CARINATA OIL LCA DATA 

Prepared For:

Agrisoma Biosciences Inc.

Suite 327

2-2026 Lanthier Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K4A 0N6

Prepared By

(S&T)2 Consultants Inc.

11657 Summit Crescent

Delta, BC

Canada, V4E 2Z2

 Date: July 31, 2013

(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Final Rule implementing 

changes to the renewable fuel standard program in the United States (RFS2) in 2010, which 

included specific categories for Biomass-Based Diesel and Advanced Biofuels. This rule 

includes approved pathways, based on a lifecycle assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions, for various renewable fuels including soybean biodiesel and biodiesel produced 

from waste products. In order to be eligible under the RFS2 program as Biomass-Based 

Diesel or Advanced Biofuels, EPA had to determine whether biodiesel fuels have a 50% 

reduction of GHG emissions compared to the baseline diesel fuel. 

The EPA has used two approaches to determining if a feedstock/fuel combination exceeds 

the minimum 50% reduction threshold. In the first approach a full direct and indirect analysis 

is undertaken with the suite of models used by the EPA. The second approach, used first for 

feedstocks like camelina, algae and waste products is different. In the case of camelina, the 

EPA first determined that camelina was likely to be grown on fallow land and the production 

of camelina would not involve significant expansion of cropland. EPA also found limited 

markets for camelina outside biofuel production. Based on these findings, EPA determined 

there would be no direct or indirect land use change emissions. The direct GHG emissions 

from the production of camelina were then compared to soybean production emissions.

The EPA concluded that:

“Given that GHG emissions from camelina oil would be similar to the GHG emissions 

from soybean oil at all stages of the lifecycle but would not result in land use change 

emissions (soy oil feedstock did have a significant land use change impact but still

met a 50% GHG reduction threshold), and considering differences in process 

emissions between soybean biodiesel and camelina-based renewable diesel, we 

conclude that renewable diesel from camelina oil will also meet the 50% GHG 

emissions reduction threshold to qualify as biomass based diesel and advanced fuel. 

Although some of the potential configurations result in fuel production GHG 

emissions that are higher than fuel production GHG emissions for soybean oil 

biodiesel, land use change emissions account for approximately 80% of the soybean 

oil to biodiesel lifecycle GHGs. Since camelina is assumed not to have land use 

change emissions, our analysis shows that camelina renewable diesel will qualify for 

advanced renewable fuel and biomass-based diesel RINs even for the cases with the 

highest lifecycle GHGs (e.g., when all of the co-products are used to generate 

RINs.).”

Carinata is a very similar crop to camelina. It is expected to utilize a similar area of land that 

camelina is proposed to be grown on. A high percentage of this land is expected to be land 

that is currently fallow in the existing multi-year crop rotations. Just as the EPA concluded 

that camelina production would not have land use change emissions, they should also 

concluded that carinata production will not have indirect land use emissions.

The direct emissions for carinata production may be slightly higher than they are for 

camelina production but the emissions for oil extraction will be lower and the emissions for 

processing the oil into biodiesel or renewable diesel will be similar. Overall the direct 

emissions from the production of renewable fuels from carinata will easily meet the 50% 

emission threshold established under the RFS 2 program.
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

ii
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................................I

TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................III

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................III

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... IV

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1

1.1 CAMELINA VS. CARINATA .................................................................................................1

2. CARINATA PROPERTIES, PRODUCTION, AND DEMAND................................................3

2.1 CARINATA PROPERTIES...................................................................................................3

2.2 CARINATA PRODUCTION ..................................................................................................4

2.3 CARINATA DEMAND .........................................................................................................6

2.4 MARKET CONDITIONS FOR CARINATA OIL.........................................................................7

3. CARINATA AGRONOMICS ...................................................................................................8

3.1 YIELD8

3.2 FERTILIZER REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................9

3.3 DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION ......................................................................................9

3.4 AGRONOMIC PRACTICES .................................................................................................9

3.4.1 Tillage Practices ...................................................................................................10

3.4.2 Residues Left in Field...........................................................................................10

3.5 CARINATA PRODUCTION EMISSIONS ..............................................................................11

4. CARINATA SEED CRUSHING ............................................................................................12

4.1 PRODUCT YIELDS..........................................................................................................12

