Bio-acoustic: A non-invasive and effective sensing technique in monitoring of dairy buffaloes

YAJUVENDRA SINGH; S S LATHWAL; INDU DEVI; A P RUHIL; N RAJPUT; T V RAJA; M KUMAR; R K GUPTA

doi:10.56093/ijans.v85i7.50281

Authors

YAJUVENDRA SINGH Assistant Professor, Department of Livestock Production Management, Department of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary College, DUVASU, Mathura
S S LATHWAL LPM, ICAR-NDRI, Karnal
INDU DEVI LPM, ICAR-NDRI, Karnal
A P RUHIL Principal Scientist ASRB, New Delhi
N RAJPUT IBM India Research Lab, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
T V RAJA ICAR-CIRC, Meerut
M KUMAR Department of Animal Nutrition, Veterinary College, DUVASU, Mathura
R K GUPTA GADVASU, Ludhiana

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v85i7.50281

Keywords:

Acoustic features, Bio-acoustics sensing, Dairy buffaloes, Vocal signals

Abstract

The present study was performed to observe the significant effect of individuality of dairy buffaloes on the acoustic features of their vocal signals. The mean call duration, pitch, 1st formant, periodicity and degree of voice breaks of adult lactating Murrah buffaloes were observed to be 2.15±0.05 s, 143.48 ± 2.51 Hz, 900.11 ± 4.21 Hz, 95.31% (183.95 periodic pulses out of 192.99 pulses) and 20.78 ± 0.89 % respectively. Analysis of bioacoustics features extracted from 300 voice samples of 10 adult lactating Murrah buffaloes revealed that differences for amplitudes (minimum, maximum and mean), total energy, mean power, pitch (median, minimum, range and mean), intensities (mean, minimum and maximum), formants (F1, F2, F3, F4 and F5), bandwidths (B1, B3 and B4), number of pulse, number of period, mean period, unvoiced frames, degree of voice breaks, jitter, shimmer, mean noise to harmonic ratio (%) and mean harmonic to noise ratio (dB) were highly significant. Out of these only few acoustic features viz. formants (F1, F2, F3, F4 and F5), number of pulse, number of period, degree of voice breaks, mean noise to harmonic ratio (%) and mean harmonic to noise ratio (dB) were observed to have significant difference for each and every individual dairy buffalo, hence only these features could be selected as the best suited acoustic features for discrimination of individual Murrah buffaloes from their herd.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arnold G W, Boundy C A P, Morgan P D and Bartle G. 1975. The roles of sight and hearing in the Iamb in the location and discrimination between ewes. Applied Animal Ethology 1: 167–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(75)90085-1

Barfield C H, Tang–Martinez Z and Trainer J M. 1994. Domestic calves (Bos taurus) recognize their own mothers by auditory cues. Ethology 97: 257–64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1994.tb01045.x

Blackshaw J K, Jones D N and Thomas F J. 1996. Vocal individuality during suckling in the intensively housed domestic pig. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 50 (1): 33– 41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(96)01074-X

Boersma P and Weenink D. 2010. PRAAT: doing phonetics by computer. Phonetic Sciences, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 210, Netherland.

Cheney D L and Seyfarth R. 1990. How monkeys see the world: Inside the mind of another species. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226218526.001.0001

Clemins P J, Johnson M T, Leong K M and Savage A. 2005. Automatic classification and speaker identification of African elephant (Loxodonta africana) vocalizations. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 117 (2): 956–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1121/1.1847850

Frommolt K H, Goltsman M E and McDonald D W. 2003. Barking foxes, Alopex lagopus: field experiments in individual recognition in a territorial mammal. Animal Behaviour 65: 509–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.2003.2064

Gerhardt H C. 1992. Multiple messages in acoustic signals. Seminars in Neuroscience 4: 391– 400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/1044-5765(92)90047-6

Grandin T. 1998. The feasibility of using vocalization scoring as an indicator of poor welfare during cattle slaughter. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 56: 121–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00102-0

Gunderson H L and Mahan B R. 1980. Analysis of sonagrams of American bison (Bison bison). Journal of Mammology 61: 379–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1380077

Hall S J G, Vince M A, Shillito Walser E and Garson P J. 1988. Vocalizations of the Chillingham cattle. Behaviour 104: 78– 104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853988X00610

Harvey W B. 1987. Users Guide for LSMLMW, mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood computer programme. PC-I Version, Mimeograph, Ohiostate University, Ohio, USA.

