An Asian elephant named Mary living at the Berlin Zoo surprised researchers by figuring out how to use a hose to take her morning showers, according to a new paper published in the journal Current Biology. “Elephants are amazing with hoses,” said co-author Michael Brecht of the Humboldt University of Berlin. “As it is often the case with elephants, hose tool use behaviors come out very differently from animal to animal; elephant Mary is the queen of showering.”

Tool use was once thought to be one of the defining features of humans, but examples of it were eventually observed in primates and other mammals. Dolphins have been observed using sea sponges to protect their beaks while foraging for food, and sea otters will break open shellfish like abalone with rocks. Several species of fish also use tools to hunt and crack open shellfish, as well as to clear a spot for nesting. And the coconut octopus collects coconut shells, stacking them and transporting them before reassembling them as shelter.

Birds have also been observed using tools in the wild, although this behavior was limited to corvids (crows, ravens, and jays), although woodpecker finches have been known to insert twigs into trees to impale passing larvae for food. Parrots, by contrast, have mostly been noted for their linguistic skills, and there has only been limited evidence that they use anything resembling a tool in the wild. Primarily, they seem to use external objects to position nuts while feeding.

Read full article

Comments

This story was originally published by Inside Climate News and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In 2022, fish farms produced an unprecedented 131 million tons of seafood, officially surpassing the global wild-caught fishing industry for the first time, according to a report released in July. Also known as aquaculture, the fish farming sector is often touted as a sustainable way to rapidly scale up the production of crucial fish protein sources without pulling them directly from wild habitats. 

But there’s a catch—literally. Some of the main ingredients that farmers feed their fish are, ironically, wild-caught fish. And a new study suggests that the aquaculture industry uses far more wild fish than previously estimated. The research is the latest in a wave of criticism against fish farming, which a group of scientists and conservationists say is fueling environmental degradation.

However, the global demand for fish is expected to skyrocket in the coming decades. Some experts say that despite its shortfalls, aquaculture is improving, and will be a crucial part of the sustainable food supply chain. 

While certain species like mussels dine mostly on algae, omnivorous and carnivorous fish require a certain amount of fish in their diets to thrive on farms. To quantify aquaculture’s reliance on wild-caught fish, researchers rely on a seemingly straightforward equation: How much fish goes into the food to produce a certain amount of farmed fish—otherwise known as the “fish-in: fish-out” (FIFO) metric.  

In 1997, aquaculturists were using a staggering amount of fish in their feeds to produce relatively low quantities of farmed fish across the board, with a global FIFO of about 1.9, according to a 2021 study. That’s almost two fish in for every fish out, by weight. In some cases, it took as much as 3.16 kilograms of wild-caught fish to produce a single kilogram of salmon. That research found that the FIFO ratio sharply decreased by 2017 as the aquaculture industry sought alternative feed ingredients.

However, there are a variety of ways to calculate this metric. A new study shows how different the results can be if you broaden the definition of the “fish in” side of the equation. Using data from four sources of industry-reported feed composition during 2017, researchers calculated fish inputs to farmed outputs at a range of 0.36 to 1.15. That high end is roughly four times the previous study’s estimate.

One of the main reasons for this discrepancy is that the researchers accounted for several additional factors in their equation, including updated values for fish oil and something called wild fish trimmings. Those are the parts of marine animals’ bodies that are removed during wild-caught fish processing because they are undesirable to many consumers (think heads and tails).

These parts are often used in fish feeds but rarely accounted for in FIFO equations since they are considered waste byproducts. In a separate calculation, the authors also factored in estimates for some of the unintended animal deaths involved in the fishing process, including the accidental catch of non-target species known as bycatch. That pushed the FIFO figures even higher.

“The main recommendation that emerges from the work is to have a closer look at the data,” study co-author Jennifer Jacquet, a professor of environmental science and policy at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine, Atmospheric and Earth Science, told me over email. “When that happens what is clear is that the picture is not as rosy as the aquaculture industry or the fishery industry wants us to believe.”

Small fish such as anchovies and sardines are among the main species targeted for aquaculture fishmeal. The issue is that wild animals depend on these fish for food as well. Studies show that depleting these stocks could be particularly bad for seabirds. For example, penguins in Cape Town are declining largely due to the intense fishing pressure on sardines and anchovies, which I wrote about last year. 

