Human–animal breastfeeding
Cross-species suckling practiced historically for infant care and cultural reasons.
Human–animal breastfeeding encompasses both women nursing young animals and animals suckling human infants, a practice documented across diverse cultures and historical periods. Animals frequently served as substitutes for human wet nurses, especially after the rise of syphilis made human wet nursing riskier. In 18th- and 19th-century Europe, foundling hospitals widely used goats and donkeys to feed abandoned babies. Direct suckling from an animal was often preferred over giving stored animal milk, because microbial contamination during milking frequently caused fatal diarrheal disease in infants; safe storage of animal milk only became possible with pasteurisation and sterilisation in the late 1800s. The Jewish Talmud permits infants to suckle even from ritually unclean animals if the child’s welfare requires it.
Classical mythology repeatedly features infants suckled by animals: Romulus and Remus were said to have been raised by a she-wolf, Zeus by the goat Amalthea, and Telephus by a deer. Ancient historical figures such as Cyrus I of Persia (said to have been suckled by a dog) and Croesus, Xerxes, and Lysimachus (by mares) were also linked to such stories, likely as evidence of future greatness. A 12th-century novel from Al-Andalus, *Hayy ibn Yaqdhan*, depicts an infant raised by an antelope. European folklore from the Middle Ages onward told of abandoned children raised by she-wolves or bears; the real-life Peter the Wild Boy, found in Germany in 1724, was thought to have been suckled by a bear, which supposedly gave him coarse, curly hair (now attributed to Pitt-Hopkins syndrome).
A widespread belief held that animal characteristics transmitted through milk; Carl Linnaeus thought lioness milk conferred courage, while goats were thought to impart a libidinous nature, leading some to prefer donkeys as wet nurses. In modern Egypt, however, donkeys were avoided because their milk was believed to cause stupidity and obstinacy. Goats became especially common as wet nurses in 18th- and 19th-century Europe, being cheaper, easier to obtain, and less likely to transmit disease than human nurses. Pierre Brouzet, physician to King Louis XV, noted peasants in rural France and Italy who used ewes as nurses with healthy results. Conrad A. Zweirlein’s 1816 book *The Goat as the Best and Most Agreeable Wet Nurse* popularised the practice, describing a German father w
- field
- Historical cultural practice
- known_for
- Use of animals as wet nurses for human infants and human breastfeeding of animals
- time_period
- Third millennium BC to 19th century and beyond
- regions
- Europe, Middle East, North Africa
- related_animals
- Goats, donkeys, cows, sheep, dogs, piglets, kittens, puppies, monkeys
Lore & Background
The practice of using animals as wet nurses for human infants dates back to at least the third millennium BC in Sumeria, where terracotta feeding bottles indicate that children not breastfed received animal milk, likely from cows. Direct suckling from animals was preferred over milking due to the risk of microbial contamination causing deadly diarrheal disease, a risk that persisted until pasteurisation and sterilisation became common in the 1870s. The Jewish Talmud permits children to suckle from even ritually unclean animals if the child's welfare demands it. Animals were employed as substitutes for human wet nurses, especially after the rise of syphilis increased health risks. In 18th- and 19th-century Europe, goats and donkeys were widely used to feed abandoned babies in foundling hospitals. Goats were considered easier to obtain, cheaper, and safer than human nurses, as they were less prone to passing on diseases. This practice was well-established in rural France and Italy; the personal physician of King Louis XV noted peasants who used only ewes as nurses and were as strong as others. A German writer in 1816 popularised the goat as the best wet nurse after hearing complaints about human wet nurses. The belief that animal characteristics could be transmitted via milk was widespread: goats were thought to transmit a libidinous character, while donkeys were considered more moral, though in modern Egypt donkeys were disfavoured for supposedly passing on stupidity. Human milk was also thought to transmit character traits; in 19th-century France a law was proposed to ban disreputable mothers from nursing their own children.
Reader's Guide
Human–animal breastfeeding holds significance as a historical response to infant mortality and the limitations of human wet nursing. In 18th- and 19th-century Europe, goats and donkeys were widely used in foundling hospitals to feed abandoned babies, as they were cheaper, easier to obtain, and less prone to passing on diseases than human wet nurses. The practice also intersected with medical treatments, such as feeding mercury-laced compounds to goats to treat congenital syphilis in infants, a method that improved infant mortality rates but often killed the goats. Beliefs about the transmission of character traits through milk influenced the choice of animal wet nurses, with goats thought to transmit a libidinous character and donkeys stupidity, while lionesses were believed to confer courage. The practice reflects broader cultural and medical attitudes toward infant care, disease, and the perceived properties of animal milk.
Did You Know?
- Goats were used in 18th- and 19th-century European foundling hospitals to feed abandoned babies, with some institutions having goats enter crib rooms to suckle infants directly.
- The Jewish Talmud permits children to suckle from ritually unclean animals if the child's welfare demands it.
- Mercury-laced compounds were fed to nanny goats to treat syphilitic babies, a method that improved infant mortality but often killed the goats from mercury poisoning.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Human–animal breastfeeding?
It is a historical cross-species suckling practice in which humans and other animals nursed one another, with women feeding young animals and animals serving as substitutes for human wet nurses. The practice is documented from the third millennium BC through at least the 19th century.
Which animals were most commonly involved?
Goats, donkeys, cows, sheep, and dogs appear most frequently in the historical record, though piglets, kittens, puppies, and monkeys are also mentioned. These animals were primarily put to work feeding human infants when a human wet nurse was unavailable or considered too risky.
Why did families turn to animals as wet nurses?
The spread of syphilis across Europe made human wet nursing a significantly greater health concern, prompting households to seek animal alternatives for infant feeding. This shift was especially common in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa.
Why would a human woman breastfeed an animal?
In various cultures, women nursed young animals for what they believed were health benefits, religious observances, or traditions that emphasized the bond between person and creature. This direction of the practice is attested across multiple regions and centuries.
What time period and regions does the practice cover?
Records of cross-species suckling stretch from the third millennium BC well into the 1800s and beyond, with the densest documentation in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa. It functioned as a practical, culturally embedded alternative to human wet nursing in those societies.
More in Nutrition And Diet 1-22
Spotted an error? Know more?
This is a living reference — every entry is fact-audited, and reader corrections feed straight into our audit queue. Suggest an edit · See this site's audit record