Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814
DOI 10.1007/s11367-016-1232-4
PROMOTING SUSTAINABILITY IN EMERGING ECONOMIES VIA LIFE CYCLE THINKING
Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of palm oil production
by wet and dry extraction processes in Thailand
Anyanee Bunchai 1 & Oramas Suttinun 1,2 & Aran H-Kittikun 3 &
Charongpun Musikavong 2,4
Received: 30 January 2016 / Accepted: 14 November 2016 / Published online: 23 November 2016
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016
Abstract
Purpose The crude palm oil (CPO) extraction is normally
done by a wet extraction process, and wastewater treatment
of the wet process emits high levels of greenhouse gases
(GHGs). A dry process extracts mixed palm oil (MPO) from
palm fruit without using water and has no GHG emissions
from wastewater treatment. This work is aimed at determining
the GHG emissions of a dry process and at evaluating GHG
savings on changing from wet to dry process, including land
use change (LUC) effects.
Methods Life cycle assessment from cradle to gate was
used. The raw material is palm fruits. The dry process
includes primary production, oil room, and utilities. MPO
is the main product, while palm cake and fine palm residue
are co-products sold for animal feed. Case studies were
undertaken without and with carbon stocks of firewood
and of nitrogen recycling at plantations from fronds.
Responsible editor: Thapat Silalertruksa
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1232-4) contains supplementary material,
which is available to authorized users.
* Charongpun Musikavong
mcharongpun@eng.psu.ac.th; charongpun@gmail.com
1
Faculty of Environmental Management, Prince of Songkla
University, Hatyai 90112, Thailand
2
Center of Excellence on Hazardous Substance Management (HSM),
Bangkok 10330, Thailand
3
Department of Industrial Biotechnology, Faculty of Agro-Industry,
Prince of Songkla University, Hatyai 90112, Thailand
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Prince of
Songkla University, Hatyai 90112, Thailand
Allocations by mass, economic, and heating values were
conducted. The trading of GHG emissions from co-
products to GHG emissions from animal feed was assessed.
The GHG emissions or savings from direct LUC (dLUC)
and from indirect LUC (iLUC) effects and for the change
from wet to dry process were determined.
Results and discussion Palm fruit and firewood were the
major GHG emission sources. Nitrogen recycling on
plantations from fronds significantly affects the GHG
emissions. With the carbon stocks, the GHG emissions
allocated by energy value were 550 kg CO2 eq/t MPO.
The GHG emissions were affected by −3 to 37% for the
change from wet to dry process. When the plantation
area was increased by 1 ha and the palm oil extraction
was changed from wet to dry process, and the change
included dLUC and iLUC, the GHG savings ranged from
−0.94 to 5.08 t CO2 eq/ha year. The iLUC was the main
GHG emission source. The GHG saving mostly originat-
ed from the change of extraction process and from the
dLUC effect. Based on the potential use of biodiesel
production from oil palm, during 2015–2036 in
Thailand, when the extraction process was changed and
dLUC and iLUC effects were included, the saving in
GHG emissions was estimated to range from −35,454
to 274,774 t CO2 eq/year.
Conclusions The change of palm oil extraction process and
the LUC effects could minimize the GHG emissions from
the palm oil industry. This advantage encourages developing
policies that support the dry extraction process and contrib-
ute to sustainable developments in palm oil production.
Keywords Carbon stocks . Direct land use change . Dry
extraction process . Fine palm residue . Indirect land use
change . Mixed palm oil . Palm oil mill
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814
1 Introduction
The palm oil industry is an important economic sector in
Thailand. The total palm plantation area in Thailand in the
year 2013 was 717,458 ha, and the total production quantity
of fresh fruit bunches (FFBs) was 12.4 million t (OAE 2015).
The life cycle of palm oil production consists of the oil palm
plantation, the transportation of the FFBs and palm fruits, the
extraction of crude palm oil (CPO) or mixed palm oil (MPO),
the management of their co-products, the refining of palm oil,
and the biodiesel production. The extraction of CPO from
FFBs in Thailand is done by a wet extraction process, but
MPO is extracted from the palm fruit by a dry process.
The ever-increasing demand of fossil fuels and the con-
cerns about their sustainability have led to the development
of alternative sources of energy. Biodiesel is a successfully
commercialized alternative to mitigate these problems and
concerns. Biodiesel can substitute for or be mixed in with
petroleum diesel. The life cycle of a biodiesel production sys-
tem from palm oil consists of the cultivation of oil palm, palm
oil milling, CPO refining, biodiesel production, and all trans-
port activities (Silalertruksa et al. 2012). In the production of
biodiesel, CPO and MPO are used as raw materials.
Some publications report the determined greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from the wet extraction process in
Thailand (H-Kittikun et al. 2009; Chuchuoy et al. 2009;
Kaewmai et al. 2012; Kaewmai et al. 2013). The wet extrac-
tion process of CPO generates GHG emissions from certain
activities that include the acquisition of FFBs, the production
of fossil fuel chemicals and electricity, the use of fossil fuel,
and the transportation of all inputs. In addition, the anaerobic
treatment of wastewater could emit high levels of GHG.
The average GHG emissions from palm oil mills with a wet
extraction process, with and without a biogas capture system
in Thailand, and without allocation to co-products were
1039 kg CO2 eq/t CPO in 2009. The major sources of GHG
emissions were the wastewater treatment plants (57.5% of
total GHG emissions) and FFB acquisition (40.6%)
(Kaewmai et al. 2012). Palm oil mills in Thailand produced
GHG emissions of 935 kg CO2 eq/t CPO, on average in 2010.
Wastewater treatment plants with biogas capture produced
about 42% of the total GHG emissions, whereas those without
biogas capture emitted 64% of the total GHG emissions
(Kaewmai et al. 2013).
For the dry extraction process, the palm fruit is separated
from the FFBs. Then, the fruit is transported to the dry extrac-
tion mill, while the empty fruit bunches (EFBs) are brought
back to oil palm plantations as soil conditioner. MPO is the
main product, and it is used to produce either edible oil or
biodiesel, while palm cake and fine palm residue are co-prod-
ucts. Currently, all palm cake and fine palm residue from dry
extraction mills are sold for use in animal feed. Unlike the wet
extraction process of CPO, the dry extraction process of MPO
1803
does not use water. There is no wastewater and no GHG emis-
sions resulting from wastewater treatment. Small communities
can establish a dry extraction mill at a low investment cost.
Thus, the dry extraction process of palm oil could be an alter-
native to mitigate the associated environmental problems and
could provide employment to villagers in rural areas.
In developing a sustainable palm oil industry, there are
serious concerns about the environmental impacts. This is
especially so with global warming that is caused by increased
levels of GHGs. Previous studies of the GHG emissions from
palm oil industry have emphasized the wet extraction process
(Reijnders and Huijbregts 2008; H-Kittikun et al. 2009;
Chuchuoy et al. 2009; Vijaya et al. 2010; Kaewmai et al.
2012; Choo et al. 2011; Kaewmai et al. 2013; Stichnothe
et al. 2014). No prior study has addressed the GHG emissions
by palm oil mills using the dry extraction process.
2 Methods
2.1 Goal and scope
The goal of this work was to determine the GHG emissions in
the conversion of palm fruit to MPO by the dry extraction
process. The main sources of these GHG emissions were de-
termined and compared to the wet extraction process. In ad-
dition, direct land use changes (dLUCs) and indirect land use
changes (iLUCs) affect the GHG emissions of wet and dry
extraction processes, and these effects were evaluated. The
concept of life cycle assessment (LCA) based on a cradle to
gate evaluation was used in this study. The LCA approach has
been used to determine the GHG emissions for the production
of palm oil (H-Kittikun et al. 2009; Schmidt 2010; Choo et al.
2011; Kaewmai et al. 2012; Kaewmai et al. 2013) and palm
oil-derived biodiesel (Hansen et al. 2012; Silalertruksa and
Gheewala 2012; Stichnothe et al. 2014). The functional unit
of the dry extraction process was 1 t of MPO.
2.2 System boundary
Figure 1 presents the system boundary of the dry extraction
process. The raw material is palm fruit. The dry extraction
process of MPO from palm fruit includes three major sections:
(1) the primary production process, (2) the oil room, and (3)
the utilities. In this study, all GHG emissions from raw mate-
rial production, transportation, and processing were included.
FFBs are harvested from palm trees, and the palm fruit is
separated from the EFBs in the plantation or at a collection
point by workers. The EFBs account for 19.9% by weight of
the FFBs on wet basis (Kaewmai et al. 2012). In the primary
production, palm fruit is transported to the palm oil mill by
trucks for immediate processing. The fruit is fed to a chamber
for cleaning and then exits through a drying chamber heated to
1804 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814

