I estimated the cost-effectiveness of farmed fish slaughter commitments to be between $10.4K and $114M per DALY averted.
Animal welfare is often conceptualised as just one area, but the above illustrates the cost-effectiveness can vary a lot depending on the species and type of intervention. So I think it is great that you are willing to estimate the cost-effectiveness in terms of DALY/â$[1]. It makes me more willing to donate to Rethink Priorities instead of Animal Charity Evaluatorsâ (ACEâs) recommended charities or the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF), because these are not estimating cost-effectiveness in terms of DALY/â$ (or similar). Both ACE and AWF assess cost-effectiveness based on heuristics[2], but I am not confident they are sufficient to figure out which are the best animal welfare interventions. I see GiveWellâs cost-effectiveness analyses as quite important to determine the best interventions in global health and development, so I assume having similar analyses in the context of animal welfare is quite useful too.
To put these numbers in context, $50 per DALY averted [or 0.02 DALY/â$ (= 1â50)] is considered a proxy for some of the most promising human global health and development interventions. The best animal interventions are often considered to be even more competitive than this.
For reference, I guess the cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare is 13.6 DALY/â$ (= 0.01*1.37*10^3), i.e. 680 (= 13.6/â0.02) times Open Philanthropyâs bar. I got that multiplying:
The cost-effectiveness of GiveWellâs top charities of 0.01 DALY/â$ (50 DALY per 5 k$), which is half of Open Philanthropyâs bar of 0.02 DALY/â$.
My estimate for the ratio between cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare and GiveWellâs top charities of 1.37 k (= 1.71*10^3/â0.682*2.73/â5):
I calculated corporate campaigns for broiler welfare increase neaterm welfare 1.71 k times as cost-effectively as the lowest cost to save a life among GiveWellâs top charities then of 3.5 k$, respecting a cost-effectiveness of 0.286 life/âk$ (= 1/â(3.5*10^3)).
The current mean reciprocal of the cost to save a life of GiveWellâs 4 top charities is 0.195 life/âk$ (= (3*1/â5 + 1â5.5)*10^-3/â4), i.e. 68.2 % (= 0.195/â0.286) as high as the cost-effectiveness I just mentioned.
The ratio of 1.71 k in the 1st bullet respects campaigns for broiler welfare, but Saulius estimated ones for chicken welfare (broilers or hens) affect 2.73 (= 41â15) as many chicken-years.
OP thinks âthe marginal FAW [farmed animal welfare] funding opportunity is ~1/â5th as cost-effective as the average from Sauliusâ analysisâ.
In addition, from Giving What We Canâs evaluation of AWF:
Fourth, we saw some references to the numbers of animals that could be affected if an intervention went well, but we didnât see any attempt at back-of-the-envelope calculations to get a rough sense of the cost-effectiveness of a grant, nor any direct comparison across grants to calibrate scoring.
Animal welfare is often conceptualised as just one area, but the above illustrates the cost-effectiveness can vary a lot depending on the species and type of intervention. So I think it is great that you are willing to estimate the cost-effectiveness in terms of DALY/â$[1]. It makes me more willing to donate to Rethink Priorities instead of Animal Charity Evaluatorsâ (ACEâs) recommended charities or the Animal Welfare Fund (AWF), because these are not estimating cost-effectiveness in terms of DALY/â$ (or similar). Both ACE and AWF assess cost-effectiveness based on heuristics[2], but I am not confident they are sufficient to figure out which are the best animal welfare interventions. I see GiveWellâs cost-effectiveness analyses as quite important to determine the best interventions in global health and development, so I assume having similar analyses in the context of animal welfare is quite useful too.
For reference, I guess the cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare is 13.6 DALY/â$ (= 0.01*1.37*10^3), i.e. 680 (= 13.6/â0.02) times Open Philanthropyâs bar. I got that multiplying:
The cost-effectiveness of GiveWellâs top charities of 0.01 DALY/â$ (50 DALY per 5 k$), which is half of Open Philanthropyâs bar of 0.02 DALY/â$.
My estimate for the ratio between cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare and GiveWellâs top charities of 1.37 k (= 1.71*10^3/â0.682*2.73/â5):
I calculated corporate campaigns for broiler welfare increase neaterm welfare 1.71 k times as cost-effectively as the lowest cost to save a life among GiveWellâs top charities then of 3.5 k$, respecting a cost-effectiveness of 0.286 life/âk$ (= 1/â(3.5*10^3)).
The current mean reciprocal of the cost to save a life of GiveWellâs 4 top charities is 0.195 life/âk$ (= (3*1/â5 + 1â5.5)*10^-3/â4), i.e. 68.2 % (= 0.195/â0.286) as high as the cost-effectiveness I just mentioned.
The ratio of 1.71 k in the 1st bullet respects campaigns for broiler welfare, but Saulius estimated ones for chicken welfare (broilers or hens) affect 2.73 (= 41â15) as many chicken-years.
OP thinks âthe marginal FAW [farmed animal welfare] funding opportunity is ~1/â5th as cost-effective as the average from Sauliusâ analysisâ.
Although I think you are underestimating the cost-effectiveness.
In addition, from Giving What We Canâs evaluation of AWF: