A visualisation tool to understand disease prevention and control practices of stakeholders working along the poultry supply chain in southern India

The study interrogates the usefulness of “biosecurity” as a universal term for farm disease prevention and control, arguing that it is ill-defined, variably interpreted, and embedded in a global hierarchy of value that can marginalize local practices. The research aims to move beyond the term by developing and deploying a participatory visualization tool to elicit and map stakeholders’ tacit practices and interpretations of disease prevention and control along the poultry supply chain in southern India. The purpose is to open dialogue across disciplines and stakeholder groups and to understand locally situated practices that shape disease control on farms.

The paper situates biosecurity within social science critiques highlighting its ambiguity and role in enforcing standardized practices (Hinchliffe et al., 2013; Herzfeld, 2004; Grasseni, 2011; Porter, 2019). It discusses how universalizing frameworks can devalue local tacit knowledge and practices. In design and health communication, visualization can aid engagement and sensemaking (Macdonald, 2017; Walker, 2019; Schoffelen et al., 2015), but can also produce partial or abstract interpretations and reflect Global North perspectives (Manzo, 2010a; Manzo, 2010b; Ram, 2020). Participatory tools can surface tacit knowledge by provoking reflection (Sanders & Stappers, 2014; Segelström & Holmlid, 2009; Whyte et al., 2007; Kallus, 2016). The authors adopt a participatory, design-led approach attentive to human–nonhuman relations (Escobar, 2018) to visualize disease control without relying on the term biosecurity.

Design and setting: A participatory visualization tool (“disease control map”) was designed to translate scientific guidelines into accessible prompts and to act as a participatory device representing farm spaces and multispecies interactions. The study was conducted in three southern Indian states (Karnataka, Telangana, Tamil Nadu). Qualitative fieldwork took place over five months in 2019 (March–April, July–September, November–December) and one month in 2020 (February–March). Tool development and iterations: Components of disease prevention and control were initially identified from team expertise and literature (e.g., hygiene, disease monitoring, disinfectant use), organized into three interrelated components: bird-level (e.g., treatments), farm-level (e.g., housing, water), and external factors (e.g., integrator SOPs). The first iteration included items like HACCP, vehicles, people, wild birds, litter management, etc. Initial testing at the 7th Pan Commonwealth Veterinary Conference (PCVC), Bangalore (March 2019) involved 17 participants (veterinarians, poultry nutritionists, integrators, policy makers) in key informant interviews and a focus group. Based on feedback and field use, the map was refined: translated into Tamil; components added/removed (e.g., HACCP proved hard to visualize and was excluded after limited resonance); and prompts adjusted to align with stakeholders’ interpretations. Field deployment: The refined tool was used on six broiler farms in and around Namakkal (Tamil Nadu) during July–September 2019. Farms were selected by local partners based on location, crop cycle start date, and flock size. Across the six farms, 13 people participated (often multiple family members involved in poultry care). Flock sizes in the current cycle ranged approximately from 1,495 to 8,200 birds (e.g., Farm 1: 8,200 across own and rented sheds). Materials were translated into Tamil; Indian team members provided English–Tamil interpretation during farm research. Participatory activities included using the map to prompt discussion, farm walkarounds to co-create spatial maps of boundaries, water sources, buildings, shed placement, litter disposal, other livestock and crops, and elicitation of situated practices (cleaning, waste management, dead bird disposal, perceptions of disease causation and treatment).

- Among animal health professionals and poultry integrators (PCVC and interviews), the map elicited discussions framed explicitly as “biosecurity,” which was positively connoted yet variably defined and often conflated with broader notions of good management, productivity, and profitability. Disease control was conceptualized through separation and boundedness: uncontrolled movement by people, vehicles, and wild birds was seen as key risks; cleaning and disinfection (e.g., phenolic disinfectants, fumigation, foot baths) were emphasized as essential mitigations; environmentally controlled closed sheds were portrayed as more “biosecure” than open-sided sheds. Practices separated dead birds (burial/burning in standard pits) and litter (removed each batch, sold to agriculture), reinforcing clean/unclean hierarchies. - Among contracted poultry farmers in Namakkal, the same map prompted accounts of entangled relations among humans, chickens, other livestock (dairy cows, buffalo, goats), crops (e.g., sorghum, tapioca, pumpkin, sugarcane, cotton, coconuts, bananas), and the environment. Farms were within communities without strict compounds; people and vehicles were not perceived as primary disease vectors. Wild birds, insects, and rodents were seen as normal co-inhabitants; wild birds (e.g., babblers) entered sheds to eat insects and were not considered disease threats. Rodent control was informal (e.g., cats). Poultry litter was routinely used on farmers’ own fields. - Cleaning and waste management diverged from formal prescriptions: while integrators supplied formalin and citric acid post-clearance, some farmers used cow dung as a “natural/traditional disinfectant” for sheds. Dead bird disposal varied: covered pits were common, but some used open pits or burial within manure when space constraints existed. - Perceived causes of illness differed from visual prompts: farmers attributed mortality to heat stress, weak hatchery chicks, and failed/delayed vaccinations. A common late-cycle respiratory condition (sali: cold/flu) was expected and treated empirically with antibiotics (e.g., Enrofloxacin), without routine veterinary diagnosis. Mortality up to 5% per batch over the lifecycle was considered normal (aligned with integrator threshold). - Overall, the tool revealed that “biosecurity” is both ill-defined (open to interpretation) and rigid (fails to capture local practices and understandings). It highlighted mismatches between standardized guidelines and farmers’ lived experiences and knowledge, and surfaced tacit, situated practices otherwise hard to elicit through conventional methods.

The participatory visualization tool effectively opened a dialogic space to compare stakeholder imaginaries of disease prevention and control. It showed that animal health professionals and integrators deploy “biosecurity” as a flexible signifier aligned with separation logics and standardized practices, while farmers conceptualize farms as porous, multispecies, community-embedded environments where disease emerges from locally salient factors (heat, chick quality, vaccine issues) and is managed through situated practices. These findings address the research aim by demonstrating why relying on “biosecurity” as a universal term obscures local knowledge and tacit practices, helping explain variability in adoption of prescribed measures. The results underscore the significance of co-design and participatory methods to apprehend context, recognize plural ontologies of farm health, and inform adaptive, locally resonant disease control strategies.

The study contributes a participatory visualization tool that facilitates elicitation of tacit, locally situated disease control practices across the poultry supply chain in southern India. It demonstrates that “biosecurity” lacks consistent meaning and functions as part of a global hierarchy of value that can marginalize local practices, while standardized guidelines often fail to reflect farmers’ lived realities. The authors argue for moving beyond universalized biosecurity framings toward co-designed, context-specific disease prevention and control measures that engage stakeholders’ knowledge and practices. Future work should extend participatory co-design with farmers and supply-chain actors to develop locally tailored interventions and evaluate their sustainability and effectiveness.

The authors note known limitations of visual and participatory tools: visualizations can offer partial or abstract representations of contested terms, risk miscommunication, and may privilege Global North perspectives if not carefully designed. Language and translation issues were evident (no direct local translation for “biosecurity”), influencing how participants engaged with the tool. Early inclusions (e.g., HACCP) reflected researcher assumptions and lacked resonance, requiring iteration. The qualitative work was conducted in three southern Indian states and applied in-depth on six farms in Namakkal, so findings reflect these specific contexts rather than aiming for statistical generalization. The tool elicited perceptions and practices but was not designed to measure epidemiological outcomes.