HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jas.2007-0763v1 87/2/716    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sullivan, M. M. Articles by Morgan, J. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sullivan, M. M. Articles by Morgan, J. B.

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

Oklahoma State University, Department of Animal Science, Stillwater 74078

² Corresponding author: deb.vanoverbeke{at}okstate.edu

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 BallistiVac 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.

Key Words: cattle • collagen • injection-site lesion • shear force