W20701

BHARATAGRI: STRATEGY OF AN INDIAN AGRITECH STARTUP

Aashish Argade and Atul Arun Pathak wrote this case solely to provide material for class discussion. The authors do not intend to
illustrate either effective or ineffective handling of a managerial situation. The authors may have disguised certain names and other
identifying information to protect confidentiality.

This publication may not be transmitted, photocopied, digitized, or otherwise reproduced in any form or by any means without the
permission of the copyright holder. Reproduction of this material is not covered under authorization by any reproduction rights
organization. To order copies or request permission to reproduce materials, contact Ivey Publishing, Ivey Business School, Western
University, London, Ontario, Canada, N6G 0N1; (t) 519.661.3208; (e) cases@ivey.ca; www.iveycases.com. Our goal is to publish
materials of the highest quality; submit any errata to publishcases@ivey.ca. i1v2e5y5pubs

Copyright © 2020, Ivey Business School Foundation Version: 2020-08-28

On June 17, 2019, Siddharth Dialani and Sai Gole, cofounders of BharatAgri, an agritech (agricultural
technology)-focused entrepreneurial venture based out of Pune, India, were reviewing their business
performance and planning for the future. Two and a half years ago, they founded BharatAgri, a company that
leveraged information technology (IT) to provide advisory services to Indian farmers and that provided data-
analytics-driven decision dashboards to enterprises and organizations that worked with farmers. Gole explained,

We had seen good traction in recent months and onboarded nearly 6,000 farmers from the states of
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh as customers. We were directly contacting farmers through our
marketing efforts as well as reaching them through our tie-ups with various government projects,
and commercial and voluntary organizations engaged with the farming community.

While their recent success at raising venture capital (VC) funding of ₹40 million1 had bolstered their
confidence, the cofounders understood that they had to work quickly to build a business model that would
result in sustainable revenue growth and profitability. In their presentation to the VC team, Gole and Dialani
had projected a target of onboarding at least 20,000 farmers by 2021 and had stated that they would generate
revenues from subscriptions as well as by selling data to other stakeholders. In their next meeting, at the
end of the current quarter, they were expected to present a comprehensive and cogent plan to the financiers.

BACKGROUND

The Cofounders

Dialani had a bachelor’s degree in biotechnology from the Indian Institute of Technology Madras (IITM),
India. In 2017, he worked briefly with an e-commerce startup and a startup in the agritech sector in Pune.
Dialani recalled,

I had always wanted to do something in the field of agriculture. During this period, I would often take
time off on weekends and visit Nagpur. Along with Gole, I would visit nearby villages to get a first-
hand feel of agriculture and to understand the way farming was actually practiced by Indian farmers.

1
₹ = INR = Indian rupees; ₹1 = US$0.014 on July 17, 2019; all currency amounts are in INR unless otherwise specified.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.
 Page 2 9B20M151

Gole came from a middle-class family based in Nagpur, a city in Maharashtra, India. She had a bachelor’s
degree in engineering design from IITM. At IITM, she had interned with ITC Limited (ITC), a diversified
Indian multinational corporation (MNC) with a large presence in the agriculture and food sector. During
this internship, Gole had been exposed to practical applications of operations management in various
manufacturing processes, and she also learnt about concepts related to lean manufacturing and Six Sigma.
In 2015, Gole got a job at ITC through the campus placement route. She recalled,

I hailed from Nagpur, which is a drought-prone region in Maharashtra. My interest in agriculture

was triggered by the frequent news of farmer distress. I had often visited agricultural farms around
Nagpur and sought to understand the underlying reasons for the farm sector problems. From these
field visits, I understood that improved operational efficiency could help the plight of farmers.

For Dialani and Gole, the idea of an agritech startup venture was an outcome of their keen interest in
agriculture. Neither of them had a formal education or family background in farming. In addition to visiting
farms and interacting with farmers, Gole and Dialani had often interacted with scientists from the
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Hyderabad, to improve their
knowledge of agriculture.

