## C ANOLA 

## LCA D ATA

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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA i 

## E XECUTIVE 

## S UMMARY

The U.S. Environmental Prot ection Agency is im plementing revisions to the National Renewable Fuel Standard program (commonly known as the RFS program). The new rule addresses changes to the Renewable Fuel Standar d program as required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The revised stat utory requirements establish new specific volu me 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 def initions 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 R enewable Fuel Standard progr am (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 requirem ents. EISA sets the first U.S. mandatory lifecycle GHG reduction thresholds for renew able fuel categories, as compared to those of average pet roleum fuels used in 2005. The regulatory purpose of the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions analysis is to determine w hether renewable fuels meet the GHG thresholds for the differ ent categories of renewable fuel.

Lifecycle GHG emissions are t he aggregate quantity of GHGs relat ed to the full fuel cycle, including all stages of fuel and feedstock production and distributi on, from feedstock generation and extraction through di stribution and delivery and use of the finished fuel. The lifecycle GHG emissions of t he renewable fuel are compared to the lifecycle GHG emissions for gasoline or diesel (whichev er is being replaced by the renew able fuel) sold or distributed as transportation fuel in 2005.

EISA defines lifecycle GH G emissions as follows:

The term ‘lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions ’ means the aggregate quantity of greenhouse gas emissions (including direct emissions and significant i ndirect emissions such as significant emissions from land use changes), as deter mined 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 de livery and use of the finished fuel to the ultimate consumer, where the mass val ues for all greenhouse gases are adjusted to account for their re lative global warming potential.

The approach taken by the EPA in their analysis of the GHG emissions of biofuels broadly follows the guidance of the IS O standards but there is a complex modelling framework employed to arrive at the total direct and indire ct emissions for any giv en 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 repor t documents the practices of gr owing 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 inform ation in this report should be sufficient to allow the EPA to undertake its modelling work for the inclusi on of canola biodiesel in the RFS2 program.

Canola production in North Americ a 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 ma rkets 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 monocultu res and the increased use of winter crops in southern regions that traditionally have been outside of the canol a 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 cr ushing canola to produce canola oil are lower than they are for soybean oil, but the benefit s will be reduced due to the lower volume and feed value of the canol a 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 N 2 O emission rate in western Canada resulting from the low annual pr ecipitation, the high rate of adoption of



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA ii

# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA iii conservation tillage and no till m anagement practices leading to an increase in soil carbon in the canola production region of Canada, low fossil fuel c onsumption, and low residue nitrogen content compared to soybeans.

Canola yields have increased signi ficantly 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 incl uding canola, and some s ubstitution for other oilseed crops is expected to m eet the increased demand from bi odiesel production with little demand for more acres, thus the indirect emissions for canola bi odiesel are also expected to be lower than they are for soybeans.

# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA iv

# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA v 

## T

ABLE OF 

## C ONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SU MMARY ............................................................................................................ I

TABLE OF CO NTENTS.............................................................................................................V

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

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

1. INTRODUC TION ................................................................................................................. 1

2. CANOLA PRO DUCTION ..................................................................................................... 2

2.1 C ANADIAN C ANOLA P RODUCTION .................................................................................. 2
2.2 US C ANOLA P RODUCTION ............................................................................................. 4
2.3 C ROP Y IELD ................................................................................................................. 7

2.3.1 Canada ................................................................................................................ 7 2.3.2 United St ates ....................................................................................................... 8
2.4 O IL C ONTENT ............................................................................................................... 9
2.5 F ERTILIZER R EQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................ 10

2.5.1 Canadian Data ................................................................................................... 10
2.5.2 US Inform ation ................................................................................................... 12
2.6 O THER I NPUTS ........................................................................................................... 12
2.7 D IRECT E NERGY C ONSUMPTION .................................................................................. 13
2.8 A GRONOMIC P RACTICES ............................................................................................. 14

2.8.1 Varietie s............................................................................................................. 15
2.8.2 Tillage Prac tices................................................................................................. 15
2.8.3 Irrigatio n............................................................................................................. 16
2.9 M EETING I NCREASED D EMAND FOR C ANOLA O IL .......................................................... 16

3. CANOLA CR USHING ........................................................................................................ 20

3.1 P RODUCT Y IELDS ....................................................................................................... 22

3.1.1 Oil Yiel ds............................................................................................................ 22
3.1.2 Meal Yi elds ........................................................................................................ 23
3.2 E NERGY R EQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................ 23

3.2.1 Soybean Crushing Comparis on ......................................................................... 24
3.3 C ANOLA M EAL ............................................................................................................ 25

4. AGRICULTURAL EM ISSIONS .......................................................................................... 27

4.1 N 2 O E MISSIONS ......................................................................................................... 27

4.1.1 Direct Emissi on Fact or....................................................................................... 27
4.1.2 Tillage Im pacts................................................................................................... 28
4.1.3 Summerfa llow .................................................................................................... 29
4.1.4 Crop Resi dues ................................................................................................... 29
4.2 S OIL C ARBON ............................................................................................................. 30

5. BIODIESEL PR ODUCTIO N............................................................................................... 31

5.1 E NERGY U SE .............................................................................................................. 31
5.2 Y IELD AND C O -P RODUCTS .......................................................................................... 31

# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA vi 6. COMPARISON TO SOYBEANS........................................................................................ 32

7. REFERENC ES .................................................................................................................. 34

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

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



## L IST OF 

## T ABLES

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 N 2 O 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA vii 

## L IST OF 

## F IGURES

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 – CA NADIAN CANOLA CRUSHERS ................... 22 FIGURE 3-3 CANOLA MEAL EXPORTS TO US ................................................................. 26

# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA viii

# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 1 

## 1. I NTRODUCTION

The Environmental Protection A gency (EPA) in the United Stat es 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 f uels including soybean biodiesel and biodiesel produced from waste products. In order to be eligible under the RFS2 program, renewable fuels had to demonstrate that t he lifecycle emissions of the renewable fuel were less than those of petroleum fuels. Bi odiesel fuels had to demonstrat e a 50% reduction compared to diesel fuel. In the final rule, the EPA did not consider canola biodies el 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 IS O standards but there is a complex modelling framework employed to arrive at the total direct and indire ct emissions for any giv en 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 gr owing 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 inform ation in this report should be sufficient to allow the EPA to undertake its modelling work for the inclusi on of canola biodiesel in the RFS2 program.

## 2. C ANOLA 

## P RODUCTION

Canola is produced in Canada and the United Stat es. Where possible data is provided for both regions.

2.1 C ANADIAN C ANOLA P RODUCTION

Canola is a significant oilseed crop in C anada with about 6.47 million hectares (16 million acres) grown in Canada in 2009. Most of the canol a is grown in the three prairie provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alber ta as shown in the followi ng 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 cr ushed 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 2Table 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 ev entually exported and the following two tables show the disposition of canola oil and canola meal fr om 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 3Most 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 C ANOLA P RODUCTION

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, Or egon, Montana, and other states.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 4Figure 2-2 US Canola Acres

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



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 5Figure 2-3 US Canola Acres Planted

US Canola Acres

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Thousand 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 (Soy atech, 2010). It can be seen that the US is a net importer of seed, oil, and meal.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 6Table 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 C ROP Y IELD

An important parameter in biof uels lifecycle assessment work is the yield of the crop. The yield can influence the input s 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 perfo rmance is similar between the two countries and the longer term data trend in Canada shows the yield incr ease 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 tr end line value for 2022 is 36 bu/acre (1,802 pounds/acre); a value that based on recent performance is likel y to be exceeded. The yield target established by the C anola Council for 2015 is 41.2 bu/acre (2,060 pounds/acre). Given the performance in recent years t hat target is likely to be met.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 7Figure 2-4 Canola Yield Canada

Canada Canola Yield

y = 578e 0.0144x

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

1943 1946 1949 1952 1955 1958 1961 1964 1967 1970 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009Pounds/Acre

2.3.2 United States

Data from the National Agricultural Statisti cs Service on canola yield is available for the period from 1991 to 2009. Those results are show n 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 8Figure 2-5 US Canola Yield



### US Canola Yield

y = 1257.8e 0.0085x

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Yield, pounds/acre

2.4 O IL C ONTENT

The oil content of canola is mu ch higher than the oil content of soybeans. The oil yield is summarized in the following table (N orthern 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 fo llowing figure (Canadian Grain Commission, 2009).



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 9Figure 2-6 Canola Oil Content

Both data sources show a trend to increasing o il content of the seed. This is a deliberate attempt by breeders to increase the oil cont ent. Whereas soybeans are usually grown for their protein content, canola is produced for its oil content.