“One of the take-homes that I really liked of this paper was [its] underscoring that we need better transparency and data availability to really have a good understanding” of the different proportions and species of wild-caught fish being used in aquaculture, said Halley Froehlich, an assistant professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who studies the industry and was not involved in the study. 

However, Froehlich noted that the study’s findings may not be as bad for wild ocean fish populations as they seem because the use of fish trimmings in feed is seen by many as a sustainable option.  

“It creates a circular economy,” she told me in a phone interview. “Otherwise, [fish trimmings] would just be thrown out.” 

The tricky part is that fishers can make additional income selling their trimmings, study author ​​Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor in environmental studies at New York University, told me over email. 

This “provides further incentive for fisheries to continue contributing to this value chain,” he said. The study also notes that whole fish from species that are less desirable on the market—dubbed “trash” fish—are sometimes added into that mix as well. 

To help mitigate aquaculture’s wild-fish problem, scientists and companies are formulating plant-based alternatives, which have been increasingly integrated into carnivorous fish diets, particularly salmon. This option comes with its own set of risks, according to the new study. For example, they say soy and maize feed options can increase the generation of agricultural-based emissions as well as freshwater consumption. 

“Our takeaway is that the metrics used to assess the sustainability of manufacturing aquaculture feed have left out large aspects of its environmental impacts, both at sea and on land,” study author Spencer Roberts, a doctoral student at the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School. “These omissions have helped to portray fish and crustacean farming as uniquely efficient or sustainable. Our research shows that it is more similar to other forms of animal farming, albeit with a uniquely high reliance on wild fish extraction.”

Despite these impacts, research shows that our appetite for seafood is expected to double by 2050. As a result, the demand for aquaculture is rising as well. Froehlich stressed that the industry has to find a way to feed fish somehow, and that plant-based or other alternative feeds—particularly microalgae—are the most sustainable options at the moment. In the end, she said, “there is no free lunch.”

Human beings live every day with the understanding of our own mortality, but do animals have any concept of death? It's a question that has long intrigued scientists, fueled by reports of ants, for example, appearing to attend their own"funerals"; chimps gathering somberly around fallen comrades; or a mother whale who carried her dead baby with her for two weeks in an apparent show of grief.

Philosopher Susana Monsó is a leading expert on animal cognition, behavior and ethics at the National Distance Education University (UNED) in Madrid, Spain. She became interested in the topic of how animals experience death several years ago while applying for a grant and noted that there were a number of field reports on how different animal species reacted to death. It's an emerging research field called comparative thanatology, which focuses on how animals react to the dead or dying, the physiological mechanisms that underlie such reactions, and what we can learn from those behaviors about animal minds.

"I could see that there was a new discipline that was emerging that was very much in need of a philosophical approach to help it clarify its main concepts," she told Ars. "And personally, I was turning 30 at the time and became a little bit obsessed with death.  So I wanted to think a lot about death and maybe come to fear it less through philosophical reflection on it."

Read full article

Comments

Our feline overlords aren't particularly known for obeying commands from mere humans, which can make it difficult to study their behaviors in controlled laboratory settings. So a certain degree of ingenuity is required to get usable results—like crocheting adorable little hats for kitties taking part in electroencephalogram (EEG) experiments. That's what researchers at the University of Montreal in Quebec, Canada, did to learn more about assessing chronic pain in cats—and they succeeded. According to their recent paper published in the Journal of Neuroscience Methods, it's the first time scientists have recorded the electrical activity in the brains of conscious cats.

According to the authors, one-quarter of adult cats suffer from osteoarthritis and chronic pain that worsens with age. There are currently limited treatment options, namely, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, which can have significant side effects for the cats. An injectable monoclonal antibody tailored for cats has recently been developed to neutralize excessive nerve growth factor, but other alternative treatment options like supplements and regenerative medicine have yet to be tested. Nor has the effectiveness of certain smells or lighting in altering pain perception in felines been tested.

That was the Montreal team's primary objective for their experiments. Initially, they tried to place electrodes on the heads of 11 awake adult cats with osteoarthritis, but the cats kept shaking off the electrodes.

Read full article

Comments

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Urban ducks and crows might offer us a connection to nature, but scientists have found wild birds that live near humans are more likely to harbor bacteria resistant to important antibiotics.

