Short communication: Between tradition and innovation: farmers’ decision-making on artificial incubation in small-scale poultry systems

Abstract

This study aims to investigate how farmers perceive, justify, and evaluate the use of natural and artificial incubation, as well as the factors influencing their productive decisions. The research was conducted in four regions of Minas Gerais, Brazil, involving 87 family poultry farmers operating free-range production systems through qualitative content analysis. Results indicated the factors that influence the choice between incubation systems, farmers primarily associated artificial incubation with higher chick production (24.1%), the capacity to set more eggs (12.1%), and greater process control (8.6%). Conversely, constraints included concerns over poor results (6.0%), negative previous experiences (5.2%), and a lack of knowledge (4.3%), with some farmers inadvertently associating natural incubation with better outcomes (2.6%). In terms of perceptions regarding artificial incubation and its specific effects, the better utilization of hens, allowing them to continue laying eggs rather than brooding, was related by few producers (4.3%). Furthermore, when evaluating motivations to increase overall chick production, economic factors were the primary drivers, specifically the explicit desire to increase income (22.7%) and improve profitability (9.8%). However, these goals were hindered by systemic challenges such as production costs (3.3%) and a lack of infrastructure (2.2%). In conclusion, the decision-making process regarding incubation systems is not exclusively driven by objective productivity gains, rather, it is significantly mediated by farmers' subjective perceptions of risk, empirical knowledge, and their sociocultural context. Successful and sustainable technological transitions in small-scale poultry systems require continuous technical support and adequate training, strictly aligned with the traditional values and multifunctional dynamics of rural livelihoods.

Introduction

Family-based poultry production systems play an essential role in rural livelihoods, contributing to food security, income generation, and social organization, particularly among small-scale farmers (Mutombo, 2022; Markos et al., 2024). Despite their low productivity, these systems are valued for their multifunctionality and resilience. However, limited access to inputs, technical assistance, and improved management practices constrains production efficiency (Garoma, 2023).

One of the main limitations is chick production, which relies predominantly on natural incubation. Although well adapted to local conditions, natural incubation reduces egg production because of brooding behavior, provides limited control over hatching, and is highly influenced by environmental conditions (Archer et al., 2014; Ajayi et al., 2020). Artificial incubation offers an opportunity to increase chick production and improve production planning, yet its adoption by family farmers remains low (Alves et al., 2026).

Technology adoption in small-scale farming depends not only on technical and economic advantages but also on farmers’ knowledge, traditions, perceptions, previous experiences, and access to training and technical support (Dione et al., 2025). Consequently, decisions are shaped by subjective perceptions and sociocultural contexts rather than productivity alone.

Although previous studies have characterized poultry family production systems (Alves et al., 2026; Mutombo, 2022), little is known about how farmers perceive and justify incubation practices. Therefore, this study investigates farmers’ perceptions of natural and artificial incubation and identifies the factors influencing their decisions. Using qualitative content analysis combined with the quantification of elemental context units, the study provides insights into technology adoption in family-based poultry systems.

Materials and methods

All procedures involving human participants were reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee (COEP) of the Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil (protocol number 6.410.205).

Study design and data source

This study is part of a broader research initiative on family poultry farming systems in Minas Gerais, Brazil. Previous findings characterized the structural and socioeconomic profile of participating farmers, highlighting the predominance of small-scale, resource-limited production systems (Alves et al., 2026). Building on this foundation, the present study adopted an exploratory qualitative approach to investigate how farmers perceive, evaluate, and make decisions regarding incubation strategies. The analysis focused on responses to three open-ended questions addressing incubation practices, reasons for choosing a given incubation method, and the perceived advantages and disadvantages of artificial and natural incubation.

A total of 87 family poultry farmers from four municipalities in Minas Gerais, Brazil, participated in the study: Bambuí (n = 21), Igarapé (n = 26), Ituiutaba (n = 20), and Lavras (n = 20). These regions represent typical small-scale poultry production systems with diverse management practices (Alves et al., 2026).

The interviews were conducted before the implementation of a technical training program on artificial incubation described by Alves et al. (2026), which included a 20-hour theoretical and practical course and the provision of single-stage incubators with a capacity of 100 eggs. Consequently, the responses analyzed in this study reflect farmers’ baseline knowledge, experiences, and decision-making processes, free from the influence of the training intervention.

