In 2010 the BadgerBCG vaccine was licenced for use in badgers in the United Kingdom to reduce the severity of Mycobacterium bovis infection, and hence the risks of onward transmission to cattle. To date badger vaccination in the United Kingdom has been deployed at a relatively limited spatial scale (compared to the large-scale badger culls) and almost exclusively in high-density badger populations which have not been recently culled. UK Government policy direction has moved towards the wider rollout of badger vaccination as an exit strategy following culling. Field resources required to carry out vaccination in undisturbed badger populations are well documented, but levels of effort are unlikely to be directly transferable to previously culled populations where badger density and social behaviour may be markedly different. We present an evidence-based assessment of the likely effort required to vaccinate badger populations that have recently been culled, drawing on data from past culling operations, vaccination operations in a previously culled area and the practical field experiences of expert badger trappers. Trapping efficiency declined over successive years of industry-led culling, however, this effect was not consistently noted in the government-run randomized badger culling trial (RBCT). Fewer badgers were removed using cage trapping (compared to ‘controlled shooting’) in the latter years of intensive industry-led culls. When trapping badgers for vaccination in areas that had previously been culled, highly experienced government field staff adapted their practices in response to the lower density and likely more mobile residual population. A longer and more variable pre-baiting period was expected and there was a greater reliance on higher levels of skill and experience in interpreting field signs and trapping effectively in such populations.

AbstractBovine tuberculosis (bTB) is an important animal health and economic problem for the cattle industry and a potential zoonotic threat. Wild badgers (Meles meles) play a role on its epidemiology in some areas of high prevalence in cattle, particularly in the UK and Republic of Ireland and increasingly in parts of mainland Europe. However, little is known about the involvement of badgers in areas on the spatial edge of the cattle epidemic, where increasing prevalence in cattle is seen. Here we report the findings of a study of found-dead (mainly road-killed) badgers in six counties on the edge of the English epidemic of bTB in cattle. The overall prevalence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTC) infection detected in the study area was 51/610 (8.3%, 95% CI 6.4–11%) with the county-level prevalence ranging from 15 to 4–5%. The MTC spoligotypes of recovered from badgers and cattle varied: in the northern part of the study area spoligotype SB0129 predominated in both cattle and badgers, but elsewhere there was a much wider range of spoligotypes found in badgers than in cattle, in which infection was mostly with the regional cattle spoligotype. The low prevalence of MTC in badgers in much of the study area, and, relative to in cattle, the lower density of sampling, make firm conclusions difficult to draw. However, with the exception of Cheshire (north-west of the study area), little evidence was found to link the expansion of the bTB epidemic in cattle in England to widespread badger infection.

Abstract


In 2010 a vaccine was licensed for use in badgers in the United Kingdom to reduce the severity of Mycobacterium bovis infection, and hence the risks of onward transmission to cattle. National legislation was enacted to allow its deployment by lay persons, but the efficiency and feasibility of badger vaccination has been the subject of ongoing debate.

We conducted quantitative analysis on badger vaccination records and undertook interviews and participant observation on a sample of vaccination project participants in order to investigate (a) progress in the deployment of badger vaccination in England, (b) the trapping efficiency and coverage achieved by non‐government groups, (c) motivations of participants involved in vaccination projects and (d) barriers to wider implementation.

Between 2010 and 2015 the number and distribution of vaccine deployment projects increased substantially, spreading from two to 17 English counties.

Estimates of badger trapping efficiency for non‐government groups did not differ from those achieved by highly experienced government operatives. Our estimate of vaccine coverage (i.e. the average proportion of the target badger population vaccinated during an operation) was 57% (range 48%–63%).

Interviews and participant observation revealed a range of motivations among individuals involved in badger vaccination including disease control, demonstration of an alternative to badger culling and personal or professional development. Barriers to wider adoption of badger vaccination expressed by interviewees related primarily to a perceived lack of confidence among farmers and landowners in the effectiveness of badger vaccination for bTB control, but also to the limited availability of funding.

Our study suggests that badger vaccination led by non‐governmental groups is practically feasible, and may achieve levels of coverage consistent with disease control benefits. Wider uptake of badger vaccination across England might potentially be achieved by addressing the knowledge gap of the effect of badger vaccination on cattle TB, working closely with farmers and vets to better communicate the evidence base (in order to increase confidence in badger vaccination as a viable disease management approach), and by increased financial support for new initiatives and the scaling up of existing projects.

A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

AbstractMany academics ask ‘How can I use my research to influence policy?’. In this paper, we draw on our first-hand experience as social researchers for the British Government to advise how academics can create and communicate research with policymakers. Specifically, we describe methods of communicating research to policymakers in relation to research we undertook to listen to farmers about their priorities for a new agricultural policy for England following the exit of the UK from the European Union. The main purpose of this research was to ensure farmers’ voices were included in policy development and therefore communication of the research to policymakers was key. We reflect on the effectiveness of the communication methods we employed and summarise our learnings into four practical recommendations: (1) make research relevant to policymakers; (2) invest time to develop and maintain relationships with policymakers; (3) utilise ‘windows of opportunity’; and (4) adapt presentation and communication styles to the audience. We consider that employing these recommendations will help to improve how evidence is communicated between academia and government and therefore the influence of evidence in decision-making processes.

