Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-21T20:29:40.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vocal-type classification as a tool to identify stress in piglets under on-farm conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2023

E von Borell ,
B Bünger ,
T Schmidt  and
T Horn
E von Borell*
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Martin-Luther-University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
B Bünger
Affiliation:
Institute of Animal Welfare and Animal Husbandry, Friedrich-Loeffler-Institute, Celle, Germany
T Schmidt
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Martin-Luther-University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
T Horn
Affiliation:
Institute of Agricultural and Nutritional Sciences, Martin-Luther-University, Halle-Wittenberg, Germany
*
* Contact for correspondence and requests for reprints: eberhard.vonborell@landw.uni-halle.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that the analysis of high frequency stress calls in pigs can serve as a reliable tool in welfare research. Our study focuses on the classification of three different classes of piglet vocalisation: grunting, squealing and screaming. In a castration experiment (Experiment 1), 3,285 vocalisations from 42 piglets were analysed for 21 different vocal characteristics. A first discriminant function for the three vocal types was derived from recordings made under laboratory-like conditions. A second discriminant function was derived from non-calibrated measurements of the relative sound energy content. These two classifications revealed 86.7% identical assignments of vocalisations to the three vocal types. The second classification allowed for vocalisation analyses of animals under on-farm recording conditions. This technique was validated during an open-field test (Experiment 2) with piglets housed in two different farrowing systems (11,089 vocalisations, 22 piglets). The proportion of screaming sounds was lower for piglets from a group-farrowing (GF) system than for those from a single-farrowing (SF) system. Sound properties showed differences between as well as within the two experiments for all three vocal types. Vocalisations from SF and GF piglets differed significantly in the duration, energy, and relative maximum levels. We conclude that vocal-type analysis can not only help to identify vocalisation indicative of pain during castration, but also vocal behaviour changes indicating separation stress during the open-field test. Therefore, classification of vocal types can add valuable information to studies that use pig vocalisation for the assessment of welfare.

Keywords

animal welfarecastrationopen fieldpigletstressvocal type
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Welfare , Volume 18 , Issue 4: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on the Assessment of Animal Welfare at Farm and Group Level , November 2009 , pp. 407 - 416
Copyright
© 2009 Universities Federation for Animal Welfare