Data collection

Data were collected through face-to-face structured interviews, also described in a previous study (Alves et al., 2026), including both closed- and open-ended questions addressing management practices, incubation systems, and production objectives. All interviews were audio-recorded with prior consent from participants to ensure accuracy and completeness of the information collected.

Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim using Otter.ai software. The automatically generated transcripts were manually reviewed to correct potential errors and ensure full correspondence with the original audio. To enhance data reliability, all transcripts were independently checked by two poultry veterinarians from the research team. Any discrepancies were discussed and resolved by consensus, resulting in a validated textual dataset for analysis.

Qualitative analysis and definition of elemental context units (ECU)

Discourse data were analyzed using the classical framework of content analysis (Bardin, 2004), which combines quantitative and qualitative approaches. In this method, written responses from the questionnaires served as the primary material for discourse evaluation (Franco, 2007). The qualitative analysis was conducted using a content analysis approach. The textual data were segmented into elemental context units (ECU), defined as the smallest units of meaning representing a single idea expressed by the interviewee.

When responses contained multiple ideas, they were divided into two or more ECU. Semantically similar expressions were standardized into a single representative formulation to ensure consistency and reduce redundancy while preserving the original meaning.

Categorization process

The ECU were grouped into thematic categories using an inductive approach. Categories and subcategories emerged from the data during the analytical process and were not predefined. The coding process was conducted iteratively. Initially, one researcher identified and segmented the responses into elemental context units (ECUs). Subsequently, semantically similar ECUs were grouped into thematic categories using an inductive approach. The resulting coding framework was independently reviewed by two researchers with expertise in poultry science, and any disagreements regarding ECU classification or category assignment were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. The categorization involved iterative refinement, including repeated readings and reorganization of ECU to ensure internal coherence, eliminate overlaps, and maintain fidelity to the original discourse.

Quantitative treatment of qualitative data

A quantitative description of the qualitative data was performed to support interpretation. The frequency (ƒ) of each ECU was calculated based on the number of occurrences across all responses, and relative frequencies (%) were computed in relation to the total number of ECU identified for each question. Each research question was analyzed independently, generating distinct datasets and allowing comparison of discourse patterns across different thematic dimensions.

Data interpretation

The results were interpreted through an integrated qualitative–quantitative approach, combining thematic analysis with the distribution of ECU frequencies. Special attention was given to identifying patterns, contradictions, and inconsistencies between farmers’ perceptions, preferences, and production intentions. This approach enabled a deeper understanding of the decision-making processes underlying the adoption or rejection of incubation technologies in family poultry systems.

This analytical framework also allowed capturing tensions between perceived advantages of artificial incubation and the practical, structural, and experiential constraints influencing farmers’ decisions.

Therefore, this study aimed to analyze how family poultry farmers perceive, interpret, and make decisions regarding incubation strategies, with particular attention to the social, practical, and experiential factors that shape their choices within small-scale rural production systems.

Results and discussion

A total of 116 elemental context units (ECUs) were identified regarding farmers' choice between natural and artificial incubation systems (Table 1). Production and scale related themes were the most frequently mentioned (36.2%), with the discourse most commonly referring to higher chick production (24.1%) and the ability to incubate a larger number of eggs per cycle (12.1%). Management-related aspects accounted for 19.0% of the ECUs, with respondents describing artificial incubation as easier to manage and less labor-intensive. Greater control over incubation conditions was also frequently identified as an advantage (8.6%).

Table 1.

Farmers’ perceptions influencing the choice between natural and artificial incubation systems.

Subcategory	Standardized ECU	Frequency (ƒ)	Relative frequency (%)
Production/Scale	Higher production / more chicks	28	24.1
	Larger number of eggs per cycle	14	12.1
Management	Easier management (artificial incubation)	16	13.8
	Less labor required	6	5.2
Control	Greater process control (temperature, monitoring)	10	8.6
Efficiency/Performance	Better hatchability (natural incubation)	6	5.2
	Poor results with incubator (low hatchability, weak chicks)	7	6.0
Losses/Risk	Reduced egg loss/breakage	6	5.2
	Higher losses in natural incubation	4	3.4
Experience/Knowledge	Lack of knowledge about incubators	5	4.3
	Negative experience with incubator	6	5.2
Animal-related factors	Hen behavior limitations (breakage, abandonment, brooding)	5	4.3
Trust/Tradition	Greater trust in natural incubation	3	2.6
Total	—	116	100.0

