Why wasn't the zebra domesticated?

[stui_magpie]

The zulu tribes had cattle that they had domesticated. They had no need to try to domesticate Zebra for meat or milk and the hunter/gatherer tribes had no means.

I’d say it was more of a no need basis rather than the fact that Zebra are unable to be domesticated. If they had really tried, I’m sure over 20+ generations it could have been done, but noone has had the patience to genuinely try.

[Sailboat]

Europeans have tried to domesticate zebras, and (so far) failed.

Incidentally, I don’t think Zulus “domesticated” cattle; domestic cattle were brought to the area and the Zulus adopted them quite successfully. The problem, as I understand it,was the tsetse fly belt between North Africa and Zululand – no cows could cross it alive. Once they could be brought in on ships, the locals quickly took advantage of cattle.

[tallcoldone]

Selective breeding can product a domesticated animal from one that is not particularly friendly toward humans - the silver fox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

This breeding not only changed behavior, but also appearance - fur coloration, droopier ears etc. They started looking more and more like domesticated dogs. Genetics is a realy cool thing!

[John_Mace]

@Broomstick

The ancient Egyptians seem to have made a definite and deliberate effort to domesticate local species, including the cheetah which they used as a hunting companion (which taming, by the way, did not succeed). They weren’t that far past the neolithic. While the first species domesticated may have been done accidentally I wouldn’t rule out deliberate attempts for some of the most recent species domesticated. Once a group of humans had dogs, maybe some sheep, and some domesticated grains and vegetables the concept would have been pretty solid.

I’m not going to disagree with that, other than to say “domestication” and “taming” are two different things. Domestication implies some sort of change to the animal so that it is more suited to living with humans than are its wild cousins. And that’s why I referenced only the Stone Age, and not the later Copper or Bronze age cultures.

[Lightray]

Zebras also have no withers, which is inconvenient for saddling or yoking them.

Their temperament is apparently quite similar to that of the Przewalski’s Horse… which also has never been domesticated despite it’s similarity to the (common) horse.

And zebras apparently spook even easier than another almost-domesticated riding animal – the moose (“elk” to Americans). I used to have a reference to someone training up a moose-mounted “cavalry” unit, which was actually fielded in battle. But the effort was abandoned since cannonfire invariably made them spook.

@Lumpy

If they can breed tame foxes just by selecting the fraction of each generation that is relatively tolerant of humans, you’d think the same principle could be applied to zebras. You’d have to be willing to keep them for generations without much payback in the short term however.

Canid genetics are odd, allowing for the ridiculous variety of domestic breeds – something we haven’t been able to do with domestic cats or horses, for example. Foxes, as it turns out, are quite similar to dogs.

[Broomstick]

@John_Mace

And that’s why I referenced only the Stone Age, and not the later Copper or Bronze age cultures.

Define “stone age”. There were human cultures still in the stone age of technology into the 20th Century. There really never was a sharp dividing line between those sorts of “ages”.

[astorian]

@John_Mace

I think the answer to this is because it just didn’t happen. Who’s to say that zebras couldn’t have been bred out of their “skittishness” over many, many generations.

But how long would you expect people to keep trying, if the payoff wouldn’t come for many generations?

Even now, if you see a tame “zebra,” it’s probably either

1. A horse/donkey painted black and white (like in the old Tarzan movies), or

2. A zebra/donkey hybrid (like at the Ringling Brothers’ cicus).

Even zebras that are raised among humans from birth tend to be vicious and uncooperative with people.

[CannyDan]

There’s an old thread on this subject here.

I’ll copy and paste a post I made then, for what it may be worth.

@CannyDan

Caveat - IANA Zebra expert…

I have worked (briefly) with zebra and other hooved stock in a zoo setting. And I once knew, and occasionally interacted with, a privately owned “tame” zebra that would pull a cart. (On good days, anyway.) And, allowing comparison, I own horses.

Like most equids, the basic zebra reaction to threat is flight. Most of the time, they will simply run away. Occasionally though a challenged stallion or a mare with foal at her side will display aggression-- toward a keeper, or an interloping dog. They are quick, nimble, and powerful, and can stomp you flat. Zebras therefore have a reputation as “potentially quite dangerous” with zoo keepers.

