The National Animal Identification System is a program first proposed by the United States Department of Agriculture a few years ago that would require the electronic identification and tracking of nearly all domestic livestock – think microchips and computer databases. The USDA's stated motive, as I understand it, is to use the program to protect the American public from outbreaks of animal-borne diseases. That sounds like a good thing – when a disease is detected in an animal food product, the source and history of that animal could be quickly identified.
However…
The NAIS proposal was met with fervent resistance from small farmers, ranchers and other animal owners. In fact, the outrage was so great that the USDA backed off the federal plan in 2006. Now, however, it seems that USDA is working with the states to get components of the program instituted on a state-by-state basis, and again the pages of small farming trade journals are filled with fiery editorials decrying the program.
The arguments against the NAIS generally seem to fall into two categories:
Economic: One editorial I read paints the NAIS as a scheme by agribusiness conglomerates to help themselves look responsible while hurting their competition – small farmers. The corporate owners of massive factory farms support the NAIS, the editorial says, because their animals are born, live, and die at the same location, and a loophole in the program will allow them to give a single lot number to cover their whole flock or herd (rather than tag and track each animal.) With little effort, they will able to show international trading partners the steps they are taking to ensure the safety of their product. And while these big corporations won't have to spend the money to tag every one of their animals, the small farmer -- who can least afford it – will.
The irony in this is that most disease outbreaks occur not on small farms but at the giant factory farms. According to the editorial, the NAIS will change little in how the big factories treat and process their animals. Meanwhile the small farmer raising his animal in a responsible manner will suffer.
Privacy: This argument seems pretty straightforward. Suspicious farmers don't want Big Brother meddling in their business. Microchips and government computer databases aren't popular among the farming set.
Check out this excerpt from a letter-to-the-editor in Rural Heritage:
"I am an anti-federalist, privacy loving southerner, direct descendant of a Revolutionary soldier, and a truckload of Confederate soldiers. … I will not go down peacefully."
Now, I should point out that there weren't any editorials in any of my trade journals praising the NAIS. I'd like to hear the other side of the argument, too.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
FARM READING
Half a dozen people have now recommended to me that I read Michael Pollan's bestseller The Omnivore's Dilemma. I have the book in my possession now and will report back after I've made some progress.
In the meantime, one might wonder what other reading material is to be found lying atop the kitchen table of a working farmhouse. The pile is ever changing – added to and subtracted from by passersby – but here's an accounting of the present stack:
- Rural Heritage magazine. This bi-monthly magazine is devoted to farming and logging with horses, mules, and oxen. Articles include discussion of farm equipment, multiple declarations of outrage against something called the National Animal Identification System (more on that later), and a thoughtful essay written in tribute to a dead horse that was apparently better than everyone else's horse. A sampling of Autumn 2007 headlines includes "Clydesdale Extravaganza," "The Misunderstood Slow Moving Vehicle Emblem," and "Rulemaking Gone Berserk."
- Lehman's catalog. This shopping catalog contains a wide assortment of specialty knickknacks and tools. Examples include: Lehman's Ice Cream Spade, Pocket Rotary Hair Trimmer, Handheld Weed Torch. I'm told by a regular Lehman's reader that the catalog is a good place to observe if a product actually exists. If it does, the wise shopper then seeks it out for a more reasonable price someplace else.
- Small Farmer's Journal. Another quarterly, but this one strikes me as more technical and probably more useful to an actual farmer than Rural Heritage. Headlines include "Chestnut Restoration," "French Gardening Part III" and "Maintaining Grassland Part II." Once again, there is an essay critical of the National Animal Identification System.
- Lancaster Farming. Whose smiling face can be seen in a big picture on the front page of this weekly newspaper? That's right, Michael Pollan's. And what was one of the first questions he was asked about in his interview? The National Animal Identification System.
So okay then, what is all the fuss about the NAIS? And why are some small farmers pledging open revolt if it goes through? See tomorrow's post for the exciting answer.
