1. 14 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
GHG balancing crop-by-crop
vs. crop rotation cycles
how figures can differ
Horst Fehrenbach
International Workshop
Greenhouse Gas Emission from Oilseed Rape Cropping and
Mitigation Options
4 March 2015
Thünen-Institut, Braunschweig

2. 24 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
Content
0. Introduction
1. Issue
2. Proposal for solution
3. Impact on the GHG balance
4. Pros / Cons
5. Outlook

3. 34 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
.
Who‘s IFEU?
Introduction
Presently there are approximately 70 people from several
fields of study, working on current environmental topics.
IFEU is an independent ecological research, without any party
political and economical influence,
Financing solely through project-bounded means
approx. orders 2/3 from public sector 1/3 from private
enterprises.

4. 44 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
.
Fields of work
Introduction
Waste Management and Resource Conservation
Environmental Education
Energy (and Renewable Energies)
Industry and Products
Nutrition and Biomass
Sustainability
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
Risk Assessment
Environmental Impact Analysis (EIA) & Strategic
Environmental Assessment (SEA)
Traffic and Transport
a.o.

5. 54 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
.
Key activity in the field of
Introduction
LCA, GHG and sustainability assessment for bioenergy
 With special regard on the European legislation
Renewable Energy Directive RED
Developing of recognized GHG calculation tools, such as:
BioGrace spreadsheet
(version 4c recognized by the
EU Commission, version 5 in work)
ENZO2
developed by IFEU Germany
recognized by the BLE

6. 64 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
Usual approach in LCAs:
• Temporal system boundary for crops in crop rotation
systems:
start: after harvesting the previous crop
end: after harvesting the assessed crop.
(“harvest - harvest“).
 Attribution of fertilizer input does not match with the
effective uptake of nutrients by the single crops within the
crop rotation cycle.
Issue
Issue1

7. 74 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
• No real field data applied but theoretical
crop-specific uptake ratios
(see German Düngeverordnung Annex 1).
 several further problems:
1. Nutrient losses due to
 More or less unavoidable mechanisms (small scale)
 Excessive application of fertilizers
(over-fertilization  no good agricural practice)
 Poor seasonal situations
(low yield despite sufficient fertilization)
2. The actuality of the results
Usual approach in LCAs
Issue1

8. 84 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
Standard solution „harvest-harvest balance“
Proposed solution2
rapeseed wheat barley
harvest harvest harvest harvestfertilizer
arley
BioGrace calculation rule
3.5 Actual input data for use of fertilisers
„If a GHG calculation is made using actual input data
for mineral and/or organic fertilisers, then all
mineral and organic fertiliser shall be taken into
account that were used between the harvest of the
previous crop and the harvest of the crop that is
input for the calculation“
Rapeseed
biodiesel
Wheat
ethanol

9. 94 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
Proposed solution
Proposed solution2
fertilizer fertilizer fertilizer
Rape
seed
wheat
barley
rapeseed wheat barley
harvest harvest harvest harvest
arley

10. 104 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
barley
Proposed solution
Proposed solution2
wheat
DüngemittelDüngemittel fertilizer
Rape
seed
Re-allocation of total fertilizer application (whole cycle)
proportional with standard nutrient uptake ratios
fertilizer
fertilizer

11. 124 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
Proposed solution2
Proposed solution (numerical example)
Rape
seed
wheat barley
Harvest (dt/ha) 47 95 85
N-fertilizing (kg/ha) 200 196 158 554
(kg N/dt) 4,26 2,06 1,86
N-uptake (kg N/dt) 3,35 2,11 1,65
Demanduptake (kg/ha) 157 200 140 498
Allocation in relation to
uptake (kg N/ha) 175 223 156 554
SUM

12. 134 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
Proposed solution2
157,5
200
175,1
0
50
100
150
200
250
Entzug "Ernte-Ernte" "Fruchtfolge IFEU"
FerrtilizerinputinkgN/ha
Proposed solution (numerical example)
Standard
uptake
Actual value
„harvest-havest“
Actual value
„rotation cycle“

