<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

HAL
open science

# Conceptualising emergent animal farming and infectious diseases: a One Health framework

Robin Bendrey, Doaa Elkholly, Guillaume Fournié

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Robin Bendrey, Doaa Elkholly, Guillaume Fournié. Conceptualising emergent animal farming and infectious diseases: a One Health framework. 2025. hal-05322085

HAL Id: hal-05322085

https://hal.science/hal-05322085v1

Preprint submitted on 20 Oct 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Conceptualising emergent animal farming and infectious diseases: a One Health framework

Robin Bendrey<fnref n="1" />*, Doaa Elkholly<fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" />, and Guillaume Fournié<fnref n="2" />,<fnref n="3" />,<fnref n="4" />

* Corresponding author: School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland. Tel: +44 (0)131 650 4562; E-mail: robin.bendrey@ed.ac.uk

Running head: emergent animal farming and infectious diseases

Word count of abstract: 250

Word count of article text: 4200

Number of tables and figures: four figures

© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Foundation for Evolution, Medicine, and Public Health. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

<footnote n="1">¹ School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Veterinary Epidemiology, Economics and Public Health Group, Department of Pathobiology and Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, University of London, Hatfield, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Université de Lyon, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR EPIA, Marcy l'Etoile, France</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Université Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, VetAgro Sup, UMR EPIA, Saint Genes Champanelle, France</footnote>
ABSTRACT

**Background and Objectives:** The origins of animal farming is associated with major and inter-related changes in the ecology of humans and animals and new opportunities for pathogens to invade and be sustained in both populations. Understanding these transitions is critical for unravelling the origins and evolution of infectious diseases linked to emergent farming. This study aims to leverage One Health approaches, which recognise the inter-dependencies between the health of humans, animals, and environments, to better understand the ecology of humans, animals, and pathogens during the onset of farming.

**Methodology:** This study develops a One Health conceptual framework to explore the interconnected ecological and health impacts of early animal farming. It employs archaeological and contemporary wildlife farming case studies to build this framework.

**Results:** One Health frameworks are ideal to situate these changing human-animal-environment relationships in their widest context, allowing interacting processes and their feedback loops to be considered in integrated ways. Combined evaluation of ancient and contemporary emergent farming contexts enables a more inclusive approach, allowing a broader range of ecological and evolutionary insights to be considered.

**Conclusions and Implications:** One Health approaches offer a valuable framework for understanding the historical emergence and impact of infectious diseases within farming contexts. By situating ancient interspecies relationships within broader ecological and health contexts, this framework helps investigate complex archaeological contexts and offers useful parallels to contemporary issues in wildlife farming. Insights gained from studying ancient farming systems can inform current health and agricultural policies and contribute to preventing future infectious disease outbreaks.

**Lay summary:** This study examines how early animal farming re-shaped the ecology of humans, animals, and pathogens. Using a One Health approach, it develops a framework to investigate the origins and evolution of infectious diseases, providing better understanding of both ancient and contemporary emergent farming contexts and their epidemiological implications.

KEYWORDS

One Health; infectious diseases; domestication; multispecies ecology; wildlife farming; public health
# INTRODUCTION

From the early Holocene, the emergence of animal farming brought with it major and inter-related shifts in the ecology of interacting humans, animals and microbial taxa. The origins of agriculture was a fundamental transition in food production strategies, and the subsequent food surpluses it could produce, and larger populations it could support, in time enabled the emergence of the contemporary human world [1-3]. Farming brought humans and animals into closer, more intense and more entangled relationships, creating conditions promoting the transmission of pathogens across and their adaptation to novel host species, and their permanent maintenance in these larger populations of interacting humans and animals [2, 4-6].

The emergence of animal farming and animal domestication are strongly related but different and offset processes. Farming, often termed agriculture, is the practice of food production through cultivating plants and raising animals [1]. While farming primarily involves domesticates, it does not exclusively so [7], and as an emergent process can impose the selective pressures on wild animal populations that create the evolutionary processes humans identify as 'domestication' [8]. Domestication involves changes in the genotype and phenotype of the animals [9-12], some of which will also have impacts on pathogen transmission and evolutionary dynamics.

There has been considerable academic focus on the origins of animal domestication and agriculture on one hand, and past infectious diseases (particularly zoonoses) on the other. Analyses of infectious diseases are often focussed on the reconstruction of long-term infectious agent phylogeny based on available genetic sequences [e.g. 6, 13], rather than looking at the contextual details of host interactions. Considerations of socio-ecological interactions that shaped pathogen transmission in these past contexts have not kept pace with biomolecular developments. The socio-ecological relationships and their epidemiological outcomes, particularly in the early phases of farming, are often weakly conceptualised.

Conceptual frameworks are important for defining research strategy and focusing investigations of researchers working across multiple disciplines [e.g. 7, 14-16]. Here we explore how One Health approaches, which allow interacting processes within and across human populations, animals and their shared environment, including feedback loops, to be accounted for, can help focus the study of infectious diseases in emergent farming systems. We consider the conceptualisation of the evolving interspecific relationships that created the conditions in which pathogens could expand their host range and become endemic in interacting host populations.

There are a number of challenges to understanding the evolution of human-animal-pathogen interactions in both the past and the present that can benefit from a long view. One Health approach [17-20], an approach that has also been framed as 'One Palaeopathology' [21]. Archaeological domestication studies of temporally-distant contexts tend to be strongly theorized and focussed on conceptualising and evaluating evidence for subtle changes in long-term, gradual transitions; however, epidemiological impacts are less clear due to incomplete, 'fuzzy' data. To contribute to the evaluation presented here, we will explore whether contemporary case studies on wild animals brought into farming contexts can provide comparators for sharpening focus on past processes (Fig. 1).

