Quote: Seed Tray, Height 50 Mm, with Bottom Perforation (E.G. Plastic Tray, 430 Mm X 330

TG 7 Comments handling Weeds

MB Clause Comment Proposed change Observation and TG7 resolution DIN 2. ge To refer to normative references, We propose to refer to horizontal Accepted (as far as HOR methods are Normative which are not horizontally proved, standards. available). references like the here mentioned ENs by CEN TC 223, is crucial. TG7 agreed Further discussion taking place – specific references may be necessary DIN 5.2 te What does “free of viable seeds The dilution material (in this case raised As there is no CEN-standard available at Reagents and plant propagules” mean? For bog peat) is tested as control as well. But it the moment, the use of locally available Soil improvers and growing media is not clear, if this method is suitable to methodology is proposed. However, the must be worked out separate decide on the case that the dilution possible acceptance of this standard within standard, because they are not in material is “free of viable seeds and plant TC 223 will be discussed. the scope of HORIZONTAL. propagules”. TG7 agreed that the diluting material be treated as a test sample to ascertain the presence of any viable weeds that would germinate under test conditions. AFNOR 5.2 How to check that the peat is As there is no CEN-standard available at the free of weeds and propagules ? moment, the use of locally available Is there a limited number methodology is proposed. However, the possible allowed in the blanks ? or acceptance of this standard within TC 223 will be discussed. Should the peat be controlled with the same protocol TG7 see above regularly (once a month ?) before starting the assay ?

DIN 6.1 Seed te The dimension of the plastic tray is No dimension shall be given. Accepted, but already within the standard: The tray defined by the sample volume and dimensions given are only an example the thickness of layer. TG7 noted that dimension given as example but further discussion suggests more precise information required on tray size, how to fill, at what depth, FI 6.1 and According to the standard, the Addition of requirement for various tray The size is just an example, only the height is 8.1 ge volume of biowaste per tray is 3 sizes depending of sample and dilution. obligatory litres (= 1 litre of original

August 2006 TG 7 Comments handling Weeds

material). In order to get a 2 Quote: “Seed tray, height ≥ 50 mm, cm thickness, noticeably larger with bottom perforation (e.g. trays have to be used then for plastic tray, 430 mm x 330 mm the soil samples (especially if x 60 mm)” soil is not diluted). TG7 see above DIN 6.5 te It is proposed a monitoring Accepted: Testing temperature between 18 °C and 26 Extended to 30°C facility °C. It must be clear that this temperature can be out of this range in summer. In practice the TG7 Agreed germination test is made in greenhouse facility and it is unusual and not practical to choose a climate chamber for this test. 7.1.1 It is mentioned in the 1st phase In order to avoid any confusion, it would be Accepted Ed, that the preparation of the better to delete the reference to EN 13040 Te sample shall be carried out in which is applicable to soil improvers and TG7 and subsequent e-mails It may be accordance with EN 13040. In growing media and to explain in detail the possible to include EN and ISO’s where the second one, it is pointed mode of preparation. out that the material used (<20 appropriate but if not detailed mm) is not in accordance with instructions will have to be given. this standard.

FI 7.1.1 The fraction obtained after sieving should Accepted ed be at least three litres TG7 Agreed NL 7.1.1 It is not clear how to make the Add the following sentence “This material Accepted te particles smaller. shall be broken down in equal parts and as few times as necessary to permit the entire sample to pass through the sieve.” TG7 Agreed ARNO 7.1. The reference of calcium Replace (5.5) by (5.4). Accepted R 2 ;7 Ed carbonate is wrong. TG7 this had been corrected in later .2 ; versions 7.3 7.1. The normative reference is Replace CEN 13038 by EN 13038. Accepted 2 ;7 Ed wrong. TG7 this had been corrected in later

.2 ; versions 7.3 FI 7.2 The fraction obtained after sieving should Accepted ed be atleast x (see next comment) litres TG7 Agreed FI 7.2 7 litres of soil is not absolutely Lowering the sieved sample amount to 3-5 5 L accepted ge necessary. Since (minimum) 3 litres litres of sample is sufficient for the whole experiment. Also TG7 Agreed compared to volume requirement of biowaste. FI 7.3 1 The description of the amount One part of sample...five parts of peat Accepted ed of sample and peat should be in accordance with 7.1 TG7 Agreed AFNO 7.3 Only liquid sludges are Accepted, see new remark; pasty sludges are R considered ? How to perform referred to as “liquid” the assay with solid/pasty TG7 Agreed sludges ? AFNO 7.8.1 The documents under Ad 1.: This question should be passed on to BT R consultation correspond to a TF 151 and the corresponding CEN TC´s start of phase II and it would be appropriate to consider the Ad 2: As soil is within the scope of HOR, it had to be tested as well. The method has proved to following points : be applicable for this matrix, the use has then to 1. the possible application of be defined by the user. the method to the different TG7 soil are moved and used in matrices 2. what is the interest of such a landscape work knowledge or weeds method for soils ? could be vital 3. and what about solid and Ad 3: accepted, remark amended coated sludges ? 4. the scope is limited ; the Ad 4: In the scope, the standard is referred to as a method of assessment scope should specify that the method does not allow to TG7 no understanding (After the measure the total absence of meeting the Covenor discussed this all weeds. issue with BSi. The word “assessment” 5. what is measured with this is used when there is a larger element of method when it is applied to human judgement – TG7 will have to each matrix ? come to a consensus decision on this

issue.) Ad 5: The question is not clear to the author; TG7 under stood to mean total number of germinating viable seeds and propagules as defined by the method. DIN 8.1 te We find the treatment with We propose to break the dormancy by Accepted Experimen gibberellic acid to break the storing the sample at 4 °C for three days Remark included (see also clause 6.4 of the tal design dormancy is not suitable. as done for microbial analyses in soils report) (ALEF, K. 1991: Methodenhandbuch Bodenmikrobiologie). TG7 – long discussion on this topic. For normal testing it was agreed that samples would be stored at 4 °C for 3 days and that the use of GA was not necessary. (No TREATMENT AT ALL IN NORMAL – this comment was received from France – In view of the fact that some samples may not be analysed immediately and will have to be stored at this temperature prior to the analysis then it is a question of treating all samples the same or making clear in the report that the sample was stored at 4 °C. For simplicity and uniformity I would suggest treating all samples the same. B Cooper Convenor) An annex would be written to cover the use of GA and KNO3 NL In the evaluation report Par 5.2 Include the addition of KNO3. Not accepted te it was found that a combination In clause 5.2 of the report no reference to KNO3 of 0,01 mol L-1 KNO3 with GA can be found?! – treatment showed the best ACCEPT IN ANNEXE LIKE STRATIFICATION germination rates. This seams AND GA essential for to be tested products with low nutrient TG 7 See above

content. The addition of KNO3 is however not a part of the standard. NL 8.1 Pa For coarse samples (e.g. Mixing coarse material with peat as in Accepted, but included in the draft already: r. 3 te treated wood waste with only 7.1.2. Treated biowaste is mixed with peat in any case! particles 10-20 mm) it can be TG7 Agrees difficult to keep them moist. DIN 8.1 The tray is kept….without Experim te exposure to direct sunlight for 28 We propose to define the duration time for Accepted days. This time should be variable the germinating test according to the ental intended application suitable purpose of design due to the purpose of the material. If the organic material is only used the tested material. as soil improver and as fertilizer in TG7 – discussion, people found 28 days agriculture it is not necessary to sometimes gave higher results but on observe the germinating during a balance the increased cost outweighed period of 28 days. At least 15 The maximum germination time should not any advantage and 21 days was agreed. days are sufficient. If the organic exceed 21 days. material is used as mixing See DS comment below component for growing media a germination period of 21 days is also sufficient. In the report of the research study of the German Institute for horticulture it is described that the maximum germination rate was reached after 21 days in the most cases. 11 different weeds were tested in this experiment (see chapter 4.3 in the horizontal desk study report 8-1). It is concluded in 4.6, 3rd point that the duration of more than 21 days does not improve the results significantly. DS 8.1 28 days are unnecessary long and n.a te will make the analysis more Chose 14 or 21 days as the duration of the 21 days accepted . expensive. According to the Final analysis. report of the ruggedness test, all the figures 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 shows, that most germination has taken TG7 Agreed – see DIN above place after 14 days and about nothing is gained by prolonging the test from 21 to 28 days.