THE INDIAN AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY

Agriculture in India had come a long way from its subsistence orientation in the pre-independence period.
In the first two decades, beginning in 1950, the agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) in India recorded
an average annual growth of 2.2 per cent2 and provided a livelihood for more than 70 per cent of the Indian
population. However, a burgeoning population meant that this growth was insufficient in meeting India’s
food requirements. As a consequence, India began importing food, yet the food imports were unsustainable
due to foreign currency shortages. In the late 1960s, improvements in seeds, chemical fertilizers, and
pesticides led to significant productivity improvements and a “Green Revolution” in Indian agriculture. The
Indian government invested in agricultural research through the Indian Council of Agricultural Research
(ICAR) and its numerous associate organizations, which together formed the National Agricultural
Research System (NARS). Numerous improved crop varieties and hybrids were developed through the
NARS. The production of seeds was taken up by government bodies such as the National Seeds Corporation
and State Seed Corporations. At the same time, primary agricultural cooperative societies engaged in the
distribution of agricultural inputs and produce. Large-scale fertilizer manufacturing units were set up in the
public sector. The private sector was also encouraged to develop new hybrid crops, produce agricultural
inputs, and establish distribution channels.3
Providing material agricultural inputs was only half of the challenge. Farmers also had to be equipped with
knowledge and managerial skills to grow crops using new technologies. The government invested in extension
education, where scientists and trained personnel imparted requisite knowledge to farmers. Although
agricultural extension had existed in some form since the pre-independence period, it received a focused
impetus under the Training and Visit (T&V) system, funded by the World Bank in the 1970s. Subsequently,
extension services came to be offered by the State Agricultural Universities (SAUs) through their extension
departments, as well as by the ICAR, Krishi Vigyan Kendras, and Agricultural Technology Management
Agency (ATMA). Private sector organizations in the agribusiness domain also played a major role in

2
R. Nagaraj, “Growth Rate of India’s GDP, 1950-51 to 1987-88: Examination of Alternative Hypotheses,” Economic and
Political Weekly 25, no. 26 (1990): 1396–1403.
3
Amarnath Tripathi and A.R. Prasad, “Agricultural Development in India Since Independence: A Study on Progress,
Performance, and Determinants,” Journal of Emerging Knowledge on Emerging Markets 1, no. 1 (2009): 863–892.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.
 Page 3 9B20M151

disseminating information. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and farmer-focused organizations

offered a few localized and customized services. Agricultural production registered high growth rates from
the late 1960s as a result of the above initiatives, as well as other interventions such as the expansion of
irrigation facilities, price support programs, and a host of subsidies provided by the government.4
In 2017–2018, India produced about 284 million tonnes of food grains (i.e., wheat, rice, maize, millets, and
pulses combined), 176 million tonnes of milk, 95.2 billion eggs, 97 million tonnes of fruit, and 180 million
tonnes of vegetables. It ranked among the top five countries worldwide in the production of several farm
products (see Exhibit 1). Despite this success, newer challenges to Indian agriculture emerged. These
included the degradation of soil, declining soil fertility, falling groundwater tables, pesticide and chemical
residues in food, the growing resistance of plant pests and diseases, and the declining growth rate of the
agricultural sector. Additionally, the relative productivity of crops in India was low compared to several
other countries (see Exhibit 2). Indian agriculture continued to be characterized by a large number of small
and marginal farmers. Nearly 80 per cent of Indian farmers owned less than a hectare of land. This impeded
the use of many agricultural technologies. Although small farms often had a mix of income sources, their
overall income was so low that these farmers had hardly any surplus. Rising costs and marketing difficulties
often rendered farming a loss-making enterprise.5 This called for more judicious input usage to ensure
sustainable farm incomes and a high-quality farm output, without compromising on yield or production.
Thus, newer models of transferring knowledge inputs to farmers were necessary.
Agricultural extension was primarily a form of farmer education and, hence, was considered a merit good.
Traditionally, the public sector had played a dominant role in transferring technology to farmers. As public
finances began facing constraints, the Indian government envisaged and encouraged a greater role for the
private sector. Privately owned agribusiness companies on the input side played a critical role in
disseminating information about their products to farmers. However, such knowledge was product or brand
centric. NGOs were often dependent on donors for funds and had area-wise localized activities. Ideas such
as demand-led extension were floated, which entailed private players being encouraged to provide paid
advisory services, especially to big farmers. However, pure advisory services did not catch on. This was
because useful information often disseminated from farmer to farmer via word of mouth. While the role of
the public sector in extension services was seen as crucial, a vast majority of farmers clearly depended on
the advice of fellow farmers or retailers of agricultural inputs for information on crop cultivation.6
The problem of knowledge and information gaps leading to poor agricultural outcomes had been often and
thoroughly discussed in the mainstream media. Several agriculture enthusiasts, even though they worked
outside of the agricultural domain, had observed this problem. Because employing manpower was expensive,
people felt that IT-based interventions could help overcome these problems. The advent of low-cost
technologies and a focus on entrepreneurship by the government of India encouraged cause-driven and risk-
taking individuals to try out new IT-based solutions for farm management and agricultural output marketing.7

Agritech Startups

According to Dialani,
Traditionally, working for the government, public sector undertakings, and multi-national
corporations was a highly preferred career choice in India. These jobs offered high levels of job
4
Marco Ferroni and Yuan Zhou, “Achievements and Challenges in Agricultural Extension in India,” Global Journal of Emerging
Market Economies 4, no. 3 (2012): 319–346.
5
S. Mahendra Dev, “Small Farmers in India: Challenges and Opportunities,” Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, 2012: 1–37.
6
Claire J. Glendenning, Suresh Babu, and Kwadwo Asenso-Okyere, “IFPRI Discussion Paper 01048—Review of Agricultural
Extension in India: Are Farmers' Information Needs Being Met?,” International Food Policy Research Institute, 2010: 1–35.
7
Shivam Srivastav, “Startup Watchlist: 10 Agritech Startups to Look Out for in 2019,” Inc42, January 22, 2019, accessed
October 9, 2019, https://inc42.com/features/startup-watchlist-10-agritech-startups-to-look-out-for-in-2019/.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.
 Page 4 9B20M151

security, social status, and a good quality lifestyle. It was relatively rare for highly educated persons
with middle-class backgrounds to try their hand at entrepreneurship. However, the “Startup India”
initiative by the Government of India gave a boost to innovation and entrepreneurship.

Agriculture attracted a fair share of entrepreneurs who tried to leverage IT to bridge information gaps and
provide solutions. Many of the entrepreneurial ventures focused on applying IT in farm management. Agritech
startups operated in a variety of areas including (1) providing agricultural inputs and advisory to farmers, (2)
connecting the farmers with output markets, (3) digital agriculture, and (4) farming as a service (FaaS).

In the last couple of years, many agritech startup ventures had shown good traction and had raised equity
funding to expand their businesses. For instance, in February 2019, AgNext Technologies (AgNext), an
agricultural analytics startup focused on horticulture and plantation crops, raised funds from the VC firm
Kalaari Capital. AgNext had developed a digital platform and collected spatial, temporal, and spectral data
aimed at improving the productivity and profitability of growers and food processors. In another instance,
Ninjacart, an agricultural marketing platform, raised US$35 million8 in Series B funding from Accel and
Syngenta Ventures in December 2018.9 Another example of a technology-driven player in the agricultural
space was CropIn Technology Solutions (CropIn). This organization provided technology solutions to
farmers and other players in the agriculture value chain, such as agricultural input companies, financial
lending institutions, crop insurance providers, seed production companies, and government institutions.
CropIn used a combination of satellite-based monitoring, machine learning, and weather analysis; covered
more than 384 crops; was present in 46 countries; and claimed to have benefited more than 2.1 million
farmers globally through its services.10