4.1.1 Oil Yields ..............................................................................................................12

4.1.2 Meal Yields...........................................................................................................12

4.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS...............................................................................................12

4.3 CARINATA FEED CO-PRODUCTS.....................................................................................13

5. RENEWABLE FUEL PRODUCTION ...................................................................................15

5.1 ENERGY USE ................................................................................................................15

6. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................16

7. REFERENCES.....................................................................................................................17

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1 CAMELINA AND CARINATA PROPERTIES......................................................4

TABLE 2-2 COST AND RETURNS........................................................................................6

TABLE 3-1 CROP YIELDS.....................................................................................................8

TABLE 3-2 CARINATA FERTILIZER USE - 2022 .................................................................9

TABLE 3-3 CARINATA ENERGY USE..................................................................................9
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

iv

TABLE 3-4 CARINATA RESIDUE ASSUMPTIONS............................................................10

TABLE 3-5 GHG EMISSIONS COMPARISON....................................................................11

TABLE 4-1 CANOLA CRUSHING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS.........................................13

TABLE 4-2 CARINATA CRUSHING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS......................................13

TABLE 5-1 FUEL PROCESSING EMISSIONS ...................................................................15

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 2-1 B. CARINATA FIELD...........................................................................................3

FIGURE 2-2 POTENTIAL CAMELINA ROTATIONS...............................................................5

FIGURE 2-3 US VEGETABLE OIL PRICES............................................................................7

FIGURE 4-1 CARINATA PROCESSING................................................................................12
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Final Rule implementing 

changes to the renewable fuel standard program in the United States (RFS2) in 2010, which 

included specific categories for Biomass-Based Diesel and Advanced Biofuels. This rule 

includes approved pathways, based on a lifecycle assessment of greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions, for various renewable fuels including soybean biodiesel and biodiesel produced 

from waste products. In order to be eligible under the RFS2 program as Biomass-Based 

Diesel or Advanced Biofuels, EPA had to determine whether biodiesel fuels have a 50% 

reduction of GHG emissions compared to the baseline diesel fuel. In the final rule soybeans 

were the only commercial oilseed that was analyzed and approved. Subsequent to the Final 

Rule, the EPA has analyzed canola and camelina and has approved both of these oilseeds. 

There are other oilseeds that are undergoing EPA review at this time.

The approvals for canola and camelina involved different approaches by the EPA. The 

canola pathway was thoroughly analyzed by the EPA and added to all of the models that are 

used in the RFS approval process. The camelina approach was different. The EPA first 

determined that camelina was likely to be grown on fallow land and the production of 

camelina would not involve significant expansion of cropland and thus there would be no 

direct land use change emissions. EPA also determined that camelina has limited markets 

and is not internationally traded, and, thus, there would be no significant indirect land use 

change emissions. The direct GHG emissions from the production of camelina were then 

compared to soybean production emissions to arrive at the conclusion that the GHG 

emission reductions for camelina biodiesel, renewable diesel and jet fuel would be greater 

than the 50% required in the RFS2 program.

Agrisoma Biosciences Inc. will be submitting a request to the U.S. EPA to consider the 

inclusion of carinata biodiesel and renewable diesel (including heating oil and jet fuel) in the 

RFS2 program as Biomass-Based Diesel, which is an Advanced Biofuel. The petition 

request also includes the same biofuels as have been approved for camelina. The inclusion 

of carinata-based biofuels will require the EPA to determine if the lifecycle GHG emissions 

associated with all stages of the process meets the eligibility requirements of the program.

Due to the proprietary nature of the LCA modeling framework established by the EPA under 

the RFS2 program, a full LCA analysis of carinata-based biofuels is not possible outside of 

the EPA. This work documents the practices of growing carinata, crushing the seeds to 

extract the oil, and then processing the oil to produce renewable diesel. These practices and 

emissions are compared to the information that the EPA has published for camelina and 

soybeans (EPA, 2013). The information in this report should be sufficient to allow the EPA to 

determine that carinata oil is sufficiently similar to camelina to rely on the same analysis or, 

as necessary, to undertake its modeling work.

