Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America logoLink to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
. 2025 Dec 22;122(52):e2515557122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2515557122

Global vaccination coverage and disease incidence in cattle, pigs, and poultry

Alec Gleason a, Isabella Impalli b, Justin Sheen c, Aurelio Cabezas Murillo d, Bryan T Grenfell c,e, Simon A Levin a,c, Thomas P Van Boeckel b,f,g, Ramanan Laxminarayan a,b,e,1
PMCID: PMC12772152  PMID: 41428885

Significance

Vaccinating livestock against disease is effective at preventing infections and increasing food security. The lack of consolidated, comprehensive information on the global state of animal vaccination and disease incidence levels is one barrier to expanding animal vaccination coverage globally. This study provides global vaccination coverage and incidence estimates for 104 livestock diseases among cattle, poultry, and pigs in 203 countries and territories from 2005 to 2025. Our analysis shows significant shortfalls and variations in animal vaccination globally, and significant opportunities to increase animal vaccination and enablement of benefits from expanded coverage. Follow-up research can help determine vaccine efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and identify priority antigens and regions for vaccination efforts.

Keywords: vaccination coverage, livestock, immunization, animal health, One Health

Abstract

Vaccination against livestock diseases is an effective method to prevent and control the spread of pathogens and reduce antimicrobial consumption and livestock production losses. Systematic data on global vaccination coverage could unlock opportunities to expand these outcomes. In this study, we estimate annual vaccination coverage and disease incidence for 104 cattle, porcine, and poultry diseases in 203 reporting countries and territories between 2005 and 2025 using data from the World Animal Health Information System, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and published literature. We provide 686,559 data points and further evaluate 11 diseases most widely targeted by vaccination programs in 2025. The vaccination coverage for global populations at risk of these diseases in 2025 is as follows: for cattle, 16.64% (95% CI: 16.63 to 16.66) against foot and mouth disease, 33.80% (33.43 to 34.38) against lumpy skin disease, 7.46% (6.71 to 8.81) against Brucella abortus, 11.57% (10.29 to 13.36) against anthrax, and 7.93% (6.27 to 14.09) against rabies. For pigs, 6.56% (6.56 to 6.57) against classical swine fever, 4.96% (3.28 to 8.76) against anthrax, and 8.08% (5.10 to 17.20) against rabies. For poultry, 17.62% (17.37 to 18.04) against Newcastle disease, 16.71% (16.42 to 19.01) against infectious bronchitis, 9.17% (8.59 to 13.67) against infectious laryngotracheitis, 15.04% (14.63 to 18.63) against infectious bursal disease, and 8.81% (7.94 to 11.97) against Marek’s disease. Expanding vaccination efforts in India and Argentina for cattle; China and Russia for pigs; and China, Brazil, and Iran for poultry may yield the greatest reductions in global livestock disease burden.

Sustainable livestock production is a crucial component of global food security and an important economic growth factor in many countries (1, 2). The production of cattle, poultry, and pigs has increased significantly in recent years, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where there is increasing demand for animal protein (3), Infectious diseases pose significant challenges to the livestock industry. Increasing morbidity and mortality rates due to infection threaten food security as livestock become less productive. Furthermore, the threat of spillover of infections from animals to humans is high in extensive farming systems in LMICs, where humans are in close contact with animals (4–8).

Louis Pasteur derived the first live-attenuated vaccines for animals against cholera, anthrax, and rabies in the 1850s (9). Animal vaccination has been used in practice since the 1950s (10), but represents only 22% of the global market for animal health products and a far lower proportion in LMICs (11, 12). Increasing vaccination coverage would produce significant primary and secondary benefits in LMICs. The primary benefit is to protect animal health: Vaccination reduces disease for vaccinated individuals as well as blocks transmission chains locally, lowering the infection burden for all individuals, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, and potentially leading to elimination of the pathogen (13). Secondary benefits include averting pathogen transfer to humans (14), marked improvements in livestock productivity (15), and avoiding downstream development and spread of antimicrobial resistance by reducing the need for antibiotics (14, 16). Several studies have suggested that vaccination presents a cost-effective method to achieve many goals in improving both livestock and human health in LMICs (17–21).

However, it is currently difficult to target vaccination efforts because estimates of both livestock disease incidence and vaccination coverage are lacking worldwide; limited data for disease incidence are based on small-scale surveys confined to participating regions within countries. Thus, evaluating the current state of global livestock disease incidence and vaccination coverage could help provide priorities for intervention. Reliable estimation remains an open question in aiding current vaccination efforts.

In this paper, we estimate global livestock vaccination coverage and disease occurrence to provide data and identify countries with increased disease burden and vaccination deficits, or persistent disease despite vaccination. Regions with both low vaccination and high disease incidence may warrant closer attention to vaccination delivery research and planning, while high vaccination coverage yet high disease burden may indicate inefficiencies in vaccination campaigns (e.g., insufficient immune response, challenges with vaccine storage or production, or mismatches between vaccine and pathogen) (22–24). Our dataset and maps can aid future studies exploring the effects of current control measures. Case studies incorporating policy, economic, and supply chain perspectives would be an additional, valuable next step to investigate underlying drivers behind lack of vaccination.

Results

Vaccination data were primarily sourced from WAHIS countrywide reports on numbers of vaccinated animals and on official vaccination prohibition (76% of our dataset records). When countrywide data were unavailable, WAHIS notification reports at the administrative division level were pooled (24% of records). Less than 0.1% of values in the dataset were obtained from direct vaccination coverage values reported in published surveys in the literature (SI Appendix, Table S1). All disease case counts per country were sourced from pooled WAHIS reports on monitored livestock samples. FAOSTAT was used to derive national livestock population sizes for national- and global-level metrics. All sources for final estimates are specified in Datasets S1 and S2.

We generated annual vaccination coverage estimates for the period of 2005 to 2025 with 95% CI (or prediction intervals, where values were imputed) for 104 cattle, pig, and poultry diseases across 203 reporting countries and territories (Dataset S1). For these diseases and countries/territories, we also calculated the latest number of reported disease cases per year and provided estimates of disease incidence (number of cases per 100,000 animals per year) for each year from 2005 to 2025 with 95% CI/prediction intervals (Dataset S2). To ensure a comprehensive and standardized dataset, we included values for all cattle, pig, and poultry diseases reported to WAHIS in that time frame,

Of the 104 diseases studied, the disease with the highest estimated global number of cases in cattle in 2025 was lumpy skin disease (LSD), followed by Echinococcosis/hydatidosis and foot and mouth disease (FMD) (Fig. 1A). In poultry, the disease with the highest estimated global number of cases in 2025 was velogenic Newcastle disease (vND), followed by avian infectious bronchitis (IB) and high-pathogenicity avian influenza (Fig. 1B). In pigs, the disease with the highest estimated global number of cases in 2025 was African swine fever followed by porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome and Echinococcosis/hydatidosis (Fig. 1C).

