Satellite-based water quality monitoring: After two years of extensive effort, we have failed to develop sufficiently accurate technology, and are thus pausing development on this intervention for now.
Water quality ranges updates: We recently conducted a literature review of the ideal water quality ranges for Indian major carps, and made slight changes to our standards.
Hiring: We are likely going to be hiring for an entry-level operations associate shortly. We think an EA-minded recent graduate could be a good fit for this role. We are favoring applicants in Asia, but wherever you are based if you think you could be a good fit we encourage you to reach out.
Caption: Our staff member Chandu (right) pictured with a farmer in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. This farmer recently enrolled in our farm program, through which we will work with him to improve water quality and maintain a stocking density cap.
We're hiring for a role that we think may be a great fit for some in the EA community: Director of Programs. This role will involve leading and scaling our programs, first in India and then abroad, to implement welfare improvements on thousands of farms. International applicants are welcome, though time living in India will be expected. Leadership experience required; experience running agricultural programs a huge plus.
FWI staff observing a "harvest", in which the fishes are pulled from the water and asphyxiated to death. We are working to reform these practices with our ongoing "chill kill" project (see update from last year—we should have another update in the coming months).
We are hiring for a Welfare Assessment Manager! (Note Indian applicants only.) This role will be tasked with conducting welfare assessments for farmed fishes in various contexts.
Feed fortification studies: We aim to develop an intervention based around our custom-formulated feed, which we hypothesize will improve water quality and nutrition. We are currently conducting two studies to assess this: a lab-based efficacy study (120 fishes) and a farm-based effectiveness study (12 farms). Both are progressing on track. Seeprevious posts.
Remote Sensing of Water Quality: We aimed to develop an intervention to remotely sense (via satellites) or predict water quality. Unfortunately, our in-house modeling did not yield any viable models. We are doing some final wrap-up work, but don't expect any breakthroughs. We expect to publish a full writeup of our results by the end of June. Seeprevious posts.
Improved Slaughter (Chill Kill): We aim to develop an intervention that replaces air asphyxiation with immersion in an ice bath at slaughter (still causes significant suffering, but less than the alternative). Our main bottlenecks remain a) logistical feasibility, and b) trader and consumer demand. To test the former, we are planning a trial of 1,000 fishes in the coming weeks—our largest yet. Seeprevious posts.
China Work: As part of our efforts to continue understanding and engaging the industry, we recently visited a rainbow trout farm and observed our first harvest event. We are also continuing to research interventions on various priority species, focusing on pond loach, sturgeon, and mandarin fishes.
Our staff Roshan and Gokul sampling fishes recently in the feed fortification pond-based study, in order to assess health and growth—proxies for welfare. Handling fishes in this way does cause them significant stress, but we believe the information is worth the costs (though these are tricky ethical tradeoffs that we sometimes struggle with).
We are hiring for an Operations Associate! Applicants from India and the Philippines are preferred, but international applicants are welcome. This is a good role for an early-career EA person. Deadline: Feb 20.
Hey Vasco! I just read the summary here, so my apologies if I'm missing something important.
I think I disagree with the line of reasoning you're following. For instance, you say:
>>I estimated its HSI has been 0.0292 % as cost-effective as HIPF accounting for effects on the target beneficiaries, and soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes.
It would be very surprising to me if we can know with any degree of confidence that exploratory research into highly speculative areas is >3000X more cost effective than Shrimp Welfare Project's main program—a program which seems to be one of the most cost effective on the planet!
I don't doubt that every step in specific chain of reasoning is mostly correct. Rather, I think where I get off the boat here is that I think the uncertainty in these flowthrough effects tends to dominate after a certain point. I get the sense you are willing to take these much more seriously and literally.
Another area of disagreement is the general framing of suggesting that we should always just fund the one most impactful thing. I agree that this makes sense on the margin, but I expect we're generally more likely to get to a better world in the end if we take a portfolio approach and fund and encourage lots of projects that pass a certain bar. A large part of this is driven by the fact that you get seriously diminishing returns on projects (e.g. I'd be surprised if CEARCH could cost effectively deploy SWP's full annual budget).
So I'd probably frame all of this as more "Both CEARCH's program and SWP's program perform very well on these metrics, and we should consider funding them."
Thanks for your nice post Annika! It was a pleasure having you here, and you are definitely right that this internship would not have happened had you not gone out of the way to pitch yourself to us.