In the meantime, one might wonder what other reading material is to be found lying atop the kitchen table of a working farmhouse. The pile is ever changing – added to and subtracted from by passersby – but here's an accounting of the present stack:
- Rural Heritage magazine. This bi-monthly magazine is devoted to farming and logging with horses, mules, and oxen. Articles include discussion of farm equipment, multiple declarations of outrage against something called the National Animal Identification System (more on that later), and a thoughtful essay written in tribute to a dead horse that was apparently better than everyone else's horse. A sampling of Autumn 2007 headlines includes "Clydesdale Extravaganza," "The Misunderstood Slow Moving Vehicle Emblem," and "Rulemaking Gone Berserk."
- Lehman's catalog. This shopping catalog contains a wide assortment of specialty knickknacks and tools. Examples include: Lehman's Ice Cream Spade, Pocket Rotary Hair Trimmer, Handheld Weed Torch. I'm told by a regular Lehman's reader that the catalog is a good place to observe if a product actually exists. If it does, the wise shopper then seeks it out for a more reasonable price someplace else.
- Small Farmer's Journal. Another quarterly, but this one strikes me as more technical and probably more useful to an actual farmer than Rural Heritage. Headlines include "Chestnut Restoration," "French Gardening Part III" and "Maintaining Grassland Part II." Once again, there is an essay critical of the National Animal Identification System.
- Lancaster Farming. Whose smiling face can be seen in a big picture on the front page of this weekly newspaper? That's right, Michael Pollan's. And what was one of the first questions he was asked about in his interview? The National Animal Identification System.
So okay then, what is all the fuss about the NAIS? And why are some small farmers pledging open revolt if it goes through? See tomorrow's post for the exciting answer.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
BT
I asked Rob today about the difference between old school spray-on Bt and new school genetically-engineered-to-be-a-part-of-the-plant Bt. (See my previous post for some background.)
Here's a concise summary of his opinion: Spray-on Bt is good, genetically engineered Bt is bad.
Here's a more detailed summary:
With spray-on Bt, most of the spray will end up on the leaves of the plant, not the final vegetable eaten by we eaters, and even much of that will be washed away by the rain and cleaning. By the time the vegetable reaches one's mouth, the amount of Bt we might consume is very small.
But in the case of plants genetically altered to have Bt inside of them, there's no dilution of the Bt. We eaters will consume it in a full dose when we bite into that vegetable. Rob said that consuming Bt like this might not make anyone sick in any immediate sort of way, but less is known about what effects eating these GM plants might have over the long term.
In addition, there's an ecological/evolutionary concern associated with Bt being genetically added to crops. In the case of spray-on Bt, it's inevitable that some percentage of plants will get missed during the spraying process, and that some of the bugs that eat these plants will still get their meal and will continue to be healthy and to reproduce. But in the case of crops genetically engineered to have Bt inside of them, there's no variance and thus no chance for ecological checks and balances. Every GM plant will have Bt inside of it, meaning every bug that wants to eat that plant will either have to evolve, die, or go somewhere else. The effect this might have up and down the food chain is unknown and difficult to predict.
(Okay, that was the best attempt by the non-scientist I am to explain something scientific. Any of the ecologists out there want to jump in and correct my mistakes or amplify on these thoughts?)
Rob said something else interesting during our conversation. He said that in Europe the government standard when it comes to altering nature is "Prove to us it's safe." But here in America, the standard seems to be "Prove to us it's not safe."
Here's a concise summary of his opinion: Spray-on Bt is good, genetically engineered Bt is bad.
Here's a more detailed summary:
With spray-on Bt, most of the spray will end up on the leaves of the plant, not the final vegetable eaten by we eaters, and even much of that will be washed away by the rain and cleaning. By the time the vegetable reaches one's mouth, the amount of Bt we might consume is very small.
But in the case of plants genetically altered to have Bt inside of them, there's no dilution of the Bt. We eaters will consume it in a full dose when we bite into that vegetable. Rob said that consuming Bt like this might not make anyone sick in any immediate sort of way, but less is known about what effects eating these GM plants might have over the long term.
