CANOLA LCA DATA 

Prepared For: 

Canola Council of Canada 

400 – 167 Lombard Ave 

Winnipeg, MC 

R3B 0T6

Prepared By 

 

(S&T)2 Consultants Inc. 

11657 Summit Crescent 

Delta, BC 

Canada, V4E 2Z2 

 Date: March 31, 2010 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is implementing revisions to the National 

Renewable Fuel Standard program (commonly known as the RFS program). The new rule 

addresses changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard program as required by the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The revised statutory requirements 

establish new specific volume standards for cellulosic biofuel, biomass-based diesel, 

advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel that must be used in transportation fuel each 

year. The revised statutory requirements also include new definitions and criteria for both 

renewable fuels and the feedstocks used to produce them, including new greenhouse gas 

emission (GHG) thresholds for renewable fuels. 

As part of the revisions to the National Renewable Fuel Standard program (commonly known 

as the RFS program), EPA analyzed lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from 

increased renewable fuels use. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) 

establishes new renewable fuel categories and eligibility requirements. EISA sets the first 

U.S. mandatory lifecycle GHG reduction thresholds for renewable fuel categories, as 

compared to those of average petroleum fuels used in 2005. The regulatory purpose of the 

lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions analysis is to determine whether renewable fuels meet 

the GHG thresholds for the different categories of renewable fuel. 

Lifecycle GHG emissions are the aggregate quantity of GHGs related to the full fuel cycle, 

including all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution, from feedstock 

generation and extraction through distribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel. The 

lifecycle GHG emissions of the renewable fuel are compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions 

for gasoline or diesel (whichever is being replaced by the renewable fuel) sold or distributed 

as transportation fuel in 2005. 

EISA defines lifecycle GHG emissions as follows: 

The term ‘lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions’ means the aggregate quantity of greenhouse 

gas emissions (including direct emissions and significant indirect emissions such as 

significant emissions from land use changes), as determined by the Administrator, related to 

the full fuel lifecycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distribution, 

from feedstock generation or extraction through the distribution and delivery and use of the 

finished fuel to the ultimate consumer, where the mass values for all greenhouse gases are 

adjusted to account for their relative global warming potential. 

The approach taken by the EPA in their analysis of the GHG emissions of biofuels broadly 

follows the guidance of the ISO standards but there is a complex modelling framework 

employed to arrive at the total direct and indirect emissions for any given biofuel as shown in 

the following figure. 
Figure ES- 1 EPA Modelling Framework 

The initial work undertaken by the EPA did not include canola used as a feedstock for 

biodiesel production. This report documents the practices of growing canola, crushing it to 

extract the oil, and then processing the oil to produce biodiesel. Data is provided for both 

Canadian and US canola. The information in this report should be sufficient to allow the EPA 

to undertake its modelling work for the inclusion of canola biodiesel in the RFS2 program. 

Canola production in North America has increased significantly in the past five years and is 

forecast to continue to grow over the next decade. This growth is driven by a number of 

factors including new and improved varieties that lower production costs, increased demand 

for canola from both the traditional food markets and the emerging biofuel markets, and 

evolving agronomic practices in many regions that will see canola included in crop rotations 

as some regions move away from monocultures and the increased use of winter crops in 

southern regions that traditionally have been outside of the canola producing region. 

Canola production is quite efficient in North America with lower energy inputs than many 

crops. It is a crop that is well suited to no till practices and in both Canada and the United 

States only 25% of the canola area is estimated to be still farmed with conventional tillage. 

Canola crushing is more energy efficient than soybean crushing when considered on a per 

tonne crushed basis and much more efficient when considered on a per tonne of oil 

produced basis. 

The direct GHG emissions of producing and crushing canola to produce canola oil are lower 

than they are for soybean oil, but the benefits will be reduced due to the lower volume and 

feed value of the canola meal co-product. Some of the key factors leading to lower GHG 

emissions of canola include, the higher oil content of the seed, the low N2O emission rate in 

western Canada resulting from the low annual precipitation, the high rate of adoption of 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

ii
(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

iii

conservation tillage and no till management practices leading to an increase in soil carbon in 

the canola production region of Canada, low fossil fuel consumption, and low residue 

nitrogen content compared to soybeans. 

Canola yields have increased significantly in recent years and are expected to continue to 

grow rapidly through to the 2022 time period of the EPA analysis. Canola oil yields are also 

expected to increase during this time period. The combination of higher yield, higher oil 

content, winter crops, and more rotations including canola, and some substitution for other 

oilseed crops is expected to meet the increased demand from biodiesel production with little 

demand for more acres, thus the indirect emissions for canola biodiesel are also expected to 

be lower than they are for soybeans. 
(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

iv
(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................V

LIST OF TABLES......................................................................................................................VI

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................VII

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

2. CANOLA PRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2

2.1 CANADIAN CANOLA PRODUCTION .................................................................................. 2

2.2 US CANOLA PRODUCTION............................................................................................. 4

2.3 CROP YIELD ................................................................................................................. 7

2.3.1 Canada ................................................................................................................ 7

2.3.2 United States ....................................................................................................... 8

2.4 OIL CONTENT ............................................................................................................... 9

2.5 FERTILIZER REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 10

2.5.1 Canadian Data ................................................................................................... 10

2.5.2 US Information ................................................................................................... 12

2.6 OTHER INPUTS ........................................................................................................... 12

2.7 DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION.................................................................................. 13

2.8 AGRONOMIC PRACTICES ............................................................................................. 14

2.8.1 Varieties............................................................................................................. 15

2.8.2 Tillage Practices................................................................................................. 15

2.8.3 Irrigation............................................................................................................. 16

2.9 MEETING INCREASED DEMAND FOR CANOLA OIL .......................................................... 16

3. CANOLA CRUSHING........................................................................................................ 20

3.1 PRODUCT YIELDS ....................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1 Oil Yields............................................................................................................ 22

3.1.2 Meal Yields ........................................................................................................ 23

3.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 23

3.2.1 Soybean Crushing Comparison ......................................................................... 24

3.3 CANOLA MEAL ............................................................................................................ 25

4. AGRICULTURAL EMISSIONS .......................................................................................... 27

4.1 N2O EMISSIONS ......................................................................................................... 27

4.1.1 Direct Emission Factor....................................................................................... 27

4.1.2 Tillage Impacts................................................................................................... 28

4.1.3 Summerfallow .................................................................................................... 29

4.1.4 Crop Residues ................................................................................................... 29

4.2 SOIL CARBON............................................................................................................. 30

5. BIODIESEL PRODUCTION............................................................................................... 31

5.1 ENERGY USE.............................................................................................................. 31

5.2 YIELD AND CO-PRODUCTS .......................................................................................... 31
(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

vi

6. COMPARISON TO SOYBEANS........................................................................................ 32

7. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 34

8. GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................... 37

9. APPENDIX 1 NOPA SOYBEAN PROCESSING DATA ..................................................... 38

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 2-1 CANADIAN CANOLA PRODUCTION ............................................................... 2

TABLE 2-2 CANADIAN CANOLA SUPPLY AND DEMAND ................................................ 3

TABLE 2-3 CANADIAN CANOLA OIL SUPPLY AND DEMAND ......................................... 3

TABLE 2-4 CANADIAN CANOLA MEAL SUPPLY AND DEMAND ..................................... 3

TABLE 2-5 CANADIAN CANOLA OIL EXPORTS ............................................................... 4

TABLE 2-6 CANADIAN CANOLA MEAL EXPORTS ........................................................... 4

TABLE 2-7 US CANOLA PRODUCTION - 2009.................................................................. 6

TABLE 2-8 US CANOLA SUPPLY AND DEMAND.............................................................. 7

TABLE 2-9 US CANOLA OIL CONTENT............................................................................. 9

TABLE 2-10 FERTILIZER SURVEY DATA - 2000............................................................... 10

TABLE 2-11 NITROGEN FERTILIZER USE........................................................................ 11

TABLE 2-12 US CANOLA FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................ 12

TABLE 2-13 LIME AREA IN WESTERN CANADA.............................................................. 13

TABLE 2-14 FIELD ENERGY REQUIREMENTS CANOLA................................................. 14

TABLE 2-15 NORTH DAKOTA FUEL CONSUMPTION FACTORS.................................... 14

TABLE 2-16 TILLAGE PRACTICES IN WESTERN CANADA............................................. 15

TABLE 2-17 US CANOLA PRODUCTION TARGETS......................................................... 18

TABLE 2-18 USDA CANOLA PLANTING INTENTIONS ..................................................... 18

TABLE 3-1 TYPICAL CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF CANOLA MEAL ........................... 23

TABLE 3-2 CANOLA CRUSHING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS........................................ 23

TABLE 3-3 HEXANE CONSUMPTION.............................................................................. 24

TABLE 3-4 SOYBEAN CRUSHING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS (NOPA)........................ 24

TABLE 3-5 SOYBEAN CRUSHING ENERGY REQUIREMENTS (EPA)........................... 24

TABLE 3-6 CANOLA MEAL RELATIVE FEED VALUE...................................................... 25

TABLE 3-7 CANOLA MEAL USAGE BY SPECIES ........................................................... 25

TABLE 4-1 TIER 2 N2O EMISSION FACTORS FOR CANADA......................................... 28

TABLE 4-2 CANOLA PLANT ............................................................................................. 30

TABLE 4-3 RATE OF CHANGE OF SOIL CARBON ......................................................... 30

TABLE 5-1 BIODIESEL ENERGY USE ............................................................................. 31

TABLE 6-1 COMPARISON OF GHG EMISSIONS CANOLA OIL VS. SOYBEAN OIL...... 32
(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1 EPA MODELLING FRAMEWORK..................................................................... 1

FIGURE 2-1 CANOLA GROWING REGIONS IN CANADA................................................... 2

FIGURE 2-2 US CANOLA ACRES ........................................................................................ 5

FIGURE 2-3 US CANOLA ACRES PLANTED....................................................................... 6

FIGURE 2-4 CANOLA YIELD CANADA................................................................................. 8

FIGURE 2-5 US CANOLA YIELD .......................................................................................... 9

FIGURE 2-6 CANOLA OIL CONTENT................................................................................. 10

FIGURE 2-7 YIELD RESPONSE TO NITROGEN ............................................................... 11

FIGURE 2-8 REGIONAL AMMONIA PLANT ENERGY EFFICIENCY ................................. 12

FIGURE 2-9 HERBICIDE USE CANOLA 1995-2000........................................................... 13

FIGURE 2-10 CANADIAN HYBRID VARIETIES ADOPTION ................................................ 15

FIGURE 2-11 WESTERN CANADIAN LAND BASE.............................................................. 17

FIGURE 2-12 MONSANTO CANOLA YIELD PROJECTION................................................. 19

FIGURE 3-1 CANOLA CRUSHING PROCESS ................................................................... 20

FIGURE 3-2 OIL EXTRACTION RATES – CANADIAN CANOLA CRUSHERS................... 22

FIGURE 3-3 CANOLA MEAL EXPORTS TO US................................................................. 26
(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

viii
(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the United States has just released their 

Final Rule for the renewable fuel program in the United States (RFS2). This rule include a 

lifecycle assessment of various renewable fuels including soybean biodiesel and biodiesel 

produced from waste products. In order to be eligible under the RFS2 program, renewable 

fuels had to demonstrate that the lifecycle emissions of the renewable fuel were less than 

those of petroleum fuels. Biodiesel fuels had to demonstrate a 50% reduction compared to 

diesel fuel. In the final rule, the EPA did not consider canola biodiesel as part of their 

analysis. 

The approach taken by the EPA in their analysis of the GHG emissions of biofuels broadly 

follows the guidance of the ISO standards but there is a complex modelling framework 

employed to arrive at the total direct and indirect emissions for any given biofuel as shown in 

the following figure. 

Figure 1-1 EPA Modelling Framework 

The initial work undertaken by the EPA did not include canola used as a feedstock for 

biodiesel production. This work documents the practices of growing canola, crushing it to 

extract the oil, and then processing the oil to produce biodiesel. Data is provided for both 

Canadian and US canola. The information in this report should be sufficient to allow the EPA 

to undertake its modelling work for the inclusion of canola biodiesel in the RFS2 program. 
2. CANOLA PRODUCTION

Canola is produced in Canada and the United States. Where possible data is provided for 

both regions. 

2.1 CANADIAN CANOLA PRODUCTION

Canola is a significant oilseed crop in Canada with about 6.47 million hectares (16 million 

acres) grown in Canada in 2009. Most of the canola is grown in the three prairie provinces of 

Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta as shown in the following table (Statistics Canada, 

2010). The forecast production in 2009 is 11.8 million tonnes (13 million tons). 

Table 2-1 Canadian Canola Production 

2005 2006 2007 2008

tonnes 

Manitoba 1,261,000 1,825,700 1,950,400 2,576,400

Saskatchewan 4,456,500 3,696,800 4,082,300 5,629,100

Alberta 3,651,400 3,424,600 3,401,900 4,322,700

Other provinces 114,400 53,200 93,900 114,700

Total 9,483,300 9,000,300 9,528,500 12,642,900

The major canola growing regions in Canada are shown in the following table. The legend is 

the % of the total Canadian canola crop grown in each of the crop regions. 

Figure 2-1 Canola Growing Regions in Canada 

Canola seeds produced in Canada are both crushed domestically and exported. Supply and 

demand data is shown in the following table (Canola Council, 2010 and Agriculture and AgriFood Canada). It can be seen that historically about two thirds of the crop has been exported 

and one third has been crushed domestically. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

2
Table 2-2 Canadian Canola Supply and Demand 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009f

1,000 tonnes 

Beginning 

stocks 2,106 1,088 1,200 894 609 1,587 2,007 1,820 1,528 1,661

Production 7,205 5,017 4,407 6,771 7,728 9,483 9,000 9,529 12,643 11,825

Imports 225 226 240 243 107 139 203 179 121 150

Total Supply 9,536 6,331 5,847 7,908 8,444 11,209 11,210 11,490 14,225 13,636

Exports 4,859 2,524 2,394 3,754 3,412 5,409 5,477 5,661 7,908 7,000

Domestic 

Crush 3,013 2,293 2,225 3,390 3,031 3,423 3,579 4,144 4,280 4,500

Seed, Feed & 

Waste 627 264 334 155 414 370 334 108 329 436

Total Demand 8,499 5,131 4,953 7,296 6,894 9,202 9,390 9,913 12,517 11,936

Ending Stocks 1,088 1,200 894 609 1,587 2,007 1,820 1,528 1,661 1,650

Much of the domestic crush products are eventually exported and the following two tables 

show the disposition of canola oil and canola meal from Canadian production (Canola 

Council, 2010 and Statistics Canada). 

Table 2-3 Canadian Canola Oil Supply and Demand 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1,000 tonnes 

Stocks 28 48 48 29 31 36 38 47 39 83

Production 1,243 1,266 971 926 1,395 1,247 1,463 1,551 1,738 1,838

Imports 102 56 34 28 39 66 47 137 43 156

Total Supply 1,373 1,370 1,053 983 1,465 1,349 1,548 1,735 1,820 2,077

Exports 628 825 582 608 1,039 900 1,149 1,305 1,307 1,542

Domestic 

Utilization 428 428 384 344 390 411 352 391 420 485

Total Demand 1,056 1,253 966 952 1,429 1,311 1,501 1,570 1,737 2,027

Ending Stocks 48 48 29 31 36 38 47 39 83 50

Table 2-4 Canadian Canola Meal Supply and Demand 

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

1,000 tonnes 

Stocks 39 30 22 21 25 23 18 21 21 20

Production 1,858 1,870 1,427 1,390 2,120 1,904 2,025 2,108 2,495 2,487

Imports 5 3 3 20 3 2 1 1 1 1

Total Supply 1,902 1,903 1,452 1,431 2,148 1,929 2,044 2,130 2,517 2,508

Exports 1,139 1,135 799 830 1,572 1,414 1,489 1,482 1,857 1,861

Domestic 

Utilization 744 746 632 576 553 497 534 627 660 647

Total Demand 1,883 1,881 1,431 1,406 2,125 1,911 2,023 1,461 2,517 2,508

Ending Stocks 30 22 21 25 23 18 21 21 20 20

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

3
Most of the Canadian exports of oil and meal go to the United States as shown in the 

following tables (Canola Council, 2010b). 

Table 2-5 Canadian Canola Oil Exports 

Tonnes 1999-

00 

2000-

01 

2001-

02 

2002-

03 

2003-

04 

2004-

05 

2005-

06 

2006-

07 

2007-

08 

2008-

09

1,000 tonnes

U.S.A. 456 541 507 446 536 510 585 719 928 1,030

China 18 17 10 22 194 94 2 264 249 395

South 

Korea 18 65 55 14 61 49 35 36 34 37

Hong Kong 58 131 5 2 9 33 16 25 19 25

Others 53 37 9 44 34 60 226 55 53 21

Japan 2 4 10 5 39 21 26 26 16 20

Taiwan - 31 15 14 18 23 24 27 12 13

Columbia - - 0 0 1 0 2 3 7 2

Netherlands - - - - 0 1 43 86 0 0

Germany - - - - - 4 39 64 - -

India 24 - 7 8 1 - - - - -

TOTAL 628 825 616 555 893 795 998 1,306 1,317 1,543

Table 2-6 Canadian Canola Meal Exports 

 

1999-

00 

2000-

01 

2001-

02 

2002-

03 

2003-

04 

2004-

05 

2005-

06 

2006-

07 

2007-

08 

2008-

09

1,000 tonnes 

U.S.A. 1,077 1,114 792 827 1,486 1,328 1,456 1,458 1,799 1,767

Mexico - - - - - 1 1 6 14 78

Ireland - - - - 31 41 14 - 24 10

Others 3 0 6 - 51 48 15 0 4 3

Taiwan 19 5 1 2 36 19 11 7 15 2

Japan 1 16 0 2 - 5 - 0 - -

Philippines - - - 0 - 13 6 11 0 -

TOTAL 1,100 1,135 799 830 1,572 1,414 1,489 1,482 1,856 1,861

2.2 US CANOLA PRODUCTION

It is also grown in the United States with most of the acres grown in North Dakota as shown 

in the following figure (NASS, 2010). This figure is the latest available but it does not show 

the 2009 winter canola acres in Kansas or Oklahoma. There is some canola production in 

Oklahoma, Idaho, Minnesota, Oregon, Montana, and other states. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

4
Figure 2-2 US Canola Acres 

The total acres in the US planted with canola are shown in the following figure (NASS, 2010). 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

5
Figure 2-3 US Canola Acres Planted 

US Canola Acres

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

1991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Thousand Acres

Most of the US canola production is currently in North Dakota as shown in the following table 

(USDA, 2010). 

Table 2-7 US Canola Production - 2009 

Tonnes

North Dakota 604,989

Oklahoma 21,814

Idaho 11,179

Other States 10,939

Minnesota 9,637

Oregon 5,088

Montana 4,893

United States 668,540

The supply and demand situation for canola and canola products in the United States is 

shown in the following table (Soyatech, 2010). It can be seen that the US is a net importer of 

seed, oil, and meal. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

6
Table 2-8 US Canola Supply and Demand 

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Canola Seed 1,000 tonnes 

Beginning stocks (June 1) 40 60 87 135 158 203

Production 613 718 633 650 656 505

Imports 467 518 647 874 825 905

Total Supply 1,120 1,296 1,367 1,659 1,639 1,613

Crush 901 1,030 963 1,050 1,218 1,162

Exports 140 157 246 423 191 300

Total Disappearance 1,120 1,296 1,366 1,659 1,639 1,613

Ending stocks 60 87 135 158 203 125

Canola Oil 

Beginning stocks (Oct 1) 42 58 120 68 60 68

Production 363 381 377 442 479 463

Imports 514 726 712 1,017 1,032 1,172

Total Supply 919 1,165 1,209 1,527 1,571 1,703

Domestic Usage 739 831 855 1,309 1,268 1,486

Exports 122 214 286 158 235 160

Total Disappearance 919 1,165 1,209 1,527 1,571 1,703

Ending stocks 58 120 68 60 68 57

Canola Meal 

Beginning stocks (Oct 1) 5 5 5 5 5 5

Production 563 602 591 659 715 726

Imports 1,337 1,464 1,500 1,818 1,815 2,055

Total Supply 1,905 2,071 2,096 2,482 2,534 2,786

Domestic Usage 1,868 2,016 2,032 2,378 2,452 2,681

Exports 31 49 60 99 77 100

Total Disappearance 1,905 2,071 2,096 2,483 2,534 2,786

Ending stocks 5 5 5 5 5 5

2.3 CROP YIELD

An important parameter in biofuels lifecycle assessment work is the yield of the crop. The 

yield can influence the inputs required, and the need for expanded acres. Data on canola 

yield in the US and Canada is discussed below. 

2.3.1 Canada 

Information on yield in Canada has been collected for a longer period of time by Statistics 

Canada. The recent yield performance is similar between the two countries and the longer 

term data trend in Canada shows the yield increase more clearly. The trend line value for 

2010 is 30 bushels/acres (1,500 pounds/acre) however the actual yields in 2008 and 2009 

were 34.6 bu/acre (1,732 pounds/acre). The trend line value for 2022 is 36 bu/acre (1,802 

pounds/acre); a value that based on recent performance is likely to be exceeded. The yield 

target established by the Canola Council for 2015 is 41.2 bu/acre (2,060 pounds/acre). Given 

the performance in recent years that target is likely to be met. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

7
Figure 2-4 Canola Yield Canada 

Canada Canola Yield

y = 578e0.0144x

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

19431946194919521955195819611964196719701973197619791982198519881991199419972000200320062009

Pounds/Acre

2.3.2 United States 

Data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service on canola yield is available for the 

period from 1991 to 2009. Those results are shown in the following figure. The yields have 

increased significantly in the past few years with the 2009 yield being the highest yield ever. 

The trend line value for 2010 is 1,475 pounds/acre. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

8
Figure 2-5 US Canola Yield 

US Canola Yield

y = 1257.8e0.0085x

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

1991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009

Yield, pounds/acr

e

2.4 OIL CONTENT

The oil content of canola is much higher than the oil content of soybeans. The oil yield is 

summarized in the following table (Northern Crops Institute 2008, 2009). 

Table 2-9 US Canola Oil Content 

2001-2006 2008 2009

Oil Content, % 41.1 44.1 45.0

The oil content of Canadian canola is shown in the following figure (Canadian Grain 

Commission, 2009). 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

9
Figure 2-6 Canola Oil Content 

Both data sources show a trend to increasing oil content of the seed. This is a deliberate 

attempt by breeders to increase the oil content. Whereas soybeans are usually grown for 

their protein content, canola is produced for its oil content. 

2.5 FERTILIZER REQUIREMENTS

Multiyear fertilizer survey information from the USDA is not available for canola the same as 

it is for soybeans or corn and thus other sources of data are required. 

2.5.1 Canadian Data 

In Canada, a major survey of 650 western Canadian canola growers was undertaken in 

October/November 2000 (Canola Council, 2001). The study was designed to compare 

transgenic canola to conventional canola. About 90% of the canola produced in Canada is 

now genetically modified. The survey collected data on yield, fertilizer application and other 

production practices. The fertilizer results are summarized in the following table. 

Table 2-10 Fertilizer Survey Data - 2000 

Transgenic Conventional

Yield Tonnes/acre 0.663 0.602

Seeds kg/tonne 4.0 4.6

N kg/tonne 48.7 53.5

P2O5 kg/tonne 17.1 19.0

K2O kg/tonne 4.0 3.7

S kg/tonne 8.4 8.9

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

10
The higher nitrogen utilization efficiency of hybrid seeds shown above has been documented 

in other research trials (Canola Council, 2006). This is shown in the following figure. 

Figure 2-7 Yield Response to Nitrogen 

The types of nitrogen fertilizer used in the three prairie provinces in the period July 2007 to 

June 2008 is summarized in the following table (CFI, 2009). This data is important because 

the energy requirements of each type of nitrogen fertilizer are quite different. 

Table 2-11 Nitrogen Fertilizer Use 

Nitrogen 

Content

1,000 tonnes Nitrogen in 

fertilizer 

% by Nitrogen

Ammonia 0.82 479 393 27.9%

Urea 0.46 1,664 765 54.3%

Ammonium Nitrate 0.34 0 0 0.0%

Ammonium Sulphate 0.20 507 101 7.2%

UAN 0.28 532 149 10.6%

Total 3,182 1,409 100.0%

The Canadian nitrogen fertilizer industry is the most efficient in the world as shown in the 

following figure from an NRCan report (2007) that benchmarked the performance of the 

Canadian ammonia industry. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

11
Figure 2-8 Regional Ammonia Plant Energy Efficiency 

2.5.2 US Information 

The fertilizer recommendations for winter and spring canola can be found in the US Canola 

Association Growers’ Manual (2008). Crop recommendations are not the same as actual 

field practice and they could be expected to be slightly conservative. The recommendations 

for winter and spring canola (for the average yield) are summarized in the following table. 

The range in the recommendations is a function of the existing nutrient content in the soil. As 

expected, these values are slightly higher than the actual survey data from Canada. 

Table 2-12 US Canola Fertilizer Recommendations 

Winter Canola Spring Canola

Kg/tonne 

Seeds 1.3-8 3-7

N 65 93

P2O5 13-40 13-40

K2O 0-44 0.4

S 10 10

An agronomic survey of canola fields in North Dakota in 2009 (Coleman, 2010) found that 

nitrogen fertilizer use was 47 to 50 kg/tonne. This is much lower than the recommended 

value and in line with the Canadian survey data, the Canadian survey data is thus the 

appropriate to use for LCA modelling purposes. 

2.6 OTHER INPUTS 

Herbicide use for canola in Canada was analyzed by Brimmer et al (2005). It was found that 

the active ingredient application rate was declining and it varied between conventional and 

genetically modified seeds. A summary figure from that publication is shown in the following 

figure. The application rate was 0.3 litres a.i./hectare for the genetically modified crop and 

0.9 l a.i./ha for the conventional seed. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

12
Figure 2-9 Herbicide Use Canola 1995-2000 

Kleter et al (2007) reported that pesticide use for canola in the US in was 0.6 kg a.i. per ha 

for conventional crops and 0.04 kg a.i./ha for transgenic crops. This is consistent with the 

information in the Brimmer paper. 

Lime is rarely used in western Canada due to the alkaline nature of most of the soils. No 

data is available for lime use for canola production but the total area that is limed in each 

province is available in the 2006 Census of Agriculture (Statistics Canada). A comparison of 

area prepared for seed to area limed is shown in the following table. 

Table 2-13 Lime Area in Western Canada 

Seeded Area Limed Area % Limed Area

hectares 

Manitoba 3,890,618 17,883 0.46

Saskatchewan 13,348,192 54,265 0.41 

Alberta 7,578,201 12,117 0.16

Total 24,817,011 84,265 0.34

2.7 DIRECT ENERGY CONSUMPTION

The field energy requirements for growing canola have never been surveyed on a regular 

basis, as were the fuel energy requirements for corn and soybeans in the United States. 

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (2000) did a significant amount of analysis on the 

opportunities to reduce energy use in agriculture throughout the 1990s. 

Crop inputs, field operations (use of farm machinery) and yield data from field experiments 

conducted by AAFC Research Centres and the University of Manitoba were used for the 

micro-level analysis (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada 1999b). Several sites and four soil 

zones were used in the micro-level analysis: 

• Swift Current, SK for the Brown soil zone 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

13
• Lethbridge, AB and Scott, SK for the Dark Brown soil zone 

• Melfort, SK, Indian Head, SK and Glenlea, MB for the Black soil zone 

• Tisdale, SK and Rycroft, AB for the Gray soil zone. 

The micro-level data were scaled to the farm level using representative farms typical of the 

soil zones within each province. This scaled data was obtained for canola from the original 

researchers (Nagy, 2010). The field energy data was extracted from the information and the 

summary is presented in the following table. All of the data was collected before the 

development of transgenic canola. The benefits of no till practices are much lower in this 

data set than in most other descriptions of the benefits of no-tll. 

Table 2-14 Field Energy Requirements Canola 

Percentage of 

Canola Production

Full Tillage No Tillage

L diesel fuel equivalent/ha 

Manitoba 20% 43.0 37.1

Saskatchewan 45% 39.8 34.8

Alberta 25% 40.4 35.1

Weighted Average 36.6 31.9

USG Diesel/acre 

Weighted Average 3.91 3.42

The USDA has a fuel consumption calculator on the internet (http://ecat.sc.egov.usda.gov/). 

Users can enter their zip code and the calculator will compute the fuel used per acre to grow 

various crops using different tillage methods. The results for a North Dakota location (Minot) 

are shown in the following table. The range of fuel consumption between full tillage and no till 

is greater than the Canadian estimates and more in line with other estimates, but the values 

for conventional tillage are in the same range. 

