Slashdot Mirror


Factory To Make Biodiesel From Chicken Fat

telekon writes "Tyson foods has finally found a use for chicken fat and leftover food grease that isn't McNuggets — they've partnered with Syntroleum to produce biodiesel from the stuff. Their first plant in Louisiana will be able to churn out 75 million gallons a year. The question is, will the exhaust smell like fried chicken?"

207 comments

  1. Waste not want not by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    What else to say?

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
    1. Re:Waste not want not by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'd kill a live chicken for food. I don't play with chicken meat.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    2. Re:Waste not want not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who has actually raised chickens would beg to differ. There is truly nothing dumber than a chicken.

    3. Re:Waste not want not by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      75 MILLION GALLONS?? Exactly how much fried chicken do they eat in Louisiana?

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:Waste not want not by lp_bugman · · Score: 1

      Yes there is... A cow.

      --
      BSD licensed software can't be stolen....
    5. Re:Waste not want not by davester666 · · Score: 1

      If you'd been to Louisiana, you would know that they use that amount each day, just to keep their fine population up to snuff with fried chicken.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    6. Re:Waste not want not by HSpirit · · Score: 1
    7. Re:Waste not want not by riT-k0MA · · Score: 1

      As a person who grew up with chickens as pets, I wholly support this statement. I have never in my life seen a talking chicken.

  2. Better by courteaudotbiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well at least, if it smells fried chicken, it will be better than actual truck exhaust!

    1. Re:Better by cindyann · · Score: 1

      Undoubtedly.

      Although after recently taking a vacation in South Africa, I can tell you that our low sulfur diesel exhaust smells a lot better than whatever it is they're burning there.

    2. Re:Better by xgr3gx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sounds like a win-win to me. Buy stock in KFC - everyone will always have cravings for fried chicken after the ride home from work.

      --
      Shameless plug alert: Game server control panel
    3. Re:Better by jbhjbh · · Score: 1

      Will they call the fuel Schmaltz-ahol? JB

    4. Re:Better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now wait for the High Fat Fumes medical crisis.

    5. Re:Better by Schmyz · · Score: 1

      This is exactly what I was thinking when I read it. LOL the sloagan for the biofuel can be all roads lead to KFC

    6. Re:Better by Dahamma · · Score: 1

      It sounds like the Colonel has finally executed his scheme to make you crrraaaave it fortnightly!

    7. Re:Better by vandamme · · Score: 1

      I spent 3 weeks in Madagascar, mostly on taxibrousses, and that stuff smells like a coal fire. Euro diesels are flowery in comparison. Chicken is no problem: the whole south USA smells like that anyhow.

    8. Re:Better by cindyann · · Score: 1

      Funny, I haven't ever noticed that any of the times I've been through the south.

      But then I don't eat at KFC, Popeyes, or Chic-fil-a.

    9. Re:Better by riT-k0MA · · Score: 1

      The diesel here has about 10* the amount of sulfur that new diesel engines are designed to handle, so it just gets burned.
      It could be fixed but it would take a complete overhaul of our refineries and no sane company would do that here.

  3. That's disgusting by Hemi+Rodner · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know that the exhaust of falafel oil does smell like falafel. So it means that the exhaust of this "biodiesel" will probably smell like fried chicken.

    As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me... (I wonder, though, if this smell is better than regular diesel).

    PS: I am disappointed that the article is so short.

    --
    hemi
    1. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Normal fuel isnt much different in the grand scheme of things. Things get killed, things get eaten, its the way of the world.

    2. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      >> As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me... (I wonder, though, if this smell is better than regular diesel).

      Just about anything smells better than diesel exhaust, even with modern small car engines.

    3. Re:That's disgusting by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      "I love the smell of napalm in the morning... The smell, you know that gasoline smell... Smells like, victory"

      Falafel is for wimps.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:That's disgusting by Nadaka · · Score: 0, Troll

      Vegetarian? Do you suffer from medical conditions that make eating meat difficult or dangerous for you? An allergy? Heart condition?

      Or are you ignoring your nature as a hunter of prey? All the great apes hunt and kill for food. It is argued that the high density calories in meat allowed humanity sufficient free time and energy to develop culture and technology. We have bifocal color vision. We have canine teeth. We have grasping hands. We are among the worlds greatest endurance runners. We have advanced intelligence capable of planning and tactics. Aside from our endurance and teeth (and these are also predatory features), all those traits are unique to predators. We have evolved for millions of years as omnivorous predators, to eat meat. Why do you hate nature so much to go against that?

    5. Re:That's disgusting by Toe,+The · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This can be said to be:
      1. just explaining nature
      2. amoral

      I'm not saying it is immoral: just that it is devoid of moral content.

      Animals kill to eat. No big deal. But we don't expect animals to express any ethical thought.

      When people kill, there may be reason to at least think for a moment about the consequences of our actions.

      We have deliberately set up an infrastructure which kills billions of animals annually, just for our pleasure and convenience. It seems rational to give that industry a little ethical examination.

      Extending it to fueling our autos just entrenches it further in our minds and our economy. The weird part is grinding up animals to move our inefficient vehicles around. Just seems twisted somehow.

    6. Re:That's disgusting by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because sea kittens are fluffy.

    7. Re:That's disgusting by AndrewNeo · · Score: 1

      I think GP meant that they don't like the smell, not the process.

    8. Re:That's disgusting by danlip · · Score: 1

      All the great apes hunt and kill for food.

      Nope. Gorilla's are vegetarian (plus a few insects, but that is hardly hunting). Orangutans are also most vegetarian plus incests, honey, and eggs.

    9. Re:That's disgusting by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's all fine if we want to continue to be nothing more than animals. However, over-riding our natural impulses is also a key element of humanity.
      There are plenty of advantages to not eating meat, health wise, environmentally, as well as ethically.

      What's more, unless we start eating each other, eating meat isn't going to be viable for every much longer. It takes 100 cal of grain to make 1 cal of beef.
      At current rates of environmental degradation and population growth, the mass of humanity will be vegetarian very soon of necessity.
      We won't be able to continue wasting 99% of our food. (Though the ratio is 10/1 for pork, and 2/1 for chicken, which are better deals).

      Also, ethanol-from-sugar should stop also for the same reason: do we really want the stomachs of the poor to have to compete with the gas tanks of the rich?

    10. Re:That's disgusting by danlip · · Score: 1

      That should clearly be "insects" on the line above, not that I doubt the other occurs.

    11. Re:That's disgusting by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Orangutans are also most vegetarian plus incests

      I can attest to this. We were at the Orang exhibit at the San Diego Zoo, and everyone there got a lesson on where baby orangutans come from.

      Even some of the Navy guys who were visiting the zoo were blushing.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    12. Re:That's disgusting by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I have seen references for gorilla's catching and eating fish in the wild. Orangutans, agreed are not significantly predatory.

    13. Re:That's disgusting by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He never mentioned a specific ideal meat:plant ratio. He was wondering why this person's ratio was zero.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    14. Re:That's disgusting by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me..."

      Get a modern Diesel and you can fill it up with the same vegetable oil you use in your salads.

    15. Re:That's disgusting by RJFerret · · Score: 1

      PS: I am disappointed that the article is so short.

      It's always scary when the Slashdot summary and the article are practically identical. Worse, the article just seems to be a reworded press release.

    16. Re:That's disgusting by bieber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not sure what I should go after first, the massive non-sequitur or the blatant naturalist fallacy. Perhaps I should start by asking you when was the last time you chased down, killed and ate an animal using nothing but your physical prowess and devilish cunning, since you seem to think that that's how modern humans acquire their animal products...not, you know, herding docile, tamed animals from the pens we keep them in their entire lives into narrow boxes where we can kill slaughter them without them ever having the opportunity to put up a fight.

      Anyways, macho-man nonsense aside, whether or not we're physically capable of doing something has absolutely zero bearing on the morality of that action. I don't have any medical problem that keeps me from forcibly procreating, and my bifocal color vision, canine teeth, grasping hands, and mad endurance skills would certainly make it easy to hunt down, restrain and impregnate a woman to spread my superior predator genes, yet I'm pretty sure most of us would frown on that.

      So now, if we may take a brief trip back to reality, we have no biological need to consume animal products (don't believe me, read the ADA's position paper on vegetarian diets), and producing them, any cruelty issues aside (since you clearly don't care about the feelings or pain of any creature too feeble to resist being hunted down and eaten by you), is grossly inefficient and utterly abominable for the environment (you'll want to read the UN report "Livestock's Long Shadow" for that one). But hey, if it makes you feel better to just put someone's lifestyle down with your super macho cave man fantasy, by all means go ahead, don't let silly things like facts get in your way.

      tl;dr - If you think you can just dismiss a well-established philosophy or system of ethics with a single super-witty paragraph, you're not being clever, you're just being a douche. Trust me, you're not the first person to say "Umm we have pointy teeth so you should eat meat!"

    17. Re:That's disgusting by Nadaka · · Score: 3, Funny

      fluffy and delicious.

    18. Re:That's disgusting by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you truly believe that the meat industry is "just for our pleasure and convenience", you honestly have a mental illness. I don't say that with hyperbole. You are in the same category as people who hear voices.

    19. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the great apes hunt and kill for food.

      Nope. Gorilla's are vegetarian (plus a few insects, but that is hardly hunting). Orangutans are also most vegetarian plus incests, honey, and eggs.

      How are we going to get rid of the Chinese needle snakes then?

    20. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      and gum it up with glycerin - modern vegetable oil needs to be processed to remove the glycerin by-products, or you do risk gumming up the works.

      (next door neighbor owns a bio-diesel facility - why am I driving a gasoline powered vehicle?)

    21. Re:That's disgusting by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      0 or undefined depending on which part is on the bottom. ;)

      Sorry, couldn't resist.
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    22. Re:That's disgusting by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Actually, we kill and eat animals because we are hungry, and we need to eat. The world does not have enough resources for everyone to be a vegetarian, or even a vegan. If you think you can grow arable crops on all farmland, you're welcome to come to the north-west of Scotland and try your hand at raising crops on a hill farm. Sheep and cows do just fine on it. Give me a shout once you've worked out how to plough a peat bog on a one-in-five slope.

    23. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me... (I wonder, though, if this smell is better than regular diesel).

      As a human, this really disgusts me.

      But seriously, would you rather see these things go to waste?
      I mean, let's be serious, you'll never prevent people from eating meat, until artificial meat becomes mainstream and tastes at least >80% of what regular meat tastes like. (i personally love quorn, but it still isn't a good alternative for those who love the taste of meats)
      So all that food waste would just end up in a food tip somewhere.

