Raymond James Agribusiness 2011

Agribusiness & Food Products
Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel
Steve Hansen, CMA, CFA

steve.hansen@raymondjames.ca
604.659.8208
Arash Yazdani, MBA (Associate)

arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca
604.659.8280
Canada Research
®
RAYMOND JAMES
Published by Raymond James Ltd
April 27, 2011

Industrial
Industry Report
Steve Hansen CMA, CFA | 604.659.8208 | steve.hansen@raymondjames.ca
Arash Yazdani MBA (Associate) | 604.659.8280 | arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca
Industrial | Agribusiness & Food Products
Agribusiness: Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel
The global agriculture (“Ag”) complex has embarked on a prolonged journey of fundamental change, in our view, grappling with
immense, often competing, secular forces that portend long-term structural imbalances in the world’s food supply chain.
Specifically, we expect the desire to put food on the table, feed in the barnyard, and fuel in the gas tank will increasingly clash
with mounting environmental, political and socioeconomic supply-side constraints.
The demand-side pressures speak for themselves. The world is expected to add two to three billion more people (i.e. mouths to
feed) by 2050, the bulk of which will surface in emerging markets. At the same time, robust economic growth and burgeoning
middle classes in these regions are facilitating a dietary evolution toward greater protein intake and processed foods (United
Nations FAO). Taken together, the FAO estimates that agricultural output will need to rise 75.0% by 2050 just to keep the planet
sufficiently fed. Meanwhile, energy security concerns have introduced an accelerating bio-fuel phenomenon that increasingly
competes for already scarce food supplies. Finally, we highlight the massive inflow of investment dollars, and arguably
speculation, which has greatly enhanced equity and commodity volatility in recent years.
Supply-induced challenges have also introduced powerful stressors on the global Ag complex. Weather, pest and disease, in
particular, are responsible for delivering powerful, unpredictable shocks to global output. For instance, severe drought in Russia,
coupled with excessive flooding in Canada, China and Australia, conspired to impair 2010 global wheat production. Long term
issues such as climate change, declining arable land per capita, water scarcity, and declining productivity growth also present
material challenges that, if not addressed, will place mounting strains on the complex’s ability to feed the planet.
The corollary, in our view, is that we are in the preliminary stages of a long-term bull market in agriculture products. With global
food reserves hovering near multi-decade lows, and many foodstuffs trading at multi-decade highs, we believe that prices are
likely to remain both elevated and volatile. After decades of underinvestment, we also believe the sector is ripe for change,
requiring significant investment in research and development, productivity enhancement, and commercialization, a process
which is expected to create a wealth of investable opportunities.
At the same time, investor caution is also warranted, as short-term cyclicality can often turn against long-term secular forces. In
this context, we highlight the tremendous volatility associated with many Ag-related equities and commodities over the past
two years. As always, we believe investors should be cognizant of market expectations and, above all, valuation sensitive.
This report profiles SEVEN Canadian-listed companies that boast significant exposure to the global Ag sector. Three of them—
Rocky Mountain Dealerships, Cervus Equipment and Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp. —are part of our existing universe of stocks.
Four others—Viterra, Alliance Grain Traders, BioExx Specialty Proteins, GLG Life Tech—represent new initiations of coverage for
us (see Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1: Raymond James Ltd. – Agribusiness & Food Products Universe
Ticker Ticker Target Price Total Return

Company Primary Secondary Current Price Rating (6-12 mths) To Target Analyst
Alliance Grain Traders Inc. AGT-TSX C$23.25 1 C$30.00 31% SH

Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp. ABC-TSX C$1.15 2 C$2.25 96% SH
BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd. BXI-TSX C$1.74 2 C$2.50 44% SH
Cervus Equipment Corp. CVL-TSX C$17.62 1 C$20.00 16% BC
GLG Life Tech Corp. GLG-TSX GLGL-NASDAQ C$9.05 1 C$12.50 38% SH
Rocky Mountain Dealerships Inc. RME-TSX C$10.05 2 C$14.00 41% BC
Viterra Inc. VT-TSX VTA-ASX C$11.10 3 C$12.50 14% SH
Raymond James Ltd.
Please read domestic and foreign disclosure/risk information beginning on page 170 and Analyst Certification on page 171.
Raymond James Ltd. | 2200 – 925 West Georgia Street | Vancouver BC Canada V6C 3L2
Canada Research | Page 2 of 183 Agribusiness & Food Products
Table of Contents
How to Play the Cycle — Our Favoured Ag-Related Names ............................................................... 3
Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel ......................................................................................... 4
Demand-Side Pressures ...................................................................................................................... 4
Supply-Side Pressures......................................................................................................................... 10
Supply-Demand Implications.............................................................................................................. 17
Company Overviews ........................................................................................................................... 19
Appendix A: Industry Comparables .................................................................................................... 34
Company Initiations............................................................................................................................ 35
Alliance Grain Traders Inc. .................................................................................................................. 36
BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd. ............................................................................................................. 68
GLG Life Tech Corp.............................................................................................................................. 99
Viterra Inc. .......................................................................................................................................... 133
Agribusiness & Food Products Canada Research | Page 3 of 183
How to Play the Cycle — Our Favoured Ag-Related Names
Despite our positive long-term view toward the broader Ag sector, we recommend that
investors remain vigilant in their Ag investing process. In particular, we highlight the
inherent volatility that often strikes Ag equities in association with short-term events
(i.e. weather-related supply shocks). We’re also mindful of market expectations, which
tend to ebb and flow in tandem with Ag commodity prices, geopolitical events, and
headline news. Given this basket of largely unpredictable factors, we recommend that
investors steer toward those companies that boast a: (i) strong growth profile; (ii)
healthy balance sheet; (iii) proven management team; and (iv) attractive valuation. This
lattermost criterion is particularly important, in our view, in order to provide investors
with a healthy margin of safety in the event that unforeseen shocks do indeed arise (as
they often do).
For the purpose of this report, we have selected three ‘Top Picks’ in order to highlight
where our conviction is currently the strongest. These include: GLG Life Tech Corp.
(GLG-TSX), Cervus Equipment Corp. (CVL-TSX), and Alliance Grain Traders Inc. (AGT-TSX).
As suggested, we believe all three of these names score well against the four screening
criteria noted above and are therefore Strong Buy rated. We also highlight our
Outperform ratings on Asia Bio-Chem Group (ABC-TSX), BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd.
(BXI-TSX), and Rocky Mountain Dealerships Inc. (RME-TSX). Viterra Inc., notably, is the
only name that we currently rate Market Perform, which we highlight is strictly due to
current valuations.
Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel
The global agriculture (“Ag”) complex has embarked on a prolonged journey of

fundamental change, in our view, grappling with immense, often competing, secular
forces that portend long-term structural imbalances in the world’s food supply chain.
Specifically, we believe the desire to put food on the table, feed in the barnyard, and
fuel in the gas tank will increasingly clash with mounting environmental, political and
socioeconomic supply-side constraints. To delve into this argument further, below we
review each of the subcomponents contributing to these demand and supply side
pressures.
Demand-Side Pressures
Putting Food on the Table
World food demand is forecast to steadily climb over the next four decades. Specifically,
the UN estimates that global food output will need to rise by ~75.0% over the same
period just to keep the world adequately fed. We see this trend favourably impacting
the growth outlook for all of our Ag-related names due to global increases in demand
for both high-quality, nutritious foods as well as convenience-oriented, processed food
products. Factors supporting this demand growth include:
1. Population Growth—Plenty More Mouths to Feed

Population growth is the principal underlying driver behind global food demand
growth. The UN forecasts an incremental 2.3 bln mouths to feed by 2050 with the
global population reaching ~9.2 bln. Geographically, we highlight that over 95.0% of
this growth is expected to emerge in developing nations where economic growth
and earnings power are accelerating rapidly, and where commercial agriculture is
less advanced (see Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2: Urban Population as % of Global Total

10,000 90.0%
Developing nations as % of global total
9,000 80.0%
8,000
70.0%
7,000
Population (mlns)
60.0%
6,000 Global population grow th
50.0% is expected to be
5,000 primarily centered w ithin
40.0% the developing w orld.
4,000
30.0%
3,000
20.0%
2,000
1,000 10.0%
0 0.0%
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2009 2015E 2025E 2035E 2045E
Developed nations Least developed nations Developing nation population as % of global total
Source: UN, Raymond James Ltd.
2. Dietary Evolution—Middle Classes Migrating Up the Food Chain

Robust population growth in emerging markets is also expected to support a
prolonged urbanization wave, helping fuel rising disposable incomes, and a shift
toward higher-quality, protein rich diets. A greater emphasis on processed, pre-
packaged foods is also likely to emerge, in our view. These trends will likely have a
favourable impact on several of the Ag names we cover, most notably: Alliance
GrainTraders, GLG Life Tech, Asia Bio-Chem, and BioExx (see below for more
details).
 Urbanization Tsunami—Cities within emerging markets, many already the

largest on the planet, are poised to continue growing. Driven by the prospect of
superior economic growth, better pay, and a higher standard of living,
hundreds of millions of rural workers are expected to migrate into urban
centers over the next four decades. Specifically, the World Bank expects global
urbanization rates to reach 53.2% and 60.3% by 2020 and 2030, respectively,
versus only 27.4% in 1990 and 44.9% in 2010 (see Exhibit 3).
 Middle Class Explosion—Mass urbanization, as a direct consequence, is fuelling
robust income growth and an explosion of the urban middle class within
emerging markets. According to the UN, per capita income growth in emerging
markets has surged 11.3% CAGR, far outstripping the 4.6% CAGR of developed
nations (see Exhibit 4). In other words, emerging market city dwellers are, on
average, becoming far wealthier.
 Middle Class Migrating Up the Food Chain—Meat is rapidly becoming a dietary
staple within the emerging market middle class. As disposable incomes have
risen, so too have dietary expectations. As such, middle class consumers have
steadily migrated up the food chain to demand greater quantities of meat, milk,
eggs, and related dairy products (see Exhibit 5). On a global basis, meat
consumption is estimated by the World Bank to grow by 22.8% from 257,453 kt
in 2009 to 316,022 kt in 2019. Given the forward looking trends described thus
far, we expect this to continue.
 Foods of Convenience On The Rise—Wealthier middle class consumers have
also demonstrated their growing preference for foods of convenience. With
increasingly busy lives and greater disposable income, semi-prepared, pre-
packaged foods and dining out have become more important daily
considerations. Refrigerator ownership and a developing cold-storage supply
chain have also allowed the frozen products industry to blossom, delivering an
array of product variety and convenience previously unavailable. Chinese food
and beverage industry data indicates a growth of 25.0% over the past 10 years
(see Exhibit 6).
Exhibit 3: Urban Population as % of Global Total Exhibit 4: Global Growth in Mean GNI per Capita
10,000 80.0 3,500 45,000

Low & Middle Income Nations High Income Nations
9,000 Total population (mlns)
Low & Middle Income Nations GNI per

70.0 40,000
Urban population (% of total) 3,000
High Income Nations GNI per Capita

Urban Population as % of Total (%)
8,000
Global Urban Population (mlns)
35,000
60.0
2,500
Capita (current $US)

7,000
30,000
50.0
6,000
(current $US)
2,000 25,000
5,000 40.0
1,500 20,000
4,000
30.0
15,000
3,000 1,000
20.0 10,000
2,000
500
10.0 5,000
1,000
0 0.0 0 0
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
1960
1964
1968
1972
1976
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
2004
2008
2020
2040
Source: World Bank, UN FAO, Raymond James Ltd.
Exhibit 5: Meat & Dairy Consumption Growth ‘09-’19 Exhibit 6: Chinese F&B Industry Market Value
50.0%
$800
OECD Nations Developing Nations
$700
40.0% 37.8% 38.6%
∆ in Vlm Consumed 2009-2019 (%)
33.4% $600
33.3%
CAGR = 25%
US$ Million
30.0% $500
22.9% $400
20.0% $300
13.2% 14.6%
$200
10.0%
6.1%
3.3% 4.3% $100
$-
0.0%
Beef & Veal Pork Poultry Butter Cheese 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Source: World Bank, HK Monetary Authority, GLG Life Tech Corp., Raymond James Ltd.
3. Pulses Evolution
The long-term outlook for global pulse demand is compelling, in our view.
Specifically, we believe that pulses will continue to play an increasingly prominent
role in both developed and emerging markets as an efficient (see Exhibit 7),
economical source of protein, offering tremendous health and ancillary benefits.
Growth in pulse consumption will, in our view, have the greatest positive impact on
Alliance Grain Traders, followed by Viterra (see below for more).
Pulse crops are expected to become a growing source of dietary protein within the
emerging markets. Consisting of dry beans, peas, lentils, and chickpeas, pulses
currently make up approximately ~10.0% of protein and ~5.0% of caloric intake
within low income nations. However, because they require only a fraction of the
water to produce an equivalent ounce of protein (vs. meat), we expect
consumption to grow steadily, most rapidly in the world’s arid regions and
emerging markets. The FAO corroborates this view, expecting pulses demand in
emerging markets to reach 45.4 mln tonnes by 2030, up considerably versus the
38.3 mln tonnes expected for 2015 (see Exhibit 8).
According to the UN FAO, emerging markets represent the lion’s share of global
pulse demand, accounting for over 60.0% of consumption in 2007. Furthermore,
the world’s poorest, least developed nations made up almost 20.0% of global
consumption in this same period. Given the pulse attributes described above,
demand growth is expected to remain healthy with rapid population growth serving
as the single most important demand variable (per capita consumption is expected
to be flat). Major importing nations including India, Egypt, and Turkey are expected
to increase their imports over time, while exporters such as China are expected to
soon become net importers of product.
In Canada, pulses have steadily increased their position within the agricultural
landscape. Specifically, the value of pulse crops (measured in terms of farm cash
receipts) grew at CAGR of ~7.3% from 2001 to 2009 to make up 7.3% of all crop
value. Although total Canadian pulse production volumes in 2010 exceeded crops
such as soybeans and oats, they remain below staple crops such as wheat and corn,
according to Agriculture Canada.
Exhibit 7: Protein Content by Weight (%) Exhibit 8: Emerging Market Pulses Demand
40.0% 50.0
36% 45.4
Pulses provide protein
Pulses Demand for Food (mln tonnes)
45.0 Pulse crop demand for

35.0% content by weight
38.3 food is expected to grow
Protein content by weight (%)
equivalent to meats 40.0 at a much faster pace in

30.0%
35.0 developing countries
31.0
25.0% 23%
22% 30.0
25.3
19% 25.0
20.0%
20.0
15.0% 12%
11% 15.0
10% 9%
10.0% 7% 10.0
3.4 3.8 4.0
5.0% 4% 5.0 2.2
2%
0.0% 0.0
Developing Countries Industrial Countries
Cassava
Beef
Maize
Corn
Rice
Milk
Poultry
Pulses
Eggs
Barley
Wheat
1979-1981 1997-1999 2015 2030
Source: World Pulses Organization, UN FAO, Raymond James Ltd.
Putting Feed in the Barnyard
Animal feed (‘feed’) consumption is generally expected to increase in tandem with

global meat consumption. Feed consumes a wide variety of grains and seeds, including
wheat, cereals, corn, soybean, sorghum, and even cotton seed. The FAO estimates, for
instance, that feed production currently accounts for ~40.0% of agricultural production
globally and more than 50.0% in the developed nations, with several key factors poised
to push this threshold even higher. We believe these trends will most positively benefit
Asia Bio-Chem, Viterra and BioExx within our coverage universe (see below for more).
1. Meat Consumption Driving Feed Demand
Accelerating meat consumption in emerging markets is driving a commensurate
surge in livestock production and animal feed requirements, competing directly
with human consumption of cereals. According to the FAO, approximately 35.0% or
~660.0 mln tonnes of world cereals production is currently used as animal feed,
expected to increase to ~40.0% of total cereal demand or 1.15 bln tonnes by 2030
(see Exhibit 9). These figures may in fact be conservative, in our view, as other
estimates peg cereal usage for feed exceeding 50.0% of total cereal production by
2030. The FAO also predicts rapid growth in coarse grain usage for animal feed
within developing countries, where they currently are a critical part of the human
food supply (~80.0% used for human consumption).
2. Meat’s Multiplier Effect
Rising meat consumption carries significant downstream implications on feed grain
demand due to meat’s embedded multiplier effect. Beef is the highest intensity
form of meat, with 1kg of beef requiring up to 8kg of grain, or an 8x multiplier.
Poultry, the lowest intensity, still requires 2kg of grain for each 1kg meat resulting
in a 2x multiplier (see Exhibit 10). Along with grains used for feed, there are strains
exerted throughout the entire supply chain such as fertilizer and water
consumption. We do note however, trends within the developed world have
resulted in consumption of beef dropping globally as a proportion of total meat
consumption resulting in a steady ‘trade’ from higher to lower multiplier.
Exhibit 9: Cereal Demand for Feed vs. Total Exhibit 10: Grains Required to Produce Meat
3,000 2,831
1980 1998 2015 2030
2,379 * shaded areas represent feed use

2,500 Beef 8
Cereal Demand (mln tonnes)
1,864 1,917
2,000
1,544
1,437 Pork 4
1,500
1,129
1,000
712
599
525
428 652 Poultry 2
500
0 0 2 4 6 8 10
Industrial Developing
World Kg Grains to Produce 1kg Meat
Countries Countries
Source: USDA, FAO, Raymond James Ltd.
Putting Fuel In the Gas Tank
Rising energy prices and global energy security concerns have spawned robust growth in
bio-fuels production (i.e. ethanol) over the past half-decade, introducing another major
competing use for global grain production. Despite the economic folly behind the
argument, government incentives (i.e. subsidies) and long-term renewable fuel
mandates have played a critical role in promoting bio-fuels as a legitimate blending
agent for gasoline. According to the OECD, global bio-fuels production is therefore
expected to grow from 89,427 mln litres in 2009 to 158,849 mln litres in 2019,
representing a 5.9% CAGR (see Exhibit 11).
1. Food for Fuel, the Evolution of Ethanol in the U.S.

Ethanol has played a profound role in diverting U.S. corn from the food supply chain
to conversion into fuel (see Exhibit 12). Strong regulatory induced domestic
demand for ethanol as well as increased exports is expected to keep planted U.S.
corn acreages high (in the range of 88-90 mln acres). The USDA predicts ethanol
production in America now accounts for ~35.0% of the nation’s corn production,
expanding only slightly to ~36% by 2021. This expected moderation in growth is
based on expiration of U.S. ethanol subsidies as well as limited potential for future
market penetration given constraints in the North American E-15 (15% ethanol
blend) market and a slim E-85 market. If subsidies continue to be extended, as they
recently were for 2011, growth rates may indeed surpass these noted forecasts.
2. Vegetable Oil for Biodiesel
Industrial and energy applications for vegetable-derived oils have been growing
most prominently within the EU. Here again, government regulations provide
incentives to farmers to grow oilseed crops such as rapeseed and linseed for non-
food, vegetable-oil based industrial and energy applications. In addition, mandates
within the EU stipulate vegetable-based biodiesel providing 10.0% of the
transportation sector’s energy needs by 2019. Despite great strides being made in
closing the gap to economic viability, biodiesel and other biofuels remain
economically unviable without government assistance.
Exhibit 11: Global Biofuel Production Forecast Exhibit 12: Ethanol’s Share of US Corn Production
250,000
50.0%
Biodiesel Ethanol * figures are cumulative 24,000 Corn for other uses
Corn produced for ethanol 45.0%
200,020
200,000 20,000 Ethanol as % of total corn prdn 40.0%
Ethanol as % of corn production

Biofuel production (mln litres)
Corn production (mln bushels)
35.0%
16,000
150,000 30.0%
12,000 25.0%
100,000 89,427 20.0%

71,737
58,077 8,000 15.0%
50,000 37,2047 38,508 10.0%

26,266
4,000
12,931 5.0%
0 - 0.0%
2009 2019 2009 2019 2009 2019 2009 2019 2008/09 2010/11 2012/13 2014/15 2016/17 2018/19 2020/21
USA EU Brazil World
Source: USDA, FAO, Raymond James Ltd.
Supply-Side Pressures
Supply-induced challenges have also introduced powerful stressors on the global Ag

complex. One of the biggest challenges in this respect is output variability, with factors
such as weather, pest and disease delivering increasingly powerful, unpredictable
supply-side shocks. Longer term issues such as climate change, declining arable land,
water scarcity, and stubbornly low productivity also present challenges that, if not
addressed, will place mounting strains on the complex’s ability to feed the planet.
Declining Arable Land per Capita
Sharp declines in global arable land per capita could represent a material threat to
global food security over time, in our view. While total land under cultivation is
expected to grow—as it has for several decades—the pace is expected to significantly
lag population growth and other powerful forces driving global food demand.
1. Not Keeping Pace; Arable Land per Capita Declining

A multi-decade decline in arable land per capita is raising profound questions about
future output requirements. While land dedicated to agriculture use has increased
by 12.0% since the early 1960s, this has been far outstripped by a doubling in the
world’s population over the same period. The corollary is that arable land, when
measured on a per capita basis, has declined precipitously from 0.43 ha in 1962 to
0.23 ha in 2008, representing a nearly 40.0% decline. Looking forward, this trend is
expected to continue for the foreseeable future (see Exhibit 13).
2. Structural Impediments Make Rapid Growth Difficult
Several factors continue to limit cultivation growth. First, roughly half of the
uncultivated land resides in just 10 countries, five of which are in Africa (see Exhibit
14), and limited by small-scale subsistence farming, geopolitical instability, lack of
infrastructure, and meek productivity. Second, in regions such as Latin America, a
large portion of the available land remains under tropical rainforest cover, thereby
raising concerns over deforestation and ecological implications. Finally, water
scarcity and climate change are expected to further compound challenges for these
regions over time (see below for more).
Exhibit 13: Arable Land per Capita Exhibit 14: Global Net Potential Arable Land
0.5
North Africa & Near East Area Cultivated
Net Potential Arable Land
0.4 North Asia
Arable Land per Capita (Ha)
Europe
0.3
North America
0.2
Asia & The Pacific
0.1 South and Central America
Sub-Saharan Africa
-
1961 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 2015E 2030E 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Net Potential Arable Land (Million ha)
Source: World Bank, Raymond James Ltd.
Water Scarcity
Water scarcity is expected to limit future growth in crop yield. Historically, yield gains
have relied upon improved irrigation. As a result, the Ag sector is now the single largest
consumer of fresh water globally, accounting for ~75.0% of all water drawn from rivers,
lakes and aquifers. However, many studies suggest that current extraction levels are
unsustainable, most notably in China, South Asia, the Middle East and North Africa.
Water available for agriculture and future yield growth is expected to diminish due to
competing requirements from rapid urbanization and industrialization. This issue is
expected to be particularly acute in the same semi-arid regions where uncultivated
arable land remains plentiful. The pace of growth in irrigated land has slowed
considerably in the last decade (see Exhibit 15) and without structural changes, pressure
on water resources is forecasted to result in significant gaps between supply and
demand in major emerging markets (see Exhibit 16).
Exhibit 15: Irrigated Land Expansion Exhibit 16: 2030 Water Supply/Demand Gap
350 CAGR = 2.70% CAGR = 0.96% 1,600
*Base case, assuming no structural changes
300 1,400
2030 Water (Blns cubic meters)

250 1,200
50% gap
Irrigated land (mlns ha)
1,000
200
800
150 25% gap
600
100
400
50 200
0 0
Supply Demand Supply Demand
1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
China India
World Developing countries Developed countries Industry Agriculture Municipal & Domestic
Source: FAO, McKinsey & Company, Raymond James Ltd.
Climate Change
Notwithstanding plentiful debate surrounding its underlying causes, climate change is

widely expected to have an adverse impact on global agriculture output and food
security over time. The World Bank recently cited, for instance, that the atmospheric,
physiological and agro-ecological side effects associated with climate change could
impair global agricultural productivity by as much as 16.0% by 2080. While several
studies suggest there could actually be a short-term lift to productivity due to carbon
fertilization (i.e. higher CO2 levels) and extended growing seasons in northern regions,
the world’s most vulnerable areas (i.e. emerging markets) are expected to bear the
brunt of the negative impact, resulting in heightened global food security concerns.
1. Physiological & Agro-Ecological Impacts to Pressure Yields

Rising temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns, and more frequent pest and
disease outbreaks are expected to pressure global agriculture yields. While certain
northern countries may benefit from longer growing seasons, gains will be more
than offset by declines in hotter, southern latitude nations where temperatures are
already near critical productivity thresholds. Sub-Saharan Africa and, to a lesser
extent, S.E. Asia are cited as the most vulnerable regions. A recent study by Nelson
et al. (2009) estimates climate change could reduce wheat yields in developing
countries as much as 34.0% by 2050. The effect is expected to be a greater reliance
by these regions on imports, amplifying global food security concerns.
2. More Frequent Extreme Weather Events, Unpredictable Shocks
Evidence suggests climate change will give rise to more frequent extreme weather
events resulting in greater output losses. Traditional crop model forecasting does
not capture the catastrophic impacts of drought, flooding, and cyclones, for
instance. Last year, for example, Russia’s worst drought in 50 years wiped out 20-
25% of the country’s wheat crop (see Exhibit 17), sparking sharp price increases and
an export ban by government still in effect today (see Exhibit 18). A recent study by
McKinsey & Co. corroborates the influence of extreme weather, indicating that
flooding and drought have been responsible for steadily increasing crop loss in
China since the 1950s, including last year’s drought which wiped out 10.0% of the
country’s domestic sugar cane crop resulting in a 3 mln tonne output shortfall.
Exhibit 17: Russian Wheat Production/Consumption Exhibit 18: Russian Wheat Export Prices
80,000 12.0% 250

Russian w heat consumption
70,000 Russian w heat production
~57% rise in price
Russian Wheat Export Pricing ($USD/t)
Russian as % of global production 10.0%

200 within 1-month
60,000
As % of world production
Russian wheat exports

Russian wheat (1000 MT)
8.0% halted in August 2010

50,000 after production concerns
150
& dramatic rise in prices.
40,000 6.0%
100
30,000
4.0%
Russian production falls below
20,000 estimated consumption needs
50
for 2010/2011 harvest 2.0%
10,000
0 0.0% 0
1987/1988 1991/1992 1995/1996 1999/2000 2003/2004 2007/2008 Jan-10 Mar-10 May-10 Jul-10 Sep-10 Nov-10
Source: USDA, Bloomberg, Raymond James Ltd.
Stagnating Productivity Growth
In light of the compounding demand and supply side factors reviewed thus far,
productivity gains will, in our view, remain the single most important variable in driving
global food output. Productivity growth has been the dominant source of incremental
output gains over the past century and agro-ecological models suggest further increases
are attainable. On the other hand, several leading bodies point out that productivity
growth may be a ‘false panacea’ as cereal crop yield growth has plummeted sharply
since the early 1980s and mounting socio-economic and resource limitations portend
increasingly difficult hurdles toward achieving higher growth.
1. Yield Gains Have Dominated Output Growth Historically

Agriculture output is generally a function of three factors, namely: yield, quantity of
arable land, and cropping intensity (i.e. double-cropping, reduced fallow area). Over
the past century, with the latter two variables subject to various pressures, output
growth has largely been a function of strong yield gains. The World Bank (Bruinsma,
2009) estimates, for example, that 70.0% of the world’s increase in crop production
between 1961 and 2005 was due to yield increases, versus 23.0% from arable land
expansion and 8.0% from higher cropping intensity. Were it not for the healthy
yield gains achieved, much larger areas of arable land would have needed to be
brought under cultivation. These same yield gains are also widely recognized as
responsible for ushering in the ‘Green Revolution’ that led to several decades of
cheap food.
2. Promising New Practices & Technologies
Our own observations, as well as those of other industry sources, indicates that
several new cultivation practices and applicable equipment technologies are
expected to help advance current output and yield growth. Zero tillage, for
example, is a rapidly expanding practice—predominantly in the developed world to
date—involving direct seed injection into the soil without the need to plough or
sow fields. Combined with proper residue management, this practice boasts
benefits such as soil moisture preservation, increased water filtration, minimized
nutrient run-off, and ultimately, higher yields. Development of precision agriculture
techniques and equipment has also been a steady source of incremental
improvement. Targeted, optimally timed water and fertilizer application, for
example, have been credited with reducing nutrient run-off, bolstering water-use
efficiency, and increasing the output of high intensity operations in developed
countries. Remote sensing technologies have also proven highly beneficial in
precisely monitoring soil moisture data to prevent unnecessary watering.
3. Yield Growth Rapidly Deteriorating
While agro-ecological models suggest that further yield increases are attainable,
critics point out that yield growth in key cereal crops has been deteriorating since
the early 1980s. USDA and FAPRI data corroborate this view with wheat yield CAGR
dropping from ~2.3% between 1960 and 2000 to ~0.9% this past decade and a
forecast of only ~0.7% for the decade (see Exhibit 19). Sharply higher commodity
prices should in theory help slow, or even reverse, these declines. This should not,
however, be considered a given outcome due to mounting socioeconomic and
resource limitations (i.e. water scarcity), most notably in developed nations where
the biggest opportunities for yield growth lie. Yield growth remains the dominant
source of forecasted potential crop productivity gains over the next 40 years (see
Exhibit 20) portending the need to reverse the aforementioned recent trends.
Exhibit 19: Global Mixed Grain Yields Exhibit 20: 2007-2050 Crop Productivity
CAGR: 2.29% 0.86% 0.73%

0.2 100% Arable land expansion Cropping intensity Yield increases
Slowing CAGR
growth in yield 85%
Source of crop production growth (%)

0.2
70%
Global wheat yield (MT/HA)
0.1
55%
0.1 40%
25%
0.0
10%
-0.1
-5%
YoY % Yield Gain/Decline

-0.1 -20%
1960/1961 1970/1971 1980/1981 1990/1991 2000/2001 2010/2011 World Developing Latin sub- S. Asia E. Asia Near East /
countries America Saharan North
Africa Africa
Source: FAO, USDA, FAPRI, Raymond James Ltd.
Farm Income
One obvious implication from rising food prices is higher incomes for farmers. Although
there are other important factors to consider—such as operating costs (fuel prices, for
example, have been offsetting some of the benefits related to higher crop prices),
technological innovations, financing incentives, trade-in values, fleet age, etc.—higher
farm incomes tend to effect a great propensity to spend on Ag machinery. We see such
a trend favourably impacting the growth outlook for the two Ag dealers that we cover,
namely Rocky Mountain and Cervus. Higher farm incomes also increase farmer spending
on seeds, crop protection, and other inputs that ensure greater productivity. We believe
this has positive implications for Viterra.
Vertical integration within the global food supply chain is, however, resulting in higher
consumer and production standards that contribute to a growing gap between farmers
in developed countries and those in the developing world that may not have the
resources to comply with stringent standards. This is further exasperated by policies
within most OECD nations designed to protect producers (i.e. farmers) from price
fluctuations which are not always replicated in the developing world.
1. North American Farms Poised for Big Numbers
The USDA estimates 2011 net farm income of $94.7 bln, up 20.0% y/y and 46.0%
higher than the previous 10-yr average of $64.8 bln. The gains are across the board
but do vary by sector. Specifically, the y/y gain in value for food grains is projected
to be ~15.0% while cotton and oil crops are expected to increase by ~35.0% and
~27.0% respectively. These numbers are driven primarily by strength in agriculture
commodity prices. Although large y/y swings in net farm income are typical of the
industry, an overall improvement over time is clearly evident (see Exhibit 21) in
tandem with increasing prices, dropping input costs, and strong export demand.
2. Increased Expenditures
The noted recent increased farmer income has translated into strength in demand
for equipment and supplies. Notwithstanding the already strong farm balance
sheets and historically low debt levels as measured by an average debt-to-asset
ratio of 11.3% (see Exhibit 22), we note N.A. farmers also benefit from low interest
rates associated with debt financing including equipment financing. Indeed, OEM
financing incentives have been very aggressive lately. This represents a significant
risk to future demand, in our view, if (when?) rates start to normalize. In the
meantime, however, we expect the outlook for Ag machine sales to remain robust.
Exhibit 21: Farm Spending Trends Exhibit 22: Healthy U.S. Farmer Solvency
100 2,500,000 35.0%

Net farm income Feed purchased Farm debt Farm equity
Fertilizers Non-dwelling Capex
90 Debt-to-equity Debt-to-asset
30.0%
Steady increase 2,000,000
80
in spending in
line with income 25.0%
70
Debt Ration %
$US Millions
60 1,500,000
20.0%
$US Blns
50
15.0%
40 1,000,000
30 10.0%
20 500,000
5.0%
10
0 0 0.0%
1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008 2011E 1960 1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008
Source: USDA, Raymond James Ltd.
3. Emerging Markets Farmer Income Also Growing

Farmer income within the emerging markets is growing rapidly, resulting in
continued spending on higher inputs (e.g. better quality seed and fertilizers) as well
as capital spending in effort to improve yields. For context, research firm Global
Insight positions the Ag sector amongst the top-10 growth sectors within G-20
countries through to 2020 (see Exhibit 23). During this same period, it is estimated
“BRIIC” nations (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, and China) will account for 80.0% of
global Ag sector growth, a higher proportion contribution than to any other sector
(see Exhibit 24). While this growth is primarily attributed to higher selling prices, it
is also due to increasing government incentives. China’s Ministry of Agriculture, for
example, reports farmer subsidies of 140 bln RMB for 2010 (~$21.2 bln in USD),
representing CAGR of 45.1% from only 15 bln RMB in 2004. Brazil has approved
farmer subsidies of R$116 bln for 2010/2011 (~$69.5 bln in USD) with the bulk
going towards large-scale farms.
4. Size Matters: The Big Get Bigger
Commercial scale farms account for 12.0% of all U.S. farms but provide 80.0% of
total production and 54.0% of net income generation. Intermediate-sized farms,
however, are quickly growing in scale, accounting for the greatest gains in net
income (78.0% y/y) often graduating into the commercial production category. In
our view, this potential to step-up gives intermediate farms the greatest incentive
to increase spending on leading-edge farm inputs and equipment such as breeding
innovations, zero-tillage, heavy equipment, and IT-based automation. The
developing world is also exhibiting this trend towards commercial-scale farming
and, in some cases, is further along. Institutional capital is being partnered with
local land ownership and labour to create large-scale farming operations. In fact,
the few publicly-traded farming companies are all located in developing economies.
Exhibit 23: G-20 Value Added by Sector Exhibit 24: % of Global Sector Growth in BRIIC Nations
Value added 2008-2020 CAGR 2008-2020 Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry, Fishing 80
Sector
($ Blns) (%) Energy, Mining & Quarrying 70
Public Admin, Sanitary & Personal Srvs 1,324 3.2 Construction 66
Other Business Activities 1,136 2.9 Processed Food 59
Real Estate & Dwellings 1,060 2.1 Electricity, Gas, and Water 56
Wholesale Trade 1,058 3.2 Transportation & Storage 52
Medical, Dental, Veterinary, Other Health 826 2.9 Wholesale Trade 46
Transportation & Storage 762 3.4
Motor Vehicle Sales, Repair, Maint. 44
Educational Services 692 2.9
Communications 39
Financial Institutions 657 2.8
Construction 621 2.4 Restaurants and Hotels 38
Agriculture, Hunting, Forestry, Fishing 588 2.9 Financial Institutions 36
Communications 583 3.6 Public Admin, Sanitary & Personal Srvs 35
Retail Trade ex. Motor Vehicles & Motorcycles 543 2.6 Radio, TV, & Communications Equipment 34
Restaurants and Hotels 373 2.8 Educational Services 32
Electricity, Gas, and Water 370 3.1 Insurance 28
Energy, Mining & Quarrying 318 2.9 Real Estate & Dwellings 28
Computer & Related Activities 318 3.5 Retail Trade ex. Vehicles 27
Radio, TV, and Communications Equipment 313 4.5 Computer & Related Activities 23
Processed Food 231 3.7 Other Business Activities 23
Insurance 222 2.4
Medical, Dental, Veterinary, Other Health 18
Motor Vehicle Sales, Repair, Maint. 218 2.3
Source: USDA, Deere & Company, Raymond James Ltd.
Supply-Demand Implications
The corollary, in our view, is that we are in the preliminary stages of a long-term bull
market in agriculture products. With global food reserves hovering near multi-decade
lows, and many foodstuffs trading at multi-decade highs, we believe that prices are
likely to remain both elevated and volatile for the foreseeable future. After decades of
underinvestment, we also believe the sector is ripe for change, requiring significant
investment in research and development, productivity enhancement, and
commercialization, a process which is expected to create a wealth of investable
opportunities.
Structural Decline in Stocks-to-Use Ratios; Near-Record Prices
We believe that a structural decline in global food reserves, as measured by their

respective stock-to-use ratios, suggests that prices are likely to remain both elevated
and volatile going forward. Global wheat and rice ratios have, for example, declined by
15.6% and 42.6% respectively since 1990, touching levels not witnessed since the early
1980s (see Exhibit 25). Historically, these declines have been associated with elevated
prices. Looking forward, with the USDA forecasting these ratios to remain near, or at,
historical lows over the next decade, we believe world agricultural commodity prices are
likely to remain susceptible to short-term supply shocks and the rapid evolution of
powerful long-term demand variables.
Despite lingering macroeconomic concerns surrounding the recent global recession,

market prices for major food commodities are pushing multi-decade highs (see Exhibit
26). Wheat and corn prices, for example, have experienced CAGR of ~21.3% and ~13.5%
respectively over the past 5 years, setting record highs. Recent food riots in North Africa
and the Middle East have alerted governments around the world to the risks of food
inflation. We echo these concerns, particularly in the context of the long-term secular
forces reviewed earlier.
Exhibit 25: Global Stocks-to-Use Ratios (Historical) Exhibit 26: UN Food Indices (Historical)
70.0% 450
Wheat stocks-to-use ratio Rice stocks-to-use ratio
Food price index Meat price index
60.0% Corn stocks-to-use-ratio 400
Sugar price index Oils price index
Stocks-to-use
Global stocks to use ratio (%)
50.0% 350
vs. Index (2002-2004=100)
ratios have
been on the
40.0% 300
decline
30.0% 250
20.0% 200
10.0% 150
0.0% 100
-10.0% 50
-20.0% 0
1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
Source: FAO, USDA, Raymond James Ltd.
Collision of Factors Also Warrant Near-Term Caution
While we remain demonstrably bullish on agriculture commodities over the long-term,

we believe short-term caution is warranted. As discussed herein, the collision of
powerful secular forces such as accelerating demand, strained supply, and dwindling
global reserves have all played a role in the widespread price advances. The sharp
decline in the U.S. dollar also fits into this multi-year theme. Exacerbating the recent
‘fly-up’ in prices, in our view, has been the short-term influence of weather-induced
supply shocks (i.e. Russian drought, Australian floods) and robust investment
speculation.
1. Price Spikes Not Atypical; Mean Reversion Is

Large price spikes in agricultural commodities are not necessarily a new
phenomenon. While prices have been generally mean reverting (i.e. flat) over the
past five decades, there have been dozens of large spikes in individual commodities
prices over the same period, often attributable to large weather-related supply
shocks in key growing regions. According to the IMF, this has resulted in eight
declines in global wheat production over 5.0%, for example, within the past 50
years. Notwithstanding the high degree of historical volatility, large price spikes
driven by production shortfalls are, in most cases, followed by volume recoveries
and commensurate price easing, raising red flags in light of recent price action.
2. Speculation & Dedicated Investment Dollars Redefining Landscape
The massive influx of dedicated investment dollars, and arguably speculation, into
the Ag sector has introduced a powerful market force likely to sustain and further
enhance price volatility, in our view. As a proxy for this inflow, Chicago Board of
Trade (CBOT) open interest in major agriculture commodities has ballooned in
recent years (see Exhibit 27). Similarly, the birth of large sector-based ETFs such as
the Powershares DB Agriculture Fund (DBA-NYSE) and the Claymore Global
Agriculture Fund (COW-TSX), sporting market capitalizations of US$2.6 bln and
C$296.4 mln respectively, further illustrate the growing popularity of the sector as
an investment alternative (see Exhibit 28).
Exhibit 27: CBOT Open Interest, Ag Commodities Exhibit 28: N.A.-listed Ag ETFs & ETNs
4,000,000
Corn Soybeans Wheat
3,500,000
US-Listed Agriculture ETFs
Mcap
3,000,000 ETF Name ($mlns)
PowerShares DB Ag Fund 2,660.0
Market Vectors Agribusiness ETF 2,130.0
2,500,000 ELEMENTS Rogers Intl Commodity - Ag Total Return 454.5
Open Interest
Claymore Glbl Agriculture 296.4

iPath DJ-UBS Grains Subindex Total Return 188.4
2,000,000 PowerShares Global Agriculture Portfolio 150.3
iPath DJ-UBS Ag Total Return Sub-Index 144.0
PowerShares DB Ag Double Long 123.1
1,500,000
Total 6,146.7
1,000,000
500,000
-
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: FAO, USDA, CFTC, Raymond James Ltd.
Company Overviews
Rating & Target

Alliance Grain Traders Inc. Target Price (6-12 mos)
Strong Buy 1
C$30.00
AGT-TSX Current Price (Apr-20-11)
Total Return to Target
C$23.25
31%
Steve Hansen CMA, CFA | 604.659.8208 | steve.hansen@raymondjames.ca 52-Week Range C$34.55-21.80
Market Data
Arash Yazdani MBA (Associate) | 604.659.8280 | arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca Market Capitalization (mln) C$464
Current Net Debt (mln) C$93
Enterprise Value (mln) C$557
Shares Outstanding (mln) 20.0
Agribusiness & Food Products Average Daily Volume (000s) 120
Dividend/Yield C$0.54/2.3%
Initiating Coverage: Pulse Pulse Baby Key Financial Metrics
2010A 2011E 2012E
Overview EPS (C$)
$1.00 $1.97 $2.66
P/E
AGT has rapidly emerged to become the world’s leading provider of pulse and specialty 23.3x 11.8x 8.7x
EPS - 1Q (Mar)
crops. With humble Saskatchewan roots dating back to 2001 as Saskcan Pulse Trading, $0.88 $0.35 NA
the company has assembled an unrivalled portfolio of global assets, largely through EPS - 2Q (Jun)
acquisition, that includes 24 processing plants throughout Canada, the United States, $0.13 $0.37 NA
EPS - 2Q (Sep)
Turkey, Australia, and China. In recent years, AGT has focused on building out its multi- $0.04 $0.49 NA
origin sourcing and processing capabilities, and adding new products such as specialty EPS - 4Q (Dec)
$0.03 $0.76 NA
pulses and staple foods (rice, pasta). The company trades on the Toronto Stock Revenue (mln)
Exchange under the symbol “AGT” and employs approximately 400 people. $642 $694 $760
EBITDA (mln)
We are initiating coverage on Alliance Grain Traders Inc. (‘AGT’) with a Strong Buy rating $36 $67 $87
EV/EBITDA
and $30.00 target price, representing a 31.4% total return based upon the stock’s 15.3x 8.4x 6.4x
closing price on April 20, 2011. EBITDA Margin (%)
5.7% 9.6% 11.4%
We recommend that growth-oriented investors accumulate AGT shares in order to Net Debt/Equity (mrq) 0.3x
Net Debt/Trailing EBITDA (mrq) 2.5x
capitalize on robust long-term fundamentals associated with global demand for pulses BVPS (mrq, tangible) C$11.93
and specialty crops. Company Description
Alliance Grain Traders is a Canadian TSX-listed
Key attributes of our investment thesis include: provider of pulse and specialty crops that engages in
sourcing, value added processing and merchandising
Strong Macro Outlook—As previously discussed, we believe the long-term demand of pulses, primarily for export.
outlook for pulse and specialty crops remains attractive, underpinned by robust
population growth in emerging markets and the evolution of associated dietary patterns
toward greater protein consumption. We also highlight weather-related supply shocks 1 Year Price Chart - Publishing will paste
in recent years, which have driven global stocks to historically low levels and promoted
a strong price environment. Finally, we expect mounting inflation and political unrest in
key consuming regions (e.g. the Middle East) will continue to favour government
stockpiling. Collectively, we believe these factors point toward robust global demand Source: Raymond James Ltd., Thomson One
throughout our forecast horizon and beyond.

Multi-Origination Strategy, Positioned in Key Export Markets—AGT’s decision to
pursue multi-origin sourcing and processing capabilities is a positive strategic move, in
our view, helping reduce the firm’s exposure to adverse crop events (i.e. weather,
disease). In particular, we highlight the firm’s position within Canada and Australia, two
key growing regions which account for 32% and 6% of global pulse exports respectively.
While the full benefits of this strategy are still accruing, we expect the approach will
help smooth out earnings volatility over time. Finally, incremental geographies position
the company on the doorstep to key strategic markets such as the Middle East, North
Africa, India, and China.
Value-Added Capabilities; Proprietary Pulse Products—AGT’s North American facilities
are equipped with highly advanced blending, color sorting, and splitting technologies
that we believe create value-added margin opportunities, particularly when a high
degree of crop quality variance exists. AGT’s ability to obtain exclusive
commercialization rights to proprietary pulse varieties such as the B90 Amit chickpeas,
King Red and Queen Green lentils (the world’s first true green lentil), and Skyline navy
beans offers the firm a differentiated product portfolio. We believe that these
technologies and unique products give the firm additional avenues for growth as well as
a competitive advantage over many of its peers.
Exhibit 29: AGT Revenue and EBITDA Profile

800.0 100.0 14.0
90.0
700.0 12.0
Consolidated EBITDA (C$ 000s)
Consolidated EBITDA margin (%)

Segmented Revenue (C$ 000s)
80.0
600.0
70.0 10.0
500.0
60.0
8.0
400.0 50.0
6.0
40.0
300.0
30.0 4.0
200.0
20.0
100.0 2.0
10.0
0.0 0.0 0.0

2009 2010 2011E 2012E 2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Pulses & Specialty Crops Milled Grains: Pasta, Semolina & Bulgar Consolidated EBITDA (C$ 000s) EBITDA Margin (%)
Rice Other Commodities
Source: Alliance Grain Traders Inc., Raymond James Ltd.
International M&A Opportunities Still Plentiful—Notwithstanding AGT’s impressive

growth profile in recent years, we believe the company’s international growth
opportunities remain plentiful, most notably in key strategic markets such as the United
States, China, and India. The U.S. bean market for example, represents a well
established, low-risk marketplace with attractive growth attributes. Similarly, India
represents the largest lentil and chickpea market globally and is heavily dependent on
Canadian imports. The ability to add additional staple foods (pasta, rice) and pulse crops
(chickpeas, beans) to its portfolio further supplement these opportunities, in our view.
Ripe Organic Growth Opportunities—AGT has embarked on several organic growth
initiatives in recent years that we also expect to add shareholder value. In Turkey, the
firm is investing C$15.0 mln towards a new 65,000 mt rice plant and the addition of a
fifth pasta line that is expected to boost production by ~25.0%. In China, the company is
expected to triple its bean processing capacity. These initiatives, plus several in other
regions, are expected to drive healthy organic growth throughout our forecast horizon.
Solid Balance Sheet—AGT finished 2010 with a healthy balance sheet, providing ample
dry powder to pursue further organic and acquisitive growth, in our view. Net debt
ended the period at $92.8 mln. Net debt-to-EBITDA (ttm) ended the year at 2.6x,
however, we expect this metric to fall materially during 2011 due to strong cash flow. By
our account, the company has ~$200.0 mln in dry powder available including credit-line
availability, to pursue its growth objectives without the need to raise equity.
Attractive Valuation—Given the sharp recent decline in its share price, AGT currently
trades at an attractive valuation of 7.7x and 5.3x our 2011 and 2012 EBTDA estimates, a
notable discount versus its Ag processing and handling peers. This is even more
attractive when considering the healthy take-out multiples paid in recent M&A
transactions within the consolidating grain handling sector, such as AWB by Agrium at
9.7x and ABB by Viterra at 11.8x.
Initiating with Strong Buy Rating—We are initiating coverage on AGT with a Strong Buy
rating and $30.00 target price. Our target is predicated on a 6.9x EV/EBITDA multiple
applied to our 2012E EBITDA estimate. This is at a discount to its peers and at the lower-
end of its historical trading range to account for some acquisition integration risk, and
more importantly lingering challenges associated with weather events, and farmer
tendency to hold back on crops in a bid for higher prices.
Rating & Target

Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp. Target Price (6-12 mos)
Outperform 2
C$2.25
Current Price (Apr-20-11) C$1.15
ABC-TSX Total Return to Target 96%
Market Data
Arash Yazdani MBA (Associate) | 604.659.8280 | arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca Market Capitalization (mln)* C$99.9
Current Net Debt (mln)* C$49.8
Enterprise Value (mln)* C$146
Shares Outstanding (mln)* 86.9
Dividend/Yield C$0.00/0%
Cornucopia—Satisfying China’s Sweet Tooth Key Financial Metrics
2010A 2011E 2012E
EPS (C$)
Overview $0.14 $0.25 $0.37
P/E
8.1x 4.6x 3.1x
Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp. (‘ABC’) is one of China’s leading manufacturers of corn EPS - 1Q (Mar)
starch and corn related by-products (gluten, germ, fiber). ABC operates two plants $0.03 $0.03 NA
EPS - 2Q (Jun)
strategically located in China’s northeastern corn-belt, with its products sold into the $0.06 $0.06 NA
food and beverage, animal feed, and pharmaceutical sectors. Headquartered in Toronto, EPS - 2Q (Sep)
$0.02 $0.08 NA
the company‘s shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol ABC. EPS - 4Q (Dec)
$0.03 $0.08 NA
We recommend that investors buy ABC shares in order to capitalize on China’s Revenue (mln)
burgeoning economic growth and the commensurate shift in middle class dietary $193 $256 $323
EBITDA (mln)
patterns toward processed foods and protein consumption. We reiterate our $2.25 $19 $32 $46
target price and Outperform rating. EV/EBITDA
8.0x 4.7x 3.2x
Key attributes of our investment thesis include: EBITDA Margin (%)
9.6% 12.5% 14.3%
Net Debt/Equity (mrq)* 0.7x
Corn Starch: Satisfying China’s Sweet Tooth—Several compelling themes suggest to us Net Debt/Trailing EBITDA (mrq)* 2.6x
that Chinese demand for corn starch, a critical component used in corn-based BVPS (mrq, tangible)* C$0.77
sweeteners, is on a long-term secular uptrend. First, a tidal wave of rural workers Company Description
Asia Bio-Chem (ABC) is a TSX-listed corn processor in
continues to migrate toward China’s urban centers where economic growth and China. With 900,000 tpy of wet-milling processing
lucrative jobs are more prevalent. Second, the higher disposable income associated with capacity, corn is converted into starch, gluten, and
fiber, all sold within China.
this urbanization wave is driving a commensurate increase in processed food and
beverage demand. Third, manufacturers are increasingly turning to corn-based
sweeteners as a cheaper alternative to traditional sugar, which has experienced large
price spikes in recent years due to rapid demand growth and unreliable supply.
1 Year Price Chart - Publishing will paste
Collectively, these macro forces bode well for corn starch demand and ABC, in our view.
Solid Competitive Position in an Attractive Industry—ABC is positioned as one of the
largest, low-cost corn starch producers in China, a competitive position which we
Source: Raymond James Ltd., Thomson One
believe is defensible over time. A handful of incumbents currently boast more than 1.0 *Pro-forma of recent financing.
mln tonnes of annual processing capacity, while the rest of the sector remains highly
fragmented. At the same time, government policy encourages industry consolidation
and restricts new greenfield capacity. We believe this industry backdrop will enable
growth-orientated incumbents like ABC to capture greater market share over time.
Low-Cost Position Underpinned by Location, Feedstock Supply—ABC’s two production
facilities are strategically located in China’s northeastern corn-belt, where favourable
access to low-cost feedstock (i.e. corn) affords the company a material cost advantage
over its peers. Its location also grants the company access to lower cost labour and
incentives by local governments keen to promote jobs and economic development.
Exhibit 30: ABC Revenue and EBITDA Profile
$350,000 $50,000
Crystalline Glucose
Revenue by Segment ($000s)
$45,000
Consolidated EBITDA ($000s)

$300,000 Fiber
Germ $40,000
$250,000 Gluten $35,000
Starch $30,000
$200,000
$25,000
$150,000
$20,000
$100,000 $15,000
$10,000
$50,000
$5,000
$0 $0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011E 2012E 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Source: Asia Bio-Chem Group, Raymond James Ltd.
Vertical Integration Strategy Unfolding—ABC announced its decision to pursue

downstream sweetener markets earlier this year, including plans to construct a 250k tpy
crystallized glucose plant adjacent to its flagship Daqing facility. We view this decision
positively based upon: (i) attractive end-market fundamentals, with crystallized glucose
enjoying 25.0% CAGR demand; (ii) ABC’s ability to leverage many of its existing
competitive strengths (i.e. infrastructure, low-cost feedstock); and (iii) the ability to
extract greater margins. ABC completed a $10.0 mln bought deal financing in Jan-11 to
help fund plant construction.
Strong Revenue, Earnings Growth on Horizon—ABC has yet to realize the combined
earnings contribution of its two key assets. The company’s flagship Daqing plant, which
was originally commissioned in October 2009, only reached full capacity during late
2010 due to initial growing pains associated with feedstock quality and logistics. At the
same time, the company also just completed the relocation and upgrade of its original
Changtu plant, with the plant now certified to comply with international standards and
marquee customer requirements. With both plants poised to demonstrate their full
potential by mid-2011, we expect to see a corresponding step change in the company’s
earnings performance.
Attractive Valuation—ABC is currently trading at just 5.2x and 2.8x our respective
2011E and 2012E EV/EBITDA estimates, a material discount versus both its domestic and
international peers. While a modest discount is reasonably justified to account for ABC’s
small stature and limited liquidity, we believe the current discount is too excessive and
fails to account for the company’s progress to date and future earnings power.
Precedent transactions also lend support to our target valuation.
Reiterate Outperform Rating; $2.25 Target Price—We continue to remain encouraged
by ABC’s operational progress, attractive growth prospects, and exposure to strong
macro fundamentals associated with Chinese sweetener demand. Our $2.25 target price
represents a 4.9x EV/EBITDA multiple and 0.15 CNY/CAD FX rate applied to our 2012E
estimate, a modest discount to the firm’s domestic and international peers and at the
lower end of its 2-year historical trading range.
Rating & Target

BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd. Target Price (6-12 mos)
Outperform 2
C$2.50
BXI-TSX Total Return to Target 44%
Steve Hansen CMA, CFA | 604.659.8208 | steve.hansen@raymondjames.ca 52-Week Range
Market Data
C$2.93-1.28
Arash Yazdani MBA (Associate) | 604.659.8280 | arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca Market Capitalization (mln) C$303
Current Net Debt (mln) ($10)
Enterprise Value (mln) C$293
Key Financial Metrics
Initiating Coverage: Move over Whey, Canola may be the new 2010A 2011E 2012E
Heavyweight EPS (C$)
-$0.09 -$0.07 $0.02
P/E
Overview n.m. n.m. n.m.
EPS - 1Q (Mar)
-$0.03 -$0.02 NA
BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd. (‘BXI’) is an early stage venture engaged in the EPS - 2Q (Jun)
-$0.02 -$0.02 NA
development of proprietary technologies used for extraction of high-quality proteins EPS - 2Q (Sep)
from oilseeds. With a 40,000 tpy plant located in Saskatchewan, the company is -$0.02 -$0.02 NA
EPS - 4Q (Dec)
currently attempting to demonstrate its ability to produce canola-based protein isolates -$0.03 -$0.01 NA
on a commercial scale—a potential industry first. Boasting high nutritional value and Revenue (mln)
$3 $11 $57
compelling functional attributes, we believe that BXI’s isolates, once available, are likely EBITDA (mln)
to enjoy strong uptake in traditional protein additive markets. The company trades on -$14 -$14 $12
EV/EBITDA
the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol “BXI”. n.m. n.m. 25.1x
EBITDA Margin (%)
We are initiating coverage on BXI with an Outperform rating and $2.50 target price, n.m. n.m. 20.5%
representing a 43.7% total return based upon the stock’s closing price on April 20, 2011. Net Debt/Equity (mrq) -0.1x
BVPS (mrq, tangible) C$0.42
We recommend growth-oriented investors buy shares of BXI to capitalize on what we Company Description
view as the firm’s large growth opportunities in the global protein additive market. BioExx is a Canadian TSX-listed technology and food
ingredients company focused on the extraction of
Key attributes of our investment thesis include: premium plant proteins.
Strong Macro Fundamentals: Protein Outlook Attractive—We believe that global

macro fundamentals support strong growth in the protein additive market, underpinned
by a strong shift in consumer preference towards healthy lifestyles and improved 1 Year Price Chart - Publishing will paste
dietary patterns. Moreover, while animal-based protein additives (i.e. whey, casein)
dominate the market today, we expect plant-based proteins (i.e. soy, canola) to steadily
gain market share owing to their favourable economics, superior environmental
efficiencies, and reduced allergy concerns. We believe these fundamentals bode well for
BXI’s growth prospects.
Move Over Whey; Canola Poised to Go Mainstream—BXI has developed a new,
potentially disruptive, protein extraction technology for use on oilseeds. With a 40,000
tpy plant located in southern Saskatchewan, BXI is currently attempting to demonstrate
its ability to produce canola-based protein isolates at a commercial scale—a potential
industry first. Boasting high nutritional value and impressive functional attributes, we
believe BXI’s isolates, once available, are likely to enjoy strong uptake in the global
protein additive market. Specifically, we expect BXI’s products will initially be embraced
by consumers of plant-based protein additives (i.e. soy), followed by a gradual transition
into higher-end markets dominated by animal-based additives (i.e. casein, whey).
Key Global Partners—BXI has secured a number of key global partners to assist in its
commercialization efforts. For distribution, the company has struck a long-term
agreement with global chemical and nutrition conglomerate HELM AG that calls for
purchase of 70% of the protein isolate produced at its initial Saskatoon plant. We expect
this relationship to play a key role facilitating in new customer development, expanding
distribution for upcoming plants, and exploring joint venture/partnership opportunities
in sectors complementing BXI’s technology. In terms of feedstock, BXI has secured a
long-term agreement with Viterra for the supply of certified non-GMO canola seed.
Build It & They Will Come; Scalable Plant Footprint—Rather than license its technology
to an established global heavyweight, BXI has elected to go it alone and prove out the
global market opportunities open to its extraction technology. Following
commercialization, the company plans to aggressively expand capacity, with initial plans
calling for five plants totaling 800,000 tonnes in capacity, all based upon a standardized,
scalable plant design to facilitate a quick roll out.
Exhibit 31: BXI Revenue and EBITDA Profile
250,000 100,000
Isolexx Protein
Vitalexx Protein
Canola Meal 80,000
Revenue by Product ($000s)
200,000
Canola Oil
EBITDA ($000s)
60,000
150,000
40,000
100,000
20,000
50,000
-
- (20,000)
2010 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2010 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E
Source: BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd., Raymond James Ltd.
Potential Acquisition Candidate—The food additive and ingredient space has become a
major focus for global agriculture companies in recent years, marked by several notable
recent acquisitions. Given the market opportunities we foresee for canola-based protein
additives, we view BioExx as an attractive acquisition target once the company
demonstrates the full-scale commercial viability of its proprietary extraction technology.
Large Option Value Embedded in Share Price—Presuming BXI’s commercialization
efforts are successful, we highlight that that the market is currently attributing very little
value to the company’s second plant planned for Minot, North Dakota, and zero for
future plant expansions—each of which could add an additional $2.00 to $3.00 per
share in incremental value, in our view. In this context, we believe the stock boasts a
relatively attractive risk-reward profile at current levels, although we highlight that the
commercialization risk over the next six to nine months remains high.
Initiating with Outperform Rating; $2.50 Target—We are initiating coverage on BXI
with an Outperform rating and $2.50 target price. Based upon the stock’s most recent
close, our target price represents a 43.7% total return. Given the company’s early stage
of development and strong future projected cash flows, we employ a DCF analysis to
derive our target price. To risk adjust our DCF analysis for BXIs near-term
commercialization risk, we apply an additional 25.0% discount to our DCF output.
Rating & Target

Cervus Equipment Corp. Target Price (6-12 mos)
Strong Buy 1
C$20.00
CVL-TSX Total Return to Target 16%
Ben Cherniavsky | 604.659.8244 | ben.cherniavsky@raymondjames.ca 52-Week Range C$18.40-10.10
Market Data
Theoni Pilarinos CFA (Associate) | 604.659.8234 | theoni.pilarinos@raymondjames.ca Market Capitalization (mln)* C$258
Current Net Debt (mln)* C$14
Greg Jackson (Associate) | 604.659.8262 | greg.jackson@raymondjames.ca Enterprise Value (mln)* C$271
Average Daily Volume (000s) 27
Infrastructure & Construction | Equipment Distributors Key Financial Metrics
2010A 2011E 2012E
A Great Play on Ag Without Betting the Farm EPS (C$)
$0.91 $1.38 $1.71
P/E
Overview 19.4x 12.8x 10.3x
EPS - 1Q (Mar)
Cervus’ main business, making up ~75% of top-line revenues, is distributing John Deere -$0.04 NA NA
EPS - 2Q (Jun)
agricultural equipment, the leading brand among farmers, in western Canada and New $0.25 NA NA
Zealand. Cervus also distributes construction and industrial equipment including Bobcat, EPS - 2Q (Sep)
$0.54 NA NA
JCB, and JLG brands, exclusively in western Canada. Headquartered in Calgary, the EPS - 4Q (Dec)
company’s shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol CVL. $0.16 NA NA
Revenue (mln)
$469 $526 $556
We recommend investors purchase shares of Cervus in order to capitalize on the EBITDA (mln)
company’s promising growth outlook. We view Cervus as a ‘low risk’ (albeit less $25 $35 $43
torqued) way of playing many of the themes discussed in this report since the EV/EBITDA
11.0x 7.8x 6.3x
dealership business is inherently quite stable and only tangentially affected by the ag EBITDA Margin (%)
cycle. Furthermore, we believe that Cervus, with a net debt-to-equity ratio of 0.1x 5.2% 6.7% 7.7%
Net Debt/Equity (mrq) 0.1x
(including interest bearing FPF), is extremely well-positioned to act on any number of Net Debt/Trailing EBITDA (mrq) 0.5x
acquisition opportunities over the next few months. We reiterate our $20.00 target BVPS (mrq, tangible) C$7.92
Company Description
price and Strong Buy rating. Cervus is one of our ‘Top Picks’ in the equipment dealer Based in Calgary, Alberta, CVL operates and acquires
space. authorized agricultural and construction equipment
dealers. Cervus is the largest owner of John Deere
Key attributes of our investment thesis include: agricultural equipment franchises in Canada.
Favourable Leverage to Solid Ag Fundamentals—With Ag as its primary end market,

Cervus is poised to benefit from some of the themes discussed in this report. Farm
income, in particular—determined by commodity prices and yield—has a direct bearing
on the company’s sales. Record commodity prices provide farmers with confidence to
purchase new machinery and invest in the newest technology. There are, of course,
many other factors that go into the purchasing decision, but ultimately the price that Source: Raymond James Ltd., Thomson One
the farmer receives for his crop has a significant bearing on capital expenditure
decisions. One of the important ‘other’ factors that can influence sales is weather.
Indeed, the price of wheat on world markets matters little if there is nothing in ‘the bin.’
This was the case in 2010, when an exceptionally wet spring, summer, and fall
dampened crop production and, in turn, farm machine sales in western Canada (our see
our Jul-05-10 INsight Rain, Rain, Go Away; You’ve Hurt the Market for Tractors Today).
Assuming more normal conditions prevail in 2011, we expect today’s high commodity
prices to effect strong tractor sales for Cervus. In addition to our bullish outlook for ag
and the nascent recovery in construction markets that we expect to fuel Cervus’ sales,
we also like the company’s stock as it offers investors (i) diversified end market and
geographic exposure; (ii) continued growth opportunities through acquisitions and
partnership agreements; and (iii) an impressive track record of growth, profits, and free
cash flow.
Increasing its Stakes; An Appetite for Growth—In the last 18 months, Cervus has grown
the Ag part of its business by obtaining equity interests in partnerships. More
specifically, last July, Cervus increased its equity interest from 20% to 60% in its
subsidiary Agriturf, gaining more exposure to the highly-fragmented New Zealand Ag
market. A little closer to home, Cervus obtained a 20% interest in Maple Farm
Equipment by combining two of its existing branches (located in Moosomin, SK and

Russel, MB) with Maple’s five locations in Saskatchewan in January last year.
Getting the ‘Green’ Light from Deere—Cervus has more recently taken the partnership
route on the Deere side of its business (vs. the outright purchase of dealers), to strike a
balance between expanding its footprint and threatening to control potentially ‘too
much’ of the distribution channel. As discussed in previous missives (see our Oct-14-11,
Deal Me In! Report for details), OEMs like Deere often face a trade-off in allowing their
dealers to get larger through the consolidation of territories. Namely, bigger dealers can
drive market share higher but also wield more bargaining power with the OEM. That
said, Deere recently announced its intention to nearly double its sales to $50 bln by
2018, which in our view, will only be achieved by further consolidation of its distribution
network. With this goal in place, we believe Cervus, one of Deere’s top performing
dealers, has an ever stronger case to manage more territories.
Balance Sheet Ripe for Consolidation Opportunities—Be it a Deere dealer or an
additional line to the construction or industrial part of its business, we believe Cervus is
well positioned for growth with a net debt-to-equity ratio of 0.1x (including interest
bearing FPF) and almost $20 mln of cash on its balance sheet. Its well capitalized
position has been achieved by diligent management of its business. In fact, by almost
any financial metric, Cervus has met or outperformed all of its peers in the space over
the last 10 years (see the ‘Analyzing Returns’ section of our Oct-14-11 Report for
details). The company’s exceptionally strong financial performance is one of the reasons
we have recently selected it as our ‘Top Pick’ among the equipment distribution stocks
that we cover.
Reiterate Strong Buy Rating; $20.00 Target Price—We recently upgraded Cervus from
Outperform to Strong Buy and identified the company as one of our ‘Top Picks’ in the
equipment dealer space (see our Mar-28-11 Equipment Dealer Report Digging Deeper
For Earth Moving Returns for more details). We continue to remain bullish on the
equipment distribution sector in general and believe Cervus, in particular, will post
above average Y/Y growth results. Our $20.00 target price equals 12.0x our fully-taxed
2011E EPS, plus the present value of Cervus’ tax losses. The former equals the same
target multiple that we are using for the company’s closest peer (RME-TSX).
Rating & Target
GLG Life Tech Corp. Target Price (6-12 mos)

Strong Buy 1
C$12.50
GLG-TSX | GLGL-NASDAQ Total Return to Target 38%
52-Week Range C$12.27-6.85
Steve Hansen CMA, CFA | 604.659.8208 | steve.hansen@raymondjames.ca Market Data
Arash Yazdani MBA (Associate) | 604.659.8280 | arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca Market Capitalization (mln)*
Current Net Debt (mln)*
C$322.3
C$27.8
Enterprise Value (mln)* C$350.1
Agribusiness & Food Products Dividend/Yield C$0.00/0.0%
Initiating Coverage: Trimming Waistlines and Adding to Portfolios EPS (C$)
2010A 2011E 2012E
-$0.11 $0.28 $0.79

Overview P/E
NA 32.3x 11.5x
GLG Life Tech Corporation (‘GLG’) is one of the world’s leading, low-cost producers of EPS - 1Q (Mar)
-$0.05 -$0.07 NA
high-purity stevia extract, a zero-calorie, naturally-derived sweetener made from the EPS - 2Q (Jun)
stevia plant. With vertically-integrated operations strategically positioned throughout -$0.01 -$0.02 NA
EPS - 2Q (Sep)
ten Chinese provinces, GLG boasts industry-leading R&D, growing operations, $0.07 $0.17 NA
processing capacity, and product formulation expertise. Backed by a pioneering and well EPS - 4Q (Dec)
-$0.12 $0.20 NA
respected management team, the company has already secured key heavyweight Revenue (mln)
$59 $169 $308
customers such as Cargill, and signed up an impressive group of global distribution EBITDA (mln)
partners. Earlier this year, the company made its initial foray into the Chinese beverage $16 $33 $60
EV/EBITDA
market, launching a line up of ANOC-branded (All Natural Zero Calorie) teas sweetened 21.6x 10.7x 5.8x
with GLG’s proprietary stevia blend. The company is dual-listed on the TSX and NASDAQ EBITDA Margin (%)
27.5% 19.4% 19.6%
under the symbols “GLG” and “GLGL” respectively. Net Debt/Equity (mrq) 0.2x
We are initiating coverage on GLG with a Strong Buy rating and $12.50 target price, BVPS (mrq, tangible) C$5.09
Company Description
representing a 38.1% total return based upon the stock’s closing price on April 20, 2011. GLG Life Tech Corporation is TSX-listed vertically
integrated leading producer of stevia extract, a zero
We recommend that investors buy shares of GLG in order to capitalize on what we view calorie, 100% natural sweetener derived from a
as positive long-term fundamentals for zero-calorie, naturally-derived, sweeteners and stevia plant.
the company’s tremendous associated growth prospects.

Key attributes of our investment thesis include: 1 Year Price Chart - Publishing will paste
Positive Macro Fundamentals—The long-term fundamental outlook for zero-calorie,

naturally-derived, sweeteners is compelling, in our view. In developed markets, as
obesity and health-related risks continue to escalate (e.g. diabetes, heart disease), Source: Raymond James Ltd., Thomson One
consumers are increasingly adopting strong views toward health and wellness, paying *Pro-forma of recent financing.
closer attention to their food labels and dietary intake. These same themes have also
surfaced in emerging markets, where disposable incomes are rising, processed food and
beverage consumption is surging, and health-related issues are escalating. Finally, the
soaring cost of sugar—which recently surpassed 30-yr highs—has made alternative
sweeteners far more attractive from a price-point perspective.
Stevia is a Potential Game-Changer; Poised to Take Global Share—Stevia is a zero-
calorie, naturally-derived sweetener that offers consumers a viable alternative to
traditional high-caloric sweeteners (i.e. sugar, corn syrup) and chemically-derived
alternative sweeteners (i.e. sucralose, aspartame). These positive attributes, coupled
with rapidly evolving consumer preferences, swift uptake by global food and beverage
manufacturers and falling regulatory barriers, suggest stevia is poised to rapidly take
market share in the $60.0 bln global sweetener market. Recent estimates by food and
drink consultancy Zenith International support this view, suggesting the global market
for stevia extract is likely to reach US$825 mln by 2014 versus only US$285 mln in 2010.
Global Leader; Unrivalled, Low-Cost Infrastructure—GLG is one of the world’s leading,
low-cost producers of high quality stevia extract. With vertically integrated operations
strategically positioned to take advantage of favourable growing conditions throughout
10 Chinese provinces, GLG boasts industry leading R&D, processing capacity, and new
product development initiatives that afford the company an unrivalled low-cost position
and distinct competitive advantage.
Chinese Market Key; Enormous Growth Potential—China represents GLG’s largest,
fastest growing market, enabling enormous growth opportunities on a standalone basis,
in our view. We believe that rising disposable incomes, a burgeoning middle class, and
increasing processed food and beverage demand will continue to drive robust growth in
domestic sweetener demand. These factors, as well as multi-decade high sugar prices,
translate into strong demand growth opportunities for stevia extract sales, in our view.
Premiere Partnership with Cargill; Additional Partners for ROW Distribution—
Historically, the bulk of GLG’s stevia sales have been to Cargill, an international provider
of food and agricultural products and services. Cargill’s use of GLG stevia extract within
its branded sweetener TRUVIA, which is then sold to major North American beverage
companies including Coca-Cola, has served as a significant ‘stamp of approval’. Beyond
Cargill, GLG is continuing to focus on additional growth within the rest-of-the world
markets through multi-year, international distribution agreements with a distinguished
list of regional partners. We expect these key partnerships, many solidified over the past
year, to provide strong sources of revenue and earnings growth in the future.
Next Legs of Growth: ANOC and Blendsure—GLG recently launched a joint venture,
ANOC, aimed at introducing zero-calorie, stevia-based beverages to the rapidly growing
Chinese consumer market. With an experienced management team already in place, six
initial products nationally-approved, and distribution channels secured, ANOC launched
its products on March 31, 2011 and within only three weeks shipped 6 million bottles.
Given the size of this opportunity, management is targeting more than half a billion in
sales by 2013. GLG’s new ‘Blendsure’ product is a potential game-changing formulation
aimed at providing F&B companies with half-calorie (blended) product ideal for
consumer products.
Exhibit 32: GLG Revenue and EBITDA Profile
$350,000 $70,000 31.5

Stevia Revenue ANOC Revenue EBITDA Gross Margin (%)
31.0
$300,000 $60,000
Segmented Revenue (C$ 000's)
30.5
$250,000 $50,000
Gross Margin (%)

ETBIDA (C$ 000's)
30.0
$200,000 $40,000 29.5
$150,000 29.0
$30,000
28.5
$100,000 $20,000
28.0
$50,000 $10,000
27.5
$- $- 27.0
2009 2010 2011E 2012E 2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Source: GLG Life Tech Corp., Raymond James Ltd.
Attractive Valuation—With the stock trading at just 11.5x and 6.3x our 2011 and 2012
EV/EBITDA estimates, we believe little, if any, of the growth from the aforementioned
ANOC joint venture is priced into GLG’s stock price. Furthermore, our current estimates
lie at the bottom end of guidance for 2011, use reasonable estimates for 2012, and do
not account for the even stronger growth we expect in 2013 (and beyond), arguably
providing a great deal of conservatism at this point.
Initiating with Strong Buy Rating; $12.50 Target Price—Our $12.50 target price is based
on a sum-of-parts valuation resulting in a consolidated 8.4x EV/EBITDA target multiple
applied to our 2012E estimate. This multiple is at a modest discount to GLG’s sweetener
and global f&b peers, given its size and relatively early stage of development.
Rating & Target

Rocky Mountain Dealerships Target Price (6-12 mos)
Outperform 2
C$14.00
RME-TSX Total Return to Target 41%
Ben Cherniavsky | 604.659.8244 | ben.cherniavsky@raymondjames.ca 52-Week Range C$11.00-7.50
Market Data
Theoni Pilarinos CFA (Associate) | 604.659.8234 | theoni.pilarinos@raymondjames.ca Market Capitalization (mln)* C$197
Current Net Debt (mln)* C$180
Greg Jackson (Associate) | 604.659.8262 | greg.jackson@raymondjames.ca Enterprise Value (mln)* C$377
Infrastructure & Construction | Equipment Distributors Key Financial Metrics
2010A 2011E 2012E
Shifting Near-Term Focus to Harvest Internal Growth EPS (C$)
$0.83 $1.15 $1.44
P/E
Overview 12.1x 8.7x 7.0x
EPS - 1Q (Mar)
Rocky Mountain’s primary business is the sale and repair of new and used ag tractors $0.10 NA NA
EPS - 2Q (Jun)
and construction machinery to farmers and contractors in western Canada. Rocky $0.17 NA NA
Mountain is the largest Canadian Case Construction and Case IH’s equipment dealer and EPS - 2Q (Sep)
$0.20 NA NA
sells the majority of its equipment to large-scale farmers in western Canada. EPS - 4Q (Dec)
Headquartered in Calgary, the company’s shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange $0.34 NA NA
Revenue (mln)
under the symbol RME. $633 $787 $909
EBITDA (mln)
We advise investors buy Rocky Mountain’s shares. We remain bullish on the equipment $34 $50 $61
distribution sector in general and view Rocky Mountain as one of the best (and few EV/EBITDA
11.1x 7.5x 6.2x
remaining) value ideas in the space. Similar to our view on Cervus, we see it as a ‘low EBITDA Margin (%)
risk’ (albeit less torqued) way of playing many of the themes discussed in this report 5.3% 6.4% 6.7%
since the dealership business is inherently quite stable and only tangentially affected by Net Debt/Trailing EBITDA (mrq) 5.2x
the ag cycle. We rate Rocky Mountain Outperform with a $14.00 target price. BVPS (mrq, tangible) C$5.44
Company Description
Key attributes of our investment thesis include: RME is the largest independent dealer of Case
Construction and Case IH Agriculture equipment in
Canada and represents one of Alberta's largest
Strong Agricultural Commodity Prices to Fuel Growth—Several trends discussed in this
agriculture and construction equipment dealerships.
report have been—and we believe will continue to be—positive drivers of Rocky
Mountain’s ag business, which represents over 80% of its revenues. Farm income, in
particular—determined by commodity prices and yield—has a direct bearing on Rocky
Mountain’s sales. Record commodity prices provide farmers with confidence to
purchase new machinery and invest in the newest technology. There are, of course,
many other factors that go into the purchasing decision, but ultimately the price that
the farmer receives for his crop has a significant bearing on capital expenditure Source: Raymond James Ltd., Thomson One
decisions. One of the important ‘other’ factors that can influence sales is weather.
Indeed, the price of wheat on world markets matters little if there is nothing in ‘the bin.’
This was the case in 2010, when an exceptionally wet spring, summer, and fall
dampened crop production and, in turn, farm machine sales in western Canada (see our
see our Jul-05-10 INsight Rain, Rain, Go Away; You’ve Hurt the Market for Tractors
Today). Assuming more normal conditions prevail in 2011, we expect today’s high
commodity prices to effect strong tractor sales for Rocky.
Consolidation, Consolidation, Consolidation—As discussed in our Oct-14-10 Dealer
report, the equipment dealership business remains highly fragmented and ripe for
further consolidation, in our view. A key part of our bullish investment thesis on Rocky
Mountain is its aptitude to capitalize on this opportunity. The company has been
extremely active on the consolidation front—in fact since going public in 2007 the
company has acquired 13 dealers, 25 locations (from 12) and over $275 mln in revenues
(see Exhibit 33). Consolidation has allowed Rocky to (i) eliminate price pressure and
profit cannibalization; (ii) expand its acquired dealers’ service offering and decrease
their reliance on used equipment sales; and (iii) implement top-notch infrastructure and
inventory systems amongst its network. Consolidation has also resulted in acquiring an
additional construction line (Doosan), a second ag equipment line (New Holland), and
better servicing the needs of the large scale, sophisticated farming customer base.
Increased Focus on Harvesting Internal Growth—All of the companies Rocky Mountain
has acquired fit a similar profile—i.e. they typically distribute Case or New Holland
equipment and are based in western Canada—making integration a fairly streamlined
process. That said, with the recent high level of activity (5 acquisitions were made last
year; two acquisitions have been made YTD), we expect Rocky Mountain to be more
internally focused this year as they strive to fully optimize some recently acquired
dealers. We believe that this ‘harvesting’ process will produce accelerated results in
2H11 and 2012.
Reiterate Outperform Rating; $14.00 Target Price—We continue to remain bullish on
the equipment distribution sector in general and view Rocky Mountain as one of the
best (and few remaining) value ideas in the space. We also are encouraged by Rocky
Mountain’s near-term shift to focus on improving the performance of previously
acquired stores. To arrive at our $14.00 target price, we apply a ~12.0x our revised 2011
forecast of $1.15. This represents a liquidity-adjusted discount to the current peer group
average. Our 2011 forecast assumes no further acquisition will be made in the
remainder of the year. Our 2012 EPS forecast is $1.44 and we assume that the company
will resume making acquisitions (totaling ~$130 mln in revenues) next year.
Exhibit 33: Rocky Mountain’s Acquisition History Since Inception
Annual Revenues
Date Company Acquired
($000's)
1-Jan-11 Agritrac Equipment Ltd. 47,000
1-Apr-11 J&B Equipment Ltd 18,000
2011- 2 Acquisitions YTD 65,000
1-Mar-10 Roydale New Holland Inc. 22,000
7-Jun-10 Wardale Equipment 39,000
1-Sep-10 Gateway Farm Equipment 12,300
1-Sep-10 Allen Agrocentre Ltd 5,800
15-Oct-10 K&M Farm Equipment Ltd 16,900
2010 - 5 Acquisitions 96,000
1-Apr-09 Heartland Equipment Ltd. 28,100
1-Nov-09 Enns Agri 13,000
1-Nov-09 Mayor Equipment 15,000
9-Jun-08 Roydale International Ltd. 8,000
27-Aug-08 Miller Farm Equipment Inc. 101,000
9-Oct-08 Lakeland Implements Ltd 8,000
Source: Rocky Mountain Dealerships, Raymond James Ltd.
Rating & Target

Viterra Inc. Target Price (6-12 mos)
Market Perform 3
C$12.50
VT-TSX | VTA-ASX Total Return to Target 14%
Market Data
Arash Yazdani MBA (Associate) | 604.659.8280 | arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca Market Capitalization (mln) C$4,126
Current Net Debt (mln) C$1,518
Enterprise Value (mln) C$5,644
Agribusiness & Food Products Average Daily Volume (000s) 1,292
Initiating Coverage: Canada’s Global Grain Giant; Feeding the World Key Financial Metrics
2010A 2011E 2012E
EPS (C$)
Overview $0.47 $0.85 $0.77
P/E
Viterra Inc. (‘VT’) is a world-leading international grain handler and agri-business 23.7x 13.1x 14.4x
enterprise boasting unrivalled infrastructure throughout western Canada and South EPS - 1Q (Mar)
$0.03 $0.27 NA
Australia, two of the world’s most prominent growing and export regions. EPS - 2Q (Jun)
Complimenting its dual-origin grain sourcing capabilities, the company operates a $0.05 $0.16 NA
EPS - 2Q (Sep)
diversified platform of Agri-Products and Processing assets that enable it to capture $0.25 $0.34 NA
margin at all stages of the value chain and bestow it with a formidable competitive EPS - 4Q (Dec)
$0.14 $0.09 NA
position, in our view. Based in Regina, Canada, the company has ~5,500 employees and Revenue (mln)
is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (VT-TSX) in addition to its CDI’s trading in $8,256 $9,675 $9,689
EBITDA (mln)
Australia (VTA-ASX). $518 $728 $701
EV/EBITDA
We are initiating coverage on VT with a Market Perform rating and $12.50 target price, 10.9x 7.8x 8.1x
representing a 13.5% total return based upon the stock’s closing price on April 20, 2011. EBITDA Margin (%)
6.3% 7.5% 7.2%
Notwithstanding our positive view toward VT’s strong competitive position and macro Net Debt/Trailing EBITDA (mrq) 2.4x
fundamentals, we believe the stock is appropriately valued at this time. BVPS (mrq, tangible) C$9.79
Company Description
Key attributes of our investment thesis include: Viterra Inc. is a leading vertically integrated Canadian
grain handling and food ingredients company
Positive Long-Term Grain Fundamentals—As reviewed, we believe the long-term operating across Western Canada and
internationally.
outlook for global food and grain demand remains robust, particularly in emerging
markets where population growth and rising disposable incomes are fuelling a seismic
shift in dietary patterns toward high-quality, nutritious food. However, given that many
of these same regions suffer from inadequate domestic grain supplies, we believe they 1 Year Price Chart - Publishing will paste
will increasingly rely on imported products to satisfy demand. The corollary, in our view,
is that international grain handlers with global sourcing capabilities will become
increasingly vital to global food security over time. Source: Raymond James Ltd., Thomson One
Dominant Footprint in Key Export Markets; High Barriers to Entry—Viterra is one of

the world’s leading agri-businesses, boasting unrivalled grain handling infrastructure
throughout western Canada and South Australia, two of the world’s most prominent
growing regions accounting for ~40% of global exports in wheat, barley, and canola. Its
footprint includes control of major portions of western Canada’s elevator, storage and
terminal capacity, as well as almost total control of South Australia’s grain handling and
storage infrastructure. We believe these long-lived, infrastructure assists erect steep
barriers to entry.
Geographically Diversified, Dual-Origin Sourcing Capabilities—Viterra’s acquisition of
Australian-based ABB Inc. in 2009 was a transformational deal that bestowed the firm
with dual-origin sourcing capabilities and helped diversify its weather-related exposure.
As a dominant growing region for wheat, barley, and canola, it also came with a world
class malting business and greater export access to Asian markets. We believe these
attributes, coupled with the firm’s broader strategy to diversify its product offering, will
continue to reduce Viterra’s risk profile and smooth earnings volatility over time.
Margin Capture at All Stages of Supply Chain—Viterra’s core Grain Handling unit is
complimented by the company’s Agri-Products and Processing platforms that facilitate
margin capture at all stages of the supply chain. In western Canada, Viterra operates
the largest network of retail stores, totaling 261 locations, boasting a 34.0% market
share in key crop inputs (seed, crop protection products and fertilizer) and ag-
equipment. Downstream, the firm’s processing activities include the world’s largest
industrial oat miller and N.A.’s third largest pasta producer.
Exhibit 34: VT Revenue and EBITDA Profile
$1,000 $1,000 10.0

Processing
Agri-Products EBITDA EBITDA Margin (%)
$900 $900 9.0
Grain Handling & Marketing
$800 $800 8.0

$700 $700 7.0
EBITDA Margin (%)

ETBIDA (C$ 000's)
$600 $600 6.0
$500 $500 5.0
$400 $400 4.0
$300 $300 3.0
$200 $200 2.0
$100 $100 1.0
$0 $0 0.0
2010 2011E 2012E 2010 2011E 2012E
Source: Viterra Inc., Raymond James Ltd.

Organic & Acquisitive Growth in Food Processing—VT has strategically identified food
processing as a business unit primed for organic and acquisitive growth to take
advantage of value-added margins, predictable demand growth, and attractive
diversification benefits. The company also expects to leverage its up-stream market
position in grain handling in order to extract additional margins.
Strong Management Team—CEO Mayo Schmidt has accomplished a great deal in a
relatively brief tenure, transforming Viterra from a regional, government-controlled co-
operative (i.e. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool) into one of the world’s leading agri-business
companies today. With a demonstrated ability to strategically identify high value targets
and subsequently integrate such acquisitions, we believe Mr. Schmidt and his team are
well suited to continue growing the business going forward.
Near-Term Grain Outlook Positive—We believe that forward-looking crop expectations
bode relatively well for VT. In Canada, a modest projected decline in seeded acres is
expected to be offset by sharply improved y/y crop fundamentals (i.e. crop quality),
abundant storage volumes and strong export demand. That being said, extensive
current flooding across the central prairies could introduce downside risk to this
outlook—we will be monitoring the situation closely. In Australia, a record crop and
limited on-farm storage has also triggered near-record grain shipments (receivals) into
VT’s large storage system. Commensurate with these moves, we expect positive results
from VT’s Australia operations over the next two quarters as well as strong carry-over
stocks into fiscal 2012. Early indications from ABARE also suggest that Australia’s
forthcoming crop will be well above average.
Initiating with Market Perform Rating; $12.50 Target Price—Notwithstanding our
positive view toward VT’s strong competitive position and positive macro fundamentals,
we believe the stock is close to fairly valued at this time. With only 13.5% upside to our
target price, we advise investors to patiently wait for a more opportune entry point. Our
$12.50 target price is based upon a 7.0x EV/EBITDA target multiple applied to our
F2012E estimate. This multiple is near the middle of the company’s historical trading
range between 6.0x and 8.5x.
Appendix A: Industry Comparables

Market Shares P/E EV/EBITDA Net Debt Price Div.
Market Cap Net Debt Ent. Value
Company Name Ticker Fx FY END Price O/S 2010A 2011E 2012E 2010A 2011E 2012E / Cap /Book Yield
(mln) (mln) (mln) (mln) (%) (x) (%)
Agri-Products/Processing
Alliance Grain Traders Inc. AGT.CA CAD 31-Dec 23.25 20 464 93 557 23.3 8.2 6.6 n.m. 6.4 5.1 16.7 1.5 2.4%
Archer Daniels Midland Company ADM.US USD 30-Jun 35.81 637 22,822 11,526 34,348 11.7 10.7 10.2 8.9 8.9 8.4 33.6 1.6 1.8%
Bunge Limited BG.US USD 31-Dec 72.88 147 10,728 4,264 14,992 17.6 12.3 11.2 10.3 8.0 7.5 28.4 0.9 1.2%
GrainCorp Ltd. GNC.AU AUD 30-Sep 7.98 198 1,583 240 1,823 20.1 11.8 11.6 8.6 6.3 6.3 13.2 1.2 3.1%
Monsanto Co. MON.US USD 31-Aug 67.53 536 36,195 138 36,333 28.0 23.8 20.1 14.3 12.2 10.7 0.4 3.6 1.7%
Syngenta AG SYNN.VX CHF 31-Dec 308.90 93 28,631 1,597 30,228 19.7 15.7 13.9 12.4 10.4 9.5 5.3 3.8 --
The Andersons, Inc. ANDE.US USD 31-Dec 48.68 19 901 515 1,417 14.0 12.6 12.0 12.1 8.8 8.5 36.4 2.0 0.9%
Viterra VT.CA CAD 31-Oct 11.34 372 4,126 1,518 5,644 23.7 13.1 14.4 10.9 7.8 8.1 26.9 1.1 0.9%
19.8 13.5 12.5 11.1 8.6 8.0
Food Ingredients Companies
BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd. BXI.CA CAD 31-Dec 1.74 174 303 (10) 292 n.m n.m n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. (3.5) 4.8 --
Burcon Nutrascience Corp. BU.CA CAD 31-Mar 9.50 30 283 (13) 270 n.m n.m 15.3 n.m. n.m. 11.1 (4.8) n.m. --
CSM nv CSM.AE EUR 31-Dec 25.35 66 1,669 631 2,300 14.5 12.6 10.4 8.0 7.6 6.7 27.4 1.5 3.6%
Danisco A/S DCO.KO DKK 30-Apr 663.00 48 31,578 3,626 35,204 24.9 21.9 20.1 14.4 11.5 10.8 10.3 2.5 1.3%
Kerry Group plc KRZ.DB EUR 31-Dec 27.29 175 4,783 1,155 5,937 14.0 12.8 11.6 9.6 9.4 8.8 19.4 2.9 1.1%
Tate & Lyle plc TATE.Ln GBP 31-Mar 5.99 458 2,741 561 3,302 16.1 13.4 12.5 8.0 7.9 7.6 17.0 3.3 3.8%
17.4 15.2 14.0 10.0 9.1 9.0
Global Sugar & Sweetener Companies
Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp. ABC.CA CAD 31-Dec 1.15 87 100 50 150 8.1 4.6 3.1 8.0 4.7 3.2 33.3 1.6 --
Corn Products International Inc. CPO.US USD 31-Dec 53.64 76 4,093 1,467 5,560 16.6 13.2 12.1 9.6 7.0 6.6 26.4 2.1 1.0%
GLG Life Tech Corporation GLG.CA CAD 31-Dec 9.05 36 322 28 350 n.m. 32.3 11.5 n.m. 10.7 5.8 7.9 1.8 --
Global Sweeteners Holdings Ltd. 3889.HK HKD 31-Dec 1.94 1,149 2,230 518 2,748 24.6 13.0 10.5 11.8 10.0 7.7 18.8 1.2 --
Imperial Sugar Co. IPSU.US USD 30-Sep 13.01 12 160 41 201 n.m. n.m. 7.4 0.9 14.7 4.1 20.5 0.7 0.6%
Purecircle Ltd. PURE.GB GBP 30-Jun 1.06 154 163 77 240 n.m. n.m. 24.5 n.m. n.m. 13.9 32.0 1.0 --
Rogers Sugar Inc. RSI.CA CAD 30-Sep 5.41 89 480 186 666 11.4 11.4 11.3 11.4 8.2 8.0 27.9 1.7 10.6%
Xiwang Sugar Holdings Co. Ltd 2088.HK HKD 12/31 2.47 1,006 2,486 1,016 3,502 11.8 9.4 8.1 9.0 6.4 5.9 29.0 1.5 --
14.5 14.0 11.1 8.4 8.8 6.9
Niche Food & Beverage Companies
Cott Corporation COT.US USD 01-Jan 8.66 95 820 571 1,391 12.7 11.5 9.6 7.4 5.6 5.2 41.1 1.6 --
Dr. Pepper Snapple Corp DPS.US USD 31-Dec 38.87 221 8,603 1,771 10,374 16.2 14.2 13.1 9.0 8.2 7.8 17.1 3.5 2.3%
Hansen Natural Corp. HANS.US USD 31-Dec 63.81 88 5,640 (599) 5,041 28.0 23.3 20.1 14.0 12.1 10.6 (11.9) 6.9 --
National Beverage Corp. FIZZ.US USD 01-May 13.68 46 632 (98) 535 19.3 15.9 14.7 8.3 7.2 6.7 (18.3) 4.3 --
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. HAIN.US USD 30-Jun 33.72 43 1,451 214 1,664 33.1 26.1 22.8 n.m. 13.5 12.2 12.8 1.8 --
21.8 18.2 16.1 9.7 9.3 8.5
Chinese F&B Companies
Besunyen Holdings Company Limited 926.HK HKD 31-Dec 2.94 1,681 3,754 (1,170) 2,583 26.7 18.4 14.0 11.4 7.1 5.6 (45.3) 2.8 0.3%
Bright Dairy & Food Company 600597.SH CNY 31-Dec 10.44 1,049 10,954 (342) 10,612 n.m. n.m. 29.0 6.5 5.2 4.2 (3.2) 4.7 1.1%
China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. 1886.HK HKD 31-Dec 5.30 1,478 7,833 2,734 10,567 n.m. 28.5 19.7 n.m. n.m. 12.4 25.9 1.6 0.7%
Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group 600887.SH CNY 31-Dec 35.35 800 28,295 (1,798) 26,498 n.m. 26.3 21.2 n.m. 12.9 10.4 (6.8) 8.2 --
Tingyi (Cayman Islands) Holdings Corp 322.HK HKD 31-Dec 20.25 5,587 113,133 (248) 112,885 n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. (0.2) n.m. 1.6%
Uni-President China Holdings Ltd. 220.HK HKD 31-Dec 4.40 3,599 15,838 (2,262) 13,576 30.6 26.8 20.8 13.6 11.8 9.1 (16.7) 2.4 1.2%
28.6 25.0 20.9 10.5 9.3 8.4
Ag Equipment
Agco Corp. AGCO.US USD 31-Dec 53.50 95 5,071 (2) 5,069 23.1 17.6 14.1 10.5 8.0 6.7 n.m. 1.9 --
Ag Growth International Inc. AFN.CA CAD 31-Dec 45.90 13 582 95 677 17.5 15.2 13.6 11.3 9.5 8.3 14.1 3.5 5.2%
Catepillar Incorporated CAT.US USD 31-Dec 108.28 660 71,421 23,591 95,012 n.m. 17.5 13.5 n.m. 11.2 9.1 24.8 6.6 1.6%
CNH Global NV CNH.US USD 31-Dec 45.09 238 10,751 11,968 22,719 21.7 15.9 13.0 n.m. 13.8 12.3 52.7 1.5 --
Deere & Company DE.US USD 31-Oct 93.89 421 39,532 21,341 60,873 20.1 15.1 13.0 14.1 13.7 12.2 35.1 6.3 1.5%
Harsco Corp. HSC.US USD 31-Dec 33.97 81 2,739 761 3,500 n.m. n.m. 16.8 7.3 6.8 5.9 21.7 1.9 2.4%
Hemisphere GPS, Inc. HEM.CA CAD 31-Dec 1.22 56 68 (5) 63 n.m. n.m. 13.6 n.m. 12.1 7.1 (8.0) 0.9 --
Vicwest Inc. VIC.CA CAD 31-Dec 15.64 17 272 54 327 23.3 13.9 10.1 n.m. 8.6 6.5 16.6 4.8 6.8%
21.1 15.9 13.5 10.8 10.5 8.5
Equipment Distributors
Ashtead Group Plc. AHT.GB BPN 30-Apr 2.00 503 1,007 774 1,781 n.m. n.m. n.m. 7.0 6.3 5.7 43.5 2.0 1.6%
Cervus Equipment Corp. CVL.CA CAD 31-Dec 17.62 15 258 14 272 19.2 12.8 10.3 11.1 7.8 6.4 5.3 2.2 4.1%
Finning International Inc FTT.CA CAD 31-Dec 26.66 172 4,598 696 5,294 22.4 16.7 13.7 11.6 9.3 8.0 13.1 3.3 1.8%
H&E Equipment Services Inc. HEES.US USD 31-Dec 19.35 35 678 299 976 n.m. n.m. 24.3 12.1 7.4 5.6 30.6 2.7 --
Richie Bros Auctioneers Inc. RBA.US USD 31-Dec 28.39 106 3,015 69 3,084 n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. 19.7 15.4 2.2 5.2 1.5%
Rocky Mountain Dealerships RME.CA CAD 31-Dec 10.05 20 197 180 377 12.1 8.7 7.0 11.1 7.5 6.2 47.8 1.8 1.8%
Rush Enterprises Inc. RUSHA.US USD 31-Dec 12.10 27 328 470 798 18.9 9.2 6.8 13.9 7.4 5.5 58.9 n.m. --
Speedy Hire Plc. SDY.GB BPN 31-Mar 0.27 517 140 124 264 n.m. n.m. n.m. 3.9 4.2 3.6 47.1 0.0 0.0%
Strongco Corp. SQP.CA CAD 31-Dec 5.20 11 55 92 146 n.m. 10.9 9.5 6.5 3.8 3.4 62.7 1.0 0.0%
Titan Machinery Inc. TITN.US USD 31-Jan 31.27 18 560 282 842 n.m. 22.6 18.0 15.9 15.9 13.1 33.5 n.m. --
Tormont Industries Ltd. TIH.CA CAD 31-Dec 32.91 77 2,534 246 2,780 n.m. 14.1 12.5 11.8 7.7 7.1 8.8 2.1 1.9%
United Rentals Inc. URI.US USD 31-Dec 28.37 61 1,733 2,658 4,391 n.m. 18.5 10.6 6.4 5.0 4.2 60.5 n.m. --
Wajax Corp. WJX.CA CAD 31-Dec 39.88 17 673 37 710 19.5 14.0 12.1 10.9 8.7 7.6 5.2 3.3 4.5%
18.4 14.2 12.5 10.2 8.5 7.1
Notes:
1.) All figures are in CAD unless otherwise noted.
2.) All estimates are from Thomson except ABC, AGT, BXI, CAT, CVL, FTT, GLG, RBA, RME, SQP, TIH, VT, and WJX are Raymond James estimates.
3.) P/E Values > 30.0x and EV/EBITDA multiples > 30.0x have been discarded (n.m.)
Company Initiations
Canada Research
®
RAYMOND JAMES
April 27, 2011

Alliance Grain Traders Inc.
AGT-TSX Company Report - Initiation of Coverage
Steve Hansen CMA, CFA | 604.659.8208 | steve.hansen@raymondjames.ca Rating & Target
Arash Yazdani MBA (Associate) | 604.659.8280 | arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca Strong Buy 1
Target Price (6-12 mos): C$30.00
Agribusiness & Food Products Current Price ( Apr-20-11 ) C$23.25
Total Return to Target 31%
AGT: Initiating Coverage: Pulse Pulse Baby 52-Week Range C$34.55 - C$21.80
Market Data
Event Market Capitalization (mln) C$464
We are initiating coverage on Alliance Grain Traders Inc. (‘AGT’) with a Strong Current Net Debt (mln) C$93
Buy rating and $30.00 target price, representing a 31.4% total return based Enterprise Value (mil.) C$557
upon the stock’s closing price on April 20, 2011. Shares Outstanding (mln, f.d.) 20.0
Action Dividend/Yield C$0.54/2.3%
We recommend that growth-oriented investors accumulate AGT shares in Key Financial Metrics
order to capitalize on robust long-term fundamentals associated with global 2010A 2011E 2012E
P/E
demand for pulses and specialty crops.
23.3x 11.8x 8.7x
Analysis EV/EBITDA
AGT has rapidly emerged to become the world’s leading provider of pulse and 15.3x 8.4x 6.4x
specialty crops. With humble Saskatchewan roots, the company has assembled EBITDA Margin (%)
an unrivalled portfolio of global assets, largely through acquisition, that 5.7% 9.6% 11.4%
includes 24 processing plants throughout Canada, the United States, Turkey, Net Debt/Equity (mrq) 0.3x
Australia, and China. In recent years, AGT has focused on building out its multi- Net Debt/Trailing EBITDA (mrq) 2.5x
origin sourcing and processing capabilities, and adding new products such as Company Description
specialty pulses and staple foods (rice, pasta). Alliance Grain Traders is a Canadian TSX-listed provider
of pulse and specialty crops that engages in sourcing,
We believe the long-term demand outlook for pulse and specialty crops
value added processing and merchandising of pulses,
remains attractive, underpinned by robust population growth in emerging primarily for export.
markets and the evolution of associated dietary patterns toward greater
protein consumption. We also highlight weather-related supply shocks in
recent years, which have driven global stocks to historically low levels and
promoted strong pricing. Finally, we expect mounting inflation and political
unrest in key consuming regions will continue to favour government
stockpiling.
We have observed that investor expectations have clearly been reset lower in
recent months on the back of extreme weather events and the deleterious
impact on Canadian pulse crop quality and harvest timing. However, because
these events do little to impact the underlying intrinsic value of AGT’s business,
we argue the sharp recent pullback in share price represents a good entry point
for investors. Our conviction is further bolstered by AGT’s solid pipeline of
growth opportunities and a distinguished management team with the vision
and fortitude to redefine the global pulse industry.
Valuation
Our $30.00 target price is based upon a 6.9x EV/EBITDA target multiple, at the
lower end of AGT’s historical trading range, applied to our 2012E estimate (see
Valuation & Recommendation section for more details).
EPS 1Q 2Q 3Q 4Q Full Revenues EBITDA
Mar Jun Sep Dec Year (mln) (mln)
2010A C$0.88 C$0.13 C$0.04 C$0.03 C$1.00 C$642 C$36
2011E 0.35 0.37 0.49 0.76 1.97 694 67
2012E NA NA NA NA 2.66 760 87
Alliance Grain Traders Inc. Canada Research | Page 37 of 183
Table of Contents
Investment Overview.......................................................................................................................... 38
Company Overview............................................................................................................................. 40
Industry Analysis................................................................................................................................. 47
Company Strategy............................................................................................................................... 53
Financial Analysis & Outlook............................................................................................................... 57
Valuation & Recommendation ........................................................................................................... 61
Appendix A: Financial Statements ...................................................................................................... 63
Appendix B: Industry Comparables .................................................................................................... 66
Risks .................................................................................................................................................... 67
Canada Research | Page 38 of 183 Alliance Grain Traders Inc.
Investment Overview
Strong Macro Outlook—As discussed in our Apr-27-11 Industry Report Clash of the
Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel, we believe the long-term demand outlook for pulse and
specialty crops remains attractive, underpinned by robust population growth in
emerging markets and the evolution of associated dietary patterns toward greater
protein consumption. We also highlight weather-related supply shocks in recent years,
which have driven global stocks to historically low levels and promoted a strong price
environment. Finally, we expect mounting inflation and political unrest in key
consuming regions (e.g. the Middle East) will continue to favour government stockpiling.
Collectively, we believe these factors point toward robust global demand throughout
our forecast horizon and beyond.
Dominant Position in the Global Pulse Industry—AGT has rapidly emerged to become
the world’s leading provider of pulse and specialty crops. With humble Saskatchewan
roots dating back to 2001, the company has assembled an unrivalled portfolio of global
assets, largely through acquisition, that includes 24 processing plants throughout
Canada, the United States, Turkey, Australia, and China.
Multi-Origination Strategy, Positioned in Key Export Markets—AGT’s decision to
pursue multi-origin sourcing and processing capabilities is a positive strategic move, in
our view, helping reduce the firm’s exposure to adverse crop events (i.e. weather,
disease). In particular, we highlight the firm’s position within Canada and Australia, two
key growing regions which account for 32% and 6% of global pulse exports respectively.
While the full benefits of this strategy are still accruing, we expect the approach will
help smooth out earnings volatility over time. Finally, incremental geographies position
the company on the doorstep to key strategic markets such as the Middle East, North
Africa, India, and China.
Product Diversification—AGT’s strategy to diversify its product offering is also viewed
favourably, helping it leverage existing distribution channels and reduce the seasonality
of its earnings profile. In particular, we highlight the key product additions including new
pulse crops such as beans, and staple foods such as pasta and rice. Although many of
these products still represent only a small proportion of AGT’s revenues, they are
expected to provide key new pillars of growth going forward.
Value-Added Capabilities; Proprietary Pulse Products—AGT’s North American facilities
are equipped with highly advanced blending, color sorting, and splitting technologies
that create value-added margin opportunities, particularly when a high degree of crop
quality variance exists. AGT’s ability to obtain exclusive commercialization rights to
proprietary pulse varieties such as the B90 Amit chickpeas, King Red and Queen Green
lentils (the world’s first true green lentil), and Skyline navy beans offers the firm a
differentiated product portfolio. We believe that these technologies and unique
products give the firm additional avenues for growth as well as a competitive advantage
over many of its peers.
International M&A Opportunities Still Plentiful—Notwithstanding AGT’s impressive
growth profile in recent years, we believe the company’s international growth
opportunities remain plentiful, most notably in key strategic markets such as the United
States, China, and India. The US bean market for example, represents a well established,
low-risk marketplace with attractive growth attributes. Similarly, India represents the
largest lentil and chickpea markets globally and is heavily dependent on Canadian
imports. The ability to add additional staple foods (pasta, rice) and pulse crops
(chickpeas, beans) to its portfolio further supplement these opportunities, in our view.
Ripe Organic Growth Opportunities—AGT has embarked on several organic growth

initiatives in recent years that are also expected to add shareholder value. In Turkey, the
firm is investing C$15.0 mln towards a new 65,000 mt rice plant and the addition of a
fifth pasta line that is expected to boost production by ~25.0%. In China, the company is
expected to triple its bean processing capacity. These initiatives, plus several in other
regions, are expected to drive healthy organic growth throughout our forecast horizon.
Solid Balance Sheet—AGT finished 2010 with a healthy balance sheet, providing ample
dry powder to pursue further organic and acquisitive growth, in our view. Net debt
ended the period at $92.8 mln, comprised of $93.5 mln in short-term debt, $22.9 mln in
long-term debt, and $23.6 mln in cash. Net debt-to-EBITDA (ttm) ended the year at 2.6x,
however, we expect this metric to fall materially during 2011 on account of strong cash
flow generation. By our account, the company has ~$200.0 mln in dry powder available
including credit-line availability, to pursue its growth objectives without the need to
raise equity.
Attractive Valuation—Given the sharp recent decline in its share price, AGT currently
trades at an attractive valuation of 7.7x and 5.3x our 2011 and 2012 EBTDA estimates, a
notable discount versus its Ag processing and handling peers. This is even more
attractive when considering the healthy take-out multiples paid in recent M&A
transactions within the rapidly consolidating grain handling sector, such as AWB by
Agrium at 9.7x and ABB by Viterra at 11.8x.
Initiating with Strong Buy Rating—We are initiating coverage on AGT with a Strong Buy
rating and $30.00 target price. Our target is predicated on a 6.9x EV/EBITDA multiple
applied to our 2012E EBITDA estimate. This is at a discount to its peers and at the lower-
end of its historical trading range to account for some acquisition integration risk, recent
weather-related crop challenges, and farmer tendency to hold back on crops in a bid for
higher prices.
Company Overview
Alliance Grain Traders Inc. (‘AGT’) is one of the world’s leading providers of pulse and
specialty crops. With 24 facilities strategically positioned throughout Canada (12), the
United States (1), Turkey (7), Australia (3) and China (1), AGT has grown aggressively via
acquisition to become the world’s largest originator, value-added processor, and
exporter of lentils and split peas. Headquartered in Regina, Saskatchewan, the company
sells to 85 foreign countries that make up more than 95% of its sales. The company
trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol ‘AGT’ and employs
approximately 402 people.
Business Mix
AGT is the world’s largest provider of pulse and specialty crops, including: lentils, peas,
chickpeas, beans, and bird seeds. In 2010, pulse and specialty crops represented 74.7%
of total sales. The balance of business is made up of other staple foods such as milled
grains, pasta and rice (see Exhibit 1). Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa
represent AGT’s largest buying regions, collectively accounting for ~55.8% of 2010
revenues. Asia and the Americas represent 22.4% and 21.8% of 2010 total revenues,
respectively (see Exhibit 2).
 Customers—AGT’s international customer base is diversified, with no single
customer accounting for more than 5% of total revenue. Customers include
importers, packagers, canners, ingredient users and wholesale importers and
distributors, with sales typically direct or through a local pulse broker.
 Suppliers—Ingredients are sourced from local producers in the five countries within
which AGT has processing facilities: Canada, US, Turkey, Australia and China.
Subsidiary Arbel Group sources its ingredients in Turkey, with a small portion
coming from around the world. Approximately 10% of crop purchases are through
fixed price production contracts, with the remainder purchased at the spot market.
AGT’s supplier base is diversified, with no single supplier accounting for more than
1% of purchases.
Exhibit 1: Sales by Products Exhibit 2: Three Year Sales by Region
Rice Other 100%

Grains
2% 2% 90%
3%
80%
70%
60%
C$ 000s
50%
40%
30%
20%
Pulses &
Specialty 10%
Crops 0%
2007 2008 2009
93%
Americas Asia Europe / Middle East / North Africa
Pulse Primer
What is a Pulse?
‘Pulse’ is a broad term used to describe the edible seeds of legumes. There are four
traditional pulse crops: peas, beans, lentils, and chickpeas (see Exhibit 3). However,
within these four broad categories, we note that there are dozens of species and
thousands of different varieties globally.
Pulse Applications
Pulses are a valuable source of dietary protein. Packing roughly twice the protein
content of traditional cereal grains, according to a study by the Department of
Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics at the Michigan State University, they
account for ~10% of the world’s aggregate protein intake. In some developing markets,
where animal protein is still consumed in far lower quantities, this figure is substantially
higher on a per-capita basis. Specific applications and end-markets where pulses are
used include (see Exhibit 4):
 Human Food—Pulses are consumed as a less expensive alternative to meat given
their high concentration of protein (two times the level of wheat and three times
that of rice).
 Liquid Fuel—Vegetable oil derived from pulses can be transformed into biodiesel.
The chemical process of creating biodiesel by combining vegetable oil, alcohol and a
catalyst is known as transesterification. Fuels resulting from this process can be
transformed into ethanol, making pulses an ideal substitute for corn.
 Health Benefits—Pulses are deemed as being high in nutritional value given their
low glycemic index factor (GI) and high levels of fiber, iron, and energy. Foods with
low GI help regulate blood sugar levels while dietary fiber and iron regulate the
digestive system, prevent obesity, and are critical to organ functioning. Increasing
awareness of these health benefits, most notably in emerging markets, has been a
key driver of demand.
 Animal Feed—Pulses and their by-products are widely used in animal feed,
aquaculture and pet food particularly as an excellent source of protein, energy, and
amino acids.
Exhibit 3: Pulse Crops: The Edible Seeds of Legumes
Lentils Chickpeas Beans Peas
… in a variety of colours, shapes, and forms:
AGT Product Mix
AGT’s product mix is currently segmented according to three broad product categories
including Pulse and Specialty Crops, Grain and Milling Products, and Other Commodities.
 Pulse and Specialty Crops—This category include lentils (red and green), chickpeas,
white beans, barbunia beans, soya beans, peas (green and yellow), red beans, and
canary seeds. Over 70% of AGT’s processing volume is allocated to the lentil and
specialty crops segment. The company has strategically located its pea production
facilities within key growing regions in Canada, widely regarded as the world’s
production and export leader. Furthermore, positioning of lentil facilities within
Canada (the world’s largest exporter) and Turkey (the world’s largest producer) has
contributed towards the company’s dominant position in that market.
 Grain and Milling Products—Focused on durum wheat, pasta, and bulgur, this
segment operates facilities located primarily in Turkey. Approximately 10% of AGT’s
grain and milling product is used by subsidiary Arbel as feedstock in pasta and
semolina production.
 Other Commodities—Other commodities produced by AGT include sugar, salt,
edible oils, pistachio nuts, hazelnuts, roasted chickpeas, sunflower seeds and
potatoes. This segment accounts for 3.7% of total revenue.
Exhibit 4: Pulse End Uses
Operating Facilities
AGT has built out a geographically diversified sourcing and processing footprint.
Through its wholly owned subsidiaries, AGT now operates 24 facilities, positioned
throughout Canada (12), the United States (1), Australia (3), Turkey (7) and China (1).
The company’s aggregate processing capacity is ~1.5 mln tpy.
 North America—AGT’s 12 processing facilities are primarily located in the province
of Saskatchewan (see Exhibit 5). These facilities focus on value-added pulse
processing such as cleaning, sizing, color sorting, peeling, splitting and packaging.
AGT also owns the largest pulse facility in the US, located in North Dakota.
 Turkey—AGT entered the Turkish market in 2009 through the acquisition of Arbel
Group, a leading domestic processor of pulses and grains. With seven facilities in
place, and plans to open one more, the acquisition was a game-changer. Arbel is
comprised of three subsidiaries: Arbel Bakliyat (pulses), Durum Gida (semolina and
pastas), and Turkpulse (bulgur). In addition to the benefits of geographic
diversification, this acquisition provided product diversification, providing an
immediate entry into semolina and pasta, rice and bulgur (a whole-grain cereal food
most popular in the Middle East and Greece).
 Australia—AGT owns and operates three processing and handling facilities in
Australia through its Australia Milling Group subsidiary. In September 2010, the
company doubled its footprint in the key growing region, via two acquisitions
including Northern York Processing and Balco Grain that closed in mid-November.
 China—The November 2010 acquisition of Poortman Ltd. added a dedicated pulse
processing facility in Tianjin, China. AGT has committed to investing in expansion at
the Tianjin plant as part of its cited objective of long-term growth within China.
 Europe—AGT’s acquisition of Poortman, an international pulse and birdseed
importer, distributor and merchandiser, provided it with a European distribution
network that includes sales and trading offices in the UK and Netherlands, as well as
warehouses in the UK, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy.
Exhibit 5: AGT Subsidiaries Overview

Brands Description Facility
Supplies all types of Canadian o Saskcan Pulse Trading o Saskcan Milestone o Saskcan Parent
pulses and specialty crops o Saskcan Rosetown o Saskcan Horizon o Saskcan Assiniboia
o Saskcan Agtech o Saskcan Pulse Depot o Saskcan Gibbons
Western Canada
o Finora Wilkie
Largest pulse processing plant in o United Pulse Trading Willston
the Americas; supplies all types of
U.S. pulses and specialty crops
United States
Supplies all types of Australian pulses o Balco Grain (3 facilities)

and specialty crops o Northern Yorke Processors
o Australia Milling Group Horsham Victoria
Australia
Buying, processing and marketing Grains & Pulses Pasta
lentils and grain, o Three processing facilities o 4 facilities (~140,000 tpy)
producing and selling pasta and o Storage & processing complex in o 1 additional line under construction
Turkey semolina and producing Mersin (~120,000 MT of storage) Bulgur
and selling bulgur o 1 facility (~85,000 tpy)
An international importer, Sales & Trading Bean Processing
distributor o London, UK o Tianjin, China
and stockist of pulses o Waalwijk, Netherlands o Committed C$2mln for expansion
Europe and China
Company History
AGT’s history dates back to 2001 when current CEO Murad Al-Katib formed Saskcan
Pulse Trading. In 2007, the company effected a public listing through an RTO with
Agtech Income Fund, resulting in the formation of Alliance Grain Traders Income Fund.
In 2009, the fund converted into a corporation and bought its largest private
competitor, the Arbel Group (see Exhibit 6). AGT has carried out 10 acquisitions since
inception, with Arbel being the most sizeable (C$104 mln).
Most recently, in November 2010 AGT completed its purchase of Balco Grain and
Northern Yorke Processors, both based in Australia, for approximately C$10 mln.
Exhibit 6: AGT Acquisition Timeline & Associated Purchase Prices
Renamed as Conversion into a

Alliance Grain corporation
Tradewind
Traders $2.9 mln
(Aug 08)
Arbel Group
Saskcan Pulse Depot $104.1 mln Balco Grain &
Pulse Rosetown (Oct 09) Northern Yorke
$22.0 mln $9.3 mln 10.0 mln
(Aug 07) (Aug 08) (Sep. 10)
Horizon
Finora Parent Seed
Harvest Grain Seed A. Poortman
US$8.9 mln $10.0 mln
$2.2 mln
$1.4 mln
(Dec 09) (Dec 09) £8.3 mln
(Nov 08)
(Nov 07) (Nov. 10)
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
D = Domestic I = International
Source: Alliance Grain Traders Inc., Bloomberg, Raymond James Ltd.
Management Team
Murad Al-Katib, President and CEO—Murad Al-Katib helped establish Saskcan Pulse
Trading in 2001, later taking over as CEO and President of AGT after the AgTech-Saskcan
Pulse merger in 2007. He is a recipient of multiple management awards for his
entrepreneurial work done with Saskcan Pulse Trading. In 2006 Mr. Al-Katib was
appointed to the Canadian Minister of International Trade’s Advisory Board for Small
and Medium Enterprises. Mr. Al-Katib holds a Master’s degree in International
Management from the American Graduate School of International Management in
Thunderbird, Arizona. He graduated from the University of Saskatchewan with a
Bachelor of Commerce in Finance.
Huseyin Arslan, Chairman & President of the Arbel Group—Mr. Arslan is Chairman of
the Arbel Group and has been its President for the past 15 years. His family founded the
Arbel Group over 50 years ago. The Arslan family is also a cofounder of Saskcan Pulse
Trading, leading to Mr. Huseyin Arslan’s appointment as a trustee of the AGT Income
Fund in 2008. After AGT Traders acquired the Arbel Group, Mr. Arslan took over as
Chairman. Mr. Arslan holds a Bachelor of Science in Electronics Engineering from the
Middle East Technical University in Turkey and has over two decades of experience in
the trading of agricultural and food products globally. He is also an elected member of
the executive committee of the International Pulse Processors and Exporters
Federation.
Lori Ireland, CFO—Ms. Ireland is a Certified Management Accountant (CMA) with over
10 years of experience in Agricultural Accounting. Ms. Ireland joined Saskcan Pulse as
CFO in 2002, following several years in Special Crops Accounting at the Saskatchewan
Wheat Pool. Other experience includes working as an accountant for Heartland
Livestock (formerly the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, Livestock Division) for 3 years and
managing the implementation of the Livestock Feeder Finance program through Farm
Credit Canada.
Gaetan Bourassa, COO—Mr. Bourassa was appointed COO in 2009, after first joining
Saskcan Pulse Trading in 2005 as a merchandiser and then progressing to VP of
Marketing and Operations in 2006. Other experience includes marketing at Best Cooking
Pulses as well as a 12-year career there as general manager. Mr. Bourassa holds a
diploma in Marketing from Saskatchewan Institute of Applied Science and Technology.
Ownership and Share Structure
AGT’s common shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the ticker “AGT”. As
of April 13, 2011, there were 19,706,078 common shares outstanding. Institutional
investors represent the largest group of holders, holding approximately 61.4% of the
shares outstanding. Insiders also hold a significant ~23.9% position, with the Arsal family
owning ~21.9% of this total.
Exhibit 7: Shareholder Summary (as of Apr-13-11)

Shareholder Summary
Shares Held / Controlled % O.S.
Management. Directors and Other Insiders
Arslan, Huseyin 2,334,796 11.85%
Arslan, Mahmut 1,989,636 10.10%
Al-Katib, Murad 296,326 1.50% Corporations
Bourassa, Gaetan 34,700 0.18% Institutions
Ireland, Lori 17,000 0.09% 61.4%
Arsenault, Denis C. 13,000 0.07%
Rosen, Howard N 10,000 0.05%
Renwick, Jeffrey 4,600 0.02%
Arslan Family 4,324,432 21.94%
Total Management & Insiders 4,700,058 23.85%
Insiders
Corporations / Institutions 23.9%
Royal Bank of Canada, Banking Investments 2,722,525 13.82%
RBC Global Asset Management 1,719,223 8.72%
IG Investment Management 793,657 4.03%
Phillips Hager & North 678,420 3.44%
Mawer Investment Management Limited 670,042 3.40%
Top Corporations / Institutions 6,583,867 33.41%
Total Corporations / Institutions 12,098,004 61.39%
Other
Other 2,841,961 14.42% 14.4%
Total Shares Outstanding 19,706,078 100.00%
Source: Capital IQ, Raymond James Ltd.
Industry Analysis
The long-term outlook for global pulse demand is compelling, in our view. Specifically,
we believe that pulses will continue to play an increasingly prominent role in both
developed and emerging markets as an efficient, economical source of protein, offering
tremendous health and ancillary benefits. Below we review the global pulse industry,
several of its key characteristics, and the underlying drivers that we expect to stoke
demand going forward.
Global Production—Small & Concentrated
The global pulse industry is a relatively niche sector within the global agriculture
complex. According to the FAO, 2009 global pulse production was ~61.5 mln tonnes (see
Exhibit 8) valued at ~$100.0 bln. For context, these volumes pale in comparison to global
heavyweight crops such as corn (~771 mln tonnes) and wheat (~676 mln tonnes). Other
notable attributes include:
 Beans & Peas Top By Volume—Beans stand out as the largest pulse crop globally,
accounting for 40% of 2009 global production. This is followed by chickpeas (25%),
peas (23%), and lentils (6%), respectively (see Exhibit 9).
 Concentrated Production Base—Global pulse production is heavily concentrated
with five countries accounting for more than 50% of global output. India is the
largest producer by a healthy margin, totaling 13.7 mln tpy or roughly 22.3% of total
supply in 2009. Canada is a close second, totaling 5.2 mln tpy, or 8.5%, of
production during the same period. China, Myanmar, and Brazil round out the top
five producing regions.
Exhibit 8: Global Pulse Production & Per Capita Consumption Exhibit 9: Global Pulse Production (2009)
Steady pulse
80,000 9.5
production vs. Other
6%
Pulse production (000s tonnes)
70,000 declining per capita

9.4
Beans, dry
60,000 40%
9.3
Kg per capita
50,000 Peas, dry

9.2 23%
40,000
9.1
30,000
9.0
20,000
8.9 Lentils
10,000
6%
8.8
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Chick peas
Dry beans Chickpeas Lentils 25%
Dry peas Other Pulses per capita
Source: FAO, Raymond James Ltd.
 Country Specialization—Crop specialization is prevalent within the key growing

regions highlighted above. India and Brazil, and Canada for example, have pulse
crops that are heavily skewed towards chickpea, bean and pea production,
respectively. Turkey produces large volumes of lentils and chickpeas but little else,
while the US and Mexico are generally more balanced in their respective production
profiles (see Exhibit 10).
Exhibit 10: Pulse Production by Region (2009)
Beans India Chick Brazil Beans Canada

19% peas 99.9% Peas Lentils
53% 66% 29%
Peas Beans
20% 4%
Chick
Peas Peas
Lentils
0.1% 1%
8%
 Canada & Australia Major Exporters; Global Importance Rising—On the back of
healthy production (see Exhibit 11), Canada stands out as the world’s largest pulse
exporter (see Exhibit 12), representing 3.1 mln tpy or 32.3%, of global export
volumes in 2008. According to Agriculture Canada, this figure has steadily increased
to reach ~3.9 mln tpy in 2010. Australia is a top-five exporter at ~0.61 mln tpy or
6.3% of global 2008 exports. With large tracts of land suitable for farming, advanced
storage and transportation infrastructure, and limited domestic demand, we
believe the export contribution of these two countries is likely to rise over time.
The US, China, and Myanmar round out the top five exporting nations.
Exhibit 11: Top Pulse Producing Nations Exhibit 12: Top Pulse Exporters (2008)
18,000 Brazil Canada China

India U.S. Myanmar 3,500
16,000 3,126
3,000
Pulse production (000s tonnes)
2008 Export vlms (000s tonnes)
14,000
12,000 2,500
10,000 2,000
8,000
1,500
6,000 1,118
1,032
1,000
758
4,000 608
2,000 500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Canada USA China Myanmar Australia
Highly Efficient, Economical Source of Nutrition
As noted previously, pulses are a valuable source of dietary protein, making them a
critical food staple in emerging markets. At the same time, we highlight several
complimentary factors that are helping stoke pulse demand around the world. Key
attributes underpinning this demand include:
 Health Attributes—Pulse crops are packed with nutritional advantages. High in
protein (more than any other plant – see Exhibit 13), complex carbohydrates, fibre,
and other key minerals and vitamins (iron, calcium, potassium), they provide a high
degree of energy (kcals) with a low glycemic index. They can also be stored over
long periods of time due to their low moisture content and hard-coating.
 Land Efficient—Pulses are a highly efficient source of protein production, requiring
a fraction of the land required by traditional animal-based protein. According to the
World Pulses Organization, livestock currently use 33% of global arable land. Meat
is also highly inefficient from a conversion standpoint, requiring 15 tonnes of
agricultural inputs for every 1 tonne of meat produced. This has resulted in ~4x
more land being used today to grow animal food versus human food. As global
arable land per capita is projected to continue decreasing (see Exhibit 14), we
believe pulses will gain prominence as a more efficient source of protein.
Exhibit 13: Protein Content by Weight (%) Exhibit 14: Global Avg. Arable Land per Capita
40% 1.2
36%
Protein content by weight (%)
35% Arable land on a

Pulses provide protein 1.0
precipitous per
30% content by weight capita decline
Acres per capita
equivalent to meats 0.8

25% 23%
22%
19% 0.6
20%
15% 12% 0.4

11%
10% 9%
10% 7% 0.2
5% 4%
2%
0.0
0% 1961 1970 1980 1990 2002 2025 2050
ze
Po k
ef
Ba t
as n
es
gs
e
y
Pu y
va
a
il
rle
ic
or
tr
Be
he
M
ai
ls
Eg
sa
ul
C
M
W
 Smaller Water Footprint—Pulse crops require a fraction of the water footprint used
by other sources of protein. For example, only ~43 gallons of water are required to
produce one pound of pulses, versus ~1,857 gallons of water to produce one pound
of beef (see Exhibit 15). According to a UN and McKinsey Group study, switching to
more water-efficient foods will be an important strategy required to meet the 40%
increase in water demand foreseen within 20 years. We note the increase in water
demand is estimated to be even higher in the world’s most rapidly developing
countries, the same areas that depend most on pulse crops as a source of protein.
 Fertilizer Cost Reduction—The nitrogen-fixing ability of pulse crops is becoming an

increasingly important source of output improvement while reducing fertilizer
requirements. Nitrogen fertilizer represents ~50% of the energy cost on N.A farms,
according to the Alberta Pulse Growers Commission. Utilizing pulse crops as part of
a crop rotation program has proven to provide subsequent staple crops such as
wheat with a renewable source of natural nitrogen. This reduces input costs and
the crop’s energy footprint, while also increasing output. This trend is beginning to
become more common in North America and could, over time, represent an
important source of yield improvement in developing countries where nitrogen
fertilizer usage is still limited due to cost.
 Fewer Greenhouse Gases—Meat production emits more greenhouse gases than do
all forms of global transportation or industrial processes (see Exhibit 16), only
exceeded by energy production. In fact, Scientific America reports that pound for
pound, beef production generates 13x more greenhouse gases than chicken
production and 57x more than potatoes.
Taken together, pulses are deemed to be a highly economical source of protein, most
notably in the developed markets where disposable incomes remain relatively low,
while also contributing to water efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction, and providing a
source of natural fertilizer to farmers who practice crop rotation.
Exhibit 15: Water Footprint for Various Foods Exhibit 16: Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector
2,000 1,857
1,800 Pulses require significantly Energy production 21%

less gallons of water per lb
Water footprint* (gallons / lb)
1,600 of protein versus other Livestock (beef, chicken, pork) 18%

1,400 foods
Transportation 14%
1,200 Fossil-fuel retrieval 12%
1,000
Agriculture 12%
756
800
Residential 10%
600 469
368 Manufacturing 7%
400
216 Land use 4%
200 43
Waste disposal & treatment 3%
-
Beef Pork Chicken Peanuts Soybean Pulses
Emerging Markets Dominate Demand
Emerging markets represent the lion’s share of global pulse demand, accounting for
over 60% of consumption in 2007. Furthermore, industry data indicates that of this
emerging markets demand, almost one-third was made of up the world’s least
developed and most destitute nations (see Exhibit 17). Given this geographical demand
profile, global pulse demand is expected to grow alongside robust population growth
within these regions. Major importing nations including India, Egypt, and Turkey are
expected to increase their imports over time, while exporters such as China are
expected to soon become net importers of product.
In Canada, pulses have steadily increased their position within the agricultural
landscape. Specifically, the value of pulse crops (measured in terms of farm cash
receipts) grew at CAGR of ~7.3% from 2001 to 2009 to make up 7.3% of all crop value
(see Exhibit 19). Total 2010 pulse production volumes in Canada exceeded soybeans and
oats though remain below staple crops such as wheat and corn.
Exhibit 17: Pulse Consumption as Human Food (tonnes)

Americas
Region 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
19%
Africa 7,440 7,522 7,995 8,208 8,032 8,522 9,093 9,375
Americas 7,345 7,336 7,353 7,779 7,623 7,668 8,020 8,048
Asia 19,096 19,687 20,606 19,949 19,932 19,920 21,237 23,440
Europe 1,932 2,025 1,926 1,914 1,927 1,827 1,841 1,817 Africa
Oceania 51 55 58 104 47 68 67 58 22%
World 35,864 36,626 37,937 37,954 37,560 38,006 40,256 42,739 Asia
55%
Low Income Food Deficit Countries 23,433 24,175 25,227 24,948 24,556 24,839 26,896 29,444 Oceania
European Union 1,522 1,538 1,439 1,419 1,371 1,293 1,305 1,320 0%
Europe
Least Developed Countries 5,699 5,913 6,358 6,546 6,527 6,849 7,043 7,589 4%
Source: UN FAO, Statistics Canada, Raymond James Ltd.
Exhibit 18: Emerging Market Pulses Demand Exhibit 19: Canada Pulses as % of Total Crop Value
50.0 25 8.0%
45.4
Pulses Demand for Food (mln tonnes)
45.0
Farm cash receipts (C$ blns)
38.3 Pulses steadily 7.0%

40.0 20 increasing as % of
Pulses as % of crops
6.0%
35.0 31.0 total crop income
30.0 15 5.0%
25.3
25.0 4.0%
20.0 10
3.0%
15.0
2.0%
10.0 5
2.2 3.4 3.8 4.0 1.0%
5.0
0.0 0.0%
Developing Countries Industrial Countries 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009
1979-1981 1997-1999 2015 2030 Total crops Total pulses % of crops
Source: UN FAO, Statistics Canada, Raymond James Ltd.
Competitive Landscape
The global pulse processing industry has undergone significant change over the past
decade alongside the broader agriculture sector. Consolidation and globalization, most
notably, have swept across the landscape with smaller players and facilities gradually
disappearing. In Canada, for example, a 2008 survey by the Saskatchewan Ministry of
Agriculture found 29.0% fewer processors vs. a similar survey conducted in 2002, while
total processing capacity increased by 7.0% over the same period.
AGT has very few direct competitors. There are several regional players (i.e. Walker
Seeds, Simpson Seeds, Prairie Pulse, JK International) in each of the firm’s product end-
markets and geographies, but there are few, if any, players that boast similar multi-
origin (i.e. global) capabilities, breadth of product, and value-added processing capacity.
Several multinational firms also participate in the global pulse industry (i.e. Viterra,
ADM, JK Milling); however, pulses tend to be a relatively small part of their business and
are often approached differently (i.e. bulk handling vs. value-added processing). A
subset of these competitors includes:
Exhibit 20: Prominent Pulse Processing Competitors

Company Details Services Products
► Based in Germany
Alfred C. Toepfer (Canada) Ltd ► 38 branches around the globe Mustard Seed, Lentils, Feed Peas,
Exporter
Private ► Annual sales volume > 42 mln tonnes Edible Peas, Chickpeas
► 2,000 employees
Belle Pulses Ltd.
► Based in Saskatchewan Processor, Exporter Chickpeas, Peas
Private
► 150 year history
Grower, Cleaning
James Richardson International ► Large international network
and Handling, Lentils, Peas
Private ► Diversified business, emphasis on canola
Processor
► > 10 % grain handling is in pulses
► Founded in 1940's based in Manitoba Processor, Exporter, White Pea Beans, Lentils, Feed Peas,
Roy Legumex Inc.
► Exports to 75 countries Cleaning and Edible Peas, Faba Beans, Chickpeas,
Private
► Container and bulk shipping Handling Canary Seed, Coloured Beans
► Founded in 1975 by the Simpson family

Simpson Seeds Inc. Processor, Lentils, Chickpeas, Feed Peas, Edible
► Based in Saskatchewan
Private Packaging, Exporter Peas
► Exports to ~ 70 countries
► Founded in 1924, based in Regina White Pea Beans, Lentils, Feed Peas,
Viterra Inc. Processor, Cleaning
► Assets in Canada, U.S. Australia and New Zealand Edible Peas, Chickpeas, Sunflower,
Public and Handling,
► Extensive international platform Mustard, Buckwheat, Canary Seed,
TSX:VT Exporter
► Operates in food processing Beans, Coloured Beans
Walker Seeds Ltd. ► Based in Saskatchewan, established in 1982 Lentils, Feed Peas, Edible Peas, Faba
Processor, Exporter
Private ► Exports to 75 counrties Beans, Canary Seeds
Source: Company Documents, Raymond James Ltd.
Company Strategy
AGT’s global growth ambitions are rooted in a core strategy aimed at de-risking the
business platform and leveraging the firm’s existing infrastructure. Multi-origin sourcing,
for example, helps reduce the risk of isolated weather-related (i.e. crop) events,
balances harvest timing, allows for capitalization on feedstock pricing arbitrage
opportunities, and diversifies product mix. Moreover, because the process of
husking/hulling, cleaning, sizing and colour sorting of many pulses is very similar, new
products also leverage off the company’s in-house processing expertise. Finally, we note
that buyers of lentils, beans, chickpeas, and rice are typically the same buyers of other
specialty crops such as canary seed, which allows the firm to drive more volumes and
fluidity through its existing processing and distribution channels. Collectively, we believe
these attributes are expected to reduce the seasonality and volatility of AGT’s earnings
over time, which we discuss in more detail below.
 Multi-Origination—As noted, multi-origination is aimed at reducing the risks
associated with adverse crop-related events (i.e. weather, pest, disease). Different
harvest schedules in North America (October), Australia (December) and Turkey
(June), coupled with different climatic/precipitation regimes, should help reduce
the seasonality and volatility in crop availability, quality, and price. AGT has
strategically positioned its core assets in key exporting regions including Canada, US
and Australia, which together account for >50% of global pulse and specialty crop
exports. AGT’s infrastructure in Turkey allows the company to capitalize on the
opportunity to process and distribute to key import markets in close proximity such
as North Africa and the Middle East. Australian operations are ideal for penetrating
China and the Indian sub-continent, where it is also considering distribution
opportunities.
 Product Diversification—AGT’s desire to diversify its product offering is also
expected to reduce earnings volatility by adding value-added products with stable
demand (i.e. pasta) to its portfolio, and leveraging its distribution capabilities by
pushing more product through the same channels. AGT has specifically identified
four “core platforms” for growth, including pulses (beans and chickpeas), durum
and wheat milling products, rice and other. In the tables below, we outline some of
the most logical avenues for growth. Finally, we also point out AGT’s recent success
in obtaining exclusive commercialization rights to premium proprietary products
such as the B90 Amit chickpeas, King Red and Queen Green lentils (the world’s first
true green lentil), and Skyline navy beans.
 Value-Added Capabilities—One of AGT’s key competitive advantages, in our view,
is its ability to create a premium product when there is a high degree of crop
variability. The company’s North American facilities are equipped with highly
advanced blending, color sorting, and splitting technologies that create value-added
margin opportunities. Plants are highly automated, equipped with a mix of off-the-
shelf and proprietary equipment, and employ the expertise of professional ‘split-
masters’.
 Minimize Underlying Commodity Risk—AGT prides itself as a pulse merchandiser,
not a commodity speculator. The company therefore considers inventory risk
management a critical component of its strategy, resolving to take no speculative
‘trade’ positions on its feedstock, and generally keeping inventory levels very low (<
5,000 tonnes un-hedged). The company also hedges out its foreign exchange,
transportation and customer pricing in an effort to lock-in margins at the time of
sale.
Exhibit 21: AGT Organic and Acquisitive Growth Opportunities

Country Product Organic Growth Opportunity Details
Canada Pulses Description: ► New value-added processing equipment (colour sorters) added @ Finora Wilkie & Rosetown
Rationale: ► Enhanced sorting capabilities facilitiate blending of lower quality (cheaper) grades into higher grade categories (increase margin)
Timeline: ► Installation completed August 2010
Cost: ► ~$ 5.0 mln
China Beans Description: ► Expand Chinese bean processing facility acquired through Poortmans
Rationale: ► Bolster initial foothold in massive Chinese marketplace; low risk expansion strategy
Timeline: ► Unclear
Cost: ► ~$3.0 - $5.0 mln
India Beans / Description: ► Develop local sourcing/processing/distbn network, preferably near/at port; attract local talent to familiarize with market.
Chickpeas Rationale: ► World's largest producer/consumer of pulses; LARGE importer from Canada; but highly fragmeneted market; must start slow.
Timeline: ► Unclear (likely longer-term)
Cost: ► Unclear
Turkey Rice Description: ► Adding new 65,000 mt processing facility.

Rationale: ► Strong domestic demand (net importer); plant proximity affords export opps to Russia / East Europe; Consumption pattern differs from pulses
Timeline: ► Q1 2011
Cost: ► ~$8.0 - $10.0 mln
Turkey Pasta Description: ► Adding 5th pasta line; includes 35,000 mt of additional short-cut pasta
Rationale: ► Strong branded presence; top exported product; short-cut compliments existing long-cut business
Timeline: ► Q1 2011
Cost: ► ~$8.0 - $10.0 mln
United States Pasta Description: ► Will look to construct a greenfield pasta plant (50 - 60k mt)
Rationale: ► Large market; stiff import tariffs currently in place on imports; puts AGT at competitive disadvantage
Timeline: ► Longer-term
Cost: ► ~$20.0 - $25.0 mln
Country Product Acquisitive Growth Opportunity Details
Australia Pulses Target: ► Balco Grain and Northern Yorke Processors

Rice Rationale: ► Additional processing & shipping assets in Victoria---a major pulse growing region; access to Indian sub-continent
Timeline: ► Closed November 2010
Cost: ► $10.0 mln
Canada Beans Target: ► Potential bean processing assets in southern Alberta

Rationale: ► AGT could use additional presence in the region
Cost: ► $10.0 mln
China Target: ► Potential bean processing assets in China

Rationale: ► China is expected to become net importer of beans by 2016
Timeline: ► Long-term (in our view)
Cost: ► Unclear
India Target: ► Potential sourcing, processing and distribution assets in order to replicate the Turkey model
Rationale: ► India is the largest pulse market in the world
Timeline: ► Unclear; India's market is highly fragmented and deemed as high risk, start out small by building a distribution network
Cost: ► Unclear
Turkey Rice Target: ► Unclear

Rationale: ► Arbel acquisition was a catalyst for entering the Turkish market, don't expect futher acquisitions in short term
Cost: ► Unclear
United States Beans Target: ► Potential bean processing assets in the U.S.
Rationale: ► Hispanic-linked bean consumption market growing rapidly, year-round consumption
Timeline: ► 1 yr
Cost: ► $25-30 mln
Rice Target: ► Potential rice processing assets in Arkansas

Rationale: ► Fits well with current profile - rice from Arkansas is exported to Turkey
Cost: ► Unclear
Recent Challenges—The Perfect Storm
AGT’s financial results (and share price) have been materially impaired in recent
quarters owing to the residual impact of Canada’s highly irregular 2010-11 crop.
Specifically, we highlight:
 Record Rain, Excessive Flooding, Persistent Cool—The Canadian prairies endured a
highly aberrant growing season during 2010, characterized by near-record to record
rainfall, excessive flooding, and persistent cool temperatures. Collectively, these
factors resulted in a number of downstream ancillary effects, most which have
fared poorly for AGT.
 Late Harvest—By the end of September, the Canadian harvest was only 43.0%
complete versus the 5-yr average of 97.0%, resulting in a 6 week delay versus the
typical harvest. This delay pushed back the start of AGTs peak processing season.
Coupled with limited carryover volumes from the prior quarter, this delay crippled
AGT’s plant utilization rates during 3Q—which was reflected in its financial results.
At the time, this delay also had most industry observers thinking that 4Q would see
a material pick-up in activity.
 Major Quality Issues—Poor growing conditions also had a deleterious impact on
pulse crop quality, setting off another set of unintended consequences. For context,
lentils are graded and grouped according to the Canadian Grain Commission’s (CGC)
four categories: No.1, No.2, No.3, and Extra-3. In a typical crop year, 75% - 80% of
Canada’s lentils are No.2’s or better. Last season, it was the reverse, with most of
the crop falling into the bottom two quality categories, creating a glut of low quality
product.
 Record Crop Volumes Exacerbate Problem—Notwithstanding the poor growing
conditions described, 2010 lentil production came in almost 30% higher than prior
year, and more than double the 10-year average—largely thanks to a sizeable jump
in seeded area and yield. Under typical growing conditions, this type of volume lift
would be a boon for AGT; however, given the aforementioned crop quality and
harvest timing issues, it created serious problems.
 Farmers Became Reluctant to Sell—Facing a glut of low quality product, falling
prices, and concerns over export tolerances, farmers became very reluctant to part
with their crops, preferring to wait in the hope of better pricing later on. For AGT,
this introduced another volume sourcing problem, which subsequently impaired
the company’s 4Q utilization. We now turn our attention to 1Q11.
Fighting Back—Attempting to Mitigate the Pain
In order to combat these challenges, AGT has undertaken a series of initiatives aimed at
leveraging its internal processing capabilities and the reach of its global distribution
network.
 Leveraging their Distribution Platform—AGT’s merchandising expertise coupled
with geographically diverse operations has allowed the company to leverage its size
and scope in order to match the product available with suitable end-markets. In
addition, AGT has been using its size and scope to minimize transportation costs
and maximize leverage of pricing irregularities among markets.
 Value-Added Sorting, Splitting and Blending—AGT attempts to create a margin
spread through its ability to process the aforementioned lower priced, lower quality
lentils (mid No.2, low No.2, and No.3) and blend them into higher-value food grade
No.2 product. The efficiencies gained through converting pulses into finished
products enable AGT to maximize its revenue per hour of processing time,
particularly advantageous in dealing with the recent quality variances.
 Moving Towards Product Diversification—AGT’s move to diversify revenues
through a shift to new crops helps mitigate seasonality and sourcing risks including
some of the aforementioned weather-related issues. The company’s dependence
on pulses has decreased from 93% in 2009 to 75% of 2010 revenues. Some of these
new products include beans and chickpeas in the pulse segment and rice and pasta
in the staple food platform.
Financial Analysis & Outlook
Revenue & Earnings Profile
Notwithstanding expectations for near-term harvest timing challenges, AGT boasts very
attractive long-term revenue and earnings growth prospects, in our view. Specifically,
we forecast 2011 and 2012 revenues will advance 8.1% and 9.6% y/y, respectively, to
$693.9 million and $760.3 million as pulse crop harvest timing is expected to normalize
mid-2011 and then through to 2012, versus highly atypical 2010 weather conditions. In
this context, we forecast that Pulse & Specialty crop revenues will advance 5.2% and
12.0% respectively in 2011 and 2012. Pasta and Rice revenues, meanwhile, are expected
to grow respectively at 20.0% and 18.0% y/y in 2011, owing to recent acquisitions and
organic growth expenditures. In 2012, we expect Pasta and Rice growth to temper to
3.0% y/y each.
Exhibit 22: Segmented AGT Revenue Exhibit 23: AGT Margin History & Forecast
800.0 100.0 14.0
90.0
700.0 12.0
Consolidated EBITDA (C$ 000s)
Consolidated EBITDA margin (%)

Segmented Revenue (C$ 000s)
80.0
600.0
70.0 10.0
500.0
60.0
8.0
400.0 50.0
6.0
40.0
300.0
30.0 4.0
200.0
20.0
100.0 2.0
10.0
0.0 0.0 0.0

2009 2010 2011E 2012E 2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Pulses & Specialty Crops Milled Grains: Pasta, Semolina & Bulgar Consolidated EBITDA (C$ 000s) EBITDA Margin (%)
Rice Other Commodities
Source: Raymond James Ltd.
Gross margins are also expected to recover over time. In the short-term, we expect the
residual headwinds associated with Canada’s abnormal 2010-11 crop will exert pressure
on volumes and margin—likely into 2Q11. Thereafter, with a new Canadian crop on the
horizon, we expect margins (and the company’s trading multiple) to revert back toward
normalcy.
From a seasonality perspective, we expect the company to report stronger consolidated
EBIT margin in 3Q and 4Q, when the bulk of the harvest is processed. Consistent with
the aforementioned growth profile, we expect AGT will deliver strong EBITDA and EPS
growth throughout our forecast horizon. Specifically, we forecast 2011 and 2012 EBITDA
of $66.6 mln and $87.0 mln. Similarly, we expect 2011 and 2012 EPS to come in at $1.97
and $2.66, respectively.
Exhibit 24: AGT Financial Summary and RJ Forecast

2009 2010E 1Q11E 2Q11E 3Q11E 4Q11E 2011E 2012E
Revenue by Segment
Pulses & Specialty Crops 362,675 479,741 112,886 118,530 130,225 143,248 504,889 565,476
Milled Grains: Pasta, Semolina & Bulgar 11,637 68,475 18,661 12,094 23,487 27,927 82,170 84,635
Rice 6,788 69,659 22,261 19,435 11,419 29,107 82,222 84,689
Other Commodities 6,788 23,440 1,882 0 5,753 16,977 24,611 25,473
Total revenue 387,887 641,314 155,690 150,059 170,884 217,259 693,892 760,272
EBIT $42,377 $26,163 $9,619 $10,133 $13,594 $20,941 $54,287 $74,191

EBITDA $45,396 $36,436 $12,694 $13,208 $16,669 $24,016 $66,587 $87,041
EPS $2.49 $0.98 $0.35 $0.37 $0.49 $0.76 $1.97 $2.66
EBIT Margin 10.9% 4.1% 6.2% 6.8% 8.0% 9.6% 7.8% 9.8%
EBITDA Margin 11.7% 5.7% 8.2% 8.8% 9.8% 11.1% 9.6% 11.4%
Capital Structure
AGT maintains a sound financial position with a healthy balance sheet and sufficient
liquidity, in our view. As of 4Q10, the company had total operating credit available of
$255.7 mln with six global lenders, of which $80.3 mln had been drawn. The company
held ~$22.9 mln in long-term debt offset by a cash position of $23.6 mln, contributing
towards a current ratio of 1.5x (see Exhibit 25). We believe that healthy cash flow
generation will contribute to an improvement in its net debt-to-EBITDA (trailing 12
months) from 2.6x at the end of 2010 to 0.7x by the end of 2011. This does not take into
account any additional acquisitions, something we do not attempt to forecast. We
believe this same strong cash flow generation will be more than sufficient for AGT to
maintain operations and meet debt obligations. Finally, we highlight that AGT’s “dry-
powder”—estimated at ~$200 mln—give it the flexibility to pursue both organic and
acquisitive growth opportunities.
Exhibit 25: AGT Capital Structure & Debt Composition

3.0
Capital Structure
Shares outstanding - basic (mlns, mrq) 19.7
Shares outstanding - fully diluted (mlns, mrq) 20.0 2.5
Net debt / EBITDA (ttm, x)
Share price (as of 15-Apr-2011) 22.90

Market Capitalization (mlns) 456.9 2.0
Total Debt (mlns, mrq) 116.4

1.5
Cash & Short-Term Investments (mlns, mrq) 23.6
Net Debt (mlns, mrq) 92.8
1.0
Enterprise Value (mlns) 549.7
0.5
Debt / equity (mrq) 0.4x
Net debt / equity (mrq) 0.3x
Current ratio (mrq) 1.5x 0.0
2009 2010 2011E
Outlook
Following a challenging 2010 dominated by weather and timing related issues as well as
unusual price volatility, AGT management is confident that demand and supply will
come into “relative balance” in 2011. Additionally, AGT’s geographical diversification is
meant to level off regional volatilities. Below we provide a more detailed account of
expectations for several key AGT business units and operating regions.
1. Canada
Notwithstanding lower seeding expectations in Canada, production volumes are
estimated to be similar to 2010-11 levels (see Exhibit 26). This normalization in pulse
seeding (i.e. lower y/y) after abnormally high 2010 levels has been widely expected as
farmers act on pre-planned rotational patterns into canola and cereal grains, before
returning to pulses the following year. This is expected to be complimented by high
carryover stocks as well as an ongoing transition in N.A. to continuous cropping. Taken
together, AGT management expects to have access to product volumes similar to 2010
levels, sufficient for its N.A. processing and export programs. Demand is expected to be
robust, especially out of India, a major consumer facing less than ideal conditions for its
own crop. From a quality standpoint, however, expectations are for continued variance,
creating opportunities for AGT to utilize its blending, splitting, and colour sorting
capabilities. This does, however, create a degree of risk as the additional processing
required for lower quality product, while creating margin opportunities, also results in
an offsetting decrease in capacity utilization rates.
2. Turkey
The outlook for Turkish lentil production is mixed between various sources, ranging
from production decreasing to remaining flat versus 2010. When coupled with
expectations for adequate supply out of Canada and Australia, we believe capacity
utilization will be high at AGT’s Arbel facilities. Furthermore, we expect a return to price
stability, boding well for AGT’s processing and distribution of lentils to core
consumption markets in the Middle East and North Africa.
Margins in AGT’s pasta business are expected to remain challenged in the short term as
Turkish durum wheat prices (used as feedstock) remain high. This may be offset, in our
view, by some ability for price increase due to continued strong demand for AGT pasta,
particularly in new markets. Rice production for 2011 is expected to be flat to slightly
higher. Despite this, Turkish demand for rice is expected to remain strong, reflected in
continued strong imports into the country. Coupled with rising prices, partially due to
supply from Egypt being knocked out, the prospects for AGT’s expanded Turkish rice
processing facility are bright.
Exhibit 26: AGT Outlook
Canada
Near-Term Outlook
Impact Dry Peas:

► Exports (2010-11): 19.4% y/y increase to 2.6 Mt driven by demand from the Indian subcontinent
► Seeded area (2011-12): Marginal decrease to 1.3 Mt due to lower expected returns on relative basis
► Production (2011-12): 2.2% decline in production to 2.8 Mt
► Carry-out stocks (2011-12): Expected to decline to 0.2 Mt vs. 0.3 Mt in 2010-11
Lentils:
► Exports (2010-11): Decline by 13.4% due to lower demand from Indian subcontinent and Middle East
► Seeded area (2011-12): Expected to decrease by 21.8% due to lower expected returns on relative basis
► Production (2011-12): Production will fall to 2.80 Mt vs. 2.86 Mt in 2010-11 due to lower seeded area
► Carry-out stocks (2011-12): Expected to increase 11.1% to 0.5 Mt
Dry Beans:
► Exports (2010-11): Forecasted to decrease slightly to 0.23 Mt due to lower demand from the U.S.
► Seeded area (2011-12): Significant decrease of 26.5% driven by lower relative expected returns
► Production (2011-12): Production is expected to fall 25.2% to 0.19 Mt vs. 0.25 Mt in 2010-11
► Carry-out stocks (2011-12): Expected to fall significantly to 5,000 t versus 25,000 in 2010-11
Chickpeas:
► Exports (2010-11): 7% y/y increase in exports driven by the demand from Middle East
► Seeded area (2011-12): Expected to increase to 0.85 Mt vs. 0.83 in 2010-11 due to lower stocks and higher prices
► Production (2011-12): Expected to rise to reach 135,000 in 2011-12 t vs. 128,000 t in 2010-11
► Carry-out stocks (2011-12): Forecasted to increase 66% due to higher production and unchanged outlook for exports
Seeded Area Production
1800 Dry Peas Lentils Dry Beans Chickpeas 4000 Dry Peas Lentils Dry Beans Chickpeas
1617 3571
1600 1522 3379
3500
Production (Thousand tonnes)
1396 1408
Area Seeded (Thousand ha)
1400 1300
3000 2862 2800
1200 1100
2500
971
1000 1947
2000
800 706 1510 1600
1500
600 1043
1000
400
200 128 121 136 100 85 500 266 224 254
53 83 128 190 135
32 67 76
0 0
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 F 2011-12 F 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 F 2011-12 F
Exports Carry Out Stocks
3000 Dry Peas Lentils Dry Beans Chickpeas 900 Dry Peas Lentils Dry Beans Chickpeas
2826
2600 795
800
Carry Out Stocks (Thousand ha)
2500 2300
2178 700
Exports (Thousand ha)
2000 600
500
1386 500 445 450
1500 1300
1200
400
973 300
1000 300
200
200
500 282 256 245 230
53 66 70 70 100 62 46
32 25 15
0 8 5 20 5 25
0
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 F 2011-12 F
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 F 2011-12 F
Source: Agriculture and Agri-Foods Canada, Raymond James Ltd.
Valuation & Recommendation
We are initiating coverage on AGT with a Strong Buy rating and $30.00 target price.
Based upon the stock’s Apr-20-11 close, our target represents a 31.4% total return,
inclusive of the company’s 2.3% dividend yield. To derive our target price, we apply a
6.9x EV/EBITDA multiple to our 2012E EBITDA estimate, a metric we believe is justified
based upon the following factors:
 Consistent with Historical Trading Range—AGT has historically traded between
3.5x and 9.0x forward EBITDA. Excluding trough levels reached during the depths of
the recession, this range has traditionally spanned 6.0x to 8.5x, typically oscillating
in response to volatile crop expectations and prevailing market conditions. We have
chosen to assign a multiple at the low end of this normalized range to take into
account our view of the risk associated with continued integration efforts at AGT’s
most recent acquisitions, recent weather-related crop challenges, and farmer
tendency to hold back on crops in a bid for higher prices.
 Consistent with Closest Peers—In the absence of any direct, publicly traded
competitors, we look to the world’s heavyweight grain handlers, including Viterra
and GrainCorp, for comparable trading analysis. Despite the obvious differences in
products, end-markets, and value-added processing in the bulk handling business
model, we take comfort in that these agriculture enterprises share some similar
crop (i.e. weather) related exposure. As Appendix B illustrates, AGT currently trades
at a modest discount versus its closest comparables, most likely in response to 2011
estimates correcting downwards after two consecutive quarters of guidance misses,
in addition to recent weather-related crop challenges.
 Future Acquisitions Not Reflected in Estimates—As discussed herein, AGT’s growth
mandate is far from complete, in our view, with an under-levered balance sheet
likely to facilitate additional product and geographic tuck-in acquisitions. However,
because it is very difficult to speculate on the timing, size, and specific target
characteristics, we have refrained from building in bolt-on transactions. This
therefore suggests the potential for revisions to our estimates.
In closing, we believe that AGT represents an attractive investment opportunity for
growth orientated investors seeking exposure to the global agriculture sector. We
believe that expectations have clearly been reset lower in recent months on the back of
extreme weather events and the deleterious impact on Canadian pulse crop quality and
harvest timing. However, because these events do little to impact the intrinsic value of
AGT’s underlying business, we argue the commensurate pullback in the AGT’s share
price represents a good entry point for investors. Our conviction is further bolstered by
AGT’s solid pipeline of growth opportunities and a distinguished management team with
the vision and fortitude to redefine the global pulse industry.
Exhibit 27: AGT Historical NTM EV/EBITDA Multiple Exhibit 28: AGT Historical NTM P/E Multiple
25.0
60.0
AGT EV/EBITDA NTM AGT EV/EBITDA NTM (Avg.) AGT P/E NTM AGT P/E NTM (Avg.)
20.0 50.0
Forward EV/EBITDA Multiple (NTM)
Forward P/E Multiple (NTM)

40.0
15.0
30.0
10.0
20.0
5.0
10.0
0.0 0.0
Jan-09 May-09 Sep-09 Jan-10 May-10 Sep-10 Jan-11 Jan-09 May-09 Sep-09 Jan-10 May-10 Sep-10 Jan-11
Appendix A: Financial Statements
AGT Income Statement, 2009 – 2012E (C$, mlns)

2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Sales 387,887 642,140 693,892 760,272
Cost of sales 326,721 578,197 601,905 646,231
Gross Margin 61,167 63,943 91,987 114,041
Op. Expenses
Amortization 1,735 3,377 6,400 6,500
Amortization of Fair Value of Stock Options - - 700 850
Foreign Exchange (Gain) Loss (815) 721 0 -
General & Administration 17,546 31,799 30,600 32,500
Subtotal Expenses 18,466 35,897 37,700 39,850
EBIT 42,701 28,046 54,287 74,191
Interest and Bank Charges 1,388 4,991 1,000 1,000
Interest on Long-Term Debt 611 942 400 500
EBT 40,702 22,114 52,887 72,691
Provisions for Income Tax
Current Tax 8,339 6,597 9,916 13,630
Future Tax 2,422 (2,884) 3,305 4,543
Total Income Tax 10,761 3,713 13,222 18,173
Income b/f Non-Controlling Interest & Other 29,941 18,401 39,665 54,518
Net Income 29,941 18,401 39,665 54,518
EBITDA 46,302 36,436 66,587 87,041

EBITDA (%) 11.9% 5.7% 9.6% 11.4%
Earnings per share

Basic 2.80 0.98 2.00 2.73
Diluted 2.74 0.96 1.98 2.66
Diluted (Continuing Ops) 2.74 0.96 1.98 2.66
Weighted average shares outstanding
Basic 10,686 18,867 19,800 20,000
Diluted 10,945 19,171 20,075 20,500
AGT Balance Sheet, 2009 – 2012E (C$, mlns)

2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Assets
Current Assets
Cash & Cash Equivalents - 23,628 38,547 98,744
Accounts Receivable 89,013 134,886 129,883 120,810
Income Taxes Receivable - 3,211 - -
Future Income Tax - 288 288 288
Inventory 94,161 110,783 121,854 115,082
Prepaid expenses 13,631 7,239 4,345 15,205
Subtotal Current Assets 196,805 280,035 294,917 350,130
Long Term Assets

PP&E 136,505 169,348 188,948 207,448
Intangible Assets 4,025 8,845 8,845 8,845
Goodwill 66,088 65,469 65,469 65,469
Investment / Other 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Future Income Tax Asset - 3,216 3,216 3,216
Loan Receivable - - - -
Subtotal Long-Term 207,618 247,879 267,479 285,979
Total Assets 404,423 527,914 562,396 636,108
Liabilities & Shareholders Equity

Current
Bank Indebtedness 46,269 80,336 55,336 55,336
Short-term financing - 24,925 24,925 24,925
Accounts Payable & Accrued Liabilities 70,147 68,157 94,461 114,562
Income Taxes Payable 1,384 1,691 1,691 1,691
Current Portion of Long-Term Debt 1,000 13,163 1,000 1,000
Distributions/Dividends Payable 2,309 - - -
Subtotal Current Liabilities 121,109 188,272 177,413 197,514
Long-Term
Long-term Debt (Revolving Credit Facility) 36,624 22,893 30,056 29,056
Provision for Employee Termination Benefits 239 - - -
Future Income Tax Liability 14,541 13,212 16,517 21,061
Non-Controlling Interest - - - -
Subtotal Liabilities 172,513 224,377 223,986 247,630
Shareholder's Equity
Common Shares 187,151 267,499 268,199 269,049
Contributed Surplus 867 383 383 383
Accumulated Other Comprehensive 933 (15,419) (15,419) (15,419)
Retained Earnings (Deficit) 42,959 51,073 85,247 134,465
Shareholder's Equity 231,910 303,537 338,410 388,478
Total Liabilities & Shareholder's Equity 404,423 527,914 562,396 636,108
AGT Cash Flow Statement, 2009 – 2012E (C$, mlns)

F2009 F2010 F2011E F2012E
Cash Flow from Operations
Net Income 29,941 18,401 39,665 54,518
Add:
Amortization 1,735 3,377 6,400 6,500
Amortization of Cost of Sales 1,866 5,013 5,200 5,500
Loss on disposal of property plant and equipment - 505 - -
Unrealized Foreign Exchange Gain (815) 721 - -
Future Income Taxes 2,422 (2,884) 3,305 4,543
Amortization of Fair Value of Stock Options 540 - 700 850
Other - - - -
Cash Flow from Ops b/f Changes in NWC 35,688 25,133 55,271 71,911
Changes in Net Working Capital - - - -

Accounts Receivable (19,144) (54,651) 5,003 9,073
Inventories (77,422) (12,801) (11,072) 6,772
Prepaid Expenses (12,305) (4,968) 2,894 (10,860)
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities 38,189 (72) 26,304 20,101
Income Taxes Payable (7,545) (307) - -
Income Taxes Receivable - (3,211) 3,211 -
Other 57,839 7,750 - -
Net Changes in NWC (20,387) (68,259) 26,340 25,086
Cash Flow from Operations 15,301 (43,126) 81,611 96,997
Cash Flows from Financing

