Comparison of the Biobullet versus traditional pharmaceutical injection techniques on injection-site tissue damage and tenderness in beef subprimals1

Abstract

The incidence and severity of injection-site lesions has decreased since the development of the Beef Quality Assurance program. The objective was to evaluate the route of administration and the pharmaceutical product on the impact on tenderness, collagen concentration, and lesion occurrence in muscles of chucks and rounds. A total of 144 yearling steers (initial BW = 383 ± 29.4 kg) were selected and transported to Oklahoma State University. Steers were blocked into 2 groups of 72 based on initial BW and were randomly allocated, within block, into pens of 6 head per pen (12 pens per block). Each pen was randomly assigned an injection protocol. On May 19, 2006 (d 0), steers were administered one of the following treatment injections: a standard Biobullet containing 100 mg of ceftiofur sodium (Naxel, Pfizer Inc., New York, NY); a traditional needle and syringe dose of ceftiofur sodium; a standard Biobullet containing Bal-listiVac infectious bovine rhinotracheitis (IBR; Titanium 5, SolidTech Animal Health, Newcastle, OK); a traditional needle and syringe dose of IBR; a traditional needle and syringe dose of Vira Shield 5 (Grand Laboratories Inc., Freeman, SD); a standard placebo Biobullet; or a traditional needle and syringe dose of sterile water. Percentage of samples with an identifiable lesion did not differ by drug administered or injection method. Warner-Bratzler shear force values of lesion center cores in chucks tended to be different (P = 0.07) from cores from the control steaks and at 2.54 and 5.08 cm away from the lesion center. Lesion centers from the Biobullet-BallistiVac IBR had a Warner-Bratzler shear force value of 7.01 kg, which was greater (P < 0.05) than values for lesion centers from chucks injected with a Biobullet-placebo (6.27 kg) or needle-ceftiofur sodium (5.08 kg). No significant differences (P > 0.10) were observed in the total collagenous connective tissue in samples extracted from the chuck or round. The comparison of lesion site and control (nonlesion site) samples for lipid concentration showed no significant difference (P > 0.10) among treatments in the round. It was concluded the Biobullet did not create a greater occurrence of lesions in the muscles of the chuck and round. The Biobullet is not an appropriate injection method for the round of beef cattle because it caused tissue damage similar to a needle injection. However, the Biobullet can be used effectively in neck (chuck) applications without additional negative effects on tenderness.

Cervical Myelomalacia in a Lamb (Ovis aries) and an Alpaca (Vicugna pacos) after Attempted Intramuscular Injection

“…In farm animal medicine, most research into injection techniques has been focused on improving meat quality by reducing tissue damage and tenderness complications created by injection‐site damage in prime cuts of meats. As muscles of the hindquarters are more valuable than cervical musculature, emphasis has been placed on training producers to use the neck region for all pharmaceutical products . Veterinary textbooks also recommend intramuscular injection in the neck region, and frequently caution that inappropriate injection technique or irritating medications in the hindquarters may cause sciatic nerve damage .…”

“…As muscles of the hindquarters are more valuable than cervical musculature, emphasis has been placed on training producers to use the neck region for all pharmaceutical products. 11 Veterinary textbooks also recommend intramuscular injection in the neck region, and frequently caution that inappropriate injection technique or irritating medications in the hindquarters may cause sciatic nerve damage. [12][13][14] For these reasons, many farm animal veterinarians are accustomed to cervical intramuscular injections, which are suitable for adult cattle, but in the authors' opinion contraindicated in camelids and small ruminants.…”

The effect of intramuscular injection of dinoprost or gonadotropin-releasing hormone in dairy cows on beef quality1

“…In published studies, site and even route of administration, such as subcutaneously in the cervical area or in the ischio-rectal fossa (Chebel et al, 2007), did not affect efficacy of dinoprost in regression of the corpus luteum. Finally, the belief that reproductive hormones are less damaging to muscle tissue than vaccines, antimicrobial drugs, and anti-inflammatory drugs may be another reason for not using the neck for injection of reproductive hormones, although even injection of sterile water can cause lesions (Van Donkersgoed et al, 1999b;Sullivan et al, 2009). Because there are no published data on the formation of injection site lesions or impact on tenderness from use of reproductive hormones, determining the amount of muscle damage caused by injection of reproductive hormones in the hindquarters helps dairy producers and veterinarians to make more informed decisions about injection practices, balancing beef quality with human safety and convenience.…”

Effects of delivery via pressure-adjustable pneumatic gas-powered dart gun of three antimicrobial drugs (ceftiofur crystalline free acid, tildopirosin, and tulathromycin) on drug disposition and meat quality in cattle

“…In addition to changes in drug disposition, previous studies have shown that injections lead to damage to the injected area, with the resultant remodeling and fibrous infiltrate leading to changes in muscle tenderness ( George et al, 1996 ; George et al, 1995 ; Sullivan et al, 2009 ). Tenderness is an important contributor to consumer satisfaction of whole meat products such as steaks.…”