PLOS ONE

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Needs and capabilities for improving poultry

production and health management in
Indonesia
Lorraine Chapot ID1,2*, Rebecca Hibbard1,2, Kurnia Bagus Ariyanto3, Kusnul
Yuli Maulana ID3, Havan Yusuf3, Widya Febriyani3, Angus Cameron ID1, Mathilde Paul2,
Timothée Vergne2, Céline Faverjon1
1 Ausvet Europe, Lyon, France, 2 IHAP, INRAE, ENVT, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France,
3 Ausvet Representative Office Indonesia, Jakarta, Indonesia
a1111111111
a1111111111 * lorraine.chapot@ausvet.com.au
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
Abstract
In Indonesia, the development of the poultry industry is facing numerous challenges. Major
constraints include high disease burdens, large fluctuations in farm input and output prices,
OPEN ACCESS and inadequate biosecurity. Timely and reliable information about animal production and
Citation: Chapot L, Hibbard R, Ariyanto KB, health can help stakeholders at all levels of the value chain make appropriate management
Maulana KY, Yusuf H, Febriyani W, et al. (2024) decisions to optimize their profitability and productivity while reducing risks to public health.
Needs and capabilities for improving poultry
This study aimed to describe the challenges in the Indonesian poultry industry, assess
production and health management in Indonesia.
PLoS ONE 19(8): e0308379. https://doi.org/ stakeholders’ needs and capabilities in terms of generating and using poultry information for
10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 making production and health management decisions, and identify levers for improvement.
Editor: Biswajit Pal, West Bengal State University, Interviews were conducted with a diversity of key informants and value chain actors in five
INDIA Indonesian provinces. Thematic analysis was applied with an interpretivist approach to gain
Received: December 26, 2023 an in-depth understanding of the lived experiences of various stakeholders and their opin-
ions as to what might constitute appropriate solutions. Our findings indicate that market and
Accepted: July 23, 2024
political instability, ineffective management of poultry data, and limited inter-sectoral collab-
Published: August 22, 2024
oration are limiting the development of the sector. Increased intersectoral cooperation is
Peer Review History: PLOS recognizes the needed to implement standards for data collection and sharing across the industry, provide
benefits of transparency in the peer review
education and practical training on the use of information technologies for farm manage-
process; therefore, we enable the publication of
all of the content of peer review and author ment, and accelerate research and innovation. Our study can contribute to the development
responses alongside final, published articles. The of data-driven tools to support evidence-based decision-making at all levels of the poultry
editorial history of this article is available here: system.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379

Copyright: © 2024 Chapot et al. This is an open

access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
Introduction
author and source are credited.
As an accessible and affordable form of livestock, poultry production is an important source of
Data Availability Statement: Interview records
and transcripts are not publicly available due to
nutrition and income in many low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) [1]. In Indonesia, it
privacy and ethical restrictions, as they contain is one of the fastest-growing agricultural subsectors and is expected to play a key role in
personal and contextual information that may lead addressing the growing demand for animal protein [1–4]. However, rapid intensification and

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 1 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

to the identification of the interviewees. Data is globalization come with high public health risks. Furthermore, although vertically integrated
stored in Ausvet’s internal cloud-based storage players dominate the market with 60% of production coming from industrialized farms [3], the
system. Access to anonymized and de-identified
poultry sector still involves a large number of small and medium enterprises operating in low
data may be requested by contacting Ausvet
Europe (contact@ausvet.eu) and the Medical and biosecurity settings, which creates risks for disease emergence and spread [2, 5]. High-impact
Health Research Ethics Committee of Gadjah Mada endemic diseases such as Newcastle disease (ND) and highly pathogenic avian influenza
University, Indonesia (komisietik@ugm.ac.id). (HPAI) continue to cause major economic losses [5, 6]. Barriers to maximizing the potential of
Funding: This study was conducted as part of the poultry production also include farm input and output price fluctuations, limited resources,
TRANSFORM (Transformational Strategies for lack of education on biosecurity and management, and inadequate market regulation [3, 5, 7].
Farm Output Risk Mitigation) funded by USAID These constraints have the potential to be addressed by providing access to timely and reli-
(Cooperative Agreement No. 7200AA21CA00004). able information on poultry production and health through technical innovations [8–11].
The funders had no role in study design, data
Although many individual actors and organizations in Indonesia currently use poultry-related
collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.
data to improve their business efficiency, their specific information needs, analytical capacities,
and willingness to share their own data vary greatly. In the absence of industry-level standard-
Competing interests: The authors have declared
ized mechanisms for collecting and managing data, integration and interpretation remains
that no competing interests exist.
challenging. In particular, the existing National Animal Health and Production Information
System iSIKHNAS (Sistem Informasi Kesehatan Hewan NASional) has had limited uptake in
the poultry sector [12]. Failure of new interventions or technologies to achieve the desired
impact despite effective delivery is often attributed to a lack of consideration of the partici-
pants’ needs [13–16]. Therefore, assessing the needs, capacities, and priorities of the people
whose behaviour will dictate the success or failure of management strategies is a crucial step in
the design of effective and sustainable interventions [13, 16, 17].
There is growing recognition of the value of qualitative approaches for facilitating the design
and implementation of animal health interventions or innovations. Qualitative approaches can
offer valuable insight into the views and perceptions of individuals or groups and provide an
in-depth understanding of the social, cultural, and economic factors that shape the context in
which they are situated [16, 18]. Thematic analysis (TA) is a theoretically flexible method that
can be applied to a diversity of contexts and research questions that has been widely used in
qualitative research to provide rich and detailed accounts of qualitative data [19–22]. Building
on previous analysis of the Indonesian commercial layer value chain and information networks
[12], this study uses TA to explore the challenges and priorities of actors of the commercial
layer sector regarding production and health management and assess their needs and capacities
for informed decision-making. The specific topic of antimicrobial use is the subject of a specific
study and is therefore not addressed here [23]. The research questions were formulated as fol-
lows: 1) What are the challenges faced by stakeholders of the Indonesian commercial poultry
production system and how are these challenges prioritized? 2) What are stakeholders’ current
practices, needs, and capabilities in terms of collecting and using poultry health and production
information to make health and production management decisions? and 3) What are their per-
spectives regarding potential solutions to address current gaps in the decision-making process?
The findings will help researchers and policymakers to design effective and acceptable innova-
tions to support the development of the industry in a sustainable way.

Material & methods

This paper is reported according to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR)
[18].

Qualitative approach and theoretical assumptions

The use of a qualitative approach encodes particular ontological and epistemological assump-
tions around knowledge creation that drive the selection of matching methodology [21, 24].