Table 2-15 North Dakota Fuel Consumption Factors 

Conventional tillage Mulch Tillage No Till

USG Diesel/acre 

Canola - 3.84 1.85

Soybeans - 3.84 1.85

Wheat 3.84 3.73 1.85

These fuel estimates do not include all farm activity but the EPA modelling framework 

accounts for transportation from the field to the farm and from the farm to the processor 

separately. An allowance should be made for electricity to drive augers for loading and 

unloading bins for intermediate on farm storage. The 2002 USDA energy survey had a value 

of 15 kWh/acre for wheat in the northern tier states of Minnesota, North Dakota, and 

Montana. Since this power use is probably proportional to the yield and not the area a more 

appropriate value for canola would be about 12 kWh/acre. 

2.8 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 CANOLA LCA DATA

14
2.8.1 Varieties 

The varieties of seed plant can have a significant impact on crop yield, energy requirements 

and other practices. One of the primary drivers of increased canola production in the past 

decade has been the introduction of hybrid varieties. The rate of hybrid adoption in 2009 was 

estimated at 85%. 

Hybrids have higher yields than open pollinated varieties and the adoption of hybrids is one 

of the reasons for the rapid increase in yields in the past decade. Hybrids are not necessarily 

transgenic varieties. 

Figure 2-10 Canadian Hybrid Varieties Adoption 

In both Canada and North Dakota, more than 90% of the canola crop is now transgenic 

including varieties with herbicide resistance and hybrids. 

2.8.2 Tillage Practices 

Western Canada is a leading adopter of conservation and zero tillage practices. The data 

from the 2006 Census of Agriculture is shown in the following table. Conservation and no 

tillage rates are likely now higher than they were in 2005. 

Table 2-16 Tillage Practices in Western Canada 

Seeded Area Full Tillage Conservation 

Tillage 

No Tillage

hectares 

Manitoba 3,890,618 1,689,335 1,371,380 829,903

Saskatchewan 13,348,192 2,443,085 2,876,161 8,028,946

Alberta 7,578,201 1,877,391 2,098,535 3,622,274

Total 24,817,011 6,009,811 6,346,076 12,481,123

% of seeded acres 24.2 25.6 50.3

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

15
In western Canada, the higher percentage of conservation and no till will have a positive 

impact on fuel consumption, soil carbon, and on N2O emissions. 

Tillage practices in North Dakota for canola production are estimated to be 75% no till and 

25% conventional till (Coleman, 2010). 

2.8.3 Irrigation 

Very little land in western Canada is irrigated. The Canola survey undertaken in 2000 found 

that only seven of the more than 600 participants in the survey practiced irrigation. This is 

generally consistent with the data in the 2006 Census of Agriculture which reports that 2.5% 

of western Canadian land is irrigated, with the majority of that being in southern Alberta and 

outside of the normal growing area for canola. 

There is also very little land that is irrigated in North Dakota. The USDA 2007 Census (2007) 

reports that only 236,138 acres of North Dakota farm land was irrigated in 2007, 0.6% of the 

land in farms in the state. 

Irrigation has a negative impact on the energy consumption and N2O emissions but a 

positive impact on the crop yield. Since so little canola is grown under irrigation no real data 

is available on the impacts. 

2.9 MEETING INCREASED DEMAND FOR CANOLA OIL

Increased demand for canola oil will be met through a variety of means. The Canola Council 

of Canada has a strategic plan to increase canola production to 15 million tonnes by 2015, 

up from 9 million tonnes in 2006. In addition to the total quantity of canola, the goal is to 

increase the oil content and increase the energy density of the meal. The 2006 crop yielded 

about 3.8 million tonnes of oil. The 2015 target will produce about 6.8 million tonnes, a 78% 

increase and enough extra oil to produce 870 million gallons of biodiesel. The strategic plan 

actually targets the biodiesel market to use 725 million gallons in 2015. These goals will be 

met through an increase in the number of acres devoted to canola, an increase in the canola 

yield, and an increase in the oil content of the seed. 

The 2015 plan is not the first time the Canadian canola industry has set ambitious goals. In 

the fall of 2002, following three consecutive crop years of declining acreage and production, 

the Canadian canola industry determined that to ensure its continued development it would 

be necessary to achieve sustained production and market demand of 7 million tonnes. 

Specific targets were set with respect to expanding demand for canola, particularly in the 

North American market place. These targets included doubling sales to the United States, 

increasing sales to Mexico by 50%, and establishing two new longterm geographic 

customers. All these targets have been achieved. 

The 2015 plan envisions an increase in canola cropland from 13 million acres (5.25 million 

ha) to 17 million acres (6.88 million ha). This increase will be achieved by shortening the 

rotations, expanding into non-traditional areas (the agricultural land outside of the normal 

canola area in southern Alberta and Saskatchewan), and crop shifting (including reduced 

summerfallow) because of the increased profitability of canola production versus other crops. 

All of this will be accomplished within the existing agricultural land base in Canada. In 

western Canada, there are still about 6 million acres (2.5 million hectares) of summerfallow 

and 25 million acres (10 million hectares) of improved pasture and hay area. The evolution of 

the agricultural land in western Canada over the past 25 years is shown in the following 

figure. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

16
Figure 2-11 Western Canadian Land Base 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006

Year

Area, Square Kilometres

Agricultural land area Cropland area

Improved pasture area Hay area

The 2015 yield target is 40 bu/acre (2.24 tonnes/ha), the recent yields have been 34.6 

bu/acre (1.94 tonnes/ha) and thus the expected increase in the next six years is only 15%. 

This is expected to be achieved through increased adoption of hybrid varieties, gains in the 

genetics of the seeds, improved resistance to disease and pests, and improved resistance to 

stress and drought. 

The final contribution is expected to be delivered by higher oil content in the seeds, 

increasing from 42.5% to 45%. The overall target could also be met by a different 

combination of factors, for example if the yield is higher than forecast then fewer hectares 

will be required. 

The US industry is also expected to see increased production. The US Canola Council has 

established a Canola Acreage Task Force (CATF) to establish “acreage increase goals” for 

the coming years and to “document and evaluate the reasons producers are reluctant to 

plant the crop, and then implement a plan to address these concerns to limit acreage loss in 

existing growing regions while expanding acreage in potential new growing regions.” 

The CATF identified the need to compile existing research that quantifies or can be used to 

quantify producer benefits of growing canola in rotation with different crops in various parts of 

the country. 

The CATF also developed regional acreage goals with national totals and a plan – the 

Promote Canola Acres (PCA) program – to achieve those goals as shown in the following 

table. The goal would be about a six fold increase over current levels. About half of the 

growth would be in the North Dakota, the leading producer, and half in non-traditional states. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

17
Table 2-17 US Canola Production Targets 

Region 2008 2010 2015

acres 

Mid-South/Southeast 20,000 150,000 300,000

Great Plains 50,000 200,000 800,000

North Dakota 900,000 1,500,000 2,500,000

PNW (WA, ID, OR, MT) 15,000 60,000 120,000

Minnesota 30,000 100,000 150,000

Midwest/Other States 50,000 250,000

Total 1,015,000 2,060,000 4,120,000

While the 2008 production targets have not been met, the recently released USDA planting 

intentions report does show a significant increase in 2010 area as shown in the following 

table. 

Table 2-18 USDA Canola Planting Intentions 

Area Planted (1,000 acres) 

2008 2009 2010 Percent 

Increase

Idaho (d) 15.0 18.0 120

Minnesota 23.0 13.0 31.0 238

Montana 7.5 6.5 18.0 277

North Dakota 910.0 730.0 1,060.0 145

Oklahoma (d) 42.0 80.0 190

Oregon (d) 4.9 5.5 112

Other States 70.5 15.6 15.6 100

United States 1,011 827 1,228.1 149

(d) Data withheld for confidentiality. 

Some of the US growth will happen with winter canola in southern regions were it is possible 

to double crop winter canola. In other regions, canola may be introduced into rotations that 

are currently mostly monoculture. Experience has shown that the primary crop will see an 

increase in yield when it follows canola in rotation and thus the system output will increase 

on the same number of acres. The US industry is also seeing the same trends in increasing 

oil content and increased yield as is seen in Canada. An increase in 3 million acres could 

produce enough additional oil for 300 million gallons of biodiesel. 

North Dakota has about 4 million acres typically planted in soybeans. The oil yield from an 

acre of canola in North Dakota is almost double the oil yield from soybeans. Thus acreage 

shift from soybeans to canola in portions of the state will increase the amount of vegetable oil 

available in the marketplace. 

Monsanto, one of the leading developers of canola seed has projected future yields of canola 

just as they have done for other agricultural crops. Their forecast through to the year 2030 is 

shown in the following figure. The projected yield in 2022 is about 48 bu/acre (2.69 

tonnes/acre). At an oil content of 45%, the biodiesel yield from an acre will be 316 USG. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

18
Figure 2-12 Monsanto Canola Yield Projection 

 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

19
3. CANOLA CRUSHING

Canola seed is traditionally crushed and solvent extracted in order to separate the oil from 

the meal. The process usually includes seed cleaning, seed pre-conditioning and flaking, 

seed cooking, pressing the flake to mechanically remove a portion of the oil, solvent 

extraction of the press-cake to remove the remainder of the oil, and desolventizing and 

toasting of the meal. Meal quality is influenced by several variables during the process, 

especially temperature. The basic process is shown in the following figure. 

Figure 3-1 Canola Crushing Process 

The process has been described as follows (Canola Council): 

Canola seed is graded according to strict grading standards established by the 

Canadian Grain Commission. These include specifications for maximum moisture 

content, seed damage and chlorophyll level. The seed delivered to the crushing plant 

contains dockage materials, which are removed by cleaning operations prior to 

processing. 

