**5. Conclusions**

There are appreciable margins of error associated with a theoretical assessment such as described in this chapter that should be viewed with caution. Given the number of assumptions and approximations that this assessment relied on, the hope is that this chapter would set the scope for studying the potential canola-beef industry interactions more intensely and with more empirical data. Instead of being able to use individual simulations of GHG emission budgets from ULICEES, this assessment had to rely on incremental changes between scenario and baseline simulations. This meant that the incremental results from ULICEES were very sensitive to the random noise from the inputs to ULICEES. This noise means that the results are more meaningful on the basis of the prairie region than on the provincial scale. The need for terms external to ULICEES to be integrated with ULICEES output to account for the additional hay, as well as for the expanded canola, was the result of ULICEES not having the capacity to generate additional hay area in the LCC. The need for these external terms made Scenarios 1 and 2 important steps in this assessment.

On the other hand, the strength of this analysis stems from the use of the ULICEES model which has undergone both peer review in the scientific literature and a wide range of successful applications, also described in scientific form. It was reassuring also that, at least regionally, the two livestock scenarios provided comparable quantities of protein. Scenario 4 embodied an additional challenge. To use the feed resources freed by the early slaughter of so many cattle an increase in the Prairie sheep population by a factor of about 50 was called for, given the very small size of the current prairie sheep industry relative beef in the region. It was not surprising that such an exchange between two livestock types would result in the greater differences among the provinces seen in Table 6 for Scenario 4 compared to Scenario 3. It was also not surprising that 73% more land was made available for the expanded canola crop by Scenario 4 than Scenario 3.

offset for the prairie region exceeded net CF of the expanded canola for Scenario 4, but not by

To understand the role of CO2 sequestration in the net CF of the expanded canola, a sensitivity test was run on the soil carbon storage rate [35] with a plus or minus 20% range. For Scenario 3 the range on the net CF was from 1.7 to 2.4 tCO2e/ha, for a range about 2.1 tCO2e/ha of ±16%. For Scenario 4 the range was from 0.9 to 1.5 tCO2e/ha, for a range about 1.2 tCO2e/ha of ±27%. Whereas a 20% increase in soil CO2 sequestration rate would change Scenario 4 to 51% below the fossil CO2 emission offset by canola, the result for Scenario 3 would only be 3% below that offset level. If the expanded canola described in this chapter were considered to be a continu‐ ation of the current operation of Canadian canola production, rather than a new installation, Scenario 4 might be deemed to just barely qualify for export to the EU [1] with soil carbon sequestration made 20% higher than reported by [35]. The increased sensitivity of Scenario 4 compared to Scenario 3 was due to the greater area of feed grain that was freed from the BCC

The protein based emission intensities in Figure 5 were close to equal for the two livestock scenarios in the Prairie region. Saskatchewan had the highest protein based GHG emission intensities in Scenario 3, while Alberta had the highest intensity for Scenario 4, but only slightly higher than Saskatchewan for Scenario 4. Scenario 3 exceeded Scenario 4 in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, while Scenario 4 was higher in Alberta. For the region, both scenario protein based emission intensities were higher than the baseline intensities for both beef and sheep,

There are appreciable margins of error associated with a theoretical assessment such as described in this chapter that should be viewed with caution. Given the number of assumptions and approximations that this assessment relied on, the hope is that this chapter would set the scope for studying the potential canola-beef industry interactions more intensely and with more empirical data. Instead of being able to use individual simulations of GHG emission budgets from ULICEES, this assessment had to rely on incremental changes between scenario and baseline simulations. This meant that the incremental results from ULICEES were very sensitive to the random noise from the inputs to ULICEES. This noise means that the results are more meaningful on the basis of the prairie region than on the provincial scale. The need for terms external to ULICEES to be integrated with ULICEES output to account for the additional hay, as well as for the expanded canola, was the result of ULICEES not having the capacity to generate additional hay area in the LCC. The need for these external terms made

On the other hand, the strength of this analysis stems from the use of the ULICEES model which has undergone both peer review in the scientific literature and a wide range of successful applications, also described in scientific form. It was reassuring also that, at least regionally, the two livestock scenarios provided comparable quantities of protein. Scenario 4 embodied

a high enough to meet the EC directives [1].

368 Biofuels - Status and Perspective

for expanded canola in Scenario 4.

**5. Conclusions**

although only slightly higher than for sheep.

Scenarios 1 and 2 important steps in this assessment.

Two issues regarding the methodology need clarification. First, in the CF stage of the assess‐ ment, grazing land, either tame pasture or rangeland, was mostly left out of the GHG emission budget calculations. This omission was mainly because ULICEES does not attribute any GHG emissions directly to these lands, electing instead to treat all enteric methane emissions as direct emissions from each animal, regardless of where that animal is located, and also because almost no inputs can be directly attributed to pasture. Manure voided directly onto pasture was also considered to have no methane emission cost in ULICEES.

The second issue was the ethical implications for the choices for scenarios. These scenario choices were made strictly for their value as boundary conditions in reallocating cattle to other categories in the assessment and forcing ULICEES to redistribute the resulting GHG emissions. Raising and slaughtering young calves for veal, is considered by many to be inhumane and, therefore, ethically unsustainable, regardless of the outcome of the CF assessment. Although this chapter does not advocate or condemn veal as a meat source, this assumption facilitated the expansion of sheep in Scenario 4. Also by assuming an all-roughage diet for the inflated sheep population for Scenario 4 the problem that the actual diet for Canadian sheep contained too much feed grain for this assessment was bypassed. However, removing all feed grain from the diet of the expanded sheep ignored the need to have a small share of grain in the diet of breeding ewes.

