Have You Herd? AABP PodCasts

Remote Drug Delivery Devices

November 30, 2021 AABP
Have You Herd? AABP PodCasts
Remote Drug Delivery Devices
Show Notes

In this episode, guest host Dr. Julia Herman, an AABP member on staff at National Cattleman’s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Check-Off, and the chair of the AABP Animal Welfare Committee, is joined by Dr. Ron Gill and Dr. Hans Coetzee to discuss the use of remote drug delivery devices (RDD) or the administration of cattle medications using a dart typically via a firearm.

RDDs have been utilized for a long time and historically were used in wildlife as well as to tranquilize animals. Our guests discuss some of the challenges with RDD systems, especially the Beef Quality Assurance challenges. Other challenges include failure of drug delivery, environmental impacts of darts, human safety, misdiagnosis and tissue damage. 

 Veterinarians should consult clients on the appropriate and inappropriate use of RDDs and they should not be utilized to decrease treatment time or for convenience. RDDs should not be a replacement for good facilities or stockmanship, but do have a place for appropriate use in certain range conditions. 

 Relevant links:

1.       Discussing the Dart Delivery Method for Treating Cattle – South Dakota State University 

2.       Remote drug delivery systems: Just another gadget or proven technology? – Progressive Cattleman

3.       Darting BQA Problems – Angus Beef Bulletin

4.       Failure of high-capacity pneumatic darts to consistently deliver tulathromycin to calves after remote drug delivery – J.F. Coetzee, M.D. Kleinhenz, D.R. Magstadt, V.L. Cooper, N.K. Van Engen, J.S. Smith, N. Rand, P.G. Gorden; Proceedings of the 4th AABP Annual Conference, 2016

5.       Does dart gun delivery of antibiotics cause changes in drug disposition or meat quality? – T. Hairgrove, R. Gill, C. Waters, R. Miller, T. Mays, M. Miller, V. Fajt; Proceedings of the 4th AABP Annual Conference, 2016

6.       Pneumatic dart delivery of tulathromycin in calves results in lower antimicrobial concentrations and increased biomarkers of stress and injection site inflammation compared with subcutaneous injection – J. F. Coetzee, M.D. Kleinhenz, D.R. Magstadt, V.L. Cooper, L.W. Wulf, N.K. Van Engen, J.S. Smith, N. Rand, B. KuKanich, P.J. Gorden; Journal of Animal Science, Volume 96, Issue 8, August 2018, Pages 3089–3101.

7.       Tissue residue depletion and estimation of extralabel meat withdrawal intervals for tulathromycin in calves after pneumatic dart administration – Z. Lin, C. He, D.R. Magstadt, V.L. Cooper, M.D. Kleinhenz, J.S. Smith, P.J. Gorden, L.W. Wulf, J.F. Coetzee; Journal of Animal Science, Volume 97, Issue 9, September 2019, Pages 3714–3726.

8.       Pharmacokinetics of tulathromycin following administration to stocker cattle with remote delivery devices – J.D. Rivera, A.R. Woolums, S. Giguere, J.T. Johnson, A.G. Lutz, P.N. Tipton, W.B. Crosby, I. Hice, M. Thoresen; Journal of Animal Science, Volume 97, Issue 11, November 2019, Pages 4482-4487.