“Just One Bad Day at the End”: Why “Sustainable” Animal Farming is Still Cruel

I’ve been getting a lot of hate mail lately. The bulk of the ire comes from the good folks in the sustainable food movement. They want to know why I insist on wielding my pen (as it were) to take down the good guys–the farmers who are trying to “do things right.”

My answer is simple. What the supposed good guys do is ultimately just as morally depraved as what the industrial producers do: they “harvest” animals, and in so doing cause immense unneeded suffering to feed us food we don’t need. They objectify a living, sentient being and, more often than not, seek to profit from that objectification. Worse, they then cover up their action in the veil of environmentalism. So that’s why I wield my pen to expose the small animal farms for what they are: a place that kills animals that do not want to–and do not have to–die. I go after the good guys because what the good guys do is rotten.

Evidence for my point hits hard in this 10 minute film made by Neel Parekh. Note the tired, formulaic rhetoric used by Kim Alexander, and then note how reality trumps rhetoric around the 5:24 point in the film.  (Oh yeah, and happy “International Respect for Chickens Day.”)


About James McWilliams
I'm a historian and writer based in Austin, Texas. This blog is dedicated to exploring the ethics of eating animals and animal-based products.

59 Responses to “Just One Bad Day at the End”: Why “Sustainable” Animal Farming is Still Cruel

  1. Demosthenes says:

    I sincerely appreciate what you’re doing in exposing “sustainable” animal agriculture for what it really is and helping to shift the paradigm away from animals as commodities to animals as sentient beings. Too often the focus is on the treatment of animals and not the use of animals as morally problematic.

  2. Ellie Maldonado says:

    I really appreciate this video. Please keep going after the “good guys”. Their depraved hypocrisy should be exposed.

  3. CQ says:

    Soothing tender turkeys with a soft stroke of the hand brings bliss to the soothed and the soother.

    Slicing the throats of terrified chickens with a swift stroke of the hand holding a sharp knife brings suffering to the sliced and the slicers.

    You can see the bliss on the faces of giver and receiver of soft strokes.

    You can see the suffering on the face of each recipient of the swift stroke.

    What you cannot see is the suffering on the slicer’s face. It is covered by a macho mask.

    Each human in this video has a choice.

    The lesson I take away is that none of us can be fully alive, truly humane, genuinely happy, until we give each animal the same choice.

    The choice to live.

  4. Good work James. Its not just one bad day, it’s the last day of their lives which doesn’t need to end.

  5. Paula says:

    I heard Michael Pollan say that –” they have a good life and one bad day at the end” — when he was on the Oprah 21 day vegan challenge show. Kathy Freston was there too and was a wimp not wanting to challenge Pollan, using the terms “personal choice” and “no judgment”. A Cargill representative was on for public relations purposes. Lisa Ling, the reporter, was horrified, but guess what, she still continues to eat steak. Heaven help the animals.

    • Ellie Maldonado says:

      I remember that. Kathy Freston told Pollan she respected his choice to eat meat. I think we should respectfully tell meat-eaters we don’t respect this choice 🙂

  6. vegansrus says:

    How cruel! Those poor animals.

  7. gena says:

    It’s amazing how much we can value life within this culture and also make ourselves impervious to its ending. Bravo for sharing the video.

  8. Provoked says:

    Whether it’s one bad day or one bad minute in one bad day… I still don’t know where anyone gets the justification for causing harm to some one else. I always want to ask… “By what right?” On worse occasions I even want to ask: Who (expletive) do you think you are???

    I keep going back to thinking that life belongs to the one living it. It’s not up for grabs, bartering, negotiating or up for theft! And that’s exactly what killing is! It’s stealing someone else’s life! Because it was “humane” or quick doesn’t address the initial error. Family farm or industrial assembly line… It’s tragically wrong.

    • Ellie Maldonado says:

      I agree, if there one universal right of humans and other animals, it’s our right to belong to ourselves.

  9. susafras says:

    Here’s some love mail as counterweight for the hate mail.

    Please keep it up! You’re doing a fantastic job.

    You’re giving my feelings – my opinion – words that I didn’t find. You’re helping me to express my opinion better when I am standing in the crossfire, having to justify me “extreme” lifestyle once again.

    So THANKS for this blog! You rock!

  10. Ellie Maldonado says:

    We all have to die someday, but chickens don’t owe their lives to farmers any more than they owe them to predators.

