FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22011

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 / skipio@oregoncoast.com
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.

REVIEW:
ISRP Review (ISRP 2000-10)

Recommendation:
Yes - C

Date:
Dec 15, 2000

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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jan 17, 2001

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.

REVIEW:
CBFWA Funding Recommendation

Recommendation:
Do Not Fund

Date:
Jan 17, 2001

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.