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 2 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

This study was conducted within an interpretivist (experiential) paradigm in order to priori-
tize the “empathic understanding” of participants’ lived experiences and the meaning they
ascribe to them [25]. Interpretivism acknowledges that different people experience and under-
stand the same “social reality” in different ways, and therefore seek to extract knowledge from
the subjective interpretations of the people who experience it [25, 26]. This approach was con-
sistent with the study’s objectives of emphasizing poultry stakeholders’ subjective accounts of
their experiences and interpretations.
Sampling and study area. Sampling was purposive to maximize diversity and prioritize
information-rich individuals from the Indonesian poultry sector. Initial participants were
identified through consultation with local collaborators and policymakers based on their
knowledge or strategic role in the poultry sector, and subsequent participants were recruited
through snowball sampling until we felt we had reached a sufficient diversity of views (i.e.,
actors operating at different levels of the value chains and geographic places) and that data was
sufficiently rich to answer the research question. The final sample included policymakers from
the Directorate of Livestock and Animal Health Services (DGLAHS), representatives from
non-governmental organizations, industry associations, university professors, technical service
officers (TSO) from input companies, poultry company managers, and farmers. Although the
layer sector was primarily targeted upon the government’s request, several interviewees also
had experience in the broiler sector. The study area covered five provinces within which most
layer poultry production is concentrated: DKI Jakarta, Yogyakarta, Central Java, East Java and
West Java.
Data collection. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect rich, descriptive and
contextually situated data for exploring the range of attitudes, experiences, perceptions, and
behaviours of a diversity of poultry stakeholders. This flexible format allowed adjustment of
the emphasis and order of the topics according to the interviewee’s responses and for inter-
viewers to follow-up more extensively on any unexpected themes that emerged during the dis-
cussion [27–30].
To build a priori semi-structured interview guides, an initial literature review was con-
ducted. Based on this review, the following topics were included: (1) Role and challenges of
the interviewee in their field of work; (2) Practices and challenges related to the prevention
and control of poultry diseases; (3) Antimicrobial use and stewardship, and (4) Practices and
challenges related to the management of poultry-related information. The interview guide is
provided in S1 Appendix. The questionnaire was reviewed and practiced amongst research-
ers and piloted with an independent small-scale farmer to ensure understandability. Inter-
views were conducted by two separate teams composed of one English-speaking researcher,
two Indonesian-speaking researchers, and one professional translator with experience in ani-
mal health. Interviews were conducted at the interviewee’s workplace, in public spaces such
as cafes or restaurants, or online depending on logistical constraints. Representatives from
associations, institutions, and government bodies were interviewed in groups of two to five
people.
Data analysis. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts was conducted following the
framework from Braun and Clarke [22] and taking into account recommendations from Cas-
tleberry and Nolen for increasing consistency in coding and ensuring transparency and thor-
oughness of the analytical process [31]. Although this framework is described linearly, several
cycles of coding and interpretation were performed iteratively throughout the analytical pro-
cess. A codebook was developed to map the coding process [32] and ensure consistency across
transcripts. It also aimed to demonstrate rigour in the methodology by providing a clear audit
trail [33]. The software NVivo [34] was used to facilitate data management.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 3 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

1. Data familiarization. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim in the origi-
nal language (either Indonesian or English). English recordings were transcribed by
English-speaking members of the research team and Indonesian recordings were tran-
scribed and translated by Indonesian native speakers. All verbatim transcripts were
reviewed carefully by the Indonesian-speaking members of the research team before and
after translation to assess quality and become familiar with the data. Where necessary,
unclear data excerpts were checked against audio recordings or field notes and annotated
with contextual explanations to inform the interpretation.
2. Initial coding. The entire dataset was coded systematically using a primarily inductive or
“data-driven” approach [35, 36] (i.e., without committing to a pre-existing theory or frame-
work) to best represent meaning as communicated by participants. Deductive coding was
used to some degree to ensure meanings were relevant to the research question and provide
more details on some aspects of interest. This combined approach is appropriate for studies
that aim to explore specific issues but also leave scope for unexpected aspects of partici-
pants’ experiences or interpretations to be brought up [37, 38]. Semantic (explicit) and
latent (implicit) codes were developed to allow the data to be both described and inter-
preted [22]. An initial codebook was developed, including the following components: label,
definition, and ideas to include or exclude. When coding the excerpts from interview tran-
scripts, the researcher retained as much contextual information as needed to ensure quotes
would be understandable.
3. Generating themes. Once all data had been coded, the data was reviewed to determine how
codes may be grouped to form themes or sub-themes [35]. “Keyness” or meaningfulness
was the central criterion for determining themes (i.e., whether it captures something impor-
tant in relation to the research question) [22, 31].
4. Reviewing themes. Themes were reviewed against the entire dataset to determine whether
they formed a coherent pattern and were relevant to the research question [22, 38, 39].
Codes or themes that shared the same underlying meaning were merged, while those that
did not fit within the overall analysis were discarded and their data re-coded as appropriate
to facilitate the most meaningful interpretation of the data. The first author recorded all
decisions to rename, merge, discard, and sort codes into themes in NVivo to keep track of
the changes and allow for going back and re-code previously coded material to ensure con-
sistency in coding.
5. Refining and defining themes. Themes were reviewed individually and in relation to one
another. An accompanying narrative was written for each theme and sub-theme.
6. Producing the report. Themes were organized together with their analytic narratives to illus-
trate the overall story in response to the research question. Direct quotations were collated
in a table (S2 Appendix). All quotations were referred to in the main text using identifiers
and the most relevant were reproduced in full to demonstrate how themes are rooted in
empirical data and allow the reader to assess the validity of the interpretation. Minor gram-
matical and linguistic corrections were made by the researcher to ensure comprehension.
Where necessary, contextual explanations were added in brackets.

Ethics statement
This study obtained ethical approval from the Medical and Health Research Ethics Committee
from the Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing of Gadjah Mada University (Ref. No.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 4 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

KE/FK/0675/EC/2022). The interview started with a self-introduction from both the inter-
viewer and interviewee, following which the interviewer explained the scope, objectives, and
interview process. Verbal consent to participate in the study and record the interview was
obtained from all interviewees in the presence of all research team members and documented
using a recording device. Data was stored securely in restricted access folders. Transcripts
were relabelled with code names before analysis and any information that could lead to the
direct identification of the interviewee was removed from the quotes. At the end of the inter-
view, interviewees received a non-monetary gift for their participation.

Results
A total of 34 individual and 7 group interviews involving 56 participants were conducted from
27 June to 22 July 2022 with value chain stakeholders, experts and policymakers, of which 38
were audio recorded. Table 1 presents the number of interviews according to stakeholder cate-
gory. Although the layer sector was primarily targeted upon the Indonesian government’s
request, many interviewees provided information or had a personal experience in the broiler
sector.
Five major themes were developed including 16 sub-themes which are detailed in the code-
book (S3 Appendix). The accompanying narratives are described below.

Theme 1: An increasingly complex and uncertain business environment

Economic vulnerability of poultry producers. Poultry producers generally were con-
cerned about high production costs in Indonesia which they told us greatly limited their profit
margins. Most small- and medium-scale independent farmers experienced economic hardship
and appeared to be the most vulnerable to changing market circumstances due to insufficient

Table 1. List of interviews.

