Breed Development and Care Assignment Help.

Instructions: For a species to become domesticated, it must be willing to breed in man’s company. ‘Breed in captivity’ which implies a simple case and of exploitation which as it turn out is very complex. Our relationship with animals is certainly complex and contradictory, we breed dogs to be more adorable, and we domesticated the cat at around 7000 BC and treated them as gods, Animal have become a big part is human society and culture yet we still hunt, kill and eat them, yet we also love, respect and protect them.
This ambivalent relationship or human -animal bond is further complicated by fact that we attribute human emotions intelligence to animals. We even go as far as comparing them to children and treating them as family members which in most cases has mutual benefit for both the animal and the human. The domestic animal demon states how human’s love life and want to support and sustain life, through this process pets have become part of our community and in most cases forms important bond for psychological well-being.
Drawing the history of the domestic animal and the religious significance of animals throughout human history.
Introduction: What is anthrozoology is and What area of study it covers in your own words.
Main: Include a timeline ( words and picture) of domestic animal( dogs, cats, horses)and any religious connection.
The conclude: Theories around the human and animal bond and discuss why we need animals in our lives today. Beneficial and dynamic relationship between humans and animals and why we have breed companion animals in the way that we have.

Solution.

Breed Development and Care

Anthrozoology

Anthrozoology can be considered as a partly an umbrella term, and partly a discipline with a particular paradigm. Croce (2016) defines anthrozoology as the study of relationships and interactions between human beings and nonhuman animals (p. 54). To this definition,  Martinelli (2010) add that this study occurs with the goal of establishing conceptual and theoretical bridges that not only link together hugely separated disciplines but also span the divide between the world of human and the life of the rest of the planet (p. 181). The construction of such bridges mainly involves examination of the economic, symbolic, social, and ecological consequences of the human-animal relationship, therefore entailing topics from both natural and human sciences. Quite often, based on existing literature, such topics typically involve animal assisted therapy; human-pert relationships and their effect on physical and mental health; cruelty and abuse to animals; different forms of zoonosis; and, companion animals as social facilitators. He further observes that Anthrozoology is an interdisciplinary field which comprises studies in veterinary medicine, anthropology, sociology, art, psychology, education, philosophy, education, literature, ethology, and history.

With regards to the domestication of animals, anthrozoology has been a major field through which the issue has been studied. The study of domestication and animal companions has also been facilitated by archaeology. There are however significant differences in the history denoted by subjects such as archaeology and those such as molecular biology, which would be considered a sub-field of anthrozoology. An example is derived from the dog, whose domestication history is approached differently. Archaeology seems to place a focus on the contribution of animals to changes in human society, rather than the human-animal relationships (Mills & Marchant-Forde, 2010, p. 28). The growth of anthrozoology as a distinct field has enabled approaches that combine the earlier mentioned fields such as archaeology and molecular biology. The merging of archaeological and molecular data holds great promise in the field of anthrozoology since, as will be later mentioned, domestication was not a singular process but took place at different times in history and within different societies simultaneously (Zeder, Bradley, Emshwiller, & Smith, 2006).

Reasons for Animal Domestication

Domestication can be defined as the human adaptation of species resulting in the modification of traits to the degree that the species is notably distinguishable from its native origins (Goudle & Cuff, 2001, p. 39). Clutton-Brock (2012) distinguishes between mere domestication and true domestication by noting that while simple domestication infers an animal’s loss of fear of human and it breeding in captivity, she notes that true domestication goes beyond this. She observes that true domestication can be defined as the keeping of animals in captivity by a human community which maintains total control over their food supply, organization of territory, and food supply. Therefore, true domestication comprises both a cultural and biological process. The biological process is first to commence and is marked by the taming of wild animals.