ABOUT BHARATAGRI

In 2016, Dialani and Gole participated in a startup pitch competition organized by Uber Technologies Inc. 11
They pitched an idea about a venture focused on agritech and won the competition. The $50,000 they
received as prize money was the pre-seed funding that they needed to start their entrepreneurial venture. In
April 2017, Dialani and Gole quit their jobs and founded LeanCrop Technology Solutions (initially branded
as LeanAgri and later rebranded as BharatAgri), headquartered in Pune, Maharashtra. Their objective was
to provide technology solutions that helped Indian farmers improve productivity, profitability, and
sustainability. They worked on developing software and mobile applications (apps) that tracked various
farm parameters and offered advisory solutions to farmers.

The Early Days

In December 2017, BharatAgri established a model farm on two acres of leased land at Narayangaon, near Pune.
The objective was to experiment, learn, and demonstrate its technology to farmers. BharatAgri grew a variety of
crops, such as turmeric, chilli, onion, cabbage, and marigold, on the model farm. Seeing its success, about 300
farmers from Narayangaon became BharatAgri’s customers. The firm tied up with the local branch of Rotary
International and started another experimental farm in Kashig village, about 50 kilometres from Pune. They were
able to convert about 100 paddy farmers there into customers. However, BharatAgri learned that this model of
going directly to farmers was difficult, and it would take them a long time to scale up. Gole recalled,

8
$ = USD = United States dollars.
9
Kavya Kothiyal, “India Quotient Leads Seed Round in Agri-Tech Startup LeanAgri,” VCCircle, March 6, 2019, accessed
October 11, 2019, www.vccircle.com/india-quotient-leads-seed-round-in-agri-tech-startup-leanagri/.
10
“Empowering Economies of the Agri-Ecosystem,” CropIn, accessed October 12, 2019, www.cropin.com/about/.
11
ET Bureau, “Here’s the UberPITCH for Winners,” Economic Times Rise, January 10, 2017, accessed October 11, 2019,
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/small-biz/startups/heres-the-uberpitch-for-winners/articleshow/56434054.cms?.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.
 Page 5 9B20M151

We realized that it would be better to approach farmers via intermediary organizations who were
already connected with them. We approached government departments, agri-input companies, and
various NGOs.

Going to Market

BharatAgri positioned itself as a technology service provider that helped farmers in agricultural decision
making and farm-activity planning, thereby helping them increase their farm yields and incomes.
BharatAgri also worked with different agribusiness companies such as sellers of fertilizers, seeds, and
pesticides to provide the best farm management services to associated farmers. It also offered farmer
management solutions for enterprises. Gole explained,

We set up BharatAgri as a farming technology platform. Our mission was to help bridge the gap
between technology and Indian agriculture. Our vision was to reach out to and benefit as many
Indian farmers as possible. We believed that if farmers adopted a more systematic implementation
of scientific techniques and leveraged technology better, they would be in a position to “Grow
Efficient, Grow More.” Our early realization was that lack of critical information at appropriate
times and regular scientific monitoring adversely affected Indian farmers.

Solutions for Farmers

BharatAgri developed various advisory services for farmers. Gole explained, “After some experimentation
we realized that farmers benefited most from timely and correct advice on nutrition, pest control, crop
diseases, and irrigation management.”

BharatAgri developed a mobile app that a client (i.e., farmer) could download from Google Play Store.
Once a farmer subscribed to BharatAgri, a representative from BharatAgri visited the farm to collect data.
Using Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates, the app identified and geo-tagged the land area owned
by the client farmer. Other data, such as the crops grown, sowing times, irrigation type, and whether the
farming method was inorganic, organic, or integrated was also collected.

Once the farm area was mapped, soil samples were collected for every hectare of land that the client farmer
owned. If the farmer had personalized water sources (e.g., a well or borewell) for irrigation, water samples
were also collected. Further, the farmer was asked for historical cropping data (i.e., the different crops raised
on that land in the past few years). Soil samples were sent to a laboratory for testing. The analysis provided
values of 15 essential soil parameters and 10 essential water parameters. BharatAgri had a proprietary
algorithm that analysed the combined data of soil samples, water samples, historical cropping patterns, and
the farmer’s socio-economics, and provided relevant advice on crop nutrition, pest control, and disease
management for the particular farm area. BharatAgri was able to return a soil report (see Exhibit 3) to the
farmer within 10 days, along with a customized farm activities schedule report (see Exhibit 4).

BharatAgri’s advisory service included a full-season schedule of crop management practices. This included
suggestions about which crops were suitable for particular agricultural zones and helped farmers follow
crop-specific disease and pest-management schedules. Further, it gave directions about how to apply
fertilizer at different stages of the crop cycle, including the types and quantities of fertilizers to use and
when they should be administered (see Exhibit 5). This advice was provided in the form of a hard-copy
report to the subscribed farmer.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.
 Page 6 9B20M151

In addition, various timely reminders and follow-up suggestions were provided through interactive voice
response service (IVRS) and short messaging service (SMS) channels. Also, farmers could seek
personalized advice via telephone from BharatAgri call centre agents. The information provided through
these messages and calls was dynamic and depended upon the prevailing weather conditions and predictions
of precipitation, temperature, and other factors. These services helped BharatAgri in tracking and
monitoring the performance of its clients. In addition, if a farmer so requested, BharatAgri would arrange
field visits by agronomy experts (i.e., agricultural scientists). Field visits were expensive but were often
necessary to cater to a farmer’s specific needs. This helped BharatAgri understand complicated problems
being faced by its clients, based on which BharatAgri could develop appropriate solutions. These services
together resulted in a substantial reduction in input costs and increase in yields for the clients. Gole stated,

With accurate measurements of land under cultivation and optimized use of fertilizers and nutrient
additives, client farmers have perceived a reduction in input costs of up to 15 per cent. Following
our advisory and the season-long schedule we provide, many farmers reported about 40 per cent of
an increase in crop yield and the improvement of soil health. Also, the farm produce generated by
following our advice was generally free of chemical residues.

Initially, BharatAgri approached farmers with large farm holdings and tried to convince them to test
BharatAgri’s solutions on a part of their entire holding. BharatAgri also contacted farmers through various
NGOs and developmental organizations that worked with farmers. By mid-2019, BharatAgri had more than
5,000 farmers in its network, in the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Madhya
Pradesh. Of these, nearly 80 per cent were small and marginal farmers with holdings of less than 2 acres of
land; many of these were classified as farmers living below the poverty line. After providing free advisory
services initially to a few farmers, BharatAgri developed a pricing model. According to Gole,

Initially, we charged farmers for a season of advisory by the type of crop involved. For instance,
we charged ₹5,000 per season to farmers growing fruits and spices, ₹2,000 per season for grains
and pulses, and ₹3,000 for vegetables. The pricing was based on the number of activities involved
in the cultivation of a particular type of crop. However, we found it very difficult to implement this
pricing model.

To refine its pricing model, BharatAgri carried out market research in January 2019. The company realized
that farmers’ willingness to pay for advisory services was in the range of ₹500 to ₹1,000 per season per
acre of land under cultivation. Gole explained, “We listened to the market. We now charge farmers ₹800
per acre for a season of advisory when the crop had a cycle of less than 6 months. We charge ₹600 separately
for soil testing.”

Solutions for Enterprises

BharatAgri also targeted the business-to-business (B2B) segment and offered the BharatAgri Enterprise
app, which was a farmer tracking, farmer management, and data analytics software for companies and
organizations that engaged with multiple farmers.

