Characteristics of vocalisation in Hanwoo cattle (Bos taurus coreanae) under different call-causing conditions
Na Yeon Kim A B , Seong Jin Kim B , Se Young Jang A , Hye Jin Seong A , Yeong Sik Yun A and Sang Ho Moon A CA Division of Food Bio Science, Korea Nokyong Research Center, Konkuk University, Chungwondaero 268, Chungju-city, Chungcheongbuk-do, 27478, Republic of Korea.
B Asia Pacific Ruminant Institute, 3-3, Dancheon-ri, Icheon-city, Gyeonggi-do, 17384, Republic of Korea.
C Corresponding author. Email: moon0204@kku.ac.kr
Animal Production Science 59(12) 2169-2174 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN17698
Submitted: 13 October 2017 Accepted: 8 February 2018 Published: 23 April 2018
Abstract
The present study provided basic data regarding cattle farming on the basis of animal welfare, by using Hanwoo cattle (Bos taurus coreanae) vocalisations. We collected and analysed cattle-vocalisation data during situations that commonly occur during cattle farming (steer handling call, n = 130; heifer handling call, n = 418; heifer oestrus call, n = 454; heifer feed-anticipation call, n = 124; calf introduction call, n = 212) at a Hanwoo cattle farm and investigated differences in vocalisation parameters (call duration, call intensity, fundamental frequency, first formant, second formant, third formant, fourth formant) according to the type of call. Regarding call duration, intensity and first formant, the heifer oestrus call was significantly (P < 0.05) longer than were the other calls. The calf introduction call was the second longest in duration and first formant. Regarding fundamental frequency, the steer handling call was significantly higher than were the other calls (P < 0.05), with the heifer oestrus call being the lowest by a significant amount (P < 0.05). Regarding the second and third formants, the feed-anticipation call had a significantly higher frequency than did the other calls (P < 0.05). Regarding the fourth formant, the steer and heifer handling calls showed the highest frequency levels by a significant margin (P < 0.05). The calf introduction and heifer oestrus calls scored the lowest for the third formant and fourth formant (P < 0.05). Ultimately, vocalisation-parameter analysis of Hanwoo in different situations enabled the classification of an auditory communication system on the basis of their physiological and emotional states. Such vocalisation research data can be used for animal welfare and to enable more advanced and precise cattle farming.
Additional keywords: animal welfare, cattle vocalisation, fundamental frequency, formant.
References
Briefer EF, Tettamanti F, McElligott AG (2015) Emotions in goats: mapping physiological, behavioural and vocal profiles. Animal Behaviour 99, 131–143.| Emotions in goats: mapping physiological, behavioural and vocal profiles.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Fant G (1960) ‘Acoustic theory of speech production.’ (Mouton: The Hague, The Netherlands)
Farris EJ (1954) Activity of dairy cows during estrus. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 125, 117–120.
Grandin T (1998) The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during cattle slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56, 121–128.
| The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during cattle slaughter.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grandin T (2001) Cattle vocalizations are associated with handling and equipment problems at beef slaughter plants. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 71, 191–201.
| Cattle vocalizations are associated with handling and equipment problems at beef slaughter plants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC2sbkt1Ciug%3D%3D&md5=a0fd2757a5f8deaaaf485083975d353fCAS |
Grandin T (2010) Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants. Meat Science 86, 56–65.
| Auditing animal welfare at slaughter plants.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Koelsch RK, Aneshansley DJ, Butler WR (1994) Analysis of activity measurement for accurate oestrus detection in dairy cattle. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 42, 688–692.
Lyimo ZC, Nielen M, Ouweltjes W, Kruip TAM, van Eerdenburg FJCM (2000) Relationship among estradiol, cortisol and intensity of estrous behavior in dairy cattle. Theriogenology 53, 1783–1795.
| Relationship among estradiol, cortisol and intensity of estrous behavior in dairy cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD3cXmtl2qu70%3D&md5=d135bd4defb71f08328661077a8a8c3cCAS |
Manteuffel G, Puppe B, Schön PC (2004) Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 163–182.
| Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Meen GH, Schellekens MA, Slegers MHM, Leenders NLG, van Erp-van der KE, Noldus LPJJ (2015) Sound analysis in dairy cattle vocalisation as a potential welfare monitor. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 118, 111–115.
| Sound analysis in dairy cattle vocalisation as a potential welfare monitor.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Mimura K, Kurosaki J, Tanaka T, Sato S, Morita T, Kondo S, Kusunose R, Asahida Y, Yoshimoto M, Ito T (1997) Livestock behavior. Revised edn. In ‘The behavior of cattle’. (Ed. S Kondo) pp. 138–168. (Yokendo: Tokyo)
National Institute of Animal Science (South Korea) (2012) ‘2012 Korean livestock feeding standard (Hanwoo).’ (National Institute of Animal Science in Rural Development Administration: Suwon, Korea)
Nicastro N (2004) Perceptual and acoustic evidence for species-level differences in meow vocalizations by domestic cats (Felis catus) and African wild cats (Felis silvestris lybica). Journal of Comparative Psychology 118, 287–296.
| Perceptual and acoustic evidence for species-level differences in meow vocalizations by domestic cats (Felis catus) and African wild cats (Felis silvestris lybica).Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Rendall D, Owren MJ, Ryan M (2009) What do animal signals mean? Animal Behaviour 78, 233–240.
| What do animal signals mean?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Roelofs J, López-Gatius F, Hunter RHF, van Eerdenburg FJCM, Hanzen Ch (2010) When is a cow in estrus? Clinical and practical aspects. Theriogenology 74, 327–344.
| When is a cow in estrus? Clinical and practical aspects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BC3cnntVakug%3D%3D&md5=0c82402af87afa0b54408a33dbe6bbbfCAS |
Thomas TJ, Weary DM, Appleby MC (2001) Newborn and 5-week-old calves vocalize in response to milk deprivation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 165–173.
| Newborn and 5-week-old calves vocalize in response to milk deprivation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Titze IR (1994) ‘Principles of voice production.’ (Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ)
Watts JM, Stookey JM (1999) Effects of restraint and branding on rates and acoustic parameters of vocalization in beef cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 62, 125–135.
| Effects of restraint and branding on rates and acoustic parameters of vocalization in beef cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Watts JM, Stookey JM (2001) The propensity of cattle to vocalise during handling and isolation is affected by phenotype. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 74, 81–95.
| The propensity of cattle to vocalise during handling and isolation is affected by phenotype.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Watts JM, Stookey JM, Schmutz SM, Waltz CS (2001) Variability in vocal and behavioural responses to visual isolation between full-sibling families of beef calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70, 255–273.
| Variability in vocal and behavioural responses to visual isolation between full-sibling families of beef calves.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Yeon SC, Jeon JH, Houpt KA, Chang HH, Lee HC, Lee HJ (2006) Acoustic features of vocalizations of Korean native cows (Bos taurus coreanae) in two different conditions. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 101, 1–9.
| Acoustic features of vocalizations of Korean native cows (Bos taurus coreanae) in two different conditions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