Net Increase (Decrease) in Bank Indebtedness (17,464) 46,855 (25,000) -
Short term financing - (1,355) - -
Proceeds from Long-Term Debt 14,047 36,141 - -
(Repayment of) Long-Term Debt (10,079) (37,447) (5,000) (1,000)
Cash Acquired in Business Combination 1,324 - - -
Net Proceeds from Issuance of Shares 93,917 77,205 - -
Repurchase of shares (25) - - -
Other - - - -
Cash flows from Financing 76,125 108,804 (40,692) (11,800)
Cash Flows From Investing

Purchase of PP&E (30,328) (37,590) (26,000) (25,000)
Business Acquisition (60,098) (19,346) - -
Restricted Cash - 6,010 - -
Other Investments (1,000) - - -
Cash flows from Investing (91,426) (50,926) (26,000) (25,000)
Effect of exchange rate on cash - (1,240) - -
Cash & Equivalents, Beginning of period - 10,116 23,628 38,547

Change in Cash & Equiv (during period) - 13,513 14,919 60,197
Cash & Equivalents, End of period - 23,628 38,547 98,744
Appendix B: Industry Comparables
P/E EV/EBITDA Net

Market Shares Market Ent. Price Div.
Net Debt Debt /
Company Name Ticker Fx FY END Price O/S Cap Value 2010A 2011E 2012E 2010A 2011E 2012E /Book Yield
Cap
(mln) (mln) (mln) (mln) (%) (x) (%)
Group Average 19.3 14.3 13.3 11.1 8.9 8.4
Notes:
2.) All estimates are from Thomson except AGT and VT are Raymond James estimates.
Source: Thomson, Capital IQ, Raymond James Ltd.
Risks
Weather risk–Weather conditions significantly impact size and quality of the crop, and
in turn, impact the volumes handled and processed by AGT. AGT’s dual origin strategy is
meant to mitigate the weather risk.
Transportation and Transloading–AGT is dependent on third parties and container
availability for the transportation of its products. In Canada, a large portion of AGT’s
products are transported by rail, with another significant portion by road. In Turkey,
AGT’s products are transported exclusively by road. As the majority of AGT’s products
are exported, AGT also relies on shipping companies and vessel space. All exported
products also pass through third party transloading facilities to facilitate their final
containerization for export. Strikes, work stoppages, labour disputes, failure or
substandard performance of equipment or other interruptions to the rail or road
networks, haulage companies, transloading facilities or shipping companies used by AGT
and limited container availability may have a material adverse effect on the business,
financial condition and results of operations of AGT.
Distribution and Supply Contracts–AGT typically does not enter into formal long-term
agreements with clients, distributors, or suppliers. As a result, such parties may, without
notice or penalty, terminate their relationship with AGT at any time. In addition, even if
such parties should decide to continue their relationship with AGT, there can be no
guarantee that the consideration or other terms of such contracts will continue on the
same basis. If any of these clients chose to terminate or alter their relationship with AGT
that could have a negative effect on the company’s business.
Reliance on Key Personnel–AGT is dependent on the abilities, experience and efforts of
its senior management. The business could be negatively impacted should any of these
persons leave, in particular CEO Mr. Murad Al-Katib.
M&A Risk–AGT’s growth-through-acquisition strategy exposes the company to M&A
risk in the event that it does not succeed in achieving a certain level of synergies.
Specifically, these expansions expose the company to new geographic, regulatory,
industry, operating and financial risks.
Foreign Exchange Risk – A significant proportion of AGT’s revenues are generated in US
dollars, while its costs are incurred in Canadian dollars and Turkish lira. As a result, AGT
is exposed to currency exchange rate risks. A significant adjustment to the exchange
rate may adversely impact the company’s results from operations.
Company Citations
Company Name Ticker Exchange Currency Closing Price RJ Rating RJ Entity
Agrium Inc. AGU NYSE NC
Viterra Inc. VT TSX C$ 11.34 NC
Notes: Prices are as of the most recent close on the indicated exchange and may not be in US$. See Disclosure section for
rating definitions. Stocks that do not trade on a U.S. national exchange may not be approved for sale in all U.S. states. NC=not
covered.
Canada Research
®
RAYMOND JAMES
April 27, 2011

BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd.
BXI-TSX Company Report - Initiation of Coverage
Arash Yazdani MBA (Associate) | 604.659.8280 | arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca Outperform 2
BXI: Initiating Coverage: Move over Whey, Canola may be the new 52-Week Range C$2.93 - C$1.28
Heavyweight Market Data
Market Capitalization (mln) C$303
Event Current Net Debt (mln) -C$10
We are initiating coverage on BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd. (‘BXI’) with an Enterprise Value (mil.) C$293
Shares Outstanding (mln, f.d.) 174.0
Outperform rating and $2.50 target price, representing a 43.7% total return Average Daily Volume (000s) 867
based upon the stock’s closing price on April 20, 2011. Dividend/Yield C$0.00/0.0%
Action 2010A 2011E 2012E
We recommend growth-oriented investors buy shares of BXI to capitalize on P/E
what we view as the firm’s large growth opportunities in the global protein NA NA NA
additive market. EV/EBITDA
Analysis NA NA 25.1x
EBITDA Margin (%)
BXI is an early stage venture engaged in the development of proprietary
NA NA 20.5%
technologies used for extraction of high-quality proteins from oilseeds. With a BVPS (mrq, tangible) C$0.42
40,000 tpy plant located in Saskatchewan, the company is currently attempting Net Debt/Equity (mrq) -0.1x
to demonstrate its ability to produce canola-based protein isolates on a Net Debt/Trailing EBITDA (mrq) 0.8x
Company Description
commercial scale—a potential industry first. Boasting high nutritional value and
BioExx is a Canadian TSX-listed technology and food
compelling functional attributes, we believe that BXI’s isolates, once available, ingredients company focused on the extraction of
are likely to enjoy strong uptake in traditional protein additive markets. premium plant proteins.
Global fundamentals support robust growth in the protein additive market, in
our view, underpinned by a shift in consumer preference towards healthy
lifestyles and improved dietary patterns. Moreover, while animal-based
proteins (i.e. whey, casein) dominate the market today, we believe that plant-
based proteins such as canola are poised to steadily take market share owing
to favourable economics, environmental efficiency, and allergy concerns.
BXI has developed a disruptive new technology with tremendous market
potential, in our view. Demonstrating the commercial viability of this
technology will be critical over the next two to three quarters; failure to do so
would be a negative development, in our view. That being said, if commercial
viability is ultimately proven (as we expect), we believe BXI shares have
significant upside, particularly in light of management's goal to build out a
series of larger plants to capitalize on the technology’s global opportunities.
Valuation
Our $2.50 target price is based upon a risk-adjusted DCF analysis. Until
commercialization is proven, our valuation accounts for only two BXI plants
(Saskatoon and Minot). Our target also equates to 12.3x our 2013 EPS estimate
(see Valuation & Recommendation section for more details).
2010A C$(0.03) C$(0.02) C$(0.02) C$(0.03) C$(0.09) C$3 C$(14)
2011E (0.02) (0.02) (0.02) (0.01) (0.07) 11 (14)
2012E NA NA NA NA 0.02 57 12
BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd. Canada Research | Page 69 of 183
Table of Contents
Risks .................................................................................................................................................... 97
Canada Research | Page 70 of 183 BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd.
Investment Overview
Strong Macro Fundamentals: Protein Outlook Attractive—We believe that global

macro fundamentals support strong growth in the protein additive market, underpinned
by a strong shift in consumer preference towards healthy lifestyles and improved
dietary patterns. Moreover, while animal-based protein additives (i.e. whey, casein)
dominate the market today, we expect plant-based proteins (i.e. soy, canola) to steadily
gain market share owing to their favourable economics, superior environmental
efficiencies, and reduced allergy concerns. We believe these fundamentals bode well for
BXI’s growth prospects.
Move Over Whey; Canola Poised to Go Mainstream—BXI has developed a new,
potentially disruptive, protein extraction technology for use on oilseeds. With a 40,000
tpy plant located in southern Saskatchewan, BXI is currently attempting to demonstrate
its ability to produce canola-based protein isolates on a commercial scale—a potential
industry first. Boasting high nutritional value and impressive functional attributes, we
believe BXI’s isolates, once available, are likely to enjoy strong uptake in the global
protein additive market. Specifically, we expect BXI’s products will initially be embraced
by consumers of plant-based protein additives (i.e. soy), followed by a gradual transition
into higher-end markets dominated by animal-based additives (i.e. casein, whey).
Key Global Partners—BXI has secured a number of key global partners to assist in its
commercialization efforts. For distribution, the company has struck a long-term
agreement with global chemical and nutrition conglomerate HELM AG that calls for
purchase of 70% of the protein isolate produced at its initial Saskatoon plant. We expect
this relationship to play a key role facilitating new customer development, expanding
distribution for upcoming plants, and exploring joint venture/partnership opportunities
in sectors complementing BXI’s technology. In terms of feedstock, BXI has secured a
long-term agreement with Viterra for the supply of certified non-GMO canola seed.
Build It & They Will Come; Scalable Plant Footprint—Rather than license its technology
to an established global heavyweight, BXI has elected to go it alone and prove out the
global market opportunities open to its extraction technology. Following
commercialization, the company plans to aggressively expand capacity, with initial plans
calling for five plants totaling 800,000 tonnes in capacity, all based upon a standardized,
scalable plant design to facilitate a quick roll out.
Potential Acquisition Candidate—The food additive and ingredient space has become a
major focus for global agriculture companies in recent years, marked by several notable
recent acquisitions. Given the market opportunities we foresee for canola-based protein
additives, we view BioExx as an attractive acquisition target once the company
demonstrates the full-scale commercial viability of its proprietary extraction technology.
Large Option Value Embedded in Share Price—Presuming BXI’s commercialization
efforts are successful, we calculate that the market is currently attributing very little
value to the company’s second plant planned for Minot, North Dakota, and zero for
future plant expansions—each of which we forecast could potentially add an additional
$3.00 to $5.00 per share to our current NAV estimate, in our view.
Initiating with Outperform Rating; $2.50 Target—We are initiating coverage on BXI
with an Outperform rating and $2.50 target price. Based upon the stock’s most recent
close, our target price represents a 43.7% total return. Given the company’s early stage
of development and strong future projected cash flows, we employ a DCF analysis to
derive our target price. To risk adjust our DCF analysis for BXIs near-term
commercialization risk, we apply an additional 25.0% discount to our DCF output.
Company Overview
BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd. (‘BXI’) is a Canadian-based company engaged in canola

seed processing for the purpose of extracting high-quality protein isolates, oil, and meal.
The company currently operates a single 40,000 tpy facility based in Saskatoon,
Saskatchewan where commercial production of oil and meal began in April 2009. BXI
has since been working to upgrade this plant to facilitate production of two canola-
based protein isolates, trademarked as ISOLEXX and VITALEXX, based upon the
company’s proprietary extraction technology. While initial protein volumes are flowing
at low rates, full-scale commercial production is not expected until the latter half of
2011. BXI has developed plans to build additional facilities around the world once
commercial viability is established. The company trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange
under the symbol “BXI”.
Extraction Technology
We believe BXI’s extraction technology offers several proprietary advantages versus

conventional canola crushing processes. First and foremost, it uses refrigerant-based,
non-toxic solvents at relatively low temperatures, which allows for successful extraction
of high quality protein. Conventional technology, by comparison, uses a toxic hexane
solvent and high temperatures, typically leading to protein damage and limiting end
markets to oil and meal (see Exhibit 1). BXI’s extraction methods are also deemed more
environmentally friendly than conventional methods (see Exhibit 2), due to their lower
energy and water requirements, lower toxicity (no hexane), and minimal carbon
emissions.
The financial benefits associated with BXI’s proprietary technology are significant. Given
the high-quality nature of the proteins extracted—an incremental product over
conventional technology—they are expected to significantly bolster the revenue and
gross margin potential of BXI’s plants on a consolidated per tonne basis. Management
estimates, for example, that revenue and margins will be roughly 3.0x and 9.5x greater
than a conventional crushing operation.
BXI’s proprietary extraction process is not exclusive to canola seed. Testing indicates
that it can be applied to other oilseed feedstock such as soybeans and flax, and perhaps
marine algae. End-market applications for the technology are equally diverse, with
possibilities extending into the nutraceutical and pharmaceutical industries. BXI views
these markets as a potential licensing opportunity in the future.
Exhibit 1: BXI Extraction Process

Canola seed sourced
through 10-year Viterra
agreement
Low temperature
mechanical pressing
Extraction
Patented and
patent pending
processes
Oil processing Meal processing
BioExx Super Degummed BioExx Meal Specialty Proteins

Products Canola Oil
70% 30%
Distributors Distributors Helm AG Distributors
Salad Food as functional ingredient, sports

End Animal feed
dressing, nutrition, pediatric nutrition,
Markets and
cooking oil, adult/therapeutic nutrition
fertilizer
margarine
Exhibit 2: Comparison of Extraction Technologies (BXI vs. Conventional)
Extraction Attributes BioExx Conventional
Temperature Low Temperatures > 100 °C
Proprietary Hexane
Solvent
non-toxic & non-volatile toxic & volatile
Energy Low energy High energy
Water Moderate Substantial
(i) Oil
(i) Oil
Output (ii) Meal
(ii) Protein
(iii) Protein
Revenue/tonne $1,520 $520
Revenue-COGS
$1,144 $120
Differential/tonne
Source: BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd., Canola Council of Canada, Raymond James Ltd.
Business Mix
BXI currently produces two products at its Saskatoon plant: canola oil and canola meal.
In 2010, the company generated revenues of $2.3 mln and $1.0 mln, respectively, with
the bulk of sales going into domestic markets (see Exhibits 3 and 4).
On the Cusp: Poised to Demonstrate Commercial Protein Production

BXI is on the cusp of a definitive corporate milestone with plans to achieve commercial
protein isolate production in 2H11, in addition to its oil and meal core end products.
Given the high quality nature of its protein isolates, the company expects sales into
human food markets. Initially, the company expects to garner pricing comparable to
plant-based proteins such as soy. As the high-quality nature of its product is proven in
the market over time, BXI expects to garner even higher pricing more comparable to
premium, animal-based proteins. Based upon prior batch testing, management expects
the future output of its products will be in a ratio of 40% oil, 35% meal, 18% protein
isolates, and 7% sugar solution byproduct.
Exhibit 3: BXI Historical Revenue Exhibit 4: 2010 Revenue Mix
2,000
Oil
Revenue $ (in thousands)
1,500 30% Meal
1,000
500
70%
1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
Products Overview
Below we review BXI’s portfolio of products and their respective end-market
applications.
 Canola Oil—Canola oil is primarily used for human consumption in cooking, with
the balance of typically lower grade product used to manufacture bio-diesel. Canola
oil has become increasingly popular in Canada and Japan, comprising ~50% of the
vegetable oil market in these countries. Other markets include Mexico, for instance,
where canola oil currently accounts for ~25% of the vegetable oil market. BXI
distributes all of its canola oil through Vancouver-based Shafer Commodities based
on a 10-year agreement signed in January 2009. Shafer subsequently re-sells the
oils to downstream refiners for further processing, packaging, and final sale. Pricing
is based on the market price at time of sale, adjusted upwards to account for any
specialty features of the BXI product.
 Canola Meal—Canola meal is used primarily in animal feed (i.e. livestock,
aquaculture) as a source of protein and fiber. BXI’s meal is currently considered a
premium product based upon the un-denatured quality of its protein versus
conventional canola meal. However, upon commissioning of the plant’s protein
isolate production, it is expected that BXI’s meal protein content will drop by
roughly half. While this will have a negative effect on the company’s associated
meal pricing, management is confident this drop will be far outweighed by the sale
of incremental protein isolates. In 2008, BXI secured a 10-year agreement with the
above-noted Shafer Commodities to distribute all of the canola meal produced at its
Saskatoon plant.
 Canola Protein—Canola-based protein isolates are not currently available in the
specialty protein market due to conventional crushing technology that inhibits their
extraction and limits the economic feasibility. BXI’s unique extraction process, as
described previously, has allowed it to achieve self-affirmed GRAS status for its first
two new canola-based protein isolate entrants into the US market. It has also
developed a variation of its technology aimed at third-party licensing.
 ISOLEXX—A protein isolate with roughly 92% (as-is) purity level, ISOLEXX has a
strong nutritional profile and functional characteristics that position it well to
compete in the human food market. In particular, the protein is well suited for
applications in sports nutrition and weight loss, segments traditionally
dominated by whey and soy proteins. ISOLEXX delivers over 100% of the
recommended essential amino acids and has a high 95% level of digestibility
(see Exhibit 5).
 VITALEXX—A hydrolyzed protein isolate with +87% (as-is) purity, aimed at the
nutritional beverage and snack market for use in protein-fortified beverages
and energy bars. What makes this product particularly attractive in these
protein-fortified products is its high digestibility (>98%), delivery of 117% of
essential amino acids, solubility, and minimal effect on processing.
 Protein Concentrates from Toasted Meal—In 2009, BXI filed a patent for a
unique variation of its technology for production of protein concentrates (up to
70% purity) from toasted oilseed meal produced in conventional, high-
temperatures crushing facilities. This process allows for conventional operators
to produce protein concentrate end product for sale into specialty feed
markets at 3-5x the price of regular meal end product. Because this protein
would not compete with BXI’s isolate products in the human food market, its
easy application within a wide variety of crushing facilities used in N.A. and
Europe make it highly attractive for third-party licensing, in our view.
Exhibit 5: ISOLEXX and VITALEXX Attributes
ISOLEXX VITALEXX
► Made with non-GMO canola seed
► Made with non-GMO canola seed
► Spray dried tan powder appearance
► Spray dried tan powder appearance
► Characteristic flavour
Description ► Bland flavour
► pH = 7+/- 0.5
► pH = 7+/- 0.5
► Solubility (water) > 98%
► Solubility > 90% at 1g/100 ml pH7
► Colour in solution = tan/transparent
► Bakery product - bread rolls, cakes, cookies, etc ► Nutritional beverages
► Meat products - hot dogs, sausages, baked meat ► Healthy food applications to improve absorption and digestibility
End Use
► Vegetarian food products and meat analogues ► Nutritional and protein bars
► Nutritional and high protein bars, drinks & supplements ► Infant formulas
► Protein = 88.1% (as is) or 91% (dry basis) ► Amino acids (typical)= 82% (as is) or 87% (dry basis)
► High amino acid score = ~ 1.15 ► High amino acid score = ~ 1.15
Technical Data ► Fat (acid hydrolysis) = 1.8% ► Fat (acid hydrolysis) < 0.2%
► Saturated Fat = 0.0% ► Saturated Fat = 0.0%
► Cholesterol = 0.0% ► Cholesterol = 0.0%
► Excellent water solubility vs. soy & pea proteins ► Excellent and balanced amino acid profile comparable to whey
► Emulsifying and foaming, comparable to whey and egg proteins ► High in threonine, an amino acid important for brain activity
Functional
► Excellent gel forming properties and firmness ► Low foaming
Characteristics
► Shelf Life = 12 mo. from date of manufacture ► Minimal effect on processing
► Rich in muscle building amino acids ► Shelf Life = 12 mo. from date of manufacture
Superior Performance Profiles

Although BXI’s protein isolates remain in pre-commercial stage, extensive testing and
third party verification indicate that both ISOLEXX and VITALEXX demonstrate superior
performance attributes versus conventional plant proteins (i.e. soy, peas). In particular,
we highlight:
 Superior Efficiency Ratio—Canola proteins score very favourably with respect to
protein efficiency, a measure of weight gain per unit of protein consumed. In fact,
as illustrated in Exhibit 6, canola proteins such as BXI’s upcoming isolate products
score not only in excess of other plant-based proteins, but also above milk/whey,
widely viewed as a premium animal-based protein that commands substantially
higher pricing.
 Superior Amino Acid Profile—BXI’s ISOLEXX and VITALEXX products rank favourably
with respect to their amino acid content and overall protein quality. This is
corroborated by their Protein Digestibility Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) of
1.15, ranking well above all other plant and animal-based proteins (see Exhibit 7).
For context, the PDCAAS methodology takes into account the protein’s: (i) amino
acid profile; (ii) digestibility; and (iii) ability to supply 2-5 year olds with their daily
amino acid requirements.
Exhibit 6: Protein Efficiency Ratio Exhibit 7: Protein Efficiency Ratio
Egg White
Egg White
ISOLEXX
Canola V ITALEXX
Whe y M ilk (w he y)
Soy
Be e f
Cas s e in
Cas s e in Be e f
Pe anuts Pe a
Black Be ans
Pe a Supe rior prote in e fficie ncy Supe rior am ino acid profile in
Kidne y
e xhibite d by Canola prote ins ISOLEXX & V ITALEXX
Soy Pinto Be ans
Pe anuts
Whe at
Whe at
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 0.5 1 1.5
Source: BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd., Solae, Raymond James Ltd.
Target Markets
BXI’s initial focus in the protein additive market is high-end existing applications,
including the sports, infant and child, and adult (therapeutic) nutrition sectors. Given
the positive attributes described herein and recent discussions with customers,
management is confident that its canola-based isolates will initially support a ‘soy-like’
price point (~$5,500/mt). Longer-term, as market acceptance for its products improves
and the company demonstrates its abilities as a reliable supplier, management believes
it will be able to sell into the premium animal-based protein markets (i.e. whey, casein)
where prices can fetch $9,000/mt to $12,000/mt.
BXI is relying heavily on its distribution partner HELM to facilitate new customer
development. According to recent management commentary, the company is currently
working with ‘30+ customers’ that range from small niche producers to major multi-
nationals, most of whom have been introduced via HELM (see below).
Key Partners
BXI has enlisted the help of several key partners at this juncture to help facilitate its
protein commercialization plans. These include:
 HELM AG—BXI has signed a 10-year agreement with global chemical and nutrition
conglomerate HELM AG for purchase and distribution of at least 70% of the protein
isolate product produced at its Saskatoon plant. Pricing for HELM’s end-product is
set by BXI (thus protecting this nascent market), with BXI in return agreeing to avoid
direct competition in the European market.
 Viterra—BXI currently secures all of its feedstock (canola seed) through a 10-year
supply agreement with Viterra (VT-TSX), Canada’s largest grain handler. Under the
agreement, Viterra will supply 40,000 tpy of Canada Number 1 canola.
 Shafer Commodities—BXI secured a 10-year agreement with the Shafer
Commodities for distribution of all canola meal and a portion of canola oil produced
at its Saskatoon plant. The agreement stipulates premium canola meal pricing
based on BXI product meeting pre-determined specifications. With the addition of
protein isolates the protein content within meal will drop to roughly half of what it
typically contains now, which will impact the historical premium pricing. Oil pricing
is to be based on market prices, adjusted upwards where possible based on the
specialty features of the product.
Company History
BioExx was founded in 2003 with the intention to develop and commercialize low
temperature extraction technologies. The company effected a public listing in 2006
through a $14 mln capital pool company reverse takeover. BXI is currently completing
Phase II of its protein development process (see Exhibit 8) and is expected to launch its
protein isolate in 2011. As previously mentioned, BXI plans to expand beyond the
current Saskatoon facility once commercial viability of its technology has been proven.
Exhibit 8: BXi Timeline and Milestones
Re-branded to BioExx Started Isolate

Specialty Proteins Ltd. Production
Lifesciences Signs Long (Jun. 2010)
acquires Term Supply
Bioexx Ltd. Agreement FDA GRAS Self- Produced First
(RTO) with Viterra Affirmation Isolate
(May 07) (May 08) (Nov. 2009) (Aug. 2010)
Graduates Completed End-to-

to TSX End Production
Re-named Bio- Signs Long
(Dec. 09) (Sep. 2010)
Extraction Inc. Term Sales
and Listed on Agreement ISO (HACCP/GMP)
TSXV: BXI with Helm AG Completed Minot Entered
Enviromental Certification Continuous Certification
(May 07) (Dec. 08)
(Feb. 2011)
(Dec. 2009) Production
( )
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Private Placement Private Placement Bought Deal

$11 mln $5.3 mln $17.3mln
(Jan. 2008) (May 2009) (Mar. 2010)
Bought Deal Bought Deal

$15 mln $34.5 mln
(Oct. 2009) (Oct. 2010)
Source: BXI Specialty Proteins Ltd., Raymond James Ltd.
Management Team
Christopher D. Carl, President and CEO—Mr. Carl has over 20 years of experience in
project finance, plant construction and mill management with a focus on
commercializing new technologies. Prior to BXI, Mr. Carl spent 11 years developing and
operating The CanFibre Group Ltd., which utilized laboratory-scale technology
developed by a Canadian Government sponsored organization. This was preceded by
several years at a Canadian subsidiary of Tenneco Inc. producing environmentally
desirable bleaching chemicals for the pulp & paper industry.
Chris Schnarr, CFO—Chris Schnarr has 17 years of experience founding, managing, and
advising successful high growth companies in a variety of areas including strategy,
corporate finance, capital markets, corporate development, and operations. Mr. Schnarr
was a founder of Wireless Matrix Corporation in 1993. He is also the founder and a
Director of Endura Capital Inc., a private tax, risk advisory, and wealth management firm
with offices in Toronto and Montreal.
Dean Pittman, VP of Engineering—Mr. Pittman has over 30 years of experience, much
of that within project construction and engineering. Most recently, Dean was the
project director for construction of a $100 mln research and discovery facility for Sanofi
Pasteur. Prior to that, he oversaw over $700 mln in capital projects and start-ups as
director of engineering and construction services for pharmaceutical company Apotex.
Dean has also held similar engineering and quality control positions with the likes of
Proctor & Gamble and Molson Breweries. He holds a Mechanical Engineering degree
from McGill University.
Samah Garringer, VP of Product and Business Development—Ms. Garringer has spent
more than 20 years of experience focused on business development, sales,
administration and finance at retail companies, technology and manufacturing start-ups
in Canada and Brazil. Prior to BioExx, she spent 4 years in charge of a plastics-related
import/export business in Brazil as well as holding senior management positions for
over 10 years at a retail company with over 170 locations in Canada.
Clinton Smith, VP of Operations—Clinton Smith has over 20 years of senior
management experience in the food industry within key roles including operations
management, sales, capital improvements and procurement. Over a nine year period,
Mr. Smith held the role of VP of Canadian Operations for the food supply operations of
one of Canada’s largest grocery chains, following other similar VP of Operations roles at
regionally-focused Canadian companies.
BioExx shares trade in the TSX under the ticker symbol “BXI”. As of March 10, 2011,
there were 191,771,575 common shares outstanding of which ~5.6% were owned by
the company insiders and ~20.1% by institutions (see Exhibit 9). CEO Christopher Carl is
the largest single shareholder with 4.7% of shares outstanding, implying that no single
shareholder owns more than 5.0%.
Exhibit 9: Shareholder Summary (as of March 10, 2011)
Shareholder Summary
Shares Held /
% O.S.
Controlled
Management. Directors and Other Insiders Insiders,
Carl, Christopher D. 8,951,497 4.67% 5.6%
Ollerhead, William W. 1,481,402 0.77%
MacDonald, John 127,000 0.07% Institutions,
Schnarr, Chris 160,000 0.08% 20.1%
Lacey, Peter Allen 100,000 0.05%
Corporations / Institutions
AGF Management Ltd. 11,096,563 5.79%
Winslow Management Company, LLC 6,500,000 3.39%
Sprott Asset Management 4,000,900 2.09%
Invesco Trimark Ltd. 3,663,800 1.91%
Jupiter Asset Management Limited 2,107,286 1.10% Other,
Top Corporations / Institutions 27,368,549 14.27% 74.3%
Other 142,449,380 74.28%

Source: Bloomberg, Capital IQ, BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd., Raymond James Ltd.
Industry Analysis
Below we highlight several industry attributes and trends that influence BXI’s core
business:
1. Protein Additives Poised for Growth; Strong Plant-Based Fundamentals
Global macro fundamentals support robust growth in the protein additive market, in our
view. Specifically, market research firm Global Industry Analysts (GIA) forecasts that
global demand will grow at a 6.0% CAGR over the next 5 years, reaching US$24.5 billion
by 2015 underpinned by a strong shift in consumer preferences toward healthy
lifestyles, most notably in U.S. and Europe. At present, market research indicates that
animal-based proteins (i.e. whey, casein, egg) represent ~60% of the global sector, while
plant-based varieties (i.e. soy, pea) account for the residual ~40%. More recently,
however, plant-based proteins have been experiencing even stronger momentum.
Consistent with this view, GIA estimates that plant-based proteins will grow at a 7.3%
CAGR for period 2000-2014 (see Exhibit 10). Key factors behind this trend include:
 Cost / Economics—Plant based proteins boast very high production efficiency ratios
that translate into lower relative cost of production. For example, one acre of land
is capable of yielding 356 lbs of soy protein versus only 20 lbs of beef protein. In
other words, soy protein is ~17.0x times more efficient than beef protein. This delta
has enabled manufacturers to bring protein price points down significantly, which
are reflected in end-market prices (see Exhibit 11).
Exhibit 10: Global Protein Market Exhibit 11: Protein Additive Pricing
Plant Prote in: 7.3% CAGR
25,000
Anim al/Fis h Prote in: 5.5% CAGR
Cons olidate d: 6.0% CAGR
20,000
$12.80 $13.20
Price CND/kg
US$ Millions
15,000 $10.60
10,000
$6.00
5,000
0
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2011 2013 2015 Soy W hey Casein Egg-W hite
Plant Protein Animal/Fish Protein
Source: Global Industry Analysts, Frost & Sullivan, Canada Food Inspection, Raymond James Ltd.
 Health & Safety Related Benefits—Plant-derived protein additives offer consumers

several health and safety related benefits. First, they are less allergenic than milk-
derived proteins (casein and whey), which present allergy problems for many
consumers given that substantial portions of the population are subject to some
form of lactose intolerance or low-level milk-protein allergy. In many cases, soy-
based proteins may not be an ideal alternative given that the Asthma and Allergy
Foundation of America cites it as one of the most common foods causing some
degree of allergic reaction. Second, they are perceived to be less exposed to animal-
related diseases (e.g. mad cow disease) than animal-based proteins. Finally, while
reliable data is difficult to obtain, anecdotal evidence would point to a growing
number of consumers within developing economies moving to vegetarian or
reduced-meat diets, providing further support to growth in plant-based protein
additives.
BXI’s canola protein isolates allow the company to benefit from strong plant-based
protein market fundamentals, attractive economics, and increasing health and safety-
related consumer concerns. Furthermore, BXI’s canola-based isolates exhibit superior
allergenicity traits compared to soy, while their functionality could, in our view, prove
them to be a substitute for higher-value whey and even casein proteins over time.
Exhibit 12: Production Energy Efficiencies Exhibit 13: Protein Land Efficiencies per Acre
500 400
356
415
Energy Output vs. Input (Kcals)
400
Protein Production (lbs/acre)
300
265
300
211
192
200
200
100 78 82
100
45
11 18 21 20
4 6
0 0
Pork Beef Eggs Chicken Milk Soy Beef Meat Eggs Milk Legum es Corn Rice Soy
Source: Solae, FAO/WHO/UNICEF/ Protein Advisory Group (2004), Raymond James Ltd.
Competitive Landscape
BXI arguably has few direct competitors given its unique, proprietary technology
surrounding canola-based protein extraction. That being said, there are many specialty
protein manufacturers, both small and large, that will ultimately compete head-to-head
against BXI’s ISOLEXX and VITALEXX products. Initially, these companies will be soy
protein manufacturers, as this is the market segment and price-point where BXI has its
sights set. Over time, as the company’s products gain market acceptance and migrate up
the value chain, we also believe that whey and casein protein manufacturers will
become more relevant competitors.
While Burcon is often cited as BXI’s most direct competitor, we are not convinced, given
the stark differences in business model and risk profile. Specifically, while we
acknowledge that Burcon is also focused on canola-based protein extraction technology,
the company has elected to license its extraction technology to Archer Daniels Midland
under a 20 year agreement wherein ADM is responsible for all production, marketing
and selling of protein isolates world wide. ADM bears all the risk of building commercial
facilities and proving commercial viability, in exchange for reaping the greatest potential
rewards. Taken together, we list below specialty protein manufacturers we deem to be
potential competitors to BXI (see Exhibit 14).
Exhibit 14: BXI Competitors in the Protein Additive Market

Plant Protein Animal Protein
Company Description Wheat
Canola Soy Cassein/Whey Fish
Gluten
Burcon is a Vancouver based company
Burcon NeutraScience Corp
focusing on plant protein extraction and
(TSX:BU)
purification.
MCN, based in Saskatoon, is a technology

MCN Bio-Products
company focused on canola protein
(Private)
extraction for the feed industry.
Solae is a leading soy-based technology

Solae and ingredients company. Headquarterd in
(DuPont-Bunge JV) St.Louis, Missouri, the company is a joint
venture between DuPont and Bunge.
A division of Cargill Inc, Food Ingredients

Cargill Food Ingredients
& Systems group focuses on R&D of
(Private)
various food ingredient products.
A private Canadian company offers variety

International Dairy Ingredients Inc.
of dairy ingredients including protein, milk
(Private)
powders and butter fats.
The New Zealand co-operative produces

Westland Milk Products
high quality nutritionals, milk powders, milk
(Private)
fat and milk protein products.
Australia's largest user of wheat for

Minildra Group
industrial purposes; manufactures starch,
(Private)
gluten, proteins, glucose, and syrups.
MGP produces ingredients and distilled

MGP Ingredients Inc products derived from wheat flour and
(Nasdaq: MGPI) corn. The company is headquartered in
Atchison, Kansas.
World's largest producer of omega-3 fish
Omega Protein Corp oil and North America's largest
(NYSE: OME) manufacturer of protein-rich specialty fish
meal and organic fish solubles.
Company Strategy
Build It & They Will Come—In our view, BXI has developed a potentially disruptive, new
technology with tremendous market potential. Rather than license this technology to an
industry bellwether, as might be expected for a relatively early stage venture, BXI has
elected to go it alone, prove out the technology commercially, and develop the canola
protein additive market. This is presumably all in order to reap a larger piece of the
proverbial pie assuming its success. Exhibit 15 illustrates company’s execution to date,
as well as some key future milestones.
Scalable Plant Footprint—BXI plans to expand its processing capacity in order to
capitalize on strong global demand fundamentals for protein additives. Initially, the
company has earmarked plans for five plants totaling 800,000 tonnes in capacity, all
based upon a standardized, scalable plant design to facilitate a quick roll out (see Exhibit
16). Beyond its current Saskatoon plant and its next plant planned for North Dakota, BXI
has indicated it would like to take advantage of strong rapeseed supply in Europe and
canola in Australia by locating two or three of its plants within these regions. We note,
however, that BXI remains prudent with regards to its plant expansion strategy and
timeline given that it is, for all intents and purposes, creating a new market for its
products.
Exhibit 15: Saskatoon Plant Milestones Exhibit 16: BXI Capacity Expansion Plan
FDA GRAS Certification Confirmed (Nov. '09) 900

Expected capacity by
Capacity per Plant Cumulative Capacity year 5 ~ 780,000 tpy
Completed Minot Environmental Certification (Dec. '09) 800
Comissioned Saskatoon Plant (Jun '10) 700

Completed
Annual Production Capacity (tpy)
Produced First Full Scale Protein Isolate (Aug. '10)

600
Completed First Full Plant Production (Sep. '10)

500
Commenced Continuous Operations (Nov. '10)
400
ISO (HACCP/GMP) Certification (Feb. '11)
In Progress 300
First Human Food Shipment
Expected date:
FY2011
200
Continuing Commercial Validation Current
capacity
Minot Groudbreaking 100 40,000 tpy
In Progress
Expected date:
Minot Startup FY2011
Saskatoon Minot Plant Plant # 3 Plant # 4 Plant # 5
Plant
Product and Revenue Diversification—Core to BXI’s strategy is the diversification of its

revenue streams on a long term basis (see Exhibit 17). We believe this serves to help
maximize margins, reduce execution risk, and build stable cash flows allowing for
financing of the capital investments required to expand its plant footprint.
 Oil, Meal, and Protein—BXI’s proprietary process allows it to extract oil, meal, and
protein from canola, all products that have significant markets or market potential.
While the much higher selling price of protein isolates would have us expect this to
be BXI’s primary revenue source in the future, oil and meal products are expected
to provide steady baseline sales as well as diversification. Consumer healthy-living
trends, as explored previously and in our accompanying macro report have
bolstered demand for vegetable-based cooking oils, while increased global meat
consumption provides support for animal feed demand
 Licensing to Open New Product Markets—BXI plans to further diversify and expand
its revenue stream by licensing a patent-pending variation of its technology
designed for production of lower purity (60-70%) protein ideal for specialized
animal feed applications and aquaculture. This process is to be licensed to third
parties, creating ongoing revenue streams without threatening BXI’s own high-
purity protein isolate market targeted at human consumption.
 Complementary Products—On a long term basis, BXI plans to explore applications
of its technology beyond the oil, meal, and protein markets. Specifically, this
includes application of its technology to other crops such as rapeseed and soybean,
as well as applications in the pharmaceutical and nutraceutical sectors. Given the
sectors in question, we would expect the potential addressable market to be vast
though difficult to quantify at this point. BXI’s current agreement with HELM, also a
major pharmaceutical distributor, positions the firm to pursue these sectors
through partnerships and joint ventures.
 Focus on Margins—BXI pursues a strategy of maximizing its protein isolate output
in relation to oil and meal for the feedstock it processes in order to increase
margins. Although BXI may have a diversified line of three end products, each
garners vastly different margins. Specifically, BXI expects to garner initial protein
prices equivalent to soy at ~$6,000/tonne, still well below whey at ~$12,000/tonne,
followed by a steady migration higher as product acceptance grows. Oil and meal
products, by contrast, command ~$1,000/tonne and ~$250/tonne, respectively. The
profitability of its oil and meal products will be highly dependent on feedstock
prices (crush margins).
Exhibit 17: BXI Potential Product Lines & Selling Prices

Animal Consumption Human Consumption
Conventional Meal Protein Concentrate Canola Oil Protein Super-Concentrate Protein Isolates
ASP: $250/tonne Purity: 60-70% ASP: $1,000/tonne Purity: 70-85% Purity: +90%
ASP: $1,000-$1,500/tonne ASP: $2,500-$3,500/tonne ASP: $6,000-$12,000/tonne
Through JV
 Partnering with Key Global Players—Rather than attempt to develop the canola-
based protein isolate market on its own from the ground up, BXI has chosen to
partner with key global players, most notably through a 10-year agreement with
global chemical and nutrition conglomerate HELM AG. This helps to significantly
mitigate execution risk, in our view, as the company works to develop end markets
and customers for canola-based protein isolates. While the HELM agreement
relates to sales into countries that follow the US GRAS approval system, this
association has, in our view, helped open up the ~30 other customer discussions
that management has indicated are ongoing. We believe such partnerships will also
prove critical to BXI’s exploration of further applications of its technology in the
pharmaceutical and nutraceutical sectors in the future.
 N.A. and European Focus; ROW through Joint Venture—BXI is currently focused on
developing and expanding in the N.A. and European markets, both through its plant
footprint and end-market distribution agreements. Over the long term, the
company plans to expand through the rest-of-the-world (ROW) by establishing joint
ventures and strategic partnerships.
Critical to any reasonable BXI forecast at this stage of development is determining: (i)
the timeframe over which full-scale, commercial protein production will be achieved at
Saskatoon; (ii) the timing associated with subsequent processing plant construction/
operation (i.e. Minot); (iii) protein isolate pricing trends; and (iv) canola crush margins.
In this context, below we highlight recent developments at Saskatoon, management’s
current guidance (where applicable), and how this guidance compares to our current
forecast (see Exhibit 18):
 Operational Hiccups Give Reason for Caution—BXI has run into several ‘hiccups’ in
recent months during its attempt to achieve full-scale, continuous protein
production at Saskatoon. Initially, vendor-related equipment challenges cropped
up, but were subsequently resolved. More recently, unexpected ‘foaming and
emulsion issues’ (not experienced at the pilot stage) have prevented management
from scaling up protein production—highlighting the ongoing technical risk
associated with commercializing the company’s promising new technology. Coupled
with weak crush margins in recent months, management has elected to keep the
crush portion of the plant at low rates, with 1Q11 utilization reportedly hovering
around 10.0%, far below initial guidance and expectations. As of mid-March,
management indicated that a temporary filter solution had been implemented to
rectify the foaming issue with ‘positive initial indications’.
 Phase II Completion Expected ‘Mid-Year’—BXI’s roadmap to commercial validation
is often described in three distinct phases (see Exhibit 18). With Phase I already
complete—marked by the confirmation of GRAS certification in Nov-2009—we are
now observing the company’s Phase II progress. Despite recent hiccups,
management believes the conclusion of Phase II is still achievable by ‘mid-year’, or
soon thereafter, which culminates in both the crush and protein lines operating at
50.0% utilization.
RJ: Given recent technical challenges, we believe it is prudent to adopt conservative
timing assumptions. We therefore assume that full-scale commercial production
does not occur until 4Q11.
 Minot Plans Prepared, Ready to Go—BXI recently indicated that its plans for a
second plant in Minot, North Dakota are largely ready to go, with only a final cost
study still to be completed. Management also stressed, however, that they would
not press ahead with its funding efforts for Minot until Saskatoon has reached full-
scale commercial production. Construction for Minot expected to begin in 2Q11
and take ~16 months.
RJ: We are cautious about Minot’s timing given recent hiccups at Saskatoon. We
therefore assume that construction begins in late 3Q11, with commercial
production starting in 1Q13. Given the uncertainty still present, we note that
Saskatoon and Minot are the only two plants we model at this time, as we prefer to
wait for better visibility for plants #3 to #5.
Exhibit 18: BXI Plant Development Timeline

2008 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q11 2Q11 3Q11 4Q11 1Q12 2Q12 3Q12 4Q12
(2) (4) (6) (8) (10)
Phase I Phase II Phase III
Saskatoon
(1) (3) (5) (7) (9)
(11)
Minot Planning / Construction
Saskatoon Development Phases & Key Milestones
Phase I: Phase II: Phase III:

► Construction & operation of canola crush plant. ► Protein extraction equipment installed. ► More protein equipment installed
► Products: oil and meal. ► Commission up to 50% of capacity (20k tpy). ► Bring other 50% protein capacity online
► Products: oil, meal and Isolexx protein. ► Products: oil, meal Isolexx & Vitalexx.
Key Milestones: Key Milestones: Key Milestones:

(1) May '08: Saskatoon Groundbreaking (4) Aug. '10: First full-scale Isolate made (Batch) (10) 1Q12: First Shipment of Vitalexx
(2) Mar. '09: Started Production at Saskatoon (5) Nov. '10: Commenced continuous production. (11) 2Q11: Minot Groundbreaking (late 'spring')
(3) Nov. '09: GRAS Certification Confirmed (6) Feb. '11: ISO (HACCP/GMP) Cert. received.
(7) Ramp up isolate production
(8) 2H11: 1st Isolexx shipment for human markets
(9) Commercial Validation established.
 Protein Prices; Start Low, Migrate Higher—Protein price assumptions are another
critical valuation driver. Management has stressed in recent quarters that initial
protein sales will likely benchmark well vs. other plant-related proteins such as soy,
thereby capturing a price point of ~$5,500/mt. Longer-term, as market acceptance
of improves, and BXI demonstrates its ability as a reliable supplier, management
expects prices to migrate higher toward select animal-based proteins such as whey
and casein which sell for $9,000-$12,000/mt.
RJ: We assume that ISOLEXX initially captures ~$5,500/mt, followed by incremental
$250-$500 annual step-ups. Long-term, we remain more conservative than
guidance, assuming that ISOLEXX reaches premium plant-based protein prices
(~$7,500/mt) by 2016. For VITALEXX, we assume similar initial pricing, but apply a
10.0% premium in 2013 and beyond to account for the incremental premium
market opportunities (i.e. pediatric nutrition).
 Feedstock Costs & Crush Margin—Canola industry crush margins have been
relatively depressed in recent quarters due to the sharp rise in canola seed prices
relative to canola oil and meal. Despite modest improvements in recent months, we
have elected to keep crush margins at ~$55/mt through 2012, before stepping it up
to a long-term $60/mt average.
Exhibit 19: Key Modeling Assumptions
Baseline Plant Assumptions Comments

► Production Ratios
o Oil/ Meal/ Isolexx/ Vitalexx/ Sugar ► 40.0% / 35% / 8.0% / 10.0% / 7.0%
► Protein Isolate Pricing ($/mt)
o Isolexx (initial) $5,500 ► Increase in $250-$500 step functions as adoption improves; reach $7500/mt by 2016
o Vitalexx (initial) $5,500 ► Similar to ISO, but apply 10.0% premium in 2013+ to reflect premium market opps.
► Crush Margins
o Canola Oil ($/mt) $1,200 ► Recent increases less than seed; crush margins squeezed; moderate down; LT= $1,000
o Canola Meal ($/mt) $250 ► Smallest gains over past year; contributing to crush squeeze; Moderate down; LT= $225/mt
o Canola Seed ($/mt) $575 ► Seed prices have risen sharply in recent quarters; moderate down; LT= $475/mt
► Plant Operating Costs ($/mt)
o Saskatoon $300 ► Includes all non-feedstock costs (i.e. labour, utilities, etc.)
o N. Dakota & Future $275 ► Assume modest economies of scale achieved with larger plants
Source: Canola Council of Canada, Raymond James Ltd.
Exhibit 20: BXI Financial Forecast

FINANCIAL SUMMARY 2010 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E
Revenue ($000s) 3,330 10,818 56,895 180,271 196,516 200,305
EBITDA ($000s) (13,518) (13,879) 11,657 56,990 73,135 85,203
EPS (f.d.) (0.09) (0.07) 0.02 0.20 0.24 0.28
Revenue by Product
Canola Oil 2,320 5,090 16,781 48,245 48,245 41,952
Canola Meal 1,010 1,997 2,494 7,481 7,481 6,733
Isolexx Protein - 1,705 16,720 52,440 59,280 63,840
Vitalexx Protein - - 20,900 72,105 81,510 87,780
Total Revenue 3,330 8,792 56,895 180,271 196,516 200,305
250,000 100,000
Isolexx Protein
Vitalexx Protein
Revenue by Product ($000s)
200,000 Canola Meal 80,000

Canola Oil
EBITDA ($000s)
60,000
150,000
40,000
100,000
20,000
50,000
-
- (20,000)
2010 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2010 2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E
Capital Structure
Balance Sheet Risk Rising (Despite Saskatoon Burn Slowing)—BXI’s balance sheet risk is
rising despite a slowing burn rate associated with its Saskatoon facility upgrades.
Specifically, the company ended 2010 with $16.6 mln in cash and $14.1 mln in net
working capital. According to management, the balance of Phase II capital spending is
now less than $3.5 mln, which should enable the company to reach up to 50.0%
utilization by mid-year, including an associated increase in ISOLEXX production. That
being said, we expect an additional $10.0 – 15.0 mln is still required in 2011 to complete
Phase III—a necessary step in order to initiate first VITALEXX production by 1Q12.
North Dakota Funding Still Outstanding—Further capital will also be required to fund
the development and construction of its second plant in Minot, North Dakota.
Management currently estimates the total cost of this plant at $85.0 mln, up vs. the
$60.0 - $65.0 mln originally anticipated (see Exhibit 21). With a 50/50 debt-to-equity
financing split proposed, we calculate BXI will require an additional $42.5 mln in equity
to fund this project. That being said, because the firm’s Saskatoon plant remains largely
unencumbered, management hopes to leverage its equity in this asset to secure ~$20.0
mln in additional funds for North Dakota. We expect the balance of funding, roughly
$22.5 mln, will need to be raised via equity issuance. In terms of debt funding, the
company is actively negotiating a $24.0 mln debt facility with local state banks and
continues to evaluate several options (i.e. project financing) for the balance required.
Timing Uncertain, but Equity Raise Likely During 2Q11—Given the timing and capital
requirements outlined above, we expect BXI will be looking to raise ~$35.0 mln in equity
capital during late 2Q11. While the company has the ability to dial-down near-term
capital spending plans and prolong its current resources, timing remains of the essence,
in our view. Management was clear in recent commentary that it will advance North
Dakota only after the company has proven up Saskatoon. At present, this is expected to
occur during late 2Q. However, should this demonstration extend well into 3Q, we
believe that BXI’s current flexibility will be substantially reduced.
Exhibit 21: BXI Plant Pipeline and Associated Financing Requirements

Plant Capacity Cost Financing
Location (MTs) ($mlns) Debt Equity
Saskatoon 40,000 60,000 7,250 52,750
North Dakota 80,000 85,000 42,500 42,500
Plant #3 120,000 117,500 82,250 35,250
Plant #4 160,000 150,000 150,000 -
Plant #5 240,000 205,000 205,000 -
640,000 617,500 487,000 130,500
* Estimated Figures
We are initiating coverage on BXI with an Outperform rating and $2.50 target price.
Based upon the stock’s Apr-20-11 close, our target price represents a 43.7% total return.
Given the company’s early stage of development, we employ a DCF analysis to derive
our target price (see Exhibit 22).
 Saskatoon & Minot NAV Pegged @ $3.27—As illustrated below, our DCF analysis
for BXI’s Saskatoon and Minot plants yields a $3.27 NAV, with roughly ~70.0% or
$2.25 of this value attributed to the latter facility. As noted in the prior
discussion(s), key assumptions in this valuation approach are that: (i) BXI
successfully demonstrates commercial viability at Saskatoon; and (ii) BioExx
successfully raises $35.0 mln in equity capital to fund the development of Minot
and the balance of capital spending (i.e. Phase III) at Saskatoon.
 Commercialization Risk Still Present; Watching Milestones—Notwithstanding BXI’s
tremendous opportunities, we cannot ignore the fact that the company is still
attempting to commercialize its technology. In this context, we believe the balance
of 2011 will be a critical period, one wherein the company must clearly
demonstrate the commercial viability of its protein extraction process. To do so will
be a game-changing event for the company, in our view. Failure to do so, on the
other hand, would be severely detrimental to the company’s outlook and share
price. To accommodate this near-term risk, we have risk-adjusted our NAV with a
25.0% discount. As the company hits key production milestones over the next few
months, we will to take appropriate action and reduce this rate.
 Large Option Value: Paying Little for North Dakota; Zero for Future Expansion—
Presuming BXI's commercialization efforts are successful, we calculate that the
market is currently attributing very little value to Minot (~1/3 of its NAV), and
effectively zero for the company’s future plant expansions. We forecast that each
plant could potentially add $3.00-$5.00/share to our consolidated NAV. But again,
we prefer to see definitive evidence of commercialization and better clarity on
potential timing before we start incorporating these plants into our forecasts.
Exhibit 22: BioExx Discounted Cash Flow Analysis
2011E 2012E 2013E 2014E 2015E 2016E

Revenue: 10,818 56,895 180,271 196,516 200,305 211,135
EBIT: (15,529) 8,157 56,990 73,135 85,203 95,933
Less: Cash Taxes: - - 4,698 10,290 12,130 13,771
NOPLAT: (15,529) 8,157 52,292 62,845 73,073 82,162
Plus: Depreciation: 1,650 3,500 7,750 7,750 7,750 7,750
Less: Net Working Capital: 4,297 5,408 6,476 3,849 (1,243) 56
Less: CapEx (total): 61,500 48,000 7,250 7,250 7,250 7,250
Free Cash Flow : (79,676) (41,751) 46,316 59,496 74,816 82,606
Terminal Cash Flow: - - - - - 1,255,850
Total Cash Flow: (79,676) (41,751) 46,316 59,496 74,816 1,338,456
Equity Assumptions
Beta (B) 1.25 NPV of FCFF: 780,559
Risk Free Rate (Rf) 3.5% Net Debt (FY11E): 67,930
Market Risk Premium (Rm) 6.5% Equity Value: 712,628
Cost of Equity: Rf + B(Rm) 11.6% Shares o/s (FY11E, f.d.): 218.0
Debt Assumptions
Weighted Cost of Debt (Rd): 6.25%
Tax Rate (t): 30.0% DCF OUTPUT & VALUATION
Cost of Debt: Rd(1-t): 4.4% DCF Valuation ($/share): $3.27
Debt /Total Cap*: 25.0%
WACC: 9.78% 9.3% Risk-Adustment: 25%
Terminal Growth Rate: 3.0% Risk-Adjusted Value/Share: $2.47
* Estimated 5 year avg. Debt/Capital
Sensitivity Analysis Terminal Growth Rate

$3.27 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0%
8.0% $4.09 $4.48 $4.95 $5.52 $6.24 $7.16 $8.38
8.5% $3.66 $3.98 $4.36 $4.82 $5.38 $6.08 $6.98
9.0% $3.29 $3.56 $3.88 $4.25 $4.70 $5.25 $5.93
WACC
9.5% $2.97 $3.20 $3.47 $3.78 $4.14 $4.58 $5.11

10.0% $2.70 $2.89 $3.12 $3.38 $3.68 $4.03 $4.46
10.5% $2.46 $2.62 $2.82 $3.04 $3.29 $3.58 $3.93
11.0% $2.24 $2.39 $2.55 $2.74 $2.95 $3.20 $3.49
11.5% $2.05 $2.18 $2.32 $2.48 $2.67 $2.88 $3.12
12.0% $1.88 $1.99 $2.12 $2.26 $2.42 $2.60 $2.80
BXI Income Statement, 2009 – 2012E (C$, mlns)

2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Revenues 4,171 3,330 10,818 56,895

Cost of Goods Sold 5,494 4,145 12,347 32,813
Gross Margin (1,323) (815) (1,529) 24,082
Other Plant Expenses 913 1,628 1,800 1,900

Plant (Loss) Profit (2,236) (2,442) (3,329) 22,182
Administrative & General Expenses

Office and General 2,171 3,416 3,600 3,750
Stock-based Compensation 1,273 4,383 3,800 4,000
Research and Development 998 1,808 2,000 2,000
Sales and Marketing 404 352 650 775
Plant Commissioning & Start-up 359 1,118 500 -
SR&ED Tax Credit - - - -
Subtotal G&A 5,205 11,076 10,550 10,525
EBITDA (7,442) (13,518) (13,879) 11,657
Amortization of Plant & Equipment 347 796 1,200 2,000