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Estimated global cases of the top three reported diseases per animal in 2025. We illustrate the global estimated incidence over time for the top three diseases with most reported cases in 2025 for (A) cattle, (B) pigs, and (C) poultry. Shaded regions represent 95% CI around the estimation.

We selected the top 11 diseases against which the highest number of countries reported having an official vaccination measure in place, as recorded in WAHIS. Of these, LSD had the highest vaccination rate in the global at-risk population of cattle at 33.80% (33.43 to 34.38%) as of 2025, and LSD had the highest number of estimated cases in 2025 at 3,554,952 (Table 1). In pigs, rabies had the highest vaccination rate in the global at-risk population in 2025 at 8.08% (5.10 to 17.20%) and classical swine fever (CSF) had the highest number of estimated cases in 2025 at 53,456 (Table 1). In poultry, vND had the highest global vaccination rate of 17.62% (17.37 to 18.04%) as well as estimated 2025 cases at 166,819,054 (Table 1). Detailed, country-level results by disease are presented in the following sections. We investigate the top countries affected by each disease (with more details in Dataset S5) as well as the greatest vaccination gaps of countries susceptible to outbreaks, as indicated by reports up to 2025 (Fig. 2 and Dataset S6). Susceptible countries were defined as countries with confirmed or suspected disease in livestock, and thus with an estimated range of disease cases greater than zero (SI Appendix, Text S3). “Global at-risk regions” refers collectively to all such countries, and “global at-risk populations” refers to the livestock in these countries.

Table 1.

2025 vaccination coverage in global at-risk populations and global cases of disease

Vaccination coverage (%)
(95% CI)		 Estimated cases
(number)
Cattle
 Brucella abortus 7.46 (6.71 to 8.81) 267,953
 FMD 16.64 (16.63 to 16.66) 1,002,992
 LSD 33.80 (33.43 to 34.38) 3,554,952
 Anthrax 11.46 (10.19 to 13.22) 16,929
 Rabies 7.93 (6.27 to 14.09) 15,215
Pigs
 Anthrax 4.96 (3.28 to 8.76) 1,448
 Rabies 7.80 (5.05 to 17.04) 997
 CSF 6.56 (6.56 to 6.57) 53,456
Poultry
 ND 17.62 (17.37 to 18.04) 166,819,054
 IB 16.71 (16.42 to 19.01) 123,758,947
 ILT 9.17 (8.49 to 13.67) 10,445,829
 IBD 15.04 (14.63 to 18.63) 16,057,175
 MD 8.81 (7.94 to 11.97) 2,182,571
Open in a new tab

We present estimates as of 2025 for vaccination coverage in global at-risk populations against the 11 livestock diseases most widely targeted by global vaccination programs and estimated global cases of those diseases. Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval, FMD = foot and mouth disease, LSD = lumpy skin disease, CSF = classical swine fever, ND = Newcastle disease, IB = infectious bronchitis, ILT = infectious laryngotracheitis, IBD = infectious bursal disease, MD = Marek’s disease.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

Vaccination coverage gap in top at-risk countries, 2025. Total livestock (gray) and vaccinated animals counts (teal) are shown in countries where disease exists. Top 10 countries with the largest numbers of unvaccinated animals are depicted for each disease. Root scaling was performed to enhance visualization of low vaccination counts. The three ticks per bar represent, 25%, 50%, and 75% vaccination coverage, respectively. Unvaccinated livestock counts are shown in red text.

Cattle and Pig Diseases.

LSD.

LSD had the highest global incidence from reports in cattle in 2025 among the top 11 diseases most targeted for vaccination in this analysis. India had the highest number of estimated cases of LSD in 2025 in cows at 3,235,105, with estimated vaccination coverage of 66.5%, followed by Indonesia (67,067, 0.0%), Viet Nam (61,064, 0.0%), Rwanda (20,422, 50.8%), and Burundi (15,828, 0.0%) (Fig. 3). Of countries susceptible to the disease, India had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated cattle with a population of 66 million unvaccinated, followed by Ethiopia (58 million), Tanzania (40 million), China (34 million), and Sudan (30 million). Singapore, India, and Rwanda experienced the largest estimated increases in LSD incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 9,886, 1,531, and 1,292 cases per 100,000 cattle per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S14). Since 2010, vaccination coverage increased by an estimated 66.4 and 42.4 percentage points in India and Rwanda (to 66.5 and 50.8%), Singapore prohibits vaccination against the disease.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Open in a new tab

2025 vaccination coverage, density of unvaccinated animals, and incidence of LSD in cattle. We illustrate the (A) vaccination coverage per country, (B) cases per 100,000 population by country of LSD in cattle.

B. abortus.

Argentina had the highest number of estimated cases of B. abortus infection in 2025 in cattle at 52,491 with an estimated vaccination coverage of 0.0%, followed by Russia (38,412, 11.0%), Italy (12,316, 0.0%), South Africa (11,268, 0.0%), and Brazil (10,730, 0.0%), (SI Appendix, Fig. S2). Of susceptible countries, Brazil had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated cattle with a population of 232 million unvaccinated, followed by India (191 million) China (59 million), Pakistan (58 million), and Argentina (45 million). Greece, Kyrgyzstan, and Russia experienced the largest estimated increases in B. abortus incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 594, 188, and 123 cases per 100,000 cattle per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S15). Since 2010, vaccination coverage increased by an estimated 0.2 and 2.5 percentage points in both Greece and Russia (to 0.2 and 23.2%). Kyrgyzstan most recently has not vaccinated against the disease.

FMD.

Indonesia had the highest number of estimated cases of FMD in cattle in 2025 at 446,057, with estimated vaccination coverage of 0.0%, followed by Burkina Faso (80,904, 0.0%), The Gambia (74,583, 0.0%), Mongolia (31,875, 39.4%), and Iran (31,178, 1.7%) (SI Appendix, Fig. S3). Of susceptible countries, India had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated cattle with a population of 191 million unvaccinated, followed by Ethiopia (73. million), Pakistan (57 million), Chad (41 million), and Tanzania (40 million). Mauritius, Kuwait, and Gambia experienced the largest estimated increases in FMD incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 37,427, 32,800, and 26,597 cases per 100,000 cattle per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S16). Since 2010, vaccination coverage increased by an estimated 15.1 percentage points in Mauritius and decreased by 7.4 percentage points in Gambia (15.1 and 0.0%). Kuwait is unchanged at approximately 100.0% vaccination coverage.

CSF.

CSF has been eliminated in Australia, North America, and most member states of the European Union (25, 26). Despite these advances, CSF had the highest global incidence in pigs among the top 11 vaccine-targeted pig diseases studied. Cuba had the highest number of estimated cases in 2025 at 16,452 with estimated vaccination coverage of 59.8%, followed by China (7,670, 3.42%), Russia (6,994, 59.0%), Madagascar (5,027, 0.02%), and Thailand (4,307, 0.3%) (Fig. 4). Of susceptible countries, China had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated pigs with a population of 423 million unvaccinated, followed by Brazil (44 million), Russia (12 million), Colombia (10 million), and Philippines (10 million). Madagascar, Ecuador, and Thailand experienced the largest estimated increases in CSF incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 177, 16, and 10 cases per 100,000 pigs per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S17). Since 2010, vaccination coverage decreased by an estimated 3.1 and 1.3 percentage points in both Madagascar and Thailand (to 0.0 and 0.3%) and increased by 95.2 percentage points in Ecuador (to 100.0%).