Stakeholder category Number of interviewees
Representatives of integrated poultry companies 6
Company manager 4
Company veterinarian 2
Small and medium layer farmers 12
Representatives of industry associations * 4
Poultry farmer association 2
Pharmaceutical company association 1
Veterinarian association 1
Government agents * 4
Representatives of research & development organizations 5
University professor 4
Research institution rep. 2
Non-Governmental Organization 1
Representative of a feed company 1
Representative of a pharmaceutical company 1
Technical service officers (TSO) 5
Pharmaceutical company officer 4
Feed company officer 1
Poultry shop owner 1

* Group interviews

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379.t001

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 5 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

cash flow or poor financial management. Farmers felt this was most apparent during the
COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a sharp decrease in the number of independent smallhold-
ers, while contract farmers’ losses were absorbed by their companies. Farmers generally
expressed a pessimistic view regarding the future and stressed the psychological burden of
maintaining their businesses in the face of competition and uncertainty (a1, a2, a3, a4).

“Only big integrators, big companies can survive because they have a lot of money. But small
farmers, many of them they close, they sell their cages [. . .]. It’s quite challenging to be a
farmer in Indonesia.”
(a4)

An unstable and unpredictable market. A lack of coordination between supply and

demand appeared to be a recurring issue, causing frequent and significant egg and DOC price
fluctuations that could not be predicted based on foreseeable geographical and seasonal varia-
tions. Farmers felt they had no control over prices and no choice but to follow market trends,
without any external support (a5, a8).

“That’s why the breeders now are like a tossed ship. Like the ship in the middle of the sea doesn’t
know where it’s going, its purpose is not clear. We must survive alone, we must fight alone.”
(a5)

Interviewees told us that the lack of price regulation and official certification schemes
opened the door to uncontrolled production and fraudulent practices, allowing, for instance,
farmers or traders to artificially increase prices by retaining eggs or by using false labels (e.g.,
for omega eggs) (a6, a7).
Difficulties in sourcing farm input. Price and availability of day-old chicks (DOCs) and
poultry feed, which together account for more than 80% of farmers’ production costs, were the
main concerns of most poultry producers. Indonesia’s heavy reliance on imports for the supply
of DOCs and feed raw materials (e.g., meat-bone-meal, soy-bean-meal, corn, etc.) made local
production highly sensitive to international commodity prices, exchange rate variations, and
global shocks such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the Ukraine-Russia war (a8). We were also
told that government import policies and subsidy schemes also had a strong impact on avail-
ability and price stability. The Directorate General of Livestock Farming and Animal Health
has established import quotas on grandparent DOC in an attempt to achieve a balance
between supply and demand. However, interviewees told us that the quotas appeared to be
determined with limited stakeholder consultation and based on inaccurate data, leading to an
imbalance between supply and needs (a9).

“The government imports this GPS [grandparent stock] as if they are doing whatever they
want. This means that the need is not calculated, how much is needed for DOC [day-old
chicks], how many eggs are needed, oh if I have to import that much, there won’t be any.”
(a9)

Farmers believed that the government’s strategy of favouring local corn production by limit-
ing imports has created many difficulties for sourcing poultry feed. In their opinion, local corn
production remains insufficient and sub-optimally managed (a10), with temporal and geo-
graphical imbalances between corn and poultry production coupled with logistical issues in

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 6 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

conveying feed raw materials. Farmers also reported difficulties in accessing subsidized corn
and complained of its poor quality and prices being higher than unsubsidized corn. This led
feed dealers and farmers to develop variable coping strategies, which negatively impacted the
quality of feed (e.g., replacement with wheat, use of fake meat-bone-meal, mixing with sand).
Unequal power dynamics. As Indonesian poultry production has intensified and as inte-
grated companies have developed, farmers felt that integrators’ monopoly in the domestic
market was being reinforced (a11). Independent farmers were becoming increasingly depen-
dent on large integrated companies for the supply of production input and had to comply with
their terms and conditions, such as the bundling of feed and DOCs. Many independent farm-
ers expressed a fatalistic view, believing that they did not have the capacity to compete and
were doomed to be overtaken by large players (a12, a13, a14).

“It is impossible for us small farmers to face them. They have DOC [day old chicks], they have
feed, they have medicine, they have vaccines, even the last one, they have all the final results.
[. . .] My question is, will integrators replace us after we run out?”
(a12)

Theme 2: Limited collaboration among government, academia, and

industry stakeholders
Government perceived to have weak interest and involvement in the poultry sector.
From the perspective of private stakeholders, the government had little interest in poultry and
focused more on cattle. In particular, small-medium independent farmers felt abandoned by
the government and complained of a lack of financial support (b1, b2).

“Our association [of small poultry farmers] still needs to improve our relationship with the
government because government policies often do not suit our needs. Of course, the govern-
ment must consider the interests of prominent business people, but this policy is ultimately not
in the interests of our farmers.”
(b2)

Being more advanced in terms of knowledge and technology, large-scale farms or compa-
nies failed to see the benefits of interacting with the government and often displayed a distrust-
ful attitude towards them (b3, b4, b5). Interactions were generally limited to the NKV (Nomor
Kontrol Veteriner, veterinary control number) certification or compartmentalization program
for Avian Influenza (AI) (b6).
Information gaps lead to inadequate management of poultry diseases. Private actors
were generally reticent about sharing their internal data and rarely reported diseases to author-
ities for fear of penalties (b7). The official animal information system iSIKHNAS, which has
been successful in cattle, was perceived by interviewees as ineffective in poultry (b8). There-
fore, data held by the government was considered incomplete or inaccurate, leading to inade-
quate policy-making and response to industry needs, and in particular late or no response to
disease outbreaks (b9, b10, b11).

“After all, the government is often not ready, especially when facing poultry disease outbreaks.
[. . .] If we weren’t prepared, we would have collapsed a long time ago for various reasons.”
(b10)

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 7 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

Many mentioned the first AI crisis in 2003, telling us that the government failed to recog-
nize the threat, forcing farmers to manage the issue themselves by sourcing vaccines from
China outside any legal framework (b11, b12).

“the government at that time [during the first AI outbreak in 2003], they were unwilling to
declare that we had been infected by avian influenza. [. . .] The ability of our government to
address this issue was very weak.”
(b11)

Industry actors perceive academic education and research as disconnected from real-
life. Actors from the private sector felt that the academic world was disconnected from the
reality in the field. A farming businessman suggested that poultry sciences should be taught by
private industry experts to ensure knowledge is rooted in real life and to better prepare future
practitioners (b13). However, he deplored academia’s closed attitude towards external lectur-
ers (b14).

“Academics are usually born in a community where a system has been formed. [. . .] They feel
confident and do not need advice from others. [. . .] That’s their weakness. They have a good
brain but can’t accommodate outside advice”
(b14)

Additionally, he considered academics’ way of communicating to be inadequate for farmers

and focused too much on the theory compared to the practicalities (b15).

Theme 3: Inadequate on-farm management of poultry production and

health
Multiple and increasingly complex health challenges. Avian Influenza, Newcastle dis-
ease (ND) and colibacillosis were the most frequent diseases mentioned by farmers. Other sig-
nificant health hazards mentioned included chronic respiratory disease (CRD), coryza,
infectious bronchitis (IB), infectious bursal disease (IBD or Gumboro), and general metabolic
diseases due to environmental factors. According to farmers, although health authorities rec-
ognized AI and ND as priorities, they tended to neglect non-zoonotic diseases that are still
responsible for important economic losses such as IB or CRD (c1). While many farmers had
experienced devastating AI outbreaks in the past, they reported a reduction in their occurrence
and severity following the wide use of vaccination and improvement of biosecurity (c2). How-
ever, they also described a shift in disease symptoms, from high mortality to more unclear
signs, making it increasingly difficult to diagnose (c3, c4).