    I’m sorry the chicken was killed. Predation isn’t moral, even for survival; it’s just a means to an end.

    • Mountain says:

      We all owe our lives to everyone & everything around us that makes our lives possible. So, actually, chickens do owe their lives to farmers, and predators (I don’t know their exact contribution to the system, but I trust they make one), and the sun, and the earth, and the plants that grow from the earth, and the animals that live in it. Chickens owe their lives to this, and so do we.

      I don’t if predation is moral, but it certainly isn’t immoral. It’s part of nature; it’s how nature maintains balance & diversity within its system.

      • We bring their lives into this world because we want to use their lives for food, clothing, entertainment etc.. We create their dependency on us. They don’t owe us for what we’ve created any more than enslaved people ‘owe us ‘for bringing them into the world to serve us.

      • Mountain says:

        @John@Ellie– Thank you for comparing me to a slaveowner– analogies to slavery are the second-lowest form of argument, outdone only by analogies to Hitler. I suppose this is where I mention that, like you, Hitler didn’t believe in eating animals.

      • Ellie Maldonado says:

        I made an analogy to what you said — “We all owe our lives to everyone & everything around us that makes our lives possible. So, actually, chickens do owe their lives to farmers ” — not to you personally.

      • Lukas Meier says:

        Lol…again that old tale about Hitler beeing a vegetarian.

        Low and behold, it seems broiler chicken, veal sausages, ham and caviar are vegetarian…

        Yeah he ate all that…check it out with some historian..oh he also liked blood sausages, so I guess this is where the author of the sparkly vampire has the shit from about vampires beeing vegetarian when they drink only blood from animals.

        Hitler also forbid vegetarian societys and clubs …should show anyone he wasn´t a vegetarian.

      • Ellie Maldonado says:

        “We all owe our lives to everyone & everything around us that makes our lives possible.”


        So since slaves were fed and housed by their owners, they owed their lives to their masters? What you’re saying amounts to that.

      • susafras says:

        Thank you, Ellie. Well said. Nobody “owes” their lives to anybody.

      • Ellie Maldonado says:

        You’re welcome, Sasafras, and thank you too 🙂

      • Mountain says:

        No, it doesn’t. Very selective & biased reading of what I wrote.

      • Ellie Maldonado says:

        I’ve been grateful to others, as they are to me, but I don’t think anyone, human or other animal, owes me his or her life. If you’re saying the chickens you’ve bred, raised, and will eventually kill owe you their lives, I disagree.

      • Ellie Maldonado says:

        In absence of a viable choice, I agree predation is not immoral. I don’t think hunter-gatherers in remote societies and nonhuman predators are wrong.

  11. brian lindberg says:

    Are you also opposed to violence against people? War, lethal force, capital punishment? Since these victims are not even being used for food, is that not a worse crime than killing animals for food? Do you condemn the U.S. government for its objectification of people who are not U.S. citizens in its implementation of foreign policy (e.g., killing them). If you are going to take an absolutist ethical stand on killing animals, I do not see how you can do this without including people. If we first learned to value human life, might that not lead to learning to value all life? Are all vegans pacifists? If not, are they then hypocrites? If a pacifist refuses to serve in the military but eats meat, how does that compare to a vegan who is in the Marines (could there be such a thing?)?

    • susafras says:

      All the ethical vegans I know hate suffering no matter where it occurs. So all of them are not only involved in animal rights but also in human rights.

      Animal rights actually include human rights. Unfortunately, this is not vice versa. Human rights as they are defined now often exclude the rights of other sentient beings.

      Should you ever meet an ethically motivated vegan Marine, you should ask him/her your question. IMO this is a far-fetched, artifically constructed scenario.

    • Hans Gutbrod says:

      Brian: you could very well be a vegan/vegetarian and *not* be pacifist. For example, you can deeply dislike cruelty and nevertheless serve as a soldier in, say, Switzerland and believe that you will defend your country and its comparatively liberal values, and that this may entail the taking of human life if this is forced upon you.

      • Lukas Meier says:

        A real vegan tries to save every life…all animals including humans and also plants…

        You can condone the action of humans because they are not instinct driven, proud of their humanity and emphaty while they do the cruelest things with the full blown knowledge of what they do.

