Given the offline nature of the agricultural practice, in order to maximize efficiency with wider adoption having a strong and integrated online as well as offline presence is critical.

1. Findings basis research conducted in September'22 Key Findings
India AgriTech
Perspective
Vol - 1
2022

2. 2
1. The Indian Agricultural
Landscape

3. 3
FY 22
150 Mn+ Farmers
$ 300 Bn+ of farm output
$ 58 Bn+ of farm inputs
FY22-26P in USD Bn
+10%
Agri Landscape Overview
13.1
6.0
2.5
0.3
India
Brazil USA
China
1
FY22-FY26P, in USD Bn
+9%
00

4. 4
India’s lags farm productivity lags behind, which can be improved by improving farming practices and farm inputs
Barley
Maize
Apple
Citrus Fruits
Vegetables
1.0
0.5
0.0
Wheat
Cereals
Oil Crops
Roots & Tubers
Sugarcane
Yield (Indexed1
)
China
Brazil
USA
India
Farm Input2
- Global comparison
CY20, Kg/Ha
13.1
6.0
2.5
0.3
India
Brazil USA
China
Farm Output - Global comparison
CY20, Kg/Ha (Indexed1
)
Barley
Maize
Apple
Citrus Fruits
Vegetables
1.0
0.5
0.0
Wheat
Cereals
Oil Crops
Roots & Tubers
Sugarcane
Yield (Indexed1
)
China
Brazil
USA
India
Agri Landscape Overview
, 2. Farm Inputs refers to usage of pesticides
Headroom
to grow

5. 5
Traditional Farming Value chain
Pre-production
Production
Post-production
Manufacturer Distributor
Harvesting
Wholesaler
Pesticides
Large Retailer
for
the
farmers
Nutrients
Small Retailer
Sowing
Seeds
Sourcing
Output
selling Mandi Wholesaler Retailer
Multiple intermediaries involved before
the input reaches the end retailer
Selling process is complicated and a major
pain point for farmer
Agri Landscape Farmer Pain Points
30-
Inefficiencies also exist across the farming value chain, with multiple intermediaries
leading to margin leakages

6. 6
1
Low
High
Low High
Farmer Need/ Pain Point
Input
Farming
Reliable
Advisory
Quality &
Performance
Fake Products
Product Push
Product
Accessibility
r
Weather Forecast
Middleman
Hassle
n
Wastage
Credit
Advisory remains a key pain
Level
of
Offering
–
Traditional
Channel
F
integrated solutioning which combines online
1 2 3
Agri Landscape Farmer Pain Points

7. 7
local generics…
FY22, USD Bn N = 573
20%
5%
26%
10%
55%
$ 10 $ 19
$ 17
$ 13
Branded
Generic
Protection Seeds
72%
8%
70%
19%
Specialised
82%
Equipment Nutrition
13%
Unbranded
Generic
20%
$ 58 Bn
=
No loyalty
Somewhat Loyal
Neutral
Brand Loyalty
9%
8%
25%
20%
38%
Very loyal
Somewhat
not loyal
Low quality generics
and poor results major
reason for disloyalty
among farmers
~85%
farmers are not
loyal/ neutral
towards a product
for generic
consumption
20%
5%
26%
10%
55%
$ 10 $ 19
$ 17
$ 13
Branded
Generic
Protection Seeds
72%
8%
70%
19%
Specialised
82%
Equipment Nutrition
13%
Unbranded
Generic
20%
$ 58 Bn
=
No loyalty
Somewhat Loyal
Neutral
Brand Loyalty
9%
8%
25%
20%
38%
Very loyal
Somewhat
not loyal
Low quality generics
and poor results major
reason for disloyalty
among farmers
~85%
farmers are not
loyal/ neutral
towards a product
for generic
consumption
Agri Landscape Farmer Pain Points Farm Inputs
(Conducted during Sep'22)

8. 8
Pomegranates Onions
Grade C
Grade B
Grade A
1.5X
4X
Grade C
Grade B
Grade A
1.1X
1.8X
Difference in Price Realisation for Different Grades of the Product
Price / Kg, Indexed to Grade C
Agri Landscape Farmer Pain Points
200-300g 100-200g
300-400g
Avg
Weight
50-80 mm 35-50 mm
> 80 mm
Bulb
Diameter
By improving the quality of the produce, 2-3X increase in price realisation can be expected

