September 2012

GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil

Production: Literature Review and 

Synthesis

DRAFT REPORT

Prepared for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 6401A

Washington, DC 20460

Prepared by

Sara Casey, Blaire Zachary, and Robert Beach

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

RTI Project Number 02013142.000.005
_________________________________

RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

RTI Project Number

02013142.000.005

GHG Assessments of Jatropha Oil

Production: Literature Review and 

Synthesis

DRAFT REPORT

September 2012

Prepared for

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Transportation and Air Quality

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 6401A

Washington, DC 20460

Prepared by

Sara Casey, Blaire Zachary, and Robert Beach

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Road

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
iii

CONTENTS

Section Page

1 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1-1

2 Jatropha Production Characteristics.............................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Dry Seed Yield..................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Oil Content of Seeds............................................................................................ 2-4

2.3 Biodiesel Yields................................................................................................... 2-4

2.4 Climate Conditions and Productivity................................................................... 2-5

2.5 Inputs: Fertilizer................................................................................................... 2-8

2.6 Inputs: Irrigation ................................................................................................ 2-10

2.7 Production Costs................................................................................................ 2-11

2.8 Land Competition and Opportunity Costs......................................................... 2-11

2.9 Seed Crushing, Oil Extraction, Pre-Treatment, and Processing ........................ 2-12

2.10 Co-Products........................................................................................................ 2-14

3 Net Effects on GHG Emissions .................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Carbon Storage..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Energy Use........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.3 Net Energy Ratio.................................................................................................. 3-4

3.4 Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA)............................................................................. 3-4

3.5 Land use impacts.................................................................................................. 3-6

4 References..................................................................................................................... 4-1
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Number Page

2-1. Observed Yields over Time in Malaysia (metric tons per ha)...................................... 2-1

2-2. Seed Yield by Study Year............................................................................................. 2-3

2-3. Trabucco et al. (2010) Productivity of Jatropha by Climate Zone ............................... 2-6

2-4. Predicted Jatropha Productivity Based on Geographic Location ................................. 2-7

2-5. Inputs for Extracting Crude Jatropha Oil From Dry Seeds......................................... 2-14

2-6. Inputs for Biodiesel Production .................................................................................. 2-14

2-7. Nutrient Contents of Jatropha Seedcake and Husk..................................................... 2-16

2-8. The Byproducts of Jatropha Oil Extraction and Their Uses....................................... 2-17

3-1. Energy Requirements for Jatropha Jet Fuel (SPK)....................................................... 3-3

3-2. Direct Land Use Impacts on GHG Emissions from Jatropha ....................................... 3-6

3-3. CO2 Reduction Rate by Yield....................................................................................... 3-7
v

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

1-1. Most Relevant Studies Regarding Jatropha Characteristics and Net GHG 

Emissions...................................................................................................................... 1-2

2-1. Jatropha Seed Yields..................................................................................................... 2-2

2-2. Oil Content of Jatropha Seeds....................................................................................... 2-4

2-3. NPK Fertilizer Application........................................................................................... 2-9

2-4. Irrigation Requirements.............................................................................................. 2-11

2-5. Methods of Oil Extraction .......................................................................................... 2-12

2-6. Biodiesel Yields From Crude Jatropha Oil Through Transesterification ................... 2-13

3-1. Net Energy Ratio (NER) of Jatropha ............................................................................ 3-4

3-2. Change in GHG Emissions Reported in Studies that Do Not Include Significant 

Indirect Emissions Such as Emissions from Land Use Changes.................................. 3-5
1-1

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

As global interest in biofuels increased in recent years, jatropha was touted as a potential 

biofuels feedstock that would grow well on marginal lands, requiring only low levels of inputs 

and management. Jatropha plantations were supported by multiple governments (with India 

having one of the largest efforts) and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for the purposes 

of biofuels production and large areas of land were planted to jatropha. However, field 

experience has shown that jatropha does indeed require active management and inputs such as 

fertilizer and irrigation in order to achieve high enough yields to be profitable based on the 

available literature that we reviewed. Research demonstrates that marginal lands typically 

produce poor yields and that the highest yields come from more productive lands and more 

intensive production practices. This is consistent with historical experience with production of 

other crops, but means that jatropha production is more likely to compete for land used to 

produce alternative crops than was originally anticipated.

One of the key reasons for recent interest in large-scale biofuels production is the 

potential reduction in greenhouse gases (GHGs) provided by these fuels in comparison with 

fossil fuels. However, the net effect on GHG emissions is dependent on many factors and varies 

considerably across feedstocks. Thus, it is important to conduct life cycle assessments (LCAs) of 

the use of alternative feedstocks for biofuels production to provide a full picture of the net effects 

of each feedstock. While biofuels produced from jatropha could potentially reduce GHG, the full 

impacts of jatropha production are still being measured. While there have been some studies that 

begin exploring the effects of expanded jatropha production, LCAs that study potential emissions 

of jatropha biofuels from “well to wheel” are still underway. In addition, many of these LCAs do 

not include direct or indirect land use change from jatropha cultivation, although those emissions 

often play an extremely important role in determining changes in net GHG associated with 

biofuels production from a given feedstock. Some recent studies that do include these measures 

show that jatropha may not produce net reductions in GHG emissions in the first cycle of 

jatropha planting (30 years) depending on the land type converted and other characteristics 

(Bailis and Baka, 2010; Achten and Verchot, 2011; Skutsch et al., 2011). 

The remainder of this literature review and synthesis will summarize our technical 

findings on jatropha characteristics in a number of key areas, such as potential yields, oil content, 

optimal climate, and input use. In addition, we provide details from several LCAs that have 

explored the impacts of jatropha cultivation for biodiesel on net GHG emissions. Over 70 studies 

were reviewed to conduct this report. There were 27 of these studies that were found to be very 
1-2

relevant in assessing the potential of jatropha biofuels. Table 1-1 provides a brief overview of 

these relevant studies that helped inform the contents of this literature review.

Table 1-1. Most Relevant Studies Regarding Jatropha Characteristics and Net GHG 

Emissions

Study Study Focus Study Area

Marginal or Productive 

Lands

Achten & Verchot (2011) LCA - land use included Ghana, Zambia and 

Mexico

Both

Achten (2010) LCA - land use included India Marginal

Achten et al. (2010c) Climate, breeding & 

genetics

Global Both

Achten et al. (2008) Seed yield, oil production Nicaragua & Central 

America

Both

Almeida (2009) LCA Geographically 

Independent

Both

Almeida et al. (2011) LCA Location independent Both

Axelsson & Franzen (2010) Socio-economics India Both

Bailis & Baka (2010) LCA - jet fuel, land use 

included

Brazil Productive

Britaine & Lutaladio 

(2010)

Overview Global Both

GEXSI (2008) Overview Global Both

Hou et al. (2011) LCA China Productive

Joongschaap et al. (2007) Overview Global Both

Kumar et al. (2012) LCA India Rain-fed and irrigated 

scenarios

Maes et al. (2009) Climate Mexico and Central 

America

241 naturally growing

locations and 83 

plantations

Ndong et al. (2009) LCA Ivory Coast & Mali, 

West Africa

Both

Pandey, Pragya, and Sahoo 

(2011)

LCA India Productive

Prueksakorn & Gheewala 

(2006)

LCA Thailand Productive

Prueksakorn & Gheewala 

(2008)

Net Energy Ratio (NER) Thailand Productive

Reinhardt et al. (2007) LCA India Marginal

Reinhardt et al. (2008) Yields, inputs, & 

byproducts

India Marginal
1-3

Study Study Focus Study Area

Marginal or Productive 

Lands

Skutsch et al. (2011) Land use, 

Socioeconomics

Mexico Productive

Srivastrava et al. (2011) Yield India Productive

Stratton, Wong, & Hileman 

(2010)

LCA -jet fuel Global Both

Trabucco et al. (2010) Climate, yield Global 259 naturally growing 

locations and 15

plantations

Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) Economics Southwest China Both

Whitaker & Heath (2009) LCA India Productive

Wiskerke (2008) Economics Shinyanga, Tanzania Marginal
2-1

SECTION 2

JATROPHA PRODUCTION CHARACTERISTICS

In this section of the report, we focus on general characteristics of jatropha production 

that are important components of an LCA modeling study. 