      I'm also all for separate food waste collection so it can be re-used for feeding crops, instead of ending up in the same usual landfills as most rubbish does. (i'd love for everything to be recycled, but sadly that isn't being realistic)
      Such a large amount of food ends up not even being used... really good food as well. Worse yet when meat actually goes to waste since it took so much effort to grow the animal, so much energy, then to have it killed uselessly to end up in a landfill...

    24. Re:That's disgusting by Rutefoot · · Score: 1

      You're oversimplifying a very, very, very complex system. We're getting better at creating vegetarian diets that can fulfill our bodies needs, but we're not quite there yet. And to remove the effects of livestock completely you're talking about a vegan diet and not a vegetarian one (A milk producing cow still requires an inefficient amount of grain to keep producing milk). And there are zero vegan diets that come anywhere close to meeting our bodies needs. And the diets that come closest are thanks to the import of grains and supplements from the other side of the planet (the transport of which kind of defeats the purpose now doesn't it?) So while we might have a Whole Foods down the street from us, the majority of the world does not. So to expect everyone to be able to survive on a vegan diet without the means to stay healthy doing it is rather short sighted.

      A more sensible solution would be to reduce our meat intake to more reasonable levels and try to eliminate cows and other inefficient ruminants as long as we can ensure we get proper levels of nutrients elsewhere.

    25. Re:That's disgusting by Toe,+The · · Score: 1, Interesting

      In every instance, no. But in places like the U.S., where grocery stores are abundant, then yes, meat is almost exclusively for pleasure and convenience.

      In case you hadn't noticed, doctors and nutritionists generally recommend a plant-based diet. So what is necessary about meat consumption?

      It tastes good (pleasure) and it's an easy way to get a nice packet of nutrients (convenience).

    26. Re:That's disgusting by chudnall · · Score: 0, Redundant

      As a natural carnivore, vegetarian's disgust me!

      Funny, as a natural carnivore, I find vegetarians to be quite tasty.

      --
      Disclaimer: Evolution comes with NO WARRANTY, except for the IMPLIED WARRANTY of FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
    27. Re:That's disgusting by Toe,+The · · Score: 2, Informative

      See reply above.

      And I don't know about northwest Scotland, but around the world it is much more common for meat to be a luxury item and for plant-based human food to be the easy, inexpensive course. In most cases, meat animals compete with humans for plant-based food sources, and eating meat is a less efficient use of land than just eating the plants.

    28. Re:That's disgusting by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You post is rationalization at best. Your claims for vegetarianism are easily refuted and shown as the ramblings of someone who gets halfway through a problem and assumes they have the answer.

      1) health wise

      Wrong. Vegetarian diet is so unhealthy that you can frequently spot vegetarians by sight. They tend to be gaunt. Low in muscle mass and low in muscle tone. When vegetarian from childhood, they tend to be shorter due to malnutrition.

      2) environmentally - At current rates of environmental degradation and population growth, the mass of humanity will be vegetarian very soon of necessity. We won't be able to continue wasting 99% of our food.

      The problem you are describing is overpopulation. Humans overbreeding for their food source. If populations continue to grow as you suggest, being vegetarian will not stop starvation. At best it will only delay it. I suppose eating as vegetarians COULD reduce the populations health enough that the population drops off, but humans are biologically pretty robust. I doubt the poor health of being a vegetarian is going to be enough to reduce our population.

      3) ethically

      Eating meat is not unethical. If we are going start playing the "killing lower life forms is unethical" game, then it is vegetarians that are unethical. They kill the most helpless life forms on the planet. They line them up and force them to live unnatural lives in unnatural environments. They genetically manipulate them to suit their needs, and consume them while they are still alive.

      Life includes killing. It is unavoidable.

      4) the stomachs of the poor to have to compete with the gas tanks of the rich

      There is not one single person on the planet that is going hungry due to ethanol-from-sugar. World hunger is a byproduct of corrupt governments, (to a lesser extent) parental irresponsibility and the inherent difficulties in distribution. Here in the US, my aunt is actually paid NOT to grow corn. She is not alone. As long as there are thousands of farmers who are paid not to grow corn, any claim of people going hunger because there isn't enough is at best misinformed. At worst an outright lie.

    29. Re:That's disgusting by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      That's all fine if we want to continue to be nothing more than animals

      Actually, the vast majority of animals are vegetarian (or herbivorous). So far, humans are the only animals to live an agrarian existence. The earth just does not have the resources to sustain turning all farm land into arable land. In 50 years time when petrochemicals are too scarce to support your arable-only farms, you'll need to switch back to eating meat.

    30. Re:That's disgusting by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Most cases" being where you've got lots of nice flat arable land. As I say, if you can figure out how to efficiently grow crops on a hill farm, you might be onto something. You haven't got long, though, because the oil is running out and cheap vegetables will be *gone* - back to an omnivorous diet when that happens!

    31. Re:That's disgusting by Svartalf · · Score: 2, Informative

      I commend you on your choice to be a Vegan.

      However, you should realize that it's nothing about our "pleasure and convenience" involved with the food industry involved with livestock.

      Look at the teeth in your mouth. If you were purely an herbivore, you wouldn't have what we call the eye-teeth in your mouth- you'd have a mouth more resembling a horse's or a cows. Seriously.
      You should note, that your body is an omnivore's meaning that it doesn't give a flip about your sensibilities and feelings and is designed to eat meat as well as vegetative matter- in combination.
      There are several crucial fatty acids you will have some major difficulty obtaining solely from plants. This SHOULD be a hint to anyone that insists that we don't have to eat animals. There's
      some other crucial amino acids and sugars you need that simply will not come from eating nothing but meat. That SHOULD be a hint to anyone holding the polar opposite of your position.

      Eating nothing but plants is actually something of an unnatural act for humans- as is eating solely meat.

      So, it's not "pleasure and convenience" that it's done.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    32. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All positions aside, if you didn't need to eat animals for portions of your diet, you wouldn't have these things called "eye-teeth" which are ripping canines for eating meat...

      You're an omnivore, not an herbivore- and they've found that all vegetable diets have their own issues. (You have difficulty obtaining select Omega-3 and Omega-6 fatty acids through plants...you have to get them at least from fish if not other sources...).

      Anyone that tells you that you don't need to eat animals is selling you a bill of goods.

    33. Re:That's disgusting by bieber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I don't. I'm sure there are animal products used in the production of some of the things I rely on for survival, but there's nothing I can do about that. Vegans avoid animal products to the greatest extent possible. Obviously we can't effect any change in society if we refuse to be a part of it at all.

      As for the scarcity argument, are you kidding? You do realize that like 80% of the grain we grow is being consumed by animals that humans will eat later, right? There's plenty of room to grow plant food for everyone, it's the animals that we can't afford to keep growing grain for. Producing animal products is massively inefficient.

      Of course, that "blubbery malnourished backside" nonsense (because it's not like vegans can be world-class athletes, or enjoy generally lower rates of heart disease and cancer) makes it obvious enough that you're just trolling, so I won't expect an intelligent response...

    34. Re:That's disgusting by Belial6 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Given the logic of your argument, being a vegetarian and eating plants is "just for pleasure and convenience".

      After all, "It tastes good (pleasure) and it's an easy way to get a nice packet of nutrients (convenience)."

      Claiming that eating a meal that gives you a "nice packet of nutrients" is "just for pleasure and convenience" is at best a lie, but could also be explained through mental illness.

    35. Re:That's disgusting by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Heh... That's because you're not thinking ahead... >;-D

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    36. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're thinking of quiche.

    37. Re:That's disgusting by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      He was talking w/a person excluding all meat (Vegan...duh...) and wondering why his ratio was zero and insisting on everyone else's to be the same- which is what most of the people pointing out his personal preference versus the reality of his body were pointing out. Not eating meat isn't healthy in the slightest for Humans, contrary to popular beliefs to the otherwise (A hint should be showing in your and everyone else's mouth...eye-teeth aren't needed in herbivores (which what a Vegetarian and a Vegan is attempting to accomplish...).

      But then, this IS /., after all... Ignorance and willful ignoring of what's actually being said to "prove" their points is part for the course.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    38. Re:That's disgusting by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Anyone that tells you that you don't need to eat animals is selling you a bill of goods.

      And yet the fact that millions upon millions of people are doing it quite successfully doesn't change your point of view at all?

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    39. Re:That's disgusting by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      The doctors and nutritionists that I spoke to (just had my yearly doctor visit) said a balanced diet including meat is best. So are my doctors are bs'ing me? Or are they not just vegetarian only people?

    40. Re:That's disgusting by Degro · · Score: 0

      The only thing eating other animals accomplishes in a civilization like ours is personal pleasure. It hasn't been a necessity for a very long time. Choosing meat for your meals is just as psychotic as slitting the throat of another animal for fun.

    41. Re:That's disgusting by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Millions and millions of people can live malnourished for decades before they end up dead.

      There are health issues that can be mitigated by reducing meat in the diet, some rare ones that may require eliminating it. But child growth and development is dramatically stunted, leading to serious long term medical problems for children on "vegan" diets.

      Show me one reputable study that claims that a completely vegan diet is healthy from conception, pregnancy, breast feeding and growth through adulthood. There isn't one, but billions of people eat omnivorous diets for their entire lives and have for millions of years.

    42. Re:That's disgusting by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right, if it can be assumed that a piece of spinach is equivalent to a pig.

      Pigs are some of the most intelligent creatures on the planet, they have highly advanced nervous systems, and they can communicate with us on some levels.

      Spinach has none of these traits. Yes, I am sure you can go on and on mocking me for saying that pigs are a "higher form of life" than spinach, but in fact that's the basis of all ethical decisions. There is no absolute black and white, and ethics involved making comparative choices. It can be said with relative certainty (from the viewpoint of a human animal) that killing a pig is a greater harm than picking a leaf of spinach.

      So killing a pig for its meat when that is totally unnecessary and actually rather unhealthy is then only for the pleasure of the taste and perhaps the convenience of the protein.

    43. Re:That's disgusting by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I am an omnivore myself, but you are way off base in arguing that meat is required based on the amount of land available.

      That is only true in a few arctic areas where it stays snowbound 3/4ths of the year.

    44. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's also because I live in the Midwest where most diesels gel up during the winter. With the Wife's inability to park in our 2 car garage without taking 1.5 car slots, I have to park outside :)

    45. Re:That's disgusting by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      I can't comment on what your particular doctors were thinking, but there is now a general consensus that a low-meat or no-meat diet is best. I have heard it most from cancer experts, diabetes experts, and general nutritionists.

