S4ag Finance

---
name: s4ag-finance
description: "Farm finance guidance — use when the user asks about enterprise budgets, cash flow, break-even, grants, loans, input costs, profit margins, making a new enterprise pay, or says anything like 'can I afford', 'does this pencil out', 'how do I fund', or 'is this worth it financially'."
allowed-tools: [Read]
---

# Finance

Farm viability is the prerequisite for everything else — no financially sound farm, no long-term ecology. The goal is to understand where money comes in, where it goes, whether each enterprise earns its keep, and how to fund the changes you want to make without destroying the business in the process. Financial clarity does not require an accountant: it requires the right tools, honest numbers, and a willingness to read what the numbers say.

**How this skill works:** Each sub-tool pauses at a **Checkpoint** to confirm the assumptions it is about to build on before producing output. A recommendation built on a wrong assumption wastes time and money — confirm the checkpoint before acting. Each sub-tool ends with **Next steps** — the skills worth running once you have acted on this one.

---

## Expert Lineage

*The thinkers whose frameworks underpin this skill — and what they specifically discovered that changes how you farm.*

**SARE (Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education) — Enterprise Budgeting for Real Farms**
SARE developed the enterprise gross margin framework used across small and direct-market farms in North America. Their specific contribution: enterprise budgets that separate variable costs (inputs, labour, packaging) from fixed overhead, making it possible to evaluate each enterprise independently rather than treating the farm as an undifferentiated financial blob. Their free budget templates are the most practical starting point available for any farm financial analysis.

**Severine von Tscharner Fleming — New Farmer Financial Reality**
Fleming's work through The Greenhorns documented the financial experience of beginning farmers in detail — not the aspirational version but the real one. Her specific finding: the most common cause of new farm failure is not production failure but cash flow mismanagement. Farms that are profitable on paper collapse because cash arrives seasonally while costs arrive monthly. Understanding cash flow timing is more urgent than understanding profitability.

**Gary Zimmer — Biological Investment as Financial Return**
Zimmer's *The Biological Farmer* made a specific financial argument: spending money on soil biology is capital accumulation, not operating cost. A farm that increases organic matter by 1% gains water-holding capacity equivalent to tens of thousands of litres per hectare — reducing irrigation cost. It reduces purchased fertility cost. It stabilises yield in drought years. Zimmer documented actual farm accounts where biological investment returned more per dollar than input-equivalent chemical spending within 3–5 years.

**Jean-Martin Fortier — Direct-Market Gross Margins**
Fortier's *The Market Gardener* provided the first widely published gross margin analysis for intensive small-scale vegetable production. His specific contribution: ranking crops by revenue per bed-metre rather than per unit, showing that salad mix and radishes often outperform tomatoes and squash on land efficiency. This reframing transformed how small-scale growers allocate land and labour.

**Gabe Brown — Transition Economics Documented**
Brown's farm records through the transition from conventional to regenerative show the financial shape of transition: year one is roughly neutral if managed correctly, years two through four are the hardest (reduced yields, still-recovering inputs), and from year five, input costs drop sharply while yield stability improves. His specific finding: the transition dip is real but manageable if the farm carries low debt going in. High-debt farms cannot afford the dip — debt load is the primary factor determining whether transition is financially viable.

**Graham Harvey — True Cost Accounting in Agriculture**
Harvey's research in *The Carbon Fields* applied true cost accounting to UK farming — including environmental externalities (water cleanup, health costs of industrial food, soil erosion). His specific finding: industrial grain farming is only profitable because it externalises enormous costs onto the public purse. This framing supports the financial case for regenerative farming: the farm that avoids those external costs (through reduced chemistry, soil-building, and closed loops) is capturing value that industrial farming discards.