Amortization of Equipment 223 299 450 1,500
Amortization of Intangible Assets 34 53 - -
Total Depreciation & Amortization 604 1,148 1,650 3,500
Earnings b/f Interest & Taxes (EBIT) (8,046) (14,666) (15,529) 8,157
Interest Income 76 142 100 100

Interest Expense on LT Debt 197 469 500 4,888
Loss on Derivative Instruments - (62) - -
Earnings b/f Taxes (EBT) (8,167) (15,055) (15,929) 3,369
Income Taxes
Current - - - -
Future - - - -
Subtotal Taxes - - - -
Earnings after Tax (8,167) (15,055) (15,929) 3,369

Non-controlling interest (5) - - -
Net Income (Loss) (8,172) (15,055) (15,929) 3,369
Earnings Per Share

Basic (0.06) (0.09) (0.08) 0.02
Fully Diluted (0.06) (0.09) (0.07) 0.02
Wgt Avg Shares Outstanding

Basic 129,277 174,044 203,022 206,772
Fully Diluted 129,277 174,044 214,250 218,000
Source: BioExx Specialty Protein Ltd., Raymond James Ltd.
BXI Balance Sheet, 2009 – 2012E (C$, mlns)

2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Current Assets
Cash 14,101 16,629 35,537 5,987
Restricted Cash - 79 79 79
Accounts Receivables 591 309 2,245 4,676
GST recoverable 672 408 408 408
Amounts receivable 50 - - -
Investment tax credit receivable 943 2,328 2,328 2,328
SR&ED credits receivable 77 298 298 298
Loans Receivable - - - -
Prepaid Expenses 74 96 409 4,552
Inventory 199 164 2,491 5,843
Total Current Assets 16,707 20,312 43,796 24,172
Non-Current Assets
Long-term prepaid expenses 46 55 55 55
Equipment Deposits 4,214 855 1,355 1,355
Intangible Assets 584 757 757 757
Property Plant and Equipment 20,261 63,156 98,506 155,006
Restricted Cash 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Total Non-current Asset 26,105 65,823 101,673 158,173
Total Assets 42,812 86,135 145,469 182,345
Current Liabilities
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities 5,471 5,335 5,613 10,132
Due to shareholder - - - -
Current Portion of Long-Term Debt 377 749 322 322
Current portion of Leased Inducement 21 27 34 42
Derivative Instruments - 53 - -
Total Current Liabilities 5,869 6,164 5,969 10,496
Long-term Liabilities
Long-Term Debt 3,675 6,517 49,595 74,595
Leasehold Inducement 27 - - -
Total Long Term Liablilities 3,702 6,517 49,595 74,595
Total Liabilities 9,571 12,681 55,564 85,091
Non-controlling interest - - - -
Shareholders' Equity
Capital Stock 46,724 98,385 130,785 134,785
Shares to be issued - - - -
Warrants 471 - - -
Contributed Surplus 3,030 7,109 7,109 7,109
Retained Earnings (Deficit) (16,984) (32,039) (47,989) (44,640)
Total Shareholders Equity 33,241 73,454 89,905 97,254
Total Liabilities & Shareholders Equity 42,812 86,135 145,469 182,345
BXI Cash Flow Statement, 2009 – 2012E (C$, mlns)

2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Operating Activities
Net Loss for the year (8,172) (15,055) (15,929) 3,369
Changes not involving cash: - - - -
Non-controlling Interest 5 - - -
Stock-based Compensation 1,273 4,383 3,800 4,000
Leasehold Inducement (15) (21) (20) (20)
Accretion of Deferred Financing Charges 6 7 7 8
Accrued Interest on Long-Term Debt - 171 151 -
Write-off of PP&E 2 - - -
Unrealized Loss on Derivative Instruments - - - -
Interest Expense Paid in Shares - - - -
Rent - - - -
Amortization of PP&E and Intangible Assets 604 1,148 1,650 3,500
Subtotal (6,297) (9,367) (10,341) 10,857
Changes in non-cash working capital balances (200) 2,056 (4,297) (5,408)
Cash Flow from Operating Activities (6,496) (7,311) (14,638) 5,450
Financing Activities
Increase in Leasehold Inducement - - - -
Net Proceeds of Long-term Debt 3,639 4,030 42,500 25,000
Repayments of Long-term Debt (147) (200) - -
Redemption of Non-controlling Interest (100) - - -
Exercise of Options and Warrants 8,675 2,544 400 -
Pivate Placements, Net of Issue Costs 18,817 51,874 30,000 -
Cash received on RTO - - - -
Cash received prior to completion of RTO - - - -
Share Issuance Costs (11) (3,532) (1,800) -
Dividends Paid of Preference Shares (7) - - -
Redemption of Preferred Shares - - - -
Cash Flow from Financing Activities 30,866 54,715 71,100 25,000
Investing Activities
Increase in Equipment Deposits (1,949) (1,361) (500) -
Increase in Long-term Prepaid Expenses (35) (9) - -
Decrease to Advances Receivable - - - -
Increase to Intangible Assets (170) (266) - -
Increase in Restricted Cash (900) (79) - -
Proceeds on Disposal of Equipment 1 - - -
SR&ED Credit Applied as Reduction in Equipment - - - -
Additions of Property, Plant and Equipment (11,549) (43,214) (37,000) (60,000)
Cash Flow from Investing Activities (14,603) (44,929) (37,500) (60,000)
Increase in Cash 9,899 2,475 18,962 (29,550)

Cash, Beginning of Year 4,202 14,101 16,576 35,537
Cash, End of Year 14,101 16,576 35,537 5,987
P/E EV/EBITDA Net

Market Shares Market Price Div.
Net Debt Ent. Value Debt /
Company Name Ticker Fx FY END Price O/S Cap 2010A 2011E 2012E 2010A 2011E 2012E /Book Yield
Cap
(mln) (mln) (mln) (mln) (%) (x) (%)

17.4 15.2 14.0 10.0 9.1 9.0
Notes:
2.) All estimates are from Thomson except BXI are Raymond James estimates.
Risks
Funding future growth–BioExx’s aggressive growth strategy requires access to

substantial funding. In the event of a lack in available funding, the company could not
progress with its expansion plans.
Production, scaling up–To date, the company has only run a medium size processing
facility on a limited basis. There is no assurance that BioExx will be successful at
constructing and operating, on a continuous basis, up to five large-scale processing
facilities. The inability to demonstrate successful full commercial-scale operations could
have a material impact of the business.
History of losses–BioExx has been in existence for a short time and has a history of
losses. While the losses are expected as the company is building out the business, there
is a risk that BioExx will never achieve or maintain profitability. The limited history
makes it difficult to asses whether the company will be successful and profitable.
Price risk–The company is exposed to commodity price risk with respect to raw
materials (canola) but also the volatility in protein prices for its final products. The price
exposure is typically tracked by the crush margin. As crush margins increase, the
company’s margins increase and vice-versa. In order to mitigate exposure, BioExx
attempts to lock in seed, oil and meal prices within the same future price window to
avoid pricing mismatches. There is no guarantee, however, that it is able to do so at any
given time or on a consistent basis.
Intellectual Property–BioExx patents its extraction processes in the US, Canada and
Europe, in addition to other markets where it may be necessary. There is no guarantee,
however, that the applications for patents will be approved given that regulations vary
across countries. There is a potential that its technology gets replicated and BioExx loses
to competition.
Product Quality–Several canola facilities in Canada have reported cases of salmonella
over the past year. BioExx has not had any issues, largely due to its cooling process
which hinders germination. The company has also received HACCP/ISO/GMP
certification. This does still remain a key risk.
Product Acceptance–BioExx is developing new products and it is crucial to successfully
educate customers. If BioExx is unable to introduce new and innovative products, it
could significantly damage its business.
Regulation–The end markets for BioExx products such as pharmaceuticals,
nutraceuticals and food processing, are highly regulated. Regulatory changes may have
significant impact on the company’s ability to market its products. In addition, laws and
regulations differ across countries, thus BioExx could potentially be exposed to multiple
regulatory sources.
Competition–The markets for vegetable oil, meal and protein are highly competitive. If
a competitor develops or acquires superior technology or products, BioExx’s business
could be materially affected.
Company Citations
Archer Daniels Midland Co. ADM NYSE NC
Molson Coors Brewing Company TAP NC
Procter & Gamble Co. PG NYSE NC
Tenneco Inc. TEN NYSE NC
Viterra Inc. VT TSX C$ 11.34 NC
Wireless Matrix Corp. WRX.T TSX NC
covered.
Canada Research
®
RAYMOND JAMES
April 27, 2011

GLG Life Tech Corporation
GLG-TSX | GLGL-NASDAQ Company Report - Initiation of Coverage
Arash Yazdani MBA (Associate) | 604.659.8280 | arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca Strong Buy 1
GLG: Initiating Coverage: Trimming Waistlines and Adding to Portfolios 52-Week Range C$12.27 - C$6.85
Market Data
Event Market Capitalization (mln) C$322
We are initiating coverage on GLG Life Tech Corporation (‘GLG’) with a Strong Current Net Debt (mln) C$28
Buy rating and $12.50 target price, representing a 38.1% total return based Enterprise Value (mil.) C$350
upon the stock’s closing price on April 20, 2011.
Action Dividend/Yield C$0.00/0.0%
We recommend that investors buy shares of GLG in order to capitalize on what Key Financial Metrics
we view as positive long-term fundamentals for zero-calorie, naturally-derived, 2010A 2011E 2012E
P/E
sweeteners and the company’s tremendous associated growth prospects.
NA 32.3x 11.5x
Analysis EV/EBITDA
GLG is one of the world’s leading, low-cost producers of high-purity stevia 21.6x 10.7x 5.8x
extract, a zero-calorie, naturally-derived sweetener made from the stevia plant. EBITDA Margin (%)
With vertically-integrated operations strategically positioned throughout ten 27.5% 19.4% 19.6%
Chinese provinces, GLG boasts industry-leading R&D, growing operations, Net Debt/Equity (mrq) 0.2x
processing capacity, and product formulation expertise. Backed by a pioneering Net Debt/Trailing EBITDA (mrq) 1.7x
and well respected management team, the company has already secured key Company Description
heavyweight customers such as Cargill, and signed up an impressive group of GLG Life Tech Corporation is a TSX-listed vertically
integrated leading producer of stevia extract, a zero
global distribution partners. Earlier this year, the company made its initial foray calorie, 100% natural sweetener derived from a stevia
into the Chinese beverage market, launching a line up of ANOC-branded (All plant.
Natural Zero Calorie) teas sweetened with GLG’s proprietary stevia blend.
We believe the long-term fundamental outlook for zero-calorie, naturally-
derived sweeteners such as stevia is compelling. As obesity and health-related
risks continue to escalate (i.e. diabetes, heart disease), consumers are
increasingly adopting strong views toward health and wellness. Governments
have also swung into action, promoting more informative labeling standards.
Finally, the soaring cost of sugar—which recently surpassed 30-yr highs—has
made alternative sweeteners far more attractive from a price point
perspective. GLG is very well positioned to benefit from these trends, in our
view, a point reflected in our robust revenue and earnings growth forecasts.
Valuation
Our $12.50 target price is based upon a sum-of-parts valuation wherein we
apply a 7.8x EV/EBITDA multiple against the company’s 2012 stevia-extract
business, and a 10.0x multiple against the company’s ANOC division. On a
consolidated basis, our target price implies an 8.4x multiple, which represents a
modest discount to GLG’s sweetener and global beverage peers (see Valuation
and Recommendation section for more details).
2010A C$(0.05) C$(0.01) C$0.07 C$(0.12) C$(0.11) C$59 C$16
2011E (0.07) (0.02) 0.17 0.20 0.28 169 33
2012E NA NA NA NA 0.79 308 60
Canada Research | Page 100 of 183 GLG Life Tech Corporation
Table of Contents
Risks .................................................................................................................................................... 131
GLG Life Tech Corporation Canada Research | Page 101 of 183
Investment Overview
Positive Macro Fundamentals—The long-term fundamental outlook for zero-calorie,

naturally-derived, sweeteners is compelling, in our view. In developed markets, as
obesity and health-related risks continue to escalate (e.g. diabetes, heart disease),
consumers are increasingly adopting strong views toward health and wellness, paying
closer attention to their food labels and calorie intake. Governments have also swung
into action, with new labeling standards surfacing in developed markets and, in select
cases, punitive ‘fat-tax’ regulations are being contemplated to discourage unhealthy
consumption patterns. More recently, these same themes have also surfaced in
emerging markets, where disposable incomes are rising, processed food and beverage
consumption is surging, and health-related issues are escalating. Finally, the soaring cost
of sugar—which recently surpassed 30-yr highs—has made alternative sweeteners far
more attractive from a price-point perspective.
Stevia is a Potential Game-Changer; Poised to Take Global Share—Stevia is a zero-
calorie, naturally-derived sweetener that offers consumers a viable alternative to
traditional high-calorie sweeteners (e.g. sugar, corn syrup) and chemically-derived
alternative sweeteners (e.g. sucralose, aspartame). These positive attributes, coupled
with rapidly evolving consumer preferences, swift uptake by global food and beverage
manufacturers and falling regulatory barriers, suggest stevia is poised to rapidly take
market share in the $60.0 bln global sweetener market. Recent estimates by food and
drink consultancy Zenith International support this view, suggesting the global market
for stevia extract is likely to reach US$825 mln by 2014 versus only US$285 mln in 2010.
Global Leader; Unrivalled, Low-Cost Infrastructure—GLG is one of the world’s leading,
low-cost producers of high quality stevia extract. With vertically integrated operations
strategically positioned to take advantage of favourable growing conditions throughout
10 Chinese provinces, GLG boasts industry-leading R&D, processing capacity, and new
product development initiatives that afford the company an unrivalled low-cost position
and distinct competitive advantages.
Chinese Market Key; Enormous Growth Potential—China represents GLG’s largest,
fastest growing market, enabling enormous growth opportunities on a standalone basis,
in our view. More specifically, we believe that rising disposable incomes, a burgeoning
middle class, and increasing processed food and beverage demand will continue to drive
robust growth in domestic sweetener demand. At the same time, sugar shortages have
sent prices to multi-decade highs forcing government to release supplies from state
reserves, and obesity rates—now the world’s second highest—are surging. Collectively,
we believe these factors translate into strong demand growth opportunities for stevia
extract sales.
Premiere Partnership with Cargill; Additional Partners for ROW Distribution—
Historically, the bulk of GLG’s stevia extract sales have been to Cargill, an international
provider of food and agricultural products and services. Cargill uses GLG’s stevia extract
within its branded sweetener TRUVIA, which is then sold to major North American
beverage companies including Coca-Cola. We view this as a significant ‘stamp of
approval’ for GLG’s business. Beyond Cargill, GLG is continuing to focus on additional
growth within the rest-of-the world markets. To this end, the company has struck
several multi-year, international distribution agreements with a distinguished list of
regional partners including Sugar Australia, Azucarero Mexico, Katra Group and
ChemPoint to distribute its stevia extracts to Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, India, US,
Europe and the Middle East. We expect these key partnerships, many solidified over the
past year, to provide strong sources of revenue and earnings growth in the future.
Next Leg of Growth; ANOC JV to Tap Burgeoning Consumer Beverage Market—GLG

recently launched a joint venture aimed at introducing zero-calorie, stevia-based
beverages to the rapidly growing Chinese consumer market. Operating under the name
Dr. Zhang’s All Natural and Zero Calorie Beverage and Foods Company (ANOC), GLG has
teamed with CAHFC, a leading developer of stevia-based consumer products, to
leverage its existing stevia expertise and move quickly to market. With an experienced
management team already in place, six initial products nationally-approved, and
distribution channels secured, ANOC launched its products on March 31, 2011 and
within only three weeks shipped 6 million bottles. Given the market opportunity this
venture is tackling, GLG management has established an aggressive 3-year growth
strategy, targeting more than half a billion in sales by 2013.
Blendsure: Branding the Variable-Sweet Opportunity—GLG’s new ‘Blendsure’ product
is a potential game-changing formulation aimed at segmenting a traditionally polarized
sweetener market. In the past, consumers have typically been offered two extreme
alternatives: full-calorie and zero-calorie (i.e. Coke vs. Diet Coke). However, in response
to government pressures and consumer demand, many of these same global companies
are now looking to develop product formulations that offer consumers a full spectrum
of options. Vitamin Water, Vitamin Water 10 & Vitamin Water Zero are good product
examples that illustrate this market segmentation. Table top sugar is also going in this
direction, with ANOC producing half-calorie (blended) and zero-calorie versions of their
tabletop brand.
Attractive Valuation—With the stock trading at just 11.3x and 6.3x our 2011 and 2012
EV/EBITDA estimates, we believe little, if any, of the growth from the aforementioned
ANOC joint venture is priced into GLG’s stock price. Furthermore, our current estimates
lie at the bottom end of management guidance for 2011, use reasonable estimates for
2012, and fail to account for the even stronger growth we expect in 2013 (and beyond),
arguably providing a great deal of conservatism at this point.
Initiating with Strong Buy Rating; $12.50 Target Price—Our $12.50 target price is based
upon a sum-of-parts valuation wherein we apply a 7.8x EV/EBITDA multiple against the
company’s 2012 stevia-extract business (within the company's historical trading range),
and a 10.0x multiple against the company’s ANOC division to reflect what we view as
the division's growth prospects. On a consolidated basis, our target price implies an 8.4x
multiple, which represents a modest discount to GLG’s sweetener and global beverage
peers, reflective of the company’s size and relatively early stage of development.
Company Overview
GLG is a leading global producer of high grade stevia extract, a zero-calorie, 100%
natural sweetener derived from the stevia plant. GLG is headquartered in Vancouver,
British Columbia, and operates vertically integrated assets in China through its various
subsidiaries. The company is dual-listed on the TSX and NASDAQ under the symbols
“GLG” and “GLGL” respectively.
About Stevia
Stevia is a shrub indigenous to the rain forests of Paraguay and Brazil that has been used
as a natural sweetener for hundreds of years. The plant is now grown in Brazil,
Paraguay, Uruguay, and parts of Central America, as well as Thailand, China and the
United States. China currently accounts for ~80.0% of global commercial production.
The leaf of the stevia plant contains sweet-tasting compounds known as glycosides,
including Stevioside (‘STV’) and Rebaudioside A (‘RA’), that can reach sweetness levels
200x that of sugar, but with zero calories, zero carbohydrates, and a zero glycemic index
(ideal for diabetics). RA, the sweeter of these two compounds, is often extracted and
purified into a higher grade for use in the food and beverage industry. On December 17,
2008, the FDA granted Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) status to RA at purity levels
of 95% (known as RA 95) or higher for use in food and beverages (see Exhibit 1).
European Union approval is expected this year.
Exhibit 1: Stevia Summary
Year Historical Timeline

Pre-1970s ► Stevia plant, indigenous to South and Central Amarica has been used as a sweetener for thousands of years
1970s ► Stevia is introduced in Japan and quickly gained acceptance, capturing ~40% of the Japanese sweetener market
1980s ► Gained strong commercial acceptance in China and Korea
1990s ► Introduced in the US but quickly banned by FDA following a "trade complaint" from an anonymous firm
1995 ► Reinstated in the US to a nutritional supplement only, limiting its use
Jun. 2008 ► JECFA WHO issued a letter of no objection
Oct. 2008 ► Approved as a food ingredient in New Zealand and Australia
Dec. 2008 ► FDA GRAS approved in the United States following comprehensive independent studies promoted by Cargill & Merisant
Sep. 2009 ► Approved in France for limited 2-year period ahead of expected EU approval
2H - 2011 ► Expected approval in the EU by the European Food Safety Authority
Stevia is Currently Approved in: U.S., China, Japan, France, Australia, New Zealand, Mexico, Paraguay, Switzerland
Stevia Plant: Glycoside Content

■ Stevioside = 5-10%
○ 250-300x sweetness of sugar
■ Rebaudioside A = 2-4%
○ Least bitter, 350-450x sweetness
■ Rebaudioside C = 1-2%
■ Dulcoside A = 0.5-1%
Source: GLG Life Tech Corp., International Stevia Council, Raymond James Ltd.
Business Mix & Customer Base
GLG specializes in processing and extracting a variety of stevia grades at differing purity
levels for commercial use. The company is vertically integrated, with R&D, processing
and refining facilities in China, and sales and marketing capabilities based in North
America. GLG has successfully partnered with several large agri-business enterprises for
the sale and distribution of its product, including Cargill, Sugar Australia, Azucarero
Mexico, Agrisystem Private Limited (under Katra Group), FXY and ChemPoint.com for
sale into Australia, China, New Zealand, Mexico, India, US, Europe and the Middle East.
 Cargill—Historically, the bulk of GLG’s stevia sales have been to Cargill, an
international provider of food and agricultural products and services. Cargill’s
branded sweetener TRUVIA, which incorporates GLG’s stevia extract, is sold to
major North American beverage companies including Coca-Cola (used in Odwalla
and Vitamin Water products). In 2009, Cargill sales accounted for 90% of GLG
revenues, facilitated through a 10-year supply agreement (see Exhibit 2). More
recently, GLG sales into China and ROW markets have reduced this customer
concentration to less than 50%, a trend we expect to continue given GLG’s strong
growth profile in emerging markets.
 ANOC—On December 22, 2010, GLG launched a joint-venture (80% stake) with
China Agriculture and Health Foods Company Limited (“CAHFC”). CAHFC is a parent
company of food and beverage producer Fengyang Xiaogangcun Υongkang Foods
High Tech Co. Ltd. (“FXY”), with whom GLG had established a partnership earlier in
the year. Named ANOC (Dr. Zhang’s All Natural and Zero Calorie) the new joint-
venture is expected to be a significant driver of GLG’s revenue growth. ANOC builds
on GLG’s leading position in the stevia market and CAHFC’s experience in
formulating and testing stevia-based consumer products and its focus is on
developing and distributing natural and zero-calorie food and beverages in China.
Refer to the section ANOC Primer included in this report for more details.
Exhibit 2: Details of GLG-Cargill Agreement
GLG-Cargill : Strategic Alliance and Supply Agreement Details

► 10 year agreement
► GLG to supply at least 80% of Cargill's global stevia extract requirements for 5-years commencing October 1, 2008
► GLG to be Cargill's exclusive Chinese supplier of stevia and agent for any extract sourcing opportunities in the country
► GLG supplies stevia extract at 80% Rebaudioside purity (RA 80) --> Cargill refines to 97% purity for its TRUVIA product
► 12-month minimum quantity take-or-pay agreement is negotiated between GLG and Cargill on a rolling basis
► Cargill may assist GLG in the financing of annual stevia leaf purchases
► GLG will present Cargill with new product opportunities on a right of first refusal basis
► Cargill has the ability to terminate the agreement in certain circumstances including if GLG CEO Luke Zhang departs the firm
► Cargill may terminate the agreement early with three year's notice
Operating Facilities
GLG’s process of cultivating, refining, formulating and manufacturing stevia extract is

carried out through five wholly-owned Chinese subsidiaries that include four processing
plants, 12 growing regions, and four R&D centers. GLG’s combined processing capacity
ending 2010 was 41,000 tpy of stevia leaf, capable of generating 3,000 tpy of RA 80 or
1,500 tpy of RA 97 extract (see Exhibit 3). Collectively, these subsidiaries provide GLG
with each key component of the stevia supply chain resulting in full vertical integration
(see Exhibit 4).
Exhibit 3: GLG Processing Facilities and Growing Regions
Qingdao - Shangong Province

► Runde & Runhao facilities
► 5,000 MT raw leaf -> 500 MT RA60
► 3,000 MT RA80 (BlendSure) or 1,500 MT RA97
Dongtai - Jiangsu Province

► 18,000 MT raw leaf -> 1,800 MT RA60
Mingguang - Anhui Province

► 18,000 MT raw leaf -> 1,800 MT RA60
Exhibit 4: GLG’s Stevia Extraction Process and Capacity

Primary Processing Secondary Processing
Stevia Resin is Primary

plant Extracted washed Primary extract is Filtered, Rinsed Packaging
leaves are with water with food stevia is dissolved crystalized and RA 80 and
dried and grade extracted in water- centriged vacuum RA 90 Shipping
crushed ethanol ethanol dried
and dried solvent
Processing Capacity: Intermediate High-Grade

41,000 tpy leaf Powder: Production:
4,000 tpy RA 60 3,000 tpy RA 80
1,500 tpy RA 97
Processing
GLG has aggressively invested in new leaf and RA80 processing capacity in recent years
to accommodate rapid growth. Specifically, we highlight the firm’s ~8.0x increase in leaf
processing capacity between 2008 and 2010 (see Exhibit 5), requiring a capital
investment of ~C$90 mln.
 Stevia Leaf Supply—GLG currently sources 100% of its stevia leaf from Chinese-
based plantations, seeking to take advantage of the country’s low-cost labor,
favourable government support, and strong end-market dynamics. GLG has signed
10-year agreements with the Dongtai and Mingguang county governments, as well
as a 20-year agreement with Juancheng County to secure its stevia leaf supply
within these major growing areas. These agreements provide GLG with the right of
first refusal to purchase all stevia grown in these areas, as well as being the only
firm permitted to process stevia. GLG has developed proprietary strains of stevia
seed that boast RA content (+60%) significantly exceeding the Chinese national
average (~25%). GLG works with the Chinese government to supply its proprietary
stevia seed and seedlings to farmers. Using stevia leaves with higher RA levels
allows the company to yield more stevia extract for the same amount of raw
materials (leaves). In 2010 GLG sourced 100% of its leaf requirements from its
proprietary seeds. The new generation of seeds with higher RA content is making its
way to the growers and GLG expects to realize these cost benefits in F2011 and
F2012. In September 2009, as part of its regional diversification strategy, GLG
signed a Letter of Intent (LOI) with the Government of Paraguay to enter
negotiations in that country for the growth and production of stevia. Based upon
recent discussions with management, however, we believe this initiative is currently
on hold, given the capacity built out opportunities in China.
Exhibit 5: GLG’s Increase in Stevia Production Capacity
Stevia Leaf RA 80 RA 60
RA 97
45,000 1,600 4,500
3,500
Production Capacity (tpy)
40,000
1,400 4,000
3,000 Production Capacity (tpy)
35,000 3,500
1,200
30,000 2,500 3,000
1,000
25,000 2,000 2,500
800
20,000 2,000
1,500
15,000 600 1,500
1,000
10,000 400 1,000
5,000 200 500 500
0 0 0 0
2008 Current 2008 Current 2008 Current 2008 Current
Corporate History
GLG Life Tech was formed in 2005 and is based in Vancouver, British Columbia. The
company acquired its first stevia processing facility in 2006 through the purchase of
Quingdao Runde Biotechnology Co Ltd. Strong relationships with the Chinese
government at the provincial and federal level have helped it garner incentives to build
and operate processing plants in stevia growing regions. With the acquisition of AHTD in
2007, the company expanded into research and development of proprietary seeds
designed to result in plants with high RA content. More recently, in December 2010 GLG
announced the aforementioned Chinese food and beverage joint venture ANOC (see
Exhibit 6).
Exhibit 6: GLG Corporate Timeline
(1) (2) (6) (8) (9) (10) (14) (15)

(4) (5)
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
(3) (7) (11) (12) (13)
Number Date Detail

(1) Jun. '05 ► Established as GLG Tech Limited and listed on CNSX under the symbol "GLGT"
(2) Dec. '06 ► Acquired Quingdao Runde Biotechnology, a stevia manufacturing business
(3) Dec. '07 ► Completed C$34.5 mln private placement; subsequently listed on the TSX under the ticker symbol "GLG"
(4) Dec. '07 ► Acquired AHTD, a seed based R&D operation with proprietary seedlings and experience in producing stevia with high RA content
(5) Apr. '08 ► Signed a 20-year agreement with Juancheng County government to grow stevia leaf and operate processing facility
(6) May. '08 ► Signed a 10-year supply agreement with Cargill
(7) Dec. '09 ► Completed US$27.5 mln private placement and listed on the Nasdaq under "GLGL"
(8) Apr. '10 ► Signed a supply and distribution agreement with Essentia
(9) Jul. '10 ► Singed a 3-year agreement with ChemPoint.com
(10) Jul. '10 ► Signed an agreement with Sugar Australia and Grupo Azucarero Mexico
(11) Sep. '10 ► Signed a 5-year supply agreement with FXY
(12) Oct. '10 ► Signed a 5-year supply and distribution agreement with Agrisystem Private Ltd. (subsidiary of the Katra Group)
(13) Dec. '10 ► Established ANOC JV to manufacture stevia based food and beverages in China
(14) Feb. '11 ► Completed C$58.2 mln equity offering
(15) Mar. '11 ► Signed a supply agreement with International Flavours and Fragrances
Management Team
Dr. Luke Zhang, Chairman & CEO—Dr. Zhang has been Chairman of GLG since the
company’s formation in 2005 and CEO since 2008. He has successfully built and
managed a number of firms in the health, food, medical equipment and software
development industries. Dr. Zhang holds a Ph.D. in Pharmacology from Vanderbilt
University in the United States, a Masters of Science in Pharmaceutical Chemistry from
Shanghai First Medical University in China and a Bachelor of Medicine from Shandong
Medical University in China.
Brian Meadows, CFO—Mr. Meadows joined GLG in 2007 as CFO. He holds both the
Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) designation as well as the Certified Management
Accountant (CMA) designation. He obtained his Bachelors of Business Administration
from Wilfrid Laurier University in 1987 and an International MBA from the University of
Glasgow in 1995. We believe his expertise in finance and operations has helped GLG
experience consistent growth and profitability. Prior to GLG, his experience includes 20
years in the telecommunications industry in both North America and Europe, including
positions with TELUS and EnerTel.
Sam Newberg, VP Sales Americas—Mr. Newberg has over 20 years experience in food
and beverage processing and sweetener functionality and food chemistry. His
background includes senior sales and marketing roles with Akzo Nobel, JPM and
Nutrasweet. Mr. Newberg holds a Master of Science in Chemistry from Roosevelt
University in Chicago.
Dr. Steve Bodicoat, VP Sales EMEA—Dr. Bodicoat has over 25 years of specialty
chemicals and food ingredient experience within major global entities including
Unilever, ICI Quest International, and CP Kelco (J.M. Huber Corporation). His roles have
included senior Sales and Marketing positions within EMEA regions. Steven holds a B.Sc.
in Chemistry and a Ph.D. in Organic Chemistry from the University of Nottingham. In his
direct sales role at CP Kelco, Steven led a sales force responsible for $150 mln in
revenues across the EMEA region. He was the key account manager for Unilever.
Qian Wang, President, ANOC—Ms. Wang serves as President of ANOC operations and is
responsible for general management, government relationship and public relations.
Prior to being appointed as ANOC’s President, Qian Wang held VP government relations
and operations management titles at GLG Life Tech China’s operations. She has over 20
years of experience in government relations and business management including
working for the Ministry of Transportation as a Chief Economist and General Manager.
Ms. Wang holds degrees from Shandong University of Technology and Shenzhen
University.
Mr. Chen Tzyh Chen, VP of R&D and Formulation, ANOC—Mr. Chen comes to ANOC
after over 30 years of consumer beverage and food formulation experiences including
senior positions with President Enterprises Corporation.
Mr. Cheng Yin-Chieh, VP of Marketing, ANOC—Mr. Cheng brings over 26 years of
marketing experience in the consumer food and beverage industry in China, Hong Kong
and Taiwan. Prior to joining GLG Mr. Cheng held senior positions with Master Kong
Beverage Corporation, President Enterprises Corporation and Brain Advertising.
GLG Life Tech was initially listed on the CNQ in 2005 and started trading on the TSX
under the symbol GLG in 2007 following a $34.5 mln private placement. The company
was dual-listed on the NASDAQ exchange in November 2009 under ticker GLGL. As of
April 13, 2011 there were 32,661,212 shares outstanding of which ~12.6% are owned by
insiders (see Exhibit 7). Dr. Luke Zhang is the largest single shareholder (7.4%). Two of
the largest shareholders, Skyland International Investment Management and Pacific
Marketing Consultants Ltd. (combined holdings of 19.3%) are headquartered in China.
Exhibit 7: Shareholder Summary (as of Apr-13-11)

Shareholder Summary
Shares Held /
% O.S.
Controlled Insiders
Management. Directors and Other Insiders
12.6%
Zhang, Luke 2,406,014 7.37%
Palmieri, Brian 1,160,395 3.55%
Zhang, Jinduo 243,526 0.75%
Leung, Sophea 228,359 0.70% Institutions
Meadows, Brian 53,768 0.16% 45.3%
Beasley, David 15,598 0.05%
Yingchun, Lui 15,433 0.05%
Fangzhen, He 6,848 0.02%
Skyland International Inv. Mgmt 3,248,555 9.95%
Pacific Marketing Consultants Ltd. 3,058,569 9.36%
Columbia Wagner Asset Management 2,346,000 7.18%
HZ Health Management Company Limited 2,303,238 7.05%
IG Investment Management 1,641,100 5.02% Other
Top Corporations / Institutions 12,597,462 38.57% 42.1%
Other 149,478,138 42.06%

Industry Analysis
Global demand for sweeteners is expected to enjoy healthy growth throughout our
forecast horizon, largely on account of robust demand growth in emerging markets. At
the same time, we believe that rising health-related concerns and the soaring cost of
sugar—which recently surpassed 30-yr highs—are likely to favour market share gains for
alternative sweeteners such as stevia.
1. Global Sweetener Market: Large and Growing, Alternatives Gathering Momentum

The global sweetener market is valued at an estimated US$55.0-$60.0 bln and growing
at a CAGR of ~2.0-3.0%. Roughly two-thirds of this market is comprised of industrial
applications in food and beverage manufacturing, with the remainder going into retail-
orientated products largely for table top use.
The global sweetener market is currently bifurcated into two major product segments,
including nutritive, full-calorie sweeteners (e.g. cane sugar and corn-based syrups), and
non-nutritive, zero-calorie sweeteners (e.g. aspartame, sucralose). Nutritive sweeteners,
which currently account for ~80.0% of all sweeteners globally (see Exhibit 8), are largely
a mature market and tend to grow in-line with global population growth at ~2.0% per
year. The non-nutritive or ‘alternative’ segment, on the other hand, is fast developing
both in terms of market value and product offerings. Market research firm Mintel Group
estimates, for example, that the non-nutritive segment grew at a 4.0% CAGR between
2002 and 2006 (see Exhibit 9) and expects CAGR of ~5.1% between 2008 and 2015. The
most notable alternative sweeteners at present include: aspartame (e.g. Equal,
NutraSweet), saccharin (e.g. Sweet’N Low), and sucralose (e.g. Splenda), with Splenda
enjoying the dominant market position of ~60.0%. However, as consumer preferences
have increasingly shifted away from such chemically-derived products, naturally-derived
sweeteners have started to emerge. We believe that stevia’s value proposition as an all-
natural, zero-calorie sweetener positions it well to capitalize on this emerging trend,
which should facilitate market share gains over time.
Exhibit 8: Global Sweetener Market Exhibit 9: Global Artificial Sweetener Market
Natural Sweeteners Artificial Sweeteners

70 9
8 CAGR = ~5.1%
60
7
50
6
US $ Billions
US $ Billions
40 5
30 4
3
20
2
10
1
0 0
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10f 2005 2007 2009f 2011f 2013f 2015f
Source: Global Industry Analysts, Mintel Group, GLG Life Tech Corp., Raymond James Ltd.
2. Emerging Markets: Sweetener Consumption on the Rise

Emerging markets represent an attractive source of sweetener growth. Benefiting from
strong relative economic growth, disposable incomes are rising and processed food and
beverage consumption is surging.
According to the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute’s 2010 Outlook, Asia is
expected to dominate the sugar market by 2019/20 with China, Japan, Indonesia,
Malaysia and South Korea accounting for 19% of the world sugar trade.
Amongst these, we believe the fundamentals within China are particularly attractive.
There, the food and beverage industry has enjoyed robust growth over the past decade,
reaching sales of US$7.3 billion in 2009 compared to just US$97.4 million in 2000,
representing 25% CAGR. As disposable incomes continue to rise, the industry is
forecasted to continue expanding at CAGR of 20% moving forward. Commensurate with
this, Chinese per capita sugar consumption has surged from 6.8 kg in 2000 to 11.6 kg in
2010 and is expected to reach 12.3kg by 2015 (see Exhibit 10). This is still well below
per-capita consumption in the developing world, with the US, for example, at 30.6 kg in
2010 (see Exhibit 11). GLG’s joint venture ANOC was established to exploit these
favourable macro dynamics in China and benefit from first-mover advantage within the
naturally-sweetened beverage market.
India is the leading global sugar consumer on an absolute basis at ~23 mln tpy. Although
per-capita consumption is growing, it also lags far behind the developed world at only
20.5 kg in 2010. When these factors are combined with a rapidly growing population
and domestic production shortfalls, we believe the Indian market presents another
compelling source of long-term growth for natural sweetener alternatives such as GLG’s
stevia.
Exhibit 10: China per Capita Sugar Consumption Exhibit 11: Forecasted Per Capita Sugar Consumption
14 40
1999-2009: CAGR = 6%
China & India forecasted to lag behind the US
12 and EU in per capita consumption
Per Capita Consumption (2011E, kg)
Per Capita Consumption (kg)
10 30
20
6
4
10
2
0
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 0
China India US EU
Source: FAPRI, Raymond James Ltd.
3. Regulatory Barriers Dropping Around the Globe; More to Fall

Stevia’s market acceptance has grown rapidly as global regulatory barriers have fallen.
As noted previously, critical to this regulatory evolution was a joint committee between
the FAO and World Health Organization that gave stevia “a clean bill of health” in June
2008. The FDA’s GRAS approval in December 2008 also helped stoke further
momentum, with several more nations falling in-line soon thereafter. As a result, stevia
is now permitted for use as a food additive in 24 countries and as a dietary supplement
in another four (see Exhibit 12).
Further approvals are expected moving forward. Most notably, the European Union is
expected to grant approval in 2H11, following the temporary approval by member-
country France in 2009. Codex Alimentarius, a joint FAO/WHO commission created to
develop food standards and guidelines, recently removed obstacles for stevia approval
in India, Thailand and the Philippines according to GLG competitor PureCircle (PURE-LN).
The Katra Group, GLG’s strategic partner in India has filed a petition for stevia approval.
GLG expects India will approve its product by the end of 2011. We expect more stevia-
sweetened products to hit the shelves as these regulatory barriers fall, particularly in
the European Union and India.
Exhibit 12: Stevia Regulatory Acceptance by Country and Region
Europe - Food Additive

► France
► Russia
North America - Food Additive ►Switzerland
► U.S.A.
► Mexico
North America - Diatery
Supplement
► Canada
Asia Pacific - Food Additive

► Australia ► Japan ► South Korea
► Brunei ► Malaysia ► Taiwan
► China ► New Zealand
► Hong Kong ►Singapore
Asia Pacific - Diatery Supplement
►Indonesia ►Thailand ►Vietnam
Latin America - Food Additive

► Argentina ► Paraguay
► Chile ► Peru
► Colombia ► Uruguay
► Ecuador ► Venezuela
Latin America - Diatery Supplement
► Brazil
Source: PureCircle Ltd, Raymond James Ltd.
4. Traditional Sweeteners Under Fire; Paving the Way for Stevia Uptake
The global sweetener industry is also battling several stiff headwinds that, we believe,
pave the road for stevia to accumulate greater market share over time. Key headwinds
include:
 Cost of Sugar and Corn Skyrocketing—Agflation has been a theme in recent
months, punctuated by sudden surges in sugar and corn prices that make
alternative sweeteners, such as stevia, far more attractive from a price-point
perspective (see Exhibit 13). Tight sugar supplies have combined with weather
setbacks in Australia and Brazil (two largest sugar exporters) to drive sugar prices
higher. Traditionally, high sugar prices encourage a drift towards high fructose corn
syrup (HFCS) purely on relative cost bases. Recently, however, corn prices have also
been a record-breaking spree, with corn becoming a more valuable commodity
than wheat in April 2011 for the first time in 15 years. Much of the demand for corn
has been driven by the biofuel and animal feed industries, leaving limited room for
HFCS. As traditional sweeteners continue to face headwinds, there is a significant
opportunity for alternative sweeteners such as stevia to accumulate greater market
share, in our view.
 Obesity & Diabetes Spreading—Escalating health-related risks associated with
excessive sweetener consumption has prompted many consumer groups and
government organizations to fight back. In the US, for example, the Center for
Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 26.7% of the total population, or
72.5 mln people, are now obese. Global obesity trends (see Exhibit 14) have quickly
translated into a higher prevalence of other diseases such as diabetes, including in
emerging markets. In India, ~20.0% of the population, or ~240 mln people, is now
afflicted with diabetes. Growing obesity in China has resulted in 92 mln being
afflicted, with growth of the disease amongst adult males higher than in the US, UK,
and Australia.
Collectively, we believe these industry headwinds present significant opportunities for

zero-calorie, natural sweeteners such as stevia. These trends have also given rise to
recent popularity in other natural, non-sugar sweetener alternatives including agave
nectar, brown rice syrup, date sugar, and fruit juice concentrates.
Exhibit 13: Sugar and HFCS Prices Exhibit 14: Global Obesity Rates
40 40.0
Sugar
35 High Fructose Corn Syrup 35.0
30 30.0
Obesity Rate in Adults (%)
25 25.0
US $/lb
20 20.0
15 15.0
10 10.0
5 5.0
0 0.0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 U.S. Canada Brazil Ger UK S. India China Japan Aus
Arabia
Source: GLG Life Tech Corp., Bloomberg, International Obesity Taskforce, Raymond James Ltd.
Stevia’s market-share within the sweetener space has been growing rapidly. Market
research firm Nielsen Group reports that in only two years, GLG-customer Cargill
(TRUVIA brand) has overtaken Equal (aspartame) to take third place in the US non-sugar
sweetener market, behind Splenda (sucralose) and Sweet’N’Low (saccharin).
As regulatory barriers fall and market acceptance improves, stevia sales growth is
expected to accelerate. In a recent study, industry consultants Zenith International
pegged 2010 global stevia extract sales at US$285 mln, representing a 27.0% y/y
increase over 2009. This figure is expected to increase 3x to US$825 mln by 2014,
representing 11,000 MT annually of high-purity stevia extract. Major sales regions in
2010 were Asia (driven by Japan), North America, and Latin America, making up 36.0%,
30.0%, and 24.0% of the global market respectively. We expect Europe to become a
much larger piece of the global pie once regulatory approval has been secured.
The size of the stevia extract market is dwarfed by that of stevia-sweetened food and
beverage products, which has been has been growing by leaps and bounds since FDA
GRAS approval in 2008 (see Exhibit 15). Global manufacturers including Kraft, Dean
Foods, and Unilever have joined early pioneers Coca-Cola and PepsiCo with hundreds of
product launches each year that now include cereals, yogurt, energy drinks, and salad
dressings. A recent Nielsen Group report indicates the market for stevia-sweetened
food and beverage products in the US alone totaled $3.2 bln in 2010, representing a
126.5% y/y increase (see Exhibit 16).
We foresee the roll-out of new stevia-sweetened food and beverage products
continuing to accelerate as regulatory barriers fall around the world and consumers
demand healthier alternatives to sugar, both in developed and developing markets such
as China. These are positive fundamentals for GLG’s consumer product focused ANOC
joint venture, as well as boding well for attractive demand growth for its stevia extract.
Exhibit 15: US Stevia Applications by Product Category Exhibit 16: US Sales of Stevia Based Products
1,200
Retail sales of stevia-based
160
products in 2010 up 126.5% y/y
140 Cereal 1,000

Dessert Mix
120 Energy Drink
Yogurt 800
Snack
100
US$ Millions
# of Products
Sports Drink
Salad Dressing 600
80
RTD Tea
Pow dered Soft Drink
60 Carbonated Soft Drink
400
Bread
40 Fruit Drink
Soymilk
Juice 200
20
Sugar Substitute
Flavored Water
0 0
1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 1Q09 2Q09 3Q09 4Q09 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10
Source: PureCircle Ltd., Raymond James Ltd.
5. Increasingly Competitive Environment

Stevia’s rapid commercial success and attractive future opportunities have naturally
attracted a wide range of new industry participants across the global value chain. In the
upstream market, a handful of prominent growers and high-grade extract producers
have evolved, each attempting to develop their own regional position of strength.
Further downstream, in product formulation and consumer packaged goods, there has
been a broader proliferation of competition, with recent data by Innova Market Insights
indicating that more than 400 stevia-based products were launched in 2009, equivalent
to the previous three years combined. At present, we view the upstream industry
participants as GLG’s closest competitors; however, we acknowledge that this peer
group will continue to evolve as GLG makes further inroads in the downstream
consumer beverage and food sector through its ANOC joint venture.
 PureCircle—Pure Circle Ltd. (PURE-LON) is a Malaysian-based, vertically-integrated
provider of stevia extract to the global food and beverage industry. With F2011
management-forecasted sales of ~$55 mln, the company has established a global
footprint with in-house R&D facilities, globally diversified growing operations
(China, Kenya, Paraguay, Thailand), and 2,000 tonnes of high-purity extract
processing capacity. PureCircle relies on its strong industry partnerships to sell
stevia extract to ingredient manufacturers as well as food and beverage producers
including PepsiCola, Coca-Cola, Cargill, and Merisant-subsidiary Whole Earth
Sweeteners. The company also recently partnered with Europe’s second-largest
sugar producer, Nordzucker AG, in a joint venture named ‘NP Sweet A/S’, to market
a portfolio of stevia/sugar blend to the food and beverage sector in Northern
Europe. Pure Circle is GLG’s closest competitor, in our view.
 Morita Kagaku and Corn Products International—In 1971, Japanese company
Morita Kagaku Kogyo took advantage of that country’s regulatory moves to become
the world’s first to commercialize stevia. Today, the company grows stevia globally
based on its own proprietary seed formulation, selling domestically in Japan as well
as into foreign markets through joint ventures and partnerships. In 2008, Morita
Kagaku licensed its stevia strain, manufacturing technology, and production system
to Corn Products International (CPO-NYSE) under a long term strategic agreement.
This also resulted in the establishment of the “Enliten” brand for marketing stevia
produced by CPO under this agreement from leaf grown in selected Latin American
and Asian countries. CPO, a global corn refiner and supplier of ingredients and
industrial products derived from corn and starch processing, is using this strategic
partnership as part of its goal to diversify into fast-growing, new market
opportunities.
 Emerging Rivals—A range of new market entrants have recently begun to appear in
the stevia industry from the health and nutraceutical industries. One notable new
entrant, for example, is Sweet Green Fields, a partnership between So Good soymilk
producer Sanitarium, long-storied Hawaiian sugar producer Gay & Robinson, and a
horticultural research firm also based out of Hawaii. Sweet Green Fields has
established a 1,000 MT processing facility in China to extract product from its
proprietary leaf grown in the US. Other emerging market players include stevia
growers/producers such as Wisdom Natural Brands (SweetLeaf) and SunWin USA,
as well as branded resellers such as Wild Flavors Inc.
Company Strategy
Two of the core pillars beneath GLG’s corporate strategy include: (1) cost reduction
through vertical integration, and (2) product and market development for stevia extract.
Below we review each of these two strategic components.
Vertical Integration; Controlling the Supply Chain—Fundamental to GLG’s strategy is
control of the entire value chain (see Exhibit 17). This approach, albeit aggressive, is
expected to help GLG better manage (i.e. reduce) costs, extract operating efficiencies,
maintain the company’s proprietary advantage, and ultimately, enhance margins. Key
components of this strategy include: (i) developing proprietary, high-yield stevia seeds;
(ii) developing enhanced agriculture practices; (iii) developing state-of-the-art
processing and refining assets, and (iv) forging strong government relationships. GLG’s
integration has more recently extended even further downstream with the
aforementioned launch of its ANOC joint venture aimed at developing stevia-based
beverages for the Chinese marketplace (see our ANOC Primer section).
 Cost Reduction via Proprietary, High Yield Seeds—Because stevia leaves represent
GLG’s single largest input cost (accounting for ~65-70% of COGS), the company is
intensely focused on developing proprietary seed strains that boast enhanced
glycoside content and higher net refining yield (see Exhibit 18). These
enhancements include lowering the cost of its proprietary stevia seeds, increasing
the crop yield (i.e. number of stevia plants per acre), and most importantly,
increasing the RA content level within its proprietary stevia leaf beyond the current
~62% level. Significant strides are being made with GLG’s next generation H2 and
H3 stevia seeds (see Exhibit 19).
Exhibit 17: GLG Value Chain

Crops & Harvesting in
Mingguang region
(18,000 t)
Chuzhou Runhai Stevia

Holding of Proprietary Research & (China)
Stevia Seed Patents Development; Seed
Agricultural High Tech Anhui Bengbu HN Dongtai Runyang Stevia

Developments Ltd. Stevia (China)
(Marshall Islands) (China) Qingdao Runde Biotech Qingdao Runhao Stevia
Crops & Harvesting
(China) (China)
in
Dongtai region Processing of stevia leaf Processing of stevia into
(18,000 t) into various extract grades RA 97 (1,000 t)
Sales to Customers
SEEDS GROWING & HARVESTING DISTRIBUTION
 Enhancing Agriculture Practices—GLG places significant effort into developing

agricultural best practices specifically designed to work with its proprietary seeds
and seedlings. Farmers are then organized, recruited, and trained on these
techniques with the assistance of local government agencies. This arrangement is
mutually beneficial: farmers are able to earn 2-3x more when compared to growing
traditional crops like wheat or corn while GLG is able to standardize and ensure
crop quality. As well, once farmers are trained and using techniques specific to
GLG’s seeds, a process that takes 2-3 years in its entirety, the switching costs
become substantial, helping prevent new entrants or farmers switching to different
crops. Finally, GLG is constantly improving its agricultural practices. One substantial
improvement expected to begin in 2011 is the ability to supply farmers directly with
seeds rather than seedlings, eliminating the cost associated with maintaining over
400 greenhouses.
 Forge Strong Government Relationships—GLG has developed close ties with key
government entities and officials at different levels. To date, these relationships
have borne several positive developments, including securing of exclusive
agreements in three of China’s largest stevia growing regions, highly subsidized land
costs, and preferential terms on short-term loans and lines of credit. We believe
that GLG’s continued investment in these regions will result in continued
preferential treatment and incentives, which could prove especially valuable in
preventing new entrants as well as facilitating future expansion.
Exhibit 18: RA Content in Stevia Leaf Exhibit 19: Next Generation GLG Stevia
6.0% H2 Proprietary Strain
■ 10% Higher Reb A content than 1st Gen.

5.0% ■ 22% more stevia leaf per acre.
■ Improved processing efficiencies.
Stevia Leaf RA Content (%)
4.0% Status: expected to be utilized at all GLG

growing regions for 2011 crop season.
3.0%
H3 Proprietary Strain
2.0% ■ 26% Higher Reb A content than 1st Gen.

