i

Table of ContentsPreface3Abstract3Summary3Introduction3Agriculture - what it means for India3Decreasing contribution of Agriculture in GDP4The implications the dark side of India4The proposed solution5The Framework5Literature Review5Agriculture as stimulant of growth5Emphasis on capital and technology5Shrinking size of farm decreasing marginal productivity6The converse theory7Analytical Review - Agriculture Reform in China7Collectivisation in China8The problems in collectivism9The solution/ the tradeoff9HRS model a good fit with some gaps11Proposed agri-business model Lifes Fresh11Coalition with farmers the hypothesis behind percentage based commission11The Functional Model12The lowest level of collaboration M&A Centers12The hub Regional Agriculture Distribution Unit14The bigger picture The business verticals14Agricultural Development Division14Operations15Marketing15Business model16Core Strategy16Strategic Resources17Customer Interfaces17Partnerships (Value Networks)18Industry analysis18Porters 5 Forces Model18Summary20Implenation20Background20The Grass Root Level21recommendations24Epilogue the beginning25PrefaceAbstractIn the last decade India has emerged with a strong economic growth, coupled with an ever increasing population and strengthening food demand, the countrys dependence on its largest economic sector, agriculture, has now become more prominent than ever. In-spite of being the major contributor of GDP (around 17%) and major employer of Indian workforce (nearly 60%) there has been a steady decline in its GDP contribution. Investment in Indian agriculture and agri-business has remained sluggish, and growth in farm output has slowed, since the early 1990s.

Now with policy environment becoming more investor friendly (since the late 1990s) and demand for domestic agri-products on the rise the environment seems to be right to reform the countrys agricultural model. SummaryAlthough rising incomes are contributing to expanding and diversifying food demand, investment in Indian agriculture has remained low relative to other sectors and grown slowly since the early 1990s. Even though India has one of the worlds largest agricultural economies, Indian agribusiness is characterized by a multitude of small-scale, nonintegrated processing and marketing firms that use mostly outdated technology and are uncompetitive in global markets[footnoteRef:1]. In order to resolve these issues, this paper analyzes and proposes land consolidation and reformation. Agriculture, traditionally part of subsistence based economy would be transformed into agri-business model; a market based economy[footnoteRef:2] where a consolidated administrative ownership of public land is combined with private ownership of capital. [1: Landes, Maurice The environment for agricultural and agribusiness investment in India.(Economic information bulletin ; no. 37) ] [2: Ling Zhu, Rural reform and peasant income in China (institute of Economics, Beijing China)]

IntroductionAgriculture - what it means for India

Agriculture has been a key sector in most developing countries, however for India it has traditionally been a source of self reliance, social stature and economic independence. In todays world, though India is a prominent member in the list of industrialized countries, India is still by far and by large still an agriculture industry. Agriculture accounts for about 21 percent of economic output (2003/04-2005/06 average; Reserve Bank of India, 2007) and is the primary source of employment and income for about 58 percent the population (Government of India, Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, 2005)1, including a large share of Indians living below the poverty line.

Decreasing contribution of Agriculture in GDP

With a population of about 1.14 Billion people and a growth rate of 1.578% India adds every year over 18 million mouths to be fed and bodies to be clothed from Indian agriculture industry; an industry whose investment as percentage of total investment in the rest of economy had lagged since 1980s and output growth has slowed since 1990s and implementation of reforms have proven difficult[footnoteRef:3]. While the contribution of both the services and industries sector in Indias GDP is steadily increasing (Figure 1) there has been steady decline in the growth rate of agricultural sector in India and in the percentage contribution by agricultural industry in the Total GDP. Agricultural industry contributed around 26.3% in 1999-00 which went down to 22.5 in 2002-03 and plummeted further to 18.3 and 17.4% in 2005-06 and in 2006-07. [3: Growth rates between 3-year averages centered on years indicated. Sources: Government of India, Ministry of Program Planning and Implementation, Central Statistical Organization; Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Economic Survey]

The implications the dark side of India

While conclusively, there has been a lack of growth of agri-sector of India the country is simultaneously adding more demands and more work hands due to its constantly ramping population. The relationship dynamics between the demand and supply coupled with inability to tap on available resources like manpower and advanced agricultural related technology has constantly widened the gap between the potential of agriculture industry and its actual contribution.

The decreased agricultural productivity coupled with the increase in demand (due to increase in population) has also set the vicious chain of rising inflation which further decreases the affordability of food products by Indias poor class. This dark fact has now places India as the country with highest rate of malnutrition among children under the age of three (46% in year 2007) than any other country in the world.[footnoteRef:4] [4: "Inclusive Growth and Service delivery: Building on Indias Success"" Development Policy Review.World Bank. 2006. ]

The presence of stark poverty is borne out by the fact that 1/4 of the nation's population earns less than the government-specified poverty threshold of $0.40/day. Official figures estimate that 27.5%[footnoteRef:5] of Indians lived below the national poverty line in 2004-2005. The poverty and lack of employment has led to the social-economic downfall of the society which inadvertently shakes the foundation of socio-cultural framework in which a society must operate. This in turn is largely due to the political, administrative and bureaucratic dishonesty and corruption which is so prevalent in Indian society that it is no longer considered as an evil but a norm. [5: Planning commission of India. Poverty estimates for 2004-2005]

The proposed solution

Hence, in order to resolve these socio-economic issues there is a need to develop a sophisticated operational model on the backdrop of current socio-cultural challenges which would not only contribute towards overall productivity of agriculture but would go beyond in improving lives of rural India while increasing affordability of yields, feeding more Indians and generating more profits.

The Framework

With the given constraints and challenges related to the current agri-business environment of India, I would first try to devise a theoretical foundation of the socio-economic growth model of agricultural industry. The model would be driven by selected determinants of growth, determined by doing comparative analytical review of different agri-business models adopted in history. The proposed model would be defined so as to optimally leverage current resources through land reformation while aiding it with the technological and infrastructure support. An attempt would also be made to back up the theoretical model by an behavioral model focusing on its structural and operational characteristics.Literature ReviewAgriculture as stimulant of growth The current parallelism drawn between the rapidly evolving foreign exports of IT and the agricultural sector of India as to which is more important in long term, can actually find its root in early theoretical literature dated as far back as eighteenth century in the writings of the Physiocrats of France. At the time when foreign trade and commerce was/were considered to be the key ingredients of economic growth, the theory proposed that only agriculture produced an economic surplus or net product over costs of production, other non agricultural sectors (which in todays age would comprise of various service and other non agricultural related industries in India). These non agricultural sectors were considered sterile in the sense they did not produce any economic surplus. This also points that the growth of non-agricultural sectors was limited by the growth of agriculture sector, which in it turn flourished most in a system of free competition.[footnoteRef:6] [6: Mercantilist and Physiocratic Growth Theory By Joseph J. Spengler and Theories of Economic Growth,by Bert F. Hoselitz 1960]

Emphasis on capital and technology

Francois Quesney who was the leader and key figure in Physiocratic school made an important remark by stating that the size of economic surplus was determined primarily by the technique of farming or the capital industry of agriculture. Further in his two encyclopedia articles entitled Fermiers (1756) and Grains (1757), Quesney distinguished between three techniques of production: the cultivation of land with manual labor only, the cultivation with ox drawn ploughs (la petite culture) and the cultivation with horse-drawn ploughs (la grande culture).

The three techniques of productions dont necessarily map to the actual means of agriculture production but can be considered as level of sophistication in agriculture industry with horse-drawn ploughs to be highly capital intensive and technologically advanced and manual labor intensive industry to be most rudimentary.

The underline emphasis was on the importance of agriculture technique of production. With no agricultural capital, grain (high profit yielding crops) farming became difficult and the poor farmer who only relies on his labor on the small piece of land produce yields of little value such as potatoes, buckwheat and primarily became a subsistence based farmer. In this context it is remarkable to know that the majority of farmers in India fall in this category. While the number of farms in India increased from 48 million in 1960 to 105 million in 1990, the average farm size shrank from 2.7 hectares to less than 1.6 hectares, a reduction of some 42 percent. The continuously shrinking size of farms and capital deprived farming if continued is expected to lead to shrinking returns on marginal addition of manual labor. It is assumed that by 2020, the land will pass to another generation and another round of fragmentation will occur, shrinking farm size even more.

As can be seen from Table 1, though the number of landless households remained constant at about 14 million in last five decades, the share of rural households that was landless declined significantly over time from 23% in mid 1950 to 11% in mid 90s. On the other hand the number of landed households (owning greater than 0.01 acres) increased dramatically (from 48.8 million in 1953-54 to 103.3 million in 1993-94). Shrinking size of farm decreasing marginal productivityThis clearly illustrates that number of households who currently have small amount of land has rapidly increased and out of the landed households majority owns 5 acres or less with majority (around 60%) holding less than 1 acre of land. This decline in the large size of farms indicates that the majority of growth in number of small farms can be attributed to sub-division of large farms typically happens when the land is passed on from one generation to another. This continuous rise in the size of small farms if left unchecked would only augment the subsistence based farming with decreasing value of returns.

