AgriScale: Accelerating Agri-tech Manufacturing, Industrial Research

AgriScale: Accelerating Agri-tech Manufacturing, Industrial Research

This page is a historical reference for the AgriScale: Accelerating Agri-tech Manufacturing, Industrial Research competition. The official UKRI opportunity page lists the competition as closed, and its linked Innovation Funding Service (IFS) page states that the competition is now closed. The official pages reviewed for this refresh do not announce a replacement round or a continuing application window. Readers should therefore not treat this page as an invitation to apply or infer a new deadline.

The closed competition was funded by Innovate UK, part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). It offered a share of up to £5 million for projects that addressed product technology gaps preventing movement towards commercial acceptance, scale-up, and manufacture. The amount was a total competition fund, not a guaranteed award for each applicant. Innovate UK also said that the full allocation depended on receiving a sufficient number of high-quality applications and reserved the right to adjust allocations in exceptional circumstances.

Verified record of the 2026 competition

UKRI published the opportunity on 24 March 2026. It opened on 30 March 2026 at 9:30am UK time and closed on 3 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time. The UKRI page records the status as Closed, while the IFS overview repeats the same opening and closing information and explicitly says that the competition is now closed.

The published schedule also included dates after submission. Applicants were due to be notified on 4 August 2026. The planned project start was from 1 October 2026, subject to project setup and approval of the Grant Offer Letter. Projects had to end by 30 September 2027. Those dates describe the timetable for the closed round; they do not create a live application opportunity now.

The competition was one of two AgriScale strands running in parallel. This page concerns the industrial research strand. The IFS guidance warned applicants to choose the correct strand because an application could not be transferred and would not be sent for assessment if it was out of scope. The companion experimental development competition was separate and had its own opportunity record and funding total.

What the competition was designed to support

The industrial research call targeted late-stage agri-tech projects. Its purpose was to help innovators advance product performance and reliability while beginning development of manufacturing and supply-chain capability. A suitable project had to address a known technology gap that prevented a product from being proven, demonstrated, and accepted in end-user conditions.

The expected destination was not merely a more interesting prototype. The proposal needed to show how the work would move a business, technology, or product closer to manufacturing readiness and adoption. The official description connected this with commercial engagement, UK agri-tech industry growth, agricultural productivity, and sustainability.

That focus gives the historical call a fairly specific profile:

• The product already needed a credible technical basis and a defined route towards market.
• The work needed to raise performance, reliability, or adoption readiness to a level relevant to commercial end users.
• The project had to explain the gap, the actions that would address it, and the evidence that would show the gap had been reduced.
• The proposal needed to connect technical work with production, supply-chain, market, and end-user requirements.

The call was not intended for early-stage research, a feasibility study, or an unproven design concept. It also excluded proposals that did not specify known technology gaps and associated actions, or that lacked a clear route to market and commercialisation. The official exclusions included 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. The usual restrictions on subsidies dependent on export performance or domestic-input usage also applied.

Themes and types of work in scope

The published themes focused on technologies that could reduce labour demands and improve productivity and sustainability in agriculture, forestry, horticulture, and aquaculture. The examples were broad in technology but narrow in purpose. They included automation and robotic systems, plus automated sensing and observation systems that included associated data processing and intelligence capable of producing actionable management decisions or direct control actions.

A project could address a manufacturing, engineering, regulatory, or performance challenge. The proposal also had to explain how the work would accelerate progress, attract investment, and shorten the path to market. Farmer or grower demand mattered: applicants had to demonstrate that the product intended for market would support productivity and sustainability and had evidence of demand.

The IFS examples of eligible approaches included:

• design and testing of mechanical, electrical, electronic, and software systems for robust, reliable, and durable operation;
• design for manufacture and assembly;
• regulatory and safety compliance testing, including food safety, operational and functional safety, and electromagnetic compatibility;
• software, navigation, safety, fleet-management, deployment, and cyber-security systems;
• optimisation that made hardware and software easier to integrate with existing business systems;
• fleet hardware and software covering batteries, charging, operator interfaces, support, and monitoring;
• field, workshop, and laboratory trials measuring performance, reliability, endurance, machine uptime, and end-user acceptance;
• support, diagnostic, and repair systems for the end-user product.

For an archived application plan, the practical test is whether the work can be described as a sequence from a known product limitation to a defined intervention and a measurable acceptance result. A proposal that only explores whether an idea might work would have been a poor fit for this industrial research strand.

Eligibility and collaboration structure

The competition accepted collaborations only. The lead organisation had to be a UK-registered business of any size. Academic institutions could not lead or work alone. Eligible collaborating organisations included UK-registered businesses, academic institutions, charities, not-for-profit organisations, public-sector organisations, and research and technology organisations.

