Hello. Thanks. Assuming the stunners are subsidised has a small effect on the change in soil-arthropod-years per electrically stunned shrimp.

Who pays for the stunner. Scenario. The headline assumes the producer pays for it, as under a legal requirement to stun or unsubsidised adoption. Where SWP donates the stunner, as in its Humane Slaughter Initiative, only the running costs raise the producer's cost of stunning a shrimp: the mean cost falls by 32.2%, and every mean change in living time falls by about as much (33.0–34.1% in the simulation), with the probability of more living time unchanged. Full estimates are in the Scenarios section.

Here are the details.

I assume the stunners are not subsidised in the baseline scenario because I am expecting subsidised stunners to stun a minority of the shrimps electrically stunned in the future. @Aaron Boddy🔸, who was the CEO of the Shrimp Welfare Project (SWP) until July 2026, commented the following on 7 Octoner 2024.

We’ve had some good indications recently that HSI does contribute to “locking-in” industry adoption, with Tesco and Sainsbury’s recently publishing welfare policies, building on similar wins in the past (such as M&S and Albert Heijn).

This has always been the Theory of Change for the HSI project. Although we’re very excited by how cost-effective it is in its own right, ultimately we want to catalyse industry-wide adoption - deploying stunners to the early adopters in order to build towards a tipping point that achieves critical mass. In other words, over the next few years we want to take the HSI program from Growth to Scale.