| Project ID | Blueberries 2 – 2019 |
| Claim period | 1/12/2018 – 30/11/2019 |
| R&D start date R&D end date | October 2014 November 2022 estimated |
| Project status at the end of claim period | Ongoing |
| R&D category | Applied research |
| Field of science or technology | Agricultural sciences |
| Allied subjects | Agronomy, Botany, Ecophysiology, Horticultural science |
| Project manager Grant Support Includes third party R&D Third parties notified | No Yes Yes |
| Location of R&D activities | [Subject] S |
A. Overview
Project purpose
Over the last number of years, Keelings has been experimenting with Blueberry planting systems and a number of varieties. Learnings from these experiments are being used to inform the next research steps to identify the varieties which are best suited to Irish climatic conditions. This experiment started in 2016 and will run until 2021[A1] . Taking the information learnt in the previous experiments, Keeling have learnt how to use the pot system of planting to their advantage. Now the aim is to create plants that have the ideal structure for maximising fruit production. This is a different variable to those being tested in the phytophysiology trial.
For this trial, Ozark blue was removed from the trial as it did not suit Irish climatic conditions. The new varieties will be compared against duke and blue crop which have shown some success in the planting system and the climate. Arora develops too late for harvest in the Irish climate.
Keelings runs a number of phytophysiological experiments each year. These are done on a small-plot basis and successful cultivars at this level are then brought forward to the full field-scale research.
There are known and unknown issues with all cultivars and it is necessary to perform research to see if these occur in Irish climatic conditions and to what extent.
These possible issues with new cultivars need to be tested in field conditions in Ireland to see if they are an issue, or if they may become one with time.
Finally, there are unknown variables that can only be found through systematic research of new cultivars from small plot to field scale trials.
Context motivating the work
Keelings aims to produce Irish blueberries. There is a hunger for home grown produce in Ireland and while not all plants are suitable for commercialisation it was hoped blueberry would be. From the start Keelings aimed to find the cultivar or cultivars best suited to the Irish climate. This is a main research goal of all phyto-physiology work. Try to find the plant material best suited to the Irish climate rather than finding the best material for yield or other factors as the cost both in terms of abiotic costs and labour costs.
Initially the research was solely focused on how to grow in a pot-based system, ecophysiology but as the project progressed and the questions and uncertainties around pot-based planting were resolved. The project evolved into a plant material or phyto physiology project.
The project would include small plot trials of new cultivars. Progression to small scale field trial and finally full commercial production
Knowledge available in public domain/State of art
Little was known about commercial production of blueberries at the beginning of the project. The project had been ongoing in some form since 2008 and moved to R&D in 2014. Teagasc did not begin their bare root trials in kinseally until 2013 and that project ended when the property was sold. Initially Keelings relied on consultants for advice on which cultivar to grow. This resulted in some failures. To remedy this it was decided to follow the phyto physiology programme to build up knowledge from small plots, to small trial to full commercial trial. By doing this it is hoped that some uncertainty can be resolved early in the process.
Phyto-physiology is the study of plant or vegetable physiology. In trials looking at plant physiology many aspects of the plant’s growth and reactions to certain stimuli and environmental factors would be under investigation. These trials often start off on a small-scale to highlight immediate issues or factors that may limit the plant’s ability to reach its full potential but, overall, it is large-scale trials that determine a plant’s viability for processing within the industrial and economic sectors.
“Plant genetic engineering is acknowledged as having great potential to increase productivity of food and fibre systems while reducing negative environmental effects”. (Irani, Sinclair, & O’Malley, 2016)
Herein, small trial investigations will be looked at as precursors to large-scale trials. How these smaller experiments were able to highlight important issues when dealing with certain varieties of plants grown for industry is a matter that will be looked at. Also, how these led to larger scale trials which were ultimately able to confirm or reject early indications from the earlier assessments will be examined. The question will be posed whether it is indeed the large-scale trials that truly determine if a plant is economically efficient for a company to invest in.
