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?"

43 of 207 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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
  2. 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 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.

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

      Because sea kittens are fluffy.

    3. 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?

    4. 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.
    5. 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!"

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

      fluffy and delicious.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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!

    11. 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
    12. 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...

    13. 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.

    14. 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
    15. 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.

    16. 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?

    17. 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.

  3. 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. 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.

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

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

  6. 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 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.

  7. 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"?
  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.