AABArchives Animal BreedingAABArch. Anim. Breed.2363-9822Copernicus GmbHGöttingen, Germany10.5194/aab-58-185-2015Time of day and season affect the level of noise made by pigs kept on
slatted floorsSistkovaM.DolanA.BroucekJ.broucek@vuzv.skBartosP.University of South Bohemia, 370 05 České Budějovice, Czech RepublicNational Agricultural
and Food Centre, Research Institute of Animal Production Nitra, 951 41
Luzianky, Slovak RepublicJ. Broucek (broucek@vuzv.sk)18May201558118519126May201417April2015This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/This article is available from https://aab.copernicus.org/articles/58/185/2015/aab-58-185-2015.htmlThe full text article is available as a PDF file from https://aab.copernicus.org/articles/58/185/2015/aab-58-185-2015.pdf
The aim of this study was to prove the hypothesis that the noise emissions
from pig housing varies according to the time of day and the season.
The measurements were performed in a building for 1150 fattening pigs with a slatted floor during summer and winter. The pigs (average weight 95 kg) were kept in pens under a batch management system.
Nine places were the focus of sound intensity measurements (one inside the
stable in section 7; eight places outside the building). The measurements
were performed during three sets of 5 consecutive days in summer and three sets in winter. On each day the data were obtained during three 30 min
periods (before feeding, during feeding and after feeding). The measurement was
made inside and outside the building at the same time. The level of
noise depends very significantly upon the period of measurement (before
feeding, during feeding, after feeding). The following
values were recorded inside (place 1): 65.5 ± 1.6 dB before feeding,
72.0 ± 1.4 dB during feeding and 63.4 ± 0.7 dB after feeding
(P<0.001). The effect of seasonal noise levels can be seen only in outside
measurements (P<0.05; P<0.01). The comparison of
measurement place 1 (inside, pen with pigs) with the other places outdoors showed significant differences in both observed factors (P<0.001).
We can conclude that the noise in the pig housing depends significantly on
the time of day. The season influences the noise outside
the building, in particular.
Introduction
The negative effects of noise manifest themselves not only in relation to the human
population (Babisch, 2003; Seidman and Standring, 2010), but many harmful
effects – both auditory (hearing damage) and
non-auditory (Peterson, 1980) – have also been observed in laboratory and farming animals (Morgan and
Tromborg, 2007; Mihina et al., 2012). Noise is created by technical
equipment, routine activities, animal activities and by animal vocalizations
(Clough, 1999; Schäffer et al., 2001; Sistkova and Peterka, 2009).
Vocalizations of animals are the result of emotional states in specific
situations and relate to factors such as social pressure and fear (Von Borell, 2000a). Stress during
management procedures with direct human interference might directly alter
the response (Von Borell, 2000b; Von Borell and Schäffer, 2008),
and distress calls of pigs can be used as indicators of impaired welfare
(Tuscherer and Manteuffel, 2000; Manteuffel and Schön, 2004).
The impact of noise on animals and their productivity depends not only on its
intensity or loudness, frequency, manner, and duration but also
on the hearing ability, age and physiological state of the animal at the
time of exposure. The impact also depends on the history of noise exposure,
i.e. to which noise the animal was previously exposed (Burn,
2008). The noise contributes to the development of some psychosomatic
diseases (Manteuffel, 2002; McBride et al., 2003; Morgan and Tromborg, 2007).
The most obvious effect is a general stress reaction with a higher secretion
of ACTH, leading to an increase in adrenocortical hormones in the blood
(Manteuffel, 2002; Burrow et al., 2005). Other effects are changes in the
glucose metabolism of the liver, changes in the enzymatic activity of the
kidneys and immunosuppression (Algers et al., 1978). Prolonged exposure to
intense noise is associated with an increased activity of the autonomic nervous
system. Its prolonged activation is correlated with increased activity in
the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal system (Otten et al., 2004; Kanitz et al., 2005; Morgan and Tromborg, 2007).