Fig. 1 System boundary for

producing mixed palm oil (MPO) Seedling Oil
O il palm
palm cultivation
cultivation
by dry extraction Soil preparation
Fertilizer

Fossil fuel
Cultivation
Plastic bag
Maintaining
Agriculture chemical
Harvesting
Electricity

Palm fruit separation Empty fruit bunch to oil palm plantation

Palm fruit

Palm
Palm oil
oil extraction
extraction

Primary production Oil room

Diesel fuel
Screw press Palm cake

Cleaning
Unfiltered mixed
Firewood palm oil

Drying chamber Screen

Fine palm residue
Electricity
Filter press

Transportation Mixed palm oil

MPO

Where
Where
Input Intermediate
Intermediate product
produ
d ct Co-product Direction

Process
Process Product Transportation

100 °C using firewood. In the oil room, the dry palm fruit is
fed into a single-screw press where the oil is extracted. The
outputs from this process are unfiltered MPO and palm cake.
The MPO, including the CPO and palm kernel oil (PKO), is
separated from fine palm residue by screening and filtration.
The MPO is collected into a storage tank until it is sold to an
oil refinery. The palm cake and fine palm residue are co-
products sold for use in animal feed.The GHG emissions for
the production of palm fruit are not available. The GHG emis-
sions of palm fruit production, therefore, were calculated by
using the GHG emissions of FFB production, obtained from a
study by the German International Cooperation (GIZ) (GIZ
2011a) with system boundary of cradle to gate. The palm fruit
was then transported in trucks to the mills. The GHG emis-
sions from the transport of palm fruit from the plantation to the
collection point, and from the collection point to the dry ex-
traction mills, were included in the calculations. There were
no GHG emissions caused by separating palm fruit from the
FFBs because this was manually done by workers.
During the harvest of FFBs, fronds are left on the oil palm
plantation. The decomposition of these fronds by nitrification
and denitrification in soil generates nitrous oxide emissions.
The recycled amount of organic nitrogen on an oil palm plan-
tation is between 64.5 and 180 kg nitrogen (N)/ha year, with
an average value of 100 kg N/ha year. When the average value
of recycled amount of organic nitrogen was used in GHG
estimates, the nitrous oxide emission increased from 3.51
(without recycled organic nitrogen on an plantation) to
4.89 kg/ha year (Stichnothe et al. 2014). The nitrogen
recycling on the plantation was included in the estimate of
GHG emissions. In addition, sensitivity analysis was conduct-
ed, for effects of nitrous oxide emissions from fronds on the
plantation on the GHG emissions of total oil (CPO and PKO)
and MPO.
The utilities section of the dry extraction process includes
firewood, diesel, and electricity. The firewood is used for dry-
ing palm fruit. The emissions from transportation of firewood
into the mill are included in the calculations. In this current
work, the mill used hevea wood and hevea branches (from
rubber plantations or others) as firewood. The GHG emissions
of production, transportation, and carbon stocks of firewood
were included in the GHG estimates. The firewood is
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814
considered as a co-product of a rubber plantation. Diesel is
used by the trucks’ moving inputs, products, co-products, and
firewood used in the production process. The GHG emissions
of production, transportation, and combustion processes of the
diesel were counted. The GHG emissions from the electricity
consumed and supplied from the Provincial Electricity
Authority were included.
Transportation is another section that can generate GHG
emissions. For the dry extraction process, the transportation
of all inputs to the mill was taken along in the GHG calcula-
tions. The CO2, CH4, and N2O that are recognized by the
Kyoto protocol (United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, UNFCCC 1998) were counted. In general,
the dLUC and iLUC have significant effects on GHG emis-
sions. Previous work related to the dLUC and iLUC for palm
oil production in Thailand was reviewed and considered
(Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2012). The GHG emissions (or
savings in emissions, if the effect was a reduction) from the
dLUC and iLUC effects, and from the switch from a wet to a
dry process, were determined at the final stage of assessment.
2.3 Methodology for calculating the GHG
The GHG calculations and determination of GHG emissions
from the dry extraction of MPO followed the LCA approach.
The methodologies provided by several organizations, avail-
able for calculating GHG emissions, were reviewed, including
Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (TGO)
(TGO 2011), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) (IPCC 2006a,b,c), and UNFCCC (UNFCCC 2010).
Our application target was to calculate the GHG emissions
from the conversion of palm fruit to MPO by the dry process.
Case studies were undertaken with and without carbon
stocks of firewood and recycling of nitrogen from fronds on
the plantation. At the present time, the mill uses hevea wood
and hevea branches as biomass fuel. The hevea branches
come from the felling of rubber trees in the rubber plantation.
After the felling of old rubber trees, the cultivators plant new
young rubber trees. The burning of hevea branches can be
considered carbon neutral, so their carbon stock was not con-
sidered. However, when firewood comes from other sources
without planting new trees to replace the felled ones, the car-
bon stocks must be counted.
At the present time, the co-products are sold for use in
animal feed. Shortages of firewood used as the biomass fuel
can occur, and other biomass/fuel sources are sought. The co-
produced fine palm residue has a reasonable heating value and
can be used as biomass fuel, but liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG) is normally used for drying. Use of fine palm residue
and LPG was proposed to replace the use of firewood.
The categories to determine GHG emissions of MPO, palm
cake, and fine palm residue were divided into 12 cases as
follows:
1805
Case (i) without carbon stocks of firewood and sharing the
GHG emissions to the products and co-products.
Case (ii) without carbon stocks and substituting the GHG
emissions of co-products for the GHG emissions of animal
feed replaced.
Case (iii) without carbon stocks, using fine palm residue
instead of firewood, and sharing the GHG emissions to prod-
ucts and co-products.
Case (iv) with carbon stocks and sharing the GHG emis-
sions to products and co-products.
Case (v) with carbon stocks and substituting the GHG
emissions of co-products for the GHG emissions of animal
feed replaced.
Case (vi) with carbon stocks, using fine palm residue in-
stead of firewood and sharing the GHG emissions to products
and co-products.
Case (vii) using LPG instead of firewood and sharing the
GHG emissions to product and co-products.
Case (viii) using LPG instead of firewood and substituting
the GHG emissions of co-products for the GHG emissions of
animal feed replaced.
Case (ix) without carbon stocks, including nitrogen
recycling on oil palm plantation from fronds, sharing the
GHG emissions to the products and co-products.
Case (x) without carbon stocks and substituting the GHG
emissions of co-products for the GHG emissions of animal
feed replaced, including nitrogen recycling on oil palm plan-
tation from fronds.
Case (xi) including carbon stocks, including nitrogen
recycling on oil palm plantation from fronds and sharing the
GHG emissions to the products and co-products;
Case (xii) including carbon stocks and substituting the
GHG emissions of co-products for the GHG emissions of
animal feed replaced, including nitrogen recycling on oil palm
plantation from fronds.
Replacing the GHG emissions of co-products with those of
animal feed, and of firewood by those of fine palm residue and
LPG, was calculated in accordance with heating values. It
must be noted that replacement of firewood by fine palm res-
idue, if the amount of fine palm residue is insufficient, fire-
wood will be replaced only partly.
The emission factors used by TGO (2011) and IPCC
(2006b) were adopted for all factors here (Table S1,
Electronic Supplementary Material). The default value of
the aboveground biomass of mature rubber was obtained
from the study of Palm and colleagues (Palm Woomer
et al. 1999) in an IPCC report (IPCC 2006c). The heating
value and quantity of hevea wood per hectare (Table S2,
Electronic Supplementary Material) were obtained from
the National Metal and Materials Technology Center
(MTEC 2013). The emission factor and heating value of
the feed for broilers were obtained from the Department
of Live Stock Development (DLD 2015) and TGO (TGO
1806
2011), respectively (Tables S1 and S2, Electronic
Supplementary Material).
Allocations in accordance with mass, energy, and econom-
ic values were used to attribute the GHG to the main product
MPO and to the co-products palm cake and fine palm residue.
This was because further processing of the MPO could con-
vert it to food or to fuel in the energy supply chain. A weighted
average using the annual MPO production of each dry extrac-
tion mill to average the GHG emissions was adopted.
For the dry extraction process, the GHG emissions from
the raw material (palm fruit), the diesel fuel, the firewood,
and the electricity used were summed to the total GHG
emissions as follows:
E Dry extraction ¼ E Palm fruit þ E Fuel þ E Firewood þ EElectricity
The factors are described below.
EDry extraction is the total GHG emissions from the