B. Small-Scale Trials
In order to ensure profitability within the fruit-growing market, a grower must choose the best variety of the fruit they are trying to grow. Plant breeding is a technique that has been around for thousands of years and it helps create the most high-yielding fruit/crop/flower that is available at the time. Through genetic engineering we can create plants that are resistant to certain pests; resistant to drought and disease; can withstand extreme environments; and yield the highest amount of harvest for sale. These factors are extremely important when it comes to the fruit and crop industries as they want the lowest costing but highest producing crops available to them for utmost gain out of their product (Irani, Sinclair, & O’Malley, 2016), (Marcelo, do Nascimento Vieira, Fraga, & Guerra, 2015).
In the fruit industry, taste, texture, shape, size and overall look are very important factors (AHDB Horticulture, 2015). Fruits are often marketed as a healthy option, which resonates with consumers when they are buying these products. Consumers want the best looking fruits that will not only taste good but are nutrious at the same time (Padel & Foster, 2005). Consumers look at the fruit they are going to buy and will determine from sight whether they wish to buy the product as opposed to a crop such as wheat that is mainly used in creating other consumables like bread. It is because of this immediate evaluation of the product that it is important that a fruit-growing company invests in the best varieties of the fruits they are going to sell to maximise on profit (Olsen, 2014).
Experiments are carried out in order for companies and fruit growers to decide which variety of fruit they wish to invest in. These experiments or trials are conducted on both large and small scales. Smaller scale trials have the benefits of being able to show certain issues within the variety early on and these can be combated immediately. However, small-scale trials can lack the numbers or sample size of an experiment to give an exact reading on the plant’s viability.
Using the fruit that the plant produces, which is the main interest of the company that has funded the trial, as an example; a small-scale trial with a sample of twenty growing plants may give off a 5% yield of Class 1 fruit but this is not conclusive enough to determine if that particular variety is able to produce that same percentage on a large-scale basis, which is what the fruit will ultimately be doing. There also needs to be long-term studies (over a whole season or even two) done on the fruit. With smaller scale experiments there may not be enough replicates to survive across the required timeline. Small scale trials do have many advantages however. Certain soil types or temperatures or fertilizers may react negatively with the plant and so create rather immediate responses. It is because of these responses that the growers are able to quickly change the environmental factor of the plant to help it grow.
Other factors such as high fruit yield and a good quality of fruit are deciphered from these small plot samples. Husbandry costs can also be calculated for certain varieties at the smaller scale level. If a certain plant requires more watering, more fertilization or is more prone to pest attack, and so in need of more pesticides to be used, then this can all be examined and the overall cost of the variety determined.
Field Trials
Keelings is an Irish company that supplies many Irish retail chains with fresh fruit and vegetables. It is imperative that Keelings has the most efficient and cost-effective varieties of fruits and vegetables in order to meet the demands of their clients and ultimately the consumers. Keelings go through small plot samples testing cherries, blackberries, blueberries, strawberries, raspberries and many more. They do these small-plot experiments to identify varieties that have good quality fruit, large yields and reasonable husbandry needs as discussed above.
It is only at the larger scale can Keeling can assess if the plant variety is suitable for full scale production as small trials are not representative of how varieties perform at scale. Issues that can’t be seen at small scale can become apparent; truss too long, susceptibility to disease etc. Many of the berries that Keelings grow in Ireland are not native to this country and so there can be some environmental and climate factors that would limit the growth of some of the crops they wish to grow for the Irish market. In order to combat these, Keelings would ideally invest in varieties of berries and other fruits that are able to withstand the less than ideal climate Ireland has to offer compared to their native lands.
