The New Zealand Standard for Composts, Soil …...4 It is my pleasure on behalf of Compost New Zealand to introduce the “Tool Kit” for the New Zealand Standard for Composts, Soil

A Tool Kit for:NZS4454: 2005

The New Zealand Standard for Composts, Soil Conditioners and Mulches

2007

2

Acknowledgements

The New Zealand Compost Standard - NZS4454 Tool Kit project forms an important element of the NZSOIL3 industry development project conceived and managed by CompostNZ. The NZSOIL3 project received funding from the Sustainable Management Fund (SMF) in 2006. CompostNZ gratefully acknowledges this funding and the ongoing support of staff from the Ministry for the Environment (MfE).

This project would not have been possible without the support of Standards New Zealand, who, in extension of their copyright, have provided invaluable in-kind sponsorship. Some material in this tool-kit has been reproduced from NZS4454:2005, with permission from Standards New Zealand. NZS4454:2005 can be purchased from Standards New Zealand at: www.standards.co.nz

In addition, ‘Compost Australia’ and the Recycled Organics Unit (ROU) @ UNSW, are gratefully acknowledged for their signifi cant contributions in support of the development of the NZS4454 Tool Kit.

CompostNZ would also like to acknowledge the Waste Management Institute of New Zeland (WasteMINZ) for their ongoing support and administration of CompostNZ as a national sector group for the Recycled Organics industry.

Delta Utilities from Dunedin and the Palmerston North City Council ‘Organic Matters’ programme, supplied samples and paid for the testing programme, which facilitated the development of much of the information contained in this report. Any test results have been included with the permission of the relevant producers. These producers generously consented to meet the user pays participation cost for this trial. Their support should be considered as a valued form of sponsorship of this important step in the industry’s development.

The staff of the Plant Growth Unit (PGU) @ Massey University are gratefully acknowledged for their co-operation, fl exibility and skill in undertaking the practical compost testing, which has provided an excellent illustrative supplement to the NZS4454 Tool Kit.

The NZS4454 Tool Kit was developed by the Zero Waste Academy (ZWA) @ Massey University, with the support of Mike Spiers @ Hort Research.

3

1 Overview of NZS4454

2 What are Standards?

3 General Standards Development Process

4 The Development of Organic Recycling in New Zealand

5 New Zealand Recycled Organics Industry

6 The NZS4454 Development Process

7 Background Documents Referred to in the Standard

8 The Key Points Made in the Foreword of the NZS4454

9 Exploring the NZS4454

10 General requirements

11 Product Analysis

12 Supplementary Information: General Comments

13 Table 3.1

13 Required Marking and Documentation

14 Appendix M – Means of Demonstrating Compliance

Exploring NZS4454 from a Operators Perspective

15 Demonstration / Pilot Compliance Trial

16 Sample Preparation and Handling Procedures

17 Testing Equipment

18 Table 2.1

19 Biological: Appendix D – Toxicity

20 Biological: Appendix J – Plant Propagules

21 Biological: Appendix N - Plant Growth Index (PGI)

22 Physical: Appendix E – Particle Size

23 Physical: Appendix G - Volume and Mass

24 Chemical: Appendix F – Moisture Content

25 Commercial testing: Hill Laboratories

26 Contaminants: Appendix P – Visible Contamination

27 Other Appendices

Table of Contents

4

It is my pleasure on behalf of Compost New Zealand to introduce the “Tool Kit” for the New Zealand Standard for Composts, Soil Conditioners and Mulches, NZS 4454:2005.

CompostNZ is acting as the lead organisation to promote organic resource recycling and use in New Zealand. It is a sector group of the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand.

The New Zealand Waste Strategy 2002, has identifi ed targets to achieve greaterdiversion of organic waste from landfi lls. To achieve theses targets increasing quantities of organic waste will be composted instead of being landfi lled. There is a risk that a range of differing processing technologies and management of operations may produce composts of varying standards. This could have a detrimental effect on existing and future compost markets.

To provide quality assurance for developing new compost markets and to help protect existing compost markets, stakeholders met during 2005 and the New Zealand Compost Standard was created.

The next challenge is for the Compost Industry to start using the Compost Standard. This “Tool Kit” will inform and assist compost producers in how to meet the requirements of the Standard. It provides background to the development of NZS4454 and a practical guide on how to test compost as required by the Standard.

In time distributors, retailers and end-users will be looking for proof of compliance with the Standard as an assurance of quality for compost. This will most likely lead onto for independent certifi cation and branding, which will require further input from stakeholders.

I would like to acknowledge the work of Jonathon Hannon from the Zero Waste Academy at Massey University and Nigel Clarke the Sector Group Coordinator from WasteMINZ in helping create and develop this “Tool Kit”.

This “Tool Kit “ is here to help, so that as a country we are all working for the improvement and enhancement of our soils to help ensure a sustainable future will be a reality.

Brian Gallagher

Chair CompostNZ

June 2007.

Introduction

5

Scope:

The NZS4454 applies to organic products and mixtures of organic products that are to be used to amend the physical, biological and chemical properties of natural or artifi cial soils and growing media.

It specifi es physical, chemical, biological and labelling requirements for composts, mulches, soil conditioners and related products that have been derived largely from compostable organic materials and which meet the minimum requirements as set out in this Standard. It covers materials marketed or distributed both in bags and in bulk.

The Standard applies to organic products and mixtures of organic products that have been treated by ‘Pasteurising’ or ‘Composting’ procedures (see defi nitions).

NB: Vermicasts that have not been subject to pasteurisation or composting before or after being worked by worms may conform with this Standard if they pass the provisions of Appendices L and M, along with all the other criteria in Table 3.1.

The Standard does not apply to and / or excludes:

• Any Organic wastes that have not specifi cally been subjected to either a pasteurisation or composting procedure (mainly because they have a high probability of containing plant propagules and pathogens.)

• Home composting end products (i.e. for self-use)• Organic fertilisers (such as blood and bone)• Liquid organic wastes, • Liquid seaweed products, • Non-organic mulches (e.g. gravel), • Non-organic soils and soil conditioners (e.g. gypsum and sand), • Non-compostable organic materials (e.g. plastics) • Various materials described as ‘compost starters’ and ‘activators’.• Feedstocks containing animal mortalities, which are due to

notifi able infectious diseases under either the Health Act or MAF 153 Series of Standards (NB: see 1.1.3.4)

• Feedstocks classed as hazardous wastes (NB see 1.1.3.5 re HSNO legislation)

1. Overview of NZS4454

Inside this sheet

1.1 Scope

1.2 Applications

1.3 Overview

1.4 Compulsory Quality Standards

1.5 General Requirements

1.6 Achieving the New Zealand Compost Standard

1.7 Key Points

A Tool Kit for NZS4454: 2005

6

Application:

This Standard is intended for use by producers, distributors and users of composts, mulches, vermicast and soil conditioners. It is likely that over time a certifying ‘Brand / Logo’ will be developed which will assist in the marketing and identifi cation of certifi ed products. By way of example, the following logo is available for marketing purposes by US compost manufacturers who are part of the US Composting Council STA programme.

Figure 1: US composting Council STA logo.

The US Compost Council in promoting adoption of the STA quality assurance programme make the following statements in respect of ‘Standard’ assured compost products:

• “Improves the image and value of compost

– as a manufactured product, produced under controlled conditions BOTH uniform AND consistent.

• Improves fi eld results – provides compost users with the product quality and application information they need to use compost properly, and with optimum results.

• Promotes customer-oriented composters –assists composters who are rigorously testing their compost products and providing end-use information to their customers to differentiate themselves from composters who are not.

• Improves customer satisfaction – assists compost customers and specifi ers to make more informed purchasing decisions.

• Reduces the chance of additional regulation

– reduces the trend of state/national organizations towards the creation of additional compost regulation. This keeps operational and distribution costs down!

• Provides a competitive advantage over

non-STA compost products – STA compost will become the norm as more and more composters participate in the program. What

product would you specify or purchase giventhe choice?