2.1 Dry Seed Yield

The effectiveness of using jatropha for biodiesel largely depends upon the yield obtained.

Jatropha produces seeds which are then dried and pressed to extract oil. Jatropha trees do not 

produce optimal seed yields in their first few years of cultivation. Increases in yield can be 

measured up to the 8th year of cultivation (Achten et al. 2008), but most studies consider jatropha 

to be mature by the 4th or 5th year. Figure 2-1 shows how jatropha seed yield observed in 

Malaysia has changed as the jatropha plant matured. 

Figure 2-1. Observed Yields over Time in Malaysia (metric tons per ha)

Source: Kalam, Ahamed, & Masjuki (2012)

Seed yield of jatropha is quite variable, the literature shows that a major factor affecting 

seed yield is the quality of the land where the crop is grown. Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) found in 

Southwest China that jatropha yield on barren land could produce seed yields from 1.7 tonnes 

per hectare per year (t/ha/yr) to 2.2 t/ha/yr, while jatropha on fertile lands had observed yields 

between 3.9 t/ha/yr and 7.5 t/ha/yr. Similarly, Achten (2010) finds that marginal lands typically 

produce between 2-3 t/ha, whereas fertile lands that receive adequate rainfall can achieve 

average yields of 5 t/ha/yr. 

Very actively managed jatropha plantations are aiming to achieve even higher yields. 

Kumar et al. (2012) observed different seed yield ranges for rain fed and irrigated crops. Rain fed 

jatropha was found to have an average yield of 1.5 t/ha/yr while irrigated jatropha could range 

from 2.5 to 12.5 t/ha/yr. The Kumar study used an average yield of 5.9 t/ha/yr for irrigated 
2-2

jatropha plantations for its life cycle analysis. A biodiesel company in Mexico claims it will 

achieve a yield of 11 tons per hectare per year (Skutsch et al. 2011) and a low scale, high input 

farm in India expects an average yield of 11.3 t/ha/yr once the jatropha trees reach five years of 

age (Pandey et al. 2011). Table 2-1 summarizes yields that were either observed in the field or 

assumed for jatropha LCAs. Trabucco et al. (2010) reviewed yields from 15 jatropha plantation 

across the globe. The average expected mature seed yield was 1.73 t/ha/yr, however yields 

ranged from 0.30 to 4.00 t/ha/yr. Trabucco et al. (2010) also finds that under climate change 

projections out to 2020, jatropha yields would decrease by 11%. Because there is only a short 

time series of historical jatropha yield data and the values reported have high variability, many of 

the LCAs used high, baseline, and low yield scenarios for jatropha yields to account for this 

variation. 

Table 2-1. Jatropha Seed Yields

Yield (metric ton per 

hectare per year)

Study Location

Observed or 

Assumed

Marginal or 

Productive Low High Average*

Jongschaap et al. (2007) Global Observed Both 1.50 7.80

Weyerhaeuser et al.

(2007)

Southwest China Observed Marginal 1.70 2.20

Weyerhaeuser et al.

(2007)

Southwest China Observed Productive 3.90 7.50

Wiskerke (2008) Tanzania Observed Marginal 2.00

Achten et al. (2008) Nicaragua Observed Productive 4.00

Whitaker and Heath 

(2009)

India Assumed Productive 3.75

Almeida (2009) Geographically 

Independent

Assumed Productive 4.29

Achten (2010) India Observed Marginal 1.70

Bailis & Baka (2010) Brazil Assumed Productive 2.00 6.00 4.00

Stratton, Wong, & 

Hileman (2010)

Geographically 

Independent

Assumed Productive 1.00 5.00 2.50

Trabucco et al. (2010) Central & South 

America, Africa, 

India, & Indonesia

Observed Both 0.3 4 1.73

Achten & Verchot (2011) Ghana, Zambia, & 

Mexico

Observed Both 0.50 3.50

Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Productive 4.53

Hou et al. (2011) China Observed Productive 1.50 5.00
2-3

Yield (metric ton per 

hectare per year)

Study Location

Observed or 

Assumed

Marginal or 

Productive Low High Average*

Almeida et al. (2011) Mexico, Brazil, India, 

& Tanzania

Observed Productive 4.30

Skutsch et al. (2011) Mexico Assumed Productive 3.70 11.00 7.50

Axelsson & Franzen 

(2010)

India Observed Productive 5.80

Kumar et al. (2012) – rain 

fed scenario

India Observed Marginal 0.50 2.80 1.50

Kumar et al. (2012) –

irrigated scenario

India Observed Productive 2.50 12.50 5.90

* Or the assumed average value of seed yield for the study

Across study years, reported seed yield has seen a slight upward trend as Figure 2-2

demonstrates. This may be attributable to the fact that study began on jatropha before jatropha 

plantations had reached maturity. In addition, as jatropha is used more as a domesticated crop 

rather than a wild species, information regarding the necessary inputs and management may have 

helped improve yields over time. However, the quality of land used and level of inputs used still 

appear to be the largest determinants of seed yield. 

Figure 2-2. Seed Yield by Study Year

Source: Seed Yield data from Table 2. 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Seed Yield (t/ha/yr)

Seed Yield

Trendline (Seed Yield)
2-4

2.2 Oil Content of Seeds

The amount of oil that can be generated from jatropha also depends on the oil content of 

the seeds. The GEXSI (2008) report suggests a global average of 30%-35% of oil content in 

jatropha seeds. Literature studying jatropha plantations and assumptions made by LCAs are in 

general agreement with this assessment. Table 2-2 shows the oil content of jatropha seeds as 

observed in the literature.

Table 2-2. Oil Content of Jatropha Seeds

Oil Content (%)

Study Location

Observed or 

Assumed

Marginal or 

Productive Low High Average

Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) China Observed Both 30 41

GEXSI (2008) Global Observed Both 30 35

Whitaker and Heath (2009) India Assumed Productive 35

Brittaine (2010) Global Observed Both 32 40 34

Achten (2010) Global Observed Both 27 40 34

Stratton, Wong, & Hileman 

(2010)

Global Assumed Productive 35

Srivastrava et al. (2011) India Observed Both 17 34

Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Productive 38

Hou et al. (2011) China Observed Productive 27 47 30

Kumar et al. (2012) India Observed Productive 21 48 39

2.3 Biodiesel Yields

The seed yield and oil content of jatropha affect the quantity of biodiesel that a jatropha 

planation can yield. Biofuel yield is very dependent upon the inputs as well as the type of land 

upon which the jatropha is grown. In Southwest China, jatropha grown on barren land produced 

from 37 to 86 gallons per acre per year1(0.3 to 0.7 tons per hectare per year) of biodiesel, while 

fertile lands could produce 86 to 306 gallons per acre (0.7 to 2.5 t/ha/yr) (Weyerhaeuser et al.