“We must find plants that suit Keelings’ micro-climate rather than changing that climate to suit the plants” – Andrew Wilson, Managing Director of Farms, Keelings
Keelings does not currently test at a large scale. This research would help identify the growing pattern of plants in field trials, issues with disease, issues with husbandry, issues with fruit yield, and issues with fruit quality. Studies have shown that testing at smaller scales can introduce bias to the experiment but when up-scaling the sample size this bias can become negligible.
“However our simulations also demonstrate that these biases rapidly become negligible with increasing sample sizes and as survival increases.” (Fiske, 2008)
Whereas one can argue that small plots give an indication of such issues arising, it is the large field trials that can confirm or reject this early indication. Keelings have noted that they have seen that promising plant varieties have failed to perform at large scale even after performing well at the small-scale stage. Issues such as poor quality material compared to original trial, high cost of management at large scale, poor yields, high susceptibility to disease, poor quality fruit, large production of second class fruit, all arose at the larger scale. The implications for this would mean that the overall viable yield for sale on the market would be lower for the company and so result in the loss of revenue.
Studies have shown that aspects such as elevation can affect crop growth. Differences can be seen in the yield of the fruits when grown at different fields in different geographical locations. Such observations can be hard to record in lab-based experiments where such differences would be more difficult to replicate (Riyaphan, Pipattanawong, & Subhadrabandu, 2005).
As previously mentioned, some of the crops that Keelings grow are bramble berries like raspberries and blackberries. These berries will be taken as an example for large field trials and the specific factors that affect these crops in particular will be discussed. The berries are quite specific to certain environmental factors and can require a high input cost for a slow return. Factors such as drainage, irrigation, and temperature can affect these crops drastically. In order to be able to tell if these will return the high yield of fruit that is desirable for marketing, larger field trials will give more information to the grower as opposed to smaller-scale ones. Bramble plants can be highly affected by lack of water or by oversaturation. Lack of water can lead to stunted plant growth as well as a small sized berry. Saturation can lead to poor cane growth, increased incidence of soil-borne diseases and plant death. Thus, proper watering systems and irrigation are required for satisfactory growth of these plants (Bushway, Pritts, & Handley, 2008).
Small-scale experiments are not able to accurately determine the implications of these factors alone and it would take a field study to insure that the proper systems, soils, and procedures would be in place before any large scale production of the fruit. There have been studies that have shown that plants based in controlled conditions may not accuratley reflect how a plant will perform on a larger scale. Issues such as the amount of light a plant recieves, the temperature, what goes on under the soils and substrates, and many more can arise when trying to move from a controlled environment to a field study.
“What is often overlooked is how results from controlled conditions translate back to field situations. A meta-analysis showed that lab-grown plants had faster growth rates, higher nitrogen concentrations and different morphology. They remained smaller, however, because the lab plants had grown for a much shorter time”
In controlled smaller scale experiments these factors may have been synthethically applied to the crop and estimates for field trials may have been calculated but, untimately, these conditions may change when actually applied to the more natural environment (Poorter, et al., 2016).
“Experiments under controlled conditions play an important role in understanding plant responses to their environment. Although these experiments sometimes challenge plants with severely limiting levels of a given environmental factor, it is true that most plants are grown under relatively benign conditions, especially of temperature, water and nutrients”
C. Conclusion
When researching this paper, it became evident that small-scale sample trials can be of great benefit to a company when assessing certain varieties of crop for selection into their brand. They have many positive qualities to them although they are still somewhat synthetic in their design. One must control nearly every aspect of the plant’s environment, and this can be easily done with these smaller scale plots, but through the literature it has been shown that small-scale trials cannot predict everything when it would come to a large-scale production of the crop.
Large-scale trials have been shown to be better at truly assessing the overall productivity and viability of a product. It is from these trials that certain aspects are identified, such as how temperature fluctuations in the field could affect the plant’s long-term productive or survival rates. Elevation has also been shown to have an effect on the plants, something which would be more difficult to replicate on a table-top experiment based in one place. It was also mentioned that the smaller, more controlled experiments, while testing the plants for certain conditions and changing of these conditions, can be rather benign and not truly testing the plants as well as a field study would be able to.