Animal domestication is a pre-historic process since it predates all known writing. Therefore, it is unclear exactly when humans began planting crops and making use of tamed animals. When examining the topic of animal domestication, the domestication of plants cannot be ignored as they both have similarities in their occurrence. The domestication of plants can be much easier comprehended than animal domestication. This is shown by the foraging bands of humans, who were the first to domesticate crops when they attempted to plant tubers and seeds which they liked, and which were rare in the wild. This process benefited those foraging varieties which either had more food value, were easier to grow, or process (Bulliet, Crossley, Headrick, Hirsch, & Johnson, 2011, p. 112). In this regard, animal domestication proves harder to understand, since the basis of selection seems to be quite different from that which governed selection of plants. Even though experts tend to examine ancient images and bones to interpret changes in horn shape, hair color, and other visible features as domestication indicators, practice has demonstrated that such visible features often did not serve any human purposes. Domestication of animals has also been associated with the need for meat although this has also been placed into serious doubt. This doubt is substantiated by the fact that dogs, which were some of the earliest domesticated animals, were not eaten in most cultures, a trait shared by cats, which were domesticated much later.

It seems that some of the reasons typically associated with animal domestication such as harnessing oxen and horses to pull plows and vehicles, shearing sheep, and milking cows, commenced centuries after the onset of domestication. The tendency to associate these activities with the birth of domestication is one that has beset a large number of scholars and authors. An example is drawn from Robert Periman’s Evolution and Medicine where he traces birth of domestication to Western Asia, approximately 11000 years ago (Periman, 2013, p. 117). He mentions that the reason for animal domestication was mainly for their meat although activities such as milking began soon after domestication. Davis (1987) attempt to answer the question of why animals were domesticated in the first place, and in this, he recognizes the various motivations that governed animal domestication. For an animal such as the dog, Davis suggests that its hunting ability could have been the main reason for its domestication. Bovids, which encompass cloven-hoofed, ruminant mammals such as gazelles, buffalos, goats, sheep, and cattle, were probably domesticated due to their potential to provide meat. Animals such as camels, donkeys, and horses were domesticated to be utilized as sources of power and transport, hence used I the transit of people and the ever increasing loads of produce.

Other sources associate the development of domestication with the need for assured sustenance since most societies at the time lived under a hunter-gatherer system. The strength of this domestication reason has however waned after research has shown animal husbandry and farming to be more intensive and arduous than hunting and gathering (Davis, 1987, p. 152; Laton, et al., 1991). A more acceptable path of animal domestication points to population pressure as the main reason behind animal domestication. Due to the failure of the environment to fully cater for the needs of the growing human population, domestication of plants and animals occurred as an adaptation to the crisis.

There are some scholars who associate the domestication of animals with religious reasons. One of these is Erich Isaac, a geographer who observed the similarity between the shape of animal horns and the shape of the ancient deity – the moon. An example can be seen in the extinct type of large wild cattle referred to as Urus or Aurochs. Erich Isaac suggested that since the horns of the Urus were lunar shaped, this was a great motivator for its domestication due to religious reverence (Carter, 1972). Another feminists version of the Urus domestication was suggested by Marija Gimbutas who noted that the horns and head of the bull resemble the female reproductive organs (Becker, 2004, p. 243). Despite the multitude of reasons behind animal domestication, it can be seen that there is no single factor that led to domestication, and all aforementioned causes can be attributed to one or more societies, in the same or different time eras. As observed by Goudle and Cuff (2001), domestication occurred in both nomadic and sedentary cultures, in both hunter-gatherer and agrarian societies, subsequent and before plant domestication, and using either ruminant or monogastric species. Furthermore, domestication failed to occur in multiple situations in which both the opportunities and conditions have been viewed as optimal.

Historical Timeline of Domestication

The following table represents a tabular timeline of animal domestication.

Table 1. Timeline of Animal Domestication

By all accounts, dogs are the earliest animals to be domesticated. The reason dogs have not been included in the above timeline is because the date of domestication is not agreed upon, although Clutton-Brock (1999) suggests that the taming process began over 15000 years ago. The early date of dog domestication and the multiplicity of domestication events are signified by the sheer population of dog breeds, which amount to more than 400. The development of each dog breed can be directly attributed to artificial selection efforts of humans. The remarkable powers of communication and kinship that humans and dogs share can be traced back to the hunting ancestry of both human and wolf. It is easy to surmise how an alliance between human and wolf could develop in an environment whereby both would be competing for the same food. The wolf is not the only ancestor of the dog since different canid species existed in different parts of the world, For example:

•           Africa – jackal, hunting dog

•           Asia – wolf, dhole, jackal

•           Europe – wolf, jackal

•           North America – wolf, coyote

•           South America – fox, bush dog

It should be noted that although a large number of animals were tamed during this period, for example, hyenas in Egypt and elephants in India, only a few animal species were domesticated. By 1996, goats, sheep, and cattle accounted for ninety percent of domesticated grazing animals in the world. Domestication has been shown to require at least thirty generations, which when applied to most of our domesticated animals, comprises a period of one to two hundred years.