■ 46% more stevia leaf per acre.
■ Est ~40% overall leaf cost improvement.
1.0% ■ Even further processing efficiencies.
Status: On track for use in 2012/13

0.0%
GLG Canada Paraguay China
Product & Market Development—As discussed herein, we believe the global market
opportunities for stevia are enormous. Despite GLG’s industry leading position, the
company remains a relatively young enterprise with limited resources. GLG has
developed its product and market development strategy to take this fact into account.
 China Focus: Largest, Most Attractive Opportunities—Following a strategic review
in 2010, GLG management concluded that its largest, most attractive opportunities
were based in China, a view which coincides with our macro outlook (see our Apr-
27-11 Industry Report Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel). Stevia is very well
suited to the Chinese market, in our view, given that: (1) the country is facing large
sugar shortages; (2) the government is reluctant to allow expansion of corn
processing into sweetener alternatives as it combats human and livestock food
inflation; (3) stevia addresses China’s concerns over arable land as the crop requires
1/12th the land needed to grow sugar, and (4) the burgeoning middle class
population is becoming more focused on healthy living in order to combat obesity
and diabetes, both growing domestic concerns. According to recent USDA
commentary, Chinese sugar consumption is expected to reach 15.1 mln tonnes in
2011 versus 14.8 mln tonnes the year previous, driven by 13-15% y/y growth in the
domestic food and beverage industry fueled by a burgeoning middle class. Chinese
sugar imports of 1 mln tonnes in 2010 are expected, by various commodity analysts,
to reach 2-3 mln tonnes in 2011 as domestic consumption growth outpaces
production.
 Chinese Sugar Reserve Opportunity—China’s rising sugar deficit has created the
opportunity for GLG to supply a 50/50 sugar-stevia blend into the China Sugar
Reserve (CSR). This blended product provides 2x the sweetening potency of the
equivalent volume of traditional sugar. Although timeline details are not yet firm,
management expects to deliver 5,000 MT of high-grade stevia over 3-5 years, with
initial deliveries of 500 MT expected for 2H11. The size of this multi-phase ramp
would imply the need for a commensurate expansion of GLG’s production
capabilities. The company estimates realizing $700-$800 mln in total revenues over
the course of this entire opportunity.
 ANOC JV Holds Massive Potential—GLG’s success in establishing an 80% position
within the ANOC joint venture business with China Agriculture and Healthy Foods is
an example of the opportunities available in the Chinese market. With nationwide
distribution, national marketing campaigns, and plans for over 30 beverages and
300 food products, this JV could, in our view, represent a game-changing
opportunity for GLG. See our ANOC Primer below for more details.
 Premiere Partnership with Cargill; Additional Partners for ROW Distribution—
Despite GLG’s focus on the Chinese market, the company is not ignoring rest-of-the-
world (ROW) markets (see Exhibit 20). Historically, the bulk of GLG’s stevia sales
have been to Cargill, an international provider of food and agricultural products and
services. Cargill’s use of GLG stevia extract within its branded sweetener TRUVIA,
which is then sold to major North American beverage companies including Coca-
Cola, has served as a significant ‘stamp of approval’. In pursuing additional ROW
markets, GLG has chosen to secure long term distribution arrangements with
established strategic partners (often sugar or ingredient companies) to drive sales.
This helps to significantly mitigate execution risk, in our view. It also allows GLG to
leverage existing sales channels and relationships in each market rather than
building these from scratch. Most recently, the firm announced distribution
agreements for Mexico, Australia, India, the Middle East, and Europe. Management
expects to continue establishing such relationships in other key regions, over time,
including in Europe, the US, and Japan. Beyond providing product, GLG provides its
regional partners with training, joint sales, and marketing support.
 Blendsure: Branding the Variable-Sweet Opportunity—GLG’s new ‘Blendsure’

product is a potential game-changing formulation aimed at segmenting a
traditionally polarized sweetener market. For context, consumers have traditionally
been offered two extremes: full-calorie and zero-calorie (e.g. Coke vs. Diet Coke).
However, in response to government and consumer pressures, many of these same
global companies are now looking to develop a full spectrum of products. Vitamin
Water, Vitamin Water 10 and Vitamin Water Zero are good branded examples that
illustrate this market segmentation. Table top sugar is also going in this direction,
with ANOC producing half-sweet (calorie), and zero-calorie versions of their
tabletop brand. BlendSure delivers comparable taste profile to RA 97 at a 30% cost
reduction in beverage and food formulations. It is apparent to us that GLG has
significant competitive advantage in that no other competitor has a similar product
in the market, or has applied for regulatory approval. BlendSure is awaiting FDA
approval following self-affirmed GRAS certification.
 Cashing in on By-Products—Besides focusing on RA extract, GLG has been working
to commercialize other by products extracted from the primary glycosides
contained in the stevia leaf. Most recently, the company signed an agreement with
International Flavors and Fragrances (IFF) to further develop Reb C as a sweetness
modulator. While not a sweetener itself, Reb C has been tested to provide other
sweeteners with a 20-25% reduction in calories. Extraction of Reb C from the stevia
leaf is a patent-pending process proprietary to GLG. Any success in developing Reb
C as a sweetness modulator represents an opportunity for revenue generation, but
more importantly, for margin expansion
Exhibit 20: GLG Worldwide Distribution Agreements
U.S. and Europe

Supply agreement w ith
North Am erica ChemPoint.com an e-distributor
of specialty and fine ingredients.
Supply agreement w ith Cargill , a India and Middle East
(Oct. 10)
leading int'l agribusiness company. Market development agreement w ith Global
(May 08) Agrisytem, India's leading agribusiness
company focused on food sector.
(Oct. 10)
Mexico
Distribution agreement w ith
Grupo Azucarero Mexico, the
largest private sugar Australia and New Zealand
producer in the country. Distribution agreement w ith Sugar
(Jul. 10) Australia, a leading sugar refiner in
Australia and New Zealand.
(Jul. 10)
Latin Am erica
Distribution Agreement w ith
Essentia Stevia, a leading stevia
distributor in Latin America.
(Apr. 10)
ANOC Primer
On December 22, 2010, GLG announced an 80% stake in a new joint venture with China
Agriculture and Healthy Foods Company Limited (CAHFC). Named Dr. Zhang’s All Natural
and Zero Calorie (ANOC) Beverage and Foods Company, the JV is set up to tackle the
sale and distribution of zero-calorie, stevia-based beverage and food products in China.
This JV developed out of GLG’s 5-year stevia supply agreement signed in Sep-2010 with
CAHFC subsidiary FXY.
 ANOC Market Opportunity—The opportunity for zero-calorie sugar-free beverages
in China appears immense, in our view. At a macro level, the broader Chinese food
and beverage industry has experienced stellar growth over the past decade posting
a 25% annual CAGR on the back of robust growth in consumer disposable income
(see Exhibits 21 and 22). Moreover, according to market research firm Freedonia,
Chinese consumers are in the midst of a notable shift in preference toward healthy
and functional products as awareness grows over disturbing health-related issues
such as obesity (now growing faster than in the US) and diabetes. According to
China Health Statistics, there are 130 mln people suffering from high blood
pressure, 350 mln over-weight individuals, and 70 mln people who are considered
obese. Collectively, we believe these factors bode well for continued growth in
zero-calorie, sugar-free beverages.
 ANOC Management Structure—GLG controls ANOC through its 80.0% ownership
and the appointment of the majority of board members. In addition, GLG CEO, Dr.
Luke Zhang, serves as ANOC’s chairman and CEO. Chinese beverage industry
expertise is being added through an impressive management team recruited from
some of China’s leading beverage companies including Kang Shi Fu (+US$5 bln
annual sales), Yili (+US$6 bln p.a.) and Hui Yan Juice (+US$400 mln p.a.).
 Recent Milestones—Despite the JVs relative infancy, ANOC has already
accomplished several noteworthy milestones over the past 3 months. Specifically,
we highlight: (1) initiation of commercial beverage production through a CAHFC
facility; (2) the appointment of six Chinese executives recruited from major
competing food and beverage producers; (3) the launch of six initial beverage
products (see Exhibit 23) following government approvals for national distribution;
(4) selection of a bottling and servicing partner; (5) launch of its first national ad
campaign, and (6) six mln units sold within three weeks of product launch.
Exhibit 21: China Income & Beverage Consumption Exhibit 22: Chinese Beverage Makers Revenues
30,000 140 7,000

CAGR=36%
China Per Capita Beverage Production (Litres)
Dramatic increase in Rapid revenue growth seen

China Per Capita Disposable Income (RMB)
120 6,000 by current domestic

Annual Beverage Revenue ($US Mlns)
25,000 Chinese buying power and

beverage consumption beverage producers CAGR=28%
100 5,000
20,000
80 4,000
15,000
60 3,000
CAGR=66%
10,000
40 2,000
5,000 1,000
20
0 0 0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
1997 2002 2007 2012 2017
Wahaha Kang Shi Fu Wanglaoji
Source: GLG Life Tech Corp., Freedonia, Raymond James Ltd.
 Product Strategy—ANOC’s product strategy aims to tap growing health-related

concerns by introducing branded zero and low-calorie beverage products
sweetened with stevia. The brand’s value proposition will offer consumers all-
natural, low-calorie and zero-calorie, ‘healthy’ beverage alternatives that taste
great. Management indicates that extensive market testing in China has resulted in
an ~80% favourable response to the brand and its message. Prior to entering the
joint venture, CAHFC spent over two years developing 30 beverage and 300 food
products sweetened by stevia. ANOC’s initial product line includes both zero-calorie
and low-calorie products. Low-calorie products use a stevia blend to deliver ~1/3
the calories of comparable sugar-sweetened products.
 Marketing, Sales and Distribution—As with any consumer product within the food
and beverage industry, marketing, sales, and distribution will play a key role in
ensuring ANOC’s success. To this end, ANOC’s distribution strategy leans on the
work CAHFC has carried out in developing national channels, including Wal-Mart,
Metro AG, RT Mart, and Tesco, as well as regional ANOC-branded stores. On March
17, 2011, GLG launched ANOC’s first advertising campaign on China’s only national
TV station, CCTV. The company was able to secure prime-time slots, with the
highest rating among all of the daily programs on CCTV. The national advertising
campaign was followed by opening of 13 regional offices responsible for marketing,
national channel sales and distribution. Regional distribution in China accounts for
~70% of the sales volume in the beverage industry and is crucial to successful
operations.
 Seasonality—According to GLG, there has historically been two major buying
seasons in the Chinese beverage market: January through March and July through
September. For this reason, GLG expects to only take part in 2011’s second selling
season. Furthermore, based on the launch timeline to date (see Exhibit 24), the
company expects to deliver 20% of the annual revenue run rate in 1H11. Echoing
this sentiment, we believe GLG will begin to hit a normalized sales run rate
beginning in 2012.
 Guidance & Expectations—GLG is aiming to grow the ANOC from standstill to $70-
100 mln in revenues and $0-6 mln in EBITDA during F2011. This revenue guidance
assumes launch of 12 beverage products, including the six ice-tea products recently
launched in March. ANOC’s revenue in 2011 will be heavily weighted towards the
second half of the year, with 1H11 amounting to only 20% of full forecasted
revenue. Other assumptions include Chinese food and beverage market growth of
20% in 2011 and successful product launches nationwide. Although there are no
planned capital expenditures in 2011, GLG will invest +$20 mln to support ANOC
sales and marketing efforts.
Exhibit 23: Initial ANOC Product Launch and Related Marketing
Initial Product Launch
■ Iced Black Tea (Zero Calorie)

■ Iced Black Tea (Low Calorie)
■ Iced Green Tea (Zero Calorie)
■ Iced Green Tea (Low Calorie)
■ Iced Jasmine Tea (Zero Calorie)
■ Iced Jasmine Tea (Low Calorie)
All beverages are Ready-to-Drink
Exhibit 24: GLG & ANOC Corporate Timeline
ANOC Timeline
A joint venture between GLG Life Tech (80% ownership) and CAHFC (20% ownership)
Date Detail
Dec. 14, 2010 ► Announced a JV for the sale and distribution of zero calorie food and beverage products in China
Dec. 22, 2010 ► Initiated commerical beverage production at partner CAHFC's Xioagang facility
Dec. 30, 2010 ► JV registered in Hong Kong as Dr. Zhang All Natural & Zero Calorie Beverage and Foods Group
Jan. 15, 2011 ► Appointed senior executives with extensive backrounds in food and beverage sector
Mar. 11, 2011 ► Six initial product offerings revealed: black, green, and jasmine ice tea varieties
Mar. 15, 2011 ► Announced Hon Chuan Group as a bottling partner
Mar. 17, 2011 ► Launched national advertising campaign
Apr. 20, 2011 ► Announced initial shipments of 6 mln bottles; expectation for 9 mln more through to end of April
May. 1, 2011 ► Expect beginning of second phase of ANOC marketing campaign
1H11 ► Limited 1Q11 sales; expectation for ~20% of FY forecasted revenue run rate
Revenue & Earnings Profile
GLG boasts an attractive revenue and earnings growth profile, in our view. We forecast
that F2011 and F2012 revenues will advance 186.8% and 82.2% y/y respectively, to
$169.0 mln and $308.0 mln, driven by rapid growth of the ANOC joint venture and stevia
sales to fulfill the aforementioned China Sugar Reserve opportunity. In this context, we
forecast the CSR opportunity accounting for ~24% of total revenues in F2011 and F012,
or $38 mln and $75 mln respectively. We forecast the ANOC joint venture contributing
$75 mln and $180 mln in revenues in F2011 and F2012 respectively.
Consistent with this growth profile, we expect GLG will deliver strong EBITDA and EPS
growth. Specifically, we forecast 2011 and 2012 EBITDA of $32.8 mln and $60.4 mln,
considerable increases over the $16.2 mln generated in 2010. Similarly, we expect 2011
and 2012 EPS to come in at $0.28 and $0.79, respectively.
Despite this impressive growth profile, we highlight that our 2011 estimates remain on
the low-end of management guidance (see Exhibit 25). Our revenue and EBITDA
estimates leave plenty of room for GLG to surprise to the upside.
Exhibit 25: GLG Estimates and Guidance
CDN$ 000's RJ Estimates GLG Guidance

2009 2010 1Q11E 2Q11E 3Q11E 4Q11E 2011E 2012E F2011 Lower F2011 Upper
Consolidated
Revenue $41,885 $ 58,927 $10,261 $ 30,739 $ 69,500 $ 58,500 $ 169,000 $ 308,000 $ 160,000 $ 200,000
EBITDA $ 9,394 $ 16,186 $ 2,001 $ 4,010 $ 12,751 $ 14,063 $ 32,824 $ 60,376 $ 30,000 $ 39,000
EPS $ 0.04 $ (0.11) $ (0.07) $ (0.02) $ 0.17 $ 0.20 $ 0.28 $ 0.79
Gross Margin (%) 28.9 29.8 21.4 28.3 27.8 30.1 28.3 30.8
EBITDA Margin (%) 22.4 27.5 19.5 13.0 18.3 24.0 19.4 19.6
Stevia Business
Revenue $41,885 $ 58,927 $10,261 $ 15,739 $ 32,000 $ 36,000 $ 94,000 $ 128,000 $ 90,000 $ 100,000
EBITDA $ 9,394 $ 16,186 $ 2,001 $ 3,935 $ 10,876 $ 12,600 $ 29,411 $ 44,876 $ 30,000 $ 33,000
ANOC Business
Revenue $ - $ - $ - $ 15,000 $ 37,500 $ 22,500 $ 75,000 $ 180,000 $ 70,000 $ 100,000
EBITDA $ - $ - $ - $ 75 $ 1,875 $ 1,463 $ 3,413 $ 15,500 $ - $ 6,000
Margins
Gross margins are expected to recover in 2Q11, following two quarters of pressure due
to price incentives, G&A reclassification, and higher start-up costs at the firm’s Runhao
facility. Management expects the new ANOC joint venture to garner gross margins in
the “mid-30’s” over the long-term. Taken together, we expect consolidated 2011 and
2012 gross margins of 28.3% and 30.8% respectively. On a segmented basis, we forecast
EBITDA margins for the stevia business to come in at 31.3% and 35.1% in 2011 and 2012
respectively. Due to the consumer-oriented nature of the business, we expect EBITDA
margins at ANOC to be considerably lower, at 4.6% and 8.6% respectively in 2011 and
2012. This will, in our view, weigh consolidated EBITDA margin down to 19.4% and
19.6% in 2011 and 2012 respectively, from 27.5% in 2010 (see Exhibits 26 and 27).
Exhibit 26: Segmented GLG Revenue Exhibit 27: GLG Margin History & Forecast
$350,000 $70,000 31.5

Stevia Revenue ANOC Revenue EBITDA Gross Margin (%)
31.0
$300,000 $60,000
30.5
$250,000 $50,000
Gross Margin (%)

ETBIDA (C$ 000's)
30.0
$200,000 $40,000 29.5
$150,000 29.0
$30,000
28.5
$100,000 $20,000
28.0
$50,000 $10,000
27.5
$- $- 27.0
2009 2010 2011E 2012E 2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Capital Structure
GLG is in a sound financial position, in our view, with a healthy balance sheet and
sufficient liquidity bolstered by a recent equity offering. As of 4Q10, GLG held $78.5 mln
in cash proforma of a recent equity financing, offset by debt totaling $106.2 mln. Of this
debt, $99.6 mln was short-term loans with Chinese banks. This implies a healthy
proforma net debt-to-equity ratio of 0.2x and current ratio of 1.5x (see Exhibit 28).
We expect GLG’s net debt-to-EBITDA ratio (trailing 12 months) to improve moving

forward as its growth opportunities begin to generate significant earnings. Specifically,
we forecast this ratio improving from 5.1x in 2010 to 1.4x in 2011 and 0.9x in 2012.
Interest coverage is expected to remain comfortable for GLG, thanks in part to its ability
to lock-in favourable rates. We forecast EBITDA covering interest 7.25x and 13.13x
based on our respective 2011 and 2012 estimates.
We forecast capital expenditures of ~$15 mln for GLG in 2012, a modest increase versus
our ~$8.5 mln forecast for 2011 as the ground work is laid to facilitate capacity
expansion in subsequent years. We anticipate the bulk of spending needed to double
current production capacity, estimated by management to cost ~$70-100 mln, to be
incurred in F2013 and beyond. This would ensure GLG is able to meet the anticipated
requirements of its ANOC JV described herein, as well as growing demand for stevia
product through initiatives such as CSR. To this end, we would expect GLG to use a
combination of internally-generated cash flows, additional debt, and equity raised
through the capital markets to fund this spending, all beyond our current forecast
horizon.
Exhibit 28: GLG Capital Structure & Debt Composition

Capital Structure Loan Interest
Maturity Range Lender
Shares outstanding - basic (mlns) 32,661.2 Amount Rate
Shares outstanding - fully diluted (mlns) 35,616.8 Short-term loans
Share price (as of 12-Apr-2011) 9.05 $34,707 5.52% 24-May-11 to 28-Oct-11 Agricultural Bank of China
Market Capitalization (mlns) 322,331.6 $24,144 5.36% 11-Jan-11 to 29-Jun-11 Construction Bank of China
$10,563 6.09% 28-Jun-11 to 14-Sep-11 CITIC Bank
Total Debt (mlns, mrq) 106,264.6 $30,180 5.61% 27-Jul-11 to 25-Aug-11 Bank of Communication
Cash & Short-Term Investments (mlns) 78,507.2 Total $99,594
Net Debt (mlns) 27,757.4 * Interest rates are weighted average
Enterprise Value (mlns) 350,089 Long-term loans

$99 Prime+3% 9-Jun-11 9-Jun-11 Related party (a director)
Net debt / equity (mrq) 0.2x $3,945 Prime+3% 1-Jun-12 1-Jun-12 Related party (CEO - Luke Zhang)
Net debt / EBITDA (ttm, mrq) 1.7x $1,492 Prime+4% 1-Dec-12 1-Dec-12 Related party (CEO - Luke Zhang)
Current ratio (mrq) 1.5x $696 Prime+4% 23-Dec-12 23-Dec-12 Related party (CEO - Luke Zhang)
Total $6,233
All figures are proforma for GLG's recent equity issuance CDN$ millions
We are initiating coverage on GLG with an Strong Buy rating and $12.50 target price.
Based upon the stock’s recent closing price on April 20, our target represents a 38.1%
total return to target. Below we discuss the rationale behind our target and rating.
Evolving Profile, Evolving Benchmarks—As discussed herein, we believe that GLG’s
strategic foray into the downstream, zero-calorie Chinese beverage market is poised to
reshape the firm’s revenue and earnings profile. From a valuation perspective, we argue
this evolution will similarly alter the company’s competitive landscape and relevant
valuation benchmarks. In other words, while Pure Circle arguably remains the
company’s closest peer today—and only publicly-traded stevia producer—we believe
that a number of well-established Chinese domestic and international beverage
companies (see Appendix B) will become increasingly relevant over time—many which
command richer multiples than GLG and its sweetener peers are historically accustomed
to. While not an immediate effect, we would therefore expect GLG’s consolidated
relative multiple to move higher over time reflecting the growing significance of ANOC
as a proportion of the rest of GLG’s business.
SOP Methodology Captures Distinct Prospects—We employ a sum-of-parts (SOP)
valuation methodology to derive our target as we believe it best captures the distinct
growth prospects facing GLG’s evolving business units (see Exhibit 29). We apply a 7.8x
EV/EBITDA multiple to our 2012 EBITDA estimate for the company’s core stevia extract
business, while applying a 10.0x multiple for ANOC. Although we acknowledge GLG’s
enormous, near-term growth prospects, both of these multiples are at a discount to the
firm’s sweetener, ingredient, and Asia/global beverage peers. We believe this discount
is warranted, for now, given GLG’s size and relatively early stage of development. On a
consolidated basis, our $12.50 target price equates to an 8.4x 2012 multiple.
Paying Very Little for ANOC at Current Levels; Immense Option Value—Put another
way, we believe that investors are currently attributing very little value to GLG’s new
ANOC joint venture. Specifically, our analysis suggests that investors are currently
paying only ~$1.00–1.25/share for what, we believe, will soon become the company’s
key growth engine. While we recognize investor trepidation to ascribe too much value
at such an early stage, we believe that this metric dramatically underestimates ANOC’s
earnings potential. Furthermore, as previously highlighted, our current assumptions lie
at the bottom end of management guidance for 2011, use reasonable estimates for
2012, and fail to account for the even stronger growth we expect in 2013 (and beyond),
arguably providing a great deal of conservatism at this point.
Exhibit 29: GLG Sum-of-Parts (SOP) Valuation Exhibit 30: GLG Historical EV/EBITDA Multiples
GLG SOP 2012E Target Implied Implied Value
Valuation EBITDA Multiples EVs per Share
GLG EV/EBITDA GLG EV/EBITDA (Avg.)
Segment 20
Stevia 44,876 7.8 351,023 $8.19
ANOC 15,500 10.0 155,000 $4.31
Total 60,376 506,023 $12.50 15
Less Net Debt (FY12E): 56,023

Residual Equity Value: 450,000
Shares Outstanding (fd, 000's): 36,000 10
Implied Equity Value/Share: $12.50
0
May-09 Aug-09 Nov-09 Feb-10 May-10 Aug-10 Nov-10 Feb-11
Source: Thomson One, Capital IQ, Raymond James Ltd.
GLG Income Statement, 2009 – 2012E (C$, mlns)

2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Revenue 41,885 58,927 169,000 308,000

Cost of Sales 29,790 41,365 121,202 213,019
Gross Profit 12,095 17,562 47,798 94,981
General & Admin Costs

SG&A 7,832 10,012 24,869 43,425
Stock-Based Compensation 2,479 3,308 3,900 6,000
Amortization and Depreciation (G&A) 1,409 1,417 2,000 3,020
Subtotal G&A 11,720 14,737 30,769 52,445
Income from Operations 375 2,825 17,030 42,536
Other Income (Expenses)

Interest Expense (2,695) (4,501) (4,525) (4,600)
Interest Income 101 170 450 150
Provision on Loans and Receivables (58) - - -
Foreign Exchange Grain (Loss) 2,638 (860) - -
Other Income/expense 11 - - -
Other Subtotal (3) (5,191) (4,075) (4,450)
EBT 371 (2,366) 12,955 38,086
Income Tax (Expense) Recovery 243 (587) (2,591) (7,617)

Earnings After-Tax 615 (2,953) 10,364 30,469
Non-Controlling Interest 144 19 (306) (2,160)

Net Income (Loss) 759 (2,934) 10,058 28,309
Net Income Per Share

Basic 0.04 (0.11) 0.31 0.86
Diluted 0.04 (0.11) 0.28 0.79
Diluted - Cont. Ops
Weighted average shares outstanding

Basic 20,380 26,619 32,811 33,100
Diluted 21,454 26,619 35,767 36,000
Common Size (%)

Gross Margin 28.9 29.8 28.3 30.8
SG&A 18.7 17.0 14.7 14.1
Stock-Based Compensation 5.9 5.6 2.3 1.9
Amortization and Depreciation 3.4 2.4 1.2 1.0
Income from Operations (EBIT) 0.9 4.8 10.1 13.8
Income Tax Rate (%) (65.5) (24.8) 20.0 20.0
EBITDA 9,394 16,186 32,824 60,376

EBITDA (%) 22.4 27.5 19.4 19.6
GLG Balance Sheet, 2009 – 2012E (C$, mlns)

F2009 F2010 F2011E F2012E
Current Assets
Cash and Cash Equivalents 16,018 23,817 26,746 25,242
Accounts Receivables 5,718 31,561 80,357 105,721
Taxes Recoverable 5,130 6,554 6,554 6,554
Inventories 41,149 63,307 78,622 109,719
Prepaid Expenses 8,578 4,380 8,775 13,347
Interest Receivables - 2 2 2
Total Current Assets 76,594 129,621 201,056 260,584
Non Current Assets

Property Pland and Equipment 108,312 104,099 100,399 101,399
Goodwill 7,860 7,736 7,736 7,736
Deferred Charges 95 81 81 81
Restricted Cash 10 - - -
Total Non-Current Assts 152,992 147,561 143,861 144,861
Total Assets 229,586 277,182 344,918 405,445
Current Liabilities
Short-term Loans 37,318 100,131 65,131 75,131
Accounts Payable and Accrued Liabilities 25,383 21,930 55,507 71,726
Interest Payable 269 385 385 385
Due to Related Party 7,243 99 99 99
Advances from Customers - 77 77 77
Total Current Liabilities 70,213 122,622 121,200 147,418
Non Current Liabilities

Non-Current Bank Loans 13,797 - - -
Loan Due to Related Party - 6,134 6,134 6,134
Future Income Taxes 733 643 643 643
Minority Interest 23 4 4 4
Total Non-Current Liablitities 14,553 6,781 6,781 6,781
Total Liabilities 84,766 129,403 127,980 154,199
Shareholders' Equity
Common Stock - Par Value 134,812 141,366 200,466 206,466
Additional Paid in Capital 14,910 14,960 14,960 14,960
Retained Earnings (Deficit) (11,289) (14,223) (4,166) 24,144
Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income 6,387 5,676 5,676 5,676
Total Shareholders Equity 144,819 147,779 216,937 251,246
Total Liabilities & Shareholders Equity 229,586 277,182 344,918 405,445
GLG Cash Flow Statement, 2009 – 2012E (C$, mlns)

F2009 F2010 F2011E F2012E
Net Income 758 (2,934) 10,058 28,309
Plus Items Not Affecting Cash:
Stock-Based Compensation 2,479 3,308 3,900 6,000
Amortization of Property, Plant, and Equipment 6,385 10,034 12,200 14,000
Provision on Loans and Receivables 58 (18) - -
Foreign Exchange Gain/ Loss (2,616) 202 - -
Future Income Tax Expense (Recovery) (754) (102) - -
Non-Controlling Interest (144) (19) - -
Subtotal Non-Cash Items 6,167 10,471 26,158 48,309
Net Changes in Non-Cash Working Capital (23,428) (39,191) (34,929) (44,814)
Cash Flow from Operating Activities (17,261) (28,720) (8,771) 3,496
Purchase of PP&E (34,872) (14,722) (8,500) (15,000)
Decrease (Increase) in Short-Term Investments 326 - - -
Decrease (Increase) in Restricted Cash 91 10 - -
Cash Flow from Investing Activities (34,455) (14,712) (8,500) (15,000)
Issue of Short-term Loans 58,157 53,982 - 10,000
Repayment of Short-term Loans (13,929) (3,719) (35,000) -
Issuance of Shares 33,241 - 58,200 -
Issuance of Shares on Stock Option Excercisement 291 1,319 - -
Share Issuance Costs (3,186) - (3,000) -
(Repayment) of Advance from a Customer (22,053) - - -
Increase in Advance from Customer - 74 - -
Advance from Related Parties 7,726 2,635 - -
Repayment of a Related Party Loan - (3,406) - -
Cash Flow from Financing Activities 60,248 50,883 20,200 10,000
Other Adjustments - FX Impact 123 348 - -

Net Change in Cash Flow 8,656 7,799 2,929 (1,504)
Cash, Beginning of Period 7,363 16,018 23,817 26,746
Ending Cash 16,018 23,817 26,746 25,242
Source: GLG, Life Tech Corp., Raymond James Ltd.

P/E EV/EBITDA
Market Price Div.
Shares O/S Market Cap Net Debt Ent. Value Net Debt
Company Name Ticker Fx FY END Price 2010A 2011E 2012E 2010A 2011E 2012E /Book Yield
/ Cap
(mln) (mln) (mln) (mln) (%) (x) (%)
Global Sugar & Sweetener Companies

Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp. ABC.CA CAD 31-Dec 1.15 87 100 50 150 8.1 4.6 3.1 8.0 4.7 3.2 33.3 1.6 --
Corn Products International Inc. CPO.US USD 31-Dec 53.64 76 4,093 1,467 5,560 16.6 13.2 12.1 9.6 7.0 6.6 26.4 2.1 1.0%
Global Sweeteners Holdings Ltd. 3889.HK HKD 31-Dec 1.94 1,149 2,230 518 2,748 24.6 13.0 10.5 11.8 10.0 7.7 18.8 1.2 --
Imperial Sugar Co. IPSU.US USD 30-Sep 13.01 12 160 41 201 n.m. n.m. 7.4 0.9 14.7 4.1 20.5 0.7 0.6%
Purecircle Ltd. PURE.GB GBP 30-Jun 1.06 154 163 77 240 n.m. n.m. 24.5 n.m. n.m. 13.9 32.0 1.0 --
Rogers Sugar Inc. RSI.CA CAD 30-Sep 5.41 89 480 186 666 11.4 11.4 11.3 11.4 8.2 8.0 27.9 1.7 10.6%
Xiwang Sugar Holdings Co. Ltd 2088.HK HKD 12/31 2.47 1,006 2,486 1,016 3,502 11.8 9.4 8.1 9.0 6.4 5.9 29.0 1.5 --
14.5 10.3 11.0 8.4 8.5 7.1

17.4 15.2 14.0 10.0 9.1 9.0
Niche Food & Beverage Companies

Cott Corporation COT.US USD 01-Jan 8.66 95 820 571 1,391 12.7 11.5 9.6 7.4 5.6 5.2 41.1 1.6 --
Dr. Pepper Snapple Corp DPS.US USD 31-Dec 38.87 221 8,603 1,771 10,374 16.2 14.2 13.1 9.0 8.2 7.8 17.1 3.5 2.3%
Hansen Natural Corp. HANS.US USD 31-Dec 63.81 88 5,640 (599) 5,041 28.0 23.3 20.1 14.0 12.1 10.6 (11.9) 6.9 --
National Beverage Corp. FIZZ.US USD 01-May 13.68 46 632 (98) 535 19.3 15.9 14.7 8.3 7.2 6.7 (18.3) 4.3 --
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. HAIN.US USD 30-Jun 33.72 43 1,451 214 1,664 33.1 26.1 22.8 n.m. 13.5 12.2 12.8 1.8 --
21.8 18.2 16.1 9.7 9.3 8.5
Chinese F&B Companies

Besunyen Holdings Company Limited 926.HK HKD 31-Dec 2.94 1,681 3,754 (1,170) 2,583 26.7 18.4 14.0 11.4 7.1 5.6 (45.3) 2.8 0.3%
Bright Dairy & Food Company 600597.SH CNY 31-Dec 10.44 1,049 10,954 (342) 10,612 n.m. n.m. 29.0 6.5 5.2 4.2 (3.2) 4.7 1.1%
China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. 1886.HK HKD 31-Dec 5.30 1,478 7,833 2,734 10,567 n.m. 28.5 19.7 n.m. n.m. 12.4 25.9 1.6 0.7%
Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group 600887.SH CNY 31-Dec 35.35 800 28,295 (1,798) 26,498 n.m. 26.3 21.2 n.m. 12.9 10.4 (6.8) 8.2 --
Tingyi (Cayman Islands) Holdings Corp 322.HK HKD 31-Dec 20.25 5,587 113,133 (248) 112,885 n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. n.m. (0.2) n.m. 1.6%
Uni-President China Holdings Ltd. 220.HK HKD 31-Dec 4.40 3,599 15,838 (2,262) 13,576 30.6 26.8 20.8 13.6 11.8 9.1 (16.7) 2.4 1.2%
28.6 25.0 20.9 10.5 9.3 8.4
Group Average 20.6 17.2 15.5 9.7 9.1 8.2
GLG Life Tech Corporation GLG.CA CAD 31-Dec 9.05 36 322 28 350 n.m. 32.3 11.5 n.m. 10.7 5.8 7.9 1.8 --
Notes:
2.) All estimates are from Thomson except ABC, BXI, and GLG are Raymond James estimates.
3.) P/E Values > 30.0x and EV/EBITDA multiples > 30.0x have been discarded (n.m.).
4.) GLG numbers are pro-forma of recent financing.
Risks
Supply of raw materials–GLG’s business depends on sourcing adequate supply of raw

materials (i.e. stevia leaf) required to meet customer demand. In the event of a supply
shortage, the company’s business could be materially impacted. GLG mitigates this risk
by engaging in fixed-price supply contracts with growers in key stevia growing regions.
Intellectual Property–GLG uses proprietary technologies to extract high grade stevia
extract. These technologies are patented only in China. Therefore, any competitor
developing technology equal to or better than that of GLG would have a negative impact
on GLG’s competitive position.
Product Liability–Negative public perception, product liability claims, ill effects, recalls
could harm the sales and cause consumers to avoid the product all together.
Brand name recognition–The food and beverage industry is highly competitive and
brand-conscious. Any inability to create a recognizable brand could hurt companies’
sales and competitiveness.
Customer Concentration–In the past, GLG has relied heavily on one customer: Cargill.
The reliance on sales to Cargill has dropped from 90% in 2009 to 47% of revenues in
2010. GLG’s business operations could be severely impacted if Cargill were to terminate
this relationship.
Competition–Competitors may enter the market globally, which may drive down the
price of stevia extract. Some of these competitors may also have greater financial,
technical and marketing resources and a better established customer base.
Regulation–While regulatory barriers have been dropping, there still is a number of
large regions where stevia has not yet been approved for use. Global demand for stevia
and related products may be constrained as stevia’s approval remains limited to a small
number of countries. Additional regulations are imposed on food and beverage
processing; any changes to these can materially impact the company’s operations.
Product Acceptance–To date, GLG’s revenues have been based solely on stevia and
stevia related products. If the stevia market declines or fails to achieve greater
acceptance, the company will not be able to grow its business and maintain profitability.
Furthermore, the food and beverage industry is fast-paced, with consumer tastes and
preferences changing rapidly. The inability to develop innovative products that meet
consumer demand and changing preference could have a negative, material effect on
GLG’s sales.
Third Party Distribution–GLG relies heavily on third party distribution for the sale and
distribution of its products. In the event that distributors are distracted from selling the
product or do not place sufficient effort into managing and selling stevia products, GLG’s
sales could be adversely affected.
Foreign Exchange – GLG’s financial results are largely affected by the currency exchange
rate between USD and RMB. The company generates USD denominated revenue and
accrues expenses denominated in RMB, while at the same time it reports financial
results in CAD. In China, currency conversion is regulated by the State Administration for
Foreign Exchange (“SAFE”) and is subject to a number of rules and regulations. Changes
in the government policy with respect to RMB conversion can materially affect GLG’s
business. A significant adjustment to the exchange rate may adversely impact the
company’s results from operations.
Foreign Operations–Because a significant proportion of the company’s operations are
conducted in China, operations are exposed to significant political, economic, and other
risks associated with the PRC. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited
to: high rates of inflation; labour unrest; renegotiation or nullification of existing
concessions, licenses, permits and contracts; changes in taxation policies; restrictions on

foreign exchange; government corruption; changing political conditions; currency
controls and governmental regulations that favour or require the awarding of contracts
to local contractors or require foreign contractors to employ citizens of, or purchase
supplies from, a particular jurisdiction.
Infrastructure–The company’s ability to carry on its operations in China in a profitable
manner are highly dependent on continued provision of reliable infrastructure by local
Chinese governments including public highways, railways, ports, shipping lines, power
sources and water supply. Unusual or infrequent weather phenomena, malfunction,
ineffective scheduling, sabotage, government or other interference in the maintenance
or provision of such infrastructure could adversely affect the company’s business and
operations, financial condition and results of operations.
Dependence on key personnel–GLG’s business is built on relationships its key
employees, primarily Dr. Luke Zhang, have established with the Chinese government
and strategic customers. The loss of any key personnel and in particular Dr. Luke Zhang
could have an adverse effect on the company’s business. For example, Cargill Inc. may
terminate the strategic alliance and supply agreement in the event that Dr. Zhang
ceases to be actively involved in GLG’s business.
Company Citations
Dean Foods DF NYSE NC
Kraft Foods Inc. KFT NYSE NC
Tesco Corporation TESO NASDAQ NC
Unilever NV UN NYSE NC
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. WMT NYSE US$ 53.37 1 RJ & Associates
covered.
Canada Research
®
RAYMOND JAMES
April 27, 2011

Viterra Inc.
VT-TSX Company Report - Initiation of Coverage
Arash Yazdani MBA (Associate) | 604.659.8280 | arash.yazdani@raymondjames.ca Market Perform 3
VT: Initiating Coverage: Canada`s Global Grain Giant; Feeding the 52-Week Range C$12.28 - C$6.96
World Market Data
Market Capitalization (mln) C$4,126
Event Current Net Debt (mln) C$1,518
We are initiating coverage on Viterra Inc. (‘VT’) with a Market Perform rating Enterprise Value (mil.) C$5,644
and $12.50 target price, representing a 13.5% total return based upon the Average Daily Volume (000s) 1,240
stock’s closing price on April 20, 2011. Dividend/Yield C$0.10/0.9%
Action Key Financial Metrics
2010A 2011E 2012E
Notwithstanding our positive view toward VT’s strong competitive position and
P/E
macro fundamentals, we believe the stock is appropriately valued at this time. 23.7x 13.1x 14.4x
Analysis EV/EBITDA
Viterra is a world-leading international grain handler and agri-business 10.9x 7.8x 8.1x
enterprise boasting unrivalled infrastructure throughout western Canada and EBITDA Margin (%)
South Australia, two of the world’s most prominent growing and export 6.3% 7.5% 7.2%
Margin (C$/tonne shipped)
regions. Complimenting its dual-origin grain sourcing capabilities, the company
NA NA NA
operates a diversified platform of Agri-Products and Processing assets that Grain Shipments (mln tonnes)
enable it to capture margin at all stages of the value chain and bestow it with a NA NA NA
formidable competitive position, in our view. BVPS (mrq, tangible) C$9.79
We believe the long-term outlook for global food and grain demand remains Net Debt/Trailing EBITDA (mrq) 2.4x
robust, particularly in emerging markets where population growth and rising Company Description
disposable incomes are fuelling a shift in dietary patterns toward high-quality, Viterra Inc. is a leading vertically integrated Canadian
nutritious food. Many of these same regions are expected to increasingly rely grain handling and food ingredients company
operating across western Canada and internationally.
on imported products to satisfy demand due to inadequate domestic supply.
The corollary, in our view, is that grain handlers with global sourcing
capabilities will become increasingly vital to global food security over time.
VT has undergone a transformational change over the past 5 years, executing
on a strategy aimed at bolstering its competitive position, reducing weather-
related risk, and smoothing earnings volatility. We view this strategy positively.
We also expect further complimentary moves to surface with time, suggesting
VT boasts an attractive long-term growth profile. However, with only 13.5%
upside to our initiating target price, we prefer to wait for a more opportune
entry point before becoming more constructive with our rating.
Valuation
Our $12.50 target price is based upon a 7.0x EV/EBITDA target multiple applied
to our F2012E estimate. This multiple is near the middle of the company’s
historical trading range between 6.0x and 8.5x (see Valuation &
Recommendation section for more details).
Jan Apr Jul Oct Year (mln) (mln)
2010A C$0.03 C$0.05 C$0.25 C$0.14 C$0.47 C$8,256 C$518
2011E 0.27A 0.16 0.34 0.09 0.85 9,675 728
2012E NA NA NA NA 0.77 9,689 701
Source: Raymond James Ltd., Thomson One. EPS is shown as f.d., from continuing operations.
Canada Research | Page 134 of 183 Viterra Inc.
Table of Contents
Risks .................................................................................................................................................... 169
Viterra Inc. Canada Research | Page 135 of 183
Investment Overview
Positive Long-Term Grain Fundamentals—As reviewed in our Apr-27-11 Industry Report

Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel, we believe the long-term outlook for global
food and grain demand remains robust, particularly in emerging markets where
population growth and rising disposable incomes are fuelling a seismic shift in dietary
patterns toward high-quality, nutritious food. However, given that many of these same
regions suffer from inadequate domestic grain supplies, we believe they will increasingly
rely on imported products to satisfy demand. The corollary, in our view, is that
international grain handlers with global sourcing capabilities will become increasingly
vital to global food security over time.
Dominant Footprint in Key Export Markets; High Barriers to Entry—Viterra is one of
the world’s leading international grain handlers and agri-business enterprises boasting
unrivalled infrastructure throughout western Canada and South Australia, two of the
planet's most prominent growing and export regions. In Canada, Viterra controls 1.9 mln
tonnes of elevator storage capacity, or roughly 45.0% of the western Canada market,
and 1.3 mln of storage capacity at six major port terminals, affording the firm
unmatched export capabilities. In South Australia, Viterra controls approximately 95.0%
of the state’s grain handling and storage infrastructure with 10.3 mln tonnes of storage
capacity and eight export facilities. Collectively, we believe these long-lived,
infrastructure-like assets provide a sound competitive position and erect steep barriers
to entry.
Geographically Diversified, Dual-Origin Sourcing Capabilities—Viterra’s 2009
acquisition of Australian-based ABB Inc. was a transformational deal that bestowed the
firm with dual-origin sourcing capabilities and helped diversify its weather-related
exposure. As a dominant growing region for wheat, barley, and canola, it also came with
a world class malting business and greater export access to Asian markets. We believe
these attributes, coupled with the firm’s broader strategy to diversify its product
offering, will continue to reduce Viterra’s risk profile and smooth earnings volatility over
time.
Margin Capture at All Stages of Supply Chain—Viterra’s core Grain Handling unit is
complimented by the company’s Agri-Products and Processing platforms that facilitate
margin capture at all stages of the supply chain. In western Canada, Viterra operates
the largest network of retail stores, totaling 261 locations, boasting a 34.0% market
share in key crop inputs (seed, crop protection products and fertilizer) and ag-
equipment. Downstream, the firm’s processing activities include the world’s largest
industrial oat miller and N.A.’s third largest pasta producer.
Organic & Acquisitive Growth in Food Processing—Viterra has strategically identified
food processing as a business unit primed for organic and acquisitive growth. Citing
value-added margins, predictable demand growth, and attractive diversification
benefits, this strategy aligns well with the company’s broader objective to reduce its
global risk profile. The company also expects to leverage its up-stream market position
in grain handling in order to extract additional margins. Viterra’s recent acquisitions of
Dakota Growers and 21st Century Grain Processing exemplify this strategy. We expect
more to come.
Strong Management Team—CEO Mayo Schmidt has accomplished a great deal in a
relatively brief tenure, transforming Viterra from a regional, government-controlled co-
operative (i.e. Saskatchewan Wheat Pool) into one of the world’s leading agri-business
companies today. With a demonstrated ability to strategically identify high value targets
and subsequently integrate such acquisitions, we believe Mr. Schmidt and his team are
well suited to continue growing the business going forward.

target price, we advise investors to patiently wait for a more opportune entry point.
Company Overview
Viterra Inc. (VT) is a Canadian-based grain handling and food ingredients company with
vertically-integrated international operations throughout Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, and the United States (see Exhibit 1). VT’s operations are segmented into three
inter-related agri-business units: (i) Grain Handling and Marketing (‘Grain Handling’); (ii)
Agri-Products; and (iii) Processing (see Exhibit 2). Based in Regina, Canada, the company
has ~5,500 employees and is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (VT-TSX) in addition
to its CDI’s trading in Australia (VTA-ASX).
Exhibit 1: VT’s Global Footprint
Exhibit 2: VT’s Operating Divisions

SEGMENT
Grain Handling & Marketing Agri-Products Processing
Company Services: Premiere provider of grain products. Sale of seed, crop protection products, fertilizer, Production of semi-finished & finished food
Accumulates, stores, transports and markets wool equipment and financial products to farmers. ingredients for downstream consumer food
grains and oilseeds. products companies and food processors
Processing of raw materials into livestock

feed, ingredients and nutritional supplements
Segment Assets: W. CANADA W. CANADA NORTH AMERICA

Grain Elevators: Food
►66 High Throughput Elevators ►261 retail locations ►42% stake in Prairie Malt (malt)
►17 Conventional Elevators ►34% stake in Canadian Fertilizers Ltd ► 2 pasta production facilities - 254,000 tpy
►8 specialty plants ►22 branded lable crop protection products ► 2 wheat mills - 101,240 tpy capacity
►Markets and distributes proprietary seeds ►1 canola crushing plant - 340,000 tpy capacity
Port Terminals: ►Oat milling - 540,000 tpy capacity
►Vancouver (Cascadia, Pacific) ►Viterra Financial - ~$1.5 bln
►Prince Rupert (54.2%) Feed
►Thunder Bay (Terminals 7, A, B, C) ►100% ownership in Unifeed Hi-Pro Inc
AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND

Food - Australia
►108 Grain Storage & Handling Facilities ►12 sale depots ►8 malting facilities - 500,000 tpy
►8 Bulk Grain Export Terminals ►5 warehouses
►Wool - 40/60 buyer/broker split Feed - New Zealand - 330,000 tpy
►Fertilizer - sells ~130,000 tpy ► 4 feed mills
►Seed - equity ownership in University of ► 2 maize processing plants
Adelaide Barley Breeding Program ► 1 dairy blending plant
► 3 owned bulk storage facilities
► 5 leased bulk storage facilities
Business Mix
Grain Handling is VT’s largest business by a healthy margin, accounting for 64.6% of
2010 EBITDA, while Agri-Products and Processing made up the residual 20.5% and
14.8%, respectively (see Exhibit 3). Grain Handling’s proportion of EBITDA generation
has grown considerably versus its 49.2% share in 2008, due primarily to VT’s recent
acquisition of Australia-based ABB (see Exhibit 4). This acquisition also served to
enhance geographic diversification, with Canada representing 33.3% of 2010 revenue,
versus 58.2% only two years prior. Australia, by comparison, accounted for 13.1% of
2010 revenue, a considerable increase versus 3.3% in 2008.
Exhibit 3: 2010 VT’s EBITDA by Segment Exhibit 4: Historical EBITDA by Segment
700,000 Grain Handling Agri Products Processing

Agri
Products
600,000
20.5%
$ EBITDA in thousands
500,000
Processing
400,000
(Food &
Feed)
14.8% 300,000
Grain
Handling & 200,000
Marketing
64.6%
100,000
-
2008 2009 2010
1. Grain Handling and Marketing

VT’s Grain Handling segment is in the business of sourcing, storing, transporting and
marketing grains and oilseeds globally. With a diverse network of storage facilities (i.e.
grain elevators), processing plants, and port terminals situated across North America
and Australia’s prime growing regions, VT has rapidly evolved into one of the world’s
leading grain handlers boasting unrivalled scale and export distribution capabilities.
 Dominant Canadian Footprint—VT owns and operates a geographically diversified
network of 83 grain elevators across Canada with 1.9 mln tonnes of capacity,
equivalent to roughly a 45.0% of western Canada’s storage market. As a whole,
approximately ~80.0% of the market is controlled by VT and two other major
players, JRI and Cargill (see Exhibit 5). VT’s elevators are logistically advanced, with
92.0% of its capacity equipped to handle 50 and 100 railcar loadings. Given the high
throughput and scale advantages these assets provide, the firm is able to capitalize
on healthy financial incentives offered by the rail carriers (up to $8.00/tonne). VT
also controls 1.5 mln tonnes of port terminal capacity at Vancouver, Prince Rupert,
and Thunder Bay, offering unrivalled export access to global markets (see Exhibit 6).
Collectively, these core infrastructure assets position VT as the country’s most
formidable grain handler, facilitating trade and distribution to more than 50
countries. The company operates sales and trading offices in western Canada as
well as Singapore, Geneva, Tokyo, Beijing, Kiev, Naples and Hamburg.
 Leading Footprint in South Australia—VT boasts an unrivalled storage and

distribution footprint in the state of South Australia (see Exhibit 7), the country’s
third largest grain growing region that accounts for ~17.0% of total output (see
Exhibit 8). South Australia is also a key grain exporting region, with ~63.0% of all
grains produced in the state destined for export. Secured through the 2009
acquisition of ABB, VT controls ~10.3 mln tonnes of storage capacity consisting of
7.1 mln tonnes of inland grain storage capacity and 3.2 mln tonnes of terminal
capacity at eight facilities, including three terminals capable of loading Panamax-
sized vessels (52,000-75,000 deadweight tonnes).
Exhibit 5: Canadian Grain Handling Market Share Exhibit 6: VT’s Canadian Grain Infrastructure
Independent Viterra
30% 31%
British Columbia Manitoba - 259,930 MT

► 2 port terminals - 691,490 MT ►12 elevators
► 2 elevators - 17,700 MT ► 1 specialty plants
Sask. - 1,133,710 MT
Grain ►47 elevators
Co-op / Fuel ► 2 specialty plants
Companies
Companies
19% Ontario - 593,680 MT
20% Alberta - 516,440 MT ►3 port terminals
► 21 elevators
► 5 specialty plants
Exhibit 7: VT’s South Australian Infrastructure Exhibit 8: Australian Wheat Growing Regions
South
Australia
South Australia
►108 storage and handling facilities - 7.1 mln tonnes
► 8 port terminals 3.2 mln tonnes
Source: Viterra Inc., ABARE, Raymond James Ltd.
2. Agri-Products
VT’s Agri-Products segment engages in the sale of seeds, crop protection products,
fertilizers, and small scale equipment to farmers while also providing financing and
agronomy services. Through 261 retail locations, VT controls an estimated 34.0% of the
western Canadian agri-products market. The company also operates 12 retail stores in
Australia and participates in the wool business.
Canada
 Fertilizer Represents Core Backbone—Fertilizer is the principal component of VT’s
Agri-Products business mix, accounting for 44.0% of 2010 segment sales. Roughly
34.0% of its fertilizer needs are sourced through a joint venture with CF Industries
in Canadian Fertilizer Ltd., operator of a world-class urea and ammonia fertilizer
plant. The balance of its fertilizer requirements are sourced on the open market.
 Creating a Competitive Advantage through Branded Crop Protection Products—
Through a network of retail locations, VT offers a variety of crop protection
products (CPP) including: herbicides, insecticides, fungicides and seed treatments.
The company’s focus has been on developing branded private label products,
currently at 22, in an attempt to compete with an increasing number of generic
products offered in this mature market.
 Proprietary Seed Business—VT’s seed distribution business, the largest in Canada,
focuses on both publicly available and proprietary variants. High-yield proprietary
canola, flax, barley, and wheat seeds are developed in partnership with research
centers at the University of Saskatchewan and University of Adelaide.
 Financial Products: An Important Relationship Builder—Through VT’s Financial
business, the company offers loan services to Agri-Product custumers and, to a
much smaller extent, customers in the livestock and animal feed business. VT acts
as an agent for a Canadian chartered bank, and in turn, extends credit to farms who
use the funds to purchase agri-products from the company. During the 2010 fiscal
year, approved credit for agri-product customers amounted to $1.4 bln and an
additional $107 mln for livestock customers.
Australia
VT’s retail presence in the region is still relatively small compared to some of its
Australian peers. Hence, programs such as a direct sales model are used in an attempt
to differentiate.
 Fertilizer & Crop Protection—VT’s fertilizer operations in Australia include
importing, blending, wholesale, and retail distribution across South Australia,
Victoria and New South Wales, with sales amounting to ~130,000 tpy.
Approximately 80.0% of these sales are conducted through third-party agents.
 Wool—VT’s wool business makes up a significant portion of the Ag-Products
segment. Transactions in the wool industry are handled through auctions where VT
acts as both a buyer and a seller (40/60 split).
 Seeds—VT’s Australian seed portfolio consists of 18 varieties, primarily wheat and
barley since these two grains account for 80.0% of all Australian grain production.
An equity ownership in the University of Adelaide Barley Breeding Program allows
VT first right of refusal over new varieties.
3. Processing
VT produces food ingredients for downstream consumer food products and food
processors around the world, as well as feed and nutritional supplements for the animal
feed industries in Canada, United States and New Zealand (see Exhibit 9). This segment,
in our view, has the most attractive prospect for growth given the relative high margins,
consistent demand profile, and fragmented nature of the industry.
Food Processing
 World’s Largest Industrial Oat Miller—VT’s position as the world’s largest industrial
oat miller is underpinned by 540,000 tpy of processing capacity that results in
335,000 tpy of finished product. The company’s oat operations are strategically
located in Canada’s oat growing regions of Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Manitoba
(prairies provinces produce over 90.0% of Canada’s oats) and Nebraska. Viterra
exports 90.0% of its oat production volume, primarily to the United States but also
to Central and South America.
 Third Largest Pasta Processor in N.A.—With last year’s acquisition of Dakota
Growers, VT became a leading producer and marketer of pasta in the United States.
The company has the capacity to grind 340,000 tpy of durum wheat and process
254,000 tpy of dry pasta.
 Significant Canola Press Footprint—VT’s 1,000-tonne per day canola processing
plant in Manitoba is one of the largest of its kind in the world. Product, consisting of
meal and oil, is distributed primarily to Canadian and US markets.
 Australia—In conjunction with the company’s recent ABB acquisition, VT became
Australia’s largest malt processor with 500,000 tpy of capacity spread across eight
plants (see Exhibit 10). With 80.0% of its production destined for export, VT
consumes 600,000 tonnes, or 25.0%, of Australia’s malt barley crop on an annual
basis. The company is constructing a malt processing and container packaging
facility in Minto, New South Wales which will add 110,000 tpy of malting capacity
and 147,000 tpy of grain handling.
Exhibit 9: VT’s North American Processing Facilities Exhibit 10: Australian Barley Growing Regions & VT’s facilities
Canola Processing
Feed Producs
Malt
Oat & Specialty Grain Milling
Pasta Processing
Viterra’s malting facilities
Source: ABARE, Viterra Inc., Raymond James Ltd.
Feed Products
VT’s processing business is also engaged in the manufacturing and distribution of feed
products and related commodity ingredients. The company sells to a diverse range of
dairy, beef, and poultry livestock producers through operations strategically located in
North America and New Zealand.
 North America— Manufacturing is carried out in 14 facilities throughout Canada
and the US, with a combined operating capacity of nearly 2.5 mln tpy (see Exhibit 9
above). In the United States it operates through a wholly-owned subsidiary Unifeed
Hi-Pro Inc (‘Hi-Pro’).
 New Zealand—VT is the largest feed manufacturer in New Zealand, operating a
network of maize processing, feed milling, dairy blending and storage facilities with
capacity to produce 330,000 tpy of feed. With New Zealand a net feed importer, VT
supplies additional product through its international network and provides ~46.0%
of the country’s feed requirements.
Company History
Viterra was established in 1924 as the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool (‘SWP’) co-operative.
The company first began trading publicly under the symbol ‘SWP’ following an IPO in
1996 on the Toronto Stock Exchange. In 2007, the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool acquired
Agricore United and changed its name to Viterra Inc.
In September 2009, VT completed the acquisition of Australian ABB Grain Ltd. for an
implied enterprise value of AUD$2.1 bln, significantly expanding its global reach and
providing access to year-round supply (see Exhibit 11). Along with Canada and China,
Australia is one of the top grain producing countries in the world. More recently, VT
completed the acquisition of Dakota Growers Pasta Company (North America’s leading
producer of dry pasta products) and 21st Century Grain Processing (US-based processor
of oats, wheat and custom coated grains) in May and August of 2010, respectively.
Exhibit 11: VT’s Historical Timeline as a Public Company
Acquired
Associated
D = Dom estic Proteins L.P.
C$64 mln
I = International
(Jun. 09)
E = Equity
Acquired Acquired 21st