      There are of course dissenters, and there are advocates of the Atkins diet, etc. There is no certainty with these things. But if you do a web search for "plant based diet" and say "cancer" or "diabetes" you will see that the research is now very well established.

    46. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Perhaps I should start by asking you when was the last time you chased down, killed and ate an animal using nothing but your physical prowess and devilish cunning, since you seem to think that that's how modern humans acquire their animal products...not, you know, herding docile, tamed animals from the pens we keep them in their entire lives into narrow boxes where we can kill slaughter them without them ever having the opportunity to put up a fight. "
      Question asked and answered, good job!! Our cunning meat fueled brains realized it was easier to eat the tame stupid animals. Then even more cunning meat fueled brains figured out that it was easier to have someone else do all the hard work and just pick up the meaty yums yums at the grocery store.
      As for why we eat them, they are delicious!!! And knowing that my bacon cheeseburger comes with a side of hippy tears just makes it all that much better.

    47. Re:That's disgusting by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      Concerning our canine teeth, this is by no means evidence of omnivorism. Gorillas have much, much larger canine teeth than us. They look like fiendish meat eaters. Yet practically the only "meat" they eat is bugs like termites (for which the canines seem a bit overkill, no?). The vast majority of their diet is plants. Our deep-back primate ancestors may have developed these teeth for us and for gorillas, but it is no proof that we need meat.

      Concerning a meat-free diet, I don't think you will see anything in my original post saying everyone should be vegan (nor that I am). What I said was: "We have deliberately set up an infrastructure which kills billions of animals annually, just for our pleasure and convenience. It seems rational to give that industry a little ethical examination."

      I never advocate that everyone should be vegan or whatever: only that there is a good reason for individuals to reflect on the consequences of their diet.

      Perhaps you can get by with some less meat in your diet. The result? Fewer animals would suffer and die for you, and (if you altered your diet properly), you would most likely see a health benefit as well. Win-win.

      Seems worth a few minutes' contemplation.

    48. Re:That's disgusting by kiatoa · · Score: 1

      I sense confirmation bias. Doesn't make it true or not true.

      Hard to know what is true: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269

      Personally my health noticeably deteriorates when I don't include some dead animal in my diet. It might be possible to substitute insects but is raising and killing a bunch of insects less morally objectionable to raising and killing chickens, rabbits or cows? If so, why?

      Either way your "general consensus" is debatable at best and delusional at worst.

      --
      90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
    49. Re:That's disgusting by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      That is only true in a few arctic areas where it stays snowbound 3/4ths of the year.

      You're welcome to come and try it in the not-very-snowy north of Scotland. Seriously. Drop me an email, and we can make it happen.

    50. Re:That's disgusting by sjames · · Score: 2, Informative

      As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me... (I wonder, though, if this smell is better than regular diesel).

      Chicken or ancient lizard, them's your choices.

    51. Re:That's disgusting by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      You're obviously not thinking clearly. Possibly improving your diet by including some oily fish would help with that.

      Right, here goes, one point at a time. You avoid animal products. This means that to grow your vegetables, you can't use animal-derived fertiliser. Now, okay, I will admit I am being somewhat facetious by saying that if you're a vegan, you can't spread manure from cows. Call it trolling if it makes you feel better. You certainly can't use BBM (blood and bone meal) which is an awesome way of getting nitrogen and calcium into soils that lack it (and most farmland does even if you rotate crops, which most factory farms don't do). BBM is pretty disgusting stuff to deal with even if you're not a vegan, so we'll stick to the cow poo. Now, how do you get that without cows? You *could* use human-derived "organic" from sewage processing, but that requires so much processing to remove really unpleasant pathogens that it becomes massively uneconomic. For what it's worth, pig poo is extremely similar to human poo, but doesn't have the pathogens. Whichever way you slice it, the best way to turn vegetation into compost is to pass it through a ruminant herbivore, and you will get a *lot* of compost. Of course, there are other animal products like leather - yes, you can use plastics but then we're back to petrochemicals. Once they're gone, you'll be back to tilling the fields with a horse-drawn plough so you're going to need leather for harnesses, not to mention keeping draught horses to pull the plough. There's not much oil left. Better get reading those books on horsemanship.

      It's really only in the US that 80% of grain is used for livestock feed, but I've already covered this in another reply. To recap, the utterly spacktarded system of subsidies in the US means it makes economic sense to feed cows grain, which they can't readily digest. Cows eat grass. Hens eat grain. Pretty simple. If it was economically viable (read: subsidised to the hilt) to feed cows scarified tarmac, you can bet that someone would try it. Feeding cows grain is stupid. Don't do it. Spent brewery mash is a different matter altogether. They still can't digest it effectively but at least you've made beer from it, and it's extremely cheap. It works well as winter forage, but it's pretty smelly and unpleasant stuff to work with. You need to mix it with something like shredded sugar beet (okay, there's a cash crop that's grown for animals), which doesn't make it smell any better.

      "lower rates of heard disease and cancer" - citation needed, I'm sorry. Some of the most fit people I know are omnivores, some of the least fit are vegetarian. It comes down to getting enough exercise and a balanced diet.

    52. Re:That's disgusting by djupdal · · Score: 1

      I am a hunter, got my license 7 years ago. Before I decided to take the necessary hunting course (requirement in Norway to be allowed to hunt), I wanted to research the ethics behind hunting. I read some of the arguments of the animal rights camp (like the famous book of Peter Singer), in addition to pro-hunting literature.

      I never could agree with Singer or any of the vegetarian arguments. First: Singers argument (IIRC) is that any kind of animal killing is as bad as killing a human individual because there is not one property of human individuals that distinguishes them from animals, except membership of our species. One example: intelligence, it is immoral to kill a human infant even if its intelligence is lower than a cow. Specisism is bad according to Singer (although he gives no good argument for why), so his guidance to what he can kill and eat is if it has the ability to feel pain or not (again a seemingly random choice to build an ethical system on).

      My objection to that philosophy is that nature is amoral. Human ethics does not apply to the rest of the nature, nature does not care. Ethics has evolved with humans for our own survival (my belief, I have no citation for you). As such, doing what is best for us in a way compatible with the evolved human mind is just as good an ethical guideline as Singers. Note that environmentalism and animal welfare is still ethical in my view, it is clearly not good for us to ruin our own habitat. It is also, clearly, good for our own psyche to treat animals with respect. I just have no problem with putting humans and our wishes above animals.

      The other argument I have a problem with is that meat is inefficient as a food source: If you avoid meat because you want to make sure there is more food in total in the world, you are just delaying the catastrophe. If you believe we are going to grow to be so many that meat production will result in starving masses, then going vegetarian is only going to result in a few years extra of growth. At that point, the catastrophe will just be worse due to the larger number of people. The problem is population growth, not lack of resources which is a symptom.

    53. Re:That's disgusting by stupkid · · Score: 1

      Organic vegan agriculture can and is being done.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_organic_gardening

      http://www.vegfamily.com/gardening/veganic-gardening.htm

      These are the same methods that I currently practice in my garden.

      Animal derived inputs are not required to grow plants. If you do want to add some animal inputs there are animals on the site of most gardens/farms, they are typically running them. You might also want to read this:

      http://www.humanurehandbook.com/

    54. Re:That's disgusting by operagost · · Score: 1

      But in places like the U.S., where grocery stores are abundant, then yes, meat is almost exclusively for pleasure and convenience.

      Yup, you're a nutcase. In case you hadn't noticed, doctors and nutritionists generally recommend a plant-based diet. No they don't. A fully plant-based diet that is actually healthy is hard to achieve. It's a lot easier to eat meat in moderation.

      So what is necessary about meat consumption?

      To not die from B-12 deficiency.

      It tastes good (pleasure) and it's an easy way to get a nice packet of nutrients (convenience).

      I assume you farm all your food, then? Because inconvenience is good?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    55. Re:That's disgusting by operagost · · Score: 1

      So killing a pig for its meat when that is totally unnecessary

      But it is for those of us who aren't rich West-coast elitists who only shop at Whole Foods.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    56. Re:That's disgusting by operagost · · Score: 1

      We do need meat. You simply cannot get B-12 by eating plants. Technology allows us to extract the B-12 from animal products or even plants from which the B-12 is not normally accessible, but this is the very definition of unnatural.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    57. Re:That's disgusting by operagost · · Score: 1

      I agree. If humans truly are just another animal, then it's no more unethical for humans to kill for food than for a tiger to do so. It's an argument that refutes itself.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    58. Re:That's disgusting by pressman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would love to see a citation of the program currently in place that pays people to not grow grain. The Farm Subsidies Act of 1973 pretty much eliminated the act of paying farmers to underproduce or not produce crops. Subsidies since then have favored over-production, particularly beneficial to very large companies and very damaging to small, family farms.

      --
      Pooty tweet
    59. Re:That's disgusting by SideshowBob · · Score: 1

      How can you make a blanket statement like this? Is this true of all hunter-gatherer societies worldwide, and throughout (pre-)history? For instance it would surprise me to learn that Great Plains Native Americans only ate buffalo meat once per 20 days.

    60. Re:That's disgusting by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't comment on what your particular doctors were thinking, but there is now a general consensus that a low-meat or no-meat diet is best.

      I'm sorry, but there is not - unless you intentionally seek out specialists who are biased towards your point of view. Which is very likely if you follow the references in various vegetarian/vegan literature.

      The consensus is that humans are omnivores, and their digestive system is tuned towards a mix of meat and plant food. It is possible to go plant-only with a variety of artificial supplements, but definitely isn't natural or superior.

    61. Re:That's disgusting by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Okay, but what are you going to do about sustainability? You can make (very poor quality) compost by allowing the weeds you dig out to rot down. If you grow vegetables on the land, then remove the vegetables and eat them, and then - not to put to fine a point on it - shit somewhere else, you deprive the land of those nutrients for the next lot of growth. Even if you do literally shit where you eat, you still bind up a very large proportion of the nutrients from the soil. You need to get some stuff in from outside. Now, in the north-west of Scotland, that has traditionally been seaweed and cow dung. Obviously modern petrochemical fertilisers have their place, but we won't have those forever.

      Posting a link to a thinly-disguised book advert isn't terribly convincing, and neither are the ideas espoused in the wiki page. He's right about the shallow tilling, for certain crops (leafy vegetables, for one thing). That's absolutely the wrong thing for carrots and onions, though. To get those to work properly, you want to get right down into the soil, break it up as much as possible, and pull out any stones bigger than a broad bean. Shallow tilling isn't going to cut it, in those circumstances.

