LCI Data for the Calculation Tool Feedprint for Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Feed Production and Utilization

LCI data for the calculation tool Feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization

Crushing Industry

W.J. van Zeist1 M. Marinussen1 1 R. Broekema E. Groen1 A. Kool 1 M. Dolman2 H. Blonk1 Subtitle 1 Blonk Consultants 2 Wageningen University and Research Centre

November, 2012

Blonk Consultants Gravin Beatrixstraat 34 2805 PJ Gouda the Netherlands Telephone: 0031 (0)182 579970 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.blonkconsultants.nl

Blonk Consultants helps companies, governments and civil society organisations put sustainability into practice. Our team of dedicated consultants works closely with our clients to deliver clear and practical advice based on sound, independent research. To ensure optimal outcomes we take an integrated approach that encompasses the whole production chain.

LCI data for the calculation tool Feedprint for greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization

Crushing Industry

W.J. van Zeist1 M. Marinussen1 R. Broekema1 E. Groen1 A. Kool1 M. Dolman2 H. Blonk1

1 Blonk Consultants 2 Wageningen University and Research Centre

November, 2012

Table of contents 1.1 Introduction 1 1.1.1 Context of this document & reading guide 1 1.1.2 Overview of products and allocation principles 1 1.1.3 Structure of data 1 1.1.4 Glossary of terms 2 1.1.5 References 2 1.2 Coconuts 3 1.2.1 By-products from processing coconut 3 1.2.2 Sourcing 3 1.2.3 Flowchart 3 1.2.4 Mass balances 4 1.2.5 Inputs 5 1.2.6 Allocation 5 1.2.7 References 5 1.3 Cotton seed 7 1.3.1 By-products from processing cotton seed 7 1.3.2 Sourcing 7 1.3.3 Flowchart 7 1.3.4 Mass balances 8 1.3.5 Inputs 10 1.3.6 Allocation 10 1.3.7 References 12 1.4 Peanuts 13 1.4.1 By-products from processing peanut 13 1.4.2 Sourcing 13 1.4.3 Flowcharts 13 1.4.1 Mass balances 14 1.4.2 Inputs 15 1.4.3 Allocation 16 1.4.4 References 16 1.5 Linseed 18 1.5.1 By-products from processing linseed 18 1.5.2 Sourcing 18 1.5.3 Flowchart 18

1.5.4 Mass balances 19 1.5.5 Inputs 19 1.5.6 Allocation 20 1.5.7 References 20 1.6 Oil palm 22 1.6.1 By-products from processing oil palm 22 1.6.2 Sourcing 22 1.6.3 Flowchart 22 1.6.4 Mass balances 23 1.6.5 Inputs 26 1.6.6 Allocation 27 1.6.7 References 28 1.7 Rape seeds 30 1.7.1 By-products from processing rape seeds 30 1.7.2 Sourcing 30 1.7.3 Flowchart 30 1.7.4 Mass balances 31 1.7.5 Inputs 32 1.7.6 Allocation 34 1.7.7 References 35 1.8 Safflower seed 36 1.8.1 By-products from processing safflower seed 36 1.8.2 Sourcing 36 1.8.3 Flowchart 36 1.8.4 Mass balances 37 1.8.5 Input 37 1.8.6 Allocation 38 1.8.7 References 38 1.9 Sesame seed 40 1.9.1 By-products from processing sesame seed 40 1.9.2 Sourcing 40 1.9.3 Flowchart 40 1.9.4 Mass balances 41 1.9.5 Input 41 1.9.6 Allocation 42 1.9.7 References 42

1.10 Soybeans 44 1.10.1 By-products from processing soybean 44 1.10.2 Sourcing 44 1.10.3 Flowchart 45 1.10.4 Mass balances 46 1.10.5 Inputs 47 1.10.6 Allocation 49 1.10.7 References 51 1.11 Sunflower seed 53 1.11.1 By-products from processing sunflower seed 53 1.11.2 Sourcing 53 1.11.3 Flowcharts 53 1.11.4 Mass balances 54 1.11.5 Inputs 55 1.11.6 Allocation 56 1.11.7 References 57 1.12 Generic oilseed processing 58 1.12.1 By-products from oilseed 58 1.12.2 Flowchart 58 1.12.3 Mass balance 58 1.12.4 Inputs 59 1.12.5 Allocation 60 1.12.6 References 60

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 Context of this document & reading guide This document is part of the background documentation for the FeedPrint program and database. Background information of this project, underlying methodology and justification thereof, can be found in the ‘FeedPrint methodology’ document. These chapters focus only on the processing step of crops into the feed materials. Information on origin of crops is given, but details on cultivation and transportation (to and from the processing facility) are described in separate documents: the cultivation of each crop is described in the cultivation background reports similar to this one (Marinussen et al, 2012), whereas transportation is described in the Feedprint methodology report (Vellinga et al, 2012).

Each chapter can be read and interpreted as a standalone set of LCI data, which covers the country of crop cultivation, the country of processing, mass balances, energy inputs (and outputs, if applicable), as well as data needed for the allocation of the by-products. In some cases, multiple processes can follow one another with multiple allocation steps. In these cases, the data is entered into the database by following these specific processing steps consecutively. Usually (but not restrictively) the data entered are relative to an input of 1000 kg of crop product.

1.1.2 Overview of products and allocation principles Each chapter in this document describes a crushing processes that produces animal feed. In all of these crushing processes, one or more by-products for animal feed are produced, usually as meal which is the leftover protein-rich part of the oilseed once the oil is removed.

All crushing processes described in this document are treated as a single unit process with multiple valuable output products, where allocation approach 1, as described in the methodology document (see §5.3, Vellinga et al, 2012), in which all products are treated as valuable by-products to which upstream emissions will be allocated according to economic, energy, or mass allocation.

1.1.3 Structure of data This document contains tables that reflect those data applied in the FeedPrint program. Additionally, tables with background data are supplied, which are often inventories of encountered literature. Only the tables that are used as data for the FeedPrint database and calculations are given a table number (see for an example Table 1.1.1). Other tables that are not used in the FeedPrint database are not numbered and have a simpler layout, see the example below.

Table 1.1.1 Example default inputs table for FeedPrint database. Output Values Unit

Best estimate Error (g2) Electricity 88 1.4 MJ/ton Natural gas 245 1.4 MJ/ton

Example of background data not directly used in FeedPrint database Source Data found Remarks Reference 1 80 MJ/ton Older data from 1 processing facility. Reference 2 90 MJ/ton Newer data from multiple facilities.

There are a number of recurring types of tables, usually in the following order: 1) Definition of feed materials related to the process;

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

2) Estimation of countries of origin of the crop and countries of processing; 3) Mass balances for the process; 4) Energy or material inputs needed for the process; 5) Allocation factors for the outputs from the process. Unless explained otherwise in a specific chapter, these five tables are present for each process. Additional sections or figures can give information on, for example, the definition of the process represented with a flowchart. Each section also contains the references for cited sources. The usual structure of a section is that first the default inputs for the FeedPrint database are presented, with the rest of the section explaining in detail which data sources were used and why.

There are a number of different types of error ranges that can be given for each data point, and these are applied for the energy and auxiliary inputs. More background information can be found in the overall methodology document (Vellinga et al. 2012), which also explains the decision process followed to arrive at the error ranges.

1.1.4 Glossary of terms Below is a list of terms with definitions as applied in this document.

Crushing The removal of oil from oil seeds (Cold) Pressing The removal of oil via the application of mechanical pressure. Solvent extraction The removal of oil via the use of an organic solvent, usually hexane. Meal The leftover protein rich part of the oilseed once the oil is removed DMC Dry matter content in g/kg. GE Gross Energy content in MJ/kg.

1.1.5 References CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) European Commission. (2011). COMMISSION REGULATION ( EU ) No 575 / 2011 of 16 June 2011 on the Catalogue of feed materials. Official Journal of the European Union, (L 159), 25–65. Marinussen et al (2012) Background data documents on cultivation. Blonk Consultants. Gouda, the Netherlands Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.2 Coconuts

1.2.1 By-products from processing coconut The first by-product of importance from coconuts is the copra, which can be processed to produce coconut oil and the residue expeller or meal that can be used as feed for livestock. Table 1.2.1 lists the names of coconut feed materials and their composition according to the CVB list (see also the introductory chapter). The list distinguishes between expeller and meal, which are produced via mechanical pressing and oil solvent extraction, respectively. However, because no data on coconut processing has been found that distinguishes the two different processing techniques, in the remainder of the document they are treated as one product.

Table 1.2.1 Feed materials derived from coconut DMC Fat name CVB (g/kg) (g/kg) Coconut expeller CFAT<100 909 84 Coconut expeller CFAT>100 939 121 Coconut copra meal, solvent extracted 898 22

1.2.2 Sourcing The Philippines are worldwide the most important exporters of coconuts and copra oil, followed closely by Indonesia (which actually produces more coconuts, but exports less). Although FOASTAT does not give direct statistics on the production copra expeller or meal, the Philippines will also play a large role as a producer of these by-products and is in fact the large exporter of copra expeller. From the trade date of FAOSTAT it can be derived that copra expeller in the Netherlands is mainly (by 72%, average of 2004- 2008) imported from Indonesia (which is the world’s second largest exporter of copra expeller).

Table 1.2.2 Estimated countries of origin of the feed materials. Processing in: Indonesia Phillipines India percentage 70% 20% 10% Crop-country Indonesia 100% Phillipines 100% India 100%

1.2.3 Flowchart The flowchart for coconut processing is shown in Figure 7.1 The first step is the dehusking of the coconuts, where the outer ‘husk’ of the coconut is removed. This is usually done manually. The husks have a small economic value, as the fibers it contains can be used for various production purposes. To produce the copra (the dried meat of the internal part of the coconut) the coconut is first cut in two halves, where the coconut water is taken away. Then two drying steps are usually performed, during which the meat and shell are separated. The dried meat that results in the production is what is called copra. The copra can subsequently be mechanically pressed (resulting in copra expeller) or the oil can be extracted (resulting in copra meal).

The by-products shells and coconut water can be used in various ways (see Ohler, 1999), such as the burning of shells for drying copra. However, no economic data is directly available on these or alternative uses. Especially in the copra oil production industry, the copra oil and copra expeller/meal are the only

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry products from the processing of husked nuts where price data is generally reported. It is thus presumed here that the only allocation from husked nuts processing is for copra oil and copra expeller/meal.

Coconuts

Dehusking

Husked nuts Coconut husks

Copra production

Copra Shells / coconut water

Oil extraction

Crude copra oil Copra expeller or meal

Figure 1.2.1 Flowchart of coconut processing.

1.2.4 Mass balances The mass balances represented below are assumed to be representative for all countries.

Table 1.2.3 Mass balance of dehusking cocounuts (from 1 tonne of coconuts). Output DMC (kg/kg) Mass (kg) Coconut husk 630 390 Husked nut 630 610 BMA database, information from producer in Sri Lanka. Dry matter contents estimated and based on the mass balance in . Dry matter

The mass balance of copra oil production is taken from Ecoinvent (2007), which is based on relatively old data (1995) from the Philippines. It is, however, the only reliable data available on the processing of husked nuts into copra oil. A split into data for mechanical pressing or solvent extraction is not possible with the data obtained, which is averaged over Philippine production. It is assumed that the old data from the Philippines can be representative for the general south-east asia region.

Table 1.2.4 Mass balance of husked nut processing (from 1 tonne of husked nuts). DMC Outputs: Mass (kg) (g/kg) Coconut water 676 319 Surplus shells 900 191 Evaporation 0 215 Copra 937 (239) (intermediate) Copra meal 920 87 Crude coconut oil 1000 144 Loss 500 44

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Based on Ecoinvent (2007).

1.2.5 Inputs As with the mass balance, the energy requirements of copra oil production is taken from Ecoinvent (2007), which is based on relatively old data (1995) from the Philippines. It is, however, the only reliable data available on the processing of husked nuts into copra oil. A split into data for mechanical pressing or solvent extraction is not possible with the data obtained, which is averaged over Philippine production. The data in Ecoinvent (2007) states that 172 kWh of electricity and 297 MJ of heat from heavy oil for the production of a tonne of crude copra oil. Table 1.2.5 Default energy inputs for husked nut processing in the Philippines (1 tonne of husked nuts).shows the energy input as calculated from the oil production in the mass balance of Table 1.2.4.

Table 1.2.5 Default energy inputs for husked nut processing in the Philippines (1 tonne of husked nuts). Output Values Unit

Applied Error (σg2) Electricity 90 1.25 MJ/ton Diesel oil 43 1.25 MJ/ton Eco-invent (2007)

1.2.6 Allocation The tables below gives data needed for allocation, including the mass balance as reported above. The data gathered is not detailed enough to distinguish the three different products from the CVB list, so they are here represented in the singular category of Copra expeller or meal.

Table 1.2.6 Allocation data for dehusking process By-product name CVB Kg output / DMC (g/kg) Pricea GE (MJ/kg) tonne coconut Coconut husk NA 0.39 630 10% 0 Husked nuts NA 0.61 630 90% 1 a: BMA database, information from producer in Sri Lanka.

Allocation data below are presented on an 'as is' basis. Dry matter contents are taken as an average of the CVB list entries.

Table 1.2.7 Allocation data for oil extraction process, outputs from 1 tonne of husked nuts.* By-product name CVB Mass (kg) DMC (g/kg) Price GE Copra oil NA 144 1000 0.76 $/kg 36.8 Copra expeller Coconut expeller CFAT<100 (32310) 87 920 0.12 $/kg 15.0 or meal Coconut expeller CFAT>100 (32320) 16.2 Coconut copra meal, solvent extracted (32400) 13.4 * As noted in paragraph 7.2.3, only copra oil and meal/expeller are taken into account for the economic allocation. Prices from FOASTAT trade statistics, world average export values of 2004-2008.

1.2.7 References CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) Ecoinvent report nr. 12, 2007. Rainer Zah and Roland Hischier. Life Cycle Inventories of Detergents.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

FAOSTAT 2011. http://faostat.fao.org/. In the FOASTAT database, copra expeller or meal is singularly denoted as ‘Cake of Copra’. Ohler, J.G., 1999. Modern Coconut Management; Palm Cultivation and Products. Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.3 Cotton seed

1.3.1 By-products from processing cotton seed The main products from cotton seeds are oil and meal or expeller, which is used for feed. There are two main ways of processing oilseed: via mechanical cold pressing (which results in oilseed expeller) or oil extraction with an organic solvent (which results in oilseed meal). The dominant method in larger industries for most oilseeds is solvent extraction, as this gives a higher yield of (more valuable) oilseed oil.