2007). On marginal land in India, jatropha biodiesel had a yield as low as 13 gallons per acre per 

year (0.11 t/ha/yr) (Achten 2010a). For the LCA performed by NREL (Whitaker & Heath 2009), 

they assumed a biofuel yield of 147 gallons per acre per year (1.2 t/ha/yr). However, on fertile 

and actively managed land, biofuel yields can be much higher. In Thailand, yield was measured 

 

1 Converted from the values reported by the authors (generally in metric tons per hectare) using a conversion factor 

of 7.3 pounds per gallon of biodiesel and converting from hectares to acres. 
2-5

to be 330 gallons per acre (2.7 t/ha/yr) (Prueksakorn & Gheewala 2008). Skutsch et al. (2011)

found in Mexico that a high-input and high-yield farm could produce 416 gallons per acre (3.4 

t/ha/yr) by year six of the jatropha plantation. Stratton, Wong, and Hileman (2010) found 

jatropha biofuel yields per hectare to be lower than other biofuel feedstocks such as switchgrass, 

soybeans, and sugarcane. 

2.4 Climate Conditions and Productivity

The climatic conditions where jatropha is grown can dramatically impact yields. When 

looking at naturally occurring non-domesticated jatropha in Mexico and Central America, Maes 

(2009) found that 87% of jatropha grew in tropical savannah, temperate, or monsoon climates. A 

very small number was found in semi-arid climates and no naturally growing jatropha was found 

in arid climates (Maes 2009). These findings are in sharp contrast to some of the locations that 

have been chosen for jatropha plantations, which have often tried to grow jatropha on arid and 

semi-arid lands, including Strivastrava et al. (2011) and Wiskerke (2008).

Trabucco et al. (2010) studied naturally occurring jatropha as well as 15 observed 

plantations and found that yield could largely be explained based on the climate zone (see Figure 

2-3). Jongschaap et al. (2007) stated the “jatropha belt” exists between the latitudes of 30 degrees 

North and 35 degrees South. Based on the jatropha predicted productivity map (see Figure 2-4), 

it can be assumed that the most ideal regions for jatropha growth are India, Southeast Asia, 

equatorial Africa, and parts of Central and South America. 
2-6

Figure 2-3. Trabucco et al. (2010) Productivity of Jatropha by Climate Zone
2-7

Figure 2-4. Predicted Jatropha Productivity Based on Geographic Location

Source: Trabucco et al. (2010)

Jatropha can grow in a variety of temperature ranges within limits. Stratton, Wong, & 

Hileman (2010) and many others have found jatropha to be frost intolerant. Frost can cause 

immediate damage to the tree. Therefore, Trabucco et al. (2010) assumes that the average 

minimum temperature of the coldest month in the year must not drop below 46 to 48 degrees 

Fahrenheit (8 to 9 degrees Celsius). Maes (2009) finds that among naturally growing jatropha, 

95% grew in areas where the average temperature of the coldest month was 51 degrees 

Fahrenheit (10.5 degrees Celsius) or higher. The study also found the optimal range for jatropha 

growth was an area with a mean annual temperature between 74 and 79 degrees Fahrenheit (23.4 

and 26.2 degrees Celsius). Terrain does not appear to be a major factor in jatropha cultivation. 

Achten et al. (2008) does suggest that slope of jatropha plantation should not be greater than 30 

degrees. In general, jatropha has been found to prefer well-drained soils that have good aeration 

(Wahl et al. 2009) as the crop does not react well to water logging. Achten et al. (2008) also 

suggest soil depth should be at least 18 inches (45 cm). 

Jatropha has been shown to survive under low rainfall; however, to produce yields more 

suitable for commercial biofuel production, areas of higher rainfall and/or irrigation are required. 

The Maes (2009) study found that 95% of naturally occurring jatropha grew in areas with 

average annual rainfall above 37.2 inches (94.4 cm). The optimal range set by this study for 

jatropha growth was between 47.5and 78.8 inches (120.7 and 200.1 cm) per year of rainfall. 

Trabucco et al. (2010) found the optimal rainfall to be 59 inches (150 cm) per year. Achten et al.

(2008) compared seed yields and annual precipitation and found a positive correlation of 0.22, 
2-8

though there were cases of higher yields with low precipitation and lower yields in higher 

precipitation. This supports the hypothesis that rainfall does impact jatropha yields, but there are 

other factors.

2.5 Inputs: Fertilizer

Several studies found that farmers had to actively manage their jatropha plantation and 

use fertilizers, chemicals, and irrigation to obtain adequate yields. Fertilizer use is needed 

because jatropha has been found to remove nutrients from the soil and fertilizer is a method in 

which to return those nutrients to the soil so jatropha can grow (Achten 2010). Fertilizer use 

varied among the studies. The most popular fertilizer was a mix of nitrogen, phosphorus (P205) 

and potassium (K20), otherwise known as NPK. The reported use of fertilizer was given in 

several different terms, shown in Table 2-3 for each study providing information on fertilizer 

application. 

Most studies found that fertilizer was required to ensure jatropha growth during the early 

years. Several studies found that NPK could be replaced by the seedcake byproduct after the 

jatropha had reached maturity. This NPK replacement is addressed later in the Co-Products

section of the report. Ndong et al. (2009) found the first three years to be crucial for NPK 

application, in the fourth year NPK and ammonitrate was applied and by the 5th year jatropha 

byproducts sufficed as fertilizer. Whitaker & Heath (2009) assumed (based on observations from 

jatropha plantations in India) that fertilizer application usually happens twice a year, once at the 

beginning and once at the end of the rainy season. Pandey et al. (2011) found that fertilizer was 

initially used every 6 months and once per year after the jatropha produced fruits based on 

observations in India. The Pandey study also used 0.04 pounds of DiAmmonium Phosphate 

(DAP) mixed with 0.45 pounds of cattle dung per plant. In Brazil, lime was also applied to the 

land in addition to NPK (Bailis & Baka 2010). 

In economic studies, fertilizer was found to account for 23%-31% of input costs 

(Axelsson & Franzen, 2010). In Tanzania, Wahl et al. (2009) found fertilizer to cost an average 

of 0.19 USD per acre per year when inorganic fertilizer was used and 0.15 USD per acre per year 

when organic fertilizer was used.
2-9

Table 2-3. NPK Fertilizer Application

Pounds of Fertilizer Used

Study Location

Observed or 

Assumed

Marginal or 

Productive N P K

N:P:K 

(15:15:15) Other Unit Notes

Achten et al.

(2008)

West Africa Observed Both 12.8-30.6 12.8-

28.2

For a yield of 1 ton 

per acre

Reinhardt et al.

(2008)

India Observed Marginal 42.8 17 47.3 per acre per year

Prueksakorn & 

Gheenwala 

(2008)

Thailand Observed Productive 688.9 per year

Almeida (2009) Global Both Both 66.9 20.5 44.6 per acre per year

Whitaker & 

Heath (2009)

India Assumed Productive 74.9 30.3 83.9 per acre per year

Bailis & Baka 

(2010)

Brazil Observed Productive 74.9 30.3 83.9 0.8 t/acre of 

lime

per acre per year

Stratton, Wong, 

& Hileman 

(2010)

Global Assumed Productive 0.034 0.013 0.037 per pound of seed

Pandey et al.