The BharatAgri Enterprise system provided a dashboard that helped the client organizations get real-time
updates on farmer production cycles. B2B clients could customize the dashboard to suit their own
requirements. The dashboard provided a consolidated status of all farmers in terms of crop diversity,
productivity, and yield estimates in a specified geography. It provided companies with information about
requirements of fertilizers and micro-nutrients in various farms. Yield predictions and harvesting timelines

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.
 Page 7 9B20M151

were useful for logistics companies from a supply chain and warehouse management perspective. Food
processing companies were interested in microdata related to harvest timelines, by crop and geography, as
they could use such information to optimize their own supply chains and production schedules accordingly.
The digitization of land records and the area-wise monitoring of farms were useful in improving the
execution of other governmental schemes and in distributing various subsidies to farmers.

BharatAgri’s institutional clients included the agricultural departments of the state governments of
Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh; development organizations, such as the World Bank; fertilizer
manufacturers, such as Deepak Fertilisers and Petrochemicals Corporation Limited; banks, such as Yes
Bank Limited; manufacturers of agriculture tools and machinery; seed producers; pesticides manufacturers;
and charitable organizations, such as Rotary International and Tata Trusts. BharatAgri’s B2B enterprise
clients in turn encouraged their clients (i.e., farmers) to use BharatAgri’s advisory services.

CURRENT STATUS

BharatAgri had a team of 75 full-time employees. This included the technology team, responsible for the
development and ongoing refinement of the IT platform and the mobile app. BharatAgri employed 50 people
in sales and agronomy specialist roles. The agronomy specialists were well qualified and held master’s degrees
in agriculture science. They had 15 employees with graduate degrees in agricultural science working in a call
centre that handled incoming service calls and made proactive outward calls to farmers.

To improve its visibility among farmers, BharatAgri had tried various marketing campaigns. For instance,
it showed videos at marketing fairs in rural areas. Company banners were displayed on cars, and an audio
message in the form of a jingle was blared from loudspeakers mounted on these cars as they meandered
through the countryside. The company also printed pamphlets containing service information and made
cloth bags, stickers, and keychains displaying the company logo to be distributed to farmers in rural markets
and at political and social gatherings. BharatAgri coupons, each worth ₹80, were left with agricultural input
dealership shops in villages; these dealers were expected to inform farmers about BharatAgri’s advisory
services and hand out the coupons. If a farmer subscribed to BharatAgri’s services through a dealer, the
dealer would receive ₹50 against the coupon and the farmer would receive a discount of ₹30 on products
purchased at the dealership. Gole stated,

Earlier, we considered the dealers of agri-inputs as competitors. Farmers relied on their advice for
choosing what fertilizers, pesticides, etc. to purchase. Now we see them as partners. They know
that our advice is more data driven and scientific compared to the intuitive advice the dealers dished
out. We have managed to convince the dealers that as incomes of farmers rise, their purchase of
higher value items from the dealers would increase.

BharatAgri had also worked toward increasing its wider global visibility. Dialani stated,

We were fortunate to recently have an opportunity to meet with the famous economist and author
Thomas Friedman, who quoted our work in rather flattering terms in an article in The New York
Times. He used BharatAgri to illustrate that artificial intelligence and human intelligence coming
together could lead to making poor Indian farmers more successful.12

12
Thomas L. Friedman, “A.I. Still Needs H.I. (Human Intelligence), for Now,” New York Times, February 26, 2019, accessed
October 11, 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/opinion/artificial-intelligence.html.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.
 Page 8 9B20M151

BharatAgri also partnered with reputed institutions such as India Quotient Advisers LLP, the ICRISAT,
and the ICAR. In March 2019, BharatAgri conducted a seed round and raised ₹40 million as venture funding
from a group of investors including Better Capital LLP’s AngelList India Syndicate; Sachin Oswal,
cofounder of online commerce player Infibeam Avenues Limited; Ajay Prabhu, chief operating officer at
QuEST Global; and Hari Balasubramanian, an angel investor.13 According to Gole, “This investment will
be used for product development to make the farmer-centric product and service more impactful and user-
friendly. With the revamped product, we plan to expand to more farmers in existing locations.”