The purpose of the test is to get a sufficient precise indication of the amount of weeds in the matrices, not to ensure that every single seed has germinated. The differences between treated (i.e. heated) and untreated material will show after 14 days anyway. AFNOR 8.1 Why running the assay for 28 days whereas the results 21 days accepted presented in the accompanying reports seem to demonstrate that between 15 and 21 days TG7 Agreed – see DIN above most of viable weeds germinate ? By increasing the delay one will also increase the cost of such procedure…

AFNOR 8.1 For moisture, it is said that the Not accepted: This question was a point of a assay should be performed long discussion within the research group. In the according to « good end, the formulation of the draft was considered horticultural conditions ». This sufficient, as no severe problems occurred in the participating labs. Furthermore, adding a new is not enough precise and not parameter would lead to enhanced work, normative as moisture is a key additional control facilities and, as a result, in parameter determining seed higher expenses. germination… This parameter should be controlled during the TG7 discussed this issue and agreed assay and a [min-max] interval with the comment above should be described. AFNOR 8.1 « Good horticultural practice » The validity of the test being based on a Not accepted: This question was a point of a Te minimal percentage of germination for long discussion within the research group. In the added weeds, the experimental protocol end, the formulation of the draft was considered shall describe very precisely the minimal sufficient, as no severe problems occurred in the conditions of moisture allowing to be in participating labs. Furthermore, adding a new compliance with this criteria. parameter would lead to enhanced work, additional control facilities and, as a result, in higher expenses.

TG7 see above FI 8.1 1 What is meant by “respective Definition or removal of the term Not accpeted ed number”

If the size of the tray proves not to be sufficient, you may use more than one tray for one sample.

TG7 see DIN 8.2 below DIN 8.2 To add a validation test to Validation te determine the environmental Delete the validation test. Clause has been changed due to French of the test impacts on the plants is not in the suggestion. scope of a germination test. TG 7 agreed and maintained validation test DS 8.2 Are the control seeds sown in the n.a te/ actually (diluted) test material or in Clarify that the control seeds are sown in Not accepted . ed new portions of prepared test the actually already prepared (diluted) test material? Control is performed in material, i.e. no extra material has to be Clause 8.2 refers to clause 7 concerning the triplicate, how large (litre original prepared and tested. preparation, no further explanation seems to be material for testing) are each necessary; the possibility to use the prepared replicate? material is clear.

TG7 – long discussion. Some felt control not necessary but if not used how can one be certain that the test conditions are right for germination. The control sample will be the same as the sample under test. There will be one replicate and the test seEds reduce to one monocot and one dicot DS 8.2 The germination capacity > 90 % is n.a. te tested under specific conditions Certified seeds with high germination rates Accepted which might not be fulfilled by the must be used but accept a lower test conditions described in this germination rate, e.g. 70 %. With respect to the results of the research analysis. program 80% will be proposed In the Final report of the ruggedness test, all the figures 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 shows germinations TG7 discussion agreed to 80% rates between 40 and 80 %. DS 8.2 Is it really necessary to perform the n.a. te Validation of the test is performed without Not accepted

control in triplicate? Certified seeds are expensive. replicates. TG7 – much discussion on what was meant – if one sample occupied 3 tray was this in triplicate? TG7 agreed that 3l of original sample was to be tested and the original or diluted sample to be distributed evenly amongst as many trays as necessary. This constituted one sample and not duplicate triplicate etc. analyses. Duplicate analyses would involve two 3l samples treated in the same manner. Agreed that duplicate testing of the original sample was not required. Where more than one original sample being tested the trays were to be randomised within the growth chamber NL 8.2 Only the germination rate is a Add the following sentence “If the plants Not accepted criterion. Sometimes however don’t develop the first “true” leaves the It is the purpose of the standard only to detect plants germinate but don’t grow results of the test are also not valid.” viable seeds, not to characterize the growth. further. Unfavourable growing conditions are monitored by the control sample. TG7 It would be nice to have phyto toxic effects but to date the method is for germination only. 8.2 Paragraph 8.2 shall be Proposal : Accepted Te modified in order to separate 8.2 Blank test the technical aspects specifying TG7 agreed the blank test (the aim of which Keep the text as it is and incorporate the being to check that the note into the main part of the draft. experimental conditions are Clause 9 : Validity of the test appropriate) and the criteria of validity of the test. Take the last sentence of the actual 8.2 and precise if the criteria shall be fulfilled for each replicate or for the three together. DS 8.3 and 10 Content of weeds etc should n.a. ed always be expressed in no. per Suggested new text: ”The result is referred Already included in the draft (clause 8.3) to one litre of the original material, and if