Renamed Viterra ABB Grain Grain Processing
AUD$2.1 billion US$90.5 mln
(Sept. 09) (Aug. 10)
Added to
S&P/TSX Index
Acquired
(2005)
Agricore United Acquired V-S
C$1.9 billion Feed & Agri Acquired Acquired Dakota
(Jun. 07) Supplies Lakeside Gowers Pasta
Listed on the
N.A. Fertilizer Company
TSX
(Apr. 08) N.A. US$218.2 mln
(1996)
(Sept. 09) (May. 10)
1996 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Note: Transaction sizes are Raised $920 mln Raised $460.5 mln Raised $450 mln through
implied enterprise values (EV). through four subscription through common subscription receipt offering
receipt offerings sharea and over- to help fund ABB acquisition
(2007) allotment options (May 2009)
(May 2008)
Source: Viterra Inc., Capital IQ, Raymond James Ltd.
Management Team
Viterra’s senior management team is comprised of executives with extensive agri-

business backgrounds, most notably on the grain handling side.
Mayo Schmidt, President & CEO—Mayo Schmidt first joined the SWP in 2000 as CEO,
adding the role of President in 2005. Mr. Schmidt continued in these roles following the
organization’s 2007 transition into today’s VT. A winner of numerous leadership and
executive awards, Mr. Schmidt’s pre-Viterra experience includes leading the
reorganization of ConAgra’s Global Specialty Crops businesses, leading that company’s
expansion into Canada, as well as holding a number of key management positions at
General Mills. He is a member of the C.D. Howe Institute, a contributor to Harvard
University’s Private and Public, Scientific, Academic and Consumer Food Policy Group
(PAPSAC), and Vice Chair of The Conference Board of Canada, a leading public policy and
economic research institute. Finally, Mr. Schmidt’s impressive portfolio includes serving
as an Executive in Residence at Washburn’s School of Business, serving as a member of
the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, and a Director at the Global Transportation
Hub Authority.
Rex McLennan, CFO—Rex McLennan joined the VT executive team in February 2008
after completing a two year mandate as Executive Vice-President and CFO of the
Vancouver 2010 Olympic Organizing Committee. Previously, Mr. McLennan contributed
to the successful growth of Placer Dome Inc., a major global mining company where he
held the position of Executive Vice-President and CFO from 1997 to 2005 following prior
VP, Treasurer, and General Manager roles. Mr. McLennan’s roots are in the energy
business, starting out with a 12 year career at Imperial Oil Limited, a major publicly
traded affiliate of Exxon-Mobil Corporation. His education includes an MBA in Finance
and Accounting from McGill University in Montreal and a Bachelor of Science Degree in
Mathematics and Economics from the University of British Columbia. He is also a
member of the Financial Executives Institute.
Fran Malecha, COO—Mr. Malecha first joined Viterra (as SWP) as Vice-President of
Grain Merchandising and Transportation in 2000. He was appointed COO in 2007,
charged with overseeing the company’s Grain, Agri-Products, International Grain, and
South East Asia operations. With deep experience in the Ag business sector, Mr.
Malecha serves as a Director for Canadian Fertilizers Ltd., as well as being a member of
Crop Life Canada and an Executive Committee member of the Western Grain Elevators
Association. Prior to joining VT, Mr. Malecha worked in the grain division of General
Mills.
Rob Gordon, Senior VP and President South East Asia—Rob Gordon joined Viterra in
January 2010 following a successful career at Dairy Farmers Ltd. Mr. Gordon led the
Australian company’s transformation from a farmer owned co-operative to publicly
traded corporation. Prior to that, he was a Managing Director for Goodman Fielder
Consumer Foods Pty Ltd. His experience also includes multinational consumer goods
company Unilever, where he held various positions across Europe and Australia. On the
education side, Mr. Gordon holds a Bachelor of Science, Honours in engineering from
the University of Portsmouth, UK.
Viterra shares have traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) under the symbol “VT”
since 2007. Prior to that, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool was a publicly traded company
since 1996 under the symbol “SWP”. VT has been dual-listed on the Australian Stock
Exchange (ASX) under the symbol “VTA” through a Depository Interest structure since
September 2009. Its TSX-listed shares are substantially more liquid, with a three-month
average daily trading volume of 1.15 mln shares versus 20,000 on the ASX.
There are approximately 371.7 mln shares outstanding (as of March 7, 2011) of which
0.46% are owned by insiders. VT’s shareholder base is split 34.2% / 65.3% amongst
institutions and retail investors (see Exhibit 12). We note the Alberta Investment
Management Corp. (AIMCO) is the second largest single shareholder with a 17.1% stake.
The top five holders own 30.3% of VT’s outstanding shares.
VT currently pays a semi-annual dividend of C$0.10 equating to an annual yield of
approximately 1.0%. This dividend was recently commenced on December 1, 2010 with
the first payment on February 10, 2011 to holders of record on January 20, 2011.
Exhibit 12: Shareholder Summary (as of March 7, 2011)

Shareholder Summary
Shares Held / Controlled % O.S. Insiders
Management. Directors and Other Insiders 0.5% Corporation/
Mayo Schmidt 414,455 0.11%
Institutions
Thomas Birks 150,000 0.04%
34.2%
M.F. (Max) Venning 139,679 0.04%
Herbert C. Pinder Jr. 138,333 0.04%
Timothy Hearn 80,000 0.02%
Top Management & Insiders 922,467 0.25%
Alberta Investment Management Corp. 63,454,500 17.07%
Third Avenue Management 15,959,451 4.29%
Global Thematic Partners 12,212,591 3.29%
CI Investments Inc 12,118,470 3.26%
ProFund Advisors LLC 8,753,160 2.35%
Top Corporations / Institutions 112,498,172 30.27% Other
Total Corporations / Institutions 127,125,031 34.20% 65.3%
Other 242,861,321 65.34%

Source: Viterra Inc., Capital IQ, Thomson, Bloomberg, Raymond James Ltd.
Industry Analysis
As reviewed in our Apr-27-2011 Industry Report Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs.
Fuel, we believe the long-term outlook for global food and grain demand remains
robust, particularly in emerging markets where population growth and rising disposable
incomes are fuelling a seismic shift in dietary patterns towards higher quality, nutritious
food. However, given that many of these regions have inadequate available domestic
grain supplies, we believe they will increasingly rely on imports to satisfy demand. The
corollary, in our view, is that international grain handlers with global sourcing
capabilities will become increasingly vital to food security over time. In order to help
investors better understand the industries within which Viterra operates, below we
outline several industry attributes and sector trends that help support our broader
investment thesis.
1. Canadian Crop Mix: The Rise of Pulses, Oilseeds and Specialty Crops
Western Canadian grain production, while obviously subject to seasonal variations, has
been generally mean reverting (i.e. stable) over the past eight years, averaging 46.6 mln
tonnes per year (see Exhibit 13). At the same time, the relative mix of products has been
shifting with a strong upward trend in the production of pulses, oilseeds and specialty
crops as farmers look to maximize their profit per acre and total return on investment
(see Exhibit 14). Canola’s share of major grains production, for example, soared from
14.0% in 2003/04 to an estimated 25.0% in the 2010/11 crop year. Specialty crops, as a
whole, experienced CAGR of 3.4% in Canada between 1999 and 2009. In the average
year, approximately 65.0% of the total crop output moves through the Canadian
elevator system, generating revenue opportunities for Canada’s largest grain handlers.
Viterra has evolved with these crop trends, recently equipping its elevator system to
adapt with this change in mix and cater to those crops with strong export markets.
Exhibit 13: Western Canadian 6 Major Grains Production Exhibit 14: Western Canadian Production by Crop
60 30
All Wheat Coarse Grain Oilseeds Special Crops
6 Grains Production (mln tonnes)
50 25
40 20
Million Tonnes
30 15
20 10
10 5
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11f
Source: Stats Canada, Canadian Grain Commission, Raymond James Ltd.
2. Grain Handling Consolidation—A Handful of Large Incumbents

Consolidation has become a prominent theme in the Canadian and Australian grain
handling sectors over the past decade. As a result, both regions are now dominated by a
handful of large incumbents at the expense of many smaller regional players. VT has
been an active participant in this consolidation, both domestically and abroad,
evidenced by its 2006 acquisition of Agricore in Canada and its 2009 acquisition of ABB
in Australia.
 Canada: Concentrated Storage Infrastructure & Market Share—Canadian grain
handling infrastructure and primary grain market positions have become very
concentrated as a result of the aforementioned consolidation trend. According to
industry data, the top three industry competitors now control ~60.0% of Canada’s
storage capacity (see Exhibit 15). When measured by the total amount of grain
receipts captured, the same top three players capture a ~81.0% market share (see
Exhibit 16). Looking forward, we expect further consolidation as smaller industry
players face rising capital costs.
Exhibit 15: Market Share by Number of Elevators Exhibit 16: Primary Market Share by Grain Receipts
50.0%
45%
45.0%
Market Share (Grain, by receipts)
Viterra 40.0%
30%
35.0%
Other
40% 30.0%
25.0% 23%
20.0% 19%
15.0% 13%
JRI 10.0%
17%
Cargill 5.0%
13%
0.0%
Viterra JRI Cargill Other
Source: Canadian Grain Commission, Viterra Inc., Raymond James Ltd.
 Australia: A Mirror of Canada’s Industry Concentration—Deregulation of the

Australian agricultural landscape has led to consolidation and increased
concentration. Three grain companies, made up of Viterra, GrainCorp, and CBH
Group, dominate the Australian market with GrainCorp in the east and CBH in the
west. VT is the only player in Australia that operates in the grain handling and
marketing, agri-products and processing segments, while GrainCorp and CBH focus
only on handling and processing (see Exhibit 17).
Exhibit 17: Australian Competitive Landscape
Grain Corp is prominent in

eastern part of Australia
► Owns 100% of port
CBH is a leader in Western Australia terminals in NSW and
► Owns 100% of port terminals in the region Queensland
► Has majority stake in port
terminals in Victoria
Viterra dominates in South Australia

►95% of all storage and handling systems
►100% of grain port terminals
Storage & Handling Merchandising Agri-products Processing
Viterra
GrainCorp
CBH Group
AWB / Agrium
Elders
Cargill
3. Regulation: Canada vs. Australia

Regional mix is a potential profit driver for VT given the significant regulatory
differences that exist between their dual-origination sources: Canada and Australia.
Furthermore, margins within Canada vary based on the mix between regulated and
higher-margin unregulated grains. In recent years, the company has increased
unregulated grains to ~50.0% as a proportion of its total Canadian mix. Australian
operations are typically higher margin, due to the deregulated nature of the market and
VT’s ability to leverage its infrastructure.
 Canada—The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) has a monopoly over the domestic sale
and export trade of western Canadian wheat for human consumption and barley for
malting. Agents facilitating trade in these “Board Grains”, such as VT, receive fairly
predictable margins based on a per-tonne fee paid by the CWB that strips out any
commodity and currency risk. Furthermore, the CWB arranges for the flow of these
grains into the elevator system, transacts the sale, and pays for all shipping costs,
though only once the product has been unloaded at the port terminal or at a North
American end-user facility. Board grains currently make up ~50.0% of VT’s total
grain handling volume. Non-board grains, such as canola, oats, flax, and peas, make
up the remaining balance. Profit potential on non-board grains is higher for VT
given that it is able to generate margin at each point of the value chain, aided by its
ability to maintain total control over logistics. Furthermore, VT’s network of high-
capacity terminals allows it to transport +80.0% of volumes on 50-car and 100-car
trains in order to maximize railway incentives.
 Australia—The Australian market operated a single-desk system, much like

Canada’s CWB, until deregulation in 2008. Today, licensed exporters complying with
the Wheat Export Marketing Act are given the opportunity to compete for rights to
market grains that flow into the storage and handling system. As a result, while the
vast majority of South Australia’s crop enters VT’s storage system, it only markets
~33.0% of the product. However the company does market a significant amount of
grain originated from other parts of Australia, making up ~74.0% of total
merchandised volumes originated in 2010. The level of marketing it engages in is
determined by the firm’s appetite to take on risk in the form of exposure to
commodity pricing. VT assumes a pricing structure competitive with provinces
throughout Australia to ensure any product it does not market is picked up by other
firms.
Deregulation in Canada would, potentially, be a positive development for VT.
Specifically, VT would have the potential to capture higher margins by controlling the
entire supply chain. In our view, however, deregulation in Canada remains unlikely as all
three opposition political parties have indicated support for the current single-desk
system. As well, eight of the CWB’s ten farmer directors are supporters of the single-
desk system, making change from within equally unlikely. Regardless, we note that the
current system does bode well for increases in VT’s market share within Canada, given
the firm’s unparalleled ability to handle long trains and the fact that allocation of non-
tendered grains are weighted by the CWB to favour the largest handlers.
4. Australian Barley—Helping Satisfy Growing Beer Demand in Asia
VT has grown to become the largest maltster in Australia, with ~80.0% of its malted
barley destined for export, in large part to Asia. According to CWB estimates, Australia
accounts for 31.0% of 2010-11 world malt barley exports (see Exhibit 18). The malting
business represents a growth driver for VT given that barley is Australia’s second largest
crop (10-yr avg production of ~7.4 mln tonnes) and its close proximity to the burgeoning
Asian market. Specifically, the Asian beer market is expected to grow at ~5.0% annually,
reaching 38.0% of total global consumption by 2015, according to the Canadian Global
Beer Trends Report. A significant portion of malted barley supply for this beer is
estimated to come from Australia. This Asian demand is most significantly driven by
China, which imports ~65.0% of its annual 3+ mln tonnes in malted barley needs. Finally,
VT’s position in the state of South and West Australia is ideal, given that these are two
largest producing regions of barley (see Exhibit 19) in the country. VT sources ~75.0% of
its barley volume from South Australia and West Australia.
Exhibit 18: World Malt Barley Exporters Exhibit 19: Australian Barley Production
14 100.0%
Other
4% Argentina Total SA + W. Australia as % of all AUS
Australian Barley Production (Million tonnes)
90.0%
25% 12
S.A + W. Australia as % of all production
EU
80.0%
24%
10 70.0%
60.0%
8
50.0%
6
40.0%
4 30.0%
Canada
16% 20.0%
Australia 2
31% 10.0%
0.0%
1999-00 2001-02 2003-04 2005-06 2007-08 2009-10
Source: CWB,Viterra Inc., Raymond James Ltd.
Company Strategy
VT has undergone a transformational change over the past decade, executing on its
vision of becoming a leading global agri-business enterprise. Key components of this
strategy include management’s desire to: (i) reduce weather (i.e. crop) related risk by
diversifying its geographic origination; (ii) increase vertical integration and exposure to
value-added food processing; (iii) leverage its existing assets, and (iv) increase its retail
store footprint. All of these activities are designed to smooth earnings and de-risk VT’s
business from factors such as weather and commodity prices.
 Geographic Diversification—VT’s acquisition of Australia-based ABB Inc. in Sep-
2009 was a transformational deal that helped the firm balance its sourcing
capabilities, mitigate weather-related risk, and reduce earnings volatility. While the
Australian market carries its own unique crop related risks, the ABB transaction
provided Viterra with a dominant footprint in a region responsible for generating
~16.0% of global wheat, barley, and canola exports. A complimentary harvesting
schedule also extended the company’s ability to source grain throughout the year
(see Exhibit 20). Finally, ABB also came with a world-leading malting business and
greater access to Asian markets. We believe these attributes, coupled with the
firm’s strategy to diversify its product offering, will continue to reduce the
company’s risk profile and smooth out earnings.
Exhibit 20: Crop Life Cycle Schedule by Region
Region Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Canada
Winter wheat Harvest Planting
Spring wheat Planting Harvest
Barley Planting Harvest
Australia
Wheat Harvest Planting Harvest
Barley Harvest Planting Harvest
Looking forward, the obvious geographic gap in Viterra’s origination capabilities is

the Black Sea. Notwithstanding the obvious geopolitical risk prevalent in the region,
we believe strong production fundamentals and close proximity to key buying
regions such as the Africa and the Middle East present attractive long-term growth
opportunities. Eastern European net exports are forecast to grow by over 30.0%
over the next 10 years (versus only 3.0% in N.A.), providing a valuable source of
origination and diversification for VT (see Exhibits 21 and 22). We would not,
however, expect any short-term developments until export quotas and bans
currently in place in the Ukraine and Russia are lifted, providing some degree of
geopolitical certainty.
Exhibit 21: Russian Wheat Production/Use Exhibit 22: Ukranian Wheat Production/Use
80 30
70
25
60
Million Tonnes
Million Tonnes
20
50
40 15
30
10
20
5
10
2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2015-16 2017-18 2019-20 2009-10 2011-12 2013-14 2015-16 2017-18 2019-20
Domestic Supply Domestic Use Exports
Domestic Supply Domestic Use Exports
Source: The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute (FAPRI), Raymond James Ltd.
 Growth in Value-added Food Processing—VT has strategically identified its

processing business for growth in an effort to extract higher, value-added margins
and further diversify the company’s exposure in order to reduce commodity pricing
and weather related risk. The company’s exposure to value-added food processing
was increased substantially in 2010 through the acquisitions of both Dakota
Growers and 21st Century Grain Processing within a 4-month period. Dakota
Growers provided VT with its first exposure to dry pasta and in one fell swoop made
it the third largest producer and marketer in North America. 21st Century, a US-
based processor of oats, wheat and custom-coated grains, was added to VT’s
existing oat business to help it become the world’s largest industrial oat miller. VT is
able to use its expertise and market position in grains, the feedstock for food
processing, to extract additional margins from these businesses and build
competitive advantages. Value-added food processing businesses such as these are
forecasted to continue experiencing strong growth, regardless of the economic
environment, as they take advantage of sustainable consumer demand for
economical and nutritious food products. In addition to the United States, we
expect VT to continue growing its food processing exposure in China, where it
recently took a 49.0% position within a canola crushing facility expected to be
completed in the second half of F2011.
 Leveraging Existing Assets—VT is working to grow earnings over its existing global
assets by pushing through greater volumes of product and extracting incremental
increases in returns. Operating costs can be improved by optimizing the use of
transportation and logistics assets including port and grain terminals. This further
bolsters VT’s impressive ability to capture margins at each stage of the value chain,
from the point of origination at the farmer through to the end product destination
(see Exhibit 23). Information is gathered at both ends of the supply chain and
coordinated through the International Grain Group to maximize value by taking
advantage of grain origination, movement opportunities, and throughput to end
customers.
Exhibit 23: Example of the VT’s Supply Chain & Margin Creation
INFORMATION FLOW
COMMODITY FLOW
Domestic Domestic International International

Logistics Grains Group Grains Group Logistics
Origination -- Logistics -- Export Vessel Logistics -- Sales

+$23/t Margin -$60/t Cost +$10/t Margin
-$400/t Cost +$470/t Sale
SUPPLY Total Pipeline Margin = $33/t DEMAND
 Expand Retail Footprint—VT aims to increase its current ~34.0% western Canada
agri-products market share to 40.0% by expanding its 261 store network and
increasing same-store sales. Location growth will be achieved through a mix of
acquisitions and new-store builds. Same-store sales growth is to be achieved
through expansion of value-added services offered to farmers as well as expansion
of its higher-margin proprietary and exclusive product lines. Leveraging its buying
power and achieving operational efficiencies should, in our view, help to boost
profitability. Finally, we note that management has indicated the desire to expand
into new agri-product markets, though details remain vague at this point.
Progress to Date—VT has made considerable strides towards diversifying and de-risking
its business. Since 2008, the firm has grown the processing segment from 9.0% of its
overall EBITDA to 21.0% today. Plans call for the agri-products and processing segments
to respectively make up 30.0% and 35.0% of the overall business in the future (see
Exhibit 24). Increasing origination capabilities in the Grain Handling segment, set to
become only ~35.0% of the overall business, would also serve to reduce earnings
volatility.
Exhibit 24: VT’s Proportion of Overall EBITDA by Business Segment
TODAY FUTURE
Processing
21%
Processing Grain
35% 35%
Grain
58%
Agri-products
21%
Agri-products
30%
Source: Viterra Inc., FAPRI, Raymond James Ltd.
Key Profit Drivers
The economics of Viterra’s diversified business model are predicated upon a wide range
of key agribusiness factors. In order to help investors understand these key profit
drivers, we provide a brief summary below by business segment.
 Primary Volumes—VT’s Grain Handling segment employs a high-fixed cost
infrastructure relying heavily on volume throughput to drive attractive economics.
In other words, higher throughput drives down the cost per tonne of grain handled.
Higher volumes also allow VT to extract greater logistics concessions from key
railroad customers. Seeded acres, weather, yield, crop output, and in-storage
carryover volumes are critical crop variables that tend to influence the volumes
moving through Viterra’s primary grain handling infrastructure. We also highlight
the company’s market share tends to be a function of price and service (i.e.
efficiency).
Key Indicators Seeded Acres, Crop Output, Carryover Volumes, Market Share
Volume Sensitivity 5.0% change in volume has a $15.0-$18.0 mln EBITDA impact
Revenue Sensitivity 1.0% change in revenue has a $2.0-$4.0 mln EBITDA impact
 Export (Terminal) Volumes—The quantity of volumes destined for export helps

drive margins by increasing throughput at VT’s downstream port terminals and
export-accredited inland terminals. In a perfect world, VT would like to control the
commodity from the point of origination, through its port terminals, and all the way
to the final destination. This control helps optimize asset utilization and maximize
margins. Commodity prices, global demand, and crop quality (international buyers
typically only accept high-quality product) are key determinants of export
quantities.
Key Indicators Commodity Prices
Global Demand
Crop Quality (i.e. weather, pest/disease, etc.)
 Regulated vs. Non-Regulated—Canadian margins are heavily dependent upon the

mix of regulated vs. non-regulated grains. The Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) holds a
monopoly over all domestic wheat and food grade barley sales (“regulated grains”).
Under this system, the CWB is responsible for determining the quantity, timing and
price for the grains handled. Non-regulated grains (canola, oats, peas, etc) offer VT
better margin potential since it controls the entire process and is able to play the
margin spread. In recent years the company has improved the portion of non-
regulated grains it handles, with the current mix at 50/50. Australian operations are
typically higher margin, largely because the deregulated market, scarce on farm
storage and high percentage of exports allows VT to fully leverage its infrastructure.
Gross Margin Sensitivity 1.0% change in revenue has a $14.0-$18.0 mln EBITDA impact
 Merchandising Opportunities; International Grain Group—VT’s International Grain

Group consolidates and centralizes its grain and oilseed merchandising operations.
Specifically, the group coordinates and handles origination of non-regulated VT
product and placement with offshore customers. Leveraging VT’s unparalleled
global market access and intelligence, supply-demand information, and strong
customer relationships, the group is able to maximize margins through the supply
chain between origination and destination. In addition, it is able to move quickly to
take advantage of arbitrage opportunities that arise globally and source from non-
VT providers for sale into high-priced markets. Earnings produced by this group are
driven by the proportion of non-regulated grains as a part of VT’s overall mix, as
well as global crop supply/demand fundamentals.
Key Indicators VT % Non-Regulated Grains, Global S-D (price, crop size, quality)
2. Agri-Products
VT’s Agri-product segment sales are seasonal in nature and tend to follow the Canadian
crop life cycle. As a general rule, ~60.0% of all Agri-product sales occur during the third
quarter when farmers actively purchase their key crop inputs, seed, fertilizer, and crop
protection products. Key factors affecting the volume of sales and their respective
margins include:
 Seeded Acres—The number of acres available for seeding largely dictates demand
for key crop inputs. In western Canada, seeded acres of the six major grains have
averaged ~53.0 mln over the last two decades. Predictability is fairly good as the
variance during this same period has been minimal, with a low of ~47.0 mln acres
and a high of ~55.6 mln acres.
 Weather—Weather impacts the amount key crop inputs that are required on a per-
acre basis. For example, higher soil moisture levels require the application of more
fertilizer per acre. Conversely, if moisture is too excessive, larger swaths of land
may remain unseeded as was the case in the 2010 Canadian planting season.
 Crop Mix—Crop input requirements vary based on the type of crop. Therefore, crop
mix across the seeded acreage provides variability in demand for crop inputs.
Canola, for example, requires an average of ~$90-120 in crop inputs per seeded
acre versus pulses at ~$60-70 (see Exhibit 25).
 Commodity Prices—Higher commodity prices tend to incentivize farmers to
maximize the number of acres they successfully seed in order to increase output as
well as taking steps to boost crop quality. This is, in most cases, reflected in
relatively higher levels of agri-products purchases as farmers invest more in crop
protection and fertilizer. Ancillary commodity prices can also be important profit
drivers for VT. For instance, natural gas prices correlate to fertilizer pricing and
margins. VT also tends to act opportunistically, accumulating third party fertilizer
when prices are low in order to sell through its extensive distribution channel
during peak pricing.
Exhibit 25: Average Crop Input Cost in Canada ( $ per acre)
Barley 55-80
Pulses 60-70
Wheat 70-95
Canola 90-120
3. Processing
Macro factors such as population growth, food supply/demand dynamics, and
nutritional trends are underlying drivers for the food and feed processing businesses.
Please refer to our macro section for more details on some of these drivers.
 Food—VT’s food businesses are driven by consumer demand for high nutrition
whole grains (oat business), cooking oils low in saturated fat (canola business), and
demand for beer particularly in Asia (malt business). The level of margin that is
generated by VT is also driven by its access to high quality, low cost feedstock
through its grain network. Crop cost and quality affect the yield and therefore the
profitability of the business. This is particularly true in the oat business where over
1.5 tonnes of raw material are required to produce one tonne of consumable oat.
 Feed—Volume is the single most important driver for feed, driven by human
consumption of animal meat and dairy products. VT’s feed products are sold
domestically and therefore domestic demand drivers within N.A., Australia, and
New Zealand including herd sizes, livestock prices, and dairy prices are most
important. In Canada, we note that growth in the dairy market and related feed are
stabilized through quotas. In addition to volume, feed margins are also impacted by
the proportion of higher value; higher nutrition feed products sold versus
commoditized mixes.
Regional Outlooks
Below we provide the forward outlook for key metrics relating to both Canada and
Australia’s grain handling industry, given VT’s prominence within both regions (see
Exhibits 26 and 27).
Exhibit 26: Canadian Grain Outlook
Canada : Grain Handling

Grain Handling and Marketing Outlook
2010/2011
► Harvest Status: * 2010 harvest complete by end of November (LATE)
► Production: * 45.0 mln tonnes; below 10 yr average of 49.0 mln tonnes
► CGC Receipts: * F11 Receipts (from '10 Harvest) estimated @ 31.0 mln tonnes (vs. 32.0 typical)
► CWB Exports: * Export Targets set @ 17.4 mln tonnes; 1.0 mln tonnes lower than previous year.
* Wheat exports target set @ 11.8 mln tonnes (17.6 mln previous year), barley exports targeted @ 1.5 mln tonnes (1.3 mln previous year)
► Crop Quality: * Crop quality suffered from late harvest (frost) & excessive moisture.
* Only 29.0% of crop in top two grades, vs. 79% typical
2011/2012E
► Seeded Area: * Forecasted @ 23.0 mln hectares or 56.8 mln acres (6 major grains)
Historical Seeded Area (Wheat, Barley, Canola) Six Major Grains Forecasted Production
12 70
Top 3 grains had lower seeded
area in 2010 compared to its 60
10
historical levels
Seeded area (million ha)
50
8
Million tonnes
40
6
30
4
20
2 10
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 f 2011-12 f 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11f 2011-12f
Wheat Canola Barley Wheat Barley Canola Oats Flax Peas
CGC Receipts CWB Exports of Wheat and Barley
40 Wheat Barley
25
Seven year average receivals ~ 32.0 mln
35
20
30
Million tonnes
Milliion tonnes
25
15
20
t
15 10
10
5
5
2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11F 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11f
Source: Stats Canada, CGS, CWB, Viterra Inc., Raymond James Ltd.
Exhibit 27: Australian Grain Outlook
Australia : Grain Handling

Major Grain Growing Regions
2010/2011
► Seeded Area: * 23.4 mln hectares
► Harvest Status: * 95% complete as of end of January 2011
► Production All Australia: * As of February 2011 ABARES forecast is 42.1 mln tonnes, a 19% YoY increase
► Production South Australia: * Estimated production @ 9.7 mln tonnes, above the 5 yr avg of 5.2 mln tonnes
► Receivals: * Estimated 8.5-9.0 mln tonnes
► Crop Quality: * Most wheat classified as ASW or lower due to rain/disease; majority of barley crop downgraded to feed
► Carry Out Stock: * Estimated @ 1.2 mln tonnes from the recent harvest (2010-11), will complement S.A. production volume.
2011/2012E
► Production All Australia: * ABARE estimate of ~8% y/y decline to 38.7 mln tonnes
► Production South Australia: * Estimated at 9.0 mln tonnes based on ABARES forecast of ~8% y/y decline in national crop production
Australian Wheat Output and Exports Forecast Australian Wheat Production Forecast by State
30 12
Wheat Output & Exports (Million tonnes)
South Australia is the 3rd largest

Production by State (Million tonnes)
wheat producing state

25 10
20 8
15 6
10 4
5 2
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11f 2011-12f 2012-13f 2013-14f 2014-15f 2015-16f Western Aus. NSW South Aus. Victoria Queensland Tasmania
Production Export volume 2008-09 2009-10s 2010-11f 5 yr avg
Australian Barley Production Forecast Forecasted Values of Australia's Farm Commodity Exports (Nominal)
Barley Canola
Barley & Canola Production (Million tonnes)
14 40
12
Farm Exports (AUD$ bn nominal)
30
10
20
6
4
10
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11f 2011-12f 2012-13f 2013-14f 2014-15f 2015-16f

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11f 2011-12f 2012-13f 2013-14f 2014-15f 2015-16f
Source: Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (ABARES), Viterra Inc., Raymond James Ltd.
Revenue and Earnings Profile
Viterra boasts an attractive long-term growth profile, in our view, underpinned by a

healthy combination of organic and acquisitive growth. In F2011, consolidated sales and
EBITDA are expected to be particularly robust—arguably above normalized levels—on
account of a blockbuster Australian grain harvest, robust fertilizer pricing, and strong
contributions from the firm’s pasta and oats processing businesses. To wit, we forecast
F2011 consolidated EBITDA of $727.7 mln and EBITDA margin of 7.5%, up by 40.6% and
1.3% respectively on a y/y basis. However, given our expectation for a return to more
normalized Australian and Canadian crop levels in F2012, we forecast a modest y/y
EBITDA decline of -3.7% to $700.7 mln, with VT’s Processing business helping provide
some offset (see Exhibit 28 and 29).
Consistent with this view, we expect VT to deliver strong EPS growth in F2011 to $0.85
followed by a decline in F2012 to $0.77. We highlight that all of our forecasts exclude
the possible contribution of future acquisitions.
Exhibit 28: VT Segmented EBITDA Exhibit 29: VT Consolidated EBITDA & Margin
$1,000 $1,000 10.0
$900 Processing $900 EBITDA EBITDA Margin (%) 9.0

Agri-Products
$800 Grain Handling & Marketing $800 8.0
Segmented EBITDA (C$ 000's)
$700 $700 7.0
EBITDA Margin (%)

ETBIDA (C$ 000's)
$600 $600 6.0
$500
$500 5.0
$400
$400 4.0
$300
$300 3.0
$200
$200 2.0
$100
$100 1.0
$0
$0 0.0
2008 2009 2010 2011E 2012E
2008 2009 2010 2011E 2012E
Below we provide a more detailed account of our expectations on a segmented basis.

We forecast F2011 Grain Handling EBITDA to advance 28.1% y/y to $494.5 mln.
Throughout our forecast horizon, we anticipate the Grain Handling business to become
a smaller piece of VT’s consolidated EBITDA, moving from 75.0% in 2010 to 66.0% in
F2012 (see Exhibit 30).
 Australia to Drive Strong 2011 Volumes; Offset Lackluster Canada—Western
Canadian production of the 6-major grains during the 2010/2011 crop season was
down an estimated 10.7% y/y to 45.0 mln tonnes, reflective of a brutally wet spring
last year that forced 1.0 mln acres to go unseeded compared to the prior year.
Commensurate with this decline, industry receipts are estimated to contract -8.4%
y/y, reaching 31.0 mln tonnes. South Australian production, by contrast, is
estimated at a record 9.8 mln tonnes during the 2010-11 crop year, up 38.0% yoy,
thanks to ideal growing conditions in the southern state. Between these two
regions, we expect Viterra shipments to increase 2.8% y/y.
 Margins Also Robust—We forecast F2011 global pipeline margins at $33.91 per
tonne, up 3.4% yoy, and consistent with management’s current guidance of $33 -
$36 per tonne. Strong volumes moving out of South Australia, robust Canadian
exports, and healthy contributions from the recently formed International Grain
Group are key factors that support this outlook. We highlight that this forecast may
prove too conservative, given the +23.0% y/y margin lift recently experienced
during 1Q11.
We forecast F2012 Grain Handling EBITDA at $456.4 mln, down -7.7% y/y.
 2012 Volumes Seen Lower on Aussie Crop Normalization—Seeded acres in
western Canada for the 2011/2012 crop season are currently estimated at 56.0 to
57.0 mln acres, down slightly vs. last year, and roughly 5.5% below the 60.0 mln
acre 10-year average. That being said, expectations for an improvement in y/y crop
quality should, in our view, more than offset this decline. Consistent with this, we
forecast Canadian production at 48.0 mln tonnes, up 6.7% y/y. In South Australia,
crop expectations remain high for the second consecutive year, although
production is expected to fall. Consistent with this outlook, we forecast production
of 8.5 mln tonnes, or a 13.3% y/y decline, which we note is conservative versus the
current ABARES estimate of 9.0 mln tonnes. We note this will likely be
supplemented by healthy carryover volumes in the range of 2.5 to 3.0 mln tonnes
following the record harvest this year. Taken together, we expect total Viterra
shipments to post a slight -0.1% y/y decline.
 Healthy Margins—Global pipeline margins are expected to moderate to $34.5 per
tonne in F2012 on account of lower volumes coupled with quality improvement and
expectations for reduced volatility in the global grains environment. One risk to
margins, in our view, could be the re-entry of grain-giants such as Russia back into
the global supply chain from their current self-imposed export bans.
Exhibit 30: Grain Handling Outlook
CDN$ mlns 2010 2011E 2012E 2011E▲ 2012E▲
WESTERN CANADA COMMENTARY

► Production (6 major grains, 000s) 50,398 45,000 48,000 -10.7% 6.7% о 45.0 mln & 48.0 mln estimates; both below 10-yr average of 49.0 mln.
► Industry receipts 33,832 31,000 32,880 -8.4% 6.1% о 2011 receipts (from 2010 harvest) estimated @ 31.0 mln tonnes (vs. 32.0 typical).
► Market share Canada (%) 45.2 45.3 45.5 0.3% 0.4% о Export targets set @ 17.4 mln tonnes, 1 mln lower than previous year.
SOUTH AUSTRALIA
► Production 7,237 9,800 8,500 35.4% -13.3% о 2011 production of 9.8 mln tonnes is new record (previous @ 8.9 mln tonnes).
► Shipments 6,246 8,820 7,735 41.2% -12.3% о Stong shipments for 2011, followed by some normalization in 2012.
► Carryover volumes о Estimated 2.5-3.0 mln tonnes of carryover into 2011/2012 crop year.
VT TOTAL SHIPMENTS
North America 15,834 13,886 14,960 -12.3% 7.7%
Australia 6,246 8,820 7,735 41.2% -12.3%
Total shipments 22,080 22,706 22,695 2.8% 0.0%
Margin per tonne shipped ($/tonne) $32.80 $33.91 $34.50 3.4% 1.7% о Strong 2011 margin/tonne in N.A. and Australia, followed by some normalization in 2012.
4. Agri-Products
We forecast Agri-Products EBITDA to advance to $215.6 mln followed by a decline to

$203.3 mln respectively in F2011 and F2012, representing y/y growth of 40.2% and
decline of -5.7% (see Exhibit 31).
 Strong Fertilizer Demand & Pricing; Seed Demand Follows—North American

farmer demand for fertilizer continues to be fuelled by lofty crop prices and the
need to replenish soil nutrients following last year’s excessive moisture. Strong
commensurate fertilizer prices coupled with persistently weak natural gas prices
are expected to further stoke margins. We also highlight that strong canola prices
are expected to bolster canola seeded acres in 2011, providing for strong fertilizer
demand (canola requires high nutrient inputs) as well as commensurate strength in
VT’s seed business. This is offset, in part, by expectations for a reduction in western
Canadian seeded acreage in 2011 which, in our view, would reduce fertilizer and
seeding volumes for F2012.
 Wool—Strong wool prices, now at 30-year highs and driven by tight supply, are
expected to continue moving forward reflecting growing international demand,
particularly out of China and India. Specifically, ABARES estimates Australian wool
pricing to grow at CAGR of 3.5% over the next five years. Despite expectations for a
slip in wool production, ABARES still estimates healthy wool export growth. We
expect revenues from VT’s wool business to continue growing through our forecast
horizon.
Exhibit 31: Agri-Products Outlook
CDN$ mlns 2010 2011E 2012E 2011E▲ 2012E▲
FERTILIZER DATA COMMENTARY

► Fertilizer volume (tonnes) 1,750 1,958 1,860 11.9% -5.0% о Strong 2011 fertilizer demand: improved commodity prices & nutrient requirements.
► Fertilizer price (per tonne) 452 481 475 6.4% -1.2% о Excess moisture drives increased prices & nutrient requirements.
► Fertilizer margin ($ per tonne) 97 105 105 7.5% 0.3% о Normalization in fertilizer margins expected in 2012.
BUSINESS LINES ($)

Fertilizer 791.1 941.4 883.5 19.0% -6.1% о 2011 production of 9.8 mln tonnes is new record (previous @ 8.9 mln tonnes)
Crop protection 384.2 405.5 385.2 5.5% -5.0% о Stong shipments for 2011, followed by some normalization in 2012.
Seed 207.4 218.3 207.4 5.2% -5.0% о Estimated 2.5-3.0 mln tonnes of carryover into 2011/2012 crop year.
Wool 264.9 299.3 305.3 13.0% 2.0%
Financial products 25.7 24.4 23.2 -5.0% -5.0%
Equipment sales & other 123.2 124.1 117.9 0.7% -5.0%
Total shipments 1,796.5 2,013.0 1,922.5 12.0% -4.5%
5. Processing (Food and Feed)

We forecast F2011 Processing EBITDA to advance to $147.6 mln and $176.0 mln
respectively in F2011 and F2012, representing y/y growth of 41.5% and 19.3% (see
Exhibit 32).
 Strong Growth in Food Volumes—Food volumes are expected to show modest
growth, supported by positive economic growth and strong global demand for
whole grains. In North America, lingering economic challenges are expected to
favour further consumer switching to private label cereals as well as pasta products,
boding well for VT’s N.A. processing businesses. Though crush margins have been
depressed due to industry overcapacity, recent improvements are expected to
continue bolstered by demand for specialty, canola-based oils.
 Near-term Malt Challenges; Positive Long-term Outlook—Challenges within the
global malt business, primarily in association with slow N.A. and European beer
sales, have created excess capacity, increased competition, and margin pressure.
Management believes a recovery to pre-recession levels is a 2H11 or beyond event,
followed by continued improvement in market fundamentals as capacity is used up
driven by increased beer consumption in emerging markets.
 Feed—The N.A. feed business is expected to remain challenged due to

overcapacity, intense competition, and margin-compression for the short term.
Long-term, gradual improvement in demand is expected to follow in step with
improvements in milk prices, which has begun recently. Feed volumes in New
Zealand are expected to grow due to improving milk prices driven by increased
Southeast Asian demand for dried milk products. Margins are also expected to be
bolstered by an ongoing shift from commodity feed products to higher-margin
complex feed.
Exhibit 32: Processing Outlook
CDN$ mlns 2010 2011E 2012E 2011E▲ 2012E▲
FOOD VOLUME (TONNES) COMMENTARY

► Malt 562 565 600 0.5% 6.2% о Market overcapacity result in tepid 2011 Y/Y vlm growth; 2012 driven by emerging markets.
► Pasta 112 230 240 105.4% 4.3% о N.A. consumption of pasta expected to remain strong; economical & nutritious food.
► Oats 257 415 415 61.5% 0.0% о Growth in oats driven by wholegrain demand.
► Canola 229 190 210 -17.0% 10.5% о Improving crush margins expected to increase crushing volumes.
FEED VOLUME (TONNES)

► N.A. 1,918 1,700 1,750 -11.4% 2.9% о Weakness in N.A. feed expected to continue, due to milk price weakness.
► New Zealand 145 180 200 24.1% 11.1% о Growth driven by strong S.E. Asia milk prices and shift into complex feed products.
TOTAL PROCESSING VOLUME

Food (tonnes) 1,160 1,400 1,465 20.7% 4.6%
Feed (tonnes) 2,063 1,880 1,950 -8.9% 3.7%
Total processing volume 3,223 3,280 3,415 1.8% 4.1%
Exhibit 33: Consolidated VT Estimates

CDN$ mlns 2008 2009 1Q10 2Q10 3Q10 4Q10 2010 1Q11 2Q11E 3Q11E 4Q11E 2011E 2012E
Consolidated
Revenue $6,777.6 $6,631.7 $1,785.8 $2,048.1 $2,495.5 $1,926.9 $8,256.3 $2,470.5 $2,291.4 $2,895.9 $2,017.2 $9,675.0 $9,689.1
EBITDA $532.6 $323.7 $89.8 $93.2 $196.6 $138.0 $517.6 $211.3 $144.9 $248.8 $122.8 $727.7 $700.7
EPS $1.31 $0.45 $0.03 $0.05 $0.25 $0.14 $0.47 $0.27 $0.16 $0.34 $0.09 $0.85 $0.77
EBITDA Margin (%) 7.9 4.9 5.0 4.6 7.9 7.2 6.3 8.6 6.3 8.6 6.1 7.5 7.2
Grain Handling & Marketing
Revenue $4,299.5 $4,176.8 $1,341.0 $1,424.2 $1,470.0 $1,421.0 $5,651.4 $1,942.6 $1,599.2 $1,801.7 $1,482.0 $6,825.5 $6,808.6
EBITDA $299.3 $247.9 $109.7 $73.6 $100.9 $102.0 $386.1 $197.8 $90.8 $119.8 $86.2 $494.5 $456.4
EBITDA Margin (%) 7.0 5.9 8.2 5.2 6.9 7.2 6.8 10.2 5.7 6.6 5.8 7.2 6.7
Agri-Products
Revenue $1,686.3 $1,649.9 $215.3 $440.3 $818.9 $325.1 $1,799.5 $292.6 $484.6 $908.4 $327.4 $2,013.0 $1,922.5
EBITDA $276.9 $132.3 -$11.9 $30.0 $105.8 $30.0 $153.8 $9.3 $52.6 $130.3 $23.4 $215.6 $203.3
EBITDA Margin (%) 16.4 8.0 -5.5 6.8 12.9 9.2 8.5 3.2 10.9 14.3 7.1 10.7 10.6
Processing (Feed & Food)
Revenue $0.0 $942.6 $311.5 $303.1 $330.8 $368.3 $1,313.8 $373.9 $332.6 $310.9 $314.2 $1,331.5 $1,458.0
EBITDA $0.0 $36.5 $23.2 $22.7 $21.9 $54.0 $104.3 $40.4 $33.9 $31.2 $42.1 $147.6 $176.0
EBITDA Margin (%) 3.9 7.4 7.5 6.6 14.7 7.9 10.8 10.2 10.0 13.4 11.1 12.1
Source: Vitarra Inc., Raymond James Ltd.
Capital Structure
VT is in a comfortable financial position, in our view, with a healthy balance sheet and
sufficient liquidity. As of 1Q11, VT held $200.5 mln in cash, offset by $829.2 mln in
short-term borrowings and $890.3 mln in long-term debt. This implies a consolidated
debt-to-total capital ratio of 0.31x, comfortably within management’s target range of
0.30x-0.40x. In addition, VT’s rolling 12-month EBITDA ended the last quarter at 6.7x the
level of cash interest paid, well above its 5.0x minimum threshold (see Exhibit 34).
Commensurate with our estimates, as VT’s recent acquisitions and expansion efforts
generate significant earnings moving forward, we expect an improvement in the
company’s debt ratios. Notably, we expect net debt-to-EBITDA (trailing 12 months) to
improve from 1.73x at the end of 2010 to 0.77x by F2011. We forecast EBITDA covering
interest to improve to 6.8x and 7.0x based on our respective F2011 and F2012
estimates, well above the company’s 5.0x minimum target.
Consistent with management’s guidance, VT’s future capital expenditures are projected
to grow in order to support its growing processing capabilities and international grain
handling infrastructure. Additional bunker capacity in Australia is one specific project
noted. Specifically, we forecast capital expenditures of $136.8 mln and $140.0 mln in
F2011 and F2012 respectively, up from $105.3 mln in 2010. We expect VT to fund its
capital expenditure requirements through cash flow generated from its operations.
Exhibit 34: VT Capital Structure & Debt Composition

Capital Structure
5.0
Shares outstanding - basic (mlns) 371.6
Shares outstanding - fully diluted (mlns) 371.7 4.5 Steady decline in Net debt / EBITDA
Share price (as of 15-Apr-2011) 11.12 (ttm) anticipated due to significant
4.0 earnings generation.
Market Capitalization (mlns) 4,133.1
Net debt / EBITDA (ttm, x)
3.5
Total Debt (mlns, mrq) 1,718.4 3.0
Cash & Short-Term Investments (mlns, mrq) 200.5
2.5
Net Debt (mlns, proforma) 1,518.0
2.0
Enterprise Value (mlns) 5,651.1
1.5
Net debt / equity (mrq) 0.4x 1.0
Net debt / EBITDA (ttm, mrq) 2.4x 0.5

Debt / total capital (mrq) 0.3x
-
EBITDA / Interest (ttm, mrq) 6.7x
2009 2010 2011E 2012E
We are initiating coverage on VT with a Market Perform rating and $12.50 target price.
Based upon the stock’s recent closing price on April 20, our target represents a 13.5%
total return to target, inclusive of the company’s 0.9% dividend yield. To derive our
target price, we apply a 7.0x EV/EBITDA multiple to our F2012E EBITDA estimate, a
metric we believe is justified based upon the following factors:
 Consistent with Historical Trading Range—Excluding trough levels reached during
the depths of the global recession, VT has historically traded between 6.0x and 8.5x
forward EBITDA. The multiple has tended to oscillate in response to volatile crop
expectations and prevailing market conditions (see Exhibit 35).
 Consistent with Peers—We believe VT’s peer group of Ag processing and grain
handling companies, including heavyweights such as Graincorp and Bunge, provide
for relevant comparable analysis. We note that each of these comparables does
have differences in products, end-markets, specific areas of value-added
processing, and geographic areas to which it has crop (e.g. weather) related
exposure. As Exhibit 36 below illustrates, VT currently trades relatively in-line versus
its comparables due to a moderation in its F2012 earnings following expectations
for a normalization of crop production in N.A. and Australia.
 Future Acquisitions Not Reflected in Estimates—To date, VT has proven its ability
to carry out and integrate both small and large acquisitions. Despite ongoing ABB-
related integration efforts in the short-term, VT’s acquisitive nature is unlikely to
change, in our view. Additional acquisitions are likely to be aimed at adding to its
processing operations and further diversifying the geographic exposure of its grain
handling operations. However, because it is very difficult to speculate on the timing,
size, and specific target characteristics, we have refrained from building acquisitions
into our model. This therefore suggests further review of our estimates as these
events unfold.
Exhibit 35: Historical EV/EBITDA Trading Multiples (NTM) Exhibit 36: VT Historical P/E Trading Multiples (NTM)
14.0
40.0
VT EV/EBITDA VT EV/EBITDA (Avg.) VT P/E VT P/E (Avg.)
12.0 35.0
30.0
10.0
Forward P/E Multiple (NTM)
25.0
8.0
20.0
6.0
15.0
4.0
10.0
2.0 5.0
0.0
0.0
Jul-08 Nov-08 Mar-09 Jul-09 Nov-09 Mar-10 Jul-10 Nov-10 Mar-11 Jul-08 Nov-08 M ar-09 Jul-09 Nov-09 M ar-10 Jul-10 Nov-10 M ar-11

target price, we advise investors to patiently wait for a more opportune entry point.
VT Income Statement, F2009 – F2012E (C$, mlns)

F2009 F2010 F2011E F2012E
Sales & Other Operating Revenue 6,631,666 8,256,280 9,675,000 9,689,107
Cost of Goods Sold 5,792,635 6,997,713 8,289,084 8,271,831

Gross Profit & Net Revenues from Services 839,031 1,258,567 1,385,916 1,417,276
Operating, General & Admin Expenses 515,333 740,984 658,192 716,612

EBITDA 323,698 517,583 727,725 700,664
Amortization 109,141 192,676 193,347 204,500

EBIT 214,557 324,907 534,377 496,164
Non-Operating Expenses
Integration Expenses 10,191 5,449 511 -
Net Fx Gain (Loss) on Acquisition (24,105) 159 (843) -
Recovery on Pension Settlement - - - -
Gain (Loss) on Disposal of Assets 10,314 (7,778) - -
Financing Expenses 61,163 138,107 113,916 107,500
Earnings before Taxes 156,994 188,970 420,793 388,664
Provision for Corporate Taxes

Current 14,144 27,722 55,913 40,421
Future 29,723 15,976 49,695 60,632
Net Taxes 43,867 43,698 105,608 101,053
Net Earnings (Loss) from Cont Ops. 113,127 145,272 315,186 287,612
Net Recovery from Discont Ops. - - - -
Net Earnings 113,127 145,272 315,186 287,612
Earnings Per Unit / Share

Basic 0.45 0.39 0.85 0.77
Diluted 0.45 0.39 0.85 0.77
Diluted - Cont Ops. 0.45 0.47 0.85 0.77
0.48 - - -
Shares Outstanding
Basic 251,426 371,597 371,598 373,455
Diluted 251,437 371,603 371,620 373,478
Common Size (%)

Gross Margin (%) 12.7 15.2 14.3 14.6
Operating, General & Admin (%) 7.8 9.0 6.8 7.4
Amortization (%) 1.6 2.3 2.0 2.1
Interest (%) 0.9 1.7 1.2 1.1
Income Tax Rate (%) 27.9 25.0 25.1 26.0
EBITDA 323,698 517,583 727,725 700,664

EBITDA (%) 4.9 6.3 7.5 7.2
VT Balance Sheet, F2009 – F2012E (C$, mlns)

F2009 F2010 F2011E F2012E
Assets
Current Assets
Cash and Cash Equivalents 165,200 107,428 1,155,190 1,306,046
Short-Term Investments 868,469 88,204 138,461 138,461
Accounts Receivable 1,004,674 995,656 997,494 1,460,002
Inventories 960,896 1,211,887 1,251,649 1,359,753
Prepaid Expenses & Deposits 89,768 107,638 116,100 135,648
Future Income Tax 44,142 30,067 8,702 8,702
Subtotal Current Assets 3,133,149 2,540,880 3,667,595 4,408,612
Investments 9,706 9,661 8,167 8,167

Property, Plant & Equipment 2,411,105 2,491,047 2,433,523 2,365,023
Other Long-Term Assets 118,025 123,136 119,402 119,402
Goodwill 699,974 772,233 767,799 767,799
Subtotal Long-Term Assets 3,289,599 3,576,002 3,496,018 3,430,018
Total Assets 6,422,748 6,116,882 7,163,613 7,838,630
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Bank Indebtedness 594 40,839 50,160 50,160
Short-Term Borrowings 291,128 61,677 776,928 776,958
Accounts Payable and Accrued Expenses 1,095,366 1,151,652 1,152,659 1,460,002
Current Portion Long-Term Debt 18,151 2,295 2,092 2,092
Future Income Taxes 573 391 18,655 79,287
Subtotal Current Liabilities 1,405,812 1,256,854 2,000,494 2,368,499
Long-Term Debt 1,265,435 896,834 888,069 886,469

Other Long-Term Liabilities 72,471 51,351 57,697 62,697
Subtotal Long-Term Liabilities 1,508,017 1,149,765 1,144,953 1,148,353
Total Liabilities 2,913,829 2,406,619 3,145,447 3,516,852
Unitholders' Equity
Retained Earnings 425,741 571,013 880,369 1,183,980
Accumulated Other & Comp. Inc (Loss) 54,216 107,192 104,420 104,420
Share Capital 3,025,486 3,025,491 3,026,080 3,026,080
Contributed Surplus 3,476 6,567 7,297 7,297
Total Unitholders' Equity 3,508,919 3,710,263 4,018,166 4,321,777
Total Liabilities & Unitholders' Equity 6,422,748 6,116,882 7,163,613 7,838,630
VT Cash Flow Statement, F2009 – F2012E (C$, mlns)

F2009 F2010 F2011E F2012E
Net Earnings for the Period 113,127 145,272 315,186 287,612
Items Not Affected by Cash

Amortization 109,141 192,676 193,347 204,500
Employee Future Benefits (22,875) (4,939) 5,526 5,000
Non-Cash Financing Expenses 6,033 18,069 9,361 12,000
Loss (Gain) on Disposal of Assets 10,314 (7,778) (843) -
Acquisition Derivative - - 3,750 2,000
Net Fx Loss (Gain) on Acquisition (24,105) 159 - -
Other items 2,065 1,814 2,331 2,000
Total Adjustments for Non-Cash Items 110,296 - - -
223,423 361,249 578,353 573,743
Changes in Net Working Capital

