REFERENCES
1. Basiron, Y. Palm oil production through sustainable plantations. Eur. J. Lipid. Sci. Technol. 2007, 109, 289-95.
2. Basiron, Y.; Kheong, Y. Potential of palm oil for developing countries and role in the food and fuel debate. Global. Oils. Fats. Business. Manag. 2009, 6, 1-8.
3. Carter, C.; Finley, W.; Fry, J.; Jackson, D.; Willis, L. Palm oil markets and future supply. Eur. J. Lipid. Sci. Technol. 2007, 109, 307-14.
4. Yee, K. F.; Tan, K. T.; Abdullah, A. Z.; Lee, K. T. Life cycle assessment of palm biodiesel: Revealing facts and benefits for sustainability. Appl. Energy. 2009, 86, S189-96.
5. Benedict, J. J.; Heilmayr, R. Trase: Indonesian palm oil exports and deforestation. https://www.sei.org/features/indonesian-palm-oil-exports-and-deforestation/. (accessed 2026-3-10).
6. Parker, D.; Tosiani, A.; Yazid, M.; et al. Land in limbo: nearly one third of Indonesia’s cleared old-growth forests left idle. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2024, 121, e2318029121.
7. Hansen, S. B.; Olsen, S. I.; Ujang, Z. Greenhouse gas reductions through enhanced use of residues in the life cycle of Malaysian palm oil derived biodiesel. Bioresour. Technol. 2012, 104, 358-66.
8. Yoshizaki, T.; Shirai, Y.; Hassan, M. A.; et al. Improved economic viability of integrated biogas energy and compost production for sustainable palm oil mill management. J. Clean. Prod. 2013, 44, 1-7.
9. Stichnothe, H.; Schuchardt, F.; Rahutomo, S. 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. 2014, 19, 1294-304.
10. Reijnders, L.; Huijbregts, M. Biogenic greenhouse gas emissions linked to the life cycles of biodiesel derived from European rapeseed and Brazilian soybeans. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1943-8.
11. De Vries, S. The bio-fuel debate and fossil energy use in palm oil production: a critique of Reijnders and Huijbregts 2007. J. Clean. Prod. 2008, 16, 1926-7.
12. Verwer, C.; van der Meer, P.; Nabuurs, G. -J. Review of carbon fluxe estimates and other GHG emissions from oil palm cultivation on Tropical peatlands. 2008. https://edepot.wur.nl/38226. (accessed 2026-3-10).
13. Rum, I. A.; Tukker, A.; de Koning, A.; Yusuf, A. A. Impact assessment of the EU import ban on Indonesian palm oil: Using environmental extended multi-scale MRIO. Sci. Total. Environ. 2022, 853, 158695.
14. Muradian, R.; Cahyafitri, R.; Ferrando, T.; et al. Will the EU deforestation-free products regulation (EUDR) reduce tropical forest loss? Insights from three producer countries. Ecol. Econ. 2025, 227, 108389.
15. Heilmayr, R. B.; Benedict, J. J. Indonesia makes progress towards zero palm oil deforestation. https://www.sei.org/features/indonesian-palm-oil-exports-and-deforestation/. (accessed 2026-3-10).
16. Bakhtary, H.; Haupt, F.; Luttrell, C.; Landholm, D.; Jelsma, I. Promoting sustainable oil palm production by independent smallholders in Indonesia: perspectives from non-state actors. 2021.
17. Indonesian_Palm_Oil. The facts on Palm. https://www.indonesiapalmoilfacts.com/facts-sheets/ (accessed 2026-3-11).
18. Mulyasari, G.; Djarot, I. N.; Sasongko, N. A.; Putra, A. S. Social-life cycle assessment of oil palm plantation smallholders in Bengkulu province, Indonesia. Heliyon 2023, 9, e19123.
19. Kasim, E.; Stöhr, J.; Herzig, C. Promoting sustainable palm oil in supply chain strategy: a food business case study. QROM. 2021, 16, 550-71.
20. Hendrawan, D.; Chrisendo, D.; Musshoff, O. Strengthening oil palm smallholder farmers’ resilience to future industrial challenges. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 12105.
21. Euler, M.; Hoffmann, M. P.; Fathoni, Z.; Schwarze, S. Exploring yield gaps in smallholder oil palm production systems in eastern Sumatra, Indonesia. Agric. Sys. 2016, 146, 111-9.
22. Monzon, J. P.; Lim, Y. L.; Tenorio, F. A.; et al. Agronomy explains large yield gaps in smallholder oil palm fields. Agric. Sys. 2023, 210, 103689.
23. Lee, J. S. H.; Ghazoul, J.; Obidzinski, K.; Koh, L. P. Oil palm smallholder yields and incomes constrained by harvesting practices and type of smallholder management in Indonesia. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2013, 34, 501-13.
24. Jelsma, I.; Slingerland, M.; Giller, K. E.; Bijman, J. Collective action in a smallholder oil palm production system in Indonesia: the key to sustainable and inclusive smallholder palm oil? J. Rural. Stud. 2017, 54, 198-210.
25. Xin, Y.; Sun, L.; Hansen, M. C. Oil palm reconciliation in Indonesia: Balancing rising demand and environmental conservation towards 2050. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 380, 135087.
26. Dermawan, A.; Hospes, O.; Termeer, C. Between zero-deforestation and zero-tolerance from the state: navigating strategies of palm oil companies of Indonesia. For. Policy. Econ. 2022, 136, 102690.
27. Dohong, A.; Aziz, A. A.; Dargusch, P. Carbon emissions from oil palm development on deep peat soil in Central Kalimantan Indonesia. Anthropocene 2018, 22, 31-9.
28. Lam, W. Y.; Kulak, M.; Sim, S.; King, H.; Huijbregts, M. A. J.; Chaplin-Kramer, R. Greenhouse gas footprints of palm oil production in Indonesia over space and time. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 688, 827-37.
29. Schleicher, T.H., I.; Manhardt, A.;Hennenberg, K.; Vidya, S. Production of palm oil in Indonesia. Oeko-Institutu and University Padjadjaran, 2019; p. 64. https://www.oeko.de/fileadmin/oekodoc/BioMacht-palm-oil-report.pdf. (accessed 2026-3-10).
30. Wang, H.; Li, X.; Sun, M.; Xie, Y.; Li, H. Life cycle carbon footprint of Indonesian refined palm oil and its embodied emissions in global trade. Land 2025, 14, 1223.
31. Stichnothe, H.; Schuchardt, F. Life cycle assessment of two palm oil production systems. Biomass. and. Bioenergy. 2011, 35, 3976-84.
32. Stichnothe, H.; Schuchardt, F. Comparison of different treatment options for palm oil production waste on a life cycle basis. Int. J. Life. Cycle. Assess. 2010, 15, 907-15.
33. Greendelta. OpenLCA. https://www.openlca.org. (accessed 2026-3-10).
34. Ecoinvent. Ecoinvent. https://ecoinvent.org. (accessed 2026-3-10).
36. Schmidt, J. H. System delimitation in agricultural consequential LCA: outline of methodology and illustrative case study of wheat in Denmark. Int. J. Life. Cycle. Assess. 2008, 13, 350-64.
37. Brandão, M.; Heath, G.; Cooper, J. What can meta-analyses tell us about the reliability of life cycle assessment for decision support? J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 16, S3-7.
38. Schaubroeck, T.; Schaubroeck, S.; Heijungs, R.; Zamagni, A.; Brandão, M.; Benetto, E. Attributional & consequential life cycle assessment: definitions, conceptual characteristics and modelling restrictions. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7386.
39. Zamagni, A.; Guinée, J.; Heijungs, R.; Masoni, P.; Raggi, A. Lights and shadows in consequential LCA. Int. J. Life. Cycle. Assess. 2012, 17, 904-18.
40. Lessard, J. M.; Habert, G.; Tagnit‐Hamou, A.; Amor, B. Assessing robustness of consequential LCA: insights from a multiregional economic model tailored to the cement industrial symbiosis. J. Ind. Ecol. 2024, 28, 1392-408.
41. Sanabria Garcia, E.; Huysveld, S.; Nachtergaele, P.; Nhu, T.; Dewulf, J. How multifunctionality modelling in LCA affects decision-making: the case of chemical recycling of plastic waste. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2025, 218, 108262.
42. De Rosa, M.; Pizzol, M.; Schmidt, J. How methodological choices affect LCA climate impact results: the case of structural timber. Int. J. Life. Cycle. Assess. 2017, 23, 147-58.
43. Vijaya, S.; Ma, A.; Choo, Y. A gate to gate assessment of environmental performance for production of crude palm kernel oil using life cycle assessment approach. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2009, 5, 267-72.
