Get a Share of £4.5M for On‑Farm Trials: Full ADOPT Grant Round Five (Grant for Farming, Growing and Forestry Businesses)

Captured cycle: This page is retained for historical guidance. Confirm whether the program has reopened before planning an application.

Get a Share of £4.5M for On‑Farm Trials: Full ADOPT Grant Round Five (Grant for Farming, Growing and Forestry Businesses)

If you want UK public support for a real farm experiment, this is the competition to understand. Full ADOPT Grant Round Five is for practical, collaborative trials that can move from “interesting idea” to “adoption-ready solution” for English agriculture, horticulture and agro-forestry. The grant is intended for businesses and farmer-led teams that can run trials in real operations and prove outcomes others can copy.

This page is written for non-specialists. It explains what the opportunity is actually for, who can apply, what details are confirmed from official sources, where the rules are strict, and what is usually missing in weak applications.

At a glance

Official deadlines differ between pages in the published sources. The UKRI opportunity list currently states one date, while the linked IFS competition page (the application system for this specific competition) shows a later close and is the place where official application submission happens.

What this opportunity is trying to fund

The programme is designed to fund on-farm trial and demonstration projects that are practical and adoption-focused. You are not being funded to run a paper study or a purely lab-style experiment. You need to test a new or not-yet-widely-used idea and show how it can help producers improve productivity, resilience, sustainability, or progression toward net-zero outcomes.

In plain terms, the fund expects three things:

• Real-world proof on working land or in a working forestry context.
• Evidence that the trial is relevant to English producers.
• A clear pathway to sharing what was learned with farmers, growers or foresters beyond your own business.

If the project mainly remains within your own operation without a credible adoption path, it is unlikely to be competitive. The official guidance repeatedly stresses that the scheme is about getting peers to adopt the approach.

What this should sound like in practice

A strong proposal usually explains:

• The production problem you are targeting.
• The intervention you are trying.
• Why this is new or not yet widely used.
• How outcomes will be measured in a way that other farms can understand.
• How many people, farms or supply chains will learn from the results.

Think of this as the “proof-and-share” competition. You get support if you can show not only that your idea is good, but that it can travel beyond your farm.

If you have read the official UKRI brief, one sentence matters most: this is to test ideas with an adoption lens, not only to discover novelty.

Who this is for

You are the right profile if you can answer “yes” to most of these questions:

• Are you an active farming, growing or forestry business with real operations in England?
• Can you provide evidence that your business is established?
• Can you run a collaborative project with at least one other UK-based farming, growing or forestry business?
• Do you have a project idea that addresses an urgent operational challenge and can be trialled on-farm?
• Can you commit to collecting usable data and sharing it openly to others?

If you are a university, a charity, a CIC, or a non-commercial body, you generally cannot lead. If you are in this group, you may still be useful as a collaborator or subcontractor in certain roles, depending on the competition rules and application structure.

Lead applicant criteria (important)

Officially, to lead a project you must be:

• Active and commercially driven in farming, growing or forestry.
• Based in England.
• Able to show you are an established business (sole trader and partnerships can lead).
• Able to provide a UK bank account.
• Collaborative with at least one other UK-based farming, growing or forestry business.

This is strict: lead must be based in England. Collaboration is mandatory. The competition is also limited to a farmer-led model of delivery; the lead applicant cannot be an academic-led organisation.

You should also note the partner cost balance rule: at least one lead and one partner combination must be invited in as part of project costs, and the structure should be described in the application. Any one partner should not account for more than 70% of total eligible costs.

Collaboration model that usually works

This call is not written for one-company execution; it is a collaboration model. You can include:

• At least one other UK farming/growing/forestry business.
• UK registered organisations, including academic, public sector, research or not-for-profit organisations, where relevant.
• Non-funded partners who contribute in kind (their costs are then covered separately) if appropriate.
• Subcontractors (UK-based in first instance; overseas with justified rationale).

A strong collaboration is explicit and functional:

• Who does what.
• Who provides equipment, measurements or expertise.
• Who owns which data streams.
• Who is responsible for dissemination and farmer-facing outputs.

What the competition will not fund (easy mistakes)

The following are out of scope or disallowed according to official guidance:

• Trials in funded crop variety plots.
• Existing demonstration projects dressed up as new ADOPT proposals.
• Equine systems.
• Wild-caught fisheries.
• Algae/seaweed for human consumption under aquaculture.
• Baked-in export-performance conditions and restricted domestic-input subsidy-style design.
• Cultivated meat-focused projects.

If your plan appears in any of these categories, it will be rejected quickly.

Project scope: what makes a fit

Your project should be a trial or experiment that addresses at least one of these broad outcomes:

• Higher productivity.
• Better resilience.
• Greater sustainability with net zero progression.

The official scope guidance says that the idea must be either new or not yet widely used, and should solve an immediate on-farm or immediate post-farmgate issue. This usually means solutions tied to field performance, processing flow, input usage, harvest handling, or adoption economics that producers face in day-to-day operations.

If your solution is already broadly adopted, this call is usually not for you unless there is a materially different route to scaling or a distinct evidence gap.

Why the programme exists

The call is part of Defra’s Farming Innovation Programme, delivered with Innovate UK. The ADOPT Fund’s purpose is to make peer-to-peer, farmer-to-farmer learning visible and credible. It is not just about “a grant and a final report”; it is about generating practical evidence and then sharing it in ways that help adoption happen.

The competition is judged against a portfolio approach, meaning not only your own project quality but whether the funded set covers diverse sectors, outcomes and approaches. That means a very strong application can still lose if the overall portfolio is full.

Funding and grant mechanics

The Defra allocation for this round is £4.5 million total. The total requested project budget must be between £50,000 and £100,000. In addition, funded amounts need to reflect policy and portfolio limits.

You should plan your finance around these operational rules:

• A minimum of 50% of grant claimed must be allocated to farming, growing or forestry activity in England.
• The requested grant should be proportionate to eligible costs; co-funding is required.
• For commercial/economic activities, funding percentages are capped by organisation type and size.
• The grant does not fund the full project cost on its own; your organisation finances the balance.

Important: the official funding page gives percentage bands for industrial research-style projects. Do not assume 100% funding and do not over-allocate “paperwork costs” without explanation.

What it means to have a good budget

Most weak applications fail not because the idea is bad, but because the budget has no logic. A useful budget section should show:

• Why each line cost exists.
• Which partner pays for what.
• How costs align with trial phases.
• What is funded from grant versus what is covered by the business.
• Why a specific resource is needed (and why less expensive options were not possible).

For farmers there are practical cost-reporting options, but it still has to stay within eligible project costs rules. If you include a Project Facilitator or specialist service, treat this as a real role with deliverables tied to deadlines.

You must have a Project Facilitator

Eligibility documentation requires a named ADOPT Project Facilitator who is listed in the official Project Facilitator database. This is not an optional “nice-to-have”; it is an explicit requirement.

The Facilitator role matters in two ways:

• Application support quality: helps with scope, structure and compliance.
• On-project support: helps keep evidence standards and milestones on track.

If you are new to the UK funding system, support routes exist (including the Support Hub and other preparation resources). But it is still your application responsibility to ensure completeness and quality.

How and where to apply

This competition is submitted through the Innovation Funding Service (IFS). The UKRI page links directly to the competition and states that the UKRI listing is the official opportunity notice.

The application is split into three parts:

• Project details.
• Application questions.
• Finances.

You should treat this as a structured evidence-first process, not a concept note.

Before you start

Use the official guidance links first and build your structure in a shared draft before opening IFS. The competition requires:

• Confirmed collaborators and roles.
• Project start and duration within allowed range.
• A named ADOPT Facilitator from the approved list.
• No website links in application question text.
• Correctly named organisation details for every partner.
• A realistic monitoring plan and communication plan.

Timeline: what to do if this was open now

As of the latest available sources, these are the timeline points:

• 11 December 2025 – competition opened.
• 4 February 2026, 11:00 UK time – competition closed (IFS page).
• 17 March 2026 – applicants notified.
• 1 June 2026 – start date latest requirement.
• 31 May 2028 – end date latest permitted.

Because status is closed, this timeline matters mainly for planning future rounds and for showing how process timing usually works:

1. Identify your facilitator and collaborators early.
2. Start measurement design before the narrative.
3. Draft a full dissemination plan, not just a final report section.
4. Lock baseline data before writing impact claims.
5. Submit with enough margin for partner updates and technical corrections.

The funding system can time out sessions and enforce partner completion rules, so “final-week panic editing” is risky.

What to prepare before opening the form

Use the following as a minimum prep pack:

• Project summary describing the challenge, intervention and expected outcomes in non-technical language.
• Problem statement linked to measurable outcomes.
• Trial design with a clear control or comparison approach where possible.
• Baseline and monitoring metrics (e.g., input use, yield, yield quality, labour, costs, emissions proxies, adoption pathway).
• Timeline with dependencies, milestones, and risk points.
• Roles, governance and communication responsibilities.
• Budget showing total costs, requested grant, and contribution by each partner.
• Evidence pack for lead and partner eligibility.
• Permits/licensing status if your trial needs them.
• Export-control and TR&I declarations if relevant.
• A risk register with mitigation for weather, supply, biosecurity and partner dependencies.

The official application guidance also expects you to provide dissemination plans during the project, not only at the end.

Section-by-section readiness tips (from how the form is structured)

Project details section

Use this section to make your project instantly understandable to assessors. The assessor allocation depends partly on clarity here. Provide:

• A crisp project title and clear sector context.
• A public description suitable for publication.
• Scope statement showing which farming challenge is addressed and how your project answers it.

Application questions section

These questions test fit and governance, not just technical quality. You must answer all required items. The non-scored questions still affect overall eligibility.

• Confirm partner addresses and locations correctly.
• Include at least one UK collaborator.
• Confirm permit/licence readiness.
• Clarify whether animal testing is involved.
• State whether international collaboration is planned.
• Confirm if export control/license requirements apply.

Finances section

This is where many proposals fail on credibility:

• Keep costs plausible for a real operation.
• Ensure budget logic lines up with timeline and milestones.
• Avoid overcomplicated cost lines without justification.
• Explain total costs and co-funding clearly.

A simple rule: every cost should map to a concrete action and a concrete deliverable.

How applications are assessed

Assessment is by independent assessors; scoring is based on the full scored responses plus fit and compliance. The exact criteria and portfolio context are documented through assessor guidance and competition process links.

In practical terms:

• Weak fit is often rejected early, even before scoring.
• A high quality but non-compliant application is less likely to pass than a slightly smaller but compliant one.
• Good scoring is not guaranteed to get funded where the portfolio is constrained.
• Prior conduct issues, including outstanding payments with UKRI/Innovate UK, can affect funding decisions.

This means your strategy should be built on both science and governance.

What a winning-quality application should include

A strong application usually has:

• A genuinely farmer-led leadership structure.
• A trial design where adoption outcomes are explicit.
• A clear dissemination plan for peer learning.
• Evidence for baseline, midline and completion measures.
• A realistic and transparent budget.
• A named facilitator and active partner support.
• Clear rationale for why your case is not already mainstream.

For example, projects often perform better when they include one or two concrete adoption pathways:

• Replication routes (same region and different region).
• Adaptation pathways (minor changes needed for different farm types).
• Cost-per-hectare narratives that farmers can immediately compare.

Common mistakes to avoid

1. Missing the collaboration requirement. Solo applications fail immediately.
2. Applying without a named, eligible Project Facilitator.
3. No clear baseline data and no defined metrics.
4. Writing for scientists instead of operators.
5. Assuming funding covers all costs and omitting co-funding logic.
6. Ignoring dissemination commitments (open days, summaries, demonstration outputs).
7. Not checking excluded categories or regulatory constraints.
8. Adding links in answer fields where links are disallowed.
9. Weak partner structure with one partner carrying too much cost share.
10. Underestimating timeline risk from seasonal windows, recruitment delays or partner onboarding.

Practical pre-application fitness test

Use this checklist before you commit to submission:

• Can you state your outcome in one sentence a neighbour would understand?
• Do all partners know their role and acceptance level?
• Do you have written partner commitments with what data they will provide?
• Are all costs tied to eligible outcomes?
• Does your design show how peers can replicate it?
• Can you explain why this is not yet widely adopted?
• Is your risk register realistic rather than generic?
• Is your communication plan active, not passive?

If you cannot answer these clearly, pause and restart before submission.

FAQ (officially grounded)

Q: Is this only for England-based farms? A: The lead must be an active farming, growing or forestry business based in England. Collaboration is required and can include other UK farming businesses.

Q: Is this open to sole traders and partnerships? A: Yes, provided they are established and evidence can be provided.

Q: Can academic organisations lead? A: No, academic institutions cannot be the lead for this call. They may contribute under rules for collaborators or subcontractors where appropriate.

Q: Is there a maximum and minimum project size? A: Yes. Total project costs must be between £50,000 and £100,000 for this competition.

Q: What happens if the project is strong but not funded? A: The funding is competitive and portfolio-based. A high score is possible but funding can still be limited by score thresholds and allocation decisions.

Q: Are grants paid as full cost funding? A: No. The grant covers a proportion of eligible costs and the applicant covers the remaining balance.

Q: Is there support before submission? A: Yes, through official support channels and the ADOPT Support Hub run by ADAS. Official contact points are listed on the competition page.

Q: Are there contact details and office times? A: Official pages list Innovate UK support lines and the Support Hub contact numbers and emails.

Q: Can this round be used as a template for future rounds? A: Yes. Even though Round Five is closed, the structure and evidence expectations are useful for preparing future ADOPT rounds.

Frequently overlooked requirements

• Project starts must begin on the first of a month.
• At least 50% of grant allocated to eligible farmer/grower/forester activity in England must be maintained.
• No single partner should dominate >70% of total eligible costs.
• Partners must be properly invited and accept their role in IFS.
• Non-URL answers only where links are disallowed in application responses.
• You may need permits/licences before project start.

Official links and what to check next

For the current facts and any updates, use these official pages:

• UKRI opportunity page: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/full-adopt-grant-round-five/
• Innovation Funding Service competition page (application): https://apply-for-innovation-funding.service.gov.uk/competition/2358/overview/f93f32c2-dd04-474d-bc35-a8af1ecac1a9
• ADOPT Support Hub (ADAS): https://www.farmpep.net
• ADOPT facilitator listing: https://iuk-business-connect.org.uk

What to do next

For this round, the competition is closed, so you cannot submit now. If you are preparing for the next ADOPT round, use this page as your readiness template:

1. Confirm lead eligibility and partner mix first.
2. Recruit a listed Project Facilitator before drafting technical sections.
3. Lock your baseline and outcome metrics before writing the impact narrative.
4. Build a dissemination plan that would work even if your result is not successful initially.
5. Keep all claims measurable and auditable.

The practical lesson from Round Five is simple: ADOPT is won by teams that treat the project as a demonstration for the whole sector, not as a one-off improvement on one holding.