the gas trappers high yield, low costweb.stanford.edu/~cbauburn/basecamp/dschool/homep… · ·...

Last Modified: March 25, 2005

The Gas Trappers

High Yield, Low Cost

Implementation Plan and Recommendations

Entrepreneurial Design to Eliminate Poverty

Graduate School of Business Graduate School of Engineering

Stanford University

David Hale Ryan Jacoby Julie Martin Carla Pienknagura

Entrepreneurial Design to Eliminate Poverty March 2005

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION ......................................................1 1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT..................................................................................................1 1.2 AN OVERVIEW OF OUR CUSTOMERS..............................................................................1 1.3 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................3 1.4 THE CROPSHIELD .........................................................................................................5

2 THE GAS TRAPPERS - ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE .................................6 2.1 ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE .........................................................................................6 2.2 KEY ROLES WITHIN THE PROGRAM................................................................................6

3 THE PRODUCT - CROPSHIELD ...................................................................................6 3.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE CROPSHIELD................................................................................6 3.2 OVERVIEW OF THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE ................................................................10 3.3 SUPPLY CHAIN OVERVIEW..........................................................................................13

4 DESIGN STATUS AND STEPS TO ENTER MARKET ..............................................13 4.1 PRODUCT TESTING AND DESIGN REFINEMENT.............................................................14 4.2 PILOT PROJECT / STARTUP IMPLEMENTATION..............................................................17

5 THE MARKET OPPORTUNITY � CHARACTERISTICS AND STRATEGIES ......19 5.1 EXISTING ALTERNATIVES AND COMPETITION ..............................................................19 5.2 THE TARGET REGION � MAHARASHTRA......................................................................20 5.3 THE CUSTOMER..........................................................................................................21 5.4 OVERALL MARKETING STRATEGY ..............................................................................22

6 PRODUCT PRICING .....................................................................................................23 6.1 CUSTOMER ABILITY TO PAY .......................................................................................23 6.2 COST OF PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION ..................................................................24 6.3 MARKET PRICE OF THE CROPSHIELD...........................................................................25

7 THE ECONOMICS OF THE BUSINESS......................................................................25 7.1 BUSINESS MODEL.......................................................................................................26 7.2 PROJECTED PRODUCT LINE REVENUES........................................................................26 7.3 PROJECTED PRODUCT LINE EXPENSES.........................................................................27 7.4 INTEGRATED PROFIT AND LOSS STATEMENT (P&L).....................................................28 7.5 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ...........................................................................................29

8 INVESTMENT POTENTIAL / SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT....................30 8.1 KEY ASSUMPTIONS AND LEARNING PLAN ...................................................................30 8.2 CRITICAL RISK AREAS ................................................................................................32 8.3 SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT................................................................................32 8.4 THE CROPSHIELD AND IDE.........................................................................................33

9 APPENDIX A: PRODUCT PRICING MODELS..........................................................34 10 APPENDIX B: FIXED SALARY ESTIMATES ........................................................40


ii

11 APPENDIX C: FIXED MARKETING COST ESTIMATES....................................40 12 APPENDIX D: FIXED FACILITIES COST ESTIMATES ......................................41

13 APPENDIX E: SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT...........................................42 14 APPENDIX F: DESIGN TIMELINE .........................................................................43

15 APPENDIX G: CREATIVE PROCESS.....................................................................43 15.1 ROLE DEFINITION AND INITIAL CONCEPTS ....................................................................43 15.2 BRAINSTORMING ........................................................................................................44 15.3 12 TOP CONCEPTS .......................................................................................................44 15.4 FIRST GREENHOUSE PROTOTYPES ................................................................................51 15.5 SPECIFIC COMPONENT AND FEATURE IDEAS .................................................................52 15.6 GREENHOUSE PROTOTYPES, ROUND 2..........................................................................55

FIGURES

FIGURE 1. COMPOSITE CHARACTERS .........................................................................................2 FIGURE 2. OVERVIEW OF THE CROPSHIELD................................................................................5 FIGURE 3. OPEN TOP CHAMBER MADE OF BAMBOO POLES AND PLASTIC PANELS WHERE MUD

(CIRCLED) CREATES SEAL BETWEEN PANELS AND GROUND. ........................................8 FIGURE 4. POLE INSTALLATION INTO DEEP HOLE ........................................................................8 FIGURE 5. STAKE AND LINES PROVIDE STRUCTURE TO CHAMBER ................................................9 FIGURE 6. LINE HOLDING PANELS IN A CURTAIN-LIKE CONFIGURATION; CLAMP SECURING PANEL

ONTO POLES..............................................................................................................9 FIGURE 7. ACCESS TO CROP IS GAINED BY LOOSENING THE CLAMPS ON THE END OF ONE OF THE

PANELS...................................................................................................................10 FIGURE 8. CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE MAP ..................................................................................10 FIGURE 9. PANELS THREADED THROUGH HOLES IN BAMBOO.....................................................11 FIGURE 10. MUD CREATES SEAL BETWEEN PANEL AND FLOOR................................................12 FIGURE 11. STEPS TO ENTER MARKET ....................................................................................14 FIGURE 12. SUMMARY OF FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE NEXT STEPS ...............................16 FIGURE 13. PROPOSED PILOT STUDY LOCATIONS...................................................................18 FIGURE 14. LOCATION OF MAHARASHTRA IN INDIA ...............................................................20 FIGURE 15. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION OF MAHARASHTRA BY GEOGRAPHY .........................21 FIGURE 16. MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION COSTS ......................................................24

TABLES

TABLE 1. COMPONENT SUMMARY..........................................................................................10 TABLE 2. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN FOR PRODUCT TESTING......................................................15 TABLE 3. NUMBER OF POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS � TARGET MARKET........................................22 TABLE 4. ANNUAL INCREMENTAL INCREASE IN SMALL FARMER REVENUES............................23 TABLE 5. COST OF MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION � 10M X 10M, 2 METERS IN HEIGHT..24 TABLE 6. CROPSHIELD SALES PLAN.......................................................................................26


iii

TABLE 7. CROPSHIELD 5-YEAR REVENUE FORECAST..............................................................27 TABLE 8. CROPSHIELD VARIABLE EXPENSE SUMMARY ..........................................................27 TABLE 9. CROPSHIELD FIXED EXPENSE SUMMARY.................................................................28 TABLE 10. CROPSHIELD INTEGRATED P&L ..........................................................................29 TABLE 11. CROPSHIELD P&L AND FUNDING REQUIREMENTS ...............................................30 TABLE 12. CROPSHIELD FUNDING REQUIREMENT SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ............................30 TABLE 13. CROPSHIELD KEY ASSUMPTIONS.........................................................................31 TABLE 14. CRITICAL RISK AREAS ........................................................................................32 TABLE 15. SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT (SROI) SCENARIOS .........................................33 TABLE 16. PER-UNIT SROI ..................................................................................................33


1

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION

1.1 Problem Statement

Each of us, as human beings, desires to provide food, water, shelter and good health for ourselves and our families, but for many people in the world, this vision is just a dream. Throughout the world 1.2 billion people must live on less than USD 1 per day (an internationally accepted poverty line). Among these extremely poor people, 975 million (75%) rely on small-plot agriculture for their livelihood.1 Targeting the rural poor for poverty relief reaches a large portion of the extremely poor people in the world, stimulates economic wellbeing, which can also help the non-rural poor, and reduces migration rates reducing urban poverty.

India alone is home to approximately one-third of the 1.2 billion people who subsist on less than a dollar per day. Thirty-five percent more poor people live in India than in all of sub-Saharan Africa.2 Furthermore, over 193 million of India�s poor live and work in rural areas. Many are small-plot farmers who work each year to produce enough food to feed their families and sell a portion of their crops at the market to generate a minimal income. They are held in poverty by the financial constraints they face when buying seeds, fertilizer, land and equipment. These farmers must subsist in the face of a dry season from March until June. Many farmers hope to generate enough income from the primary growing season to provide for the whole year, but they often have to work on larger farms during the dry season just to earn enough to feed their family. When the monsoon season finally arrives in early July, the water brings new life to the soil and they can plant a new crop. Nonetheless, wind, soil erosion and pests can damage their new crop, preventing them from maximizing their yield and thus starting the poverty cycle over again.

What if they could increase the volume of food that they produce given their current resources? The Gas Trapper�s goal is to help them to do just that.

1.2 An Overview of Our Customers

We are dedicated to helping dollar-a-day rural farmers. By providing a product that will help the �poorest of the poor� demographic, we will generate significant social return by helping these individuals earn their way out of poverty. Since India is home to so many of the world�s poor, we intend to initially target poor farmers with small plots in rural India. Specifically, we have focused on Maharashtra, a large western Indian state. To create a personal connection with our customer and ensure that our design meets real needs, we developed two composite characters, Santosh and Dhatri, who embody the characteristics of the people of Maharashtra (Figure 1).

1 The International Fund for Agricultural Development. �Rural Poverty Report 2001� http://www.ifad.org/poverty/index.htm 2 http://www.ifad.org/gbdocs/eb/74/e/eb-2001-74-r-11.pdf


2

� 1 acre farm � grows bitter gourd� He has a wife and three children (a ten-year

old boy, a seven year-old boy and a 18-month old girl.

� They live on $0.90/day� They have a small house on the farm. 850

sq. ft (80 m2)� The family is hungry during the dry season

and they rely on a government food subsidy.� Santosh takes odd jobs during the dry

season to provide for his family� They can get water from the town well but it

is 2km away and it is for drinking water only.

� 1.5 acre farm � grows bitter gourd and cotton.� Her husband, Abhijat, was injured two years

ago and can no longer do work on the farm.� They have two children, a seven year-old girl

and a three year-old boy. � Abhijat�s younger sister came to live with

them one year prior after her husband committed suicide to escape the debt from his farm.

� Abhijat makes most of the decisions for the farm and the family, but Dahtri takes care of the farm.

� The farm is outside of the city of Pune, in the western portion of Maharashtra, India.

DhatriSantosh

� 1 acre farm � grows bitter gourd� He has a wife and three children (a ten-year

old boy, a seven year-old boy and a 18-month old girl.

� They live on $0.90/day� They have a small house on the farm. 850

sq. ft (80 m2)� The family is hungry during the dry season

and they rely on a government food subsidy.� Santosh takes odd jobs during the dry

season to provide for his family� They can get water from the town well but it

is 2km away and it is for drinking water only.

� 1.5 acre farm � grows bitter gourd and cotton.� Her husband, Abhijat, was injured two years

ago and can no longer do work on the farm.� They have two children, a seven year-old girl

and a three year-old boy. � Abhijat�s younger sister came to live with

them one year prior after her husband committed suicide to escape the debt from his farm.

� Abhijat makes most of the decisions for the farm and the family, but Dahtri takes care of the farm.

� The farm is outside of the city of Pune, in the western portion of Maharashtra, India.