    62. Re:That's disgusting by Magada · · Score: 1

      Gorillas have great big canines, solid straight jaws and a saggital crest to crack open tough veggies. Humans do not have anything like saggital crests, quite to the contrary, they have smooth skulls and weak jaws - in fact, their bite is seriously underpowered for their size. This, along with their smallish canines and the weirdly-placed eyes (too far apart for a predator, too close together for a herbivore) says "opportunist", an animal that does not, as a rule, expect to have to kill, by tooth and claw, the meat it eats.

      --
      Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
    63. Re:That's disgusting by bieber · · Score: 1

      The American Dietetic Association is selling me a bill of goods? Well shucks, it's a good thing such an enlightened AC showed up to show the error of my ways: what was I thinking, trusting research and facts over an anonymous poster's intuition? I'll be sure to rearrange my thinking going forward.

    64. Re:That's disgusting by bieber · · Score: 1
      How about this position paper from the ADA, based on dozens of scientific papers? Let me excerpt it for you:

      It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes.

      I've personally met vegan children who are perfectly normal, well-developed and healthy. There are healthy adults living today who have spent their entire lives vegan. Vegans compete and win in international athletics competitions (Carl Lewis, anyone? The guy won a gold medal in sprinting on a vegan diet), and you honestly expect me to believe that their growth is stunted? Whether a Vegan diet is healthy isn't even an issue any more, at least not for people who bother to educate themselves from reliable sources, instead of parroting the same uncited crap that gets repeated ad nauseum.

      Please, stop spewing your pseudoscientific nonsense: this isn't the 40's, and now we have actual data about these issues that doesn't come from the meat industry's PR department.

    65. Re:That's disgusting by mmontour · · Score: 1

      Get a modern Diesel and you can fill it up with the same vegetable oil you use in your salads.

      Don't count on it. I just bought a modern diesel (2011 Jetta TDI) and it's not rated for more than 5% biodiesel (due to the particulate filter in the emissions system and contamination of the engine oil IIRC). I don't even want to think about how badly straight vegetable oil would f*ck it up.

    66. Re:That's disgusting by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You are absolutely right, if it can be assumed that a piece of spinach is equivalent to a pig.

      Or that a pig is equivalent to a human. Oh, since you are saying that being a higher order from a human perspective decides whether it is OK to eat something or not, you have just argued that eating pigs is just fine.

      Pigs are some of the most intelligent creatures on the planet, they have highly advanced nervous systems, and they can communicate with us on some levels.

      So, you arbitrarily pick what kinds of life you will destroy, and what you won't, and then declare yourself superior because of it. Well, there is an equal school of thought that says you protect the weak, not use them for your own convenience and pleasure.

      Spinach has none of these traits. Yes, I am sure you can go on and on mocking me for saying that pigs are a "higher form of life" than spinach, but in fact that's the basis of all ethical decisions.

      No, I won't mock you for that. I will just point out that a human is a higher form of life than both spinach and a pig, so if eating one is ethical because of it's "higher" status, then so is the other.

      It can be said with relative certainty (from the viewpoint of a human animal) that killing a pig is a greater harm than picking a leaf of spinach.

      No, it cannot. Your assertion that you don't even try to have a civil discourse on the subject. The fact that millions of people every day eat pigs, and don't think twice about it being even the slightest bit harmful proves beyond a shadow of the doubt that your statement is wrong, and that you are so close minded that you are simply incapable of seeing all sides of an issue.

      So killing a pig for its meat when that is totally unnecessary and actually rather unhealthy is then only for the pleasure of the taste and perhaps the convenience of the protein.

      Making up that eating pig is unhealthy just makes you look stupid, and your argument about people only eating them for pleasure and convenience applies 100% equally to your raising of defenseless spinach in unnatural environments and eating them alive.

    67. Re:That's disgusting by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between "biodiesel" and "waste vegetable oil" systems. Biodiesel is probably not what your TDI is rated for; rather they do not want you running WVO in it.

      I have a 1996 Jetta TDI with a Greasecar conversion kit in it, and true 'nuff it does smell like french fries when going down the street running on veggie. However, another poster (an AC) was talking about running it on Chinese restaurant oil. To him/her I say "Nay!" Do not use that stuff. Use the oils from an Italian pizzeria. The oil that comes from there is barely used before being discarded.

      With the proper filtration, preferably a centrifuge, you can get the WVO practically particulate free. However, do not try this on a vehicle under warranty; I take no responsibility. I just know that mine runs fine on WVO.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    68. Re:That's disgusting by drsquare · · Score: 1

      I don't think there are enough resources for everyone to eat meat like they do in the West. Especially as most meat is grown on crops rather than grazing.

      When the oil goes, we definitely won't be able to afford to grow all the grain to feed the animals, and it's back to meat being a rare luxury for everyone but the elite.

      Historically, most of the sheep grazed in Scotland were for wool, not meat. The people ate oats.

    69. Re:That's disgusting by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Interesting to hear people defend meat eating with 'nature' arguments, as they stuff down yet another portion of heavily-processed, industrial meat they 'hunted' in the supermarket.

      Humans evolved as scavengers, not hunters. How would a human hunt a deer in the wild? We don't have the speed to catch it, nor the jaws to tear it apart. Try biting into the side of a whole pig and see how far you get.

      If you want to eat as per your nature, then go around eating whatever berries, nuts and roots you can find, and pick whatever meat's left on the bones of an animal left by a real predator.

    70. Re:That's disgusting by AG+the+other · · Score: 1

      I can't comment on what your particular doctors were thinking, but there is now a general consensus that a low-meat or no-meat diet is best. I have heard it most from cancer experts, diabetes experts, and general nutritionists.

      There are of course dissenters, and there are advocates of the Atkins diet, etc. There is no certainty with these things. But if you do a web search for "plant based diet" and say "cancer" or "diabetes" you will see that the research is now very well established.

      The only doctors that I have ever heard suggest a meat free diet are those who were vegetarians themselves. Diabetes sufferers are unable to control their sugar not their protein.
      The certainty is that humans have evolved eating meat proteins.
      In a totally different direction my sister tried eating a meatless diet for about 5 years, while teaching yoga by the way. She gained 20 lbs. during that time. Since going back on what I would call a practical diet she has slowly started to lose some of that weight.

      --
      Non bene pro toto libertas venditur auro
    71. Re:That's disgusting by phasmatid · · Score: 1

      Hmm. You do know that fossil fuel is the remains of dead creatures?

    72. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      We can run the deer into the ground. The deer is startled and sprints away. We catch up. Repeat and the deer quickly becomes exhausted and can no longer run. Then we move is and smash it with rocks. That is how we hunted before we developed traps and projectile weapons.

      haha. Captcha is startled.

    73. Re:That's disgusting by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      I don't think there are enough resources for everyone to eat meat like they do in the West.

      In the west we eat far too much poor-quality meat. Especially the US, where cows are pumped full of drugs and hormones to get them to bulk up faster and are then sold for slaughter at roughly half the age they are anywhere else in the world. This just gives you lots of cheap shitty meat.

      Really, vegetables are too cheap and too readily available out-of-season too. We spend massive amounts of money and energy growing stuff and shipping stuff that ends up in landfill. It's not sustainable. My grandparents didn't have supermarkets with shelves full of cheap vegetables grown half a planet away, and I doubt my grandchildren will either. Maybe my children won't. Hell, maybe *I* won't, before I hit retirement age.

      We cannot afford to fuck about with this. Deliberately excluding a whole slew of foods because you think that it's icky and mean to kill animals to eat them is just not going to be a sustainable way to live, Real Soon Now.

    74. Re:That's disgusting by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Let me know when you decide instead to saddle the chicken and ride it to work.

    75. Re:That's disgusting by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      As the family member of several diabetics and a borderline one myself, let me say something about meat and diabetes. A sensible portion of lean meat a couple of times a day isn't a problem and can actually help one feel fuller so they don't overeat carbs. Too much meat can be hard on the kidneys, though, and too much meat fat (too much of any fat actually) is bad for blood sugar and for heart disease. Heart disease is a common complication or comorbid disorder for people with diabetes. Lean meat in moderation is an excellent source of high-quality whole protein that doesn't screw with your hormones nearly as much as estrogen-rich soy. Tofu and edamame are fine, but again it's about moderation.

      My doctors and nutritionist, my dad's GP and diabetes specialist, my sister's GP and nutritionist, my father-in-law's nutritionist and gastric surgeon, and all the research I've done myself say the same thing. Some lean meat is good, but don't overdo it. The only people I've found who bash meat altogether seem to do so for some other agenda.

    76. Re:That's disgusting by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Cows eat grass. People don't eat grass. Unless you're talking about completely grain-fed livestock from birth to slaughter, then your argument is pretty silly. Also, grass grows lots of places corn, wheat, milo, soy, and other grain crops don't grow well or are difficult to plant and harvest efficiently.

    77. Re:That's disgusting by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Considering that we're closer to chimps than gorillas and that chimps hunt monkeys for meat, I'd say your example is a bit flawed.

    78. Re:That's disgusting by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Okay, I'm not vegan and I think a lot of the argument on the vegan side of this thread has been silly. Yet you've just said something really hilariously funny in defense of eating meat.

      "Millions and millions of people can live malnourished for decades before they end up dead."

      Well, um, yeah. Millions and millions can also eat meat for decades then still end up, you know, dead. Millions and millions of people could eat a perfectly nutritious scientifically produced human food of whatever origin for multiple decades before they still end up dead. People do, after all, die after some number of decades. That number is usually somewhere between 5 and 9 in well-established Western economies.

    79. Re:That's disgusting by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Okay, then, no non-procreational sex for you!

      See? When you ban it just because there's no use for it but fun, we get to ban all sorts of things. Log off and parcel your computer for shipment to me, too. I have a strong feeling you're not using it for survival, because you didn't get paid to make that post. Or did you?

    80. Re:That's disgusting by mr_mischief · · Score: 2, Informative

      I guess you think modern tools are the first ones ever built and that we never could trap or hunt in packs. I've got news for you. Humans are more like wolves socially than like sheep. Knives and spears have existed for millions of years. Deadfalls, pit traps, and snares have existed for quite some time, too. Humans didn't wrestle the woolly mammoth one on one. Stampeding a herd over a cliff is a lot easier than strangling a steer. Fishing, snake catching, grabbing birds in the nest, throwing rocks at rabbits or squirrels, and sticking sharp sticks into knot holes and burrows have been used to get smaller animals as meals. We even tamed some of the wolves and taught them to help us hunt.

      Humans are resourceful. Just because you'd only eat nuts and berries doesn't mean someone who wants meat couldn't find a way to get it without following lions around like hyenas do.