“It is different from 10 years ago [. . .] In terms of disease, nowadays cases of disease are
increasingly complex, they do not stand alone, so the symptoms are not clear and this does
require a lab approach”
(c3)

Interviewees also pointed out the role of environmental risk factors in disease introduction
and spread, including high poultry population and farm densities, low feed and water quality,
and exposure to extreme weather events.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 8 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

Lacking or inadequate management of poultry health. According to stakeholders

responsible for providing support to farmers (including research institutions, NGOs, univer-
sity professors, and technical service officers), many small-scale independent farmers lack the
necessary knowledge and resources to implement adequate biosecurity and health manage-
ment, and absence of biosecurity practices remain frequent (e.g., mixing of age groups, no all
in-all out) (c5). Diseases are generally managed by farmers themselves based on their own
experience, without seeking laboratory diagnosis. In addition, farmers thought that prescrip-
tion and use of medicines were driven by the commercial interests of private veterinarians and
technical officers from pharmaceutical companies (c6). With the rapid growth of the sector,
independent farmers and company managers mentioned struggling to hire qualified poultry
workers with sufficient awareness and knowledge about biosecurity and farm management
(c7, c8). Interviewees from research and non-governmental institutions also highlighted the
responsibility of the government in these issues:

“The problem is that for animal health, if you look at the budget here in the Ministry, the bud-
get has been going down year after year, livestock production is much more important than
animal health, so it’s partly the problem of the government itself”
(c9)

Control and support from health authorities to farmers appeared to be lacking due to insuf-
ficient financial and human resources, but also due to the unstable political and administrative
environment which farmers told us frequently disrupted the funding and implementation of
national health programs (c9, c10). This was even more critical at the time of the study, as the
government had reallocated most of its resources to the management of a nationwide FMD
outbreak.
Resistance to behavioural changes. Several farmers and technical service officers
described a generational gap regarding farming practices. They mentioned it was difficult to
educate the old generation of farmers and update their knowledge about poultry farming
because of their unwillingness to change practices that have been passed down through genera-
tions (c11, c12).

Because they feel right, it is difficult to change the mindset of farmers. [. . .] And sometimes
that’s wrong, because they have the principle of "I’ve been there for decades, what are you new
kids doing?", it’s sometimes difficult for us to go there for education”
(c11)

In contrast, the younger generation was thought to be more aware of the importance of bio-
security and more willing to use IT tools for farm management.

Theme 4: Insufficient capacity to collect and use poultry health and

production data
Capacity to collect and analyze farm data varies significantly among stakeholders.
Most of the small- and medium-scale independent farmers we interviewed collected farm data
on a routine basis using a combination of paper-based and spreadsheet systems. Nonetheless,
some of them felt they lacked the necessary technical skills and resources to collect data com-
prehensively and analyze it to its full extent (d1, d2). Although integrated companies and asso-
ciations can manage large amounts of data, their internal system appeared to operate in silos

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 9 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

on an individual farm or customer basis, thereby limiting their analytical capacity (d3, d4).
Management of data by the government itself was also thought to be suboptimal by some par-
ticipants, as highlighted by an industry association that criticized what they described as bur-
densome submission procedures and underutilization of data (d5).

“Even with the government, we feel that they might not be able to provide valid data. [. . .]
The government needs to be encouraged the importance of actually compiling this data so it
can actually be used for something. It’s not just asking for data and then stop there, because
they don’t have any system to compile them.”
(d5)

Additionally, issues of quality, representativeness, and timeliness of data collection were

considered by both public and private stakeholders to impair their ability to forecast trends
and prepare for future shocks. Many interviewees expressed doubts regarding the validity of
public data, stressing their belief in its lack of representativeness and potential falsification,
especially for population data for which there is an incentive for farmers to underreport to
avoid taxation (d5, d6, d7).
Dissemination of information relies mostly on informal channels. Information-sharing
by interviewees relied largely on informal channels such as WhatsApp (WA), SMS, or personal
interaction during stakeholder forums or industry events (e.g., seminars, professional fairs).
Most interviewed farmers described being part of regional WA groups through which they
share information about prices, disease events, and seek advice from fellow farmers or experts.
Likewise, companies used WA to facilitate communication amongst their technical staff, col-
lect farm data, and provide technical support to workers or customers (e.g., support for diag-
nosis). Because of their close relationship with farmers, technical service officers from input
companies had a central role in the transmission of information, acting as bridges between
separate business networks (d8).

“Information spreads through suppliers. [. . .] If there’s a big problem, the supplier usually has
a stake. For example, if there is a virus, later, the vaccine supplier will announce to Blitar
farmers through a seminar, "So we got information that this virus has started to enter Blitar."
[. . .] However, between farmers, no one wants to tell each other.”
(d9)

Although the farmers we interviewed remained reluctant to directly disclose information to

other farmers or government agents, they told us they were more open to discussing with visit-
ing officers who subsequently spread the information within their customer network or
reported to their company to inform business decisions (e.g., production of specific vaccines)
(d8, d9, d10).
Barriers to data sharing. The farmers and other industry stakeholders interviewed were
generally reluctant to share their internal information, especially disease events and perfor-
mance data. Interviewees stressed the importance of personal prestige but also the fear that dis-
closure of internal information would bring negative consequences, such as the loss of
competitive advantage, close-down of business, trade disruptions, and increased taxation (d11,
d12, d13). Private stakeholders often did not see any benefits of reporting health issues, espe-
cially large companies that felt they had sufficient resources to manage them internally without
external intervention (d14, d15).

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 10 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

“it is not easy to get the data [from sector 3 farmers], they don’t want to share any informa-
tion, especially if there is no benefit for them. [. . .] the key is I think, how to show and to prove
they get the benefit, and how to prove this really secure and confidential.”
(d15)

Poultry health and production data was therefore managed through multiple systems with
different standards and procedures, which resulted in high variability and discrepancies
between private and official data, further impairing its usability.

Theme 5: Leverage points for development

Strengthening intersectoral collaboration. Despite most actors working in silos, many
recognized the need for increased collaboration. Farmers were increasingly developing into
cooperatives or partnerships to strengthen their competitiveness against larger players and
facilitate access to feed and subsidies (e1, e2). The small- and medium-scale independent farm-
ers in particular appeared to be those most in need of peer support, as they did not benefit
from government subsidies (e3). Alternatively, an increasing number of farmers told us they
are converting to the nucleus-plasma system (i.e., contracting with a company) which is
believed to offer better technical support and financial security (e4).
Public and private stakeholders generally appeared to adopt a distrustful attitude towards
each other and were reluctant to cooperate, as stressed by both a government agent (e5) and a
pharmaceutical company (e6).