Antimicrobial resistance is largely caused by the overuse of drugs such as antibiotics among humans and livestock. The issue is of serious concern: According to data for 2019, almost 5 million deaths globally were associated with bacterial AMR, including 1.3 million directly caused by such resistance.

Researchers say species of wild birds that tend to turn up in urban settings are reservoirs for bacteria with the hallmarks of resistance to a host of drugs. “Basically what we’re seeing are genes that confer resistance to antimicrobials that would be used to treat human infections,” said Samuel Sheppard, co-author of the research from the Ineos Oxford Institute for antimicrobial research.

The team say their findings are important, as wild birds have the capacity to travel over considerable distances. Sheppard said a key concern was that these birds could pass antimicrobial-resistant bacteria to captive birds destined to be eaten by humans—such as those kept in poultry farms.

Writing in the journal Current Biology, Sheppard and colleagues report how they analyzed the genomes of bacteria found in 700 samples of bird poo from 30 wild bird species in Canada, Finland, Italy, Lithuania, Japan, Sweden, the UK and the United States.

The team looked specifically at the presence of different strains of Campylobacter jejuni—a type of bacteria that are ubiquitous in birds as a natural part of their gut microbiome. Such bacteria are a leading cause of human gastroenteritis, although antibiotics are generally only used in severe cases.

Sheppard added that, in general, each wild bird would be expected to harbor a single strain of C. jejuni, specific to that species. However, the team found wild birds that turn up in urban settings contain many more strains of C. jejuni than those that live away from humans.

What’s more, the strains found in urban-dwelling species contained about three times as many genes known to result in antimicrobial resistance, with these genes also associated with resistance to a broader range of antimicrobials.

The authors suggest that wild birds may pick up antimicrobial-resistant bacteria in a number of ways: gulls and crows, for example, are known to lurk at landfill sites, while ducks and geese may pick them up in rivers and lakes that are contaminated with human wastewater.

Dr Thomas Van Boeckel, anexpert in antimicrobial resistance at ETH Zürich who was not involved in the work, said the research was unusual as it focused on the impact of antimicrobial use by humans on animals. “What are the consequences of that for the birds? We don’t really know but it seems like we humans are responsible for this change,” he said.

Danna Gifford from the University of Manchester added the findings could have implications for human health. “While alarming, the risk of direct transmission of resistance from urban birds to humans is unclear. Poultry-to-human transmission, however, is well documented,” she said. “With urban development encroaching on agricultural land, increasing contact between urban birds and poultry raises significant concerns about indirect transmission through the food chain.”

Andrew Singer, of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, said more samples were needed to ensure the results stood up, but that precautions could be taken.

“The most obvious place to start is to ensure birds do not congregate in our landfills, wastewater treatment plants and animal muck piles, where both pathogens and AMR are abundant,” he said. “Moreover, we must also eliminate the discharge of untreated sewage into our rivers, which exposes all river-using wildlife—and humans—to human-associated pathogens and AMR.”

This story was originally published by Yale Environment 360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Field biologists tend to be a patient lot, often resigned to long days and weeks in the field and committed to experiments that take years to yield results. But even among that dogged crowd, Martin Wikelski stands out.

Back in 2001, sitting on a porch one evening in Panama, the German ornithologist had the germ of an idea for an “internet of animals,” a global system of sensor-wearing wildlife that would reveal the planet’s elusive, nonhuman worlds. He figured he could get it up and running by 2005. Nearly 20 years later, Wikelski may have finally succeeded—after surmounting roadblocks that range from bureaucratic mishaps to technical glitches to a geopolitical crisis. His space-based system, known as ICARUS (International Cooperation for Animal Research Using Space), is now scheduled to launch, in its latest, satellite-based incarnation, on a private rocket sometime in 2025.

The underlying idea of the internet of animals is to tune into the planet’s hidden phenomena—the flight paths followed by sharp-shinned hawks, the precise fates befalling Arctic terns that die young, the exact landscape requirements of critically endangered saiga antelope—by attaching tiny, solar-powered tracking devices, some weighing less than a paperclip, to all kinds of organisms and even some inanimate objects (glaciers, ocean plastic debris). The inexpensive, globe-spanning system of animal tagging is meant to help scientists understand the precise drivers of global change, and much more, by tracking thousands of tagged animals from space and tying their experiences to the broader impacts facing whole populations or even species.