---

## Which tool fits

| You need to... | Tool |
|---|---|
| Calculate whether an enterprise makes money | gross-margins |
| Map seasonal cash in and out, find the pinch points | cash-flow |
| Know the minimum output needed to cover costs | break-even |
| Find and evaluate grants, loans, and agricultural finance | grants-and-loans |
| Understand the financial shape of moving to regenerative practice | transition-economics |

## Routing Decision

- **New enterprise — does this pay?** → gross-margins
- **Existing farm — always short of cash at certain times** → cash-flow
- **Considering a capital investment or new enterprise** → break-even
- **Need capital for buildings, equipment, or land improvement** → grants-and-loans
- **Moving away from conventional inputs, worried about the income dip** → transition-economics
- **Unclear** → gross-margins first; it reveals the structure of the farm's financial problem

---

## Gross Margins

*Calculates whether each enterprise earns its keep — enterprise by enterprise.*

A gross margin is revenue minus variable costs. It is not profit — it does not include fixed costs (land rent, machinery depreciation, family labour). But it tells you which enterprises contribute to covering those fixed costs, which are marginal, and which should be dropped. The discipline of calculating gross margins for every enterprise annually is the single most useful farm financial habit.

**What goes in:**

**Revenue side:**
- Expected yield per unit area (ha/acre/bed)
- Expected price per unit (market price, contract price, direct-sale price)
- Adjustment for wastage and unsaleable product (typically 10–20% for fresh produce)
- Revenue = (yield × price) × (1 − waste rate)

**Variable costs side:**
- Seeds and planting material
- Fertilisers and soil amendments
- Sprays and pest management inputs
- Contract labour and casual labour
- Packaging and presentation costs
- Transport and marketing costs (market stall fees, fuel, delivery)
- Irrigation costs where metered or pumped

**What gross margin excludes:**
- Rent or mortgage payments (fixed cost)
- Machinery ownership costs, depreciation (fixed cost)
- Permanent staff and family labour (fixed or semi-fixed)
- Accountancy, insurance, compliance (fixed cost)

**Comparing enterprises:**

Do not compare gross margins per unit — compare per unit of your limiting resource. If land is the constraint, compare per hectare or per bed-metre. If labour is the constraint, compare per hour of labour required.

| Enterprise comparison | Per hectare | Per labour hour | Labour hours/ha |
|---|---|---|---|
| Salad mix | [high] | [high] | [moderate] |
| Squash / courgette | [moderate] | [low] | [high] |
| Wholesale cut flowers | [high] | [moderate] | [moderate] |
| Grain (small-scale) | [low] | [high] | [low] |
| Laying hens (pastured) | [moderate] | [moderate] | [moderate] |

The table above is a structure — complete with your actual numbers. The highest gross margin per hectare is not automatically the right enterprise if it consumes disproportionate labour.

**Soil health note:** Enterprises that build soil biology (legumes, deep-rooted cover crops, mixed grazing) have a financial return that does not appear in the enterprise gross margin — it appears in reduced fertility costs in subsequent years. When comparing enterprises, add a notes row for soil improvement value, even if it is qualitative.

**Checkpoint — confirm before finalising:**
- What is the actual sale price and channel — farm gate, market, wholesale, CSA? Price differs by channel by 40–100%.
- Is labour at market rate or at family labour value? Omitting family labour makes poor enterprises look viable.
- Is this a new enterprise (expected yield) or existing (actual yield from records)?

Gross margins built on optimistic yield and price assumptions overstate viability. Confirm the numbers are grounded in real experience or conservative research before using them to make investment decisions.