DhatriSantosh

Figure 1. Composite Characters3

Santosh embodies the typical small-plot farmer in rural India. He works hard to provide for himself and his family. He has a small farm, a wife, and three children. Although he used to be able to live all year on the profits from their land, recent changes in government policies have depressed market prices, reducing his income to just 90 cents per day. To make up for this loss, Santosh takes odd jobs and government food subsidies during the dry season. Since he has no water storage facility on his own land, growing during the dry season is a distant dream for Santosh. However, even slight increases in productivity on his farm will help lift him and his family out of poverty. In Maharashtra, there are more than 2 million people in similar situations to Santosh. We have targeted them as our primary customers.

Dhatri�s story is slightly different. She is the wife of a farmer who was injured several years ago. He can no longer do the primary work on the farm but he oversees the growing season and makes the decisions on the farm�s management. They have two young children who help out where they can. Dhatri�s sister-in-law recently came to live with them and she and Dhatri do most of the work on the farm. Dhatri is a reminder that �typical� situation does not apply to all people. By remembering Dhatri in our design, we could address her needs to be able to manage and work the device on her own or with her sister-in-law. She is also a reminder that poverty relief can empower users and level gender inequities.

3 Photos from: http://www.who.int/multimedia/indiaweb/photo.html and www.webindia123.com/ garden/vegie/bittergourd.htm


3

1.3 Background

As students at Stanford University, we came together with the common mission of empowering poor farmers through innovative design in �Entrepreneurial Design to Eliminate Poverty�, an interdisciplinary project-based course at Stanford University. Dr. Paul Polak, president of International Development Enterprises (IDE), provided inspiration for many different ways to improve the agricultural yield of a small farm and suggested to us the idea of an open-top greenhouse as a way to achieve that goal.

Prolonging the growing season, improving soil quality, developing denser growing mechanisms, and optimizing climatic growing conditions all can increase the annual marketable yield of a small farm. In many colder regions of the world, greenhouses are used to extend the growing season and optimize growing conditions by offering complete control over the growing climate. Dr. A.D. Karve, president of the Appropriate Rural Technology Institute (ARTI) in Pune, Maharashtra, observed that, although greenhouses were used in many parts of India, they were prohibitively expensive for most farmers. Since crops can be successfully grown year-round in India without heating or cooling (given a sufficient water supply), Dr. Karve developed an open-top �greenhouse�. He reported that the growth rate of plants within the structure doubled over the growing season compared to those outside of the greenhouse. Since this structure does not have a roof, he was able to cut the cost of a traditional greenhouse by 90%, assembling an open-top �greenhouse� for approximately Rs. 1 million (~USD 200). Even with this impressive cost savings, this product is still well out of reach for the dollar-a-day farmer. By keeping cost at the focus of our design process we were able to design a structure that optimizes the benefits of an open-top �greenhouse� while making it accessible to our target customers by again cutting that cost to a tenth.

To give the target customer maximum benefits at the lowest possible cost, we needed to simplify and streamline the greenhouse structure. To do so, we investigated the potential benefits of the structure. These include preventing physical damage to the plants, reducing water needs, reducing soil erosion, maintaining higher concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) and providing pest control. These benefits, with the exception of pest control, are driven by the wind blockage provided by the structure as explained below.

Prevents Breakage and Damage to Plants

Strong winds and monsoon storms can damage the leaves and stalks of the plants. Surrounding the plot with a stable chamber will block wind and lower wind speed, thus reducing the frequency and magnitude of physical breakage or other damage to the plants. When a plant is damaged it will likely lose part of its growth, and it will put much of its energy into repairing the damage rather than producing new growth.

Lowers Water Needs

Plants require water to bring them nutrients from the soil, to provide support to their stalks and leaves, and to help drive their metabolic processes.4 Transpiration, water released from the plant back into the atmosphere, is essential. Plants use transpiration to self-regulate temperature, but it 4 http://ianrpubs.unl.edu/irrigation/g992.htm


4

can also be induced by wind traveling over the leaves of the plant. Thus, reducing wind reduces transpiration from the plant as well as evaporation from the soil (collectively referred to as evapotranspiration). In addition, the reduction of airflow across the plot can raise local humidity further reducing evapotranspiration. In open fields, saturated (humid) air is replaced by dryer air, speeding soil evaporation. This replacement is mainly dependent on wind speed. By creating a wind barrier, the air surrounding the plants will remain humid, and the soil will retain more moisture. The effect of a wind block on evapotranspiration rates can be very significant in hot, dry places.5 Since this allows the plant to use water more efficiently it reduces the amount of water that needs to be applied to the plant for healthy growth.

Reduces Erosion

Wind can cause severe soil erosion that leads to decreased soil quality and crop yield.6 It does so by removing the lighter components of the soil in the upper layers, primarily fine-grained soils such as silts and clays, as well as organic matter. These tend to be the most nutrient rich components of the soil so their removal leaves the soil stripped bare.7 In addition, the soil particles that are mobilized by the wind can damage other plants or coat their leaves, reducing photosynthesis.

Increased Carbon Dioxide

Although plants are commonly thought of as carbon dioxide consumers and oxygen producers through photosynthesis, they also use oxygen and expel carbon dioxide since they also respire like all other living organisms. Since plants rely on energy from the sun for photosynthesis, this process is generally performed only when the plants are exposed to sunlight. Thus, at night demand for carbon dioxide falls while plant respiration, which produces carbon dioxide continues. Plants respire both day and night but their daytime carbon dioxide production is consumed within a short period of time as an input for photosynthesis. As a result, plants have a strong diurnal variation in their carbon dioxide usage.8 In addition to carbon dioxide produced by the plants themselves, microbial organisms in the soil also produce carbon dioxide through respiration.9

The benefits of elevated carbon dioxide levels on plant growth are well established. These benefits were first noticed over a century ago and since that time hundreds of experiments have shown that increasing carbon dioxide will increase crop yields.10 In fact, many state of the art greenhouses rely on carbon dioxide supplementation to improve plant growth. Elevated carbon dioxide concentrations early in the plants growing cycle can increase the end productivity of the

5 Allen, R.G et al. Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines for computing crop water requirements - FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56 6 Crop Productivity and Surface Soil Properties of a Severely Wind-Eroded Soil. T. M. ZOBECK* and J. D. BILBRO, USDA-ARS Lubbock and Big Spring, TX. Wind Erosion and Water Conservation Research USDA-ARS 7 http://www.weru.ksu.edu/problem.html 8 http://www.icsu-scope.org/downloadpubs/scope13/chapter03.html#t3.2 9 Mortazavi, B., and J. P. Chanton, Carbon isotopic discrimination and control of nighttime canopy 18O-CO2 in a pine forest in the southeastern United States, Global Biogeochem. Cycles, 16(1), 10.1029/2000GB001390, 2002. 10 Saposchinikoff, 1893 and Kimball 1983 as cited in Miglietta et al 1998


5

plant.11 Plant response to increased CO2 concentration varies greatly from crop to crop, but all respond positively to this factor.

Since carbon dioxide is heavier than air it sinks to the ground after it is produced by the plants or microorganisms. Under normal conditions wind would disperse the carbon dioxide, carrying it away from the crops, but when the plot is surrounded by an enclosed chamber, carbon dioxide will accumulate overnight to be used for photosynthesis the next day. The magnitude of this natural nightly accumulation needs to be determined but even slight increases may produce benefits for crop yield.

Additional Benefits

Additional benefits of an open top chamber around crops include preventing animals from damaging or eating the plants, possible protection from solar burning, and doubling as a structure to protect a drip irrigation system or as a trellis frame for climbing plants

1.4 The CropShield

Based on Dr. Karve�s initial prototype, we have developed an inexpensive open-top chamber that will increase the marketable yield of a small agricultural plot. By keeping the needs of our customer in mind, we were able to cut costs while maintaining the benefits making the final price of the CropShield an affordable $22.04. The design for the CropShield is simple. It consists of modular plastic or cloth paneling, bamboo stakes, twine, stakes and clamps. It is easily assembled by the farmer and can be expanded as the farmer can afford additional paneling. Because of its simple design, it will be easy for the farmer to install and use.

Stakes on ground Curtain

attachment Mud to seal on ground

Clamps

Lines to stakes

Bamboo poles

Panels

Stakes on ground Curtain

attachment Mud to seal on ground

Clamps

Lines to stakes

Bamboo poles Bamboo poles

Panels Panels

Figure 2. Overview of the CropShield

11 http://www.simplyhydro.com/effective_co2_use.htm


6

2 THE GAS TRAPPERS - ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE

2.1 Organization Structure

We believe that the CropShield will be best sold and distributed by a nongovernmental organization with a focus on empowering its customers. Since the CropShield is a relatively simple device, the prospects of rigorous intellectual property protection are poor. By organizing its production into an organization that will also have the capabilities to educate people about its benefits and about other ways to increase yield such as better crop management, we will maximize its benefits. After investigating different organizational options, it became clear that the CropShield would be most effective if incorporated into IDE�s product line.

By integrating with IDE we will be able to leverage their existing marketing and distribution systems to get the CropShield to market faster. Using IDE�s existing infrastructure, we will be able to avoid significant start-up costs thereby generating greater initial social returns on each of our investors� contribution. Furthermore, we may be able to find additional funding sources though IDE�s funding network.

The CropShield will be an effective product in moving towards IDE�s goal to �strike at the roots of rural poverty in the world�s least developed countries.� Since the design emphasizes using very few resources to maximize social gain, it fits in well with the IDE product line. The CropShield can be used independently or with their other IDE products, such as their Affordable Micro Irrigation Technology (AMIT).

2.2 Key Roles within the program

Within IDE, the CropShield program will require three full time employees, a program director, an assistant program director and a director of engineering. Since the product will be developed, manufactured and distributed within India, we will rely on existing IDE marketing and distribution agents. We will maximize the benefits of integrating the product into IDE by tapping their existing distribution infrastructure and marketing techniques.

3 THE PRODUCT - CROPSHIELD

3.1 Description of the CropShield

3.1.1 Background

The product consists of a roofless enclosure that is built around the harvest. These walls are meant to maintain increased CO2 and humidity levels around the plants, and to protect the plot from the wind, which reduces soil evaporation and erosion, and minimizes stress on the plants. Furthermore, such a structure will keep animals away from the crops, providing additional protection to the harvest.


7

Previous experiments, such as A.D Karve�s12 have shown much promise in enclosing crops in an open-top chamber. His experiments in floriculture showed a doubling of the growth rate in plants inside a plastic skirting when compared to unprotected controls. In addition, other experiments in India and Brazil have shown similar results.

3.1.2 Design Requirements

Several basic design requirements guided the design of the greenhouse as follows:

• Minimizing component costs: Total cost to farmer <$20.

• Easy to maintain/repair: Modular design so only parts are replaced.

• Easy to assemble and install: Can be installed with two people and minimal tools.

• Sturdy structure: Poles are robust and stable on the ground, and panels are held securely.