2.5 F ERTILIZER R EQUIREMENTS

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 wester n 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 t he canola produced in Canada is now genetically modified. The survey collected data on yield, fertilizer application and other production practices. The fertilizer result s 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
P 2 O 5 kg/tonne 17.1 19.0
K 2 O kg/tonne 4.0 3.7
S kg/tonne 8.4 8.9



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 10The 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 us ed 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 indus try 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 11Figure 2-8 Regional Ammonia Plant Energy Efficiency

2.5.2 US Information

The fertilizer recommendations for winter and spring canola c an be found in the US Canola Association Growers’ Manual (2008). Crop recommendations are not t he same as actual field practice and they could be expected to be slightly cons ervative. The recommendations for winter and spring canola (for the average yi eld) are summarized in the following table. The range in the recommendations is a function of the ex isting nutrient content in the soil. As expected, these values are slightly higher than the ac tual 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
P 2 O 5 13-40 13-40
K 2 O 0-44 0.4
S 10 10

An agronomic survey of canola fields in No rth 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 O THER I NPUTS

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 genet ically modified crop and 0.9 l a.i./ha for t he conventional seed.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 12Figure 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. Th is is consistent with the information in the Brimmer paper.

Lime is rarely used in western Canada due to t he alkaline nature of most of the soils. No data is available for lime use for canola production but the tota l area that is limed in each province is available in the 2006 Census of Agriculture (Sta tistics 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 D IRECT E NERGY C ONSUMPTION

The field energy requirements for growing canola have never been surveyed on a regular basis, as were the fuel energy requirements for corn and so ybeans 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 ma chinery) 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 t he micro-level analysis:

• Swift Current, SK for the Brown soil zone



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 13• Lethbridge, AB and Scott, SK for the Dark Brown soil zone • Melfort, SK, Indian Head, SK and Gl enlea, 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 le vel 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 descrip tions 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 t illage methods. The results for a North Dakota location (Minot) are shown in the following table. The range of fuel consumption bet ween full tillage and no till is greater than the Canadian estimates and more in line with other estima tes, 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 t he farm and from the farm to the processor separately. An allowance s hould be made for electricity to drive augers for loading and unloading bins for intermediate on farm stor age. The 2002 USDA energy survey had a value of 15 kWh/acre for wheat in the northern ti er states of Minnesot a, 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 A GRONOMIC P RACTICES

The specific agronomic practi ces employed by feedstock producers can have a significant impact on the GHG emissions resu lting from the growing of f eedstock. Some of the primary practices are discussed below.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 142.8.1 Varieties

The varieties of seed plant c an have a significant impact on cr op yield, energy requirements and other practices. One of the primary driv ers 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 in crease in yields in the past dec ade. 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 cr op 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 Agricu lture is shown in the follo wing 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 15In western Canada, the higher percentage of conservation and no till will have a positive impact on fuel consumpti on, soil carbon, and on N 2 O emissions.

Tillage practices in North Dakota for canol a 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 irrigat ed. The Canola survey undertaken in 2000 found that only seven of the more than 600 participants in the survey pr acticed irrigation. This is generally consistent with the data in the 2006 Census of Agri culture which reports that 2.5% of western Canadian land is irrigat ed, with the majority of t hat being in southern Alberta and outside of the normal gr owing area for canola.

There is also very little land that is irrigated in North Dako ta. 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 N 2 O emissions but a positive impact on the crop yield. Since so little canola is gr own under irrigation no real data is available on the impacts.

2.9 M EETING I NCREASED D EMAND FOR C ANOLA O IL

Increased demand for canola oil will be met thr ough 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 c anola, the goal is to
increase the oil content and in crease 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 gall ons in 2015. These goals will be met through an increase in the number of acres devoted to canola, an in crease in the canola yield, and an increase in the oil content of the seed.

The 2015 plan is not the first ti me the Canadian canola industry has set ambitious goals. In the fall of 2002, following thr ee consecutive crop years of declining acreage and production, the Canadian canola industry deter mined that to ensure its c ontinued development it would be necessary to achieve sustained produc tion 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 ta rgets have been achieved.

