Sixteen years of badger vaccination in England show the limits and value of a targeted bovine TB strategy

England has administered more than 25,000 doses of injectable BCG vaccine to wild badgers since 2010, according to a new analysis of 16 years of field delivery. The study shows that badger vaccination can be carried out safely and across a wide range of landscapes, but its cost and trapping requirements mean it is more realistic as a targeted tool than as a nationwide replacement for other bovine tuberculosis control measures.

Published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science, the study reviews the operational experience of vaccinating European badgers (Meles meles) against Mycobacterium bovis, the agent of bovine tuberculosis. Badgers are an important wildlife host of M. bovis in parts of the UK and can complicate disease control in cattle. Injectable BadgerBCG has been available in England since 2010 as a non-lethal intervention intended to reduce infection and transmission within badger populations.

More than 25,000 doses delivered

Between 2010 and 2025, vaccination programmes recorded 84,085 trap nights and administered 25,692 vaccine doses to wild badgers in England. The programme expanded geographically over time, demonstrating that vaccination can be implemented in a variety of landscapes, including areas where badger culling had previously taken place.

The data also provide a large field record on animal welfare during trapping and vaccination. More than 99% of badgers were assessed as normal for demeanour, respiration, body condition and movement by trained lay vaccinators. Minor injuries, mainly abrasions to the forelimbs, were recorded in 4.2% of animals, while serious injuries occurred in only 0.03% of captures. Veterinary assistance was required in just 0.04% of events.

Culling history affected trapping success

Trapping efficiency was not constant. Success varied according to month and trap location and was significantly higher in badger populations that had not recently been culled. In previously culled areas, trapping success gradually increased with time after culling.

The authors suggest this may reflect partial recovery of local badger populations and an increasing probability that animals encounter traps.

This operational point is important because vaccination depends on repeatedly locating, trapping and handling free-ranging animals. Areas with reduced badger density can therefore require more effort per vaccinated animal.

Vaccination is feasible, but difficult to scale

The study does not present vaccination as a simple landscape-wide solution to bovine TB. Injectable BCG requires cage trapping, trained personnel and repeated field work. These logistical demands make large-scale coverage expensive and labour-intensive. The authors therefore conclude that trap-based vaccination is unlikely to become a universal intervention across the entire English countryside.

Its role may instead be more strategic: targeting areas where badgers are considered an important component of local M. bovis transmission, or using vaccination within broader regional disease-control programmes.

A non-lethal wildlife disease-control option

The findings are significant because management of bovine TB at the cattle–wildlife interface remains one of the most difficult animal-health problems in the UK.

Vaccination cannot remove infection already present in an individual badger, and it does not eliminate the need for cattle testing, movement controls and farm biosecurity.

But the 16-year dataset shows that badger vaccination is operationally feasible, associated with very low rates of serious trapping-related injury and capable of being deployed even in areas with a previous history of culling.

The study therefore positions vaccination less as a stand-alone solution than as a targeted wildlife-health intervention within a broader bovine TB control strategy.