• Becomes an internal quality control

program for composters – allowing the composter to market their product and end users to purchase that product with confi dence

• Standardizes laboratory test methods used

to evaluate compost products – allows composters, regulators,researchers and compost buyers / specifi ers to better compareproducts being produced throughout the country

• Compost customers and specifi ers, compost

facility operators and regulators, and your

plants and soil will all benefi t from this

program – a great advantage over non-STA certifi ed facilities”.

Reference http://www.compostingcouncil.org

Overview:

The following graphic illustrates the basic two-partconceptual model adopted in the development of the NZS4454. The NZS4454 involves both:

• Compulsory quality standards for end products (composts, solid conditioners and mulches) and

• Establishing the general requirements including operational ‘best practices’ by which producers will arrive at the desired quality standards for end products.

In other words NZS4454 both sets up the ‘goal posts’ and is, in part, a ‘coaching manual on how to score the goals’.

Compulsory Quality Standards:

The Compulsory quality standards for end products are bracketed in fi ve categories:

1. Physical,2. Chemical, 3. Biological,4. Limits for pathogens, 5. Contaminants.These categories are listed on the right-hand side of the following graphic (and listed in full within Table 3.1 in the actual NZS4454 document).

Each category is made up of specifi c standards. For example, under the ‘Biological’ category, the NZS4454 defi nes the number of allowable viable ‘Plant Propagules’ which can be present in any given fi nal product sample.


7

Where necessary, most of the specifi c standards have an associated appendix, for example ‘Plant Propagules’ relates to -Appendix J.

The appendices establish methods of determining the relevant measurable standards. For example, Appendix J is a germination test which establishes if pasteurisation of the product has killed off any seeds or other material (i.e. ‘Plant Propagules’) from which an unwanted new plant might grow.

General Requirements:

The General Requirements, combined with the operational best practice guidelines outlined in Appendix K, provide direction “how to get to” the targetted end result of compost products, which will be fully compliant with every! individual quality assurance standard which makes up NZS4454.

The operational ‘best practice’ guidelines are collated as Appendix K, which combines direction across four generic compost system types (namely “Turned Pile, Aerated static Pile, Windrow and In-Vessel or Enclosed Confi guration”) and covers all the practical elements of the production of the types of end products covered by the standard (i.e. composts, vermi-composts, soils conditioners and mulches).

This ‘how to’ part of NZS4454 is illustrated within the arrow on the left hand side of the following graphic (Figure 1:). Just as the arrow points the way to the ‘compulsory quality standards’, the general requirements and operational best practices, if followed, will direct you to complete NZS4454 compliance.

It is important to note that the General and Packaging Marking and Documentation requirements, the guidelines in Appendix K and the specifi c standards outlined in Table 3.1of NZS4454 are ‘normative’, which essentially means that they are compulsory and therefore, you must demonstrate adherence via associated reporting.

It is important to understand that the overarching objective of NZS4454 is that when individual operators chose to adopt and achieve it, the organic recycling industry as a whole will provide improved quality assurance to all purchases of products covered by the standard. This will improve the profi le of both organic recycling as a positive environmental technology and the industry as a whole.

The quality assurance provided by NZS4454 will distinguish good products from substandardproducts, which have a higher risk of failure in utilisation and result in disappointment for the purchaser.

It is intended that the quality assurance provided by NZS4454 will result in successful product utilisation and happy customers amongst the purchasers of NZS4454 certifi ed products.

Product success and customer satisfaction are necessary foundations for the long-term growth of the total New Zealand market for compost products. In this respect NZS4454 represents an opportunity for the certifi ed composting producers to improve the marketability of their products.

NZS4454 provides a roadmap to happy customerswho are achieving success in the utilisation oftheir compost products. Just as a conventionalroadmap locates your destination as well as outlining the pathways which take you there, the two-part structure of the NZS4454 defi nes standard of product quality benchmarks andguides you in achieving these.

Key Points

• NZS4454 represents a potential asset to all composting operations.

• Adopting and achieving NZS4454 will not only assist in growing and strengthening your market, it also provides:

1. A quality management template which will make it easier to comply with Resourceconsents,

2. A pathway to keeping neighbours and staffhappy,

3. A mechanism to assist operating in a safe, healthy and effi cient site,

4. An opportunity to be recognised as a quality operation, which is likely to win further business from Councils and other organisations.

• The long-term profi tability of all composting operations is dependent on all of the above factors.

• This is why NZS4454 is potentially a hugeasset to your composting business.

• Adopting and achieving NZS4454 represents a good business decision.


8

NB: Appendix K, Defi nes Normative Best Practices (which means, ”shall be followed”). Essentially this stipulates the requirement for a Total Quality Management System (TQMS). TQMS covers, (irrespective of either 1-Turned Pile, 2- Aerated Static Piles, 3- Windrow or 4- In-vessel composting systems), the following parameters: Recording ingredients, C:N ratio, Shredding, Mixing, Dimensions, Turning, Moisture Content, Temperature, Oxygenation, Duration, Screening, Blending and Odour Control Systems.

ACHIEVING THE NEW ZEALAND COMPOST STANDARD NZS4454:2005

HOW TO GET THERE: “GENERAL REQUIREMENTS” • Comply with NZ Biosolids Guidelines

• Correct Product Classifi cations

• Correct Process Criteria (Appendix K)

• Correct Sampling Procedures

• Packaging Marking & Documentation

• Correct Product Testing

• Correct Product Analysis

NB: See susequent note below

“REQUIRED STANDARDS”

1 - Chemical Requirements

pH

Electrical conductivity

Ammonium N & Nitrate N

Phosphorous (sol) - Appendix A

Phosphorous (total)

Boron (MG, Ca, Na) - Appendix C

Organic Matter

Nitrogen - Appendix B

Chemical Containments

Organic Containments - IANZ or NZS ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory

2 - Physical Requirements

Particle Size Grading - Appendix E

3 - Biological Requirements

Toxicity - Appendix D

Plant Propagules - Appendix J

Plant Growth Index - Appendix N

Biology - TBA

4 - Limits for Pathogens

E. coli or Faecal coliforms - IANZ or NZSISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory

5 - Containments

Glass metal plastics >5mm

Stones, lumps of Clay >=5mm

Plastics - light fl exible fi lm >5mm - Appendix Q & P

Figure 2: Graphic overview of the NZS4454All of the above are based upon set sampling criteria Table 2.1

9

2. What are Standards?

International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO):

Information drawn from: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/ISOOnline.frontpage

The International Organisation for Standardisation, otherwise knownas ISO, is a global network that:

1. Identifi es what International Standards are required by business, government and society,

2. Develops them in partnership with the sectors that will put them to use,

3. Adopts them by transparent procedures based on national input and

4. Delivers them to be implemented worldwide. ISO is the world’s leading developer of International Standards. ISO – a non-governmental organisation – is a federation of the national standards bodies of over 150 countries (one per country,from all regions of the world, including developed, developing and transitional economies). ISO standards:

• Ensure vital features such as quality, ecology, safety, economy, reliability, compatibility, interoperability, effi ciency and effectiveness.

• Facilitate trade, spread knowledge, and share technological advances and good management practices.

• Specify the requirements for state-of-the-art products, services, processes, materials and systems, and for good conformity assessment, managerial and organisational practice.

• Are designed to be implemented worldwide. • Distil an international consensus from the broadest possible

base of stakeholder groups. Expert input comes from those closest to the needs for the standards and also to the results of implementing them. In this way, although voluntary, ISO standards are widely respected and accepted by public andprivate sectors internationally.

ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 - in brief

ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 are among ISO’s most widely known standards ever. ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 standards areimplemented by some 887 770 organisations in 161 countries. ISO 9000 has become an international reference for quality management requirements in business-to-business dealings, and ISO 14000 is well on the way to achieving as much, if not more, in enabling organisations to meet their environmental challenges.

Inside this sheet

1.1 International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)

1.2 Standards Australia

1.3 AS4454: 2003, Compost, Soil Conditioners and Mulches

1.4 Standards New Zealand (SNZ)

1.5 Why Develop Standards?

1.6 What are Standards? - Defi nition

1.7 Key Points


10

The ISO 9000 family is primarily concerned with “Quality Management”. This means what the organisation does to fulfi ll:

• the customer’s quality requirements, and• applicable regulatory requirements, while aiming

to• enhance customer satisfaction, and • achieve continual improvement of its

performance in pursuit of these objectives.

