Why a tool-using cow could change the way we see farm animals

A few years ago, during a taxi ride, a driver was describing to me how a pig had changed his life. His childhood with dogs had taught him what to expect from animals, yet he was not prepared for the pig he took in as a favor.

The man told me how he installed a string and bell system at the door so the animals could signal when they wanted to go out. Both the dogs and the pig learned this, but the pig took it a step further: she started ringing the bell to alert the man when the dog was outside waiting for him to come back inside. He had many such examples, recounted with pride and affection. At the end of our conversation, I asked if these experiences had changed his food preferences. They had: he doesn’t eat pork anymore.

The taxi drivers’ experiences reflect a growing trend in how we study the mental lives of other species. For a long time, when scientists were looking for cognitive traits comparable to ours, they focused almost exclusively on subhuman primates, or “feathered apes”—smart birds like parrots and crows. Recently, scientists have expanded their focus to a much more diverse range of species, such as bees, octopuses and crocodiles.

In line with this trend, a new study by Antonio Osuna-Mascaró and Alice Auerspergboth at the University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna in Austria, investigates the cognitive abilities of an animal we often overlook: cows. Veronika, domestic cow (Bos taurus), expertly wields a broom to scratch herself. She uses the bristle end to scratch her back, but then turns the tool to use the smoother end of the rod for a more sensitive bottom.

The researchers describe this as the first recorded use of a flexible, multi-purpose tool in a non-primate mammal. What does this tool reveal about the minds of cows and will it change how we treat them?

Broadly defined, tool use is the act of manipulating an object so that its movement directly achieves a goal. This definition excludes behaviors such as building nests or seeking shelter underground; while the materials are moved to form the nest, the objects act as a static structure once in place. When using a tool, movement itself is the mechanism for success—whether that involves using a rock to crack a nut or swinging a twig to hunt termites out of a pile.

Scholars once thought that tool use was a uniquely human trait. Jane Goodall changed that in the 1960s when she first observed a chimpanzee she named David Greybeard making and using a termite-hunting tool. Decades later, the use of tools was discovered in unexpected corners of the animal kingdom.

Scribblers, larval ants, throw sand at their prey, while some burrowing wasps use pebbles to plug their burrows. However, this is a highly specialized behavior that has emerged over millions of years of evolution. The cognition underlying these stereotyped actions is different from the flexible tools that emerge spontaneously in some animals to solve a problem. Veronica’s use of the broom falls into this latter category.

Veronica was never taught how to use tools. These behaviors emerged spontaneously, from using small twigs when she was young to flexibly deploying a multi-purpose broom.

Her demeanor suggests she has what it takes to be a psychologist Call Josep identifies as three components of the creative tool user. It first gathers information by learning the physical properties of objects. Second, he combines this knowledge to solve problems, realizing that a solid object can reach an itch that is otherwise inaccessible. Finally, he has a penchant for object manipulation. This feature is important because physical capacity alone is not enough. While squirrel monkeys and capuchin monkeys have similar hands, only the latter is disposed to manipulate objects.

Will learning more about the minds of cows and other farm animals change how we treat them? Research by psychologists suggests that it might. In one studywhen asked to rate the mental abilities and edibility of different animals, participants tended to rate those with less brains as more edible and those with more brains as less edible. In another studyparticipants were introduced to a species called Bennett’s tree kangaroo. Those who were told that the animal was a food source saw it as less capable of suffering and less worthy of moral concern than those who were told that the animal lived in the wild.

The way we treat animals is strongly correlated with the mind we believe they possess. Veronica’s story is probably the first of many to challenge our perception of “simple” farm animals. However, for this knowledge to be transformative, we must address our own cognitive dissonance. Denying that animals have minds shields us from the reality of how we treat them. It is easier to ignore the mind than to respect it.

Marta Halina is Professor of Philosophy of Science at the University of Cambridge

topics: