1 / 10

fst.osu/CAPPS/index.html

http://fst.osu.edu/CAPPS/index.html. CAPPS Mission. To conduct industrially relevant research directed at developing methods and technologies for the production of safe, marketable, high-quality shelf-stable aseptic and refrigerated extended shelf-life products. Objectives.

waite
Download Presentation

fst.osu/CAPPS/index.html

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. http://fst.osu.edu/CAPPS/index.html

  2. CAPPS Mission To conduct industrially relevant research directed at developing methods and technologies for the production of safe, marketable, high-quality shelf-stable aseptic and refrigerated extended shelf-life products.

  3. Objectives • Enhance safety and quality of aseptic and extended shelf-life products • Characterize emerging, aseptic and extended shelf-life processes • Assure the integrity and functionality of aseptic and extended shelf-life packaging

  4. History • Begun in 1986 at North Carolina State University as the Center for Aseptic Processing and Packaging Studies • Univ. of California Davis joined in 1993 • Ohio State joined in 1998 • Name changed to Center for Advanced Processing and Packaging Studies, broadening the scope of the Center • Ohio State became Managing Site in 2002

  5. History (continued) • In 2002, three separate budgets were merged into one, centrally managed at OSU • In 2003, we “graduated” • No-cost extensions to NSF were necessary to enable one member (US Army) to transfer funds • Still awaiting an alternative solution

  6. The Transition to Independence • From 2004 onwards, we requested that a portion of industry funds be set aside annually to fund operations • $ 50,000 per year for the managing site • $ 5,000 per site for Directors’ discretionary funds • Total of $ 65,000 per year • Annual requests made to the IAB since

  7. Challenges to Independent Operation • IAB questioning of administrative costs • One vocal member • Detailed scrutiny of accounts • “Charity” level overhead • One member uses the Governmental MIPR system to pay us via NSF • Delays in receipt of funds • Research grants office blamed • Delicate handling of delinquent members

  8. Challenges to Independent Operation • Research Grants Offices • Industry and NSF funds had separate accounts and managers • Recently, there has been talk at one or two sites of charging full indirect costs on Center projects • Still awaiting resolution • Slow subcontracting process • We subcontract to several partner and nonpartner sites • Grants offices sometimes operate at glacial pace

  9. Other Aspects of Independent Operation • IAB has attempted to change voting rules • No longer can one company solely vote to fund a single project • One member has taken an extraordinary interest and has redrafted our bylaws • Student support no longer guaranteed for more than one year • All projects go through annual renewal process • With the exit of FDA as a member in the late 1990s, projects became more applied and immediate in focus

  10. Other Aspects of Independent Operation • Beginning in 2001, we began seeking large external grants. • In 2003, we were successful in obtaining a 4-year $ 1.7M grant from USDA • Project meetings are scheduled alongside CAPPS meetings • CAPPS membership is currently at an all-time high

More Related