The ISO 14000 family is primarily concerned with “Environmental Management”. This means what the organisation does to:

• minimise harmful effects on the environment caused by its activities, and to

• achieve continual improvement of its environmental performance.

Key Points:

• Standards are a well established international phenomenon.

• The development of a Standard signals the maturity of any given industry sector.

• Standards are a recognition of the complexity of the issues faced by industries and hence of the need to formalise and focus on protecting and growing their market.

Standards Australia:

Information drawn from: http://www.standards.org.au/

Standards Australia was established in 1922 and is recognised through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Commonwealth Government as the peak non-government standards development body in Australia. Standards Australia:

• Is Australia’s representative on the International Organization for Standardization [ISO], the International Electrotechnical Commission [IEC], and the Pacifi c Area Standards Congress [PASC].

• Develops and maintains around 7000 Australian Standards® and related publications which are prepared by over 1500 committees involving more than 8000 committee members.

• Was one of the fi rst organisations of its type in the world to develop online delivery of technical and business standards.

• In partnership with SAI Global, it continues to deliver its standards and related products to industry through www.saiglobal.com/shop

• Uses a facilitation process based on transparency, consensus and stakeholder representation from interest groups including governments, industry bodies, trade and professional associations, academia and consumer groups.

• Provides input into the development of approximately 18,000 International Standards by ISO and IEC.

• Actively promotes excellence in Australian design and innovation through the Australian Design Awards. More information visit: www.designawards.com.au

AS4454: 2003, Compost, Soil Conditioners and Mulches.

History:

First published as AS 4454-1997. Second edition 1999. Third edition 2003.

Supersedes:

• DR 01337 - Composts, soil conditioners and mulches and

• AS 4454-1999 - Compost, soil conditioners and mulches

Scope:

This Standard applies to organic products and mixtures of organic products that are to be used to amend the physical and chemical properties of natural or artifi cial soils and growing media. It specifi es physical, chemical, biological and labelling requirements for composts, mulches,

Figure 3: Various Standards Organisations’ ‘brands’.


11

soil conditioners and related products that have been derived largely from compostable organic materials and which meet the minimum requirements as set out in this Standard. It covers materials marketed or distributed both in bags and in bulk. This Standard applies to organic products and mixtures of organic products that have been treated by pasteurising or composting procedures as defi ned by this Standard.

Application:

This Standard is intended for use by local government, those who manufacture or supply compost, mulches and soil conditioners, and those involved in providing compostable organic materials.

Key Point:

• The NZS4454 was based upon the AS4454: 2003 COMPOSTS, SOIL CONDITIONERS AND MULCHES. It is similar, but has important distinctions relevant to the New Zealand context. For example NZS4454 refers to unique New Zealand legislation.

Standards New Zealand (SNZ) -Organization, Purpose & Function:

Information drawn from: http://www.standards.co.nz/default.htm

Introduction:

In the aftermath of the devastation caused by the 1931 Napier earthquake the then Government sought to establish a building code to ensure safe construction standards. In the following year, the New Zealand Standards Institution, (which later became Standards New Zealand –SNZ), came into being to support this new building code.

Structure:

Today Standards New Zealand (SNZ) is the trading arm of the Standards Council, a Crown entity operating under the Standards Act 1988. The Standards Council, an appointed body made up of 12 representatives from a wide range of community sectors, is the governing body for SNZ. The Standards Council fulfi ls a very important role overseeing the development and adoption of Standards and Standards-related documents.

Operations:

SNZ has a full-time staff of 50 and is supported by over 2000 New Zealanders who volunteer their time to serve on the many and varied committees and boards. Standards New Zealand is entirely self-funded; its revenues are sourced from contracts with industry and government agencies for the development of Standards, and from the sales of Standards publications.

New Zealand Standards cover a wide variety

of subjects and industries:

• Building • Business • Consumer Safety• Electrical • Engineering • Environment • Fire Protection • Fuels • Health • Lighting • Local Government • Materials • Occupational Safety• Telecommunications & Radio • Transportation

SNZ mission is: -To boost New Zealand’seconomy and advance the well-being of New Zealanders through standards

SNZ vision is for: -Our communities see us as the leader in generating standards solutions for New Zealand and beyond

SNZ values

• Team - We value our relationships with each other and with you

• Professional - We work with the community to provide products

• Integrity - Our dealings are transparent and honest

• Dynamic - We are forward thinking and provide creative solutions

Why Develop Standards?

Imagine moving into a new house and going to plug your refrigerator into the wall - only to fi nd that the plug doesn’t match the outlet! Electricalstandards set decades ago ensure that won’t


12

happen. And standards today allow you to get your fi lm developed anywhere in the world, or make a phone call from here to China.

All of these conveniences are the result of standards - sets of characteristics or quantities that describe features of a product, process, service, interface or material. Standards don’t just make life easier, they make it safer…and they enhance companies’ profi tability. For instance, builders save money because construction materials are available in standard sizes. At the same time, electrical codes that electricians must follow save lives. Standards play an important role in ensuring safety, prosperity, quality and convenience for all New Zealanders.

What are Standards? - Defi nition

• Standards are specifi cations which defi ne materials, methods, processes or practices.

• Standards provide a basis for determining consistent and acceptable minimum levels of quality, performance, safety and reliability. For example, the format of the credit cards that enables them to be used anywhere in the world is defi ned by an ISO International Standard.

• Standards are generally voluntary compliance documents and become mandatory only if called up in legislation or in contracts.

Notes_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

_______________________________________

13

3. The General Standards Development Process

Initiate a Plan

Standards NZ works with sponsors to clearly defi ne the problem or opportunity and identify the need for a Standard. We then develop a detailed project plan

and agree a contract with the sponsor organisation to develop the Standard.

Develop

Standards NZ approaches relevant organisations from the sector to nominate committee members. Voluntary committee members develop Standards by discussing

and agreeing on content. Committees are driven by a consensus-based approach. The overall goal is to ensure that all committee members agree that the Standard will achieve the outcome it was designed

to achieve.

Public Comments

Once the committee has agreed on the draft Standard, the public can submit comments during a widely

advertised public comment period. The committee carefully considers all comments, and agreed changes

are made.

Committee Consensus

Consensus involves collaborative problem-solving and debate to reach a generally-accepted solution.

The credibility and effectiveness of a Standard are the results of the content being agreed to by all key parties

affected by it. The committee, under the leadership of the Standards NZ project manager, will make every

attempt to achieve consensus. Full consensus is almost always achieved, but in rare circumstances a Standard may be published without 100% positive

votes, provided at least 80% are positive.

Standards Council

Approval

All documents require fi nal approval from the Standards Council, who are responsible for ensuring that the Standards development process has been

independent, balanced and consensus-based.

Publication & Promotion

The published Standard is made available in electronic or hardcopy format. Standards can be purchased online, by email or phone, or through the online

Subscription Service, which automatically updates revised Standards. New Standards are promoted throughout the sector to ensure the benefi ts are

enjoyed as widely as possible.

Figure 4: The general ‘standards’ development process.

Inside this sheet

1.1 The General Development Standards Process

1.2 Technical Committees: (General)

1.3 NZS4454 Technical Committee - Compost NZ

1.4 The benefi ts of sponsoring Standards

1.5 Review of Standards

1.6 Copyright

1.7 Purchasing a Standard

1.8 Key Points


14

Technical Committees: (General).

Standards are developed by committees composed of representatives of organisations interested in, or affected by, the subject matter. Care is taken to ensure that a balance is maintained among the different sectors of interest. Committee balance and openness as well as the processes of impartiality and transparency ensure that the content of a Standard is relevant, credible and broadly acceptable.

During the development of a new Standard, the public has the opportunity to comment on the coverage and content of the proposed Standard. Once published, a Standard is always open to review. Proposals for modifi cation may be submitted at any time by committee members or by anybody with an interest in the Standard. These proposals are referred to the Technical Committee and may lead either to the preparation of an amendment or to a revision of the Standard.

NZS4454 Technical Committee – CompostNZ:

The Standard was prepared under the supervision of the P4454 Technical Committee for the Standards Council established under the Standards Acts 1988. The committee consisted of representative from the following nominating organisations:

Neil Barton Federated Farmers of New Zealand.

Andy Black Bio Dynamic Farming and Gardening Association.

George Fetjie Living Earth

Brian Gallagher Timaru District Council

Dave Hannon Delta Utilities Ltd. (SORT group)

Jonathon Hannon Massey University

Chris Keenan Ministry for the Environment (Ex Offi cio)

Mike Lord Perry Environmental Ltd.

Ian Mason University of Canterbury

Patricia Naidu New Zealand Earthworm Association

Miljenko Pavlinic HG Leach & Co Ltd.

Cherryle Prew Soil Foodweb Institute

Craig Ross Landcare Research

Bruce Smith Yates New Zealand Ltd.

Michael Spiers Hort Research

Margaret Leonard Institute of Environmental and Scientifi c Research Ltd. on behalf of the Ministry of Health

Standards New Zealand gratefully acknowledge the fi nancial support of the Waste Management Institute of New Zealand and the contribution of time and expertise from all those involved in developing the Standard.

Key Points:

• A wide cross-section of the relevant and related industry sector was involved in the detailed development of the NZS4454.

• An inclusive process involving a necessary level of expertise has resulted in a credible and unbiased outcome, which balances the need for practical applicability alongside the intentionto protect the public interest.

• It is interesting to note that the formation of the technical committee which developed the NZS4454: 2005 coincided with, and in many way precipitated, the formation of CompostNZ as a National representative body for the Recycled Organics Industry in New Zealand.

The benefi ts of sponsoring Standards include:

• The Standards development process is internationally recognised, effi cient and effective.

• The process is independent, balanced and consensus based.

• Standards NZ co-ordinates a cross-section of representatives from a range of sectors.

• The industry/sector is fully involved in developing Standards, resulting in widely accepted, workable and practical solutions.

• The inclusive process, involving consultation and public comment, generates wide supportand interest.

• Standards NZ is able to draw on international Standards.

• Developing Standards through the Standards NZ process is cost effective compared to developing similar documents in-house.


15

Review of Standards:

SNZ is carrying out a major review of all Standards older than 10 years. This project aims to ensure that Standards meet the needs of the people who rely on them, and are relevant to the New Zealand environment. As circumstances change and technology advances, the content within Standards can become out of date and in need of revision from a technology, safety and quality or economic perspective.

Within the review process items recommended for withdrawal or reconfi rmation will be advertised for an eight-week period allowing stakeholders and the public a voice in determining the relevance and use of specifi c Standards via an electronic questionnaire.

Copyright:

Standards New Zealand is a not-for-profi t Crown entity, which relies upon revenue primarily from contracts with industry and government, and from sales of publications. This revenue enables the development of Standards to continue, whilst any surplus is reinvested into further Standards development to add value for stakeholders and customers.

A lot of time, effort and fi nancial investment have gone into the development of each one of the SNZ documents. The sale of publications is essential to keeping the process going, hence protecting Standards New Zealand’s copyright is paramount.

Copyright, or the exclusive right to copy, exists for all documents published by Standards New Zealand. Standards New Zealand therefore retains the exclusive right to make copies of those documents. When you purchase a Standards New Zealand document, in either electronic or hard copy form, you are not entitled to make further copies yourself.

NZS4454:2005 can be accessed and purchased via: http://www.standards.co.nz/web-shop/? //action=viewSearchProduct&mod=catalog&pid=4454:2005(NZS)

Purchasing a Standard:

Standards New Zealand offers fi ve different ways of purchasing Standards

1 On-line Subscription Service2 Ordering AS/NZS and NZS Hardcopy

Standards3 Ordering AS/NZS and NZS Electronic Copy

Standards4 Ordering International Standards5 Network Licence

Customer Services

Phone: 0800 735 656

Email: [email protected]

Fax: +64 (0)4 498 5994


16

Notes____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

17

Historic perspectives

Recycling and composting organic waste to create a soil conditioner is an ancient practice which has long been part of humanity’s approach to waste management. “The Israelites, Greeks and Romans all used organic wastes directly or composted them. The early civilisations of South America, China, Japan and India practised intensive agriculture and used animal and human waste as fertilisers. Many of these organic wastes were heaped and allowed to rot for long periods of time, producing compost”1. Records show that in 2000 BC composting was known to be a part of life in China. In fact, within ‘Les Miserables’, Victor Hugo (1862) both laments the inability of the society of his day to utilise waste as a resource,and acclaims what he perceived as the near miraculous powers of historical Chinese composting to maintain the nation’s soil fertility.

Research on composting in the United States appears to have begun in the 1880s. However, the fi rst signifi cant modern development of large-scale composting as a systemised process is recognised as having been initiated in India in 1924. This process was known as ‘Indore’ (later modifi ed to become aerobic and renamed the ‘Bangalore’ process) and was developed by Sir Albert Howard. From 1922 onwards patents for the mechanisation of composting started to appear in Europe. In 1922, Beccari patenteda process which composted materials in a closed system, using both anaerobic and aerobic decomposition. The fi rst full-scale composting facility in Europe was established in the Netherlands in 1932, utilising the so-called Van Maanen (a South African developedmodifi cation of the Indore) process. Later, the Dano Company developed a system which optimised the introduction of oxygen (aerobic decomposition) in a rotating cylinder. This original plant operating, the so-called Dano process, still fl ourishes today and has been replicated throughout the Western world.

Today modern composting methods and systems are used in many parts of the world for the stabilisation of biodegradable organic components of the solid waste stream. In New Zealand, organic waste is typically the largest fraction of the municipal waste streamat 39% (w/w) and is described as the most readily recyclable component, (MfE, 1997). The term ‘most recyclable’ encompasses functions of processing cost, transport, component access to markets, positive and negative environmental consequences, and capital and energy requirements (Polprasert, 1996). Because of this, composting is now an established facet of the community waste management strategy in most of New Zealand’s regional centres.

4. The Development of Organic Recycling in New Zealand

1 E. Epstein, (1997). The Science of Composting.Technomic Publishing AG, Switzerland.

Inside this sheet

1.1 Historic perspectives

1.2 Key Findings from the 2006 Organic Recycling Industry Survey

1.3 Key Points


18

The early New Zeland history of composting included at least one operation which composted the entire municipal solid waste stream. This was possible, only prior to the advent of wholesale plastic packaging waste. The following photos are from a successful operation based in Masterton in approximately 1940. This operation can be seen as a precursor of today’s mechanical biologic treatment (MBT) systems which are now common in large European municipalities. Eventually this early New Zealand operation went out of business, only to be replaced - 50 years on - by one of the next generation of modern greenwaste composting operations, which began commonly appearing in the 1990s.

In 1991 Roger Wark presented a paper at the WasteMINZ conference. In it, he reviewed 8 operations in the Auckland region and discussed the key issues of: feedstock quality / availiblity,fi nancial viability, capital investment, ownership structure, markets, quality assurance, production facilities / sites, management and staff training. He concluded that the development of composting in New Zealand followed an established international trend and was, for a number reasons, clearly “the way ahead”.

In a 2006 report by the consulting fi rm URS it was noted that the following system types / techniques existed in New Zealand, which could be employed to compost animal carcasses, amongst other organic wastes:

1. windrow composting2. static pile composting3. in-vessel composting

• HotRot® system (horizontal, in-vessel system)• Rotocom® system (horizontal, in-vessel system)• VCU® system (vertical, in-vessel system)• IPS® system (enclosed bay system)

• Gore® cover system (covered windrow system)• Ag-Bag® system (enclosed horizontal bag system)

The initial pattern of municipal composting systems development in New Zealand appears to have been to address the greenwaste fraction of the waste stream fi rst, before moving on to more complex options, such as involving bio-solids and food organics (Robinson et al., 2000).

