UPL5Supplement: Keep cattle and ponies on moorland (minimum 70% GLU)

What it actually is

A supplement on the moorland grazing tiers for the composition of the stock rather than the quantity: at least 70 per cent of the grazing livestock units on land entered into UPL1, UPL2 or UPL3 must be cattle or ponies, or a combination of both, and the base action's written stocking calendar carries the monthly numbers and cattle age brackets that show it. GOV.UK's stated aim is what heavy mouths do that sheep do not: a varied sward structure, scrub, bracken and coarse vegetation held in check, and more diverse wildlife on the back of both.

Source: GOV.UK, UPL5 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, stacked on the grazing tier beneath. Multiplied out:

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 200 hectares is an illustration.

Is it worth it on your ground?

The per-hectare figure is small; the hectarages are not, and for a moor already grazed by suckler cattle or ponies the threshold may hold without changing a single animal, making this simple stacking money on the base tier. The real decision sits with sheep-led moors: at the grazing tiers' caps, 70 per cent of a small number of units is a handful of cattle, but a handful of cattle on a big moor still means handling, water, and the temperament for hill work. The supplement pays towards that; whether it covers it is your herd's arithmetic.

Source: the payment rate at the top of this page; the threshold from GOV.UK, UPL5 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 moorland evidence carried on the UPL1 page includes the one finding that speaks directly to this supplement: among the treatments found effective in controlling the dominance of coarse grasses on upland heath was grazing, including by goats, within an assessment graded Likely to be beneficial on 17 studies at 90 per cent effectiveness and 50 per cent certainty. The grazing-composition claim itself, that cattle and ponies produce better moorland structure than sheep, is well-worn hill management doctrine, and we have found no graded assessment testing it head to head; the nearest tested comparison, traditional versus commercial breeds on the SPM pages, measured breeds rather than species and found nothing. So the honest position: the mechanism is credible and the coarse-vegetation problem it answers is real in the evidence, but the species comparison itself is unscored in the sources this site uses.

Source: Conservation Evidence, action 647, Farmland Conservation synopsis, checked 23/08/2026. The reading is Tilth's own.

What you actually have to do

Keep at least 70 per cent of the grazing livestock units on the entered land as cattle or ponies, within the base action's density cap. GOV.UK sets no period on that in the requirement itself; its advice section, which it says is not part of the action's requirements, says the percentage is an annual average. Carry the monthly grazing dates, livestock numbers and cattle age brackets in the base action's written stocking calendar, and keep it as the record. Apply in the same application as the base action.

Source: GOV.UK, UPL5 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.

The requirement sets no period; the advice does. Seventy per cent of units is measured against everything grazing the entered land, and GOV.UK's requirement puts no period on that at all. The only period appears in its advice section, which says the figure is an annual average and which GOV.UK prefaces by saying it is not part of the action's requirements. So an autumn flush of ewes returning may be weighed against the months either side of it rather than judged on its own, and that is worth knowing rather than worth building a year around. The calendar still wants working month by month, both species together, because a year's average is built out of the months.

Units favour the cattle, which helps. One cow outweighs a dozen hill ewes in GLU terms, so modest cattle numbers hold the percentage against many sheep. Run the conversion table before assuming the herd is too small.

The base cap still rules. The supplement changes who grazes, never how many units may. Cattle added to meet the ratio still fit under 0.16, 0.08 or 0.04, whichever tier runs beneath.

Its sibling pays more for all-in. UPL6 takes the same idea to 100 per cent cattle and ponies at a higher rate, and the two cannot share the same area. A moor with no sheep on it anyway should read that page first.

Keeping the evidence

Source: evidence requirements, GOV.UK, UPL5 action page, checked 23/08/2026. The suggestion is Tilth's own.

The part only your own ground can answer

Whether the moor's grazing is already cattle-led, and whether your handling and water can take cattle where the moor needs them, are herd and ground questions only you hold. Tilth's stocking records keep the species split visible by month, which is the whole compliance question here. Request an invite.