AgriScale: Accelerating Agri-tech Manufacturing, Experimental Development

AgriScale: Accelerating Agri-tech Manufacturing, Experimental Development

AgriScale: Accelerating Agri-tech Manufacturing, Experimental Development

This page is a historical reference for the AgriScale experimental development competition operated by Innovate UK. The official UKRI opportunity page and the linked Innovation Funding Service (IFS) competition record both show the cycle as closed. Neither verified page announces a later cycle. The real closing date remains in the metadata so the archive entry records what happened; it should not be read as a live invitation to submit.

The competition offered a share of up to £8 million for collaborative projects that could move agri-tech products toward reliable manufacture, production at scale, and market adoption. It was aimed at late-stage work rather than an early feasibility study. Innovate UK’s stated objectives were to improve product performance and reliability, strengthen manufacturing and supply-chain capability, and help products reach users in ways that support UK agricultural productivity and sustainability.

Verified details

The dates after closing were part of the published cycle timetable: invitations to interview were scheduled for 3 August 2026, the interview panel was scheduled to run from 31 August 2026 to 11 September 2026, applicants were scheduled to be notified on 17 September 2026, and projects could start from 1 January 2027. Those dates describe the closed round; they are not a new application window.

What the competition funded

AgriScale was for experimental development close to production and commercialisation. A credible project needed to show a known product or system with specific remaining gaps, not simply a promising idea. The proposal had to explain how the work would improve performance, reliability, manufacturing readiness, production scale, or adoption by end users. Innovate UK also required a robust business plan supporting production and market scale-up.

The official scope covered automation that reduces labour demand and improves productivity or sustainability in agriculture, forestry, horticulture, or aquaculture. It also covered robotic systems and equipment; automated sensing and observation with the associated data processing and intelligence needed for actionable decisions or control; and specific manufacturing, engineering, performance, or regulatory-compliance problems.

Examples of work that fitted the published scope included design and testing of mechanical, electrical, electronic, or software systems for reliable operation at scale; design for manufacture and assembly; manufacturing-process development and optimisation; supply-chain and procurement strategy; safety, food-safety, and electromagnetic-compatibility testing; production-readiness validation for software, navigation, safety, fleet-management, or deployment systems; integration with existing management systems; and field, workshop, or laboratory trials in representative operating conditions. Product-support, diagnostics, and repair systems were also within the list of possible approaches.

The call did not fund early-stage research and development, feasibility studies, or investigations of new unproven design concepts or functionality. It also excluded projects without a clear route to market and commercialisation, equine-specific projects, wild-caught fisheries, cellular or acellular production systems, fermentation systems for bacteria, yeast, or fungi for human consumption, crops or plants for medicinal or pharmaceutical use, and projects focused specifically on bioeconomy systems. Subsidy conditions also ruled out awards dependent on export performance or mandatory use of domestic inputs.

Eligibility and collaboration requirements

This was a collaboration-only competition. The lead organisation had to be a UK-registered business of any size. Academic institutions could not lead or apply alone. A collaborating organisation could be a UK-registered business, academic institution, charity, not-for-profit organisation, public-sector organisation, or research and technology organisation. At least one other organisation had to apply for funding alongside the lead, and the application had to explain the collaboration rationale and structure.

Each partner had to be invited into IFS by the lead. After accepting the invitation, the partner was responsible for entering its own project costs and completing its Project Impact questions. The lead could lead only one application, although a business could be included as a collaborator in two further applications. An organisation that was not leading an application could collaborate in any number of applications.

Funded organisations had to perform project work in the UK and intend to exploit the project results from or in the UK. Projects had to cost between £1 million and £3 million in eligible costs, last from 6 to 18 months, start by 1 January 2027, and finish by 30 June 2028. Every project start had to fall on the first day of a month, and work could not start until Innovate UK had approved the Grant Offer Letter. A request to work outside the duration range needed justification to Innovate UK at least 10 working days before the competition closed, and approval was not automatic.

Subcontractors were allowed. UK subcontractors could be selected through the applicant’s normal procurement process. An overseas subcontractor required a detailed case explaining why a UK supplier could not be used, evidence of UK contractors considered, and reasons those suppliers could not work with the project. A lower price alone was not enough justification. Non-funded UK partners were also allowed, but their costs counted toward total eligible project costs when they were invited into the IFS application.

Funding and cost planning

The competition fund was up to £8 million across the experimental development stream, subject to receiving enough high-quality applications. It was a shared competition budget rather than a guaranteed award for every eligible applicant. Innovate UK reserved the right to adjust allocations in exceptional circumstances.