• Resistant to environment: Product can withstand wind, rain and sun; product lifetime should be at least 2 years.

• Easy to access the plants: Farmer can easily enter and exit enclosure.

• Scaleable: Can be used in part or all of the plot, fit odd shaped harvests and be expanded in following seasons.

3.1.3 Physical Design

The most affordable chamber, shown in Figure 3, consists of sheets of plastic or cloth strung on rope that is suspended between upright, bamboo poles. The seal between the plastic and the ground is created by adding weight (mud or rocks) to the bottom skirt. This weight also provides a valve-like mechanism that will release the panels in extreme winds, thus preventing ripping, tearing and excessive stretching.

12 Dr. A. D. Karve, Appropriate Greenhouse Technology Appropriate Rural Technology Institute


8

Figure 3. Open top chamber made of bamboo poles and plastic panels where mud (circled) creates seal between panels and ground.

The panels are modular so that in case of an irreparable tear or other damage, only the single problematic panel needs to be replaced. To ensure a sound structure, the 2� bamboo poles are set in holes sunk one-half meter deep as depicted in Figure 4, and secured to the ground via stakes and twine as seen in Figure 5.

Figure 4. Pole installation into deep hole


9

Figure 5. Stake and lines provide structure to chamber

The panels are attached to the poles via a line of twine at the top, in a curtain-like configuration, and small clamps at the sides as seen in Figure 6. These panels can be made of inexpensive fabric or 50 micron low-density polyethylene (LDPE) sheets folded lengthwise at the top to create a pocket for the line. The width of these panels depend on the height of the crops to be harvested, and is ideally one foot taller than the full-grown plant.

Figure 6. Line holding panels in a curtain-like configuration; clamp securing panel onto poles

Access to the crop is gained by loosening the clamps in one corner as shown in Figure 7.

line

Stake position


10

Figure 7. Access to crop is gained by loosening the clamps on the end of one of the panels.

Table 1 shows the component summary for 5m x 5m and 10m x 10m CropShields.

Table 1. Component Summary

Plot size (m2) 5mx5m 10mx10m

Number of 2�x 8� poles 4 8 Number of 9� stakes 4 8 Number of 1� PVC clamps 8 16 Total length of panels (m) 20 40 Total length of 0.1� twine (m) 40 70

3.2 Overview of the Customer Experience

The conceptual map shown in Figure 8 provided a guide for our customer experience design.

Figure 8. Customer experience map

3.2.1 Notice

Farmers will become aware of the benefits of CropShield through various channels. First, those who live near pilot experiments will be able to observe the difference in plant growth and yield between the crops grown inside and outside the chamber. Second, current IDE dealers can educate people on the study results and explain how the CropShield could help increase their income. Third, in seasons following the product launch, farmers will learn about the increased return of farming inside a CropShield from early adopters.

Notice

Learn

Decide

Obtain

Install

Use

Maintain

Reuse

Replace

Discard


11

3.2.2 Learn

After farmers take notice of the CropShield�s potential, they will learn about the product through brochures, dealers, their peers and video vans. The main message they will take away is that they can increase their income without necessarily depending on access to water during the dry season. Thus, the value proposition for rural farmers is the CropShield is a low-cost, simple way to protect plants, increase yield, and reduce water consumption.

3.2.3 Decide

There are several additional incentives that can encourage a farmer to purchase a CropShield once he is convinced of the potential benefit of harvesting in an open top chamber. These will include local support through IDE dealers and a credit/risk reduction program in which a farmer can return his CropShield after one growing season for a partial refund if results are not satisfactory.

3.2.4 Obtain

Farmers will obtain CropShield parts directly from the local IDE dealer. CropShield components can be purchased to construct a 5m x 5m, 5m x10m, or 10m x 10m structure and will include all parts necessary to build a CropShield.

3.2.5 Install

Installation of the CropShield is fast, easy, and requires only two people and a shovel. The first step is to install the poles. To do this, the farmer must first dig a hole at least 50cm deep. Then, a second person holds the pole upright in the hole while the soil is backfilled and compacted around it.

After the poles are erected, the pre-strung panels are hung from the poles by threading the line through the holes in the poles shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Panels threaded through holes in bamboo


12

Immediately after, the lines are tied onto stakes and tightened until the poles return to a vertical position (poles will tilt slightly inwards due to panel weight). Once a wall is erected, the sides of the panels will be secured to the poles using PVC clamps as shown previously.

Finally, mud or rocks are placed on the panel skirt to create a seal and secure the panels further (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Mud creates seal between panel and floor

3.2.6 Use

CropShield is a passive system that helps the farmer by protecting his harvest. After installation, the main interaction the farmer will have with the structure will be that of entering and leaving his crops. This is easily achieved by unclamping an edge of one of the panels, sliding open the side and walking in under the line.

In addition, the modularity of the CropShield will allow farmers to expand their shielded area to meet expanding plot areas or increased funds availability.

3.2.7 Maintain

Maintenance of the CropShield is minor: it will consist of patching small holes on the panels, re-tightening the twine as it stretches. In many instances, we foresee that farmers will be able to make repairs directly on the product with self-devised modifications. In the case of more extensive replacements, IDE distributors will stock replacement panels and parts.

CropShield panels can be folded and stored during the off-season for a longer life. Furthermore, they can be rotated to different portions of the plot within the same season.

3.2.8 Reuse

There are several opportunities to reuse the panels at the end of their life. They can be turned into plastic mulch (which further reduces evapotranspiration), and in the case of plastic panels, IDE


13

dealers could collect the plastic, refund a small amount of money to the farmer, and send it to be recycled into new panels.

3.2.9 Replace

Parts of the CropShield are easily replaced and added in the case of a shield expansion. The modular components can be substituted as they get damaged. In addition, panels can be interchanged to panels of different sizes for use with different size crops.

3.3 Supply Chain Overview

All raw materials will be purchased and then manufactured in India. Distribution of the CropShield will use the current IDE distribution system.

3.3.1 Manufacturing Model

Selection of a manufacturing partner will be based on the capacities of IDE�s manufacturing partners. Alternative partners will be explored if the current partners cannot manufacture all of the CropShield�s parts.

3.3.2 Distribution Plan

CropShield will be distributed using IDE�s current distribution system: many of the manufacturing partners the company has chosen have distribution systems in place and IDE utilizes these. For branding and credibility purposes, it is important that natives act as salesmen and distribution representatives.

4 DESIGN STATUS AND STEPS TO ENTER MARKET

We believe the current prototype, as described above, will remain the basic structure of the CropShield. However, this prototype requires further refinement and testing before it is ready to go to market. By testing it over a complete growing cycle under realistic climatic and soil conditions in India, we will be able to refine our design and confirm our assumptions over how much the CropShield will increase marketable yield.

Prior to full implementation we propose a two stage testing process. First, the product will undergo a five-month product testing stage, when we will scientifically evaluate key assumptions about our product, determine the magnitude of its effectiveness, and refine the product design to maximize the net benefit of the product. Then we will distribute the CropShield to three to five areas in Maharashtra for a one-year pilot study. Finally, by November 2006 we will be ready for full-scale production.


14

Product Testing (5 months)

Pilot Study(12 months)

Roll-Out

June 2005

November 2005

November 2006

Product Testing (5 months)

Pilot Study(12 months)

Roll-Out

June 2005

November 2005

November 2006

Figure 11. Steps to enter market

4.1 Product Testing and Design Refinement

4.1.1 Key Assumptions to be Tested During Product Testing

During the product-testing phase we will test many of our assumptions about how the CropShield works and why our design will be effective. These assumptions include:

• The CropShield will generate at least a 20% increase in marketable yield.

• The crops get enough sunlight from above so that UV transparency in the panels is not essential.

• Cloth panels will generate the same benefits as plastic panels.

• The primary benefits are wind driven so the panels do not need to be impermeable to water or carbon dioxide.

• The primary benefits of the CropShield are when the plant is in the early stages of its growth so that panels lower than the maximum crop height will be effective.

• The 5m x 5m CropShield will offer the same benefits as a 10m x 10m CropShield.

• Our design will stand up to high winds and rains of a monsoon.

In addition to testing these assumptions, we will determine the magnitude of the yield increase produced by the CropShield.

4.1.2 Experimental Design

In order to fully test our assumptions we will test the CropShield for three different experimental variables: size of the plot, panel material, and panel height. To do so, we will set up nine different small plots. Four of these plots will be 25 square meters with a CropShield, four will be


15

100 square meters with a CropShield, and the final plot will be 100 square meters without a CropShield and will act as the control plot. A 25 square meter area of this larger control plot will be blocked off to act as the control for the 25 square meter plot experiments. Within the four experimental areas for each plot size we will test plastic vs. cloth panels and one meter vs. two meter high panels.

Table 2. Experimental Design for Product Testing

5m x 5m Plot (25 m2)

10m x 10m Plot (100 m2)

N = 22 N = 88

1m tall N = 22 N = 88

2m tall N = 22 N = 88

1m tall N = 22 N = 88

2m tall N = 22 N = 88

Plastic Panels

Cloth Panels

Control

For these test plots we will grow only bitter gourd, a common crop in Maharashtra, which will provide approximately a sample size (N) of 22 plants per plot for the 5m x 5m plots and 88 plants per plot for the 10m x 10m plots. In the experiment we will control soil type, sun exposure, water allocation, geographic location and crop type so that the experimental variables will provide clear answers to our assumptions.

In addition to the physical testing of the product, we will test the concentration of carbon dioxide in the plot area to determine the magnitude of the nightly CO2 accumulation.

4.1.3 Activities During Five Month Testing Phase

The test plots will need to be properly cared for to keep the plants healthy and to simulate realistic farming conditions. We will rely on the IDE India experts for guidance in local farming techniques including water allocation, soil care, and pest management.

Data on each plant should be taken twice per month. The plants should be indexed as to their location in the plot and measured for key growth indicators. The parameters of interest include:

• Plant height

• Number of bitter gourds growing per plant


16

• Length of each developing bitter gourd

• Number of flowers per plant

• Visual accounts of plant health or signs of stress

In addition, climatic data should be recorded throughout the testing period. This will be obtained from local weather sources. Finally, CO2 concentrations should be measured once a month during the study in five locations of each plot, the center of each quadrant and the center of the plot. Data should also be collected from the control plot. In this case it will require 10 samples (five for the 10m x 10m control plot and five for the 5m x 5m control plot.) By comparing data from the experimental plots to that collected from the control plots, we will be able to determine the magnitude of natural CO2 accumulation.

4.1.4 Budget for Product Testing and Design Refinement

We estimate the cost of the product-testing phase to be $20,000. This investment will help refine the product and ensure success upon full-scale implementation. By undergoing this rigorous testing phase prior to start-up, we believe that the final product will be more successful and better able to meet the needs of our customers. Upon completion of our successful test, we will pursue full funding and complete an in-depth pilot study, the first stage of product implementation.

