So far, a huge amount of the government's lavish support for biofuel has ended up on the bottom line of Archer Daniels Midland, the king of industrially produced, environmentally ruinous corn.
Now another type of model corporate citizen is in line for a cut of the action: huge-scale confined-animal feedlot operation (CAFO) players like Tyson and Smithfield.
This AP story details the efforts of a couple of oil men to set up a biodiesel plant outside of a Missouri industrial chicken-processing plant owned by Tyson, the world's largest meat producer. The plan: to transform chicken fat into biodiesel.
Now, at first glance the effort might seem admirable: The plant would transform a waste product into fuel. There's an economic case, too: chicken fat goes for 19 cents a pound, compared to 33 cents for soybean oil, now the dominant feedstock (90 percent market share) for biodiesel.
But the chicken fat in question isn't currently going into a landfill; it's being "used as a cheap ingredient in pet food, soap, and other products."
Moreover, if this and other projects like it take off, the price fetched by chicken fat will rise. And that means more profitability for industrial feedlots -- horrific businesses in environmental, social, and animal welfare terms.
And the huge feedlot operators aren't only profiting by selling fat for biodiesel. They're also getting into the production game. The AP article reports that Tyson, Purdue, and Smithfield are all rolling out biodiesel initiatives.
How do government subsidies come into play? The AP article states it clearly: "Biodiesel costs about $1 a gallon more to produce than conventional diesel, but federal tax breaks for fuel distributors help hide that cost from consumers."
This is clearly a case of a worthy goal -- reducing oil consumption -- being manipulated for an unsavory end: increasing the rewards of the most destructive animal farming. Say no to CAFO-diesel.
Will Africa’s farmland become a ‘resource curse’?
Top 25 reasons to give a damn about climate change
Global boiling declares war on Thanksgiving
Comments
View as Flat
Biodiversivist Posted 5:23 am
04 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:15 pm
04 Jan 2007
So far, the bio-diesel market is dominated by some small players in various niche markets, and I suppose that it could be good policy to utilize rapeseed and here, chicken fat. But at the end of the day, it is not how much is made but how much can be bought.
Most operators of diesel engines hate bio-diesel. It gums up the filters and injectors. Environmentalists hate it is because it increases oxides of nitrogen, an ozone and aerosol precurssor. If the stuff was so good, why isn't everybody using it?
The fact is that distillate Number 2 will be the diesel of choice in the coming years and fortunately most of it will be ultra low sulfur diesel. Why we are having this discussion about boutique fuels like bio-diesel seems rather strange to me. If you recall, energy policy also dictated CNG, propane, and methanol in the past and those were real loser turkeys. They have always been slighty nuts.
I've been in the "snake oil" business for years and while I appreciate market diversity, fail to see how these strategies make any sense. That includes hydrogen power and fuel cells - I mean give me a break, this simply is not going to happen on a mass scale very soon. The buyers will find out, after losing their collective butts on a few deals, and go back to the "tried and true."
~Sam
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:25 pm
04 Jan 2007
Permalink