I guess what I mean by Welfare Labs in this context is something lower down on the Scientific Evidence Pyramid. There doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon version of the evidence pyramid (especially in animal welfare), but often it looks something like this:
1 - Systematic Reviews / RCTs
2 - Primary Studies
3 - Observational Studies / Case Reports
4 - Expert Opinion
Where the lower down the pyramid you go, the weaker the evidence is. I think that academic research and the process you outlined above falls in the category of Primary Studies. But I think that leaping from Opinion to Primary Study often misses out this useful middle step of Observational Studies. And I think farms are well placed to rapidly test hypotheses, before committing to a Primary Study with more rigour.
To answer your specific questions:
This very much depends on the farm, but I think it can be surprising how well equipped some farms are to collect data (I think many have more data than they know what to do with)
I think Universities aren't really incentivised to be quick - and I'd imagine there are a bunch of ways you could structure work like this to be more streamlined than university research
Yeah I think this very much depends on the question you're trying to answer, but I do think that by jumping straight to Primary Studies, you can miss important insights from Observational Studies
Personally, I agree that pursuing research into soil animal welfare would likely be valuable. In general, I’m extremely impressed by how much salience you have brought to this issue over this past year. My intuitions around how to think about these animals currently seem to generally align with Bob Fischer’s thoughts.
Even if soil animals become the most cost effective use of marginal dollars, I still think we need opportunities in the animal space with high absorbency. I don’t think that this research could absorb millions in the way other animal orgs could. I still think we need more aquatic animal projects and that the animal movement needs to be thought about as an ecosystem, rather than a single org.
That's a great question, and you're exactly right that our "increasing confidence" is focused on answering questions like that.
One of the reasons we started the Humane Slaughter Initiative was to deploy stunners in different regions and contexts in order to remove barriers to uptake. The industry was telling us that humane slaughter wasn't possible in this or that context for one reason or another. We thought it made sense to try it out and understand the barriers in each context better.
We're still very much in this learning phase, and due to the variety of contexts we've deployed stunners in, there isn't really a "given stunner" - effectiveness varies significantly by context, equipment type, species, and operational practices. Additionally, we're exploring New Solutions & Protocols, which further complicates providing a single answer.
What I can say is that:
We’ve seen successful implementation in multiple contexts, but with notable variation
Our monitoring suggests that proper training and ongoing support are critical factors
This variation is exactly why we’re prioritising better M&E systems and implementation support
I’m hesitant to give a specific confidence curve right now because (1) it would likely be context-dependent rather than universal, and (2) improving this is an active focus area for us, so any number I give today could anchor people’s thinking even as we make progress.
It’s a goal of ours to publish more research and data as we collect over the next 12 months. This will help donors and industry partners better understand effectiveness across different contexts. So, stay tuned for those developments in the coming year :)
To build on Michael's point - AIM has been recommending "Fish Welfare Initiative in a new country" since at least 2023. And another fish welfare charity in Europe can be thought of as taking Shrimp Welfare Project's model and applying it to fishes.
For (what became) Scale Welfare, my understanding is that many potential co-founder pairings fell apart due to the time needed in country (and I would also guess that the Program attracts people who want to start something new, and founding a similar project isn't as exciting as something brand new).
I also think a main reason AIM probably aren't recommending more is because of their modest prioritization value, and wanting to recommend charities that maximise impact over a range of worldviews. I imagine there probably could be a world where AIM exclusively incubated aquatic animal welfare projects, but they (understandably) have epistemic uncertainty about this.
(There's also probably an argument that the ecosystem can only really accommodate 1-2 new projects per year, and not a flood of new projects all at once).
Precision Welfare - I appreciate your feedback here. I've had some positive responses from industry folks on this term, but I'm not locked into the specific language around this just yet - do you have any thoughts on other ways to frame this idea?
Certifiers - That's true. I guess the wider point I wanted to make here is that I think people are locked into a particular view of what certification looks like - and I think there is a lot of scope for ways to reimagine certification that is more innovative and responsive.