The 2015 plan envisions an incr ease in canola cropland from 13 million acres (5.25 million ha) to 17 million acres (6.88 million ha). This increase will be achiev ed by shortening the rotations, expanding into non-traditional areas (the agricultural land outside of the normal
canola area in southern Alberta and Saskatc hewan), and crop shifting (including reduced summerfallow) because of the in creased 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 ac res (2.5 million hectares) of summerfallow and 25 million acres (10 million hectares) of impr oved 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 16Figure 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

YearArea, 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 achiev ed through increased adoption of hybr id 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 ex pected 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 ex ample if the yield is higher t han forecast then fewer hectares will be required.

The US industry is also ex pected to see increased producti on. 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 evaluat e the reasons producers are reluctant to plant the crop, and then implement a plan to address these concer ns to limit acreage loss in existing growing regions while expanding ac reage in potential new growing regions.”

The CATF identified the need to compile existing research that quantifie s or can be used to quantify producer benefits of growing canola in rotation with diffe rent 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 ac hieve those goals as s hown in the following table. The goal would be about a six fold incr ease over current leve ls. About half of the growth would be in the North Dakota, the l eading producer, and half in non-traditional states.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 17Table 2-17 US Canola Production Targets

Region 2008 2010 2015

acres Mid-South/Southeas t 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 me t, the recently rel eased USDA planting intentions report does show a significant increase in 2010 ar ea 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 fo r confidentiality.

Some of the US growth will happen with winter c anola 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 pr imary crop will see an increase in yield when it follows canola in ro tation and thus the system output will increase on the same number of acres. T he 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 m illion 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 t he state will increase the amount of vegetable oil available in the marketplace.

Monsanto, one of the l eading developers of canola seed has proj ected future yields of canola just as they have done for other agricultural cr ops. Their forecast through to the year 2030 is shown in the following figure. The projec ted 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 18Figure 2-12 Monsanto Canola Yield Projection



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 19

## 3. C ANOLA 

## C RUSHING

Canola seed is traditionally crushed and solvent ex tracted in order to separate the oil from the meal. The process usually includes s eed cleaning, seed pre-c onditioning and flaking, seed cooking, pressing the flak e to mechanically remove a portion of the oil, solvent extraction of the press-cake to remove t he remainder of the o il, and desolventizing and toasting of the meal. Meal qua lity is influenced by several va riables during the process, especially temperature. T he 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 stri ct grading standards established by the Canadian Grain Commission. These include s pecifications for maximum moisture content, seed damage and chlorophyll level. T he seed delivered to the crushing plant contains dockage materials, which are removed by cl eaning operations prior to processing.

Many crushing plants in colder climat es 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 wi thout damaging the qualit y of the oil. The thickness of the flake is important, wi th an optimum of bet ween 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/conditi oned 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 20survived flaking, reduce oil viscosity and t hereby promote coalesci ng of oil droplets, increase the diffusion rate of prepared o il cake, and denature hydrolytic enzymes. Cooking also adjusts the mois ture 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 serv es to inactivate the myrosinase enzyme present in canola. This enzyme can hydrolyze the small amounts of glucosinolates present in canola and will produce undesirabl e breakdown products which affect both oil and meal quality.

The cooking cycle usually lasts 15 to 20 mi nutes and the temperat ures 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 odour s 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. Thes e 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 s haft presses the cake against an adjustable choke, which partially constr icts 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 s eed oil content, while maxi mizing the output of the expellers and solvent extractor, with t he 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 so lvent extraction, they use a hexane specially refined for use in the vegetable oil industry. Various mechanical designs of solvent extractors have been developed fo r moving the cake and the miscella (solvent plus oil) in opposite directions to effect a c ontinuous 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, whic h is then flooded with solvent or miscella. A series of pumps sp ray the miscella over the presscake with each stage using a successively "leaner" misce lla, thereby containing a higher ratio of solvent in proportion to the oil. The so lvent 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 desol ventizer-toaster. In a series of compartments or kettles within the desolventizer, the majority of the solvent is flashed from the meal by injection of liv e 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 desolv entizer-toaster is appr oximately 20 minutes. The meal emerges free of solvent. It cont ains 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 t hen is either pelleted or sent directly as a mash to storage.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 213.1 P RODUCT Y IELDS

The canola crushing process extracts the oil fr om 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 func tion of the composition of the seed and thus it can vary from year to year due to growing conditi ons and seed varieties crushed.

