I think the impact from Sinergiaâs work on helping pigs is half as large as ACE estimated as a result of Sinergia being credited for a measure which has been in place since 2010.
Based on your cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of Sinergia, 54.4 % (= 272*10^6/â(500*10^6)) of the benefits of Sinergiaâs work on helping pigs came from Alibemâs commitments to âbanningâ the âsurgical castrationâ and âteeth clippingâ of piglets. It seems to me that Sinergia should not be credited for the 1st of these commitments. Alibem said in 2023 they have eliminated surgical castration from their protocols since 2010. âAlinhada Ă s diretrizes expressas em sua PolĂtica de Bem-Estar Animal, a Alibem assume, de forma voluntĂĄria, os seguintes compromissos em relação ao tema:â âContinuar a aplicar a imunocastração, em vez da castração cirĂşrgica â procedimento eliminado dos protocolos da Companhia, voluntariamente, desde 2010â. Below is the translation from Google Translate, which I can confirm is accurate as a native Portuguese speaker.
âIn line with the guidelines expressed in its Animal Welfare Policy, Alibem voluntarily assumes the following commitments regarding this topic:â âContinue to apply immunocastration, instead of surgical castration â a procedure voluntarily eliminated from the Companyâs protocols since 2010âł
You assumed that going from âPiglets (HIC) - full suite of mutilationsâ to âPiglets (HIC) - either no teeth clipping, or no disbuddingâ, as in the 2nd commitment from Alibem regarding piglets, averts 1.04suffering-adjusted days (SADs) per animal. This is only 7.07 % (= 1.04/â14.7) of the benefits you assumed for Alibemâs commitments regarding piglets, which means the benefits of these should be decreased by 92.9 % (= 1 â 0.0707) to exclude the benefits from the 1st commitment. In this case, the impact from Sinergiaâs work on helping pigs becomes 50.5 % (= 0.929*0.544) smaller relative to your estimate.
Less importantly, you considered a single legal deadline for the above commitments of 2045, but the commitments have different legal deadlines. From articles 38 and 54 of Normative Instruction 113, teeth clipping became illegal on 1 February 2021. So, for your assumption that a welfare reform is fully implemented before it becomes law (you calculate the years of impact based on this; you may want to increase the years of impact to account for non-ideal enforcement), you should also not have credited Sinergia with the impact from Alibemâs 2nd commitment regarding piglets. In this case, the impact from Sinergiaâs work on helping pigs becomes 54.4 % smaller relative to your estimate.
I think it would have been better for you to consider a single commitment per row. I found 3 other cases where you considered a single legal deadline for welfare reforms with different legal deadlines (outlined in p. 9 here). Besides row 4 respecting Alibemâs commitments, rows 3 (Alegra), 10 (JBS), and 11 (Master Agroindustrial).
Hi @Aidan Whitfieldđ¸ , @Carolina GalvaniâSinergia Animal, @VettedCauses, @Vince Mak đ¸, and @Zuzana Sperlovađ¸,
I think the impact from Sinergiaâs work on helping pigs is half as large as ACE estimated as a result of Sinergia being credited for a measure which has been in place since 2010.
Based on your cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) of Sinergia, 54.4 % (= 272*10^6/â(500*10^6)) of the benefits of Sinergiaâs work on helping pigs came from Alibemâs commitments to âbanningâ the âsurgical castrationâ and âteeth clippingâ of piglets. It seems to me that Sinergia should not be credited for the 1st of these commitments. Alibem said in 2023 they have eliminated surgical castration from their protocols since 2010. âAlinhada Ă s diretrizes expressas em sua PolĂtica de Bem-Estar Animal, a Alibem assume, de forma voluntĂĄria, os seguintes compromissos em relação ao tema:â âContinuar a aplicar a imunocastração, em vez da castração cirĂşrgica â procedimento eliminado dos protocolos da Companhia, voluntariamente, desde 2010â. Below is the translation from Google Translate, which I can confirm is accurate as a native Portuguese speaker.
You assumed that going from âPiglets (HIC) - full suite of mutilationsâ to âPiglets (HIC) - either no teeth clipping, or no disbuddingâ, as in the 2nd commitment from Alibem regarding piglets, averts 1.04 suffering-adjusted days (SADs) per animal. This is only 7.07 % (= 1.04/â14.7) of the benefits you assumed for Alibemâs commitments regarding piglets, which means the benefits of these should be decreased by 92.9 % (= 1 â 0.0707) to exclude the benefits from the 1st commitment. In this case, the impact from Sinergiaâs work on helping pigs becomes 50.5 % (= 0.929*0.544) smaller relative to your estimate.
Less importantly, you considered a single legal deadline for the above commitments of 2045, but the commitments have different legal deadlines. From articles 38 and 54 of Normative Instruction 113, teeth clipping became illegal on 1 February 2021. So, for your assumption that a welfare reform is fully implemented before it becomes law (you calculate the years of impact based on this; you may want to increase the years of impact to account for non-ideal enforcement), you should also not have credited Sinergia with the impact from Alibemâs 2nd commitment regarding piglets. In this case, the impact from Sinergiaâs work on helping pigs becomes 54.4 % smaller relative to your estimate.
I think it would have been better for you to consider a single commitment per row. I found 3 other cases where you considered a single legal deadline for welfare reforms with different legal deadlines (outlined in p. 9 here). Besides row 4 respecting Alibemâs commitments, rows 3 (Alegra), 10 (JBS), and 11 (Master Agroindustrial).