Summary

• I Fermi estimate corporate campaigns for chicken welfare are 714 times as cost-effective as buying organic instead of barn eggs in the European Union (EU), but that this is still 2.11 times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities.
• The variation in the cost-effectiveness of animal welfare interventions might be similar to that in global health and development.
  • I calculate GiveWell’s top charities are 1.40 k times as cost-effective as unconditional cash transfers to a person earning the mean income in the EU.
  • Yet, this is just one comparison, so I am not confident there is actually similar variation in the cost-effectiveness of animal welfare interventions.

Context

A comment from Johannes Ackva prompted me to think about how the best animal welfare interventions compare with a basic direct way of helping animals somewhat analogous to unconditional cash transfer to people in extreme poverty, as enabled by GiveDirectly in the context of global health and development. I presume corporate campaigns for chicken welfare are an example of the best interventions, and buying organic instead of barn eggs an instance of a basic direct one.

Calculations

My calculations are in this Sheet.

I Fermi estimate the cost-effectiveness of buying organic instead of barn eggs in the EU as follows:

• Organic and barn class A eggs in the EU (codes 0 and 2) at the start of April costed 4.1 and 2.3 €/kg (p. 1). So I set the cost of buying organic instead of barn eggs to 1.8 €/kg (= 4.1 - 2.3), i.e. 1.93 $/kg (= 1.8*1.07).
• EU’s egg production in 2021 was 6.26 Mt, corresponding to 96 billion eggs. So I suppose a mean mass per egg of 0.0652 kg (= 6.26*10^9/(96*10^9)). This implies a cost of buying organic instead of barn eggs of 0.126 $/egg (= 1.93*0.0652).
• I assume each hen produces “300 eggs a year”. Therefore I get a cost of buying organic instead of barn eggs of 37.8 $/chicken-year (= 0.126*300).
• I estimated the welfare per time of a hen in barn egg production is -0.580 times that of a random human, considering:
  • The time hens experience each of the 4 pain categories defined by the Welfare Footprint Project (WFP).
  • Excruciating pain is 1 k times as bad as disabling pain^[1].
  • Disabling pain is 100 times as bad as hurtful pain.
  • Hurtful pain is 10 times as bad as annoying pain.
  • Sleeping is morally neutral.
  • The lifespan of hens is 70 weeks (= (60 + 80)/2), which is the mean of the lower and upper bound.
  • For both hens and a random human, 8 h each day is spent sleeping, i.e. 1/3 (= 8/24) of the time.
  • For hens, the welfare from positive experiences per time awake is symmetric of that of hurtful pain.
  • For a random human, the welfare per time awake is symmetric of that of hurtful pain.
  • Rethink Priorities’ median welfare range of chickens of 0.332.
• I speculate the welfare per time of a hen in organic egg production as a fraction of the welfare range of chickens equals the welfare of a random human as a fraction of the welfare range of humans. Consequently, for the welfare range just above, I get a welfare per time of a hen in organic egg production of 0.332 times that of a random human.
• Based on the 2 points above, I conclude the difference between the welfare per time of a hen in organic and barn egg production is 0.912 (= 0.332 + 0.580) times that of a random human.
• As a consequence, the cost-effectiveness of buying organic instead of barn eggs is equivalent to providing 0.0241 human-year/$ (= 0.912/37.8).
• The ratio between humans’ healthy and total life expectancy at birth in 2016 was 87.0 % (= 63.1/72.5). As a result, the cost-effectiveness of buying organic instead of barn eggs can be described as averting 0.0210 DALY/$ (= 0.0241*0.870).

I determined corporate campaigns for chicken welfare avert 15.0 DALY/$, and GiveWell’s top charities 0.00994 DALY/$. So I think corporate campaigns for chicken welfare are 714 (= 15.0/0.0210) times as cost-effective as buying organic instead of barn eggs in the EU, but that this is still 2.11 (= 0.0210/0.00994) times as cost-effective as GiveWell’s top charities.

The variation in the cost-effectiveness of animal welfare interventions might be similar to that in global health and development. I calculate GiveWell’s top charities are 1.40 k (= 140*10) times as cost-effective as unconditional cash transfers to a person earning the mean income in the EU:

• EU’s gross national income per capita in 2022 was 40.1 k$, i.e. 140 (= 40.1*10^3/286) times the annual consumption of GiveDirectly’s recipients in 2022 of 286 $. This corresponds to just 0.783 $/d (= 286/365.25), so I guess the income of GiveDirectly’s recipients is quite similar to their consumption.
• GiveWell’s cost-effectiveness bar is 10 times the cost-effectiveness of GiveDirectly, so GiveWell’s top charities are arguably 10 times as cost-effective as GiveDirectly.

My estimate for the ratio between the cost-effectiveness of corporate campaigns for chicken welfare and buying organic instead of barn eggs in the EU is 51.0 % (= 714/(1.40*10^3)) that between the cost-effectiveness of GiveWell’s top charities and unconditional cash transfers to a person earning the mean income in the EU. Yet, this is just one comparison, so I am not confident there is actually similar variation in the cost-effectiveness of animal welfare interventions.

1. ^{^}

    I encourage you to check this post from algekalipso, and this from Ren Springlea to get a sense of why I think the intensity can vary so much.