Today, 'wildlife farming', the captive breeding of wild animals, is a common economic undertaking, encompassing a diversity of practices and infectious disease risks [22-23]. While the place of 'farmed' wild animal populations in the modern world is often understudied and consequently less well understood and valued, some case studies have provided detailed data and understanding on interspecific interactions and epidemiological consequences. Following Altman and Mesoudi [24],
the aim here of exploring contemporary contexts is: 1) to demonstrate that the conceptual framework discussed for the past is relevant for contemporary issues and events, and 2) to allow us to make novel arguments or insights not solely apparent from examining past contexts alone (Fig. 1). It is acknowledged that the scale and intensity of contemporary and archaeological emergent farming systems will vary, and that emerging activities may be relatively informal and unregulated.

This paper evaluates how One Health approaches can contribute to the investigation of infectious disease dynamics in emergent farming contexts. While the focus is on improving understanding of these processes in archaeological context, we will evaluate the potential for ancient and modern systems to inform each other (Fig. 1), through a consideration of selected wildlife farming case studies.

## ARCHAEOLOGICAL EMERGENT FARMING, ANIMAL DOMESTICATION, AND ONE HEALTH

The transition from living as hunter-gatherers to farmers represents a major shift from food procurement to food production [1, 7]. With this came significant reorientation and restructuring of relationships with plants and animals involving the emergence of domestic animals, characterised by changes in their genotypes, phenotypes, ecology and population dynamics compared to their wild counterparts. Debate surrounds the causal factors for the emergence of animal farming [1, 11], however most models posit the earliest animal domestications emerging gradually and, at least initially, unconsciously via niche-constructing behaviours by both humans and animals alike [8, 12, 25]. Domestication has also been framed as a co-evolutionary process – on the one hand we witness evolutionary change in animal populations and on the other cultural evolution of human communities. As such, agriculture may be viewed as an example of gene-culture co-evolution where the genetic evolution of domestic species and culturally transmitted human practices are both shaping each other [24] (Fig. 2).

Compared to the earlier domestication processes, the later ones are often viewed as the speedier outcome of deliberate human intent, in that once domestic animals had emerged in one form, humans could envisage other wild animals as desirable domesticates [12]. These different pathways may be illustrated by two strongly contrasting examples: 1) dogs were the first domestic animal and are thought to have in part emerged out of commensal behaviours of gray wolf (*Canis lupus*) populations; 2) all domestic golden hamsters (*Mesocricetus auratus*) derive from a single pair of siblings captured from the Syrian Desert in 1930 [25-26]. Research on emergent models of domestication tends to study the process through focussing on changes clarified into pair-wise relationships – i.e. the interaction of two species (domesticator and domesticate) and how their relationship changed through time [10], excluding wider ecosystem considerations. This approach enables the focussed study of the emergence of a given domestic animal but neglects the study of the wider ecosystem, the outcomes of ecological intersections, and how the ecosystems make these domestication processes possible, or not, in the first place and influence their trajectory.

As farming emerged gradually out of existing ecological relationships with plants and animals [7-8, 12], we can consider how it disrupted these ecological relationships. A range of niche constructing activities are reported for hunter-gatherer communities, some of which contributed to the emergence of domesticates and farming systems [11, 27-28]. Fig. 3 summarises selected management strategies from which early animal farming may have emerged, and which we can potentially follow through into determinants of disease risk in agricultural ecosystems. Examples of niche enhancement are known from hunter-gatherers introducing animal populations to islands that can be hunted [28].
Such changing ecological interactions may have shaped diverse evolutionary outcomes [30-31], some of which we separate out as domestication [8] and others that will have impacted pathogen evolution [32] (Fig. 2). As noted above, significant advances have been made in our understanding of infectious disease outcomes associated with early animal farming through the recovery and analysis of ancient pathogen DNA [e.g. 33-34]. However, understanding ecological interactions has not kept pace with these developments. Wolfe et al.'s [35] conceptual model of the origins of major human infectious diseases, for example, prioritises the evolutionary stages through which a pathogen originally exclusively infecting animals may have become transformed into one exclusively infecting humans, rather than the socio-ecological contexts of these transformations, or the possibility of reverse zoonoses. Taking an explicitly multispecies lens would enable the consideration of a wider community ecology context containing multiple actors [36, 37], which is approached here though a One Health framework [17, 20].

One Health focuses on improving health understanding and outcomes through interdisciplinary and multisectoral approaches [38-39]. They are ideal to help situate domestication studies in their widest context to understand how socio-ecological changes influence health outcomes, conceptually moving beyond a narrow anthropocentric health focus [16]. Further, One Health frameworks of contemporary health scenarios often contain limited or no time depth, which can add valuable context. Recent work has begun to add significantly to this space by focusing on One Health in long-term perspective [e.g. 18-21]. This expands the typical temporally-shallow focus of One Health approaches, with integrated and contextualised biological and cultural long-term records helping to provide holistic understanding of developments from natural history origins to later anthropogenic influences [17].

Farming originated in complex and dynamic multispecies socio-ecological landscapes, and analytical frameworks should fully value multispecies perspectives, in this sense being 'equity informed' as advocated by Stephen et al. [16]. One Health conceptualisations need to be able to consider pathogen flow between multiple taxa [5], and in dynamically changing domestication scenarios not be constrained by wild:domestic classificatory dichotomies. Classificatory systems that rely on wild-domestic dichotomy do not allow full evaluation of domestication scenarios [7, 40]. Conceptualisation models need to be able to evaluate changes through time, as well as context dependent scenarios [16], and also be mappable against the range of recoverable datasets from past contexts [18, 41].

## CONTEMPORARY WILDLIFE FARMING CONTEXTS

There is a diversity of practices in a range of contexts that fall under the term 'wildlife farming' [e.g. 22; 42-43]. There is also at times some ambiguity or contradiction across disciplinary literatures regarding whether a population is considered wild or domestic, seemingly stemming from various factors including the context, origin, and characteristics of the species being farmed, and also the relatively recent history of the human management of these taxa. Here we briefly consider selected examples from the literature that illustrate different socio-ecological features of contemporary emergent farming systems.

The characteristics of a given animal population, as well as human management decisions around those animals, play important roles shaping disease dynamics. In captivity, high animal density increases contacts and transmission opportunities between individuals, and this may create conditions for the spread, and maintenance of pathogens that might not have otherwise persisted. In addition, high density can expose animals to stress, immunosuppression and consequently increase animal susceptibility to infection from circulating pathogens within these farmed populations [23, 44-45]. This may be seen in the maintenance of rabies within populations of the
greater kudu (*Tragelaphus strepsiceros*) in Namibia managed for trophy hunting and venison production [46-47] and the circulation of avian influenza virus (AIV) in South African farmed ostriches (*Struthio camelus*) [48]. The directionality of rabies transmission pathways in Namibia is revealed by historical epidemiological data, with endemicity first established in jackal, followed by transmission to and then the maintenance of the virus in greater kudu [47].

Socioeconomic drivers of consumer and producer choices can impact the selection of species raised in fur farms, animal demography, and phenotype. Yet, these choices may affect the prevalence of zoonotic pathogens, such as *Toxoplasma gondii*, the parasitic protozoan that causes toxoplasmosis. Indeed, this prevalence was found to vary between different canid species on a single farm in Poland, possibly due to interspecific differences in host immune response and susceptibility to the parasite [49]. The demographic structure of farmed populations may further influence pathogen circulation, with the risk of infection by *T. gondii* found to be higher in younger animals in another study on farmed raccoon dogs (*Nyctereutes procyonoides*) in two provinces in China [50].

As part of phenotype, animal behaviour may also play a role; one which may change through time in dynamically evolving human-animal relationships. A further observation from the Polish fur farm case study [49] is potentially interesting from this perspective, in that differences in prevalence of *T. gondii* infections were noted in red fox females with different behaviour types. None of the foxes classed as fearful and indifferent were infected, compared to low levels of infection in curious or aggressive animals. Although Górecki et al. [49] report that differences between groups of different behaviour were statistically not significant, the observation is relevant for thinking about changes in animal behaviour through time in an emerging domestication process.

The influence of human decisions on the management of farmed animal populations and their associated environment constraints or habitat enhancements is further illustrated by the farming of rusa deer (*Cervus timorensis russa*), a significant element of Mauritius' food production [45]. They represent the largest population of large mammals on the island, raised in both semi-free-ranging herds and intensive farms. Leptospirosis is one example of the diseases investigated by Jori et al. [45] in these animals, with significant associations found with animal demography (age), animal density, or location of the estates (especially those exposed to higher rainfall and temperature).

These decisions around the selection, management and location of taxa in wildlife farms may then shape exposures to other animals and the parasites they carry, with the interfaces between species being key dimensions of interspecies – and especially zoonotic – transmission events. For example, in 2002 severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) appeared in Foshan, Guangdong province, China, and spread to 29 countries. Subsequent investigations indicate that it was a population of farmed masked palm civets (*Paguma larvata*) that acted as the intermediate animal host transmitting the virus from its reservoir in horseshoe bats (*Rhinolophus*) to humans [51-52]. As another example, in the Polish fur farming case study mentioned above, rodents and cats were noted as having access to the farm [49], with felids notably being the definitive hosts of *T. gondii*. Animals managed extensively may be at risk of pathogen transmission from contact with a range of free-living taxa. The extensive nature of ostrich farming exposes them to risks of avian influenza virus (AIV) [48]. Indeed, avian influenza virus molecular epidemiology has shown that above mentioned outbreaks in farmed ostriches could be linked to viruses circulating in wild bird taxa in the region [48].

The wider context of human activity and how it is organised across farms also needs to be considered. Following the Covid-19 pandemic that began in late 2019, humans are now the dominant severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) host species, posing a risk to other animal species [51]. The circulation of SARS-CoV-2 in farmed mink (*Neovison vison*)
illustrates a wider socio-ecological context, as well as potential for reverse zoonotic transfer and new variant emergence in contiguous populations of humans and animals [53-55]. Investigations of farmed mink management, including farm biosecurity, during the 2020 SARS-CoV-2 outbreaks that affected production in Denmark and the Netherlands, identified that shared personnel between farms and geographical clustering increased the risk of infection in mink farms [53, 54, 56].

