Critique of a Project Proposal

“Barriers and Opportunities to The Use of Invertebrates as Sources of Food and Feed
for Livestock”
1. Introduction
This report critiqued the research proposal, which focuses on the alteration of food and the
feed for livestock from vertebrates into insects as invertebrates. A proposal for the research is
a comprehensive summary of what we want to do in the research project (Denscombe, 2012).
It is vital to provide a clear background or foundation about how the project will be carried out
and justify the research adequately (Sudheesh et al., 2016). Furthermore, this report will
investigate the whole proposal project from the dissertation project inception report.
2. Critique of The Proposal
2.1 Overview
The proposal title is too broad and does not provide the specific aspect of invertebrates. It
looks like no limitation on the invertebrates that will be used to shift the feed for livestock from
the soya and fish feed into the specific insect. Moreover, the structure of the proposal is not
portrayed in the proper order. The authors provide an abstract into the proposal, which is
unnecessary whilst there is no result in the project yet. It also lacks the subheading, which will
become the focus of each section. However, The structure of the proposal must be strong
enough to make the reader able to understand (Punch, 2006).
2.2. Critique of Introduction
From the title to the introduction, the author does not clearly define the invertebrates. There
are many invertebrate species. For example, It can be snails, limpets, worms, and insects
(Robertson et al., 2012). However, this research proposal only mentions the worms and the
Insect (Mealworm, Earthworm, and Maggot). The introduction of the research proposal is
divided into two sections. However, it will make the reader a little bit confused. It is better to
unite all the sections in the introduction into one introduction with the proper sentences. The
flow of the introduction is well constructed to explain the weakness of each livestock feed type.
Unfortunately, it was a lack of supporting explanation and references. The background of the
project provided is too short and does not cover the project's full title. It was only stated that
the background of this project is because of the carbon emission by livestock farming. It also
provided the percentage of the global carbon emission used to provide livestock feed. However,
The author fails to explain the specific data between the carbon emission in the vertebrate and
invertebrate livestock feed. It will be better to see the gap of carbon emission between the
vertebrate and invertebrate livestock feed. As a result, those data will support the background
that Invertebrates is better than vertebrate in terms of carbon emission.
The introduction also did not cover the title of the project. It is stated that the title is the
barriers and opportunities in using the invertebrates as the food and livestock feed. However,
just a small amount of sentences are used to support the title. For example, the author mentions
the opportunity to have the invertebrates as the livestock feed from the protein or nutrition point
of view. There is no explanation about the benefit of Insects of invertebrates in other aspects
of the opportunity. The introduction also did not cover the specific area as the project's scope.
If it is a global scope project, It must be stated in the introduction. However, if the project is
only in a particular area, it also must be stated with the specific and robust reason of
argumentation and proof. To propose well in the structure, It is better to explain the introduction
based on the general into the specific one. For example, It can be started as a world food crisis
as general, and then flow into the answer of why it must be invertebrates such as the potential
of the invertebrates like insects, and the scope of the problem like the phobia and globalization
in general (Yen, 2009).
Giving the example of the achievement of Insects as feed to livestock is one of the strong
points. However, the example given is not in-depth analysis and explanation. It also did not
provide references as proof of the study. The authors only mention china as the one country
that used insects to feed on chicken and pig farming. Nevertheless, it is unclear what kind of
Insect, how the impact, and the comparison between other countries. However, providing more
data in that section would better convince the reader about the project. For example, provide
the data of historical Insects used as food and feed for livestock in Australia and Kenya using
foods that include edible grubs. (mainly Coleoptera and Lepidoptera), hone yants, scale
insects, lerps (Hemiptera: Psylloidea) and Bogong moth Agrotis infusa Boisduval
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Yen, 2005., Okello et al., 2021).
In the recent two decades, many publications have been on the human consumption of
edible insects and invertebrates (Paoletti, 2005). Therefore, the proposed proposal project
portrayed the excellent opportunity to summarise the whole publications as the barriers and
opportunities in alteration of food sources and feed sources into invertebrates. The objective in
this proposal could be Insect. Because the author primarily focuses on Insects. However, this
is not explained at all in the beginning. It also does not elaborate on other specific purposes.
The introduction must provide the background and background of the study. Otherwise, the
author leaves the reader unaware of the value of why the project is essential.
2.3 Critique of Aims, Objectives and Research Question
The aims and objectives in this proposal are poorly done. The student does not put the
heading of the aims and objectives. It makes the reader confused about the main aims and
objectives of the project since it was not mentioned in the proposal. It is better to have the
heading for the aims and objectives. The proposal is not structured appropriately, and The aim
needs to be structured (Eve, 2008). However, based on the understanding, the project aims to
discuss the opportunity and the barriers of food alteration for humans and livestock using the
invertebrates. It is essential to have headings /sub-headings to provide the framework to make
the reader easier reading the proposal (Denscombe, 2012). Same as aims and objectives, the
research question is not mentioned in the proposal. The research question would be (1) what is
the barrier or challenges in using insects as the food and feed of livestock? (2) what is the
benefit of using insects as the food and feed of livestock? (3) How is edible insects' nutritional
value and chemical composition? (4) How to manage insect farming for sustainable food
security in the future?.
2.4 Critique of Methodology
The project proposes the methodology using secondary research based on the published
articles related to insect feeds to livestock. This section is lack detail. It is confusing about the
scope of the research-based method. Suppose the students want to do the project based on the
published articles. It should be explained clearly using a specific explanation, such as the time
frame for the data. For example, the articles published for "Insect feeds to livestock" from
2000-2015. As a result, the data used can be managed and considered as the management in
the future.
Furthermore, there are no specific sources for the articles to construct the methodology. Is
it from google scholar only? Or it is based on the library sources web? The students should
provide information about the methodology, such as how the literature search was conducted.
Alternatively, it is covered all of the searching tools?. For example, the student can use Boolean
logic in the bibliographic database Web of Science as the search engine. It is judged to index
most of the articles published on land management and conservation. Another option is to use
the Newcastle library web or google scholar as the source of the published article. Since there
are no aims and objectives stated in the proposal, it is still unclear what data would like to add
to the research project. It is because each data probably should be managed using different
methods.
2.5 Critique of References and Literature
The references format is not consistent in the whole proposal. Sometimes, the student
uses the format of (Name et al., year), but sometimes it changes into (Name et al. year) as you
can see in (Fig1).

Figure 1. References Mistakes

The citation in the references also seems not consistent. The format needs to be structured
appropriately. Some of the references mentioned the year in the end. In comparison, mostly the
others are in the front after the author's name. Overall, the references used by the student is not
the most cited one. The sources are lack information and need more addition in terms of
supporting detail of the background of the project. For example, to construct the introduction,
in google scholar, many articles about insects as livestock feed with a good reputation are
highly cited. However, this proposal lacked references.
2.6 Critique of Timeline of the research
The student has not provided the research timeline, which is problematic. It is essential to
put the research timeline using Gantt Chart because it will show the plan and activity in the
project (Al- riyami, 2011). It is also part of the operational plan in the research (Kumar, 2011)
to make the students finish research on time (Pickton, 2013). There is no budget plan as well.
3. Search Strategy (Literature Review)
A literature search was carried out (Table 1 and Table 2) using the google scholar and
Newcastle library web. The search used uses the title of the proposed project in both searching
tools. It is crucial to find the literature refer to this title to decide which papers were the most
relevant questions when deciding which papers were of most relevance to the project's aims.
The first strategy is using the Newcastle Library web with the search scope is everything, in
any field and any publication date. The search result is too broad, yielding more than 20.000
results. Then, a specific search was conducted. However, the results are still yielding in a
considerable number of articles. The same thing also happens in google scholar. Subsequently,
The search strategy was changed into a specific area like the United Kingdom, resulting in a
narrower number of articles. Google Scholar resulted in 8 articles when using the advanced
search. However, there are four same articles on the list. It is better to narrower and makes the
specific title to find the article with strong relevance to the title of the proposal.
Table 1. Search strategy, result and relevance in Newcastle library website
Newcastle Library Web
Search keywords Search Strategy Result
Insect for livestock feed Search scope : Everything 24.900
In Any field
Any Year