Performance-related perceptions were mixed. The discourse included concerns that artificial incubation could result in poor chick quality, weak chicks, or lower hatchability (6.0%), whereas natural incubation was associated with better outcomes because “the hen takes better care” (5.2%). Artificial incubation was also linked to reduced egg losses due to breakage (5.2%), whereas natural incubation was perceived as more susceptible to losses associated with hen behavior (3.4%). Experience-related themes also emerged in the responses, including limited familiarity with incubators (4.3%), previous negative experiences (5.2%), and trust in traditional incubation practices (2.6%).

A total of 148 elemental context units (ECUs) were identified regarding farmers' perceptions of artificial incubation and its impact on production (Table 2). Production- and scale-related themes predominated (43.3%), with the discourse most frequently referring to higher chick production (20.3%), a greater number of eggs per cycle (13.5%), and higher simultaneous incubation capacity (9.5%). As one farmer stated, “With the incubator, I can hatch 100 eggs at once. The hen would take months to do that.” Concerns regarding chick quality also emerged in the discourse, as illustrated by another participant: “The incubator gives weak chicks. The hen knows what she's doing.”

Table 2.

Farmers’ perceptions of artificial incubation and its effects on production.

Subcategory	Standardized ECU	Frequency (ƒ)	Relative frequency (%)
Production/Scale	Higher chick production	30	20.3
	Greater number of eggs per cycle	20	13.5
	Higher simultaneous incubation capacity	14	9.5
Management/Practicality	Ease of management	16	10.8
	Reduced labor demand	8	5.4
Process control	Greater control of incubation conditions	12	8.1
	Process monitoring	5	3.4
Safety/Loss reduction	Reduced egg loss	9	6.1
	Lower risk of contamination/predation	5	3.4
Productive efficiency	More efficient system	4	2.7
	Greater reliability of results	3	2.0
Hen availability	Hens are not occupied with brooding	5	3.4
	Hens continue egg production	5	3.4
Limitations/Constraints	Dependence on technical knowledge	4	2.7
	Dependence on proper management	3	2.0
	Uncertainty about results	3	2.0
	Lower chick quality	2	1.4
Total	—	148	100.0

Management- and practicality-related themes accounted for 16.2% of the ECUs, with the discourse describing artificial incubation as easier to manage (10.8%) and less labor-intensive (5.4%). Process control represented 11.5% of the ECUs, including references to improved monitoring (3.4%) and greater control of incubation conditions (8.1%). One participant explained: “With the incubator, we can monitor it,” contrasting this with hens brooding in hidden nests. Themes related to reduced losses and risks accounted for 9.5% of the ECUs, with references to fewer broken eggs (6.1%) and a lower risk of contamination or predation (3.4%). Conversely, some responses emphasized the dependence on electricity, as illustrated by one farmer: “The electricity on the farm can fail. With the hen, we don't run that risk.” Additional perceived benefits included greater hen availability (6.8%), allowing hens to continue laying while eggs were incubated artificially, and improved productive efficiency (4.7%). Despite these perceived advantages, limitations also emerged in the discourse (8.1%), including the need for technical knowledge (2.7%), proper management (2.0%), uncertainty regarding outcomes (2.0%), and concerns about chick quality (1.4%).

A total of 184 elemental context units (ECUs) were identified regarding farmers' motivations and constraints related to increasing chick production (Table 3). Economic motivation was the predominant theme (32.5%), with the discourse most frequently referring to income generation (22.8%) and improved profitability (9.8%), often describing poultry farming as “a source of extra income.” Production expansion accounted for 21.7% of the ECUs, including references to increasing production scale (15.2%) and flock size (6.5%). Market demand represented 13.0% of the ECUs, with participants mentioning the high demand for poultry products (7.6%) and opportunities to sell chicks and eggs (5.4%). Additional themes included productivity improvement (8.2%), through improved hatchability (4.9%) and reduced losses (3.3%), production for household consumption (5.4%), and personal motivation (5.5%), including interest in poultry farming (3.3%) and enjoyment or well-being (2.2%). Despite these motivations, the discourse also highlighted several constraints (13.7%), including lack of time (3.3%), financial limitations (3.3%), high production costs (3.3%), limited space or infrastructure (2.2%), and health or physical limitations (1.6%).

Table 3.

Farmers’ motivations and constraints related to increasing chick production.

Subcategory	Standardized ECU	Frequency (ƒ)	Relative frequency (%)
Economic motivation	Increase income	42	22.7
	Improve profitability	18	9.8
Production expansion	Increase production scale	28	15.2
	Expand flock size	12	6.5
Market demand	High demand for products	14	7.6
	Opportunity to sell chicks/eggs	10	5.4
Productivity improvement	Improve hatchability	9	4.9
	Reduce losses	6	3.3
Consumption	Production for self-consumption	10	5.4
Personal motivation	Interest in poultry activity	6	3.3
	Enjoyment/well-being	4	2.2
Limitations/Constraints	Lack of time	6	3.3
	Financial limitations/investment constraints	6	3.3
	High production costs	6	3.3
	Lack of space/infrastructure	4	2.2
	Health/physical limitations	3	1.6
Total	—	184	100.0

To our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study to examine family poultry farmers' discourse regarding the adoption of artificial incubation as a strategy to increase chick production. Rather than focusing on technical performance alone, our findings demonstrate that although farmers recognize artificial incubation as an effective tool to increase chick output, simplify management, and improve profitability, its adoption is constrained by structural limitations (e.g., unreliable electricity and limited infrastructure), technical uncertainties (e.g., dependence on knowledge and variable results), and strong experiential trust in natural incubation. These findings indicate that decisions are shaped not only by expected productivity gains but also by farmers’ perceptions of risk, previous experiences, and sociocultural context. Consequently, promoting artificial incubation in family farming requires technical training and rural extension strategies that address these contextual barriers rather than relying solely on evidence of technological superiority.

The Brazilian systems evaluated here resemble those described in African countries (Markos et al., 2024), where poultry production represents an important source of household income, food security, and economic resilience. This socioeconomic context helps explain why production-related factors predominated in farmers' discourse. Artificial incubation was consistently associated with higher chick production and greater incubation capacity, reflecting farmers' interest in intensifying production to meet market demand while improving family livelihoods. Similar observations have been reported by Yesuph et al. (2024), who identified increased productivity as one of the main drivers of technology adoption in village poultry systems.

Previous studies have shown that the low productivity of family poultry systems is largely associated with reduced egg production, high mortality, limited financial resources, and insufficient technical knowledge (Ajayi et al., 2020; Dione et al., 2025; Garoma et al., 2023; Markos et al., 2024). Our results complement these findings by demonstrating that farmers also value technologies capable of reducing labor demands. Easier management and lower workload were repeatedly identified as important advantages of artificial incubation. Considering that most family farmers spend long hours performing manual agricultural activities, technologies that reduce labor requirements may substantially improve daily management while increasing productive efficiency.

Despite recognizing these benefits, farmers simultaneously expressed concerns regarding chick quality, management complexity, and dependence on technical knowledge. This coexistence of positive and negative perceptions indicates that technology adoption is not determined exclusively by objective performance but also by subjective evaluations of reliability and risk, consistent with previous studies showing that farmers' perceptions frequently outweigh technical evidence during decision-making (Yesuph et al., 2024).

Knowledge and technical assistance appear to be central elements underlying these perceptions. Artificial incubation requires adequate control of temperature, humidity, egg turning, and general management practices, which are often unfamiliar to small-scale farmers (Dione et al., 2025). Accordingly, limited knowledge and previous unsuccessful experiences emerged as important barriers in the interviews. However, previous work demonstrated that after receiving appropriate theoretical and practical training, these same farmers were able to achieve incubation results comparable to those obtained under controlled experimental conditions (Alves et al., 2026). Therefore, the limitations identified in the present study seem to reflect deficiencies in knowledge transfer and technical support rather than inherent limitations of the technology itself.

