USDA-NIFA-DAG2PI-32942: Agricultural Genome to Phenome Initiative - Workshop Grants (FY 2026)

USDA-NIFA-DAG2PI-32942: Agricultural Genome to Phenome Initiative - Workshop Grants (FY 2026)

Status and scope

This page is a historical reference for the FY 2026 Agricultural Genome to Phenome Initiative (AG2PI) Workshop Grants opportunity. The official USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) AG2PI program page lists USDA-NIFA-DAG2PI-32942 as Closed. It does not announce a replacement workshop-grant cycle, so this page should not be read as an open call or as evidence that applications can still be submitted.

The closed notice was a narrow workshop mechanism within AG2PI, not a general conference-sponsorship program and not a standing research-grant application route. The notice asked applicants to propose interdisciplinary agricultural genome-to-phenome workshops addressing high-priority, stakeholder-driven issues. It was designed for a defined workshop project with a practical scientific purpose, rather than for routine support of an existing annual meeting.

The official funding opportunity number was USDA-NIFA-DAG2PI-32942. The notice covered Fiscal Year 2026 and set the application deadline at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on 2026-06-29. That deadline has passed. The official NIFA program page currently identifies the associated workshop project notice as closed, and no later cycle is identified there. Future applicants should wait for a separately published NIFA notice instead of reusing this page’s deadline.

Funding details from the closed notice

The revised Notice of Funding Opportunity listed $50,000 as the available funding for this workshop-grant component, with an award range of $20,000 to $50,000 and one anticipated award. The broader AG2PI FY 2026 pool was described as approximately $1,827,495, with the workshop amount separated from the funds available under the companion research-grants notice. NIFA also stated that it was not committed to fund any particular application or to make a specific number of awards; the listing nevertheless gave one anticipated award for planning purposes.

The award duration was 12 months. The grant type was Workshop Grants, under a project classification of Research. The workshop budget had to be treated as a small, tightly bounded federal project. A proposal that simply sought to offset venue, travel, or hospitality costs for an established conference would not match the stated purpose. The notice instead called for an interdisciplinary workshop that could create useful scientific exchange and outputs connected to AG2PI priorities.

Matching was a major condition. Applicants were required to provide 100% matching contributions for all Federal funds awarded, with cash or in-kind support coming from non-Federal sources. NIFA allowed a possible waiver in limited circumstances: a result that would apply broadly across agricultural commodities, or a minor-commodity project involving scientifically important research where the recipient could not satisfy the match requirement. A waiver was not automatic. Applicants that believed matching did not apply had to explain that position in the budget justification, and required applications had to identify matching sources, the entities providing the match, and the total pledged amount.

The notice also limited indirect cost recovery. Indirect costs could not exceed 30% of the recipient’s Total Federal Funds Awarded, including the calculation rules for prime recipients and subrecipients. That restriction mattered when building a budget for a small award, because administrative costs, matching resources, workshop delivery, participant support, and data or output work all had to fit within a modest Federal share.

Eligible applicants

The notice allowed applications from both individuals and organizations. Eligible categories included:

• State agricultural experiment stations.
• Colleges and universities.
• University research foundations.
• Other research institutions and organizations.
• Federal agencies.
• National laboratories.
• Private organizations, foundations, or corporations.
• Individuals.
• A group consisting of two or more of the eligible entity types.

Consortia of eligible entities were encouraged. A consortium could be useful where the workshop needed complementary expertise from, for example, crop science, livestock science, phenotyping, genomics, engineering, statistics, and data management. Consortium status did not remove the need for an eligible U.S. applicant organization or for complete registrations and electronic submission requirements.

The notice also excluded dangerous gain-of-function research as defined by the cited federal policy. Duplicate or predominantly overlapping applications were not allowed. NIFA said it could disqualify overlapping submissions within the same fiscal-year notice, so an applicant could not use several substantially identical applications to pursue the same workshop plan.

What the workshop was expected to do

AG2PI focuses on collaborative science across crops and animals. Its stated purposes include studying agriculturally significant species in production environments, filling gaps in crop and animal genetics and phenomics, improving genetic resources and future genetic improvement, reducing the economic impact of pathogens, and disseminating findings to relevant audiences. The program priorities connect genetics, genomics, plant and animal physiology, agronomy, nutrition, veterinary science, crop modeling, computation, informatics, statistics, engineering, and common data architectures.

For this workshop notice, the scientific topic needed to be more specific than “genome-to-phenome collaboration.” The application had to show why bringing substantially different disciplines together was essential to a defined AG2PI need. A credible proposal would identify the technical or biological problem, explain why ordinary coordination was insufficient, describe who needed to be in the room, and state what the workshop would produce. Possible outputs could include a shared data specification, a documented modeling workflow, a research agenda, a cross-disciplinary methods plan, a training resource, or an agreed path for improving how genomic and phenomic information is collected and interpreted.

The workshop could involve coordination with international partners, including public-private partnerships and other genome-to-phenome projects, but the application still had to be submitted by an eligible U.S. institution. The notice also emphasized stakeholder relevance and the connection to agricultural production. A proposal aimed only at an internal laboratory retreat or a broad networking event would be a weak fit. The workshop needed a program, participant mix, and output plan that made its value to U.S. agriculture understandable.