Insect for livestock feed Search scope : Everything 25.218

“AND” Barriers “OR” In Any field
Challenges “AND” Any Year
Opportunity
Insect for livestock feed Search scope : Everything 10.541
“AND” Barriers “OR” In Any field
Challenges “AND” Last 5 years
Opportunity
Insect for livestock feed Search scope : Everything 3.774
“AND” Barriers “OR” In Any field
Challenges “AND” Last 5 years
Opportunity Filter : just articles
Filter : Subject of
Agriculture, Livestock and
Insect
Insect for livestock feed in Search scope : Everything 3.061
United Kingdom“AND” In Any field
Barriers “OR” Challenges Last 5 years
“AND” Opportunity Filter : just articles

Insect for livestock feed in
United Kingdom“AND”
Barriers “OR” Challenges
“AND” Opportunity
Insect for livestock feed in
United Kingdom“AND”
Barriers “OR” Challenges
“AND” Opportunity
Filter : Subject of
Agriculture, Livestock and
Insect
Search scope : Everything 1.372
In Any field
Last 2 Years
Filter : just articles
Filter : Subject of
Agriculture, Livestock and
Insect
Search scope : Everything 691
In Any field
Last 1 year
Filter : just articles
Filter : Subject of
Agriculture, Livestock and
Insect

Table 2. Search strategy, results and relevance in Google Scholar

Google Scholar
Search keywords Search Strategy Result
Insect for livestock feed Any year Approximately 105.000

Barriers and opportunities Any year Approximately 24.700

to the use of invertebrates
as sources of food and feed
for livestock
Barriers and opportunities 2015-2018 Approximately 16.900
to the use of invertebrates
as sources of food and feed
for livestock
Insect for livestock feed Advanced search 8 (4 of the articles are the
With All words : Insect for same articles).
livestock feed
In the title
In Any Years

3 Conclusion
Overall, this proposal has lacked in structure and references. This proposal must be
written in the structural format and supported by more references in the introduction. The
detailed introduction must be covered all of the backgrounds of the project. Subsequently, the
method can be elaborated in more detail with the specific terms of a search strategy.
References
Al-Riyami, A., 2008. How to prepare a Research Proposal. Oman Medical Journal, 23(2), pp.
66-69.
Denscombe, M., 2012. Research Proposals: A Practical Guide. Berkshire: Open University
Press.
Eve, J., 2008. Writing a research proposal: planning and communication your research ideas
effectively. Library and Information Research, 32(10), pp. 18-28.
Kumar, R., 2011. Research Methodology: a step-by-step guide for beginners. 3rd Edition,
London: SAGE.
Müller-Bloch, C. & Kranz, J. 2015. A Framework for Rigorously Identifying Research Gaps
in Qualitative Literature Reviews. International Conference on Information Systems
2015, 19 pages.
Okello, A. O., Nzuma, J. M., Otieno, D. J., Kidoido, M., & Tanga, C. M. 2021. Farmers’
Perceptions of Commercial Insect-Based Feed for Sustainable Livestock Production
in Kenya. Sustainability, 13(10), 5359.
Paoletti MG . 2005. Ecological Implications of Minilive-stock. Science Publishers, Enfield
Pickton, M., 2013. Writing your research plan. In: Grant, M. J., Sen, B. & Spring, H. (Eds.)
Research, Evaluation and Audit: Key Steps in Demonstrating your Value. London:
Facet Publishing
Robertson, T., Sargeant, B., Urgelles, R., Easton, J. A., Huselid, L., & Abreu, A. 2012.
Invertebrate identification guide. Aquatic ecology lab, Florida International
University, Florida, United States, 53.
Sudheesh, K. Duggappa, D.R. and Nethra, S.S. 2016. How to write a research proposal?
Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, 60 (9), 631-634.
Yen A.L. 2005. Insect and other invertebrate foods of AustralianAborigines. In: Paoletti MG
(ed.) Ecological Implications ofMinilivestock, pp. 367–387. Science Publishers,
Enfield.
Yen, A. L. 2009. Edible insects: Traditional knowledge or western phobia?. Entomological
research, 39(5), 289-298.