13. 144 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
How results might change
Impact on the GHG balance3
Cultivation of rapeseed
Yield
Rapeseed 4.700 kg ha-1
year-1
Moisture content 10,0%
Co-product Straw n/a kg ha-1
year-1
Energy consumption
Diesel 2.963 MJ ha-1
year-1
Agro chemicals
N-fertiliser (kg N) 175,0 kg N ha-1
year-1
Manure 0,0 kg N ha-1
year-1
CaO-fertiliser (kg CaO) 19,0 kg CaO ha-1
year-1
K2O-fertiliser (kg K2O) 49,5 kg K2O ha-1
year-1
P2O5-fertiliser (kg P2O5) 33,7 kg P2O5 ha-1
year-1
Pesticides 1,2 kg ha-1
year-1
Seeding material
Seeds- rapeseed 6 kg ha-1
year-1
Field N2O emissions 4,38 kg ha-1
year-1
Field N2O emissions can be calculated in the sheet
N2O emissions IPCC
Production of FAME from Rapeseed (steam from natural gas boiler)
Overview Results
All results in Non- allocated Allocation Allocated Total
g CO 2,eq / MJ FAM E results factor results
Cultivation eec 24,6
Cultivation of rapeseed 41,32 58,6% 24,21
Rapeseed drying 0,72 58,6% 0,42
Processing ep 21,6
Extraction of oil 6,50 58,6% 3,81
Refining of vegetable oil 1,06 95,7% 1,01
Esterification 17,51 95,7% 16,75
Transport etd 1,4
Transport of rapeseed 0,30 58,6% 0,17
Transport of FAME to depot 0,47 100,0% 0,47
Transport to filling station 0,80 100,0% 0,80
Land use change el 0,0 58,6% 0,0 0,0
Bonus or esca 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0
eccr + eccs 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0
Totals 68,7 47,6
Default values
RED Annex V.D
29
28,51
0,42
22
3,82
1
0,17
0,82
0,44
0
0
0
52
17,88
Cultivation of rapeseed
Yield
Rapeseed 4.700 kg ha-1
year-1
Moisture content 10,0%
Co-product Straw n/a kg ha-1
year-1
Energy consumption
Diesel 2.963 MJ ha-1
year-1
Agro chemicals
N-fertiliser (kg N) 200,0 kg N ha-1
year-1
Manure 0,0 kg N ha-1
year-1
CaO-fertiliser (kg CaO) 19,0 kg CaO ha-1
year-1
K2O-fertiliser (kg K2O) 49,5 kg K2O ha-1
year-1
P2O5-fertiliser (kg P2O5) 33,7 kg P2O5 ha-1
year-1
Pesticides 1,2 kg ha-1
year-1
Seeding material
Seeds- rapeseed 6 kg ha-1
year-1
Field N2O emissions 4,78 kg ha-1
year-1
Field N2O emissions can be calculated in the sheet
N2O emissions IPCC
Production of FAME from Rapeseed (steam from natural gas boiler)
Overview Results
All results in Non- allocated Allocation Allocated Total
g CO 2,eq / MJ FAM E results factor results
Cultivation eec 27,0
Cultivation of rapeseed 45,40 58,6% 26,60
Rapeseed drying 0,72 58,6% 0,42
Processing ep 21,6
Extraction of oil 6,50 58,6% 3,81
Refining of vegetable oil 1,06 95,7% 1,01
Esterification 17,51 95,7% 16,75
Transport etd 1,4
Transport of rapeseed 0,30 58,6% 0,17
Transport of FAME to depot 0,47 100,0% 0,47
Transport to filling station 0,80 100,0% 0,80
Land use change el 0,0 58,6% 0,0 0,0
Bonus or esca 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0
eccr + eccs 0,0 100,0% 0,0 0,0
Totals 72,7 50,0

14. 154 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
Impact on the GHG balance3
Results numerical example
29 27 24,6
22
22
22
1
1
1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Standardwert "Ernte-Ernte" "Fruchtfolge
IFEU"
gCO2e/MJ
Transport
Verarbeitung
Anbau
RED
Standard
value
Actual value
„harvest-havest“
Actual value
„rotation cycle“
Transport
Processing
cultivation

15. 164 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
Increasing eveness of the GHG results
 Farms usually operate long-term viewed
methods are rarely changed.
 broadening the time frame of the balance more adequately
reflects the characater of agricultural practice
than a strict focus on season and plot.
 Viceverse the focussed approach invites to allocate liberately
„GHG friendly“ management activities to bioenrgy crops and the
less positive ones to the other crops
e.g.: organic manure selectively applied for rapeseed (if
Biodiesel), synthetic fertilizer for common wheat, barley etc.
Pathway to further expansion to balance at farm level
Advantages of the proposal
Pros / Cons4

16. 174 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
Risk of „greening the figures“ ?
 The really applied amount of fertilizer within the crop season for
e.g. rapeseed might be decreased systemically inadequatly.
No general consensus under cropping system experts.
 Systematically high preceding crop effect might be responsible for
overrall higher losses?
Application of method shall not be optional.
„cherry-picking“ shall be prohibited!
Technical issue: how deal with N2O emissions?
E.g. how to combine with the GNOC model?
Possible drawback
Pros / Cons4

17. 184 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
The proposed approach should provide food for discussion
within the community of GHG experts in the agricultural area;
the proposal is open for further useful developments and
refinements.
We intent to test the proposed approach at farm-level under
real conditions
In case the approach turns out to be useful and sound:
 Intention to introduce it as an officially recognized rule for
GHG in line with the RED
 Integration into recognized tools like BioGrace and ENZO2
Outlook
Outlook5

18. 194 March 2015
ifeu - Institut für Energie- und Umweltforschung Heidelberg GmbH
Horst Fehrenbach
The ifeu BioGrace/ENZO2 team
BioGrace is supported by the IEE programme of the EU
ENZO2 is supported by the German Government (project number: 03MAP243)
Thank you