A Tender Topic--Injection Sites 
By Sharla Adams

Every time you stick a needle in the muscle, you're running the risk of toughening the meat up to three inches from the injection site. That's just one reason why injection site lesions cost the beef industry seven times more than what we originally thought.

This is what can happen and how many steaks can be affected from a single, intramuscular injection given at branding. Dr. Gary Smith explains why these lesions (which merely consist of connective tissue or scar tissue) form in the first place.

"The medicine will get into the system more effectively if you really irritate the area around it," he says. "Some of them have adjuvants, which are designed to irritate the muscle. That irritation may be real good to keep them healthy or keep them from dying, but if they live through it and wind up producing beef, I'm not sure we've done the right thing in terms of creating a product that is uniform, consistent and tender."

The lesion can be trimmed out, but Colorado State University studies have shown that the remaining muscle tissue, up to three inches away from the visible lesion, will be made considerably tougher.

"It is really just related to the wound healing process," explains Smith. "When a muscle is wounded, it begins to build structures in and around that, which appear on the outside as a scar. On the inside, it just creates changes in the amount of gristle, or connective tissue, around the wound out as far as three inches from where the puncture actually occurred."

To understand just how tough, consider that a "restaurant quality" steak is thought to have a shear force value of 8.5 pounds, while steaks sold to retail should score less than 10 pounds. Anything greater than 10 is considered unacceptable.

It's weaning time.
The calf in the chute is playing "catch me if you can," refusing to be still long enough for you to feel comfortable reaching your hands in between the bars to give him the shot in the neck--like you know you're supposed to. Sure would be easier to take a couple of steps over and just pop that needle in the hip, wouldn't it? Like you used to.

After all, it's just one calf, or maybe a handful, and by the time they reach the packing plant, surely whatever you're giving them now will be gone and nobody will ever know the difference, right? Wrong! Every time you inject something--anything--into a muscle, you're taking a sizeable risk of causing an injection site lesion, according to research at Colorado State University.

Just like a brand on the hide, that lesion can grow with the calf, so that three steaks will ultimately be lost from his carcass if you give that shot in the top of the hip. It's even worse if you give it lower in the round muscle--up to five steaks may be affected. (See Figure 1.)

And even if you don't cause a visible lesion, chances are that you've ruined the tenderness of an area up to three inches away from the spot where the needle went in. (See Figure 2.) It is a problem that CSU researchers estimate cost the beef industry more than $200 million in 1995, or $7.05 per steer/heifer slaughtered.

In 1991, when folks first started taking a hard look at Beef Quality Assurance programs in response to complaints from retailers, purveyors and packers about "tumors," "cancers" and other quality-related problems, the estimate on injection site damage was only $1.79 per steer/heifer.

That was with about a 21 percent occurrence of lesions in the top sirloin butt, according to National Cattlemen's Beef Association audits. In 1995, when the second National Beef Quality Audit results were announced, the rate had fallen to about 10 percent.

Two big problems
But between '91 and '95, research at CSU uncovered two big problems--impact on tenderness and lesions in the round muscle--that multiplied estimated losses to the $7.05 figure. The latest numbers from a regular audit of injection sites in the top sirloin butt show the frequency of those lesions continues to fall.

"It's hanging around 5.4 percent to 6 percent, which I think is encouraging," says NCBA's Dr. Gary Cowman, executive director, quality assurance. "We've got to be extremely satisfied with the response from the producers. Once they saw the pictures and damages from what it was doing, the majority were not reluctant to change."

Seeing the additional damage that injection site lesions cause with tenderness may help get rid of that last 5 percent and encourage producers to stay out of the round muscle as well. After all, it is completely within the producer's control. Other studies at CSU have shown that more than 90 percent of the lesions detected in earlier top sirloin audits were classified as "chronologically aged."

Furthermore, they found a greater quantity of trim was necessary when injections had been given at branding vs. weaning.

The National Animal Health Monitoring System tracks beef cow-calf health and health management practices. A report issued in 1997 indicates that 32 percent of all cow-calf operators gave only intramuscular (IM) injections. Almost half of producers who gave any IM injections said they gave them in either the upper rear leg/hip or the lower rear leg.

Producers with less than 50 head were more likely to use IM injections as either their only or main route of administration. In fact, almost 50 percent of all operations, regardless of size, even reported IM injections as the primary route of veterinary-delivered injections.

Having said that, it's important to realize that figure does not give any indication of what type of products were given by the veterinarians. There are some products that are only labeled for IM use, though that doesn't mean they can't be given in the neck, away from higher-priced cuts.