Progress in handling more diffi cult organic waste types has been facilitated by the importation of overseas composting technologies and systems. Also, signifi cantly, locally developed composting technology is now playing an important role in enabling the constructive management of a broader range of biological waste types. The fi rst three systems mentioned in the above list weredeveloped by New Zealand companies.

Figure 5 & 6: An early MSW composting plant –Masterton 1940s.


19

The following are some ‘Key Findings’ from the 2006 Organic Recycling Industry Survey:

1.How long has your operation been in existence?

Figure 7: Operational ages in NZ:

Key Point:The New Zealand organic recycling industry is a relatively young industry with many new operations

which are likely to be growing rapidly and facing a steep learning curve.

2. Please identify the types of equipment which are used in your normal operations.

Figure 8: Equipment types in NZ:

Key Point:The New Zealand organic recycling industry utilises a wide variety of equipment systems. It is likely

that individual operators will have tailored management to their specifi c circumstances and will need to have high levels of awareness and skill in relation to operational issues in order to achieve consistently high quality outcomes.


20

3. Please identify and rate (scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being unimportant to 5 beinng critical) key industry issues.

Figure 9: Industry Issues in NZ.

Key Point: The issues of ‘Quality Assurance’ and ‘Profi tability’ which relate directly to producing and selling high

quality end products at reasonable prices are foremost concerns of the organic recycling industry.As a practical mechanism which delivers quality assurance, NZS4454 can be used as a foundationfor business development.

4.Please Identify the tasks which are encompassed by your workforce in the course of normaloperations.

Figure 10: Employee task in NZ operations.

Key Point: Organic recycling operations are complex and knowledge-rich operations, which are demanding

of managers and staff alike. Many interrelated factors combine in the creation of a successful operation. NZS4454 provides a framework which assists operators to deliver quality assurance to their market. Quality assurance can be derived only from a well organised and systematic approach, which begins at the front gate and continues past the point of sale, to a happy customer and repeat business. NZS4454 will assist with management processes and staff training. The two-part structure of the NZS4454 both establishes the end product quality goals and defi nes the ways in which they can be achieved.

21

Interrelated Strategies and Organisations.

The Waste Management Institute (WasteMINZ) is an industry association which has provided an umbrella for the recent development of CompostNZ, the national industry group for the organic recycling industry. The focus of CompostNZ will be to mould NZ policy, collection, processing, R&D, market utilisation, regionaland national coordination, training and education into a strategy for the Recycled Organics Industry for New Zealand.

The Ministry for the Environment (MfE) is the New Zealand Government’s core agency active in the sphere of wasteminimisation and management. The MfE’s motivation in respect oforganic waste stems from the ‘climate change impacts’ of organic waste disposal in landfi ll. Under anaerobic conditions organic waste breaks down to form methane, which has a negative impact as a greenhouse gas (approximately 21 times that of CO2).

The New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS 2002):

The New Zealand Waste Strategy covers, “Solid, liquid and gaseous wastes” and recognises that moving ‘Towards Zero Waste and a Sustainable New Zealand,’ is a long-term challenge.

The strategy sets challenging targets has three core goals:

1. Lowering the social costs and risks of waste2. Reducing the damage to the environment from waste generation

and disposal, 3. Increasing economic benefi t by more effective use of materials.In respect of Organic Waste the New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS 2002) targets > 95% diversion of organic waste (specifi callygreenwaste, ‘other’ organic waste and sewage sludge) from landfi ll to benefi cial reuse by 2010.

NB: the following information is drawn from a presentation delivered by MfE in April 2004.

In 2004 the MfE reviewed progress on the targets of the NZWS 2002. In respect of the targets for organic waste diversion from landfi ll to benifi cal use, the MFE noted the following;

“Some organic waste targets represent a particular problem for councils. The Ministry recognises the inherent diffi culty of achievingsome of the organic waste targets and has initiated a work programme with the focus of removing the barriers to benifi cal use of these wastes”.

5. New Zealand Recycled Organics Industry

Inside this sheet

1.1 Interrelated Strategies and Organisations

1.2 The New Zealand Waste Strategy (NZWS 2002)

1.3 MfE Prospectus


22

MfE’s organic waste programme focus is on ‘issues of national signifi cance’. The MfE’s work programme was developed after considering input from stakeholders and the wider policy and legislative framework.

MfE Prospectus

The MfE observed the following key issues for organic waste diversion:

1.The availability and utilisation of appropriate processing options for diverting organic waste from landfi ll.

• Composting (In-vessel, windrow, static pile, …)• Anaerobic digestion (putrescibles)• Drying (for use as soil amendment)• Energy recovery (woody biomass, …)

2. The quality of end products from organic waste diversion from landfi ll.

• The existing standard for compost not widely adopted

• Composts of various quality being marketed in NZ.

• Substandard product has the potential to damage perception of compost in general

• Stakeholders agree on the need for a standard• Links to Biosoilds guideline [ » NES]

3.The market positioning of the end products for diversion from landfi ll.

• Premium / high grade soil amendment• Relationship to other soil additives• Green Energy

4. Benefi cial use of product (compost, energy, etc.) relies on:

• Economics • Costs (collection, processing, marketing)• Revenue (energy, product sales)• Subsidy (rates, levies, …)

As a result the Ministry for the Environment’s work programme included sponsoring the development of a New Zealand compost standard (NZS4454). The objective was that the standard would provide quality assurance to end-users (who would then be able to identify and purchase certifi ed product).

It is intended that improved quality assurance will lead to a fi nancially sustainable market expansion and hence industry growth. Ultimately this growth will underwrite increased diversion of organicwaste from landfi ll (re the targets of the NZWS 2002) to benefi cial reuse via the application of organic recycling technologies which preserve public and environmental health.

23

In 2005 the NZS4454 was developed via a collaborative process between MfE, Standards New Zealand (SNZ) and associated industries. NZS4454 was based on the equivalent AustralianStandard, AS 4454 2004, Composts, soil conditioners and mulches, with modifi cations to suit New Zealand requirements.

Government, Industry and End-user Market Relational Interdependencies

The following graphic provides an illustration as to the interwoven motivations and relationships which combined to initiate and inform the development of the NZS4454.

Government NZWS:2002 Targets an increase to 95% of organic waste diverted from landfi ll to benefi cial

end-use by 2010

Market development requires quality assurance

and a value proposition based upon postitive economic case and

proven science

The Industry which transfoms waste into

high quality benefi cial products is limited by the market demand for

recycled organic end-products

Figure 11:

6. The NZS4454 Development Process

Inside this sheet

1.1 Government, Industry and End-user Market Relational Interdependencies

1.2 Key Points


24

Notes____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

Key Points:

The development of NZS4454 is one of the key strategies for developing the recycled organics industry as an agency for implementing the NZWS (2002).

This logic path follows that;

1. The NZS4455 defi nes and benchmarks quality assurance.

2. Quality assurance provides value for money, security and information for the consumers of products made form recycled organics.

3. These factors are key platforms for growing the overall volume of the end-use market for recycled organics.

4. An expanded market for recycled organics will enable processors to achieve and maintain fi nancial sustainably and continue to divert more organic waste from landfi ll to benefi cial use.

5. Achievement of the targets in the NZWS (2002) appears to be inseparable from fi nancially sustainable, market led development of the recycled organics industry which is, in effect, a service provider to the community, government and New Zealand business.

25

New Zealand Standards:

NZS 8410:2003, Organic production.NZS ISO/IEC 17025:2005, General requirements for the competence

of testing and calibration laboratories.

Joint Australia / New Zealand Standards:

AS/NZS 9001:2000, Quality management systems – Requirements.AS/NZS ISO 9004:2000, Quality management systems – Guidelines

for performance improvements.SAA/SNZ HB 18: Guidelines for third-party certifi cation and

accreditation. Part 2:2003 Standardization and related activities – General vocabulary.Part 22:2003 General criteria for supplier’s declaration of conformity.Part 28:1991 Guide 28 General rules for a model third-party certifi cation system for products.

