Unfortunately, we don’t know yet as the funds are disbursed to us at regular intervals and we are not there yet.
Having said that, our main goal was not to fundraise (although it never hurts ☺️) but rather to increase awareness in the US and create an opening to reach out to american retailers as most of our progress has been through European/UK retailers.
Honestly, Ronny was hard to read for me but given the outcome of the piece, my sense is that they engaged with it quite constructively but with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Just a couple of points on the original comment about AIM:
@mildlyanonymous, I'm glad you brought up the perception of the animal movement regarding AIM. I must say, I don't have the same negative perception as you do but this may be biased:
i) motivated reasoning on my part as a AIM incubate, and
ii) feedback I get from the overall movement may be filtered by my interlocutors because of said affiliation
In any case, I would really invite whoever feels that AIM is 'not collaborative with the movement' to look again. AIM has launched or is planning to launch several organisations which are actively designed to support the movement:
To grow in Africa (AAA)
To bring in more talent into the movement (AAC)
Help orgs in the movement make better decisions (Animal Ask)
Bring in more money to a resource-strained cause area (work in progress)
If this is not the very definition of collaboration, I don't know what is
Regarding SWP not doing what CE originally proposed we do: I've mentioned this openly at least in a couple of interviews (80K, HILTLS). My goal was not to demerit AIM's research but rather to say that there is so much one can learn from desktop research in a low-evidence space such as animal welfare and it is the role of the founding team to explore the different permutations and see what sticks
IMO, AIM's reports need to lay out at least a promising intervention, do a cost-effectiveness analysis on it (among other things), and see how it compares to say, cage-free campaigns to decide whether to kill it or explore deeper
I apologise in advance for not engaging further with the comments about AIM / animal movement but we are very (human) resources constrained at SWP and the case in favour of AIM has been sufficiently established IMO
Out ToC indeed aims to move the Overton window in such a way that eventually high-leverage stakeholders (e.g. retailers, certifiers) feel confident to demand the use of electrical stunning beyond the capacity of SWP to fund
On the other hand, none of our funders has included this as strict condition because:
i) it is much harder to measure, and much more importantly
ii) the intervention looks sufficiently impactful and cost-effective without having to incorporate such second-degree effects
I actually don't think that we would be overestimating. Your original intuition was correct.
The way it works in practice is that buyers ask for a certain size of shrimp (e.g. 14g). This is always quoted in live weight equivalent. Then comes the second criterion of being peeled, etc. This normally means that somewhere between 35-50% of the weight is lost. If we just use 50% for simplicity purposes, there are two possible scenarios:
The producer assumes the agreement was for live weight equivalent and there is no change to our numbers, OR
The producer assumes that it refers to the volume actually sold. Because each shrimp weighs 50% less, we need to gross up our numbers by that factor, i.e. the number of individual shrimps would be 2x our estimate
That is a very good point and one we hadn't really thought of.
The agreements don't specify whether the tonnage commitment refers to live weight equivalent (i.e. whole shrimp) or headless peeled weight. My sense is that, from context, producers are interpreting it as the former. We will think about whether to clarify this going forward in the agreements or whether we prefer the ambiguity as it might work in our favour.
Regarding monitoring adherence, as of right now, we feel our most sensible approach is to base it on the representations that the producers will be making to their buyers. Defaulting obligations to SWP seems pretty innocuous for producers but defaulting or misleading their buyers is a whole different ballgame and one that could cost them their business. This is the reason why we always try to have the buyers being party to the agreements stating that they will prioritise stunned shrimp.
Thanks for your interest in shrimp welfare and I hope this addresses your questions.
Looks like there might be more funding coming SWP's way thanks to Glenn / United States of Exception (here)
Unfortunately, we don’t know yet as the funds are disbursed to us at regular intervals and we are not there yet.
Having said that, our main goal was not to fundraise (although it never hurts ☺️) but rather to increase awareness in the US and create an opening to reach out to american retailers as most of our progress has been through European/UK retailers.
🤣🤣
The producers learned of us through a post from Bentham’s Bulldog and contacted us through our website
Thanks a lot 🙏🏽
Honestly, Ronny was hard to read for me but given the outcome of the piece, my sense is that they engaged with it quite constructively but with a healthy dose of skepticism.
Thanks a lot for the good vibes as always!
Just a couple of points on the original comment about AIM:
Regarding SWP not doing what CE originally proposed we do: I've mentioned this openly at least in a couple of interviews (80K, HILTLS). My goal was not to demerit AIM's research but rather to say that there is so much one can learn from desktop research in a low-evidence space such as animal welfare and it is the role of the founding team to explore the different permutations and see what sticks
I apologise in advance for not engaging further with the comments about AIM / animal movement but we are very (human) resources constrained at SWP and the case in favour of AIM has been sufficiently established IMO
Regarding the discussion between @James Özden and @MichaelStJules, you are both right to some extent:
I actually don't think that we would be overestimating. Your original intuition was correct.
The way it works in practice is that buyers ask for a certain size of shrimp (e.g. 14g). This is always quoted in live weight equivalent. Then comes the second criterion of being peeled, etc. This normally means that somewhere between 35-50% of the weight is lost. If we just use 50% for simplicity purposes, there are two possible scenarios:
Hope this clarifies the issue.
That is a very good point and one we hadn't really thought of.
The agreements don't specify whether the tonnage commitment refers to live weight equivalent (i.e. whole shrimp) or headless peeled weight. My sense is that, from context, producers are interpreting it as the former. We will think about whether to clarify this going forward in the agreements or whether we prefer the ambiguity as it might work in our favour.
Regarding monitoring adherence, as of right now, we feel our most sensible approach is to base it on the representations that the producers will be making to their buyers. Defaulting obligations to SWP seems pretty innocuous for producers but defaulting or misleading their buyers is a whole different ballgame and one that could cost them their business. This is the reason why we always try to have the buyers being party to the agreements stating that they will prioritise stunned shrimp.
Thanks for your interest in shrimp welfare and I hope this addresses your questions.