dry extraction process (kg CO2 eq).
EPalm fruit is the GHG emissions from the production
and transportation of palm fruit
(kg CO2 eq). The nitrogen recycling on oil
plantation from fronds was considered as
GHG emissions of the palm fruit.
EFuel is GHG emissions from diesel
fuel production, transport, and
combustion (kg CO2 eq)
EFirewood is the GHG emissions from production,
transportation, and combustion of firewood
(kg CO2 eq). The carbon stocks of firewood
are also considered. The firewood is
considered a co-product of rubber planta-
tions. The GHG of rubber plantation was
distributed to dry rubber, hevea wood,
and hevea branches.
EElectricity is the GHG emissions from electricity
consumption (kg CO2 eq)
The amount of palm fruit used in production was con-
verted to the amount of FFBs and multiplied by their emis-
sion factor, to get the GHG emissions for the production of
palm fruit. This is because there was no prior data for the
GHG emissions from palm fruit production, while the
GHG emissions of FFB production were available. The
uncertain composition of the palm fruit in FFBs is impor-
tant for the calculation of GHG emissions. One ton of
FFBs generated EFBs from 0.19 to 0.24 t (19.1 to 24%
by the mass of the FFBs). The rest (76.0 to 80.9%) was
attributed to palm fruit (Kaewmai et al. 2012; Jungniyom
2009; Chavalparit et al. 2006). Conversely, 1 t of the palm
fruit was produced from about 1.24 to 1.35 t of FFBs. With
regard to the life cycle inventory data of the 14 mills, on
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814
average, it took 6.07 t of FFBs to generate 1.21 t of EFBs
(19.9% by mass of FFB) (Kaewmai et al. 2012). The re-
maining 80.1% was palm fruit. So, according to these data,
1 t of palm fruit was produced from 1.25 t of FFBs. This is
the value used in our calculations.
For the dry extraction process, four scenarios were used for
conducting sensitivity analysis. The GHG emissions in cases
(i), (iv), (ix), and (xi) were used as baselines. In the case of wet
extraction process, the GHG emission baselines were deter-
mined by palm oil mill with biogas capture system, without
(Kaewmai et al. 2012) or with nitrogen recycling on plantation
from fronds. The nitrous oxide emissions by nitrogen
recycling on plantation from fronds, in the GHG calculation,
were set at 0.6 and 1.8 times of an average value (Stichnothe
et al. 2014).
2.4 Data collection
The two dry extraction mills that participated in this study are
located in southern Thailand. All the relevant data for the
calculations were collected continuously. In order to establish
the reliability of the GHG emission results, as much relevant
data were gathered as possible. Several methods of data col-
lection were used in this study, such as on-site interviews,
surveys, and questionnaires.
The data used for the calculation of the GHG emissions
were collected over a 1-year period. The emission factors
used to convert the quantities of inputs into resulting GHG
emissions were obtained from the IPCC and the TGO.
These factors were expressed as the amount of GHG emit-
ted per unit. The MPO, palm cake, and fine palm residue
were collected and analyzed for their lower heating value
(LHV) on a wet basis, using the Leco-AC-500 automatic
calorimeter.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Dry extraction process
The inventory list of two dry extraction processes for pro-
ducing 1 t of MPO is presented in Table 1. The amount of
palm fruit required for the production of 1 t of MPO was
4.5 t. The average oil extraction rate (OER) of this dry
extraction process was 22.3%, but an average OER of
18% has been obtained for mills using the wet extraction
process in Thailand (DEDE 2006). However, the OER of
the wet extraction process across 14 mills was 16.5% in
2009, and across a sample of 6 mills, it was 17.0% in 2010
(Kaewmai et al. 2012; Kaewmai et al. 2013). The reported
OER of the wet extraction process in Malaysia was 20.5%
(MPOB 2010).
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814
Table 1 Inventory lists of two mills using dry extraction
Item Unit Consumption/production
Mill 1 Mill 2
Palm fruit t 4.55 4.36
Electricity used kWh 98.2 84.0
Firewood t 0.27 1.04
Diesel fuel l 3.41 2.44
MPO t 1.00 1.00
Palm cake t 0.54 0.81
Fine palm residue t 0.38 0.35
The amounts correspond to producing 1 t of MPO
a
The values are expressed per functional unit
b
Weighted average by MPO produced
To make an equitable comparison between the OER of dry
extraction process and wet extraction process, it is important
to distinguish between the extraction rates of CPO and PKO.
Kaewmai et al. (2012) stated that the PKO can be either pro-
duced on-site by a palm oil mill using a screw press followed
by filtration or off-site in specialized mills in Thailand. The
reported PKO yield on-site was 0.0116 t per 1 t FFBs.
Stichnothe et al. (2014) reported typical mass flow values of
CPO production. One ton of FFBs can be used to produce
0.075 t of palm kernel, which yields 0.038 t PKO (i.e., 3.8%
by weight of FFBs). When the OER of PKO—from the stud-
ies of Kaewmai et al. (2013) and Stichnothe et al. (2014)—
was used to calculate the total OER of CPO + PKO, this total
OER of wet extraction process ranged from 17.7 to 21.8%.
The OER of the dry extraction process was slightly higher
than that of the wet extraction process. This is because only
palm fruit was used as raw material in the dry extraction pro-
cess, whereas the wet extraction process used FFBs composed
mainly of palm fruit and EFBs. The co-products correspond-
ing to 1 t of extracted MPO were palm cake (0.63 t) and fine
palm residue (0.37 t). The average values of other inputs
employed in the production of 1 t MPO were firewood
0.52 t, diesel fuel 3.09 L, and electricity 93.6 kWh.
The average percentages of outputs per input mass of palm
fruit, on a wet basis, were 22.3% of MPO, 14.0% of palm
cake, and 8.24% of fine palm residue, for the dry extraction
process. These outputs do not add up to 100% of input, be-
cause moisture is lost during drying. The average LHVs of
MPO, palm cake, and fine palm residue, determined with an
automatic calorimeter, were 39,048, 19,165, and 27,063 MJ/t,
respectively. An LHV of 39,212 MJ/t was reported earlier for
CPO by Kaewmai et al. (2012). The LHVs of the MPO and
CPO were similar. The average price of CPO in 2010 was 917
US dollar (USD)/t (Department of Industrial Trade, DIT
2016). The average prices of MPO, palm cake, and fine palm
residue were 820, 131, and 74 USD/t, respectively.
1807
3.2 GHG emissions of the dry extraction process and their
a main sources
Averageb In the dry extraction process, without the carbon stocks of
firewood in the calculation, the average values of the total
4.49
GHG emissions were 537 kg CO2 eq (weighted average) be-
93.6
fore the allocation of the extraction of 1 t of MPO in cases (i)
0.52
and (ii) (Fig. 2 and Table S3, Electronic Supplementary
3.09
Material). The GHG value before allocation was used to rep-
1.00
resent the total amount of GHG emissions from the dry ex-
0.63 traction process and was also used in this current work to
0.37 determine a breakdown of the GHG emissions. The acquisi-
tion of palm fruit was the major source of GHG emissions, at
about 448 kg CO2 eq/t MPO. This emitted on average 83.4%
of the total GHG emissions (Table S4, Electronic
Supplementary Material). The other sources of GHG emis-
sions were the electricity used (9.78%) and the production
and transportation of firewood (4.99%). The GHG emissions
from diesel fuel used were 1.82% of the total.
When fine palm residue biomass was used as the fuel for
drying in case (iii), the amount of firewood was reduced and
its GHG emissions dropped to 8 kg CO eq/t MPO. The GHG
emissions of the palm fruit, electricity, and diesel fuel were
similar to those of cases (i) and (ii). The total GHG emissions
obtained were 518 kg CO2 eq/t MPO, and this was the lowest
across all the cases studied. The acquisition of palm fruit was
again the major source of GHG emissions contributing 86.5%.
When the carbon stocks of firewood were included, the
aboveground biomass of mature rubber was converted to car-
bon stocks of firewood. The burning of this firewood emitted
carbon dioxide. The GHG emissions per 1 t of MPO extracted
were 871 kg CO2 eq, before the allocation (case (iv)) and
substituting the GHG emissions of co-products for the GHG
emissions of animal feed replaced (case (v)). The major
sources of GHG were the acquisition of palm fruit (51.4%)
and the carbon stocks combined with production and trans-
portation of firewood (41.5%). When fine palm residue was
used as fuel for drying in case (vi), the amount of firewood
used decreased. Then, the GHG of firewood was reduced to
102 kg CO eq/t MPO, and total GHG emissions of 612 kg
CO2 eq/t MPO were obtained.
LPG can be used as fuel on drying palm fruit, instead of
using firewood. However, the GHG emissions before the al-
location and substituting the GHG emissions of co-products
for the GHG emissions of animal feed replaced were 1125 kg
CO2 eq/t MPO. The use of LPG generated the highest GHG
emissions of all the cases considered. This mostly originated
from the production, transportation, and combustion of LPG
(54.7% of total GHG emissions) and the acquisition of palm
fruit (39.8%). The GHG from the production, transportation,
and combustion of LPG was 615 kg CO eq/t MPO.
Without the carbon stocks of firewood, including the annu-
al nitrogen recycling on oil palm plantation varied between 60
1808
Diesel Fuel
LPG
Firewood
Electricity
Palm fruit
Total GHG