        I don´t know of any vegan who served in the army and wanted to take a life..nope..vegetarians yes but never heard about a vegan.

        veganism is pacifism in its purest form, defening the ones who need someone to stand up for them

  12. susafras says:

    There’s a difference between us and this predator. We have a choice. We don’t have to eat meat. So why in the world should we choose to kill a sentient being when we don’t have to?

    • Mountain says:

      @susafras– but the predator did have a choice. Even if it was a carnivore, and we’re pretty sure it was, it chose who it was going to eat. It could have chosen many other species, or even a different chicken. It made a choice, just like we do.

      As for our choice, you can’t avoid killing sentient beings by eating a vegan diet. You may kill gophers & mice & birds instead of cows & pigs & chickens, but they are sentient beings just the same.

      • It’s a matter of intent. We can’t avoid some deaths, but we can try to minimize it where we can. We kill more ‘soil critters’ producing plants for animals destined to be ‘food’ (and then we kill them too) than if we just ate the plants directly.

      • Mountain says:

        John, I’m glad we agree that farm animals should not be fed industrial grains & legumes. It’s incredibly wasteful in terms of the animals killed in the production of those grains, and cruel to the animals who are fed such an unnatural & unhealthy diet. That said, if we eat the grains & legumes directly, we still have the massive animal suffering & death that is intrinsic to their production. We would do better eating meat from animals who harvested their own more natural diet (grasses & other rotated greens for cows & sheep, weeds & seeds & worms for chickens).

      • Ellie Maldonado says:

        The predator did not have a viable choice — the alternative to not killing for food would be starving or not feeding young. We do have a viable choice to satisfy our hunger and nutrition without killing other living beings.

        Vegans do not demand the deaths of field animals. Some crop farmers choose to kill them so they don’t eat their profits. Some crop farmers don’t. In contrast, meat-eaters do indeed demand the deaths of farm animals. See the difference?

      • Mountain says:

        The claim that some grain farmers kill field animals to protect their profit, but some don’t, is ridiculous. Nearly 100% of the soybean crop is genetically modified to withstand massive applications of pesticides that kill every other living thing in the field, and the corn & wheat crops aren’t far behind. We’re not talking about a gardener trying to decide whether to kill a gopher who’s been eating her garden; we’re talking about industrial commodities whose production is entirely dependent on killing everything that could limit that production.

      • Lukas Meier says:

        You mean the soybeans that are feed to 90% to farm animals and the 60% of grains that are feed also to farm animals?

        And the sheep and cow farmers in australia that kill off millions of wild kangaroos and birds because they see them as enemys of their domestic animals?

        This mentality of killing everything off was there since the beginning of inhumankind, but really ran rampant when the industry started to make money from massfarming animals who needed mass-ammounts of feed which lead to monocultural farming and massive use of poison.

        Scratch the animal industry and we would have more than enough food for everyone and still could go back to wholly organic food and give back space to nature.

        To feed americas appetite for cow 80% of the land mass would be needed to be pasture…now where to plant crops or feed pigs and birds?

      • Mountain says:

        @Lukas– the fact that such a high percentage of soybeans & grains are fed to farm animals would be a salient point if I supported feeding grain to farm animals, but as I’ve stated repeatedly, I do not. Herbivores like cows & sheep did not evolve to eat grains & become very ill when force-fed such a diet. Even omnivores like pigs and chickens, who can tolerate some grain in their diet, evolved to eat a much more widely diversified diet. So, in addition to the atrocities of grain production, farm animals suffer needlessly when fed such a diet.

        You seem to mistakenly believe that large-scale animal farming led to large-scale grain production, when in fact it was massive surpluses of subsidized grain that led to large-scale confinement animal farming. Remove the grain & soy that fuel large-scale confinement animal farming, and you not only minimize the deaths of field animals, you eliminate most of the suffering of farm animals.

        Finally, the 80% number is a massive overstatement of the land required for pastured beef. An intelligently run grazing system requires 1/10th of the space, and due to their symbiotic nature, pigs & chickens can be raised on the very same land. As for crops, by incorporating pigs & chickens into the system, you can eliminate the need for tilling or chemical fertilizer, and they will naturally view weeds & insects as food, rather than as pests requiring yet more chemicals.

      • Mountain,
        Large scale animal farming has its origins in the 19th century. Ironically, it’s ultimate origin has to do with concerns over safety–which led to confinement (Germans refused to buy US pork if the pigs were not confined). Innovations in feed indeed followed, but it is incorrect to make the claim that mass produced soy/corn feed led to factory farming. The process, as with most aspects of the past, was far more complicated than the direct correlation you suggest. (Oh, and cows were eating plenty of corn as early as the 1820s!).