DECIDING THE ROAD AHEAD

By 2021, BharatAgri targeted to onboard 20,000 farmers to their platform. Dialani and Gole believed that
as the number of farmers subscribed increased, the technology platform would gain large-scale data about
actual farm-level practices and conditions. This micro-level and up-to-date data about farm conditions and
practices would be valuable to many enterprises, such as banks, agricultural produce processors, and
agricultural input manufacturers. Gole explained, “We had to find a way to monetize the gold mine that we
would be sitting on once we had about 20,000 farmers on our technology platform.”

Scaling up was critical to gaining a large volume of data that could be processed for generating useful
information to other stakeholders in the agricultural ecosystem. BharatAgri had tried different means to
grow—organically, by contacting individual farmers, and inorganically, by building alliances with
agribusiness companies. The former was a difficult and time-consuming process but effective in
understanding farmers and building a brand. The latter was faster, but it was difficult to know whether
farmers understood that BharatAgri was the driving force behind particular interventions; specifically, it
was also difficult to ascertain whether farmers would attribute the benefits arising from the BharatAgri app
to its owner or to the intermediating agribusiness company. Would it make sense to continue with both the
farmer app and the enterprise app?

CONCLUSION

In the two and a half years since they founded BharatAgri, Dialani and Gole had become used to facing a
plethora of challenges. However, they had overcome most of the initial challenges and now believed that
they had laid a solid foundation for their agritech venture.

Raising VC funding of ₹40 million had given them great confidence. However, Gole and Dialani had set
themselves an ambitious target of onboarding at least 20,000 farmers by 2021. They had promised the VC
team that they would soon begin to generate revenues from subscriptions as well as by selling data to other
stakeholders. They realized that they had to work quickly to build a business model that would result in
sustainable revenue growth and profitability. After all, at their next meeting, in two weeks’ time, they were
expected to present a comprehensive and cogent strategic plan to the VC team.

Atul Arun Pathak is an associate professor in the area of strategy and entrepreneurship
at the Indian Institute of Management Nagpur, India. Aashish Argade is an assistant
professor in the area of marketing at the Institute of Rural Management Anand, India.

13
S. Mahadevan, “Agri-Tech Startup LeanAgri Raises Seed Funding from India Quotient, Others,” The News Minute, March
8, 2019, accessed October 11, 2019, www.thenewsminute.com/article/agri-tech-startup-leanagri-raises-seed-funding-india-
quotient-others-97949.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.
 Page 9 9B20M151

EXHIBIT 1: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN INDIA THROUGH THE DECADES

Area (million Production Yield (kilograms % Area under
Year hectares) (million tonnes) per hectare) irrigation
2011–12 124.75 259.29 2078 49.80
2012–13 120.78 257.13 2129 51.20
2013–14 125.04 265.04 2120 51.90
2014–15 124.30 252.03 2028 53.05
2015–16 123.22 251.40 2041 -
2016–17 129.23 275.11 2129 -
2017–18 127.56 284.83 2233 -
Source: Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation, and
Farmers Welfare, and Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2018, January 31, 2019, 72,
accessed June 18, 2020, http://agricoop.gov.in/sites/default/files/agristatglance2018.pdf.

EXHIBIT 2: PRODUCITIVITY OF VARIOUS CROPS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (2016)

Crop Country Yield (kilograms per hectare)
India 3790
China 6866
Indonesia 5236
Paddy Bangladesh 4586
Myanmar 3818
Philippines 3869
World average 4577
India 3034
China 5396
United States of America 3541
Wheat
France 5304
Pakistan 2799
World average 3401
India 2616
United States of America 10960
China 5967
Maize
Indonesia 5306
Brazil 4288
World average 5632
India 588
Canada 2011
United States of America 2034
Pulses Myanmar 1732
Australia 1197
Nigeria 836
World average 958
India 70394
Brazil 75180
United States of America 80033
Sugarcane
China 73620
Pakistan 57879
World average 70134
Source: Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation, and
Farmers Welfare, and Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2018, 218, January 31, 2019,
218, accessed June 18, 2020, http://agricoop.gov.in/sites/default/files/agristatglance2018.pdf.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.
 Page 10 9B20M151

