By: Casey L. Bradley, Ph.D. - June 17th, 2026; President and Founder of AnimisticÂ
In livestock production, a needle is more than a delivery tool. It is part of a larger system involving animal health, worker safety, meat quality, biosecurity, traceability, and consumer trust. For decades, conventional needle-and-syringe systems have been a practical and familiar method for administering vaccines and medications in swine, poultry, cattle, and other production systems. However, as animal agriculture continues moving toward greater accountability and documentation, the limitations of traditional needles deserve renewed discussion.
Broken needles in the meat supply chain remain one of the clearest food-safety concerns. Injection-site reactions, abscesses, and residues can affect carcass value and consumer confidence. Reusing needles between animals also introduces a biosecurity concern: the potential for iatrogenic, or human-mediated, disease transmission. In high-throughput livestock systems where many animals are vaccinated or treated in a short period of time, even small process improvements can become meaningful.
Needle-free injection technology is not new, but its relevance is increasing. The conversation is shifting from “Can we vaccinate without a needle?” to a more strategic question: “Can this technology help livestock systems become safer, cleaner, more traceable, and more accountable?”
During an interview at World Pork Expo, Jordan Clay, Sales and Marketing Manager for the animal health team at Air-Tite Products, framed this shift clearly. Air-Tite, he explained, is a 100-year-old company founded on a poultry farm in southern New Jersey and now serving multiple sectors, including animal health, human health, industrial, veterinary lab, and aesthetic health. He emphasized that the company works across species, including “poultry, pork, cattle, companion animal as well,” but the World Pork Expo conversation focused heavily on swine, needle-free delivery, and biosecurity.
The pork industry has long recognized broken needles as a serious risk-management issue. Pork safety guidance emphasizes proper injection-site selection, proper needle size and length, frequent needle changes, and never straightening a bent needle. These practices are not merely procedural details; they are part of a system designed to reduce broken needles, injection-site reactions, violative residues, and consumer risk.
Broken needles create a problem that extends beyond the farm. If a fragment remains in an animal and enters the processing system, it becomes a foreign-material risk. Guidance from Canadian pork quality assurance materials notes that broken needles should be recorded, managed with a standard operating procedure, and addressed in consultation with the processor when needed. In some cases, pigs with known or suspected broken needle fragments may not be eligible for normal marketing channels.
Needle-free technology does not eliminate the need for proper animal handling, correct product usage, or sanitation. However, it does remove the physical hypodermic needle from the injection process. That alone has important implications for broken-needle prevention, worker safety, and carcass quality.
Jordan Clay captured the broader mindset behind this technology when he said Air-Tite wants to “help advance not only what we think about from a vaccine standpoint or medication standpoint, it’s that deliverable device.” In other words, the value proposition is not only the vaccine or medication itself. The delivery system is part of the outcome.
One of the most important arguments for needle-free technology is biosecurity.
In conventional injection systems, a needle can become contaminated with blood or tissue fluid from one animal and then be used on the next. If the first animal is viremic or infected, that needle can theoretically become a mechanical vector. This concern has been demonstrated experimentally in swine disease research.
A 2023 Scientific Reports study evaluating African swine fever virus found that ASFV transmission to sentinel pigs occurred through contaminated shared needles, even when the source pigs had low viral loads. The authors concluded that shared needles can serve as an iatrogenic and hematogenous route of ASFV transmission and supported wider use of intradermal needle-free vaccination where feasible. Similarly, PRRSV research has demonstrated that conventional needles can biologically and mechanically transmit virus between pigs, while transmission was not observed when a needle-free device was used under the study conditions.
This is where the practical value becomes clear. Biosecurity is often discussed in terms of perimeter control, truck washes, downtime, boot changes, mortality management, and visitor logs. Those practices are essential. But internal biosecurity also matters. Every time a crew moves from pig to pig, pen to pen, or room to room, the tools they carry can either reduce or increase risk.
Jordan described the needle-free approach simply: “By moving to a needle free device, we’re limiting that possibility whatsoever.” He was speaking in the context of shared-needle disease movement, and while no technology removes every biosecurity risk, the principle is sound: removing the shared needle removes one route of mechanical transfer.
This is especially relevant in swine production because vaccination and treatment events often involve groups of animals rather than one animal at a time. In companion animal medicine, injections are typically single-animal events with single-use needles. The biosecurity equation is different. In livestock systems, one device or one worker may move rapidly through dozens, hundreds, or thousands of animals. That scale makes delivery-system design more consequential.
Needle-free technology also raises important questions about animal welfare and worker safety.
In the interview, Casey noted that receiving an injection through the device appeared potentially “less painful” or “less stressful for the animal.” Jordan agreed and pointed out that the technology avoids actual needle penetration. He also noted that the noise level was less than some people might expect in a barn environment.
Scientific literature supports a careful version of this point. In a study comparing intramuscular needle vaccination and intradermal needle-free vaccination for PRRS in piglets, researchers found that intramuscularly vaccinated piglets showed greater aversion responses, while needle-free intradermal vaccination appeared to be a less aversive experience. The study did not suggest that vaccination is stress-free, but it did indicate that route and delivery method can influence the animal’s behavioral response.
Worker safety is another practical benefit. Accidental needle sticks are common enough in livestock production to be a familiar concern among veterinarians, producers, and farm staff. Casey’s lived experience made that point in the interview when she joked about accidentally vaccinating herself in the past: “I’ve accidentally probably given myself the flu… a few times in my career.” Jordan responded that Air-Tite is receiving more questions from producers asking how to reduce “needle pokes and needle sticks.”
Needle-free systems may reduce the risk of accidental self-injection, sharps injuries, and needle disposal challenges. This matters not only for employee safety, but also for workforce confidence. In a labor market where agriculture already struggles to recruit and retain skilled employees, tools that reduce fear, injury risk, and physical burden deserve attention.
One of Casey’s immediate observations is important: this technology is moving in the right direction, but it may still be a difficult ask for some smaller producers or women in agriculture, especially if the equipment feels heavy, complex, or expensive.
That point should not be minimized.
During the interview, the first device demonstrated appeared substantial in size. Casey noted that some viewers may immediately think, “This is going to be really heavy.” Jordan acknowledged that the first iteration was larger and explained that newer versions are being designed for mobility. He described the HSW Jet-PACCone as a system where “the compressor and battery and so forth” are worn on the back, leaving the front-end injector lighter and easier to move.
He also explained that the newer device has “a one second load to vaccination and then recycles,” allowing the user to continue moving efficiently through animals. Flexibility was another theme: the system can be set up with a bottle, as a draw-off device, or with larger-volume vaccine containers such as a 500 mL bottle.
These details matter because technology adoption in livestock production is rarely driven by the idea alone. It depends on whether the tool fits the labor, economics, barn layout, animal flow, training level, and physical realities of the people using it.
For smaller producers, the barriers may include cost, maintenance, training, and whether the number of animals justifies the investment. For women in agriculture and others who may be managing equipment designed around larger body frames or upper-body strength expectations, weight distribution, grip design, recoil, battery placement, and cleaning procedures are not minor details. They are adoption factors.
This is where manufacturers have an opportunity. If needle-free systems are marketed only as high-tech tools for large systems, adoption may remain limited. But if they are designed with ergonomics, modularity, service support, training, and financing options in mind, they may become more accessible across a wider range of livestock operations.
The most forward-looking part of the interview was not simply the needle-free mechanism. It was the connection to digital accountability.
Jordan explained that with the HSW Connect app, users can see and manage information through their phones. In livestock systems increasingly focused on documentation, audits, treatment records, and verification, this is significant. The future value of injection technology may not be only that it delivers a dose without a needle. It may be that it helps prove what was delivered, when, how, and by whom.
That creates a stronger bridge between animal health and operational management. A connected delivery system could support:
This aligns with Casey’s feedback: “We are going in the right direction of traceability and accountability with this technology.” That is the strategic takeaway. Needle-free delivery is not only about replacing needles. It is part of a broader shift toward documented, defensible animal health processes.
A balanced view: needle-free does not replace good protocols
While the benefits are promising, needle-free systems should not be presented as a magic fix.
Research on injection-site abscesses shows why protocol still matters. A Pork Checkoff-funded study comparing needle-free jet injection with needle-and-syringe injection found that abscess formation was difficult to reproduce in a controlled experiment. However, when skin was deliberately contaminated with Arcanobacterium pyogenes, the study suggested that needle-free systems could potentially increase abscess occurrence under contaminated conditions.
That finding should not be used to dismiss the technology. Instead, it reinforces a practical point: needle-free does not mean protocol-free. Skin cleanliness, device sanitation, pressure settings, correct product use, anatomical placement, maintenance, and training all remain important.
This is especially relevant when producers are considering needle-free systems for biosecurity reasons. If the device reduces risk from shared needles but is not cleaned, maintained, or used correctly, other risks may remain. Good technology strengthens a system; it does not compensate for weak management.
Although swine production provides a strong use case because of group vaccination, disease pressure, and meat-quality concerns, the discussion applies broadly across livestock production.
In cattle, poultry, and other food-animal systems, injection practices affect animal welfare, product quality, worker safety, and public trust. The specific use case may differ by species. Poultry vaccination systems, cattle chute-side treatments, and swine nursery vaccination events each have different labor flows and technical requirements. But the underlying questions are similar:
For companion animals, the equation is different. Most pet injections are single-animal events, and needles are typically single-use. The biosecurity argument for needle-free technology may be less urgent in routine pet care. However, welfare, fear-free handling, and worker safety may still have relevance in certain clinical settings.
Needle-free technology deserves attention not because it is flashy, but because it sits at the intersection of several priorities facing modern livestock production: biosecurity, food safety, worker safety, animal welfare, traceability, and accountability.
Jordan Clay summarized Air-Tite´s approach by saying, “We want to respond to the need.” That is the right frame. The need is not simply a faster way to vaccinate pigs. The need is a more defensible animal health delivery system—one that reduces avoidable risk, supports better records, protects workers, and aligns with the industry’s continued movement toward transparency.
For large integrated systems, needle-free technology may become part of broader disease-control and audit-readiness strategies. For smaller producers, adoption may require more attention to cost, ergonomics, training, and accessibility. For women and smaller-framed users, the next generation of devices must continue improving in weight, balance, and ease of use.
The industry is moving in the right direction. The opportunity now is to make sure the technology is not only innovative, but practical, inclusive, and grounded in sound animal health protocols.