Wikelski, the director of the Department of Migration at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behavior, in Germany, said the prospect of having that data, and of “making people aware of the incredible beauty and richness of what’s happening out there,” has made the effort worthwhile, even urgent.

It’s also true, as he wrote in his recent book The Internet of Animals: Discovering the Collective Intelligence of Life on Earth, that he “had no clue how many pitfalls there would be…how many times when we desperately wanted to give up, because the whole process had become so exquisitely frustrating that we just couldn’t stand it anymore.”

In 2018, after years of working with designers, engineers, and government officials from multiple countries and continents, Wikelski’s team saw its ICARUS receiver launch aboard a Soyuz rocket from Kazakhstan to the International Space Station, where Russian cosmonauts attached it to their side of the orbiting lab. “We danced, cried, and hugged one another,” Wikelski wrote of the launch. “All the stress of nearly 20 years fell away.”

The internet of animals went live in March 2020, but before the year was out, mechanical issues on the Russian ISS module took the system down. Nearly a year passed before it was up and running again. By the spring of 2021, the system was finally humming along, receiving data from roughly 3,500 tagged animals around the world. But then, in the winter of 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, and the West cut ties with Russia. ICARUS’s transmission of data abruptly halted.

After the ISS failure, Wikelski’s team set out to redesign the system to use satellite-based receivers, which had always been its long-term aim. In 2022, plans seemed almost set for an ICARUS receiver to orbit on the next GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite, a joint venture between NASA and the German space agency, scheduled to launch in 2028. But last-minute political haggling siphoned more than a third of the project’s German funding, leaving no money to include ICARUS. “We were totally devastated,” Wikelski recalled. He gave his project three months to find a solution or finally give up. “That’s when we scaled down and said, we need a CubeSat.”

And so beginning sometime next year, the project plans to launch ICARUS receivers on five relatively low-cost CubeSats—miniature satellites roughly the size of a Rubik’s cube and weighing only a couple of pounds—using private launch companies. Funded by the Max Planck Society, the system will cost roughly $1.6 million to launch and have annual operating expenses of around $160,000.

“The geopolitical aspect of this is pretty huge,” said Michael Wunder, a quantitative ecologist at the University of Colorado Denver who used the ISS tags to study the migration patterns of mountain plovers before the war in Ukraine cut off the research. Instead of involving government space agencies, the project’s new iteration keeps the scientists in control.

The new system allows for greater global coverage—the ISS receiver couldn’t communicate with tags at the planet’s highest latitudes—and Wikelski’s team has used the intervening years to shrink the tags by several grams and design new ways for animals to “wear” them, vastly expanding the number of species scientists can study. The team is currently upgrading 4,000 older tags to work with the new system. The tags provide hourly accounts of the animal’s energy expenditure; measure environmental factors like air pressure, altitude, temperature, and humidity; and even use AI to help interpret the animal’s behavior.

The trove of data “will open a lot of doors for researchers,” said Ashley Lohr, who coordinates North American projects for ICARUS through the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences. “How stressed was the animal? What were the environmental conditions when the animal was at this place at this time?”

Wunder’s lab group tagged 17 mountain plovers in Colorado in 2021. Native to the plains of the north-central United Staes, the species has declined by 80 percent in the past six decades. But the birds are hard to study because of their habitat and behavior. “They’re singing and vociferous but not in your face,” Wunder said, and in breeding season they like their space, living in densities of only about three birds per square kilometer. The plovers often occupy private ranchlands, which makes them hard to find without trespassing. And they breed in late March and April, while bird surveys, timed to count migratory songbirds, happen in May.

Wunder has long sought to understand whether mountain plovers follow distinct, structured migration patterns or whether birds from different areas mix together in winter flocks. He also wants to learn what drives the birds to migrate. “Are they moving away from something or toward something else?” he asks. He also hopes to determine exactly where the birds are running into trouble.

Before the ISS receiver went dark in 2022, the ICARUS tags revealed that the plovers didn’t follow fixed migration routes and that birds from around the country were mingling in the winter. When several transmitting birds died, Wunder was able to dispatch researchers to their locations and discover the cause of death—predation. The birds started returning to Colorado in February, and Wunder was eager to see which ones would come back—but then the war in Ukraine began. “We were cut off, there was no more information,” he said.

Ellen Aikens, a biologist at the University of Wyoming who did her postdoctoral research on animal migration at the Max Planck Institute, believes that ICARUS could serve as a “democratizing force” in ecology and biology. It’s a way to level the playing field, she says, so that “folks that have a smaller budget or are working on species that are a bit more obscure and there’s not as much funding behind can start to get the same kind of information, baseline info, about where those [animals] are going.”

In her lab, Aikens is studying golden eagles using a tag made by the German company e-obs. “It’s the gold standard of biologging in bird research, if you can afford it and your bird is big enough to carry the transformer”—like geese, storks, and eagles. A single e-obs tag costs more than $1,500 and works over a cellular network, meaning researchers must also pay the cost of data transmission for as long as the animal lives. “If you want to get a good sample size that will allow you to publish your research, that adds up really quickly,” Aikens said. “ICARUS tags are cheaper by an order of magnitude.”

Aikens believes that ICARUS will help transform the way scientists study animals. Our nonhuman neighbors “can take a pulse of the planet and be detectors of change and help us understand the health of the environment,” she said. “As [animals] move these vast distances, they can collect detailed environmental information that can better inform climate models and collect information in places that are difficult to monitor,” whether high in the sky, deep in the ocean, or under a thick layer of ice.

ICARUS tags are solar-powered, whereas some existing tagging systems run on batteries, which can die—ending the research on that individual or requiring recapture to change them out. Other tagging systems rely on animals passing by a signal tower. It works for certain animals, like birds and bats, but not for others. “Because ICARUS is satellite-powered, you don’t have to wait for your animal to go back on the grid and pass by a tower,” said Lohr. Instead, each time a satellite passes over an area, data from nearby tagged animals will be uploaded to Movebank, an open-access database.

Ultimately, researchers hope that ICARUS data can “help us pinpoint effective conservation strategies,” Aikens said. “It can help us identify pinch points on the landscape.” While this is already happening for some species, including North American ungulates like elk and pronghorn antelope, whose migrations researchers have tracked for years, for most of the planet’s species “we lack this data and this wide coverage of information, which makes these fine-scale interventions a lot harder to achieve. That’s a place that ICARUS can help fill in a lot of gaps.”

And if the internet of animals can zero in on specific issues—for instance, a bird species dying out because a particular insect it eats is being killed by a particular chemical being sprayed in an area—Wikelski believes such information could drive people to act. “People are willing to do something about it if they know that what they do is really helpful,” he said.

For now, Wikelski continues to practice patience. When I spoke to him in early July, he was dealing with the latest hurdle: satellite launch delays, including one caused by a payload issue and another caused by an ill-timed summer holiday that delayed authorization of the $30,000 payment needed to secure a launch reservation. “Our project is now too small to really be on everybody’s horizon,” he said. “Before, it was too large.”

Nevertheless, Wikelski was hopeful. His team was studying and perfecting the lowest-stress methods of tagging animals and even testing automatic tagging systems, like one for deer involving a salt lick and a tiny elastic band. He remained confident of ICARUS’s potential.

“One really important aspect we think is transformative in biology is the scaling up of tagging,” he said. “So you don’t have one animal but 50 or 100, or you do it across a continent.”

Over the next two years he plans to tag 9,000 animals in Europe, including blackbirds, storm thrushes, swifts, and sparrows in a study already underway. Roughly 7,000 of those 9,000 would die in the first year, he said, based on general patterns. “That means we are finally understanding where they disappear. Where are the death traps? These tags are so smart, they can tell us if a female is nesting and if the clutch disappears. So we can not only get information on where the adults are living and dying, but have the adults been successful in hatching or clutching? Is there a massive problem in a certain area? Then we can link individuals to populations and understand the drivers of change.”

Enlarge / The intrepid three-legged lion Jacob and his brother Tibu prepare for a hunt. (credit: Alexander Braczkowski)

On February 4, scientists monitoring lion populations in Uganda captured nighttime thermal drone footage of two lions—brothers dubbed Jacob and Tibu by the Uganda Wildlife Authority—swimming across the predator-infested Kazinga Channel connecting two lakes, most likely to find mates. While there have been prior reports of lions swimming short distances, Jacob and Tibu covered about 1.5 kilometers (nearly one mile)—the longest swim yet recorded, according to a new paper published in the journal Ecology and Evolution.

"The fact that [Jacob] and his brother Tibu have managed to survive as long as they have in a national park that has experienced significant human pressures and high poaching rates is a feat in itself—our science has shown this population has nearly halved in just five years," said co-author Alexander Braczkowski of Griffith University, who has been working with the government of Uganda since 2017 to monitor the lion population in the area. "His swim, across a channel filled with high densities of hippos and crocodiles, is a record-breaker and is a truly amazing show of resilience in the face of such risk.”

Jacob and Tibu's impressive feat is likely the result of increased pressure from human encroachment, according to Braczkowski. He co-authored a 2020 paper proposing a novel census technique that could be used more broadly as an early warning of lion declines. Their method revealed a worrying movement parameter for both male and female lions in Uganda's Queen Elizabeth National Park, where the home range increased to 3.27 km (a 400 percent increase) for males and 2.22 km (a 100 percent increase) for females—likely a response to systematic prey depletion due to poaching, for example. And the sex ratio was dangerously skewed: one male to 0.75 females, a highly unusual occurrence.

Read 6 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge / Ariel and Caliban learned as kittens that scratching posts were fair game for their natural claw-sharpening instincts. (credit: Sean Carroll)

Ah, cats. We love our furry feline overlords despite the occasional hairball and their propensity to scratch the furniture to sharpen their claws. The latter is perfectly natural kitty behavior, but overly aggressive scratching is usually perceived as a behavioral problem. Veterinarians frown on taking extreme measures like declawing or even euthanizing such "problematic" cats. But there are alternative science-backed strategies for reducing or redirecting the scratching behavior, according to the authors of a new paper published in the journal Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

This latest study builds on the group's prior research investigating the effects of synthetic feline facial pheromones on undesirable scratching in cats, according to co-author Yasemin Salgirli Demirbas, a veterinary researcher at Ankara University in Turkey. "From the beginning, our research team agreed that it was essential to explore broader factors that might exacerbate this issue, such as those influencing stress and, consequently, scratching behavior in cats," she told Ars. "What’s new in this study is our focus on the individual, environmental, and social dynamics affecting the level of scratching behavior. This perspective aims to enhance our understanding of how human and animal welfare are interconnected in different scenarios."

The study investigated the behavior of 1,211 cats, with data collected via an online questionnaire completed by the cats' caregivers. The first section collected information about the caregivers, while the second asked about the cats' daily routines, social interactions, environments, behaviors, and temperaments. The third and final section gathered information about the frequency and intensity of undesirable scratching behavior in the cats based on a helpful "scratching index."

Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge / A Sixgill Hagfish (Eptatretus hexatrema) in False Bay, South Africa. (credit: Peter Southwood/CC BY-SA 4.0)

The humble hagfish is an ugly, gray, eel-like creature best known for its ability to unleash a cloud of sticky slime onto unsuspecting predators, clogging the gills and suffocating said predators. That's why it's affectionately known as a "snot snake." Hagfish also love to burrow into the deep-sea sediment, but scientists have been unable to observe precisely how they do so because the murky sediment obscures the view. Researchers at Chapman University built a special tank with transparent gelatin to overcome this challenge and get a complete picture of the burrowing behavior, according to a new paper published in the Journal of Experimental Biology.

“For a long time we’ve known that hagfish can burrow into soft sediments, but we had no idea how they do it," said co-author Douglas Fudge, a marine biologist who heads a lab at Chapman devoted to the study of hagfish. "By figuring out how to get hagfish to voluntarily burrow into transparent gelatin, we were able to get the first ever look at this process.”

As previously reported, scientists have been studying hagfish slime for years because it's such an unusual material. It's not like mucus, which dries out and hardens over time. Hagfish slime stays slimy, giving it the consistency of half-solidified gelatin. That's due to long, thread-like fibers in the slime, in addition to the proteins and sugars that make up mucin, the other major component. Those fibers coil up into "skeins" that resemble balls of yarn. When the hagfish lets loose with a shot of slime, the skeins uncoil and combine with the salt water, blowing up more than 10,000 times its original size.

Read 9 remaining paragraphs | Comments