emission
0 100 200 300 400
Fig. 2 Breakdown of GHG emissions from dry extraction process, before allocation (cases (i), (iii), (iv), (vi), (vii), (ix), (xi)) and before reduction of
GHG emissions from animal feed production replaced by co-products (cases (ii), (v), (viii), (x), (xii))
and 180 kg/ha, the GHG emissions increased from the case
without nitrogen recycling (case (i)), namely from 15 to 44%
(Fig. 1S, Electronic Supplementary Material). Using the aver-
age value 100 kg N/ha year, the total GHG emissions were
668 kg CO2 eq per 1 t MPO in cases (ix) and (x). The increase
of GHG emissions from case (i) by 24.4% was significant.
The acquisition of palm fruit was the major source of GHG
emissions at about 578 kg CO2 eq/t MPO. This emitted on
average 86.5% of the total GHG emissions (Table S4,
Electronic Supplementary Material). Figure 2S (Electronic
Supplementary Material) presents the sensitivity analysis
when the nitrogen recycling on plantation is included (case
(ix)). When the annual nitrogen recycling on oil palm planta-
tion was varied from 60 to 180% of the average level, the
GHG emissions were affected by −8 to 16%.
When the carbon stocks of firewood and nitrogen recycling
on plantation were included and the annual nitrogen recycling
varied between 60 and 180 kg/ha, the GHG emissions in-
creased from the case without nitrogen recycling but with
included carbon stocks (case (iv)), from 9 to 27%. At the
average nitrogen recycling rate of 100 kg N/ha year, the
GHG emissions per 1 t of MPO extracted were 1002 kg
CO2 eq, before the allocation (case (xi)) and substituting the
GHG emissions of co-products for the GHG emissions of
animal feed replaced (case (xii)). The major sources of GHG
were the acquisition of palm fruit (57.8%) and the carbon
stocks combined with production and transportation of
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814
Cases (i-ii)
Cases (iii)
Cases (iv-v)
Cases (vi)
Cases (vii-viii)
Cases (ix -x)
Cases (xi-xii)
500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
kgCO2eq/t MPO
firewood (36.0%). Nitrogen recycling increased GHG emis-
sions from no recycling (case (iv)) by 15%. The sensitivity
analysis (Fig. 2S, Electronic Supplementary Material) shows
that when the annual nitrogen recycling on oil palm plantation
was varied from 60 to 180% in case (xi), the GHG emissions
were affected by −5 to 10%.
For the wet extraction process with biogas capture, the GHG
emissions from acquisition of raw material, chemical input and
disposal of chemical packaging waste, energy input, and waste-
water management were included. In the wastewater manage-
ment, a biogas capture system was used for treating the palm oil
mill effluent. The GHG emissions from wastewater treatment,
sludge treatment, wastewater discharge, fugitive emissions, and
flaring were included in the calculation. The wet extraction
process with biogas capture before allocation emitted 1039 kg
CO2 eq/t CPO of GHG. The major sources of GHG emissions
were the wastewater treatment plant and the acquisition of
FFBs. Their GHG emissions accounted for 49.4 and 48.7%
of the total, respectively (Kaewmai et al. 2012). When the
GHG emissions and amount of on-site PKO were included in
the calculation, the wet extraction process with biogas capture
emitted GHG of 975 kg CO2 e/t total oil (CPO and PKO).
When the annual nitrogen recycling was included and varied
between 60 and 180 kg/ha, the GHG emissions increased from
the case without nitrogen recycling by 9 to 26%. At the average
100 kg N/ha year, the total GHG emissions were 1115 kg CO2
eq per 1 t total oil. The sensitivity analysis in Fig. 2S (Electronic
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814
Supplementary Material) shows that when the annual nitrogen
recycling on oil palm plantation was varied from 60 to 180%
around the average, the GHG emissions varied by −5 to 10%. It
can be stated that nitrogen recycling significantly affected the
GHG emissions, with both dry extraction and wet extraction.
When the carbon stocks of firewood were not included, the
GHG emissions from the dry process in cases (i) and (ii), (iii),
and (ix) and (x) were 45, 47, and 31% lower than from the wet
extraction process, respectively. When the carbon stocks of
firewood were included, the GHG emissions from the dry ex-
traction process in cases (iv) and (v) were 15% lower than from
wet extraction, respectively. On using the fine palm residue as
biomass fuel for drying, case (vi), the dry extraction emitted
37% less GHG than the wet extraction. The reduced GHG
emissions seem to favor dry extraction over wet extraction.
Without carbon stocks and included nitrogen recycling on
plantation from fronds, the GHG emissions from the dry pro-
cess in cases (ix) and (x) were 31% lower than from the wet
extraction process. When carbon stocks and nitrogen
recycling were included, the GHG emissions from dry extrac-
tion process were 3% higher than from the wet extraction
process. In the case of lack of firewood, LPG can be used as
the fuel in the drying process. However, when LPG was used
in cases (vii) and (viii), the GHG emissions increased by 29%
in comparison to case (iv). In addition, the GHG emissions in
cases (vii) and (viii) were 15% higher than for wet extraction,
when LPG was used. The mill should stock sufficient fire-
wood or use fine palm residue and avoid using LPG.
3.3 GHG emissions of MPO, palm cake, and fine palm
residue
The average GHG emissions of MPO production for the cases
(i)–(xii) are presented in Fig. 3 and in Table S5 (Electronic
Supplementary Material). At present, the mill uses firewood
as fuel for drying and the co-products are sold for use in
animal feeds. The GHG emissions were not assessed for the
cases where LPG was used with fine palm residue.
Without carbon stocks, the GHG emissions for producing a
ton of MPO allocated by mass, energy, and economic values
were 267, 341, and 473 kg CO2 eq, respectively, in case (i).
The GHG emissions of the feed for broiler were used to sub-
stitute GHG emissions of palm cake and fine palm residue in
case (ii). The amounts of palm cake and fine palm residue
were converted to amounts of feed for broiler on the basis of
heating value. Then, the amount of feed for broiler was mul-
tiplied by its emission factor to get GHG emissions replaced
by the GHG emissions of palm cake and fine palm residue. In
this case, the high levels of GHG emissions were reduced. The
savings in GHG emissions would be 350 kg CO2 eq/t MPO
produced. When the nitrogen recycling on the plantation from
fronds was included, the GHG emissions of MPO allocated by
mass, energy, and economic values were 333, 425, and 589 kg
1809
CO2 eq, respectively, for case (ix). Savings in GHG emissions
of 219 kg CO2 eq/t MPO were found in case (x).
When the carbon stocks of firewood were included, the
GHG emissions of MPO were 429, 550, and 768 kg CO2
eq, based on allocation by mass, energy, or economic value,
in case (iv). Attribution by economic value allocated the
highest amount of GHG emissions to MPO. The GHG emis-
sions increased by 38% when carbon stocks were included.
On substituting the feed for broilers with the co-products, the
GHG emissions were reduced by 15 kg CO2 eq/t MPO. When
nitrogen recycling was included, the GHG emissions of MPO
allocated by mass, energy, and economic values were 495,
634, and 884 kg CO2 eq, respectively, in case (xi). GHG
emissions of 116 kg CO2 eq/t MPO were found for case
(xii). If the MPO is used to produce biodiesel or used in the
energy sector, the GHG emissions should be allocated by
LHV. If the MPO is used for edible oils and cosmetics, then
price is the first priority followed by mass. This is because it is
unfair to share or attribute GHG on mass basis to MPO and its
low value co-products.
The average GHG emissions by economic value allocation
of palm cake in case (i) were 76 kg CO2 eq/(t palm cake).
When carbon stocks were included (case (iv)), the GHG emis-
sions shared among products and co-products by economic
value were 123 kg CO2 eq/(t palm cake). In case (i), the pro-
duction of a ton of fine palm residue emitted an average GHG
amount of 42 kg CO2 eq, when weighted by economic value.
In case (iv) with carbon stocks included, the GHG emissions
allocated by economic value were 67 kg CO2 eq (Table S5).
The allocation by mass showed the highest GHG emissions
for palm cake and fine palm residue, followed by attributions
based on energy and economic values. For the palm cake and
fine palm residue, the contribution by economic value is the
first priority when they are used in animal feeds.
3.4 Recommendations for GHG mitigation
A comparison of the dry and the wet palm oil extraction
processes, for the inputs and the outputs, is shown in
Table S6 (Electronic Supplementary Material). The palm
fruit was the major input in the dry extraction process,
whereas the FFBs were the major input in the wet extraction
process. The MPO and the CPO were the products from the
dry and the wet extraction processes, respectively. For the
co-products, the dry extraction process produced palm cake
and fine palm residue. The wet extraction process had palm
kernels and shells as co-products. In some mills, the palm
kernel was treated with a screw press and filtered to get
PKO and palm kernel meal (Kaewmai et al. 2012). In terms
of the wastes, the dry extraction process did not generate
solid waste or wastewater. The wet extraction process gen-
erated EFBs, decanter cake, and wastewater. These wastes
require good system management.
1810 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814