Human-Animal Bond

The human-animal bond is one that has been extensively studied due to the ubiquity of keeping animals as pets all across the world. It has been shown to be a well-documented phenomenon since the beginning of domestication and can be found in a diverse range of sources from modern fiction, ancient literature, and research reports in the professional literature (Fine, 2010). The likelihood that two species will understand each other will be determined by how similar their communication and social organization systems are. The human-animal bond seems to satisfy human needs which go beyond mere economic needs.

Although there is no universally accepted definition of human-animal bonds, there are a number of common characteristics. Therefore the human-animal relationship:

•           Ought to be bi-directional

•           Should be of a continuous nature

•           Should be voluntary

•           Should be persistent and reciprocal

• Should result in mutual benefit and well-being of both parties

Research has demonstrated the beneficence of the human-animal bond and of keeping animals as pets. Not only do pets create a mind-body balance with the human companion, but they also provide a connection to the outside world, a source of pleasure, and for some people, the promise of hope (Fine, 2010, p. 7). Therefore, these reasons are some of the most important with regards to why people keep animals in the contemporary world.

Reasons for Keeping Animals

Another primary reason for keeping animals is for the provision of food and raw material. The primary reason for domestication of animals was for food. Otherwise, 90% of domesticated animals would not be born were it not for food needs. Animals provide us with food in the form of meat, milk, eggs, and even oil. Animals also provide raw materials for making various products from clothing to materials such as string for musical instruments. Another important reason is for companionship. Over 63% of households in the U.S. keep pets. Another reason for keeping animals is for security, and the main animal in this context is the dog.

References

Becker, C. J. (2004). A Modern Theory Of Language Evolution. Lincoln, Nebraska: iUniverse.

Bulliet, R., Crossley, P. K., Headrick, D. R., Hirsch, S. W., & Johnson, L. L. (2011). The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History (Fifth ed., Vol. 1). Boston, Massachusetts: Cengage Learning.

Carter, G. F. (1972). Archeology: Geography of Deomstication. ERICH ISAAC. American Anthropologist, 74(4), 943-944.

Clutton-Brock, J. (1999). A Natural History of Domesticatd Mammals (Second ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clutton-Brock, J. (2012). Animals as Domesticates: A World View Through History. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press.

Croce, N. (2016). Anthropology. New York: Britannica Educational Publishing.

Davis, S. J. (1987). The Archaeology of Animals. Milton Park: Routledge.

Fine, A. H. (2010). Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: Theoretical Foundations and Guidelines (Third ed.). Burlington, Massachusetts: Academic Press.

Goudle, A. S., & Cuff, D. J. (Eds.). (2001). Encyclopedia of Global Change: Environmental Change and Human Society (Vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.

Laton, R., Foley, R., Williams, e., Chang, C., Ingold, T., Olszewski, D. I., . . . Zvelebil, M. (1991). The transition between hunting and gathering and the specialized husbandry of resources: A socio-ecological approach [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology, 32(3), 255-274.

Martinelli, D. (2010). A Critical Companion to Zoosemiotics: People, Paths, Ideas. New York: Springer.

Mills, D. S., & Marchant-Forde, J. N. (Eds.). (2010). The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behavior and Welfare. Oxfordshire: CAB International.

Perlman, R. (2013). Evolution and Medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Zeder, M. A., Bradley, D. G., Emshwiller, E., & Smith, B. D. (2006). Documentin Domestication: Bringing Together Plants, Animals, Archaeology, and Genetics. In M. A. Zeder, D. G. Bradley, E. Emshwiller, & B. D. Smith (Eds.), Documeting Domestiation: New Genetic and Archaeological Paradigms (p. 1). London: University of California Press.