Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Cow Brains Into Biofuel 88

Posted by timothy from the that's-2.25-in-seattle-thanks dept.
beatleadam writes "If the reality of $2.00 per gallon of gas does not scare you enough, then perhaps this will. '...Cattle brains, skull, eyes, spinal column, small intestine and other parts suspected of harboring mad cow disease were banned from human consumption in December as a safety precaution, shortly after the discovery of the first case of mad cow disease in the United States...' The FDA is now funding research aimed at producing biofuels from cattle brains. What about the exhaust given off from cars that are burning Mad Cow Fuels?" It's the grand circle of life.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cow Brains Into Biofuel More

Cow Brains Into Biofuel

Comments Filter:

  • BRRAAAAIIIINNNSSS (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've always wondered, is it better to kill a cow without it knowing, or to use the current method of lining the cows up for slaughter?

    Stress causes muscles to tense up and prevents the release of toxins from the muscle tissue into the bloodstream. Relaxed muscles do the opposite and are usually fairly clean because of a fresh supply of aerobic blood.

    If the cows know that they are going to die, wouldn't this increase their stress level and ultimately degrade the flavor and consistency of their meat?

    Perha
    • "Moo."

      "Come over here, Bessie."

      "Moo. Moo?"

      "Look over at that rainbow. Isn't that pretty?"

      "Moo. Moo moo."

      *BLAM*

      mmmm. tasty.

    • Re:BRRAAAAIIIINNNSSS (Score:4, Insightful)

      by orthogonal ( 588627 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @08:43PM (#9191723) Journal
      I've always wondered, is it better to kill a cow without it knowing, or to use the current method of lining the cows up for slaughter?

      Stress causes muscles to tense up and prevents the release of toxins from the muscle tissue into the bloodstream. Relaxed muscles do the opposite and are usually fairly clean because of a fresh supply of aerobic blood.

      Wrong on two counts.

      Cows do line up, but they don't show any sign of knowing that they're going to die. Noted animal behaviorist Temple Grandin, in her book Thinking in Pictures (which is actually about her autism), writes that cows are stressed to be separated from their fellows, but are calmed to be able see one another -- seeing that the cow in front is unstressed cues the cow behind to be unstressed. Except in Kosher slaughterhouses, death comes so suddenly (either by a bolt shot into the brain or by electrical stunning) that the following cow hasn't time to become upset before it too dies. To help ensure this, Grandin introduced curving passageways, such that the cow can see the cow ahead, but only the cow immediately ahead.

      As to the effects of stress, you're also (mostly) wrong. Stress causes the release of cortisol, but this isn't a toxin per se. But a standard method in societies that butcher and eat meat immediately, is to chase or terrorize animals for a while prior to butchering, not to release cortisol, but to tire the muscles, using up oxygen reserves, so that lactic acid is released. Lactic acid is a natural tenderizer -- it's that "burn" you feel in muscles when you do aerobic exercises (but distinct from the pain of torn muscles as in weight training, although that tearing no doubt adds to the tenderizing too).

      Additionally, in Korea and other countries that believe in the aphrodisiacal properties of dog meat, it is believed that the longer the dog is terrorized and beaten prior to slaughter, the greater the aphrodisiacal properties of the meat.

      If you really want flavorful, tender meat, you want to look to the lineage of the beef, to control fat to muscle ratio, etc., and to the animals' diet -- what do you think "corned beef" is --, to control flavor. To add more flavor and to tenderize met, a good marinade is probably a good bet too.
      • If you really want flavorful, tender meat, you want to look to the lineage of the beef, to control fat to muscle ratio, etc., and to the animals' diet -- what do you think "corned beef" is...

        Beef [wikipedia.org] that is cured or pickled [hyperdictionary.com] in brine. Not to be confused with corn fed beef, which is generally considered to be of high quality (the meat is more marbled with fat, and thus usually more tender and flavorful).

    • You assume way too much of a bovine.

      Cows are incredibly stupid, and not particularly aware of what constitutes a threat and what doesn't. They rely almost completely on a herd mob mentality to decide whether something in dangerous or not, and when they are separated and alone, they don't really make very good decisions about when to get scared.
      • Props for putting it so elequently man! I couldn't have done it. My opinion of cows is that they're somewhere between a plastic bucket and a not-too-smart rock. And thats an insult to plastic buckets and rocks.

        I don't know why, but people today seem to have this idea that cows are cute and can talk like they do on TV - it'd be hillarious if it weren't sad. But in reality they're just some of the stupidest creatures you'll ever find. Dogs can be smart. Horses can be smart. But cows? Not even close. Name ju
    • That's why you use a conveyor belt and murals depicting Mediterranean scenes. That way their attention is diverted away from the rotating knives...

  • -1, FUD (Score:4, Informative)

    by dant ( 25668 ) * on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @06:30PM (#9190665) Journal
    What about the exhaust given off from cars that are burning Mad Cow Fuels?

    It, like the gasoline put into the car in the first place, will be composed of hydrocarbons vastly too short to be formed into prions.

    Go read up on what refineries do and how they work. It will put your mind at ease about this 'threat', plus which it's a fascinating problem they have to solve. Every day a refinery doesn't blow itself to smithereens is a testament to the skill of the engineers who built it.

    • Re:-1, FUD (Score:3, Funny)

      by Directrix1 ( 157787 )
      Mad cow disease is bad enough, but MAD CAR disease? Its a plot by Al Qaeda I tells ya!

    • Perhaps not. (Score:4, Informative)

      by Seraphim_72 ( 622457 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @10:00PM (#9192205)

      Mad Cow disease is a disease of prions - and from here [upenn.edu]

      IV. PRIONS Prions are extremely resistant to conventional inactivation procedures including irradiation, boiling, dry heat and chemicals (formalin, betapropiolactione, alcohols). Most procedures reduce infectivity rather than eliminate it. All treated contaminated materials should be discarded through the infectious waste stream and incinerated. Use DISPOSABLE plastic labware whenever possible.
      1. Complete and sign the Notification of the Proposed Destruction of Select Agents Form
      2. EHRS will notify the PI or lab manager when destruction is approved.
      3. Inactivate prions by one of the following methods:
      4. * Autoclave dry waste at 132 C for 4.5 hours.
      5. * Treat large volumes of infectious liquid waste containing prions with 1N NaOH (final concentration) followed by autoclaving at 132 C for 4.5 hours.
      6. * Treat with phenol (1:1); guanidine hydrochloride or isocyanate (>4 mol/L); 1N NaOH (final concentration); sodium hypochlorite (>2% free chlorine) for 24 hours.
      7. Dispose of inactivated prion waste as infectious waste.


      Somehow I doubt you can made good fuel this way. Besides which I personally still wouldnt touch the stuff even after all of this had been done to it. And that is what I teach my students as well.

      • Re:Perhaps not. (Score:3, Informative)

        by be951 ( 772934 )
        Somehow I doubt you can made good fuel this way.

        Well, no. Not that way. But thermal deploymerization seems likely to work rather well. It uses significantly higher temperatures plus high pressure to break down almost anything into short chain hydrocarbons useful for fuel, plus minerals (useful for fertilizer) and water. Here's an example [changingworldtech.com]. I believe it has not been specifically tested for destroying prions, but the chemistry indicates that it will.

    • In addition, a strongly hydrophobic environment, as present in a petroleum-based fuel, tends to inactivate prions. One of the theories regarding the outbreak of BSE in Great Britain goes as follows:
      Meat-and-Bone meal (MBM) based feeds have been used for decades but did not cause significant number of BSE cases. First cases came up in the early 80ies. Five years before, MBM production has been changed. Due to economic reasons, a fat extraction step using hot hydrocarbon solvents was omitted. It is believed t

  • Woot! Once They Figure It Out... (Score:3, Funny)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @06:38PM (#9190747) Homepage
    ...I won't have to stop and pay for gas when driving through cattle country! Everytime I run low and gas I can just take a trip through a field with cows and see how many "gallons" I can hit! All I need is a little mini-processing station in my car when they get it right. And I bet I could cook burgers and steaks on my engine block so I use all parts of the cow! I'm "eco-friendly"!