The translocation of farmed wildlife from one region to another may also be implicated in the further spread of pathogens. This can be seen in the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD), a fatal prion disease of wild cervids and those farmed for meat production [57]. Although the disease has been known for over 50 years in cervid populations in North America, its distribution is expanding, with long-distance movements of farmed cervids shown to facilitate its spread [58]. An example of inadvertent introduction of a disease across the Atlantic may be seen in the impact of the introduction of the grey squirrel (*Sciurus carolinensis*) into Britain on the native red squirrel (*S. vulgaris*). Although not farmed in the strict sense, grey squirrels were introduced to estates and gardens by wealthy landowners and collectors in the late 19th and early 20th century for aesthetic reasons [59]. Their introduction brought squirrel pox virus (SQPV), which is highly virulent to red squirrels and significantly contributed to their decline [60]. While translocated populations can introduce pathogens to new populations or taxa, they might also be vulnerable to common pathogens or parasites endemic to the area to which they have been moved. For example, in North America, meningeal worm (*Parelaphostrongylus tenuis*) is a common nonpathogenic parasite of white-tailed deer (*Odocoileus virginianus*), but causes significant morbidity and mortality in aberrant hosts, such as mule deer (*O. hemionus*), introduced into endemic areas or managed alongside white-tailed deer [61-62].

Cultural attitudes to specific animal populations shape their treatment and management, visible in contemporary (often country-based) policy-frameworks [63] and socio-economic contexts [64]. Fearnley [64], for example, highlights the blurred distinction between domestic and wild species in duck/geese flocks in China, and through the example of breeders' and scientists' engagements with swan geese (*Anser cygnoides*) highlights the need to rethink the utility of wild:domestic dichotomies.

## DISCUSSION

Contemporary wildlife farming scenarios illustrate some key socio-ecological, demographic and behavioural features of intensifying human-animal relationships that may contribute to infectious disease risks in different, intersecting, ways. Emergent farming practices can structure multiple animals in novel combinations and close proximity, such as co-housing of animals, leading to heightened opportunities for interspecific pathogen transmission [42, 51]. Such transmission may occur between contiguous animal populations, and also to and from humans, with the enhanced connections between human and animal populations [53-55]. In an evolutionary perspective, farming contexts represent new environmental conditions for wild animal populations and disruption to their natural ecologies. Conditions of management, immune status and stress that the animals can be under in these novel environmental contexts can increase risks of infection [44, 48]. Animals may also be kept in larger populations and novel population structures, features that may also impact infectious disease risk.

Archaeological research focusses on the related but offset processes of farming origins and animal domestication, and engages with questions of ecological interactions and evolutionary change (Fig. 2). One Health approaches are well placed for understanding these complex, dynamic and multispecies processes. The framework presented in Fig. 4 attempts to draw from, and be relevant for, the ancient and contemporary contexts discussed above.
Fig. 4 presents a One Health conceptual framework for the study of past infectious diseases in emergent farming contexts, including gradual domestication of one, or more, animal populations and their connection and potential gene-flow with conspecific wild populations [65]. To allow the understanding of the processes at play requires contextualisation of the niche constructing behaviours of human communities [20]. The framework considers potential pathogen flow within emergent farming systems, and key determinants of disease highlighted above and summarised in [66]. It draws from conceptualisation of wildlife health as a cumulative effect that changes through time [16], while also remaining context dependent. It also allows articulation with conceptualisations of the evolution of agriculture in a similar cumulative way, e.g. cumulative cultural evolution, where certain innovations or ideas are selectively retained and built on through successive human generations [24].

Moving beyond anthropocentrism is a key dimension of One Health principles. A wider and more inclusive consideration of species interactions, outside relationships with humans, may help to frame ecological interactions not typically considered. In this way, improving conceptual frameworks can help provide guidance to research strategy that coherently links to the overarching research goals [14]. Research in recent years has demonstrated examples where some animal species implicated in ancient disease transmission have gone unnoticed until identified through aDNA approaches, such as the introduction of tuberculosis to the Americas by seals [67] and the role of squirrels as a host of leprosy in medieval England [41]. Clarified and inclusive frameworks that formulate past disease ecology within broader multispecies, socio-ecological models thus have a role in framing research topics and sample selection (i.e. selecting species/populations in which pathogen occurrence should be investigated) (Fig. 4). For example, modelling of zoonotic brucellosis indicated it would have become endemic in early managed livestock in the Early Neolithic of Southwest Asia [68], which has subsequently been ground-truthed through palaeogenomic analysis [34]. Even small domestic populations, such as carnivores (i.e. dogs and cats), can have a significant impact on local fauna, with the potential to modify or disrupt ecosystems well beyond human-occupied spaces [69-70], including enabling pathogen transmission across multiple species (Fig. 4). As an archaeological example, Susat et al. [71] have demonstrated the potential of dogs to be carriers of *Yersinia pestis* and likely establishing epidemiological connections between local micromammal reservoirs and human communities in Late Neolithic Germany.

Contemporary wildlife farming contexts are not direct analogues for early domestication scenarios. They are employed here to help explore the factors at play and to set up productive contexts for thinking about the distributed health impacts of farming decisions and ecological interactions. Animals are often raised in intensive contexts; different from the low yield, low intensity emergent systems theorised in archaeological context. Also, health and welfare information on these systems is relatively scarce, although it is known that predisposition to disease emergence in such populations can be shaped by intensive farming conditions causing stress and immunosuppression [23]. In addition, a high host density promotes transmission, and high turnover in the supply of susceptible hosts [72]. The aim here is to ensure that how we think of past systems can be applied to contemporary scenarios [24]. Consideration of contemporary wildlife farming scenarios may help us consider a wider constellation of socio-ecological and epidemiological relationships to frame the pathways to agriculture and its impacts. Domestication as a process is often conceptualised as a linear evolutionary model, reducing the range of possible relationships open to examination, which in practice may have been more experimental and random [73]. Viewing domestication in a broader lens may more effectively encompass categories of 'low-level food production' [7].