That said though, I hardly think this trait would be sufficient to prevent domestication. The real barriers to domestication, as stated upthread, are time, opportunity, and economic benefit.

To domesticate an animal, a number of breeding individuals must be kept isolated, and selectively bred for a large (but admittedly undetermined) number of generations. Simply maintaining this herd presupposes that the society has sufficient space, technology to maintain adequate fences, and a year-round source of animal feed. The un-domesticated “starter herd” cannot be simply ‘driven’ to another pasture if the first becomes over-grazed. The African savanna, with its seasonal cycle of wet and dry and the concomittant seasonal cycle of grass versus no grass strikes me as a poor choice for such an endeavor. If this first hurdle could be overcome, perhaps by fencing and cross fencing a truly huge area, then a beginning herd could be maintained.

But since domestication could at best be only a dimly perceived long term goal, the herd must provide some immediate benefit in order to justify the effort. Presumably this would be a ready supply of meat without the necessity for hunting and possible long distance travel. So we already know what will be done with culls, and can assume that culling will take place. How large a herd then is needed to support the human population? Or to supplement a supply of hunted “wild” meat? Is that fenced pasture really big enough?

And how often will there be ‘bad years’, years of drought or famine, in which the entire herd will be eaten or simply perish, negating all previous selection for domestication and necessitating starting over with new wild stock? Even if such occurs only once in a century, or even longer, it would prevent successful domestication through selection. Again, Africa seems to be especially problematic in this regard, mediating against domestication of zebra.

How often might a pride of lions, or a prairie fire, or a herd of elephant, or some other scenario cause the herd to escape their enclosure? The larger the necessary pasture, the more likely such a misadventure becomes. And again, even if this is a once in a century event, the result is back to square one on the domestication front.

To me, there is no surprise in the fact that zebras were never domesticated. Any measure of aggression seems trivial compared to the other hurdles that must be overcome. Historical African aboriginal societies seem ill equipped for this effort.

Could some other, richer and more settled historical society, perhaps the ancient Egyptians or the Persians, have succeeded? Possibly, if they were willing to devote the necessary resources to the effort. One could envision a relatively small herd maintained strictly for the long term goal of domestication, not an immediate food supply. This could be maintained for maximum breeding production and minimum generational time, while being ruthlessly culled. Some hundred or hundreds of years of sustained effort should result in a fair measure of domestication.

But what would be the point? Is there any reason to expect that such an animal would be superior to the domestic or semi-domestic horses, donkeys, and other equids already available at that time? Or superior to such specialty beasts of burden as oxen or water buffalo? Or as easy to maintain for ready food supplies as sheep or goats?

Massive practical, logistical, and economic difficulties to overcome with specious potential long term benefit (not aggressive behaviors) equals null program.

[John_Mace]

@Broomstick

Define “stone age”. There were human cultures still in the stone age of technology into the 20th Century. There really never was a sharp dividing line between those sorts of “ages”.

Well, archeologists use those terms all the time. I was using them in the sense that they do.

[Broomstick]

Stone age/neolithic peoples had plenty of domestic animals: sheep, goats, chickens, llamas, pigs, and the ubiquitous dog. They didn’t have to wait for the copper/bronze/iron age to come up with the concept.

[Blake]

@CannyDan

To domesticate an animal, a number of breeding individuals must be kept isolated, and selectively bred for a large (but admittedly undetermined) number of generations.

As far as we can tell, no grazing animal has ever been domesticated in such a manner. Grazing animals become domesticated in much the same way as all grazing animals were kept in the tropics until a few hundred years ago, and the way that reindeer are kept now. Herders travel with their herds. There is no attempt to isolate the herd. Indeed, in regions where there are wild animals available it’s considered beneficial to allow the wild bulls to mate with some of the cows to maintain a strong bloodline.

Simply maintaining this herd presupposes that the society has sufficient space, technology to maintain adequate fences, and a year-round source of animal feed.

Space isn’t an issue for HGs. Fences are not needed at all. The use of fences to contain livestock is a very, very modern idea. Even in medieval Europe, cattle and goats were very, very rarely fenced, they were simply tended by cowherds. The use of fences is largely a product of the agricultural revolution of the 16th and17th centuries.

