Thanks so much for all the research and effort that went into this! This is a really exciting group of organizations.
I was, however, curious about one aspect the numeric cost-effectiveness estimates. It’s great to see these as part of ACE’s process, and I definitely learned a lot from them! But I was surprised to see how narrow the estimates were for the two Shrimp Welfare Project programs, given how radically uncertain I think basically everyone is about some of the key parameters influencing the results. Am I right in understanding that this disconnect is largely coming from ACE using AIM’s suffering-adjusted day estimates per animal impacted, and those estimates not including uncertainty ranges? If so, would ACE consider trying to add uncertainty estimates on those numbers in future years?
Shrimp Welfare Project’s ranges are narrower for a few reasons. Because SWP works directly with farmers, they can track and estimate the number of shrimp on partner farms, reducing uncertainty about the animals affected. We also either used point estimates or narrow ranges for other parameters, such as the duration of impact (based on the lifespan of electrical stunners) and the duration of improved water quality. This means the main source of uncertainty in SWP’s CEA lies in the SADs estimates, whereas other charities’ CEAs combine multiple uncertain parameters that multiply into wider ranges.
Adding uncertainty ranges to SADs would be complex, since it would involve modeling variation in welfare ranges, sentience, pain severity, and/​or moral weights between pain types. We’ve chosen not to include ranges so far because of time constraints and because the final estimates are already quite broad. If we do so in the future, we’d collaborate with the organizations that produced the original SADs estimates to make sure that uncertainty is modeled appropriately.
Thanks so much for all the research and effort that went into this! This is a really exciting group of organizations.
I was, however, curious about one aspect the numeric cost-effectiveness estimates. It’s great to see these as part of ACE’s process, and I definitely learned a lot from them! But I was surprised to see how narrow the estimates were for the two Shrimp Welfare Project programs, given how radically uncertain I think basically everyone is about some of the key parameters influencing the results. Am I right in understanding that this disconnect is largely coming from ACE using AIM’s suffering-adjusted day estimates per animal impacted, and those estimates not including uncertainty ranges? If so, would ACE consider trying to add uncertainty estimates on those numbers in future years?
Listed cost-effectiveness estimates:
AWO:
ECC: 4-126 SADs/​$
Cage-free: 8-67 SADs/​$
SWP:
HSI: 43–53 SADs/​$
SSFI: 464–840 SADs/​$
SVB:
IMR: 6-14 SADs/​$
THL:
Cage-Free: 17–351 SADs/​$
BCC: 2–89 SADs/​$
WAI: Unknown SADs/​$
Thanks for the positive feedback!
Shrimp Welfare Project’s ranges are narrower for a few reasons. Because SWP works directly with farmers, they can track and estimate the number of shrimp on partner farms, reducing uncertainty about the animals affected. We also either used point estimates or narrow ranges for other parameters, such as the duration of impact (based on the lifespan of electrical stunners) and the duration of improved water quality. This means the main source of uncertainty in SWP’s CEA lies in the SADs estimates, whereas other charities’ CEAs combine multiple uncertain parameters that multiply into wider ranges.
Adding uncertainty ranges to SADs would be complex, since it would involve modeling variation in welfare ranges, sentience, pain severity, and/​or moral weights between pain types. We’ve chosen not to include ranges so far because of time constraints and because the final estimates are already quite broad. If we do so in the future, we’d collaborate with the organizations that produced the original SADs estimates to make sure that uncertainty is modeled appropriately.
Thanks, Matt. Here are the linked best guess estimates together with the ranges in suffering-adjusted days (SADs) averted per $:
Animal Welfare Observatory (AWO):
European Chicken Commitment (ECC): 30 (4 to 126).
Cage-free eggs: 26 (8 to 67).
Mean: 28.0 (= (30 + 26)/​2).
Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP):
Humane Slaughter Initiative (HSI): 47 (42 to 52).
Sustainable Shrimp Farmers of India (SSFI): 299 (190 to 353).
Mean: 173 (= (47 + 299)/​2).
Sociedade Vegetariana Brasileira (SVB):
Institutional meat reduction: 10 (6 to 14).
The Humane League (THL):
Cage-free accountability: 88 (17 to 351).
Better Chicken Commitment (BCC) accountability: 30 (2 to 89).
Mean: 59.0 (= (88 + 30)/​2).
Mean: 67.5 (= (28.0 + 173 + 10 + 59.0)/​4).
190 to 353.
Nitpick. 42 to 52.