Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:48:03.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vocalisation sound pattern identification in young broiler chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2015

I. Fontana ,
E. Tullo ,
A. Scrase  and
A. Butterworth
I. Fontana
Affiliation:
Department of Health, Animal Science and Food Safety, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, 20133 Italy
E. Tullo*
Affiliation:
Department of Health, Animal Science and Food Safety, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, 20133 Italy
A. Scrase
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS49 5DL, UK
A. Butterworth
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Veterinary Science, University of Bristol, Langford, North Somerset BS49 5DL, UK
*
† E-mail: emanuela.tullo@unimi.it
Get access

Abstract

In this study, we describe the monitoring of young broiler chicken vocalisation, with sound recorded and assessed at regular intervals throughout the life of the birds from day 1 to day 38, with a focus on the first week of life. We assess whether there are recognisable, and even predictable, vocalisation patterns based on frequency and sound spectrum analysis, which can be observed in birds at different ages and stages of growth within the relatively short life of the birds in commercial broiler production cycles. The experimental trials were carried out in a farm where the broiler where reared indoor, and audio recording procedures carried out over 38 days. The recordings were made using two microphones connected to a digital recorder, and the sonic data was collected in situations without disturbance of the animals beyond that created by the routine activities of the farmer. Digital files of 1 h duration were cut into short files of 10 min duration, and these sound recordings were analysed and labelled using audio analysis software. Analysis of these short sound files showed that the key vocalisation frequency and patterns changed in relation to increasing age and the weight of the broilers. Statistical analysis showed a significant correlation (P<0.001) between the frequency of vocalisation and the age of the birds. Based on the identification of specific frequencies of the sounds emitted, in relation to age and weight, it is proposed that there is potential for audio monitoring and comparison with ‘anticipated’ sound patterns to be used to evaluate the status of farmed broiler chicken.

Keywords

acoustic parametersbroiler chickenwelfare assessmentaudio labellingspectrogram
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 9 , September 2016 , pp. 1567 - 1574
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2015 