Table 1.3.1 Feed materials derived from cotton seed DMC Fat name CVB Process (g/kg) (g/kg) Cottons expeller partially with husk Pressing 941 70 Cottons expeller with husk Pressing 921 61 Cottons expeller without husk Pressing 928 110 Cottonseed extruded partially with husk Extraction 892 31 Cottonseed extruded with husk Extraction 945 38 Cottonseed extruded without husk Extraction 897 32 Cottonseed with husk None 911 192 Cottonseed without husk Dehusking 935 308

1.3.2 Sourcing The main imports into the Netherlands are in the form of husked cotton seeds, according to Faostat data. There is no indication of cotton seed being processed in the Netherlands, so processing is assumed to take place in the country of crop production.

Table 1.3.2 Estimated countries of origin of the feed materials. Processing in: China India Pakistan Brazil the Netherlands percentage 10% 10% 10% 70% 0% Crop-country China 100% India 100% Pakistan 100% Brazil 100%

1.3.3 Flowchart Cotton is not only cultivated for its seed, but for the fibres and linters (basically short fibers) that have various purposes. Prior to the processing of the actually seed, the removal of fibers and linters need to be taken into account. The removal of linters can actually also take place during in the oil mill, but for sake of simplicity, it is taken together with the fibre removal step.

The processing of cotton seed is a fairly straightforward process where the beans are dehusked, and the oil extracted via a solvent extraction process with hexane. The cotton seed husks can be optionally added again to the obtained cotton seed meal, which results in a lower protein content.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Cotton

Delinting Fibers & Linters

Cotton seeds

Dehusking

Solvent extraction Cotton seed husks

Desolventising / Toasting / Drying

Crude Cotton seed oil Cotton seed meal

Figure 1.3.1 Flowchart of cotton seed processing

1.3.4 Mass balances Prior to the actual oil recover step, the cotton has its fibers and linters removed. The mass balance for this process step is shown in the table below.

Table 1.3.3 Default mass balance of cotton seed delinting. Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Cotton 910 1000 Output Cotton seed 910 550 Fibers & Linters 910 380 Losses and other 910 70

The yield of cotton is 38% fibers is 62% seeds (of which 5% are reserved for planting, according to Cotton Counts (http://www.cotton.org/pubs/cottoncounts/fieldtofabric/cottonseed.cfm). Sanchez et al, also note 38% fibers, and a slightly lower amount of seeds (but include losses due to impurities). From the cottenseeds, 7% fibers can be recovered, with the rest being the production of meal, oil, and husks. According to the NSPA ‘In recent years, industry-wide yields of products per ton of seed have averaged about 320 pounds of oil, 910 pounds of meal, 540 pounds of husks, and 167 pounds of linters, with manufacturing loss of 63 pounds per ton.’ and ‘With each 100 pounds of fiber, the cotton plant produces approximately 155 pounds of cottonseed.’ (http://www.cottonseed.com/publications/cottonseedanditsproducts.asp)

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

The numbers in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 are based on these extraction rates (while also taking into account de dehusking), while allowing for a loss of around 1.5% (see Schmidt (2007)). These are based on the oil content of the cotton seed (without husks) in the CVB list of Table 7.1

Dehusking Prior to processing, the husks of the cotton seeds are removed. The husks constitute around 30% of the total unhusked cotton seed weight (http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/agap/frg/afris/Data/541.HTM). This value will be applied in the construction of the mass balance below.

A number of different by-products were listed, according to the presence of husks. Based on protein contents of the products, the entries for ‘partially with husk’ are treated as composed of 50% of the husks mixed in.

Table 1.3.4 Default mass balance of dehusking cotton seeds. Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Cotton seeds 910 1000 Output Cotton seed husks 890 290 Cotton seed (no husks) 930 695 Loss (mostly water) 00 15 *Error margin determined by pedigree matrix, see generic oilseed processing.

Table 1.3.5 Default mass balance of oilseed processing (cold pressing, from 1 tonne cotton seeds). Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Cotton seeds 910 1000 Output Cotton seed husks 890 290 Cotton seed expeller (no husks) 930 550 Cotton seed oil 1000 145 Loss (mostly water) 00 15

Cotton seed expeller (with husks) 910 840

Cotton seed expeller (partially 910 690 with husks) Cotton seed husks 890 145 *Error margin determined by pedigree matrix, see generic oilseed processing.

Table 1.3.6 Default mass balance of oilseed processing (cold solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of cotton seeds). Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Cotton seeds 910 1000 Output Cotton seed husks 890 290 Cotton seed meal (no husks) 920 505 Cotton seed oil 1000 190 Loss (mostly water) 0 15

Cotton seed meal (with husks) 910 795

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Cotton seed meal (partially 910 640 with husks) Cotton seed husks 890 145 *Error margin determined by pedigree matrix, see generic oilseed processing.

1.3.5 Inputs Rapeseed processing is used as a basis of comparison to obtain general oilseed figures on energy requirements for processing of cotton seeds. Thus, values obtained for the CFPAN project for rape seeds are used. These can then be recalculated on the basis of per oil energy requirement. Table 1.3.8 and Table 1.3.9 show the inputs needed for processing 1 tonne of cotton seed, calculated in this manner. See also the subreport on generic processing of oilseeds.

Table 1.3.7 Inputs for delinting of cotton (pressing, for 1 tonne of cotton). Values Unit

Best estimate Error (σg2) Electricity 540 1.4 MJ/ton Estur, G., and Gergely, N. (2010) The Economics of Roller Ginning Implications for African Cotton Sector, Prepared for the World Bank.

Table 1.3.8 Inputs for oilseed processing (pressing, for 1 tonne of unhusked cotton seeds, based on rapeseed). Values Unit

Best estimate Error (σg2) Electricity (pressing) 92.5 1.4 MJ/ton Based on values from Croezen (2005) and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.

Table 1.3.9 Inputs for oilseed processing (solvent extraction, for 1 tonne of crude vegetable oil produced, based on rapeseed). Values Unit Ref

Best estimate Error (σg2) Electricity (extraction) 65 1.4 MJ/ton b Natural gas (extraction) 330 1.4 MJ/ton b Hexane 0.5 1.2 kg/ton c b: Based on values from Croezen (2005), Schmidt (2007), and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.; c: Schmidt (2007)

From a worldbank report on seed cotton processing the following data is found on the delinting step.: Taking into account the processing capacity of each model, a 170-saw has the lowest energy consumption/ton of lint (37 kWh/ton), while a standard DR plant has the highes (75 kWh/ton). According to mass balance, 0.38 kg linters/kg cotton. This is equivelant to 100 to 200 kWh/ton cotton. This is an average of 540 MJ electricity per ton cotton.

1.3.6 Allocation The cottonseed husks are, as far as could be determined, not usually sold as a valuable by-product. There are some sources describing the use of husks in power generation, but it is unknown how widespread this practice is, so it was decided not to take it into account.

Table 1.3.10 Prices and mass balances for delinting cotton (per 1 tonne of cotton). DMC Price GE Name CVB Mass (g/kg) (euro/kg) (MJ/kg) Cotton linters NA 380 910 0.35 0

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Cotton seed Cottonseed with husk (33020) 550 910 0.16 18.2 Cotton linters price based on FaoStat, cotton seed price deduced from components.

Table 1.3.11 Prices and mass balances for dehusking cotton (per 1 tonne of cotton seed). DMC Price GE Name CVB Mass (g/kg) (euro/kg) (MJ/kg) Cotton seed husks 290 890 NA NA Cottonseed without husk (33010) 695 930 1 18.2 Cotton linters price based on FaoStat, cotton seed price deduced from components.

The prices for cotton seed expeller or meal was taken from FAO for a generic category. Products with extra husks were assumed to be less expensive related to the amount of husks mixed in.

Table 1.3.12 Prices and mass balances cotton seed processing for allocation purposes (for meal and expeller without husk, from 1 tonne cotton seeds). DMC Price GE Pressing: Name CVB Mass (g/kg) (euro/kg) (MJ/kg) Cotton seed oil NA 145 1000 0.40 37 15.8 Cotton seed expeller Cottons expeller without husk (33210) 550 930 0.13 14.8 Cotton seed husks NA 290 890 0 0

DMC GE Extraction: Name CVB Mass Price (g/kg) (MJ/kg) Cotton seed oil NA 190 190 0.40 37 13.2 Cotton seed meal Cottonseed extruded without husk (33510) 505 920 0.13 13.7 Cotton seed husks NA 290 890 0 0

Table 1.3.13 Prices and mass balances cotton seed processing for allocation purposes (for meal and expeller partially with husk, from 1 tonne cotton seeds). DMC Price GE Pressing: Name CVB Mass (g/kg) (euro/kg) (MJ/kg) Cotton seed oil NA 145 1000 0.40 37 15.8 Cotton seed expeller Cottons expeller partially with husk (33220) 690 930 0.10 14.8 Cotton seed husks NA 145 890 0 0

DMC GE Extraction: Name CVB Mass Price (g/kg) (MJ/kg) Cotton seed oil NA 190 190 0.40 37 13.2 Cotton seed meal Cottonseed extruded partially with husk (33520) 640 920 0.10 13.7 Cotton seed husks NA 145 890 0 0

Table 1.3.14 Prices and mass balances cotton seed processing for allocation purposes (for expeller with husk, from 1 tonne cotton seed). Pressing: Name CVB DMC GE Mass Price (g/kg) (MJ/kg) Cotton seed oil NA 145 1000 0.40 37 Cotton seed expeller (with husks) Cottons expeller with husk (33230) 840 930 0.08 14.0

Extraction: Name CVB Mass DMC Price GE (g/kg) (MJ/kg)

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Cotton seed oil NA 190 190 0.40 37 Cotton seed meal (with husks) Cottons extruded with husk (33530) 795 910 0.08 14.0

1.3.7 References CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) Dutch emmissions guidelines. http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0012337/geldigheidsdatum_12-05-2011 European emission guidelines, EU solvents directive 1999/13. FAOSTAT 2011. http://faostat.fao.org/ Hamelinck, C., K. Koop, H. Croezen, M. Koper, B. Kampman, G. Bergsma 2008. Technical specification: Greenhouse gas calculator for biofuels. Version 2.1b. Ecofys CE Delft. Huo, H., M. Wang, C. Bloyd, V. Putsche 2008. Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Cotton seed-Derived Biodiesel and Renewable Fuels. Argonne. INTA, 2008, Energy balance of cotton seed-based biodiesel production in Argentina. Jason Hill, Erik Nelson, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, and Douglas Tiffany 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. 103 (30) 11207, 2006. Sanchez et al., unkown data, Sustainable Biodiesel Production from Cottonseed Chain in Brazil. Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Subramaniam, V., Y.M. Choo, M. , H. Zulkifli, A.T. Yew, and C.W. Puah, 2010. Life cycle assessment of the production of crude palm kernel oil (Part 3a). Journal of Oil Palm Research. Vol 22, pag 904- 912. USB 2010. Prepared for United Cotton seed Board by Omni Tech International. Life Cycle Impact of Cotton seed Production and Soy Industrial Products, 2010. Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands. Vis, J.C., J. Krozer, P.J.C. van Duyse en H.G. Koudijs. 1992. Environmentel study on margarine. Supported by NOH. Confidential. Van den Bergh en Jurgens B.V., Rotterdam.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.4 Peanuts

1.4.1 By-products from processing peanut The main products from peanuts are oil and meal or expeller, which is used for feed. There are two main ways of processing oilseed: via mechanical cold pressing (which results in oilseed expeller) or oil extraction with an organic solvent (which results in oilseed meal). The dominant method in larger industries for most oilseeds is solvent extraction, as this gives a higher yield of (more valuable) oilseed oil

Table 1.4.1 Feed materials derived from peanut Process DMC Fat name CVB (g/kg) (g/kg) Peanuts without shell Deshelling 932 490 Peanuts with shell None 942 359 Peanut expeller without shell Pressing 914 79 Peanut expeller partially with shell Pressing 915 78 Peanut expeller with shell Pressing 933 122 Peanut extruded without shell Extraction 913 11 Peanut extruded partially with Extraction 893 10 shell

1.4.2 Sourcing The main imports into the Netherlands are in the form of shelled peanuts, according to Faostat data. Main contributors are listed in Table 1.4.2. As the Netherlands has a sizable peanut oil production (55000 tonnes, Foastat 2005-2009), peanut processing is assumed to take place in the Netherlands.

Table 1.4.2 Estimated countries of origin of the feed materials. Processing in: the Netherlands percentage 100% Crop-country China 15% Brazil 15% Argentina 65% USA 5%

1.4.3 Flowcharts In peanut processing, firstly the shells are removed and the oil is extracted via either mechanical cold pressing or solvent extraction. The two methods of oilseed processing both give similar products; only the oil yields differ (see also the next section on mass balances). The solvent extraction is often proceeded by a (light) mechanical cold pressing step, which removes a part of the oil. Of interest here, however, are only the final yields, and usually these two processes are treated as one.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Peanut

Shelling Shells

Peanuts without shell

Solvent extraction Mechanical pressing

Crude oil Meal Crude oil Expeller

Figure 1.4.1 Overview of peanut processing

1.4.1 Mass balances Prior to processing, the shells of the peanuts are removed. The shells constitute around 25% of the total unshelled peanut weight (GTZ, 2001, Biocoal from Groundnut Shells - Project Summary). This also matches the difference in oil content between shelled and unshelled peanuts quite closely (data in the CVB list in Table 1.4.1). Also, figures by Shumaker (2007), show a similar division of 24% shells and 76% shelled nuts. The shells have various purposes, and can optionally be later combined to adjust the final product’s protein content. Thus, in the entire process, also expeller including all the shells can be produced. In the mass balances below, distinctions have been made for these two options.

Table 1.4.3 Default mass balance of deshelling peanuts (from 1 tonne of peanuts) Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Peanuts 940 1000 Output Peanut shells 950 250 Peanuts without shell 930 750

If the dry matter and oil contents of the oilseed are known, the mass balances can be deduced for both the mechanical cold pressing (which leaves more oil in the residue, typically 75% of the oil is extracted) and oil extraction with an organic solvent (which leaves very little oil, typically 98% of the oil is extracted). The numbers in Table 1.4.4 through Table 1.4.6 are based on these extraction rates (while also taking into account de deshelling), while allowing for a loss of around 1.5% (see Schmidt (2007)).

Table 1.4.4 Default mass balance of oilseed processing (cold pressing, from 1 tonne of peanuts with shell). Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Peanuts 940 1000 Output Peanut shells 950 250 Peanut oil 1000 276 Loss (mostly water) 0 11 Peanut expeller 920 463

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

*Error margin determined by pedigree matrix, see generic oilseed processing.