Accounts Receivable 136,654 6,916 529 (462,509)
Inventories 142,810 (191,842) (41,193) (108,104)
Accounts Payable & Accrued (69,666) (8,437) (10,688) 307,343
Prepaids 24,142 (15,742) (8,003) (19,548)
Total Changes in NWC 233,940 (209,105) (59,354) (282,818)
Cash from Operating Activities (Cont Ops) 457,363 152,144 518,999 290,926
Cash from Discont Ops - - - -
Cash from Operating Activities 457,363 152,144 518,999 290,926
Proceeds from Long-Term Debt 400,925 409,969 - -
(Repayment of) Long-Term Debt (18,212) (826,472) (1,614) (1,600)
Proceeds (Repayment of) ST Borrowings (23,737) (241,022) 714,855 30
(Repayment of) Other Long-Term Liabilities (819) (501) (72) -
Issuance of Share Capital 450,007 3 589 -
Share Issuance Costs (18,468) - - -
Debt Financing Costs (11,738) (22,785) - -
Financing Cash Flow 777,958 (680,808) 713,758 (1,570)
Purchase of Property Plant & Equipment (75,283) (105,313) (136,757) (140,000)
Proceeds on Sale of Property, Plant & Equipment 4,201 23,164 1,978 4,000
Business Acquisitions (814,030) (288,414) - -
Business Divesture - 30,863 - -
Net Fx Gain (Loss) on Acquisition 24,105 (159) - -
Increase in Investments - 206 1,372 -
Increase in Intangible Assets (9,479) (16,515) (10,121) (2,500)
Investing Cash Flow (870,486) (356,168) (143,528) (138,500)
Net Increase (Decrease) in Cash Position 364,835 (884,832) 1,089,229 150,856

Cash Position, Beginning of Period 669,010 1,033,075 107,428 1,155,190
Impact on Cash of Unrealized Effect of Fx of Foreign Ops (770) 6,550 (531) -
Cash (Bank Indebtedness), End of Period 1,033,075 154,793 1,196,126 1,306,046
Free Cash Flow:

Cash Flow from Ops 457,363 152,144 518,999 290,926
Less: CapEx (75,283) (105,313) (136,757) (140,000)
Subtotal 532,646 257,457 655,756 430,926

P/E EV/EBITDA Net
Market Shares Market Ent. Price Div.
Net Debt Debt /
Company Name Ticker Fx FY END Price O/S Cap Value 2010A 2011E 2012E 2010A 2011E 2012E /Book Yield
Cap
(mln) (mln) (mln) (mln) (%) (x) (%)
Group Average 19.2 13.6 12.2 11.1 8.7 8.0
Notes:
2.) All estimates are from Thomson except AGT and VT are Raymond James estimates.
Risks
Volume, Inventory & Weather risk–In a volume driven business such as Viterra’s Grain
Handling and Marketing, weather represents the most considerable risk. Because fixed
costs in this, VT’s largest business segment, represent 70-80% of all costs, volatility in
volume and inventory turns can significantly impact margins. Weather can also impact
Viterra’s other businesses such as fertilizer and crop protection sales.
Commodity Price Risk–In addition to volume, price is a key driver for the Grain Handling
and Marketing segment. The CWB assumes the price risk for all board grains (~50% of
Canadian volume), with the remaining non-board grains as well as all grains sourced in
Australia exposed to price fluctuations. Viterra’s exposure begins at the time the grain is
purchased through the time it is delivered to the end customer.
Food and Feed Safety Risk–A vast majority of Viterra’s businesses is in food products
exposing the company to food safety risk, particularity with a recent push into food
processing. In the event of significant outbreak of food-borne illness or increased
consumer health awareness with certain products the company can be vulnerable.
Regulatory Risk–Industry regulations, particularly within Canada, can affect Viterra’s
performance. While the Australian market is deregulated, CWB is the only selling
authority for Canadian wheat and barley. The CWB handles ~ 50% of Viterra’s Canadian
volume and as such, export size and scheduling can materially affect company’s grain
handling volumes.
M&A Risk–Viterra’s growth-through-acquisition strategy exposes the company to M&A
risk in the event that it does not succeed in achieving a certain level of synergies.
Viterra’s business expansions expose the company to new geographic, regulatory,
industry, operating and financial risks.
Foreign Exchange Risk– Substantial revenue is generated in US denominated currencies,
while operating expenses are accrued in Canadian and Australian dollars. The exposure
to different currency markets poses a risk which Viterra hedges by entering into
currency future and forward contracts. A significant adjustment to the exchange rate
may adversely impact the company’s results from operations.
Company Citations
General Mills Inc. GIS NYSE NC
Imperial Oil Limited IMO TSX NC
Unilever NV UN NYSE NC
covered.
Important Investor Disclosures

Raymond James is the global brand name for Raymond James & Associates (RJA) and its non-US affiliates worldwide.
Raymond James & Associates is located at The Raymond James Financial Center, 880 Carillon Parkway, St. Petersburg, FL
33716, (727) 567-1000. Affiliates include the following entities, which are responsible for the distribution of research in
their respective areas. In Canada, Raymond James Ltd., Suite 2200, 925 West Georgia Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 3L2, (604)
659-8200. In Latin America, Raymond James Latin America, Ruta 8, km 17, 500, 91600 Montevideo, Uruguay, 00598 2 518
2033. In Europe, Raymond James European Equities, 40, rue La Boetie, 75008, Paris, France, +33 1 45 61 64 90.
This document is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity that is a citizen or resident
of or located in any locality, state, country, or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use
would be contrary to law or regulation. The securities discussed in this document may not be eligible for sale in some
jurisdictions. This research is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security in any jurisdiction where
such an offer or solicitation would be illegal. It does not constitute a personal recommendation nor does it take into
account the particular investment objectives, financial situations, or needs of individual clients. Information in this report
should not be construed as advice designed to meet the individual objectives of any particular investor. Investors should
consider this report as only a single factor in making their investment decision. Consultation with your investment advisor
is recommended. Past performance is not a guide to future performance, future returns are not guaranteed, and a loss of
original capital may occur.
The information provided is as of the date above and subject to change, and it should not be deemed a recommendation to
buy or sell any security. Certain information has been obtained from third-party sources we consider reliable, but we do not
guarantee that such information is accurate or complete. Persons within the Raymond James family of companies may have
information that is not available to the contributors of the information contained in this publication. Raymond James,
including affiliates and employees, may execute transactions in the securities listed in this publication that may not be
consistent with the ratings appearing in this publication.
With respect to materials prepared by Raymond James Ltd. (“RJL”), all expressions of opinion reflect the judgment of the
Research Department of RJL, or its affiliates, at this date and are subject to change. RJL may perform investment banking or
other services for, or solicit investment banking business from, any company mentioned in this document.
All Raymond James Ltd. research reports are distributed electronically and are available to clients at the same time via the
firm’s website (http://www.raymondjames.ca). Immediately upon being posted to the firm’s website, the research reports
are then distributed electronically to clients via email upon request and to clients with access to Bloomberg (home page:
RJLC), First Call Research Direct and Reuters. Selected research reports are also printed and mailed at the same time to
clients upon request. Requests for Raymond James Ltd. research may be made by contacting the Raymond James Product
Group during market hours at (604) 659-8000.
In the event that this is a compendium report (i.e., covers 6 or more subject companies), Raymond James Ltd. may choose
to provide specific disclosures for the subject companies by reference. To access these disclosures, clients should refer to:
http://www.raymondjames.ca (click on Equity Capital Markets / Equity Research / Research Disclosures) or call toll-free at
1-800-667-2899.
Analyst Information
Analyst Compensation: Equity research analysts and associates at Raymond James are compensated on a salary and bonus
system. Several factors enter into the compensation determination for an analyst, including i) research quality and overall
productivity, including success in rating stocks on an absolute basis and relative to the local exchange composite Index
and/or a sector index, ii) recognition from institutional investors, iii) support effectiveness to the institutional and retail
sales forces and traders, iv) commissions generated in stocks under coverage that are attributable to the analyst’s efforts, v)
net revenues of the overall Equity Capital Markets Group, and vi) compensation levels for analysts at competing investment
dealers.
Analyst Stock Holdings: Effective September 2002, Raymond James equity research analysts and associates or members of
their households are forbidden from investing in securities of companies covered by them. Analysts and associates are
permitted to hold long positions in the securities of companies they cover which were in place prior to September 2002 but
are only permitted to sell those positions five days after the rating has been lowered to Underperform.
The views expressed in this report accurately reflect the personal views of the analyst(s) covering the subject securities. No
part of said person's compensation was, is, or will be directly or indirectly related to the specific recommendations or views
contained in this research report. In addition, said analyst has not received compensation from any subject company in the
last 12 months.
Ratings and Definitions

Raymond James Ltd. (Canada) definitions
Strong Buy (SB1) The stock is expected to appreciate and produce a total return of at least 15% and outperform the
S&P/TSX Composite Index over the next six months. Outperform (MO2) The stock is expected to appreciate and
outperform the S&P/TSX Composite Index over the next twelve months. Market Perform (MP3) The stock is expected to
perform generally in line with the S&P/TSX Composite Index over the next twelve months and is potentially a source of
funds for more highly rated securities. Underperform (MU4) The stock is expected to underperform the S&P/TSX
Composite Index or its sector over the next six to twelve months and should be sold.
Raymond James & Associates (U.S.) definitions
Strong Buy (SB1) Expected to appreciate, produce a total return of at least 15%, and outperform the S&P 500 over the next
six to 12 months. For higher yielding and more conservative equities, such as REITs and certain MLPs, a total return of at
least 15% is expected to be realized over the next 12 months. Outperform (MO2) Expected to appreciate and outperform
the S&P 500 over the next 12-18 months. For higher yielding and more conservative equities, such as REITs and certain
MLPs, an Outperform rating is used for securities where we are comfortable with the relative safety of the dividend and
expect a total return modestly exceeding the dividend yield over the next 12-18 months. Market Perform (MP3) Expected
to perform generally in line with the S&P 500 over the next 12 months. Underperform (MU4) Expected to underperform
the S&P 500 or its sector over the next six to 12 months and should be sold. Suspended (S) The rating and price target have
been suspended temporarily. This action may be due to market events that made coverage impracticable, or to comply
with applicable regulations or firm policies in certain circumstances, including when Raymond James may be providing
investment banking services to the company. The previous rating and price target are no longer in effect for this security
and should not be relied upon.
Raymond James Latin American rating definitions
Strong Buy (SB1) Expected to appreciate and produce a total return of at least 25.0% over the next twelve months.
Outperform (MO2) Expected to appreciate and produce a total return of between 15.0% and 25.0% over the next twelve
months. Market Perform (MP3) Expected to perform in line with the underlying country index. Underperform (MU4)
Expected to underperform the underlying country index.
Raymond James European Equities rating definitions
Strong Buy (1) Absolute return expected to be at least 10% over the next 12 months and perceived best performer in the
sector universe. Buy (2) Absolute return expected to be at least 10% over the next 12 months. Fair Value (3) Stock
currently trades around its fair price and should perform in the range of -10% to +10% over the next 12 months. Sell (4)
Expected absolute drop in the share price of more than 10% in next 12 months.
Suitability Categories (SR)
For stocks rated by Raymond James & Associates only, the following Suitability Categories provide an assessment of
potential risk factors for investors. Suitability ratings are not assigned to stocks rated Underperform (Sell). Projected 12-
month price targets are assigned only to stocks rated Strong Buy or Outperform.
Total Return (TR) Lower risk equities possessing dividend yields above that of the S&P 500 and greater stability of principal.
Growth (G) Low to average risk equities with sound financials, more consistent earnings growth, possibly a small dividend,
and the potential for long-term price appreciation.
Aggressive Growth (AG) Medium or higher risk equities of companies in fast growing and competitive industries, with less
predictable earnings and acceptable, but possibly more leveraged balance sheets.
High Risk (HR) Companies with less predictable earnings (or losses), rapidly changing market dynamics, financial and
competitive issues, higher price volatility (beta), and risk of principal.
Venture Risk (VR) Companies with a short or unprofitable operating history, limited or less predictable revenues, very high
risk associated with success, and a substantial risk of principal.
Rating Distributions
Coverage Universe Rating Distribution Investment Banking Distribution
RJL RJA RJL RJA
Strong Buy and Outperform (Buy) 70% 53% 59% 24%
Market Perform (Hold) 29% 41% 33% 10%
Underperform (Sell) 2% 6% 0% 9%
Raymond James Relationship Disclosures

Raymond James Ltd. or its affiliates expects to receive or intends to seek compensation for investment banking services
from all companies under research coverage within the next three months.
Company Name Disclosure
Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp. Within the last 12 months, Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp. has paid for all or a material portion
of the travel costs associated with a site visit by the Analyst and/or Associate.
Raymond James Ltd. has managed or co-managed a public offering of securities within the
last 12 months with respect to Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp..
Raymond James Ltd. has provided investment banking services within the last 12 months
with respect to Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp..
Raymond James Ltd. has received compensation for investment banking services within the
last 12 months with respect to Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp..
Rocky Mountain Dealerships Raymond James Ltd. has managed or co-managed a public offering of securities within the
Inc. last 12 months with respect to Rocky Mountain Dealerships Inc..
Raymond James Ltd. has provided investment banking services within the last 12 months
with respect to Rocky Mountain Dealerships Inc..
Raymond James Ltd. has received compensation for investment banking services within the
last 12 months with respect to Rocky Mountain Dealerships Inc..
Target Prices: The information below indicates target price and rating changes for the subject companies included in this
research.
Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp. (ABC) 3 yr. Stock Performance
Update
Closing
Target
Rating
Price
Price
Date
MO2 $1.75
MO2 $2.00
$2.20
MO2 $2.25
$2.00 Feb-08-11 1.39 2.25 2
$1.80 Dec-15-10 1.60 2.00 2
$1.60 Oct-12-10 1.43 1.75 2
$1.40
Security Price (C$)
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
Apr-28-08
May-26-08
Jun-23-08
Jul-21-08
Aug-18-08
Sep-15-08
Oct-13-08
Nov-10-08
Dec-08-08
Jan-05-09
Feb-02-09
Mar-02-09
Mar-30-09
Apr-27-09
May-25-09
Jun-22-09
Jul-20-09
Aug-17-09
Sep-14-09
Oct-12-09
Nov-09-09
Dec-07-09
Jan-04-10
Feb-01-10
Mar-01-10
Mar-29-10
Apr-26-10
May-24-10
Jun-21-10
Jul-19-10
Aug-16-10
Sep-13-10
Oct-11-10
Nov-08-10
Dec-03-10
Dec-29-10
Jan-26-11
Feb-23-11
Mar-22-11
Apr-19-11
Analyst Recommendations & 12 Month Price Objective

SB1: Strong Buy MO2: Outperform
MP3: Market Perform MU4: Underperform
NR : Not Rated R: Restricted
Date : April 25 2011

Price Rating Change Target Price Change
Coverage Suspended Target Price and Rating Change Split A djustment
Valuation Methodology: For Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp., our valuation methodology utilizes a EV/EBITDA multiple and
CNY/CDN fx rate based on our EBITDA forecast, and takes into account growth potential, earnings quality, visibility, risk
profile, expansion opportunities, and historical trading range. We also include a peer group multiple comparison.
Alliance Grain Traders Inc. (AGT) 3 yr. Stock Performance
Update
Closing
Target
Rating
Price
Price
Date
$37.00
$35.00
$33.00
$31.00
Security Price (C$)
$29.00
$27.00
$25.00
$23.00
$21.00
$19.00
$17.00
Apr-28-08
May-26-08
Jun-23-08
Jul-21-08
Aug-18-08
Sep-15-08
Oct-13-08
Nov-10-08
Dec-08-08
Jan-05-09
Feb-02-09
Mar-02-09
Mar-30-09
Apr-27-09
May-25-09
Jun-22-09
Jul-20-09
Aug-17-09
Sep-14-09
Oct-12-09
Nov-09-09
Dec-07-09
Jan-04-10
Feb-01-10
Mar-01-10
Mar-29-10
Apr-26-10
May-24-10
Jun-21-10
Jul-19-10
Aug-16-10
Sep-13-10
Oct-11-10
Nov-08-10
Dec-03-10
Dec-31-10
Jan-28-11
Feb-25-11
Mar-25-11
Apr-22-11

Valuation Methodology: For AGT, our valuation methodology utilizes an EV/EBITDA multiple based on our EBITDA
forecast, and takes into account growth potential, earnings quality, visibility, risk profile, expansion opportunities, and
historical trading range. We also include a peer group and recent transaction multiple comparison.
BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd. (BXI) 3 yr. Stock Performance
Update
Closing
Target
Rating
Price
Price
Date
$3.20
$3.00
$2.80
$2.60
$2.40
$2.20
Security Price (C$)
$2.00
$1.80
$1.60
$1.40
$1.20
$1.00
$0.80
$0.60
$0.40
$0.20
$0.00
Apr-28-08
May-26-08
Jun-23-08
Jul-21-08
Aug-18-08
Sep-15-08
Oct-13-08
Nov-10-08
Dec-08-08
Jan-05-09
Feb-02-09
Mar-02-09
Mar-30-09
Apr-27-09
May-25-09
Jun-22-09
Jul-20-09
Aug-17-09
Sep-14-09
Oct-12-09
Nov-09-09
Dec-07-09
Jan-04-10
Feb-01-10
Mar-01-10
Mar-29-10
Apr-26-10
May-24-10
Jun-21-10
Jul-19-10
Aug-16-10
Sep-13-10
Oct-11-10
Nov-08-10
Dec-03-10
Dec-31-10
Jan-28-11
Feb-25-11
Mar-25-11
Apr-22-11


Valuation Methodology: For BXI, our valuation methodology utilizes discounted cash flow (DCF) with variables that
take into account growth potential, earnings quality, visibility, risk profile, and expansion opportunities. We then apply
a risk-adjustment to our NAV to account for the early stage of BXI and upcoming critical milestones. Our valuation is
compared to an equivalent multiple on our forward EPS estimate.
Cervus Equipment Corp. (CVL) 3 yr. Stock Performance
Update
Closing
Target
Rating
Price
Price
MO2 $13.00
Date
MO2 $15.00
MO2 $15.00 MP 3 $15.00 MP 3 $12.25 MO2 $20.00
MO2 $16.50 MO2 $16.50 SB1 $20.00
MO2 $14.00
$19.00
$18.00
Mar-29-11 16.00 20.00 1
$17.00 Mar-10-11 16.06 20.00 2
$16.00
$15.00 Nov-12-10 13.20 16.50 2
$14.00
Sep-24-10 11.30 12.25 3
Security Price (C$)
$13.00
$12.00 Aug-11-10 10.45 15.00 2
$11.00
$10.00
Jul-05-10 10.50 13.00 2
$9.00 May-13-10 11.65 14.00 2
$8.00
$7.00 Apr-14-10 13.50 16.50 2
$6.00
Mar-17-10 14.16 15.00 3
$5.00
$4.00 Nov-19-09 12.35 15.00 2
Apr-28-08
May-26-08
Jun-23-08
Jul-21-08
Aug-18-08
Sep-15-08
Oct-13-08
Nov-10-08
Dec-08-08
Jan-05-09
Feb-02-09
Mar-02-09
Mar-30-09
Apr-27-09
May-25-09
Jun-22-09
Jul-20-09
Aug-17-09
Sep-14-09
Oct-12-09
Nov-09-09
Dec-07-09
Jan-04-10
Feb-01-10
Mar-01-10
Mar-29-10
Apr-26-10
May-24-10
Jun-21-10
Jul-19-10
Aug-16-10
Sep-13-10
Oct-11-10
Nov-08-10
Dec-03-10
Dec-30-10
Jan-27-11
Feb-24-11
Mar-23-11
Apr-20-11

Valuation Methodology: Our valuation methodology for Cervus uses a peer group P/E multiple comparison plus the
present value of Cervus’ tax losses.
GLG Life Tech Corporation (GLG) 3 yr. Stock Performance
Update
Closing
Target
Rating
Price
Price
Date
$18.00
$16.00
$14.00
Security Price (C$)
$12.00
$10.00
$8.00
$6.00
$4.00
$2.00
Apr-28-08
May-26-08
Jun-23-08
Jul-21-08
Aug-18-08
Sep-15-08
Oct-13-08
Nov-10-08
Dec-08-08
Jan-05-09
Feb-02-09
Mar-02-09
Mar-30-09
Apr-27-09
May-25-09
Jun-22-09
Jul-20-09
Aug-17-09
Sep-14-09
Oct-12-09
Nov-09-09
Dec-07-09
Jan-04-10
Feb-01-10
Mar-01-10
Mar-29-10
Apr-26-10
May-24-10
Jun-21-10
Jul-19-10
Aug-16-10
Sep-13-10
Oct-11-10
Nov-08-10
Dec-03-10
Dec-31-10
Jan-28-11
Feb-25-11
Mar-25-11
Apr-22-11


Valuation Methodology: For GLG, our valuation methodology utilizes a EV/EBITDA multiple applied to our EBITDA
forecast for each of the company’s core businesses, and takes into account growth potential, earnings quality, visibility,
risk profile, expansion opportunities, and historical trading range. We also include a peer group multiple comparison.
Rocky Mountain Dealerships Inc. (RME) 3 yr. Stock Performance
Update
Closing
Target
Rating
Price
Price
MO2 $10.75
Date
MO2 $11.25
MO2 $6.00 SB1 $9.50 SB1 $12.50 MO2 $10.50 MO2 $14.00
MO2 $12.50 MO2 $12.50
$17.00 MO2 $13.00 MP 3 $10.00

$16.00 Mar-08-11 10.70 14.00 2
$15.00
Dec-11-10 8.65 11.25 2
$14.00
$13.00 Nov-10-10 9.00 10.75 2
$12.00
Sep-24-10 8.06 10.00 3
Security Price (C$)
$11.00
$10.00 Aug-11-10 7.90 12.50 2
$9.00
$8.00
Jul-05-10 7.60 10.50 2
$7.00 Mar-10-10 10.51 13.00 2
$6.00
$5.00 Jan-14-10 9.50 12.50 2
$4.00
Nov-11-09 7.60 12.50 1
$3.00
$2.00 Aug-12-09 5.61 9.50 1
Apr-28-08
May-26-08
Jun-23-08
Jul-21-08
Aug-18-08
Sep-15-08
Oct-13-08
Nov-10-08
Dec-08-08
Jan-05-09
Feb-02-09
Mar-02-09
Mar-30-09
Apr-27-09
May-25-09
Jun-22-09
Jul-20-09
Aug-17-09
Sep-14-09
Oct-12-09
Nov-09-09
Dec-07-09
Jan-04-10
Feb-01-10
Mar-01-10
Mar-29-10
Apr-26-10
May-24-10
Jun-21-10
Jul-19-10
Aug-16-10
Sep-13-10
Oct-11-10
Nov-08-10
Dec-03-10
Dec-30-10
Jan-27-11
Feb-24-11
Mar-23-11
Apr-20-11
Apr-17-09 4.60 6.00 2


Valuation Methodology: We value Rocky Mountain on a comparative basis to peer group P/E multiples.
Viterra Inc. (VT) 3 yr. Stock Performance
Update
Closing
Target
Rating
Price
Price
Date
$16.00
$15.00
$14.00
$13.00
Security Price (C$)
$12.00
$11.00
$10.00
$9.00
$8.00
$7.00
$6.00
Apr-28-08
May-26-08
Jun-23-08
Jul-21-08
Aug-18-08
Sep-15-08
Oct-13-08
Nov-10-08
Dec-08-08
Jan-05-09
Feb-02-09
Mar-02-09
Mar-30-09
Apr-27-09
May-25-09
Jun-22-09
Jul-20-09
Aug-17-09
Sep-14-09
Oct-12-09
Nov-09-09
Dec-07-09
Jan-04-10
Feb-01-10
Mar-01-10
Mar-29-10
Apr-26-10
May-24-10
Jun-21-10
Jul-19-10
Aug-16-10
Sep-13-10
Oct-11-10
Nov-08-10
Dec-03-10
Dec-31-10
Jan-28-11
Feb-25-11
Mar-25-11
Apr-22-11


Valuation Methodology: For VT, our valuation methodology utilizes a EV/EBITDA multiple based on our EBITDA
forecast, and takes into account growth potential, earnings quality, visibility, risk profile, expansion opportunities, and
historical trading range. We also include a peer group multiple comparison.
Risk Factors
General Risk Factors: Following are some general risk factors that pertain to the projected target prices included on
Raymond James research: (1) Industry fundamentals with respect to customer demand or product / service pricing could
change and adversely impact expected revenues and earnings; (2) Issues relating to major competitors or market shares or
new product expectations could change investor attitudes toward the sector or this stock; (3) Unforeseen developments
with respect to the management, financial condition or accounting policies or practices could alter the prospective
valuation; or (4) External factors that affect the U.S. economy, interest rates, the U.S. dollar or major segments of the
economy could alter investor confidence and investment prospects. International investments involve additional risks such
as currency fluctuations, differing financial accounting standards, and possible political and economic instability.
Risks - Cervus Equipment Corp.

Commodity Prices - Cervus’ sales are highly dependent upon farmers and general contractor’s equipment needs. As such,
commodity prices, which generate income for farmers and indirectly stimulate commercial and residential construction
activity in the resource-based Western Canadian provinces, have a significant impact on Cervus’ sales. Key commodities
affecting the company’s end markets’ demand include wheat, canola, and barely, and more broadly, oil and gas.
Economic Dependence on Material Contracts - Cervus’ main source of revenue stems from the sale of agricultural and
construction equipment and services pursuant to agreements to act as an authorized dealer. Presently, all dealership
agreements are in good standing with suppliers. There is however, no guarantee that situations may not develop permitting
current suppliers to terminate existing agreements.
Risks - Rocky Mountain Dealerships Inc.
Supplier Agreements - Rocky Mountain’s business is reliant on agreements with several equipment manufacturers and
distributors, the most significant being CNH Global. Changes to the terms of the agreements could negatively impact Rocky
Mountain’s sales and ability to grow through acquisitions.
Cyclicality and Seasonality - Rocky Mountain’s end markets-construction and agricultural-are highly cyclical and fluctuate
with the level of the economic activity globally, across Canada, and in the Western Canadian provinces in particular. As
such, Rocky Mountain’s sales are sensitive to GDP, government spending, commercial and residential construction activity,
farm subsidies, net
cash farm income and other related factors. Rocky Mountain’s business is also affected by seasonality. The company
generally experiences lower sales volumes in the first quarter of the year due to winter weather which makes certain types
of construction and agricultural work difficult or impossible to perform.
Commodity Prices - Rocky Mountain’s sales are highly dependent upon farmers and general contractors’ equipment needs.
As such, commodity prices which generate income for farmers and indirectly stimulate commercial and residential
construction activity in the resource-based Western Canadian provinces, have a significant impact on Rocky Mountain’s
sales. Key commodities affecting the company’s end-markets’ demand include wheat, canola, and barley, and more
broadly, oil and gas.
Foreign Exchange - Purchase of equipment from suppliers are made in US dollar. The company may have to increase prices
to maintain new sales margins when the Canadian dollar weakens relative to the US dollar. If price increases are not
accepted by the market, Rocky Mountain will either experience a sales decrease or be forced to absorb higher cost of good
sold, which would adversely affect gross margins.
Availability of Credit - Tightening credit conditions could adversely affect Rocky Mountain’s accessibility to credit. The
company currently uses credit to finance it working capital requirements and to finance acquisitions. Inadequate access to
credit could negatively impact daily operations and also hinder the company’s ability to grow via acquisitions.
Interest Rates - Rocky Mountain finances its purchases of new and, to a lesser extent, used equipment inventory through
floor plan borrowing arrangements, under which it is charged interest at floating rates. As a result, rising interest rates have
the effect of increasing the Company’s costs, particularly in respect of interest on debt financing, including floor plan
financing. To the extent the Company cannot pass on such increased costs to its customers, its net earnings or cash flow
may decrease. In addition, its customers finance the majority of the equipment they purchase through the Company. A
customer’s decision to purchase may be affected by interest rates available to the customer to finance the purchase.
Risks - Asia Bio-Chem Group Corp.

Some of the specific risk factors that pertain to the projected 6-12 month stock price targets for Asia Bio-chem are as
follows: By-product pricing risk - Although ABC may pass on any corn price increase through resetting its starch price to the
market prevailing rate, the company is not hedged against price fluctuation of its by-products. Regulatory risk - Changes in
government policies on corn imports and exports or other related government-initiated program may have a significant
impact on the corn and corn starch prices, and thus affect the company’s profitability. Event risk - The yield of corn in China
is largely dependent upon the weather during the growing season of corn. Any force majeure events, such as drought, flood
and early freezes may significantly reduce the yield and induce the domestic corn price. Therefore, the company is exposed
to the effects of severe weather conditions and other acts of nature. Currency risk - Since ABC’s operating currency is in
RMB and has not been engaged in any currency hedging agreement, the company is exposed to risks from changes in the
RMB/CAD exchange rate. A significant adjustment to the exchange rate may adversely impact the company’s results from
operations. Credit risk - The company holds significant trade receivables from various debtors, with a material portion
more than 60 days. The company’s profitability may be adversely impacted if any receivable account becomes
nonperforming. Growth Dependent on External Financing - ABC has historically funded the majority of their growth
initiatives through external financing. Should ABC’s ability to access external financing in an effective manner deteriorate
(e.g. through a weakening in the credit markets, inability to access the equity markets, or a deterioration in the company’s
credit rating), the execution risk of the company’s growth plans could rise. Should revenues deteriorate significantly, the
firm’s profitability and ability to service current financing commitments could suffer. Dependence on Key Personnel - The
company is highly dependent upon the market and industry knowledge, as well as relationships held by senior management
personnel, most specifically Mr. Zhiping Wang, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The loss of one or more of these
key individual members could negatively impact the business.
Risks - GLG Life Tech Corporation

Supply of raw materials–GLG’s business depends on sourcing adequate supply of raw materials (i.e. stevia leaf) required to
meet customer demand. In the event of a supply shortage, the company’s business could be materially impacted. GLG
mitigates this risk by engaging in fixed-price supply contracts with growers in key stevia growing regions.
Intellectual Property–GLG uses proprietary technologies to extract high grade stevia extract. These technologies are
patented only in China. Therefore, any competitor developing technology equal to or better than that of GLG would have a
negative impact on GLG’s competitive position.
Product Liability–Negative public perception, product liability claims, ill effects, recalls could harm the sales and cause
consumers to avoid the product all together.
Brand name recognition–The food and beverage industry is highly competitive and brand-conscious. Any inability to create
a recognizable brand could hurt companies sales and competitiveness.
Customer Concentration–In the past, GLG has relied heavily on one customer: Cargill. The reliance on sales to Cargill has
dropped from 90% in 2009 to 47% of revenues in 2010. GLG’s business operations could be severely impacted if Cargill
were to terminate this relationship.
Competition–Competitors may enter the market globally, which may drive down the price of stevia extract. Some of these
competitors may also have greater financial, technical and marketing resources and a better established customer base.
Regulation–While regulatory barriers have been dropping, there still is a number of large regions where stevia has not yet
been approved for use. Global demand for stevia and related products may be constrained as stevia’s approval remains
limited to a small number of countries. Additional regulations are imposed on food and beverage processing; any changes
to these can materially impact the company’s operations.
Product Acceptance–To date, GLG’s revenues have been based solely on stevia and stevia related products. If the stevia
market declines or fails to achieve greater acceptance, the company will not be able to grow its business and maintain
profitability. Furthermore, the food and beverage industry is fast-paced, with consumer tastes and preferences changing
rapidly. The inability to develop innovative products that meet consumer demand and changing preference could have a
negative, material effect on GLG’s sales.
Third Party Distribution–GLG relies heavily on third party distribution for the sale and distribution of its products. In the
event that distributors are distracted from selling the product or do not place sufficient effort into managing and selling
stevia products, GLG’s sales could be adversely affected.
Foreign Exchange – GLG’s financial results are largely affected by the currency exchange rate between USD and RMB. The
company generates USD denominated revenue and accrues expenses denominated in RMB, while at the same time it
reports financial results in CAD. In China, currency conversion is regulated by the State Administration for Foreign Exchange
(“SAFE”) and is subject to a number of rules and regulations. Changes in the government policy with respect to RMB
conversion can materially affect GLG’s business. A significant adjustment to the exchange rate may adversely impact the
company’s results from operations.
Foreign Operations—Because a significant proportion of the company’s operations are conducted in China, operations are
exposed to significant political, economic, and other risks associated with the PRC. These risks and uncertainties include,
but are not limited to: high rates of inflation; labour unrest; renegotiation or nullification of existing concessions, licenses,
permits and contracts; changes in taxation policies; restrictions on foreign exchange; government corruption; changing
political conditions; currency controls and governmental regulations that favour or require the awarding of contracts to
local contractors or require foreign contractors to employ citizens of, or purchase supplies from, a particular jurisdiction.
Infrastructure—The company’s ability to carry on its operations in China in a profitable manner are highly dependent on
continued provision of reliable infrastructure by local Chinese governments including public highways, railways, ports,
shipping lines, power sources and water supply. Unusual or infrequent weather phenomena, malfunction, ineffective
scheduling, sabotage, government or other interference in the maintenance or provision of such infrastructure could
adversely affect the company’s business and operations, financial condition and results of operations.
Dependence on key personnel–GLG’s business is built on relationships its key employees, primarily Dr. Luke Zhang, have
established with the Chinese government and strategic customers. The loss of any key personnel and in particular Dr. Luke
Zhang could have an adverse effect on the company’s business. For example, Cargill Inc. may terminate the strategic
alliance and supply agreement in the event that Dr. Zhang ceases to be actively involved in GLG’s business.
Risks - Viterra Inc.

Volume, Inventory & Weather risk–In a volume driven business such as Viterra’s Grain Handling and Marketing, weather
represents the most considerable risk. Because fixed costs in this, VT’s largest business segment, represent 70-80% of all
costs, volatility in volume and inventory turns can significantly impact margins. Weather can also impact Viterra’s other
businesses such as fertilizer and crop protection sales.
Commodity Price Risk–In addition to volume, price is a key driver for the Grain Handling and Marketing segment. The CWB
assumes the price risk for all board grains (~50% of Canadian volume), with the remaining non-board grains as well as all
grains sourced in Australia exposed to price fluctuations. Viterra’s exposure begins at the time the grain is purchased
through the time it is delivered to the end customer.
Seasonality Risk–A vast majority of Viterra’s businesses is in food products exposing the company to food safety risk,
particularity with a recent push into food processing. In the event of significant outbreak of food-borne illness or increased
consumer health awareness with certain products the company can be vulnerable.
Food and Feed Safety Risk–A vast majority of Viterra’s businesses is in food products exposing the company to food safety
risk, particularity with a recent push into food processing. In the event of significant outbreak of food-borne illness or
increased consumer health awareness with certain products the company can be vulnerable.
Regulatory Risk–Industry regulations, particularly within Canada, can affect AGT’s performance. While The Australian
market is deregulated, CWB is the only selling authority for Canadian wheat and barley. The CWB handles ~ 50% of
Viterra’s Canadian volume and as such, export size and scheduling can materially affect company’s grain handling volumes.
M&A Risk–Viterra’s growth-through-acquisition strategy exposes the company to M&A risk in the event that it does not
succeed in achieving a certain level of synergies. Viterra’s business expansions expose the company to new geographic,
regulatory, industry, operating and financial risks.
Foreign Exchange Risk– Substantial revenue is generated in US denominated currencies, while operating expenses are
accrued in Canadian and Australian dollars. The exposure to different currency markets poses a risk which Viterra hedges by
entering into currency future and forward contracts. A significant adjustment to the exchange rate may adversely impact
the company’s results from operations.
Risks - Alliance Grain Traders Inc.

Weather risk–Weather conditions significantly impact size and quality of the crop, and in turn, impact the volumes handled
and processed by AGT. AGT’s dual origin strategy is meant to mitigate the weather risk.
Transportation and Transloading–AGT is dependent on third parties and container availability for the transportation of its
products. In Canada, a large portion of AGT’s products are transported by rail, with another significant portion by road. In
Turkey, AGT’s products are transported exclusively by road. As the majority of AGT’s products are exported, AGT also relies
on shipping companies and vessel space. All exported products also pass through third party transloading facilities to
facilitate their final containerization for export. Strikes, work stoppages, labour disputes, failure or substandard
performance of equipment or other interruptions to the rail or road networks, haulage companies, transloading facilities or
shipping companies used by AGT and limited container availability may have a material adverse effect on the business,
financial condition and results of operations of AGT.
Distribution and Supply Contracts–AGT typically does not enter into formal long-term agreements with clients, distributors,
or suppliers. As a result, such parties may, without notice or penalty, terminate their relationship with AGT at any time. In
addition, even if such parties should decide to continue their relationship with AGT, there can be no guarantee that the
consideration or other terms of such contracts will continue on the same basis. If any of these clients chose to terminate or
alter their relationship with AGT that could have a negative affect on the company’s business.
Reliance on Key Personnel–AGT is dependent on the abilities, experience and efforts of its senior management. The
business could be negatively impacted should any of these persons leave, in particular CEO Mr. Murad Al-Katib.
Wholesale Price Volatility Risk–Industry Regulations, particularly in Canada, can affect AGT’s performance. While the
Australian market is deregulated, CWB is the only selling authority for Canadian wheat and barley. The CWB handles ~50%
of Viterra’s Canadian volume and, as such, export size and scheduling can materially affect the company’s grain handling
volumes.
M&A Risk–Viterra’s growth-through-acquisition strategy exposes the company to M&A risk in the event that it does not
succeed in achieving a certain level of synergies. Specifically, these expansions expose the company to new geographic,
regulatory, industry, operating and financial risks.
Foreign Exchange Risk – A significant proportion of AGT’s revenues are generated in US dollars, while its costs are incurred
in Canadian dollars and Turkish lira. As a result, AGT is exposed to currency exchange rate risks. A significant adjustment to
the exchange rate may adversely impact the company’s results from operations.
Risks - BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd.

Funding future growth–BioExx’s aggressive growth strategy requires access to substantial funding. In the event of a lack in
available funding, the company could not progress with its expansion plans.
Production, scaling up–To date, the company has only run a medium size processing facility on a limited basis. There is no
assurance that BioExx will be successful at constructing and operating, on a continuous basis, up to five large-scale
processing facilities. The inability to demonstrate successful full commercial-scale operations could have a material impact
of the business.
History of losses–BioExx has been in existence for a short time and has a history of losses. While the losses are expected as
the company is building out the business, there is a risk that BioExx will never achieve or maintain profitability. The limited
history makes it difficult to asses whether the company will be successful and profitable.
Price risk–The company is exposed to commodity price risk with respect to raw materials (canola) but also the volatility in
protein prices for its final products. The price exposure is typically tracked by the crush margin. As crush margins increase,
the company’s margins increase and vice-versa. In order to mitigate exposure, BioExx attempts to lock in seed, oil and meal
prices within the same future price window to avoid pricing mismatches. There is no guarantee, however, that it is able to
do so at any given time or on a consistent basis.
Intellectual Property–BioExx patents its extraction processes in the U.S., Canada and Europe, in addition to other markets
where it may be necessary. There is no guarantee, however, that the applications for patents will be approved given that
regulations vary across countries. There is a potential that its technology gets replicated and BioExx loses to competition.
Product Quality–Several canola facilities in Canada have reported cases of salmonella over the past year. BioExx has not had
any issues, largely due to its cooling process which hinders germination. The company has also received HACCP/ISO/GMP
certification. This does still remain a key risk.
Product Acceptance–BioExx is developing new products and it is crucial to successfully educate customers. To the extent
that BioExx is unable to introduce new and innovative products could significantly damage its business.
Regulation–The end markets for BioExx products such as pharmaceuticals, nutraceuticals and food processing, are highly
regulated. Regulatory changes may have significant impact on the company’s ability to market its products. In addition,
laws and regulations differ across countries, thus BioExx could potentially be exposed to multiple regulatory sources.
Competition–The markets for vegetable oil, meal and protein are highly competitive. If a competitor develops or acquires
superior technology or products, Bio-Exx’s business could be materially affected.
Additional Risk and Disclosure information, as well as more information on the Raymond James rating system and suitability
categories, is available at www.raymondjames.ca/researchdisclosures. Copies of research or Raymond James’ summary
policies relating to research analyst independence can be obtained by contacting any Raymond James & Associates or
Raymond James Financial Services office (please see raymondjames.com for office locations) or by calling 727-567-1000, toll
free 800-237-5643 or sending a written request to the Equity Research Library, Raymond James & Associates, Inc., Tower 3,
6th Floor, 880 Carillon Parkway, St. Petersburg, FL 33716.
International Disclosures
For clients in the United States:

Investing in securities of issuers organized outside of the U.S., including ADRs, may entail certain risks. The securities of
non-U.S. issuers may not be registered with, nor be subject to the reporting requirements of, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission. There may be limited information available on such securities. Investors who have received this
report may be prohibited in certain states or other jurisdictions from purchasing the securities mentioned in this report.
Please ask your Financial Advisor for additional details.
Raymond James Ltd. is not a U.S. broker-dealer and therefore is not governed by U.S. laws, rules or regulations applicable
to U.S. broker-dealers. Consequently, the persons responsible for the content of this publication are not licensed in the U.S.
as research analysts in accordance with applicable rules promulgated by the U.S. Self Regulatory Organizations.
Any U.S. Institutional Investor wishing to effect trades in any security should contact Raymond James (USA) Ltd., a U.S.
broker-dealer affiliate of Raymond James Ltd.
For clients in the United Kingdom:

For clients of Raymond James & Associates (RJA) and Raymond James Financial International, Ltd. (RJFI): This report is for
distribution only to persons who fall within Articles 19 or Article 49(2) of the Financial Services and Markets Act (Financial
Promotion) Order 2000 as investment professionals and may not be distributed to, or relied upon, by any other person.
For clients of Raymond James Investment Services, Ltd.: This report is intended only for clients in receipt of Raymond
James Investment Services, Ltd.’s Terms of Business or others to whom it may be lawfully submitted.
For purposes of the Financial Services Authority requirements, this research report is classified as objective with respect to
conflict of interest management. RJA, Raymond James Financial International, Ltd., and Raymond James Investment
Services, Ltd. are authorized and regulated in the U.K. by the Financial Services Authority.
For institutional clients in the European Economic Area (EEA) outside of the United Kingdom:
This document (and any attachments or exhibits hereto) is intended only for EEA institutional clients or others to whom it
may lawfully be submitted.
Proprietary Rights Notice: By accepting a copy of this report, you acknowledge and agree as follows:
This report is provided to clients of Raymond James only for your personal, noncommercial use. Except as expressly
authorized by Raymond James, you may not copy, reproduce, transmit, sell, display, distribute, publish, broadcast,
circulate, modify, disseminate or commercially exploit the information contained in this report, in printed, electronic or any
other form, in any manner, without the prior express written consent of Raymond James. You also agree not to use the
information provided in this report for any unlawful purpose. This is RJA client releasable research
This report and its contents are the property of Raymond James and are protected by applicable copyright, trade secret or
other intellectual property laws (of the United States and other countries). United States law, 17 U.S.C. Sec.501 et seq,
provides for civil and criminal penalties for copyright infringement.
Additional information is available upon request. This document may not be reprinted without permission.
RJL is a member of CIPF. ©2011 Raymond James Ltd.
RAYMOND JAMES LTD. CANADIAN INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY TEAM WWW.RAYMONDJAMES.CA

EQUITY RESEARCH INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY SALES
HEAD OF EQUITY RESEARCH HEAD OF SALES
DARYL SWETLISHOFF, CFA 604.659.8246 MIKE WESTCOTT 416.777.4935
DEBORAH CHEETHAM (RESEARCH ASSISTANT) 604.659.8200 MICHELLE BALDRY (MARKETING COORDINATOR) 416.777.4951
CONSUMER PRODUCTS & RETAIL TORONTO (CAN 1.888.601.6105 | USA 1.800.290.4847)
CONSUMER PRODUCTS & RETAIL LAURA ARRELL (U.S. EQUITIES) 416.777.4920
KENRIC TYGHE, MBA 416.777.7188 SEAN BOYLE 416.777.4927
SARA KOHBODI (ASSOCIATE) 416.777.4916 JEFF CARRUTHERS, CFA 416.777.4929
ENERGY JON DE VOS (LONDON) 0.207.426.5632
OIL & GAS ENERGY SERVICES, HEAD OF ENERGY RESEARCH RICHARD EAKINS 416.777.4926
ANDREW BRADFORD, CFA 403.509.0503 JONATHAN GREER 416.777.4930
NICK HEFFERNAN (ASSOCIATE) 403.509.0511 AMAN JAIN 416.777.4949
BEN NOSAL (ASSOCIATE) 403.509.0534 DAVE MACLENNAN 416.777.4934
BRANDI BUGERA (RESEARCH ASSISTANT) 403.509.0537 ROBERT MILLS, CFA 416.777.4945
INTERNATIONAL OIL & GAS DOUG OWEN 416.777.4925
RAFI KHOURI, B.SC, MBA 403.509.0560 NICOLE SVEC-GRIFFIS, CFA (U.S. EQUITIES) 416.777.4942
CYNTHIA YEE (ASSOCIATE) 416.777.7175 LAKSHMI THURAI (LONDON) 0.207.426.5632
OIL & GAS TRUSTS | OIL & GAS PRODUCERS NEIL WEBER 416.777.4931
KRISTOPHER ZACK, CA, CFA 403.221.0414 CARMELA AVELLA (ASSISTANT) 416.777.4915
GORDON STEPPAN (ASSOCIATE) 403.221.0411 ORNELLA BURNS (ASSISTANT) 416.777.4928
OIL SANDS | OIL & GAS PRODUCERS VANCOUVER (1.800.667.2899)
JUSTIN BOUCHARD, P.ENG. 403.509.0523
SCOT ATKINSON, CFA 604.659.8225
CHRISTOPHER COX (ASSOCIATE) 403.509.0562
DOUG BELL 604.659.8220
OIL & GAS PRODUCERS
TERRI MCEWAN (ASSISTANT) 604.659.8228
LUC MAGEAU, CFA 403.509.0505
MATTHEW STEVENSON (ASSOCIATE) 403.509.0518 MONTREAL (514.350.4450 | 1.866.350.4455)
INDUSTRIAL JOHN HART 514.350.4462
INDUSTRIAL | AEROSPACE & AVIATION, HEAD OF INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH DAVID MAISLIN, CFA 514.350.4460
BEN CHERNIAVSKY 604.659.8244 ELLIOTT SOIFER 514.350.4472
THEONI PILARINOS, CFA (ASSOCIATE) 604.659.8234 TANYA HATCHER (ASSISTANT) 514.350.4458
GREG JACKSON (ASSOCIATE) 604.659.8262 INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY TRADING
INFRASTRUCTURE & CONSTRUCTION
FREDERIC BASTIEN, CFA 604.659.8232 CO-HEAD OF TRADING
JAMIL MURJI, CFA (ASSOCIATE) 604.659.8261 BOB MCDONALD, CFA 604.659.8222
TRANSPORTATION | AGRIBUSINESS & FOOD PRODUCTS ANDREW FOOTE, CFA 416.777.4924
STEVE HANSEN, CMA, CFA 604.659.8208 TORONTO (CANADA 1.888.601.6105 | USA 1.800.290.4847)
ARASH YAZDANI, MBA (ASSOCIATE) 604.659.8280 PAM BANKS 416.777.4923
ANTHONY COX 416.777.4922
MINING ROSS DAVIDSON 416.777.4981
BASE METALS & MINERALS OLIVER HERBST 416.777.4947
ADAM LOW, CFA 416.777.4943 ANDY HERRMANN 416.777.4937
PRECIOUS METALS ERIC MUNRO, CFA 416.777.4983
BRAD HUMPHREY 416.777.4917 JAMES SHIELDS 416.777.4941
GARY BASCHUK 416.777.7098 BOB STANDING 416.777.4921
GRAHAM MORRISON (ASSOCIATE) 416.777.7189 Peter MASON (Assistant) 416.777.7195
PHIL RUSSO (ASSOCIATE) 416.777.7084 VANCOUVER (1.800.667.2899)
URANIUM & JUNIOR EXPLORATION NAV CHEEMA 604.659.8224
BART JAWORSKI, P.GEO. 604.659.8282 FRASER JEFFERSON 604.659.8218
DAVID SADOWSKI (ASSOCIATE) 604.659.8255 DEREK ORAM 604.659.8223
FORESTRY MONTREAL (514.350.4450 | 1.866.350.4455)
SEBASTIEN BENOIT 514.350.4466
FORESTRY
JOE CLEMENT 514.350.4470
DARYL SWETLISHOFF, CFA 604.659.8246
DAVID QUEZADA, CFA (ASSOCIATE) 604.659.8257 RETAIL RESEARCH & DISTRIBUTION
REAL ESTATE SAMANTHA BARRETT, CFA 604.659.8235
REAL ESTATE & REITS LAUREN CORSCADDEN (ASSISTANT) 604.659.8233
TRACY REYNOLDS (ASSOCIATE) 416.777.7042 INSTITUTIONAL EQUITY OFFICES
TECHNOLOGY
Calgary Montreal Vancouver
TECHNOLOGY, ALTERNATIVE ENERGY & CLEAN TECH Suite 2500 Suite 1420 Suite 2200
STEVEN LI, CFA 416.777.4918 707 8th Avenue SW 1002 Sherbrooke St W 925 West Georgia Street
ANTHONY JIN, MBA, P.ENG (ASSOCIATE) 416.777.6414 Calgary, AB T2P 1H5 Montreal, PQ H3A 3L6 Vancouver, BC V6C 3L2
EQUITY RESEARCH PUBLISHING 403.509.0500 514.350.4450 604.659.8200
Toll Free: 1.866.350.4455 Toll Free: 1.800.667.2899
SENIOR SUPERVISORY ANALYST
Toronto International Headquarters
HEATHER HERRON 403.509.0509
Suite 5400, Scotia Plaza 40 King Street West The Raymond James Financial Center
HEAD OF PUBLISHING
Toronto, ON M5H 3Y2 880 Carillon Parkway
CYNTHIA LUI 604.659.8210
416.777.4900 St.Petersburg, FL
STEPHANIE CURAPOV (SUPERVISORY ANALYST | EDITOR) 416.777.4948 Toll Free Canada: .888.601.6105 USA 33716
INDER GILL (RESEARCH EDITOR) 604.659.8202 Toll Free USA: 1.800.290.4847 727.567.1000
KEVIN LAROSE (SUPERVISORY ANALYST | EDITOR) 416.777.7172
CHRISTINE MARTE (PUBLISHING ASSISTANT) 604.659.8200
ASHLEY RAMSAY (RESEARCH EDITOR) 604.659.8226
www.raymondjames.ca

Raymond James Agribusiness 2011

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Raymond James Agribusiness 2011

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agribusiness & Food Products

Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel

Steve Hansen, CMA, CFA

Arash Yazdani, MBA (Associate)

April 27, 2011

Industrial | Agribusiness & Food Products

Agribusiness: Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel

Ticker Ticker Target Price Total Return

Alliance Grain Traders Inc. AGT-TSX C$23.25 1 C$30.00 31% SH

Raymond James Ltd.

How to Play the Cycle — Our Favoured Ag-Related Names ............................................................... 3

Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel ......................................................................................... 4

Demand-Side Pressures ...................................................................................................................... 4

Company Overviews ........................................................................................................................... 19

Appendix A: Industry Comparables .................................................................................................... 34

Alliance Grain Traders Inc. .................................................................................................................. 36

BioExx Specialty Proteins Ltd. ............................................................................................................. 68

GLG Life Tech Corp.............................................................................................................................. 99

Viterra Inc. .......................................................................................................................................... 133

How to Play the Cycle — Our Favoured Ag-Related Names

Clash of the Titans: Food vs. Feed vs. Fuel

The global agriculture (“Ag”) complex has embarked on a prolonged journey of

Putting Food on the Table

1. Population Growth—Plenty More Mouths to Feed

Exhibit 2: Urban Population as % of Global Total

Source: UN, Raymond James Ltd.

2. Dietary Evolution—Middle Classes Migrating Up the Food Chain

 Urbanization Tsunami—Cities within emerging markets, many already the

10,000 80.0 3,500 45,000

Low & Middle Income Nations GNI per

High Income Nations GNI per Capita

Capita (current $US)

45.0 Pulse crop demand for

equivalent to meats 40.0 at a much faster pace in

1979-1981 1997-1999 2015 2030

Source: World Pulses Organization, UN FAO, Raymond James Ltd.

Putting Feed in the Barnyard

Animal feed (‘feed’) consumption is generally expected to increase in tandem with

2,379 * shaded areas represent feed use

Source: USDA, FAO, Raymond James Ltd.

Putting Fuel In the Gas Tank

1. Food for Fuel, the Evolution of Ethanol in the U.S.

Ethanol as % of corn production

Corn production (mln bushels)

100,000 89,427 20.0%

50,000 37,2047 38,508 10.0%

Source: USDA, FAO, Raymond James Ltd.

Supply-induced challenges have also introduced powerful stressors on the global Ag

Declining Arable Land per Capita

1. Not Keeping Pace; Arable Land per Capita Declining

0.1 South and Central America

Source: World Bank, Raymond James Ltd.

2030 Water (Blns cubic meters)

Source: FAO, McKinsey & Company, Raymond James Ltd.

Notwithstanding plentiful debate surrounding its underlying causes, climate change is

1. Physiological & Agro-Ecological Impacts to Pressure Yields

80,000 12.0% 250

Russian as % of global production 10.0%

Russian wheat exports

8.0% halted in August 2010

Source: USDA, Bloomberg, Raymond James Ltd.

Stagnating Productivity Growth

1. Yield Gains Have Dominated Output Growth Historically

CAGR: 2.29% 0.86% 0.73%