D. Scientific advancements and uncertainties
During the blueberry phtyo-physiology project the following advancements and resolutions to their associated scientific uncertainties are sought
Subject matter relevant to the advance/uncertainty.
The advancement sought is to be able to grow successfully blueberries in Ireland at commercial levels of supply.
Keelings are uncertain:
- Blueberry cultivar will give suitable yield in Irish climatic conditions
- Blueberry cultivar will have resistance to Known Irish disease
- Blueberry cultivar will have defence against native Irish insect pests
- Blueberry cultivar will have predictable growing and fruiting profile
- Husbandry tasks will be easy to achieve in the chosen cultivar
- Select suitable cultivars for small plot trials – this will allow keeling’s to investigate some uncertainties regarding the pants and their potential suitability for Irish climate
- Select promising plants in terms of performance ie. Flavour, vigour, disease resistance and yield
- Bring the selected cultivars to small trial area to see if early indications of suitability are seen at the small-scale field trial. Many pant cultivars will fail at this point as under the small plots they have individual attention from the grower at larger scales they must in some ways fend for themselves
- Bring o field trial, successful study at small field trial will allow more careful selection of cultivars which exhibit fitness for Irish climatic conditions
E. R&D activities
Project plan
Blueberry will follow a variation of the strawberry phyto-physiology plan
Materials and methods:
Location of the experimental area is Rathbeal and Orchard[A2] .
Planting type is 30l pots with coir mix (legro blueberry mix topped with pine park).
Planting plan:
| Reservoir Blueberry Trials | planted @ 1/lm | |||||||||||
| 87.2/lm | 3 | No________ | 60 Barbara Ann | |||||||||
| 87.2/lm | 2 | 18 Blue Ribbon | 60 Sweet Jane | 250 | Blue Ribbon | 250 | ||||||
| 87.2/lm | 1 | 70 Top Shelf | 18 Blue Ribbon | 250 | Top Shelf | 250 | ||||||
| 91.7/lm | 3 | No________ | 18 Jolene | 70 Draper | 250 | Cargo | 250 | |||||
| 91.7/lm | 2 | No________ | 70 Cargo | 20 Osorno | 250 | Draper | 250 | |||||
| 91.7/lm | 1 | No________ | 40Blue RIBBON | 50 Calypso | 50 | Calypso | 50 | |||||
| 91.7/lm | 3 | No________ | 40 Jolene | 50 Valor | 50 | Valor | 50 | |||||
| 91.7/lm | 2 | No________ | 90 Barbara Ann | 20 | Osorno | 20 | ||||||
| 91.7/lm | 1 | No________ | 90 Sweet Jane | 150 | Barbara Ann | 150 | ||||||
| 91.7/lm | 3 | No________ | 90 Jolene | 150 | Jolene | 150 | ||||||
| 91.7/lm | 2 | No________ | 90 Draper | 150 | Sweet Jane | 150 | ||||||
| 91.7/lm | 1 | No________ | 90 Draper | Plants | Total 1570 | 1570 | /lm | |||||
| 91.7/lm | 3 | No________ | 90 Cargo | |||||||||
| 91.7/lm | 2 | No________ | 90 Cargo | empty | 38/lm | |||||||
| 91.7/lm | 1 | No________ | 90 Top Shelf | |||||||||
| 91.7/lm | 3 | No________ | 90 Top Shelf | |||||||||
| 91.7/lm | 2 | No________ | 90 Blue Ribbon | |||||||||
| 91.7/lm | 1 | No________ | 90 Blue Ribbon | Total 1608 l/m |
- Coir sampling as required using defined sampling technique defined in material and methods folder;
- WET sensor using methods outlines in delta-t manual both for use and calibration;
- Photo records for developmental changes over the season and inter annual variation;
- Consultant visits covering particular areas of concern for new cultivars;
- Priva measurement system, details outlined in methods folder[A3] .