In addition, there's an ecological/evolutionary concern associated with Bt being genetically added to crops. In the case of spray-on Bt, it's inevitable that some percentage of plants will get missed during the spraying process, and that some of the bugs that eat these plants will still get their meal and will continue to be healthy and to reproduce. But in the case of crops genetically engineered to have Bt inside of them, there's no variance and thus no chance for ecological checks and balances. Every GM plant will have Bt inside of it, meaning every bug that wants to eat that plant will either have to evolve, die, or go somewhere else. The effect this might have up and down the food chain is unknown and difficult to predict.
(Okay, that was the best attempt by the non-scientist I am to explain something scientific. Any of the ecologists out there want to jump in and correct my mistakes or amplify on these thoughts?)
Rob said something else interesting during our conversation. He said that in Europe the government standard when it comes to altering nature is "Prove to us it's safe." But here in America, the standard seems to be "Prove to us it's not safe."
Sunday, March 9, 2008
C.O.W.S.
C.O.W.S. stands for corn, oats, wheat, sod – the traditional crop rotation practiced at Howell to preserve the productiveness of the soil and keep weeds and pests at bay.
During a rainy snack break yesterday (between coffee break and lunch break), Rob, Tom, and I talked crop and vegetable, of which they are infinitely more informed than me. I asked, "So, sod is like grass, right?"
The commonsense effectiveness of proper crop rotation is fascinating and something I hope to learn a lot more about. I wish I had a tape recorder going yesterday, or a least a notebook, because there were a lot of specific points I would like to remember better. But one of the more interesting concepts was that rotating your crops every year to different fields spaced a good distance apart helps keep the farmer ahead in the race against the bugs. Plant Crop X one season, and the X-eating bugs may find it late in the season and lay some eggs, but by the time the larvae mature, Crop X will have moved football fields away, and the baby bugs will be left with nothing but Crop Y to eat, which they find disgusting.
Similar concepts apply to weeds. Rob said that Howell got away from their rotation one year – not for farming reasons but for program reasons – and ended up with garlic in their wheat. Good for garlic bread but not for a cake.
I also heard of Bt for the first time -- Bacillus thuringiensis. It is a natural soil bacteria that is currently one of the best options organic farmers have for pest control. It is applied to crops in either spray or dust form. The bacteria is toxic to specific insect larva but believed harmless to humans and safe for the environment.
In some of my follow-up reading on Bt on the Internet (much of it from here: http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_history.html) I also learned that many of the Genetically Modified crops I've heard ambiguous but disturbing reports about are genetically modified to produce their own Bt, meaning they are inherently resistant to certain pests. The upside is that these crops require fewer toxic pesticides, which are harmful to farm workers, eaters, and wildlife everywhere. The downside is that there is some controversy over whether GM Bt is as safe as the old-school organic Bt. I'll ask the folks around here about what they've heard.
During a rainy snack break yesterday (between coffee break and lunch break), Rob, Tom, and I talked crop and vegetable, of which they are infinitely more informed than me. I asked, "So, sod is like grass, right?"
The commonsense effectiveness of proper crop rotation is fascinating and something I hope to learn a lot more about. I wish I had a tape recorder going yesterday, or a least a notebook, because there were a lot of specific points I would like to remember better. But one of the more interesting concepts was that rotating your crops every year to different fields spaced a good distance apart helps keep the farmer ahead in the race against the bugs. Plant Crop X one season, and the X-eating bugs may find it late in the season and lay some eggs, but by the time the larvae mature, Crop X will have moved football fields away, and the baby bugs will be left with nothing but Crop Y to eat, which they find disgusting.
Similar concepts apply to weeds. Rob said that Howell got away from their rotation one year – not for farming reasons but for program reasons – and ended up with garlic in their wheat. Good for garlic bread but not for a cake.
I also heard of Bt for the first time -- Bacillus thuringiensis. It is a natural soil bacteria that is currently one of the best options organic farmers have for pest control. It is applied to crops in either spray or dust form. The bacteria is toxic to specific insect larva but believed harmless to humans and safe for the environment.