Many crushing plants in colder climates preheat the seed to approximately 35°C 

through grain dryers in order to prevent shattering which may occur when cold seed 

from storage enters the flaking unit. The cleaned seed is first flaked by roller mills set 

for a narrow clearance to physically rupture the seed coat. The objective here is to 

rupture as many cell walls as possible without damaging the quality of the oil. The 

thickness of the flake is important, with an optimum of between 0.3 to 0.38 mm. 

Flakes thinner than 0.2 mm are very fragile while flakes thicker than 0.4 mm result in 

lower oil yield. 

Flakes are cooked/conditioned by passing them through a series of steam-heated 

drum or stack-type cookers. Cooking serves to thermally rupture oil cells, which have 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

20
survived flaking, reduce oil viscosity and thereby promote coalescing of oil droplets, 

increase the diffusion rate of prepared oil cake, and denature hydrolytic enzymes. 

Cooking also adjusts the moisture of the flakes, which is important in the success of 

subsequent prepressing operations. At the start of cooking, the temperature is rapidly 

increased to 80-90°C. The rapid heating serves to inactivate the myrosinase enzyme 

present in canola. This enzyme can hydrolyze the small amounts of glucosinolates 

present in canola and will produce undesirable breakdown products which affect both 

oil and meal quality.

The cooking cycle usually lasts 15 to 20 minutes and the temperatures usually range 

between 80 and 105°C, with an optimum of about 88°C. In some countries, 

especially China, cooking temperatures of up to 120°C have been traditionally used 

when processing high glucosinolate rapeseed to volatize some of the sulphur 

compounds which can cause odours in the oil. However, these high temperatures 

can negatively affect meal protein quality. 

The cooked canola seed flakes are then pressed in a series of low pressure 

continuous screw presses or expellers. These units consist of a rotating screw shaft 

within a cylindrical barrel, which consists of flat steel bars set edgewise around the 

periphery and spaced to allow the oil to flow between the bars while the cake is 

contained within the barrel. The rotating shaft presses the cake against an adjustable 

choke, which partially constricts the discharge of the cake from the end of the barrel. 

This action removes most of the oil while avoiding excessive pressure and 

temperature. The objective of pressing is to remove as much oil as possible, usually 

between 60 and 70% of the seed oil content, while maximizing the output of the 

expellers and solvent extractor, with the production of acceptable quality presscake. 

Since the pressing is not able to remove all of the oil from the canola seed, the 

presscake is solvent extracted to remove the remaining oil. The cake from the 

expellers, containing between 14 and 20% oil, is sometimes broken into uniform 

pieces prior to solvent extraction. In solvent extraction, they use a hexane specially 

refined for use in the vegetable oil industry. Various mechanical designs of solvent 

extractors have been developed for moving the cake and the miscella (solvent plus 

oil) in opposite directions to effect a continuous counter current extraction. Basket 

and continuous loop type extractors are commonly used for canola. The principles 

are the same - the cake is deposited in the extractor, which is then flooded with 

solvent or miscella. A series of pumps spray the miscella over the presscake with 

each stage using a successively "leaner" miscella, thereby containing a higher ratio 

of solvent in proportion to the oil. The solvent percolates by gravity through the cake 

bed, diffusing into and saturating the cake fragments. The marc (hexane saturated 

meal) that leaves the solvent extractor, after a fresh solvent wash, contains less than 

1% oil. 

The solvent is removed from the marc in a desolventizer-toaster. In a series of 

compartments or kettles within the desolventizer, the majority of the solvent is 

flashed from the meal by injection of live steam. The final stripping and drying of the 

meal is accomplished in the subsequent compartments heated to between 103 and 

107°C. The total time spent in the desolventizer-toaster is approximately 20 minutes. 

The meal emerges free of solvent. It contains about 1% residual oil and 15 to 18% 

moisture. After drying to 8 to 10% moisture and cooling, the meal is often granulated 

to a uniform consistency and then is either pelleted or sent directly as a mash to 

storage.

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

21
3.1 PRODUCT YIELDS

The canola crushing process extracts the oil from the seed and leaves a high protein meal as 

the remainder. The meal is used for animal feed. The proportion of each of the primary 

products produced is a function of the composition of the seed and thus it can vary from year 

to year due to growing conditions and seed varieties crushed. 

Canola seed quality is usually reported on an 8.5% moisture basis. Actual moisture content 

of the seed will vary from year to year depending on growing and harvesting conditions. 

Typical annual moisture contents measured at export locations range from 7.5 to 8.5% 

(Canadian Grain Commission). 

Canola is generally trucked from the farm to the crushing facility. No statistics are kept on the 

average distance but the distance of 40 miles used by the EPA for corn and soybean 

transportation distances is reasonable for canola crushing facilities. 

3.1.1 Oil Yields 

The oil content in the seed is important, but ultimately for a biodiesel LCA it is the oil that is 

extracted from the seed that is needed for the analysis. This information is reported monthly 

by Statistics Canada and is shown in the following figure. This figure has generally increased 

over time and has averaged 42.8% over the past three years. This oil extraction rate is 2.25 

times that of soybeans. 

Figure 3-2 Oil Extraction Rates – Canadian Canola Crushers 

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1971/081973/081975/081977/081979/081981/081983/081985/081987/081989/081991/081993/081995/081997/081999/082001/082003/082005/082007/08

Recovered Oil, % Seed

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

22
The specific gravity of the canola oil is 0.914- 0.917 g/litre. This is very close to same range 

as soybean oil (0.916- 0.921). 

3.1.2 Meal Yields 

The same statistics Canada database on oil yields reports the meal yields. Over the past 

three years the average meal yield has been 59.1% for a total product yield of 101.8%. 

Moisture content differences between the seed and the meal account for much of the 

apparent growth in mass resulting from the process. The characteristics of the canola meal 

are summarized in the following table. 

Table 3-1 Typical Chemical Composition of Canola Meal 

Component Average 

Moisture (%) 12

Crude protein (N x 6.25: %) 36 

Rumen bypass protein (%) 35 

Oil (%) 3.5 

Linoleic acid (%) 0.6 

Ash 6.1 

Crude fibre (%) 12.0 

Tannins (%) 1.5 

Sinapine (%) 1.0 

Phytic acid (%) 3.3 

Glucosinolates (μmol/g) 7.21 

Since the oil extraction rate is so much higher than it is for soybeans the canola meal 

production rate is 25% lower. 

3.2 ENERGY REQUIREMENTS

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 3-2 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

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

The carbon intensity of electricity in Canada averages 220 g CO2eq/kWh for 2010. Based on 

power production forecasts from the National Energy Board the expected carbon intensity in 

2022 is 176 g CO2eq/kWh. Both values are extracted from GHGenius and use the 1996 

IPCC GWPs. The values include distribution losses, SF6 emissions, and N2O emissions from 

corona discharge during distribution. 

23
Most canola crushers use a solvent extraction process. Hexane is the solvent and while most 

of the hexane is recovered, some is lost to the system during drying, cooling and storage of 

the meal. Estimates of hexane losses can be found in the literature and are summarized in 

the following table (European Commission, 2006). 

Table 3-3 Hexane Consumption 

Feedstock Kg hexane/tonne seed crushed Kg hexane/tonne oil produced

Soya beans 0.5-1.0 2.5-5.0

Rapeseed (canola) 0.5-1.2 1.5-2.9

Sunflowerseed 0.5-1.2 1.0-2.4

Linseed ~2.0 ~6.0

For comparison there is a rapeseed crushing module within SimaPro 7.1. The energy 

requirements in the model are 120 kWh/tonne of oil, and 1.6 GJ of heat/tonne of oil. The oil 

yield is 41.7% and the hexane emissions are 2.0 kg/tonne of oil produced. The data source 

is the Danish Food LCA project and thus the values represent the European industry. There 

could be a number of reasons for the difference between European and North America 

operations; climatic conditions may play a role, or the SimaPro data may represent a new 

facility. The information is informative because it shows that the energy efficiency may be 

better in 2022 than it is today. 

3.2.1 Soybean Crushing Comparison 

The National Oilseed Processors Association published an energy survey of their members 

in 2009. That data is summarized in the following table. The complete data set is included as 

an appendix to this report. 

Table 3-4 Soybean Crushing Energy Requirements (NOPA) 

Per tonne of Soybeans 

crushed

Per tonne of Oil produced

Electricity Purchased, kWh 55.2 289

Natural Gas Purchased, GJ 1.20 6.29

Total Energy, GJ 1.40 7.33

The energy efficiency of the canola crushing facilities is slightly better than the soybean 

facility when represented on a per tonne of oilseed crushed basis. When compared on a per 

tonne of oil produced the canola facilities are much more energy efficient. The soybean 

crushing energy that the EPA used in the RFS2 for soybean crushing is summarized in the 

following table for comparison. 

 Table 3-5 Soybean Crushing Energy Requirements (EPA) 

Per tonne of Soybeans 

crushed

Per tonne of Oil produced

Electricity Purchased, kWh 61 327

Natural Gas Purchased, GJ 0.834 4.5

Total Energy, MJ 1.054 5.68

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

24
There is a significant improvement in energy efficiency of crushing soybeans between where 

the industry is now and what the EPA assumed for 2022 and a similar assumption should be 

made for canola crushing. 

3.3 CANOLA MEAL

A critical aspect of an LCA involving oilseeds is the value of the protein meal produced. The 

canola meal characteristics were shown earlier. Canola meal is used in beef and dairy cattle, 

swine, poultry, and specialty (horse, sheep and aquaculture) feeds. A significant amount of 

information on the feeding characteristics of canola meal is available in the Canola Meal 

Feed Industry Guide, published by the Canola Council (2009). 