A long-term comparative perspective may also bring focus to modern contexts. Contemporarily, Western societies, in particular, tend to view wild and domestic animals in short-term, static perspectives as clearly delineated immutable categories [40]. Somewhat offset from this, and often
receiving less societal scrutiny and valorisation is the captive breeding of wild animals [22]. We argue that greater understanding of these populations may be rendered from viewing them in a long-term and comparative One Health framework. This is important for their welfare, and that of human communities, given the ongoing risks of zoonotic transfers [74].

Understanding long-term multispecies interactions and gene-culture coevolutionary processes are important for public health. This enables understanding of how human decisions and cultural actions can have evolutionary effects. For example, in the case of Marek's disease virus (MDV) in chickens, palaeogenomic research indicates that it has been circulating for at least 1000 years, but that ancient MDV strains were substantially less virulent than modern ones, with a change in virulence linked to modern intensive management conditions and imperfect ('leaky') vaccines [75]. As noted above, Early Neolithic livestock management decisions promoted conditions for endemicity of brucellosis in farmed animals [68] and a permanent risk to human populations. In a multispecies farming context, this process would also lead to the speciation and host adaptation of the pathogen [34]. A long view perspective is important for understanding the contexts of current health risks, especially when those contextual factors emerged and accumulate at different times in history. The emergence of avian influenza H5N1 and H7N9 in China, for example, has been linked to intensifications of rice farming, the integrated duck-rice farming system and intensive chicken production. Understanding their cumulative effects is essential for designing structural interventions [72]. Biocultural coevolutionary processes were an important factor shaping infectious disease risk 10,000 years ago; they are also important today, as visible in the evolution of antimicrobial resistance in response to human antimicrobial treatment strategies and usage [30, 76].

## CONCLUSIONS

We all live in a multispecies world. The nature and frequency of connections between these species shapes the ecology and evolution of infectious diseases. Restructuring human-animal relationships through time has provided opportunities for spillover and maintenance of parasites in different directions and different species populations. Through the Holocene, the strongly niche constructing behaviours of humans have significantly shaped these processes, as seen clearly in the emergence and intensification of domestic animal husbandry. Public and animal health scientific communities are still battling the infectious diseases that emerged with the transition to farming, and humans are still re-shaping connections and ecologies creating conditions for the emergence of new pathogens.

This paper has sought to bring together the study of modern and ancient human-animal relationships, linking knowledge on the processes of prehistoric animal domestication with that on contemporary wildlife farming. It contributes a framework for the long view understanding of intensifying wild animal management, which demonstrates the contribution of the humanities, and archaeology in particular, to improving understanding and contextualisation of a contemporary One Health issue. It explores modern comparative case studies for helping us think about early farming and domestication processes. Improved understanding of wildlife farming has potentially significant implications within ethical, legal and public health spheres. De-centering humans in the story, through One Health approaches, will help us move focus from pair-wise relationships to community ecology and well-being.

Through situating contemporary wildlife farming in a wider conceptual framework, the paper allows understanding of key socio-ecological features that can increase disease risk and contribute to evolutionary dynamics of human and animal pathogens. Recognition of these features can inform the design and targeting of effective disease mitigation strategies. For example, enhancements in the management and regulation of wildlife farming should include the reduction of high animal densities, which facilitate pathogen transmission, and an emphasis on improving animal health and
immunity through better welfare and husbandry practices. Fuller understanding and appreciation of all interspecies interfaces and the role human cultural practices play in such ecological and evolutionary contexts is also important for developing effective prevention strategies for diseases associated with wildlife farming.

## ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This paper was originally presented at the ISEMPH 2024 conference, within the One Palaeopathology session. Funding support from Prof Jane Buikstra (Arizona State University) for RB to attend the meeting is warmly acknowledged, as is the encouragement of Jane and the other session organisers and participants. Line illustrations in figures 2-4 were drawn with the kind assistance of Iris Bendrey, with a few elements in figure 2 also generated by an AI model. Thanks are also extended to the editors and reviewers for insightful and constructive comments that helped us to strengthen the paper.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST

None to report.

## FUNDING

This research was supported by funding from the School of History, Classics and Archaeology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

## REFERENCES

1. Barker G. *The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory: why did foragers become farmers?*
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

2. Diamond J. Evolution, consequences and future of plant and animal domestication. *Nature* 2002; **418**: 700-707. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01019

3. Zeder MA. The origins of agriculture in the Near East. *Current Anthropology* 2011; **52**: S221–S235. https://doi.org/10.1086/659307

4. Kaesh WB, Dobson A, Lloyd-Smith JO, et al. Ecology of zoonoses: natural and unnatural histories. *The Lancet* 2012; **380** (9857): 1936-1945.

5. Jones BA, Grace D, Kock R, et al. Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 2013; **110**: 8399-8404. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1208059110

6. Pearce-Duvet JM. The origin of human pathogens: evaluating the role of agriculture and domestic animals in the evolution of human disease. *Biological Reviews* 2006; **81**: 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1464793106007020

7. Smith BD. Low-level food production. *Journal of Archaeological Research* 2001; **9**: 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009436110049
8. Bogaard A, Allaby R, Arbuckle BS, et al. Reconsidering domestication from a process archaeology perspective. *World Archaeology* 2021; **53**: 56-77.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00438243.2021.1954990

9. Frantz LA, Bradley DG, Larson G, et al. Animal domestication in the era of ancient genomics. *Nature Reviews Genetics* 2020; **21**(8): 449-460. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41576-020-0225-0

10. Purugganan MD. What is domestication? *Trends in Ecology & Evolution* 2022; **37**: 663-671.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.04.006

11. Zeder MA. Core questions in domestication research. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 2015; **112**: 3191-3198. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501711112

12. Zeder MA. Pathways to animal domestication. In: Gepts P, Famula TR, Bettinger RL et al. (eds). *Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution and Sustainability*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, 227-229.