**Output:**
```
ENTERPRISE GROSS MARGIN — [Enterprise Name]
Scale: [area / flock size / unit]
Year: [year]

REVENUE
Expected yield: [quantity per unit area]
Expected price: [£/$ per unit]
Wastage adjustment: [%]
GROSS REVENUE: [£/$ per unit area]

VARIABLE COSTS
Seeds / stock:           [£/$ per unit area]
Fertility / amendments:  [£/$ per unit area]
Pest / spray:            [£/$ per unit area]
Casual labour:           [£/$ per unit area]
Packaging / marketing:   [£/$ per unit area]
Other:                   [£/$ per unit area]
TOTAL VARIABLE COSTS:    [£/$ per unit area]

GROSS MARGIN:            [£/$ per unit area]

ENTERPRISE COMPARISON NOTE
Per labour hour: [£/$]   Labour hrs/unit area: [hrs]
Soil improvement value:  [qualitative note]

VERDICT: [Viable / Marginal / Unviable — one sentence]
```

**Next steps:**
- Run **cash-flow** (within this skill) — a viable gross margin does not guarantee the cash arrives when you need it.
- `/s4ag-direct-marketing` — if gross margin is viable but channel is wrong, direct sales often improve it by 30–60%.
- Run **break-even** (within this skill) to understand how much yield or price can fall before the enterprise loses money.

---

## Cash Flow

*Maps seasonal cash in and out, finds the gaps, and builds a plan to bridge them.*

Cash flow is the operational reality that gross margins and profit figures miss. A farm can be profitable annually while running out of cash in March. The discipline of cash flow forecasting identifies when and how large the seasonal gaps are — before they become a crisis.

**Building the forecast:**

**Step 1 — Map revenue by month.**
For each enterprise: when does cash actually arrive? Not when you harvest, but when the invoice is paid or the market money is in the bank.

- CSA/box scheme: monthly, predictable
- Farmers market: weekly, but seasonal
- Wholesale: 30–60 days after delivery
- Farm shop: daily, roughly linear through season
- Livestock: lumpy — sale day; may be once or twice a year
- Grants: check payment schedule — many pay in arrears or on milestone

**Step 2 — Map costs by month.**
- Seeds, plants: heavy in February–April
- Fertilisers, amendments: spring and autumn heavy
- Labour: peaks in planting and harvest
- Machinery maintenance: often spring before the season
- Rent, rates, insurance: often annual or quarterly — know the dates
- Loan repayments: fixed, monthly

**Step 3 — Calculate monthly surplus or deficit.**
Revenue minus costs for each month. Identify:
- Which months are cash-negative (the gaps)
- The maximum gap size (overdraft requirement)
- Whether any gap is large enough to threaten continuity

**Step 4 — Plan the bridge.**
Common cash flow management tools:

| Tool | When it helps | Cost / risk |
|---|---|---|
| CSA up-front payment | Converts seasonal cash to monthly predictability | Requires customers |
| Overdraft facility | Bridge short seasonal gaps | Bank arrangement fee; interest |
| Business credit card | Bridge 30–60 day payment delays | High interest if not cleared monthly |
| Supplier payment terms | Delay input costs to match revenue | Negotiate with key suppliers |
| Winter enterprise | Add revenue in the cash-negative period | Capital and labour requirement |
| Grant advance | Some schemes advance on milestone | Application lead time |
| Personal drawings reduction | Reduce outflow in the gap months | Lifestyle impact |

**Managing the spring gap:** The most common cash crisis. Seeds, plants, and soil inputs all arrive in February–March. Revenue from spring crops may not arrive until May–June. The gap is often 8–12 weeks. Quantify it precisely — a known gap of £8,000 for 10 weeks is manageable; an unknown gap is a crisis.

**Soil health note:** Farms that have reduced purchased inputs through biological management — compost replacing fertiliser, cover crops replacing herbicides, healthy biology reducing pest pressure — have materially lower spring input costs. Every £ of purchased input replaced with an on-farm biological input is a cash flow improvement, not just an ecological one.

**Checkpoint — confirm before finalising:**
- Do you have actual monthly figures (from bank records) or estimates? Actuals are far more useful.
- Are there any large one-off costs coming in the next 12 months (equipment, building, land purchase)?
- Is there an existing overdraft or credit facility — what is the limit?