One of the reasons we were keen to have you was that you are an EA student group leader. This is probably relevant for other students seeking internships or jobs as well: Being an EA student leader often means something to recruiters at EA organizations. For instance, I know that one of the reasons I was accepted into the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program was that I had been an EA student group leader myself.
Much love from all of us here in Eluru. You are always welcome with us :)
And to anyone else interested in interning with FWI: We are likely to do more of these internships in the future, although they will likely be of a similar format in that they will be both a) unfunded (at least for non-local people), and b) require you to both pitch yourself and get yourself to our site.
We'll probably publish more on this on our careers page in the coming weeks, but if anyone's interested now they should feel free to message me.
1 - The animal movement has grown a lot, but that doesn't mean it has grown enough. I think about this in the same way I think about efforts to eradicate extreme poverty: Such poverty has diminished significantly over the past few decades, but it still probably needs more (and cleverer) allocation of resources to truly be eradicated. Animal welfare, IMO, is in a much earlier stage still (but that's not to say we haven't made progress!).
2 - Various orgs do offer student internships (which is great), but I don't think this is at all sufficient to build the much larger movement of active NGO staffers, donors, etc. that we need. As discussed above, I also think there aren't enough in-person opportunities, and that that is a problem.
>>But maybe this brings about a larger, more diverse pool of talented advocates that attract people in their cities and countries, and more local hubs grow?
Some truth to this I'd say, but it's just tradeoffs. Obviously the best thing is for there to be lots of fully remote roles, AND lots of in-person roles and, especially, in-person communities.
>>Do we have examples from other movements in the past that grew geographically disconnected through small communities and achieved their goals or managed to change the game?
This is why I'm skeptical of remotely driven movements haha. Because it seems to me like we don't have many examples of this. The very modern age does provide some though—in particular, I'm thinking of Black Lives Matter and other more viral forms of activism in the US recently. However, I think a lot of these, including BLM, were more like a rapid upswell that quickly died off, without achieving many lasting results. And I expect a large part of this lack of results is because you really do need sustained, in-person community organizing in order to build lasting and cohesive public support that is able to change culture and institutions.
>>Additionally: what about offering this to jobless people, over 25, or people taking a career gap? As someone close to say bye to her 35th lap around the sun I start noticing ageism.
Could be a good idea. My intuition is still that the bigger gap here is engaged college students dropping out of the movement, as opposed to professionals who can't find a job for whatever reason. But I could be wrong! And would love to see data one way or the other.
And as usual, of course it'd be good to have both programs: We should have programs more programs targeting students, and we should also have more programs engaging working professionals and people at basically every other life and career stage. We're going to need a much bigger, more dynamic, and more comprehensive movement if we're going to bring about the fundamental change we seek!
Fish Welfare Initiative Updates
Caption: Our staff member Chandu (right) pictured with a farmer in Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India. This farmer recently enrolled in our farm program, through which we will work with him to improve water quality and maintain a stocking density cap.
Fish Welfare Initiative Updates
We're hiring for a role that we think may be a great fit for some in the EA community: Director of Programs. This role will involve leading and scaling our programs, first in India and then abroad, to implement welfare improvements on thousands of farms. International applicants are welcome, though time living in India will be expected. Leadership experience required; experience running agricultural programs a huge plus.
Learn More and ApplyFWI staff observing a "harvest", in which the fishes are pulled from the water and asphyxiated to death. We are working to reform these practices with our ongoing "chill kill" project (see update from last year—we should have another update in the coming months).
Fish Welfare Initiative Updates
We are hiring for a Welfare Assessment Manager! (Note Indian applicants only.) This role will be tasked with conducting welfare assessments for farmed fishes in various contexts.
Apply NowHere are also some recent project updates:
Our staff Roshan and Gokul sampling fishes recently in the feed fortification pond-based study, in order to assess health and growth—proxies for welfare. Handling fishes in this way does cause them significant stress, but we believe the information is worth the costs (though these are tricky ethical tradeoffs that we sometimes struggle with).
Update: Thanks to the hard work of 7 unpaid interns, our website has been miraculously restored. The hacked page will be preserved here for posterity.
Fish Welfare Initiative Updates
We recently published two new datasets:
We also recently published our 2025 farm program M&E report.