    Now all I need to do is figure out what kind of cows make the highest octane gas. Longhornds, or maybe Angus. I wonder if milk vs. beef cows makes a difference.

    If the cow is "corn-fed beef", does that mean the fuel I'd make has ethonol? If the cows are fed beans, would my car have to be able to run on Methane to use the fuel made from the cows?

    Oh, there are just too many jokes. :)

    • > I'm "eco-friendly"!

      You mean e-cow-friendly ...
    • What's to figure out? It's called thermal depolymerization [slashdot.org] (TDP) and has been around for awhile now. I'm surpized more farm waste isn't utilized in this manner.

      I also propose running the TDP plants off of geothermal whenever possible. Plenty hot enough and it's essentially free energy for the taking.

      How many (millions?) or tons of organic waste is produced in the USA due to farming alone? Think of all the light crude that could produce... Once you have the oil, you can use regular refinery techniques to t
      • Anyone intelegent is already recycling yard waste, it's called a compost pile, by using a readily available mix of bacteria, all native to the area in which the yard resides the yard waste is turned into high quality soil. this is then used to enrich the soil for soil leaching crops in your vegitable garden. People who put it in the landfill are idiots.
        • People who put it in the landfill are idiots.

          Or people without gardens or other uses for compost... which is probably a much higher percentage of people than you think, specially in urban environments. Even people who live in suburbia and have gardens have problems composting and using all the yard and kitchen waste they generate. Hence, it gets thrown into plastic bags and put out at the curb for a special pickup. (Some areas let you sweep it out into the street and they come by with a big vacuum truck t
          • I didn't say anything about stoping using petrolium products. I said that there was a better use for yard products. I said that it's already a bad idea to put them in the landfill. There are already many technologies that allow you to turn worthless biological stuff into energy, one of the simplest is a compost pile, another one that yeilds human usable energy is a methane digester. All that realy needs to be studied is the viablity of these existing technologies and methodologies, not new technologies

  • Demeaning to life (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rigau ( 122636 )
    I am not opposed to looking into diferent sources for energy. However i really dislike the tone of the article. I find it very disturbing how little value people give to life. It is sad that people make fun of things like this. I am not an animal rights advocate but still animals are not simply on earth so we can use them up. and when we do use them for our benefit we should be mindful of the sacrifice they made. the second we are cruel to animals needlesly we begin to lose our humanity and we begin


    • I find it very disturbing how little value people give to life. It is sad that people make fun of things like this. I am not an animal rights advocate but still animals are not simply on earth so we can use them up.

      Thanks for expressing a compassionate viewpoint. Now prepare yourself for the onslaught of PETA-hating vegetarian-bashing omnivores who make up the majority of Slashdot posters on subjects like this...

      • Thanks for expressing a compassionate viewpoint. Now prepare yourself for the onslaught of PETA-hating vegetarian-bashing omnivores who make up the majority of Slashdot posters on subjects like this...

        This person is not being a troll. He/she is just being observant.

    • Re:Demeaning to life (Score:4, Insightful)

      by TykeClone ( 668449 ) <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @07:03PM (#9190994) Homepage Journal
      I find it very disturbing how little value people give to life.

      If you're going to slaughter the animal anyway for food, wouldn't it be best to use whatever is left over in any way possible? I think that just using part of the animal and throwing the rest out is wasteful and more disrespectful than converting it into another use!

      • Re:Demeaning to life (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pr0c ( 604875 )
        TykeClone:
        If you're going to slaughter the animal anyway for food, wouldn't it be best to use whatever is left over in any way possible?

        NOTHING is left after using an animal for food. It is all used somewhere whether it be other animal food such as dogs (not other ruminants however) or some other use.. its all used already. I know that brain and nervous system parts have been banned in the US since the mad cow case (by the way, she got lame giving birth, she was not a sick cow even..) but before that an

        • Re:Demeaning to life (Score:4, Interesting)

          by TykeClone ( 668449 ) <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @09:22PM (#9191963) Homepage Journal
          I hear that - and try not to think about hot dogs.

          More intriguing is the use of manure. Cattle are not raised in confinement so much yet, but hogs are. Some of the confinement sites in Iowa make as much waste as small cities - and the biggest problem with it is that you need to plan to get rid of it. They make so much waste in such a small place that it becomes a problem (both ecologically and "smellologicallY").

          If that manure can easily be converted into oil - that solves 3 problems very easily (excess manure running off into streams and creeks, smell, fuel).

    • Re:Demeaning to life (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Pyromage ( 19360 )
      I dislike the moral high ground on things like this, because I don't think it works. Consider: In order for you to live, other things must die. Period. It is impossible for you to live without causing the death of animals and plants.

      The second thing is this: is it not better to use the cows more completely, rather than wasting large parts of them? If it was me being slaughtered instead of them - aside from the question of whether I want to be slaughtered, that's not important. If it *was* me, then - I woul

      • I dislike the moral high ground on things like this....In order for you to live, other things must die. Period. It is impossible for you to live without causing the death of animals and plants.

        True, but one can reduce the number of animals killed and the resources wasted raising them. The issue isn't "the moral high ground", it's efficient use of limited resources [globalissues.org].

      • They do use all the parts of the cow! Nothing gets wasted.

        Ahh, you say, but there are parts of cow that I would never want to eat! Like the bunghole! Well have you ever eaten a sausage before? Then you've eaten said bunghole.
      • I take objection to your statement that in order for one to live, other things must die. While this may be true, many people, including myself, feel compelled to reduce the amount of suffering that we cause in the world. I am probably not able to eliminate the suffering that I cause, but I am certainly able to reduce it.

        As a vegan, I detest the use of animals for food. However, for those people who do use animals for their own purposes, I do agree that the least-wasteful approach is best. (Hence, the c
    • Lets see them make Oil out of Soylent Green! Yeah baby, now THERE is some compassion ...

    • Re:Demeaning to life (Score:3, Informative)

      by be951 ( 772934 )
      Don't you mean "demeaning to animal byproducts"? That's what we're really talking about here. Parts of slaughtered cattle that were previously used or disposed of in other ways now must be processed in a way that accounts for the risk of BSE. This is a program aimed at making that less of a cost burden to beef producers.

      Cattle are (and have been for quite some time) systematically raised and slaughtered for meat. This project by the FDA doesn't change that one whit. It simply addresses how to deal with

  • Repulsive (Score:3, Interesting)

    by DrSkwid ( 118965 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @06:42PM (#9190794) Journal

    why not burn our dead people not spawn the bovine damned

    ?

    the horror

    .
    • I say let's burn everything. Any waste biological. Cows, pigs, sheep, people, dogs, cats, whatever. Of course some people have religious objections to this, so I don't know how we'd deal with that. Especialy some sects and degrees of christianity, who feel that creamation makes it so that you can't rise again at the second coming.
    • Well said. In the UK, at least, we burn them anyway - cremation. Smoke into the sky.

      Leave the animals alone - yes, I say stop eating them (I'm a near-vegan (eggs, dairy, leather I bought before I woke up) because animals are sentient, I know because I am one. I rock on both counts.) - and do something sensible with our own waste.

      I would be more than happy to sign up for my body being burnt for fuel after I die, but I don't plan for that to happen for around 50 years. Unless I'm hit by some fuckwit in his
    • Because the bovine damned will give us beef TWICE! Zombie meat!

