Soil Phosphorus Extracted by Bray 1 and Mehlich 3 Soil Tests as Affected by the Soil/Solution Ratio in Mollisols

Different relationships between soil-test methods results have been reported in several agricultural regions. Differences in the same soil-test procedure (e.g., soil/solution ratio) exist between soil-testing laboratories from different agricultural regions. Our objectives were to (1) determine the effect of soil/solution ratio on the amount of phosphorus removed by Bray 1 and Mehlich 3 methods, (2) compare the amounts of phosphorus removed by Bray 1 and Mehlich 3 in Mollisols from the Pampean region, and (3) determine whether soil/solution ratio affects the relationship between Bray 1 and Mehlich 3. Soil phosphorus availability was determined with two extractants (Bray 1 and Mehlich 3), using two soil/solution ratios (1:10 and 1:8, wt/v) in 72 soils (noncalcareous, loess-derived Molisolls) from the Pampean region. The amount of phosphorus removed was 20–24% greater when using 1:10 than 1:8 (wt/v) soil/solution ratio. This effect was significantly greater in Bray 1 than in Mehlich 3 (p = 0.04). When compared using the same soil/solution ratio, Mehlich 3 removed 4 to 8% more phosphorus than Bray 1. The soil/solution ratio used in the comparison affected the relationship between both extractants. The difference between extractants was slightly greater with a soil/solution ratio of 1:8 than of 1:10 (p = 0.03). Our results showed that even when using the same method, changes in the procedure (like soil/solution ratio) may cause different soil-test results and also differences in the relationship between two extracting solutions. Therefore, reported relationships between two methods are only valid for the soils and region where the relationship was developed and should not be extrapolated to other regions, even with similar soils.     

A proposal to leverage high-quality veterinary diagnostic laboratory large data streams for animal health,public health,and One Health

Test data generated by ~60 accredited member laboratories of the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory Diagnosticians (AAVLD) is of exceptional quality. These data are captured by 1 of 13 laboratory information management systems (LIMSs) developed specifically for veterinary diagnostic laboratories (VDLs). Beginning ~2000, the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) developed an electronic messaging system for LIMS to automatically send standardized data streams for 14 select agents to a national repository. This messaging enables the U.S. Department of Agriculture to track and respond to high-consequence animal disease outbreaks such as highly pathogenic avian influenza. Because of the lack of standardized data collection in the LIMSs used at VDLs, there is, to date, no means of summarizing VDL large data streams for multi-state and national animal health studies or for providing near-real-time tracking for hundreds of other important animal diseases in the United States that are detected routinely by VDLs. Further, VDLs are the only state and federal resources that can provide early detection and identification of endemic and emerging zoonotic diseases. Zoonotic diseases are estimated to be responsible for 2.5 billion cases of human illness and 2.7 million deaths worldwide every year. The economic and health impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is self-evident. We review here the history and progress of data management in VDLs and discuss ways of seizing unexplored opportunities to advance data leveraging to better serve animal health, public health, and One Health.     

Prokaryotic Expression and Antigenicity Analysis of Porcine Japenese Encephalitis Virus Envelope Protein Domain Ⅲ

In order to analyze the antigenicity of porcine Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) E protein domain Ⅲ, which was expressed by pET-28a vector with His-tag and purified through Ni-NTA, the BALB/c mice were immunized with the purified protein.We identified the antigenicity of domain Ⅲ of E protein and the anti-mice and anti-porcine JEV E Ⅲ protein specific antibody titers by SDS-PAGE, Western blotting, indirect ELISA and IFA.SDS-PAGE results showed the expressed target protein existed mainly in the form of inclusion body.Western blotting, ELISA test results showed that the protein had good reactivity with anti-serum.The mice immunized with the purified JEV E Ⅲ protein generated 1×10⁵ anti-JEV E Ⅲ protein specific antibody titers by ELISA, and the porcine immunized with the porcine JEV generated 5.1×10⁴ anti-JEV specific antibody titers.The IFA results showed that JEV E Ⅲ protein anti-serum could identify JEV antigen.The above results showed that the recombinant JEV E Ⅲ had good antigenicity.These results provided important basis for development of diagnostic antigen for JEV.     

ASVCP guidelines: quality assurance for portable blood glucose meter (glucometer) use in veterinary medicine

Portable blood glucose meters (PBGM, glucometers) are a convenient, cost effective, and quick means to assess patient blood glucose concentration. The number of commercially available PBGM is constantly increasing, making it challenging to determine whether certain glucometers may have benefits over others for veterinary testing. The challenge in selection of an appropriate glucometer from a quality perspective is compounded by the variety of analytic methods used to quantify glucose concentrations and disparate statistical analysis in many published studies. These guidelines were developed as part of the ASVCP QALS committee response to establish recommendations to improve the quality of testing using point‐of‐care testing (POCT) handheld and benchtop devices in veterinary medicine. They are intended for clinical pathologists and laboratory professionals to provide them with background knowledge and specific recommendations for quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC), and to serve as a resource to assist the provision of advice to veterinarians and technicians to improve the quality of results obtained when using PBGM. These guidelines are not intended to be all‐inclusive; rather they provide a minimum standard for management of PBGM in the veterinary setting.