From Fish Welfare Initiative (FWI):
Updates:
Open Roles:
Hey Vasco! I just read the summary here, so my apologies if I'm missing something important.
I think I disagree with the line of reasoning you're following. For instance, you say:
>>I estimated its HSI has been 0.0292 % as cost-effective as HIPF accounting for effects on the target beneficiaries, and soil ants, termites, springtails, mites, and nematodes.
It would be very surprising to me if we can know with any degree of confidence that exploratory research into highly speculative areas is >3000X more cost effective than Shrimp Welfare Project's main program—a program which seems to be one of the most cost effective on the planet!
I don't doubt that every step in specific chain of reasoning is mostly correct. Rather, I think where I get off the boat here is that I think the uncertainty in these flowthrough effects tends to dominate after a certain point. I get the sense you are willing to take these much more seriously and literally.
Another area of disagreement is the general framing of suggesting that we should always just fund the one most impactful thing. I agree that this makes sense on the margin, but I expect we're generally more likely to get to a better world in the end if we take a portfolio approach and fund and encourage lots of projects that pass a certain bar. A large part of this is driven by the fact that you get seriously diminishing returns on projects (e.g. I'd be surprised if CEARCH could cost effectively deploy SWP's full annual budget).
So I'd probably frame all of this as more "Both CEARCH's program and SWP's program perform very well on these metrics, and we should consider funding them."
Thanks for your nice post Annika! It was a pleasure having you here, and you are definitely right that this internship would not have happened had you not gone out of the way to pitch yourself to us.
One of the reasons we were keen to have you was that you are an EA student group leader. This is probably relevant for other students seeking internships or jobs as well: Being an EA student leader often means something to recruiters at EA organizations. For instance, I know that one of the reasons I was accepted into the Charity Entrepreneurship Incubation Program was that I had been an EA student group leader myself.
Much love from all of us here in Eluru. You are always welcome with us :)
And to anyone else interested in interning with FWI: We are likely to do more of these internships in the future, although they will likely be of a similar format in that they will be both a) unfunded (at least for non-local people), and b) require you to both pitch yourself and get yourself to our site.
We'll probably publish more on this on our careers page in the coming weeks, but if anyone's interested now they should feel free to message me.
Thanks for your comment. A few points/pushback:
1 - The animal movement has grown a lot, but that doesn't mean it has grown enough. I think about this in the same way I think about efforts to eradicate extreme poverty: Such poverty has diminished significantly over the past few decades, but it still probably needs more (and cleverer) allocation of resources to truly be eradicated. Animal welfare, IMO, is in a much earlier stage still (but that's not to say we haven't made progress!).
2 - Various orgs do offer student internships (which is great), but I don't think this is at all sufficient to build the much larger movement of active NGO staffers, donors, etc. that we need. As discussed above, I also think there aren't enough in-person opportunities, and that that is a problem.
All makes sense!
>>But maybe this brings about a larger, more diverse pool of talented advocates that attract people in their cities and countries, and more local hubs grow?
Some truth to this I'd say, but it's just tradeoffs. Obviously the best thing is for there to be lots of fully remote roles, AND lots of in-person roles and, especially, in-person communities.
>>Do we have examples from other movements in the past that grew geographically disconnected through small communities and achieved their goals or managed to change the game?
This is why I'm skeptical of remotely driven movements haha. Because it seems to me like we don't have many examples of this. The very modern age does provide some though—in particular, I'm thinking of Black Lives Matter and other more viral forms of activism in the US recently. However, I think a lot of these, including BLM, were more like a rapid upswell that quickly died off, without achieving many lasting results. And I expect a large part of this lack of results is because you really do need sustained, in-person community organizing in order to build lasting and cohesive public support that is able to change culture and institutions.
>>Additionally: what about offering this to jobless people, over 25, or people taking a career gap? As someone close to say bye to her 35th lap around the sun I start noticing ageism.
Could be a good idea. My intuition is still that the bigger gap here is engaged college students dropping out of the movement, as opposed to professionals who can't find a job for whatever reason. But I could be wrong! And would love to see data one way or the other.
And as usual, of course it'd be good to have both programs: We should have programs more programs targeting students, and we should also have more programs engaging working professionals and people at basically every other life and career stage. We're going to need a much bigger, more dynamic, and more comprehensive movement if we're going to bring about the fundamental change we seek!