13. Düx A, Lequime S, Patrono LV, et al. Measles virus and rinderpest virus divergence dated to the sixth century BCE. *Science* 2020; **368**: 1367-1370.
https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.aba9411

14. Coker R, Rushton J, Mounier-Jack S, et al. Towards a conceptual framework to support one-health research for policy on emerging zoonoses. *Lancet Infectious Diseases* 2011; **11**(4): 326-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(10)70312-1

15. Davis A, Sharp J. Rethinking one health: emergent human, animal and environmental assemblages. *Social Science & Medicine* 2020; **258**: 113093.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113093

16. Stephen C, Wilcox A, Sine S, et al. A reimagined One Health framework for wildlife conservation. *Research Directions: One Health* 2023; **1**: e12.
https://doi.org/10.1017/one.2023.2

17. Bendrey R, Fournié G. How can deep time perspectives contribute to tackling contemporary One Health challenges, improving understanding and disease mitigation? *Research Directions: One Health* 2023; **1**: e9. https://doi.org/10.1017/one.2023.3

18. Bendrey R, Cassidy JP, Fournié G, et al. Approaching ancient disease from a One Health perspective: Interdisciplinary review for the investigation of zoonotic brucellosis. *International Journal of Osteoarchaeology* 2020; **30**: 99-108.
https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.2837

19. Littleton J, Karstens S, Busse M, et al. Human-animal interactions and infectious disease: a view for bioarchaeology. *Bioarchaeology International* 2022; **6**: 133-148.
https://doi.org/10.5744/bi.2021.0002

20. Rayfield KM, Mychajliw AM, Singleton RR, et al. Uncovering the Holocene roots of contemporary disease-scapes: bringing archaeology into One Health. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B* 2023; **290**: 20230525. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2023.0525
21. Robbins Schug G, Buikstra JE. From ONE Health to ONE Paleopathology: Deep-Time Perspectives on Health in the Face of Climate and Environmental Change. *Encyclopedia 2025*; **5**(1): 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia5010013

22. Green J, Schmidt-Burbach J, Elwin A, Taking stock of wildlife farming: A global perspective. *Global Ecology and Conservation* 2023; **43**: e02452.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02452

23. Magouras I, Brookes VJ, Jori F, et al. Emerging Zoonotic Diseases: Should We Rethink the Animal-Human Interface? *Frontiers in Veterinary Science* 2020; **7**: 582743.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2020.582743

24. Altman A, Mesoudi A. Understanding agriculture within the frameworks of cumulative cultural evolution, gene-culture co-evolution, and cultural niche construction. *Human Ecology* 2019; **47**: 483-497. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10745-019-00090-y

25. Larson G, Fuller DQ. The evolution of animal domestication. *Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics* 2014; **45**: 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-110512-135813.

26. Murphy MR. History of the capture and domestication of the Syrian golden hamster (*Mesocricetus auratus* Waterhouse). In: Siegel SI, (ed). *The hamster: Reproduction and behavior*. Boston, MA: Springer US, 1985, 3-20

27. Smith BD. General patterns of niche construction and the management of 'wild' plant and animal resources by small-scale pre-industrial societies. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* 2011; **366**(1566): 836-848.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0253

28. Rowley-Conwy P, Layton R. Foraging and farming as niche construction: stable and unstable adaptations. *Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* 2011; **366**(1566): 849-862. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0307

29. Zohary D, Tchernov E, Horwitz L. The role of unconscious selection in the domestication of sheep and goats. *Journal of Zoology* 1998; **245**: 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1998.tb00082.x

30. Futuyma DJ. *Evolution*. Third edition. Sunderland, MA; Sinauer Associates, 2013.

31. Johnson MT, Stinchcombe JR. An emerging synthesis between community ecology and evolutionary biology. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution* 2007; **22**(5): 250-257.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.01.014

32. Burdon JJ, Thrall PH. Pathogen evolution across the agro-ecological interface: implications for disease management. *Evolutionary Applications* 2008; **1**(1): 57-65.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2007.00005.x

33. Lebrasseur O, More KD, Orlando L. Equine herpesvirus 4 infected domestic horses associated with Sintashta spoke-wheeled chariots around 4,000 years ago. *Virus Evolution* 2024; **10**:
vead087, https://doi.org/10.1093/ve/vead087
34. L'Hôte L, Light I, Mattiangeli V, et al. An 8000 years old genome reveals the Neolithic origin of the zoonosis *Brucella melitensis*. *Nature Communications* 2024; **15**: 6132.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-024-50536-1.

35. Wolfe ND, Dunavan CP, Diamond J. Origins of major human infectious diseases. *Nature* 2007; **447**: 279-283. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05775

36. Boyd B. Archaeology and human–animal relations: thinking through anthropocentrism. *Annual Review of Anthropology* 2017; **46**: 299-316. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102116-041346

37. Boyd B. An archaeological telling of multispecies co-inhabitation: Comments on the origins of agriculture and domestication narrative in Southwest Asia. In: Birch S (ed). *Multispecies Archaeology*. Routledge, 2018, 251–270.

