Life cycle assessment of oilseed crops produced in rotation with dryland cereals in the inland Pacific Northwest

  • Sharath Kumar AnkathiEmail author
  • Dan S. Long
  • Hero T. Gollany
  • Prajesh Das
  • David ShonnardEmail author



Oilseed crops are expected to become an important feedstock for production of renewable jet fuel. The objective of this study is to determine the life cycle energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of several 2- and 3-year crop rotations with cereals and oilseeds in a low precipitation environment of the inland Pacific Northwest. The purpose is to ascertain whether cropping intensification could improve energy efficiency and reduce GHG emissions.


A life cycle assessment (LCA) was carried out to evaluate the fossil energy and carbon footprint of nine cropping systems characterized by different inputs applied to spring carinata [Brassica carinata (A.) Braun] and winter canola (B. napus L.) in rotation with wheat (Triticum aevistum L.) and other cereal crops. Grain yield and field activity data from cropping systems were acquired from a field experiment over a 5-year period. Gas emissions were measured weekly over 2 years using static chamber methodology and laboratory gas chromatography. Inputs for the LCA regarding fertilizers, machinery fuel use, and pesticides were from the field trials and literature for fuel use.

Results and discussion

Emission results of winter wheat (WW) rotations are between 300 and 400 g CO2 eq. kg−1 WW, in the range for US average WW cropping emissions (i.e., 300–600 g CO2 eq. kg−1 WW). Reduced tillage fallow (RTF)-Winter oilseed (WO)-RTF-WW and summer fallow (SF)-WW rotation were the most promising, from a trade-off of GHG emissions versus total crop sales over 6 years per hectare with low emissions and high sales. The best oilseed result was 660 g CO2 eq. kg−1 for canola following RTF. Highest yields were observed when cereal or oilseed crops were planted following RTF. Efficiency in terms of Energy Return on Energy Investment was 3.85 for winter oilseed yields 1338.9 kg ha−1 and 1.6 for spring oilseed yields 552.2 kg ha−1.


Compared to SF-WW, bioenergy oilseed cultivation may increase CO2 equivalent emissions in 3-year cereal-based rotations due to increased inputs with inclusion of fallow-substitution cultivation. Fossil energy inputs required to produce oilseed crops were smaller than the total energy in final seed and thus oilseeds have the potential to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Improving energy efficiency and encouraging adoption by growers will depend on ability to enhance agronomic performance with higher yielding, drought and cold tolerant oilseed varieties.


Energy Carbon Winter wheat Canola Carinata 



Greenhouse gas


Life cycle assessment


Reduced tillage fallow


Spring barley


Spring oilseed


Spring wheat


Summer fallow


Winter oilseed


Winter wheat



The authors gratefully appreciate the technical support provided by Alex Lasher, Wayne Polumsky, and John McCallum in the laboratory and field. The US Department of Agriculture is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Mention of commercial products and organizations in this manuscript is solely to provide specific information. It does not constitute endorsement by USDA-ARS over other products and organizations not mentioned.

Funding information

This study was supported by Research Grant Award [2012-10008-19727] from USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, and USDA- Agricultural Research Service National Programs Soil and Air (NP 212) and Agricultural Competitiveness and Sustainability (NP 216).

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1488_MOESM1_ESM.docx (624 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 623 kb)