The shrinking size of the farm would continue to decrease the marginal benefit derived from per unit area of land, this would push farmers more into subsistence based farming, shrinking the capital investment even further and threatening the ability of those living on the land to earn a livelihood. On the contrary agriculture production tends to increase rapidly with the introduction of capital.

Hypothetically assuming that in this subsistence based farming more capital is induced (transforming it from labor alone cultivation to ox-drawn plough in Quesneys model) then with little capital per acre ox-drawn plough technique, agriculture would begin to yield a surplus; this is measured to be between 30-40 percent with return on total capital of about 12 percent. Quesney highlighted that with more induction of capital in the agriculture eco-system, a switch from the ox drawn plough technique to a more capital intensive horse drawn plough technique, return on investment could rise dramatically to 100 percent.

The converse theory

After emphasizing on the need of land consolidation to yield higher returns I would like to portray an often debatable but well recognized theory illustrating the inverse relation between Farm size and productivity. We would review this theory on different scales of capital inputs. one of the stated reasoning for this inverse relation is that by using family labor small farms face lower transaction costs then larger farms[footnoteRef:7]. Consequently, if total labor and land acts as variable to derive the yield per hectare (as shown in Eq 1) then [7: Raghbendra et al., 2000, Berry and Cline 1979 , Bhalla 1979]

[Total Labor/ Total Land] Higher yield per hectare, for the small farm sizes.

It is important to know that the relationship diminishes or is even reversed as agriculture becomes more capital intensive. One clear example of this is the green revolution in India (between 1967-1978) when the large scale expansion of farming area was coupled with information (in term of double cropping of existing land) and scientific resources (seeds with improved genetics). Here, both information and scientific resources can be considered as a direct by-product of capital investment. The green revolution established India as one of the world's biggest agricultural producers and yield per unit of farmland improved by more than 30 per cent between 1947[footnoteRef:8] (when India gained political independence) and 1979 when the Green Revolution was considered to have delivered its goods. [8: "Library of Congress Country Studies".U.S. Library of Congres]

This proves that high areas land cultivation approach when adequately aided by capital and technology can yield significantly higher returns. Analytical Review - Agriculture Reform in China

In order to better understand the framework co-relating total area of farm size with productivity and to see the practical implications of such reforms we will take a deeper dive in the agricultural reforms in China which started in 1949. This would be an attempt to devise an optimized model with highest probability of success in an environment quite close to India.

China quite like India had a large population coupled with large amount of land area. After communists came to power in 1949, the war tom agrarian economy was again re-instated on the path of growth, as significant higher production was recorded during the period of rehabilitation (1949-1952). The policies introduced during this time included land reform and stabilization of domestic prices.

Heavy industries was sought as the ultimate realm by Chinese government during this time and was considered as the mechanism of rapidly transforming economy into developed economy. In order to provide a contusive environment to the industrialization by implementing and stabilizing agricultural prices the government introduced the first large scale Unified agricultural Purchasing and Marketing system (UPMS). In this model the government nearly abolished the free markets and monopolized the purchase and marketing of agricultural products.

But, since household were the basic units of agricultural production, their objective was to maximize total income not to fulfill state plans. Theoretically, in absence of free markets the farmer could also choose to consume more leisure specially if the prices were too low. The strategy definitely posed the challenge of sincere efficiency and performance evaluation. The government however went ahead with collectivisation.

Collectivisation in China

Collectivisation in China went through four stages mutual aid team, elementary and advanced production co-operatives and communes. The most popular form mutual-aid team comprised of four or five neighboring households pooling their labor, farm tools and draught animals on a temporary or a permanent basis. This overcame the disadvantages of the small scale farming and provided significant labor productivity gains. It was reported that per capita income in terms of grain was 10-30 percent higher for members of mutual aid teams.[footnoteRef:9] It was aided with Rural Supply and Marketing Co-operatives (RSMCs) and Rural Credit Co-operatives(RCCs). [9: Forty years of Chinas countryside, Guo, Shutian, Beijin: Central China Farmers press]

The rapid growth of these mutual aid team in 1953-54 transformed into elementary co-operatives by 1955. In these, while retaining private ownership, peasants pooled their land for common use and management. Animals and large farm implements remained under private ownership but were used jointly by co-operative members. Income from the co-operative was then distributed according to work and investment in form of land, animals and farm implements. In 1956-57 advanced co-operative began to predominate as a form of collectivization. In an advanced co-operative land, animals and farm implements became publicly owned and compensation was paid to farmers. By 1958 these agricultural co-operative became communes.