Pursue Research Funding

Successful Test

Unsuccessful Test

($20K)

Exit($20K)

Pursue Full Funding

($0.5M � $1M)

Pursue Research Funding

Successful Test

Unsuccessful Test

($20K)

Exit($20K)

Pursue Full Funding

($0.5M � $1M)

Figure 12. Summary of funding requirements for the next steps

4.1.5 Schedule and Key Milestones for Testing Phase

The product testing stage will begin in June 2005 and be completed by November 2005, a total of five months. This allows for three weeks in June to set-up and finalize the experimental design, a three-month test period, and five weeks to analyze the data from the project and refine the current design before the pilot study. This schedule will align the testing phase with the


17

monsoon season in Maharashtra, which will provide an excellent testing basis for the durability of the CropShield.

4.2 Pilot Project / Startup Implementation

4.2.1 Key Assumptions to be Tested During Pilot Project

During the pilot project we will test the product in natural conditions. In this case we will test our assumptions that:

• The CropShield will provide benefits to plots with more than one type of crop.

• The CropShield will benefit crops growing in different climatic conditions.

• Soil type will not affect the benefits of the CropShield.

• Observers can see and realize the increase in yield created by the CropShield.

• The visual impact of the CropShield will be acceptable given its benefits.

• The CropShield fits in with local farming customs and will not face any unexpected cultural barriers.

4.2.2 Pilot Project Description

The pilot project has two primary purposes: testing the product under natural conditions and providing an introduction of the CropShield to our customers. In this stage we will distribute the CropShield to three to five locations within Maharashtra as illustrated below. These locations should be chosen to maximize the climate and soil variation between them and to reach the largest number of potential customers. For the pilot study, the plots should be setup using local farming techniques and crops to demonstrate the effectiveness of the CropShield. A control plot should be maintained in the same area to help local farmers see and realize the improvements that came from the CropShield and to allow for comparisons in product performance between the different study sites.


18

IDE Service AreaPilot Study

Locations

IDE Service AreaPilot Study

Locations

Figure 13. Proposed Pilot Study Locations

In addition, these pilot study locations could be used as model farms to provide a central area for educating the local farmers about crop rotation, irrigation techniques, water conservation, fertilizer techniques, composting, pest management and other IDE products.

4.2.3 Activities During Twelve Month Pilot Phase

Over the course of the pilot study, data should be taken on plant height, fruit or vegetable size, number of fruits/vegetables per plant. During the pilot stage this data should be taken monthly and at the time of harvest of each crop. Throughout the pilot phase, new information that is gathered about the durability, effectiveness, or marketability of the CropShield should be analyzed and the final design improvements should be completed.

4.2.4 Schedule and Key Milestones for Pilot

The pilot study is scheduled to run from November 2005 through September 2006. By allowing an entire year for this stage we will be better able to adjust the product for field variability and to demonstrate its effectiveness for all stages of the growing season.


19

5 THE MARKET OPPORTUNITY � CHARACTERISTICS AND STRATEGIES

5.1 Existing Alternatives and Competition

No known low cost greenhouse-like product exists for purchase by small farmers in Maharashtra. We define the potential competing products as any alternative yield-increasing product or technique that would compete for small farmers� investment dollars.

Existing Greenhouses in India: While commercial greenhouses are common for large farming organizations, no low cost alternative exists for small farmers. The only other product known to be available is the greenhouse designed and developed by Dr. Karve. The price of this option is approximately $200, much too expensive for our target market. Additionally, Dr. Karve�s product was designed and has been used solely for floricultural purposes. Water collection devices: Water collection devices range from expensive commercial products to homemade devices that attempt to use existing structures to collect rainwater for later use. For our target market, primary water collection options include rooftop rainwater harvesting techniques and natural water collection (i.e. shaping the land to divert water to a storage device). Water storage devices: Current water storage devices include smaller sized barrels and buckets. In the future IDE hopes to introduce a water storage bag, designed for small farmer use, with a capacity of 10,000 liters. The estimated cost of this product will be approximately $20. Supplemental water supplies: Approximately 40% of farmers have some access to a well. Often these wells are shared among several families. In more recent years the water supply of wells in the area has diminished and dependence on well water has become more problematic. The cost of digging a well is estimated at $2,000. Irrigation Systems: Recent developments in irrigation systems have given small rural farmers in the area the opportunity to purchase a water delivery system. Currently IDE offers the Affordable Micro Irrigation Technology (AMIT) system, which provides a comprehensive water delivery system for approximately $63. Homemade Greenhouse-Type Products: After successful diffusion of the CropShield product we expect that local farmers and dealers will attempt to replicate the product outside the supervision of the IDE manufacturing and distribution network. We believe that this possibility, while detrimental to the overall unit sales of the CropShield, is ultimately beneficial to the extent that it helps farmers increase crop yield and augment income.

While each farmer has choices to make as to if, how and how much to invest in yield enhancing technologies, the CropShield is a unique and complimentary technology to other yield enhancing options. We view CropShield as a step in increasing crop yield that can be effective either as a stand-alone product or in conjunction with water collection, storage and delivery products.


20

5.2 The Target Region � Maharashtra

Geography & Location:

Maharashtra is in the western portion of India and is one of the largest Indian States (Figure 14). Maharashtra� geography is fairly homogeneous. The Sahyadri Mountain Range is the dominating physical feature of the area. The Konkan, lying between the Arabian Sea and the Sahyadri Range is narrow coastal lowland with altitudes primarily below 200 m. The adjacent Konkan region alternates between narrow, steep-sided valleys and low laterite plateau. Ranges on the eastern border form physical barriers preventing easy movement, but also serve as natural limits to the state.13

Figure 14. Location of Maharashtra in India14

Climate & Rainfall:

The driest regions in Maharashtra receive approximately 40 to 80 cm of rainfall per year, with the driest part of the year being from March to June. The monsoon season, which brings rains and winds from the southwest, runs from July to September. Temperatures range from 22°C to 41°C (72°F to 106°F) in the summer and 8°C TO 25°C (46°F to 77°F) in the winter.

Population & General Information:

According to the 2001 Census of India, Maharashtra has a total population of almost 97 million people. Approximately 42% (~41 million) of this population lives in a rural environment. Typical Maharashtran communities are villages of approximately 3,000 people rather than the well-known cities (Figure 15). Most of the villagers do not hold permanent jobs and have little education. Only 30% of rural inhabits legally own the land they inhabit. Approximately 70% of individuals work as day laborers earning, on average, 51 rupees per day for their work.

13 http://www.indiainbusiness.nic.in/indian-states/maharashtra/general.htm 14 http://www.mapsofindia.com


21

Figure 15. Population Distribution of Maharashtra by Geography15

5.3 The Customer

Approximately 44% of a typical village�s population is classified as �most poor�, subsisting on an average income of $1 day or less. Another 22% of the population lives marginally better with daily income of approximately $1 - $3 per day. These two socio-economic classes serve as the primary target markets for the CropShield.

Individuals in these two socio-economic groups depend on small plots as a primary source of their limited income. The people in the �most poor� category may have access to small plots of land on which to raise subsistence crops while the better off portion of this population may have access to as many as 1 � 2 acres of productive land. Approximately 40% of individuals in our target market have some access to a well. Usually such wells are family owned and operated as a shared resource. In recent years, falling water tables have limited the effectiveness of wells as a sufficient and reliable source of water.

Size of Target Market

Based on data from the 2001 Census of India and additional information from IDE, we have estimated the number of potential purchasers of the CropShield system at approximately 2.15 million. (See Table 3)

15 http://www.mapsofindia.com


22

Table 3. Number of Potential Customers � Target Market

Total Population 96,752,247Urban Population 41,019,734Rural Population 55,732,513 Avg. size household 5.14Number of Families 10,842,901 % of �Poor� Fam. 66%# of �Poor� 7,156,315% Farmers 30% # of Potential Purchasers 2,146,894

5.4 Overall Marketing Strategy

The CropShield will be marketed through IDE�s existing marketing channels. It is important to note that the CropShield�s target market is larger than the market for water storage and drip irrigation systems. Therefore, the marketing channels may need to be extended.

Current IDE Marketing Structure

IDE has one marketing officer for all of India who is responsible for coordinating all the marketing efforts for the AMIT drip system. In Maharashtra, there are approximately 12 area managers who work underneath the marketing officer. Each area manager is assigned to a different territory and has about 6 people underneath them helping with the marketing efforts in the territory. It is the area manager�s responsibility to set up the marketing efforts for his or her assigned territory. The employees underneath the area managers help with these efforts, make contacts with local dealers through which the system is sold, and arrange for test/demonstration sites.

IDE actively promotes appropriate technologies to the rural poor through a variety of methods including16:

• Printed promotional materials such as billboards, posters, pamphlets, calendars, etc.

• Media such as newspapers, radio, television, outdoor video presentations, and live theater

• Feature films, produced with local actors

• Live product demonstrations in marketplaces and agricultural fairs

• Demonstration plots, community meetings, and farmer field-days

16 http://ideorg.org/html/about/about.html


23

Because the CropShield is a new and unique device, we anticipate that the marketing of the product will depend heavily on demonstration plots in order to meet the burden of proof we predict will be required by our target customers. In addition to traditional demonstration plots, we would like to incorporate the use of a �mini test� in which potential customers will be given a small CropShield, large enough to surround several plants. We believe that letting the customer experience the benefits of the CropShield system first hand will be crucial to generating significant interest.

6 PRODUCT PRICING

We took a multi-faceted approach to determine the cost of the CropShield by considering the customer�s ability to pay, the cost of production and distribution, and the return on the investment in a CropShield.

6.1 Customer Ability to Pay

As explained above, the individuals that form our targeted addressable market are of extremely limited financial means. In designing the CropShield, cost has been of the utmost importance. In order to garner a general idea of how much a small farmer would be willing to pay for this product, we constructed a basic �bottom-up� financial model. The model is based on the use of a 10m X 10m CropShield to surround a 100m2 plot of bitter gourd plants. A modest yield increase of 20% was assumed and an increase of 5% in the sale price of the crop was assumed based on IDE input regarding the salability of healthier, larger crops. Furthermore, we assumed that the farmer would not incur any additional fixed or variable costs associated with such a yield increase, thus translating the revenue directly into income. (Note: For a more detailed analysis with calculations of revenue increases with additional levels of yield increase see Appendix A.)

Table 4. Annual Incremental Increase in Small Farmer Revenues

Base Revenue w/o CropShield Yield Increase Crop Price

Increase Total Revenue w/ CropShield

Incremental Revenue w/ CropShield

$237.19 20% 5% $298.86 $61.67

In addition to the modest yield increase estimate of 20% that we assumed for this model, the assumed market price for bitter gourd of $0.53 represents the low-end of its market value. Even given these conservative estimates, the use of the CropShield will generate an incremental increase in income of $61.67 per year. However, this increase in income would not be secured until the end of the growing season, and most farmers do not have savings available to finance tool or farming implement purchases.


