Hey Moritz! Thanks for your question and sorry for my belated response, I was on leave last week and I am the author of the relevant report so the team left the question for me to answer.

Yeah your suggestion is basically exactly right. We think that keel bone fractures are a very important welfare issue that needs to be tackled in cage-free hens and are still very excited about someone working in this space despite the difficulties that Healthier Hens have faced. We think that this new approach we have recommended has promise as it takes a different angle (which doesn't focus on feed fortification) which allows farmers to implement whatever intervention works best on their farm* to reduce KBFs to the required level (≤25% prevalence in the flock). We think that not being as prescriptive here will give farms the flexibility to implement what works for them which will hopefully see more success than choosing a specific intervention that everyone has to implement. I think that this will also help to increase the evidence base on what works to reduce KBF as farmers implement different combinations of interventions to reduce KBF to the required level. 

* We do also have some interventions that we are excited about that we could help farmers to implement if they needed guidance: Incorporating structural features with impact-absorbing padding to increase exercising behavior that strengthens cortical bone and mineralisation, and to reduce impact during collisions while trying to occupy perching spots or during falls; Adding ramps to facilitate safer access to perching areas; and maybe Delaying the onset of lay from 18 weeks to 22 weeks.
 

Hi – thanks for your comment.

You're correct in that we are prioritizing for the greatest number of fish on farms rather than the total tonnage produced. Our claim that Greece is the largest producer in the EU (and the 15th largest in the world) is based on estimates (using the FAO data linked) of the number of fish alive on farms in each country at any given time. This has to do with the total farmed as well as their lifespans and expected mortality rates on farms pre-slaughter. 

We generally prioritize farmed fish as you can impact their whole lives, whereas for wild-caught fish, you can only impact the end of their lives. However, if the new charity chooses to focus on humane slaughter, then there could be scope to focus on both farmed and wild-caught fish. Note, however, that protections for wild-caught fish, to the best of my knowledge, don't exist in legislation anywhere yet, so we might not expect this to be very tractable. Overall, at least in the short-term, we would recommend that a new org should focus on farmed fish and should try to push for the inclusion of stocking density and water quality parameters as well as humane slaughter in any ask where possible. Still, we could see that the new org chooses to only focus on slaughter – at least at first – as this seems to be what the rest of the movement is likely to focus on, and there could be benefits from all being on the same page and asking for the same thing.

Hi Pat -- We're currently coordinating on which comments will receive prizes and will let Manifold and the commenters know soon.
 
The fish idea would resolve the Fish welfare policy advocacy market as a YES. Thank you!

And Maternal Health Initiative!

It is definitely difficult to do research into these areas where there is so much suffering involved, and as you mentioned it is often the areas of suffering that you just had no idea about that are the worst - learning a new way that animals suffer. It’s also important, of course, to make sure that these emotions don't bias us towards interventions that are more horrific but less tractable etc.

For me the most difficult thing I have had to research is the use of glue traps for rodents as I just didn’t know glue traps existed before doing this research and the photos and descriptions of their use were particularly horrible, this was without a doubt the saddest I had felt whilst doing research. The way I console myself is that I know that I am doing this research because we are trying to help these animals, or the most animals we can, and that definitely feels worthwhile. 

Hi - sorry for the belated response! 

For policy obviously the overall scale of the number of people/animals you can help is much bigger, but then we have to discount this based on the expected enforcement rate and also by the fact that we expect the overall probability of success of policy advocacy to be lower on average.

For the expected enforcement rate we look at existing enforcement rates of the policy in similar/neighbouring countries (if applicable) and the existing enforcement rates of similar policies (eg. when estimating the enforcement rate of seatbelt legislation we may look at the enforcement rates of speed limit legislation by looking at that % of people stick to the speed limit). This can be easier or more difficult to do depending on the intervention and the availability of information. In cases where there is less relevant information we might use proxies such as the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index. 

For the probability of success we usually try to do a case study analysis of advocacy efforts by other organisations in other countries and take the average success rate of these campaigns, with a note that we are more likely to find information on successful campaigns so this might be somewhat of an overestimate on the overall probability of success. 

Hi! Maybe I'm missing it but I can't seem to find the venue for this - where will it be? Thanks :) 

Hi Peter, thanks for your comment! 

I must admit I have not really thought about this before, but intuitively it still seems important to have appropriate road safety legislation like speed limits in place even if it is robocars following them rather than human drivers. In fact, I could see it as important to have appropriate speed limits in place before the introduction of robocars in case robocars are programmed to drive faster than is safe as a reflection of a too high speed limit.

I think the use of seat belts is still a good norm to have, even if robocars will drive safer than human drivers.  

I'm not sure whether this would affect the timing of the transition, but if the robocar was going to be programmed with a speed limit anyway then lowering the speed limit doesn't seem like it would slow down the transition (not sure on this though).

Hey Devon, thanks for your comment!

As you can see above, Larks raised a similar concern in their comment. After a quick Google search, I have found some data on this from the UK - "Each 1 mph reduction in average traffic speed costs the UK economy in excess of £1Bn in lost productivity through extended journey times" (https://www.abd.org.uk/press-release-hes-proposed-motorway-speed-limit-reduction-to-60mph-borders-on-economic-vandalism/). This suggests the impact could be quite significant and could give us reason to reduce the economic impacts that are currently being modeled to account for this lost productivity. However, as the World Health Organization found that the economic impact of road traffic injuries is approximately 3% of GDP, I think the economic impacts would still be net-positive.

Hi, thanks for your comment and apologies for the somewhat belated response! 

On increasing travel times - yeah I think this is a really interesting point and something that we didn't consider when modeling the CEA. I think it may be best to discount the income effects of this intervention as a result of this. After a quick Google search, I have found some data on this from the UK - "Each 1 mph reduction in average traffic speed costs the UK economy in excess of £1Bn in lost productivity through extended journey times" (https://www.abd.org.uk/press-release-hes-proposed-motorway-speed-limit-reduction-to-60mph-borders-on-economic-vandalism/). This suggests the impact could be quite significant, though as the World Health Organization found that the economic impact of road traffic injuries is approximately 3% of GDP, I think the economic impacts would still be net-positive. 

Clare's point on traffic jams is an important consideration here, both for your point and for the promise of this intervention - if drivers are never getting up to the speed limit, then decreasing them looks less promising. This was a concern we were aware of, but we felt unable to address from our desktop research, but this is something we will highlight to the founders of this organization, and it is something that they will be able to assess when doing country scoping visits. 

Perhaps these considerations make advocacy on seat-belt legislation look more promising than advocacy to reduce speed limits. This would be good to pass on to the potential founders so that they can weigh up these considerations.

On the stress of getting pulled over by the police, I am not sure I can comment usefully on this as I don't know too much about it, but thanks for raising the concern, and thanks Clare for the insight from Sierra Leone.