For solvent extraction, Shumaker (2007) indicates a yield of 48% oil and 52% meal from peanuts with shells removed, which comes very close to the mass balance constructed for solvent extraction in Table 7.3 below.

Table 1.4.5 Default mass balance of oilseed processing (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of peanuts with shell). Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Peanuts 940 1000 Output Peanut shells 955 250 Peanut oil 1000 360 Loss (mostly water) 0 11 Peanut meal 910 379 *Error margin determined by pedigree matrix, see generic oilseed processing.

Table 1.4.6 Default mass balance of oilseed processing (cold pressing, from 1 tonne of peanuts with shell). Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Peanuts 940 1000 Output Peanut oil 1000 276 Loss (mostly water) 0 11 Peanut expeller 930 713 (with shell) *Error margin determined by pedigree matrix, see generic oilseed processing.

1.4.2 Inputs Rapeseed processing is used as a basis of comparison to obtain general oilseed figures on energy requirements for processin463g of peanuts. Thus, values obtained for the CFPAN project for rapeseeed are used. These can then be recalculated on the basis of per oil energy requirement. Table 1.4.7 and Table 1.4.8 show the inputs needed for obtaining 1 tonne of peanut oil, which can then be used together with the mass balance to obtain the values per tonne of processed seed. See also the subreport on generic processing of oilseeds.

Table 1.4.7 Inputs for oilseed processing (pressing, for 1 tonne of unshelled peanuts, based on rapeseed). Output Values Unit Ref

Best estimate Error (σg2) Electricity (pressing) 180 1.2 MJ/ton b b: Based on values from Croezen (2005) and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.

Table 1.4.8 Inputs for oilseed processing (solvent extraction, for 1 tonne of crude vegetable oil produced, based on rapeseed). Output Values Unit Ref

Best estimate Error (σg2) Electricity (extraction) 125 1.2 Mj/ton b Natural gas (extraction) 630 1.2 MJ/ton b Hexane 3 1.2 kg/ton c b: Based on values from Croezen (2005), Schmidt (2007), and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.; c: Schmidt (2007)

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.4.3 Allocation A number of different by-products were listed, according to the presence of shells. As the entries containing ‘partially with shell’ are very similar in composition, they are assumed to be similar enough to be comparable to to ‘without shell’ entries (they arise from extraction of oil from not completely deshelled peanuts).

All products from the CVB list, except for the untreated ‘Peanuts with shell’, are present in the process and product specific mass balances below. Peanut shells are considered a residue product to which no upstream emissions are allocated. This is approach 3 as described in the methodology document (see §5.3, Vellinga et al, 2012).

Table 1.4.9 Prices and mass balances deshelling for allocation purposes (from 1 tonne peanuts). DMC Pressing: Name CVB Mass Price GE (g/kg) Peanuts without shell Peanuts without shell (24110) 750 940 NA NA Peanut shells NA - - - -

Table 1.4.10 Prices and mass balances peanut processing for allocation purposes (for meal and expeller without shell, from 1 tonne peanuts). Pressing: Name CVB Mass DMC Price GE (g/kg) Peanut oil NA 276 1000 0.92 37 Peanut expeller Peanut expeller without shell (24410) 463 920 0.13 15.9 Peanut expeller partially with shell (24420) 15.7 Peanut shells NA - - - -

Extraction: Name CVB Mass DMC Price GE (g/kg) Peanut oil NA 360 1000 0.92 37 Peanut expeller Peanut extruded without shell (24710) 379 910 0.13 14.6 Peanut extruded partially with shell (24720) 13.6 Peanut shells NA - - - -

Table 1.4.11 Prices and mass balances peanut processing for allocation purposes (for expeller with shell, from 1 tonne peanuts). DMC Pressing: Name CVB Mass Price GE (g/kg) Peanut oil NA 276 276 0.92 37 Peanut expeller Peanut expeller with shell (24430) 713 930 0.13 16.3

1.4.4 References Croezen, H. en B. Kampman 2005. Op (de) weg met pure plantenolie? De technische, milieuhygiënische en kostengerelateerde aspecten van plantenolie als voertuigbrandstof. Report 2GAVE-05.05. CE Delft. CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) Hamelinck, C., K. Koop, H. Croezen, M. Koper, B. Kampman, G. Bergsma 2008. Technical specification: Greenhouse gas calculator for biofuels. Version 2.1b. Ecofys CE Delft.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Nemecek, T., & Kägi, T. (2007). Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems. Swiss Centre for Life Cyvle Inventories Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning Shumaker, G, Mckissick, J.C., Smith, N., 2007, Economics of peanuts for biodiesel production, Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development, University of Georgia. Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.5 Linseed

1.5.1 By-products from processing linseed Linseed (or flaxseed) is the seed obtained from the flax plant. The main products from linseed are oil and meal or expeller which is used for feed. There are two main ways of processing linseed: via mechanical cold pressing (which results in linseed expeller) or oil extraction with an organic solvent (which results in linseed meal). The dominant method in larger industries is solvent extraction, as this gives a higher yield of (more valuable) linseed oil. Table 1.5.1 lists the names of rapeseed feed materials and their composition according to the CVB list (see also the introductory chapter).

Table 1.5.1 Feed materials derived from linseed DMC Fat name CVB (g/kg) (g/kg) Linseed 913 356 Linseed expeller 901 85 Linseed extruded 870 30

1.5.2 Sourcing By consulting various sources (such as input from industry experts and import statistics), an estimate has been made on the sourcing of the feed materials and the location of cultivation of the primary product.

Table 1.5.2 Estimated countries of origin of the feed materials. Processing country: Belgium Germany Contribution: 50% 50% Crop-country Australia 90% 90% EU 10% 10%

1.5.3 Flowchart The two methods of linseed processing both give similar products; only the yields differ (see also the next section on mass balances). The solvent extraction is often preceded by a (light) mechanical cold pressing step, which removes a part of the oil. Of interest here, however, are only the final yields, and usually these two processes are treated as one.

Linseed Linseed

Solvent Mechanical extraction pressing

Linseed oil Linseed meal Linseed oil Linseed expeller

Figure 1.5.1 Flowchart of linseed processing.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.5.4 Mass balances The mass balance for the processing of linseed is not directly from literature sources. Global production data and information from 1994 from Sweden (Spine, 1994) both indicate a 35:65 relation of meal:oil production. From the dry matter and oil contents of the seed and the by-products as given in Table 1.5.1, we can deduce mass balances for both the mechanical cold pressing (which leaves more oil in the residue, typically 75% of the oil is extracted) and oil extraction with an organic solvent (which leaves very little oil, typically 98% of the oil is extracted). The numbers in Table 1.5.3 and Table 1.5.4 are based on these extraction rates (see also information in the subreport on generic oilseed processing), while allowing for a loss of around 1.5% (see Schmidt (2007)).

There is no information in the CVB list on the inclusion of hulls or not, but since the fibre contents of both meal and expeller as listed is higher than the linseed itself, it is assumed that the products contain the hulls from linseed (and are thus not separately listed in the mass balances).

Table 1.5.3 Default mass balance of linseed processing (pressing, from 1 tonne of linseed). DMC Mass Input: (g/kg) (kg) Linseed 910 1000 Output: Linseed oil 1000 270 Linseed expeller 900 715 Loss (mostly water) 0 15 * To be determined based on pedigree matrix.

Table 1.5.4 Default mass balance of linseed processing (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of linseed). DMC Mass Input: (g/kg (kg) Linseed 910 1000 Output: Linseed oil 1000 350 Linseed meal 870 640 Loss (mainly 0 15 water)

As a justification for the results in the tables above, these can be compared to the oil extraction rates for rapeseed. Rapeseed has an oil content which is 16-17% higher compared to linseed, and the oil recovery figures that are obtained for the same extraction rates are very comparable (and are also around 16-17% higher compared to linseed) to those found in literature (for example in Hamelinck (2008)).

1.5.5 Inputs Linseed is naturally harvested at lower moisture contents (compared to for example rapeseed), and usually can be dried in natural air to around 9% moisture content (NDSU, 2010). It does not appear to be necessary to take optional energy requirements for a drying step into account.

The processing of linseed to oil and meal/expeller is very similar to rapeseed processing, and lacking original industry data on linseed processing, the values obtained for the CFPAN project for rapeseeed are used. These are recalculated on the basis of per oil energy requirement, see also the subreport on generic oilseed processing.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

As little data is found on processing of linseed, it also assumed that processing in Germany and Belgium are similar, and no distinction will be made between the two countries.

Table 1.5.5 Default inputs for linseed processing (pressing, per 1 tonne of linseed). Inputs Values Unit

Applied Error (sg2) Electricity (pressing) 173 1.4 MJ/tonne aBased on values for rapeseed from Croezen (2005) and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.

For mechanical cold pressing, the energy requirement is 55 kWh of electricity per tonne of rapeseed (for a production of 310 kg of oil), which results in 48 kWh per tonne linseed (for the production of 270 kg of oil), adjusted for the oil content. In a similar way the energy requirements for the solvent extraction processes are converted and shown in Table 1.5.6. Hexane is a standard solvent for this extraction method.

Table 1.5.6 Default inputs for linseed processing (solvent extraction, per 1 tonne of linseed). Inputs Values Unit Ref

Applied Error (sg2) Electricity (extraction) 119 1.4 MJ/tonne b Natural gas (extraction) 613 1.4 MJ/tonne b Hexane 1.1 1.2 kg/tonne c b: Based on values for rapeseed from Croezen (2005), Schmidt (2007), and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.; c: Schmidt (2007)

1.5.6 Allocation

Table 1.5.7 shows the economic allocation of the by-products of linseed processing.

Table 1.5.7 Prices and allocation. Cold pressing: Name CVB Mass (kg) DMC (g/kg) Pricea GE (MJ/kg) Linseed oil NA 270 1000 1019 $/ton 36.9 Linseed expeller 15.2 Linseed expeller 715 900 279 $/ton (28600) Solvent Extraction: Linseed oil NA 350 1000 1019 $/ton 36.9 Linseed extruded 13.6 Linseed meal 640 870 279 $/ton (28700) Faostat European export prices, averaged over 2004-2008. In Faostat there is no distinction between meal and expeller.

1.5.7 References Croezen, H. en B. Kampman 2005. Op (de) weg met pure plantenolie? De technische, milieuhygiënische en kostengerelateerde aspecten van plantenolie als voertuigbrandstof. Report 2GAVE-05.05. CE Delft. CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) Faostat 2011. Websites: http://faostat.fao.org en http://www.fao.org/es/esc/prices. FAO, Rome. Hamelinck, C., K. Koop, H. Croezen, M. Koper, B. Kampman, G. Bergsma 2008. Technical specification: Greenhouse gas calculator for biofuels. Version 2.1b. Ecofys CE Delft. NDSU 2010. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/procrop/flx/dryoct10.htm

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Spine LCI dataset, 2011, production of linseed oil in Sweden. Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.6 Oil palm

1.6.1 By-products from processing oil palm Oil palm is a widely cultivated in tropical areas, especially in Malaysia and Indonesia. Three main products from oil palm are palm oil, palm kernel oil and palm kernel expeller. The oil products are mainly used for human consumption, while the expeller can be used as feed for livestock. In this paragraph, the production process of palm oil and the by-product palm kernel expeller are described. The mass balances for the processes involved are reported, as well as LCI data for the two important processing steps.

Table 1.6.1 lists the names of rapeseed feed materials and their composition according to the CVB list (see also the introductory chapter). Two different palm kernel expeller types are defined, but the literature does not distinguish these. Although palm kernel meal (which is the residue after oil extraction with an organic solvent) is defined in table 7.1, all information found en presented here concerns the mechanical pressing of palm kernels, which results in palm kernel expeller. The pressing of oil palm is less costly than extraction with an organic solvent and this method is hardly used in oil palm processing. Since the characteristics of the CVB entry of ‘Palm kernel extruded’ is quite similar in composition to the expellers, it will be treated as a comparable product.

Table 1.6.1 Feed materials derived from oil palm DMC Fat name CVB (g/kg) (g/kg) Palm Kernels 938 480 Palm kern expeller Crude 961 97,1 Fiber<180 Palm kern expeller Crude 912 83 Fiber>180 Palm kernel extruded 880 20

1.6.2 Sourcing Growing and processing oil palm takes place mainly in Malaysia and Indonesia, and palm kernel expeller is mainly imported from these two countries. The figures in the table are the relative components for palm kernel expeller (also called cake of palm kernel) imports in the Netherlands. Faostat also lists Germany as in importer, and it should be noted that Germany on itself imports from Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Netherlands; this makes it difficult to assess the exact origins of imports of palm kernel expeller. It is clear, however, that Malaysia and Indonesia are the main direct exporters and the relative values for imports from Malaysia and Indonesia are representative.

Table 1.6.2 Estimated countries of origin of the feed materials. Processing in: Indonesia Malaysia percentage 25% 75% Crop-country Indonesia 100% Malaysia 100%

1.6.3 Flowchart There are two main processes that take place in oil palm processing. The first process, with the main product being crude palm oil (CPO) takes place very close to the oil palm plantation (the main reason for this that oil palm fruit is required to be as fresh as possible prior to processing). The CPO production

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry starts with the harvested fresh fruit bunches (FFB), with by-products being empty fruit bunches (EFB), palm oil mill effluent (POME, waste water rich in organic material), shells, fibers, and palm kernels. Water (partly converted to steam) is used during the production process, but not all of it ends up in the products (there are few reliable figures for this aspect). The palm kernels are subsequently processed in the second process to make crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) and palm kernel expeller through mechanical oil pressing.

Oil palm fresh fruit bunch (FFB)

Rest (fibers, EFB, POME)

Unit process I:Palm Oil Extraction Crude Palm Oil (CPO)

Oil Palm Pits

Kernels Shells Unit process II:Palm Kernel Oil Extraction Rest

Crude Palm Kernel Oil (CPKO) Palm Kernel Expeller

Figure 1.6.1 Flowchart of Palm Oil processing.

1.6.4 Mass balances Table 1.6.3 and Table 1.6.4 show the default mass balances for the two processes. Below, in Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden. and Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden. are the background data for mass balances for the two processes, with an explanation of the final applied value. Also included are more detailed composition data of selected by-products, as well as methane emissions from the treatment of POME.

Table 1.6.3 Default mass balance of CPO production (unit process I); products of 1 ton FFB. Input: DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) FFB 630 1000 Water 0 700 Output: CPO 1000 200 EFB 700 230 POME 100 650 Shells 900 65 Fibres 700 135 Kernels 940 55 a: Schmidt (2007); b: Subramaniam (2008); c: Chavalparit (2006); e: Stichnote (2010); m: MPOB.

