FY 2001 Innovative proposal 22011

Additional documents

TitleType
22011 Narrative Narrative

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleDemonstrate Proprietary Husbandry System for Musca domestica as Reliable Aquaculture Insect Nutrient Resource
Proposal ID22011
OrganizationOregon Feeder Insects Corporation (OFIC)
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
NameForrest L. Cockerum
Mailing addressP. O. Box 714 Tillamook, OR 97141-0714
Phone / email5038425988 / skipio@oregoncoast.com
Manager authorizing this projectForrest L. Cockerum
Review cycleFY 2001 Innovative
Province / SubbasinSystemwide / Systemwide
Short descriptionDemonstrate 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 speciesAll salmon, steelhead and trout
Project location
LatitudeLongitudeDescription
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)

Sponsor-reported:

RPA

Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:

Reviewing agencyAction #BiOp AgencyDescription

Section 2. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishment

Section 3. Relationships to other projects

Project IDTitleDescription

Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase

Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase

Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase

Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Task-based budget
ObjectiveTaskDuration in FYsEstimated 2001 costSubcontractor
Outyear objectives-based budget
ObjectiveStarting FYEnding FYEstimated cost
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase

Section 8. Estimated budget summary

Itemized budget
ItemNoteFY 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
OrganizationItem or service providedAmountCash or in-kind

Reviews and recommendations

This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.

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.
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.
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.