Bird-Brained: Rethinking Animal Intelligence and Sentience

October, 16, 2025

By Hannah Milos, as appeared in Minnesota Veg Living Magazine Issue 11

Over the past hundred years, our understanding of nonhuman animal cognition has undergone a dramatic shift. Animals are often considered mindless, driven solely by instinct and incapable of any depth of thought. This perception aligns with the belief that human intelligence is uniquely complex and that sentience, the ability to experience emotions, feel pain, and have self-awareness, is an exclusively human trait. However, recent advancements in the study of animal cognition challenge this view, revealing that animals do possess impressive mental cognition and sentience.

Surprising Cognitive Abilities of Farmed Animals

Many people are surprised by the cognitive abilities of animals raised for food. Check out these amazing facts that may change the way you think:

• Chickens are capable of simple arithmetic¹, show signs of empathy when their chicks are under distress², can demonstrate self-control and basic time perception³, and can have distinct personalities, many of which can overlap with those found in humans^4,5,6.
• Cows show signs of pleasure when they master a task⁷, love to play⁸, can recognize family members and familiar individuals including humans and can learn to fear handlers who have handled them roughly⁹, and can have best friends¹⁰. 
• Fish have excellent long-term memories, develop complex traditions, cooperate with each other, form social bonds, and are capable of tool use^11,12. Despite common beliefs, fish have pain receptors and show evidence of responding to pain and display reduced symptoms when provided pain relief¹³. 
• Pigs are capable of object discrimination, spatial learning and memory¹⁴, are playful and curious¹⁵, display sensitivity to human body cues and attention, and can engage in perspective-taking tasks, such as following a pointed finger to find food, like dogs¹⁶. 

Cognitive Bias and Misunderstanding Animal Intelligence

Despite this growing body of evidence showing that animals possess mental complexity, a pervasive belief persists that animals operate only by instinct. This perception often stems from cognitive biases, where we judge animal intelligence by our own human standards. For example, animals capable of mimicking human speech like parrots, are often seen as more intelligent; while animals like chickens, who exhibit impressive referential communication skills involving at least 24 distinct vocalizations to convey information, are not. 

Moral Contradictions in How We View Animals

As a result, many people underestimate the mental complexity of animals, particularly those used for food. Studies have shown that the more intelligent an animal appears, the less likely people are to support its mistreatment. On the other hand, animals who are perceived as less cognitively complex, like cows or chickens, are more likely to be seen as acceptable targets for exploitation. This dissonance creates a moral contradiction: people are less likely to harm intelligent animals but feel justified in causing suffering to those they perceive as “dumber.” Research shows that when people are confronted with the link between meat and animal suffering, they are more likely to deny the mental capabilities of animals raised for food. 

The Gaps in Animal Cognition Research

One critical aspect often overlooked in debates about animal intelligence is the scientific gap in our understanding. While research into animal cognition has made great strides, it remains largely underdeveloped. This could be due to the fact that much of this research is funded by big agricultural corporations and institutes that may be biased to reach conclusions favorable to their interests. Therefore, the absence of evidence for certain cognitive traits in animals does not mean these traits do not exist; it may simply reflect a lack of sufficient unbiased funding, rather than a definitive conclusion. Many studies on farmed animals are also limited by poor welfare conditions. Stress, malnutrition, and poor living environments in factory farming can stifle their cognitive capacities. If we consider these factors, it becomes clear that farmed animals are likely far more intelligent and emotionally sophisticated than we often give them credit for.

The Ethical Implications of Animal Intelligence

The research on animal cognition makes it impossible to ignore the moral implications of our treatment of animals. If we accept that animals are capable of feeling pain, experiencing emotions, and engaging in complex thought, then the ethical justification for their exploitation dissolves. The cognitive abilities of animals should not be a justification for causing them harm; rather, due to proven intelligence and sentience, it should be the reason we treat them with respect, dignity, and compassion.

Hannah Milos Bio:

Hannah Milos (she/her) has been vegan for over 6 years and a volunteer with CAA since 2022. She currently serves as Treasurer on the CAA Board of Directors. In her spare time, Hannah enjoys playing guitar, baking vegan treats, and spending time in nature. 

Bibliography

1. Rugani, Rosa & Fontanari, Laura & Simoni, Eleonora & Regolin, Lucia & Vallortigara, Giorgio. (2009). Arithmetic in newborn chicks. Proceedings. Biological sciences / The Royal Society. 276. 2451-60. 10.1098/rspb.2009.0044. 
2. Edgar, J. L., Paul, E. S., & Nicol, C. J. (2013). Protective mother hens: cognitive influences on the avian maternal response. Animal Behaviour, 86(2), 223–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2013.05.004
3. Hogue, Michèle-E., Beaugrand, J. P., & Laguë, P. C. (1996). Coherent use of information by hens observing their former dominant defeating or being defeated by a stranger. Behavioural Processes, 38(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-6357(96)00035-6
4. Gosling, S. D., & John, O. P. (1999). Personality dimensions in nonhuman animals: A cross-species review. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(3), 69–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00017
5. Gosling, S. D. (2008). Personality in Non-human Animals. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 985–1001. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00087
6. Marino, L., & Colvin, C. M. (2015). Thinking Pigs: A Comparative Review of Cognition, Emotion, and Personality in Sus domesticus. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 28. https://doi.org/10.46867/ijcp.2015.28.00.04
7. Hagen, K., & Broom, D. M. (2004). Emotional reactions to learning in cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 85(3-4), 203–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2003.11.007
8. Burghardt, G. M. (2015). Creativity, Play, and the Pace of Evolution. Animal Creativity and Innovation, 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-800648-1.00005-x
9. Hötzel, M. J., Machado Filho, L. C. P., & Dalla Costa, O. A. (2005). Behaviour of pre-parturient sows housed in intensive outdoor or indoor systems. Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira, 40(2), 169–174. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0100-204×2005000200010
10. McLennan, K. M. (2013) Social bonds in dairy cattle: the effect of dynamic group systems on welfare and productivity. Doctoral thesis. The University of Northampton. http://nectar.northampton.ac.uk/6466/ NE
11. Bshary, R., Wickler, W., & Fricke, H. (2001). Fish cognition: a primate’s eye view. Animal Cognition, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-001-0116-5
12. Brown, C., Krause, J., & Laland, K. N. (2011). Fish cognition and behavior. Chichester, West Sussex, Uk ; Ames, Iowa: Wiley-Blackwell.
13. Sneddon, L. U., Braithwaite, V. A., & Gentle, M. J. (2003). Novel object test: examining nociception and fear in the rainbow trout. The Journal of Pain, 4(8), 431–440. https://doi.org/10.1067/s1526-5900(03)00717-x
14. Held, S., Baumgartner, J., KilBride, A., Byrne, R. W., & Mendl, M. (2004). Foraging behaviour in domestic pigs (Sus scrofa): remembering and prioritizing food sites of different value. Animal Cognition, 8(2), 114–121. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-004-0242-y
15. Martin, J. E., Ison, S. H., & Baxter, E. M. (2015). The influence of neonatal environment on piglet play behaviour and post-weaning social and cognitive development. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 163, 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2014.11.022
16. Nawroth, C., Ebersbach, M., & von Borell, E. (2013). Are juvenile domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) sensitive to the attentive states of humans?—The impact of impulsivity on choice behaviour. Behavioural Processes, 96, 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2013.03.002