It has been recognized that acute and chronic stress such as noise has an impact on
the neuroendocrine and immune system (Tuscherer and Manteuffel, 2000; Weber
and Zárate, 2005). Regarding the assessment of animal welfare,
especially in pigs kept in group housing, the greatest difficulties may arise from a high noise levels (Manteuffel and Puppe, 1997).
Physiological and behavioural studies have identified noise stress during
housing (Schäffer et al., 2001; Kittawornrat and Zimmerman, 2011). Pigs
exposed to 90 dB of prolonged or intermittent noise increased cortisol, ACTH
and the noradrenaline-to-adrenaline ratios (Otten et al., 2004). Acute sound exposure
was found to increase heart rate (Talling et al., 1996). This response was
stronger for a frequency of 8 kHz than for 500 Hz and for an intensity of
97 dB than for 85 dB. Pigs respond with an increase in heart rate and plasma
glucocorticoids when exposed to short-term noise stress (Talling et al., 1998).
A single and short-term noise exposure of pigs at 120 dB was found to
increase glucocorticoid concentrations but had no effect on plasma
catecholamines (Kemper et al., 1976; cited by Venglovsky et al., 2007). The noise
affects the behaviour of animals (Castelhano-Carlos and Baumans, 2009).
During the exposure of sows to continuous noise, the communicative signals
of mothers to their piglets were drowned out and milk production decreased
(Algers and Jensen, 1985, 1991).
The auditory range of pigs is between 55 Hz and 40 kHz, and their sense of
hearing is more sensitive in the range of 500 Hz to 16 kHz (Heffner and
Heffner, 1993). Noise levels of approximately 40 dB are suggested
as the appropriate level during the night (Algers et al., 1978).
According to Lanier et al. (2000) and Venglovsky et al. (2007), one-time
and short-term intensive noise has a harmful effect on the animals.
According to Weeks et al. (2008), sound levels varied between 85 and
110 dB in pig abattoir lairages. The mean sound levels due to vocalizations
ranged from 80 to 103 dB, and vocalizations were the major source of loud noise.
Algers et al. (1978) found the sound load produced by ventilation systems in pig housing in Sweden to be higher than 70 dB. McBride et al. (2003) reported that the sound intensity in a subsample of 60 New Zealand farms ranged from 84.8 to 86.8 dB. According to Talling et al. (1998),
the average sound pressure level measured in mechanically ventilated pig
buildings in Great Britain was 73 dB. In the Venglovsky et al. (2007)
project, measurements were carried out on a pig farm in the house for
weanlings (from 5–7 to 30–35 kg body weight). They recorded Leq
of 72.1 dB, and Lpeak was 107.3 dB. In the farrowing house, values
of 69.1 and 101.5 dB were measured. Before mating and during gravidity, there were noise levels of 83.1 and 113.8 dB in the
sow section. The sources of harmful
noise in animal production are varied: feeding (104–115 dB), mating
(94–115 dB), high-pressure cleaning (105 dB) and feed mixing 88–93 dB.
Not only the animals are exposed to noise but the farmers are, too. Farmers are known to
be exposed to intermittent intense noise from a variety of sources. As we often receive questions from the staff of the Ministry of Living
Environment regarding the noise from big farms for finishing and fattening
pigs during the day and during the year, we wanted to experimentally test
the following hypothesis: the noise emissions created in pig housing varies
according to the time of day and the season of the year. As most authors who have published on this subject evaluate the production of noise during transport and
slaughter, there are no data for farms with large numbers of animals and for
pigs that have reached their highest body weight before fattening and that are housed in buildings with slatted
floors. Therefore, it was necessary to verify our hypothesis experimentally.
Talling et al. (1998), already cited, measured the noise Leq 69 dB, L10
71 dB and L90 67 dB on a single pig farm with a slatted floor and mechanical ventilation, but the animals were in the lower weight category
(over 30 kg) and there were only 70 pigs in the barn. Moreover, feeding was ad libitum. We found no information in the available literature on the impact of summer and
winter on the noise from pigs.
Therefore, new results would significantly enhance current knowledge in
this area.
The objective of this study was to prove the hypothesis that the noise
emissions created in pig housing varies according to the time of day and season of
the year.