Canola meal competes with soybean meal and other protein sources in the least cost ration 

programs of most feed formulators. The relative value of canola meal does vary with species 

and feed type. The typical ranges are shown in the following table. The highest value is 

found in dairy rations. 

Table 3-6 Canola Meal Relative Feed Value 

Animal feed type Relative value of canola meal to high protein soybean meal (%) 

Layer 65-75 

Broiler starter 60-70 

Broiler grower/finisher 55-65 

Pig starter 60-65 

Hog grower 65-75 

Hog finisher 65-75 

Gestating sow 65-75 

Lactating sow 60-70 

Dairy 75-85 

There are no statistics that are kept on the use of canola meal by animal type. The following 

estimate is provided (Hickling, 2010). 

Table 3-7 Canola Meal Usage by Species 

Animal Market Share

Dairy 70%

Swine 15%

Poultry 10%

Other 5%

The largest market is the California dairy market as shown in the following figure (Canola 

Council, 2007). In this market, canola meal has displaced cottonseed meal, an oilseed meal 

with approximately the same protein content. Other competitors for the protein portion of 

dairy rations in California are soybean meal, distillers dried grains, and blends of DDG and 

soybean meal. Note that the relative value of canola meal to soybean meal is the highest for 

the dairy application. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

25
Figure 3-3 Canola Meal Exports to US 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

26
4. AGRICULTURAL EMISSIONS

While the agricultural emissions for canola grown in the United States will be calculated by 

the FASOM model based on the canola crop inputs and the input data for other crops 

already in the model, the emissions for Canada will be calculated through a separate 

standalone process. The following information is provided to ensure that the appropriate 

emission factors are applied. 

4.1 N2O EMISSIONS 

A significant portion of the GHG emissions associated with agriculture is related to the 

release of N2O resulting from the breakdown of nitrogen fertilizers and crop residues. The 

Canadian approach to estimating these emissions is discussed below. 

4.1.1 Direct Emission Factor 

Environment Canada and Agriculture Canada have developed a Tier 2 country-specific 

methodology to estimate N2O emissions from nitrogen fertilizer application on agricultural 

soils, which takes into account local climate regimes and topographic conditions. The 

following equation is used by Environment Canada to estimate N2O emissions by ecodistrict. 

Emission estimates at the provincial and national scales are obtained by aggregating 

estimates at the ecodistrict level. 

N2ONF = Σ NFERT ×EFBASE ×RFTHAW × 44/28 

where: 

N2ONF = emissions from nitrogen fertilizers (synthetic, manure and crop residues), kg 

N2O/year 

NFERT = total nitrogen fertilizer consumption, kg N/year. 

EFBASE = a weighted average of emission factors, which is a function of local climate 

(precipitation/potential evapotranspiration) and landforms, kg N2O-N/kg N per year 

RFTHAW = a ratio factor adjusting EFBASE for emissions during spring thaw: for 

Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, 

Quebec, and Ontario, RFTHAW = 1.4; for other provinces, RFTHAW = 1.0 

The EFBASE estimate considers the influence of local climatic conditions and is assessed by 

the determination of regional nitrogen induced emission factors. These factors were 

estimated by Agriculture Canada using the same approach as for the determination of the 

IPCC Tier 1 emission factor, i.e. EFBASE = slope of the “N2O emissions versus N fertilizer 

rate” relationship. EFBASE was estimated for the three regions where field N2O measurements 

are available: Quebec–Ontario; Brown and Dark Brown soil zones; and Grey and Black soil 

zones. The “EFBASE versus fertilizer N” relationship determined for the Quebec–Ontario 

region has a similar slope (0.0119 kg N2O-N/kg N) and fit (r2= 0.43) as the IPCC Tier 1 

default emission factor. 

In the Prairie region, low and variable N2O emissions were measured across the range of 

nitrogen fertilizer rates (Brown-Dark Brown soils = 0.0016 kg N2O-N/kg N; Grey and Black 

soils = 0.008 kg N2O-N/kg N). These observations suggest that soil N2O production in the 

Prairie region is not limited by mineral nitrogen availability but rather by the low denitrification 

activity under well aerated dry soil conditions. N2O is mostly produced during denitrification 

and, as a result, is greatly influenced by the soil oxygen status. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

27
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has developed detailed N2O emission factors for all 

ecodistricts of Canada that account for soil types, moisture conditions and climatic 

conditions. Rochette et al (2008, 2008b) have presented this methodology and have scaled 

up the results to provide provincial or regional as well as national averages. 

The direct N2O factors developed by Rochette and the weighted average for the three 

regions of Canada in GHGenius are summarized in the following table. These factors were 

calculated for every year between 1990 and 2005 and the minimum, maximum and mean 

values are presented. The emissions can change from year to year, based on precipitation 

and other factors. 

Table 4-1 Tier 2 N2O Emission Factors for Canada 

Minimum Maximum Average

Kg N2O-N/kgN applied 

Atlantic 0.0128 0.0168 0.0161

Quebec 0.0147 0.0167 0.0160

Ontario 0.0098 0.0166 0.0139

Manitoba 0.0065 0.0142 0.0105

Saskatchewan 0.0021 0.0101 0.0067

Alberta 0.0045 0.0099 0.0075

BC 0.0047 0.0113 0.0081

Canada 0.0076 0.0120 0.0100

Canada East 0.0128 0.0168 0.0161

Canada Central 0.0117 0.0166 0.0147

Canada West 0.0037 0.0106 0.0076

Note that the average value for Canada is 0.010, the same value as the Tier 1 IPCC 

emission factor. However there is a wide variation between regions. One of the implications 

of this is that some crops, such as canola, tend to be grown in just certain parts of the 

country so having regional emission factors also leads to different emission factors for 

different feedstocks. The appropriate N2O emission factor to use for Canadian canola is 

therefore 0.76% of nitrogen applied and nitrogen in the crop residue rather than the IPCC 

Tier 1 value of 1.0%. 

4.1.2 Tillage Impacts 

Environment Canada notes that this category is specific to Canada. It does not derive from 

additional nitrogen input but rather it is a modifier affecting N2O emissions when tillage 

practices are modified. For example, compared with conventional or intensive tillage (IT), 

direct seeding or no till (NT) as well as reduced tillage (RT) affect the decomposition of soil 

organic matter, soil carbon and nitrogen availability, soil bulk density, and water content. 

N2O emissions or removals resulting from the adoption of NT and RT can be expressed as 

follows:

N2OTILL=[(NFERT + NMAN,CROPS + NRES×EFBASE)×(FRACNT− RT ×(FTILL − 1))]×44/28 

where: 

N2OTILL = N2O emissions or removals resulting from the adoption of NT and RT, kg 

N2O/year 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

28
NFERT = total synthetic fertilizer nitrogen consumption in ecodistrict, kg N/year 

NMAN, CROPS = total amount of animal manure nitrogen applied as fertilizer to cropland in 

ecodistrict, kg N/year 

NRES = total amount of crop residue nitrogen that is returned to the cropland annually for 

ecodistrict, kg N/year 

EFBASE = a weighted average emission factor for ecodistrict, kg N2O-N/kg N per year 

FRACNT-RT = fraction of cropland on NT and RT in ecodistrict, % 

FTILL = a ratio factor adjusting EFBASE due to the adoption of NT and RT: FTILL = 1.1 in 

eastern Canada; FTILL = 0.8 in the Prairies 

44/28 = molecular weight ratio of N2O to N2 

Reduced tillage can have a positive or negative impact on N2O emissions depending on soil 

types and moisture conditions. In western Canada, reduced tillage reduces N2O emissions. 

The basic N2O emission factor of 0.76% is reduced to 0.65% (0.76*0.25+0.76*0.8*0.75) as a 

result of 75% of the crop being produced by conservation or no till management practices. 

4.1.3 Summerfallow 

Summerfallowing is a farming practice typically used in the Prairie region to conserve soil 

moisture by leaving the soil unseeded for an entire growing season in a crop rotation. 

Environment Canada reports that during the fallow year, several factors may stimulate N2O 

emissions relative to a cropped situation, such as higher soil water content, temperature, and 

available carbon and nitrogen. They report that experimental studies have shown that N2O 

emissions in fallow fields are similar to emissions from continuously cropped fields. 

It is recognized that should the demand for feedstocks have an effect of reducing the amount 

of land summerfallowed then the reference system should have these summerfallow 

emissions included in the reference system. That is the use of summerfallow to produce a 

crop results in a credit of the GHG emissions from summerfallow that are avoided. These 

emissions would be equal to the emissions created from the application of synthetic fertilizer 

and manure. 

4.1.4 Crop Residues 

Crop residues contain some nitrogen and as the residues decompose adding the nitrogen 

back to the soil, there is some N2O that is generated in the process. This nitrogen is added to 

the nitrogen fertilizer that is applied to calculate the total direct N2O emissions. There are no 

estimates of residue nitrogen or mass of canola or rapeseed in the IPCC guidelines. 

Agriculture Canada has analyzed and estimated the ratio of canola seed to residues and the 

nitrogen content and the results are summarized in the following table (Janzen et al, 2003). 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

29
Table 4-2 Canola Plant 

Dry Matter Nitrogen Concentration

Fraction g N/kg

Seed 0.26 0.035

Above ground residues 0.60 0.007

Roots 0.15 0.010

Residue/seed 3.0 -

Average Residue 0.076

4.2 SOIL CARBON

Changing the management practices of the land can also influence the soil organic carbon 

(SOC) content. The two practices that will influence the soil carbon are the adoption of 

reduced or no-till practices and a change in the quantity and type of inputs (e.g. the 

incorporation of manure). 

Environment Canada, in the National Inventory Report, has complied a list of generalized 

values for estimating the rate of change of SOC in the different regions of the country and 

assuming different changes in practices. These are summarized in the following table. 

