

furniture applications because most of the material would returned back to the

field as the fertilizer source to the soil. The OPF would be maintained in the

field also as the carbon source. 

8. Use of biomass and biogas for renewable energy projects 

a. Government Incentives for Renewable Energy Projects

1. Pioneer Status – 100% tax exemption for 10 years or 

 Investment Tax Allowance – 100% tax exemption for 5 

 years. 

2. Sales Tax Exemption 

3. Import Tax Exemption 

4. Tax Exemption from Certified Emissions Reductions (Carbon 

Credits) for CDM projects. 

5. RM 1.5 billion Green Technology Fund. 

Soft loans up to RM 10 million (technology users) and up to 

RM 50 million (Technology providers) at 2% interest rate for 

green technology projects. 

b. The list of projects under SREP (Small Renewable Energy Power

Programme – Grid Connection) and list of CDM (Clean Development 

Mechanism) Projects (Grid and Off-Grid) electricity supply and bio-compost 

projects are shown in the appendix 1. 

17
9. METHANE TRAPPING AND AVOIDANCE AT PALM OIL MILLS 

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 201

+ Incentives/No 

* Methane Trapping Mandate 

5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60 

 (% of Mills) +Mandate from 1 Jan 

2016 

5 10 15 25 40 70 90 90 

Incentives/No 

** Methane Mandate 

0 1 3

5

7 10 10 10 

 Avoidance (% of  Mills) 

Mandate from 1 Jan 2016 

0 1 3

6

8 10 10 10 

Note: 

 * Methane Trapping entails generating biogas which contains methane from the palm oil m

flared or used as fuel to generate steam or electricity. 

** Methane avoidance entails recovering the solids from the palm oil effluent so that there is no  digestion and therefore no methane emission. The recovered solids maybe used as animal  fertilizer. + Two alternative scenarios are given for each of the above: 

- The first scenario is with incentives but no mandatory implementation. - The second scenario is with incentives and with mandatory methane trapping/methan
10. By-products – glycerine (appendix 2) 

11. Peat-land characteristic and classification in Malaysia and the SEA 

region (appendix 3). 

12: Copy of MPOB licenses to carry out various activities within the oil 

palm industry (appendix 4).