Hauser M D. 1996. The evolution of communication. MIT Press, Cambridge.

Hinch G N, Lynch J J and Thwaites C J. 1982. Patterns and frequency of social interactions in young grazing bulls and steers. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 9: 15–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(82)90162-6

Holekamp K E, Boydston E E, Szykman M, Graham I, Nutt K J, Birch S, Piskiel A and Singh M. 1999. Vocal recognition in the spotted hyena and its possible implications regarding the evolution of intelligence. Animal Behaviour 58: 383–95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1999.1157

Ikeda Y and Ishii Y. 2008. Recognition of two psychological conditions of a singal cow by her voice. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 62: 67–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2007.08.012

Kiley M. 1972. The vocalizations of ungulates, their causation and function. Z. Tierpsychol 31: 171–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1972.tb01764.x

Koene P. 1997. Communication of Scottish highland bulls: context specific and individual specific vocalizations, (abstract) hi: Taborsky M, Taborski B, (Editors) Advances in ethology. 32: Contributions to the XXV international ethological conference. Blackwell: Oxford, Pg 24.

Kramer C Y. 1957. Extension of multiple range tests to group correlated adjusted means. Biometrics 13: 13–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3001898

Kroodsma D E and Miller E H (Editors). 1996. Ecology and the evolution of acoustic communication in birds. Comstock Publ.: Ithaca, NY. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7591/9781501736957

Lee C H, Chou C H, Han C C and Huang R Z. 2006. Automatic recognition of animal vocalizations using averaged MFCC and linear discriminant analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters 27 (2): 93–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patrec.2005.07.004

Lenhardt M L. 1977. Vocal contour cues in maternal recognition of goat kids. Applied Animal Ethology 3: 211–19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3762(77)90002-5

Murphey R M, Ruiz-Miranda C R and Duarte F A M.. 1990. Maternal recognition in Gyr(Bos indicus) calves. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 27: 183–91. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1591(90)90055-I

Shillito W E, Hague P and Walters E. 1981. Vocal recognition of recorded lambs voices by ewes of three breeds of sheep. Behaviour 78: 260–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853981X00347

Shillito W E, Walters E and Hague P. 1982. Vocal communication between ewes and their own and alien lambs. Behaviour 81: 140–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853982X00120

Shillito W E, Walters E and Hague P. 1983. A statistical analysis of vocal communication between ewes and lambs. Behaviour 85: 146–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/156853983X00075

Singh Y, Lathwal S S, Rajput N, Raja T V, Gupta A K, Mohanty T K, Ruhil A P, Chakravarty A K, Sharma P C, Sharma V and Chandra G. 2013. Effective and accurate discrimination of individual dairy cattle through acoustic sensing. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 146: 11–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2013.03.008

Tamaki K, Susawa K, Otani R, Amano K and Kodera S. 1993. Characteristics of cattle voices and the possibility of their discrimination. Research Bulletin No. 158 of the Hokkaido Nat. Agri. Exp. Station, 1–11.

Vankova D, Bartos L and Malek J. 1997. The role of vocalization in the communication between red deer hinds and calves. Ethology 103: 795–808. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0310.1997.tb00121.x

Watts J M and Stookey J M. 2000. Vocal behaviour in cattle: the animal’s commentary on its biological processes and welfare. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 67(1–2): 15–33. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(99)00108-2

Weary D M and Fraser D. 1995. Calling by domestic piglets: reliable signals of need? Animal Behaviour 50 (4): 1047–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-3472(95)80105-7

Weary D M, Ross S and Fraser D. 1997. Vocalizations by isolated piglets: a reliable indicator of piglet need directed towards the sow. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 53: 249–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(96)01173-2

Yin S and McCowan B. 2004 Barking in domestic dogs: context specificity and individual identification. Animal Behaviour 68: 343–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2003.07.016