Australian Standards:

AS 1199: Sampling procedures and tables for inspection by attributes.Part 0:2003 Introduction to the ISO 2859 attribute sampling system.Part 1:2003 Sampling schemes indexed by acceptance quality limit (AQL) for lot-by-lot inspection.

AS 4454:2003, Composts, soil conditioners and mulches.

Other Documents:

NZWWA Guidelines for the safe application of biosolids to land in New Zealand (New Zealand Water and Wastes Association), 2003

NZEA Best practice guidelines and standards (NZ Earthworm Association), 2002

SWAP Solid waste analysis protocol (Ministry for the Environment),2002

7. Background Documents Referred to in the Standard:

Inside this sheet

1.1 New Zealand Standards

1.2 Joint Australia / New Zealand Standards

1.3 Australian Standards

1.4 Other Documents

1.5 New Zealand Legislation

1.6 Latest Revisions

1.7 Review of Standard

1.8 Legal Statements

1.9 Key Points


26

New Zealand Legislation:

• Health Act 1956 • Weights and Measures Act 1987• Resource Management Act 1991• Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992• Consumer Guarantees Act 1993• Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act

1996

Latest Revisions:

The users of this Standard should ensure that their copies of the above-mentioned New Zealand Standards and referenced overseas Standards are the latest revisions or include the latest amendments. Such amendments are listed in the annual Standards New Zealand Catalogue which is supplemented by lists contained in the monthly magazine ‘Standards Update’, issued free of charge to committee and subscribing members of Standards New Zealand.

Review of the Standard:

Suggestions for improvement of this Standard are welcome. They should be sent to the Chief Executive, Standards New Zealand, Private Bay 2439, Wellington.

Legal Statements:

Whilst adoption of the Standard is voluntary, the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 provides protection for consumers. Manufacturers using this Standard may still be liable for any breaches of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. The Ministry for the Environment is evaluating options for a quality assurance programme to complement the Standard* (see comment below).

NB: Insert / cite Australian case of attempted compost prosecution.

Key Points:

• The NZS4454 exists within a framework of pre-existing guidelines, standards and legislation which inform and constrain current industry practices.

• The objectives and the dictates of the NZS4454 will be consistent with all intents of these peripheral documents.

• The NZS4454 is a living document which is intended to grow with the development of the organic recycling industry.

• NZS4454 will be kept relevant by continuous cycles of review.

• Adopting and achieving the NZS4454 does not eliminate the possibility of being taken to courtover product liability issues. In this context, itdoes - however -demonstrate a high degree ofcommitment to, and provides a signifi cant level of guidance in, quality management.

* NB: At the time of developing this ‘Tool-kit’ the certifi cation procedures for the NZS4454 have not been developed. The intention is that independent verifi cation of compliance with NZS4454 will provide a high degree of quality assurance to the new and existing market for the end products of organic recycling.

27

• This Standard is voluntary • It is based on the equivalent Australian Standard, AS 4454:2003,

with modifi cations to suit New Zealand requirements. As a result there are important differences between NZS4454 and AS4454. Key differences include:• A plant growth test (Appendix N) has been introduced in place of the toxicity test to assess the biological performance of composts. • It is expected that the toxicity test (Appendix D) for pasteurisedsoil conditioners, etc. will be upgraded in future by including a sand control, or changing to a plant growth test with an index of >1 (less stringent than the stipulated index of >2 for compostedproducts). • More defi nitions have been included. • Many test methods and the best practice guidelines have been modifi ed. • Guidance notes have been provided on the microbiological profi les that will be valuable for users of this Standard. • Limits for chemical contaminants and organochlorines have been included in alignment with the Biosolids Guidelines. • Flexibility has been retained in permitting the use of IANZ-accredited methodology by accredited laboratories for the determination of heavy metals and organic contaminants.

• The health warning labelling requirements have been adoptedfrom current labelling for the potting industry.

New Zeland Public Health Perspectives:

The following two Newspaper articles provide some background to this decision. The Christchurch newspaper The Press on the 27th of October 2005, contained an article with the following provocative headline “Killer Bug in Compost”. Whilst in fact the outbreak was associated with potting mix, this highlights the reasons behind the adoption, in NZS4454, of compulsory labelling health warnings and handling guidelines.

The story reads: “A new Christchurch legionella outbreak, which has killed one gardener this month and infected three other people,has prompted warnings about potting mix and compost. The Canterbury District Health Board said yesterday that it had recordedfour cases of legionnaires’ disease in Canterbury this month. The four people had been handling potting mix or compost in the incubation period. One person had died.

8. The Key Points Made in the Foreword of the NZS4454

Inside this sheet

1.1 New Zealand Public Health Perspectives

1.2 Why Develop the NZS4454?

1.3 Outstanding Issues / Future Reviews

1.4 Microbiological indicators

1.5 Animal Mortalities

1.6 Chemical Residues in Compust

1.7 Key Points


28

The latest four cases associated with potting mix were legionella longbeachaea and legionella pneumophilia. All gardeners should pay attention to the warnings, Humphrey said. They also needed to be careful with compost bins because legionella thrived in them. Safety precautions included:

• Opening bags slowly. • Keeping bags away from the face. • Dampening potting mix to minimise dust. • Regular watering of gardens. We have been working closely with garden supplies companies to ensure that warning labels are on all bags of potting mix or compost,” Humphrey said. “I am pleased these companies have been complying with this agreement, which staff from Community and Public Health regularly check in garden supply outlets.”

An earlier story in the New Zealand Herald on the 6th of August 2001, provides further background information relating to this issue.

“Legionnaires’ disease is little-known in New Zealand yet four people died from legionella infections last year. The disease is a type of pneumonia caused by the legionella bacterium which is found naturally in soil, compost, water storage tanks, cooling towers, and domestic water systems. Many New Zealanders spend a lot of time in their gardens, and should be aware of simple precautions recommended to avoid contracting the disease.

The chief executive of the Nursery and Gardening Industry of New Zealand, Jeremy Kennerley, said potting mix was sometimes unfairly singled out as a culprit. There was no evidence to suggest the use of potting mix increased the chances of contracting the disease, he said.

“Gardeners are not at any greater risk than anyone else involved in an outdoor activity as long as they follow basic health guidelines,” he said. “The public can be assured that potting mix manufacturers have taken a very responsible approach to standards and labelling.” He said potting mix was safe if simple handling instructions were followed carefully.

Mr Kennerley said the legionella bacteria (Legionella pneumophila) could not be completely eliminated from the manufacturing process. “Although any harmful bacteria could be killed off using a pasteurisation-type process, the side effect would be to wipe out the benefi cial bacteria as well.” The disease begins with fl u-like symptoms, and then moves on to high fever,

shaking chills, headaches, diarrhoea, pneumonia and pleurisy. It is contracted through breathinginfected droplets of water or ingesting infected dust. Those at greatest risk are the elderly, those with immuno-compromised systems, andsmokers.”

Why Develop the NZS4454?• The following graphic outlines the basic value

proposition, outlined in the foreword, which justifi es the development of the NZS4454.

Figure 12: The development of the NZS4454

This standard is aligned with the New Zealand Waste Strategy, 2002 and related guidlelines issued by the Minstry for the

Enviroment.

New Zealand’s solid waste stream consists of approximately 50% recyclable

organic material.

There is potential to reduce the burden on landfi lls by using this organic material benefi cially, such as by processing into

compost.

The use of composts, soil conditioners and mulches helps improve soil

properties.

It is important to ensure that the products produced under this Standard do not

present a hazard to the environment or to public health.

The Standard prescribes compositional requirements, compliance requirements,

sampling and testing methods for composts, soil conditioners and mulches.

NSZ4454 = Quality Assurance


29

Outstanding Issues / Future Reviews:

During the development of the Standard there were some matters identifi ed that require further consideration during future reviews, with possible inclusion in updated versions. It is recommended that the Standard is revised every fi ve years and also in 2012, in line with the changes to the metal and organic contaminant limits given for biosolids in the Biosolids Guidelines, which are to occur at this time.