38. Lebov J, Grieger K, Womack D, et al. A framework for One Health research. *One Health* 2017; **3**: 44–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.onehlt.2017.03.004

39. One Health High-Level Expert Panel (OHHLEP), Adisasmito WB, Almuhairi S, et al. One Health: A new definition for a sustainable and healthy future. *PLoS Pathog* 2022; **18**(6): e1010537. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1010537

40. Lien M, Swanson HA, Ween G. Introduction: Naming the Beast–Exploring the Otherwise. In: Swanson HA, Lien ME, Ween GB, (eds). *Domestication Gone Wild: Politics and Practices of Multispecies Relations*. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, 2018, 1–30.

41. Urban C, Blom AA, Avanzi C, et al. Ancient *Mycobacterium leprae* genome reveals medieval English red squirrels as animal leprosy host. *Current Biology* 2024; **34**(10): 2221-2230.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2024.04.006

42. FAO, Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. 'Wildlife farming in Viet Nam: Southern Viet Nam’s wildlife farm survey report in a glance'. 2015. Available at: https://www.fao.org/3/az118e/az118e.pdf (last accessed: 7 April 2025)

43. van Vliet N, Cornelis D, Beck H, et al. Meat from the Wild: Extractive Uses of Wildlife and Alternatives for Sustainability. In: Mateo R, Arroyo B, Garcia J, (eds). *Current Trends in Wildlife Research*. Wildlife Research Monographs, vol 1. Springer, Cham, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27912-1_10

44. Martin LB. Stress and immunity in wild vertebrates: Timing is everything. *General and Comparative Endocrinology* 2009; **163**(1-2): 70-76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2009.03.008

45. Jori F, Godfroid J, Michel AL, et al. An assessment of zoonotic and production limiting pathogens in rusa deer (*Cervus timorensis* rusa) from Mauritius. *Transboundary and Emerging Diseases* 2014; **61**: 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbed.12206

46. Annighöfer P, Schütz S. Observations on the population structure and behaviour of two differently managed populations of the greater kudu (*Tragelaphus strepsiceros*, Pallas 1766) in Namibia. *European Journal of Wildlife Research* 2011; **57**: 895–907.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10344-011-0501-6
47. Scott TP, Fischer M, Khaiseb S, et al. Complete Genome and Molecular Epidemiological Data Infer the Maintenance of Rabies among Kudu (*Tragelaphus strepsiceros*) in Namibia. *PLoS ONE* 2013; **8**(3): e58739. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0058739

48. Abolnik C, Olivier A, Reynolds C, et al. Susceptibility and status of avian influenza in ostriches. *Avian diseases* 2016; **60**: 286-295. https://doi.org/10.1637/11110-042815-Reg

49. Górecki MT, Galbas M, Szwed K, et al. Prevalence of Toxoplasma gondii infection diagnosed by PCR in farmed red foxes, arctic foxes and raccoon dogs. *Folia Biol* (Krakow) 2012; **60**: 61-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2009.03.008

50. Zheng W-B, Cong W, Hou J, et al., Seroprevalence and Risk Factors of Toxoplasma gondii Infection in Farmed Raccoon Dogs (*Nyctereutes procyonoides*) in China. *Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases* 2016; **17**: 209-212. https://doi.org/10.1089/vbz.2016.2035

51. Lytras S., Xia W, Hughes, et al., The animal origin of SARS-CoV-2. *Science* 2021; **373**: 968-970. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abh0117

52. Song HD, Tu CC, Zhang GW, et al. Cross-host evolution of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus in palm civet and human. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 2005; **102**(7): 2430-2435. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0409608102

53. Boklund A, Hammer AS, Quaade ML, et al. SARS-CoV-2 in Danish Mink Farms: Course of the Epidemic and a Descriptive Analysis of the Outbreaks in 2020. *Animals* 2021; **11**(1): 164. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11010164

54. Lu L, Sikkema RS, Velkers FC, et al., Adaptation, spread and transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in farmed minks and associated humans in the Netherlands. *Nature Communications* 2021; **12**: 6802. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-27096-9

55. Oude Munnink BB, Sikkema RS, Nieuwenhuijse DF, et al. Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 on mink farms between humans and mink and back to humans. *Science* 2021; **371**: 172-177. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abe5901

56. Wolters WJ, de Rooij MMT, Molenaar RJ, et al. Manifestation of SARS-CoV-2 Infections in Mink Related to Host-, Virus- and Farm-Associated Factors, The Netherlands 2020. *Viruses* 2022; **14**(8): 1754. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14081754

57. Mori J, Rivera N, Novakofski J, Mateus-Pinilla N. A review of chronic wasting disease (CWD) spread, surveillance, and control in the United States captive cervid industry. *Prion* 2024; **18**: 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1080/19336896.2024.2343220

58. Makau DN, VanderWaal K, Kincheloe J, Wells S J. Implications of farmed-cervid movements on the transmission of chronic wasting disease. *Preventive Veterinary Medicine* 2020; **182**: 105088. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105088

59. Middleton AD. The Ecology of the American Grey Squirrel (*Sciurus carolinensis* Gmelin) in the British Isles. *Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond.* 1930; **100**: 809-843. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1930.tb01000.x
60. Wauters LA, Lurz PWW, Santicchia F, Romeo C, Ferrari N, Martinoli A, Gurnell J. Interactions between native and invasive species: A systematic review of the red squirrel-gray squirrel paradigm. *Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution* 2023; **11**:1083008.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2023.1083008