“If farms really think the government is corrupt, then they also feel the government is not inde-
pendent [. . .] if you want to use the Public Private Partnership approach, the main problem is
information confidentiality and good governance.”
(e5)
“It would be better if the government could support us. [. . .] If they collaborated with us, they
could work faster because we have the laboratories so we could help them. But I think they
don’t trust us yet.”
(e6)

Representatives from associations such as ADHPI (Asosiasi Dokter Hewan Perunggasan

Indonesia, association of poultry veterinarians), PINTAR (local association of poultry farmers
in Lampung), or ASOHI (Asosiasi Obat Hewan Indonesia, Indonesian Veterinary Medicine
Association) stressed their role as intermediaries in facilitating communication and building
trust between private and public actors. For instance, ADHPI organizes a multi-stakeholder
forum called OBRASS (Obrolan Santai Seputar Unggas), to provide opportunities for informal
discussion between private and public stakeholders. They also told us they contributed to pol-
icymaking by conveying stakeholders’ issues to the government and supporting the dissemina-
tion and implementation of official guidelines and regulations.
Several associations and private companies highlighted the advantages of collaborating with
universities and institutions for research and development (e7), for instance by partnering
with local farmers to develop and evaluate new feed additives. However, they felt there was a
lack of communication from institutions regarding current research (e8).
Addressing education and research gaps. Associations, input companies, and integrators
told us they were investing significant efforts to educate farmers on farm and poultry health
management to help them increase their productivity and profitability (e9). Education was

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 11 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

provided through seminars led by experts from companies or universities, onsite training, or
newsletters. However, those providing the education felt that important knowledge gaps
remained, especially in smallholders. Farmers generally relied on their practical experience
and a diversity of informal information sources including technical service officers, university
professors, the internet, fellow farmers, and veterinarians who may sometimes lack scientific
updates (e10). A local entrepreneur thought training should be tailored to the specific needs of
small-scale farmers (e11):

“These past few years, I have tried to educate middle to lower-level farmers whose animal
health awareness still needs to improve. [. . .] However, my efforts are still very far away. [. . .]
The seminars they need are about disease management and production management in a lan-
guage they can easily digest”
(e11)

There is also a strong need for research and innovation in poultry nutrition and health,
especially for alternatives to antimicrobials and raw feed materials that can be locally produced
(e12). However, according to academics, research in poultry is not yet sufficiently developed to
support the rapid growth of the industry (e13).

“Even though we are number four in Asia [. . .] it is not easy to find funding for research in
poultry. [. . .] And indeed, that is our weakness, even though the poultry industry in Indonesia
is quite large, the research is not yet developed.”
(e13)

Improving data integration and real-time surveillance. Stakeholders were increasingly

convinced of the importance of good monitoring of production and health data as key to suc-
cessful business development (e14, e15). Companies and a significant proportion of indepen-
dent farmers used production data to evaluate performance, provide early warnings, and guide
disease investigation. However, the level of analysis was variable and several interviewees felt
they lacked the capacity to analyze it to its full potential. This trend is also driven by evolutions
in market demand and regulations. For instance, access to international and high-value mar-
kets is dependent on providing internal surveillance data to demonstrate AI-free status (e16).
Nonetheless, important data gaps remain to be addressed. Independent farmers are particu-
larly in need of commodity price data to manage their sales and purchases, while feed and
pharmaceutical companies are most interested in health information to provide better services
to their customers (e.g., tailored vaccination programs) and plan their production accordingly.
Additionally, the lack of data integration and timeliness impede their capacity to anticipate
and respond to potential future threats (e17, e18), as emphasized by a pharmaceutical
company:

“Now we only know when the disease is here. But the disease is not just there all of a sudden,
there is this process, and we need to know this process [. . .] We don’t want to fight fires, once
we have fires and we fight it, we don’t want to do this. We want to know the pattern so that
we can be better prepared.”
(e17)

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 12 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

Discussion
Our study offers insight into how the Indonesian poultry system operates, describes the main
issues faced by the stakeholders, and identifies opportunities to address them. Focusing pri-
marily on the layer sector allowed us to fill an important research gap, as most past studies
have been conducted in the broiler sector. Our findings also highlight the highly interconnec-
ted nature of the Indonesian poultry system and may therefore be of interest to those who seek
to understand global poultry production and trade dynamics, especially in the wider SEA
region. Finally, our study demonstrates the value of qualitative approaches for exploring com-
plex systems, moving beyond the technical or biological aspects to encompass the broader
social, cultural, and economic determinants of health.

A complex and uncertain environment in which health is not a priority

The main difficulties for both independent farmers and companies were associated with mar-
ket price instability and insufficient supply of high-quality feed. Inadequate infrastructure
and dependence on foreign production meant that prices of farm supply and commodities
were subject to large and unpredictable fluctuations, which complicated the planning of pro-
duction and led to recurrent supply issues. These challenges, which are commonly reported
in studies on the Indonesian poultry industry [3, 10, 40, 41], are also widely experienced by
many Asian countries such as Vietnam and The Philippines [42–44]. As generally observed
in LMICs [5, 44], the small-medium independent farmers appeared to be the most vulnera-
ble, as they often lacked the logistical and financial capacities to absorb rapid changes in their
business environment (e.g., by stocking up on feed while it is affordable). In the absence of
developmental prospects, they tended to focus on surviving rather than growing. In this con-
text, health management was considered by farmers to be a secondary concern compared to
maintaining profitability. Additionally, farmers seem to have become less concerned with
diseases that used to have devastating consequences (such as AI and ND) due to the wide use
of vaccination and likely risk habituation. This mirrors findings in another study in Indonesia
which reported low concern for disease spread in villages that have had suspected or con-
firmed cases of HPAI and highlighted a disconnection between awareness of HPAI risk and
biosecurity practices [45].

Ineffective management of poultry production and health data

Monitoring and analysis of production and health data is becoming a necessity to maintain
competitiveness in a rapidly changing business environment. Making appropriate use of data
enables farmers to plan production in the long term, identify seasonal and geographical disease
patterns to develop early warning systems, adapt to changing climatic conditions and more
generally support daily management decisions [8–10, 46]. For instance, a study has shown that
a lack of data prevented Indonesian farmers from responding to climate change risk [46]. In
our context, limitations in data availability and analytical skills impeded stakeholders’ capacity
to make accurate forecasts and prepare for potential threats. Independent farmers in particular
were in need of more information on commodity prices, while input companies were inter-
ested in obtaining a more comprehensive picture of the disease situation in the field to provide
better services to their customers (e.g., specific feed formulation or vaccine programs). Devel-
oping data-driven decision-support tools could help all stakeholders access and analyze infor-
mation to support risk management and daily decision-making [8, 9, 46–48]. As already
highlighted in previous studies, the adoption of these technologies is currently limited by the
aging of the farmer population and low level of information technology (IT) education
[46–49]. However, IT literacy is expected to increase among the younger generation of farmers

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 13 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

[47–49]. Nonetheless, important educational gaps remain, especially for independent small-
holders who lack formal training on biosecurity, and farm and financial management. At pres-
ent, it appears that research and education in poultry sciences are insufficiently developed to
fulfil the industry’s needs for innovation and skilled graduates. To address part of this issue, a
study suggested creating a research data bank that could be used as a reference for farmers and
their advisors [46].