Communes the consolidationA commune was organized with three levels: commune, brigade and production team. The production team consisted of about thirty households and served as the smallest level of entity in terms of production and management. Land and other production means were pooled and all production activities were determined by the team leader and carried out by collective labor[footnoteRef:10] on daily basis. In terms of compensation some necessities such as grain and crop residues, were allocated on a per capita basis regardless of working effort throughout the year. The rest of income was distributed according to an individuals accumulation of working points and the value for each working point. Working points were calculated on the basis of skill and effort. It is important to underline that the objective of such collectivization was to modernize backward, small scale individual agricultural units. Development and management of plans became much easier when farm households were organized into production teams and communes. [10: Agricultural reform in China- getting institutions right. Yiping Huang; Cambridge University Press 1998]

The problems in collectivismInspite of the strong fundamental objective and strategy the model lacked the self perpetuating competitive evolution and faced serious problems (Chinn 1980; Perkins and Yusuf 1984; Putterman 1987,1990; Lin 1988). A major problem with the commune system, according to Lin (1988) and others (Such as Putterman 1987), lay in the tradeoff between the benefit of scale economies and the costs of monitoring. The benefits from collectivization in other sectors such as industry are usually large because monitoring can be carried out relatively easily and cheaply. Each members income can be measured accurately and a fair distribution of income is possible[footnoteRef:11]10. [11: ]

Another problem faced by agriculture industries is that its sites are often scattered and the results of efforts by individuals cannot be made accurately which leads to a difficult and inefficient compensation system. Such a system acts as destructive reasoning leading to universal laziness [the word was coined by Chinn (1980)] in absence of cost intensive heavy monitoring.

The solution/ the tradeoff

Clearly collectivization in its most natural form, as adopted by China, poses its own set of challenges which can adversely impact the overall productivity in term of decreased motivation. But, at the same time unique benefits offered by collectivization in terms of capital and technological aid at an affordable cost are hard to ignore.

In order to strike a perfect balance between collectivization and individualistic approach towards agriculture a hybrid theory seems to be the best fit. Under this new system, Household Responsibility System (HRS), the responsibility for production systems was delegated back to farmers in an attempt to resolve various managerial problems including monitoring individuals work and awarding fair compensation. Under this new system called Contracting of production down to the household the cooperative divides its total land area into plots and assigned the plots to households. Though the farm work was still carried out by collective labor the household would monitor the quality of work done. The household would also work on the plot and the output of the plot was directly related to the responsible households income at the end of the year.

This originated the concept of output responsibility system[footnoteRef:12] which put responsibility of monitoring quality on household basis. With this system everybody on the team rather then just the team leader had responsibility for monitoring quality of work and achieving yield improvement. At a macro level the two modes of collectivization (Commnune system and HRS) can be depicted as below:: [12: Agricultural reform in China- getting institutions right. Yiping Huang; Cambridge University Press 1998 Chapter 3: Getting farmers back to work]

The core difference between the two models relate to incentives. On the one hand Commune system faces low incentives because of egalitarian component of production system, ensuring team member are awarded certain necessities even if they dont work. The HRS system enforces deep commitment from individual households because the total income at the end of year was directly tied to the individual output of the respective farm. This made the HRS system inherently more sincere where the large scale complex monitoring of work (as seen in commune system) is promptly replaced by more diligent self initiated monitoring by respective households.

HRS model a good fit with some gaps

Considering the socio-economic environment of India the HRS model now seemingly evolves as a close match to theoretical platform of agricultural reformation in India. Juxtaposing this model in India along with capital inducement would enable farmers to leverage economies of scale. The model while helping small farmers (around 60% of farmers own less than 1 acre of land) get additional work, from owners of bigger farm lands, would also help them use technology and information previously not affordable to them.