Activities
Prior R&D activities
A number of literature reviews have been carried out on Blueberries, and in relation to ecophysiology and phyto physiology including investigation into scale and selection process for Keelings
Initial research into pot-based growing system was concluded before the outset of this new project
2019 [A4] R&D activities
Information on project start status is available in project start document
Yield is an indicator of plant fitness and suitability to the Irish climate. Keelings compares predicted yield against actual yield, currently only one variety is showing any success when compared to predicted levels. This can indicate that the others are delayed in their development or are not suited to the Irish climate, only time can tell.
Soil analysis indicates possible deficiencies in the soil that fertiliser application can remedy, it also can indicate which micro nutrients are being consumed by the trees, some may be chemically unavailable due to pH issues or other confounding factors.
Brix is used as an indicator of dissolved solutes in fruit and can be used to measure sweetness. It will also indicate how well fruit is developing, which will be used to determine the success or failure of a variety in the experiment.
Subcontracted R&D activities
Dr Kieran McKevitt provides support to all research based activities during the research period, helping with experimental design, trouble shooting problems and helping growers with problems in research areas as they arise.
Results/Conclusion of R&D activities/Project status at end of relevant period
The project is ongoing at the end of the claim period. Three new cultivars were brought to field trial. There is little data available on them as they were planted in 2018 and underwent a new husbandry practice in 2019 first yield should be seen in 2020
Figure1: Yield on fruit total and per plant including limited mixed research area
F. Supporting information
Project leader
The project was led by Andrew Wilson. Andrew is the MD of Keelings Retail and has over 20 years’ experience in commercial soft fruit production. Andrew’s qualifications include BTEC, ND3 in Farm Mechanisation, MBA and he is a registered Prince2 Practitioner. Andrew assembled a multidisciplinary team to assist in the research. Key team members have been identified in Table 2 below.
Specialties: Horticultural Fresh Produce Industry Production and Processing Business Management; Farm Management and “Green Field” developments; Farm Production and Operations Management; Project Management and Development Effective International Horticultural Export Development and Investment Management; Food production; Irish Market; Chilled; Salads; Cropping; Agricultural production; Food safety; Supplying; Fresh Fruit; Entrepreneurial; Markets; Farm shop; Garden centre; Ghana; International; West Africa; Southern Africa; Zimbabwe; British farming; Irish farming; Detailed cost analysis.
Additional qualifications include:
- Foundation Certificate in HACCP Principles (770034090507)
- Pesticide Handling & Application (FETAC)
- Introduction to Softfruit Production (FAST)
- Lean Overview (SQT Training Ltd)
- Photosynthesis in Softfruit (DLV Plant)
- Softfruit Physiology (DLV Plant)
- Softfruit Nutrition (DLV Plant)
- Plant Water Use & Irrigation Requirements (DLV Plant)
- Successful Strategies to Excel at People Management (CMG Professional Training)
- Focus: Achieving Your Highest Priorities (Franklin Covey)
- Communicate for High Impact – A TA perspective (Azurite)
- Innovation Masterclass (UCD Michael Smurfit Gradu)
- Delivering a customer service culture that increases sales and profits (FARMA)
- Sales & Merchandising (FARMA)
- Orchestrating Winning Performance (IMD Lausanne Switzerland)
- International Agri-business Management
- The Production and Preparation of Added Value Products for Export (COLEACP)
- Activity Based Costing
- Finance for non-financial managers
- Staff Motivation For Managers (Arnold Mole)
Project team
The work in this project was led and carried out by qualified personnel, who had the training and experience necessary to achieve the project objectives. A number of employees played a key role in directing and executing the project objectives, during the period these key personnel included:
| Name | Position | Qualifications/Experience |
| Andrew Wilson | MD Keelings Farms Grower | BTEC, ND3 in Farm Mechanisation and an MBA |
