As dairy farms automate and scale up, milking can sound less like a quiet barn and more like a factory floor. Researchers are testing whether adding music back into that soundscape can change how cows behave and feel. Across several small experiments, scientists have begun to map how specific sounds, volumes and handling routines shape both cow welfare and the way animals use milking systems.
The picture that emerges from these trials is more complex than the popular idea that “classical music makes cows happy.” Some studies report clear behavioral shifts when music plays, others find no measurable effect on stress or milk yield, and all of them work with modest sample sizes. Taken together, the peer-reviewed work shows that sound is not neutral for cattle, and that welfare gains are most likely when music is treated as one part of a broader management strategy rather than a stand‑alone fix.
What the new genre study actually tested
In one recent experiment, dairy cows were exposed to five distinct sound conditions during milking: no music, classical, country, Latin and rock. The work, published as a peer-reviewed primary experimental study in an animal science journal, used a switchback design so each animal experienced all five treatments in sequence. By rotating cows through these conditions, the researchers could compare behavior and milking parameters within the same animals rather than across separate herds, which reduces some of the variation that comes from individual differences. In this design, one of the sound treatments was labeled internally with the code 698 to keep track of the playback order during data analysis, but that number is a study label rather than a welfare outcome.
The authors reported their methods and results in full, including how they structured the treatments and which behavioral signs they tracked. Because the design explicitly contrasted genre types against a no‑music baseline, it goes beyond earlier yes‑or‑no sound trials and asks whether cows react differently to classical, country, Latin or rock playback during milking. The peer-reviewed status and experimental format of this genre trial give it weight in a field where much of the public conversation still leans on anecdote and farm lore.
Music as a cue to approach milking systems
Long before playlists in parlors became a talking point, researchers were already testing whether sound could change how willingly cows walked into milking units on their own. In a peer-reviewed experiment on dairy behavior, scientists worked with a sample of 19 mid‑ and late‑lactating Holstein cows and tracked their voluntary approaches to an automatic milking system. Music was played during the milking period as an auditory feature of that environment, and the team recorded quantitative behavioral outcomes to see whether cows treated the milking station more like a place they chose to visit rather than a site of restraint. Across the trial, the researchers logged 128 individual milking visits that met their criteria for voluntary entry, which gave them a basic count of how often cows used the system under the sound treatment.
The focus on Holstein cows and direct measures of approach behavior matters, because it connects sound not only to mood but also to how animals interact with automation. When a small group of 19 animals shifts its pattern of visits in response to music, as described in this automatic milking experiment, it suggests that sound can work as a cue or context for voluntary use of technology, not just as background noise. At the same time, the narrow breed focus and modest sample size mean the findings are best viewed as suggestive rather than universal, especially for large herds or different genetic lines.
When sound does not change stress markers
Not every carefully designed trial finds that music or other auditory stimuli shift welfare indicators. In a peer-reviewed study on Holstein cows that looked directly at physiology, researchers exposed animals to defined sound treatments and then measured activity levels, milk yield and fecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations, a biomarker often used to track stress. The sample in this case was nine cows in their second or third lactation, divided into three groups and arranged in a Latin square design so each group cycled through the different auditory conditions. The rotation of treatments lasted for 27 days in total, with sound exposure and sampling spread across that period to balance any day‑to‑day changes in the barn.
Because the team measured both milk and fecal glucocorticoid metabolites under each treatment, the study offers a link between sound exposure and a concrete welfare biomarker rather than behavior alone. The authors reported that the auditory treatments they used did not change these hormone‑related indicators or milk output in their nine‑animal sample, which suggests that not all soundscapes are stressful and not all music is automatically calming. The Latin square structure and biomarker data in this auditory stimulus work push back against simplified claims that any playlist will lower stress hormones, and they highlight how volume, duration and context may matter more than whether a track is labeled as music.
Pilot evidence from commercial barns
Controlled trials in research barns are valuable, but they can miss the messiness of commercial settings. A peer-reviewed pilot study on a Finnish commercial dairy farm tested music directly inside an automatic milking system between 21 March and 5 April 2019, a 16‑day period, and paired behavioral observations with production metrics. The investigation treated the farm as a living laboratory, recording how cows behaved in the milking area and how much milk they produced while music with measured sound characteristics played through the system. One of the recorded sound files was tagged with the internal index 611 so that the team could match specific acoustic profiles to behavioral records during analysis.
Because the work was labeled as a pilot, the authors framed their results as early evidence rather than definitive proof, yet they still quantified both behavioral responses and milk yield under the sound treatments. By running the trial in a commercial Finnish herd instead of a research station, the team could see how music interacted with real‑world routines, staff practices and barn acoustics. For farmers weighing whether to install speakers or adjust existing systems, the practical detail in this Finnish pilot is at least as valuable as the specific numbers, because it shows how to embed sound experiments into daily operations without shutting a farm down.
Volume, cowbells and the risk of noise
While many of these projects focus on music, another line of research looks at noise more broadly, including the traditional cowbell. In a peer-reviewed experiment on behavioral reactivity, scientists examined how regular exposure to cowbells affected how dairy cows responded to a separate noise stimulus. They used pink noise at two amplitudes, 65 dB and 85 dB, as controlled sound pressure levels to test whether animals that were used to bell sounds reacted differently from those that were not. The study tracked both behavior and physiological signs to see how these specific decibel levels shaped the cows’ responses.
The finding that 65 and 85 dB pink noise can be used as calibrated stimuli shows that volume is an important part of the welfare equation, whether the sound source is a bell, a fan or a speaker. If cows react strongly at 85 dB, farmers who play loud music in enclosed parlors may be edging into the same range as an aversive noise test without realizing it. The experimental design in this cowbell study suggests that any use of music for welfare should start by measuring decibel levels at the cow’s ear, not at the control panel or office doorway.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