Table 1.6.4 Default mass balance of CPKO production (unit process II); products of 1 ton kernels.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Input: DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Kernels 940 1000 Output CPKO 1000 470 Palm kernel expeller 880* 530 a: Schmidt (2007); b: Subramaniam (2008); c: Chavalparit (2006); e: Stichnote (2010); m: MPOB. * The dry matter content stemming from the final mass balance is on the low side, but still represented in the CVB feed list.

Inventory data for mass balances of oil palm processing:

Mass balance of CPO production (unit process I); products of 1 ton FFB. Output Values Unit Data quality Ref Best estimate Sources Rel Com TRC GSp TeC CPO 200 199.8 kg/tFFB 2 2 3 2 1 a 196.8 1 2 2 2 1 b 168 1 1 2 3 1 c 202 1 1 1 2 1 m EFB 230 225 kg/tFFB 2 2 3 2 1 a 229 1 2 2 2 1 b 240 1 1 2 3 1 c POME 650 672.5 kg/tFFB 2 2 3 2 1 a 600 1 2 2 2 1 b 640 1 1 2 3 1 c 650 2 1 3 3 1 e Shells 65 70 kg/tFFB 2 2 3 2 1 a 39 1 2 2 2 1 b 60 1 1 2 3 1 c Fibres 135 130 kg/tFFB 2 2 3 2 1 a 121 1 2 2 2 1 b 140 1 1 2 3 1 c Kernels 55 53.2 kg/tFFB 2 2 3 2 1 a 80 1 2 2 2 1 b 60 1 1 2 3 1 c 52.4 1 1 1 2 1 m a: Schmidt (2007); b: Subramaniam (2008); c: Chavalparit (2006); e: Stichnote (2010); m: MPOB.

The value from the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) is productivity average for 2005-2009 in Malaysia and should be representative for the industry. It corresponds well to Schmidt (2007), which is also based on direct measurements. The value for kernels of Subramaniam (2008) is notably higher, but it is unclear why this is so. Values for the amount of EFB and POME can vary, but the approximate average of 230 kg and 650 kg respectively is appropriate. The value for shells of Subramaniam (2008) is rather low, and these have been left out, choosing the value of 65 and 135 kg per ton FFB as the average of the other two sources. The numbers by Chavalparit (2006) also deviate somewhat with a low CPO but high kernel output (these values are obtained from mills based in Thailand, and therefore less relevant).

Mass balance of CPKO production (unit process II); products of 1 ton palm kernels. Output Values Unit Data quality Ref Best estimate Sources Rel Com TRC GSp TeC CPKO 470 449 kg/ton 2 2 3 2 1 a 460 1 2 2 2 1 o 470 1 1 2 2 1 h 472 1 1 1 2 1 m Palm kernel expeller 530 521 kg/ton 2 2 3 2 1 a 540 1 2 2 2 1 o 530 1 1 2 2 1 h 528 1 1 1 2 1 m a: Schmidt (2007); h: Vijaya (2009); m: MPOB; o: Subramaniam (2010)

The value from the MPOB is based on production data (average of 2005-2009) and should be representative for the industry. This does leave a loss of 1% compared to the total palm kernel production

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry though, which we do not take into account (there is no actual data on losses, and most sources neglect this aspect). It is very well comparable to the other sources. Also, the most recent and extensive study with direct measurements by Vijaya (2009), which examines 5 palm kernel oil mills, arrives at the same numbers.

The table below shows some encountered background data on the composition of the by-products. Some further background on figures for EFB and POME is given in the remaining part of this section.

Summary of output (products and by-products of palm oil extraction) product Parameter Values Unit Data quality Ref Best estimate Rel Com TRC GSp TeC CPO amount 202 kg MB dry matter content 1 kg/kg gross energy content 40 MJ/kg 4 2 3 2 1 l price POME amount 650 kg MB dry matter content 0.1 kg/kg 1 1 3 3 1 c N-content 0.0095 kg/kg 3 2 3 2 2 a P-content 0.00015 kg/kg 3 2 3 2 2 a EFB amount 230 kg MB dry matter content 0.7 kg/kg 1 1 3 3 1 c N-content 0.0032 kg/kg 3 2 3 2 2 a P-content 0.00038 kg/kg 3 2 3 2 2 a Shells amount 65 kg MB dry matter content 0.9 kg/kg 1 1 3 3 1 c Fibers amount 135 kg MB dry matter content 0.7 kg/kg 1 1 3 3 1 c Kernels amount 52.4 kg MB dry matter content 0.94 kg/kg price a: Schmidt (2007), b: Subramaniam (2008); c: Chavalparit (2006); d: Pleanjai (2009); e: Stichnote (2010); f: Schuchardt (2007); g: Yacob (2006); h: Vijaya (2009); i: CVB grondstoffen; j: MBOP price data, average of 2006-2010; MB: final mass balance; l: Yusoff (2006)

POME and EFB data Especially for POME and EFB, multiple sources were found for the nitrogen and phosphorous content. This is important since these are used as an organic fertilizer in the primary production process. We have chosen the numbers cited by Schmidt (2007), since they are both widely used and also end up as the average of two other sources.

Also, when POME is anaerobically treated in ponds, methane is released. The most direct and reliable study is an extensive direct measurements by Yacob (2006), which is the figure we will use (and which is also quite comparable to the other sources, where it is almost the direct average of). The emissions will be included in the energy input sections in the next paragraph.

POME and EFB data product Parameter Values Unit Data quality Ref Best Sources Rel Com TRC GSp TeC estimate

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

POME N-content 0.0095 0.00095 kg/kg 3 2 3 2 2 a 0.00075 3 2 3 2 2 e 0.0011 2 2 3 3 2 c P-content 0.00015 0.00015 kg/kg 3 2 3 2 2 a 0.00018 3 2 3 2 2 e 0.00005 2 2 3 2 2 c Methane emissions from 6.5 7.2 kg/tFFB 2 1 2 2 1 b POME treatment 6.1 (9m3) 2 1 3 3 1 c 6.5 1 1 3 2 1 g EFB N-content 0.0032 0.0032 kg/kg 3 2 3 2 2 a 0.0028 3 2 3 2 2 e P-content 0.00038 0.00038 kg/kg 3 2 3 2 2 a 0.00034 3 2 3 2 2 e a: Schmidt (2007), b: Subramaniam (2008); c: Chavalparit (2006); e: Stichnote (2010); g: Yacob (2006).

1.6.5 Inputs Table 1.6.5 and Table 1.6.6 show the final default inputs for the two processing steps in oil palm processing. The rest of the paragraph underpins these default values with more details on the different sources. There are no indications that there are notable differences in the processing of oil palm between Indonesia and Malaysia, so they are treated as one (although most data is based on Malaysian palm oil mills).

Table 1.6.5 Default values Unit process I: Inputs per ton of processed FFB Input Values Unit

Best estimate Error (σg2) Water 700 1.1 kg/ton FFB Diesel 30 1.4 MJ/ton FFB Grid electricity 0.8 1.4 MJ/ton FFB Output: Methane emissions from POME treatment 6.5 1.2 Kg/ton FFB

Table 1.6.6 Default values Unit process II: Inputs per ton of palm kernels Parameter Values Unit

Best estimate Error (σg2) Grid electricity 420 1.1 MJ/ton Kernels

Inventory data: Palm oil extraction

Palm oil extraction: Energy use per ton FFB Product Parameter Values Unit Data quality Ref Best Sources Rel Com TRC GSp TeC estimate Water 700 720 kg/tFFB 2 2 3 2 1 a 687 1 2 2 2 1 b 1260 (incl. steam) 1 1 2 2 1 c Steam from shell burning 580 650 kg/tFFB 2 2 3 2 1 a 516 1 2 2 2 1 b Energy use: diesel 0.70 0.51 kg/tFFB 4 2 3 2 4 a fuels 0.70 1 2 2 2 1 b 1.01 5 1 3 3 1 c Energy use: electricity from 0.22 0.22 kWh/tFFB 3 2 3 2 4 a electricity the grid 0.12 1 2 2 2 1 b 0.33±0.34 1 1 2 2 1 d

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Self-produced electricity for on- 16.5 21 kWh/tFFB 3 2 3 2 4 a site usage. 20 1 2 2 2 1 b 14.5 1 1 3 3 1 c 13.6±1.35 1 1 2 2 1 d 17.6; 13.5; 11,6 4 3 3 3 3 k a: Schmidt (2007), b: Subramaniam (2008); c: Chavalparit (2006); d: Pleanjai (2009); k: Wang (2008).

A small amount of diesel is used to start up the turbines, and Subramaniam (2008) is, with the most recent direct measurements the most reliable source. On the electricity usage: for electricity from the grid the average is used of the more reliable figures from direct measurement from Pleanjai (2009) and Subramanian (2008) (which coincides with the figure by Schmidt (2007)). For the self-produced electricity (which is used by the palm oil mill) the approximate average of the reliable sources was applied.

The value of Subramaniam (2008) for water and steam imput is the only one based on direct measurements on a set of 12 palm oil mills in Malaysia in 2007. The number for water from Schmidt (2007) is based on an average of older references. The steam value of Schmidt is based on data form the United Plantations Research Department and the Malaysian Palm Oil Board and should be representative. Therefore the approximate average between the two values for steam is used. Chavalparit 2006 does not provide a breakdown into steam and water, but the total value is quite close to the applied total value.

Inventory data: Palm kernel oil extraction Processing palm kernels into crude palm kernel oil (CPKO) and palm kernel expeller is a rather straightforward mechanical pressing which uses electricity. Although there are a few instances where the palm kernel oil mill is situated near the palm oil mill and uses locally produced electricity, this is not usually the case and we will assume that grid electricity is used. input per ton of processed Palm Kernel (background data) Product Parameter Value Unit Data quality Ref Best estimate sources Rel Com TRC GSp TeC Energy use: electricity Grid electricity 117 120 kWh/tKernel 4 2 3 2 4 a 116.8 1 2 2 2 1 h 116.4 1 2 2 2 1 b a: Schmidt (2007), b: Subramaniam (2008); h: Vijaya (2009).

The figure by Vijaya (2009) and Subramaniam (2010) is the most recent and the only one with direct measurements and should be representative. Other than these sources there is no direct data on the palm kernel oil mills in Indonesia and Malaysia.

1.6.6 Allocation Table 1.6.7 Economic allocation factors process I (CPO production) By-product CVB Name Output DMC Price GE (kg) (g/kg) (RM/kg) (MJ/kg) CPO NA 200 1000 2.354 36.6 Palm Kernels Palm Kernels (26300) 55 938 1.361 24.3

Table 1.6.8 Economic allocation factors process II (CPKO production) By-product CVB Name Output DMC Price GE (kg) (g/kg) (RM/kg) (MJ/kg) CPKO NA 470 1000 2.826 36.6 Palm kern expeller Crude Fiber<180 (26410) Palm Kernel Palm kern expeller Crude Fiber>180 (26420) 530 880 0.284 13.0 Expeller Palm kernel extruded (26500)

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

The prices were obtained from averaged price data (2006-2010) from the Malaysia Palm Oil Board.

1.6.7 References Chavalparit, O et al. 2006. Options for environmental sustainability of the crude palm oil industry in thailand through enhancement of industrial ecosystems. Environment, Development and Sustainability 8 (2006)2 - p. 271 - 287. CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) Faostat. http://faostat.fao.org/ Fertistat 2011. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/fertistat/fst_fubc_en.asp Halimah, M. et al. 2010 Life cycle assessment of oil palm seedling production (Part 1). Journal of Oil Palm Research. Vol 22, pag 878-886. MPOB, Malaysian Palm Oil Board. http://econ.mpob.gov.my/economy/EID_web.htm Pleanjai et al. 2009. Full chain energy analysis of biodiesel production from palm oil in Thailand. Applied Energy 86 (2009) S209-S214 Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Schuchardt, F. et al. 2007. Effect of new palm oil mill processes on the EFB and POME utilisation. Proceedings of Chemistry and Technology Conference PIPOC 2007, Kuala Lumpur, 26-30 August 2007. Singh 2006. Personal commmunication with Singh Director of Research, United Plantations Berhad, Research Department, Jendarata Estate, Teluk Intan, Malaysia Stichnothe, H. and Schuchardt, F. 2010. Comparison of different treatment options for palm oil production waste on a life cycle basis. Int J Life Cycle Assess (2010) 15:907-915. Subramaniam V. et al. 2008. Environmental Performance of the Milling Process Of Malaysian Palm Oil Using The Life Cycle Assessment Approach. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 4 (4): 310-315, 2008 Subramaniam, V., Y.M. Choo, M. , H. Zulkifli, A.T. Yew, and C.W. Puah, 2010. Life cycle assessment of the production of crude palm kernel oil (Part 3a). Journal of Oil Palm Research. Vol 22, pag 904- 912. Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands. Vijaya, A. 2009. A Gate to Gate Assessment of Environmental Performance for Production of Crude Palm Kernel Oil Using Life Cycle Assessment Approach. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 5 (3): 267-272, 2009. Wang, L. J. (editor) 2008. Energy Efficiency and Management in Food Processing Facilities. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, Boca Raton, FL, USA. ISBN: 1420063383 Yacob, S. et al. 2006. Baseline study of methane emission from anaerobic ponds. Science of The Total Environment, Volume 366, Issue 1, Pages 187-196, 2006.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Yusoff, S. (2006) Renewable energy from palm oil e an innovation on effective Yusoff, S. and S. B. Hansen (2007), Feasibility Study of Performing an Life Cycle Assessment on Crude Palm Oil Production in Malaysia. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 12 (1) 50-58 (2007), Ecomed Publishers, Landsberg.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.7 Rape seeds

1.7.1 By-products from processing rape seeds The main products from rape seeds are (crude) rape seeds oil (which is often used for biofuel) and rape seeds meal or expeller which is mainly used for feed. There are two main ways of processing rape seeds: mechanical pressing (which results in rape seeds oil and expeller) and oil extraction with an organic solvent (which results in rape seeds oil and meal). The dominant method in larger industries is solvent extraction, as this gives a higher yield of (more valuable) rape seeds oil.

Table 1.7.1 lists the names of rape seeds feed materials and their composition according to the CVB list (see also the introductory chapter).

Table 1.7.1 Feed materials derived from rape seeds DMC Fat name CVB Process (g/kg) (g/kg) Rape seeds None 923 415 Rape seeds exp Pressing 894 75 Rape seeds extr CP<380 Extraction 873 26 Rape seeds extr CP>380 Extraction 906 16 Rapes meal Mervobest Extraction 872 31

1.7.2 Sourcing By consulting various sources (such as input from industry experts and import statistics), an estimate has been made on the sourcing of the feed materials and the location of cultivation of the primary product.

Table 1.7.2 Estimated countries of origin of the feed materials. Processing in: the Netherlands Germany France percentage 5% 70% 25% Crop-country the Netherlands 100% Germany 100% France 100%

1.7.3 Flowchart The two methods of rape seeds processing both give similar products; only the yields differ (see also the next section on mass balances). The solvent extraction is often proceeded by a (light) mechanical pressing step, which removes a part of the oil. Of interest here, however, are only the final yields, and usually these two processes are treated as one.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Raw rape seeds Raw rape seeds Drying

Drying Dried rape seeds Preparation and pre-pressing Dried rape seeds

Solvent extraction Mechanical pressing

Crude rape Rape seeds meal Crue rape Rape seeds expeller seed oil seed oil

Figure 1.7.1 Flowchart of rape seeds processing

1.7.4 Mass balances Table 1.7.3 and Table 1.7.4 shows the default values of the mass balance of rape seeds processing by means of solvent extraction and mechanical pressing, respectively. Below these tables, the default values will be underpinned.

Table 1.7.3 Default values mass balance of rape seeds processing (solvent extraction). Input: DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Rape seeds 920 1000 Output Rape seeds oil 1000 400 Rape seeds meal 885 583 Loss (mostly water) 17

Table 1.7.4 Default values mass balance of rape seeds processing (mechanical pressing). Input: DMC (g/gk) Mass (kg) Rape seeds 920 1000 Output Rape seeds oil 1000 310 Rape seeds expeller 894 680 Loss (mostly water) 15

The mass balance for the processing of rape seeds is somewhat complicated by variable information on the moisture content of the rape seeds (which is the input for the process). The harvested rape seeds have a moisture content of around 10-11%, but this is usually dried to around 8% before processing (see also Table 1.7.1, which gives the dry matter content for rape seeds). However, not all mass balances start off with the same type of rape seeds (wet or dried). To make the mass balances comparable, they are all scaled to 8% moisture content.

Table 1.7.5 Mass balance of rape seeds processing (pressing, from 1 tonne of rape seeds).

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Output Values Unit Data quality Ref Best estimate Sources Rel Com TRC GSp TeC Rape seeds oil 310 324 kg/ton 2 2 3 2 1 b 307 2 2 3 2 1 c 300 2 2 2 4 2 d Rape seeds expeller 680 (89.4% DM) 676 (88% DM) kg/ton 2 2 3 2 1 b 693 (88.5% DM) 2 2 3 2 1 c 700 (87% DM) 2 2 2 4 2 d Loss (mostly water) 15 b: Hamelinck (2008), based on 10% moisture content of rape seeds, recalculated to 8%; c: Croezen en Kampman (2005); d: Thamsiriroj (2008).

The most representative figures are Hamelinck (2008) and Croezen en Kampman (2005), which are based on industry data in Germany and these sources also give clear numbers on the dry matter content. Thamsiriroj (2008) is based on limited data from Ireland, and is less representative. Thus, the average of the first two sources is applied. For the expeller, this is converted to the dry matter content for expeller as shown in Table 1.7.1, and this also allows for some water evaporation and waste during the process which can take place, see Schmidt (2007).

Table 1.7.6 Mass balance of rape seeds processing (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of rape seeds). Output Values Unit Data quality Ref Best estimate Sources Rel Com TRC GSp TeC Rape seeds oil 400 419 kg/ton 1 2 2 3 1 a 400 2 2 3 2 1 b 390 2 2 3 2 1 c Rape seeds meal 583 (88.5% DM) 564 (87.5% DM) kg/ton 1 2 2 3 1 a 600 (unknown DM) 2 2 3 2 1 b 610 (89% DM) 2 2 3 2 1 c Loss (mainly water) 17 17 kg/ton 1 2 2 3 1 a - 2 2 3 2 1 b - 2 2 3 2 1 c a: Schmidt 2007; b: Hamelinck (2008); c: Croezen en Kampman (2005).

The numbers by Schmidt (2007) are the most detailed and based on direct measurements, yet give a slightly high oil yield (and thus also low on rape seeds meal production). This is especially so when considering that the oil content of rape seeds according to Table 1.7.1 should be 41.5%. So, after extraction, a yield of 400 kg/ton is more plausible. The resulting meal produced is then deduced from this, including the 17 kg/ton loss (three quarters of which is water) during the process that Schmidt (2007) indicates. The resulting rape seeds meal has a moisture content which approaches the average of the different types of rape seeds meal in Table 1.7.1.

1.7.5 Inputs The default values for energy inputs are presented in Table 1.7.7 and Table 1.7.8. These values are underpinned in the remainder of the text. The final figures are based on German data, for which most complete data was encountered. It is assumed that these data are representative for processing in north- western Europa (Croezen et al. 2005 also explicitly states that this is the case for their data).

Table 1.7.7 Inputs for processing rape seeds (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of rape seeds). Output Values Unit

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Best estimate Minimum Maximum Electricity (extraction) 125 10 180 MJ/ton Natural gas (extraction) 700 650 764 MJ/ton

Electricity (drying) 70 1.2 (σg2 error) MJ/ton

Natural gas (drying) 120 1.2 (σg2 error) MJ/ton Hexane 1.0 0.8 1.2 Kg/ton

Table 1.7.8 Inputs for processing rape seeds (mechanical pressing, from 1 tonne of rape seeds). Output Values Unit Best estimate Minimum Maximum Electricity (pressing) 200 80 325 MJ/ton

Electricity (drying) 70 1.2 (σg2 error) MJ/ton

Natural gas (drying) 120 1.2 (σg2 error) MJ/ton * error margin to be determing from pedigree matrix Table 7.5.

An important factor for the energy input of processing rape seeds is the drying step, where the moisture content is brought down from 11% to around 8%. If we assume 2 to 3% drying for all harvested rape seed we can calculate the energy needed from representative figures for grain drying (Nemecek, 2007), which are considered a good approximation to the energy requirements (Schmidt, 2007). These values are used as 1 kWh electricity and 6 MJ as heat required for the evaporation of 1 kg of water. A reduction of 2% water content means approximately a removal of 20 kg water per tonne rapeseed. This equals an energy input of 20 kWh electricity and 120 MJ natural gas per tonne. The higher estimate of 3% would amount to 30 kWh electricity and 180 MJ natural gas

For the CVB entry of Mervobest rapeseed meal, information from the producer indicates an additional process step in which formaldehyde is added to the soybean final meal product (which promotes resistance to ruminal degredation).

Table 1.7.9 Default values for rape seed meal treated with formaldehyde Parameter Value Unit

Best estimate Error (σg2) Formaldehyde 10 1.1 MJ/tonne Personal communication with Roel Baakman (Cefetra, producer of Mervobest).

The table below shows energy inputs for the mechanical pressing of rape seeds. Thamsiriroj (2008) is based on limited data on Ireland (and is the only source encounters that uses diesel). Hamelinck (2008) and Croezen (2005) are considered to be representative as they are based on German data (and Croezen notes the study as being representative for north-western Europe), and the average electricity needed is used. It is clear, however, that the range can be quite substantial, which is for a part due to differences in dry matter content of the undried rape seeds (which for the average numbers of Croezen, is 16%). The data by Lehuger (2009) are based on a small scale experimental facility and the energy usage is fairly high: it is unclear whether this also includes a drying step.

Inputs for processing rape seeds (pressing, from 1 tonne of rape seeds). Output Values Unit Data quality Ref Best estimate Sources Rel Com TRC GSp TeC Electricity (pressing) 55 53 kWh/ton 2 2 3 2 1 b 22 (best) 2 2 3 2 1 c 91 (worst) 2 2 3 2 1 c 76.7 2 2 3 2 1 g

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Natural Gas (pressing) 492 MJ/ton 2 2 3 2 1 g Diesel (pressing) 15.3 L/ton 2 2 2 4 2 d Electricity (drying,) 25 (mean) 20 (min) kWh/ton 2 2 3 4 4 e 30 (max) Natural gas (drying) 150 (mean) 120 (min) MJ/ton 2 2 3 4 4 e 180 (max) b: Hamelinck (2008), based on 10% moisture content of rape seeds, recalculated to 8%; c: Croezen en Kampman (2005); d: Thamsiriroj (2008). e: Nemecek (2007). g: Lehuger (2009).

The table below shows the energy inputs for the solvent extraction of oil from rape seeds. For the electricity and gas used, there are no significant differences in reliability, and the average of the sources is used. For the usage of hexane, the EU emission guidelines are applied. For the data from Buratti (2010), which is an Italian study, it is somewhat unclear what exactly is included. The figures by Croezen and Hamelinck are considered most representative as they are based on German data.

Inputs for processing rape seeds (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of rape seeds). Output Values Unit Data quality Ref Best estimate Sources Rel Com TRC GSp TeC Electricity (extraction) 34 29.8 (best) kWh/ton 2 2 3 2 1 c 34.5 (worst) 2 2 3 2 1 c 33.6 2 2 3 2 1 b 49 1 2 2. 3 1 a 65.4 k Natural gas (extraction) 700 695 (best) MJ/ton 2 2 3 2 1 c 838 (worst) 2 2 3 2 1 c 676 2 2 3 2 1 b 664 1 2 2 3 1 a 813 k Electricity (drying) 20 20 kWh/ton 2 2 3 2 2 e Natural gas (drying) 120 120 MJ/ton 2 2 3 2 2 e Hexane 1.0 1.188 Kg/ton 1 2 2 3 1 a 1.04 2 2 3 2 1 b 1 - f 0.7 k a: Schmidt 2007; b: Hamelinck (2008); c: Croezen en Kampman (2005); f: European emission guidelines.; k: Buratti (2010).

1.7.6 Allocation The table below distinguishes between the two main types of expeller and meal by-products. All products from the CVB list are represented here, and lacking detailed data, the three types of meal are treated as one product in the mass balance. The untreated rape seeds are not present in the allocation, as it does not apply.

Table 1.7.10 Prices and mass balances for allocation purposes (cold pressing). Pressing: Name CVB Mass (kg) DMC (g/kg) Pricea GE (MJ/kg) Rape seeds oil NA 310 1000 992 $/ton 36.6 Rape seeds expeller Rape seeds exp (29700) 680 894 213 $/ton 14.9 a: Faostat commodity, averaged 0ver 2006-2010. In Faostat there is no distinction between meal and expeller.

Table 1.7.11 Prices and mass balances for allocation purposes (solvent extraction. Extraction: Name CVB Mass (kg) DMC (g/kg) Pricea GE (MJ/kg) Rape seeds oil NA 400 1000 992 $/ton 36.6 Rape seeds extr CP<380 (29810) 873 13.6 Rape seeds meal Rape seeds extr CP>380 (29820) 583 906 213 $/ton 13.7 Rapes meal Mervobest≠ (48200) 872 13.3

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry a: Faostat commodity, averaged 0ver 2006-2010. In Faostat there is no distinction between meal and expeller. ≠ After allocation, Mervobest undergoes a final step of formaldehyde addition

1.7.7 References Buratti, C., Moretti, E., Fantozzi, F., Asesessing the GHG emissions of rapeseed and soybean biodiesel in compliance to the EU renewable energy directive methodology for biofuels, 18th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 3-7 May 2010, Lyon, France. Croezen, H. en B. Kampman 2005. Op (de) weg met pure plantenolie? De technische, milieuhygiënische en kostengerelateerde aspecten van plantenolie als voertuigbrandstof. Report 2GAVE-05.05. CE Delft. CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) Dutch emissions guidelines. http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0012337/geldigheidsdatum_12-05-2011 European emission guidelines. EU solvents directive 1999/13. Faostat 2011. Websites: http://faostat.fao.org en http://www.fao.org/es/esc/prices. FAO, Rome. Hamelinck, C., K. Koop, H. Croezen, M. Koper, B. Kampman, G. Bergsma 2008. Technical specification: Greenhouse gas calculator for biofuels. Version 2.1b. Ecofys CE Delft. Lehuger, S., Gabrielle, B., Gagnaire, N., 2009, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 17, Issue 6, April 2009, Pages 616-624. Nemecek 2007. Eco-invent. Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems. Parkhomenko, S. 2004 International competitiveness of soybean, rape seeds and palm oil production in major producing regions (Sonderheft 267) Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rape seeds oil and Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rape seeds oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.8 Safflower seed

1.8.1 By-products from processing safflower seed The main products from safflower seeds are oil and meal or expeller, which is used for feed. There are two main ways of processing oilseed: via mechanical cold pressing (which results in oilseed expeller) or oil extraction with an organic solvent (which results in oilseed meal). The dominant method in larger industries for most oilseeds is solvent extraction, as this gives a higher yield of (more valuable) oilseed oil. In the CVB list, only meal is listed, so only the solvent extraction method will be treated in this document.

Table 1.8.1 Feed materials derived from safflower seed DMC Fat name CVB Process (g/kg) (g/kg) Safflower meal extruded Extraction 918 15 Safflowerseed None 907 273

1.8.2 Sourcing By consulting various sources (such as input from industry experts and import statistics), an estimate has been made on the sourcing of the feed materials and the location of cultivation of the primary product.

Table 1.8.2 Estimated countries of origin of the feed materials. Processing in: India Mexico USA Argentina percentage 35% 15% 35% 20% Crop-country India 100% Mexico 100% USA 100% Argentina 100%

1.8.3 Flowchart The processing of safflower seed is a fairly straightforward process where the seeds are dehulled, and the oil extracted via a solvent extraction process with hexane. However, sources indicate that around 45% in weight of the raw safflower seed is comprised of the hull (see for example D. K. Salunkhe, 1992, “World oilseeds: chemistry, technology, and utilization.”).

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Safflower seeds

Dehulling

Seeds without hulls

Solvent extraction Mechanical pressing

Crude oil Meal Crude oil Expeller

Figure 1.8.1 Flowchart of safflower seed processing (mechanical pressing is not treated in this document)

1.8.4 Mass balances As noted previous, the safflower seeds are first dehulled (approximately 45% weight of raw safflower seeds are hulls). However, the fnial product we are interested in is listed in the EU feed list as ‘partially decortated and has a rather high fibre content, indicating that a portion of the hulls are included in the final product. Thus, a 50% removal of hulls is assumed.