A cash flow forecast built on annual averages rather than monthly actuals will miss the gaps it is supposed to find.

**Output:**
```
CASH FLOW FORECAST — [Farm Name] — [Year]

          JAN   FEB   MAR   APR   MAY   JUN   JUL   AUG   SEP   OCT   NOV   DEC   TOTAL
REVENUE
[Enterprise 1]
[Enterprise 2]
[Other income]
TOTAL IN: [£/$]

COSTS
Seeds/plants:
Fertility:
Labour:
Machinery:
Rent/rates:
Loan repay:
Other:
TOTAL OUT: [£/$]

MONTHLY NET:  [+/-]
CUMULATIVE:   [running total]

GAP PERIODS: [months where cumulative goes negative]
MAXIMUM GAP: [£/$ amount] in [month]
BRIDGE PLAN: [how the gap will be covered]
```

**Next steps:**
- Run **grants-and-loans** (within this skill) if the gap cannot be bridged from existing facilities.
- `/s4ag-direct-marketing` — CSA and box scheme pre-payment is the most effective structural cash flow fix.
- Run **gross-margins** (within this skill) for any enterprise where cash flow appears permanently negative — the enterprise may be structurally unviable.

---

## Break-Even

*Establishes the minimum output, price, or scale needed for an enterprise or investment to cover its costs.*

Break-even analysis answers one question: how bad can things get before this loses money? It is the tool for evaluating risk in a new enterprise, a capital investment, or a change in selling channel. It does not predict what will happen — it defines the floor you need to stay above.

**Break-even for a new enterprise:**

Break-even yield = Fixed costs allocated to enterprise / (Price per unit − Variable cost per unit)

Or:

Break-even price = Variable cost per unit + (Fixed costs allocated / Expected yield)

**Example structure:**

| Input | Value |
|---|---|
| Fixed costs allocated (£/ha) | [rent, depreciation share, etc.] |
| Variable cost per unit (£/kg or £/unit) | [seeds, labour, packaging per unit] |
| Expected yield (units/ha) | [realistic yield] |
| Break-even yield | Fixed ÷ (Price − Variable) |
| Break-even price | Variable + (Fixed ÷ Yield) |
| Safety margin | (Expected − Break-even) ÷ Expected × 100% |

**Break-even for a capital investment:**

Payback period = Capital cost / Annual net benefit from investment

Net present value (simplified): if payback period is less than the useful life of the asset, the investment creates value. If payback is longer, it is financially marginal or negative.

**Decision rule for new equipment or infrastructure:**

1. What does this replace or avoid? (Labour, input cost, hire cost, loss)
2. What is the annual saving or additional revenue?
3. How many years to payback?
4. What is the useful life of the asset?
5. If useful life > payback × 1.5: strong investment.
6. If useful life ≈ payback: marginal — consider alternatives.
7. If useful life < payback: do not proceed on financial grounds alone.

**Safety margin thinking:**
A 30% safety margin (break-even at 70% of expected output) is a robust enterprise. A 10% safety margin means any production setback puts the enterprise in the red. When margins are thin, the question is not just "does this work?" but "what happens if yield drops 20%, price drops 15%, or both?"

**Transition note:** Break-even analysis is especially important when evaluating the move from conventional to regenerative inputs. If biological amendments cost more upfront than chemical alternatives in year one, the break-even shifts — but it also needs to account for the year two, three, and four cost reductions as biology recovers. Model the break-even over a five-year horizon, not a single season.

**Checkpoint — confirm before finalising:**
- Is this a new enterprise (use industry yield benchmarks and discount them 20–30% for new establishment) or an existing one?
- What is the realistic downside on price and yield — drought year, glut year, market disruption?
- Is the capital cost a loan (with interest and repayment cost) or own capital (with opportunity cost)?

Break-even analysis using optimistic yield and price assumptions creates false confidence. Use conservative inputs and model the downside scenario explicitly.

**Output:**
```
BREAK-EVEN ANALYSIS — [Enterprise or Investment Name]

TYPE: [Enterprise break-even / Capital investment payback]

INPUTS
Fixed costs (allocated):     [£/$]
Variable cost per unit:      [£/$ per unit]
Expected yield:              [units per ha/area]
Expected price:              [£/$ per unit]

BREAK-EVEN
Break-even yield:            [units] ([% of expected yield])
Break-even price:            [£/$ per unit] ([% of expected price])
Safety margin:               [%]

DOWNSIDE SCENARIO
If yield falls 20%:          [still viable / marginal / loss — by how much]
If price falls 15%:          [still viable / marginal / loss — by how much]

CAPITAL INVESTMENT (if applicable)
Capital cost:                [£/$]
Annual net benefit:          [£/$ per year]
Payback period:              [years]
Asset useful life:           [years]
Verdict:                     [Strong / Marginal / Weak]

RECOMMENDATION: [One sentence on whether to proceed and on what conditions]
```

**Next steps:**
- Run **cash-flow** (within this skill) — a viable break-even does not mean the cash arrives when needed.
- Run **gross-margins** (within this skill) to compare this enterprise against alternatives on the same ground.
- `/s4ag-transition-economics` sub-tool — if the break-even shifts during a transition period, model it over five years.

---

## Grants and Loans

*Navigates agricultural finance — what is available, when to use it, and what to avoid.*

Agricultural finance comes in several forms: grants that do not need to be repaid, loans that do, and blended schemes that combine both. The discipline is knowing which instrument fits which use, how to access each, and how to evaluate whether the cost of borrowing or the compliance cost of a grant is worth the benefit.

**Types of agricultural finance:**

**Grants**
Do not need to be repaid. Usually tied to specific activities (capital grants, agri-environment schemes, research and development). Key characteristics:
- Often match-funded (fund 25–60% of eligible costs; you fund the rest)
- Application is competitive and requires evidence of eligibility
- Payment is usually in arrears — you spend first, claim back
- Compliance conditions attach for 5–10 years after payment
- Not suitable for operating costs — only capital or agreed activities

**Agri-environment schemes (UK: SFI/Countryside Stewardship; US: USDA EQIP/CSP)**
Annual payments for management practices that deliver environmental outcomes. Characteristics:
- Revenue income — paid annually for agreed practices
- Application requires agreement on what you will do and audit of compliance
- Payment rates are published; estimate income before applying
- Priority practices usually include: no-till, cover crops, hedgerow management, riparian buffers, low-input grassland

**Soft loans**
Below-market interest rate loans from public or charitable lenders. More flexible than grants; faster to access; no compliance tail. Sources include:
- USDA Farm Service Agency (FSA) — Farm Operating Loans, Farm Ownership Loans
- Triodos Bank, Ecology Building Society (UK) — values-aligned lending
- USDA Beginning Farmer and Rancher programme
- Regional agricultural development banks

**Commercial loans**
Standard bank finance. Use for capital purchases where the asset has a long life and the annual cost of the loan is less than the annual benefit. Avoid for operating costs or working capital unless bridging a known, time-limited gap.

**Decision framework — which instrument to use:**

| Need | Instrument | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Capital build (barn, irrigation, fencing) | Grant + soft loan | Commercial working capital loan |
| Environmental practice change | Agri-environment scheme | Nothing — this is free money |
| Seasonal working capital | Overdraft, supplier terms, CSA pre-payment | Long-term loan |
| Land purchase | Long-term mortgage, soft loan | Short-term finance |
| Equipment | Hire purchase, lease, or soft loan | Personal credit card |
| Business development (marketing, training) | USDA VAPG, rural development grants | Any loan — not worth the debt |

**Evaluating a grant application:**
Before applying, calculate the full cost of compliance:
- Application preparation time (what could that time earn?)
- Compliance monitoring and record-keeping
- Restriction on management flexibility for the compliance period
- Match-funding requirement (do you have the capital to spend before claiming back?)

