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

The research addresses the limitations of using the term "biosecurity" as a universal solution for disease prevention and control in poultry farming, particularly in diverse contexts like southern India. Veterinarians and public health professionals often promote biosecurity as a cost-effective solution, but the researchers argue that its ill-defined nature hinders practical application and meaningful communication among stakeholders along the poultry supply chain. The study's purpose is to explore and understand the diverse perspectives and practices related to disease prevention and control, moving beyond a singular, potentially misleading term like "biosecurity." The importance of the study lies in its potential to contribute to more effective and locally appropriate strategies for preventing and controlling poultry diseases, ultimately improving the livelihoods of farmers and ensuring food security.

The paper reviews literature highlighting the ambiguities and inconsistencies surrounding the term "biosecurity." It cites studies that demonstrate how biosecurity measures, while intended to standardize practices, can create rigid farming models, marginalizing local knowledge and practices. The literature emphasizes the need to move beyond a globalized, homogenized approach to disease control and instead focus on contextualized and locally appropriate solutions. The authors draw upon concepts from social science, such as Herzfeld's concept of a "global hierarchy of value," to critique the inherent power dynamics within the application of biosecurity measures. They discuss how global standards, while intending to improve farm practices, can devalue local experience and knowledge.

The researchers employed a participatory and design-led approach to develop a visualization tool—a "disease control map." The process began with initial discussions among a multidisciplinary team, recognizing the varying interpretations of biosecurity even within the team itself. A preliminary version of the map was tested at the 7th Pan Commonwealth Veterinary Conference (PCVC) with veterinarians, poultry nutritionists, integrators, and policymakers. This feedback informed the refinement of the tool, focusing on accessibility and participatory engagement. Subsequently, the refined tool, translated into Tamil, was employed in fieldwork on six broiler farms in Namakkal, Tamil Nadu. Thirteen individuals across these farms were involved. Researchers engaged in qualitative research including focus group discussions and interviews using the map as a discussion prompt, carefully observing participant responses and adapting the map according to their insights. The map focused on three main components: the bird, the farm, and external factors, designed to elicit diverse perspectives on disease control and prevention without reliance on the term "biosecurity". The data collection involved five months of fieldwork in 2019 and one month in 2020, encompassing multiple regions of southern India (Karnataka, Telangana, and Tamil Nadu).

The visualization tool elicited contrasting interpretations of disease prevention and control depending on the stakeholders involved. Among animal health professionals and large-scale poultry integrators, the map prompted discussions centered on the concept of biosecurity, emphasizing separation as a key principle for disease control. These stakeholders identified people, vehicles, and wild birds as sources of contamination, highlighting the need for strict farm boundaries, cleaning, and disinfection protocols. They associated biosecurity with a range of factors including farm productivity and profitability. In contrast, small-scale farmers in Namakkal viewed the farm as an entangled space where humans, animals, and the environment co-existed. They did not perceive people, vehicles, or wild birds as major disease vectors, instead emphasizing the interconnectedness of their farming practices. They described different practices such as use of cow dung as a disinfectant and highlighted factors like heat stress, weak chicks from hatcheries, and a common illness called 'sali' as significant causes of mortality. The farmers considered some level of mortality as normal, often attributing it to factors outside the realm of biosecurity protocols. The study revealed that while biosecurity was a frequently used term among stakeholders, its meaning and application varied significantly. The farmers in Namakkal, considered to have poor biosecurity by veterinarians, reported little to no significant mortality, highlighting discrepancies in perspectives on disease prevention and control.

The findings directly address the research question by demonstrating the limitations of the biosecurity framework in capturing the diverse perspectives and practices related to disease control in poultry farming. The stark contrast between the interpretations of animal health professionals/integrators and small-scale farmers reveals the cultural and contextual factors influencing disease prevention and control. The study suggests the need for locally tailored disease control strategies that incorporate the knowledge and experiences of local farmers, rather than imposing globally standardized biosecurity measures. The concept of the farm as a bounded space versus an entangled space emphasizes the need for a more holistic and context-sensitive approach to disease management. The research highlights the inadequacy of relying on a single term like "biosecurity" to encapsulate the complexity of disease control and calls for more nuanced methodologies that account for the heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes and the interactions between human, animal, and environmental factors.

This study demonstrates the limitations of the biosecurity framework for disease prevention and control in poultry farming, particularly in diverse contexts. The participatory visualization tool revealed contrasting perspectives on disease causation and management, highlighting the need to shift from a universal, often ill-defined concept like "biosecurity" towards locally-relevant strategies. Future research should focus on developing co-designed solutions that embrace farmers' knowledge and experiences, ensuring more sustainable and effective disease prevention and control practices. Further research might explore how to best integrate local knowledge within global initiatives for improved animal health and food security.

The study's focus on a limited number of farms in southern India might limit the generalizability of its findings to other regions or poultry farming systems. While the visualization tool proved effective in eliciting diverse perspectives, the interpretation of visual prompts could be influenced by individual biases or communication challenges. Further investigation is needed to explore the broader implications of the findings and adapt the methods for wider application.