The views expressed here are my own, not those of my employers.
I have been drawn to animal welfare interventions due to cost-effectiveness analyses consistently suggesting they are much more cost-effective than ones in global health and development. I think the 1st analysis I found along these lines was that from Stephen Clare and Aidan Goth, whose probabilistic model suggests The Humane League (THL) is 926 (= 25/0.027) times as cost-effective as the Against Malaria Foundation (AMF).
Thanks for sharing, Camille! Relatedly, people may like James Özden's post The default trajectory for animal welfare means vastly more suffering. For somewhat opposite evidence, there is my post Farmed animals may have positive lives now or in a few decades?, and Robert Yaman's How to Be a Techno-Optimist for Animals.