In some of my follow-up reading on Bt on the Internet (much of it from here: http://www.bt.ucsd.edu/bt_history.html) I also learned that many of the Genetically Modified crops I've heard ambiguous but disturbing reports about are genetically modified to produce their own Bt, meaning they are inherently resistant to certain pests. The upside is that these crops require fewer toxic pesticides, which are harmful to farm workers, eaters, and wildlife everywhere. The downside is that there is some controversy over whether GM Bt is as safe as the old-school organic Bt. I'll ask the folks around here about what they've heard.
Friday, March 7, 2008
MORE PLOWING
I enjoyed my second crack at plowing today, although it was a limited engagement – just up and down the field a couple times. It was the ox teams' first experience walking a furrow together. Rob's assessment afterward was that Chris needs some strength conditioning.
A good way to test your soil to tell if it's dry enough for plowing: Pick up a lump, ball it together in your hands, and then squeeze it between your thumb and forefinger. If it breaks apart into many pieces like the Death Star exploding, it's ready. If it remains a pasty ball that simply goes misshapen, it's probably still too damp. If you plow when it's too damp, you can damage your soil structure. (Note to Reader: When I learn what soil structure is all about, I will keep you in the loop.)
You can see in the picture below what plowing looks like from behind the team. Those two handles I'm holding are joined to the plow blade, and if you look closely you can see the dirt turning over in front of the plow.
A good way to test your soil to tell if it's dry enough for plowing: Pick up a lump, ball it together in your hands, and then squeeze it between your thumb and forefinger. If it breaks apart into many pieces like the Death Star exploding, it's ready. If it remains a pasty ball that simply goes misshapen, it's probably still too damp. If you plow when it's too damp, you can damage your soil structure. (Note to Reader: When I learn what soil structure is all about, I will keep you in the loop.)
You can see in the picture below what plowing looks like from behind the team. Those two handles I'm holding are joined to the plow blade, and if you look closely you can see the dirt turning over in front of the plow.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
THE NEW GUY
I'm no longer the new guy at Howell. Tom arrived today and moved into the Intern House.
He seems like a good dude, and in just a few conversations it's easy to glean he's passionate about farming. He left a job in computer programming a few years ago to start learning about farming, and his goal now is to own his own land and farm it.
He seems like a good dude, and in just a few conversations it's easy to glean he's passionate about farming. He left a job in computer programming a few years ago to start learning about farming, and his goal now is to own his own land and farm it.
PLOWING
I got my first taste of plowing today. It was good. The soil I helped turn will be the future home of oats.
Our plowing operation included:
- The animals. We used two different teams of horses, including one team that had never been used at Howell to plow before. They worked so well that Rob and Jeremy started making allusions to plowing heaven.
- The plow. A heavy blade with handles that gets steered through the earth as the horses pull it.
- The guy steering the horses. Holds the lines on the horses, helping to keep everyone going in a straight line across the field at a happy pace.
- The guy steering the plow. (This can be the same guy who steers the horses, but today the jobs were separate). Walks behind the horses as they pull, trying to keep the plow blade straight.
Based on what Jeremy said (I'm not sure if I identified him previously, but Jeremy is the horse guy around here), the stars were aligned this morning for prime plowing. The baseline requirements to go out and plow are that the ground can't be frozen, nor can it be too muddy for the animals to get traction. In addition, the weather was cool for the horses today, the ground was especially soft, and the plow blade and all the straps on the horses turned out to be ideally adjusted on the first try.
So there I was, out in the field on my first beautiful day at Howell. Yes, my new boots where chaffing a bit, but my resolve was strong. I took the plow handles in my hands and the horses started to pull. It's not so easy to steer, I discovered. I was told it's like sailing, but I've never sailed before. I weaved like a drunken driver. If the blade starts to swing too far left, lean left to adjust. Too far right, lean right. The concept is simple, but the trick is in not over-adjusting in the heat of the moment. I'd say I did respectable enough for a maiden voyage, but don't drive by Howell today and hope to see any straight furrow lines out in the field.
I was surprised to find my heart pumping after a few laps up and down the field. The horses do all the heavy lifting, but just walking behind them and keeping the heavy plow upright is hard work. The horses will get stronger as the season goes on, and I'm counting on the same for myself.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
OXEN
The largest animals at Howell are the oxen -- Chris and Jake. I weighed them a few days ago. (By weigh I mean I worked the slider on the scale. Rob and Jeremy did the hard work of coaxing them onto a heavy platform in the barn.)
Chris, who is seven, weighs 2200 pounds. Jake, age 12, weighs 2140 pounds.
Rob is the primary ox handler around here. He is starting to teach me the basics of caring for these huge, powerful pullers. Slowly, I'm beginning to feel more comfortable around them, although I still scurry away like a frightened mouse when one of them make a sudden movement of hoof or horn I wasn't expecting. My new steel-toed boots came in on Wednesday, and that's helped my confidence some.
A little of what I've learned, starting with the basics:
- "Oxen" are trained cattle. Jake and Chris are both steers -- castrated males. If they weren't castrated, they would be bulls. I asked Rob if anyone ever uses bulls to pull loads, as I figured they might have some extra spunk. Apparently this is not something a smart farmer would attempt.
- Every morning and night Chris and Jake each receive half a coffee can of grain and a big hug of hay. Rob tells me that an oxen's stomach is different than a horse's, so they eat less than horses do but gain weight more easily.
- When you have two oxen together, as you do in a team of pullers, one will try to assert dominance over the other. This includes them trying to mount one another, and also using their horns against one another. But grooming also plays a part. Apparently, the dominant ox will lick the less dominant ox into submission. So when Rob and I groom Chris and Jake with brushes, we're keeping them clean and asserting our dominance.
- The biggest practical difference between oxen and draft horses in a work sense is that one rides behind draft horses, steering with verbal commands and by pulling on their lines. With the oxen, one walks in front, steering them with verbal commands and taps from an ox whip.
On Friday, I observed the ox team in action for the first time, pulling a heavy manure spreader through a field. This was also a first for the oxen, of a sort, because Rob switched Jake from his usual position on the right side of the team to the left. The reasons behind the switch exceed my knowledge to explain them, but you can read all about it here, where Rob writes in detail about the experiment:
http://www.draftanimalpower.com/showthread.php?t=224
The oxen pulled with more speed and vigor then I expected. I had to walk briskly to keep up, and run to get ahead. Several times I crouched down well in front of them to try to snap a photo, only to look up from my lens a moment later to find them bearing down upon me. I imagine they move even faster without hundreds of pounds of machinery holding them back.
Chris, who is seven, weighs 2200 pounds. Jake, age 12, weighs 2140 pounds.
Rob is the primary ox handler around here. He is starting to teach me the basics of caring for these huge, powerful pullers. Slowly, I'm beginning to feel more comfortable around them, although I still scurry away like a frightened mouse when one of them make a sudden movement of hoof or horn I wasn't expecting. My new steel-toed boots came in on Wednesday, and that's helped my confidence some.
A little of what I've learned, starting with the basics:
- "Oxen" are trained cattle. Jake and Chris are both steers -- castrated males. If they weren't castrated, they would be bulls. I asked Rob if anyone ever uses bulls to pull loads, as I figured they might have some extra spunk. Apparently this is not something a smart farmer would attempt.
- Every morning and night Chris and Jake each receive half a coffee can of grain and a big hug of hay. Rob tells me that an oxen's stomach is different than a horse's, so they eat less than horses do but gain weight more easily.
- When you have two oxen together, as you do in a team of pullers, one will try to assert dominance over the other. This includes them trying to mount one another, and also using their horns against one another. But grooming also plays a part. Apparently, the dominant ox will lick the less dominant ox into submission. So when Rob and I groom Chris and Jake with brushes, we're keeping them clean and asserting our dominance.
- The biggest practical difference between oxen and draft horses in a work sense is that one rides behind draft horses, steering with verbal commands and by pulling on their lines. With the oxen, one walks in front, steering them with verbal commands and taps from an ox whip.
On Friday, I observed the ox team in action for the first time, pulling a heavy manure spreader through a field. This was also a first for the oxen, of a sort, because Rob switched Jake from his usual position on the right side of the team to the left. The reasons behind the switch exceed my knowledge to explain them, but you can read all about it here, where Rob writes in detail about the experiment:
http://www.draftanimalpower.com/showthread.php?t=224
The oxen pulled with more speed and vigor then I expected. I had to walk briskly to keep up, and run to get ahead. Several times I crouched down well in front of them to try to snap a photo, only to look up from my lens a moment later to find them bearing down upon me. I imagine they move even faster without hundreds of pounds of machinery holding them back.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
THE NEWS
I was out on the farm by 6 a.m. this morning. The wind-tipped cold was brutal; the temperature throbbing at 18 degrees. My reason for starting this icy morn' pre-sunrise: The television crew was coming.
Apparently, the CW 11 morning news show out of New York City has done some shoots at Howell Farm in the past, and today they wanted to do a segment on cutting your own firewood the old-fashioned way. So, along with four other farm workers, I was there to assist Larry the reporter in his effort to educate his audience on the finer points of felling a tree with a two-man saw and then dragging away the logs with a draft horse.
If not for the frigid temperature I would have found the experience enjoyably bizarre. As far as I know, I ended up on TV in one of the later shots, manning the saw, down on my knees in the dirt, snot running down my nose, wearing a funny-looking hat, shivering, thinking to myself, "Hell am I doing?"
A lot happens at the farm everyday. It's Day Three and I'm starting to learn my way around the morning chores – feed the horses, feed the oxen, feed the sheep, feed the chickens, light the woodstove. I received my first instruction on draft animal commands – "Haw," "Gee," "Git up," and "Whoa." I was cautioned on leading horses on a windy day, because it "Puts the Devil in 'em." I saw firsthand that the cornstalks I grinded up a few weeks ago are indeed excellent for soaking up urine.
More on all that to come soon. And pictures, too.
Corrections:
-I mentioned in my previous post that on the large mirror in my bedroom are written the words, "Scream Vodooo!!" I've been studying the unruly, double-lined penmanship of the message further, and I'm now less certain about the content of the second word. The message may in fact read, "Scream Wooooo!!" which strikes me as an entirely less ominous incantation to have written on one's bedroom mirror.
-I also mentioned the interns scheduled to join me in weeks to come. They're still coming, but I heard today they may actually be living in another house across the street from the farm, which means I'd have the farmhouse to myself the next three months. Either way, I'm eager to meet them.
Apparently, the CW 11 morning news show out of New York City has done some shoots at Howell Farm in the past, and today they wanted to do a segment on cutting your own firewood the old-fashioned way. So, along with four other farm workers, I was there to assist Larry the reporter in his effort to educate his audience on the finer points of felling a tree with a two-man saw and then dragging away the logs with a draft horse.
If not for the frigid temperature I would have found the experience enjoyably bizarre. As far as I know, I ended up on TV in one of the later shots, manning the saw, down on my knees in the dirt, snot running down my nose, wearing a funny-looking hat, shivering, thinking to myself, "Hell am I doing?"
A lot happens at the farm everyday. It's Day Three and I'm starting to learn my way around the morning chores – feed the horses, feed the oxen, feed the sheep, feed the chickens, light the woodstove. I received my first instruction on draft animal commands – "Haw," "Gee," "Git up," and "Whoa." I was cautioned on leading horses on a windy day, because it "Puts the Devil in 'em." I saw firsthand that the cornstalks I grinded up a few weeks ago are indeed excellent for soaking up urine.
More on all that to come soon. And pictures, too.
Corrections:
-I mentioned in my previous post that on the large mirror in my bedroom are written the words, "Scream Vodooo!!" I've been studying the unruly, double-lined penmanship of the message further, and I'm now less certain about the content of the second word. The message may in fact read, "Scream Wooooo!!" which strikes me as an entirely less ominous incantation to have written on one's bedroom mirror.
-I also mentioned the interns scheduled to join me in weeks to come. They're still coming, but I heard today they may actually be living in another house across the street from the farm, which means I'd have the farmhouse to myself the next three months. Either way, I'm eager to meet them.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
MOVED
I moved into the farmhouse today.