9. 9
Retailer Pain Points VS Traditional Channel Performance
Descriptive
Retailer Need/ Pain Point
High
Low
Level
of
Offering
–Traditional
Channel
Low High
More
#suppliers
Credit Limit
MOQ
Brand
Low Margins on
High Sale Products
High Margin but
Low Sale Products
Credit
Sales
Advisory
Knowledge
Product Trials
Recommend
Farmer
Trust
Procurement
Customer
Pull
Sales
Retailer speaks
- Small Retailer, Daund, Maharashtra
- Large Retailer, Junnar, Maharashtra
Agri Landscape Retailer Pain Points
Findings basis surveys conducted in September'22

10. 10
2. AgriTech in India

11. 11
Mn users, CY 16 - 26P ‘Mn views, since inception - Oct'22
YouTube Channel – View Count
Penetration
75%
35%
25%
21%
137
282
442
2021 2026P
2016
+16%
+9%
35% 59%
18%
Penetration
Digital Penetration
137
282
442
2021 2026P
2016
+16%
+9%
35% 59%
18%
AgriTech Landscape
Player 1
Player 2
Player 3
Player 4
Player 5
103.0M
110 Mn + Views
4.4M
2.6M
2.0M
0.4M

12. 12
Farmer Challenge Areas
2 2
omnichannel method
3 3
4 4
1 1
AgriTech Landscape Overview

13. 13
margin business
AgriTech Landscape Models
Owned
brands
mix
High
Low
High
Low
Most AgriTech
Marketplace
models
players operate
in this space
Input Manufacturers
While margins are high, limited
by their own portfolio of
products and supply
infrastructure
Wallet share

14. 14
•
•
•
Generic
Curated
1
Domestic Exports
Unbranded Unbranded
Branded Branded
AgriTech
Sourcing
Channels
AgriTech Landscape Models

15. 15
20-30%
40-60%
Private Label Generic Branded
5-15%
Medium
Value
Mandi
to Mandi
Mandi
to GT
Mandi
to MT
45-60%
Farmer to
Exports
8-10%
10-12%
12-18%
20-30%
40-60%
Private Label Generic Branded
5-15%
AgroStar has built a portfolio
of successful private label
to input sales
Large share of AgriTech
players are resellers for
branded products
Medium
Value
Mandi
to Mandi
Mandi
to GT
Mandi
to MT
35-45%
Processing
to MT/GT
45-60%
Farmer to
Exports
8-10%
10-12%
12-18%
AgriTech Landscape Models
15%
25%
Generic products such as farm
nutrition, tools etc lend well to
private labels creation

16. Winning Leavers
16
AgriTech Landscape
Output Sourcing
1 2 3 4
Creatingtrustiscriticalasit’sthebiggestdriverforfarmer’sdecisionmaking

17. 17
CONFIDENTIALITY Our clients’ industries are extremely competitive, and the maintenance of confidentiality with respect to our clients’ plans and data is
critical. RedSeer rigorously applies internal confidentiality practices to protect the confidentiality of all client information.
Similarly, our industry is very competitive. We view our approaches and insights as proprietary and therefore look to our clients to
protect our interests in our proposals, presentations, methodologies and analytical techniques. Under no circumstances should this
material be shared with any third party without the prior written consent of RedSeer.
© RedSeer

18. 18
QUALIFICATIONS,
ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING
CONDITIONS
This report is for the exclusive use of the RedSeer client named herein. This report is not intended for general circulation or publication,
nor is it to be reproduced, quoted or distributed for any purpose without the prior written permission of RedSeer. There are no third party
beneficiaries with respect to this report, and RedSeer does not accept any liability to any third party.
Information furnished by others, upon which all or portions of this report are based, is believed to be reliable but has not been
independently verified, unless otherwise expressly indicated. Public information and industry and statistical data are from sources we
deem to be reliable; however, we make no representation as to the accuracy or completeness of such information. The findings
contained in this report may contain predictions based on current data and historical trends. Any such predictions are subject to
inherent risks and uncertainties. RedSeer accepts no responsibility for actual results or future events.
The opinions expressed in this report are valid only for the purpose stated herein and as of the date of this report. No obligation is
assumed to revise this report to reflect changes, events or conditions, which occur subsequent to the date hereof.
All decisions in connection with the implementation or use of advice or recommendations contained in this report are the sole
responsibility of the client. This report does not represent investment advice nor does it provide an opinion regarding the fairness of any
transaction to any and all parties.

19. 19