Canola seed quality is usually r eported on an 8.5% moisture basis . Actual moisture content of the seed will vary from year to y ear depending on growing and harvesting conditions. Typical annual moisture content s 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 st atistics are kept on the average distance but the dist ance 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 s eed is important, but ultimately for a bi odiesel LCA it is the oil that is extracted from the seed that is needed for the analysis. This in formation is reported monthly by Statistics Canada and is shown in the followi ng figure. This figure has generally increased over time and has averaged 42.8% over the past th ree 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%1971/081973/081975/081977/081979/081981/081983/081985/081987/081989/081991/081993/081995/081997/081999/082001/082003/082005/082007/08Recovered Oil, % Seed



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 22The 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 yi elds. 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 proc ess. The characteristi cs 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 ( μ mol/g) 7.21

Since the oil extraction rate is so much hi gher than it is for so ybeans the canola meal production rate is 25% lower.

3.2 E NERGY R EQUIREMENTS

A survey of the canola crushing plants wa s undertaken by Canadian Oilseed Processors Association for this work. A total of 10 plant s 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 t heir energy requirements to pr oduce the quality of canola oil required for biodiesel producti on as opposed to the quality us ed 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 crus hed 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA The carbon intensity of electr icity in Canada averages 220 g CO 2 eq/kWh for 2010. Based on power production forecasts from the National E nergy Board the expect ed carbon intensity in 2022 is 176 g CO 2 eq/kWh. Both values are extrac ted from GHGenius and use the 1996 IPCC GWPs. The values include distribution losses, SF 6 emissions, and N 2 O emissions from corona discharge during distribution.

23Most canola crushers use a solvent extraction pr ocess. 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 f ound in the literature and are summarized in the following table (European Commission, 2006).

Table 3-3 Hexane Consumption

Feedstock Kg hexane/tonne seed cr ushed 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 em issions are 2.0 kg/tonne of o il produced. The data source is the Danish Food LCA projec t and thus the values represent the European industry. There could be a number of reasons for the difference betw een European and North America operations; climatic c onditions may play a role, or the SimaPro data may represent a new facility. The information is informative because it shows t hat 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 followi ng 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 c anola crushing facilities is s lightly better than the soybean facility when represented on a per tonne of oilseed crushed bas is. 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 24There is a significant improv ement in energy efficiency of crushing soybeans between where the industry is now and what the EPA assum ed for 2022 and a similar assumption should be made for canola crushing.

3.3 C ANOLA M EAL

A critical aspect of an LCA invo lving 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 charac teristics of canola meal is available in the Canola Meal Feed Industry Guide, published by the Canola Council (2009).

Canola meal competes with so ybean meal and other protein sour ces 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 Ca lifornia dairy market as show n in the following figure (Canola Council, 2007). In this market, canola meal has displaced cottonseed meal, an oilseed meal with approximately the same pr otein content. Other competitor s 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 m eal is the highest for the dairy application.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 25Figure 3-3 Canola Meal Exports to US



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 26

## 4. A GRICULTURAL 

## E MISSIONS

While the agricultural emissions for canola grow n in the United States will be calculated by the FASOM model based on the canola crop i nputs and the input data for other crops already in the model, the emissions fo r 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 N 2 O E MISSIONS

A significant portion of the GHG emissions asso ciated with agriculture is related to the release of N 2 O resulting from the breakdown of nitrogen fertilizers and crop residues. The Canadian approach to estimating thes e emissions is discussed below.

4.1.1 Direct Emission Factor

Environment Canada and Agriculture Canada hav e developed a Tier 2 country-specific methodology to estimate N 2 O emissions from nitrogen fertiliz er application on agricultural soils, which takes into a ccount local climate regime s and topographic conditions. The following equation is used by Envi ronment Canada to estimate N 2 O emissions by ecodistrict. Emission estimates at the provincial and national scales are obtained by aggregating
estimates at the ecodistrict level.

N 2 O NF = Σ N FERT ×EF BASE ×RF THAW × 44/28

where:

N 2 O NF = emissions from nitrogen fertilizers (s ynthetic, manure and crop residues), kg
N 2 O/year

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

EF BASE = a weighted average of emission factors, which is a functi on of local climate (precipitation/potential evapotrans piration) and landforms, kg N 2 O-N/kg N per year

RF THAW = a ratio factor adjusting EF BASE for emissions during spring thaw: for Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Is land, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Ontario, RF THAW = 1.4; for other provinces, RF THAW = 1.0

The EF BASE estimate considers the influence of loca l climatic conditions and is assessed by the determination of regional nitrogen induced emission fact ors. These factors were estimated by Agriculture Canada using the sa me approach as for the determination of the IPCC Tier 1 emission factor, i.e. EF BASE = slope of the “N 2 O emissions versus N fertilizer rate” relationship. EF BASE was estimated for the three regions where field N 2 O measurements are available: Quebec–Ontario; Brown and Da rk Brown soil zones; and Grey and Black soil zones. The “EF BASE versus fertilizer N” relationshi p determined for the Quebec–Ontario region has a similar slope (0.0119 kg N 2 O-N/kg N) and fit (r2= 0.43) as the IPCC Tier 1
default emission factor.

In the Prairie region, low and variable N 2 O emissions were meas ured across the range of nitrogen fertilizer rates (Brown-Dark Brown soils = 0.0016 kg N 2 O-N/kg N; Grey and Black soils = 0.008 kg N 2 O-N/kg N). These observa tions suggest that soil N 2 O production in the Prairie region is not limited by mineral nitrogen availability but ra ther by the low denitrification activity under well aerated dry soil conditions. N 2 O is mostly produced during denitrification and, as a result, is greatly infl uenced by the soil oxygen status.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 27Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has developed detailed N 2 O emission factors for all
ecodistricts of Canada that account for so il types, moisture c onditions and climatic conditions. Rochette et al (2008, 2008b) hav e presented this methodology and have scaled up the results to provide provincial or regional as well as national averages.

The direct N 2 O 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 emi ssions can change from year to year, based on precipitation and other factors.

Table 4-1 Tier 2 N 2 O Emission Factors for Canada

Minimum Maximum Average Kg N 2 O-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 variat ion 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 al so leads to different emission factors for different feedstocks. The appropriate N 2 O 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 th is category is specific to Canada. It does not derive from additional nitrogen input but rather it is a modifier affecting N 2 O emissions when tillage practices are modified. For example, compared with conventional or intensive tillage (IT), direct seeding or no till (NT) as well as reduc ed tillage (RT) affect the decomposition of soil organic matter, soil carbon and nitrogen availab ility, soil bulk density, and water content.

N 2 O emissions or removals resulting from t he adoption of NT and RT can be expressed as follows:

N 2 O TILL = 

# [ ( N FERT + N MAN,CROPS + N RES × EF BASE 

# ) × 

# ( FRAC NT

− RT × 

## ( F TILL − 1 

## ) 

# ) 

# ] × 44/28

where:

N 2 O TILL = N 2 O emissions or removals resulting from the adoption of NT and RT, kg
N 2 O/year



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 28N FERT = total synthetic fertilizer nitrogen cons umption in ecodistrict, kg N/year

N MAN, CROPS = total amount of animal manure nitrogen applied as fertilizer to cropland in ecodistrict, kg N/year

N RES = total amount of crop residue nitrogen that is returned to the cropland annually for ecodistrict, kg N/year

EF BASE = a weighted average emission factor for ecodistrict, kg N 2 O-N/kg N per year

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

F TILL = a ratio factor adjusting EF BASE due to the adoption of NT and RT: F TILL = 1.1 in eastern Canada; F TILL = 0.8 in the Prairies

44/28 = molecular weight ratio of N 2 O to N 2 Reduced tillage can have a posit ive or negative impact on N 2 O emissions depending on soil types and moisture conditions. In we stern Canada, reduced tillage reduces N 2 O emissions.
The basic N 2 O 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 c onservation 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 N 2 O 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 N 2 O emissions in fallow fields are similar to emissions from continuously cropped fields.

It is recognized that should the demand for feedstocks have an e ffect of reducing the amount of land summerfallowed then the referenc e system should have these summerfallow emissions included in the reference system. T hat is the use of su mmerfallow 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 applic ation of synthetic fertilizer
and manure.

4.1.4 Crop Residues

Crop residues contain some nitrogen and as the residues decom pose adding the nitrogen back to the soil, there is some N 2 O that is generated in the proc ess. This nitrogen is added to the nitrogen fertilizer that is applied to calculate the total direct N 2 O 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 c anola seed to residues and the nitrogen content and the results are summarized in the following table (Janzen et al, 2003).