      I mean, what would you do if the humans came back instead? Hmm, we'd probably make them fill out forms if they resurrected without their social security cards...

  • The Mootrix (Score:3, Funny)

    by AtariAmarok ( 451306 ) on Tuesday May 18, 2004 @06:45PM (#9190823)
    This sounds like a set-up for some sort of bovine Matrix, only this time the computers are powered by cow-brains.

  • Why would it scare me? (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Why would $2.00/gal for gas scare me? Two dollars isn't a damn thing. I go through two dollars in coffee while I'm sitting at breakfast reading the newspaper at the local diner, before work. Two dollars is three minutes of work in the office. For an hour's worth of work, I can afford 20 gallons of gasoline which will take me about 500 miles in any direction I want. That's seven seconds of my time to afford a mile's worth of gas. That's a pretty sweet deal!

    And if I were too poor to afford a measely $10/wk f
    • Get off your fucking high horse. Yes, they are not necessary everywhere, but you do realize that 1) It pisses me off when the price of gas goes up for no reason other than to screw the consumer out of more money, and 2) that $2.00 is NOT cheap, not for a huge number of people. Your six figures is not average. There're millions of people who don't have quality bus access (now maybe they *should*, but fix it before you preach).

      And yes, gas DOES go up for no reason. When demand remains unchanged, and the pric

      • Re:Why would it scare me? (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If gas is too expensive, there's a simple solution: don't drive.


      • What torques me about the recent sudden increase in gas prices is that the whole country is paying the price for New York and California's special "eco-friendly" blend! The refineries must now handle twice as many grades as before.

        My suggestion: The refineries should stand up to those two states saying, "We make standard 87 and premium. If you want to make your own mix, fine. We'll sell you the base fuel, you add your witch's brew." That would pass the burden of their eco-wackiness onto their citizens, not

    • I don't normally respond to AC's but this needs to be addressed. CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF NOT ALL OF AMERICA LIVES IN A F*&%ING CITY. I live in rural Pennsylvania (most of PA is rural) I travel 40 miles round trip to work each day. I'm 44 years old I only make 1/3 of what you make. Gas is not cheap, I drive because I have too. There is NO PUBLIC TRANSIT. Stop being such a self centered left wing hypocrit and look beyond your own personal situation for once.

  • Efficiency (Score:2, Interesting)

    by me98411 ( 754004 )
    Just out of curiosity... It is said that when you move form one level in food chain to next, only 10% of energy is tranferred. (For e.g. if a cow eats 100 Joules worth of grass, then human who eat cow get 10 Joules from those 100 J ). Taking this 10% efficiency rule in to account, would it not be better if we invested in obtaining power from plants rather than from animal's flesh? Am I missing something here?

    • Re:Efficiency (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rigau ( 122636 )
      I think this is implying that there will be mad cow epidemics on a regular basis and that we need to learn how to use the cows that have to be killed so that they are not totally wasted. it is really about efficiency. twisted but 'efficient'.
    • there are millions of acres of farm-land idled by federal subsidies. we'd do better to pull the subsidies and invest the money in programs to support corn-based ethanol fuel. most existing cars would require a simple timing adjustment to use blends of ethanol+gasoline.
    • But then you wouldn't get the tasty, tasty meat!

      Also, if the cow gets 100J of energy from grass, and humans get 10J from the cow - wouldn't it be nice to convert some of the rest of the cow (the waste into other forms of energy for us to use?

  • Imagine that biodiesel and blends catches on to the extent that you don't know if you're using it or not.

    Would PETA demand a boycott of all diesel?

    Now imagine that this somehow kept fuel prices down even a few pennies. Not wearing a fur coat is one thing, but paying more for gas?

    Animal rights is doomed.

    (It's funny. Laugh.)