      BTW, chimps eat monkeys, and they hunt them in organized groups sometimes using weapons. They also have been known to eat bush pigs, baboons, termites, and antelopes. Sometimes they eat other chimps. They use and even fashion tools to catch termites. They have even been known to rely on certain medicinal plants under the proper circumstances, which leads some researchers to believe they have some idea of which plant helps which malady. These and bonobos are our closest living animal cousins.

    81. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would make more sense to use the fat from animals ALREADY KILLED, rather than waste it.

    82. Re:That's disgusting by vidnet · · Score: 1

      So what is necessary about meat consumption?

      To not die from B-12 deficiency.

      B-12 is not a meat byproduct, it's only produced by bacteria - in the gut and in the soil. Cows get deficient if they don't eat dirty grass. Vegans get deficient if they don't eat dirty vegetables.

      I can see the argument for using cows as machines for converting grass into food, since we haven't really mastered the chemistry involved in converting cellulose to protein. But keeping cows as slaves to eat our dirt for us? Just let the bacteria synthesize it in a lab already.

    83. Re:That's disgusting by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      The op said that our canines prove we need to rend flesh for meat. I gave a counter-example of a creature with even larger canines which does not rend flesh.

      We're closer to chimps, but quite divergent from both. There is a lot of evolution between us and chimps. But if you want to go there, note that meat makes up a very small fraction of the chimp diet.

    84. Re:That's disgusting by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Cut the biodiesel with diesel #1 (read: road-legal kerosene,) and it is less likely to gel. (Usually between October and April, fuel suppliers start going to winterized blends, which are usually up to 30% diesel #1, with additives to improve lubricity. (This is also the biggest reason why fuel economy goes down in winter, as diesel #1 has less energy than diesel #2 (what's simply known as diesel, outside of those months.)) Of course, because 2% biodiesel is itself used as a lubricity additive... problem solved.

      (All of this said, I'd stick to older diesel cars for running biodiesel. Optimally, a 2003 or older VW, or a 1999 or older Mercedes. And, absolutely not a 2007 or newer of any brand.)

    85. Re:That's disgusting by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      A 1996 Jetta TDI, or a 1996 Jetta TD? There is a difference, and it does matter when running vegetable oil.

      (Neither was sold in the US, and I'm pretty sure in any market where the 3rd-generation-Golf-with-a-trunk was sold with a TDI in model year 1996, it was called a Vento, not a Jetta. Of course, it could be an engine swap.)

      Waste veggie oil is known to cause major problems unless you do EVERY SINGLE THING PERFECTLY on a direct injection engine - and even then, premature failure is inevitable, compared to doing everything right (which is far easier) on petrodiesel or even biodiesel.

      On an indirect injection engine, it's easier to not fail miserably (but still very possible.) If your car is a TD, and not a TDI, then it's indirect injection.

      2004-2006 TDIs in North America are considered to be EXTREMELY intolerant of waste veggie oil, and marginally tolerant of high percentages of biodiesel (the older TDIs are usually considered fairly well tolerant of high percentages of biodiesel, though.)

      As for the 2009+ cars... well, they're considered VERY intolerant of more than 5% biodiesel, due to the extremely high sustained fuel pressures (causing breakdown of the fuel) and the particulate filter not being tuned for biodiesel at all. Waste veggie oil is far worse than biodiesel in every respect, for these purposes - it breaks down far sooner, and its combustion profile is far worse for the particulate filter than biodiesel.

    86. Re:That's disgusting by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      Well, you could replace the horses with humans. (Yes, I'm aware, that's called slavery, and it's not good.)

    87. Re:That's disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beef is more like 6.2 to 1: http://www.sustainablebeef.org/_assets/SBRC-Fifty-Years-Technology-Impact.pdf page 12
      Pork is more like 2.9 to 1: http://www.porkmag.com/directories.asp?pgID=773&ed_id=5524
      While the chicken statistic does look to be about inline.

      Keep in mind that if we don't derive at least some of our diet from animals we can't reach our needed vitamin B-12 levels. I will agree that we need to reduce our meat consumption I don't agree that it should be zero.

    88. Re:That's disgusting by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      According to at least one observation the live weight of animals they actually hunt to eat is around 30-35 pounds a year. That is almost 3 pounds a month if stretched over the year, but during the actual primary hunting season, they eat about 65 grams (about two ounces) per day per chimp. They weigh about as much as a small human (90 - 115 pounds (35 - 70 kg) for males and 57 -110 pounds (26 - 50 kg) for females).

      Although that's actually less than many overweight Westerners, it's well within the proportions of meat intake vs. body weight that many dietitians and nutritionists recommend for humans.

      These chimps are hunter-gatherers rather than farmers and ranchers. They hunt more when the energy spent to hunt is better rewarded than the energy spent gathering. They also use meat politically and in courting. The hunting skills probably also come in handy when they go into combat with other chimp clans, which they also sometimes do.

      I think it's easy to say most Americans eat more meat than recommended. I don't really think you can say it's natural for us to give it up completely, though.

    89. Re:That's disgusting by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

      I don't really think you can say it's natural for us to give it up completely, though.

      Here's what I said two posts up: "I never advocate that everyone should be vegan or whatever: only that there is a good reason for individuals to reflect on the consequences of their diet." How does that convert to "give it up completely?"

      Separately, who cares what is natural? I certainly am not arguing that we be completely natural. If we acted naturally, yes, we would kill animals as opportunity afforded. We would also rape and murder humans when we could get away with it, and we would sleep on dirt and die of old age in our thirties. "Natural" is not something to aspire to universally. "Healthy" sometimes has something to do with what is natural, but it's certainly nuanced.

      All that behavior by chimps you describe is being performed by creatures we generally do not expect to spend a lot of effort on ethical contemplation. If humans aspire to have the ethical standards of chimps, then they should act like chimps. If we aspire to perhaps be something more, then maybe we could give a little thought to the quantity of meat in our diet. It certainly need not be a core focus of every meal.

    90. Re:That's disgusting by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Well, yeah, the consequences of our diet is a wide-ranging thing. It effects our personal health, our economy, our immediate ecology around us, the global energy use, the invasion of pest plants and animals from long-distance shipments, the use of chemicals on our food, political policies and political power games from local to international, our own household budgets, our ethics about not just animals but also what other humans went through to bring us the food, genetic modification of plants and animals, rewarding sensationalist diet food peddlers, enriching people selling what basically qualifies as beef jerky on a bun because of all the salt, and more.

      A little meat now and then isn't bad for humans. Most of our meat doesn't have legs broken in jaw traps (illegal in at least most of the US) or caught in pitfalls these days. Hunters, even when using bows and arrows, tend to track and finish off animals quickly and fairly humanely. Despite some bad apples, most farms and ranches raise their animals humanely and have them slaughtered with as little pain as possible. Sport fishing usually causes very little pain to the fish. I've never been on a commercial fishing vessel, but they don't seem to cause any more pain than necessary. A gig is probably not painful for very long to a frog. I don't eat lobster that's been boiled alive.

      I think you and I probably have more in common to say about the topic than we do differently. Meat shouldn't be eaten out its small proportion. The methods used to procure meat should be as humane as possible. People should consider whether the methods used to procure the meat for them are personally acceptable.

    91. Re:That's disgusting by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it take a long time for the food to arrive from Vega?

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    92. Re:That's disgusting by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Maybe they just look "gaunt" because they're normal weight. A big majority (sure, pun intended) of the US population is overweight, and over a third are obese.

      I eat meat, but nowhere near the amount in the average US diet. That is most definitely NOT healthy.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    93. Re:That's disgusting by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Absolute BS. Looking like a starving refuge is not healthy.

      I am one of those "obese" by government, medical, and insurance standards. Yet, my stomach muscles stand out just fine. The statistics on 'overweight' and 'obesity' are simply wrong. The BMI is a joke.

      I have been hydrostatically weighed, and my lean muscle mass alone puts me into the 'overweight' category for the BMI. The only way for me to have a 'normal' weight per the BMI is to literally amputate body parts. If I amputated a leg, I might make it, but I would have to watch my amputations, because if I took off both legs, I would be 'obese' again. Here is a good example of what is called 'obese' by US standards.

      Eating meat is not unhealthy. Avoiding meat is what is unhealthy.

    94. Re:That's disgusting by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but if you look at some truly elite athletes - for example, professional Ironman triathletes - you'll find a radically disproportionate number of pure vegans, along with a significant number of relatively-low dairy vegetarians.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
  4. What was the previous use? by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What was the previous use?
    My guess is they mixed it in with the chicken feed to fatten up the next batch. They'll need a new source of oil. Maybe corn oil?

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    1. Re:What was the previous use? by Dancindan84 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Do not use for the other use!

      --
      "Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
    2. Re:What was the previous use? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One also wonders why they switched from the previous use... Where the expected higher oil prices and/or some sort of biofuel subsidy good enough to make it cost effective, or did feeding animals their own ground up con-specifics break some new health and sanitary regulation?

      I suppose they could also have just taken advantage of some improvement in refining technology to change the point of combustion. I'd suspect that a coal-fired plant wouldn't even notice some chicken fat mixed in with the coal; but that the price per ton paid for the fat would be unexciting; while, with the right refining technology, you could turn those same lipids into a vehicle fuel, which is rather more valuable per ton....

    3. Re:What was the previous use? by benjamindees · · Score: 5, Informative

      Unlike cattle, chickens are not "fattened up". Marbling is not a desirable feature in chicken meat. They get plenty of residual fats from the soybean meal that constitutes nearly half of typical feed. The chicken fat was probably used in pet food or cattle feed previously.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    4. Re:What was the previous use? by vlm · · Score: 1

      or did feeding animals their own ground up con-specifics break some new health and sanitary regulation?

      You get around that by adding the ground up chicken parts to the cow feed, and the ground up cow parts to the chicken feed. Insert sheep (oops NZ joke) or whatever.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    5. Re:What was the previous use? by dpilot · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember hearing this practice cited back when mad cow disease was all the rage. Oh, plus applying the same treatment to roadkill they found along the way.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    6. Re:What was the previous use? by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 1

      What was the previous use?
      My guess is they mixed it in with the chicken feed to fatten up the next batch. They'll need a new source of oil. Maybe corn oil?

      Dirty jobs covered this. The dead chicken and turkey are composed into fertilizer. So in a way you are right.

  5. Yup by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    From experience with homebrew biodiesel, the exhaust really does smell like the fat/oil used to produce it. My dad's truck smelled like french fries or chinese most of the time.

    1. Re:Yup by demonbug · · Score: 4, Funny

      From experience with homebrew biodiesel, the exhaust really does smell like the fat/oil used to produce it. My dad's truck smelled like french fries or Chinese most of the time.