1200

1000

Mass Energy Price

800

600
kg COeq/to m MPO

400

200

0
Case (i) Case (iii) Case (iv) Case (vi) Case (vii) Case (ix) (Case (xi) Case (ii) Case (v) Case (viii) Case (x) Case (xii)

-200

-400

-600
Fig. 3 Allocation of GHG emissions from producing MPO by dry extraction

A comparison of the GHG emissions from the alternative
processes is summarized in Table 2. For the dry extraction
process, the major sources of the GHG emissions were in
obtaining the palm fruit and in the electric consumption, when
the carbon stocks of firewood were not included. In the case
where carbon stocks were included, obtaining the palm fruit
and the production, transportation, and combustion of fire-
wood were the major sources of GHG emissions. Including
nitrogen recycling on plantation from fronds, without carbon
stocks, the palm fruit was the major source of GHG emissions.
With carbon stocks, the major GHG emissions were the palm
fruit acquisition and firewood acquisition and combustion.
The major sources of GHG emissions in the wet extraction
process were the wastewater treatment process (49.4%) and
the FFB acquisition (48.7) (Kaewmai et al. 2012). When the
GHG emissions of kaolin production and transportation were

Table 2 Comparison of GHG

emissions from dry and wet Resource Percent of GHG emissions (%)
extraction processes
Dry extraction process Wet extraction
processa

Cases (i) Cases (iv) Cases (ix) Cases (xi) Case Case
and (ii) and (v) and (x) and (xii) (a) (b)