I sit now at the kitchen table, writing in my journal, which I'll transfer to my laptop computer and the Internet later.
This house has been lived in by generations of interns before me. I'll have it to myself for the next seven days. In one week another intern starts – a former computer programmer from New Jersey, I'm told – and a few weeks after that a farmer from Nepal is to join us.
I am glad to be here first. It gives me a chance to snoop without boundary, and I'm also happy to observe that I have landed in the best bedroom (and by best I mean warmest.) The second bedroom in the house is both smaller and colder, and the third bedroom, while larger, is a floor higher and coldest of all. I'll take the heat.
My room and the rest of the upstairs is strewn debris, as if this were a grungy frat house at a farming college – with layers of relics left behind by past inhabitants. I plan to push back against the mess, but first I thought I'd document some of it:
-Two exciting posters on my wall: "The Evolution of Agriculture," and "The History of Farm Implements."
-On a large mirror, a message written in permanent marker: "Scream Vodooo!!"
-On top of some drawers: A camouflaged bag with a long zipper, perfectly sized to hold a rifle, and a large piece of black cloth on which is printed a colorful scene of four karate masters jumping and kicking one another.
-On the floor: A well-worn soccer ball.
The room attached to my room is a common area with a couch and a TV and bookshelves. On inspection, the shelves are dominated by classic tomes of agricultural wisdom, such as "Genetics of Livestock Improvement," "The Finest Fowl," and "Leather as Art and Craft." There are old CDs scattered everywhere, and old VHS cassettes tapes, too. Judging by its proximity to the VCR, the last tape watched was, "Scooby Doo and the Alien Invaders."
I'm hungry and tired, so that's all for today. But first one more list. Concerning free food, I was told this morning that I have access to all of the following:
-A practically unlimited supply of fresh farm eggs.
-A practically unlimited supply of potatoes, as long as I eat them within a month, after which they will start to get soft and disgusting.
-A large cabinet full of jarred tomatoes and tomato sauce, canned sometime last year.
-A large bag of frozen pesto.
-A heaping sack of dried black beans.
So far, I'm most excited about the sauce, with the eggs a close second.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
JUNK MAIL AND OIL CHANGES
Two summers ago, I drove across the country and back—the American road trip. After some 5,000 miles, I found myself in Grand Forks, North Dakota, and decided it would be prudent to get the oil changed in my Camry. So I stopped by the local Grease Monkey. I remember the oil change as unremarkable, except that it took them longer to complete than promised.
Today, nearly two years later, I received a coupon in the mail from Grease Monkey of North Dakota, addressed to my New Jersey place of residence. "$5 Off Full Service Oil Change," only valid at their Grand Forks location.
Hey, thanks, I'll swing by after work.
Sustainability Tie-In:
If you haven't heard, the common knowledge that you should change the oil in your car every 3,000 miles no longer applies to the modern vehicle. Depending on the model, manufacturers recommend 5,000, 7,000 or even 10,000 miles between oil changes. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, which did a study, three-quarters of Californian drivers change their motor oil more often than needed, generating millions of gallons of waste oil every year in California alone.
Check it: http://www.3000milemyth.org/
I start fulltime at Howell on Tuesday, at which time my intention will be to post here faster and more furiously. See you then.
Today, nearly two years later, I received a coupon in the mail from Grease Monkey of North Dakota, addressed to my New Jersey place of residence. "$5 Off Full Service Oil Change," only valid at their Grand Forks location.
Hey, thanks, I'll swing by after work.
Sustainability Tie-In:
If you haven't heard, the common knowledge that you should change the oil in your car every 3,000 miles no longer applies to the modern vehicle. Depending on the model, manufacturers recommend 5,000, 7,000 or even 10,000 miles between oil changes. According to the California Integrated Waste Management Board, which did a study, three-quarters of Californian drivers change their motor oil more often than needed, generating millions of gallons of waste oil every year in California alone.
Check it: http://www.3000milemyth.org/
I start fulltime at Howell on Tuesday, at which time my intention will be to post here faster and more furiously. See you then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)