Table 4-3 Rate of Change of Soil Carbon 

Atlantic Central Parkland Semi-arid 

Prairies 

West

Mg C/ha/year 

Intensive till to no-till 0.06 0.10 0.14 0.10 0.05

Intensive till to reduced till 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.00

Reduced till to no till 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.04

Decrease fallow 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.30

Increase perennial 0.77 0.74 0.55 0.56 0.46

The management practices in western Canada have been switching to reduced and no till 

practices over time. Using the management practices identified in Table 2-16 and the values 

for the semi-arid region in the above table, one calculates that the soil carbon for land used 

to produce canola is increasing by 0.06 tonnes C/ha/year. This is quite a significant change 

for direct land use emissions. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

30
5. BIODIESEL PRODUCTION

Biodiesel production using canola oil is identical to the production of biodiesel produced from 

soybean oil. The following comments are provided on the values used by the EPA in their 

RFS analysis. 

5.1 ENERGY USE

The final documentation for the EPA RFS2 reports an energy use for biodiesel production 

and the source for the data but there are inconsistencies between the source (Pradhan, et al, 

2009) and the EPA documentation as shown in the following table. In addition, the NBB 

conducted a survey of producing members in 2009 and the energy requirements for the 

industry in 2009 were lower than the EPA has used for the year 2022. 

Table 5-1 Biodiesel Energy Use 

EPA, RFS2 Pradhan NBB

BTU/gal 

Electricity 361 439 410

Natural Gas 4,381 3,551 2,690

Total 4,742 3,990 3,100

The energy requirements used by the EPA are higher than reported in the original source 

and those requirements are higher than the industry is actually using. The Pradhan and NBB 

results are current energy use and they do not reflect possible improvements in technology 

by 2022. The NBB energy results should be used for canola biodiesel. The NBB results did 

include data from plants that processed canola oil. 

5.2 YIELD AND CO-PRODUCTS

The biodiesel yield and the quantity of co-products produced will be the same for canola 

biodiesel as they are for soybean biodiesel. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

31
6. COMPARISON TO SOYBEANS

While the EPA modelling framework is considerably different than the tradition attributional 

LCA it may be informative to compare the GHG emissions for canola oil and soybean oil 

using the traditional approach. GHGenius is Natural resources Canada’s LCA model for 

transportation fuels. It has pathways for canola oil and soybean oil and can be run for various 

regions of North America. 

GHGenius version 3.18 of the model has been set up with the canola data presented in this 

paper (which is slightly different than the default values in the model). The model has been 

run for western Canada, the major canola production region in North America. One change 

has been made to the soybean default and that has been to change the N2O emission rate 

for nitrogen fertilizer and residues to 0.015, which is more in line with the value for the US 

soybean producing region. GHGenius reports the emissions for both the oil production and 

biodiesel production. Since the processes are the same after the oil extraction stage, this 

information is presented since it provides more clarity with respect to any differences. The 

results for the year 2010 and using the 1995 IPCC GWPs are shown in the following table. 

Table 6-1 Comparison of GHG Emissions Canola Oil vs. Soybean Oil 

Canola Oil Soybean Oil

Canola Soybeans

g CO2 eq/GJ 

Fuel production 4,459 11,342 

Feedstock transmission 500 1,080 

Feedstock recovery 9,940 11,377 

Land-use changes, cultivation 12,553 45,080 

Fertilizer manufacture 8,947 5,636 

Sub Total 36,399 74,515

Emissions displaced -10,425 -41,990 

Total 25,974 32,525 

It can be seen that the emissions for the canola oil are lower than they are for the soybean 

oil. A short explanation for each of the lines is provided below. 

Fuel Production. These are the emissions from the crushing of the seeds and the oil 

extraction. While the energy requirements for crushing the oil seeds are similar when 

reported on a per tonne of seed input basis, the canola oil emissions are about 60% lower 

when reported on a per tonne of oil basis and is reflected in the 60% lower emissions for this 

stage. The difference in the oil content of the seed therefore drives this difference. 

Feedstock Transmission. The are the emissions from the transport of the seed from the farm 

to the crushing operation. The distance is the same for both seeds but again the higher oil 

content of canola results in lower emission per unit of oil produced. 

Feedstock Recovery. These are the direct energy emissions from the farming. These 

emissions are typically better correlated to the area farmed than the crop produced. The oil 

content per acre would thus be a significant driver. The oil content per acre of canola is only 

about 25% higher than soybeans so the advantage for canola oil is not as high as it is for the 

transportation and crushing stages of the lifecycle. 

Land Use Changes and Cultivation. The values reported here have soil carbon changes 

removed, i.e., they assume no change in soil carbon. They are mostly a reflection of the N2O 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

32
emissions from the applied nitrogen fertilizer and the crop residue decomposition. While 

canola requires synthetic nitrogen fertilizer and soybeans do not, the nitrogen content of the 

soybean crop residues are much higher than canola residues so the canola has only about 

35% more nitrogen applied than soybeans per tonne of oilseed produced. The lower GHG 

emission number for canola is a function o the higher oil content and the lower N2O emission 

factor in the canola growing region of western Canada compared to the soybean producing 

regions of North America. 

Fertilizer Manufacture. These emissions are higher for canola due primarily to the synthetic 

nitrogen fertilizer requirement of canola, partially offset by the higher oil content. 

Sub Total. The GHG emissions from growing and crushing canola are about one half of the 

emissions for growing and crushing soybeans when normalized to an equivalent oil 

production value. The two systems produce different quantities and values of co-products. 

Emissions Displaced. Producing a tonne of vegetable oil results in three times the quantity of 

protein meal produced in the soybean system compared to the canola oil system. In addition 

the feed efficiency of the canola meal is only about 7% of the value of soybean meal. The coproduct credit for the canola system is therefore about 25% (75% of 33%) of the credit for 

soybean meal when normalized for the same quantity of oil produced. 

Total. The direct GHG emissions for canola oil are 20% lower than they are for soybean oil. 

This calculation excludes soil carbon changes and given the higher fraction of no till and 

conservation tillage management practices on canola acreas compared to soybean acres, 

when these emissions (or sinks) are included it is expected that canola GHG emissions will 

be even lower than shown here. 

Even if one assumed that the indirect emissions for canola and soybean oil were identical 

because of the close substitutability of the products in many markets, that is an increase in 

the demand for canola oil could be met by an increase in the supply of soybean oil, the 

canola oil biodiesel should have lower lifecycle GHG emissions than soybean biodiesel. 

However there are reasons to expect that the canola indirect emissions may be less than 

soybean. These include the continued reduction in summerfallow area resulting in more 

canola produced on the same land and the faster increase in seed oil content for canola 

compared to soybeans. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

33
7. REFERENCES

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2001. Opportunities for Reduced Non-Renewable Energy 

Use in Canadian Prairie Agricultural Production Systems. http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFCAAC/display-afficher.do?id=1196192081908&lang=eng

Brimner, T., Gallivan, G., Stephenson, G. 2005. Influence of Herbicide-Resistant Canola on 

the Environmental Impact of Weed Management. Pest Management Science. Vol 61, No. 1. 

47-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.967

Canadian Fertilizer Institute. 2009. Fertilizer Shipments to Canadian Agricultural Markets. 

Cumulative Fertilizer Year July 2009 - December 2009. 

http://www.cfi.ca/_documents/FSS%20Q2_%202009-10%20pub_E.pdf

Canadian Grain Commission. 2009. Quality of Western Canadian Canola. 

www.grainscanada.gc.ca/canola/harvest-recolte/2009/hqc09-qrc09-eng.pdf

Canadian Grain Commission. 2010. http://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/canola/harvestrecolte/2009/hqc09-qrc09-5-eng.htm

Canola Council. 2001. An Agronomic and Economic Assessment of Transgenic Canola. 

http://www.canolacouncil.org/uploads/biotechnology/manual/GMO/final.zip

Canola Council. 2006. Fertilizing Hybrids – How Much is Enough? https://canolacouncil.merchantsecure.com/canola_resources/product28.aspx

Canola Council. 2007. Canola Meal Research Meeting. Saskatoon Saskatchewan, 

September 2007. 

http://www.canolacouncil.org/uploads/canola_meal_research/presentation1_hickling.pdf

Canola Council. 2009. Canola Meal Feed Industry Guide, 4th Edition, 2009. 

http://www.canolacouncil.org/uploads/feedguide/Canola_Guide_ENGLISH_2009_small.pdf

Canola Council. 2010. Oil, Meal, Seed Supply and Demand. 

http://www.canolacouncil.org/oil_meal_and_seed_supply_and_demand.aspx

Canola Council. 2010b. Oil and Meal Exports (Historical). 

http://www.canolacouncil.org/oilmealexports.aspx

Canola Council. Step by Step Processing Summary. 

http://www.canolacouncil.org/meal3.aspx

Coleman, B. 2010. Personal communication. Barry Coleman, Executive Director, Northern 

Canola Growers Association. 

Environment Canada. 2007. National Inventory Report. The Canadian Government’s 

Submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. 1990–2005. Greenhouse 

Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. 

http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventory_report/2005_report/2005_report_e.pdf

European Commission. 2006. Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control. Reference 

Document on Best Available Techniques in the Food, Drink, ad Milk Industries. 

http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reference/brefdownload/download_FDM.cfm

Hickling, Dr. Dave. 2010. Personal communication. Canola Council. 

