FY 2000 proposal 20046
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Induction of Precocious Sexual Maturity and Enhanced Egg Production in Fish |
| Proposal ID | 20046 |
| Organization | University of Idaho (UI) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Gerald T. Schelling |
| Mailing address | Dept. of Animal & Veterinary Science, U of Idaho Moscow, ID 838344 |
| Phone / email | 2088857310 / gschelling@uidaho.edu |
| Manager authorizing this project | |
| Review cycle | FY 2000 |
| Province / Subbasin | Mainstem/Systemwide / Systemwide |
| Short description | Determine if female fish sexual maturity can be achieved earlier (thus increased reproductive capacity and reduced generation time) due to a drastic growth rate increase (3.5 times normal) induced by the use of somatotropin. |
| Target species | Salmonid, White Sturgeon |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
|
Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Genetic Retrieval from Single Sperm |
Project participant |
|
Endocrine Control of Ovarian Development in Salmonids |
Project participant |
|
Analyzing Genetic and Behavioral Changes During Salmonid Domestication |
Project participant |
|
Enhancement of Salmonid Gamete Quality by Manipulation of Intracellular ATP |
Project participant |
|
Viral Vaccines and Effects on Reproductive Status |
Project participant |
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 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 2000 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
Post-docotral research assoc. |
$33,000 |
| Fringe |
Post-docotral research assoc. |
$9,405 |
| Supplies |
|
$34,450 |
| PIT tags |
200 |
$580 |
| Travel |
One meeting. Travel to off-campus fish laboratory |
$3,900 |
| Indirect |
31.5% |
$47,145 |
| Other |
Technical res. Assoc. (100%), fringe, tech. Res. Assoc (34.5%), aquaculture, hormone & admin core |
$68,332 |
| $196,812 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2000 cost | $196,812 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2000 budget request | $196,812 |
| FY 2000 forecast from 1999 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
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.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Jun 15, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Do not fund. The proposal does not explain any programmatic need for it by the FWP.
Comments:
The proposal does not adequately describe how it will be programmatically applied. The use of bST to accelerate growth rate and time of sexual maturity is not fully justified to the reviewers given the FWP objective of maximizing the natural ontogeny, experience, behavior, etc. of artificially-produced fish. While it may seem a reasonable measure when propagation efforts are not generating sufficient to maintain or produce more of endangered or depressed fishes, the argument for such extreme physiological manipulation is not justified in the present situation of viable options for producing for supplementation.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Technical Criteria 1: Met? no - Changing the timing of maturation may not fit with the goal of increasing the natural runs.Programmatic Criteria 2: Met? yes -
Milestone Criteria 3: Met? yes -
Resource Criteria 4: Met? yes -
Recommendation:
Date:
Aug 20, 1999
Comment:
Sounds like pure theoretical research. Unclear what the application is for the recovery of listed species.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Mar 1, 2000
Comment:
[Decision made in 9-22-99 Council Meeting];