(2011)

India Observed Productive 50 million 

pounds of 

Urea for total 

nursery stage)

DAP: 0.04 

lbs. cow

dung: 0.45 

lbs.

per plant after 

nursery stage

Hou et al. (2011) China Observed Productive 42.8 11.9 7.9

Almeida et al.

(2011)

Global Assumed Both 1.46 0.73 1.46 per 1 gallon of 

Biodiesel Produced
2-10

2.6 Inputs: Irrigation

Water usage for jatropha has been higher than previously expected. While jatropha can 

withstand droughts and potentially even produce better yields when drought occurs during its 

lifetime, irrigation may be necessary to achieve yields high enough for profitable biofuel 

production. Table 2-4 displays the water requirements found throughout the literature. In an 

economic study of jatropha plantations, irrigation accounted for 66%-79% of all inputs for 

cultivation (Axelsson & Franzen, 2010). Wahl et al. (2009) found the average annual cost for 

irrigating jatropha on fertile land in Tanzania was 6.07 USD per acre per year. 

The rate of irrigation varied among jatropha studies, but generally the literature shows 

that irrigation can have a large impact on yield. Achten et al. (2008) found that while yield varies 

significantly even in high precipitation or irrigation growing conditions, for plantations that 

receive less than 39 inches (100.0 cm) of water annually seed yield does not exceed 2.2 t/ha/yr. 

Several studies assumed that irrigation was only required for the first three years, including 

Whitaker & Heath (2009) and Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010). Ndong et al. (2009) found in 

West Africa irrigation was required at the beginning nursery stages at 0.05 gallons (0.2 liters) per 

plant per day, with 494.7 plants per acre (1,222 plants per hectare) in the nursery stage, this 

amounts to 24.7 gallons per acre per day, or 9,028.9 gallons per acre per year if irrigation is 

conducted on a daily basis year-round. Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2006) found for jatropha 

plantations in Thailand on productive fertile land that 123,157 gallons of water was required per 

acre per year. On marginal land in India, Achten (2010) observed that irrigation was practiced 

only when the monsoon was late that year. When irrigation did occur it was about 1,604 gallons 

per acre per year. On more productive land in India, irrigation was done 16 times for the initial 

two years and just twice a year for all following years. This equated to 4,009 gallons per acre

where there were 1,012 jatropha plants per acre (2,500 plants per hectare) (Pandey et al. 2011). 

Prueksakorn and Gheewala (2008) found that 98 inches (250 cm) of rainfall per year was 

sufficient for jatropha to not require irrigation. For the NREL study of jatropha biofuel used in 

Indian trains, Whitaker & Heath (2009) assumed that the amount of irrigation required per year 

could be calculated by subtracting the actual average rainfall from the 98 inches (250 cm) 

estimated rainfall requirement. For the area that was being studied in India, the average annual 

rainfall was 54 inches (138.5 cm) per year, so it was estimated that the jatropha plantation would 

need 44 inches (111.5 cm) per year in irrigation. For establishing a geographically independent 

LCA for jatropha, Almeida et al. (2011) assumed that 20, 498 gallons (0.53 m3) of irrigated 

water was required per 1 gallon of biodiesel that was produced. 
2-11

Table 2-4. Irrigation Requirements

Study Location

Observed or 

Assumed

Marginal or 

Productive Irrigation

Prueksakorn & 

Gheenwala (2006)

Thailand Observed Productive 123,157 gallons per acre per year

Whitaker & Heath

(2009)

India Assumed Productive 44 inches per year

Ndong et al. (2009) West Africa Observed Both 24.7 gallons per acre (nursery stage)

Achten (2010) India Observed Marginal 1,604 gallons per acre per year (only when 

monsoon is late)

Pandey et al. (2011) India Observed Productive 4,009 gallons per acre per year (2.64 gallons 

per plant)

Almeida et al. (2011) Global Assumed Both 21,676 gallons per 1 gallon of Biodiesel 

produced

2.7 Production Costs

All of these inputs (irrigation, fertilizer, and agrochemicals) contribute to the overall 

production costs of using jatropha for biodiesel. A few jatropha studies evaluated these 

production costs. When jatropha was grown on productive lands in Tanzania, average annual 

production costs (including opportunity costs) were estimated to be 95 USD per acre in the first 

year and 82 USD per acre per year by maturity at year five (Wahl et al. 2009). Several input 

costs were found to decline once jatropha plants reached maturity because inputs for irrigation, 

fertilizer, and weeding were reduced. A majority of the farmers surveyed in Tanzania considered 

jatropha to be a high-input crop and required active management. These annual production costs 

compare with Rijssenbeek et al. (2007) who found annual production costs in India to be about 

81 USD per acre per year and in China these costs were 162 USD per acre per year. 

Another study of Tanzania jatropha found that to produce 1 pound of dry seeds it cost 

0.05 USD in production costs. Harvesting accounted for 80% of the production costs while 

weeding and applying manure accounted for 12% and 4%, respectively (Wiskerke 2008). 

Weyerhaeuser et al. (2007) also analyzed the cost of producing 1 pound of seed in southwestern 

China and found that cost to be between 0.15 and 0.66 USD. 

2.8 Land Competition and Opportunity Costs 

The viability of jatropha yields depends on the land use types that jatropha plantations 

take over. The impact on GHG emissions also depends largely on the previous land use type. In 

2008, GEXSI’s global review of jatropha found that only 1.2% of areas planted with jatropha 
2-12

had replaced food production. As marginal lands have been found to provide low yields in many 

cases, anecdotal information suggests that jatropha production has been moving towards more 

fertile lands such as shrubland and agricultural land. However, our literature review did not find 

studies that specifically discussed significant replacement of other agricultural crops. Many 

studies observed jatropha plantations occurring on marginal land or land that was not previously 

used for agriculture. 

In Bailis and Baka (2010), out of the 11 jatropha growers studied only 3 of the farmers 

had previously used the land for food production. The land displaced was 297 acres and the 

displaced crops were manioc, maize, beans, and bananas. In West Africa, jatropha replaced old 

cotton fields because the price of cotton had dropped and jatropha cultivation became more 

attractive (Ndong et al. 2009). Skutcsh et al. (2011) found that in Mexico jatropha was replacing 

acahaul forest land which could impact whether or not jatropha biofuels would decrease GHG 

emissions. Therefore, the literature does show some jatropha production on existing agricultural 

lands, but the extent to which this would be expected to occur remains uncertain and would 

require further research. Many of the LCAs that have been developed to date focused on land 

that was not previously used for agricultural production. 

2.9 Seed Crushing, Oil Extraction, Pre-Treatment, and Processing

The first step in creating biodiesel from jatropha involves extracting the oil from dried 

jatropha seeds. There are three ways to perform oil extraction: manual ram pressing, mechanical 

screw pressing, and solvent extraction using hexane. Table 2-5 demonstrates the extraction 

efficiencies of these three methods. Manual pressing of seeds can be done by farmers and on a 

local scale while mechanical pressing and solvent extraction require a centralized processing 

center. Figure 2-5 also demonstrates the hexane requirements for solvent extraction. While 

manual pressing has a lower extracting efficiency it can greatly reduce the transportation 

requirements for biodiesel processing. The literature shows that centralized processing requires 

more energy and thus higher GHG emissions compared to decentralized processing (Almeida et 

al. 2009). 

Table 2-5. Methods of Oil Extraction

Extraction Method Extraction Efficiency (%)

Manual Ram Press 60-65

Mechanical Screw Press 75-80

Solvent Extraction (using hexane) 95-99

Sources: Achten (2010a), Axelsson & Franzén (2010), and Bailis & Baka (2010)
2-13

These three processes create crude jatropha oil. The literature shows that often farmers or 

early processors will perform some type of pre-treatment before the crude oil is converted into a 

biodiesel. A popular form of pre-treatment is degumming which involves heating the oil and 

adding phosphoric acid and water. This depletes the phosphorus content. Then the oil is heated 

once more and treated with sodium hydroxide which neutralizes the free fatty acids in the oil 

(Almeida et al. 2009). Another pre-treatment option was used in Brazil, where jatropha oil was 

pre-treated with NaOH which lowers the oil’s free fatty acids. Crude jatropha oil was found to 

require 26.5 pounds per ton of NaOH (Bailis & Baka 2010). 

Crude jatropha oil can be used in diesel engines but it is thick and tough on diesel engines 

and may require engine modification. In order to make jatropha oil into a more readily usable 

biodiesel, a process called transesterification is used. Transesterification is a process in which a 

catalyst is used to reduce the viscosity of the oil and make it more compatible for use in diesel 

engines. In essence the transesterification process takes a straight vegetable oil and converts it 

into a biodiesel. Jatropha biodiesel created through the transesterification process is referred to as 

jatropha oil methyl ester or JME. Table 2-6 shows the observed biodiesel yields from jatropha oil 

through the transesterification process. 

Table 2-6. Biodiesel Yields From Crude Jatropha Oil Through Transesterification

Study Conversion Efficiency (%)

Whitaker & Heath (2009) 95

Achten (2010) 97

Pandey et al. (2011) 95

Another type of oil processing used for jatropha oil, especially when using jatropha for 

use in commercial jets, is called hydrotreating. According to Stratton, Wong & Hileman (2010), 

hydrotreating is used to, “deoxygenate the oil with subsequent hydrocracking to create 

hydrocarbons that fill the distillation range of jet fuel.” Hydrotreated jatropha oil is referred to as 

HVO, or hydrotreated vegetable oil. In a study comparing the GHG emissions of HVO versus 

JME, Rettenmaier et al. (2008) found that JME had slightly better reductions in GHG emissions, 

but overall their results were comparable. HVO requires processing of crude jatropha oil at a 

centralized processing location which may not be as accessible to some jatropha farmers and 

biodiesel producers. SPK, a type of hydrotreated jet fuel, was found to have a yield of 0.48 

pounds per 1 pound of jatropha oil (Bailis & Baka 2010). Figure 2-5 shows the required inputs 
2-14

used for oil extraction while Figure 2-6 demonstrates the required inputs for biodiesel production 

from transesterification from a LCA of Indian jatropha processing. 

Figure 2-5. Inputs for Extracting Crude Jatropha Oil From Dry Seeds

Source: Whitaker & Heath (2009)

Figure 2-6. Inputs for Biodiesel Production

Source: Kumar et al. (2012)

Note: Tons listed in this figure are metric tons. KPTA stands for kilotonnes per annum. 

2.10 Co-Products

Jatropha can produce many different byproducts. However, due to the toxicity of jatropha 

many of its by-products must be used carefully. By-products of other biofuel feedstock crops 

such as soybean are used for animal feeding. Meal created from jatropha byproducts has a high 
2-15

protein content that makes it attractive as an animal feed (Devappa et al. 2010). However, this 

meal contains phorbal esters that have been shown to cause death and adverse health effects in 

some animals (Wang et al. 2011). These toxins cannot be removed by heat, but their 

concentration can be reduced using methanol sodium hydroxide, microbial fermentation, or an 

organic solvent treatment. In the Wang et al. (2011) study, the soybean meal used in feeding pigs 

was replaced with detoxified jatropha meal and no significant difference in health effects or 

nutritive value was found when compared with the soybean meal. Devappa et al. (2010) also 

found no adverse health effects in pigs, in addition to fish and turkeys. These studies demonstrate 

the potential to use byproducts of jatropha for animal feed, but it will require the process of 

detoxification which may be a more difficult process in the developing world where the majority 

of jatropha is harvested. 

The literature suggests that the most important and useable byproducts of jatropha 

plantations are seedcake, fruit husks, and the biomass of the trees. Seedcake is formed by the 

remains of seeds after they have been pressed for oil. Almeida et al. (2009) found that for each 

ton of oil extracted from dry seeds, 2.639 tons of seedcake was produced. Seedcake has high 

nutrient properties and in many studies it was able to replace the use of fertilizers when applied 

to the land. Devappa et al. (2010) found that the toxic phorbol esters of the jatropha seed cake 

degrade in soil in a maximum of nine days making it a viable fertilizing option. This process can 

help reduce GHG emissions that come from fertilizer application. In the Prueksakorn and 

Gheewala (2008) study 1 pound of jatropha seedcake was assumed to equal 0.15 pound of NPK 

fertilizer. Seedcake is also shown to have an N:P:K proportion of 40:20:10 (Whitaker & Heath

2009). Figure 2-7 shows the fertilizing properties of jatropha byproducts. Seedcake, along with 

husks, can be packaged into pellets of briquettes and burned directly for energy (Bailis & Baka 

2010). A few studies reviewed even used seedcake for biogas production. Almeida (2009)

assumed that 1 pound of seedcake could produce 4.73 gallons of biogas. 
2-16

Figure 2-7. Nutrient Contents of Jatropha Seedcake and Husk

Source: Bailis & Baka (2010)

Many of the LCAs also found value in the biomass from pruning the trees throughout 

cultivation and using the wood from the tree after the end of its productive lifetime for oil 

production (often assumed to be 20-30 years). NREL (Whitaker & Heath 2009) indicated that 

based on personal communication with the Indian Oil Corporation, they used biomass yields of 

5.5 pounds per tree in the first year, 9.9 pounds per tree in the second year and an average of 18.7 

pounds of biomass per mature tree. In a life cycle analysis of jatropha in China, Hou et al. (2011)

assumed a biomass yield of 5,000 tons per hectare of jatropha. Most of the LCAs reviewed 

included biomass and assumed it was burned for electricity use. Figure 2-8 demonstrates the 

creation and uses of jatropha byproducts. 
2-17

Figure 2-8. The Byproducts of Jatropha Oil Extraction and Their Uses

Source: Stratton, Wong & Hileman (2010)
3-1

SECTION 3

NET EFFECTS ON GHG EMISSIONS 

This section focuses primarily on the results presented in studies that specifically 

addressed GHG emissions from jatropha production, including both those that provided 

information on specific components of net emissions as well as those that present an LCA. 

3.1 Carbon Storage

While wild jatropha can have a lifetime of 30 to 50 years (Achten 2010c), most analysis 

of jatropha plantations have assumed a lifetime of 20 years (Almeida 2009). The relatively long 

productive life of the perennial jatropha crop can help store more carbon in the soil relative to an 

annual crop as well as sequestering carbon in the plant biomass. This has led many to believe 

that jatropha cultivation may be able to earn carbon credits under the Clean Development 

Mechanism (CDM) or other international or bilateral agreements.

Reinhardt et al. (2007) found that in the first 3.5 years of jatropha cultivation on marginal 

lands in India, soils accumulated about 0.4 tC per acre per year. Other studies have used much 

higher figures; for example, Srivastrava et al. (2011) observed carbon stored in the soil at a rate 

of 2.2 tC/acre/yr. Axelsson & Franzen (2010) estimated the range of annual carbon sequestration 

based on plantations in Egypt and India to be from 0.06 tC/acre/yr to 2.25 tC/acre/yr. The 

biomass of jatropha plantations can store carbon as well. In Mexico jatropha plantations were 

estimated to have a biomass carbon stock of 1.6 tons of CO2e per acre (moderate assumption) or 

4.04 tons of CO2e per acre (optimal assumption) by the tenth year assuming no pruning had taken 

place (Skutsch et al. 2011).

Whether or not these carbon effects attribute to a net reduction in GHG emissions 

depends largely on the previous land use. Achten (2010) found that average stock of carbon 

stored in jatropha per hectare was almost identical to the carbon stored in the grasslands that had 

previously covered the study area. Essentially, the carbon gains of jatropha canceled out the 

carbon losses of removing the grasslands in order to begin cultivation.

3.2 Energy Use

To determine the full LCA GHG emissions, the energy required to produce biodiesel 

from jatropha must be measured. When looking at the total energy consumption of using 

jatropha for biodiesel, transesterification accounted for 61% of all energy consumption, while 

cultivation only accounted for 12% in a study of jatropha in West Africa (Ndong et al. 2009). 

Prueksaskorn & Gheenwala (2006) studied a jatropha plantation in Thailand and found energy 
3-2

use to be 0.03 MWh per gal of biodiesel produced. 40% of total energy was consumed during 

transesterification, 23% was used for irrigation, and fertilizer accounted for 22% of total energy 

use. Transesterification requires more energy consumption due to its use of methanol. 

A study of the first five years of a jatropha plantation in India was found to require 26 

MWh (Pandey et al. 2011). The top three energy requirements for this plantation were seed 

processing, fertilizer application, and oil processing. Lele (2008) found that it required 12,000 

MWh per year to operate a 123,553 acre jatropha plantation, or 0.1 MWh per acre. Kumar et al.

(2012) found that 6.07 MWh were required to produce one ton of biodiesel under the irrigated 

scenario while 7.7 MWh were required under the rain fed scenario. For a geographically 

independent LCA, Almeida et al. (2011) assumed that 0.003 MWh of electricity were required to 

produce 1 gallon of biodiesel. This study also found that the energy required to produce biodiesel 

from jatropha used 88% less non-renewable energy than a diesel fuel reference case. Figure 3-1

shows the exact energy requirements to convert jatropha into biodiesel jet fuel based on Stratton, 

Wong, & Hileman (2010).
3-3

Figure 3-1. Energy Requirements for Jatropha Jet Fuel (SPK). 

Source: Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010)
3-4

3.3 Net Energy Ratio

Another way to examine jatropha’s potential benefits as a biofuel feedstock is to look at 

its net energy ratio (NER). The NER looks at the ratio of how much energy is required to 

produce the fuel versus the amount of energy the fuel can produce. A NER of greater than one 

indicates that the fuel produces more energy than is required to make the fuel. Values reported in 

the literature for jatropha NER are typically greater than one. Biodiesel from jatropha was shown 

to have a higher NER than regular diesel fuel, but had a lower NER than other biofuels such as 

palm oil (Achten 2010). Several studies demonstrated that when co-products such as biomass 

and seedcake were utilized for energy the NER could be as high as 6.03 (Prueksakorn & 

Gheenwala 2008). Ndong et al. (2009) also calculated a high NER of 4.7 if jatropha byproducts 

were included. Most of these studies looked at the capability of jatropha over twenty years while 

the Pandey et al. (2011) study focused on just the first five years. Table 3-1shows values for 

jatropha biodiesel NER found in the literature, not accounting for coproducts. 

Table 3-1. Net Energy Ratio (NER) of Jatropha

Study NER Without Byproducts

Prueksakorn & Gheenwala (2008) 1.42

Reinhardt et al. (2008) 1.80

Almeida (2009) 1.42

Whitaker & Heath (2009) 1.90

Achten (2010) 1.35

Pandey et al. (2011) 1.77

Kumar et al. (2012) – rain fed scenario 1.40

Kumar et al. (2012) – irrigated scenario 1.70

3.4 Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA)

While every LCA makes varying assumptions to come to its conclusions about the total 

impact of jatropha biodiesel on the environment, the most important difference between the 

current LCAs in the literature is typically in their accounting for land use change (direct and/or 

indirect). The LCAs that do not include land use change can provide some insight into the GHG 

emissions of using jatropha for biodiesel rather than standard diesel fuel. However, studies show 

that when land use is taken into account, the full impact of jatropha on net GHG emissions is 

more complicated. As shown in Table 3-2, the LCAs that did not account for land use all found 

jatropha biodiesel to result in a net reduction in GHG emissions ranging from 40 to 80 percent 

relative to conventional diesel. 
3-5

Table 3-2. Change in GHG Emissions Reported in Studies that Do Not Include 

Significant Indirect Emissions Such as Emissions from Land Use Changes

Study

Percent Change in Emissions Compared with 

Conventional Diesel Fuel

Prueksakorn & Gheenwala (2006) -77

Ndong et al. (2009) -72

Whitaker & Heath (2009) -62

Stratton, Wong, & Hileman (2010) -45

Achten (2010) -55

Hou et al. (2011) -80

Almeida et al. (2011) -51

Kumar et al. (2012) – rain fed scenario -40

Kumar et al. (2012) – irrigated scenario -54

A range of CO2 equivalent emissions per 1 gallon of biodiesel produced were found in 

the literature: 3,441 g CO2e in the Ndong et al. (2009) study of jatropha in West Africa and 5,789 

g CO2e when using jatropha for jet fuel (Stratton, Wong, & Hileman 2010). Kumar et al. (2012)

found that production of one ton of biodiesel under the irrigated scenario resulted in 1,334 kg of 

CO2 emissions while the rain fed scenario resulted in emissions of 1,768 kg of CO2 per ton of 

biodiesel produced. While GHG emissions from jatropha are sensitive to yields, Almeida et al.

(2011) found that when yield was varied, GHG emissions were still better under jatropha than 

conventional diesel as long as seed yields were better than 1 t/ha/yr, which even jatropha grown 

on marginal lands has been known to produce. 

The majority of GHG emissions from producing jatropha are from nitrous oxide (N20) 

emissions. The primary source of N20 from agricultural production, including jatropha 

production, is fertilizer application. Many of the LCAs cited emissions from the use of fertilizer 

as the highest contributor to jatropha GHG emissions. Our review of the literature also found that 

jatropha’s impact on GHG emissions can be reduced by using the biodiesel locally (thus 

reducing transportation), using seedcake for fertilizer, and using other byproducts for biogas. 

Other factors besides GHG emissions should be taken into account to determine the full 

environmental impact. LCA studies such as Achten (2010) and Hou et al. (2011) found that 

jatropha causes acidification and eutrophication to increase in the soil. Achten (2010) found this 

impact to be 430% higher than the reference diesel fuel system. Hou et al. (2011) even suggests 
3-6

that these additional environmental impacts may negate the GHG emissions reductions from 

jatropha. 

3.5 Land use impacts

Three studies were found to account for land use change: Bailis & Baka 2010, Achten & 

Verchot 2011, and Skutsch et al. 2011. Bailis & Baka (2010) studied jatropha used to make 

biodiesel jet fuel compared to commercial jet fuel (CJF) in Brazil. When no land use change was 

included in the analysis, jatropha oil emissions result in 40 kg CO2e per GJ of fuel produced, 

which is 55% lower than CJF (12.9 kg CO2 per gallon of biodiesel produced). When direct land 

use change is considered, the type of land being replaced by jatropha has a large impact on the 

GHG emissions of jet fuel made from jatropha. The study found that converting annual crop land 

to jatropha can have a net increase in carbon stocks and can have life-cycle GHG emissions 83% 

less than CJF. However, converting areas like shrublands can make the jet fuel made from 

jatropha have 60% more GHG emissions (approximately 20.5 kg C02 per gallon of biodiesel 

produced). Figure 3-2 displays the results from the Bailis & Baka (2010) study. 

Figure 3-2. Direct Land Use Impacts on GHG Emissions from Jatropha

Source: Bailis & Baka, 2010

Achten & Verchot (2011) evaluated five jatropha plantations: one in Ghana, one in 

Zambia, and three in Mexico. This study looked at direct and indirect land use change, jatropha 

had replaced everything from cropland to natural forests. The first estimated the carbon debts 
3-7

from clearing land for jatropha production. These carbon debts ranged from 16 to 197 Mg of 

CO2 per acre, while the average was 102 Mg of CO2. These carbon debts were much lower when 

compared to oil palm production, but were higher than soybean on average. The study found the 

CO2 reduction rate to earn back the carbon was dependent upon yield. Figure 3-3 displays the 

formula used to estimate CO2 reduction rate of jatropha. 

Figure 3-3. CO2 Reduction Rate by Yield

Based on this formula, the study found that only one of the case studies would achieve a 

net CO2 reduction by the end of the first jatropha rotation (20 years). It was estimated when 

accounting for direct and indirect land use that three of the case studies may take up to 3 human 

generations to pay back the carbon debt. Average repayment times for jatropha were between 76-

310 years. 
3-8

Skutsch et al. (2011) also looked at the payback period for jatropha plantations that were 

replacing native growing acahaul forest (direct land use change). Under the estimation that 

jatropha gained back 2.83 tons of CO2 per acre per year and depending upon the density of the 

former forest, the payback period can range from 7.8 up to 52.5 years. The study found that 

acahaul trees that were older than 25 years old took significantly longer to pack back and if 

jatropha yield were low, then the carbon balance was estimated to potentially never pay off the 

carbon debt. 

These studies suggest that jatropha’s sustainability is very dependent upon what type of 

land is chosen for its growth and what types of inputs are used. Achten et al. (2010b) makes the 

point that jatropha, after further study, may not be the global savior for the developing world 

many expected it to be, but it could make sense in certain situations on a more locally focused 

level. 
4-1

SECTION 4

REFERENCES

Achten, Wouter. 2010. "Sustainability Evaluation of Biodiesel from Jatropha curcas L.: A Life 

Cycle Oriented Study." PhD Dissertation. 

Achten, Wouter M.J., Joana Almeida, Vincent Fobelets, Evelien Bolle, Erik Mathijs, Virendra P. 

Singh, Dina N. Tewari, Louis V. Verchot, and Bart Muys. 2010a. “Life Cycle 

Assessment of Jatropha Biodiesel as Transportation Fuel in Rural India.” Applied Energy 

87 (12) (December): 3652–3660. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.07.003.

Achten, W.M.J., W.H. Maes, R. Aerts, L. Verchot, A. Trabucco, E. Mathijs, V.P. Singh, and B. 

Muys. 2010b. “Jatropha: From Global Hype to Local Opportunity.” Journal of Arid 

Environments 74 (1) (January): 164–165. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2009.08.010.

Achten, Wouter M.J., Lene R. Nielsen, Raf Aerts, Ard G Lengkeek, Erik D. Kjaer, Antonio 

Trabucco, Jon K. Hansen, Wouter H. Maes, Lars Graudal, Festus K. Akinnifesi, and Bart 

Muys. 2010c. "Towards Domestication of Jatropha Curcas." Biofuels. 1(1): 91-107. 

doi:10.4155/bfs.09.4.

Achten, Wouter M. J., and Louis V. Verchot. 2011. “Implications of Biodiesel-Induced LandUse Changes for CO2 Emissions: Case Studies in Tropical America, Africa, and 

Southeast Asia.” Ecology and Society 16 (4). doi:10.5751/ES-04403-160414.

Achten, W.M.J., L. Verchot, Y.J. Franken, E. Mathijs, V.P. Singh, R. Aerts, and B. Muys. 2008. 

"Jatropha Bio-diesel Production and Use." Biomass and Bioenergy. 32(12): 1063-1084. 

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2008.03.003.

Almeida, J. 2009. “Generic Life Cycle Assessment of the Jatropha Biodiesel System.” PhD 

Dissertation. 

Almeida, J. W.M.J. Achten, M.P. Duarte, B. Mendes, and B. Muys. 2011. "Benchmarking the 

Environmental Performance of the Jatropha Biodiesel System through a Generic Life 

Cycle Assessment." Environ. Sci. Technol. 45(12): 5447-5453. doi:10.1021/es200257m.

Axelsson, L. and M. Franzén. 2010. “Performance of Jatropha Biodiesel Production and Its 

Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts.” Master’s Thesis. Chalmers University of 

Technology: Göteborg, Sweden.

Bailis, Robert E. and Jennifer E. Baka. 2010. "Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Land Use Change 

from Jatropha Curcas-Based Jet Fuel in Brazil." Environ. Sci. Technol. 44(22): 8684-

8691. doi:10.1021/es1019178.

Brittaine, R., Lutaladio, N. Jatropha: A smallholder bioenergy crop—The potential for pro-poor 

development. Integrated Crop Management; FAO: Rome, 2010; Vol. 8.
4-2

Ceasar, S.A., and S. Ignacimuthu. 2011. “Applications of Biotechnology and Biochemical 

Engineering for the Improvement of Jatropha and Biodiesel: A Review.” Renewable and 

Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (9) (December): 5176–5185. 

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.039.

Devappa, Rakshit K, Harinder P S Makkar, and Klaus Becker. 2010. “Jatropha Toxicity--a 

Review.” Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health. Part B, Critical Reviews 13 

(6) (August): 476–507. doi:10.1080/10937404.2010.499736.

The Global Exchange for Social Investment (GEXSI). 2008. Global Market Study on Jatropha. 

Final Report. http://www.jatropha-alliance.org/fileadmin/documents/GEXSI_GlobalJatropha-Study_FULL-REPORT.pdf 

Holl, M.A., M.B. Gush, J. Hallowes, and D.B. Versfeld. 2007. "Jatropha curcas in South Africa: 

An Assessment of it Water Use and Bio-Physical Potential." Report to the Water 

Research Commission on the project “Investigation into the Impacts of Large-Scale 

Planting of Jatropha curcas on Water Resources, through Process-Based Research and 

Modelling”. WRC Report No 1497/1/07.

Hou, Jian, Peidong Zhang, Xianzheng Yuan, and Yonghong Zheng. 2011. “Life Cycle 

Assessment of Biodiesel from Soybean, Jatropha and Microalgae in China Conditions.” 

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15 (9) (December): 5081–5091. 

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.048.

Jongschaap REE, Corré WJ, Bindraban PS, Brandenburg WA. 2007. Claims and Facts on 

Jatropha curcas L. Global Jatropha curcas evaluation, breeding and propagation 

programme. Wageningen U.R. Report 158. Plant Research International B.V. (Available 

from http://www.fact-fuels.org/media_en/Claims_and_Facts_on_Jatropha_-WUR) 

(Accessed on 10 August 2008)

Jongschaap, R. E. E., R. a. R. Blesgraaf, T. A. Bogaard, E. N. van Loo, and H. H. G. Savenije. 

2009. “The Water Footprint of Bioenergy from Jatropha Curcas L.” Proceedings of the 

National Academy of Sciences 106 (35) (September 1): E92–E92. 

doi:10.1073/pnas.0907272106.

Kalam, M.A., J.U. Ahamed, and H.H. Masjuki. 2012. “Land Availability of Jatropha Production 

in Malaysia.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16 (6) (August): 3999–4007. 

doi:10.1016/j.rser.2012.03.025.Kant, Promode and Shuirong Wu. 2011. "The 

Extraordinary Collapse of Jatropha as a Global Biofuel." Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (17): 

7114-7115. doi: 10.1021/es201943v.

Kumar, Sunil, Jasvinder Singh, S. M. Nanoti, and M. O. Garg. 2012. “A Comprehensive Life 

Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Jatropha Biodiesel Production in India.” Bioresource

Technology 110 (April): 723–729. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2012.01.142.

Lele, S. (2008c). “Project Report for Jatropha Plantation.” March 2008. Excel workbook. 

Available online at http://www.svlele.com.
4-3

Maes, W.H., A. Trabucco, W.M.J. Achten, and B. Muys. 2009. "Climatic Growing Conditions of 

Jatropha curcas L." Biomass and Bioenergy. 33(10): 1481-1485. 

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2009.06.001.

Ndong, Robert, Mireille Montrejaud-Vignoles, Olivier Saint Girons, Benoit Gabrielles, Roland 

Pirot, Marjorie Dombergue, and Caroline Sablayrolles. 2009. "Life Cycle Assessment of 

Biofuels from Jatropha curcas in West Africa: A Field Study." GCB Bioenergy. 1(3): 

197-210.

Pandey, Krishan K., Namita Pragya, and P.K. Sahoo. 2011. “Life Cycle Assessment of Smallscale High-input Jatropha Biodiesel Production in India.” Applied Energy 88 (12) 

(December): 4831–4839. doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.06.026.

Prueksakorn, Kritana and Shabbir H. Gheewala. "Energy and Greenhouse Gas Implications of 

Biodiesel Production from Jatropha curcas L." The 2nd Joint International Conference on 

"Sustainable Energy and Environment (SEE 2006)" November 21-23, 2006: Bangkok, 

Thailand.

Prueksakorn, Kritana and Shabbir H. Gheenwala. 2008. "Full Chain Energy Analysis of 

Biodiesel from Jatropha curcas L. in Thailand." Environ. Sci. Technol. 42(9): 3388-3393. 

doi:10.1021/es7022237

Reinhardt, Guido, Sven Gartner, Nils Rettenmaier, Julia Munch, and Eva von Falkenstein. 2007. 

"Screening Life Cycle Assessment of Jatropha Biodiesel." IFEU - Institute for Energy 

and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH: Heidelberg, Germany.

Reinhardt, Guido., Kalus Becker, D.R. Chaudhary, J. Chikara, Eva von Falkenstein, George 

Francis, Sven O. Gartner, et.al. 2008. "Basic Data for Jatropha Production and Use." 

Institute for Energy and Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH: Heidelberg, 

Germany.

Rettenmaier, Nils, Susanne Koppen, Sven Gartner, and Guido Reinhardt. 2008. "Screening Life 

Cycle Assessment of Hydrotreated Jatrohpa Oil." IFEU - Institute for Energy and 

Environmental Research Heidelberg GmbH: Heidelberg, Germany.

Rijssenbeek W. 2007. Report: Expert Meeting Jatropha, Brussels 07/12/07. Brussels: European 

Commission Research Directorate-General Directorate E – Biotechnologies, Agriculture, 

Food 

Skutsch, Margaret, Emilio de los Rios, Silvia Solis, Enrique Riegelhaupt, Daniel Hinojosa, 

Sonya Gerfert, Yan Gao, and Omar Masera. 2011. "Jatropha in Mexico: Environmental 

and Social Impacts of an Incipient Biofuel Program." Ecology and Society. 16(4): 11.

doi:10.5751/ES-04448-160411. 
4-4

Srivastava, Pankaj, Soumit K. Behera, Jyoti Gupta, Sarah Jamil, Nandita Singh, and Yogesh 

Kumar Sharma. 2011. “Growth Performance, Variability in Yield Traits and Oil Content 

of Selected Accessions of Jatropha Curcas L. Growing in a Large Scale Plantation Site.” 

Biomass and Bioenergy 35 (9) (October): 3936–3942. 

doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.06.008.

Stratton, Russell W., Hsin Min Wong, and James I. Hileman. 2010. "Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions from Alternative Jet Fuels." Partnership for AiR Transportation Noise and 

Emission Reduction Project 28. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA.

Trabucco, Antonio, Wouter M. J. Achten, Colm Bowe, Raf Aerts, Jos Van Orshoven, Lindsey 

Norgrove, and Bart Muys. 2010. “Global Mapping of Jatropha Curcas Yield Based on 

Response of Fitness to Present and Future Climate.” GCB Bioenergy 2 (3): 139–151. 

doi:10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01049.x.

Wahl, N., Jamnadass, R., Baur, H., et al. Economic Viability of Jatropha curcas L. Plantations in 

Northern Tanzania assessing Farmers Prospects via Cost-Benefit Analysis, ICRAF 

Working Paper no. 97; World Agroforestry Centre: Nairobi, 2009.

Wang, Haifeng, Yi Chen, Yi’nuo Zhao, Hongyun Liu, Jianxin Liu, Harinder P.S. Makkar, and 

Klaus Becker. 2011. “Effects of Replacing Soybean Meal by Detoxified Jatropha Curcas 

Kernel Meal in the Diet of Growing Pigs on Their Growth, Serum Biochemical 

Parameters and Visceral Organs.” Animal Feed Science and Technology 170 (1-2) 

(November): 141–146. doi:10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2011.08.004.

Weyerhaeuser H, Tennigkeit T, Yufang S and Kahrl F. 2007. Biofuels in China: An Analysis of 

the Opportunities and Challenges of Jatropha Curcas in Southwest China. ICRAF 

Working Paper Number 53:27 p.

Whitaker, Michael and Garvin Heath. 2009. "Life Cycle Assessment of the Use of Jatropha 

Biodiesel in Indian Locomotives." National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) 

Technical Report. NREL/TP-6A2-44428.

Wiskerke W. 2008. Towards a sustainable biomass energy supply for rural households in semiarid Shinyanga, Tanzania. Utrecht University: Department of Science, Technology and 

Society.