Taste for meat made humans early weaners
19:00 26 January 2005
Anna Gosline
A taste for meat prompted early humans to wean their children at a young
age. The idea explains why we now wean our infants years earlier than other
great apes.
In non-industrialised societies, women breastfeed their children for an
average of two and a half years, while chimpanzees feed theirs for five.
Anthropologist Gail Kennedy of the University of California, Los Angeles,
US, suggests that humans made the transition to early weaning 2.6 million
years ago.
That was when a branch of hominids began to eat animal carcasses - a risky
activity that would have brought them into contact with other predators and
significantly raised mortality rates for the hunters. This would have
created a selection pressure to wean infants earlier and earlier, since
those no longer dependent on breast milk would have been more likely to
survive their mother's death, says Kennedy.
What is more, the nutritional benefit of eating meat at a younger age would
have helped children's brains to grow and develop more quickly. Human brains
grow three times quicker than those of chimpanzees.
But Barry Bogin of the University of Michigan at Dearborn, US, has a
different rationale for early weaning. He believes it allowed hominid
mothers to have more offspring. "By weaning at 30 months, we have a great
reproductive jump over our closest cousins; we can crank out two babies in
the time it takes a chimpanzee to have one," he says.
Journal reference: Journal of Human Evolution (DOI:
10.1016/j.jhevol.2004.09.005)
Full Text from NewScientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6921

Signature
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek
Kaz - 28 Jan 2005 22:55 GMT
OK, this response can be safely ignored...mainly I can't resist the pun:
Taste for meat made humans early weiners.
It's funny enough to think that, because of their allegedly new interest in
meat, they made hot dogs early on, but the article suggests that they
/became/ hot dogs for the predators, as well.
firstjois - 30 Jan 2005 03:31 GMT
>> Taste for meat made humans early weaners
>> 19:00 26 January 2005
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
>> Posted by
>> Robert Karl Stonjek
Seems a little twisted. We traditionally see the men as the hunters and the
ones most at risk, not the females and certainly not females nursing
babies. So wouldn't the selection pressure be for bigger and stronger men?
Not the weaning of babies without teeth to chew meat? or who still needed
to have meat pre-chewed and popped into their mouths bit by bit? Breast
feeding might have been easier and more reliable.
If there is a difference in weaning age it would be more likely that the
first foods favored by mothers/infants of the different species were
available, digestable, suitable, were different, too.
Jois
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC. - 30 Jan 2005 22:24 GMT
>>> Taste for meat made humans early weaners
>>> 19:00 26 January 2005
First time I saw that, I thought it was a misspelling of "weiners", Oscar
Meyer.
John Roth - 31 Jan 2005 13:16 GMT
>>> Taste for meat made humans early weaners
>>> 19:00 26 January 2005
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> first foods favored by mothers/infants of the different species were
> available, digestable, suitable, were different, too.
What occurs to me is that nursing means that the
infant's food is always available whenever the caregiver
is. It doesn't have to be transported independently or
saved for when baby is hungry.
Weaning before baby is able to go along on foraging
expeditions and eat when and where food is found
means that the species had to have some means of
bringing the food back to baby, and storing it for
at least a few hours.
John Roth
> Jois
John March - 11 Feb 2005 06:22 GMT
There is no such thing as "taste for meat" in a vacuum! But only taste for
anything in relation to nutritional needs etc etc etc etc.....
> Taste for meat made humans early weaners
> 19:00 26 January 2005
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> Posted by
> Robert Karl Stonjek
firstjois - 14 Feb 2005 19:46 GMT
>> There is no such thing as "taste for meat" in a vacuum! But only
>> taste for anything in relation to nutritional needs etc etc etc
>> etc.....
[snip]
Hate to put too much on the turn of a phrase.
Anyway - maybe all omnivores have a taste for meat or whatever you want to
call it. Like dogs have a hankering for chocolate that they'll eat the
stuff even thought it could make them very sick and even die. Cats could
make beds out of chocolate and still not want to eat any. A taste for
sweets might make berries available to omnivores that cats wouldn't need to
have since they eat only meat anyway?
Jois