24

6.2 Cost of Production and Distribution

The cost of production calculation is based on the components required to construct the CropShield at the estimated cost of production in India. The model assumes a 5% manufacturing and shopkeeper margin, a 1% margin to IDE to help offset the cost of overhead, and flat rates for distribution and packaging of $2.00 and $1.00 respectively. The model is shown in Table 5.

Table 5. Cost of manufacturing and Distribution � 10m X 10m, 2 meters in height

10m X 10m � 2 meter high panels

Unit

Number of Units required

$ Cost per unit

$ Total cost

% of System

Cost Greenhouse Materials

Plastic/Cloth sq.meter 80 0.08 6.00 27% Bamboo units 8 0.50 4.00 18% Stakes units 8 0.12 0.96 4% Rope meters 70 0.07 4.90 22% Clamps units 16 0.07 1.12 5%

Manufacturing Margin % 5.0% 1.20 1.20 5% Packaging system 1.0% 1.00 1.00 5% GasTrapper Margin % 1.0% 0.11 0.19 1% Distribution Cost system 1 2.00 2.00 9% Shopkeeper Margin % 5.0% 0.67 0.67 3% Cost to Farmer $22.04 100%

Figure 16 shows the relative contributions of each component of the CropShield to the overall cost of the product. As illustrated in the graph, the primary drivers of the cost of manufacturing are the panel material (plastic/cloth), the bamboo supports, and the rope. We have identified possible manufacturing partners in India and their cost estimates were used in the manufacturing and distribution cost model. As we continue this project we will look for additional organizations with which to partner and make design adjustments to continue to lower the ultimate price of the product to the consumer.

Manufacturing Margin, $1.20

Packaging, $1.00

Bamboo, $4.00

Stakes, $0.96 Rope, $4.90

Distribution Cost, $2.00

Shopkeeper Margin, $0.67

Clamps, $1.12

GasTrapper Margin, $0.19

Plastic/Cloth, $6.00

Figure 16. Manufacturing and Distribution Costs

Total Cost: $22.04


25

6.3 Market Price of the CropShield

The incremental revenue provided by the CropShield, given a 20% yield increase, is expected to be $61.67 per year. Moreover, the current estimated cost of the product to the end user has been estimated to be $22.04. As an additional product to be sold with the existing IDE product line, we suggest IDE price the product at the cost -- $22.04. We believe that this is the optimal price to allow small farmers to take advantage of this technology given their financial situations. While it might be possible to sell the CropShield at a higher price given the estimated incremental revenue, we are reluctant to raise the price for several reasons:

• Although though small farmers can expect incremental revenues of $61.67 the outlay of $22.04 will occur prior to the benefit. This will represent a significant portion of a farmer�s disposable income available for investment in yield increasing products.

• At a price of $22.04 the yield increase created by the CropShield would only need to be 4% in order to provide a �break even� investment for a farmer over the course of a year.

• Many examples of the extreme elasticity of the rural poor farmer market have been observed. Adoption and market penetration will depend on extreme affordability.

• The benefits of the CropShield are not physically observable at the time of purchase, making it seem a riskier investment to the farmer. Confidence in the effectiveness of the CropShield will depend on the presence of a significant observable increase on the demonstration plots and during the first year.

7 THE ECONOMICS OF THE BUSINESS

The Gas Trappers� vision when creating the CropShield was:

• To help smallholders out of poverty

• To grow plants - bigger, better, and faster

• To extend the growing season

• To empower customers

When considering the economics of the product line and the resulting business, the design team kept these same goals in mind. The target customer is expected to have less disposable income than existing drip irrigation purchasers, making extreme affordability even more critical. An experimental testing and pilot phase will be necessary to validate the efficacy of the design and test the commercial viability of the product necessitating an upfront capitalization and delaying revenues. Additionally, the fixed costs of administering the product line would be significant,


26

relative to the conservative market penetration targets. Upon economic analysis and discussions with IDE, it became clear that a self-sustaining product line would not be feasible. The CropShield product line therefore is best suited as an extension of the IDE product offering, so as to leverage the existing marketing, production, and distribution capabilities of IDE. Despite this fact, the level of investment required to sustain the business, based upon the market projections and the potential social return that can be created, offers a compelling non-profit funding opportunity.

7.1 Business Model

The revenue streams associated with the CropShield product line will be derived from the sale of original product materials and replacement/service parts. Similar to the way in which IDE sells drip systems, the CropShield product line will be sold as separate components. Customers will purchase CropShield components from local IDE distributors and install them on their own. When panels, stakes, poles, or other components of the system fail or if the customer needs to expand the CropShield system, additional materials and replacement parts can be procured from the local IDE distributor.

We foresee that, because of the simple design of the system, the relatively low-cost nature of the materials, and the resourcefulness of the customer base, IDE will have to compete with local imitators, new entrants, and homemade solutions for after-sale service parts. While we do not foresee an economical way to provide active post-sales services, active management of the post-sale relationship might improve the probability of repeat purchase and after-sales purchase.

7.2 Projected Product Line Revenues

Based on discussions with IDE and analysis of demographic data for Maharashtra, we developed an initial target market and a conservative market penetration plan. As discussed above, the pricing strategy was to encourage adoption and emphasize extreme affordability. Based on an addressable market of 2,150,000 extremely poor farmers in our target market and a plan to reach 1% of the addressable market by year 5, we established the unit sales plan17 depicted in Table 6:

Table 6. CropShield Sales Plan AssumptionsMarket Size 2,150,000

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Market Penetration Growth 50% 75% 75% 75%Incremental Mkt. Penetration 0.09% 0.135% 0.236% 0.413% 0.724%Total Market Penetration 0.09% 0.225% 0.461% 0.875% 1.598%Units Sold 1,935 2,903 5,079 8,889 15,556 Total Units Sold 1,935 4,838 9,917 18,806 34,361

Table 7 shows the forecasted revenue for the corresponding 5-year period using the pricing assumptions detailed above and an assumption of 6% year-over-year cost/price increases. 17 This model assumes a product configuration consisting of a 10m x 10m plot with a panel height of 2m.


27

Table 7. CropShield 5-year Revenue Forecast

AssumptionsMarket Size 2,150,000


YOY cost increase (%) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%Man. Cost Per Unit 21.37 22.65 24.01 25.45 26.98

RevenuesCropShield Sales ($) 41,354 65,754 121,973 226,260 419,712

Total Revenues 41,354 65,754 121,973 226,260 419,712

7.3 Projected Product Line Expenses

The economics of the CropShield product line are influenced most by two major factors:

• Finding materials inexpensive enough to produce a product that is affordable to smallholders, and

• Eliminating or funding fixed costs without adequate contribution from product sales

Thus, the variable cost challenge is to drive extreme affordability with no margin and the fixed cost challenge is to recover or eliminate fixed costs, again, with no margin.

7.3.1 Variable costs

Based on the bill of materials, described in the product pricing section, and assumptions regarding packaging and distribution costs, we are able to forecast the following variable costs.

Table 8. CropShield Variable Expense Summary AssumptionsMarket Size 2,150,000


ExpensesVariable ExpensesCOGs 500 37,113 59,010 109,464 203,055 376,668 Distribution - 3,870 6,153 10,768 18,844 32,978 Total Variable Expenses 500 40,983 65,163 120,232 221,900 409,646 % of Total Expenses 0.6% 34.3% 45.5% 58.8% 69.7% 80.2%


28

7.3.2 Fixed Costs

Because of such a limited number of first customers, the problem of fixed costs is enormous especially during the initial stages of the product�s life when unit sales are low. Based on discussions with Dr. Paul Polak of IDE and internal research, we estimated a range of fixed costs to support product testing, pilot projects, and deployment. Table 9 contains the estimates of fixed salary, marketing, and facilities costs respectively.

Table 9. CropShield Fixed Expense Summary AssumptionsMarket Size 2,150,000


ExpensesFixed ExpensesResearch, Design, & Development 80,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Salaries - 13,488 14,298 17,246 23,266 27,011 Marketing - 50,000 53,000 56,180 59,551 63,124 Facilities - 5,000 780 912 3,696 881 Total Fixed Expenses 80,000 78,488 78,078 84,338 96,513 101,016% of Total Expenses 99.4% 65.7% 54.5% 41.2% 30.3% 19.8%

7.4 Integrated Profit and Loss Statement (P&L)

Based on the revenue, variable cost, and fixed cost assumptions detailed above, the design team forecasted the following integrated P&L:


29

Table 10. CropShield Integrated P&L AssumptionsMarket Size 2,150,000


YOY cost increase (%) 6% 6% 6% 6% 6%Man. Cost Per Unit 21.37 22.65 24.01 25.45 26.98

RevenuesCropShield Sales ($) 41,354 65,754 121,973 226,260 419,712

Total Revenues 41,354 65,754 121,973 226,260 419,712

ExpensesVariable ExpensesCOGs 500 37,113 59,010 109,464 203,055 376,668 Distribution - 3,870 6,153 10,768 18,844 32,978 Total Variable Expenses 500 40,983 65,163 120,232 221,900 409,646 % of Total Expenses 0.6% 34.3% 45.5% 58.8% 69.7% 80.2%% of Revenues 99% 99% 99% 98% 98%

Fixed ExpensesResearch, Design, & Development 80,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Salaries - 13,488 14,298 17,246 23,266 27,011 Marketing - 50,000 53,000 56,180 59,551 63,124 Facilities - 5,000 780 912 3,696 881 Total Fixed Expenses 80,000 78,488 78,078 84,338 96,513 101,016% of Total Expenses 99.4% 65.7% 54.5% 41.2% 30.3% 19.8%% of Revenues 190% 119% 69% 43% 24%

Total Expenses 80,500 119,472 143,241 204,570 318,413 510,662

Net Gain/Loss ($) (80,500) (78,117) (77,488) (82,597) (92,153) (90,950)

7.5 Funding Requirements

We propose that IDE stage the investment and commitment to the CropShield product line through the following process. First, perform an experimental test phase to validate the efficacy of the design and isolate the design criteria that encourage yield. Next, given positive results from the experimental phase, employ a pilot program to aid in establishing product awareness among distributors and potential customers, and to validate the design in realistic growing conditions. Only with favorable experimental and pilot results should product line deployment be pursued.

Based on this option-based approach to investment and the economics identified above, we forecast that the CropShield product line will require an investment of approximately $477,000. This estimate is based upon requirements to cover losses in Years 1 through 5 (based on net present value using a 10% discount rate), an immediate investment of $20,000 to fund the aforementioned experiment, and a Year 0 investment of $80,000 to fund pilot installations.