      Ftfy, murderer.

      In related news, Tyson announced their entry into the crematorium market.

  6. Poor vegetarians by evolvearth · · Score: 2, Funny

    Life is going to be a lot harder for those poor vegetarians

    1. Re:Poor vegetarians by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 0, Troll

      Given that the origins of conventional oil aren't exactly vegetarian safe(coal is good and vegetarian, though), and they seem to deal with current petro-fuels as well as anybody else, it will only be the whiny "Cry, cry, the smell of your burning animal flesh disgusts me!" purity fetishist vegetarians who have any trouble with it. Given how annoying those ones are, I'm not too concerned.

    2. Re:Poor vegetarians by o'reor · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah ! Up your nostrils, veg'tarians !

      Oh, and how do we get that fat off those chickens ? The answer is : Grill, baby, grill !

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    3. Re:Poor vegetarians by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Hopefully they won't actually be drinking it. If so they have more problems then just that.

  7. Neve ending cycle. by Andy_w715 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Eat the crap; Makes you fat. Need a bigger car to lug your fat ass around. Burn it in your car; Exhaust smells like it, making you hungry. Repeat. Also 75 milllion gallons sounds like a lot, but when compared to the annual gasoline consumption of the US (~140 billion gallons), you'll need to eat a lot of chickens to make a dent. Sound like some gov't make work program.

    1. Re:Neve ending cycle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The first plant in Louisiana will be able to churn out 75 million gallons"

      If they build, say, 50 of these at the same size and productivity, that's three and three quarter billion gallons of fuel we don't have to purchase or harvest from the earth. Sure, that's not really a dent at all when you look at fuel use, but this could help regions where diesel costs upwards of three to four dollars a gallon. That's 11.25 to 15 billions dollars worth of fuel that doesn't need importing from foreign countries.

      I don't think any gas stations would be willing to sell bio diesel at a dollar below market price for diesel, but if you turned around and sold this fuel to farmers, maybe even construction firms, both of which are likely using diesel for their heavy machinery, it could help them lower their cost of operations and generally become more survivable, especially if you offered them the fuel in the region of 2 dollars a gallon compared to the 3 or 4 you pay in CA.

      I'm not in the business, so I don't even know where they would typically get their fuel, but it seems reasonable to me.

    2. Re:Neve ending cycle. by Dan+Ost · · Score: 1

      Will this fuel really be used as is? Or will it be an additive to regular diesel fuel?

      Seems like all the diesel fuel sold around here is "up to 5% biodiesel" which, I assume, this stuff would qualify as.

      --

      *sigh* back to work...
    3. Re:Neve ending cycle. by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Many trucking companies fuel their own trucks at the depot and only use truck stops between depots to refuel when out of reach of a company site. So you could sell biodiesel in bulk to the trucking companies for fueling at the yard, so long as their trucks will run on a high enough concentration of bio vs. petro diesel. I'm guessing future models will allow more and more bio-sourced diesel under the warranties as petrodiesel goes up in price.

  8. They tried that nearby for a few years by Nimey · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There was a plant owned by Renewable Environmental Solutions near Carthage, MO that would take leftovers from Tyson's chicken plants and turn it into various oils, including fuel. Problem was that the plant *stank* and the wind sometimes blew the odor into town, leading to many complaints and attempts to fix it.

    Eventually the state shut 'em down because they were unable to control the smell. Maybe this place in Louisiana is way out in the middle of nowhere, so they won't have to worry so much about the neighbors complaining.

    --
    Hail Eris, full of mischief...

    E pluribus sanguinem
    1. Re:They tried that nearby for a few years by vlm · · Score: 1

      Maybe this place in Louisiana is way out in the middle of nowhere, so they won't have to worry so much about the neighbors complaining.

      Have you ever smelled Louisiana? Not some kind of weird ethnic joke, but a comment on the unique bouquet of oil refineries and swamps?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    2. Re:They tried that nearby for a few years by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Supposedly they were unable to conclusively link the odor to the plant - people complained about the smell even when the plant wasn't operating. The state suspension was only temporary and the plant operated afterward in face of more complaints. But despite having proven that the odors were not coming from their plant and spending millions on upgrading tech to deal with the potential odors the whole thing kinda went belly-up when the parent company declared bankruptcy.

      Basically the reported stench was pure NIMBY and nothing else.
      =Smidge=

    3. Re:They tried that nearby for a few years by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem wasn't the stink. It was the economics. From the get go, they were relying on subsidies to make the process pay. These kind of businesses sprout up whenever there are government subsidies to be had or fuel prices spike. Their prospectuses will have a phrase that states that the company isn't profitable if you take away the subsidies or it will be profitable if the price of fuel rises faster than the rate of inflation. Had Renewable really developed a viable technology that delivered fuel at $15/barrel as they promised, there would have been more than enough money to clean up the stench.

    4. Re:They tried that nearby for a few years by wronkiew · · Score: 1

      Very sad story. The plant had some odor problems in the beginning, but then it turned into a classic case of mass hysteria. People were calling in complaints on days when the plant wasn't even operating.

  9. Schmaltz by Sam+Nitzberg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Schmaltzy !

    1. Re:Schmaltz by istartedi · · Score: 4, Informative

      Moderators need to find out what schmaltz is.

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
    2. Re:Schmaltz by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Dammit! You beat me to it!

      And mods, this is definitely NOT Off-topic, it should be modded "funny" if it's modded at all.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    3. Re:Schmaltz by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      It's delicious is what it is. I remember growing up we would have it during Passover. Spread some of that rendered chicken fat on a piece of matzoh and sprinkle on a little salt. Delicious! (If you're thinking it sounds disgusting, it tastes kind of like a rich butter.) Yes, it is awful for you, but most things that taste really good are bad for you if you eat too much of them.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  10. Environment friendly, but not human-friendly by fluor2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We already know Men living in areas with polluted air may be more likely to develop lung cancer, according to scientists. .

    So we thought this biofuel should be great. But now recent studies have found some evidence that indicates that biofuel is even worse for humans! Norwegian researchers have found this (published in a large norwegian magazine named technichal weekly).
    Read this article. The findings are new, but disturbing for the future of biofuel.

    But hey, after all it's environment friendly. :)

    1. Re:Environment friendly, but not human-friendly by takowl · · Score: 3, Informative

      The findings are new, but disturbing for the future of biofuel.

      To put this in perspective, the newspaper article you link to describes some scientists who've done a computer simulation of burning mixtures including biodiesel (a particular type of biofuel), and predict that it will produce a greater amount of PAHs, which are known to cause cancer, than simulated pure fossil fuels. As far as I can see, they've not even burnt anything.

      Assuming real experiments match their simulation, the mixture will most likely be tweaked a bit--some chemical change, some additive, or something--to bring down the resulting amount of PAHs. We already drive around with catalytic converters bolted to our cars to clean up various pollutants. What you've described is a minor pothole in biofuel development, not the roadblock you seem to be implying. By far the greater challenge is how to devote the necessary land to grow biofuels while we simultaneously increase food production to feed a growing world population, and try to conserve land for nature.

    2. Re:Environment friendly, but not human-friendly by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Plus might help solve the "aging population problem" that many developed countries seem so worried about :).

      That said, the great work by McD, Coca Cola, Frito-Lay, Philip Morris, Yum! Brands and friends towards solving this problem have so far been under appreciated...

      --
    3. Re:Environment friendly, but not human-friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > By far the greater challenge is how to devote the necessary land to grow biofuels while we simultaneously increase food production to feed a
      > growing world population, and try to conserve land for nature.

      uhhh... no. Vast areas of land will NOT need to be switched from food crops to fuel crops. Lots of biofuels can be produced from leftover food products, like chicken fat (AS PER TFA!!!) and coffee grounds and used frying oil etc.

      Dedicated fuel crops, if they are needed, can be grown on land that is no good for regular crops - most likely desert land, with special diesel-algae being grown under glass using seawater pumped in from the nearest coast. Such crops produce fuel much more efficiently than food crops like corn or wheat.

      Also, bear in mind that the future doesn't have to be ENTIRELY biofuel - we will probably end up with a certain amount biofuel, a certain percentage fossil fuel, and the remainder on electric (hopefully from renewable or nuclear).

    4. Re:Environment friendly, but not human-friendly by fluor2 · · Score: 1

      Well I don't believe in this approach. They have been trying to filter Diesel toxics for ages now and it's still not very good!

  11. Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am sure we have more human fat...

    1. Re:Alternatives by snookerhog · · Score: 1

      it's already been done by this forward thinking individual

  12. Cholesterol by TVDinner · · Score: 5, Funny

    Great, now I'll have to add Lipitor(tm) to my diesel tank so my car's fuel line doesn't get plaque build-up.

    1. Re:Cholesterol by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, but given its price as pills, a pint of liquid Lipitor(tm) will cost like $6,000 in the U.S. (Or $4.95 in Canada/Mexico.)

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:Cholesterol by dontmakemethink · · Score: 1

      No it'll cost $6000 in Canada too, we just don't see the bill.

      --

      War as we knew it was obsolete
      Nothing could beat complete denial
      - Emily Haines
  13. When you find youself in danger, by countertrolling · · Score: 3, Funny

    When you're threatened by a stranger,
    When it looks like you will take a lickin', (cluk, cluk, cluk)
    There is someone waiting,
    Who will hurry up and rescue you,
    Just Call for Rendered Chicken! (cluk, ack!)

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  14. Old news by Firethorn · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a vegetarian, it really disgusts me... (I wonder, though, if this smell is better than regular diesel).

    As an omnivore who's also a hunter, I'm glad that they're finding a green use for what would otherwise be a waste product.

    This is a kind-of 'old tech' come back in a new form. Animal fat used to be used to produce candles and lantern oil; so the idea of using it for power isn't a new one.

    BTW, this is old news; I first heard about this factory several years ago.

    MUCH better article
    - Hmm... Looks like a new plant, and it'll also produce fuel for the B-52. Sweet.

    Ah, here's what I was remembering - light crude from turkey fats and other waste via thermal-depolymerization .Article dates from 2003.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The plant referred to in the National Geographic article was shutdown by the EPA due the the smell. That is, in an area that is heavily dotted with chicken farms and slaughter operations. It's likely you'd be very disgusted by the smell of the operation, though I hear it "smells a lot like money".

    2. Re:Old news by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      I remember it being shut down a couple times over the smell, but they got that fixed.

      However, they did apparently go bankrupt due to oil prices dropping and not being able to get the turkey parts as cheaply as expected(a market developed for them, I think it involved China), meant they weren't able to pay off capital costs like they had expected to.