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Open in a new tab

2025 vaccination coverage, density of unvaccinated animals, and incidence of CSF in pigs. We illustrate the (A) vaccination coverage per country, and (B) cases per 100,000 population by country of CSF in pigs.

Anthrax.

For cattle, Türkiye had the highest number of estimated cases of anthrax in 2025 at 2,094, with estimated vaccination coverage of 4.9%, followed by Namibia (1,085, about 0.0%), Chad (1,073, 23.6%), Côte d’Ivoire (746, 5.4%), and India (614, 0.2%) (SI Appendix, Fig. S4). Of countries susceptible to the disease, India had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated cattle with a population of 195 million unvaccinated, followed by China (75 million), Ethiopia (70 million), Pakistan (58 million), and Argentina (53 million). Bhutan, Lesotho, and Guinea-Bissau experienced the largest estimated increases in anthrax incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 23, 15, and 15 cases per 100,000 cattle per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S18). Vaccination coverage was approximately unchanged in Bhutan (at 0.2%), increased by an estimated 3.1 percentage points in Guinea-Bissau (to 7.6%), and decreased by 11.2 percentage points in Lesotho (to 4.8%).

For pigs, China had the highest number of estimated cases of anthrax in 2025 at 118, with estimated vaccination coverage of 0.01%, followed by Kenya (82, 15.0%), Ghana (68, about 0.0%), India (56, 0.1%), and Uruguay (25, 2.0%) (SI Appendix, Fig. S5). Of susceptible countries, China had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated pigs with a population of 438 million unvaccinated, followed by Spain (35 million), Russia (29 million), Colombia (12 million), and Philippines (10 million). Bhutan, Uruguay, and El Salvador experienced the largest estimated increases in incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 21, 7, and 5 anthrax cases per 100,000 pigs per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S19). Vaccination coverage decreased by an estimated 31.1 percentage points in Bhutan (to 0.0%), increased by 1.9 percentage points in Uruguay (to 1.9%), and remained unchanged in El Salvador (estimated 0.0% coverage).

Rabies.

In our analysis, in cattle, Rwanda had the highest number of estimated cases of rabies in 2025 at 2,891, with estimated vaccination coverage of 16.8%, followed by Brazil (1,939, 4.6%), Türkiye (1,113, 0.9%), Mexico (557, 2.0%), and India (449, about 0.0%) (SI Appendix, Fig. S6). Of susceptible countries, Brazil had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated cattle with a population of 233 million unvaccinated, followed by India (195 million), Ethiopia (73 million), China (68 million), and Pakistan (58 million). Rwanda, Moldova, and Belize experienced the largest estimated increases in rabies incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 149, 58, and 28 cases per 100,000 cattle per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S20). Vaccination coverage increased by an estimated 14.7 and 0.1 percentage points in Rwanda and Belize (to 16.8 and 0.1%) and remained unchanged in Moldova (0.8%).

For pigs, Botswana had the highest number of estimated cases of rabies in 2025 at 138, with estimated vaccination coverage of 19.2%, followed by Russia (102, about 0.0%), Brazil (64, 0.0%), Belarus (56, 0.0%), and China (35, 11.4%). (SI Appendix, Fig. S7). Of susceptible countries, China had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated pigs with a population of 438 million unvaccinated, followed by Spain (35 million), Russia (29 million), Colombia (11 million), and Philippines (10 million). Botswana, Sri Lanka, and Namibia experienced the largest estimated rabies increases in incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 442, 6, and 4 cases per 100,000 pigs per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S21). Vaccination coverage increased by estimated 19.2 percentage points in Botswana (to 19.2%), and remained unchanged at an estimated 0.0% in Namibia and Sri Lanka.

Poultry Diseases.

Newcastle disease (ND).

We account for vaccination coverage against any strain of ND, both reported and imputed, as the vaccines provide cross-strain protection (27). However, disease incidence is provided for only the velogenic strain (vND), as we only have velogenic incidence data (27). vND had the highest global incidence in poultry among selected diseases. Iran had the highest number of estimated cases in 2025 at 152,614,848 and vaccination coverage of 100%, followed by Poland (5,832,515, 0.0%), Iraq (2,076,904, about 0.0%), South Africa (1,527,310, 0.1%), Russia (725,581, 100.0%), and Nigeria (453,991, 0.9%) (Fig. 5). Of susceptible countries, China had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated poultry with a population of 6.4 billion unvaccinated, followed by Indonesia (3.9 billion), Pakistan (2.2 billion), Brazil (1.2 billion), and India (0.9 billion). Gambia, Iran, and Botswana experienced the largest estimated increases in vND incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 4,756, 3,770, and 810 cases per 100,000 poultry per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S22). Vaccination coverage increased by estimated 67.2 percentage points in Iran (to 100.0%) and decreased by 100.0 and 37.2 percentage points in Botswana and Gambia (to 0.0% in both).

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5.

Open in a new tab

2025 vaccination coverage, density of unvaccinated animals, and incidence of ND in poultry. We illustrate the (A) vaccination coverage in poultry per country, and (B) cases of vND per 100,000 poultry by country. Dotted hatching indicates areas with insufficient data for visualization.

IB.

For avian IB, Iran had the highest number of estimated cases in 2025 at 113,064,078 with estimated vaccination coverage of 40.8%, followed by Iraq (3,158,188, about 0.0%), the Republic of Korea (1,470,767, 0.0%), Brazil (1,285,006, 86.5%), and Colombia (958,458, 0.0%) (SI Appendix, Fig. S8). Of susceptible countries, China had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated poultry with a population of 6.4 billion unvaccinated, followed by Pakistan (2.2 billion), Mexico (0.7 billion), Iran (0.6 billion), and Malaysia (0.3 billion). Iran, Iraq, and Costa Rica experienced the largest estimated increases in IB incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 1,185, 420, and 230 cases per 100,000 poultry per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S23). Vaccination coverage increased by estimated 8.0 percentage points in Iran (to 40.8%), decreased by 2.9 percentage points in Iraq (to 0.0%), and remained unchanged in Costa Rica (estimated no coverage based on the latest available reports).

Infectious laryngotracheitis (ILT).

For ILT, Brazil had the highest number of estimated cases in 2025 at 7,220,471 with estimated vaccination coverage of 0.2%, followed by Iran (986,651, 0.8%), Argentina (645,071, 6.09%), Chile (351,718, 1.3%), and China (176,452, 0.2%) (SI Appendix, Fig. S9). Of susceptible countries, China had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated poultry with a population of 6.5 billion unvaccinated, followed by Brazil (1.6 billion), Iran (1.0 billion), Mexico (0.7 billion), and Japan (0.3 billion). Brazil, Argentina, and Iran experienced the largest estimated increases in ILT incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 68, 55, and 34 cases per 100,000 poultry per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S24). Vaccination coverage increased by an estimated 0.2 and 6.1 percentage points in Brazil and Argentina (to 0.2 and 6.1%), and decreased by 0.9 percentage points in Iran (to 0.8%).