Raw material 83.4 51.4 67.0 44.7 48.5 42.8

Nitrogen recycling on oil – – 19.6 13.1 – 11.8
plantation from fronds
Chemicals used – – – – 0.85 0.75
Firewood 4.99 41.5 4.01 36.0 – –
Fossil fuels 1.82 1.16 1.46 0.97 1.07 0.94
Electricity 9.78 6.03 7.86 5.24 0.42 0.37
Wastewater – – – – 49.2 43.4
a
Adopted from Kaewmai et al. (2012) for mills with biogas capture system: Case (a) without nitrogen recycling
on oil plantation from fronds, and case (b) with nitrogen recycling on oil plantation from fronds
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814
included in the calculation, the wastewater treatment process
(49.2%) and the FFB acquisition (48.5%) were the major
GHG emitted sources. Including GHG emissions from kaolin
and nitrogen recycling on plantation from fronds, the GHG
emissions of FFB acquisition and the wastewater treatment
process accounted for 54.6 and 43.4% of the total GHG emis-
sions, respectively. It can be stated that obtaining the FFBs and
palm fruit were the major sources of GHG emissions regard-
less of the process. In case the environmental policy makers
wish to address the GHG emissions from palm oil production,
the dominant portion of these emissions come from the oil
palm plantation.
GIZ has developed GHG calculations and optimization
guidelines for oil palm plantations in Thailand (GIZ
2011a,b). The GHG emissions from chemical fertilizer pro-
duction, transportation, and the utilities accounted for 80% of
the total GHG emissions in the plantations. Reducing the
GHG emissions from the oil palm plantations could be
achieved by increasing the quantity and quality of the pro-
duced FFBs. The principles of Good Agricultural Practice
(GAP) advocated by the Department of Agriculture (DOA
2012) must be used by growers of oil palms. In GAP, appro-
priate fertilizer and soil analysis are recommended for use in
oil palm plantations. In addition, the nitrogen recycling on
plantation from fronds significantly increases the GHG emis-
sions (Stichnothe et al. 2014). Therefore, it must be considered
in the calculation of GHG emissions and in the management
of palm oil plantation.
The main cause of GHG emissions from oil palm planta-
tions was N fertilizer (approximately 80%) (GIZ 2011a).
Therefore, organic fertilizer use of the EFBs was recommend-
ed, to partly replace chemical fertilizers (GIZ 2011b). Soil
analyses must be done initially and later to monitor the oper-
ation of a plantation and to select the most appropriate fertil-
izers. In practice, these guidelines should be used to educate
oil palm growers in both small-scale and large-scale planta-
tions (GIZ 2011b; Uniliver 2003).
Among the specific major sources of GHG emissions from
the dry extraction process, the electricity supplied by the
Provincial Electricity Authority was considered an important
source. Further development should focus on the technology
needed for using fine palm residue as biomass fuel to generate
electricity, as 20.43 kWh/t (palm fruits) is used by the mill.
Silalertruksa and Gheewala (2012) evaluated the GHG
emissions from palm biodiesel in Thailand. The future avail-
abilities of FFB and CPO as feedstock were estimated, to help
satisfy the future demands of food and fuel. The dLUC and
iLUC were included in the GHG calculations. Five dLUC
scenarios in Thailand were examined including (i) rubber to
oil palm in the south, (ii) cassava to oil palm in the northeast or
the east, (iii) paddy field to oil palm in the south, (iv) land set
aside (such as grassland) for oil palm in the south, and (v)
forestland to oil palm in the south or the northeast.
1811
Crop displacement was used for the calculation of potential
iLUC effects on GHG emissions. The grassland and forestland
were displaced for growing rubber and cassava. The potential
iLUC effects of the scenarios were determined as (i) grassland
to rubber in the northeast, (ii) forestland to rubber in the north-
east, (iii) grassland to cassava in the northeast, (iv) forestland
to cassava in the northeast, and (iv) grassland to cassava in
Vietnam (Silalertruksa and Gheewala 2012).
Our current study used the results of Silalertruksa and
Gheewala (2012) in the calculation of GHG emission effects
from dLUC and iLUC. The dLUC and iLUC related to forest-
land conversion were not included in the calculations of GHG
savings, in our study. This is because, in Thailand, setting up
plantations for economic crops in forestland is illegal
(National reserved forest Act 1964). At present, the central
and local governments strongly enforce the law and require
registration, in order to preserve the forestland. The GHG
savings (t CO2 eq/ha year) gained by changing from wet ex-
traction process to dry extraction process, including dLUC
and iLUC effects, were evaluated. This was based on five
scenarios: (1) rubber to oil palm in the south and grassland
to rubber in the northeast, (2) cassava to oil palm in the north-
east or the east and grassland to cassava in the northeast, (3)
cassava to oil palm in the northeast or the east and grassland to
cassava in Vietnam, (4) paddy field to oil palm in the south,
and (5) land set-aside for oil palm in the south.
From 2009 to 2013, the average FFB production was
17.6 t/ha year across the oil palm plantations in Thailand
(OAE 2015). The estimates of MPO and CPO extraction were
based on the amount of FFBs produced in 1 ha. An OER of
22.3% for the dry extraction process (this study) and of 16.5%
of CPO and 1.16% of PKO for the wet extraction process
(Kaewmai et al. 2012) were used. The GHG emissions before
allocation to product and co-products were used as represen-
tative of the total GHG emissions, for dry or wet extraction.
The GHG emissions and savings from converting a wet ex-
traction process to a dry extraction process are presented in
Table 3 for palm oil production.
When a wet extraction process was used, the GHG emis-
sions before allocation without (with) nitrogen recycling on
oil plantation from fronds were 3.03 (3.44) t CO2 eq/ha year.
With the dry extraction process, we assessed four cases: case
(i) without carbon stocks, case (iv) including carbon stocks,
case (ix) without carbon stocks and including nitrogen
recycling from fronds, and case (xi) including carbon stocks
and nitrogen recycling from fronds. The GHG emissions
were 1.69, 2.73, 2.10, and 3.15 t CO2 eq/ha year, respec-
tively (Table 3). Eventually, the GHG savings were 1.34,
0.30, 1.34, and 0.30 t CO2 eq/ha year, respectively, from
conversion of the wet extraction process to the dry extrac-
tion process in the cases (i), (iv), (ix), and (xi). By way of
comparison, the GHG savings between cases (i) and (ix) and
between cases (iv) and (xi) were similar.
1812 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814

Table 3 GHG emissions and savings from conversion of wet to dry palm oil extraction

Cases GHG emissions GHG saving for using dry

(t CO eq/ha year) process instead of wet
process (t CO eq/ha year)

Wet extraction process 3.03 –

Wet extraction process included nitrogen recycling on oil plantation from fronds 3.44 –
Dry extraction process (GHG before allocation)
Case (i) without carbon stocks 1.69 −1.34a
Case (ii) without carbon stocks and substituting the GHG emissions of co-products for the GHG −1.10 –
emissions of animal feed replaced
Case (iii) without carbon stocks, using fine palm residue instead of firewood 1.62 −1.41a
Case (iv) included carbon stocks 2.73 −0.30a
Case (v) included carbon stocks, substituting the GHG emissions of co-products for the GHG −0.05 –
emissions of animal feed replaced
Case (vi) included carbon stocks, using fine palm residue instead of firewood 1.92 −1.11a
Case (vii) LPG was used in drying process 3.53 +0.50a
Case (viii) LPG was used in drying process, substituting the GHG emissions of co-products for 0.75
the GHG emissions of animal feed replaced
Case (ix) without carbon stocks, including nitrogen recycling on oil palm plantation from fronds 2.10 −1.34b
Case (x) without carbon stocks, substituting the GHG emissions of co-products for the GHG −0.69 –
emissions of animal feed replaced, including nitrogen recycling on oil palm plantation from fronds
Case (xi) including carbon stocks, including nitrogen recycling on oil palm plantation from fronds 3.15 −0.30b
Case (xii) including carbon stocks, substituting the GHG emissions of co-products for the GHG 0.36 –
emissions of animal feed replaced, including nitrogen recycling on oil palm plantation from fronds

The GHG emissions before allocation from palm oil mill using wet extraction were adopted from Kaewmai et al. (2012)
a
The GHG saving was the difference between GHG of wet extraction process and dry extraction process (without nitrogen recycling on oil plantation
from fronds)
b
The GHG saving was the difference between GHG of wet extraction process and dry extraction process (with nitrogen recycling on oil plantation from
fronds)

The net GHG savings were obtained by combining the
conversion from wet to dry extraction with the effects of the
dLUC and iLUC on GHG emissions and are shown in Table 4.
Without carbon stocks and including nitrogen recycling in the
plantation, the net GHG saving ranged from 0.10 to 5.08 t
CO2 eq/ha year. The lowest net GHG savings were obtained
for scenario (iii) dLUC of cassava to oil palm and iLUC of
grassland to cassava in Vietnam and conversion from wet to
dry at existing conditions. The greatest net GHG savings
could obtained in scenario (i) dLUC of rubber to oil palm
and iLUC of grassland to rubber in the northeast and conver-
sion from wet to dry at existing conditions. The conversion of
wet to dry extraction in scenarios (i), (ii), (iv), and (v) and
cases (i) and (ix) accounted for 26.4–80.3% of the net GHG
savings, respectively.
When carbon stocks and nitrogen recycling on plantation
from fronds were included, the net GHG saving ranged from
0.63 to 4.04 t CO2 eq/ha year. The lowest net GHG savings
were obtained in scenario (ii) dLUC of cassava to oil palm and
iLUC of grassland to cassava in the northeast and the conver-
sion from wet to dry at existing conditions. The greatest net
GHG savings were obtained in scenario (i) dLUC of rubber to
oil palm and iLUC of grassland to rubber in the northeast and
the conversion from wet to dry at existing conditions. Without
scenario (iii), the conversion of wet to dry extraction in sce-
narios (i), (ii), (iv), and (v) and cases (i) and (ix) accounted for
7.3–47.2% of the net GHG savings, respectively. Both with
and without carbon stocks for scenario (iii), the GHG savings
mostly derived from the process conversion.
It can be stated that the highest GHG savings with process
conversion were for scenario (i) with rubber to oil palm
(dLUC) and grassland to rubber in the northeast (iLUC).
The lowest savings were scenario (iii), cassava to oil palm
(dLUC) and grassland to cassava in Vietnam (iLUC).
Ministry of Energy promulgated the Alternative Energy
Development Plan: AEDP 2015 in Thailand from 2015 to
2036. The target of biodiesel production in 2036 is 14.0 mil-
lion l per day. To support this plan, the area of oil palm plan-
tations in Thailand must increase from 0.72 million ha in 2015
to 1.63 million ha in 2036 (MOE 2015). In 2015–2036, when
the wet extraction process with OER from 17.9 to 20.1% is
employed, the area should increase by 45,500 ha per year. The
PKO can be produced on-site at palm oil mill with OER
1.16% per ton FFBs (Kaewmai et al. 2012). The OER of
PKO was assumed to increase at the same rate with that of
CPO. The total oil recovery rate was obtained by summing
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814 1813

Table 4 GHG emissions and

savings for five scenarios with Scenarios GHG saving (t CO2 eq/ha year)
dLUC and iLUC accounted for,
on conversion from wet to dry dLUC iLUC dLUC iLUC Net
extraction of palm oil
DP: case (i) DP: case (iv)
and (ix) to WP and (xi) to WP

(i) Rubber to oil palm GL to rubber in the −2.15 −1.59 −5.08 −4.04
northeast
(ii) Cassava to oil palm GL to cassava in the −2.68 2.35 −1.67 −0.63
northeast
(iii) Cassava to oil palm GL to cassava in −2.68 3.92 −0.10 0.94
Vietnam
(iv) Paddy field to oil palm – −1.71 – −3.05 −2.01
(v) Set-aside land to oil palm – −1.52 – −2.86 −1.82

Case (i) without carbon stocks. Case (iv) included carbon stocks. Case (ix) without carbon stocks, including
nitrogen recycling on oil palm plantation from fronds. Case (xi) including carbon stocks, including nitrogen
recycling on oil palm plantation from fronds. Case (xii) including carbon stocks and substituting the GHG
emissions of co-products for the GHG emissions of animal feed replaced, including nitrogen recycling on oil
palm plantation from fronds. The GHG emission factors for dLUC and iLUC were obtained from the study of
Silalertruksa and Gheewala (2012). The GHG emissions from palm oil mill with wet extraction process were
obtained from Kaewmai et al. (2012)
dLUC direct land use change, iLUC indirect land use change, WP wet extraction process, DP dry extraction
process, GL grassland