Limited intersectoral collaboration and unequal power dynamics

Our final theme pertained to the current and needed efforts to achieve greater efficiency and
information-sharing in the poultry sector. Weaknesses in coordination and communication
between government, academia, and the private sector have been identified as a key issue in
agricultural development, leading to inefficiencies in value chain operations, inadequate pol-
icy-making, siloed information systems, and underutilization of research results [46, 50, 51].
Both public and private sector interviewees from our study stressed the importance of intersec-
toral collaboration for supporting the growth of the industry. For instance, some large compa-
nies advocated for the pooling of resources and the development of joint strategies with the
government to effectively address industry-wide threats such as disease outbreaks. At the
farmer level, the development of direct transactions with traders, aggregation of small-scale
production through cooperative or contract farming, and development of public-private part-
nerships were suggested as potential solutions to achieve greater efficiency and coordination
in value chains and increase smallholders’ inclusiveness in high-value markets, in line with rec-
ommendations from other studies [44, 52, 53]. Such initiatives have shown results in other
Indonesian value chains such as dairy, palm oil or cocoa [54, 55]. Another successful example
comes from the Productive Alliance approach supported by the World Bank, which involves
the development of horizontal integration among smallholders and the establishment of pub-
lic-private partnerships. In countries of Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and East Asia
where this approach has been implemented, it has notably led to increases in productivity,
income, market integration, and inclusion of vulnerable groups [56]. Multi-stakeholder plat-
forms are also seen as a promising means to increase stakeholders’ awareness of their different
interests, needs, and interdependence and promote better collaboration in agricultural
research and development [44]. This could help address the issue of unequal power dynamics
and improve the dissemination of research findings and regulations.

Policy implications and recommendations

The present study identifies three areas of intervention for improving the efficiency and sus-
tainability of poultry production in Indonesia. First, leveraging and reinforcing inter-sectoral
collaboration could contribute to better synchronization of supply and demand, coordinate
responses to industry-wide threats such as disease outbreaks, and improve smallholders’
inclusiveness in modern production chains. Second, integrated and real-time data and sur-
veillance systems would enable early warning and facilitate rapid decision-making in
response to new opportunities and challenges. Definition of industry-level data standards
would also be beneficial to ensure the interoperability and reliability of data across sectors.
Finally, intensified collaboration between academia and the private sector in research and
education could generate graduates and innovations to meet the industry’s needs, giving par-
ticular attention to smallholders whose participation will depend on their capacity to meet
evolving biosecurity and production standards. The government also has an important role
in ensuring that the institutional and regulatory environment is supportive of these develop-
ments. As stressed in a report from the World Bank [54], this would require a complete

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 14 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

understanding of the way the private sector functions, including the traditional sector, with
particular attention to the trade of strategic elements such as feed and DOCs. The issues and
recommendations identified in this study are well aligned with those formulated by Task
Force 6 –Global Health Security and COVID-19 regarding One Health implementation dur-
ing the 2022 T20 summit in Indonesia [57].

Limitations of the study and considerations

Special care was taken to include stakeholders at all levels of the value chain and cover a large
geographical area, in order to ensure a diversity of views were included in our results, but as
we prioritised including those who would provide the most information-rich data, the findings
should not be taken as generalizable to all Indonesian poultry farmers. Specific groups which
were not included in our study who might have differing perspectives were notably those from
the broiler sector and backyard farmers. Further work could examine the specific challenges
and needs of these actors. Additionally, gender dynamics were not considered. It is noteworthy
that only 12 of the 56 interviewees were female, including only one female farm owner. Previ-
ous studies have stressed that the lack of consideration of gender issues can limit the effective-
ness of interventions [5]. Exploring the specific challenges and barriers faced by female poultry
workers would require further investigation.
Reflexive thematic analysis is a method that capitalizes on the researcher’s theoretical
assumptions, analytical resources, and skills for generating data, particularly when undertaken
within an interpretivist paradigm [31, 33, 58, 59]. TA is not about achieving a consensus in
meaning or discovering one “truth” buried in the data, but rather actively interpreting, creat-
ing, and telling “stories” with researcher subjectivity understood as a resource to actively co-
construct data and results rather than something to be neutralized [20, 59]. This means that
the results necessarily include elements of subjectivity, and the procedures and approaches
used to ensure scientific rigour and transparency are different from those used in quantitative
research or qualitative research with a positivist paradigm. In our case, to ensure transparency,
we described in detail the methods and analytical process to make explicit the epistemological
position and assumptions that underpin the study’s empirical claims and ensure the research
process is logical and traceable, as recommended by Castleberry and Nolen [31]. Reflexivity,
which aims to critically evaluate how the researcher’s own experiences, assumptions, power
relationships, and context may have incidentally impacted the research process, was harnessed
in the form of reflexive writing and collaborative reflection with participants following guide-
lines from Olmos-Vega et al. [59]. Written documentation of reflections occurring during the
research process included field notes, personal memos, and annotations of transcripts to
record methodological decisions, researcher-interviewee dynamics, and call attention on
aspects of context that may have impacted the data and results. Collaborative reflection was
undertaken by re-engaging with participants at the end of each interview to ensure the findings
reflected their experiences and identify where interpretations may differ. In addition, findings
were reported with attention to Lincoln and Guba’s four evaluative criteria for trustworthiness
[60]: (1) preliminary findings were triangulated with different researchers’ notes and policy
documents to build confidence in the "truth" of findings (credibility); (2) thick contextual
descriptions were provided to enable readers to determine relevance to other contexts (trans-
ferability); (3) the analytical process was described in detail to ensure consistency and repeat-
ability of findings (dependability); and (4) direct quotations from the dataset were included to
demonstrate how findings derive from the data (confirmability). Although our results are not
measurable in a quantitative sense and are not statistically generalizable, they may be consid-
ered nonetheless “theoretically generalizable” or transferable, which means they can be

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 15 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

relevant for understanding similar issues in other contexts. The implications of these findings
may be used to inform strategies to improve animal health management and guide the design
of further quantitative and quantitative studies [61].

Conclusion
Our qualitative approach allowed us to gain an in-depth understanding of stakeholders’ needs
and capabilities for managing poultry production and health in Indonesia and highlighted
gaps in the decision-making process, as well as potential opportunities for improvement. Mar-
ket and political instability, ineffective management of poultry data, and limited inter-sectoral
collaboration appear to be the main barriers to the development of the sector. Addressing
these challenges would require increased cooperation from all sides to develop and implement
industry standards for data collection and sharing, provide education and practical training
based on real-life situations, and accelerate research and innovation to respond to the evolving
market and regulatory requirements.

Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Interview protocol (generic).
(DOCX)
S2 Appendix. Quotation table.
(DOCX)
S3 Appendix. Codebook.
(DOCX)

Acknowledgments
The authors thank all the participants who took part in this study and the translators for their
valuable support.