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 29Table 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 S OIL C ARBON

Changing the management practice s 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 Invent ory 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. T hese 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-t ill 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 C anada have been switching to reduced and no till practices over time. Using the management prac tices 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 30

## 5. B IODIESEL 

## P RODUCTION

Biodiesel production using canola oil is identical to the pr oduction of biodies el produced from soybean oil. The following comments are provi ded on the values used by the EPA in their RFS analysis.

5.1 E NERGY U SE

The final documentation for the EPA RFS2 r eports an energy use fo r 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 t able. In addition, the NBB conducted a survey of producing members in 2009 and the energy requirements for the industry in 2009 were lower than t he 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 hi gher than reported in the original source and those requirements are higher than the industry is actua lly 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 Y IELD AND C O -P RODUCTS

The biodiesel yield and the quant ity of co-products produced will be the same for canola biodiesel as they ar e for soybean biodiesel.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 31

## 6. C OMPARISON TO 

## S OYBEANS

While the EPA modelling framework is considerabl y 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 canol a 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 diffe rent than the default values in the model). The model has been run for western Canada, the major canola pr oduction region in Nort h 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 li ne with the value for the US soybean producing region. GHGeni us reports the emissions for both the oil production and biodiesel production. Sinc e the processes are the same afte r 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 CO 2 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 t he emissions from the crushi ng of the seeds and the oil extraction. While the energy requirements fo r crushing the oil seeds are similar when reported on a per tonne of seed input basis, the canola oil em issions 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 o il content of the s eed therefore drives this difference.

Feedstock Transmission. The are the emissions fr om the transport of t he 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 lowe r emission per unit of oil produced.

Feedstock Recovery. These are the direct ener gy emissions from the farming. These emissions are typically better correlated to the area farmed than the crop produced. The oil content per acre would t hus 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 st ages 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 ca rbon. They are mostly a reflection of the N 2 O



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 32emissions from the applied nitrogen fertilizer and the crop residue dec omposition. While canola requires synthetic nitr ogen fertilizer and soybeans do not, the nitrogen content of the soybean crop residues are much higher than c anola 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 o il content and the lower N 2 O emission factor in the canola growing region of we stern Canada compared to the soybean producing regions of North America.

Fertilizer Manufacture. These em issions 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 growi ng and crushing canola ar e about one half of the emissions for growing and crushing soy beans when normalized to an equivalent oil production value. The two systems produce diffe rent 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 co mpared to the canola oil system. In addition the feed efficiency of t he canola meal is only about 7% of the value of soybean meal. The coproduct credit for the canola system is theref ore about 25% (75% of 33%) of the credit for soybean meal when normalized for t he same quantity of oil produced.

Total. The direct GHG emissions for canola o il 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 c anola GHG emissions will
be even lower than shown here.

Even if one assumed that the indirect emissi ons for canola and soybean oil were identical because of the close substitutability of the pr oducts in many markets, that is an increase in the demand for canola oil could be met by an in crease in the supply of soybean oil, the
canola oil biodiesel should hav e lower lifecycle GHG emi ssions than soybean biodiesel.
However there are reasons to expect that the canola indire ct emissions may be less than soybean. These include the cont inued 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 33

## 7. R EFERENCES

Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. 2001. Opport unities for Reduced Non-Renewable Energy Use in Canadian Prairie Agricu ltural 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/_document s/FSS%20Q2_%202009-10%20pub_E.pdf

Canadian Grain Commission. 2009. Qua lity 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 Ec onomic 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/c anola_resources/ product28.aspx

Canola Council. 2007. Canola Meal Resear ch Meeting. Saskatoon Saskatchewan, September 2007. http://www.canolacouncil.org/ uploads/canola_meal_research/p resentation1_hickling.pdf

Canola Council. 2009. Canola Meal Feed Industry Guide, 4t h Edition, 2009. http://www.canolacouncil.or g/uploads/feedguide/Canola_G uide_ENGLISH_2009_small.pdf

Canola Council. 2010. Oil, M eal, Seed Supply and Demand. http://www.canolacouncil.org/o il_meal_and_seed_suppl y_and_demand.aspx

Canola Council. 2010b. Oil and Meal Exports (Historical). http://www.canolacouncil.or g/oilmealexports.aspx

Canola Council. Step by Step Processing Summary. http://www.canolacounc il.org/meal3.aspx

Coleman, B. 2010. Personal communication. Ba rry Coleman, Executive Director, Northern Canola Growers Association.