  1. Adler PR, Del Grosso SR, Parton WJ (2007) Life-cycle assessment of net greenhouse-gas flux for bioenergy cropping systems. Ecol Appl 17:675–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adom F, Maes A, Workman C, Clayton-Nierderman Z, Thoma G, Shonnard D (2012) Regional carbon footprint of dairy feed rations for milk production in the United States. Int J Life Cycle Assess 17(5):520–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberta agriculture and forestry (2015) Farm machinery cost calculator. Accessed 14 March 2017
  4. Baumann H, Tillman A (2004) . Studentlitteratur AB, LundGoogle Scholar
  5. Dangol N, Shrestha DS, Duffield JA (2015) Life cycle analysis and production potential of camelina biodiesel in the Pacific Northwest. Trans ASABE 58:465–475Google Scholar
  6. Gasol CM, Gabarrell X, Anton A, Rigola M, Carrasco J, Ciria P, Solano ML, Rieradeval J (2007) Life cycle assessment of an Brassica carinata bioenergy cropping system in southern Europe. Biomass Bioenergy 31:543–555CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gilbert RO (1987) Statistical methods for environmental pollution monitoring. John Wiley & Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Goglio P, Bonari E, Mazzoncini M (2012) LCA of cropping systems with different external input levels for energetic purposes. Biomass Bioenergy 42:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Handler RM, Shonnard DR, Lautala P, Abbas D, Srivastava A (2014) Environmental impacts of roundwood supply chain options in Michigan: life-cycle assessment of harvest and transport stages. J Clean Prod 76:64–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hayer F, Bonnin E, Carrouée B, Gaillard G, Nemecek T, Schneider A, Vivier C (2010) Designing sustainable crop rotations using life cycle assessment of crop combinations. In: 9th European IFSA symposium Vienna, Austria, pp 903–911Google Scholar
  11. Holzapfel C (2012) Conventional Brassica carinata (Ethiopian mustard) variety testing. Indian Head Agricultural Research Foundation. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  12. Horne R, Grant T, Verghese K (2009) Life cycle assessment. Principles, practice and prospects. CSIRO Publishing, CollingwoodGoogle Scholar
  13. Hutchinson GL, Mosier AR (1981) Improved soil cover method for field measurement of nitrous oxide fluxes. Soil Sci Soc Am J 45:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnston M, Licker R, Foley J, Holloway T, Mueller ND, Barford C, Kucharik C (2011) Closing the gap: global potential for increasing biofuel production through agricultural intensification. Environ Res Lett 6:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liebig MA, Tanaka DL, Gross JR (2010) Fallow effects on soil carbon and greenhouse gas flux.In Central North Dakota. Soil Sci Soc Am J 74:358–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mosier A, Schimel D, Valentine D, Bronson K, Parton W (1991) Methane and nitrous oxide fluxes in native, fertilized and cultivated grasslands. Nature 350:330–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Papendick RI (2004) Farming with the wind II: Wind erosion and air quality control on the Columbia Plateau and Columbia Basin. Washington State University College of Agriculture and Home Economics Report No. XB1042, Pullman, WAGoogle Scholar
  18. Parkin TB, Venterea RT (2010) USDA-ARS GRACEnet project protocols chapter 3. Chamber-based trace gas flux measurements 4:1–39Google Scholar
  19. Piringer G, Steinberg LJ (2006) Reevaluation of energy use in wheat production in the United States. J Ind Ecol 10(1–2):149–167Google Scholar
  20. SAFN (2011) Sustainable aviation fuels northwest: powering the generation of flight. Report. Accessed 12 Dec 2017
  21. Schillinger WF, Cook RJ, Papendick RI (1999) Increased dryland cropping intensity with no-till barley. Agron J 96:1182–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shonnard DR, Williams L, Kalnes TN (2010) Camelina-derived jet fuel and diesel: sustainable advanced biofuels. Environ Prog Sustain Energy 29(3):382–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh P, Sharratt B, Schillinger WF (2012) Wind erosion and PM10 emission affected by tillage systems in the world’s driest rainfed wheat region. Soil Tillage Res 124:219–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith EG, Janzen HH, Newlands NK (2007) Energy balances of biodiesel production from soybean and canola in Canada. Can J Plant Sci 87:793–801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stationary combustion emission factors, Solid, gaseous, liquid and biomass fuels: Fed Regist (2009) EPA;40 CFR Parts 86, 87, 89 et al; Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases; Final Rule, 30Oct09, 261 pp. Tables C-1and C-2 at FR, pp 56409–56410Google Scholar
  26. Taylor DC, Falk KC, Palmer CD, Hammerlindl J, Babic V, Mietkiewska E, Jadhav A, Marillia E, Francis T, Hoffman T, Giblin EM, Katavic V, Keller WA (2010) Brassica carinata – a new molecular farming platform for delivering bio-industrial oil feedstocks: case studies of genetic modifications to improve very long-chain fatty acid and oil content in seeds. Biofuels Bioprod Biorefin 4:538–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Young DL, Young FL, Hammel JE, Veseth RJ (1999) A systems approach to conservation farming. In: Michalson EL, Papendick RI, Carlson JE (eds) Conservation farming in the United States: The methods and accomplishments of the STEEP Program. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 173–191Google Scholar
  28. Zaher U, Stöckle C, Painter K, Higgins S (2013) Life cycle assessment of the potential carbon credit from no- and reduced-tillage winter wheat-based cropping systems in eastern Washington state. Agric Syst 122:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018
corrected publication [July 2018]

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Chemical EngineeringMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA
  2. 2.USDA-ARS, Soil and Water Conservation Research UnitAdamsUSA
  3. 3.Sustainable Futures InstituteMichigan Technological UniversityHoughtonUSA

Personalised recommendations