Infectious bursal disease (IBD).

For IBD, also known as Gumboro’s disease, the Iran had the highest number of estimated cases in 2025 at 7,597,328 with estimated vaccination coverage of 20.0%, followed by Poland (1,640,989, 6.6%), Iraq (1,292,931, about 0.0%), Brazil (453,913, 92.0%), and the Republic of Korea (347,713, 0.0%) (SI Appendix, Fig. S10). Of susceptible countries, China had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated poultry with a population of 6.4 billion unvaccinated, followed by Pakistan (2.2 billion), India (0.9 billion), Iran (0.8 billion), and Mexico (0.7 billion). Botswana, Iraq, and Bhutan experienced the largest estimated increases in IBD incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases of 1,039, 232, and 197 cases per 100,000 poultry per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S25). Vaccination coverage increased by estimated 25.1 and 49.1 percentage points in Botswana and Bhutan (to 25.1 and 52.1%), and decreased by 2.8 percentage points in Iraq (to 0.4%).

Marek’s disease (MD).

For MD, the Republic of Korea had the highest number of estimated cases in 2025 at 160,242 with estimated vaccination coverage of 0.0%, followed by Nepal (137,665, 0.0%), Russia (123,745, 27.11%), Colombia (56,400, 0.0%), and Cuba (38,345, 16.81%) (SI Appendix, Fig. S11). Of susceptible countries, China had the greatest estimated population of unvaccinated poultry with a population of 6.5 billion unvaccinated, followed by Pakistan (2.2 billion), Mexico (0.7 billion), Brazil (0.6 billion), and Russia (0.4 billion). Taiwan, Cuba, and the Republic of Korea experienced the largest estimated increases in MD incidence between 2010 and 2025, with increases by 7, 7, and 6 cases per 100,000 poultry per year, respectively (SI Appendix, Fig. S26). Vaccination coverage was estimated unchanged, with no coverage in Taiwan or the Republic of Korea, based on the latest available reports from 2011, and decreased by 6.8 percentage points in Cuba (to 16.8%).

Densities of unvaccinated livestock.

Pixel-level maps of unvaccinated animal density are presented for each of the 11 diseases assessed above, including the leading disease by total cases for each species (LSD, CSF, and ND; Fig. 6 and SI Appendix, Figs. S2–S11). Spatial patterns mirror those discussed at the country-level for susceptible livestock (i.e., livestock in countries with suspected or confirmed disease cases), while highlighting precise clusters.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6.

Open in a new tab

Density of unvaccinated animals, 2025. We illustrate global variation in densities of (A) unvaccinated cattle against LSD, (B) unvaccinated pigs against CSF, and (C) unvaccinated chickens against ND. Dotted hatching indicates areas with insufficient data for visualization.

Discussion

Detailed global data on livestock disease incidence and vaccination coverage that we present in this study allow us to evaluate the current state of cattle, pig, and poultry diseases and vaccination coverage against them around the world. We use this information to draw attention to impactful diseases with the most potential for mitigation (Fig. 7 and SI Appendix, Fig. S12), as well as regions where intervention may most effectively reduce the global disease burden (Datasets S5–S7).

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7.

Open in a new tab

Vaccination coverage of global at-risk populations against the top 11 diseases most widely targeted by official vaccination programs in 2025. We illustrate global vaccination coverage over time in areas affected by the top 11 diseases most widely targeted by official vaccination programs in 2025 between (A) cattle, (B) pigs, and (C) poultry. Shaded regions represent 95% CI around the estimation. The year was clipped at 2010 to account for increased sample size in pooled reports including vaccination status; estimates prior to this year are based on smaller samples and thus are more prone to statistical variability and potential biases.

Global vaccination trends in at-risk regions have remained relatively stagnant over time, except for a recent rise in LSD vaccination following sharp outbreaks (Figs. 1 and 7) and some fluctuations in FMD vaccination, such as a recent dip which was followed by an increase in cases (Figs. 1 and 7). These findings suggest a scarcity of new vaccination campaigns targeting susceptible areas, which may explain the observed plateaus in the incidence of diseases, punctuated by large surges. This effect is particularly evident in cattle LSD and FMD, and poultry ND, IB, and IBD, highlighting the need for adjustments in vaccination strategies for these diseases (SI Appendix, Fig. S12). Although vaccines are available, they remain leading causes of global disease burden, as do porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome and avian influenza, which are not included in the top 11 vaccine-targeted diseases (Fig. 1). Other diseases with the highest global case numbers, echinococcosis/hydatidosis in cattle and pigs, as well as African swine fever in pigs (Fig. 1), lack a commercial vaccine.

When stratifying cases over time by WHO world region, we find that the rise in LSD cases is concentrated in Southeast Asia, primarily in India (SI Appendix, Figs. S27 and S28). There is a corresponding surge in vaccination against the disease in Southeast Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean region. Most of the global increase in FMD cases are driven by increases in Africa and Southeast Asia with no increase in corresponding vaccination. No prominent trends are observed for pig diseases by the WHO region aside from an overall collective decrease in CSF cases. Most increases in global poultry cases (across vND, IB, IBD, ILT, and MD) are driven by the Eastern Mediterranean region and the region of the Americas. The region of the Americas has had consistently highest vaccination coverage against all poultry diseases examined besides ND, for which the Eastern Mediterranean region has shown slightly higher coverage. However, vaccination coverage against poultry diseases has remained relatively stable with low change across all regions over time.

In identifying where vaccination expansion may have the greatest impact on outcomes, we considered two key factors. First, the vaccination gap, the count of unvaccinated livestock in the living population that represent animals currently capable of sustaining and transmitting disease. Second, the total number of disease cases, reflecting production scale and turnover by incorporating all animals that lived during the year, including those slaughtered. Together, these measures account for both immediate transmission potential and the overall burden across production cycles.

Among the five vaccinable cattle diseases examined (FMD, LSD, B. abortus, anthrax, and rabies), Türkiye, India, Russia, and Iran ranked among the top 10 for disease cases in three of the five diseases, followed by Eritrea, Argentina, Rwanda, Brazil, Indonesia, Burundi, Viet Nam, and Zimbabwe, which each ranked twice. India and Tanzania were among the top 10 countries with the highest number of unvaccinated cattle in susceptible regions for all five diseases, followed by China, Ethiopia, and Pakistan for four diseases, and Argentina, Colombia, Kenya, Sudan, and Nigeria for three. Prioritizing vaccination efforts in these countries—particularly India and Argentina—may have the greatest impact on reducing the global cattle disease burden. While some of these infections may be seen as lower priorities for livestock vaccination (e.g., rabies, where dogs are the main transmitters, or anthrax and brucellosis, which can appear rare or localized), targeted immunization remains important where economic losses, zoonotic risk, or endemic persistence justify proactive control (28–32).