Environment Canada. 2007. National Invent ory Report. The Canadian Government’s
Submission to the UN Framework Conv ention on Climate Change. 1990–2005. Greenhouse Gas Sources and Sinks in Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/invent ory_report/2005_report/2005_report_e.pdf

European Commission. 2006. Integrated Polluti on Prevention and Control. Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Food, Drink, ad Milk Industries. http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/refe rence/brefdownl oad/download_FDM.cfm

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

Janzen, H.H., Beauchemin, K.A., Bruinsma, Y., Campbell, C.A., Desjar dins, 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 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 34Kleter, G., Bhula, R., Bodnaruk, K., Carazo, E., Felsot, A., Harris, C ., Katayama, A., Kuiper, H., Racke, K., Rubin, B., Shevah, Y., Stephens on, 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. Pe st 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 Se rvice. 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/Q uickStats/index2.jsp#top

NBB. 2009. Biodiesel Energy Survey. http://www.biodiesel.org/new s/RFS/rfs2docs/NBB%20Energy %20Use%20Survey%20FINAL. pdf

Northern Crops Institute. 2008. No rthern Canola Quality Survey 2008.

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

NRCan. 2007. Canadian Ammonia Producers - B enchmarking Energy Efficiency and Carbon
Dioxide Emissions. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publicat ions/infosource/home/index.c fm?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 Asse ssment of Soybean Biodiesel. http://www.usda.gov/oce/reports/ener gy/ELCAofSoybeanBiodiesel91409.pdf

Rochette, P., D.E. Worth, E. Huffman, J.A. Brierley, B.G. McConkey, J.Y. Yang, J.J. Hutchinson, R.L. Desjardi ns, R.L. Lemke, and S. Gam eda. 2008. Estimation of N 2 O 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. Penco ck, C. Wagner-Riddle,andR.L. Desjardins. 2008b. Estimation of N2O Emissions from Agricultural Soils in Canada. IDevelopment of a Country-S pecific Methodology. Can. J. Soil Sci. (in press).

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

Statistics Canada. 2006 Census of Agricult ure. Land use, tenur e, and land management practices. http://www.statcan.gc.c a/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=&A RRAYID=10010&C2DB=PRD&VEC=&LANG=E&Srch Ver=2&ChunkSize=50&SDDSLOC=&ROOTDI R=CII/&RESULTTEMP LATE=CII/CII_PICK&A RRAY_PICK=1&SDDSID=&SDDSDESC =

Statistics Canada. Table 001-0017 - Estimated areas, yield, pr oduction, 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_Pi ck=1&RootDir=CII/&ResultTemplate=CI I/CII___



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 35US Canola Association. 2008. Canola Growers’ Manual. http://uscanola.com/vertical/Sit es/%7B8A0F01BE-1FAA-43BC-8CF3- 64B0CAFBE4C3%7D/uploads/%7BEA080351-90D 0-4421-A670-7DBB850B6D9C%7D.PDF

USDA. 2007 Census Agriculture. North Dako ta. Table 9. Land in Farms, Harvested Cropland, and Irrigated Land, by Size of Farm: 2007 and 2002. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/P ublications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_ Level/North_D akota/st38_1_009_010.pdf



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 36

## 8. G LOSSARY

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 pl ant. 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 genet ic modification or engineering. Codex Alimentarius sets international food standards under the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Their current definition st ates “genetically engineered/genetically modified organism m eans an organism in which the genetic material has been changed through gene technol ogy in a way that does not occur naturally by multiplication and/ or natural recombination”.

In Canada, there are three transgenic trai ts glyphosate herbicide tolerance (Roundup Ready), ammonium glufosi nate herbicide tolerance (Li berty Link), and InVigor hybrids. In Canada, about 80% of the transgenic canola are hy brids. They were first registered for use in Canada in 1995.



# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 37

# (S&T) 2 C ANOLA LCA D ATA 38 

## 9. A PPENDIX 

## 1 NOPA S OYBEAN 

## P ROCESSING 

## D ATA

### January 2009 NOPA TESH Commi ttee 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 Affair s for the National Oilseed Processors Association, Washington, D.C., provided the aggregated data in Janu ary 2009, following a data collection effort that he
undertook in December 2008 and Ja nuary 2009 via NOPA’s “Technical and Resear ch, Environmental, Security, and Safety, Health & Lo ss 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 emissi ons numbers are base d on EPA's Vegetable Oil MACT limit of 0.2 gallon of hexane los t/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) nu mbers 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.