EXHIBIT 3: SOIL REPORT BY BHARATAGRI (SAMPLE REPORT)

Name Dhananjay Shinde Contact Number +91-97XXX12XXX

Address Limb, Satara, Maharashtra Crop Turmeric
Farm ID 5690 Plan ID 5404
Sample Date April 05, 2019 Test Date April 12, 2019

Soil parameters
pH Electrical Organic carbon Calcium
conductivity (OC) carbonate
(CaCO3)
Permissible 6.5–7.5 < 0.7 mmhos/cm 0.4–0.6% 0.1–2.0%
Actual 7.85 0.34 mmhos/cm 0.41% 4.0%
Remarks Slightly alkaline Permissible Medium low Slightly calcareous

Major nutrients
Nitrogen (N) Phosphorous (P) Potassium (K)
Permissible 280–420 kg/Ha 14.0–20.0 kg/Ha 150.0–200.0 kg/Ha
Actual 278.4 kg/Ha 159.7 kg/Ha 784.0 kg/Ha
Remarks Low Very high Very high

Secondary nutrients
Sulphur (S) Calcium (Ca) Magnesium (Mg)
Permissible 10.0–20.0 ppm > 300.0 ppm > 122.0 ppm
Actual 37.0 ppm 380 ppm 125.0
Remarks High Permissible Permissible

Micro-nutrients
Iron (Fe) Manganese (Mn) Zinc (Zn) Copper (Cu)
Permissible 2.5–4.5 ppm 1.0–2.5 ppm 0.5–1.2 ppm 0.5–0.6 ppm
Actual 7.08 ppm 22.54 ppm 1.44 ppm 0.53 ppm
Remarks High Very High High Permissible

Note: ID = identification; kg/Ha = kilograms per hectare; mmhos/cm = millimhos per centimetre; ppm = parts per million.
Source: Company documents.

EXHIBIT 4: CUSTOMIZED FARM ACTIVITIES SCHEDULE (SAMPLE REPORT)

May 19, 2019: Five days before sowing

Pest name: White grub Pest description: Plants wither; patchy crop growth; plants turn
pale; leaves and branches drop down
Fertilizer Quantity Unit Instructions:
Manure 5.5 Tons Mix all and spread over soil.
Gypsum (solid) 120 Kilograms
Composting bacteria 1.8 Kilograms

Similar customized reports are provided for actions to be taken at various points in the crop cycle (e.g., 1
day before sowing, at sowing, 10 days after sowing, 30 days after sowing, and so on until the end of the
crop cycle).
Source: Company documents.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.
 Page 11 9B20M151

EXHIBIT 5: TOTAL FERTILIZERS TO PURCHASE (SAMPLE REPORT)

Fertilizer Quantity Purpose Approx. Product

Price
Manure 5.5 tons Increases organic carbon in the soil N/A N/A
Composting 1.8 kilograms Makes manure available to plants ₹600 Speed Kompost
bacteria
Sulphur 16 kilograms Improves the efficiency of other ₹680 N/A
essential plant nutrients, particularly
nitrogen and phosphorus
Calcium–boron 92 grams Used as a foliar spray after fruit set; ₹100 Calbor
improves fruit size and color
Nitrogen-fixing 90 millilitres Provides nitrogen from the ₹281 Bioplin
bacteria atmosphere; must be added along with
(liquid) urea, 10:26:26, etc.
Dimethoate 69 litres Insecticide used in the management of ₹35,280 Tafgor
30.0% sucking pests and fruit borers
emulsifiable
concentrate

Source: Company documents.

This document is authorized for use only in Dr. Nisha Bharti's Dr. Nisha Bharti-2nd Sem 23-25 AB at Symbiosis Institute of International Business from Nov 2023 to May 2024.