Livestock News

Cattle study: RDDs deliver medication with no muscle damage


Remote Delivery Devices (RDDs) can provide injection results equal to that of a hand syringe in cattle according to a Texas study recently released by the Treat Right Foundation.

D.T. Bechtol, DVM of the Agri Research Center, Inc. in Canyon, Texas, conducted a month-long study comparing the injection sites of a Remote Delivery Device to that of a hand syringe with visual inspections and blinded laboratory analyses.

For decades, the use of RDDs has proved to be a reliable tool for ranchers and veterinarians, affording them the ability to treat cattle in places when capturing, restraining, or transporting the animal as hand injection methods can create unwarranted stress.

In Dr. Bechtol’ s study, two misconceptions perpetuated by the opponents of RDD were disproved:

  • Can RDDs provide subcutaneous injection? The answer was a resounding yes.
  • Do RDD injections result in muscle and tissue damage? When used correctly, no, according to Dr. Bechtol.

Among the many findings, Dr. Bechtol concluded that “gross and histopathology results showed an RDD equipped with a ½” needle having good skin penetration providing subcutaneous injection with no muscle damage.” Moreover, Dr. Bechtol noted, “there were little to no signs of injection site blemishes, impact trauma, nor wounds related to any type of injection (hand or remote).”

Most, if not all manufacturers of RDD systems recommend those who work with animals coordinate the delivery of an injectable liquid, directly with their veterinarian of record. Knowing how remote delivery equipment performs at varying payload capacities relative to distance is crucial to delivering medication successfully.

The Treat Right Foundation is a 501c3 organization designed to support the National FFA, the National Wildlife Federation, and to facilitate research for wildlife and livestock industries.

Tags: Livestock News, Cattle Medication, Animal Welfare
Sponsored Content on AGDaily
Any views or opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect those of AGDAILY. Comments on this article reflect the sole opinions of their writers.