Material and methods
The measurements were performed in buildings with fully slatted floors
during summer and winter. The pigs (average weight 95 kg) were kept in pens under a batch management system (12 sections, 18 pens in each section and about 8 animals in a
pen). The pigs were fed four times a day: at 06:00, 10:00,
14:00 and 18:00. Wet feeding was used. Negative
pressure ventilation was used: air was aspirated through the under-grid
areas into a vertical shaft, which led 3 m up and ended above the roof of the
house.
Nine places were identified by the digital rangefinder Bosch DLE 50 3 601
K16 000, where the sound intensity was then measured. Inside the
barn the measurement point was placed in section 7; outside the building the
points were placed at a distance of 7 and 11 m from
the perimeter of the building, as shown in Fig. 1.
In order to minimize the influence of the weather on the results, the
measurements were performed in three sets of 5 consecutive days in the summer and three sets in
winter; within the three sets, climatic conditions were almost identical. On
each day, the data were obtained during three half-hour periods: before feeding, during feeding and while the pigs were resting. The
ventilation was turned on during measurements. The average daily air
temperature and relative humidity in the housing facility during the
individual 5 measurement days were as follows: 24.8 ∘C and 62.5 %, 23.7 ∘C and 66.0 %, and 24.2 ∘C and 70.5 % in summer; 19.3 ∘C and 81.0 %, 14.0 ∘C and 70.5 %, and 14.5 ∘C and 81.0 % in winter. Atmospheric
pressures showed daily means of 1011.5, 1005.5 and 1000.5 hPa
(summer) and 997.2, 997.0 and 997.4 hPa (winter).
Schematic plan of monitored object with places of measurement
(1–9).
The duration of all measurements was T=180 s. The
sound pressure levels were measured in decibels by two digital noise meters (Voltcraft
Plus SL-300, EN 61672; accuracy class 2) while using the weight
filter A and the dynamic characteristic “Fast”. The
microphone was placed in a camera stand 1.5 m above ground level and directed towards the barn, the source of noise. During the
measurement inside the building, where the direction of
noise was not identifiable (as every animal was a potential source of noise, there were many
sources from different directions), the microphone was directed vertically upwards
and placed in the middle of the manipulation passage of the section.
Measurements were taken inside and outside the building at
the same time (to ensure this, researchers carrying out the measurements
inside and outside the building communicated via Motorola TLKR T6 radio
transmitters). Every day before the beginning of the measurements, the noise
meter was calibrated (i.e. the adaptation of the noise meter to the existing
pressure) using a Voltcraft 326 calibrator (IEC 60942; accuracy class 2).
Using the digital meteorological station Ws-1600
(accuracy class 2), the basic climatic and microclimatic conditions were investigated before
every series of measurements.
From measured levels of sound pressure, the major evaluating descriptor
(equivalent-level noise), the equivalent level of sound pressure,
“LAeq,T”, was consequently calculated by so-called energetic averaging according to the following relation:
LAeq,T=10log⋅1n⋅∑i=1n10LpAi/10,
where LAeq,T is the equivalent level of noise A in decibels measured at
time T,
LpAi is the ith measured level of sound
pressure A in decibels and n is the total number of measured levels.
Effect of time of day on noise levels. The sample size, N, was
30.
Place of measurement: 1 – inside; 2 – outside, distance of
7 m; 3 – outside, distance of 11 m; 4 – outside, distance of 7 m; 5 –
outside, distance of 11 m; 6 – outside, distance of 7 m; 7 – outside,
distance of 11 m; 8 – outside, distance of 7 m; 9 – outside, distance of
11 m; Period: 1 – time before feeding; 2 – feeding time; 3 – time after
feeding; SD – standard deviation; Significance –
calculated differences among the measurement times; *** P<0.001.
The data were analysed using a general linear model ANOVA of the statistical
package STATISTIX 9 (Analytical Software, Tallahasee, FL, USA). The following factors were evaluated: place of measurement (1–9), time of day (1 – time
before feeding; 2 – feeding time; 3 – time after feeding) and season
(1 – summer; 2 – winter). The normality of the data distribution was evaluated
by the Wilk–Shapiro/Rankin Plot procedure. All data conformed to a normal
distribution. Significant differences between groups were tested by
comparisons of mean ranks. Values are expressed as means ± SD.
Results
Average LAeq,T (dB) values recorded inside the building (1)
and outside the building (2–9) during observed times (periods 1, 2 and 3)
are stated in Table 1. The results showed that the level of noise
depends very significantly upon the time of measurement (before feeding,
during feeding, after feeding). Differences P<0.001 in all cases. LAeq,T differences between individual periods for individual
places of measurement are diagrammatized in Fig. 2. The biggest
differences in all measurement places were found between periods 2 and 3 (7.7 and 9.5 dB, respectively). The differences in the levels recorded in
periods 1 and 2 ranged from 5.9 to 6.9 dB. The smallest differences were discovered
between periods 1 and 3 (1.5 and 3.3 dB, respectively).
Inside the building, in place 1, LAeq,T of 65.5 ± 1.6 dB was recorded in period 1 (time before feeding). During this
time, some pigs lay quietly, some were digging in the ground and some were
playing with chains hanging from the barrier. In period 2 (time of feeding),
the average noise level was 72 ± 1.4 dB, that is, 6.5 dB higher than
before feeding. During period 3 (time after feeding), when
almost all pigs were already lying down quietly, LAeq,T of 63.4 ± 0.7 dB was measured, which is 8.6 dB lower than during feeding.
Difference in noise levels between different times and measurement places.
Period: 1 – time before feeding; 2 – feeding time; 3 – time after
feeding; 1–2 – difference between periods 1 and 2; 1–3 – difference between periods 1
and 3; 2–3 – difference between periods 2 and 3.
The effect of season on the noise level can be seen only in outside measurements
(P<0.05; P<0.01). Average LAeq,T values (dB) inside the building (1) and outside the building (2–9) in summer (1) and in winter (2) are given in Table 2.
In the noise values, interactions between daily period × season
(P=0.0017) were calculated. This interaction represents the
associated effect of a combination of these factors on the dependent variable
(intensity of noise). The measurements at individual times of day are
influenced by season and vice versa.
Effect of season on noise levels. The sample size, N, was 45.
Place of measurement: 1 – inside; 2 – outside, distance of
7 m; 3 – outside, distance of 11 m; 4 – outside, distance of 7 m; 5 –
outside, distance of 11 m; 6 – outside, distance of 7 m; 7 – outside,
distance of 11 m; 8 – outside, distance of 7 m; 9 – outside, distance of
11 m; Season: 1 – summer; 2 – winter; NS – not significant; SD –
standard deviation; * P<0.05;
** P<0.01.
Discussion
The average level of 72 dB, recorded in period 2, was probably largely
due to the loud noise that pigs emitted during food intake. This increase was
not surprising for us and we would like to compare it to other studies.
However, research on the effects of vocalization during feeding on pigs housed in groups is minimal. But to go back to our results, they raise the question of why we recorded lower-intensity noise overall than Algers et al. (1978), Talling et al. (1998) and McBride et al. (2003). A possible explanation for unexpectedly lower noise is as follows: from the literature it is known that both crowding at
feeding, with possible aggression, and large-group housing negatively affect pig welfare. Both factors cause animals to make sounds. The issue of pig vocalization and aggression during feeding
highlights one of the main advantages of small groups. In general, a small
group can be relatively stable in comparison with a larger group (Morrison et al., 2007), and this was the case in our study. There were only
eight pigs in a pen, with 0.84 m2 per pig; these are comfortable
conditions. Conventionally, pigs are housed in more confined systems, with
fully or partially slatted floors and a liquid effluent system and with group sizes
ranging from 5 to 50 pigs with a floor space allowance of approximately
0.65 m2 per pig (Morrison et al., 2007). More space means that animals had good
welfare, possibly better than recommend by the EU Commission Directive (2001). In
addition, the link between animal vocalizations and the emotional state of an animal makes vocalizations useful tools for assessing the well-being of an
individual (Weary and Fraser, 1995; Manteuffel et al., 2004; Von Borell and
Schäffer, 2008).