An interesting finding was that the biological limitations associated with natural incubation, such as broodiness, egg breakage, and nest abandonment, were infrequently mentioned in the farmers' discourse. This indicates that these topics were not prominent in the spontaneous responses collected during the interviews. Because farmers were not directly asked about their knowledge of the productive consequences of broodiness, these results should not be interpreted as evidence of their level of awareness. Nevertheless, broodiness naturally interrupts egg laying and reduces annual chick production (Archer et al., 2014). Similar observations have been reported by Ajayi et al. (2020), who described the continued reliance of smallholder farmers on broody hens because of their simplicity and perceived reliability.

Likewise, only a minority of farmers associated artificial incubation with improved biosecurity through reduced egg contamination and predation. Although these advantages were not frequently mentioned, they are particularly relevant in extensive production systems, where embryonic mortality and chick losses caused by predators and pathogens are common (Garoma et al., 2023). Moreover, farmers who depend on purchasing replacement chicks instead of producing them on-farm are exposed to additional sanitary risks, especially when quarantine procedures are not adopted (Dione et al., 2025; Mutombo, 2022). Consequently, artificial incubation may contribute not only to increased productivity but also to improved flock health and disease prevention.

The choice between incubation systems in family poultry farming goes beyond the pursuit of technical efficiency, constituting a complex and multifaceted decision-making process. Although artificial incubation is valued for its potential to increase production scale and generate income, its adoption is constrained by structural limitations, knowledge gaps, and the strong empirical reliability associated with traditional natural incubation. Therefore, the modernization of the activity depends not only on the introduction of equipment, but also on integrated rural extension initiatives, with technological transition driven by the producers' demands and guided by their local principles.

Author Contribution

Otoniel Félix Souza coordinated the field activities in the Igarapé region, conducted on-farm interviews, transcribed and analyzed the interview recordings, organized and curated the datasets, participated in qualitative data interpretation, performed the literature review, and prepared the first draft of the manuscript. Henrique Carneiro Lobato contributed to the development and refinement of the interview questionnaire, participated in field visits and interviews in the Igarapé region, organized and validated the datasets, contributed to the literature review, assisted with manuscript preparation, and provided substantial intellectual input during the revision of the manuscript. Laryssa Fernanda Bernardes participated in the on-farm visits and producer interviews in the Igarapé region, contributed to the discussion and interpretation of the interview data, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Mariana Cristina Vieira participated in the on-farm visits and producer interviews in the Igarapé region, contributed to the discussion and interpretation of the interview data, and critically reviewed the manuscript. Leonardo José Camargos Lara contributed to the interpretation of the findings, critically reviewed the manuscript, contributed to the literature review, and provided intellectual guidance throughout the study and reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Adriana Gon..alves Silva coordinated the field activities in the Ituiutaba region, conducted on-farm interviews, transcribed and analyzed the interview recordings, organized and curated the datasets, participated in qualitative data interpretation, performed the literature review, and contributed to drafting the first version of the manuscript. Julyana Machado da Silva Martins contributed to the interpretation of the interview findings, critically reviewed the manuscript, contributed to the literature review, and provided substantial intellectual input during manuscript development and reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Kalu Chaves de Paula coordinated the field activities in the Bambuí region, conducted producer training and on-farm interviews, transcribed and analyzed the interview recordings, organized and curated the datasets, participated in qualitative data interpretation, performed the literature review, and contributed to drafting the first version of the manuscript. Adriano Geraldo contributed to the interpretation of the interview findings, critically reviewed the manuscript, contributed to the literature review, and provided substantial intellectual input during manuscript development and reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Kimberly Cristina Abreu Alves coordinated the field activities in the Lavras region, conducted on-farm interviews, transcribed and analyzed the interview recordings, organized and curated the datasets, participated in qualitative data interpretation, performed the literature review, contributed to drafting the first version of the manuscript, and generated data incorporated into her Master’s dissertation. Renata Ribeiro Alvarenga contributed to the interpretation of the interview findings, critically reviewed the manuscript, contributed to the literature review, and provided substantial intellectual input during manuscript development. Márcio Gilberto Zangeronimo contributed to the interpretation of the interview findings, critically reviewed the manuscript, contributed to the literature review, and provided substantial intellectual input during manuscript development and reviewed and approved the final manuscript. Itallo Conrado Sousa Araújo conceived and coordinated the project, secured funding, supervised all stages of the research, supervised students, contributed to study design and data interpretation, critically revised the manuscript, and approved the final version for publication.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.