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

Aerts, J-M, Van Buggenhout, S, Vranken, E, Lippens, M, Buyse, J, Decuypere, E and Berckmans, D 2003. Active control of the growth trajectory of broiler chickens based on online animal responses. Poultry Science 82, 1853–1862.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Appleby, MC, Hughes, BO and Elson, HA 1992. Poultry production systems: behaviour, management and welfare. C.A.B. International, Wallingford, Oxon, UK.Google Scholar
AWIN (Animal Welfare Indicators) 2015. Retrieved April 28, 2015, from http://www.animal-welfare-indicators.net/site/.Google Scholar
Aydin, A, Bahr, C, Viazzi, S, Exadaktylos, V, Buyse, J and Berckmans, D 2014. A novel method to automatically measure the feed intake of broiler chickens by sound technology. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 101, 17–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buijs, S, Keeling, L, Rettenbacher, S, Van Poucke, E and Tuyttens, F 2009. Stocking density effects on broiler welfare: identifying sensitive ranges for different indicators. Poultry Science 88, 1536–1543.Google Scholar
Costa, A, Ismayilova, G, Borgonovo, F, Leroy, T, Berckmans, D and Guarino, M 2013. The use of image analysis as a new approach to assess behaviour classification in a pig barn. Acta Veterinaria Brno 82, 25–30.Google Scholar
Dawkins, MS 2004. Using behaviour to assess animal welfare. Animal Welfare 13, S3–S7.Google Scholar
de Jong, I, Berg, C, Butterworth, A and Estevéz, I 2012. Scientific report updating the EFSA opinions on the welfare of broilers and broiler breeders. In Supporting Publications: EN-295, p. 116.Google Scholar
De Moura, DJ, Nääs, IDA, ECDS, Alves, De Carvalho, TMR, Do Vale, MM and De Lima, KAO 2008. Noise analysis to evaluate chick thermal comfort. Scientia Agricola 65, 438–443.Google Scholar
Feltenstein, MW, Ford, NG, Freeman, KB and Sufka, KJ 2002. Dissociation of stress behaviors in the chick social-separation-stress procedure. Physiology & Behavior 75, 675–679.Google Scholar
Ferrante, V and Lolli, S 2009. Specie avicole. In Etologia applicata e benessere animale (ed. C Carenzi and M Panzera), pp. 89–106. PVI Point vétérinaire Italie, Milano, Italy.Google Scholar
Ferrari, S, Silva, M, Guarino, M, Aerts, JM and Berckmans, D 2008. Cough sound analysis to identify respiratory infection in pigs. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 64, 318–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fontana, I, Tullo, E, Butterworth, A and Guarino, M 2014. Broiler vocalisation analysis used to predict growth. In Proceedings of Measuring Behavior, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Guarino, M, Jans, P, Costa, A, Aerts, JM and Berckmans, D 2008. Field test of algorithm for automatic cough detection in pig houses. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 62, 22–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halachmi, I, Metz, JHM, Van’t Land, A, Halachmi, S and Kleijnen, JPC 2002. Case study: optimal facility allocation in a robotic milking barn. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers 45, 1539–1546.Google Scholar
Ismayilova, G, Costa, A, Fontana, I, Berckmans, D and Guarino, M 2013. Labelling the behaviour of piglets and activity monitoring from video as a tool of assessing interest in different environmental enrichments. Annals of Animal Science 13, 611.Google Scholar
Kenny, C, Corkery, G and Ward, S 2012. Performance monitoring: smart systems integration within broiler production houses. Biosystems Engineering Research Review 17, 99.Google Scholar
Manteuffel, G, Puppe, B and Schön, PC 2004. Vocalization of farm animals as a measure of welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 88, 163–182.Google Scholar
Marx, G, Leppelt, J and Ellendorff, F 2001. Vocalisation in chicks (Gallus gallus dom.) during stepwise social isolation. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 75, 61–74.Google Scholar
Montevecchi, WA, Gallup, G and Dunlap, W 1973. The peep vocalization in group reared chicks (Gallus domesticus): its relation to fear. Animal Behaviour 21, 116–123.Google Scholar
Nakamori, T, Maekawa, F, Sato, K, Tanaka, K and Ohki-Hamazaki, H 2013. Neural basis of imprinting behavior in chicks. Development, Growth & Differentiation 55, 198–206.Google Scholar
Rauw, WM, Kanis, E, Noordhuizen-Stassen, EN and Grommers, FJ 1998. Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farm animals: a review. Livestock Production Science 56, 15–33.Google Scholar
Rizzi, C, Contiero, B and Cassandro, M 2013. Growth patterns of Italian local chicken populations. Poultry Science 92, 2226–2235.Google Scholar
SAS User’s Guide 2010. Statistic (Version 9.3). SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Gerber, P, Wassenaar, T, Castel, V, Rosales, M and de Haan, C 2006. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Renewable Resources Journal 24, 15–17.Google Scholar
Tefera, M 2012. Acoustic signals in domestic chicken (Gallus gallus): a tool for teaching veterinary ethology and implication for language learning. Ethiopian Veterinary Journal 16, 77–84.Google Scholar
Vandermeulen, J, Bahr, C, Tullo, E, Fontana, I, Ott, S, Kashiha, M, Guarino, M, Moons, CPH, Tuyttens, FAM, Niewold, TA and Berckmans, D 2015. Discerning pig screams in production environments. PLoS One 10, doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123111.Google Scholar
Wathes, CM, Aland, A, and Madec, A 2009. Precision livestock farming for animal health, welfare and production. Sustainable Animal Production: The Challenges and Potential Developments for Professional Farming (ed. A Aland and F Madec), pp. 411–419. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Weeks, C and Butterworth, A 2004. Measuring and auditing broiler welfare. CAB International, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, UK.Google Scholar
Welfare Quality 2009. Assessment protocol for poultry (broilers, laying hens). Welfare Quality® Consortium, Lelystad, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
Yahav, S, Shinder, D, Tanny, J and Cohen, S 2005. Sensible heat loss: the broiler’s paradox. World’s Poultry Science Journal 61, 419–526.Google Scholar