To Farm or Not to Farm? Pilot Testing a Sentiocentric Ethical Framework for Farming Non-Typical Species

Systems that farm non-typical (wild) species for human consumption are on the rise globally, in contrast to more typical livestock production. In some instances, wildlife farming may arguably help alleviate poverty, provide sustainable animal protein, and be a useful strategy for conservation through reducing wildlife poaching or breeding some animals on farms for reintroduction. However, it is unclear whether farming non-typical species within variable and often unregulated systems truly offers these benefits or outweighs the costs including animal welfare implications, public health concerns, and normalising or intensifying the consumption of wild animals. A previous study proposed a sentiocentric ethical decision-making framework for the farming of wild species. In the present study we invited academic 'key informants' with specialised knowledge about farming non-typical species to pilot the framework via an online survey using a species of their choice and requested their feedback on its strengths and weaknesses. Thirteen respondents applied ten different mammalian, reptilian, insect, and avian species to the framework, spanning all continents. Ultimately, the framework outcome for 11 appraisals was that the chosen species may be suitable for farming. However, erroneous responses were likely in places, and there was some uncertainty over definitions of framework terminology. We publish resultant amendments to the ethical framework to clarify meaning and suggest that it can be applied proactively or reactively by different stakeholders (e.g., governments, businesses, and NGOs). We reflect our informants' views, acknowledging the need to solicit expertise from additional stakeholders (e.g., farmers) and the role of cultural significance and rural communities when considering farming non-typical species.