Another explanation for lower noise levels in period 2 may be as
follows. As the distribution of feed in the section is carried out gradually
in individual pens, some pigs were still exploring or
digging in the ground and moving around the pen while waiting for the feed, but
some were already jostling during eating and pushing against each other at
the mangers (mostly with a lot of noise). McBride et al. (2003) refer to the results of measurements in New Zealand, where noise, certainly in the short-term, reached levels of up to 105 dB in pig sheds at feeding time. This noise can,
certainly in the short-term, reach levels of up to 105 dB in pig sheds at
feeding time. According to Borberg and Hoy (2009), the social interactions between the group mates during feeding were stronger when they were given feed individually. More than 60 % of attacks and more than 40 % of fights were initiated by high-ranking pigs towards low-ranking pigs. Puppe (2003) reviewed basic
mechanisms of coping with stress and related them to animal welfare and
health, both generally and for the specific example of social stress in domestic pigs.
After feeding (period 3), noise was found to be lower than during
feeding. Thus, this value (LAeq,T 63.4 ± 0.7 dB) can be taken
as a reference for further evaluation. Our measured sound levels are much lower
than the EU limits. The regulation states that continuous noise levels above 85 dB should be avoided in the part of the building where pigs are
kept. Constant or sudden noise should also be avoided (Commission Directive,
2001). Only Sweden has a maximum level for continuous noise that is lower
than that recommended in the EU legislation (65 dB) (Mul et al., 2010).
LAeq,T from all measurements inside the building (90
measurements) is 66.9 ± 3.9 dB and is lower than that stated by Algers et al. (1978) and Talling et al. (1998), who carried out measurements in pig housing that had a ventilation
system. In contrast to McBride et al. (2003), who state that the noise level was very high at the time of feeding, the present work measured a maximum level of
LpAmax at 100.3 dB during feeding. The recorded noise load
was not too intense and generally at a lower level than indicated by McBride
et al. (2003); despite this, the effects of noise may cause hearing loss
in staff.
The locations of the measurement places, outside or inside, are important; all
comparisons between measurement place 1 (inside, pen with pigs) and the other
places, positioned outdoors, showed significant differences (66.94 ± 3.89 vs.
47.57 ± 4.44 dB; P<0.001). The greatest factor in lowering noise levels was represented by fixed obstacles. This factor is related to the
ability of noise to permeate various barriers. Lendelova et al. (2013)
researched this ability regarding various wall partitions used in barns. They
found that, at a noise load of 80 dB, the noise level was reduced by
37.5 % when a 10 mm thick wooden barrier was used. However, when a
50 mm soundproof plate with 12.5 mm plasterboard (total thickness 62.5 mm)
was used, the ability of noise to permeate this barrier was reduced by
58.3 %. In our case, the obstacle to the propagation of noise (wall) was
sufficiently strong.
From the results shown it is evident that the noise inside is not as
significantly influenced by season as the noise measured outside
the barn (P<0.05; P<0.01). Higher noise levels in summer recorded outside the stable building were caused by increased demands
on ventilation, resulting in more opened windows and doors. Moderately elevated noise
values inside the building could be caused not only by a greater need for
ventilation but also by a probable change in activity on the part of the
pigs.
It has been tested whether the vocalization of pigs can be used to assess their
adaptability to ambient temperatures (Hillmann et al., 2004b). Pigs adapt to
extreme ambient temperatures mainly by changing their behaviour, e.g. they
avoid contact with pen mates and lie in the dung area at high temperatures
to increase conductivity and huddle together at low temperatures to reduce heat
loss (Hillmann et al., 2004a). However, the mean temperatures recorded during
the measurements in summer and winter (24.2 and 15.9 ∘C) do not support the theory of increased activity of pigs in the summer. As Harris (1966) reports, the propagation of noise through the
air depends not only on the distance but also on relative humidity. Of
course, it is also effected by wind, turbulence and temperature. However, there is
very little information on this issue, and individual cases cannot be
compared.