1.1 CAMELINA VS. CARINATA

The EPA approved a camelina pathway as a potential feedstock under the same biodiesel 

and renewable diesel (which includes diesel fuel, jet fuel, and heating oil) pathways for which 

soybean oil currently qualifies. The EPA also included a pathway for naphtha and LPG 

produced from camelina oil through hydrotreating. The EPA did not undertake a full lifecycle 

modeling exercise for camelina; instead they relied on an analysis of the potential for 

camelina production to avoid land use effects. This analysis showed that most camelina is 

expected to be grown on land that would otherwise be fallow and therefore would not have 

significant land use impacts. The second aspect of the EPA’s analysis involved a comparison 

of the direct emissions from the fuels and chemicals involved in the production of camelina 
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

2

compared to those for the production of soybeans. From this analysis, it was concluded that 

the direct emissions from camelina production and conversion to biodiesel or renewable 

diesel would be less than the emissions for soybean production and conversion to renewable 

fuels.

In this report the data that is required to undertake a lifecycle assessment of carinata is 

provided as well as a comparison to the information on camelina and soybean production 

and processing that the EPA relied on in their approval of the camelina pathways. This is 

done to demonstrate that carinata renewable diesel will also not have land use effects and 

the same approval process for camelina can be used for carinata.
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

3

2. CARINATA PROPERTIES, PRODUCTION, AND DEMAND

Brassica carinata is an oilseed crop that is commonly referred to as Ethiopian mustard. B. 

carinata (or simply carinata) is extremely well suited to production in semi-arid areas. It offers 

good resistance to biotic stressors, such as insects and disease, as well as abiotic stressors, 

such as heat and drought (Getinet et al, 1996).

Agriculture and Agri- Food Canada have developed varieties that offer growers high yields, 

high oil content and are ideally suited to semi-arid growing conditions commonly found in the 

southern Prairies of Canada and the Northern Plains of the US and as an off-season winter 

crop in the southern US. 

Figure 2-1 B. Carinata Field

Minton, Saskatchewan – June 29, 2012

2.1 CARINATA PROPERTIES 

The crop has many of the same characteristics as camelina in terms of drought and heat 

tolerance. Commercial varieties of carinata, however, have a higher yield and oil content 

while maintaining a high protein content. The protein content results in a meal protein byproduct with crude protein levels approaching soybean. The carinata yield and oil content 

shown in the following table are from 2012 field trials. There is the potential for yields to 
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

4

increase as seed development continues. The current development plan projects a yield 

increase of over 15% by 2022 to 2.1 t/ha based on the implementation of marker assisted 

and double haploid breeding and the launch of hybrid varieties. Additionally, oil content is 

expected to increase an additional 2% points while maintaining protein levels in the meal coproduct.

Table 2-1 Camelina and Carinata Properties

Camelina (EPA Projection) Carinata 2012

Yield, t/ha 1.8 2.1

Oil content 36% 44%

Protein Content 30% 28%

2.2 CARINATA PRODUCTION

Carinata is expected to be grown in semi-arid conditions where other crops typically perform 

poorly or when a fallow period is still included in the crop rotations. The fallow period helps to 

preserve soil moisture for the crop that succeeds the fallow period. Research (Angus et al, 

1996) clearly shows the benefit of incorporating a Brassica crop into a predominantly wheat 

only rotation with this effect being even greater in moisture limited environments where 

carinata will be grown. This is the identical strategy that is being developed for camelina 

production in the US Northern Plains and for Canada. The rotations shown in the EPA Figure 

1 in the Final Rule making for the camelina pathway applies equally well to carinata as it 

does to camelina. This figure is reproduced below.

Carinata is also showing promising results as an off-season winter cover crop in the 

southeastern US. Trials have been carried out in Florida and Arizona with support from the 

USDA and others. Cropland in these geographies are either left fallow or have a winter cover 

crop to prevent soil erosion and carinata’s biotic and abiotic stress tolerance has 

demonstrated it can withstand the highly variable weather conditions in these areas to 

produce an economical yield.
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

5

Figure 2-2 Potential Camelina Rotations

The EPA did their own analysis of the cost of production and producer returns from camelina 

production and this analysis supported the position that the low returns for the crop. They 

reported that;
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

6

Camelina is most likely to be planted on soil with lower moisture and nutrients where 

other rotation crops are not viable. Because expected returns on camelina are 

relatively uncertain, farmers are not expected to grow camelina on land that would 

otherwise be used to grow cash crops with well-established prices and markets. 