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Lorraine Chapot, Rebecca Hibbard, Kurnia Bagus Ariyanto, Kusnul Yuli
Maulana, Havan Yusuf, Widya Febriyani, Angus Cameron, Mathilde Paul, Timothée
Vergne, Céline Faverjon.
Data curation: Lorraine Chapot, Rebecca Hibbard, Kurnia Bagus Ariyanto, Kusnul Yuli Mau-
lana, Havan Yusuf, Widya Febriyani.
Formal analysis: Lorraine Chapot.
Investigation: Lorraine Chapot, Rebecca Hibbard, Kurnia Bagus Ariyanto, Kusnul Yuli Mau-
lana, Havan Yusuf, Widya Febriyani, Angus Cameron.
Methodology: Lorraine Chapot, Rebecca Hibbard, Kurnia Bagus Ariyanto, Kusnul Yuli Mau-
lana, Havan Yusuf, Widya Febriyani, Angus Cameron, Mathilde Paul, Timothée Vergne,
Céline Faverjon.
Supervision: Timothée Vergne, Céline Faverjon.
Writing – original draft: Lorraine Chapot.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 16 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

Writing – review & editing: Lorraine Chapot, Rebecca Hibbard, Kurnia Bagus Ariyanto, Kus-
nul Yuli Maulana, Havan Yusuf, Widya Febriyani, Angus Cameron, Mathilde Paul,
Timothée Vergne, Céline Faverjon.

References
1. Hennessey M, Fournié G, Hoque MdA, Biswas PK, Alarcon P, Ebata A, et al. Intensification of fragility:
Poultry production and distribution in Bangladesh and its implications for disease risk. Prev Vet Med.
2021; 191: 105367. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2021.105367 PMID: 33965744
2. Mottet A, Tempio G. Global poultry production: current state and future outlook and challenges. Worlds
Poult Sci J. 2017; 73: 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933917000071
3. Ali PR, Noor E, Purnomo D. The Challenges in Indonesia Poultry Industry Business. 2021; 11.
4. Yunita I, Hasibuan S. The sustainability challenges of the poultry industry during pandemic Covid-19.
IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci. 2021; 733: 012007. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/733/1/012007
5. Wong JT, De Bruyn J, Bagnol B, Grieve H, Li M, Pym R, et al. Small-scale poultry and food security in
resource-poor settings: A review. Glob Food Secur. 2017; 15: 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.
2017.04.003
6. Sudarman A, Rich KM, Randolph T, Unger F. Poultry value chains and HPAI in Indonesia: The case of
Bogor. Pro-Poor HPAI Risk Reduction, Department for International Development and Food and Agri-
culture Organization, Italy; 2010.
7. Attia YA, Rahman MdT, Hossain MdJ, Basiouni S, Khafaga AF, Shehata AA, et al. Poultry Production
and Sustainability in Developing Countries under the COVID-19 Crisis: Lessons Learned. Animals.
2022; 12: 644. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12050644 PMID: 35268213
8. Niloofar P, Francis DP, Lazarova-Molnar S, Vulpe A, Vochin M-C, Suciu G, et al. Data-driven decision
support in livestock farming for improved animal health, welfare and greenhouse gas emissions: Over-
view and challenges. Comput Electron Agric. 2021; 190: 106406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.
2021.106406
9. Thevasagayam S, Peters AR. Data-driven investment and performance management in the livestock
sector: -EN- Data-driven investment and performance management in the livestock sector -FR- Inves-
tissements et gestion des performances fondés sur les données dans le secteur de l’élevage -ES-
Inversión y gestión del rendimiento basados en datos en el sector ganadero. Rev Sci Tech OIE. 2023;
42: 189–200. https://doi.org/10.20506/rst.42.3362 PMID: 37232305
10. Ali PR, Machfud M, Sukardi S, Noor E, Purnomo D. Indonesian Agroindustry Business Agility: Enablers
and Challenges in the Poultry Industry Based on ISM Model. SSRN; 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
heliyon.2023.e16808 PMID: 37332976
11. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, editor. Challenges of animal health informa-
tion systems and surveillance for animal diseases and zoonoses. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organi-
zation of the United Nations; 2011.
12. Chapot L, Hibbard R, Ariyanto KB, Maulana KY, Yusuf H, Febriyani W, et al. A qualitative analysis of
health information-sharing networks in the Indonesian poultry sector. Prev Vet Med. 2023; 219: 106003.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2023.106003 PMID: 37657198
13. Adegbola AJ, Olatilewa OM, Akor S, Obarein O. Needs Assessment in Intervention Programs for Rural
Development. J Appl Sci Environ Manag. 2020; 23: 2151. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v23i12.11
14. Palsola M, Renko E, Kostamo K, Lorencatto F, Hankonen N. Thematic analysis of acceptability and
fidelity of engagement for behaviour change interventions: The Let’s Move It intervention interview
study. Br J Health Psychol. 2020; 25: 772–789. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12433 PMID: 32568447
15. Santoyo Rio E. Training Needs Assessment for the Project for Agricultural Development and Economic
Empowerment (PADEE). SNV Netherlands Development Organization; 2013 Dec.
16. Craighead L, Cardwell JM, Prakashbabu BC, Ba E, Musallam I, Alambédji RB, et al. “Everything in this
world has been given to us from cows”, a qualitative study on farmers’ perceptions of keeping dairy cat-
tle in Senegal and implications for disease control and healthcare delivery. Smith RL, editor. PLOS
ONE. 2021; 16: e0247644. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247644 PMID: 33630947
17. Rivière J, L Strat Y, Hendrikx P, Dufour B. Perceptions and acceptability of some stakeholders about
the bovine tuberculosis surveillance system for wildlife (Sylvatub) in France. PLOS ONE. 2018; 13:
e0194447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194447 PMID: 29543911
18. O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research:
A Synthesis of Recommendations. Acad Med. 2014; 89: 1245–1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.
0000000000000388 PMID: 24979285

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 17 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