30

Table 11. CropShield P&L and Funding Requirements AssumptionsMarket Size 2,150,000

Year 0 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Net Gain/Loss ($) (80,500) (78,117) (77,488) (82,597) (92,153) (90,950) Deployment NPV (@10%) (316,526)

Experiment (20,000) Pilot (60,000) Initial Investment (80,000)

Total NPV (@10%) (476,526)

We performed a sensitivity analysis of the funding requirements to three key variables: market penetration, variable costs, and fixed costs. Based on this analysis, it becomes clear that funding requirements depend first on the impact of variable costs and next on fixed costs. Because of the small initial target market, even significant variances in market size and penetration rate do not materially affect funding requirements. Based on this analysis, a staged funding model is further supported. Based on experiment and trial design changes, if variable or fixed costs can be reduced, significantly less funding may be needed. For example, a 10% reduction in the price to the trade though material costs, packaging, or distribution costs revisions, will lead to a 12% reduction in the required level of funding.

Table 12. CropShield Funding Requirement Sensitivity Analysis Sensitivity of Funding Requirments

Market SizePenetration Variable Costs Fixed CostsValue Investment % Change Value Investment % Change Value Investment % Change

-40% 1,290,000 (481,070) 101% 515,055 (241,581) 51% 311,060 (345,371) 72%-30% 1,505,000 (479,934) 101% 600,897 (300,317) 63% 362,903 (378,160) 79%-20% 1,720,000 (478,798) 100% 686,739 (359,054) 75% 414,746 (410,949) 86%-10% 1,935,000 (477,662) 100% 772,582 (417,790) 88% 466,589 (443,737) 93%

0% 2,150,000 (476,526) 100% 858,424 (476,526) 100% 518,433 (476,526) 100%10% 2,365,000 (475,390) 100% 944,267 (535,262) 112% 570,276 (509,315) 107%20% 2,580,000 (474,254) 100% 1,030,109 (593,998) 137% 622,119 (542,103) 114%30% 2,795,000 (473,118) 99% 1,115,952 (652,735) 149% 673,962 (574,892) 121%40% 3,010,000 (471,982) 99% 1,201,794 (711,471) 149% 725,806 (607,681) 128%

8 INVESTMENT POTENTIAL / SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT

8.1 Key Assumptions and Learning Plan

As described elsewhere in the document, the success and design of the CropShield depends on a number of important assumptions. These assumptions are aggregated and summarized in Table 13.


31

Table 13. CropShield Key Assumptions

Category Key Assumptions How to Test Market Size ! 2.15 M addressable customers

! 1.6% adoption by year 5 ! Test interest in initial market ! Test applicability to other markets

Effectiveness ! Growth rate is proportional to yield increases in marketable crops

! Yield will be increased o Water consumption

will be reduced o Growth will accelerate o Source of effect (CO2,

Humidity, Wind) ! Ancillary Benefits (e.g., pest

control)

! Pair-wise field tests with various crops

! Close water usage monitoring ! Control for environmental

conditions ! Source might not be important

Smallholder economics

! Profit assumption range ($1 - $4/sq-m)

! Contribution margin ratio (CMR) is equal or greater for incremental yield increases

! Fixed costs will not increase for smallholder

! Continued market research and P&L modeling

! Farmer cost testing, need multiple pilots for at least one season

Adoption and Usage

! Benefits are applicable to all crop types

! Year-round usage ! Self-installation is possible;

kits are desirable

! Market testing ! Scientific testing with multiple

crops ! Pilot customers

Materials ! Local materials are available, effective, and cost-effective (e.g., bamboo)

! Component lifetime requirements are < 2 years

! UV deterioration effect can be overcome

! UV transparency is not required for plant growth or human factors

! System can be designed to withstand wind/rains

! Stress tests ! Materials research

Supply Chain and Tariffs

! Cheaper to produce in-country ! Local availability of materials ! Dealers will sell and support

kits

! External environment research ! Dealer interviews


32

8.2 Critical Risk Areas

Potential investors should consider several risk areas. These risks can be categorized loosely into the following four categories: technical risk, market risk, organizational risk, and financing risk. Each of the risks is elaborated in Table 14.

Table 14. Critical Risk Areas

Category CropShield Impact Technical Risk The CropShield product line technology and design must be verified for a

variety of crops and growing conditions. We believe a staged investment model mitigates the technology risk.

Market Risk In addition to customer market size and penetration rates, several other market risks exist. Some of these risk areas include: ! Competition from entrants and customer knock-offs ! Ability for customers to finance purchase of the product ! Customer�s trust that yield increases are derived from the product ! Customer�s willingness to install the product themselves ! Distributors willingness to spend time educating the customer

Organization and Execution Risk

Because the CropShield team is recommending integration of the product into the IDE product line, the organizational risks are lessened. However, there is a risk that a new product line can be effectively sold alongside other competing products by marketers and distributors. Based on the simplicity of the design and the materials, we do not believe that sourcing will be difficult nor will negotiating manufacturing relationships.

Financing Risk As identified above, financing requirements are very sensitive to variable and fixed costs. We believe a staged investment model mitigates much of the financing risk.

8.3 Social Return on Investment

The CropShield offers a significant opportunity to realize a sizeable Social Return on Investment (SROI). By calculating the ratio of the total wealth created among smallholders and players in the supply chain (excluding IDE) and the forecasted required investment, the design team calculated SROI. The level of SROI is directly proportional to the customers reached in five years (34,000), the lifetime assumption of the product (2 years), and the level of incremental profit for a given increase in yield ($62 for a 20% increase in yield). Any change in these assumptions directly affects the given SROI. Table 15 summarizes these calculations:


33

Table 15. Social Return on Investment (SROI) Scenarios

Investment 476,526$ Addressable Mkt 2,150,000 5-Year Unit Sales 34,361 Penetration 1.6%

Yield Increase Incremental Profit/Year

Smallholder Wealth (2 Years)

Residual Wealth*

Total Wealth Created

SROI

10% 36.8 2,526,527 105,964 2,632,490$ 552%20% 61.7 4,238,045 105,964 4,344,009$ 912%

30% 86.6 5,949,563 105,964 6,055,527$ 1271%40% 111.5 7,661,082 105,964 7,767,045$ 1630%50% 136.4 9,372,600 105,964 9,478,563$ 1989%60% 161.3 11,084,118 105,964 11,190,082$ 2348%70% 186.2 12,795,636 105,964 12,901,600$ 2707%80% 211.1 14,507,154 105,964 14,613,118$ 3067%90% 236.0 16,218,673 105,964 16,324,636$ 3426%

100% 260.9 17,930,191 105,964 18,036,154$ 3785%*Residual Wealth includes manufacturer, distributor, and shopkeeper margins

On a per-unit basis for the estimated 20% increase in yield and the assumptions stated above, we calculated a per-unit SROI example in Table 16.

Table 16. Per-unit SROI

Investment/Unit $ 13.87 Smallholder/Unit $ 123.34

Residual/Unit $ 3.08 Total Wealth/Unit $ 126.42

SROI 912%

8.4 The CropShield and IDE

The CropShield system is a logical extension to the IDE product line and integrates nicely with the stated mission and focus of the organization. First, the CropShield is targeted squarely at rural smallholders in poverty. Next, the proposal to leverage local suppliers, existing IDE market structure and channels, reinforces the emphasis on local market creation and empowerment. Finally, the product lifecycle is designed to minimize environmental impacts by using as environmentally friendly materials as possible, and in the case of plastic panels, to encourage reuse. The product team recognizes the challenges of sustainable design and hopes that future iterations can be both environmentally friendly and as aesthetically pleasing as possible.

One of the primary benefits to IDE is that the CropShield offers a completely independent and new way to improve yield. Furthermore, this method can be viewed as weather independent � fluctuations in monsoon rain totals do not directly interact with the functioning of the product.


34

9 APPENDIX A: PRODUCT PRICING MODELS

Small Farmer Incremental Revenue with 10m x 10m CropShield

Bitter GourdSmallholder Crop Budget - Typical and with irrigation 10X 10 Plot

AssumptionsYield Increase 20%Yield Loss to Market 25%KGs 100 sq. mt. Plot 253Market Price ($/kg) 0.50Increase Veg. Price 5%Growing Season/Year 2.50

RevenueUnits

Yield of veg. kg/100 sq meters 253 20% 304 51After loss to market kg/100 sq meters 190 228 38Sale Price of Veg. $/kg 0.50 5% 0.53 0.03Total Revenue veg $ 95 120 25

Total Revenue $ 95 120 25

RevenueUnits



1 year Increase

1 season Increase

Base Case: Typical Smallholder

Smallholder w/Greenhouse



Incremental Increase



35

Small Farmer Incremental Revenue with 5m x 5m CropShield

Bitter GourdSmallholder Crop Budget - Typical and with irrigation 5 X 5 Plot

AssumptionsYield Increase 20%Yield Loss to Market 25%KGs 25 sq. mt. Plot 63Market Price ($/kg) 0.50Increase Veg. Price 5%Growing Season/Year 2.50

RevenueUnits



RevenueUnits






1 season Increase




1 year Increase


36

Assumptions Used in Manufacturing & Distribution Cost Calculation

Greenhouse Costs Cost Assumptions Manufacturing Margin 5%GasTrappers Margin 1%Distribution Costs $2 Shopkeeper Margin 5%Cost of Labor ($/hr) (man) 0.17Packaging Cost ($/unit) 1.00Plastic/Cloth ($/Sq meter.) 0.08Bamboo ($/unit) 0.50Stakes ($/unit) 0.12Rope ($/meter) 0.05Clamps 0.07


37

Manufacturing & Distribution Cost Calculation for CropShields of Different Dimensions

10 X 10 - 2 meter

UnitUnits

required$ cost

per unit$ Total

cost

% of System

Cost5 X 5 - 2 meter

UnitUnits

required$ cost

per unit$ Total

cost

% of System

CostGreenhouse GreenhouseMaterials Materials

Plastic/Cloth sq. meter 80 0.08 6.00 27% Plastic/Cloth liner sq. meter 40 0.08 3.00 26%Bamboo units 8 0.50 4.00 18% Bamboo units 4 0.50 2.00 17%Stakes units 8 0.12 0.96 4% Stakes units 4 0.12 0.48 4%Rope meters 70 0.07 4.90 22% Rope meters 40 0.05 2.00 17%Clamps units 16 0.07 1.12 5% Clamps units 8 0.07 0.56 5%

Manufacturing Margin % 5.0% 1.20 1.20 5% Manufacturing Margin % 5.0% 0.30 0.30 3%Packaging system 1.0% 1.00 1.00 5% Packaging system 1.0 1.00 1.00 9%GasTrapper Margin % 1.0% 0.11 0.19 1% GasTrapper Margin % 1.0% 0.05 0.05 0%Distribution Cost system 1 2.00 2.00 9% Distribution Cost system 1 2.00 2.00 17%Shopkeeper Margin % 5.0% 0.67 0.67 3% Shopkeeper Margin % 5.0% 0.37 0.37 3%Cost to Farmer 22.04$ 100% Cost to Farmer 11.76$ 100%

