Thanks for the comment, Saulius! How about soil ants and termites? For my preferred exponent of the number of neurons of 0.5, I estimate funding HIPF increases the welfare of target beneficiaries, and soil ants and termites (considered all together) 1.09 k (= 203⁄0.186) times as cost-effectively as cage-free corporate campaigns. For the exponent of 0.19 which explains the welfare ranges in Bob’s book very well (an exponent of 0.188 explains 78.6 % of their variance), I estimate cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns decrease the welfare of chickens, and soil ants and termites, having a cost-effectiveness accounting for these of −86.3 and −518 QALY/$, whereas funding HIPF would have a cost-effectiveness of 9.69 kQALY/$.
Thanks for the comment, Saulius! How about soil ants and termites? For my preferred exponent of the number of neurons of 0.5, I estimate funding HIPF increases the welfare of target beneficiaries, and soil ants and termites (considered all together) 1.09 k (= 203⁄0.186) times as cost-effectively as cage-free corporate campaigns. For the exponent of 0.19 which explains the welfare ranges in Bob’s book very well (an exponent of 0.188 explains 78.6 % of their variance), I estimate cage-free and broiler welfare corporate campaigns decrease the welfare of chickens, and soil ants and termites, having a cost-effectiveness accounting for these of −86.3 and −518 QALY/$, whereas funding HIPF would have a cost-effectiveness of 9.69 kQALY/$.