Key Points:

• NZS4454 will be strengthened by future review, as the results of the required research are combined with both the lessons learned from the practical application of NZS4454 by the New Zealand composters and further insights gained from following developments in the comparable Australian industry.

Microbiological indicators:

At present the microbiological quality of pathogens in compost is to be determined using an indicator bacteria, E. coli, as used for the Guidelines for the Safe Application of Biosolids to Land in New Zealand (hereafter referred to as the ‘Biosolids Guidelines’).

How this organism relates to the removal of specifi c pathogens, such as Campylobacter, Giardia, Cryptosporidium and Legionella in the composting process is unclear at this time and future work is required to confi rm that the best indicator is being used to protect public health.

The results of this work may require a different microbiological testing regime. In addition, if there was a particular health issue which could be related to compost, a Medical Offi cer of Health may require additional microbiological monitoring to be undertaken.

Similarly, testing for microbiological organisms, including bacteria and fungi, will be subject to further investigation along with the effects of salt balance of products on plant growth.

Animal Mortalities:

Approval under section 54 of the Health Act 1956 relating to offensive trades must be obtained for composting animal mortalities and parts of animals (see defi ntion of animal waste). Such activity also needs to comply with the Resource Management Act 1991 and its amendments.

Chemical Residues in Compost:

At present this Standard does not place limits on acceptable levels of amine herbicides in compost.The Ministry for the Environment is undertaking work to determine appropriate concentration thresholds (for compost products) to safeguard against the potential adverse effects on plants vulnerable to these herbicides, in particular, Clopyralid. This matter is likely to be included in the fi rst review of this Standard.

Key Points:

• Some research in New Zealand context is required as a follow-up to the NZS4454development process to clarify some outstanding technical issues.


30

Notes____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

31

Objectives of the Standard:

“The objective of this Standard is to provide producers, distributors and users with an assurance of quality as specifi ed in this Standard”.

Whether or not the New Zealand Composting Industry and the public related organisations are to realise the benefi cial objectives of the NZS4454 is now a question application. The NZS4454 as awritten document (like most standards) is a dry, somewhat legalistic and complex. As such, in this form, is not very accessible nor easily understood by the average lay-person. In developing this NZS4454 tool-kit the approach taken to resolve this issue has been to develop a learning pathway through the standard. This pathway focuses on the key information producers need to know to make an informed choice, (it is to be hoped, in favour of) about the adoption of NZS4454. This learning journey starts with posing the most basic questions a producer is going to be faced with in making this decision.

As you can see the sequence of questions leads producers through an appraisal of the benefi ts for their business of adopting the NZS4454. The NZS4454 has been designed to be fair to the market (i.e. customers who purchase compost products, but who may not understand much about them nor about quality, so need to beprotected) and fair and achievable for producers.

As the graphic illustrates, the NZS4454 provides key elements of information to answer these questions and support this decision-making process. For example:

• Chapter 2 provides the General Requirements. • Chapter 3 discusses Packaging and required Marking and

Documentation.• Appendix M outlines the Means of Demonstrating Compliance. • Table 3.1 sets out the Physical, Chemical and Biological

requirements for passing.• Appendix K provides Guidelines for Best Practice.• Appendices A – Q provide the detail of the various specifi c tests.The intention of the NZS4454, and subsequently this, is that this tool-kit is to be practically applicable and provide suffi cient information to ensure that most - if not all - producers will be answering YES as they negotiate the decision-making process in respect of the adoption of the NZS4454.

9. Exploring the NZS4454

Inside this sheet

1.1 Objectives of the Standard

1.2 Decisions for Business


32

These straightforward questions are:

Figure 13: Questions about the Standard:

The learning pathway utlised in the tool-kit is to follow a real world scenario where two compost producers (one each from the North and South Island) provide samples which are examined for compliance with the NZS4454. As we follow the journey of these two products through hypothetical testing and compliance the journey provides a ‘window’ through which to explore and discuss the relevant elements of the NZS4454.

33

The following provides a summary of the sequence of general requirements which make up the NZS4454. NB: these requirements are contained in full on pages 13 – 18 of the Standard. This Tool-kit is intended as a supplement to, not an replacement for, the original standard. The original standard document needs to be purchased and downloaded from: www.standards.co.nz

PROPAGULES & PATHOGENS 2.1 (i.e. weeds & harmful bugs)

Public Health Requirements: NZ Biosolids Guideline Compliant, Grade (Aa) or equivalent re contaminant or micro-biological indicators (2.2.1).

Free of Propagules as per (Appendix J) NB: this results from following Appendix K or L (2.1.2)

PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION 2.2 Major either as: Compost, Soil conditioner, Mulch, Coarse mulch, Vermicast or Vermicompost. (2.2.1)

Minors (2.2.2): ‘Mushroom substrate’ (Appendix H), Pasteuried (2.3.1), ‘Compost’ (2.3.2 Appendix K), ‘Vermicompost –cast’ (2.3.3 Appendix Q)

PROCESS CRITERIA 2.3 Pasteurisation Time /Temperature (ref 2.3.1 in full)

In-vessel ≥ 55 OC for ≥ 3 days.

Windrow ≥ 55 OC for ≥ 15 days + 5 turns + monitor

Greenwaste ≥ 55 OC for ≥ 3 days + 3 turns

Or (b) All documented and ≥ 30 maturation

‘Composting’ Appendix K best practice + (2.3.1 above)

Vermicast, Appendix L NZEA (2.1.1 + 2.2.2 + table 3.1 + Appendix J

SAMPLING OF MATERIAL 2.4 Key: Composite Representative Sampling (2.4.1) Table 2.1 (Sample size, container type and testing time frames)

MICROBIOLOGICAL SAMPLING 2.5 Specifi c requirements (2.6.3) re containers, seals, sterilization, handling transport and time lines.

PRODUCT TESTING 2.6 NZS/ISO/IEC 17025 and / or IANZ accredited labs and methods. Storage requirements before testing (2,6.1).Specifi c Physical, Chemical (2.6.2) and Pathogen (2.6.3) Testing requirements re frequency, verifi cation, routinetime/temp & failures

PRODUCT ANALYSIS 2.7 Covered in specifi c fl ow chart see Figure 15

Figure 14: General requirements schematic for NZS4454.

10. General Requirements

34

The following graphic provides an exploration of the required sequence of product analysis. NB: refer page 17 NZS4454.

SCOPE: Check that the type of product falls within the scope of this Standard (see 1.1). Inclusions & Exclusions.

PROCESS CRITERIA: Determine whether it is a pasteurised product, a composted product or unpasteurised vermicast (see defi nitions in 1.4, and process criteria in 2.3).

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS:

COMPOST: If the product is a composted product, determine whether it meetsthe minimum criteria for effective composting (see 1.4, 2.3 and Appendix K).

VERMICOMPOST: If the product is unpasteurised vermicast and is tested according to Appendix Q, check if it satisfi es the contamination requirements ofTable 3.1;

PRODUCT CLASSIFICATION: Check if the product to be sold as a compost, soil conditioner, a fi ne mulch, a mulch, vermicast, manure or mushroom substrate.

PRODUCT CLAIMS / REQUIRED MARKING: Where claims are made to enhance plant nutrition in any manner, these claims shall be verifi ed by testing for the nutrients claimed to be enhanced. Claims relating to N, P, K, and S shall be tested as given in 3.3 and Table 3.1, and additional tests carried out asappropriate;

PHOSPHOROUS SENSITIVITY: If the product is specifi ed or recommended for use with phosphorus-sensitive plants, both water-soluble and total phosphorus concentrations shall be determined;

BORON STATUS: If there is no gypsum, seaweed or sea-grass or coal fl y ash (see Note 2 to Table 3.1) in the product, the boron content is unlikely to be above 100 mg/kg. After an initial check, repeated analysis for boron will not benecessary;

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT-BIOLOGICAL ACTIVITY / NUTIRIENT AVAILIBLITY:

The biology of compost is vitally important for the release of the nutrients contained within the compost. Development of a methodology to determine how to measure this is subject to further work.

Figure 15: Product analysis fl owchart.