19. Jnanathapaswi Swami Gurunand. Thematic Analysis & Coding: An Overview of the Qualitative Para-
digm. figshare; 2021. p. 268123 Bytes. https://doi.org/10.6084/M9.FIGSHARE.17159249
20. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2019; 11:
589–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159676X.2019.1628806
21. King N, Brooks J. Thematic Analysis in Organisational Research. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative
Business and Management Research Methods: Methods and Challenges. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City
Road London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2018. pp. 219–236.
22. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3: 77–101.
23. Hibbard R, Chapot L, Yusuf H, Ariyanto KB, Maulana KY, Febriyani W, et al. “It’s a habit. They’ve been
doing it for decades and they feel good and safe.”: A qualitative study of barriers and opportunities to
changing antimicrobial use in the Indonesian poultry sector. Islam SS, editor. PLOS ONE. 2023; 18:
e0291556. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291556 PMID: 37747889
24. James N, Busher H. Online Interviewing. 1 Oliver’s Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP: SAGE
Publications Ltd; 2009.
25. Grant BM, Giddings LS. Making sense of methodologies: A paradigm framework for the novice
researcher. Contemp Nurse. 2002; 13: 10–28. https://doi.org/10.5172/conu.13.1.10 PMID: 16118967
26. Chen Y-Y, Shek DTL, Bu F-F. Applications of interpretive and constructionist research methods in ado-
lescent research: philosophy, principles and examples. Int J Adolesc Med Health. 2011; 23. https://doi.
org/10.1515/ijamh.2011.022 PMID: 21870675
27. Aung KT, Razak RA, Nazry NNM. Establishing Validity And Reliability of Semi-Structured Interview
Questionnaire in Developing Risk Communication Module: A Pilot Study. Edunesia J Ilm Pendidik.
2021; 2: 600–606. https://doi.org/10.51276/edu.v2i3.177
28. Ahmed DSP, Ahmed MTZ. Qualitative Research: A Decisive Element to Epistemological & Ontological
Discourse.
29. DeJonckheere M, Vaughn LM. Semistructured interviewing in primary care research: a balance of rela-
tionship and rigour. Fam Med Community Health. 2019; 7: e000057. https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-
2018-000057 PMID: 32148704
30. Kallio H, Pietilä A-M, Johnson M, Kangasniemi M. Systematic methodological review: developing a
framework for a qualitative semi-structured interview guide. J Adv Nurs. 2016; 72: 2954–2965. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jan.13031 PMID: 27221824
31. Castleberry A, Nolen A. Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds?
Curr Pharm Teach Learn. 2018; 10: 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2018.03.019 PMID:
30025784
32. Braun V, Clarke V. Can I use TA? Should I use TA? Should I not use TA? Comparing reflexive thematic
analysis and other pattern-based qualitative analytic approaches. Couns Psychother Res. 2021; 21:
37–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/capr.12360
33. Roberts K, Dowell A, Nie J-B. Attempting rigour and replicability in thematic analysis of qualitative
research data; a case study of codebook development. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19: 66. https://
doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0707-y PMID: 30922220
34. NVivo. Lumivero; 2023. www.lumivero.com
35. Byrne D. A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Qual Quant.
2022; 56: 1391–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-021-01182-y
36. Batra R. A thematic analysis to identify barriers, gaps, and challenges for the implementation of public-
private-partnerships in housing. Habitat Int. 2021; 118: 102454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.
2021.102454
37. Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of
qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 117. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-117 PMID: 24047204
38. Dawadi S. Thematic Analysis Approach: A Step by Step Guide for ELT Research Practitioners. J
NELTA. 2020; 25: 62–71. https://doi.org/10.3126/nelta.v25i1-2.49731
39. Campbell K, Orr E, Durepos P, Nguyen L, Li L, Whitmore C, et al. Reflexive Thematic Analysis for
Applied Qualitative Health Research. Qual Rep. 2021 [cited 30 Dec 2022]. https://doi.org/10.46743/
2160-3715/2021.5010
40. Yunita I, Hasibuan S, Thaheer H. Identification of Key Agility Variables to Improve Poultry Supply Chain
Sustainability: Indonesian Case. Ind J Teknol Dan Manaj Agroindustri. 2022; 11: 117–127. https://doi.
org/10.21776/ub.industria.2022.011.02.3
41. Ferlito C, Respatiadi H. POLICY REFORMS ON POULTRY INDUSTRY IN INDONESIA.: 40.
42. Tung DX, Costales A. Market Participation of Smallholder Poultry Producers in Northern Viet Nam.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 18 / 19

PLOS ONE Needs and capabilities for improving poultry production and health management in Indonesia

43. Duong TMP, Sari NPWP, Mazenda A, Le T-T, Nguyen M-H, Vuong Q-H. Improving the market for live-
stock production households to alleviate food insecurity in the Philippines. Open Science Framework;
2023 Aug. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/mj5sp
44. Ahuja V. Asian Livestock: Challenges, opportunities and the response. Proceeding of an International
Policy Forum. Bangkok, Thailand: Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific,
International Livestock Research Institute and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations;
2012.
45. Tiongco M, Narrod C, Kobayashi M, Scott R. Understanding knowledge, attitude, perceptions, and prac-
tices for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza risks and management options among Indonesian small-
scale poultry producers.
46. Utomo M, Pieter L. Strengthening Indonesian Farmers’ Resilience Capacity of Disasters and Climate
Change Through Development of Decision Support System: Challenges Lie Ahead. IOP Conf Ser
Earth Environ Sci. 2022; 950: 012002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/950/1/012002
47. Sudaryanto T, Wahida, Purba HJ, Rafani I, Andoko E. Promoting Smart Farming based-Digital Busi-
ness Technology in the Context of Agricultural Transformation in Indonesia. FFTC J Agric Policy. 2022
[cited 22 Nov 2023]. https://doi.org/10.56669/LYQU1557
48. Rose DC, Sutherland WJ, Parker C, Lobley M, Winter M, Morris C, et al. Decision support tools for agri-
culture: Towards effective design and delivery. Agric Syst. 2016; 149: 165–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.agsy.2016.09.009
49. Santoso AB, Girsang SS, Raharjo B, Pustika AB, Hutapea Y, Kobarsih M, et al. Assessing the Chal-
lenges and Opportunities of Agricultural Information Systems to Enhance Farmers’ Capacity and Target
Rice Production in Indonesia. Sustainability. 2023; 15: 1114. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15021114
50. Setiartiti L. Critical Point of View: The Challenges of Agricultural Sector on Governance and Food Secu-
rity in Indonesia. Juwaidah, Saiyut P, Tjale MM, Rozaki Z, editors. E3S Web Conf. 2021; 232: 01034.
https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202123201034
51. Ekasari ZK, Saleh SAM, Jusoff K, Salman D, Akhsan A, Kasirang A, et al. Communication Pattern and
Conflict in Agricultural Extension. Asian Soc Sci. 2013; 9: p27. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p27
52. Ngidi M, Temitope O, Orowole P. The Resilience Strategies of Smallholders’ Poultry Actors. 2023.
https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109494
53. Saptana S, Fadhil R, Perwita A. Sustainable Development Strategy on Poultry Industry in Indonesia. J
Huk Ekon SYARIAH. 2020. https://doi.org/10.30595/jhes.v0i0.6969
54. Shepherd AW. Addressing the Aggregation and Coordination Problems in Smallholder-based Value
Chains. World Bank, Washington, DC; 2018.
55. Camagni M, Kherallah M, Morgan S, Valeur C, Williams J. IFAD and public-private partnerships:
Selected project experiences. International Fund for Agricultural Development; 2013.
56. World Bank Group. Linking Farmers to Markets through Productive Alliances—An Assessment of the
World Bank Experience in Latin America. Washington DC: World Bank Group; 2016 Nov.
57. Suwandono A, Campbell A, Stevenson A, Lubis A, Sullivan A, McPake B, et al. Implementing and
financing One Health. Indonesia; 2022 Dec.
58. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 8: 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 PMID: 18616818
59. Olmos-Vega FM, Stalmeijer RE, Varpio L, Kahlke R. A practical guide to reflexivity in qualitative
research: AMEE Guide No. 149. Med Teach. 2023; 45: 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.
2022.2057287 PMID: 35389310
60. Nowell LS, Norris JM, White DE, Moules NJ. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness
Criteria. Int J Qual Methods. 2017; 16: 160940691773384. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
61. Ma RSB. The role of qualitative research in broadening the ‘evidence base’ for clinical practice. J Eval
Clin Pract. 2000; 6: 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2753.2000.00213.x PMID: 10970009

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308379 August 22, 2024 19 / 19