However, due to socio neo-classical differences originating from the caste system and absence of strict diligent governing body some of the distribution variables including land distribution and collective labor would have to be modified before they can be applied in India context. In the next section we would dive deep into the proposed model in the context of India while illustrating the changes at theoretical and structural level of the operations.Proposed agri-business model Lifes FreshThough HRS model offers advantages like mutually dependent relation between household and workers which results in increase throughput and lower monitoring costs the model can not be applied as-is in India context. Firstly, since the Indian government is a Democratic government theortically to create and distribute a pool of land would be impossible. Secondly, due to various layers of financial and cultural segregations (in terms of caste, community and religion) the pool of collective labor even if crated wouldnt be utilized optimally. The elite caste people would be apprehensive in working for people from different financial, societal background or vice versa. Therefore, the land instead of being a collective resource would remain as independently (household) owned asset. However, these land owners would have a choice of creating a coalition partnership with LF where LF would provide various strategic resources (Explained below) to these owners in return of the percentage commission of the total aggregate sales from that unit area.

Coalition with farmers the hypothesis behind percentage based commissionIn order to convince farmers that the coalition is beneficial to farmers the commission calculation process would be a three tiered process. Each Tier would be mapped to the percentage of the on-average yield from that area of land (negotiated between LF and the land owner).

For eg. considering for farmer F A = Total area of land owned by F

R = Total revenue/ Year where, R C [Rmin., Rmax] Here Rmin. and Rmax corresponds to the minimum and maximum Revenue generated as a result of most unfavorable and most favorable conditions. This revenue could have been generated through any combination of crops and seasons but the baseline denomination of Tiered contract would remain the Total Revenue R.

This range of R would be mapped to Potential Revenue(P) calculated by LF strategic and operational analysts considering the current state of farmer and the contribution which can be made by LF by offering its distinctive competitive advantage as strategic resources to F. Once the margin of improvement [Pavg.-Ravg.] has been identified the distribution of commission would be established For eg. if L is the revenue generated from the same unit of land of Farmer F after coalition with LF, then (figures below are just a sample and in practice would be derived as a f( P-R) a.) If L < R, all the sales would go to farmer and LF would give R-L amount back to farmer to ensure the coalition would in any case be not a loss yielding move for farmer. b.) If L = R, all the sales would go to farmer. c.) If L > R, theni. For L>R and L 1.2 R and L 1.5 R and L< 1.8R, farmer would get 20% as commission and the remaining 80% would go to LF.iv. For anything above L> 1.8 R, farmer would get 5% as commission and the remaining 95% would go to LF.

The revenue distribution function is designed to award LF in progressively increasing manner as L increase more and more. This is logical because

DIFFERENCE(L-R) Contribution of LF To illustrate for a farmer who was able to produce R(=100), if after going into coalition if he is able to produce 110 then the probability of the cause of this increase as higher contribution by farmer or as added value offered by LF can be 50-50. However, as the revenue after coalition keeps increasing more and more, the marginal contribution of the farmer would keep decreasing while the marginal contribution of LF strategic resources would increase more and more and hence the distribution of commission is as indicated above.The Functional Model

The lowest level of collaboration M&A Centers

In order to penetrate deep in the rural pockets and to work closely with farmers in an optimized manner LF would establish an onsite M&A (Management and Assistance) center. These M&A centers would be the lowest level at which LF would integrate and collaborate with farmers. M&A centers would be responsible to provide services including,1. Agricultural knowledge: This would include advice and knowledge regarding type of seeds to use in the specific environment; The fertilizers to use specific to the type of crop and soil. 2. Equipments: Efficient and optimized allocation of heavy machineries on a temporary basis for farming, irrigation.3. Supervision and assistance on best agriculture practices.4. These M&A would also act as the intermediaries in LF supply chain model.

Figure 1: LF Organization design and Functional overview

The hub Regional Agriculture Distribution Unit

In order to provide scale and scope flexibility to LF(s) operating model from the production and distribution stand-point, every geographical zone would be distributed amongst Regional Agriculture Distribution (RADs) Unit. One RAD would be tied to many M&A. Mapping between RAD and M&A (1:n) would be driven by the physical conditions associated with specific M&A(s) for eg. n number of M&A within a geographical unit offering similar agriculture environments (soil, weather, water table etc) would be mapped to one RAD. However, different M&A(s), may be within close geographical proximity, if differ significantly in term of climate, soil etc. would be mapped to different RAD(s). Hence, an RAD would be symbolic to geographical and environmental uniqueness amongst many M&A(s).

