Effects of Noise on the Physiology and Behavior of Farm-Raised Animals

  • James Bond


With the constantly increasing intensity of ambient sound in the modern world, questions arise as to how well the present noise level is tolerated by livestock, and whether noises of still higher intensities and greater frequency will interfere with the efficiency of production. While it has been assumed that most farm animals would seldom be exposed to sounds of extremely high intensities, some animals, nevertheless, are frequently exposed to loud aircraft, truck and motorcycle sounds. Any environmental factor that places farm animals under severe stress can decrease efficiency and profits. One question that needs to be answered is whether sound places livestock under stress and, if it does, the extent and mode of interference, i.e., how does it interfere with production. Although little research has been conducted on the noise problem with farm animals, extensive studies have been made of the responses of man and laboratory animals to various sounds.


Farm Animal Dairy Cattle Beef Cattle Female Whelp Aircraft Noise 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bond, James, C.F. Winchester, L.E. Campbell and J.C. Webb. 1963. Effects of loud sounds on the physiology and behavior of swine. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service Technical Bulletin No. 1280.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bugard, P., M. Henry, C. Bernard and C. Labie. 1960. Aspects neuro-endocriniens et metaboliques de l’agression sonore. Revue de Pathologie Generale et de Physiologie Clinique 60:1683–1707.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Casady, R.B. and R.P. Lehmann. 1967. Responses of farm animals to sonic booms. Sonic Boom Experiment at Edwards Air Force Base. National Sonic Boom Evaluation Office Interim Report NS BE-1–67 of 28 July, 1967. Annex H.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dawson, W.M. and R.L. Revens. 1946. Varying susceptibility in pigs in alarm. Journal of Comparative Psychology 39:297–305.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ely, F. and W.E. Peterson. 1941. Factors involved in the ejection of milk. Journal of Dairy Science 24(3):211–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hartsough, G.R. 1968. American Fur Breeder. September 1968:21.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oda, R. 1960. Noise and Farm Animals. Animal Industry Japan 14:888.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pallen, D. 1944. Practical Mink Breeding Methods. Fur Trade Journal of Canada. November 1944:8.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Parker, J.B. and N.D. Bayley. 1960. Investigations on effects of aircraft sound on milk production of dairy cattle. 1957–58. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service. 44–60.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ramm, Gordon M., and L. Boord. 1957. Anatomy of the pig’s ear and some effects of the noise on swine. 36 pp., illus. Univ.of Maryland. (Unpublished Report, U.S. Department of Agriculture Contract No. 12–14–100–282(53).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Travis, H.F., G.V. Richardson, J. R. Menear, and James Bond. 1968. The effects of simulated sonic booms on reproduction and behavior of farm-raised mink. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service 44–200.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Winchester, C.F., L.E. Campbell, James Bond, J.C. Webb. 1959. Effects of aircraft sound on swine. WADC Technical Report 59–200.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Bond
    • 1
  1. 1.Animal Husbandry Research DivisionAgricultural Research ServiceBeltsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations