I think that both feed fortification and dissolved oxygen will increase costs for farmers as they will need to pay for the nutrients to supplement feed with or for the aeration equipment, so this could decrease supply and demand.
I do agree, though, that these interventions will improve yields, which as you say could increase supply and demand.
The problem is that I am unsure of the magnitudes of both of these effects so I don’t know what the overall sign for the intervention would be. I think I would still lean towards it decreasing supply and demand overall, though, as I’m unsure of how much yields would improve but I am quite confident that costs of production will increase.
It might be worth widening your distribution for the effects on supply/demand further into the negative and checking sensitivity to this value and the size of the welfare improvement for individuals.
On further consideration, I’d imagine the effects of the welfare improvement will dominate the effects of change in number (as they do now), since they’re a few orders of magnitude larger in absolute value, anyway.
For dissolved oxygen in Taiwan, it was 30 billion welfare points from the welfare improvement and 610 million welfare points from reduced supply/demand.
For feed fortification in India, 180 million welfare points from the welfare improvement and 60,000 welfare points from reduced supply/demand.
So flipping the signs of the supply/demand effect wouldn’t make much difference.
I think that both feed fortification and dissolved oxygen will increase costs for farmers as they will need to pay for the nutrients to supplement feed with or for the aeration equipment, so this could decrease supply and demand.
I do agree, though, that these interventions will improve yields, which as you say could increase supply and demand.
The problem is that I am unsure of the magnitudes of both of these effects so I don’t know what the overall sign for the intervention would be. I think I would still lean towards it decreasing supply and demand overall, though, as I’m unsure of how much yields would improve but I am quite confident that costs of production will increase.
It might be worth widening your distribution for the effects on supply/demand further into the negative and checking sensitivity to this value and the size of the welfare improvement for individuals.
On further consideration, I’d imagine the effects of the welfare improvement will dominate the effects of change in number (as they do now), since they’re a few orders of magnitude larger in absolute value, anyway.
For dissolved oxygen in Taiwan, it was 30 billion welfare points from the welfare improvement and 610 million welfare points from reduced supply/demand.
For feed fortification in India, 180 million welfare points from the welfare improvement and 60,000 welfare points from reduced supply/demand.
So flipping the signs of the supply/demand effect wouldn’t make much difference.