Instead, farmers are most likely to grow camelina on land that would otherwise be left 

fallow for a season. The opportunity cost of growing camelina on this type of land is 

much lower. As previously discussed, this type of land represents the 9 million acres 

currently being targeted for camelina production. 

The same cost and return information has been calculated for carinata and compared to the 

EPA camelina calculations as shown in the following table. The same prices have been used 

for the chemical inputs. The differences are in the fertilizer quantities, seed prices and the 

selling price of the product. It is expected that carinata will have a higher selling price due to 

the higher oil content.

Table 2-2 Cost and Returns

Inputs 2022 Camelina 2022 Carinata

Herbicides: 

Glysophate (Fall) $7.00 $7.00

Glysophate (Spring) $7.00 $7.00

Post $8.00 $8.00

Seed $7.20 $7.20

Fertilizer: Nitrogen Fertilizer $40.00 $60.00

Phosphate Fertilizer $15.00 $30.00

Sub-Total $84.20 $119.20

Logistics: 

Planting Trip $10.00 $10.00

Harvest & Hauling $25.00 $25.00

Total Cost $119.20 $154.20

Yields Lb/acre 1,650 1,865

Price $/pound $0.12 $0.14

Total Revenue at avg

prod/pricing 

$198 $261.10

Returns $/acre $78.80 $106.90

The Net Returns for carinata are $28/acre greater than for Camelina if the realized price is 2 

cents/pound more and $9 less if the price is the same as camelina and this small difference 

would not change the EPA conclusion with respect to the competition for land between low 

return crops like camelina and carinata and the better established cash crops.

2.3 CARINATA DEMAND

Carinata demand is closely linked to biofuel demands. The seed development is driven by 

industrial applications (including fuels) and not by food demand. 
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

7

2.4 MARKET CONDITIONS FOR CARINATA OIL

Carinata oil will not be used for food purposes but it could displace some oils in industrial 

applications. Its price is therefore expected to move in the same general pattern as other fats 

and oils.

The price patterns of various competing oils are shown in the following figure.

Figure 2-3 US Vegetable Oil Prices

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Price, cents/lb

Soybean

Cottonseed

Sunflower

Canola

Peanut

Corn

Lard

Edible Tallow

Sources: Monthly Feedstuff Prices, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

8

3. CARINATA AGRONOMICS

As carinata is a new crop the detailed history of crop production in terms of yields, fertilizer 

and fuel requirements is not available. The data that is available can be compared to the 

camelina and soybean data that the EPA used for the approval of the camelina pathway.

3.1 YIELD

A number of field trails have been undertaken in recent years. The yield data from these 

trails is summarized in the following table. Research plots that experienced problems such 

as drought, hail, or insect damage have been removed from this list.

Table 3-1 Crop Yields

Year Country Prov/State Site Yield, kg/ha Co-operator

A100 A110 Average

2009 Canada SK Scott 4321 4321 AAFC (Scott) 

2010 Canada SK Scott 2227 2299 2263 AAFC (Scott) 

2011 Canada SK

Indian 

Head 2843 3057 2950

IHARF (Indian 

Head Ag 

Research 

Farm)

2012 Canada MB Melita 1910 1810 1860

MAFRI 

(Manitoba Ag, 

Food and 

Rural 

Initiatives)

2012 Canada SK

Indian 

Head 1595 1802 1699 IHARF 

2012 Canada SK

Swift 

Current 1166 1197 1182 WCA

2012 Canada SK

Stewart 

Valley 1048 1048 Westwind

2012 Canada SK Vanguard 2619 2619 Westwind

2012 Canada SK Aneroid 788 788 Westwind

2012 Canada AB Lethbridge 2794 2650 2722

Farming 

Smarter

2012 Canada AB Lethbridge 2632 2632 HyTech

2012 Canada AB Kipp 3485 3485 AgQuest

2012 US MT Havre 1298 1298 MSU

2012 US ND Drake 2027 2069 2048 NDSU

2012 US SD Pierre 497 497 SDSU

Average 2094

The average yield of 2,094 kg/ha is equal to 1,865 lb/acre. Yields in research plots are 

always higher than the yields in commercial production. As with the camelina ruling we have 

used the research plot yield (highest technically feasible) as an indication of the projected 

commercial yield in 2022.
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

9

3.2 FERTILIZER REQUIREMENTS

In the following table the information for 2022 has been forecast. As stated previously the 

