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.     

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.     

Update on Canine and Feline Blood Donor Screening for Blood‐Borne Pathogens

An update on the 2005 American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (ACVIM) Consensus Statement on blood donor infectious disease screening was presented at the 2015 ACVIM Forum in Indianapolis, Indiana, followed by panel and audience discussion. The updated consensus statement is presented below. The consensus statement aims to provide guidance on appropriate blood‐borne pathogen testing for canine and feline blood donors in North America.