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:Old news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who gives a shit if you are a vegetarian? What does that have to do with the central theme here?
      What does it smell like? IF it makes my TDI go and it is cheap, it can smell like rat farts, as it's a better use of a waste product, and much better than your whining.

  15. Not really sure THAT was the reason... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/The-mysterious-death-of-the-chicken-fat-car-45445497.html

    The mysterious death of the chicken-fat car
    By: Timothy P. Carney
    Senior Examiner Columnist
    May 20, 2009

    As President Barack Obama unfurls his fuel-economy standards and Congress takes up global warming regulations, it’s useful to remember that what emerges from environmental policymaking is not necessarily what’s best for the planet, but instead what’s best for special interests.

    Consider the epic and somewhat bizarre struggle over clean fuels that ended last week. As usual, special interests were central to the drama. But the antagonists seemed right out of a Monty Python sendup of Washington politics: An oil company, hoping to profit from making trucks run on chicken fat, was thwarted by the soap industry’s lobby.

    The chicken-fat story is a cautionary tale about how environmental policy actually gets made.

    It began in 2005, when President George W. Bush signed an energy bill including a $1-per-gallon tax credit for “renewable diesel” fuel created through “thermal depolymerization.” Writer Rina Palta reported in the liberal American Prospect that Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., wrote the measure “to benefit a floundering company in his home district that produces boiler fuel from turkey offal, which did not qualify chemically as ‘biodiesel.’ ”

    At the time, Congress was eagerly providing subsidies to turn plants and animals into fuel, so it didn’t seem farfetched to boost the cause of fowl entrails. But unintended consequences soon arrived, proving once again that the biggest companies usually find a way to profit from government intervention.

    In April 2007, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that Blunt’s tax credit had broader applications. Within two weeks, ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods saw that the IRS had opened the door for a joint venture to melt chicken, cow, and pig fat into diesel fuel. Conoco Chief Executive Officer James Mulva was honest about his unusual undertaking: “It’s not profitable without the $1 per gallon tax credit,” he said at a news conference.

    But this renewable fuel had enemies. First, Democrats didn’t like any subsidy that helped an oil company like Conoco. (Blunt, for his part, said he never wanted to help oil companies, and that the law should be changed.)

    Second, business lobbyists were also working to kill the subsidy for chicken fat. The obvious opponents were chicken fat’s competitors — the companies that turn vegetables into diesel fuel. The National Biodiesel Board, which spends nearly $1 million a year on lobbying, pushed hard to ensure the $1-per-gallon subsidy for clean diesel didn’t also apply to the Conoco-Tyson operation.

    But the issue of “renewable biodiesel” also turned up on the lobbying filings of the Dial Corporation and the Soap and Detergent Association. Just as ethanol subsidies have driven up the price of food, it turned out that fat-to-fuel subsidies boosted the cost of manufacturing soap, which is also made of animal fat. So Dial and the Soap and Detergent Association, displeased that Tyson now had somewhere else to peddle its fat, also lobbied to kill the chicken-fat diesel subsidy.

    While their own interests were obvious, the soap and biodiesel lobbies argued that chicken-fat diesel was not good for the environment. But the Environmental Protection Agency ruled this month that “biodiesel or renewable diesel made from animal fat or used cooking oil results in an 80 percent reduction from carbon emissions versus petroleum diesel,” according to Darling International, a company that deals in animal-fat diesel. Darling added in its first-quarter 2009 report, “That is the highest level of carbon reduction available

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  16. A good thing, not so much by assertation · · Score: 1

    I read in a few places that I can't remember right now that it takes feeding an animal 26 calories to get 1 calorie of food out, by eating their meat. In other words you have to put more energy in than you get out. This is good for Tyson's if this is about waste they could not do anything else with. It isn't an alternative energy solution though. It isn't even an efficient way to get food.

    1. Re:A good thing, not so much by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      People kind of have a taste for meat though. I don't think anyone is selling this as "the solution to oil dependence" or anything, but it *is* a way to recycle waste from a food production process that will occur anyways. Other than people liking short sound-bitey things I don't know why everyone has this need for there to be a single tech that solves all energy problems in the work.

      Combustible liquid fuels powering ICE-powered cars is the situation for the near future. Given that, anything that lets us turn waste from one process ro another into supplemental fuel without doing so at a loss (as in more energy from converting waste->fuel than we get from the fuel, as in you don't get to count the energy spent to produce whatever the waste is the waste from -- you aren't raising chicken for fuel [that would be ridiculous], you're raising chickens for food and using the waste from that process for fuel) is a good thing.

    2. Re:A good thing, not so much by michael_cain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People kind of have a taste for meat though.

      Yep, in a calorie-sparse hunter-gatherer existence, a taste for meat, fat, and sugar— all with a very high calorie density— is a Good Thing. In a calorie-rich sedentary society, not so much.

    3. Re:A good thing, not so much by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      Well, the 26 calories is probably as much of a guess as the other figures I've heard reported, anything from 2 to 100.

      The thing is, those calories, 26 if you like, can come from stuff that humans can't eat, like grass. Animals can (and do) graze on farmland that isn't really terribly suitable for growing crops. Without raising animals for meat, most of the people in the world would starve.

    4. Re:A good thing, not so much by assertation · · Score: 1

      Factory farms feed cows other things than grass because it is more efficient ( cheaper and more profitable). Grass fed beef would be expensive beef beyond what many Americans can afford, let alone other people in the world.

      Marginal land, is just that marginal land. There isn't enough of it to raise enough life stock to feed a significant number of people.

      I don't mean any personal insult to you, but you last statement is egregiously wrong. Raising animals for meat actually contributes to world hunger.

      It takes about 10 pounds of grain to get 1 pound of beef out. In other words, you converted 10 pounds of food ( or crops that could have been food if you chose to grow something else ) into one pound of food.

      Then there is all of the pollution from livestock farming that slowly using up fresh water and damaging other agricultural resources.

    5. Re:A good thing, not so much by Gordonjcp · · Score: 1

      It takes about 10 pounds of grain to get 1 pound of beef out.

      That's because cows don't eat grain. It is uneconomic to feed cows grain, which is why no-one in their right mind does it. It's okay to do it in the US, where you have masses of cheap, heavily-subsidised grain. That said, here in the UK we do often feed cows spent mash from breweries and distilleries, which is a great way of getting rid of something that would otherwise just rot and turn nasty. Spend mash dumped in the ground == stinky sour mess, Spent mash + cow == meat + cow poo, which rots down nicely into organic fertiliser.

  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. It is added to pet food by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    I assume the submitter was joking, but chicken fat is also added to pet foods. I saw the chicken fat on ingredient labels at Costco. We just switched from a dog food that had corn in it, based on a friend's advice that a corn allergy is common in dogs. Wish we had known 6 years ago.

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:It is added to pet food by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      I had a sausage sandwich today, before reading what was in the sausage. The four main ingredients were "partially defatted pork fat tissue", beef tripe, water, and wheat flour. Actually, it didn't taste too bad other than I accidentally dumped too much ground rosemary on it before cooking. It sounds absolutely disgusting, though, and can't be very good for such a sedentary person as I am. I'm thinking the cat that sleeps on the porch might get a saucer of sausage tomorrow.

      BTW, dogs can also be allergic to oats. My mother-in-law's dog is. If the dog's been okay on a particular food, though, there's probably no reason to switch. The dog in this case just had a 55-specimen allergy test and had 17 items come back as somewhat irritating. Those included foods, household items (like cotton linters), and outdoor items. He can eat chicken and rice without any issues, and his vets have suggested chicken and rice based dog food from the start of his allergy symptoms because those two ingredients are not very likely to be a problem. I hope he's not allergic to being around the parrot, because I'm not sure I'm ready to the bird yet. I'm not supposed to get him until the will.

    2. Re:It is added to pet food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the heads-up on oats. A lot of people get the itchies from that as well.

  19. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. How many million chickens is that? by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    It's rather shocking that one company can actually *source* 75 million gallons of chicken fat per year in one country. How many billion chickens have to be slaughtered to make 75 million gallons of chicken fat?

    1. Re:How many million chickens is that? by Greeninja · · Score: 1

      it takes 40.65 chickens to make one gallon of fat (roughly) http://www.weeklycitizen.com/news/business/x1409378022/Producing-clean-diesel-Dynamic-Fuels-chicken-fat-plant-will-reduce-greenhouse-emissions

      so that would be 3,048,750,000,000 chickens to make 75 million gallons

    2. Re:How many million chickens is that? by michael_cain · · Score: 1

      Per USDA figures, there were about 765 million chickens slaughtered in the US last year. The major share of the "fat" is probably the oil used to fry things. The US produces something over 12 million metric tons of fats and oils per year, about 70% of that vegetable oils. Back-of-the-envelope, 12 million metric tons of the stuff is on the order of 3 billion gallons.

    3. Re:How many million chickens is that? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      As cited in another response to your post, it's about 3 billion chickens to make 75 million gallons of oil, at about 40 chickens per gallon. But that fat doesn't come from whole new chickens - it comes from fat from chickens already slaughtered. The fat is either a waste product currently "discarded" in landfills or holding tanks, or else possibly used in other applications not as valuable as the fuel oil product. My understanding is that the chicken industry, despite finding all kinds of uses for every part of the chickens slaughtered to make the meat that determines the number and size of chickens slaughtered, still creates lots of waste in "renderings" like fat and other grisly parts. Likewise, to produce 75 million gallons of oil we have demand for consuming we currently do a lot of drilling and refining that consumes other resources, including generating lots of pollution when it's burned.

      Recycling chicken waste for fuel oil can be a net improvement on our previous operations in each of those industries. If indeed the chicken oil production actually delivers more energy in the oil than is consumed to make it, or if the consumption of the waste is more valuable than any possible net energy cost to make it.

      The real world is about actual alternatives, not single actions in a vacuum. Until I hear of some significant new downside, recycling chicken waste into fuel oil sounds like a good move. Better than dumping the waste while drilling for oil.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  22. Mod up parent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wishing I had mod points... well written retort

  23. That makes a lot of faulty assumptions by voss · · Score: 1

    You dont have to feed cows grain- Grass fed beef is healthier and natives grasses grows
      over large parts of the United States. If you know any people who can digest grass let me know.

    Grain fed beef is only popular because its cheap, but grass-fed beef is healthier and less prone to ecoli
    in addition to being more humane.

    1. Re:That makes a lot of faulty assumptions by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, you're quite right, some beef is fed on grass, and that beef is healthier to eat, and people can't digest grass.

      And some grass fields aren't arable no matter what, while others are irrigated and could be used for crops instead, which people could eat.

