Livestock Surprise Scientists with Their Complex, Emotional Minds (science.org) 73
Slashdot reader sciencehabit writes: If you've ever seen a cow staring vacantly across a field, or a pig rolling around in its own filth, you might not think there's a lot going on in their head. You wouldn't be alone. People haven't given much credence to the intelligence of farm animals, and neither have scientists. But that's starting to change.
A growing field of research is showing that—when it comes to the minds of goats, cows, and other livestock—we may have been missing something big. Studies published over the past few years have shown that pigs show signs of empathy, goats rival dogs in some tests of social intelligence, and cows can be potty trained.
Much of this work is being carried out at the Research Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN) in Dummerstorf, Germany, one of the world's leading centers for investigating the minds of creatures that often end up on our dinner plate. From cows making friends to goats exhibiting signs of altruism, farm animals are upending popular—and scientific—conceptions of what's going on in their minds.
The work may not just rewrite our thinking about livestock, it might also change how we treat them. As Jan Langbein, an applied ethologist at FBN told says, 'If we don't understand how these animals think, then we won't understand what they need. And if we don't understand what they need, we can't design better environments for them.'
A growing field of research is showing that—when it comes to the minds of goats, cows, and other livestock—we may have been missing something big. Studies published over the past few years have shown that pigs show signs of empathy, goats rival dogs in some tests of social intelligence, and cows can be potty trained.
Much of this work is being carried out at the Research Institute for Farm Animal Biology (FBN) in Dummerstorf, Germany, one of the world's leading centers for investigating the minds of creatures that often end up on our dinner plate. From cows making friends to goats exhibiting signs of altruism, farm animals are upending popular—and scientific—conceptions of what's going on in their minds.
The work may not just rewrite our thinking about livestock, it might also change how we treat them. As Jan Langbein, an applied ethologist at FBN told says, 'If we don't understand how these animals think, then we won't understand what they need. And if we don't understand what they need, we can't design better environments for them.'
Indeed... (Score:3)
I am always amazed by the ability of the "scientists" that appear in popsci magazines to be so sincerely surprised by the obvious. Apparently very few people get to see live animals these days. Or the powers of observation have diminished considerably.
Re:Indeed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Up until 1970, my grandfather and his two brothers had a farm, with pigs, cows, and chickens, and they also grew corn. I enjoyed visiting there, and visiting the animals. My sister and I would feed apples in the fall to the cows, and they remembered that. One of the things I realized then was that there are very few people who have been on a farm, and many of them lack understanding about where their food comes from, and that seeing them from a distance does nothing to help them understand how intelligent farm (and other) animals are.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep.
Re:Indeed... (Score:5, Funny)
Peaches come from a can
They were put there by a man
In a factory downtown
Source: The Presidents of the United States of America
Re: (Score:2)
Livestock may have emotions. Except for sheep. The heads of sheep are empty. They make cattle seem like geniuses.
Re: Indeed... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pop sci pubs need to make the story look ground breaking, so they take genuine advancement of knowledge and exaggerate it for dramatic effect.
I know several scientists who have been interviewed by the press, and not one of them has felt like the article accurately reflected what they said, or how the writer told them they planned on describing it. Often 6-8 hours of discussion gets cut down to one quote, taken out of context, and used in such a way as to imply something they never said, or even to contradict what they did say.
As a general rule, experts in any field are better informed than the layperson. If an article creates the opposite impression, then that is usually by deliberate and malicious design of the articles author. I have no patience for this kind of bullshit, and neither should you.
Re: Indeed... (Score:1)
Well hold on...The activists behind this piece are probably on to something here. What if...the smarter the animal...the better the meat tastes? Needs further study, perhaps over a barbecue cook-off.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is a "water is wet" article. Something that's widely known but needed an actual study to prove, and now other scientists can properly cite it.
