Animal Futures update
Tournament check · 3 October 2026

What are forecasters saying about animal futures?

The original 16 questions now have 45–66 forecasters each (mean 51). Five added on September 20 have 15–23 each (mean 18), up from 11–15 in the first check. The forecasts still point to a gap between milestones and changes in production or welfare at scale.

Checked against public Metaculus pages on October 3, 2026. The estimates can change; the links go to live questions.

Participation, so far

The first wave averages 51 forecasters per question (range 45–66). The five questions added on September 20 average 18 (range 15–23) after 13 days, up from 11–15 after their first three days. These are question-level counts, not unique participants or forecast revisions.

21questions listed; 16 at launch, five newly added
51mean forecasters per original question (range 45–66)
18mean forecasters per newer question (range 15–23)
1question resolved so far

Question counts make coverage easier to compare. They count each account on every question it forecasts; the tournament leaderboard is a separate measure and includes bot accounts. Check current counts and standings.

How does this compare with other tournaments?
TournamentForecasters per displayed questionWhat limits the comparison
Cultured Meat23–31 across its three questionsOlder, much smaller, no prize pool
Climate Tipping Points14–62 among the first 19 shownStarted in 2023; broader subject
Global Health Monitor 2026/278–17 across ten questionsNewer, no prize pool
AI Pathways58–143 among 19 questionsOlder and draws a larger AI forecasting audience

These are context, not a ranking. Ages, topics, question types, and prizes differ. Counts were read from public question cards on October 3.

What the forecasts suggest

These are current crowd estimates for precisely worded questions. One outcome has resolved; the rest are judgments that can change. Each claim links to its question and resolution rule.

Current forecast

Rapid scale looks unlikely

The crowd gives 2% to plant-based meat and seafood reaching 10% of US retail packaged-meat dollar sales before 2031, down from 3% on September 23. It gives 2% to approval of Nueva Pescanova’s Canary Islands octopus farm before June 2027.

Current forecast

Policy can move in different directions

On the question’s stated definition, forecasters put about 83% combined probability on at least one further US state cultivated-meat ban before July 2027. They give 3% to the Save Our Bacon Act becoming law in that period.

Other forecasts worth watching
Corporate commitments.

The crowd estimates 12.7% cage-free and 5.24% broiler commitment fulfillment under the questions’ Chicken Watch definitions. These questions now have 17 and 15 forecasters.

Shrimp welfare.

The crowd estimates 10.5 of Europe’s top 20 grocery retailers will have public shrimp welfare commitments before July 2027. A separate question estimates 8.26 billion shrimp per year covered by SWP Humane Slaughter Initiative agreements.

AI and animals.

In the 2034 AI-lab guidelines question, two labs remains the most likely answer (22.4%). The crowd spreads probability across several outcomes. This is a long-horizon indicator rather than a near-term welfare outcome.

For decisions: a regulatory approval, a policy pledge, and animal impact are different steps. These forecasts are useful for deciding what evidence to collect next: commercialization and adoption after approval; implementation after pledges; and why uptake differs across places. They do not yet rank interventions by welfare impact.

What the discussion adds

There are 32 comments across the 21 question cards; nine questions have none. Recent comments surfaced a timing inconsistency in a new question as well as issues that sharpen resolution criteria.

Which hens are counted?

A commenter found a revised historical EU estimate and a difference between commercial-layer and broader measures. The criteria were clarified to use commercial layers and the first 2027 report.

Two more comments with practical implications

Forecasters pressed for a precise approval definition before the cultivated-meat question resolved. The eventual Yes is a specific product and jurisdiction milestone, not evidence of broad market access.

On the 2040 aquaculture question, a participant flagged an older OECD-FAO background dataset and linked newer figures. Check this baseline before using the forecast in a funding or policy brief.

Suggestions for the tournament

These are proposals for the organizers and participants, based on this snapshot. They are open for comment.

  1. Bring the new questions to the people who can use them. The second wave now has 15–23 forecasters per question. Invite people with corporate-campaign, shrimp-welfare, and retail-market knowledge, and ask them for the evidence driving their estimate.
  2. Ask what would change a decision. For each topic, seek a short response from a funder, advocate, or policymaker: which threshold would change a grant, campaign, or policy position? A forecast has more value when that decision is named.
  3. Keep dates and definitions consistent. The cage-free question discussion caught a mismatch between the event cutoff and fine print. The Louisiana law and EU in-ovo examples also show why trigger conditions, denominators, and data revisions need early clarification.
  4. Track participation and decision use. Separate per-question coverage from unique human participants, activity, revisions, and comments. No documented use of a forecast in a funding or policy decision surfaced in the public sources checked for this update; asking decision-makers directly should be a priority.

The tournament rules say three longer-horizon questions are excluded from leaderboard calculations, while prize eligibility requires active forecasts on at least two of them for most of the tournament. Explain this prominently when recruiting participants.

Weigh in

On a forecast

Open the relevant Metaculus question to add a prediction, evidence, or a resolution-rule comment. That keeps the forecasting discussion with the forecasters.

On this update or a decision

Highlight the relevant passage here and use the Hypothes.is sidebar to add a public annotation. Especially useful: a correction, a missing source, a funding or policy decision this could affect, or a question we should cover next. How to annotate.

This page is reviewed every ten days. The RSS feed records updates; the short report is the link to share when a full dashboard would be too much.

Sources and limits

Snapshot taken October 3, 2026 from the public Animal Futures tournament, its question cards and comments, the Metaculus announcement, and the linked comparator tournament pages. Forecaster counts are per question, so a person forecasting several questions appears several times. Means are simple averages across 16 original or five September 20 questions. Comments count the question-card comments, including replies; the announcement’s eight comments are separate.

One question had resolved at the check. All other figures are Metaculus community forecasts, not observed outcomes or independently validated probabilities. Three longer-horizon questions are excluded from leaderboard scoring. We did not establish how often individuals revised their forecasts or find a publicly documented funding or policy decision citing one.

The Unjournal landing page still says 16 questions. Metaculus now lists 21.