      It's a complicated picture and yes, excuse me for over-simplifying: grain-fed beef is an energy loser, grass-fed less clearly so but possibly so (and maybe we'd be better off eating something else grass-fed).

      The point is, right now 50% of US grain is fed to animals, 40% worldwide, and 99% of that 50%/40% is wasted.

    2. Re:That makes a lot of faulty assumptions by drsquare · · Score: 1

      You have to feed them grain if you want beef in anywhere near the same quantities you have available today.

      Is there even enough grazing land in the world to sustain current beef-eating levels? Probably not or they wouldn't be cutting down the rainforests to make room for cattle.

    3. Re:That makes a lot of faulty assumptions by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Right now grain goes to waste in the US because places that need it elsewhere can't afford to have it shipped. Might as well feed it to something.

      The main reasons for grain-fed beef is that it plumps up the cattle faster and makes their meat taste less gamey. Many cattle are actually grass fed most of their lives and grain fed to finish just a short while before slaughter. That results in healthier cattle which still have a less gamey taste.

  24. Not A CO2 Sink by phantomcircuit · · Score: 1

    Just so that everybody is clear, this is NOT better than burning fossil fuels in terms of CO2 released.

    All of that chicken fat would simply have been put into a land fill, thus acting as a CO2 sink (kind of like fossil fuels right?).

  25. Vats of chicken fat by pclminion · · Score: 4, Informative

    I have a friend who produces biodiesel semi-professionally (sells to local farmers to run their tractors and other farm equipment, the rest is unofficially sold to friends) and for a while he was using rendered chicken fat. The raw material stinks like hell, but the resulting biodiesel doesn't really smell like much of anything. Remember that the manufacture of biodiesel is a chemical process that changes the oil into something else. The chicken fat no longer exists at the end of the process. Any odor is due to particulate or a fraction of oil that wasn't completely converted.

    Generally all biodiesel smells the same unless it's been manufactured improperly. I've managed to get some in my mouth before (a siphoning error). It doesn't have much of a taste but it coats your mouth with a terrible film that is very hard to get rid of.

    One time I was over at the plant with my dog. She managed to find an open container of chicken fat and stuck her head in there. I don't know how much of it she ate (drank? gulped?) but you can imagine, if you dare to, what sort of things were coming out of the other end of the dog for several days afterward. Oh god... Oh, oh god.

  26. well cool by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    That's .054% of the fuel the US uses in a year, but I guess it's a start.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  27. Finally by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    Biodiesel For The Soul.

  28. Chicken fat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just get fat from Americans, there's a lot larger supply.

  29. impact on the environment by bl8n8r · · Score: 1

    I'm not a vegetarian so not too worried about the air smelling like fried chicken, but I'll bet if that's all you could smell any time you walked outside you would get sick of it. I would be more concerned about the impact this would have on Tyson land use, run-off, and disease control (antibiotics). It's already pretty f#cked up.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:impact on the environment by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      It won't smell like fried chicken exactly, which is chicken either floured, breaded, or battered then fried in some other kind of fat (usually some grain oil of some sort). It will smell like rendered fat, which any number of pork rendering plants or margarine plants smell like now.

  30. who cares... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    who cares what it smells like as long as we are fuel independent nation from it!

  31. The Schmaltz Factor by wagadog · · Score: 1

    cue the accordions and clarinets to play "If I was a rich man"

  32. Biodiesel Exhaust Odor by WebSorcerer · · Score: 1

    In general, the exhaust from a diesel engine running on biodiesel made from vegetable oil is odorless. If made from animal fat, it smells like popcorn. [Yes, I'm serious.]

  33. It's totally coming... by mpfife · · Score: 1

    The cars! The cars! They run on people! They RUN ON PEOPLEEEEEEEEE!!!
    Or,
    "No no, this corvette doesn't need gas! It runs on the fat of the land!"

  34. Do you hear that? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    That rumbling?

    It's a stampede of trolls with racist jokes headed for this discussion! Take cover!

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  35. Go ahead and laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go ahead and laugh if you want to, but I knew a guy who converted his (diesel) car to also run on oil from deep fryers. He had to start it on diesel, and run it for a minute on diesel before shutting it off (if he had been running on oil). He had a converter and emulsifyer attached to the car, and had to use fine strainers to remove potato (and depending where he hot it fish, and chicken), then send it past a coffee filter to remove very fine particles. It worked well, and was cheap to run the car (unless the restaurant owner insisted on being paid to let someone remove his waste oil), but when he drove around, it either smelled like KFC or french fries, or fish.

  36. Let us be honest by aepervius · · Score: 1

    Animal are tasty. That is enough for me. Call me egoist , but I have only one life, so feel free to eat your cow-chow, I will eat the cows.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Let us be honest by rah1420 · · Score: 1

      "Vegetables is what food eats."

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
    2. Re:Let us be honest by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Mushrooms are what grows on what's left after food eats vegetables.

  37. How about human fat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now if only we could find a way to convert the fat sucked out of celebrities via liposuction into a biodiesel...

    1. Re:How about human fat? by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Mischief. Mayhem. Soap.

  38. My God... They've finally done it. by Petersko · · Score: 1

    They're sacrificing chickens at the alter of biofuels.

    How deliciously accurate. They've admitted biofuel are a desperate, unsupportable hail mary to the Gods. --

    1. Re:My God... They've finally done it. by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      There's something really odd about "hail mary to the Gods". A "Hail Mary" is a prayer to a saint to intercede on your behalf (to pray with you, basically) to one particular omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient God. Its use as a long-shot football passing play derives directly from the Catholic prayer.

      Also, they're not admitting anything or sacrificing chickens. This chicken fat is separated from chickens going to food markets. It is otherwise either wasted or turned into other products. They're using parts of chickens already born, raised, and killed for food to add to the biodiesel that comes from soy, jojoba, switchgrass, peanuts, and other sources. Biodiesel is fairly sustainable, and this form of biodisel they're talking about doesn't compete with the human food supply because it's a waste product of the human food supply.

      When you talk of completely bat-shit-crazy unsustainable biofuels, you're probably talking about corn ethanol from simple sugars or about charcoal for cooking stoves. We really need an efficient way to turn the cellulose of corn into ethanol rather than just the sugars for ethanol from corn to be viable. Inefficient charcoal stoves are a major reason for the deforestation of Haiti. Better stoves or a switch to natural gas (a fuel which is beyond the income of many residents) are really needed to help stop the deforestation problem. Some Haitians even sneak into national parks in the Dominican Republic to cut wood to make charcoal.

  39. This is terrible by Windwraith · · Score: 1

    Considering how badly poultry is handled (and killed) compared to cows and piggies, this means breeding huge batches of chickens, let them develop physical injuries while trapped in a small box with 1000 other chickens, share space with dead chickens no one is taking care of, and get killed while being skinned alive. Exactly the same as the "for food" poultry industry.
    I am no PETA guy, but the treatment of birds by farmers and laborers is remarkably cruel. From the designers of the cages (filthy and lacking hygiene, stacking as many birds as possible in a tiny space, allowing dead birds to just rot there with MEAT FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION) to the laborers (who abuse birds during handling, smashing them around, hitting them just because they had a bad day, crushing and kicking them when putting 20 in a minuscule cage, etc.) and the chemicals used (even seen mutant chicken chicks? I have, and it's really sad)
    The minimal hygiene you find in those places is because of inspections and such, and to avoid shipping poisoned meat. Imagine how much worse it's got to be when a factory is not using them for food.
    The way they will be fattened is likely to be similar to how ducks and gooses get their livers ready for use in foie-gras. Check it around, it's not nice. Foie-gras farms are the bird equivalent of Hellraiser, with pierced throats and deformed organs.
    I worked at a poultry farm for a while. It's hellish. I can't eat any form of poultry anymore. (while still cruel, life for beef and pork is practically luxurious in comparison.)

  40. Ugh. by GMThomas · · Score: 1

    I'm so glad we have yet another excuse to raise animals in torturous, inhospitable conditions of untold amounts of suffering so that we may be able to drive our cars more "cleanly." How disgusting.

    --
    You are now manually breathing.
  41. make biodiesel from chicken fat by shnull · · Score: 0

    then burn it in a combustion engine and feed the exhaust fumes to the next-gen chickens?

    --
    beware he who denies you access to information for in his mind, he already deems himself to be your master (SMAC-ish)
  42. Answer to various posts above by Toe,+The · · Score: 1

    It's amazing what hostility I am seeing for suggesting that people merely think about the consequences of their diet.

    Here's what the American Dietetic Association ("the world's largest organization of food and nutrition professionals") has to say:

    It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes."

    And more specifically:

    Vegetarian diets are often associated with health advantages including lower blood cholesterol levels, lower risk of heart disease, lower blood pressure levels and lower risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes, according to ADA's position. "Vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Vegetarian diets tend to be lower in saturated fat and cholesterol and have higher levels of dietary fiber, magnesium and potassium, vitamins C and E, folate, carotenoids, flavonoids and other phytochemicals. These nutritional differences may explain some of the health advantages of those following a varied, balanced vegetarian diet."

    I have no doubt that we are omnivores by nature. Also, by nature, we should die of old age in our 30s. I don't care what is "atural." I am just talking about giving some thought to the quantitiy of meat in the average diet.

  43. Maybe it will smell like chicken by RichiH · · Score: 1

    The people who run their diesel cars on used & filtered french fry fat drive cars that smell very tasty.

    Unless they strip that out, the cars would smell of chicken.

    Personally, I think I would prefer a stripped-down version. Don't make the smell overwhelming, but keep a sprinkle of good smell in there.

    1. Re:Maybe it will smell like chicken by tttonyyy · · Score: 1

      The people who run their diesel cars on used & filtered french fry fat drive cars that smell very tasty.

      Unless they strip that out, the cars would smell of chicken.

      Personally, I think I would prefer a stripped-down version. Don't make the smell overwhelming, but keep a sprinkle of good smell in there.

      I make biodiesel out of waste veg oil. The biodiesel process splits the triglycerides but doesn't do much to the aromatic compounds in the source oil. It's also pretty much impossible to filter these aromatics out of the final product, so as a result it will, to some extent, smell of the source oil when burnt in an engine.

      My personal experience is that the smell is usually quite pleasant (aside from one batch where the source oil smelt like someone had died in it, for which I felt very sorry for the people behind me), and that a cold engine smells more than a hot one (presumably due to incomplete combustion). Certainly nothing like as nasty as dino diesel though.

      --
      biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
  44. Just like Momma used to make by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    Mmm.... Chicken Soup for the Kia Soul!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.