The un-domesticated “starter herd” cannot be simply ‘driven’ to another pasture if the first becomes over-grazed.

Why not? Millions of people do this with their livestock even today. Go to the traditional cattle herding area of Africa, the reindeer herding areas of northern Europe or the horse herding areas of Mongolia. You will never see a fence. All livestock are simply driven to new pastures as required.

The African savanna, with its seasonal cycle of wet and dry and the concomittant seasonal cycle of grass versus no grass strikes me as a poor choice for such an endeavor.

All grasslands are like that, by definition. Grasslands can only exist where there is a pronounced annual cycle of wet and dry. The grasslands of Asia, where we know that horses were domesticated, also have seasonal cycles of wet and dry and the concomitant seasonal cycle of grass versus no grass. Yet we know that horses were domesticated there.

But since domestication could at best be only a dimly perceived long term goal, the herd must provide some immediate benefit in order to justify the effort. Presumably this would be a ready supply of meat without the necessity for hunting and possible long distance travel. So we already know what will be done with culls, and can assume that culling will take place. How large a herd then is needed to support the human population? Or to supplement a supply of hunted “wild” meat? Is that fenced pasture really big enough?

Once again, fences are a very modern invention. Watusi do not fence their livestock. Lapps do not fence their livestock. The Romans didn’t fence their livestock. Mongols didn’t fence their livestock.

The very idea of fencing grazing animals is a very modern concept. Even your ancestors in the 15th century would have thought it odd to fence meat animals. It’s inefficient and unnecessary when you have an excess of child labour.

So yeah, the pasture was big enough. It consisted of the whole world.

And how often will there be ‘bad years’, years of drought or famine, in which the entire herd will be eaten or simply perish, negating all previous selection for domestication and necessitating starting over with new wild stock?

Never. These animals evolved to deal with the environmental conditions in the areas where they were domesticated. The assistance of humans in leading them to fresh pasture, cutting forage trees, killing predators and digging wells makes them far more resilient than the wild herds. So if the wild herds can survive the drought, which they obviously can, then the domestic herd will come through almost unscathed.

That’s one of the big advantages of domestication, to both humans and animals. It enables the prey animals to survive far better than they would on their own and recover much faster.

Even if such occurs only once in a century, or even longer, it would prevent successful domestication through selection.

Then no animal can ever have been domesticated, since all of the planet experiences drought at least once every 20 years.

Again, Africa seems to be especially problematic in this regard, mediating against domestication of zebra.

Africa isn’t especially more prone to drought than any other continent. The arid parts have unpredictable rainfall climates, as do the arid parts of Asia, Australia or the Americas. The rest of it is equally comparable to the other continents.

How often might a pride of lions, or a prairie fire, or a herd of elephant, or some other scenario cause the herd to escape their enclosure?

Never, because there would not have been any fences. Fences are recent concept.

The larger the necessary pasture, the more likely such a misadventure becomes.

The larger the pasture, the less likely it becomes

Historical African aboriginal societies seem ill equipped for this effort.

In what sense would a Cameroonian 10, 000 years ago be worse equipped to do this than a contemporary Mongol or a Lapp?

But what would be the point? Is there any reason to expect that such an animal would be superior to the domestic or semi-domestic horses, donkeys, and other equids already available at that time?

The better question ` would be how horses or donkeys became domesticated, given that exactly the same hurdles had to be overcome to domesticate them.

[drastic_quench]

Why assume they’d be domesticated in Africa at all? Fear not, one of my pet projects, should I become a billionaire, would be a domestication program for zebras on my massive ranch here in the states. That’s what is needed. Then those pesky hurdles of why and profits are easily jumped.

[MrDibble]

@Sailboat

Incidentally, I don’t think Zulus “domesticated” cattle; domestic cattle were brought to the area and the Zulus adopted them quite successfully.

Nope. The (ancestors of the) Zulus came to Southern Africa with cattle, but there was already cattle here before the Bantu tribes came, for several hundred years at least. Khoe-khoen had cattle from somewhere between 0 and 500 BCE

The problem, as I understand it,was the tsetse fly belt between North Africa and Zululand – no cows could cross it alive.

It’s a disease, not a minefield. Of course they crossed it with cattle