litre of originally material and if wished also in no. per m2 area. wished also to 1 m2 area”. This is to ensure that test results TG7 – agreed , clarification required on are easily compared between how the 1m2 is to be determined. product (with very different dilution ratios) and countries. And the materials is traded/handled in volume not in m2 and applied to soil on a volume (or weight) basis. DS 8.3 The test results should most likely n.a. te be expressed with one decimal. Clarify no of decimal in test result Accepted TG7 – All the germinating seeds will be summated from the total number of trays used for each original sample and the result expressed as seeds per litre it might appear strange to have a decimal point of a seed. (Reconsider expressing to the nearest whole number BJC) AFNO 8.3 There is a remark calling a R normative annex ? Is it a note ? Accepted If it is a note (which is informative) why is this note calling a normative annex ? TG7 Agreed

AFNO This document shall be strongly R 7.81 Ge reviewed before its submission We hope, that this review process will lead to an to the different Technical improved versions. committee. TG7 That was the purpose of this meeting In addition, a justification on the need of such a standard should This should be introduced by HOR be introduced into the document. TG7 do standards have to justify their need – it is supposed that having got this far they have already been justified. The document and the report Te lead to suppose that only liquid There is no technical justification to limit Accepted, see new remark

slugdes are considered in this draft. this method to liquid sludges. It is then TG7 new method incorporates this necessary to modify the text in order to comment deal with solid and coated sludges. ISO 17126 has been published Bibli Ed in 2005. Modify the reference accordingly. Accepted ogr a- La norme ISO 17126 a été TG7 agreed phy publiée en 2005 GB General E This method appears as if it will be Use “shall” where appropriate Can be accepted fit for purpose. It appears to be supported by thorough experimental work to develop the optimum experimental conditions.

“must” “has to be” and other normative obligations should be written as “shall” in Standards GB Title T “treated biowastes” not “pre- Delete “pre” Can be accepted treated” GB Table of E “Waste” should be “Treated Replace “Waste” with “Treated biowaste” Can be accepted validity biowaste” to be consistent with the scope of HOR GB 6.4 E 6.4 Thin horticultural fleece Insert “horticultural” Can be accepted GB 7.3 Sludge T Would this dilution of 2000 ml of This step applies only for liquid sludges, sample by mixing with 10000 ml otherwise you have to proceed as described for peat apply to dewatered and dried compost sludges as well as to liquid sludges? GB 8.1 T Does “The bottom of the The assumption is correct! perforated seed tray (6.1) is covered by capillary mat (6.2) and a perforated plastic sheet” mean that the mat and sheet are placed inside the seed tray or that the mat and sheet are placed on the bench and then the seed trays are placed on top of the sheet [the conventional greenhouse arrangement]? The text indicates to me that the mat and sheet should be cut to size and placed

inside the tray. GB Annex A T I am sceptical about this element The annex has been changed due to the of the test but validation will show London discussion, I don´t know whether the how well it works; it should be remarks still apply included in the international interlab evaluation if it is included as a normative annex. This procedure is only referred to in 8.2, is that appropriate or should it be included in section 6 and/or 7? GB Evaluatio n Report GB General A lot of good developmental experimental work has gone into this report. GB Title E “program” in English is reserved Can be accepted for computer programs, research and others are “programmes” or are we required to use US-English by Standards convention?

Interlaboratory trial Suggested samples:- 1 Soil 1 treated sludge (sludge cake) 3-5 treated biowastes (green waste compost, half municipal/half greenwaste, municipal solid waste compost.

Samples should be pre-assed for weeds and weeds added if necessary.

It was agreed that funding to undertake the trial was essential.

August 2006