those of CPO and PKO and was used to estimate the increases
in plantation area and in GHG emissions (Table S7, Electronic
Supplementary Material). The OER oil yield of the dry extrac-
tion process was 17.8% as weight fraction of the FFBs. Based
on known increase of OAE from that of the wet process, the
OERs of dry process were assumed to be 18.8% for 2017 and
2019 and 19.8% for 2026 and 2036 (Table S7, Electronic
Supplementary Material).
The 45,500 ha per year increase in area of oil palm planta-
tions, and corresponding estimated yields of FFBs, CPO, MPO,
and PKO shown in Table S7 (Electronic Supplementary
Material), was used to calculate GHG savings. It must be noted
here that the total GHG emissions (before allocation to product
and co-products) were used as representative of the total GHG
emissions from the utilization of dry and wet extraction pro-
cesses. The yield of FFBs was assumed to decrease during the
period from 2015 to 2036 (MOE 2015). The yields in CPO,
MPO, and PKO production were assumed to increase.
Without carbon stocks and including nitrogen recycling in
the plantation, the GHG saving ranged from 18,522 to
274,774 t CO2 eq/year. When carbon stocks and nitrogen
recycling in the plantation were included, the scenario (iii)
cassava to oil palm as dLUC and grassland to cassava in
Vietnam as iLUC, and wet to dry process at existing condi-
tions, emitted GHGs between 18,902 and 35,454 t CO2 eq/
year. With the other scenarios, the GHG savings ranged from
45,045 to 220,768 t CO 2 eq/year (Table S8, Electronic
Supplementary Material). Without carbon stocks, the change
from wet to dry process can save higher amount of GHG. The
major GHG savings were from land use changes and from
conversion of wet to dry process. The iLUC was the main
GHG emission source. The GHG saving mostly originated
from the change of extraction process and dLUC.
The change of palm oil extraction process and the land use
change effects could minimize the GHG emissions of the palm
oil industry. The advantages of dry extraction include not only
reduction of GHG emissions but also reduction of investment
costs, as well as suitability for small-scale palm oil extraction
at community level. These advantages encourage developing
policies supporting the dry extraction process and contributing
to sustainable developments in palm oil production.
4 Conclusions
GHG emissions of dry extraction process and GHG savings
from changing from wet to dry process, including land use
change effects, were determined. The LCA done was based on
a cradle to gate evaluation. Case studies were undertaken with
and without the carbon stocks of firewood or the nitrogen
recycling on plantations from fronds. The emissions were al-
located to the various products, alternatively by mass, eco-
nomic value, or heating value. The GHG emissions of co-
products were also replaced by the GHG emissions of animal
feed. Palm fruit and firewood were the major GHG emission
sources. The nitrogen recycling on plantation from fronds sig-
nificantly affected the GHG emissions. With the carbon
stocks, the GHG emissions allocated by energy value were
550 kg CO2 eq/t MPO. The GHG emissions were affected
by −3 to 37% for the change from wet to dry process. When
1814
the plantation area was increased by 1 ha and the palm oil
extraction was changed from wet process to dry process and
the change included dLUC and iLUC effects, GHG savings
ranged from −0.94 to 5.08 t CO2 eq/ha year. The iLUC was
the main GHG emission source. The GHG savings mostly
originated from the change of extraction process and the
dLUC effect. Using a forecast of oil palm-based biodiesel
production during 2015–2036 in Thailand, when the palm
oil extraction process was changed and the change included
dLUC and iLUC effects, the savings in GHG emissions
ranged from −35,454 to 274,774 t CO2 eq/year.
Acknowledgements This research was funded by the project on
Sustainable Palm Oil Production for Bioenergy, which is jointly imple-
mented by OAE and GIZ. The project’s activities were commissioned by
the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, and
Nuclear Safety (BMU). The authors would like to express sincere appre-
ciation to the Graduate School, Prince of Songkla University (PSU) and
the palm oil mills. The authors would like to thank the Research and
Development Office, PSU and Associate Professor Dr. Seppo Karrila,
Faculty of Science and Industrial Technology, PSU, for English
correction.
References
Chavalparit O, Rulens WH, Mol APJ, Khaodhair S (2006) Options for
environmental sustainability for the crude palm oil industry in
Thailand through enhancement of industrial ecosystem. Environ
Dev Sustain 8(2):271–287
Choo YM, Muhamad H, Hashim Z, Subramanium V, Puah CW, Tan Y
(2011) Determination of GHG contributions by subsystems in the
oil palm chain using the LCA approach. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:
669–681
Chuchuoy K, Paengjuntuek W, Usubharatana P, Phungrassami H (2009)
Preliminary study of Thailand cabon reduction label: a case study of
crude palm oil production. Eur J Scientific Res 34(2):252–259
DEDE (2006) Best practice guide for eco-fficiency in palm oil industry.
Department of Alternative Energy and Development Energy,
Bangkok, Thailand
DIT (2016) Monthly prices of oil palm and palm oil. Department of
Industrial Trade, Ministry of Commerce, Nonthaburi, Thailand.
http://agri.dit.go.th/web_dit_sec4/home/index.aspx. Accessed 13
Oct 2016
DLD (2015) Nutrition Knowledge of Animal Feeds. Department of Live
Stock Development. http://nutrition.dld.go.th/Nutrition_
Knowlage/requirement/requirement_meat_chicken.htm/. Accessed
22 May 2015
DOA (2012) Good agricultural practice. Department of Agriculture,
Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives, Bangkok, Thailand
GIZ (2011a) GHG emissions calculation guideline for Thai palm oil
industry. Under the project of sustainable palm oil production for
bioenergy. OAE and GIZ, Bangkok
GIZ (2011b) GHG emissions optimization guideline for life cycle of the
palm oil industry. Under the project of developing GHG calculation
methodology for the Thai palm oil industry. Office of OAE and GIZ,
Bangkok
Hansen SB, Olsen SI, Ujang Z (2012) Greenhouse gas reduction through
enhanced use of residues in the life cycle of Malaysian palm oil
derived biodiesel. Bioresour Technol 104:358–366
Int J Life Cycle Assess (2017) 22:1802–1814
H-Kittikun A, Cherabu M, Maliwan C (2009) Preliminary evaluation of
greenhouse gas production from oil palm plantation and crude palm
oil extraction in Thailand. Hatyai Journal 7(2):97–106
IPCC (2006a) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories.
Volume 5, the institute for global environmental strategies (IGES):
Hayama, Japan
IPCC (2006b) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories.
Volume 2 Energy, the institute for global environmental strategies
(IGES): Hayama, Japan
IPCC (2006c) Guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories.
Volume 4, Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hatayama, Japan
Jungniyom T (2009) Zero-waste process in oil palm extraction industries.
Hatyai Journal 6(2):159–164
Kaewmai R, H-Kittikun A, Musikaving C (2012) Greenhouse gas emis-
sion of palm oil mills in Thailand. Int J Greenh Gas Con 11:141–151
Kaewmai R, H-Kittikun A, Suksaroj C, Musikavong C (2013)
Alternative technologies for the reductin of greenhouse gas emis-
sions from palm oil mill in Thailand. Environ Sci Technol 47(21):
12417–12425
MOE (2015) Alternative Energy Development Plan: AEDP 2015.
Ministry of Energy, Bangkok
MPOB (2010) Overview of the malaysian oil palm industry 2010.
Official Portal of Malaysian Palm Oil Board, Kuala Lumpur
MTEC (2013) Thai National Database of the saw mill and drying of
hevea wood. National Metal and Materials Technology Center
(MTEC), Pathumthani
National reserved forest Act. B.E, 2507 (1964) BHUMIBOL
ADULYADEJ, REX, dated April 16, B.E.2507
OAE (2015) Agricultural statistic of Thailand. Office of Agriculture
Economics, Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperative, Bangkok
Palm Woomer CA., Alegre J, Arevalo L, Castilla C, Cordeiro DG, Feigl
B, Hairiah K, Kotto-Same J, Mendes A, Maukam A, Murdiyarso D,
Njomgang R, Parton WJ, Ricse A, Rodrigues V, Sitompus SM, Van
Noordwijk M (1999). Carbon sequestration and trace gas emissions
in slash-and-burn and alternative land-uses in the Humid Tropics.
ACB Climate Change Working Group. Final Report Phase II.
Nairobi, Kenya
Reijnders L, Huijbregts MAJ (2008) Palm oil and the emission of carbon-
based greenhouse gases. J Clean Prod 16:477–482
Schmidt JH (2010) Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and
palm oil. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:183–197
Silalertruksa T, Bonnet S, Gheewala SH (2012) Life cycle sosting
and externalties of palm oil biodiesel in Thailand. J Clean Prod
28:225–232
Silalertruksa T, Gheewala SH (2012) Food, fuel, and climate change is
palm-based biodiesel a sustainable option for Thailand. J Ind Ecol
16(4):541–551
Stichnothe H, Schuchardt F, Rahutomo S (2014) European renewable
energy directive: critical analysis of important default values and
methods for calculating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of palm
oil biodiesel. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1294–1304
TGO (2011) Guideline for assessment of the carbon footprint of products.
Thailand Greenhouse Gas Management Organization (Public
Organization), Bangkok
UNFCC (1998) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. United Nation Framework
Convention on Climate Change, Bonn, Germany
UNFCC (2010) Project Search. United Nations Framework Conversion
on Climate Change. Bonn, Germany
Uniliver (2003) Sustainable palm oil: good agricultural practice guide-
lines. Ghana
Vijaya S, Ma AN, Choo YM (2010) Capturing biogas: a means to reduce
green house gas emissions for the production of crude palm oil. Am
J Geosc 1:1–6