If the dry matter and oil contents of the oilseed are known, the mass balances can be deduced for oil extraction with an organic solvent (which leaves very little oil, typically 98% of the oil is extracted). The numbers in Table 1.8.3 are based on this extraction rate (while also taking into account de deshulling), while allowing for a loss of around 1.5% (see Schmidt (2007)). These are based on the oil content of the safflower seed in the CVB list of Table 1.8.1.

Table 1.8.3 Default mass balance of oilseed processing (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of dehulled safflower seeds). Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Safflower seed 910 1000 Output Safflower seed meal 900 500 Safflower seed oil 1000 265 Safflower seed hulls 900 220 Loss (mostly water) 0 15 *Error margin determined by pedigree matrix, see generic oilseed processing.

1.8.5 Input Rapeseed processing is used as a basis of comparison to obtain general oilseed figures on energy requirements for processing of safflower seeds. Thus, values obtained for the CFPAN project for rape seeds are used. These can then be recalculated on the basis of per oil energy requirement. Table 7.5 shows the inputs needed for processing 1 tonne of safflower seed. See also the subreport on generic processing of oilseeds.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Table 1.8.4 Inputs for oilseed processing (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of safflower seed). Output Values Unit Ref

Best estimate Error (σg2) Electricity (extraction) 90 1.2 MJ/ton b Natural gas (extraction) 465 1.2 MJ/ton b Hexane 0.7 1.2 kg/ton c b: Based on values from Croezen (2005), Schmidt (2007), and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.; c: Schmidt (2007) * Error margin to be calculated based on pedigree matrix.

1.8.6 Allocation

Table 1.8.5 Prices and allocation. Pressing: CVB Name Mass (kg) DMC (g/kg) Price* GE (MJ/kg) Crude safflower seed oil NA 265 1000 0.75 37.0 Safflower seed meal Safflower meal extruded (31800) 500 950 0.1 12.2 Safflower seed hulls NA 220 900 NA NA *: Faostat prices for generic plant oil and cake.

1.8.7 References CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) Dutch emmissions guidelines. http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0012337/geldigheidsdatum_12-05-2011 European emission guidelines, EU solvents directive 1999/13. FAOSTAT 2011. http://faostat.fao.org/ Hamelinck, C., K. Koop, H. Croezen, M. Koper, B. Kampman, G. Bergsma 2008. Technical specification: Greenhouse gas calculator for biofuels. Version 2.1b. Ecofys CE Delft. Huo, H., M. Wang, C. Bloyd, V. Putsche 2008. Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Safflower seed-Derived Biodiesel and Renewable Fuels. Argonne. INTA, 2008, Energy balance of safflower seed-based biodiesel production in Argentina. Jason Hill, Erik Nelson, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, and Douglas Tiffany 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. 103 (30) 11207, 2006. Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Subramaniam, V., Y.M. Choo, M. , H. Zulkifli, A.T. Yew, and C.W. Puah, 2010. Life cycle assessment of the production of crude palm kernel oil (Part 3a). Journal of Oil Palm Research. Vol 22, pag 904- 912. USB 2010. Prepared for United Safflower seed Board by Omni Tech International. Life Cycle Impact of Safflower seed Production and Soy Industrial Products, 2010.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands. Vis, J.C., J. Krozer, P.J.C. van Duyse en H.G. Koudijs. 1992. Environmentel study on margarine. Supported by NOH. Confidential. Van den Bergh en Jurgens B.V., Rotterdam.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.9 Sesame seed

1.9.1 By-products from processing sesame seed The main products from sesame seeds are oil and meal or expeller, which is used for feed. There are two main ways of processing oilseed: via mechanical cold pressing (which results in oilseed expeller) or oil extraction with an organic solvent (which results in oilseed meal). The dominant method in larger industries for most oilseeds is solvent extraction, as this gives a higher yield of (more valuable) oilseed oil.

Table 1.9.1 Feed materials derived from sesame seeds name CVB Process DMC Fat (g/kg) (g/kg) Sesameseed expeller Pressing 946 116 Sesameseed meal extruded Extraction 929 17 Sesameseed None 942 429

1.9.2 Sourcing By consulting various sources (such as input from industry experts and import statistics), an estimate has been made on the sourcing of the feed materials and the location of cultivation of the primary product.

Table 1.9.2 Estimated countries of origin of the feed materials. Processing in: India China percentage 65% 35% Crop-country India 100% China 100%

1.9.3 Flowchart The processing of sesame seed is a fairly straightforward process where the oil extracted via a solvent extraction process with hexane, or via a mechanical pressing method. The seeds with hulls consist of around 17% hulls by weight, and the process of removing them is quite straightforward (http://www.biodiesel-machine.com/sesame-process.html). However, this is apparently not normally done, see for example http://mofpi.nic.in/EDII_AHMD/Oilseed_based/10%20Sesame%20Oil.pdf. Also, the fibre contents of seed and expeller as seen in the CVB list increase as would be expected from simple oil extraction step, without loss of fiber.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Sesame seeds

Solvent extraction Mechanical pressing

Crude oil Meal Crude oil Expeller

Figure 1.9.1 Flowchart of sesame seed processing

1.9.4 Mass balances If the dry matter and oil contents of the oilseed are known, the mass balances can be deduced for both the mechanical cold pressing (which leaves more oil in the residue, typically 75% of the oil is extracted) and oil extraction with an organic solvent (which leaves very little oil, typically 98% of the oil is extracted). The numbers in Table 1.9.3 and Table 1.9.4 are based on these extraction rates (while also taking into account de dehulling), while allowing for a loss of around 1.5% (see Schmidt (2007)). These are based on the oil content of the sesame seed in the CVB list of Table 1.9.1. Some corroborating figures for cold pressing were found here: http://mofpi.nic.in/EDII_AHMD/Oilseed_based/10%20Sesame%20Oil.pdf, where the mass balance quoted is quite close to that presented in .

Table 1.9.3 Default mass balance of oilseed processing (cold pressing, from 1 tonne of sesame seeds). Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Sesame seeds 940 1000 Output Sesame seed expeller 940 685 Sesame seed oil 1000 315 Loss (mostly water) 0 15

Table 1.9.4 Default mass balance of oilseed processing (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of sesame seeds). Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Sesame seeds 940 1000 Output Sesame seed meal 930 570 Sesame seed oil 1000 415 Loss (mostly water) 0 15

1.9.5 Input Rapeseed processing is used as a basis of comparison to obtain general oilseed figures on energy requirements for processing of sesame seeds. Thus, values obtained for the CFPAN project for rape seeds

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry are used. These can then be recalculated on the basis of per oil energy requirement. Table 1.9.5 and Table 1.9.6 show the inputs needed for processing 1 tonne of sesame seeds, calculated in this manner.

Table 1.9.5 Default inputs for oilseed processing (pressing, for 1 tonne of sesame seeds, based on rapeseed). Output Values Unit Data quality Ref

Best estimate Error (σ2g) Rel Com TRC GSp TeC Electricity (pressing) 200 1.4 MJ/ton 2 2 3 4 4 b b: Based on values from Croezen (2005) and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.

Table 1.9.6 Default inputs for oilseed processing (solvent extraction, for 1 tonne of crude vegetable oil produced, based on rapeseed). Output Values Unit Data quality Ref

Best estimate Error (σ2g) Rel Com TRC GSp TeC Electricity (extraction) 140 1.4 MJ/ton 2 2 3 4 4 b Natural gas (extraction) 725 1.4 MJ/ton 2 2 3 4 4 b Hexane 1.0 1.2 kg/ton 2 2 3 4 4 c b: Based on values from Croezen (2005), Schmidt (2007), and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.; c: Schmidt (2007)

1.9.6 Allocation All items on the CVB list, except for the unprocessed sesame seeds, are represented in the mass balances and allocation data tables below. Prices are based on generic vegetable oil and cake, as specific prices for sesame seed or expeller were not available.

Table 1.9.7 Data for allocation purposes Pressing Name CVB Mass (kg) DMC (g/kg) Price GE (euro/kg) (MJ/kg) Sesame seed expeller Sesameseed expeller (28300) 670 940 0.1 15.7 Sesame seed oil NA 315 1000 0.75 37 Extraction Sesame seed meal Sesameseed meal extruded (28400) 570 930 0.1 14 Sesame seed oil NA 415 1000 0.75 37

1.9.7 References CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) Dutch emmissions guidelines. http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0012337/geldigheidsdatum_12-05-2011 European emission guidelines, EU solvents directive 1999/13. FAOSTAT 2011. http://faostat.fao.org/ Hamelinck, C., K. Koop, H. Croezen, M. Koper, B. Kampman, G. Bergsma 2008. Technical specification: Greenhouse gas calculator for biofuels. Version 2.1b. Ecofys CE Delft. Huo, H., M. Wang, C. Bloyd, V. Putsche 2008. Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Sesame seed-Derived Biodiesel and Renewable Fuels. Argonne. INTA, 2008, Energy balance of sesame seed-based biodiesel production in Argentina.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Jason Hill, Erik Nelson, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, and Douglas Tiffany 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. 103 (30) 11207, 2006. Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Subramaniam, V., Y.M. Choo, M. , H. Zulkifli, A.T. Yew, and C.W. Puah, 2010. Life cycle assessment of the production of crude palm kernel oil (Part 3a). Journal of Oil Palm Research. Vol 22, pag 904- 912. USB 2010. Prepared for United Sesame seed Board by Omni Tech International. Life Cycle Impact of Sesame seed Production and Soy Industrial Products, 2010. Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands Vis, J.C., J. Krozer, P.J.C. van Duyse en H.G. Koudijs. 1992. Environmentel study on margarine. Supported by NOH. Confidential. Van den Bergh en Jurgens B.V., Rotterdam.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.10 Soybeans

1.10.1 By-products from processing soybean Soybeans are mainly cultivated in Brazil, Argentina and the United States of America, with smaller contributions from Paraguay and Canada. Soybeans may be dehulled and can be crushed into soybean oil and soybean meal (the latter is usually mixed with the hulls).

Table 1.10.1 lists the names of soybean feed materials and their composition according to the CVB list (see also the introductory chapter). A relatively large number of specific products are described, but the studied literature on the environmental impacts of soybean crushing does not distinguish these. In the processing of soybeans, they are ‘dehulled’ and the soybean meal by-product usually include these hulls, though they can also be sold separately. As the prevalent method of oil extraction from soybeans is solvent extraction, soybean expeller was not encountered in the studies literature. However, the mass balance can be estimated from composition and energy use from data known of mechanical cold pressing of other oilseeds. As the majority of modern processing is via solvent extraction, it is assumed that all by- products of hulls only (entries of ‘soybean hulls’ in the CVB list) are from solvent extraction processing.

Table 1.10.1 Feed materials derived from soybeans name CVB Process DM Fat Soybeans heat tr Heat 885 192 treating Soybeans not heat tr None 885 192 Soybean hulls CF<320 Extraction 885 28 Soyb hulls CF320-360 Extraction 883 19 Soybean hulls CF>360 Extraction 886 16 Soybean exp Pressing 888 81 Soybm CF<45 CP<480 Extraction 873 19.2 Soybm CF<45 CP>480 Extraction 874 18.4 Soybm CF45-70 CP<450 Extraction 876 21.9 Soybm CF45-70 CP>450 Extraction 875 18.4 Soyb meal CF>70 Extraction 874 19.2 Soyb meal Mervobest Extraction 872.2 18.3 Soyb meal Rumi S* Extraction 872 16.6 * The producer of Rumi S, Schouten Ceralco (http://www.schoutenproducts.com/content.php?pagina_id=36) has apparently gone bankrupt, so this product is probably no longer available.

1.10.2 Sourcing Soybean meal, which is mainly used as livestock feed is mostly imported from Argentina and Brazil, while soybean meal produced in the Netherlands is from soybeans mainly sourced from Argentina, Brazil, and the United States. Soybeans can either be imported directly, or already processed into soybean meal in the country of origin. The production of soybean meal in the Netherlands is considerable at an average of 2.4 million tons in 2005-2008 and a large part is exported, but in the past years there has been a net import of soybean meal (MVO 2009). Overall, the amount of soybean crushing within Europe (and also the Netherlands) is steadily declining (MVO, soy fact sheet 2011). We will therefore assume only a small amount of crushing for the Netherlands. Table 1.10.2 estimates, from production and import figures (FAO TradeSTAT, average 2004-2008), the relative contribution from various sources as raw feed material for the Dutch livestock.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Table 1.10.2 Estimated countries of origin of the feed materials. Processing country: Argentina Brazil the Netherlands Contribution: 40% 50% 10% Crop-country Argentina 100% 33% Brazil 100% 33% USA 33%

Transportation from soybean cultivation to seaports are also an important aspect. Transportation of soybean meal is assumed to be similar to soybeans. The values given in the table below are for truck transport only, which constitutes around 60% of the transportation, the other 40% being equally divided amongst waterway and railway. For road transport, more detailed information is described in Table 1.10.3 for various countries.

Table 1.10.3 Estimated road distance to ports in soybean producing countries.* Country of origin Port Average distance Brazil Paranaguá 545 km Rio Grande 281 km Santos 672 km Argentina Bahoa Blanca 300 km San Lorenzo 300 km Rosario 300 km United States Destrehan 900 km Tampa 900 km * Soybean Transportation Guide: Brazil 2009. USDA.

1.10.3 Flowchart The processing of soybean is a fairly straightforward process where the beans are prepared, dehulled, and the oil extracted via a solvent extraction process with hexane. The hulls can also be used as animal feed, and the soy meal can be combined with the hulls (but is also often used separately). While a lot more sub processes can be defined (bean preparation, drying, storage, meal processing etc.), these processes all take place at one plant, and the numbers for the total process (which are shown in the energy input tables further on in this document) are sufficient for our purposes. The soybean hulls can be optionally added again to the obtained soybean meal, which results in a lower protein content. Typically, it is distinguished between 48% protein for dehulled meal, and 44% for meal with hulls added (http://www.soymeal.org/sbmcomposition.html). Although the entries in the CVB list do not follow these protein content exactly, a higher level of detail in the products than this distinction is not feasible.

Besides the oil extraction, beans can also be simple treated with heat or extruded, where heated beans are fed into an extruder barrel. The CVB list only presents the heat treated beans. No specific information on this process step was found in literature, but it is assumed that pre-heating (or toasting) of hulls is representative. Values for this process are found in Sheenan et al., 1998, and presented in Table 7.14 in the energy inputs section.. No changes in the composition or mass are assumed.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Soybeans

Dehulling

Solvent extraction Soybean hulls

Desolventising / Toasting / Drying

Crude Soybean oil Soybean meal

Figure 1.10.1 Flowchart of soybean processing

1.10.4 Mass balances Heat treating For the step of heat treating whole soybeans, no changes in mass or composition is assumed, as is also implicit from the composition data in the CVB list.