In 2010 the BadgerBCG vaccine was licenced for use in badgers in the United Kingdom to reduce the severity of Mycobacterium bovis infection, and hence the risks of onward transmission to cattle. To date badger vaccination in the United Kingdom has been deployed at a relatively limited spatial scale (compared to the large-scale badger culls) and almost exclusively in high-density badger populations which have not been recently culled. UK Government policy direction has moved towards the wider rollout of badger vaccination as an exit strategy following culling. Field resources required to carry out vaccination in undisturbed badger populations are well documented, but levels of effort are unlikely to be directly transferable to previously culled populations where badger density and social behaviour may be markedly different. We present an evidence-based assessment of the likely effort required to vaccinate badger populations that have recently been culled, drawing on data from past culling operations, vaccination operations in a previously culled area and the practical field experiences of expert badger trappers. Trapping efficiency declined over successive years of industry-led culling, however, this effect was not consistently noted in the government-run randomized badger culling trial (RBCT). Fewer badgers were removed using cage trapping (compared to ‘controlled shooting’) in the latter years of intensive industry-led culls. When trapping badgers for vaccination in areas that had previously been culled, highly experienced government field staff adapted their practices in response to the lower density and likely more mobile residual population. A longer and more variable pre-baiting period was expected and there was a greater reliance on higher levels of skill and experience in interpreting field signs and trapping effectively in such populations.

AbstractBovine tuberculosis (bTB) is an important animal health and economic problem for the cattle industry and a potential zoonotic threat. Wild badgers (Meles meles) play a role on its epidemiology in some areas of high prevalence in cattle, particularly in the UK and Republic of Ireland and increasingly in parts of mainland Europe. However, little is known about the involvement of badgers in areas on the spatial edge of the cattle epidemic, where increasing prevalence in cattle is seen. Here we report the findings of a study of found-dead (mainly road-killed) badgers in six counties on the edge of the English epidemic of bTB in cattle. The overall prevalence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTC) infection detected in the study area was 51/610 (8.3%, 95% CI 6.4–11%) with the county-level prevalence ranging from 15 to 4–5%. The MTC spoligotypes of recovered from badgers and cattle varied: in the northern part of the study area spoligotype SB0129 predominated in both cattle and badgers, but elsewhere there was a much wider range of spoligotypes found in badgers than in cattle, in which infection was mostly with the regional cattle spoligotype. The low prevalence of MTC in badgers in much of the study area, and, relative to in cattle, the lower density of sampling, make firm conclusions difficult to draw. However, with the exception of Cheshire (north-west of the study area), little evidence was found to link the expansion of the bTB epidemic in cattle in England to widespread badger infection.

Abstract


In 2010 a vaccine was licensed for use in badgers in the United Kingdom to reduce the severity of Mycobacterium bovis infection, and hence the risks of onward transmission to cattle. National legislation was enacted to allow its deployment by lay persons, but the efficiency and feasibility of badger vaccination has been the subject of ongoing debate.

We conducted quantitative analysis on badger vaccination records and undertook interviews and participant observation on a sample of vaccination project participants in order to investigate (a) progress in the deployment of badger vaccination in England, (b) the trapping efficiency and coverage achieved by non‐government groups, (c) motivations of participants involved in vaccination projects and (d) barriers to wider implementation.

Between 2010 and 2015 the number and distribution of vaccine deployment projects increased substantially, spreading from two to 17 English counties.

Estimates of badger trapping efficiency for non‐government groups did not differ from those achieved by highly experienced government operatives. Our estimate of vaccine coverage (i.e. the average proportion of the target badger population vaccinated during an operation) was 57% (range 48%–63%).

Interviews and participant observation revealed a range of motivations among individuals involved in badger vaccination including disease control, demonstration of an alternative to badger culling and personal or professional development. Barriers to wider adoption of badger vaccination expressed by interviewees related primarily to a perceived lack of confidence among farmers and landowners in the effectiveness of badger vaccination for bTB control, but also to the limited availability of funding.

Our study suggests that badger vaccination led by non‐governmental groups is practically feasible, and may achieve levels of coverage consistent with disease control benefits. Wider uptake of badger vaccination across England might potentially be achieved by addressing the knowledge gap of the effect of badger vaccination on cattle TB, working closely with farmers and vets to better communicate the evidence base (in order to increase confidence in badger vaccination as a viable disease management approach), and by increased financial support for new initiatives and the scaling up of existing projects.

A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

AbstractMany academics ask ‘How can I use my research to influence policy?’. In this paper, we draw on our first-hand experience as social researchers for the British Government to advise how academics can create and communicate research with policymakers. Specifically, we describe methods of communicating research to policymakers in relation to research we undertook to listen to farmers about their priorities for a new agricultural policy for England following the exit of the UK from the European Union. The main purpose of this research was to ensure farmers’ voices were included in policy development and therefore communication of the research to policymakers was key. We reflect on the effectiveness of the communication methods we employed and summarise our learnings into four practical recommendations: (1) make research relevant to policymakers; (2) invest time to develop and maintain relationships with policymakers; (3) utilise ‘windows of opportunity’; and (4) adapt presentation and communication styles to the audience. We consider that employing these recommendations will help to improve how evidence is communicated between academia and government and therefore the influence of evidence in decision-making processes.

Wildlife groups and Defra have worked together to update the Badger Rehabilitation Protocol, which was first published in 2003, in response to recent interest in badger translocations from vets and farmers. The protocol provides guidelines about all aspects of how badgers should be rehabilitated and released, with a particular focus on reducing the risk of Mycobacterium bovis transmission. This article outlines the new protocol and how vets should handle all badger rehabilitation.