A grant that requires 40 hours of application work and delivers £3,000 over five years is worth approximately £15/hour for the application time, then free money thereafter. A grant that restricts management flexibility for 10 years may cost more in lost opportunity than it pays.

**Soil health note:** Agri-environment scheme payments for cover crops, no-till, and hedgerow management are the most financially rational place to start — they pay you to do things that also build soil biology. The financial and ecological goals align exactly. Apply for every scheme you are eligible for in this category before considering conventional grants.

**Checkpoint — confirm before finalising:**
- Country and region? Grant schemes are jurisdiction-specific and frequently change.
- Farm type and enterprise — some schemes are restricted to specific sectors (horticulture, upland livestock, arable).
- Is this capital or operating finance? This determines which instruments are appropriate.

Recommending a specific grant scheme without knowing jurisdiction and sector produces useless output.

**Output:**
```
GRANTS AND FINANCE ASSESSMENT — [Farm Name]

JURISDICTION: [country / region]
FARM TYPE: [enterprise types]
FINANCE NEED: [capital / operating / practice change]

RECOMMENDED INSTRUMENTS
1. [Scheme or instrument name]
   Type: [grant / soft loan / agri-environment / commercial]
   Estimated value: [£/$ or range]
   Application timing: [when applications open]
   Compliance: [what is required]
   Match-funding required: [yes/no — amount]
   Priority: [High / Medium — apply now vs. later]

2. [Second instrument]
   [same fields]

AVOID
[Any instrument inappropriate for this situation — why]

NEXT APPLICATION DEADLINE: [date if known]
ESTIMATED TOTAL FINANCE ACCESSIBLE: [£/$ range]
```

**Next steps:**
- Run **cash-flow** (within this skill) — grants paid in arrears affect cash flow even when they are valuable.
- Run **break-even** (within this skill) to confirm any grant-funded capital investment still pays at full cost if the scheme closes.
- `/s4ag-certification` — certification sometimes unlocks premium pricing that makes agri-environment compliance worthwhile beyond the payment.

---

## Transition Economics

*Models the financial profile of moving from conventional to regenerative practice — and plans for the income dip.*

The transition from conventional to regenerative farming is financially real and often badly managed. The Gabe Brown farm records, the work of the Rodale Institute, and dozens of documented case studies show the same pattern: input costs fall throughout transition, but yield can dip in years two through four as biology recovers. Farms that understand this shape before they start — and plan for it — survive. Farms that expect the financial benefits immediately do not.

**The shape of transition:**

| Year | Input costs | Yield | Net margin | Cash position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | Slight reduction | Stable | Stable or slight improvement | Neutral |
| Year 2–3 | Moderate reduction | Possible dip (10–20%) | Possible dip | Tight |
| Year 4 | Significant reduction | Recovering | Improving | Improving |
| Year 5+ | Low and stable | Stable or improving | Materially better | Strong |

The dip in years two through four is not inevitable — it depends on:
- Soil biology starting point (degraded biology = longer recovery)
- Whether inputs are reduced too fast (remove the crutch before the system can walk)
- Debt load going in (high debt amplifies the dip into a crisis)
- Diversity of enterprises (diversified farms have less correlated risk)

**Managing the transition financially:**

**1. Reduce inputs gradually, not immediately.**
Replace one input category at a time. Do not remove synthetic nitrogen until biological nitrogen fixation and OM mineralisation can replace it. Reduce herbicides as cover crop suppression becomes established. The input cost reduction should follow biological recovery, not precede it.

**2. Start with enterprises that respond fastest.**
Vegetables and intensively managed pasture respond to biological improvement faster than large-scale arable. Begin transition on the enterprise with the shortest feedback loop so you see the financial improvement while other enterprises are still in recovery.