Among the three vaccinable pig diseases examined (CSF, anthrax, and rabies), China and Russia each ranked among the top 10 for disease cases in all three diseases and India, Brazil, and Peru each ranked among the top 10 for disease cases in two of the three diseases. China, Russia, Colombia, and the Philippines were among the top 10 countries with the highest number of unvaccinated pigs in susceptible regions for all three diseases, followed by Brazil, India, and Peru for two. Strengthening vaccination strategies in these countries—particularly China and Russia—may have the greatest impact on reducing the global pig disease burden.

Among the five vaccinable poultry diseases examined (ND, IB, IBD, ILT, MD), Iran ranked among the top 10 for disease cases for four of these diseases, followed by Iraq, Palestine, Brazil, the Republic of Korea, Colombia, and China for three. China and Mexico were among the top 10 countries with the highest number of unvaccinated poultry in susceptible regions for all five diseases, followed by Pakistan, Brazil, and Malaysia for four, and Bangladesh, Iran, Japan, and Colombia for three. Strengthening intervention strategies in these countries—particularly China, Brazil, and Iran—may have the greatest impact on reducing the global poultry disease burden.

We additionally recalculated our rankings of countries by total unvaccinated cattle, pigs, and poultry using an alternative approach that accounts for differences in national production scales. In this method, unvaccinated animals were scaled by a factor of 1 + (slaughtered/living) estimates for 2025 to approximate production-cycle intensity. From a One Health perspective, this scaling reflects cumulative host–environment interactions. Greater animal throughput increases the frequency of carcass generation and infectious residues from slaughter and processing of contaminated animals, contributing to environmental pathogen loading. Minimal changes were observed for cattle and pigs, but more substantial differences arose for poultry. For cattle, Nigeria ranked among the top 10 for one additional disease (four total), and Kenya for one fewer disease (two total). For pigs, Thailand ranked among the top 10 for one more disease (two total), while Myanmar no longer ranked in the top 10 for any disease (down from one). For poultry, the Republic of Korea ranked among the top 10 for three more diseases (three total); Germany, Poland, and South Africa were among the top 10 for two more diseases each (two total); and Colombia, Egypt, and Peru were among the top 10 for one more disease (four, one, and two total, respectively). Malaysia ranked among the top 10 for four fewer diseases (zero total); Bangladesh for three fewer diseases (zero total); Nigeria and Bolivia for two fewer diseases (both zero total); and Spain for one fewer disease (one total). The scaling approach may be particularly informative for environmentally persistent diseases such as anthrax, brucellosis, and IBD, where transmission risk is largely influenced by both the current animal population and environmental contamination (Dataset S7).

After selecting a disease and prioritizing regions for vaccination efforts, it is crucial to determine the most appropriate vaccine for the context. Vaccines must be carefully evaluated for a strong immune response, as their efficacy can vary significantly across different disease strains (33). Imperfect vaccines, which mask symptoms without preventing infection, may propagate existing strains and increase the likelihood of more pathogenic variants emerging among colonized animals (34–36). One particular result from our analysis that drew concern was Iran’s estimated number of vND cases in 2025, which was over 90 times higher than the next highest country. Despite reporting ND vaccination coverage at 100%, Iran has been struggling to control vND, which is endemic in the country. Vaccination in Iran is mandatory for both commercial and backcountry poultry (37), so further investigation of the implemented vaccines and their storage and delivery would be valuable to address this problem. Moreover, a potential downside of vaccination is that imperfect vaccines, which block disease but not infection, can also promote the evolution of virulence for such animal diseases as MD (34, 35). However, there is some recent debate about which circumstances best promote virulence evolution (36).

Some additional examples of “high vaccination-high incidence” discordances include FMD in cattle in Kuwait, Viet Nam, and Iraq, as well as the same disease in pigs in the Republic of Korea, and Sri Lanka, and avian influenza of high pathogenicity in poultry of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. We compiled a comprehensive list of additional cases in Dataset S8. These discordances may result from strain mismatch, vaccine handling and delivery challenges, discrepancies between reported and actual coverage, or unusually high pathogen pressure, all of which warrant targeted country-specific investigation (22–24).

Beyond disease prevention, proper vaccination may increase the yields from livestock, since diseased animals are usually slow to gain weight and have reduced milk or egg production (15). Multiple studies demonstrate that vaccinated livestock produce more milk (38), meat (15), and eggs (39). In addition, proteins produced by infected animals are often not suitable for consumption at all. For example, some Brucella species can be transmitted through sick animals’ milk or meat (15). Additionally, seropositive animals can be difficult to export—therefore limiting access to more lucrative markets—which further underscores the potential economic impact of animal vaccination (40). For example, uncontrolled FMD in Ethiopian cattle have led to rejections and bans in international sales, which have cost Ethiopian farmers millions in USD over the past few decades (40). Vaccination may have a greater impact on productivity in LMICs, where livestock mortality rates are higher and animal productivity tends to be lower (41).

The livestock industry also significantly pollutes the environment and contributes to climate change (42), as farm animals consume vast natural resources and release about 7.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere per year (43). Many of the diseases highlighted in our study, including FMD, brucellosis, anthrax, LSD, CSF, and ND, have been shown to reduce milk or meat output (44). Therefore, controlling these diseases through vaccination provides an avenue to equivalent productivity with smaller herds, thus limiting harmful environmental effects like CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions by larger numbers of animals.

A significant benefit of animal vaccination is to reduce antibiotic use in livestock, which in turn reduces the risk of emergence and spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria (41, 45), that can be transmitted to animals and humans through direct contact or consumption of animal products (46). Furthermore, antibiotics are often excreted in the waste of treated animals, contaminating soil and water (47), which may result in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the environment. Alarmingly, some antimicrobials used to treat resistant infections in humans are routinely provided to animals (48). Currently, antimicrobials are widely utilized in livestock production, and use is estimated to increase 29.5% by 2040 from 2019 levels (49). Notably, the regions with the highest projected growth in rates of antimicrobial consumption in animals—Asia, Africa, and South America—are also expected to have the highest demand for animal-sourced foods in the coming decades (49).

Though most of the diseases studied above are of viral etiology, they are often accompanied by secondary bacterial infections which prompt antibiotic use. For example, in cattle, LSD can result in secondary infections of the skin and lungs, and broad-spectrum sulfonamides are the most common treatment response (50). In poultry, mainly chickens, the World Organisation for Animal Health identified that secondary bacterial infections from both IBD and IB result in “medium” levels of antibiotic use relative to their total antibiotic consumption, and that improved vaccination against these diseases would significantly reduce the need for antibiotics in chickens (51).

Our analysis shows estimated global vaccination rates of 15.04% against IBD and 16.71% against IB in global at-risk regions as of 2025, showing great potential for improvement. Antibiotics are widely used in several of the other diseases for which we estimated incidence and vaccination coverage in this study, and vaccination has the potential to reduce antibiotic use. For example, in a multicenter field trial of an avian colibacillosis vaccine in broiler chickens in Morocco, antibiotic consumption was reduced by 75% once vaccination was put in place (16).