      • Ellie Maldonado says:

        Thanks, I learned something I had misunderstood. I thought large scale farming began after WWll, which means my response to Cobalamin was wrong. I hope Cobalamin sees this.

      • Mountain says:

        Factory farming of animals may have roots in the 19th century, but it didn’t begin in earnest until the 1920s with chickens, and postwar with cows & pigs. Large-scale grain production precedes it by at least a century. Soy may be newer to the scene, but it was just implemented to enable more grain production. Once surpluses of soy existed, people found ways to use it. Again, the surplus precedes the use in factory farming of animals.

        Also, I was refuting the claim that factory farming led to massive grain production, which is flatly false. The grain production preceded the factory farming, and helped make it possible. As you say, it was a complicated process, not straight-line causation, but it’s certainly closer to the truth than the claim that factory farming caused massive grain production.

      • Lukas Meier says:

        If I eleminate the grain diet I eleminate the suffering of the farm animals?

        Wow didn´t know grain lead to dehorning, castrating and tail docking without painkillers, must have missed that memo…

        Seems also to lead to calves seperated from their mother and other things farm animals suffer from,including a violent death in childhood for most of them.

        80% of the farmland are used to raise animals…87% of it as pasture, 13% of it to grow grains and similiar feed.

        Just check some farming page for those numbers…and if you want a simbiotic use of land you need to calculate more land per cow because pigs also dig up up the land and fowl also eats herbs and other greens, you can not just put them on the same land and not give them more space overall

        A cow eats 160 pounds of pasture each day…you can only keep 2 cows on 10.000qm or the land will turn into a desert or a mudslide over time…those are numbers from the organic, pasture farms in switzerland…just for your information.

        A pig needs at least 200, better 400qm space if you don´t want the pig to turn it into a big mudpile over the time

        For each extra pig you need to count half of the space on the space you already have for one pig.

        1 pig-200qm, 2 pigs 300qm, 3 pigs 400qm..but you have to take good care that they don´t turn it into a mudslide…so better give each 400qm
        1 pig 400qm, 2 pigs 600qm, 3 pigs 800qm

        America has a production of 35million cows each year..that is 170.000million qm of space, very good pasture… not the pasture that has dry periods where the growth stops…fertil green land.

        With 400qm of land a pig can mostly feed itself, and this is what you want, or not?

        61 million of pigs in the USA means 24.000 million qm for pig production if you want to be really on the safe side including dry periods, winter and so on….we wouldn´t want to turn the land into desert or such, do we?

        So chicken…10 billion chickens raised in the USA each year…if we just shove the chickens on the pasture that is already there and cut down on the space the chickens need to make it still substainable that would be 10qm per chicken..and that is a very low number…i would like to go higher but let us stay fairer to you…..so ..let us say a chicken lives 2 months that is more or less 1 billion chicken on the land year round which would need 10 billion qm on the pasture of the cows as to keep the pasture healthy.

        170.billion qm space for cows, 10 billion for chicken, …let us say half a billion qm for the pigs and other farmed animals…

        america has 25 billion qm land mass overall..all land mass, not only the one for farming..

        Hm…seems that even the solely production of cow flesh would screw america over if you want it solely pasture feed and independent…

      • Ellie Maldonado says:

        I’m aware of the methods used in industrial farming, but as you know, not all crop farming is large scale. I referred to crop (not grain) farmers who don’t kill field animals, but it’s also possible to grow some grains in small scale farming. Here are some links support that:





        Besides the above, vegans here have acknowledged crop farming is not free of cruelty, and we can only do the best we can. It seems you imagine we’re proud of ourselves. I’ve never met a vegan who was so self absorbed. While I can only speak for myself, I have no doubt that other vegans are here on behalf of nonhuman animals, not themselves.

      • Provoked says:

        Wow! What great information! I’m trying my hand (again) at very small scale vegetable gardening. This year I’ve built raised beds out of reclaimed wood to discourage the rabbits – It’s working thus far. I’m also trying the liquid fertilizers as suggested on your first link — Yes! It’s very smelly indeed. But not any more so than manure. And at least I know it didn’t come from any system I wouldn’t want to support indirectly or otherwise.

        Thanks for this great collection of links – I know I’ll refer to it often and share with others as well.