**3. Build financial reserves before starting.**
The Gabe Brown finding: the key variable is debt load. A low-debt farm can absorb two or three poor seasons during transition. A high-debt farm cannot. Target a minimum of one year's operating costs in reserve, or access to equivalent borrowing facility, before beginning transition.

**4. Seek agri-environment payments for transition practices.**
Cover crops, no-till, and hedgerow management are all paid practices under US EQIP/CSP and UK SFI. These payments partially offset the yield dip during recovery. Apply for every scheme available before cutting inputs.

**5. Track soil health as a capital asset.**
Increasing OM by 1% has been estimated to increase the agricultural value of land by measurable amounts — particularly in arid regions where water-holding capacity is at a premium. Document soil test trends annually. If transition is working, OM increases and the underlying capital value of the farm is increasing even in years when the income dips.

**The financial case for completing transition:**

| Cost category | Conventional | Post-transition (year 5+) | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fertiliser (N, P, K) | [full cost] | Reduced 50–80% | -£/$ per ha |
| Herbicides | [full cost] | Reduced 60–100% | -£/$ per ha |
| Fungicides | [full cost] | Reduced 40–80% | -£/$ per ha |
| Fuel (tillage passes) | [full cost] | Reduced 30–60% | -£/$ per ha |
| Irrigation water | [full cost] | Reduced 20–40% | -£/$ per ha |
| Input total | [baseline] | [post-transition] | [saving/ha] |

Completed transition farms in the US corn belt consistently report input cost savings of $150–$300/acre per year. In UK vegetable systems, the savings are often larger as a percentage because input costs are higher relative to output prices.

**Transition note:** This is the sub-tool where the conventional path (continue as is) and the regenerative path (transition with a plan) are directly compared financially. The conventional path is documented without judgment. The comparison is made on numbers.

**Checkpoint — confirm before finalising:**
- What is the current debt load, and what is the debt service requirement annually?
- What is the enterprise mix — is there a fast-responding enterprise (vegetables, intensive pasture) that can demonstrate biological improvement early?
- Is there existing agri-environment scheme membership, or is there an application opportunity?

Transition economics modelled without knowing the debt position produces a plan that may be financially impossible for that farm.

**Output:**
```
TRANSITION ECONOMICS MODEL — [Farm Name]

STARTING CONDITIONS
Current input cost/ha: [£/$]
Current yield (key enterprise): [units/ha]
Current net margin/ha: [£/$]
Debt service annual: [£/$]
Cash reserve: [months of operating costs]
Agri-environment payments available: [yes/no — schemes]

TRANSITION PLAN
Year 1: [enterprises to start; inputs to reduce; practices to introduce]
         Projected net margin change: [+/- %]
Year 2: [next phase]
         Projected net margin change: [+/- %]
Year 3: [next phase]
         Projected net margin change: [+/- %]
Year 4+: [stabilisation and optimisation]
          Projected net margin change: [+/- %]

FINANCIAL RISK WINDOW: [year(s) of greatest financial exposure]
MAXIMUM PROJECTED SHORTFALL: [£/$ per year in the dip]
BRIDGE PLAN: [how the dip will be funded]

POST-TRANSITION TARGET (Year 5)
Input cost/ha: [£/$] — saving of [£/$] vs. current
Net margin/ha: [£/$] — change of [£/$] vs. current
Soil OM trend: [current % → target %]

RECOMMENDATION: [Go / Condition / Not yet — one sentence with reason]
```

**Next steps:**
- Run **cash-flow** (within this skill) to model the cash position through the transition years, not just the annual margin.
- Run **grants-and-loans** (within this skill) to identify agri-environment payments that offset the transition dip.
- `/s4ag-regenerative` — once the financial plan is in place, the agronomic transition sequence is the next decision.
- `/s4ag-soil` to run **fertility-planning** — the agronomic counterpart to this financial model.