For many diseases, such as LSD and, in the case of rabies, in endemic areas where cattle losses are significant and dog or wildlife vaccination is insufficient or cattle exposure to humans is high, vaccines are a cost-effective strategy to reduce disease-associated losses (21, 52–54). Additionally, a recent study by Thomann and colleagues showed that in Germany, the greatest benefits in increasing porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome—the second commonest disease in pigs in 2025 of all diseases studied—vaccine cost-effectiveness would come from improvements in vaccine efficacy rather than decreases in vaccine prices (55). Therefore, improving animal vaccine efficacy levels should be a target for research investment, as well as scaling up production capabilities to lower prices. More research is needed to understand what factors play the biggest roles in determining vaccine efficacy and vaccination campaign efficiency in LMIC settings.

An important limitation of this study is the scarcity or lack of reliable data from certain parts of the world. While the overall quality of the WAHIS repository is considered to be high (56), and WAHIS data are widely used and trusted by national governments, global health agencies, and researches (57–62), data are based on self-reporting and are therefore prone to response and self-report biases. Information may be underreported due to limited financial resources, underdeveloped infrastructure, fear of trade restrictions and financial losses, remote locations, and lack of sufficient communication lines (63). Data quality is correlated with the transparency and detection capability of reporting countries (63). Disease incidence may underestimate the natural levels of endemic diseases, as WAHIS reports, per Article 1.1.3, are required only for the first occurrence of a listed disease or strain, the recurrence of an eradicated disease, or an unexpected case increase (64). Although veterinary authorities are expected to report the presence or absence of listed diseases every six months after outbreaks subside (64), incidence estimates may not capture all cases. Case aggregates and incidence values may appear lower in the early reporting years (2005 to 2010) due to fewer participating administrative divisions. Reporting to WAHIS sometimes occurs with delay, and previously reported data may be revised retroactively. This study captures all WAHIS data up to the end of the first 6-mo semester of 2025 (as of September 2025).

Despite any limitations of the WAHIS data, integrating available evidence, even imperfect, is an important step in advancing global health, as demonstrated by initiatives such as the Malaria Atlas Project and global antimicrobial resistance mapping (65, 66). We hope this work will, likewise, encourage more reliable and systematic reporting in the future. We adopted a transparent strategy where we incorporate all officially reported livestock infection and vaccination records from WAHIS and developed a modeling framework designed to withstand inconsistencies or noise. Full data provenance and reproducibility are provided so that other researchers, including domain experts, can build on or reassess specific components as needed.

While we provide data that enable the comparison of vaccination coverage and disease incidence, we do not account for the specific vaccines used or for the way they were administered, stored, or transported. WAHIS data collection for ND focuses exclusively on the virulent variant (vND). Our map of vaccination coverage for ND, however, represents vaccination against all ND variants. To account for this, we compiled WAHIS vaccination coverage data for vND with survey reports capturing vaccination against other ND strains. For example, we used the USDA survey for the United States which shows near-universal vaccination coverage against nonvirulent ND strains, even though vaccination against vND is prohibited in the country.

Several factors may influence our imputation results despite rigorous model training and cross-validation. For example, differences in data quality between geographic regions and years (i.e., better reporting systems in certain countries, and improvements over the years) cause some locations and years to have more accurate imputations than others. In addition, beta and gamma distributions used to sample original estimates, while appropriate, may not perfectly capture real-world variance. Although the iterative imputation process can progressively refine predictions and generally improves model performance, there is also potential for inaccuracies in earlier imputations to propagate through subsequent steps. However, our Bayesian optimization approach, which selects predictors with the strongest correlations to the target variable for model training, helps mitigate this issue. If noise reduces the correlation between a predictor and the target variable, that predictor is less likely to be selected, preventing overly noisy features from influencing the predictive models. Last, there may be additional epidemiological or socioeconomic factors for which no data are available. Accounting for them would further improve predictions.

Materials and Methods

We produced estimates of global vaccination coverage and disease incidence for 104 diseases incurred by cattle, poultry, and pigs across 203 countries and territories that report to WOAH, for each year between 2005 and 2025. To obtain estimates, we combined available datasets from FAO and WOAH, and we used advanced machine learning methods to impute estimates where data were unavailable. We then selected the 11 diseases against which the largest number of countries implemented official vaccination measures by 2025 for closer analysis: B. abortus, FMD, LSD, anthrax, rabies, CSF, ND, IB, ILT, IBD, and MD. For these select diseases, we generated color-coded maps of vaccination coverage (by country and by pixel) and disease incidence per 100,000 animals for cattle, pigs, and poultry as of 2025. We also provide maps of disease incidence and vaccination coverage changes over time and temporal graphs stratified by income level and region (SI Appendix, Figs. S14–S30). The full methodology is provided in SI Appendix, Texts S1–S4. Fig. 8 provides a conceptual summary of the analytical workflow.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8.

Open in a new tab

Overview of data sources and procedures used to estimate vaccination coverage and disease incidence. A schematic overview of the workflow is shown; detailed methods are provided in SI Appendix, Text S1.

Supplementary Material

Appendix 01 (PDF)

pnas.2515557122.sapp.pdf (13.4MB, pdf)

Dataset S01 (CSV)

pnas.2515557122.sd01.csv (61.1MB, csv)

Dataset S02 (CSV)

pnas.2515557122.sd02.csv (51.4MB, csv)

Dataset S03 (CSV)

pnas.2515557122.sd03.csv (22.4KB, csv)

Dataset S04 (CSV)

pnas.2515557122.sd04.csv (23.9KB, csv)

Dataset S05 (PDF)

pnas.2515557122.sd05.pdf (229.6KB, pdf)

Dataset S06 (PDF)

pnas.2515557122.sd06.pdf (251.9KB, pdf)

Dataset S07 (PDF)

pnas.2515557122.sd07.pdf (258.1KB, pdf)

Dataset S08 (CSV)

pnas.2515557122.sd08.csv (24.2KB, csv)

Acknowledgments

Author contributions

R.L. designed research; A.G., I.I., and T.P.V.B. performed research; A.G. and T.P.V.B. analyzed data; A.G. provided visualization (figures); R.L. supervised the project; and A.G., I.I., J.S., A.C.M., B.T.G., S.A.L., T.P.V.B., and R.L. wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interest.

Footnotes

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

PNAS policy is to publish maps as provided by the authors.

Data, Materials, and Software Availability

All code and data used to generate the analyses and results are available at https://github.com/Agleason1/Global-Vaccination-and-Disease-Incidence--Cattle-Pigs-Poultry (67) and the repository has been archived on Zenodo at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17848161 (68). Previously published data were used for this work [(69–74), Published literature and organizational reports on vaccination coverage and disease incidence as cited in the manuscript and SI Appendix.]

Supporting Information

References

  • 1.Hopker A., et al. , Livestock vaccination programme participation among smallholder farmers on the outskirts of National Parks and Tiger Reserves in the Indian states of Madhya Pradesh and Assam. PLoS ONE 16, e0256684 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Godber O. F., Wall R., Livestock and food security: Vulnerability to population growth and climate change. Global Change Biol. 20, 3092–3102 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.The World Bank, Moving Towards Sustainability: The Livestock Sector and the World Bank (The World Bank, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Taylor L. H., Latham S. M., Mark E. J. W., Risk factors for human disease emergence. Philos. Trans.: Biol. Sci. 356, 983–989 (2001). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Klous G., Huss A., Heederik D. J. J., Coutinho R. A., Human–livestock contacts and their relationship to transmission of zoonotic pathogens, a systematic review of literature. One Health 2, 65–76 (2016). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Espinosa R., Tago D., Treich N., Infectious diseases and meat production. Environ. Resour. Econ. (Dordr.) 76, 1019–1044 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Craft M. E., Infectious disease transmission and contact networks in wildlife and livestock. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 370, 20140107 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jones B. A., et al. , Zoonosis emergence linked to agricultural intensification and environmental change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 110, 8399–8404 (2013). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Smith K. A., Louis Pasteur, the Father of Immunology? Front. Immunol. 3, 68 (2012). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lombard M., Pastoret P. P., Moulin A. M., A brief history of vaccines and vaccination. Rev. Sci. Tech. 26, 29–48 (2007). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Grand View Research, Animal Vaccines Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Product (Attenuated Live Vaccines, Recombinant Vaccines), by Animal Type (Livestock, Companion), by Route of Administration, by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2023–2030 (Grand View Research, California, 2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Grand View Research, Animal Health Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report by Animal Type (Companion), by Product (Biologics), by Distribution Channel, by End-use, by Region, and Segment Forecasts, 2023–2030 (Grand View Research, California, 2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Metcalf C. J. E., Ferrari M., Graham A. L., Grenfell B. T., Understanding herd immunity. Trends Immunol. 36, 753–755 (2015). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Pastoret P. P., Jones P., Veterinary vaccines for animal and public health. Dev. Biol. (Basel) 119, 15–29 (2004). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bruning-Fann C., Balander R., Garling D. L., Kopcha M., Infectious diseases of meat animals. Production diseases. Encycl. Meat Sci. 2004, 656–664 (2004). [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hoelzer K., et al. , Vaccines as alternatives to antibiotics for food producing animals. Part 1: Challenges and needs. Vet. Res. 49, 64 (2018). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Putri W., et al. , Cost-effectiveness analysis of Japanese encephalitis (JE) vaccination program in Bali Province, Indonesia. Vaccine 41, 6930–6940 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Al Hamada A., Bruce M., Barnes A., Habib I., Robertson I. D., Cost-benefit analysis of a mass vaccination strategy to control brucellosis in sheep and goats in Northern Iraq. Vaccines 9, 878 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.McDermott J., Grace D., Zinsstag J., Economics of brucellosis impact and control in low-income countries. Rev. Sci. Tech. 32, 249–261 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Quezada-Fraide E. A., Productive performance and costs of swine farms with different PRRS virus vaccination protocols. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Pecu. 12, 205–220 (2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Molla W., de Jong M. C. M., Gari G., Frankena K., Economic impact of lumpy skin disease and cost effectiveness of vaccination for the control of outbreaks in Ethiopia. Prev. Vet. Med. 147, 100–107 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Dortmans J. C. F. M., Peeters B. P. H., Koch G., Newcastle disease virus outbreaks: Vaccine mismatch or inadequate application? Vet. Microbiol. 160, 17–22 (2012). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Donadeu M., Nwankpa N., Abela-Ridder B., Dungu B., Strategies to increase adoption of animal vaccines by smallholder farmers with focus on neglected diseases and marginalized populations. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 13, e0006989 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hobbs E. C., Colling A., Gurung R. B., Allen J., The potential of diagnostic point-of-care tests (POCTs) for infectious and zoonotic animal diseases in developing countries: Technical, regulatory and sociocultural considerations. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 68, 1835–1849 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Moennig V., Greiser-Wilke I., “Classical swine fever virus” in Encyclopedia of Virology, Mahy B. W. J., Van Regenmortel M. H. V., Eds. (Academic Press, Oxford, UK, ed. 3, 2008), pp. 525–532. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.U.S. Department of Agriculture, Notice of Determination of the Classical Swine Fever Status of Mexico (Federal Register, 2018), pp. 2131–2132. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ferreira H. L., Miller P. J., Suarez D. L., Protection against different genotypes of Newcastle disease viruses (NDV) afforded by an adenovirus-vectored fusion protein and live NDV vaccines in chickens. Vaccines 9, 182 (2021). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Texas Animal Health Commission, State Veterinarian Encourages Annual Livestock Vaccination Against Anthrax (Texas Animal Health Commission, 2021). [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Alam M. E., et al. , Review of anthrax: A disease of farm animals. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 9, 323–334 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Heidary M., et al. , Evaluation of brucellosis vaccines: A comprehensive review. Front. Vet. Sci. 9, 925773 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Roth F., et al. , Human health benefits from livestock vaccination for brucellosis: Case study. Bull. World Health Organ. 81, 867–876 (2003). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Blasco J. M., Moreno E., Muñoz P. M., Conde-Álvarez R., Moriyón I., A review of three decades of use of the cattle brucellosis rough vaccine Brucella abortus RB51: Myths and facts. BMC Vet. Res. 19, 211 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Tseng I., Pan B. Y., Feng Y. C., Fang C. T., Re-evaluating efficacy of vaccines against highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in poultry: A systematic review and meta-analysis. One Health 18, 100714 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Read A. F., et al. , Imperfect vaccination can enhance the transmission of highly virulent pathogens. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002198 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Boots M., The need for evolutionarily rational disease interventions: Vaccination can select for higher virulence. PLoS Biol. 13, e1002236 (2015). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bull J. J., Antia R., Which ‘imperfect vaccines’ encourage the evolution of higher virulence? Evol. Med. Public Health 10, 202–213 (2022). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sarcheshmei M., Dadras H., Mosleh N., Mehrabanpour J., Comparative evaluation of the protective efficacy of different vaccination programs against a virulent field strain of the Newcastle disease virus in broilers. Rev. Br. Ciênc. Avíc. 18, 363–370 (2016). [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Schmitt– Leemput E., Metcalfe L. V. A., Caldow G., Walz P. H., Guidarini C., Comparison of milk production of dairy cows vaccinated with a live double deleted BVDV vaccine and non-vaccinated dairy cows cohabitating in commercial herds endemically infected with BVD virus. PLoS ONE 15, e0240113 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Carpenter T. E., Mallinson E. T., Miller K. F., Gentry R. F., Schwartz L. D., Vaccination with F-strain Mycoplasma gallisepticum to reduce production losses in layer chickens. Avian Dis. 25, 404–409 (1981). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Zewdie G., et al. , A review of foot-and-mouth disease in Ethiopia: Epidemiological aspects, economic implications, and control strategies. Virol. J. 20, 299 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Laxminarayan R., et al. , Unlock the potential of vaccines in food-producing animals. Science 384, 1409–1411 (2024). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Dopelt K., Radon P., Davidovitch N., Environmental effects of the livestock industry: The relationship between knowledge, attitudes, and behavior among students in Israel. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 1359 (2019). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Steinfeld H., et al. , Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 2006). [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Capper J. L., The impact of controlling diseases of significant global importance on greenhouse gas emissions from livestock production. One Health Outlook 5, 17 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Raith J., et al. , Influence of porcine circovirus type 2 vaccination on the level of antimicrobial consumption on 65 Austrian pig farms. Vet. Rec. 178, 504 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Cully M., Public health: The politics of antibiotics. Nature 509, S16–S17 (2014). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Massé D. I., Saady N. M., Gilbert Y., Potential of biological processes to eliminate antibiotics in livestock manure: An overview. Animals (Basel) 4, 146–163 (2014). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Liu Y. Y., et al. , Emergence of plasmid-mediated colistin resistance mechanism MCR-1 in animals and human beings in China: A microbiological and molecular biological study. Lancet Infect. Dis. 16, 161–168 (2016). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Acosta A., et al. , The future of antibiotic use in livestock. Nat. Commun. 16, 2469 (2025). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Azam Jan A., et al. , Lumpy skin disease: An emerging threat to livestock in Tehsil Bara, Pakistan: Lumpy skin disease a threat to livestock. Proc. Pak. Acad. Sci.: B. Life Environ. Sci. 60, 93–105 (2023). [Google Scholar]
  • 51.World Organization for Animal Health, Report of the Meeting of the OIE Ad Hoc Group on Prioritization of Diseases for Which Vaccines Could Reduce Antimicrobial Use in Animals (World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), Paris, France, 2015). [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Mello A. K. M., et al. , Bovine rabies: Economic loss and its mitigation through antirabies vaccination. Pesqui. Vet. Bras. 39, 179–185 (2019). [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ganimattoullah M. H., Debbarma M., Shalini G., Rabies in cattle: The overlooked threat and its impact on one health and farm economics. Bio. Vet. Innovator Mag. 1, 48–54 (2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Payette-Stroman A., et al. , Rabies in livestock in the United States (2012–2021). Am. J. Vet. Res. 86, 1–8 (2025). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Thomann B., Rushton J., Schuepbach-Regula G., Nathues H., Modeling economic effects of vaccination against Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome: Impact of vaccination effectiveness, vaccine price, and vaccination coverage. Front. Vet. Sci. 7, 500 (2020). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mur L., et al. , WAHIS, the unique source of official worldwide animal health information, is becoming OIE-WAHIS, a new digital platform. Front. Vet. Sci. Conference abstract: GeoVet 2019. Novel spatio-temporal approaches in the era of Big Data (2019).
  • 57.Bianchini J., et al. , Assessing the use of animal health platforms: User’s needs, preferences and constraints. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 69, 501–515 (2022). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Caceres P., et al. , The World Animal Health Information System as a tool to support decision-making and research in animal health. Rev. Sci. Tech. 42, 242–251 (2023). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Amoia C. F., et al. , Genomic diversity and geographic distribution of Newcastle disease virus genotypes in Africa: Implications for diagnosis, vaccination, and regional collaboration. Viruses 16, 795 (2024). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kozytska T., et al. , Retrospective analysis of official data on anthrax in Europe with a special reference to Ukraine. Microorganisms 11, 1294 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Oganesyan A. S., et al. , African swine fever in the Russian Federation: Spatio-temporal analysis and epidemiological overview. Virus Res. 173, 204–211 (2013). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Wilhelm L., Ward M. P., The spread of lumpy skin disease virus across Southeast Asia: Insights from surveillance. Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2023, 3972359 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Lin S.-Y., et al. , Analysing wahis animal health immediate notifications to understand global reporting trends and measure early warning capacities (2005–2021). Transbound. Emerg. Dis. 2023, 6666672 (2023). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.World Organization for Animal Health, Terrestrial Animal Health Code: Chapter 1.1: Notification of Diseases and Provision of Epidemiological Information (World Organization for Animal Health, 2024). [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Hay S. I., Snow R. W., The Malaria Atlas Project: Developing global maps of malaria risk. PLoS Med. 3, e473 (2006). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Van Boeckel T. P., et al. , Global trends in antimicrobial resistance in animals in low- and middle-income countries. Science 365, eaaw1944 (2019). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Gleason A., Agleason1/global-vaccination-and-disease-incidence--cattle-pigs-poultry. GitHub. https://github.com/Agleason1/Global-Vaccination-and-Disease-Incidence--Cattle-Pigs-Poultry. Deposited 7 December 2025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 68.Gleason A., Global vaccination coverage and disease incidence in cattle, pigs, and poultry: Code and data repository. Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/records/17848162. Deposited 7 December 2025. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 69.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), EMPRES-i+ global animal disease information system. https://empres-i.fao.org. Accessed September 2025.
  • 70.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), FAOSTAT database. https://www.fao.org/faostat. Accessed September 2025.
  • 71.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Gridded Livestock of the World (GLW 3). https://www.fao.org/livestock-systems/global-distributions/en/. Accessed August 2025.
  • 72.World Organization for Animal Health (WOAH), World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS) database. https://wahis.woah.org. Accessed September 2025.
  • 73.World Bank, World Development Indicators database. https://data.worldbank.org. Accessed August 2025.
  • 74.Natural Earth, Public domain map dataset. https://www.naturalearthdata.com/. Accessed August 2025.

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Appendix 01 (PDF)

pnas.2515557122.sapp.pdf (13.4MB, pdf)

Dataset S01 (CSV)

pnas.2515557122.sd01.csv (61.1MB, csv)

Dataset S02 (CSV)

pnas.2515557122.sd02.csv (51.4MB, csv)

Dataset S03 (CSV)

pnas.2515557122.sd03.csv (22.4KB, csv)

Dataset S04 (CSV)

pnas.2515557122.sd04.csv (23.9KB, csv)

Dataset S05 (PDF)

pnas.2515557122.sd05.pdf (229.6KB, pdf)

Dataset S06 (PDF)

pnas.2515557122.sd06.pdf (251.9KB, pdf)

Dataset S07 (PDF)

pnas.2515557122.sd07.pdf (258.1KB, pdf)

Dataset S08 (CSV)

pnas.2515557122.sd08.csv (24.2KB, csv)

Data Availability Statement

All code and data used to generate the analyses and results are available at https://github.com/Agleason1/Global-Vaccination-and-Disease-Incidence--Cattle-Pigs-Poultry (67) and the repository has been archived on Zenodo at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17848161 (68). Previously published data were used for this work [(69–74), Published literature and organizational reports on vaccination coverage and disease incidence as cited in the manuscript and SI Appendix.]

Articles from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America are provided here courtesy of National Academy of Sciences

RESOURCES