FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22011
Contents
Section 1. General administrative information
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
Section 4. Budgets for planning/design phase
Section 5. Budgets for construction/implementation phase
Section 6. Budgets for operations/maintenance phase
Section 7. Budgets for monitoring/evaluation phase
Section 8. Budget summary
Reviews and Recommendations
Additional documents
| Title | Type |
|---|---|
| 22011 Narrative | Narrative |
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Demonstrate Proprietary Husbandry System for Musca domestica as Reliable Aquaculture Insect Nutrient Resource |
| Proposal ID | 22011 |
| Organization | Oregon Feeder Insects Corporation (OFIC) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
| Name | Forrest L. Cockerum |
| Mailing address | P. O. Box 714 Tillamook, OR 97141-0714 |
| Phone / email | 5038425988 / [email protected] |
| Manager authorizing this project | Forrest L. Cockerum |
| Review cycle | FY 2001 Innovative |
| Province / Subbasin | Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Demonstrate the scalability of our proprietary system for Musca domestica production, previously used in pet food industry applications, to provided insect material in sufficient quantity and at a reasonable cost as ingredient in juvenile fish diets. |
| Target species | All salmon, steelhead and trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishment |
|---|
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2001 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2001 cost |
|---|---|---|
| Capital | total sum to be spent on capital acquisition, insectary | $400,000 |
| $400,000 | ||
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2001 cost | $400,000 |
| Total FY 2001 budget request | $400,000 |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Comment:
This marginally innovative (but intriguing) proposal would demonstrate the ability to grow huge amounts of housefly larvae on a commercial scale. The larvae would be used as a salmonid hatchery diet component. This is not a critical problem facing resources in the basin and the proposal does not demonstrate a need in the Fish and Wildlife Program. The information to be gained is proprietary, and thus may not be useful publicly. This is one of several proposals that identify diet deficiency as etiology/precondition for fin erosion, but provide no experimental design for assessing how the insect product could be used to ameliorate the problem.Comment:
Project appears to be for product development within incorporated companies operated for profit. Not a priority of fish and wildlife managers to use Musca domesticata as a food source for hatchery fish. Proposal does not demonstrate that the proposed food source is a better food source than already available food sources.Comment:
Project appears to be for product development within incorporated companies operated for profit. Not a priority of fish and wildlife managers to use Musca domesticata as as a food source for hatchery fish. Proposal does not demonstrate that the proposed food source is a better food source than already available food sources.