Page 112 - 2417
P. 112
Stichnothe et al. Carbon Footprints 2026, 5, 11 Page 17 of 17
60. Poh, P.; Chong, M. Biomethanation of palm oil mill effluent (POME) with a thermophilic mixed culture cultivated using POME as a
substrate. Chem. Eng. J. 2010, 164, 146-54. DOI
61. Schuchardt, F.; Wulfert, K.; Darnoko, D.; Herawan, T. Sustainable waste water (POME) and waste (EFB) management in palm oil mills
by a new process. In Proceedings of the International Oil Palm Conference; Bali, Indonesia, June 19-23, 2006; Pusat Penelitian Kelapa
Sawit: Medan Indonesia, 2006; p. 1046.
62. Chin, M. J.; Poh, P. E.; Tey, B. T.; Chan, E. S.; Chin, K. L. Biogas from palm oil mill effluent (POME): opportunities and challenges
from Malaysia’s perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy. Rev. 2013, 26, 717-26. DOI
63. Malaysian_Palm_Oil_Board. Overview of the Malaysian oil palm industry in 2024. Malaysian Palm Oil Board: 2024; p. 4. https://bepi.m
pob.gov.my/images/overview/Overview2024.pdf.
64. EFECA economics climate environment. Palm oil in the oleachemical sector. 2018, 1-13. https://efeca.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/
Briefing-note-Oleochemicals_Efeca_09.08.18.pdf. (accessed 2026-3-10).
65. Murphy, D. J.; Goggin, K.; Paterson, R. R. M. Oil palm in the 2020s and beyond: challenges and solutions. CABI. Agric. Biosci. 2021, 2,
39. DOI
66. Schmidt, J. H. Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Int. J. Life. Cycle. Assess. 2010, 15, 183-97. DOI
67. INRAE-CIRAD-AFZ Feed tables. https://www.feedtables.com/. (accessed 2026-3-10).
68. Møller, J. R. Kjeldsen A. M.; Weisberg M. R.; Soegaard, K.; Hvelplund, T.; Børsting, C. F. Feeding component table - composition and
feeding value of feeding components for cattle. Report to 91, Danish Agricultural Advisory Service (in Danish) https://pure.au.dk/portal/
en/publications/fodermiddeltabel/.
69. BMEL. Pflanzliche Erzeugnisse. https://www.bmleh.de/DE/service/statistik/statistik.html. (accessed 2026-3-10).
70. Bamber, N.; Turner, I.; Arulnathan, V.; et al. Comparing sources and analysis of uncertainty in consequential and attributional life cycle
assessment: review of current practice and recommendations. Int. J. Life. Cycle. Assess. 2019, 25, 168-80. DOI
71. Pelletier, N.; Tyedmers, P. An ecological economic critique of the use of market information in life cycle assessment research. J. Ind.
Ecol. 2011, 15, 342-54. DOI
72. Howard, N. Environmental assessment & rating - have we lost the plot? Procedia. Eng. 2017, 180, 640-50. DOI
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: All statements, opinions, and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual author(s) and
contributor(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of OAE and/or the editor(s). OAE and/or the editor(s) disclaim any responsibility for harm to
persons or property resulting from the use of any ideas, methods, instructions, or products mentioned in the content.
© The Author(s) 2026. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and
reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and
the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