  • We should really be able to milk this for all it's worth; there's a lot at steak [sic]. Let's just hope it's not udderly ridiculous, as it behooves us to grab the bull by the horns and find alternative fuels. Hopefully this steers the industry into greener pastures.

    ok. I think that's out of my system now... Sorry.

  • So instead of gas prices going up we will have beef prices going up.

    --
    Notes on Reality [slashdot.org]
  • IIRC, Burning the zombies in The Return of the Living Dead just made more zombies... this may not be the best option.
  • $2.00 per gallon would be a luxury. That may be the national average, but right now in California, the cheapest 87 octane I can find is $2.299. I've heard that it's well into the $2.80's in some of the more remote desert areas of California too.
    • oh how $2 per gallon would affect my life... In the UK we're currently paying close to $7 per gallon - most of which as you probably know is TAX. It sucks.
      • Actually it's more like $5, cos American gallons are wussy and small. (83.9p/litre, $1.80 exchange rate)

        And if they didn't tax petrol they'd just tax something else to make up the money. Personally I'd sooner see the tax used to discourage people from burning petrol.

  • What about the exhaust given off from cars that are burning Mad Cow Fuels?"

    Just what's so magical about this bacterium/virus that it can survive(and pass through to the final airborne infection factor)
    a) a filtering
    b) liquefaction
    c) sedimentation
    d) combustion of its now liquid base
    e) any other prevention methods we should think of before using potentially infected biofluids as fuel

    And still be considered a threat? Is that one of those weaponized biotoxins, instead of (the latest information I had) a cow

    • Is the western corporate world so desperate about industrial "clean up bills" as that?

      In a word, yes. I'm not certain what the real risk of infection is when the parts are not ingested, rather just left lying around but it is a good bet there is risk. So, the waste in question has to be disposed of one way or another. The goal here is to do it in a cost effective way with a useful byproduct. To answer your prior question, BSE is caused by prions [reference.com], a protein particle that is similar to, but not quite a

      • Thanks for clearing that up. That would explain the "let's get rid of them" attitude. Maybe you can explain how making sure they are carried all over the place so they can be burned, if they are THAT hard to destroy, is justifiable then, considering that if the "transform-to-fuel" parts miss some prions, we have an infection agent being carried all over the place.

        Or maybe that was the point "cost-effective" doesn't include the cost of the risks? (In the geopoliticolegal environment of the USA, as seen f
        • Maybe you can explain how making sure they are carried all over the place so they can be burned, if they are THAT hard to destroy, is justifiable then, considering that if the "transform-to-fuel" parts miss some prions, we have an infection agent being carried all over the place.

          I'm not certain I understand what you're asking, but I'll try to make things clearer. First, if unprocessed waste is transported, I believe is would be subject to whatever controls similar potentially dangerous wastes are subject

  • ... we used oxes to power transportation. Those were the days, man!

    oops!

  • 2 dollars? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by den_erpel ( 140080 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @02:14AM (#9193208) Homepage Journal
    $2.00 per gallon of gas

    I really don't know what people are complaining about, $2 dollars per gallon is not that expensive.

    This is $0.46 per litre.
    This morning, I payed 1.1 Euro per litre, or $1.46 or $6.30 per gallon; a surplus of $4.32 per gallon.

    OK, I admit that this is expensive, but the world does not stop and our economy is running pretty smoothly (could always go better, I admit).

    Just put those $2 measly dollars per gallon into perspective and perhaps, just perhaps, consider other (alternative) means of transportation...
  • Those soaring gas prices are why I'm switching to a Diesel VW Passat. Turbo-charged 4-cyl. diesel.. 0-60 in 9 seconds (fairly respectable), 5 speed manual (I hate automatic) 50-60 hwy mpg, 1000 mile range on a full tank of gass and its a Passat, so it's a nice car. Nevermind the fact diesel is still hovering around $1.60 a gallon. :)
  • So does anyone else wonder what they did with all this nutrient filled goodness BEFORE BSE was thought of as a threat?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close