Some authors have measured noise generated in the animal housing (Schäffer et al.,
2001; Otten et al., 2004; Weeks, 2008; Kauke and Savary, 2010), but there
is a lack of sources about noise transmittance from the barn to outdoors. It
is likely that nobody has dealt with this problem except for us. Husbandry
procedures cause the loudest sounds, especially if metallic equipment is
involved or if the work is performed in a hurried manner (Broucek, 2014).
However, we studied the emissions of noise from pig housing, i.e. the noise created inside a barn under controlled conditions. The
results of our long-term measurements are a new contribution to the study of
the influence of environmental factors on the welfare of animals and people.
We have gained valuable insights useful for determining levels of hygiene in
modern pig farming. However, the results obtained cannot, in our opinion, be generalized. Using the example of fattening pig husbandry, the usefulness of
physiological, immunological, pathological, ethological and technical
criteria of husbandry conditions has been discussed (Weber-Jonkheer and
Zárate, 2009). In order to generalize, measurements would have to be made in more barns with different
technologies. Therefore, the results are only valid for this type of
housing.
In the present work, noise levels inside the pig building were
influenced primarily by the regime (time of day), but there was no
excessively high noise load caused by animals or service workers. In
the surroundings of the building, the dependence of noise on season was ascertained. Noise levels were higher during the summer than in the
winter.
Noise in pig housing should be reduced, but noise protection of workers should not be forgotten. Generally, noise emissions from the barn can
be reduced by the use of different noise barriers, a limitation of ventilation
speeds, attaching fabric to the wall or altering the texture of the wall. An
important factor is applying management strategies in order to create calm in pig housing.
Acknowledgements
The contribution was created from data measured within the framework of the
project QH 72134 “Research of principal environmental aspects in breeding of
livestock from the point of view of greenhouse gases, smell, dust and noise,
supporting the welfare of animals and BAT creation”. The work has been
supported by the BAT centrum JU. This article was also made possible through
project APVV-14-0806 of the Slovak Research and Development Agency
Bratislava. Edited by: A.-E. Freifrau von
Tiele-Winckler Reviewed by: two anonymous referees
References
Algers, B. and Jensen, P.: Communication during suckling in the domestic pig.
Effects of continuous noise, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 14, 49–61, 1985.
Algers, B. and Jensen, P.: Teat stimulation and milk production during early
lactation in sows: Effects of continuous noise, Can. J. Anim. Sci., 71, 51–60,
1991.
Algers, B., Ekesbo, I., and Stromberg, S.: The impact of continuous noise on
animal health, Acta Vet. Scand., 67, Suppl. 1–26, 1978.
Babisch, W.: Stress hormones in the research on cardiovascular effects
of noise, Noise and Health, 5, 1–11, 2003.
Borberg, C. and Hoy, S.: Analysis of agonistic interactions between sows with
different rank position during mixing, Arch. Tierz., 52, 603–612, 2009.
Broucek, J.: Effects of noise on performance, stress, and behaviour of
animals: A review, Slovak J. Anim. Sci., 47, 111–123, 2014.
Burn, C. C.: What is it like to be a rat? Rat sensory perception and its
implications for experimental design and rat welfare, Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci.,
112, 1–32, 2008.
Burow, A., Day, H. E., and Campeau, S.: A detailed characterization of loud noise
stress: intensity analysis of hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenocortical axis and
brain activation, Brain Research, 1062, 63–73, 2005.
Castelhano-Carlos, M. J. and Baumans, V.: The impact of light, noise, cage
cleaning and in-house transport on welfare and stress of laboratory rats,
Lab. Anim. Sci., 43, 311–327, 2009.
Clough, G.: The animal house: Design, equipment and environmental
control, in: The UFAW Handbook on the Care and Management of
Laboratory Animals, edited by: Poole, T., 7th Edition, Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, UK,
97–134, 1999.
Commission Directive: 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending
Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of
pigs, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 316/36, Issued
1 December 2001, 3 p., 2001.
Harris, C. M.: Absorption of Sound in Air versus Humidity and Temperature,
J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 40, 148–159, 1966.