Janzen, H.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Bruinsma, Y., Campbell, C.A., Desjardins, R.L., Ellert, 

B.H., Smith, E.G. 2003. The Fate of Nitrogen in Agroecosystems: An Illustration using 

Canadian Estimates. Nutrient Cycling in Agroecosystems Volume 67, 85–102, 2003. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

34
Kleter, G., Bhula, R., Bodnaruk, K., Carazo, E., Felsot, A., Harris, C., Katayama, A., Kuiper, 

H., Racke, K., Rubin, B., Shevah, Y., Stephenson, G., Tanaka, K., Unsworth, J., Wauchope, 

R., Wong, S. 2007. Altered pesticide use on transgenic crops and the associated general 

impact from an environmental perspective. Pest Management Science. Vol 63, No. 11. 1107-

1115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.1448

Nagy, C. 2010. Personal communication. Canola Energy Data. 

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2010. Canola Planted Acreage. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Crops_County/cn-pl.asp

National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2010. Canola Statistics. 

http://www.nass.usda.gov/QuickStats/index2.jsp#top

NBB. 2009. Biodiesel Energy Survey. 

http://www.biodiesel.org/news/RFS/rfs2docs/NBB%20Energy%20Use%20Survey%20FINAL.

pdf

Northern Crops Institute. 2008. Northern Canola Quality Survey 2008. 

Northern Crops Institute. 2009. Northern Canola Quality Survey 2009. 

NRCan. 2007. Canadian Ammonia Producers - Benchmarking Energy Efficiency and Carbon 

Dioxide Emissions. 

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/home/index.cfm?act=online&id=5972&format=

PDF&lang=01

Pradhan, A., Shrestha, D.S., McAloon, A., Yee, W., Haas, M., Duffield, J.A., Shapouri, H. 

2009. Energy Life-Cycle Assessment of Soybean Biodiesel. 

http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/energy/ELCAofSoybeanBiodiesel91409.pdf

Rochette, P., D.E. Worth, E. Huffman, J.A. Brierley, B.G. McConkey, J.Y. Yang, J.J. 

Hutchinson, R.L. Desjardins, R.L. Lemke, and S. Gameda. 2008. Estimation of N2O 

emissions from agricultural soils in Canada: II- 1990-2005 inventory. Can. J. Soil Sci. (in 

press). 

Rochette, P., D.E. Worth, R.L. Lemke, B.G. McConkey, D.J. Pencock, C. Wagner-Riddle,and 

R.L. Desjardins. 2008b. Estimation of N2O Emissions from Agricultural Soils in Canada. IDevelopment of a Country-Specific Methodology. Can. J. Soil Sci. (in press). 

Soyatech. 2010. Oilseed Statistics. http://www.soyatech.com/oilseed_statistics.htm

Statistics Canada. 2006 Census of Agriculture. Land use, tenure, and land management 

practices. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/95-629-x/2007000/4182415-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. Table 001-00101. Estimated areas, yield, production and average farm 

price of principal field crops, in metric units, annual. http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgiwin/cnsmcgi.pgm?regtkt=&C2Sub=&ARRAYID=10010&C2DB=PRD&VEC=&LANG=E&Srch

Ver=2&ChunkSize=50&SDDSLOC=&ROOTDIR=CII/&RESULTTEMPLATE=CII/CII_PICK&A

RRAY_PICK=1&SDDSID=&SDDSDESC= 

Statistics Canada. Table 001-0017 - Estimated areas, yield, production, average farm price 

and total farm value of principal field crops, in imperial units, annual, CANSIM (database). 

http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgiwin/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=E&ArrayId=10017&Array_Pick=1&RootDir=CII/&ResultTemplate=CI

I/CII___

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

35
US Canola Association. 2008. Canola Growers’ Manual. 

http://uscanola.com/vertical/Sites/%7B8A0F01BE-1FAA-43BC-8CF3-

64B0CAFBE4C3%7D/uploads/%7BEA080351-90D0-4421-A670-7DBB850B6D9C%7D.PDF

USDA. 2007 Census Agriculture. North Dakota. Table 9. Land in Farms, Harvested 

Cropland, and Irrigated Land, by Size of Farm: 2007 and 2002. 

http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_

Level/North_Dakota/st38_1_009_010.pdf

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

36
8. GLOSSARY

1 canola bushel=50 pounds 

1 acre=0.4046 hectares 

1 hectare=2.4719 acres 

1 tonne=1.102 tons 

1 GJ=945,000 BTU 

Hybrid canola. Hybrids are developed by crossing a specific female plant with a specific male 

plant to produce a higher yielding plant. They are higher yielding than openpollinated varieties. About 50% of the hybrids are also transgenic. 

Transgenic canola. A transgenic plant contains genetic material artificially acquired from 

another organism by the technique of genetic modification or engineering. Codex 

Alimentarius sets international food standards under the Food and Agriculture 

Organization of the United Nations. Their current definition states “genetically 

engineered/genetically modified organism means an organism in which the genetic 

material has been changed through gene technology in a way that does not occur 

naturally by multiplication and/or natural recombination”. 

In Canada, there are three transgenic traits glyphosate herbicide tolerance (Roundup 

Ready), ammonium glufosinate herbicide tolerance (Liberty Link), and InVigor 

hybrids. In Canada, about 80% of the transgenic canola are hybrids. They were first 

registered for use in Canada in 1995. 

(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

37
(S&T)2 CANOLA LCA DATA

38

9. APPENDIX 1 NOPA SOYBEAN PROCESSING DATA
January 2009 NOPA TESH Committee Recommendations to USB 

on National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Database

Soybean Processing to Produce Soy Crude Oil and Meal 

The data for soybean processing were collected and aggregated by the National Oilseed 

Processors Association (NOPA).1

 To the degree possible, NOPA has provided updated 

data for specific energy and material “inputs” and “outputs” set forth in a May 1998 Final 

Report issued by the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) entitled “Life Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for 

Use in an Urban Bus.” 

The data in the 1998 Report were obtained from a single soybean processing plant. 

These data were not representative of either other individual soybean processing plants 

or the soybean processing industry as a whole. 

On the other hand, NOPA’s data, which it obtained by surveying its 15 member 

companies in mid-December 2008 for data reflective of each company’s most recent 

fiscal year, do not reflect the performance of any single soybean processing plant. 

Rather, the data reflect company-supplied data that NOPA received on 50 of the 60 

soybean processing plants that it represents, and are broadly reflective of energy and 

material inputs and outputs for soybean processing plants similar in general design and 

processes to the plant that was evaluated in the 1998 Report. The data that NOPA 

received were provided as full-facility inputs and outputs on a per-soybean input basis, 

and cover soybean processing via solvent extraction through crude oil degumming. 

Figure 1 Soybean Crushing and Extraction Process 

 

1

 David Ailor, Vice President of Regulatory Affairs for the National Oilseed Processors Association, 

Washington, D.C., provided the aggregated data in January 2009, following a data collection effort that he 

undertook in December 2008 and January 2009 via NOPA’s “Technical and Research, Environmental, 

Security, and Safety, Health & Loss Prevention” (TESH) Committee. 

Soybean 

Agriculture

Soybean 

Crushing and 

Degumming

Crude Soy Oil

Soy 

Meal

Soybeans

Air, water, and 

waste outputs

Unit process

Material and 

energy inputs
The updated soybean processing data, as well as the previous data from the biodiesel 

study, are summarized in the table below. 

Table 1 Soybean Processing Updated Data (per 1000 kg Oil) 

Inputs 

Biodiesel 

Study 

NOPA 

Updates Notes 

Energy inputs 

Electricity (kWh) 410 289 

Natural Gas (kcal) 1,569,000 --- 

Steam (kcal) 1,296,000 

     % NG (NOPA) --- 65% 

     % #2 FO (NOPA) --- 0.5% 

     % #6 FO (NOPA) --- 1% 

     % Coal (NOPA) --- 32% 

     % Biomass (NOPA) --- 1% 

     % LF gas (NOPA) --- 0.5% 

Fuel types were not broken down this 

specifically in Biodiesel study 

Total kcal of heat 2,865,000 1,502,729 

NOPA data do not include data from six plants 

that do not produce steam onsite. 

Material inputs 

Soybeans (kg) 5,891 5,236 NOPA note: 1000 bushels of soybeans 

Hexane (kg) 11.9 2.96 See note 1 below.  

Water (kg) 19.4 2,547 See note 2 below. 

Outputs 

Products (kg) 

Soy Meal Produced (% by 

mass) 

4,478 

(82%) 

4,131 

(80.5%) 

Soybean Oil Produced (% 

by mass) 

1000 

(18%) 

1000 

(19.5%) 

Based on five-year (2003-2007) average yields 

that NOPA has provided to USDA. 

Air Emissions (kg) 

Hexane 10.15 2.96 See note 1 below. 

Water Effluents (kg) 

Water 453 1,383 

For NOPA: the difference between the water 

input and output is primarily evaporation losses. 

Fats, oils, and grease 5.0 <0.14 

 Triglycerides 4.9 --- 

 Unsaponifiable Matter 0.08 --- 

 Free Fatty Acids 0.04 --- 

Not broken out by NOPA 

Nonhaz. solid waste (kg) 46 8.7 

Note 1: NOPA's hexane input and air emissions numbers are based on EPA's Vegetable 

Oil MACT limit of 0.2 gallon of hexane lost/ton of soybeans processed with an assumed 

specific gravity of hexane of 5.65 pounds/gallon. The MACT limit is a "total loss" limit that 

reflects total hexane disappearance, the vast majority of which is via air emissions. 

Note 2: NOPA data reflect individual facility metered water use, which includes water 

used in cooling towers, steam production, and other process-related equipment. NOPA 

believes that the reported water use in the Biodiesel study is erroneous, since NOPA 

members used metered readings to report their water use, and the Biodiesel study’s 

water input (19 kg) to effluent (453 kg) numbers do not balance, even if factoring in 

evaporation losses. It is simply not clear how these numbers were determined, or what 

had been included in the water usage system boundaries for the facility.