| Igor Chpak | Senior Grower | BASIS in agriculture 10+ years’ experience |
| Alwyn De Beer | Tunnels Manager | Diploma in Agriculture |
| Pickwise Assistant | Trained Pickwise manager | |
| Ian Cussien | Trials & Spray manager | Degree Agsci UCD 15 years’ horticulture experience |
| Donal coulhain | Grower | 30 years experience in growing |
Supporting documentation
Blue berry file maintained by Donal Houlhan Andrew Wilson
R&D minutes from regular farm meetings
Notes on projects Dr Kieran McKevitt
Literature reviews Dr kieran Mckevitt
Husbandry data Andrew Wilson
Consultant reports Andrew Wilson
Yield at harvest – Yield 2019 and extracted for analysis in worked yields
Soil analysis – as required – Cherry file – Andrew Wilson
Growers diary – Blueberry file – Andrew Wilson
Consultant reports – Cherry file – Andrew Wilson
Growing degree hours calculations [A6] – Ongoing observation project
Fruit size – Andrew Wilson
Brix – Cherry file – Andrew Wilson
Labour – Cherry file – Andrew Wilson
Yield profile development – Cherry file – Andrew Wilson
· Project file structure[A7]
| Description per project | Answer/file reference |
| 1. Name of company which carried out the activities | [Subject] |
| 2. Name of Project | Blueberrry phtyo-physiology 2019 |
| 3. The date the project commenced | December 2014 |
| 4. The date the project ceased (if applicable) | Ongoing |
| 5. The field of science or technology (referred to in S.I. No. 434/2004 – Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 (Prescribed Research and Development Activities) Regulations 2004) | Agircultural sicences |
| 6. a. The Activities are: | Experimental development |
| b. Identifying which step on the Technology readiness level (TRL) scale the R&D process is operating, may be beneficial, when identifying if it is eligible as qualifying R&D expenditure under S.766 TCA 1997: | Idea Basic Research Technology Formulation Applied Research Small Scale Prototype Large Scale Prototype Prototype System Demonstration System First of a kind commercial system Full commercial system[A8] |
| 7. The specific scientific or technological advancement, which the company sought to achieve at the start of the project | See Scientific/Technological advancement page 3 |
| 8. The specific scientific or technological uncertainty which it is intended will be (if the project is ongoing), resolved | See report |
| 9. Work done to determine that the solution was not already known and available to a competent professional in the field at the time the R&D was commenced | See description set out in R&D activities page 3 |
| Science Test questions *A technical\scientific\competent professional involved in the project should complete this area, as if to be read by a professional in that field of expertise | |
| 10. The R&D comes within paragraph 2.7 of this TDM | N/A |
| 11. Where activities were aimed at developing a product for internal use (not as part of a product for sale to customers), what was the alternative action plan if activities had been unsuccessful? | See Project plan page 3 |
| 12. Knowledge Transfer: · Acquired from group companies · Acquired from third parties · * Details of any outsourcing [A9] | Literature provides knowledge from outside the group prior to commencement. No use of third-party companies from outsourcing |
| 13. A summary of the systematic, investigative or experimental qualifying activities in relation to the project, including the location of the activities. The method used and details of the series of experiments or investigations undertaken to test the hypothesis must be included | See description set out in R&D activities page 3 |
| 14. Details of any academic research involved (e.g. MSc Project) please provide an acknowledgements page of the thesis or a supporting letter from the Host University[A10] | None |
| 15. Report, if any, carried out by an independent expert into the activities[A11] | Consultant reports included in project research farms on share drive and hard copies maintained in Andrew’s office |
| Accounting Test questions[A12] | |
| 16. The computation of the tax credit claimed in respect of each accounting period, showing clearly the threshold amount under section 766B | |
| 17. Computation of the tax credit claimed listing each line item (there should be no ‘admin expenses’ or ‘general expenses’ listed – this should be specific). | |
| 18. Staff cost details | |
| a. The qualifications / experience of the project leaders | See Project leader page 3 |