Heffner, H. E. and Heffner, R. S.: Auditory perception, in: Farm Animals and the Environment, edited by: Phillips, C. J. C. and
Piggins, D., CAB International,
Wallingford, UK, 159–184, 1993.
Hillmann, E., Mayer, C., Schön, P. C., Puppe, B., and Schrader, L.: Vocalisation
of domestic pigs (Sus scrofa domestica) as an indicator for their adaptation
towards ambient temperatures, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 89, 195–206, 2004a.
Hillmann, E., Mayer, C., and Schrader, L.: Lying behaviour and adrenocortical
reactions as indicators for the thermal tolerance of pigs of different
weights, Anim. Welf, 13, 329–335, 2004b.
Kanitz, E., Otten, W., and Tuchscherer, M.: Central and peripheral effects of
repeated noise stress on hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical axis in
pigs, Livest Prod. Sci., 94, 213–224, 2005.
Kauke, M. and Savary, P.: Lärm und Vibrationen im Melkstand –
Auswirkungen auf das Tier [Effect of noise and vibration in milking parlour
on dairy cow], Agrarforschung Schweiz, 1, 96–101, 2010.
Kemper, A., Wildenhahn, V., and Lyhs, L.: Der Verlauf der
Plasmakonzentrationen an Katecholaminen und Kortikosteroiden sowie des
plasmagebundenen Jods (PBJ) bei Schweinen unter Einwirkung von Geräuschen
beiverschiedenen Haltungsformen, Archiv für Experimentelle
Veterinärmedizin, 30, 309–315, 1976.
Kittawornrat, A. and Zimmerman, J. J.: Toward a better understanding of pig
behavior and pig welfare, Anim. Health Res. Rev., 12, 25–32, 2011.
Lanier, J. L., Grandin, T., Green, R. D., Avery, D., and McGee, K.: The relationship
between reaction to sudden, intermittent movements and sounds and
temperament, J. Anim. Sci., 78, 1467–1474, 2000.
Lendelova, J., Plesnik, J., and Zitnak, M.: Účinok použitia STEREDU
k zvukovej izolácii pracovného priestoru [Effect of STERED using on
sound isolation of workspace], Zbornik recenzovanych vedeckych prac na CD,
Nitra, Slovakia, 132–136, 2013.
Manteuffel, G.: Central nervous regulation of the
hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis and its impact on fertility, immunity,
metabolism and animal welfare, Arch. Tierz., 45, 575–595, 2002.
Manteuffel, G. and Puppe, B.: Is it possible to judge the subjective
perception of internal state in animals? A critical analysis from a
scientific point of view, Arch. Tierz., 40, 109–121, 1997.
Manteuffel, G. and Schön, P. C.: STREMODO, an innovative technique for
continous stress assessment of pigs in housing and transport, Arch. Tierz., 47,
173–181, 2004.
Manteuffel, G., Puppe, B., and Schön, P. C.: Vocalization of farm animals as
a measure of welfare, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 88, 163–182, 2004.
McBride, D., Firth, H., and Herbison, G.: Noise Exposure and Hearing Loss in
Agriculture: A Survey of Farmers and Farm Workers in the Southland Region of
New Zealand, J. Occup. Env. Med., 45, 1281–1288, 2003.
Mihina, S., Kazimirova, V., and Copland, T. A.: Technology for farm animal
husbandry, Slovak Agricultural University, Nitra, Slovakia, 99 pp., 2012.
Morgan, K. N. and Tromborg, C. T.: Sources of stress in captivity, Appl.
Anim.
Behav. Sci., 102, 262–302, 2007.
Morrison, R. S., Johnston, L. J., and Hilbrands, A. M.: A note on the effects of two
versus one feeder locations on the feeding behaviour and growth performance
of pigs in a deep-litter, large group housing system, Appl. Anim. Behav.
Sci.,
107, 157–161, 2007.
Mul, M., Vermeij, I., Hindle, V., and Spoolder, H.: EU-Welfare legislation on
pigs, Report 273, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 65, 8200 AB
Lelystad, 34 pp., 2010.
Otten, W., Kanitz, E., Puppe, B., Tuchscherer, M., Brüssow, K. P., Nürnberg,
G., and
Stabenow, B.: Acute and long term effects of chronic intermittent noise
stress on hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenocortical and
sympatho-adrenomedullary axis in pigs, Anim. Sci., 78, 271–283, 2004.
Peterson, E. A.: Noise and laboratory animals, Lab. Anim. Sci., 30, 422–439,
1980.Puppe, B.: Stressbewältigung und Wohlbefinden –
verhaltensphysiologische Ansatzpunkte einer Gesundheitssicherung bei Tieren
[Coping with stress and animal welfare – behavioural and physiological
approaches of health management in animals], Arch. Tierz., 46, Special Issue,
52–56, 2003.
Schäffer, D., Marquardt, V., Marx, G., and Von Borell, E.: Noise in animal
housing. A review with emphasis on pig housing, Deut. Tierarztl. Woch., 108,
60–66, 2001.
Seidman, M. D. and Standring, R. T.: Noise and Quality of Life, Int. J. Environ.
Res.
Publ. Health, 7, 3730–3738, 2010.
Sistkova, M. and Peterka, A.: The exposure of working environment noise in
the agricultural service workplaces, Res. Agr. Eng., 55, 69–75, 2009.
Talling, J. C., Waran, N. K., Wathes, C. M., and Lines, J. A.: Behavioural and
physiological responses of pigs to sound, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci.,
48, 187–201, 1996.
Talling, J. C., Lines, J. A., Wathes, C. M., and Waran, N. K.: The acoustic environment of
the domestic pig, J. Agric. Eng. Res., 71, 1–12, 1998.
Tuscherer, M. and Manteuffel, G.: Die Wirkung von psychischem Stress auf das
Immunsystem. Ein weiterer Grund für tiergerechte Haltung
(Übersichtsreferat) [The effect of psycho stress on the immune system.
Another reason for pursuing animal welfare (Review)], Arch. Tierz., 43, 547–560,
2000.
Venglovsky, J., Sasakova, N., Vargova, M., Ondrasovicova, O., Ondrasovic, S.,
Hromada,
R., Vucemilo, M., and Tofant, A.: Noise in the animal housing environment,
Proc. 13th Cong. Intern. Soc. for Anim. Hygiene, Tartu, Estonia, 995–999, 2007.
Von Borell, E.: Stress and coping in farm animals, Arch. Tierz., 43,
144–152, 2000a.
Von Borell, E.: Mechanismem der Bewältigung von Stress [Coping
strategies during stress], Arch. Tierz., 43, 441–450, 2000b.
Von Borell, E. and Schäffer, D.: Tiergerechte Nutztierhaltung – Eine
Feldstudie auf der Basis von Kritischen Kontrollpunkten in der
Schweinehaltung [Welfare conform farm animal housing – a field study based
on Critical Control Points from pig farms], Arch. Tierz., 51,
57–65, 2008.
Weary, D. M. and Fraser, D.: Signalling need: costly signals and animal welfare
assessment, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci., 44, 159–169, 1995.
Weber, R. E. F. and Zárate, A. V.: Der Begriff Wohlbefinden in der
Nutztierhaltung – Diskussion aktueller Definitionsansätze als Grundlage
für praxisorientierte Forschung am Beispiel Mastschweinehaltung
[Welfare in Farm Animal Husbandry – Current definitions and concepts as
basis for practical oriented research with focus on fattening pig
husbandry], Arch. Tierz., 43, 475–489, 2005.
Weber-Jonkheer, R. E. F. and Zárate, A. V.: Bewertung von Wohlbefinden in der
praktischen Nutztierhaltung – Diskussion der Kriterienauswahl am Beispiel
Mastschweinehaltung [Evaluating welfare in practical farm animal husbandry
– discussion of criteria selection using the example of fattening pig
husbandry], Arch. Tierz., 52, 378–394, 2009.
Weeks, C. A.: A review of welfare in cattle, sheep and pig lairages, with
emphasis on stocking densities, ventilation and noise, Anim. Welf, 17, 275–284,
2008.