44. Lam, W. Y.; Chatterton, J.; Sim, S.; Kulak, M.; Mendoza Beltran, A.; Huijbregts, M. A. J. Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from direct land use change due to crop production in multiple countries. Sci. Total. Environ. 2021, 755, 143338.
45. Schmidt, J. H.; Weidema, B. P. Shift in the marginal supply of vegetable oil. Int. J. Life. Cycle. Assess. 2007, 13, 235-9.
46. Azizi, M. N.; Loh, T. C.; Foo, H. L.; Teik Chung, E. L. Is palm kernel cake a suitable alternative feed ingredient for poultry? Animals. (Basel). 2021, 11, 338.
47. Sangavi, S.; Sawant, P. B.; Ande, M. P.; Syamala, K.; Chadha, N. K. Palm kernel meal - an alternative cost-effective fish feed ingredient. Aqua Star 2020. https://aquastarmagazine.com/education-palm-kernel-meal.php. (accessed 2026-3-10).
48. Sinurat, A. P.; Purwadaria, T.; Ketaren, P. P.; Pasaribu, T. Substitutions of soybean meal with enriched palm kernel meal in laying hens diet. JITV. 2015, 19, 184-92.
49. Onwudike, O. Palm kernel meal as a feed for poultry. 3. Replacement of groundnut cake by palm kernel meal in broiler diets. Anim. Feed. Sci. Technol. 1986, 16, 195-202.
50. Kader M. A.; Bulbul, M.; Abol-Munafi, A. B.; et al. Effect of replacing fishmeal with palm kernel meal supplemented with crude attractants on growth performance of Macrobrachium rosenbergii. AACL Bioflux 2018, 1, 158-66. http://www.bioflux.com.ro/docs/2018.158-166.pdf. (accessed 2026-3-10).
51. Silva, R. S.; Lopes, J. R. T.; Espírito Santo, R. V.; et al. Palm kernel meal (Elaeis guineensis) as a substitute for corn (Zea mays) in diets of Tambaqui (Colossoma macropomum). Aquac. Res. 2020, 51, 3358-66.
52. Anaeto, M.; Chioma, G.; Omosebi, D. Palm kernel cake as substitute for maize in broiler finisher diet. Int. J. Poult. Sci. 2009, 8, 1206-8.
53. Onunkwo, D.N., Ugwuene, M. C., Eze, J. C. R. and Okpechi, F. C. Replacement value of palm kernel meal for maize on growth, egg quality, and economic parameters of local duck hens. Nigerian J. Anim.. Sci. 2018, 20, 145-51.
54. Huang, H.; Lin, X.; Meng, X.; et al. Effects of replacing wheat bran with palm kernel cake or fermented palm kernel cake on the growth performance, intestinal microbiota and intestinal health of tilapia (GIFT, Oreochromis niloticus). Front. Nutr. 2024, 11, 1368251.
55. Ninduangdee, P.; Kuprianov, V. I.; Cha, E. Y.; Kaewrath, R.; Youngyuen, P.; Atthawethworawuth, W. Thermogravimetric studies of oil palm empty fruit bunch and palm kernel shell: TG/DTG analysis and modeling. Energy. Procedia. 2015, 79, 453-8.
56. Handaya, .; Marimin, .; Indrawan, D.; Susanto, H. A comparative life cycle assessment of palm kernel shell in ceramic tile production: managerial implications for renewable energy usage. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10100.
57. Schuchardt, F.; Wulfert, K.; Darnoko, D.; Herawan, T. Effect of new palm oil mill processes on the EFB and POME utilisation. J. Oil Palm Res. 2008, 115-26. https://jopr.mpob.gov.my/effect-of-new-palm-oil-mill-processes-on-the-efb-and-pome-utilization/. (accessed 2026-3-10).
58. Gregory, M.; Ozinga, S. Indonesian palm oil smallholders and the EUDR: impacts and ways forward. 2025. https://www.fern.org/publications-insight/article/indonesian-palm-oil-smallholders-and-the-eudr-impacts-and-ways-forward/. (accessed 2026-3-10).
59. FAO. FAOSTAT. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QCL. (accessed 2026-3-10).
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.
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.
63. Malaysian_Palm_Oil_Board. Overview of the Malaysian oil palm industry in 2024. Malaysian Palm Oil Board: 2024; p. 4. https://bepi.mpob.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.
66. Schmidt, J. H. Comparative life cycle assessment of rapeseed oil and palm oil. Int. J. Life. Cycle. Assess. 2010, 15, 183-97.
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.
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.