Application route and required materials

The FY 2026 notice required electronic submission; no other submission method was accepted. The practical sequence was:

1. Complete registrations before submission. The applicant organization needed active System for Award Management registration, a Unique Entity Identifier, and the required CAGE or NCAGE information as applicable. It also needed eRA Commons registration, including at least one Signing Official and one Project Director. Project Directors needed active eRA Commons accounts and had to be affiliated with the applicant organization. Grants.gov registration depended on active SAM registration and had to be finalized before submission.
2. Obtain the application package. Applicants were instructed to search Grants.gov using the funding opportunity number USDA-NIFA-DAG2PI-32942 and to use the version of the NIFA Grants Application Guide included with the specific package. The notice directed applicants to download and install Adobe Reader for the application workflow.
3. Check organizational readiness. Before beginning the application, the applicant was instructed to contact an Authorized Representative. That check was intended to catch registration, role, and submission issues before the package was assembled.
4. Submit the required electronic forms and attachments. Attachments had to be in PDF format. The submission included the SF-424 R&R cover material, the project and performance site information, the R&R Other Project Information form, key-person profiles, budget material, and the required additional attachments. Applicants were told to review the file manifest and conduct an administrative review before submission.

No Letter of Intent was requested for this opportunity. The project summary or abstract had to explain how the proposed goals aligned with AG2PI. The project narrative could not exceed 18 pages, including figures and tables, using the specified 12-point, single-spaced format and margins of at least one inch. The required narrative sections were Introduction; Rationale and Significance; Objectives; Approach; and Project Timeline. A resubmission also needed a response to the previous review, limited to one page outside the narrative page limit.

A Data Management Plan was required and was limited to two pages. It had to explain how the project director and co-project directors would manage and disseminate data generated by the project. The plan needed to include a budgeted approach for releasing research results, making data publicly available or compatible with other open data sources, and following relevant USDA data and research terms. FAIR data principles were part of the AG2PI context, so a proposal that promised workshop outputs without a credible stewardship and release plan would leave an important compliance gap.

The budget justification also had to address matching. Where match was required, it needed to name the sources, identify the entities providing it, and state the total pledged amount. A separate written pledge agreement was not required by the notice, but the contributions still had to meet the applicable documentation, valuation, and reporting requirements.

How NIFA evaluated applications

NIFA described a two-part review process. First, staff screened submissions for administrative compliance. Applications that failed the notice requirements could be excluded before scientific review. Applications passing that screen went to a scientific peer-review panel.

The scoring categories totaled 100 points:

• Significance: 35 points. Reviewers considered whether the workshop supported AG2PI purposes and priorities, its relevance to agriculture and food systems in the United States, and whether the format would foster meaningful scientific exchange.
• Uniqueness and timeliness: 35 points. Reviewers considered the quality of the workshop program, the way activities would advance AG2PI objectives, proposed outputs, the workshop timeline, and whether the budget was appropriate, justified, and cost-conscious.
• Organization and implementation: 30 points. Reviewers considered the organizing committee’s qualifications, stakeholder involvement, invited speakers’ fit with the topics, and the suitability of the venue.

The criteria show why a small award still required a detailed implementation plan. A strong application had to connect a real agricultural problem to a precise workshop design, define what participants would accomplish, recruit a credible organizing group, and keep the budget proportionate. A list of speakers or a general promise to promote collaboration would not by itself answer the review criteria.

Historical use of this listing

The FY 2026 round is closed, and no next cycle has been announced on the official AG2PI program page. This entry is retained so readers can understand the program’s prior scope, eligibility, budget structure, application requirements, and review framework. It is not an invitation to submit after the deadline, and it should not be used to infer a future deadline, future funding amount, or continuation of the same requirements.

Researchers planning a future AG2PI workshop should monitor NIFA’s AG2PI program page and search Grants.gov for a newly issued notice. A future notice could change the funding amount, matching treatment, application system, eligibility details, required attachments, or due date. The most reliable next step is to compare any new notice with the program’s current listing rather than copying the FY 2026 fields from this archive entry.

Official sources

• USDA NIFA AG2PI program page: https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/programs/agricultural-genome-phenome-initiative-ag2pi
• Revised USDA-NIFA-DAG2PI-32942 full announcement: https://files.simpler.grants.gov/opportunities/def4bf12-ab84-4bd6-8b10-0e0338685a34/attachments/64684849-bb6e-443c-9d8d-68718a31de72/USDA-NIFA-DAG2PI-32942-Revised-Full-Announcement.html
• Simpler.Grants.gov opportunity listing: https://simpler.grants.gov/opportunity/def4bf12-ab84-4bd6-8b10-0e0338685a34

The official program contact shown for AG2PI is AG2PI@usda.gov. The revised notice also directs application-content questions to grantapplicationquestions@usda.gov, award questions to awards@usda.gov, and Grants.gov technical questions to support@grants.gov. These contacts describe the closed notice’s support routes; they do not indicate that the FY 2026 application window remains open.