Can the Right Environment Make Animals ‘Smarter’? An Expert Explains the Lessons from a Brush-Wielding Bovine
Are some animals more intelligent than others? Do humans tend to look for intelligence only in certain species? Taking Veronika, the cow that recently made headlines, as a prime example, the scientist who studied her provides answers to these key questions.
The Remarkable Case of Veronika the Cow
A study published in the journal Current Biology focuses on a cow that has demonstrated tool usage in a manner previously unseen in cattle. Veronika, a 13-year-old Swiss Brown residing in the Austrian village of Nötsch, uses a deck brush to scratch herself. She holds the brush in her mouth and, depending on the body part she wants to scratch, uses either the bristles or the smoother handle, adjusting the pressure as needed.
After discovering a video of Veronika, researchers Alice Auersperg and Antonio Osuna-Mascaro from the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna visited her home to observe her behavior, leading to this groundbreaking study. In an email interview, Osuna-Mascaro discusses what made Veronika so ‘smart’, why tool use appears more commonly in some animals than others, and why this matters.
How Much Does Environment Matter in Animal Intelligence?
Osuna-Mascaro emphasizes that Veronika is not the “Einstein of cows”; rather, her stimulating environment enabled her tool use. The surrounding environment can matter enormously. Tool use rarely emerges simply because an animal is cognitively capable in principle; it also requires repeated opportunities to interact with suitable objects, a clear functional benefit, and conditions where exploration is not excessively risky or costly. In other words, cognitive capacity may be necessary, but environmental conditions often determine whether that capacity is expressed.
This explains why tool use is frequently associated with island populations or relatively low-risk environments. Reduced predation pressure, altered competition, and different foraging niches allow animals to spend more time on the ground, interact more freely with objects, and tolerate trial-and-error exploration. These conditions make it more likely that tool-related behaviors will appear and persist.
In birds, especially parrots, this distinction is particularly clear. Many parrot species possess the morphological and cognitive prerequisites for tool use, such as dexterity and exploratory motivation, yet tool use is rare or absent in the wild. A plausible explanation is that ecological pressures—like predation risk, human disturbance, or limited object availability—reduce opportunities for safe exploration. In captivity or enriched environments, where these constraints are relaxed, latent tool-use capacities can become visible.
Commonalities and Differences in Tool Use Across Species
Primates, orcas, parrots, and crows have all shown some use of tools. Is there anything common among these varied animals, or are the reasons for tool use different for each species? Osuna-Mascaro notes there are both shared elements and important differences. Across taxa, tool use tends to emerge when animals face recurring problems that objects can help solve efficiently, such as extractive foraging, body maintenance, or accessing difficult resources. Access to suitable materials and repeated opportunities to practice are also critical.
Learning processes are another common factor. In many species, especially those showing more complex or flexible tool use, individual innovation and social learning play a significant role. However, the reasons for tool use can differ substantially between lineages. Some species use tools primarily for foraging, others for social or hygienic purposes, and others in hunting contexts.
Importantly, “tool use” is not a single, uniform category. The mechanical demands, degree of control, and cognitive requirements can vary widely. Treating all cases of object use as equivalent risks obscuring meaningful differences in both function and underlying processes. True tool use requires the subject to extend its own bodily limits and must serve a functional purpose. It involves the formation of a body-plus-object system and the use of a mechanical interface between this system and the goal.
Over- and Under-Representation in Cognitive Studies
Certain species, especially primates and a few iconic tool users, have been studied far more intensively than others. This creates a distorted picture in which behaviors appear rare or exceptional simply because they have not been systematically looked for in less-studied animals.
Livestock and other familiar animals are a striking example. Despite having lived alongside humans for thousands of years, their cognitive abilities have received comparatively little attention. When behaviors such as tool use are finally documented in these species, they can seem surprising, not because they are inherently unlikely, but because we have not previously paid sufficient attention. This imbalance influences theory as well as perception. If a behavior is easiest to document in well-studied species, it may be incorrectly treated as evolutionarily special rather than as a more widespread, but under-observed, capacity.
Avoiding Over-Interpretation of Animal Behavior
How do scientists avoid over-interpreting animal behavior as “intelligence”? One key strategy is conceptual precision. Clear definitions help distinguish true tool use from looser forms of object manipulation or environmental modification. This prevents the same behavior from being interpreted very differently depending on narrative or media interest.
Another safeguard is separating the presence of tool use from the quality of that tool use. Not all tool use reflects flexible or cognitively demanding behavior. Some forms are highly stereotyped and leave little room for adaptation. Researchers therefore focus on features such as sensitivity to functional properties, context-appropriate deployment, behavioral flexibility, and evidence of anticipation or planning.
Finally, scientists actively consider alternative explanations. Rather than assuming complex cognition by default, they design studies that test whether simpler learning mechanisms could plausibly account for the observed behavior. This does not mean denying animal intelligence, but ensuring that claims are proportionate to the evidence. Importantly, Veronika’s behavior is a case of extremely flexible tool use and an innovation.
Challenges in Animal Cognition Research
What are the most important conceptual or methodological challenges facing animal cognition research today? A major conceptual challenge is inconsistency in how key terms are defined and operationalized. Long-standing debates persist partly because different researchers mean different things by the same labels, such as “insight” or “problem solving.”
Methodologically, researchers face the difficulty of inferring cognitive processes from behavior alone. The same task can often be solved through multiple mechanisms, making it hard to determine how an animal arrived at a solution. This is especially challenging in non-verbal species.
A further challenge is the need for better process-level measures. Moving beyond simple success or failure toward indicators of how behavior unfolds over time, how animals attend to problems, or how emotional and physiological states interact with learning is essential for deeper understanding.
Implications for Farming Practices and Animal Protection
Do you foresee research on animal cognition translating into concrete changes in farming practices or animal protection laws, or is the gap between scientific insight and public policy still too wide? In the near term, changes in practice are more likely than changes in law. Evidence that farm animals are motivated to explore, learn, and interact with objects supports the development of enriched environments and husbandry practices that go beyond minimal welfare standards.
Research on cognition can help reframe how livestock are perceived, not as passive or purely reactive beings, but as animals with the capacity to engage actively with their environment. This shift in perspective can influence professional norms and public expectations even before legislation changes.
Legal reform typically follows more slowly, often requiring broad scientific consensus, clear links to welfare outcomes, and political feasibility. Cognition research is most likely to inform policy when it is connected to measurable welfare indicators and translated into practical, implementable standards. Overall, the gap between science and policy remains real, but it is not static. As evidence accumulates and becomes more visible, incremental changes in both practice and regulation become increasingly plausible.