      • Ellie Maldonado says:

        You’re welcome, I’m glad the links are helpful 🙂

      • Lukas Meier says:

        Well, the predator needed food, or he/she would have died.
        If you were a cavemen you would choose to hunt the easiest prey..you would not think about the morals about it, because it would be either you get something to eat, or you die…

        And as a wild animal or a caveman who doesn´t know when he would get a chance again to feed himself, you take the chances you get.

        In turn we are modern humans, we are proud of our brain, our foresight, our emphaty, our humanity.

        We can store our food and plan for bad days, we grow plants and store them..we don´t need to eat other animals..I have never seen someone drop dead or starve because he didn´t get to choose chicken instead of bread.

        Wild pedatores an primitve humans have no chance to be sure when they get food or how much, they can not choose humanity as we can…

        We do not need to kill off other humans or starve other humans to feed ourselves..we could choose humanity, but we choose against it so often

      • susafras says:

        Thanks, Lukas. You explained so much better what I wanted to say. 🙂

      • Lukas Meier says:

        you are welcome, if you have some input about carnist saying like “We need to eat animals because otherwise they die out” or similiar things, you can visit my blog and leave a comment and I take care to write up an explanation..


  13. Hans Gutbrod says:


    I heard your argument in Ottawa, and I agree with the general thrust of your argument. I personally would not eat “sustainable” meat. I have been a vegetarian for more than 20 years.

    However, I do think there is an ethical argument that can be made, loosely based on Kant (and potentially Rawls — so forgive it it’s a bit on the philosophical side). I take it to be this: if the decent life of the animal is an end in itself, and the animal is not just a means towards feeding people (as industrial mass farming has it), it is *more* justifiable.

    Now this argument is most plausible for animals that probably “need to” be hunted (say, boar, and that this “need” is purposefully inflated is a point well taken), or where the end of life is not pretty either (say: sheep, where apparently teeth degrade, and they may end starving).

    Also, it’s predicated on believing that there is a moral scale, rather than an absolute threshold.

    Again, this is NOT my point of view, but since we ask for a fair hearing, it may be worth trying to illuminate the other side of the argument, too: that there is a difference between treating an animal just as a means (as in industrial farming), and accepting that an animal’s life is an end in itself.

    • We humans would have to think about what ‘decent’ actually entails and whether that is the primary ‘end in itself’, because that sounds like ‘quality of life’ (welfare) as an ‘end’ is valued over ‘sanctity of life'(end in itself). I think that quality would follow from sanctity in general, and since humans have brought these animals into being because they were commodities(everything from cows to dogs), it is our responsibilty to make the best Q.O.L. decisions that we can when they are suffering from natural causes (just like we do with our human loved ones).
      Animals have been commodified (“just a means to our ends”) and is the same reason they exist on small farms and industrial farms so I wouldn’t distinguish factory from small farm at all.

      • Ellie Maldonado says:

        Welfarists have done a great disservice to farm animals by collaborating with animal industries and presenting the problem as “factory farms”. I’ve met people who are actually proud of eating “humane” aka “compassionately raised and handled” aka “free-range” meat, which is exactly what the industry wants. I think this is aptly called the “animal welfare industrial complex”: http://humanemyth.org/glossary/1025.htm

    • Ellie Maldonado says:

      Neither do I agree, Hans. I think such arguments are flawed because they’re based on myths. The first, as John mentioned, is that only industrial farms treat animals as a means to an end. In reality, no matter how animals are bred, raised, and killed, they are as much a means to an end for farmers as they are for the consumers who eat them.

      The second is the hunter’s myth, i.e., “animals need to be killed so they won’t die of starvation”. In fact, free-living animals can control their own populations in response to available food and weather, without any help from hunters. Some female animals, deer and bear for example, are able to absorb their own fetuses when food is scarce.

      Hunting actually increases animal populations because animal populations experience
      “compensatory rebound” — i.e., when hunters kill animals, there is more food is available for those in their group who survive, which in turn increases their rate of reproduction. This gives hunters an excuse to say the animals are overpopulated again — so they create a vicious cycle of killing, compensatory rebound, and then killing again, and again.

      Terminal illness is not a myth, but I think if it’s possible to give dying animals palliative care, this is preferable to active euthanasia.

  14. It makes absolutely no sense for the continuation of eating animals for food in our society – we don’t “need” to eat them for survival when we have so many healthy plant-foods available to us – we don’t need to kill to eat.

