SPM5Supplement: Keep native breeds on extensively managed habitats (more than 80%)

What it actually is

The same deal as SPM3, struck on rougher ground. On land entered into a qualifying base action, the moorland grazing actions, the scrub mosaic action SCR2, the agroforestry pair or organic enclosed rough grazing, more than 80 per cent of the total grazing livestock units in each grazing season must be breeds in the at-risk category of the UK native breeds support list, pedigree rare native breeds or heritage semi-feral breeds registered in recognised breeding books. The record keeping matches its twin: monthly grazing records at parcel level, individual identification numbers, registration or birth notification for every eligible animal. GOV.UK's stated aim is to maintain or increase the number of rare native breed and heritage semi-feral grazing livestock.

Source: GOV.UK, SPM5 action page, checked 23/08/2026.

What it pays, and what that comes to

The rate is in the panel at the top of this page, the smallest per-hectare figure in this pair because the hectares it rides on are the biggest. Multiplied out, supplement alone:

Source: arithmetic on the payment rate shown at the top of this page, which comes from Tilth's copy of the GOV.UK action catalogue and carries its own last-checked date. The 150 hectares is an illustration.

Is it worth it on your ground?

The per-hectare figure is small and the judgement runs on scale. On a mapped moor of hundreds of hectares already grazed by a hefted hill flock or native cattle under one of the UPL actions, the supplement adds a worthwhile sum for records the base action mostly demands anyway. On a small parcel it adds pocket money, and no one should restock a hill to chase it. As with its twin, the threshold is the real gate: 80 per cent of livestock units, measured across each season, with commercial stock diluting the count in proportion to their units.

Source: the payment rate at the top of this page; the threshold from GOV.UK, SPM5 action page, checked 23/08/2026. The judgements are Tilth's own reading rather than scheme guidance.

Does it work, and what makes it work better

This section is what we have found in published sources about the practice this action pays for. It is not scheme guidance, it is not Defra's or the RPA's view, and it adds no requirement beyond what the GOV.UK action page sets out.

The evidence position is the one set out in full on the SPM3 page, and it holds unchanged here: the tested claim, that traditional breeds graze in a way wildlife can measure, found nothing, a single replicated controlled European study behind both assessments, graded Unlikely to be beneficial for birds at 0 per cent effectiveness and 44 per cent certainty, and Unknown effectiveness for mammals, with hares indifferent to who grazed. And the same reversal applies: this action's stated aim is the breeds' own survival, not their grazing style, an aim a payment serves by construction, though we have found no study measuring that either. If anything, the case is more visceral on this ground, because the semi-feral herds and hefted hill breeds the supplement names exist nowhere except on hills like these, kept by farms like these.

Source: Conservation Evidence, actions 233 and 2411, both checked 23/08/2026; the aim, GOV.UK, SPM5 action page, checked 23/08/2026. The reading is Tilth's own, and the fuller account is on the SPM3 page.

What you actually have to do

In each grazing season, keep more than 80 per cent of total grazing livestock units on the entered land in at-risk breeds from the UK native breeds support list, registered in recognised breeding books. Keep monthly grazing records at parcel level with each eligible animal's identification and registration. Stay within the stocking rules of the base action underneath, which on the moorland actions are themselves the binding constraint.

Source: GOV.UK, SPM5 action page, checked 23/08/2026.

Things worth watching

This section is Tilth's own reading of where this action is easy to get wrong. It is not scheme guidance, it is not sourced from Defra or the RPA, and none of it adds a requirement beyond what the GOV.UK action page sets out.

Units, not head, again. On a moor the mix is stark: a handful of commercial cattle can outweigh a large native flock in livestock units. The 80 per cent is a calculation, not an impression, and it wants doing per season.

Semi-feral still means registered. The heritage semi-feral category has breeding books like the pedigree one, and the ponies count only as far as their paperwork does. The gathering that proves the count is the same gathering that checks the registrations.

Shared grazings share the arithmetic. On commons and shared moors, the units grazing the entered land include everyone's, and the threshold is measured against the total. What the other graziers run is part of your compliance, which makes the commoners' association meeting part of the application.

The twin actions split by base action, not by choice. SPM3 rides the grazed-habitat bases, this rides the extensive ones; the same herd on different ground may need both supplements across the farm. Neither pays twice on the same hectare.

Keeping the evidence

Also Tilth's own reading. GOV.UK sets the requirements; what follows is a practical suggestion about record keeping.

The same register as SPM3: animal, breed, registration, parcels, dates, kept monthly. On hill ground the practical addition is the gathering record, since the days the stock are actually counted are the days the record is real rather than estimated.

Source: evidence requirements, GOV.UK, SPM5 action page, checked 23/08/2026. The suggestion is Tilth's own.

The part only your own ground can answer

Whether the hill's stock already passes the threshold is a question your flock book answers in an evening. The monthly record the action wants is the one Tilth's livestock module keeps by itself, moves and identities included, across ground mapped the way a moor actually runs. Request an invite.