False credits - Yep good point. I think requiring more monitoring on farms to verify that producers aren't falsifying credit generation would be a good thing. This is actually one of the reasons why we're interested in Precision Aquaculture technology here - having automated sensors that could detect both pre-stunning movement and effective stunning outcomes would create a more robust verification system than relying solely on periodic inspections or self-reporting.
Per shrimp / per kg - Producers sometimes do "partial harvests" throughout a crop (to recoup losses in case of a future disease outbreak, or to reduce biomass so that the remaining shrimps can grow larger without straining the pond's carrying capacity, etc.). So my assumption (if we paid on a per shrimp basis) would be that it would incentivise farmers to stock higher at the beginning - then do a partial harvest as soon as feasible to generate credits - then continue to grow the remaining shrimps until the full harvest. Also, I think meeting the industry "where they're at" is often useful - if the industry already trades on a per kg basis, it makes it much easier to integrate credits into this system if we also use per kg.
Apologies for all the confusion here - in terms of the idea I'm presenting in the post I think Vasco has done a really great job of summarising the idea above.
But I think the conversation above has helped me recognise a distinction that I don't think I'd articulated particularly well in my post, which is that I see a difference between the application of credits for contexts like shrimp stunning, and the wider application of credits for animal welfare more broadly:
As a transition tool(as in shrimp stunning credits) - In the case of offsetting "bad" practices, credits aren't intended to be very valuable, just a way to unblock logistical issues of transitioning a supply chain. Ultimately we want a situation where no-one is buying stunning credits because they've all directly transitioned their supply chains. (Again, I think Vasco actually does a great job of outlining my sense of how this would work without increasing shrimp production in his comment below).
As a tool to put a price on positive welfare (similar to Paul Christiano's Demand Offsetting proposal - thanks @Austin! I hadn't read this article before) - In cases of trying to optimise for "good" practices (where an improvement could lead to net positive lives for farmed animals), I wanted to paint a picture of a world where credits could be used to create lasting mechanisms that financially incentivise these welfare improvements.
Also, I've just realised that I've referenced @Vasco Grilo🔸's comments a few times in this reply to help clarify my thinking - just wanted to say that I really appreciate your help in articulating the points I wanted to make!
Good question! The margin on the merch is pretty slim (around 20% per item, depending on what you get), we mainly use it as an awareness tool rather than a major fundraising channel.
So if you wanted to distribute t-shirts/stickers to friends, then I agree it probably makes more sense to get a bunch made up yourself rather than buy them through our store.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment!
I guess what I mean by Welfare Labs in this context is something lower down on the Scientific Evidence Pyramid. There doesn't seem to be an agreed-upon version of the evidence pyramid (especially in animal welfare), but often it looks something like this:
Where the lower down the pyramid you go, the weaker the evidence is. I think that academic research and the process you outlined above falls in the category of Primary Studies. But I think that leaping from Opinion to Primary Study often misses out this useful middle step of Observational Studies. And I think farms are well placed to rapidly test hypotheses, before committing to a Primary Study with more rigour.
To answer your specific questions:
Personally, I agree that pursuing research into soil animal welfare would likely be valuable. In general, I’m extremely impressed by how much salience you have brought to this issue over this past year. My intuitions around how to think about these animals currently seem to generally align with Bob Fischer’s thoughts.
Even if soil animals become the most cost effective use of marginal dollars, I still think we need opportunities in the animal space with high absorbency. I don’t think that this research could absorb millions in the way other animal orgs could. I still think we need more aquatic animal projects and that the animal movement needs to be thought about as an ecosystem, rather than a single org.
Have you heard of High Impact Engineers?
They recently relaunched and have their own Forum - the Impact Forge - which could be a good place to crosspost this question :)
Thanks for the kind words, Johannes!
That's a great question, and you're exactly right that our "increasing confidence" is focused on answering questions like that.
One of the reasons we started the Humane Slaughter Initiative was to deploy stunners in different regions and contexts in order to remove barriers to uptake. The industry was telling us that humane slaughter wasn't possible in this or that context for one reason or another. We thought it made sense to try it out and understand the barriers in each context better.