The third issue was the use of GHG emission intensities based on land areas in this assessment, rather than on measures of productivity. Land based emission intensities are generally not practical in describing the CF of ruminant livestock because these farming systems involve three different land uses, including annual crops, hay and pasture (both improved and unimproved), which are difficult and rather arbitrary to equate to a single indicator of land value. Land based emission intensities were the only way that terms external to ULICEES could be integrated with ULICEES output. The land basis for emission intensity was applicable in this assessment only because it was the incremental changes in these intensities, rather than the integral values, that were used. Otherwise, the land based GHG emission intensities in Tables 5 and 6, particularly for the two livestock scenarios, are not likely to be applicable outside of the context of this assessment.

This chapter explored three parameters of sustainability. The first was land use change in which it was revealed that the needed increase in forage production cannot be acquired from the use of rangeland. Given the very low yields of livestock feed that can be achieved within the limits set by the ESSR, small increases in canola area require too large portions of the remaining natural grasslands in Western Canada to be grazed. This deprives wild native ungulates of their feed sources in these areas and it could threaten the natural plant diversity in these lands as well, even with the co-grazing of cattle with sheep. In contrast to the greater net CF for canola, a shift to tame hay or improved pasture as a way of increasing forage, would protect both biodiversity and reduce soil erosion, because the soil surface is never bare.

The degree to which rangelands are already grazed by cattle is not known. Even if all of the rangeland shown in Table 2 were available for expanded livestock grazing, the 0.71, 1.60 and 2.14 million head of breeding cattle in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively (from Figure 2), in 2006 greatly exceeded the 0.10, 0.54 and 0.85 million AU that can be supported for six months on Prairie rangeland (Table 2). For the Prairies, the breeding cow population (the basis for defining the AU) was three times larger than the carrying capacity of rangeland defined on this basis. Also modern beef cattle are appreciably larger than the breeding cows at the time the AU indicator was devised.

The second sustainability parameter, and the main target of this assessment, was the extended scope of the CF of the new canola areas. The net CF of the expanded canola exceeded the fossil CO2 emission offsets associated with petrodiesel by 16% in Scenario 3 and was exceeded by the fossil CO2 emission offsets by 32% in Scenario 4, leaving little hope of this expansion option ever complying with the EC directives on biofuel feedstock production. In spite of the limitations of the modeling approach used for this assessment, the findings from both livestock scenarios send a message that expansion of canola for biodiesel feedstock is unlikely to be sustainable if ruminant livestock are displaced into a more forage dependant production system by the expansion.

Without CO2 sequestration under the new hay area, the margin between the net CF of canola and the fossil CO2 emission offsets would have been much greater. Because CO2 sequestration declines to almost zero by about 40 years as the soil carbon sink is recharged [27] (a consider‐ ation in all GHG mitigation strategies), this term is not perpetual. The magnitude by which the fossil fuel GHG emissions to be offset were too low in relation to the change in scenario GHG emissions was further demonstrated by the sensitivity to the yearly soil carbon storage rate. The need for a 20% increase in the CO2 sequestration to bring just Scenario 4 into complying with EC directives indicates that allowing canola to displace feed grains from the BCC is unsustainable. This suggests that a shift from ruminant to non-ruminant livestock farming [9] would be a better strategy for expanded canola feedstock to interact positively with Canadian livestock industries with respect to GHG emissions.

The failure of Scenarios 3 and 4 was in spite of not including several factors that would have made the net CF of the expanded canola even higher. The main factor was that no allowance was made for the processing side of the canola oil, or the fuel that was required to collect and transport the canola seed to processing plants. While the canola expansion described in this chapter called for more perennial forage to replace feed grain in the ruminant diet, it was not known if sufficient new land would be available to grow the required forage. Both of the livestock scenarios assumed that canola meal could be incorporated into the livestock diet. While this is possible in principle, the poor palatability of canola meal to livestock is a limitation. In order to minimize this limitation, that meal would have to be spread throughout the prairie beef population so that it appeared in smaller portions in individual diets.

The third sustainability parameter was the protein based GHG emission intensity. This protein based indicator for the livestock described in both Scenarios 3 and 4 was higher than the protein based GHG emission intensities for the current beef and sheep industries. So in addition to more GHG emissions, this canola expansion option contributed less protein to the human diet for the same level of GHG emissions. This provides yet more argument for not allowing canola expansion into the beef industry to make that industry more dependent on a high roughage diet.

This assessment does not condemn all options for expanding canola production. Canola is a valuable cash crop for Canadian farmers and, in the right circumstances, can be a viable GHG mitigation option as a biodiesel feedstock. However, as the conversion of land that was in summerfallow to other crops in western Canada nears completion, continued displacement by canola of any other land use in the Prairie Provinces of Canada needs close assessment, including attention to secondary land use changes.

From a policy perspective, this assessment has one more limitation, because it may not always be clear exactly what land is being displaced. For example, canola expansion was more the beneficiary than the cause of shrinking areas in summerfallow in the Prairie Provinces. Similarly, feed grains may be displaced by food quality crops that were displaced as the direct result of canola expansion. In this case the causative role of canola expansion in livestock displacement may not be recognized, even though it would be the main driver of this land use change in this situation. In spite of these potential policy implementation hurdles, the general lesson from this assessment may still give some valuable guidance for international pasture and rangeland managers, particularly given the close similarity between canola and rapeseed. This chapter may also provide insight into the CF of more extensive, forage based, beef production, regardless of whether or not biofuel feedstock is what is driving the shift away from intensive, feed grain dependant beef production.