The collaboration requirement had a concrete financial and narrative test. The lead and at least one other organisation had to apply for funding by entering costs, include a rationale for the collaboration, and describe the collaboration structure in the application. Non-funded UK partners could participate, with their costs covered from their own resources. If a non-funded partner was invited into IFS, its costs counted towards total eligible project costs.

The project had to have total eligible costs between £250,000 and £750,000 and last between 6 and 12 months. Any funded organisation had to carry out its project work in the UK and intend to exploit the project results from or in the UK. The project had to start by 1 October 2026 and end by 30 September 2027. Projects had to start on the first day of a month, and work could not begin until Innovate UK had approved the Grant Offer Letter. The guidance warned that delays during project setup could move the start date.

Subcontractors were permitted. UK subcontractors had to be selected through the applicant’s usual procurement process. An overseas subcontractor could be used only with a detailed justification, evidence of potential UK contractors approached, and reasons those UK contractors could not undertake the work. A lower price alone was not enough justification.

There were also participation and compliance limits. A business could lead one application and collaborate in two further applications. An organisation that was not leading could collaborate in any number of applications. Applicants had to account for sanctions, permits and licences, animal welfare where relevant, subsidy control, financial viability, previous award compliance, and any outstanding Innovate UK or UKRI obligations. These checks were part of the official eligibility and funding guidance, not optional additions to an application.

Funding rules

Funding was provided as a grant under the Research, Development and Innovation Streamlined Subsidy Scheme. For commercial or economic work classed as industrial research, the published maximum rates were up to 70% of eligible project costs for micro or small organisations, up to 60% for medium-sized organisations, and up to 50% for large organisations.

Research organisations undertaking non-economic activity could share up to 50% of total eligible project costs. Within that share, the guidance allowed up to 100% of eligible costs for an RTO, charity, not-for-profit organisation, public-sector organisation, or research organisation, and up to 80% of full economic costs for an academic institution, subject to the stated rules. A consortium therefore needed a budget that matched each partner’s organisation type, economic status, work package, and claimed costs.

The £5 million figure should be read as the total fund available across the competition. It was not a promise that each eligible consortium would receive a fixed amount, and a high-scoring application could still remain unfunded because the competition was capped.

How applications were submitted

The IFS process divided the application into four sections: Project details, Application questions, Finances, and Project Impact. The lead applicant was responsible for checking that the information was correct, the proposal met the eligibility and scope criteria, all sections were marked complete, and all partners had completed their assigned sections and accepted the terms and conditions. Applicants could reopen a submitted application before the closing time, but they had to resubmit it before the deadline.

The Project details section asked for the application team, project title, start date, and duration. It also asked for a project summary of up to 400 words, a public description of up to 200 words, and a scope response of up to 400 words. The public description needed to be suitable for publication if funding was awarded and could not include commercially sensitive information.

All application questions had to be answered. The guidance prohibited website addresses and links in the answers, and said that including URLs could make an application ineligible. Questions 1 to 6 were not scored; questions 7 onwards were scored and covered the need or challenge, approach and innovation, team and resources, market awareness, and outcomes, route to market, and exploitation. The answers needed to connect technical evidence with team capability, market demand, delivery resources, customer value, productivity, growth, and protection or exploitation of project outputs.

The IFS allowed one appendix for the approach and innovation answer and one appendix for the team and resources answer, under the stated rules. Each appendix had to be a legible PDF no larger than 10MB and no more than two A4 pages. Applicants were also asked to address animal testing, permits and licences, international collaboration, export controls, and Trusted Research and Innovation where relevant.

Because the competition is closed, these instructions are useful only for understanding the 2026 round or evaluating a past submission. They should not be treated as current submission instructions for a future AgriScale call. Any future Innovate UK competition would need to be checked against its own official UKRI and IFS pages.

Historical-reference checklist

For anyone reviewing the closed opportunity, the core record is:

1. Funder: Innovate UK, part of UKRI.
2. Status: Closed on the official UKRI and IFS pages.
3. Total fund: up to £5 million across the competition.
4. Deadline: 3 June 2026 at 11:00am UK time.
5. Lead: a UK-registered business of any size.
6. Structure: collaboration only, with the lead and at least one other organisation applying for funding and explaining the partnership.
7. Cost band: £250,000 to £750,000 in total eligible project costs.
8. Duration and dates: 6–12 months, starting by 1 October 2026 and ending by 30 September 2027.
9. Main fit: late-stage industrial research that closes known technology gaps and moves an agri-tech product towards reliable operation, manufacturing readiness, and adoption.
10. Current action: do not apply to this closed record; check UKRI and the Innovation Funding Service for any separately announced future opportunity.

The official UKRI opportunity page remains the primary public reference for the programme record. The linked IFS overview contains the detailed eligibility, funding, scope, dates, and application guidance for the closed competition.