We're still very much in this learning phase, and due to the variety of contexts we've deployed stunners in, there isn't really a "given stunner" - effectiveness varies significantly by context, equipment type, species, and operational practices. Additionally, we're exploring New Solutions & Protocols, which further complicates providing a single answer.
What I can say is that:
I’m hesitant to give a specific confidence curve right now because (1) it would likely be context-dependent rather than universal, and (2) improving this is an active focus area for us, so any number I give today could anchor people’s thinking even as we make progress.
It’s a goal of ours to publish more research and data as we collect over the next 12 months. This will help donors and industry partners better understand effectiveness across different contexts. So, stay tuned for those developments in the coming year :)
To build on Michael's point - AIM has been recommending "Fish Welfare Initiative in a new country" since at least 2023. And another fish welfare charity in Europe can be thought of as taking Shrimp Welfare Project's model and applying it to fishes.
For (what became) Scale Welfare, my understanding is that many potential co-founder pairings fell apart due to the time needed in country (and I would also guess that the Program attracts people who want to start something new, and founding a similar project isn't as exciting as something brand new).
I also think a main reason AIM probably aren't recommending more is because of their modest prioritization value, and wanting to recommend charities that maximise impact over a range of worldviews. I imagine there probably could be a world where AIM exclusively incubated aquatic animal welfare projects, but they (understandably) have epistemic uncertainty about this.
(There's also probably an argument that the ecosystem can only really accommodate 1-2 new projects per year, and not a flood of new projects all at once).
Oh so you’re helping refugees?
I think Heather Browning has an upcoming book project about Interspecies Welfare Comparisons - here's an example of her published work on the topic
Thanks Vasco :)
Precision Welfare - I appreciate your feedback here. I've had some positive responses from industry folks on this term, but I'm not locked into the specific language around this just yet - do you have any thoughts on other ways to frame this idea?
Certifiers - That's true. I guess the wider point I wanted to make here is that I think people are locked into a particular view of what certification looks like - and I think there is a lot of scope for ways to reimagine certification that is more innovative and responsive.
False credits - Yep good point. I think requiring more monitoring on farms to verify that producers aren't falsifying credit generation would be a good thing. This is actually one of the reasons why we're interested in Precision Aquaculture technology here - having automated sensors that could detect both pre-stunning movement and effective stunning outcomes would create a more robust verification system than relying solely on periodic inspections or self-reporting.
Per shrimp / per kg - Producers sometimes do "partial harvests" throughout a crop (to recoup losses in case of a future disease outbreak, or to reduce biomass so that the remaining shrimps can grow larger without straining the pond's carrying capacity, etc.). So my assumption (if we paid on a per shrimp basis) would be that it would incentivise farmers to stock higher at the beginning - then do a partial harvest as soon as feasible to generate credits - then continue to grow the remaining shrimps until the full harvest.
Also, I think meeting the industry "where they're at" is often useful - if the industry already trades on a per kg basis, it makes it much easier to integrate credits into this system if we also use per kg.
Hi Angelina, Austin, and Vasco :)
Apologies for all the confusion here - in terms of the idea I'm presenting in the post I think Vasco has done a really great job of summarising the idea above.
But I think the conversation above has helped me recognise a distinction that I don't think I'd articulated particularly well in my post, which is that I see a difference between the application of credits for contexts like shrimp stunning, and the wider application of credits for animal welfare more broadly:
Also, I've just realised that I've referenced @Vasco Grilo🔸's comments a few times in this reply to help clarify my thinking - just wanted to say that I really appreciate your help in articulating the points I wanted to make!
Thanks Pete :)
Good question! The margin on the merch is pretty slim (around 20% per item, depending on what you get), we mainly use it as an awareness tool rather than a major fundraising channel.
So if you wanted to distribute t-shirts/stickers to friends, then I agree it probably makes more sense to get a bunch made up yourself rather than buy them through our store.