61. Allen SE, Vogt NA, Stevens B, Ruder MG, Jardine CM, Nemeth NM. 2020. A retrospective summary of cervid morbidity and mortality in Ontario and Nunavut regions of Canada (1991–2017). *Journal of Wildlife Diseases*, 2020; **56**: 884-895. https://doi.org/10.7589/JWD-D-19-00018

62. Weiss RB, Sarver CF, Thilsted J, Wolfe BA. Clinical *Parelaphostrongylus tenuis* infection in two captive American bison (*Bison bison*). *Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association* 2008; **233**: 1127-1130. https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.233.7.1127

63. Whitfort A. COVID-19 and Wildlife Farming in China: Legislating to Protect Wild Animal Health and Welfare in the Wake of a Global Pandemic. *Journal of Environmental Law* 2021; **33**(1): 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/jel/eqaa030

64. Fearnley L. Wild goose chase: the displacement of influenza research in the fields of Poyang Lake, China. *Cultural Anthropology* 2015; **30**(1): 12-35. https://doi.org/10.14506/ca30.1.03

65. Marshall FB, Dobney K, Denham T et al., Evaluating the roles of directed breeding and gene flow in animal domestication. *Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences* 2014; **111**(17): 6153-6158. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312984110

66. Thrusfield M. *Veterinary Epidemiology* (4th edition). Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118280249

67. Bos K, Harkins K, Herbig A, et al. Pre-Columbian mycobacterial genomes reveal seals as a source of New World human tuberculosis. *Nature* 2014; **514**: 494–497.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature13591

68. Fournié G, Pfeiffer DU, Bendrey R. Early animal farming and zoonotic disease dynamics: modelling brucellosis transmission in Neolithic goat populations. *Royal Society Open Science* 2017; **4**(2): 160943. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160943

69. Fleming PJ, Nolan H, Jackson SM, et al. Roles for the Canidae in food webs reviewed: where do they fit?. *Food Webs* 2017; **12**: 14-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fooweb.2017.03.001

70. Young JK, Olson KA, Reading RP, et al. Is wildlife going to the dogs? Impacts of feral and free-roaming dogs on wildlife populations. *BioScience* 2011; **61**(2): 125-132.
https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.7

71. Susat J, Haller-Caskie M, Bonczarowska JH, et al. Neolithic *Yersinia pestis* infections in humans and a dog. *Commun Biol* 2024; **7**: 1013. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-024-06676-7

72. Gilbert M, Xiao X, Robinson TP. Intensifying poultry production systems and the emergence of avian influenza in China: a ‘One Health/Ecohealth’ epitome. *Archives of Public Health* 2017; **75**: 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-017-0218-4
73. Redding RW. Breaking the mold, a consideration of variation in the evolution of animal domestication. In: Vigne J-D, Peters J, Helmer D (eds). *The First Steps of Animal Domestication*. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2005, 41–48.

74. Zhao J, Wan W, Yu K, et al. Farmed fur animals harbour viruses with zoonotic spillover potential. *Nature* 2024; **634**: 228–233. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07901-3

75. Fiddaman SR, Dimopoulos EA, Lebrasseur O, et al. Ancient chicken remains reveal the origins of virulence in Marek's disease virus. *Science* 2023; **382**: 1276–1281. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg2238

76. Jørgensen PS, Folke C, Henriksson PJ, et al. Coevolutionary governance of antibiotic and pesticide resistance. *Trends in Ecology & Evolution* 2020; **35**(6): 484-494. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.01.011
FIGURE LEGENDS

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

**Figure 1.** Understanding human-animal relationships and infectious diseases in emergent farming contexts – connecting past and present contexts can provide insights on health risks in emerging farming contexts. Archaeological studies of temporally-distant contexts focus on conceptualising and evaluating evidence for subtle changes in long-term, gradual transitions, although socio-ecological dynamics and epidemiological impacts can be hard to define. In contrast, in contemporary wildlife farming (a common economic practice today involving the captive breeding of wild animals) there are direct observations of interspecific interactions and data on epidemiological consequences. This study seeks to unite insights from both within a One Health framework.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 2.** Intersections of key research areas associated with infectious diseases in emergent multispecies farming. Emergent farming may be viewed as a gene-human culture co-evolutionary process, where genetic change in the managed species and culturally transmitted human knowledge and behaviours (here illustrated by dairying practices) may both shape each other. Community ecology (the interactions of different species within a specific environment) creates the conditions promoting the transmission of pathogens and their adaptation to novel host species, and in an emergent farming context can bring about evolutionary changes in both the managed animal populations and parasitic microbial taxa impacting genotype and phenotype.</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>
**Figure 3.** Examples of human niche constructing hunter-gatherer animal management strategies from which early animal farming may have emerged, including factors that promote the presence and sustainability of a specific taxon [27-29], and which we can potentially follow through into determinants of disease risk in early agricultural ecosystems (see Fig. 4).

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

**Figure 4.** One Health conceptual framework for the study of past infectious diseases in emergent farming contexts, including selected factors (determinants) affecting the risk of infection. This seeks to enable evaluation of changing contexts for managed taxa, their connection and potential gene-flow with conspecific populations, human niche constructing behaviours, and potential pathogen flow between interacting taxa. The model allows scenarios of pathogen transmission from any direction to be considered, which as outlined in the text varies across known case studies. The illustrated taxa in Fig. 4 include farmed masked palm civets which, as the intermediate host, transmitted severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) from horseshoe bats to humans in 2002 (see text).