Every RAD would have its team of agricultural engineers expert in analyzing and formulating strategies to yield maximum throughput for the given environment. Every RAD would have its team of statistical engineers who would work with agricultural engineers and operational analysts to devise Progressive Distribution based Commission System (PDCS). Depending on the PDCS formulated for every region the coalition terms and conditions would be negotiated with farmers. Every RAD would have a team of marketing associates responsible to outreach to farmers and to encourage them to establish a coalition with LF.

It is remarkable to know that in the preliminary stages when only few farmers are part of coalition network, RAD would work directly with farmers to optimize costs. However, as more and more farmers joins the coalition network RAD would establish on-site M&A centers. Also, RAD(s) would have certain degree of autonomy and would be responsible for creating its long terms plans and implementation strategies to maximize its yield and return on Investment. RAD(s) would also be involved in creating collaborations with other government and nongovernmental stakeholders and NGO(s) to establish value partnerships and create goodwill relations on political and societal front. This is remarkably important in a country like India where it is very important to establish grass-root level goodwill relations by reflecting genuine commitment towards society as a whole.

The bigger picture The business verticalsAgricultural Development Division

In bigger picture these RAD(s) are a part of Business Unit vertical called Agricultural Development. The units primary responsibility is to spear head the coalition efforts of LF and farmers. The unit would also facilitate the Research & Developments for the latest advancements in the field of agriculture. Being central to LF operational model this R&D would act as the core competency of LF acting as strategic asset and providing competitive advantage over its counter parts. The R&D would work directly with vendors of Heavy industries, to collaborate and develop machineries and equipments specific to the respective environment. The specific customizations which earlier was unaffordable for farmers and un feasible for vendors would now be made available to farmers through LF coalitions.

The other division of this unit would be Equipments units which would be responsible for buying, procurement and allocation of equipments including but not limited to the fields of sowing, cultivation, harvesting and irrigation. While the two units R&D and Equipments would work at the central HQ(s) the RAD(s) would be established for each Regional Unit. The collaboration of these RAD(s) deeply with M&A units and farmers would be the key to develop successful partnerships which eventually would be the key to Prod2Sale lifecycle.

Operations

A key component in achieving cost efficiency is attributed to efficient Supply Chain model. Specially in the area of agriculture produce it is estimated that more then 25% of produce is lost on an average due to slippage on account of unavailable markets/ distribution channels. The problem is aggravated during favorable weather conditions when the excess produce is either sold at a minimal price because of limited demand and excess supply or is lost forever due to the limited local outreach of these .

The problem around logistics remains more pertinent in Developing countries like India where absence of good roads and connectivity still creates a big gap between urban and rural communities. In order to circumvent the issue and LF would establish its own partnership network in areas where current logistics can be leveraged by stream-lining the process. In areas where minimal infrastructure logistical exist LF would strive to establish its own supply chain system (if financially viable) in terms of its regional distribution centers.

The supply chain system would be highly advanced and would be designed to project the supply demand forecast and would accordingly distribute resources to efficiently meet the demands.

Marketing

Marketing would act as the third vertical of LF. It has been estimated that by facilitating the exposure of right markets the agriculture yield can generate revenues in excess of 150%. This is primarily on account of traditionally observed sudden spike of demand (due to less than expected yield accounted by severe weather conditions) or sudden spike of supply (due to extremely conducive weather conditions) either of these conditions create a mismatch between demand and supply and hence creates an opportunity to be exploited by distributing yields across regions to bridge the gap between excessive supply and excessive demand.

Since the agri-trade depends on host of external and internal variables including Political (subsidies, tax regulations etc), social, legal, economical(Forex rates) in order to identify potential buyers and to forecast demand marketing team would comprise of a team of economical and political analysts from various fields who would be responsible for selling the yield in a world market in most optimal manner, aimed to maximize revenue on the current yield.Business modelIn order to theoretically reinforce the operational model of LF explainer above, the following section would illustrate the Business model of LF. The business model would be explained in terms of i.) Core Strategy ii.) Strategic Resources, iii.) Customer Interfaces and iv.) Value Networks.

Figure: Business ModelCore StrategyVision: To be a leading global producer and supplier of agricultural products by establishing mutually value added relationships with our partners with farmers, distributors and retailers.

Mission: To provide key values to our partners to farmers by helping them maximize production at minimum cost, to customers by delivering highest quality product - by leveraging technology, capital and knowledge together.

Scope : For Farmers - Focused narrow approach, primarily targeted towards small farmers (sub-marginal farmers owning