2022 commercial yield is based on the current yields from research plots. The fertilizer 

requirements have been kept at the same rate per acre. This estimate is compared to the 

data used by the EPA in the camelina approval.

Table 3-2 Carinata Fertilizer Use - 2022

Carinata Carinata Camelina

Per Acre Per ton oil Per ton oil

Yield 1,865 lbs 2.27 tons 3.36

Oil 820 lbs 1.0 1.0

Nitrogen 60 lbs 146 135

Phosphorus 30 lbs 73 50

Potassium 0 0 34

Herbicide 0 0 9.25

Pesticide 0 0 0

The land that carinata is expected to be grown on generally has high potassium levels and 

augmentation with potash fertilizer is not required. Given the similar protein contents of 

camelina and carinata, they should have similar nitrogen input requirements. Crops that 

follow a fallow field have lower nitrogen requirements than crops planted on continually 

cropped land. The difference in the previous table could be the difference between crops 

planted on fallow land vs. crops planted on continually planted land.

3.3 DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION

The farm energy used by the EPA for camelina was 3.5 gallons of diesel fuel per acre. Fuel 

consumption is usually a function of just the area and not the production. Given the 

similarities in production practices between carinata and camelina the same value is used for 

carinata.

Table 3-3 Carinata Energy Use

Camelina Carinata Camelina Carinata

Per acre Per Acre Per ton oil Per ton oil

Yield 1,650 lbs 1,865

Gasoline 0 gal 0 gal

Diesel 3.5 gal 3.5 gal 11.78 9.94

3.4 AGRONOMIC PRACTICES

The specific agronomic practices employed by feedstock producers can have a significant 

impact on the GHG emissions resulting from the growing of feedstock. Some of the primary 

practices are discussed below.
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

10

3.4.1 Tillage Practices

Low return crops planted on moisture deficient soils usually adopt reduced tillage or no 

tillage practices to lower operating costs and conserve soil moisture. The fuel consumption 

value used for camelina and carinata reflect that practice.

A survey of production practices undertaken by the Canola Council of Canada in 2011 found 

the average fuel use for canola production in western Canada was 3.11 gallon/acre ((S&T)2, 

2013). This is confirmation of the 3.5 gallons used for the camelina analysis and proposed 

for the carinata analysis.

3.4.2 Residues Left in Field

Crop residues and roots that are left in the field are beneficial for soil carbon but they do 

release N2O emissions as they decompose. There is very little data on the composition of 

the carinata residue. Since the carinata properties are similar to canola in many respects and 

they are from the same brassica family, we have assumed that they are the same as canola 

as shown in the following table. The values are from Janzen (2003).

Table 3-4 Carinata Residue Assumptions

Parameter Value

N content of above ground residue (fraction of dry mass) 0.0080 

Ratio of above ground residue weight to weight of crop or product harvested 2.31 

N content of below ground residue (fraction of dry mass) 0.0100 

Ratio of below ground biomass weight to weight of crop or product harvested 0.58 
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

11

3.5 CARINATA PRODUCTION EMISSIONS

The EPA calculated the GHG emissions for camelina production and for soybean production 

and presented the results on a kg/mmBTU of fuel basis. The results are shown in the 

following table and the carinata results, calculated from the data presented in this report, are 

also shown for comparison. This presentation of the data ignores the role of the co-product 

meal.