  15. I believe (don’t quote me) that I read a paragraph in Victoria Moran’s new book, Main Street Vegan, where she stated when people say that “animals were put on this planet for humans to eat”, applying that same rationale – then human beings were put on this earth for lions and tigers to eat.

  16. Mountain says:

    A few days ago, we lost a chicken to a predator. By the looks of it, it was either a hawk or a fox. The chicken was a rooster, he was charming as could be, and everyone in the family had an emotional bond with him.

    The theme I keep coming across on this website is this: no matter the length or quality of an animal’s life, if you harvest that animal for food, you are ethically wrong. Morally depraved, even.

    Here’s the thing: if I could have kept that predator away, my rooster would have lived a full life of ten years or more. And I can guarantee you those ten years would have been filled with pleasure & meaning, not suffering. But according to the standard vegan line, it’s better that a predator got him because at least he wasn’t harvested (by a human) for food.

    But that’s BS. He had to die one day; that’s the price of being born. If all of our lives (even mine) are destined to end with “one bad day,” then what matters is the length & quality of life. When we die, we will be harvested for food– the only question is who will do the harvesting. Whether by animal or by microscopic organism, we will be harvested & our nutrients will be returned the earth.

    • Its acceptabel and expected that you protect your loved ones from predators. It is acceptable that an aninal predator kills and consumes another animal. Like the others said, humans can make a conscious/conscience decision. Yeah, “everything dies”. So what? That does not justify killing when we don’t have to (and thus are moraly bound not to). Otherwise that arguement could be used by any killer.
      Many people use the ‘everything dies’ to connect their actions to some ‘greater whole’ in order to feel better, minimize their individual actions , blend in , and not having to step back and see individual accountability. Same goes for “don’t point at me, the world is a violent place, people do bad things all the time”. It doesn’t justify adding to it when we can do things differently.

  17. As an ex chicken slaughterhouse worker, now vegan, I would like to add my support for your articles. Many people in the sustainability movement believe that killing animals is a morally trivial act. Your writing helps to show that it isn’t. “Humanely raised” animal products will continue to be a niche market for the relatively rich, whilst delivering the message to others that consumption of animal products is both necessary and desirable. Primarily, this message is being heard in poorer countries transitioning to a western style economy, where the consumption of animal products is skyrocketing.

  18. Provoked says:

    Hello Mountain – I’m not disagreeing that some nonhumans are killed in plant food production — But “nearly 100%” needs some kind of evidence. Please.

    I ask for this because I’ve spoken to many field farmers… My husband comes from generations of croppers in So. Carolina. When I’ve discussed “casualties” in the course of their endless hours on plows, tillers, harvesters, etc. I’m met with the same answers and stories… It’s true that some rabbits, moles and mice don’t get out of the way fast enough. But in thousands of acres – There were very few instances. Not at all what you suggest!

    I have to ask… Don’t you think these creatures hear the machinery? Did you ever see a mouse run??? It’s estimated at 11 feet per second… Rabbits – about 35 mph. Combines don’t run at top speed… But even if they did – That would only be about 7 mph. So regarding even the most sophisticated farm equipment – They are incredibly loud and extremely slow. With that info I’m more inclined to believe that (almost) 100% of the critters aren’t harmed at all!

    I realize that farmers do initiate targeted killing – But this does not apply to the actual work of getting crops out of the field. They are two separate activities – entirely.

    • Ellie Maldonado says:

      Yes, I’ve met crop farmers who chase animals out of the field before they use equipment that might harm them.

    • Mountain says:

      @Provoked– I didn’t say nearly 100% of nonhuman animals are killed in grain production, I said nearly 100% of the soybean crop is GMO. The big corporation behind GMO crops is Monsanto, and the primary reason crops are modified is to make them Roundup-resistant– meaning they survive the pesticide or herbicide (or both), while very little else does. While some animals are killed by mechanical processes like discing or tilling or harvesting, the main cause of death is the pesticide. Whether it poisons the animal directly or by wiping out its food supply, the result is the same.

      • Provoked says:

        Sorry I misunderstood Mountain… I re-read your entry and indeed you didn’t claim “100%” of the animals are killed by cropping. – My apologizes.

        I also know what you mean about “round-up ready” Monsanto chemicals – And agree with you regarding it’s destruction.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: