Male mice and cows perceive human emotional chemosignals: a preliminary study.

Olfactory cues of individuals of the same species or from different species may induce changes in behaviors and physiological reactions in mammals. However, there are few studies on the influence of human odor on animal behavior and welfare, especially those of rodents and farm animals. The present study aimed to investigate whether the odor of a stressed human (in sweat) would modify the behavior of mice and cows. We hypothesized that laboratory and farm animals can perceive human emotions though olfactory cues and that human emotional chemosignals can modify their behavioral reactions and welfare. Two odors of human axillary sweat were collected from engineering students (n = 25, 14 females and 11 males; 21.1 ± 0.7 years old, range: 19-23 years old): a "stress" odor collected after an exam and a "non-stress" odor collected after a standard class. Two experiments were then conducted to test the discrimination of these two odors by male mice (n = 20) under standard conditions and by cows (n = 10) under farm conditions. During the experiments, the behavioral responses of the animals to both odors (through a dispenser for the mice and a bucket for the cows) were observed. The mice produced significantly (p = 0.004) more fecal pellets with the stress odor dispenser than with the non-stress-odor dispenser. The cows spent significantly (p = 0.04) more time smelling the non-stress-odor bucket than control. For both species, the other behaviors observed did not differ significantly between the odors. Mice and cows seemed to perceive and react to stressful human chemosignals. Mice showed physiological reactions that indicated stress in response to the stress odor of humans, while cows showed preference reactions in response to the non-stress odor of humans. This preliminary study showed that laboratory and farm animals, such as male mice and cows, seemed to discriminate certain odors emitted by humans that were likely related to different emotions. Animals may recognize stressful human chemosignals, associate these signals with negative husbandry practices or human-animal relationships, and consequently modify their behavior.

Lack of evidence that Tonkean macaques understand what others can hear.

By distinguishing the attentional cues of their mates, animals can learn what part of their environment is of potential interest. However, recognizing the attentional states of others through auditory perception appears to be difficult, since these states are generally not accompanied by ostensive signals liable to reveal them. In this context, one study found that rhesus macaques withhold their action when unobserved, then concluding that they know what others can hear. We replicated this study by testing 18 Tonkean macaques in an experimental setting where subjects had to choose between two boxes containing a food reward. One box made a noise when opened, and the other opened silently. An experimenter was present and could either have her back to subjects or be facing them. If subjects aimed to avoid attracting the experimenter's attention, they were expected to select the silent box while the experimenter's back was turned. Results showed that subjects did not discriminate between boxes, whatever the experimenter's position. We thus found no evidence that Tonkean macaques are able to take the auditory attentional states of a human into account. It is therefore premature to conclude that monkeys can establish a link between hearing and knowing.

Diet selection and trade-offs between condensed tannins and nutrients in parasitized sheep.

Foraging behavior by parasitized herbivores can be interpreted as a decision-making process where individuals are faced with trading-off the ingestion of nutrients with the ingestion of potentially medicinal -and toxic- plant secondary compounds. We determined how parasitized sheep prioritize selection of crude protein, energy and a medicinal plant secondary compound (quebracho tannins-QT). Foraging preferences were tested in 40 lambs before experiencing a parasitic infection (Phase 1), during an infection (Phase 2; 10,000 L3Haemonchus contortus per lamb) and after chemotherapy (Phase 3). Lambs were assigned to four groups (10 lambs/group) such that animals in Group 1 (Control) could choose between foods of high (HEP) or low (LEP) energy to protein ratios. The other groups received the same choice, but QT were added (4%) to HEP (Group 2), to LEP (Group 3) or to both foods (Group 4). All groups under a parasitic infection (Phase 2) increased their preference for HEP (from 0.44 to 0.66 ±â€¯0.042; P < 0.05) and intake of digestible energy (from 0.106 to 0.126 ±â€¯0.007 Mcal/kg BW; P < 0.05) relative to Phase 1, a pattern that remained during Phase 3. Only lambs receiving QT in HEP increased their intake of QT from Phase 1 to Phase 2 (P < 0.05). Fecal egg counts and blood parameters revealed a parasitic infection (P < 0.05) in Phase 2 that subsided in Phase 3, although no differences were detected among groups (P > 0.05). The importance of protein nutrition on parasitized animals has been highlighted before, but these results suggest that lambs prioritized the ingestion of energy-dense over protein-dense foods or medicinal condensed tannins when challenged by gastrointestinal parasitism. Consumption of medicinal tannins represented a side-effect of the preference manifested for energy-dense foods during testing.

Phytochemicals in animal health: diet selection and trade-offs between costs and benefits.

Many plant tissues contain plant secondary compounds (PSC), which have long been recognised as defensive chemicals that deter herbivory via their toxic effects. However, herbivores may also benefit from including PSC into their diets. Plant-derived phenolics, terpenes and alkaloids have antiparasitic properties and sesquiterpene lactones have antibacterial, antifungal and antiparasitic properties. These actions are in part a consequence of the negative actions that PSC exert across several trophic levels, including the bacteria, parasites and fungi that inhabit herbivores' bodies. Given the dual action, toxin and medicine, it is possible to hypothesise that self-selection of PSC by herbivores should occur when the benefits outweigh the costs of PSC ingestion. Recent research suggests that sheep and goats self-medicate against parasitic infections. They increase preference for condensed tannin-containing foods when experiencing a parasitic burden. This behaviour improves health; it is triggered by parasitism and weakens when parasitism subsides. However, the causes underlying these responses are not straightforward when viewed under a unidimensional cost-benefit analysis. This is because the intensity of antinutritional/toxic and medicinal effects of PSC is not static or just dependent upon the isolated post-ingestive effects of single PSC. Nutrient-PSC and PSC-PSC interactions, social models, as well as feeding patterns, all influence the perceived net benefit of incorporating medicines into a diet. A better understanding of the net benefit of self-medication in complex feeding environments will allow for the development of innovative managing strategies aimed at providing the food alternatives and conditions for improving the nutrition, health and welfare of grazing animals.

Evidence that monkeys (Macaca tonkeana and Sapajus apella) read moves, but no evidence that they read goals.

Whereas most experiments indicate that monkeys have no theory of mind, a study carried out by Wood and collaborators (2007) claimed that they can make inferences about the intentions of another individual. We applied the experimental procedure devised by these authors to investigate whether monkeys can recognize goal-directed actions. We tested 16 Tonkean macaques (Macaca tonkeana) and 12 tufted capuchin monkeys (Sapajus apella). Each subject was submitted to 24 trials in randomized order. The experimenter presented 2 containers, 1 of which was potentially baited with a food reward. After the experimenter had either intentionally or accidentally made an action on 1 of the containers, the subject was asked to select 1 of them. We found that individuals in both species failed to distinguish between accidental and intentional actions. However, they displayed a significant preference for the container touched by the experimenter in the hand conditions, and not in the elbow conditions. These results do not support those reported by Wood and collaborators, but they are consistent with other studies concluding that monkeys are not capable of mind reading.