Mass balance of solvent extraction Table 1.10.4 shows the default values of the mass balance of soybean processing by means of solvent extraction. Below, the default values will be underpinned.

Table 1.10.4 Default values mass balance of soybean processing (solvent extraction). Input: DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Soybeans 885 1000 Output Soybean Oil 1000 190 Soybean Meal (no hulls) 880 706 Soybean Hulls 880 74 Loss 500 30

The table below shows data from various sources on the mass balance of soybean processing via the solvent extraction method. The values from the United Soybean Board (USB), collected by the National Oilseed Processors Organization, are recently collected data in the United States from December 2008 and January 2009 and are considered representative. They also include the apparent increase in efficiency of oil production per tonne of soybeans. Schmidt’s numbers are from Brazil and based on averages 2002- 2004 from Oil World; they are quite comparable to the USB values. Also Argentinian values from INTA (2008) are quite comparable. We therefor expect there to be little differences in mass balances from different countries.

Mass balance inventory data of soybean processing (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of soybeans). Output Values Unit Data quality Ref Best estimate Rel Com TRC GSp TeC Soybean Oil 190 191 kg/ton 1 1 1 3 1 a 170 2 2 3 3 1 b 175 3 2 2 3 ? c 192 1 1 4 3 1 d

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

190 1 1 2 3 1 l Soybean Meal (no hulls) 706 706 (Derived) kg/ton b Soybean Hulls 74 74 (Derived) kg/ton b Soybean Meal (with hulls) 780 789 kg/ton 1 1 1 3 1 a 760 2 2 3 3 1 b 786 3 2 2 3 ? c 773 1 1 4 3 1 d 800 1 1 2 3 1 l Loss 30 30 kg/ton b a: USB (2010); b: Sheenan (1998); c: Huo (2008); d: Schmidt (2007). l: INTA (2008)

Sheehan et al. (1998) states that 7.4% percent of the beans consist of hulls and the amount of hulls is derived through this number in all cases.

The dry matter contents can vary somewhat for different types of products. They are partly based on the CVB list, but are also found in a number of other sources (such as http://www.soymeal.org/sbmcomposition.html).

Mass balance mechanical pressing There are no data available on the mechanical cold pressing of soybeans, but the oil extraction rate is lower and leaves a residue in the expeller of 6 to 7 % oil. From this the mass balance can be estimated, starting from an oil content of the soybeans of 19%. The results are shown in Table 1.10.5, the ranges are related to those found for solvent extraction.

Table 1.10.5 Default values mass balance of soybean processing (mechanical pressing). Input: DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Soybeans 885 1000 Output: Soybean Oil 1000 140 Soybean Meal (no hulls) 880 756 Soybean Hulls 880 74 Loss 500 30

1.10.5 Inputs Heat treating For the simple heat treating step, the default values are presented in Table 1.10.6. These are taken from the toasting step in soybean oil production from the study by Sheenan (1998).

Table 1.10.6 Default values heat treating or extruding (per tonne soybean) Parameter Value Unit

Best estimate Error (σ2g) Natural gas for steam 60* 1.5 MJ/tonne Sheenan (1998). Steam produced assumed with 80% efficiency from natural gas.

Solvent extraction: Table 1.10.7 and Table 1.10.8 show the default summaries for processing soybean via solvent extraction in the Netherlands and elsewhere, respectively.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Table 1.10.7 Default values processing of soybean in the Netherlands (solvent extraction) Iputs Value Unit Best estimate Min Max Natural Gas 720 635 855 MJ/ton soybeans electricity (grid) 125 90 160 MJ/ton soybeans Hexane 0.8 0.8 0.8 kg/ton soybeans

Table 1.10.8 Default values processing of soybean elsewhere (solvent extraction) Inputs Value Unit Best estimate Min Max Natural Gas 1200 720 2010 MJ/ton soybeans electricity (grid) 200 160 250 MJ/ton soybeans Hexane 0.8 0.8 0.8 kg/ton soybeans

The processing of soybeans takes place in a number of locations, but there is, especially through the USB (2010) report, very good data available for processing in the United States. This data can still be valuable and can be used until more data is retrieved (from, for example Argentina). Data on energy inputs in the soybean extraction process are shown in Fout! Verwijzingsbron niet gevonden..

For the CVB entry of Mervobest soybean meal, information from the producer indicates an additional process step in which formaldehyde is added to the soybean final meal product (which promotes resistance to ruminal degredation). This appears to be also the case for Rumi-S soybean meal (Fiems, 1999), but since the original producer (Schouten Industries) has gone bankrupt, we were unable to retrieve specific information for this product.

Table 1.10.9 Default values for soybean meal treated with formaldehyde Parameter Value Unit Ref

Best estimate Error (σg2) Formaldehyde 10 1.1 MJ/tonne n N; Personal communication with Roel Baakman (Cefetra, producer of Mervobest).

Energy inputs inventory for processing soybeans (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of soybeans).

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Input Parameter Value Unit Data quality Ref Applied Rel Com TRC GSp TeC Energy use: fuels for Natural Gas 1200 1200 MJ/ton 2 2 3 3 2 b steam production. 720 (NL) 720 1 1 5 1 1 c 633 1 2 2 1 1 d 1900 3 2 2 3 5 e 2130 2 3 4 3 1 f 860 3 3 3 3 2 g 795 1 1 5 1 1 k 972 2 2 2 3 1 l 1013 m Energy use: electricity electricity 55 55.2 kWh/ton 2 2 3 3 2 B (grid) 35 (NL) 35 1 1 5 1 1 c 35 1 2 2 1 1 d 25 3 2 2 3 5 e 70 2 3 4 3 1 f 27 3 3 3 3 2 g 25 1 1 5 1 1 k 46 2 2 2 3 1 l 41 m solvent for extraction Hexane 0.8 0.8 kg/ton 1 3 4 3 1 J 0.84 m a: CVB grondstoffen; b: USB (2010), converted steam required to NG by assuming 80% efficiency; c: Vis (1992); d: own data (average of one softseed and two hardseed crush installations); e: Huo (2008); F: Sheenan (1998); g; Hill (2006), converted heat to NG by assuming 80% efficiency; j: European emission guidelines. k; Blonk (1997). l: Lehuger (2009), French modelled data. m; Buratti (2010).

Values by Huo (2008) are based on assumptions for the GREET model; the basis is unclear (also, the natural gas usage is quite high) and they will not be included. The numbers by Sheenan (1998) can be considered to be superseded by the newer USB (2010), which is an updated version of the Sheenan study. It is unclear exactly where the figures by Hill (2006) originate from, making the USB (2010) data the most reliable set. However, since the figures obtained from Dutch sources consistently show a lower energy efficiency. Although Vis (1992) is an old study, it is considered reliable and representative for the Dutch crushing industry since it is based on industry data (other Dutch values are also comparable). The USB data originates for the US, but it can be used as a conservative approximation to the crushing industry outside of the Netherlands. Although the USB report indicates that in the United States part of the steam is produced with coal, it is generally assumed to be a produced with natural gas.

Mechanical pressing No data were found on the mechanical pressing of soybeans. The energy required can, however, be estimated using data from the similar processes of rape seed pressing. As described in the subreport on generic oilseed processing, 177.5 kWh of electricity is needed for the production of 1 tonne of crude oil. From this the electricity needed to produce 140 kg oil from 1 tonne of soybean can be estimated at around 25 kWh per tonne soybean.

Table 1.10.10 Default input data processing of soybean (mechanical pressing, per tonne of soybean) Inputs Value Unit Ref

Applied Error (σg2) Electricity (grid) 90 1.4 MJ/ton k k: Based on subreport on generic oilseed processing, see text.

1.10.6 Allocation In the tables below, all the products from the CVB list are represented, except the non-treated soy beans.

Heat treating

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

The process of heat treating does not require allocation, all inputs of the heat treating process are allocated to the heat treated beans.

Table 1.10.11 Heat treating of beans allocation. Mass Ecnomic By-product name CVB DMC (g/kg) GE (MJ/kg) fraction fraction Heat treated beans Soybeans heat tr (31100) 1 885 - 17.9

Prices for the economic allocation are based on 2004-2008 world export averages from FAOSTAT. Price for hulls assumed to be 50% of soybean meal (dehulled), based on current prices (http://agebb.missouri.edu/dairy/byprod/AllProducts.asp). Price of soybean meal or expeller with hulls is assumed to be 10% lower than dehulled meal (in relation to the lower protein content). This needs further elaboration.

The percentage of hulls mixed in with the meal will be more exactly defined based on the protein content. These composition values were calculated based on protein contents of the various product compared to the maximum amount of protein as found in the products. The resulting amounts of hulls mixed in are described in the table below. For soybean expeller (only one entry in the CVB list) full mixing of hulls is assumed.

Table 1.10.12 Mixing of soybean meal and hull components for different CVB products. CVB code CVB name Soybean meal, Soybean hulls dehulled 31010 Soybean hulls CF<320 7.8% 92.2% 31020 Soyb hulls CF320-360 2.3% 97.7% 31030 Soybean hulls CF>360 0.0% 100.0% 30911 Soybm CF<45 CP<480 94.2% 5.8% 30912 Soybm CF<45 CP>480 100.0% 0.0% 30921 Soybm CF45-70 CP<450 85.3% 14.7% 30922 Soybm CF45-70 CP>450 93.1% 6.9% 30930 Soyb meal CF>70 83.9% 16.1% 21400 Soyb meal Mervobest 91.5% 8.5% 38400 Soyb meal Rumi S 95.5% 4.5%

The allocation towards the meal and hull components is then calculated as described in Table 1.10.13. After emissions are allocated towards these components, they are mixed in as described in Table 1.10.12.

Table 1.10.13 Prices and allocation for production from solvent extraction (soybean meal without hulls). By-product Mass (kg) DMC Price GE (g/kg) (euro/ton) (MJ/kg) Soybean oil 190 1000 689 37.0 Soybean meal, dehulled 706 880 249 14 Soybean Hulls 74 880 125 11.4 * These entries from the CVB list were identified as soybean meal without hulls because of their relatively high protein content and low fibre content. ≠ After allocation, Mervobest undergoes a final step of formaldehyde addition (see Table 1.10.9).

For soybean expeller, originating from mechanical cold pressing, only one entry is found in the CVB list. Because of its low protein content, it is assumed that these include the soybean hulls (it is also not indicated otherwise).

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Table 1.10.14 Prices and allocation for production from mechanical cold pressing. By-product name CVB Mass (kg) DMC Price GE (g/kg) (euro/ton) (MJ/kg) Soybean oil - 140 1000 689 37.0 Soybean expeller Soybean exp (30800) 830 880 225 15.3 (with hulls)

1.10.7 References Blonk, T.J., Lafleur, M.C.C., van Zeijts, H., 1997. Towards an environmental infrastructure for the Dutch Food Industry. IVAM, CLM. Buratti, C., Moretti, E., Fantozzi, F., Asesessing the GHG emissions of rapeseed and soybean biodiesel in compliance to the EU renewable energy directive methodology for biofuels, 18th European Biomass Conference and Exhibition, 3-7 May 2010, Lyon, France. CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) European emission guidelines, EU solvents directive 1999/13. FAOSTAT 2011. http://faostat.fao.org/ Hamelinck, C., K. Koop, H. Croezen, M. Koper, B. Kampman, G. Bergsma 2008. Technical specification: Greenhouse gas calculator for biofuels. Version 2.1b. Ecofys CE Delft. Huo, H., M. Wang, C. Bloyd, V. Putsche 2008. Life-Cycle Assessment of Energy and Greenhouse Gas Effects of Soybean-Derived Biodiesel and Renewable Fuels. Argonne. INTA, 2008, Energy balance of soybean-based biodiesel production in Argentina. Jason Hill, Erik Nelson, David Tilman, Stephen Polasky, and Douglas Tiffany 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels, Proc. Nat. Ac. Sci. 103 (30) 11207, 2006. L.O. Fiems, B.G. Cottyn, Ch.V. Boucque, J.M. Vanacker, S. De Campeneere, 1999. Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 47, p 17-28. Lehuger, S., Gabrielle, B., Gagnaire, N., 2009, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 17, Issue 6, April 2009, Pages 616-624. Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Subramaniam, V., Y.M. Choo, M. , H. Zulkifli, A.T. Yew, and C.W. Puah, 2010. Life cycle assessment of the production of crude palm kernel oil (Part 3a). Journal of Oil Palm Research. Vol 22, pag 904- 912. USB 2010. Prepared for United Soybean Board by Omni Tech International. Life Cycle Impact of Soybean Production and Soy Industrial Products, 2010. Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands. Dutch emmissions guidelines. http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0012337/geldigheidsdatum_12-05-2011

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Vis, J.C., J. Krozer, P.J.C. van Duyse en H.G. Koudijs. 1992. Environmentel study on margarine. Supported by NOH. Confidential. Van den Bergh en Jurgens B.V., Rotterdam.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.11 Sunflower seed

1.11.1 By-products from processing sunflower seed Sunflower seed is the seed obtained from the sunflower plant. The main products from sunflower seed are sunflower oil and sunflower meal and sunflower expeller. The meal and expeller are mainly used for feed. There are two main ways of processing sunflower seed: via mechanical pressing (which results in sunflower expeller) or oil extraction with an organic solvent (which results in sunflower meal). The dominant method in larger industries is solvent extraction, as this gives a higher yield of the more valuable sunflower oil (NSA, 2011).

Table 1.11.1 lists the names of sunflower seed feed materials and their composition according to the CVB list (see also the introductory chapter). The different forms of expellers and meals are due to the amount of hulls which can be partially removed and results in differences in protein and fibre content (hulls being rich in fibre). The process of dehulling itself is considered negligible (also, no direct information on energy use in this step is available).

Table 1.11.1 Feed materials derived from sunflower seed Name CVB Process DMC Fat (g/kg) (g/kg) Sunflowers dehulled None 940 450 Sunflowers partially dehulled None 914 326 Sunflowers with hulls None 914 291 Sunfls expeller dehulled Pressing 906 70,7 Sunfls expeller partially dehulled Pressing 921 99,5 Sunfls expeller with hulls Pressing 913 103,2 Sunfmeal CF<160 Extraction 891 18 Sunfmeal CF 160-200 Extraction 890 19 Sunfmeal CF 200-240 Extraction 890 19 Sunfmeal CF>240 Extraction 887 19

1.11.2 Sourcing By consulting various sources (such as input from industry experts and import statistics), an estimate has been made on the sourcing of the feed materials and the location of cultivation of the primary product.

