Impact
What is better information worth?
A transparent planning model for the national capital that earlier warning, smarter inputs, better prices and cleaner programme delivery could keep in farmers' hands and in the public purse. Every assumption is visible and every slider is yours.
Read this first. These figures are a modelled planning estimate, not audited results and not a forecast of ai krishi revenue. They show the scale of value at stake if the platform reaches a given share of cultivated output. Actual results depend on adoption, crops, geography and implementation, which is why we recommend a baselined pilot with control areas to measure them.
Interactive model
The national value model
Adjust the assumptions
Share of national crop output value reached by the platform.Published estimates run from 10% to 30%. We start at 15%.Through early warning, diagnosis and advisory.Less over-application of fertiliser, crop protection and water.Of a 6% post-harvest and logistics loss assumption.On the marketed share of output, from better timing and market choice.Modelled annual value₹0.18 lakh crore(₹18,257 crore every year)
Farmers and the value chain
₹16,149 cr
₹16,149 cr
Public finances
₹2,108 cr
₹2,108 cr
About ₹1,250 a year per operational holding.
| Source of value | Who gains | ₹ crore / yr |
|---|---|---|
| Total | ||
Method
What goes into the model
Hard numbers where published, clearly labelled assumptions where not. Change any of the assumptions above to test your own view.
| Input | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Crop output value (crop sector) | ₹15.95 lakh crore | Published national accounts, 2023-24, constant prices. Conservative because current prices are higher. |
| Fertiliser subsidy | ₹1.71 lakh crore | Budget estimate for 2026-27. |
| Loss to pests, disease, weeds | 10% to 30% | Range in published official and industry statements. Model default 15%. |
| Operational holdings | about 14.6 crore | Agricultural census order of magnitude, used only for the per-holding figure. |
| Farmer-side input spend | 30% of output value | Planning assumption. |
| Post-harvest and logistics loss | 6% of output value | Planning assumption, below many published estimates for perishables. |
| Marketed share of output | 70% | Planning assumption. |
| Insurance claims paid each year | ₹30,000 crore | Planning assumption. Value is 6% from faster, more objective assessment. |
| Direct benefit outlays | ₹1.5 lakh crore | Planning assumption. Value is 1% from better targeting and fewer manual checks. |
Conservative by design
What the model leaves out
- Higher yields from better varieties and practices beyond the loss avoided
- Water and energy saved, and the emissions that follow
- Food-security and price-stability benefits to consumers
- Time saved by officers, now redirected to field work
- Credit access and lower borrowing costs for well-documented farmers
- Reduced distress from faster relief
These are real but harder to price, so the headline stays conservative.
Measurement
How we will prove it
A value model earns trust only when it is tested against reality.
- BaselineRecord last-season losses, input use, prices and claim times.
- Treat and controlRun ai krishi in selected areas and compare with matched areas.
- MeasureTrack each lever in the table with the same definitions.
- AuditShare method and data with independent reviewers.
- PublishReport results openly, including where they fall short.
Let’s measure it in your geography.
A baselined pilot turns this model into your own evidence.