Similarly, meta-analyses and introductory summaries tend to be very well cited, even though they're just telling everyone what they already knew.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
slavery was essential,
Only because the owner's didn't want to pay the people, an arugment which falls apart when one considers the construction of the pyramids.
torture was useful,
Torture is almost never usefu [scientificamerican.com]l. People will say whatever [newscientist.com] you think you want them to say to stop the pain. In those highly rare cases where useful information is gleaned, it's a one-off which generally doesn't pay off because of other circumstances.
women and people of color weren't as mentally developed
And you know this how? Beca
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I quite obviously disagree with all that, but all of it was common sense at some point in history.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I quite obviously disagree with all that, but all of it was common sense at some point in history.
At that point in history, It was "common sense" to those that benefited from the scheme and not common sense to those that were disadvantaged by the scheme and those that saw the obvious moral violations. Such has always been the case for all crimes against humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
Luckily, a part of humanity was able to evolve their thinking beyond that, if in ups and downs. I hope we get there with our relationship with nature's other children eventually.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
slavery was essential,
Only because the owner's didn't want to pay the people, an arugment which falls apart when one considers the construction of the pyramids.
Slavery is essential is the same sense that bank robbery is essential. Both lead to favorable economic outcomes in the void of moral outrage that leads to punishment, and both have viable alternatives that return less reward for more labor.
Re: (Score:1)
Current opinion among Egyptologists is that only a small team of artists and specialists worked on the pyramids year round. The huge gangs who were needed to move the massive building blocks up ramps of sand and into position were brought in during the annual Inundation [wikipedia.org] when most of them would have little to do at home until the floods subsided, and they were well provided with both food and shelter while they were there, and probably given a small amount of payment w
Re: And you know what???? (Score:1)
Jews prefer the story that makes them look like the victim.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering the hard work needed to haul those blocks up the ramps and that the workers were farmers who's main job was keeping Egypt fed, can you tell me any reason not to keep them well fed?
Don't be absurd (Score:3)
change for the better for the cows ... too.
While the classification of cattle is in hot dispute, they are either a species or subspecies that have no other purpose than to be meat. For more thousands of years than you can keep in your "enlightened" brain, they have been selectively bread for traits that make them utterly incapable of existing in any sort of unproitected wild setting.
So when you say things may improve, the fact is, when we stop eating them, then they will cease to exist. So if you think "better" means oblivion, then, by all means,
Re: (Score:1)
The thing about morals is...they are highly variable.
Some religious people like to claim that they are universal and objective, but this claim is entirely based on unprovable religious doctrine. So, it can safely be discarded as pure superstition.
Based on my own level of scientific education, I am convinced that morality is, for the most part, an expression of our pack instincts. Our deeper behavioral inclinations to do things like protect other pack members, share with them, not harm them for our own ben
Re: (Score:3)
Congratulations. Your entire post is a cop-out.
Based on my own level of scientific education
Which seems to be more bent more towards linguistic calisthenics than anything truly sensible.
The thing about morals is...they are highly variable.
Congratulations again! You've independently reinvented moral relativism.
You can weasel-word yourself and (unfortunately) the rest of us to oblivion, and your post made a great attempt at that. You can invoke natural selection and instinct in any order and to any depth to muddy the waters, but more years of social, intellectual, and philosophical progress than you can
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe some breeds where the mothering instinct has been bred out. But I live not far from an area where cows are left to roam in the woods also inhabited by bears and th
Re: (Score:2)
Prove that bugs have emotions, then we can stop hearing about eating bugs.
I wonder how they would react if it turns out that in their own ideology eating plants should be stopped too [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Cows are *still* delicious!
Yes, yes they are.
However, I can see this devolving into some nonsense from vegan assholes that want to remove cows, goats, and pigs from livestock farming. Prove that bugs have emotions, then we can stop hearing about eating bugs.
That's the first thing that came to mind, that this was just some study to somehow prove these animals were "just like us" and therefore should not be subjected to being slaughtered for meat.
I grew up on a farm where we had dairy cattle and pigs. Cattle are stupid. I can give all kinds of stories on how stupid cattle can be. The story points out that the cattle can pick out a smiling face from a threatening face, but would not things like that be pretty innate? They want to call this "
Re:And you know what???? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say the point isn't that different from exploring distant galaxies or figuring out how the Big Bang happened. It's the search for knowledge.