10 X 10 - 1.5 meterUnit

Units required

$ cost per unit

$ Total cost

% of System

Cost5 X 5 - 1.5 meter

UnitUnits

required$ cost

per unit$ Total

cost

% of System


Plastic/Cloth liner sq. meter 60 0.08 4.50 24% Plastic/Cloth liner sq. meter 30 0.08 2.25 21%Bamboo units 8 0.50 4.00 21% Bamboo units 4 0.50 2.00 18%Stakes units 8 0.12 0.96 5% Stakes units 4 0.12 0.48 4%Rope meters 70 0.05 3.50 19% Rope meters 40 0.05 2.00 18%Clamps units 16 0.07 1.12 10% Clamps units 8 0.07 0.56 5%

Manufacturing Margin % 5.0% 0.90 0.90 5% Manufacturing Margin % 5.0% 0.23 0.23 2%Packaging system 1.0 1.00 1.00 5% Packaging system 1.0 1.00 1.00 9%GasTrapper Margin % 1.0% 0.09 0.09 1% GasTrapper Margin % 1.0% 0.04 0.04 0%Distribution Cost system 1 2.00 2.00 11% Distribution Cost system 1 2.00 2.00 18%Shopkeeper Margin % 5.0% 0.57 0.57 3% Shopkeeper Margin % 5.0% 0.33 0.33 3%Cost to Farmer 18.65$ 100% Cost to Farmer 10.89$ 100%

10 X 10 - 1 meterUnit

Units required

$ cost per unit

$ Total cost

% of System

Cost5 X 5 - 1 meter

UnitUnits

required$ cost

per unit$ Total

cost

% of System


Plastic/Cloth sq. meter 40 0.08 3.00 18% Plastic/Cloth liner sq. meter 20 0.08 1.50 15%Bamboo units 8 0.50 4.00 24% Bamboo units 4 0.50 2.00 20%Stakes units 8 0.12 0.96 6% Stakes units 4 0.12 0.48 5%Rope meters 70 0.05 3.50 21% Rope meters 40 0.05 2.00 20%Clamps units 16 0.07 1.12 10% Clamps units 8 0.07 0.56 6%

Manufacturing Margin % 5.0% 0.60 0.60 4% Manufacturing Margin % 5.0% 0.15 0.15 1%Packaging system 1.0 1.00 1.00 6% Packaging system 1.0 1.00 1.00 10%GasTrapper Margin % 1.0% 0.08 0.08 0% GasTrapper Margin % 1.0% 0.04 0.04 0%Distribution Cost system 1 2.00 2.00 12% Distribution Cost system 1 2.00 2.00 20%Shopkeeper Margin % 5.0% 0.48 0.48 3% Shopkeeper Margin % 5.0% 0.28 0.28 3%Cost to Farmer 16.74$ 100% Cost to Farmer 10.01$ 100%


38

Return on Investment for Small Farmers � CropShields of Different Dimensions

Yield Increase Incremental Profit ROI Yield Increase Incremental Profit ROI10% $36.76 0.67 10% $9.19 (0.22)20% $61.67 1.80 20% $15.42 0.3130% $86.57 2.93 30% $21.64 0.8440% $111.48 4.06 40% $27.87 1.3750% $136.38 5.19 50% $34.10 1.9060% $161.29 6.32 60% $40.32 2.4370% $186.19 7.45 70% $46.55 2.9680% $211.10 8.58 80% $52.77 3.4990% $236.00 9.71 90% $59.00 4.02

100% $260.91 10.84 100% $65.23 4.55


100% $260.91 12.99 100% $65.23 4.99


100% $260.91 14.59 100% $65.23 5.52

10 X 10/2 Meters High

10 X 10/1.5 meters High

10 X 10/1 meters High

5 X 5/2 meters High

5 X 5/1.5 meters High

5 X 5/1 meters High


39

Crop/Yield Assumptions for Financial Models

Bitter Gourd1

PlantOptimum Plant Density (plants/ha) 8,750 Cost of Seeds (Rs/kg)Seed yield (plants/kg)GrowLength to marketable age (days) 90 Number of harvesting days portion of 365 228 Number of harvests/year calc 2.5 Water requirements (L/sq-m/day)HarvestMan-hours/sq-mYieldtonnes/ha 10.0 kg/ha calc 10,000 kg/acre calc 4,047 kg/sq-m/season calc 1.00 kg/sq-m 2.5 q/sq-m 0.025 Yield 100 sq/m plot 253 Yield loss to market 25%Yield after loss to market 190

RevenueMarket Price (Rs/Quintal) 2,150.0 Market Price ($/Quital) 50.0 Market Price ($/kg) 0.50 Rs/square meter 54.5 Plot Size 100.0 Rs/plot/year 5,450 $/plot/year 127$


40

10 APPENDIX B: FIXED SALARY ESTIMATES

HR Assumptions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Salaries (annual)

Program Administrator (rps) 150,000 159,000 168,540 178,652 189,372Program Administrator ($) 3,488 3,698 3,920 4,155 4,404

Assistant Prog. Admin (rps) 100,000 106,000 112,360 119,102 126,248Assistant Prog. Admin ($) 2,326 2,465 2,613 2,770 2,936

Marketing Agent (rps) 100,000 106,000 112,360 119,102 126,248Marketing Agent ($) 2,326 2,465 2,613 2,770 2,936

Distribution Agent (rps) 80,000 84,800 89,888 95,281 100,998Distribution Agent ($) 1,860 1,972 2,090 2,216 2,349

Adminstrative Assistant (rps) 70,000 74,200 78,652 83,371 88,373Adminstrative Assistant ($) 1,628 1,726 1,829 1,939 2,055

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Program Administrator 1 1 1 1 1Total PA Salaries 3,488 3,698 3,920 4,155 4,404Assistant Prog Admin 1 1 1 1 1Total APA Salaries 2,326 2,465 2,613 2,770 2,936Marketing Agent 1 1 1 2 2Marketing Agent Salaries 2,326 2,465 2,613 5,540 5,872Distrib. Agent 2 2 3 4 5Distrib. Agent Salaries 3,721 3,944 6,271 8,863 11,744Admin Assistants 1 1 1 1 1Admin Assistant Salaries 1,628 1,726 1,829 1,939 2,055

Total Salaries 13,488 14,298 17,246 23,266 27,011

11 APPENDIX C: FIXED MARKETING COST ESTIMATES

MarketingCost (annual)Total Marketing ($) 50,000 53,000 56,180 59,551 63,124


41

12 APPENDIX D: FIXED FACILITIES COST ESTIMATES

Facilities Assumptions Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5Costs (annual)

Rent (rps) 100,000 106,000 112,360 119,102 126,248Rent ($) 2,326 2,465 2,613 2,770 2,936

Water & Electricity (rps) 20,000 21,200 22,472 23,820 25,250Water & Electricity ($) 465 493 523 554 587

Telephone (rps) 15,000 15,900 16,854 17,865 18,937Telephone ($) 349 370 392 415 440

Total Facilities ($) 3,140 3,328 3,528 3,739 3,964


42

13 APPENDIX E: SOCIAL RETURN ON INVESTMENT

Social Return on Investment

$-$2,000,000$4,000,000$6,000,000$8,000,000

$10,000,000$12,000,000$14,000,000$16,000,000$18,000,000$20,000,000

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Yield Increase

Tota

l Wea

lth C

reat

ed

($US

M)

0%

500%

1000%

1500%

2000%

2500%

3000%

3500%

4000%

% R

etur

n on

In

vest

men

t

Total Wealth Created SROI

$480K Invested, 5-year sales, 2-year product life

SROI

$(2,000)

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

20% 50% 70% 100%

Yield Increase

$US

(tho

usan

ds)

Investment Total Wealth Created

912%1989%

2707%3785%SROI

$(2,000)

$-

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

20% 50% 70% 100%

Yield Increase

$US

(tho

usan

ds)

Investment Total Wealth Created

912%1989%

2707%3785%


43

14 APPENDIX F: DESIGN TIMELINE

15 APPENDIX G: CREATIVE PROCESS

15.1 Role definition and initial concepts


44

15.2 Brainstorming

15.3 12 top concepts

15.3.1 All-in-one Collection, Windbreak and Storage Device:

Description: This project would create a stand-alone structure that would have three primary uses: rainwater collection, storage and wind blockage. The structure would have sloped walls that would simulate a rooftop and collect water off its surface area. The void created by the sloped structure (a triangular prism shaped space) would then be used to store the collected water. This may be accomplished by creating a bamboo frame to support the structure and several storage bags (smaller than the 10,000L bag) or through another storage device. Finally the structure would be positioned and used to block heavy winds from crossing the field. It is possible that it could be designed so that several of these structures could be used to create an open-top chamber that would also offer the benefit of trapping CO2. Potential Advantages: • Efficient use of space and resources: the multiple use aspect of this system would meet many different needs

of the farmer. • Yield improvement: This project would allow the farmer to extend the growing season by collecting and

storing water and by allowing the farmer to used less water since the wind block would decrease evapotranspiration in the plot area. It also may increase the yield of each crop by reducing wind stress.

Questions/Issues:

• Are the farmers informed or open to the idea of learning about the advantages of reducing wind stress on their crops?


45

• In your experience do farmers have a preference between an �all-in-one� solution and a solution with multiple components? Would they appreciate the advantages of an integrated system that would solve multiple problems at once?

• This structure would be difficult to move once water was stored in it. Would this pose a potential problem for the farmers?

15.3.2 Supplemental Projects:

Description: These projects would be designed to enhance the effectiveness of one of the other projects by increasing the fertility of the soil or the effectiveness of and open top chamber.

15.3.3 Composting Greenhouse:

Description: Manure based compost has been used to add heat and carbon dioxide to some greenhouses. In a traditional, closed top greenhouse the balance between these two elements is difficult to manage. If you increase your composting levels to give off enough heat (for a typical cold-weather greenhouse) the levels of carbon dioxide are too high for optimal plant growth. Conversely, if you manage your compost to give off the optimal CO2 concentration, the heat produced is insufficient for plant growth in cold climates. However, since we do not want to add heat and are considering an open-top structure, using compost to increase CO2 levels would enhance the benefit of any open-top chamber designed. Thus, the idea behind this project is to supplement one of our open-top chamber project ideas by adding a special chamber designed for manure composting to the side of the chamber. Potential Advantages: • Yield improvement: By increasing the CO2 concentration above that trapped naturally overnight we could see

significant yield improvements. • Improved soil quality: The compost could be used for fertilizing the field. • Cost-effectiveness: This would be a very cost effective way of supplementing the crops with CO2, which is a

technique used in state-of-the-art greenhouses. • This part of the open-top chamber could be added on at any time so that the farmer could add it when they

can afford it. (Perhaps after reaping the benefits of one-year of using the open-top chamber) Questions/Issues:

• Do any of the farmers already compost? Would they be open to this option or do you think there would be cultural barriers to using manure to enhance their crops?

• Are farmers aware of any benefit of carbon dioxide and/or do they know that compost produces that gas? If not, do you think this is a feasible topic to pursue if we combined it with education campaign?

15.3.4 Fertilizer Ideas:

Description: Nitrogen is one of the most important nutrients for healthy and vigorous plant growth. For this idea we would enhance the soil by increasing the bioavailable nitrogen in the soil. This may take one of the following forms: • Using nitrogen-rich paper or other nitrogen-rich material for mulch, a plant scale wind/CO2 device or as a

construction material in one of our other proposed projects. The material could then be tilled into the soil when it was no longer useful in its previous use.


46

• Augmenting the soil with nitrogen-fixing bacteria. These bacteria convert atmospheric nitrogen in to a form that can be used by the plants. The most common form of these bacteria live symbiotically with different legumes.

Potential Advantages: • Yield improvement: By increasing the fertility of the soil the overall yield of the farm will improve. • Multiple Use: Using a nitrogen-rich building material would provide several advantages because it would

perform its primary function and then could be disposed of simply by tilling it into the earth, replenishing the soil.

• CO2 Augmentation: Nitrogen-fixing bacteria produce carbon dioxide when they respire. These could be used in combination with one of the open-top chamber ideas to enhance the carbon dioxide effects on the plants.

Questions/Issues:

• Would the farmer be open to mixing the material that was used for another purpose into the land? • Nitrogen-fixing bacteria thrive when introduced with legumes. Are legumes one of the crops that is common

in Maharashtra?

15.3.5 Plastic mulch

Description: The idea consists of using thin plastic sheets on and inside the soil to reduce water loss. Ideas include: • To cover the top of the soil with a thin sheet of plastic in order to trap evaporation • To cover the top of the soil with a thin sheet of plastic and burry the drip irrigation outlets under the plastic to

further reduce water loss • To lay sheets of plastic both over and under the roots, creating an artificial water table as well as minimizing

water loss during evaporation

Potential Advantages:

• Inexpensive way to maximize the use of every drop of water • Mulch can serve as water collection surface during monsoon season

Questions/Issues:

• Will this inhibit the ability of the roots to breathe? • Will mulch have to be removed during farm work? • General durability and sturdiness of affordable plastics

15.3.6 Material that retains water in soil:

drip lineplastic


47

Description: Similar to the mulch idea, this concept aims at minimizing water loss through evaporation. The idea consists of finding a material that will act as a sponge, retaining as much water as possible after the monsoon season, and after each irrigation. Potential Advantages:

• Inexpensive way to maximize the use of every drop of water • Mulch can serve as water collection surface during monsoon season

Questions/Issues:

• Will this inhibit the ability of the roots to breathe? • What materials can we use? • What is the cost of these materials? • Will farmers be willing to harvest on unknown soil additives?

15.3.7 Multi-purpose panels

Description: The idea consists of using simple panels for several uses:

• Wind protection and CO2 trapping • Shade • Water collection

Potential Advantages: • Yield improvement: By increasing the CO2 concentration above that trapped naturally overnight we could see

significant yield improvements; shade can keep plants cooler in the hot season, and there is no need for a separate water collection device during the monsoon.

• A multi-purpose structure eliminates the need of buying several separate products for specific purposes Questions/Issues:

• Size? • Materials? • Durability • Farmer willingness to adopt such a structure

15.3.8 Multi-Use Water Collection Structure using Indigenous Materials

Description: Water collection device primarily constructed of naturally occurring materials. Our initial thought is to utilize farmers� construction experience using natural materials such as thatch and bamboo to construct a water collection


48

device made of similar materials. The product would come in the form of a kit and consist of diagrams and instructions to instruct the farmer in construction as well as a plastic sheet to be used to cover and water proof the structure so that water would be collected and funneled into a storage device. Different variation of the structure could include but are not limited to the following:

• Free standing Bamboo and thatch structure covered with plastic covering. Could also be used as shading over storage bag to protect the bag from sun related deterioration or as shading or storage for animals, humans or supplies.

• Large plastic sheet laid over dirt or clay base shaped to optimize water collection. Could be augmented with thatch, bamboo or other naturally occurring materials for added support.

• If it is not feasible, we could also abandon the idea of using indigenous materials and design a structure using commercially produced parts to be assembled by farmer.

Potential Advantages: • Cost effective: designed with the idea of taking advantage of the relative affordability of local materials and

labor over commercially manufactured materials to produce an inexpensive yet effective structure. • Majority cost of would come from the plastic needed to assist in collection. We believe we could use

affordable plastic (relative to the material needed for the storage bag, for example) as it would not need the thickness or density. Additionally, the plastic would not need to have the same resistance to sun as it could be removed and stored during the dry season when it is not needed.

• Could be repaired by farmer • Possible multiple uses

Questions/Issues:

• Would farmers be open to the idea of constructing the device themselves? • Is �kit� idea feasible • Are the materials needed readily and cheaply available?

15.3.9 Stand Alone Wind Protection Structure

Description: Structure to protect crops from wind to increase yield by limiting wind damage and reducing the amount of water loss due to evaporation. This structure could also utilize the �kit� idea and possibly be constructed by the farmer


49

and utilize naturally occurring materials. Different variation of the structure could include but are not limited to the following: • Free standing structure that would protect crops from the detrimental effects of wind. Could utilize the idea

of a sail to maximize wind protection while limiting surface area of material needed. Dual uses could include shade and possibly water collection and storage. Additionally, structure could be moveable to allow for different placements depending on wind direction and other shade or storage needs.

Potential Advantages: • Cost effective: could take advantage of the relative affordability of local materials and labor over

commercially manufactured materials to produce an inexpensive yet effective structure. • Multiple use and flexibility in meeting different needs of farmers • Yield improvement

Questions/Issues:

• Would the cost of the structure justify the potential yield and multiuse benefits? • Is �kit� idea feasible? • Would the required size and durability of the structure make it prohibitively expensive to produce and sell? • Would the concept be marketable? i.e. are farmers aware of the benefits of wind protection and would they

be willing to pay for it?

15.3.10Multi-Use, Expandable/Collapsible Structure

Description: Segmented structure using plastic panels that would be connectable to allow for different size structures based on plot size and shape. To be used as a greenhouse and possibly for water collection, shade and storage.

• Puzzle concept: panel units would be connectable, interchangeable and stackable joined together by hinges, rope or other means. Panels could be added as farmer is able to afford more. During monsoon season panels could be aligned to create a water collection device to funnel water to storage device.

• Similar concept using plastic film panel units supported bamboo or commercially produced supports.


50

Potential Advantages: • Multiple uses. Takes advantage of large surface area needed for greenhouse and water collection. • Expandable: Farmers could buy panels as needed to reduce initial investment costs and allow them to test the

product before spending more to expand. • Stackable: Greenhouse structure could be stacked to optimize crop yield i.e. greater area of crops could be

covered soon after crops are planted. As crops grow, panels could be removed from some areas to be stacked around other areas to meet height requirements of greenhouse as crops grow.

• Interchangeability of panels would allow for different shaped plots and also minimize repair costs. If one panel is damaged it could be replaced inexpensively with another unit.

Questions/Issues:

Are sturdy plastic panels financially feasible? Are the benefits of a greenhouse worth the cost to the farmer? Do farmers understand the benefits of greenhouses and would they be willing to pay for such a structure?

15.3.11 Starts Box with wind protection and CO2 sheeting

Description: We would create a rigid structure, low to the ground used to provide wind protection and carbon dioxide trapping for early plants. Farmers could grow higher value crops, extend the growing season, and more efficiently use water early in the plants� life.

Potential Advantages: • Extend the Growing Season: Starts could be cultivated during heavy rains and extremely dry conditions. • More efficient water usage: Water could be better retained and applied to the young plants early in their lives • More efficient seed usage: More exacting seed yield.

Questions/Issues:

• Would farmers be willing to manage this high-involvement process? • Are there higher value crops that would benefit from such an approach?

15.3.12Water collection solution

Description: We would create a low-to-the ground, low price water collection solution. This solution could be used directly over the 10,000 L water storage bag or be moved where appropriate.


51

Potential Advantages: • Cleaner water: Because the solution would be raised above ground, water would be cleaner and require less or

no de-silting. • Efficient space usage: The storage solution could be used above the 10,000 L water bag to utilize available

space and to provide a screen from damaging UV rays. • Reuse of water bag material

Questions/Issues: • Can we withstand the wind and the rushing waters? • Can plastic material stand up to UV and rough structural material?

15.3.13Project name: Single-plant solutions

Description: We would create wind-screens and collection solutions to surround each plant. These solutions could utilize local materials such as used plastic bottles (e.g., 2L bottles).

Potential Advantages:

• Reuse of materials: Local trash materials could be used. • More controlled system: Small system could be most efficient for the plant.

Questions/Issues: • How involved would the placement and removal of these devices be during harvest and planting? • Surface area to volume trade-offs?

15.4 First greenhouse prototypes

Simplest greenhouse (missing a door!)


52

Tent idea Pole/panel interface

15.5 Specific component and feature ideas

Access into the greenhouse

Door Prototype 1 � a door that opens outward. When closed it wraps around the corner and is supported by a permanent pipe that you can lift the pole in and out of. See video clip.


53

Door Prototype 2 � A simple door that just consist of a large flap over an opening. The specific design shown in my model would only work well if the greenhouse was taller than a person but the idea could be modified somehow. See video clip.

Panel Opacity / UV Transparency

# Research the UV transparency of basic plastic # Research UV needs of our specific crop(s)

Size/Scalability

# Free standing panels. The farmers can buy as many as he needs to scale up. Maybe they could lock together somehow (like the rigid panels that Dave suggested, only they wouldn�t be rigid.

# Stacking # My inclination is that the structure would need to be at least 1m tall to block wind, but I

don�t have any data/evidence to support this. # Would a small scale system interfere with the irrigation scheme? (for instance a drip

irrigation system?) Structure

# Threading the fabric in and out of the poles (like Ryan was suggesting today) # Constructing a trellis frame type thing out of wood before laying plastic on it. (probably

too expensive) # A rigid frame. # Staking the posts. # Developing a way to get the posts deeply into the ground.


54

# Setting the post in cement. (Probably too expensive�are there cheap cement alternatives?)

Attaching plastic to the poles

# Staples (possible problems with the plastic tearing) # Clamps # Glue # Attach the plastic to itself somehow and just slide it over the poles. (Problems: how to

attach it to itself (glue?) and how to connect two sheets of plastic to one pole.) # Manufacture loops onto the sheets of plastic that could be slid over the poles. Construct a

free-standing or attachable corner patch cover type thing to prevent leaks. (like adding and extra flap to each corner)

Keeping the plastic taut

# String # Wire # Construct a full frame # Attach the plastic firmly to the poles and stake the poles away from each other.

Easy to install stakes

# Set in cement. (probably too expensive) # Carla�s screw idea.


55

15.6 Greenhouse prototypes, round 2

the gas trappers high yield, low costweb.stanford.edu/~cbauburn/basecamp/dschool/homep… · ·...

Documents