Table 1.11.2 Estimated countries of origin of the feed materials. Processing in: China Argentina Ukraine percentage 10% 80% 10% Crop-country China 100% Argentina 100% Ukraine 100%

1.11.3 Flowcharts The two methods of sunflower seed processing give similar products; only the yields differ (see also the next section on mass balances). The solvent extraction is often proceeded by a (light) mechanical cold

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry pressing step, which removes a part of the oil. Of interest here, however, are only the final yields, and in the literature usually these two processes are treated as one.

Sunflower seed

Drying

Dried sunflower seed

Solvent extraction Mechanical pressing

Sunflower oil Sunflower meal Sunflower oil Sunflower expeller

Figure 1.11.1 Flowchart of sunflower seed processing. Solvent extractin process includes a preparation and pre-pressing step.

1.11.4 Mass balances The mass balance for the processing of sunflower seed is not available from literature sources. Global production data and information from 1994 from Sweden both indicate a 35:65 relation of meal:oil production. From the dry matter and oil contents of the seed and the by-products as given in Table 7.1, we can deduce mass balances for both the mechanical cold pressing (which leaves more oil in the residue, typically 75% of the oil is extracted) and oil extraction with an organic solvent (which leaves very little oil, typically 98% of the oil is extracted). The numbers in Table 1.11.3 and Table 1.11.4 are based on these extraction rates, while allowing for a loss of around 1.5% (derived from the loss in rapeseed processing, see Schmidt (2007)). To make the comparison with the whole sunflower seed as input in processing into meal or expeller with hulls included (i.e. with high fibre content: Sunfls exp w hulls and Sunfmeal CF>240, Table 1.11.1).

The weight percentage of hulls in the total sunflower seed can be estimated at 35% from the data in table 7.1, but Geneau-Sbartai (2008) indicates a 25:75 mass distribution. According to a sunflower seed supplier for bird seed, Shaw Creek (2011) the weight component of hulls in black oil sunflower seed ranges from 35% to 45%. The average of around 35% is deemed appropriate to use here for the calculation of the mass balances. The total oil extracted as shown in Table 1.11.3 and Table 1.11.4 will not change (as they are relative to the amount of sunflower seeds with hulls) but the amount of expeller or meal will decrease relative to the amounts of hulls removed.

Table 1.11.3 Default mass balance of sunflower seed processing (cold pressing, from 1 tonne of sunflower seed). Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Sunflower seed 910 1000 Output Sunflower oil 1000 220 Sunflower expeller, with hulls 900 765

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Loss (mostly water) 15 15

Output (With hulls separated): Sunflower oil 1000 220 Sunflower meal, dehulled 890 415 Loss (mostly water) 15 15 Sunflower hulls 900 350

Table 1.11.4 Default Mass balance of sunflower seed processing (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of sunflower seed). Input DMC (g/kg) Mass (kg) Sunflower seed 910 1000 Output Sunflower oil 1000 285 Sunflower meal, with hulls 890 700 Loss (mainly water) 15 15

Output (With hulls separated): Sunflower oil 1000 285 Sunflower meal, dehulled 890 350 Loss (mostly water) 15 15 Sunflower hulls 900 350

1.11.5 Inputs An important factor for the energy input of processing sunflower is the drying step, where the moisture content is brought down to around 6-10%. The energy requirement for drying is considered in the crop cultivation.

Processing of the dried sunflower seed to oil and meal/expeller is very similar to rapeseed processing, and lacking original industry data on sunflower seed processing, the values obtained for the CFPAN project for rapeseed are used. These are recalculated on the basis of per oil energy requirement. See also the subreport on generic oilseed processing.

Drying is taken into account to 94% in the harvest phase.

Table 1.11.5 Default inputs for processing sunflower seed (cold pressing, from 1 tonne of sunflower seed). Input Values Unit

Best estimate Error (σ2g) Electricity (pressing) 39 1.2 kWh/ton Based on values for rapeseed from Croezen (2005) and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.

For mechanical cold pressing, the energy requirement is 55 kWh of electricity per tonne of sunflower seed (for a production of 310 kg of oil), which results in 39 kWh per tonne sunflower seed (for the production of 270 kg of oil), adjust for the oil content. In a similar way the energy requirements for the solvent extraction processes are converted and used in Table 1.11.6. Hexane is a standard solvent for this extraction method.

Table 1.11.6 Default inputs for processing sunflower seed (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of sunflower seed). Output Values Unit Ref

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Best estimate Error (σ2g) Electricity (extraction) 27 1.2 kWh/ton b Natural gas (extraction) 500 1.2 MJ/ton b Hexane 1 1.2 kg/ton c a: see text; b: Based on values for rapeseed from Croezen (2005), Schmidt (2007), and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.; c: Schmidt (2007)

1.11.6 Allocation Table 1.11.7 through Table 1.11.9 show the economic allocation of the by-products of sunflower seed processing. All products from the CVB list, except the untreated sunflower seeds with hulls, are included in the mass balances and allocation data tables below. As noted before, the difference in amount of hulls added can have a significant impact in the composition and amount produced. The meals and expellers are divided in categories with or without hulls depending on the protein and fibre contents. For the partially dehulled seeds, we have assumed 50% of the seeds removed, based on the changes of the composition.

Table 1.11.7 Allocation data for dehulling sunflower seeds (from 1 tonne sunflower seeds) Full removal: CVB Name Mass DMC (g/kg) Pricea GE (MJ/kg) Sunflower seed Sunflowers dehulled (26910) 650 kg/ton 920 NA 24.0 Sunflower hulls NA 350 kg/ton 900 - - Partial removal: Sunflower seed Sunflowers partially dehulled (26920) 825 kg/ton 920 NA 20.1 Sunflower hulls NA 175 kg/ton 900 - -

Table 1.11.8 Allocation data for processing sunflower seeds, with hulls included in meal/expeller. Cold pressing: CVB Name Mass DMC Pricea GE (MJ/kg) (g/kg) ($/ton) Sunflower oil NA 220 kg/ton 1000 1022 36.9 Sunflower expeller Sunfls expeller partially dehulled (27120) 765 kg/ton 900 207 14.7 Sunfls expeller with hulls (27130) 13.5 Solvent Extraction: Sunflower oil NA 285 kg/ton 1000 1022 36.9 Sunflower meal Sunfmeal CF 200-240 (27230) 700 kg/ton 890 207 12.6 Sunfmeal CF>240 (27240) 12.3 a: Faostat commodity, averaged 0ver 2006-2010. In Faostat there is no distinction between meal and expeller.

[ Editor’s note: This is still to be update by using 50% hulls mixed in for partially deulled expeller for 27210 and others. Update of composition hulls/meal based on protein contents will likely be included.]

Table 1.11.9 Allocation data for processing sunflower seeds, without hulls included in meal/expeller. Cold pressing: CVB Name Mass DMC (g/kg) Pricea ($/ton) GE (MJ/kg) Sunflower oil NA 220 kg/ton 1000 1022 36.9 Sunflower expeller Sunfls expeller dehulled (27110) 415 kg/ton 900 207 14.4 Sunflower hulls NA 350 kg/ton 900 - - Solvent Extraction: Sunflower oil NA 285 kg/ton 1000 1022 36.9 Sunflower hulls NA 350 kg/ton 890 - - Sunflower meal Sunfmeal CF<160 (27210) 350 kg/ton 900 207 13.3 Sunfmeal CF 160-200 (27220) 12.9 a: Faostat commodity, averaged over 2006-2010. In Faostat there is no distinction between meal and expeller.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.11.7 References Croezen, H. en B. Kampman 2005. Op (de) weg met pure plantenolie? De technische, milieuhygiënische en kostengerelateerde aspecten van plantenolie als voertuigbrandstof. Report 2GAVE-05.05. CE Delft. CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) Faostat 2011. Websites: http://faostat.fao.org en http://www.fao.org/es/esc/prices. FAO, Rome. Geneau-Sbartai (2008) Sunflower Cake as a Natural Composite. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 11198– 11208 Hamelinck, C., K. Koop, H. Croezen, M. Koper, B. Kampman, G. Bergsma 2008. Technical specification: Greenhouse gas calculator for biofuels. Version 2.1b. Ecofys CE Delft. M.M. Bax, M.C. Gely, and E.M. Santalla, 2004. Prediction of Crude Sunflower Oil Deterioration After Seed Drying and Storage Processes. JAOCS, Vol. 81, no. 5 (2004). NDSU 2010. http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/procrop/flx/dryoct10.htm NSA 2001. National Sunflower Association. http://www.sunflowernsa.com/wholeseed/sunflower-as-a- feed/ Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Shaw Creek Bird Supply. http://www.shawcreekbirdsupply.com/seed_striped_sunflower.htm Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands.

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.12 Generic oilseed processing

1.12.1 By-products from oilseed Oil seeds are oil containing seeds of oil seed crops. The main products from oilseed are oil and meal or expeller which is used for feed. There are two main ways of processing oilseed: via mechanical cold pressing (which results in oilseed expeller) or oil extraction with an organic solvent (which results in oilseed meal). The dominant method in larger industries is solvent extraction, as this gives a higher yield of (more valuable) oilseed oil. This section describes the approach of obtaining a mass balance and energy inputs for these two types of oilseed processing, based on the oil contents of oilseed. In this way, energy requirements and allocation factors can be determined for oilseeds for which no specific data exists.

1.12.2 Flowchart The two methods of oilseed processing both give similar products; only the oil yields differ (see also the next section on mass balances). The solvent extraction is often proceeded by a (light) mechanical cold pressing step, which removes a part of the oil. Of interest here, however, are only the final yields, and usually these two processes are treated as one. Usually, a drying/heating step is performed before the actual oil extraction process.

oilseed

Dehulling and/or drying oilseed

Dried oilseed Dehulling and/or drying

Preparation and pre-pressing Dried oilseed

Solvent extraction Mechanical pressing

Crude oil Meal Crude oil Expeller

Figure 1.12.1 Flowchart of oilseed processing.

1.12.3 Mass balance If the dry matter and oil contents of the oilseed are known, the mass balances can be deduced for both the mechanical cold pressing (which leaves more oil in the residue, typically 75% of the oil is extracted) and oil extraction with an organic solvent (which leaves very little oil, typically 98% of the oil is extracted). The numbers in Table 1.12.1 and Table 1.12.2 are based on these extraction yields, while allowing for a loss of around 1.5% (see Schmidt (2007)).

Table 1.12.1 Mass balance of oilseed processing (cold pressing, from 1 tonne of oilseed).

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

Ouput: Mass: Oilseed oil 75% of oil content oilseed Loss (mostly water) 15 kg/tonne Oilseed expeller Oilseed excluding 75% oil and loss

Table 1.12.2 Mass balance of oilseed processing (solvent extraction, from 1 tonne of oilseed). Ouput: Mass: Oilseed oil 98% of oil content oilseed Loss (mostly water) 15 kg/tonne Oilseed meal Oilseed excluding 98% oil and loss

1.12.4 Inputs An important factor for the energy input of processing oilseeds is the drying step, where the moisture content is brought down prior to the oil extraction. Depending on the type of oilseed, energy use for a drying step will be included. This is, however, difficult to generalize as moisture contents can vary considerably.

Rapeseed processing is used as a basis of comparison to obtain general oilseed figures on energy requirements for processing. Thus, values obtained for the CFPAN project for rapeseeed are used. These can then be recalculated on the basis of per oil energy requirement. Table 1.12.3 and Table 1.12.4 show the inputs needed for obtaining 1 tonne of crude vegetable oil, which can then be used together with the mass balance to obtain the values per tonne of processed seed. This is done by looking at the amount of oil produced from a particular oil seed (depending on the oil content) and applying the energy usage per tonne oil produced and then recalculated to express the energy use per tonne input oilseed. The assumption is thus made that the energy requirement is related to the amount of oil produced, which is why the figures here are based on the amount of oil produced.

Table 1.12.3 Inputs for oilseed processing (pressing, for 1 tonne of crude vegetable oil produced, based on rapeseed). Output Value Unit Electricity (pressing) 640 MJ/ton oil Based on values from Croezen (2005) and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.

For mechanical cold pressing, the energy requirement is 55 kWh of electricity per tonne of rapeseed (for a production of 310 kg of oil), which results in 48 kWh per tonne oilseed (for the production of 270 kg of oil), adjusted for the oil content. In a similar way the energy requirements for the solvent extraction processes are converted and shown in Table 1.12.4. Hexane is a standard solvent for this extraction method.

Table 1.12.4 Inputs for oilseed processing (solvent extraction, for 1 tonne of crude vegetable oil produced, based on rapeseed). Output Values Unit Electricity (extraction) 340 MJ/ton oil Natural gas (extraction) 1750 MJ/ton oil Hexane 2.5 kg/ton oil b: Based on values from Croezen (2005), Schmidt (2007), and Hamelinck (2008), recalculated relative to oil production.; c: Maximum allowed usage, based on the ‘Europese Oplosmiddelenrichtlijn

FeedPrint background data report on processing, version 2012, part 1/7: Crushing industry

1.12.5 Allocation Table 7.6 shows the economic prices of Eurostat of generic crude vegetable oil and generic oil cake. Based on the calculation of the mass balance in Table 1.12.1 or Table 1.12.2, these prices can be used to calculate the economic allocation factor.

Table 1.12.5 Prices and allocation. Pressing: Price Crude plant oil 0.75 $/kg Oil expeller/meal 0.10 $/kg Eurostat prices for Dutch import, averaged over 2005-2009 (only 2008-2009 for crude plant oil).

1.12.6 References Croezen, H. en B. Kampman 2005. Op (de) weg met pure plantenolie? De technische, milieuhygiënische en kostengerelateerde aspecten van plantenolie als voertuigbrandstof. Report 2GAVE-05.05. CE Delft. CVB-table (2012): see appendix 1 in Vellinga et al. (2012) Hamelinck, C., K. Koop, H. Croezen, M. Koper, B. Kampman, G. Bergsma 2008. Technical specification: Greenhouse gas calculator for biofuels. Version 2.1b. Ecofys CE Delft. Nemecek, T., & Kägi, T. (2007). Life Cycle Inventories of Agricultural Production Systems. Swiss Centre for Life Cyvle Inventories Schmidt, J. H. 2007. Life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and Ph.D. thesis, Part 3: Life cycle inventory of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Aalborg. Vellinga, T.V., Blonk, H., Marinussen, M., van Zeist, W.J., de Boer, I.J.M. (2012) Methodology used in feedprint: a tool quantifying greenhouse gas emissions of feed production and utilization Wageningen UR Livestock Research and Blonk Consultants. Lelystad/Gouda, the Netherlands.