Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31804583›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Vocal individuality of Holstein-Friesian cattle is maintained across putatively positive and negative farming contexts.

Alexandra Green, Cameron Clark, Livio Favaro, Sabrina Lomax, David Reby

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Nonlinear phenomena in mammalian vocal communication: an introduction and scoping review.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Analysis of sounds made byFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  7. Brainstem auditory evoked responses: Objective hearing threshold assessment in Holstein cows.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Alexandra GreenLivestock Production and Welfare Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Camden, Australia. a.green@sydney.edu.au.
Cameron ClarkLivestock Production and Welfare Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Camden, Australia.
Livio FavaroEquipe Neuro-Ethologie Sensorielle, ENES/CRNL, CNRS UMR5292, INSERM UMR_S 1028, University of Lyon/Saint-Étienne, Saint-Étienne, France.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8698-472X
Sabrina LomaxLivestock Production and Welfare Group, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Sydney, Camden, Australia.
David RebyEquipe Neuro-Ethologie Sensorielle, ENES/CRNL, CNRS UMR5292, INSERM UMR_S 1028, University of Lyon/Saint-Étienne, Saint-Étienne, France.
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1 · FRThe University of Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cattle mother-offspring contact calls encode individual-identity information; however, it is unknown whether cattle are able to maintain individuality when vocalising to familiar conspecifics over other positively and negatively valenced farming contexts. Accordingly, we recorded 333 high-frequency vocalisations from 13 Holstein-Friesian heifers during oestrus and anticipation of feed (putatively positive), as well as denied feed access and upon both physical and physical & visual isolation from conspecifics (putatively negative). We measured 21 source-related and nonlinear vocal parameters and stepwise discriminant function analyses (DFA) were performed. Calls were divided into positive (n = 170) and negative valence (n = 163) with each valence acting as a 'training set' to classify calls in the oppositely valenced 'test set'. Furthermore, MANOVAs were conducted to determine which vocal parameters were implicated in individual distinctiveness. Within the putatively positive 'training set', the cross-validated DFA correctly classified 68.2% of the putatively positive calls and 52.1% of the putatively negative calls to the correct individual, respectively. Within the putatively negative 'training set', the cross-validated DFA correctly assigned 60.1% of putatively negative calls and 49.4% of putatively positive calls to the correct individual, respectively. All DFAs exceeded chance expectations indicating that vocal individuality of high-frequency calls is maintained across putatively positive and negative valence, with all vocal parameters except subharmonics responsible for this individual distinctiveness. This study shows that cattle vocal individuality of high-frequency calls is stable across different emotionally loaded farming contexts. Individual distinctiveness is likely to attract social support from conspecifics, and knowledge of these individuality cues could assist farmers in detecting individual cattle for welfare or production purposes.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryEmotionsIndividualityAcousticsAnimalsCattleDiscriminant AnalysisFarmsFemaleVocalization, Animal

Identifiers

PMID31804583
PMCPMC6895157
OpenAlexW2991711180

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.