Table 3-5 GHG Emissions Comparison

Parameter Camelina Soybean Carinata

Kg CO2eq/mm BTU fuel

N2O 22 9–12 24

Nitrogen Fertilizer 7 1–3 7

Phosphorous Fertilizer 1 0–2 1 

Potassium Fertilizer 0 0–2 0 

Herbicide 3 0–2 2

Pesticide 0 0–2 0 

Diesel 5 7–20 4

Gasoline 0 3–5 0 

Total 38 21–47 39

The carinata GHG emission results are slightly higher than the camelina results and just in 

the mid-range of the soybean emission results.
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

12

4. CARINATA SEED CRUSHING

Carinata is very similar to canola in terms of its properties and the crushing of and extraction 

of the oil is expected to be identical. The canola processing process is shown in the following 

figure.

Figure 4-1 Carinata Processing

4.1 PRODUCT YIELDS

The carinata crushing process produces two products: meal, and oil. Both products have 

significant economic value.

4.1.1 Oil Yields

The oil content of the carinata seeds is 44%. Most of this can be extracted through 

conventional processing. It will be assumed that the oil yield is 42% of the seed weight. This 

means that 2.38 pounds of seed will be required to produce one pound of refined oil.

4.1.2 Meal Yields

The meal yield is the remainder of the oilseed. With an oil extraction rate of 0.42, the meal 

yield will be 0.58 pounds per pound of oil seed or 1.38 pounds of meal per pound of oil.

4.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

The EPA reported the energy requirements of camelina and soybean oil in their approval of 

camelina. It has been assumed that the energy requirements for carinata are identical to 

those of canola. The crushing energy for canola has been previously reported to the EPA in 
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

13

the canola oil pathway LCA data submitted to the EPA for the canola oil RFS2 pathway 

((S&T)2, 2010).

A survey of the canola crushing plants was undertaken by Canadian Oilseed Processors 

Association for this work. A total of 10 plants in Canada and the United States participated in 

the survey. All of the plants used natural gas as their source of thermal energy. To the extent 

possible, the plants normalized their energy requirements to produce the quality of canola oil 

required for biodiesel production as opposed to the quality used for human food applications. 

The results from the survey are summarized in the following table.

Table 4-1 Canola Crushing Energy Requirements

Per tonne of Canola crushed Per tonne of Oil produced

Electricity Purchased, kWh 49 114.5

Natural Gas Purchased, GJ 1.0 2.34

Total Energy, GJ 1.18 2.75

This information has been converted to the basis that the EPA used in the camelina approval 

and is compared to the EPA data in that approval document. It was not possible to exactly 

duplicate the EPA GHG emissions using the emission factors for electricity (219,823 g 

CO2eq/mmBTU) and natural gas (58,818 g CO2eq/mmBTU) used in the EPA Final Rule files 

but the results are quite close.

Table 4-2 Carinata Crushing Energy Requirements

Item Soybeans Camelina Carinata Units 

Material Inputs: 

Beans or Seeds 5.38 2.9 2.38 Lbs. 

Energy Inputs: 

Electricity 374 47 76 Btu. 

Natural Gas & Steam 1,912 780 428 Btu. 

Outputs: 

Refined vegetable oil 1 1 1 Lbs. 

Meal 4.08 1.85 1.38 Lbs. 

GHG Emissions1213 64

gCO2e/lb 

refined oil

GHG Emissions2195 56 42

gCO2e/lb 

refined oil

The carinata GHG emissions per pound of oil extracted are lower than the emissions 

reported by the EPA for camelina and soybean oils.

4.3 CARINATA FEED CO-PRODUCTS

Mustard meal is an approved feed for cattle and sheep at the 10% inclusion level in the 

United States. It has been approved at this level since 1973. Brassica carinata is a cultivated 

mustard species commonly referred to as Ethiopian Mustard.

 

1 Reported by EPA.

2 Calculated using Emission Factors from EPA Final Rule
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

14

Brassica carinata meal (BCM) is produced following standard solvent extraction of the oil 

from the seed. The press cake is a high protein, low fiber meal suitable for feeding beef 

cattle under the AAFCO definition 71.30, Mustard Meal, Solvent Extracted.

In the European Union, Mustard seed meal is an approved feed material and is defined as 

the product obtained by the extraction of volatile mustard oil from mustard seed.

The composition of BCM is very similar to that of canola meal and is expected to perform 

similarly in animal diets.
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

15

5. RENEWABLE FUEL PRODUCTION

Renewable fuel production using carinata oil is identical to the production of renewable fuel 

produced from camelina or soybean oil. The following comments are provided on the values 

used by the EPA in their RFS analysis.

5.1 ENERGY USE

The energy requirements for converting a vegetable oil to biodiesel, renewable diesel, or 

renewable jet fuel are quite similar for the various vegetable oils. The EPA provided the 

following table in the camelina approval.

Table 5-1 Fuel Processing Emissions

Feedstock Production process Oil extraction Processing Total 

kgCO2e/mmBtu

Soybean Oil Trans-Esterification 14 -1 13

Camelina Oil Trans-Esterification 4 -1 3

Camelina Oil Hydrotreating 

Maximized for Diesel 4 8 12

Camelina Oil Hydrotreating

Maximized for Jet 4 11 14

The carinata oil extraction emissions will be less than those for soybeans and camelina and 

the fuel processing emissions should be similar to these other two feedstocks.
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

16

6. CONCLUSIONS

The EPA concluded that:

“Given that GHG emissions from camelina oil would be similar to the GHG emissions 

from soybean oil at all stages of the lifecycle but would not result in land use change 

emissions (soy oil feedstock did have a significant land use change impact but still 

met a 50% GHG reduction threshold), and considering differences in process 

emissions between soybean biodiesel and camelina-based renewable diesel, we 

conclude that renewable diesel from camelina oil will also meet the 50% GHG 

emissions reduction threshold to qualify as biomass based diesel and advanced fuel. 

Although some of the potential configurations result in fuel production GHG 

emissions that are higher than fuel production GHG emissions for soybean oil 

biodiesel, land use change emissions account for approximately 80% of the soybean 

oil to biodiesel lifecycle GHGs. Since camelina is assumed not to have land use

change emissions, our analysis shows that camelina renewable diesel will qualify for 

advanced renewable fuel and biomass-based diesel RINs even for the cases with the 

highest lifecycle GHGs (e.g., when all of the co-products are used to generate 

RINs.)”

Carinata is a very similar crop to camelina. It is expected to compete for the same area land 

that camelina is proposed to be grown on. A high percentage of this land is expected to be 

land that is currently fallow in the existing multi-year crop rotations. In addition, there is a 

limited use for Carinata, and no internationally traded markets. Just as the EPA concluded 

that camelina production would not have land use change emissions, they should also 

concluded that carinata production will not have land use emissions.

The direct emissions for carinata production may be slightly higher than they are for 

camelina production but the emissions for oil extraction will be lower and the emissions for 

processing the oil into biodiesel or renewable diesel will be the same. Overall the direct 

emissions from the production of renewable fuels from carinata will easily meet the 50% 

emission threshold established under the RFS 2 program.
(S&T)2 CARINATA OIL LCA DATA

17

7. REFERENCES

(S&T)2 Consultants Inc. 2010. Canola LCA Data.

(S&T)2 Consultants Inc. 2013. Palm Oil and Biofuel Update. 

http://www.ghgenius.ca/reports/FinalReportPalmOilUpdate.pdf

Angus, J., Kirkegaard, J., Peoples, M., Ryan, M., Ohlander, L., Hutton, L. 2011. A review of 

break-crop benefits of brassicas. 17th Australian Research Assembly on Brassicas. Wagga 

Wagga, August 2011. http://www.australianoilseeds.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/8294/S6-

P1-Angus.pdf

Getinet A, Rakow G, Downey RK. 1996. Agronomic performance and seed quality of Ethiopian 

mustard in Saskatchewan. Can.J. Pl. Sci. 76: 387-392.

Janzen HH, Beauchemin KA, Bruinsma Y, Campbell CA, Desjardins RL, Ellert BH, Smith 

EG. 2003. The fate of nitrogen in agroecosystems: an illustration using Canadian estimates. 

Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems 67:85–102. 

http://www.springerlink.com/content/qg1uq482l4650624/

US EPA. 2013. Final Rule. Identification of Additional Qualifying Renewable Fuels under the 

Renewable Fuels Program. Federal Register. Volume 78, No. 43, Tuesday March 5, 2013. 

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-03-05/pdf/2013-04929.pdf