Cull cows
The problem goes beyond branding, weaning and even feeding, however. The BQA advisory board has also taken a good look at non-fed cattle--cull beef and dairy cows. Cowman says the latest figures show injection site scarification in non-fed cattle is running as high as 50 percent to 60 percent in the round region of the carcass.

"So what? No. 1, that impacts tenderness," he explains. "That meat ends up in chicken fried steak and who knows what else. We are in the process of really beefing up awareness and education in that area; it's something we have to recognize."

Any further doubts that meat quality defects don't affect the anonymous cow-calf producer, who never sees his cattle again after the trailer gate closes, can be addressed by looking at the trickle-down effect. It's the steak cutter's or retailer's direct loss when they are forced to choose one of three options: a) claim and destroy b) grind c) remove the lesion, salvage remaining meat for stew, hamburger, etc.

But producers get to share indirectly in absorbing some of the loss. Cowman explains, "Packers have got those kinds of things built into their pricing formulas. When they bid on live cattle, they realize they are going to leave some dollars on the table because of quality defects. Consequently, instead of pricing cattle at $60, their formula may say that based on these quality non-conformers that we have, they should only bid $58.50, for example."

He says the same logic goes back through the system to affect the value of feeder cattle, too. He's not suggesting that "we could wave the magic wand," get rid of injection sites and see a change in cattle prices overnight. But it's just common sense that losses due to the quality of a product get passed back down to the manufacturer, as it were.

Sooner or later, traceback will also fit into the equation, says Dr. Dudley Smith, technical services veterinarian with Boehringer-Ingelheim Animal Health.

"With computers the way that they are now and with ID systems that are online to come out, they will trace it," he believes. "A lot of these cattle can already be traced. It's not so much going to be whose cattle they are going to buy, it's whose cattle they aren't going to buy."

What if?
But, what would be the cumulative effect if every single shot given to every bovine in America was administered in accordance with BQA recommendations? Some have argued in the past that increasing supply (less trim and discard) would dampen demand, thereby forcing prices lower.

Dr. Gary Smith, CSU meat science/Monfort professor, says they took that argument to leading livestock economists when calculating the economic impact of their studies.

"That argument presumes you have an absolute relationship between supply and demand," he explains. "On the other hand, if you have more of a good product, then you have to believe that if it failed less often you could actually increase demand to equal supply, and perhaps even get more for the total supply.

"I think it's a real measure of what we could do if we do it right," he believes. "You've got to hope that you can increase both supply and demand."

Doing it right
An important ingredient in the "doing it right" recipe is the responsiveness of animal health companies to help producers through education, proper labeling and research and development of new products or routes of administration. (See The Ear Shot, p. 12.)

"The BQA advisory board really encouraged allied industry to do two things," explains Cowman. "First and foremost, to change the labels where possible and get IM off the label. No. 2 is to crank up their R&D division and develop new products that are less abrasive to tissue or more user friendly. Almost all of them have really made a concerted effort."

For example, Bruce Van Der Kamp, director of cattle marketing for Pfizer Animal Health, says his company is looking at all of the products in Pfizer's current portfolio to make sure they meet or exceed BQA standards from a labeling standpoint.

"Pfizer is committed to helping cattle producers put the best possible product in front of consumers," he explains. "No. 1, our goal is to provide safe, effective products that keep animals healthy so they perform to their potential. No. 2 is providing products that are tissue friendly and to ensure that they are given correctly."

Van Der Kamp says that consumer pressure "up the chain" will make these efforts increasingly important, as will the growing alliance movement, which requires cattle to be produced according to exacting specifications.

At the end of the day, however, it all adds up to individual responsibility on the part of cattle raisers. Whether it's that calf squirming around in the chute or his mama in the holding pen, eventually their carcasses will make it to somebody's dinner plate.*

The Ear Shot
One animal health company's response to the Beef Quality Task Force recommendations was to move the injection location of their clostridial product to the ear, which is taken off immediately during slaughter. Although the incidence of reaction (knots) is no different from a subQ shot in the neck, a knot behind the ear won't necessitate any trim.

"They asked that the manufacturers reduce the product from a 5 mL to a 2 mL dose," explains Dr. Dudley Smith, technical services veterinarian for Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health Inc. "They wanted it to be administered subQ and they wanted vaccines to last longer than the conventionals and prove that they worked."

In that light, Boehringer Ingelheim set about developing the Alpha™ line of clostridial vaccines, using a new "super adjuvant," which Smith says increased the antigen half-life, thereby taking out the need for an additional booster shot, which he believes most people will not do anyway.

"But, it's a Catch 22," he adds. "When you do that and get greater longevity and efficacy, if you get an animal that's going to react--not all of them do but a high percentage do--then the knots tend to be a little bigger and last longer. That's when we started looking at the ear, strictly taking it out of the food chain."

Smith says studies in the Texas Panhandle have shown there is no difference in performance or efficacy in feedlot cattle given the ear injection, but there are a few things to watch:

• Don't place the needle where the implant goes. It needs to be in just outside of the auricular cartilage, where the skin loosens up from the ear cartilage, down towards the base.
• They prefer for you to give the shot in the opposite ear from the implant. However, if you re-implant, Smith says it is okay to come back in the injection ear with the second round of implants.
• Use general cleanliness standards, like any other vaccination procedure. If the ear is dirty, you may need to scrape and clean it a bit before administering the injection.

Placing the injection in the correct spot in the ear is important. Getting the shot in the top third of the ear, instead of the lower third, could cause swelling to give the appearance of a dropped ear, Smith explains. But he also thinks the ease and quickness of the ear shot, plus possible safety benefits, are worth the time to learn how to do it right.

• The injection site is at the base of the ear just outside the auricular cartilage.
• Use one hand to grasp and steady the ear.
• Use a subQ injection.
• Start the insertion of a 16 gauge x 1 inch or 16 gauge x 3/4 inch needle at the point where the skin becomes loose from the cartilage.
• Insert the needle to the hub.
• Deliver the vaccine.
• With the syringe trigger still depressed, remove the needle.
• As you remove the needle from under the skin, apply pressure at the point where the needle was inserted to seal the opening.

U.S., Mexican Leaders Work on Beef Demand
Members of the Mexican retail and foodservice trade, meeting Sept. 24-25 in Monterrey, were told that North America's beef producers are competing against pork and poultry and not against one another. And they learned that message from National Cattlemen's Beef Association President Clark Willingham who sat side-by-side with Gustavo Torres, the president of the Confederación Nacional Ganadera (CNG).

NCBA and CNG conducted the meeting to show the organizations' joint support for the growing beef demand in a country that is steadily increasing its annual protein consumption.

"With NAFTA, the border is open," Torres told a media conference prior to the opening of the seminar. "To us, imports complement rather than substitute for our domestic product."

He later told the Mexican retailers that they have an obligation to give their customers the best quality beef at the lowest price.

Willingham also built upon that theme, noting that Mexico produces grass-fed beef for a market that is different from the United States' high quality grain-fed target.

The seminar for the retailers covered topics like the U.S. beef checkoff program to build demand for beef and economic trends that will affect the price of beef, both from a Mexican and U.S. perspective.*

Your role
The following guidelines are recommended through the Beef Quality Assurance Education Program:

• Follow the label. Always read and follow label directions.
• Stay away from the muscle. If there is any other label-approved route, avoid the muscle. Give the shot under the skin  in the neck region if possible.
• Never mix products. Label directions are specific for individual injectable products. Mixing products could cause tissue damage.
• Use multiple sites. Never inject more than 10 c.c. of product in any one site.
• Know the products you're using. Muscle scars and lesions result from irritated and damaged tissue. Require that suppliers/ manufacturers provide you and/or your veterinarian with sufficient documentation showing that the chosen injectable animal health products do not cause tissue irritation. You are responsible for the quality of the beef you produce.

Knot a problem
This steer has a subcutaneous (subQ) knot on his neck (the preferred injection site location) from an injection. Although knots have sometimes been used as an unjustifiable discount on feeder calves, they show evidence the animal has received vaccinations and are generally removed at slaughter with the hide.

In response to these discounts, the Beef Quality Task Force issued a position statement reiterating that the knots are not a defect, pose no concern to the animal's health or quality and should not be used as a discount.

"Up until the last three years, I could always tell when calves were starting to move in late July, August and September," says Dr. Gary Cowman, NCBA. "I would get lots of calls from producers about getting dinged on their calves because they had knots on the neck. We do not get those calls anymore. I'm not going to say that it's not still happening out there at all.

"But I think slowly, the industry has caught on to the fact that maybe a knot on the neck is really a positive instead of a negative."

NCBA/BQA-1995

At the lesion site, CSU reports the shear force value is 30.56 pounds; 22.03 pounds at one inch away; 16.73 pounds at two inches away; and still 12.78 pounds at three inches away--clearly unacceptable.