Re: (Score:3)
I can see the point if it did result in better meat and milk,
It does. Less stressed animals grow faster and produce more. They are also easier to manage if they are not panicked. Search for work done by the likes of Temple Grandin [wikipedia.org]. It is also claimed by hunters (although I can't find any good research on the subject) that the meat of stressed animals not killed quickly but injured and chased tastes worse.
Happy cows are tasty cows.
Re: (Score:1)
Many animals kind of collapse when chased. ...
Has many reasons to long to explain.
But they consume most of the sugar stored in the muscles.
It is easy to assume that this alone makes a big difference in taste.
Then the build up adrenaline
Re: And you know what???? (Score:2)
To draw an analogy, it's a bit like the code you write: If you stress it even a little, it'll crash and burn, and then cough up a linked list.
Re: (Score:1)
You neither: have a clue about coding, or about linked lists.
Nor: the difference between animals that can outrun and outhunt any prey versus animals that collapse.
But you can google all of that above.
So, why post nonsense about programming, when you clearly have no sound foundation about it?
So, why post nonsense about different types of muscles in different species, when you clearly have no sound foundation about it?
And on top of that: mix such issues with each other?
Re: And you know what???? (Score:2)
LOL dude you're hilarious :D
That's why it's an analogy. Anyways, I'll finish this conversation with a quote from Linus Torvalds:
C++ is a horrible language. Itâ(TM)s made more horrible by the fact that a lot of substandard programmers use it, to the point where itâ(TM)s much much easier to generate total and utter crap with it.
See? He's talking about you.
Re: (Score:1)
C++ is my favourite language. Just did not go the way I would have liked.
No idea what your point is, though. You forgot to make one.
Re: And you know what???? (Score:2)
Oh but I did. Though technically you're correct, I didn't make the point. You did! This is what trolling is all about. The message isn't about the messenger, it's about the recipient :D
Re: (Score:1)
Well,
if you want to troll, up to you.
I have better things to do.
Re: And you know what???? (Score:2)
Like teaching the next generation of substandard programmers?
Re: (Score:1)
It is not the teacher who makes substandard programmers.
It is programmers who do not aim for a higher level, which stay substandard.
Same with martial arts. The teacher shows you the basics.
Making it work is your job, not mine. But I help you spotting mistakes.
No idea what your programming problems are about ... I program since 45 years or 47, not sure.
Obviously you are not even on half my level, atm... so: why your stupid trolling?
Re: (Score:1)
What do we want?
Suffrage for cow!
When do we want it?
We want it now!!!
They look very emotional (Score:2)
right before entering the slaughterhouse's side gate.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the design of livestock handling facilities (slaughterhouses, etc.) has received quite a bit of attention with the aim of calming them and preventing panic in the rest of the herd. One noteworthy researcher in the field of animal behavior is Temple Grandin [wikipedia.org].
No Duh! (Score:2, Informative)
It's not often I agree with Mr. Dollar Ton, but I came to say pretty much what he said. I think most humans who have observed and been up close to animals, know how complex their emotions - and indeed their thinking - can be. We've known this for centuries, if not millennia. The fact that this is news to scientists is just... I dunno.
I wonder if some of the blindness around this is unwillingness to face how we treat livestock in modern society. Predation is the norm in the animal kingdom, but rearing "prey"
Re: (Score:2)
Amen to that, I did not put it better.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right. (Score:2)
I'll believe in this level of intelligence once a cow makes it to the moon ... Oh, wait. [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Every farmer knows it is true. Behavioral scientist Gary Larson has done extensive research on this.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/... [pinterest.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Empathy is a highly efficient shortcut. (Score:3)
We do share mechanics (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen cows dance in the field. I recognize emotional states in chickens. I still eat meat. This is all hubristic silliness borne from the idea that humans are special. Are we? Are we over animals? OMG you cry too! I'm validated! OR is this coming from some religious nonsense? Evolution is not going to present a pathway for "special" processes for delivering chemical messages just for humans and not have something similar along the way in other beings somewhere along the line.
I don't understand the existential "surprise" that animals possess traits similar to humans. In my mind it rests as, "How couldn't they, to some degree anyway?" Might be tempered by other processes and factors, but pretty sure we're going to keep finding this out.
My anecdote (Score:2)
I once kept a few chickens (and occasionally ate their unborn children). The roost where they sheltered at first was very rudimentary and quickly improvised, since the friend I got them from was given 1 day's notice that he was not allowed to keep them in the city. When the new Hotel Gallofornia was ready for them, the adult birds could jump/fly up to their sleeping roost, but the chicks could not and a ramp was installed for them, which they were unfamiliar with. At first they still slept in their nest at
Re: My anecdote (Score:2)
Misleading (Score:2)
animal behaviorists and ethologists were doing work on this type of stuff at a USDA lab at Purdue University back in 2002 when I was a student there, and the lab was not brand new even then.
there are labs like this in most western nations. Not sure why this group decided they needed a little self promotion on
it's a continuum (Score:1)
Even as we realize there is a continuum from biologically programmed behavior to "intelligence", there does seem to be that quantum jump to what i'll call, probably incorrectly, self-referential consciousness. Dolphins seem to recognize themselves, perhaps elephants, but do they stand around thinking "woe is me", or wondering what tomorrow will bring ?
What I think most people ignore is that we are closer to animals than we like to admit. People behave in a very predictable manner in many situations, just l
Re: (Score:2)
Dolphins seem to recognize themselves, perhaps elephants
People had basically assumed can't don't regonise mirrors and had proven unable to get any evidence they know what they are.
Then some people mucked around with snapchat of all things
https://iheartcats.com/cats-fr... [iheartcats.com]
Suddenly it becomes abundantly clear. When the cats see something unexpected in the "mirror", they look at the real object (or attack it).
report from harvest agent and saucer pilot zQ-8v (Score:5, Funny)
Unless.. (Score:3)
"People haven't given much credence to the intelligence of farm animals, and neither have scientists." ...unless you've been someone who isn't interested in exploiting them, and taken 5 minutes to watch any of them.
Go to any farm animal sanctuary and this is all abundantly clear.
These same 'scientists' also recently 'learned' that infants feel pain, and should be anesthetized in surgery. (It wasn't until 1987 that the American Academy of Pediatrics formally declared it unethical to operate on newborns without anesthetics.)
It's amazing what you learn when your own self interest isn't directing your attention.
Moo (Score:2)
Pigs do not roll around in their own filth (Score:5, Informative)
"a pig rolling around in its own filth"
Pigs do not roll around in their own filth. Confined to a pen with a feed trough, they will poop and pee only at the farthest point in the pen from their food, then return to the "clean" portion of the pen. There is almost literal line of demarcation defining the pooping area.
I wonder what changed (Score:2)
I'm far too lazy to dig it up, but I remember reading about a dairy farm that was highly invested in the idea of potty training cows. They harvested the manure for methane generation to power the farm, and it would have been so much more efficient if they could have gotten the cows to dump on command, so all the waste would have been easy to scoop up. It was an abysmal failure, and the conclusion was that cows are hopelessly unable to be potty trained.
Anyway, any sympathy I ever had toward cows as thinking
Still going to eat meatâ¦and a lot of it (Score:2)
Great story. I am still going to eat meat, and so are most of my fellow humans. This, despite the efforts of radicalized online trolls whose only purpose in life is to defend unsustainable lifestyles like veganism.
Sorry, but these stories are pointless.
Come on (Score:1)
_everything_ surprises biologists esp. the obvious (Score:2)
Biologists have an extremely negative view of all life but human. Consider the ethologists statement: 'If we don't understand how these animals think, then we won't understand what they need. And if we don't understand what they need, we can't design better environments for them.' Why not say: " If we understand how animals think, we can understand what they need. And if we understand what they need we can design better environments for them." The subtle difference suggests a guarded opinion that anima
Not a breakthrough (Score:1)