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bünger, B, Hillmann, E and von Hollen, F 2000 Effects of housing conditions during farrowing and nursing of sows on growth and behaviour of piglets before and after weaning. Archiv für Tierzucht-Archives of Animal Breeding 43: 196–202Google Scholar
Bünger, B 2002 Effects of housing conditions of farrowing and nursing sows on development of piglets: Own studies and an evaluation of literature. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 109: 277–289Google Scholar
Bünger, B and Marx, G 2002 Der ‘Roehrentest’; eine Modifikation des Open-Field-Testes zur Bewertung des Erkundungsverhaltens von Saugferkeln. In: Richter, T and Herzog, A (eds) Tierschutz, Agrarwende und Heimtiere, DVG-Conference, Nuertingen. 7-9 March 2002, DVG-Verlag, Giessen, Germany. [Title translation: The tube test: a modification of the open-field test for an evaluation of exploration behaviour in suckling pigs]Google Scholar
Fitch, WT 2000 The phonetic potential of nonhuman vocal tracts: Comparative cineradiography observations of vocalizing animals. Phonetica 57: 205–218CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giovanni, A, Ouaknine, M, Guelfucci, B, Yu, P, Zanaret, M and Triglia, JM 1999 Nonlinear behavior of vocal fold vibration: The role of coupling between the vocal folds. Journal of Voice 13: 465–476CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillmann, E 1999 Zum Einfluß der Haltungsbedingungen auf das Verhalten von Hausschweinen (Sus scrofa domestica) im Open-field. Diploma Thesis, Freie Universität, Berlin, Germany. [Title translation: The influence of the housing environment on the behaviour of pigs in an open field].Google Scholar
Hillmann, E, Mayer, C, Schön, PC, Puppe, B and Schrader, L 2004 Vocalisation of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) as an indicator for their adaptation towards ambient temperatures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 89: 195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillmann, E, von Hollen, F, Bünger, B, Todt, D and Schrader, L 2003 Farrowing conditions affect the reactions of piglets towards novel environment and social confrontation at weaning. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 81: 99–109Google Scholar
Horn, T, Marx, G and von Borell, E 1999 Behaviour of piglets during castration with and without a local anaesthesia. Deutsche Tierärztliche Wochenschrift 106: 271–274Google Scholar
Jensen, P and Algers, B 1984 An ethogram of piglet vocalizations during suckling. Applied Animal Ethology 11: 237–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klingholz, F and Meynhardt, H 1979 Vocal inventories: discrete or continuous. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie-Journal of Comparative Ethology 50: 250–264Google Scholar
Klingholz, F, Siegert, C and Meynhardt, H 1979 Die akustische Kommunikation des Europäischen Wildschweines (Sus scrofa L). Der Zoologische Garten 49: 277–303. [Title translation: The acoustic communication of the European wild boar (Sus scrofa L)].Google Scholar
Manteuffel, GR and Schön, PC 2004 STREMODO, an innovative technique for continuous stress assessment of pigs in housing and transport. Archiv für Tierzucht-Archives of Animal Breeding 47: 173–181Google Scholar
Marchant, JN, Whittaker, X and Broom, DM 2001 Vocalisations of the adult female domestic pig during a standard human approach test and their relationships with behavioural and heart rate measures. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 72: 23–39CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marx, G 1994 Entwicklung einer Methode zur numerischen Lautanalyse, mit Beispielen zur Ontogenese und Aktualgenese des Verlassenheitslautes bei Hühnerküken. Dissertation, Martin-Luther Universität Halle, Landbauforschung Völkenrode, GermanyGoogle Scholar
Marx, G and Laube, R 1994 Messbarkeit von Indikatoren für Emotionen in Lautäusserungen. Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemaessen Tierhaltung pp 192–201 [Title translation: Measurement of vocalisation as an indicator for emotions]Google Scholar
Marx, G, Horn, T, Thielebein, J, Knubel, B and von Borell, E 2003 Analysis of pain-related vocalization in young pigs. Journal of Sound and Vibration 266: 687–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marx, G, Leppelt, J, Horn, T and von Borell, E 2000 Ausdruck von Belastungen in den Lautäußerungen von Tieren. Aktuelle Arbeiten zur artgemaessen Tierhaltung pp 57–64. [Title translation: Call characteristics as an indication of stress in animals]Google Scholar
Puppe, B, Schön, PC, Tuchscherer, A and Manteuffel, G 2005 Castration-induced vocalisation in domestic piglets, Sus scrofa: Complex and specific alterations of the vocal quality. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 95: 67–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, PC, Puppe, B and Manteuffel, G 2001 Linear prediction coding analysis and self-organizing feature map as tools to classify stress calls of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa). Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 110: 1425–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, PC, Puppe, B and Manteuffel, G 2004 Automated recording of stress vocalisations as a tool to document impaired welfare in pigs. Animal Welfare 13: 105–110Google Scholar
Schrader, L and Hammerschmidt, K 1997 Computer-aided analysis of acoustic parameters in animal vocalisations: A multi-parametric approach. Bioacoustics 7: 247–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, AA and Weary, DM 2000 Vocal responses of piglets to castration: identifying procedural sources of pain. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 70: 17–26CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
von Borell, E and Ladewig, J 1992 Relationship between behavior and adrenocortical-response pattern in domestic pigs. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 34: 195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weary, DM, Braithwaite, LA and Fraser, D 1998 Vocal response to pain in piglets. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 161–172Google Scholar
Wemelsfelder, F and van Putten, G 1985 Behaviour as a possible indicator for pain in piglets. Zeist, Instituut voor Veeteeltkundig Onderzoek ‘Schoonoord’ Report B–260: 1–89Google Scholar