| b. Names, relevant qualifications/ experience and job titles and location of staff employed in activities, and details of how staff were allocated to various aspects of the project. | Provided within the report and maintained up to date in project research farms share drive |
| c. Allocation basis where staff work on this and other projects. A description of the system used to record work on qualifying and non-qualifying projects should be included, and should at a minimum identify when staff record their work, who reviews, in that regard how the qualifying element of the project is identified. | |
| d. Allocation between qualifying and nonqualifying please provide the basis for the allocation and the process and control procedures around monitoring same (while this may not be done on a contemporaneous basis it should be done in a timely basis e.g. month in arrears, quarter end review, it is imperative the allocation is completed prior to R&D claim on CT1 and that supporting documentation is available for review) | |
| 19. Outsourcing Include | |
| a. Any expenditure paid to 3rd party contractors or service providers in the course of carrying on R&D activities (excluding utilities[A13] ) | |
| b. Any expenditure paid to a university or 3rd level institute in the course of carrying on R&D activities[A14] | |
| c. A brief outline the work carried out by the other parties under (a) or (b) | See Subcontracted R&D activities page 3 |
| d. Total amount paid and copies of contracts or list of tasks assigned to outsourcing partner and related Invoices e. Copies of any notifications issued to subcontractors under S.766(1)(b)(viii)[A15] | |
| 20. Details of any apportioned expenses (other than staff apportioned), and support on the method of apportionment chosen[A16] | |
| 21. Details of grants received or ones to be received in relation to the project. Type of grant e.g. Expenditure on R&D, employee grants, building grant etc. Provide copies of documentation from the awarding body.[A17] | |
| 22. Materials used in qualifying R&D may be of further commercial value once the activities cease, please value at the lower of cost, or net realisable value of any materials or other saleable product or by-product | Where materials have a post R&D commercial value the lower of cost or net realisable value of the material has been included in the claim |
| 23. For claims under s.766A, details of amounts in respect of which the claim is made | |
| a) Provide details of the land cost, which does not qualify for relief under S.766A | |
| b) Date treated as incurred · date actually incurred or, · date the building was first brought into use | |
| c) Minimum 35% usage of the building for R&D activity over a period of four years beginning on the date it is brought into use, retain rationale and apportionment details | |
| d) Details of claw back in relation to ten year rule 24. For claims in respect of plant and machinery: | |
| a. details of the cost of the plant or machinery, date it comes into use | |
| b. where an apportionment is used, support on the method of apportionment chosen | |
| c. Usage adjustment under S.766(1A)(b) |
[A1]Title page says 2014-2022
[A2]Descrition of both of these
[A3]Tighten up this section
[A4]Insert relevant year
[A5]Is this the time? Should it be “hourly calculations”? Should it have a “-“ before it?
[A6]Is this the time? Should it be “hourly calculations”? Should it have a “-“ before it?
[A7]As discussed, Revenue have outlined a proposed file structure. The below table can be used to outline where documents are retained internally.
[A8]Delete inappropriate TRL levels
[A9]Is the project relating to IP purchased from a third party/group company?
If yes state which and provide link to internal files that support this
[A10]If relevant please provide link or file location
[A11]If relevant please provide link or file location. Examples will generally be Teagasc/FHI/DPTC/UCC/UCD/Independent consultant reports
[A12]To be completed by Finance team
[A13]Reference to section of calculation which will likely be attached to this document
[A14] [A14]Reference to section of calculation which will likely be attached to this document
[A15]Please include file reference for copies of letters of notification
[A16]Please include appropriate link in calculation
[A17]File location.
In the event of any audit Revenue will generally look for grant technical progress reports and grant details