For commercial or economic experimental development, the maximum support rates were up to 45% of eligible costs for micro or small organisations, up to 35% for medium-sized organisations, and up to 25% for large organisations. Research organisations undertaking non-economic activity could share up to 70% of the total eligible project costs. Within that shared amount, RTOs, charities, not-for-profits, public-sector organisations, and research organisations could receive up to 100% of their eligible costs, while academic institutions could receive 80% of full economic costs under the stated TRAC rules.

The budget therefore needed to connect each partner’s requested grant to an eligible work package, a measurable output, and a credible contribution from the partner. A project total below £1 million or above £3 million was outside the published range. Applicants also had to use eligible project costs and pass the relevant financial viability, subsidy-control, and compliance checks. The competition operated under the Research, Development and Innovation Streamlined Subsidy Scheme in accordance with the Subsidy Control Act 2022.

Application process recorded for the closed cycle

Applications were submitted in IFS and were divided into four sections: Project details, Application questions, Finances, and Project Impact. The lead applicant was responsible for ensuring that the information was correct, the proposal met the eligibility and scope rules, every section was marked complete, and all partners had completed their assigned sections and accepted the terms and conditions. A submitted application could be reopened before the deadline, but it had to be resubmitted before the closing time.

The Project details section asked for the team, project title, start date, duration, a project summary, a public description, and a scope explanation. The summary could be up to 400 words, the public description up to 200 words, and the scope response up to 400 words. The application instructions prohibited website addresses and links in answers; including URLs could make an application ineligible.

The scored application questions covered the business need and challenge, approach and innovation, team and resources, market awareness, outcomes and route to market, wider impacts, project management, risks, added value, and costs and value for money. The first six questions were not scored, but all questions still had to be answered. Those initial questions covered applicant location, animal testing, permits and licences, international collaboration, export licences, and Trusted Research and Innovation considerations.

The application required partners to explain their roles, facilities, resources, external parties, and any recruitment needs. The market response had to identify target customers, market structure, supply or value chains, barriers to entry, and supporting evidence where available. The exploitation response had to describe the route to market, expected commercial benefit, protection of outputs, and any follow-on markets. Applicants also had to provide an exploitation-plan appendix of up to four A4 pages. Project management required a project plan or Gantt chart, while the risk response required a risk register; those appendices were each limited to two A4 pages. The appendices had to be PDFs no larger than 10MB and legible at full size.

Applications were reviewed by three independent assessors. A project that passed the first assessment could be invited to an online interview. The interview required a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation of no more than 20 minutes and 20 slides, with up to three attendees from the project. A written response to assessor feedback was optional and could be up to two A4 pages. The interview panel then scored the application, and that score superseded the initial assessment score unless the competition guidance said otherwise.

Archive guidance for applicants researching a future round

Do not treat this closed record as evidence that applications remain possible or that Innovate UK will repeat the same timetable. The official pages verified for this entry show the completed cycle and no subsequent deadline. A future call would need to be checked on the current UKRI and IFS pages before relying on its fund size, eligible technologies, dates, rates, or application questions.

For a future call with the same structure, the strongest preparation would be a late-stage product baseline, quantified performance or reliability gaps, a manufacturing and supply-chain plan, evidence of end-user demand, and a clear route to commercialisation. The consortium should decide early which partner leads each work package and why collaboration is necessary. It should also document UK delivery and exploitation, cost each partner’s work separately, and resolve any subcontractor or regulatory questions before the application is submitted.

The official references for the completed cycle are the UKRI opportunity page and the linked Innovation Funding Service competition record. The UKRI page identifies Innovate UK as the funder, while the IFS record provides the detailed eligibility, scope, funding, application, assessment, and interview guidance.

Frequently asked questions

Can an academic institution lead this competition?

No. The lead had to be a UK-registered business. Academic institutions could participate as collaborators, but could not lead or apply alone.

Was this a grant for an early research idea?

No. It funded experimental development close to manufacturing readiness and commercialisation. Early-stage R&D, feasibility studies, and unproven design concepts were outside scope.

Was the £8 million a per-project award?

No. It was the total competition fund shared across selected projects. Each project also had to stay within £1 million to £3 million in total eligible costs and within the applicable support rates.

What is the correct deadline in the archive?

The real closing date was 3 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time. The opportunity is closed, so the date is retained as historical information rather than presented as an active submission deadline.

Why is this page marked historical?

The verified official pages show the cycle as closed and do not announce a next round. historicalReference = true preserves the closed cycle without making an expired date look like a live application opportunity.