Perhaps the most important number is the cost to prevent an animal from being farmed. Initial estimates were as low as $0.10/life, but later came under scrutiny. One estimate puts the cost at $5.70 to save a chicken life, with pigs being around $150. Since that implies costs scales about linearly with meat-produced, I’m assuming $636 to save a cow’s life, but these numbers are all speculative. Note also that these are estimates for one particular intervention.
I haven’t followed the animal advocacy space closely, and so I’m not sure, but I worry that you might have picked an intervention that is very far away from the maximum cost-effectiveness in this space.
I don’t yet have a good sense of how valuable this is v.s. the chicken not being produced in the first place, and I think this will end up being a major point of contention. My intuitive personal sense is that chicken lives are not “worth living” (i.e. ethically net positive) even if they are receiving the listed enrichments, but others would disagree:
https://nintil.com/on-the-living-standards-of-animals-in-the-united-kingdom
But overall I’m optimistic that there are or could be much more cost-effective interventions than the one I looked at.
If true, this wouldn’t change the cow/chicken analysis, but would make me much favorable towards eating meat + offsets as opposed to eating more expensive plant-based alternatives. As noted elsewhere, of course the optimific action is still to be vegan and also donate anyway.
One other thing that’s important, and that I should have emphasized more in my original comment: You are specifically interested in offsetting chicken consumption (not eggs), but I believe that most successful corporate campaigns to date were about hen welfare (i.e., chicken farmed for eggs).
At a glance, the post I linked to covers both ‘hen welfare’ and ‘broiler welfare’ (i.e., chicken farmed for meat). But it’s worth paying attention to whether cost-effectiveness estimates for hen welfare or broiler welfare differ, or if we even have ones for broiler welfare (if we do, I think they would probably me more uncertain since I would guess there is less data on cost, tractability, corporate follow-through etc.).
This of course also applies to the improvement in living conditions. I think (but am not totally sure) that everything about caged vs. cage-free is relevant for hen welfare only. For this, I would recommend looking at this report. I know that animal advocates have also tried to estimate the effect of potential welfare improvement for broilers (e.g., using different breeds) - including concerns whether some welfare improvements might cause an increase in farmed broiler population due to lowered ‘efficieny’, and whether this could make some measures net negative w.r.t total, aggregated welfare—but I don’t know of a good source off the top of my head.
I haven’t followed the animal advocacy space closely, and so I’m not sure, but I worry that you might have picked an intervention that is very far away from the maximum cost-effectiveness in this space.
E.g., at first glance Corporate campaigns affect 9 to 120 years of chicken life per dollar spentsuggests a cost-effectiveness that is orders of magnitudes higher. [ETA: Note it’s crucial to distinguish between ‘hen welfare’ and ‘broiler welfare’, i.e., eggs vs. chicken.]
Yeah, I’m hopeful that this is correct, and plan to incorporate other intervention impact estimates soon.
For that particular post, Saulius is talking about “lives affected”. E.g chickens having more room as described here: https://www.compass-usa.com/compass-group-usa-becomes-first-food-service-company-commit-100-healthier-slower-growing-chicken-2024-landmark-global-animal-partnership-agreement/
I don’t yet have a good sense of how valuable this is v.s. the chicken not being produced in the first place, and I think this will end up being a major point of contention. My intuitive personal sense is that chicken lives are not “worth living” (i.e. ethically net positive) even if they are receiving the listed enrichments, but others would disagree: https://nintil.com/on-the-living-standards-of-animals-in-the-united-kingdom
But overall I’m optimistic that there are or could be much more cost-effective interventions than the one I looked at.
If true, this wouldn’t change the cow/chicken analysis, but would make me much favorable towards eating meat + offsets as opposed to eating more expensive plant-based alternatives. As noted elsewhere, of course the optimific action is still to be vegan and also donate anyway.
One other thing that’s important, and that I should have emphasized more in my original comment: You are specifically interested in offsetting chicken consumption (not eggs), but I believe that most successful corporate campaigns to date were about hen welfare (i.e., chicken farmed for eggs).
At a glance, the post I linked to covers both ‘hen welfare’ and ‘broiler welfare’ (i.e., chicken farmed for meat). But it’s worth paying attention to whether cost-effectiveness estimates for hen welfare or broiler welfare differ, or if we even have ones for broiler welfare (if we do, I think they would probably me more uncertain since I would guess there is less data on cost, tractability, corporate follow-through etc.).
This of course also applies to the improvement in living conditions. I think (but am not totally sure) that everything about caged vs. cage-free is relevant for hen welfare only. For this, I would recommend looking at this report. I know that animal advocates have also tried to estimate the effect of potential welfare improvement for broilers (e.g., using different breeds) - including concerns whether some welfare improvements might cause an increase in farmed broiler population due to lowered ‘efficieny’, and whether this could make some measures net negative w.r.t total, aggregated welfare—but I don’t know of a good source off the top of my head.