11. Product Analysis:

35

Physical Requirements

Particle sizeLimits the amount of oversize particles in compost (different requirement for coarse mulch) to ensure suitability for plant growth.

Chemical Requirements

pHEnsures acidity/alkalinity is in a suitable range for plant growth.

ConductivityNo requirement, but is measured to limit application rate to ensureroot zone conductivity is not excessive. Application rates are given in Table 3.2.

Soluble and total PMeasured to assess level of contribution to plant nutrition and especially relevant if the compost is claimed to be suitable for P sensitive plants (such as proteas and Australian natives including grevilleas, banksias, hakeas, telopeas, etc.).

Note that the Standard contains errors in the section concerning P sensitive plants – Section 3.2.2. (d) remove “not”

Section 3.2.2 (d) (i) should read “This product is suitable for use with phosphorus sensitive plants”.

Section 3.3 (c) remove “not”

For guidance, refer to the Australian Standard AS4454 Section 2.5.1 (d)

All compost products must include in the label whether or not theproduct is suitable for P sensitive plants. If the claim is made, then the soluble and total P levels must be given, and they must be lower than 5 mg/L and 0.1 % dry mass, respectively.

NH4-N plus NO3-NThis test ensures that the compost is capable of supporting plant growth, by having at least a minimal level of available N. It ensures that immature compost that will fi x any available nitrogen in the root zone are not approved. Note that the requirement does not apply to soil conditioners or coarse mulch.

12. Supplementary Information: General Comments

Inside this sheet

1.1 Physical Requirements

1.2 Chemical Requirements

1.3 Biological Requirements


36

Total NOnly needed if a contribution to plant nutrition is claimed. This section of the document is a little unclear, although there is no guidance provided by the Australian standard. The actual wording that constitutes a claim should really be defi ned, or some examples given, if this provision is to be useful.

Organic matterEnsures that the compost predominantly consists of organic material, and not bulked up with mineral components such as sand, pumice, etc.

BoronThis test is only required if the compost inputs include materials that are known to contain high levels of B (listed in Note 2 to Table 3.1). High B is damaging to plant growth, so compost levels above 200 mg/L could be toxic.

Heavy metalsCd, Cr, As, Pb, Ni, Hg, Zn, Cu

Tests for these contaminants ensure the product does not degrade soil quality, and, in extreme cases, damage plant growth. The levels are linked to the Biosolids Guidelines. Note that Table 3.1 should list the values with “less than / <”.

Organic contaminantsThese tests ensure the compost is free of contaminants such as pesticide residues. These can remain in plant material after the crop is harvested and, in rare cases, survive the composting process. This test is expensive, and its value should be assessed at some point.

Moisture contentThis test ensures the compost is not too dry when offered for sale. Dry product can be a problem due to dust and a potential human health risk due to inhalation.

Biological Requirements

ToxicityThis test, which only applies to pasteurised soil conditioners, mulch and vermicast, ensures that the product supports seed germination and initial root growth.

Plant PropagulesThis test rejects any product that contains viable seeds or plant parts that can grow, such as rhizomes, tubers, etc.

Plant Growth Index This test, which applies only to compost, measures plant growth in comparison to pure sand. Plants grown in the compost must be twice the weight (on average) of those grown in the sand. This ensures that the product will supportplant growth. It is a more robust test than the toxicity test, which only assesses initial root growth.

The Australian standard does not include a plant growth test, only a toxicity test, so in this area New Zealand is ‘raising the bar’ in terms of compost quality.

Limits for PathogensThis test ensures that the compost is nothazardous to human health. E. coli is an indicator organism, alerting us to the presence of faecal coliforms. The usual source of contamination is animal manure, either incompletely composted, or introduced during storage, for example from bird droppings.

ContaminantsThis test ensures the product is free ofmaterial other than compost. The commonest contaminants are plastics, stones and clay. Plastics originate from the input materials, while stones and clay can come from the compost site and are picked up when the product is moved.

37

13. Required Marking and Documentation:

The following graphic provides an outline of the required information and how it is to be displayed onthe packaging or at the point of sale.

Primary package or information sheet shall be PERMANENTLY and LEGIBLY marked with the following information to verify compliance with NZS4454:p

Printed in ≥ 9 point size and in a prominent position

NAME, or registered trademark and FULL STREET ADDRESS of the manufacturer, packer or distributor.

‘Information sheet’ i.e. invoice orpamphlet or sign which is readily accessible / likely to be read

NET VOLUME of contents in litres

To the nearest litre, printed ≥18 point size, according to (Appendix G). Codes or Mass not used as substitute.

CLASSIFICATION of the product.

Either: (2.2.1) Compost, or Soil Conditioner, or Mulch, or Coarse Mulch, or Vermicast, or Vermicompost

For specifi c detail refer defn. (1.4)

Max Particle Size Grading Statement (Appendix E)

Statement: YES / NO Phosphorous Sensitivity?NB: refer 3.3(c) e.g. either:

(i) ‘This product is not suitable for use with phosphorus-sensitive plants’ (ii) ‘The phosphorus content of this product is such that it is not suitable

for application to phosphorus-sensitive plants’. NB: Refer to notes (1), (2), (3) and (4) of 3.2.2 (d)

HEALTH WARNING LABEL (see 3.1.1)

and safe handling information on bags or information sheet / invoice / signage for bulk (see 3.1.2)

3.2.2 (e) (i) & (ii) ‘Appearance Criteria’

A statement about production INPUTS & list of INGREDIENTS ref 3.3.3 (b), (i - xi)

A caution about product settling during transport.

APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS i.e. digging and mixing into soil. Refer to Table 3.2

A statement of pH range

Within range 5.0 to 8.5 or pH if outside range and conditional on product claim or test result 3.3(a),

Documentation demonstrating Pasteurisation & Composting requirements 2.3.1 & 2.3.2

Ref the various time / temp requirements and Appendix K

Additional requirements conditional on product claim or test results: EC application rates, total / soluble P, total / soluble N (ammonium and nitrate), P, S K re plant nutrition, restricted applications reB, Gypsum mix instructions re Na, instruction re toxicity ≥ 20 / PGI.

NB: Any compliance statement must be verifi able. Ref NZS4454 for detail in full !!

Figure 16: Required Marking and documentation.

38

This Appendix sets out the following four different means by which compliance with this Standard can be demonstrated by the manufacturer or supplier: These are either one of the following four options:1. Evaluation by means of Statistical Sampling; or2. The use of a Product Certifi cation Scheme; or 3. Assurance using the acceptability of the Supplier’s Quality System; or 4. Other such means Proposed by the manufacturer or supplier and Acceptable to the customer.

1. STATISTICAL SAMPLING 2. PRODUCTCERTIFICATION

3. SUPPLIERS QMS 4. OTHER MEANS OF ASSESSMENT

M 2.1 This procedure is valid only if the sampling plan has been determined using Table 3.1 for microbiological indicators and metals and the following requirements are met:(a) The sample shall be drawn randomly from a population of product of known / verifi able history.This involves: • Known materials and at essentially the: • Same time & • Same processes & • Same system of control. • Sampling shall be in accordance with the Biosolids Guidelines, or current equivalent guideline or Standard. • For each different situation, a suitably representative sampling plan needs to be defi ned (i.e. for: larger processes, frequently changing feedstocks, in-process sampling).(b) Any product that does not meet the criteria in Table 3.1 shall be reprocessed.

M 2.2 Statistical sampling: • Needs to be meaningful to the customer • Manufacturer or supplier needs to demonstrate how the above conditions have been satisfi ed• Planning and sampling in accordance with AS 1199.1 guided by AS 1199.0.

M 3.1 The purpose of product certifi cation is to provide independent assurance of the claim by the manufacturer that products comply with the stated Standard.

M 3.2 The certifi cation scheme should meet the criteria described in SAA/SNZ HB 18 series in that, as well as full type testing from independently sampled production and subsequent verifi cation of conformance, it requires themanufacturer to maintain effective quality planning to control production.

M 3.3 The certifi cation scheme serves to indicate that the products consistently conform to the requirements of the Standard.

M 3.1 The purpose of product certifi cation is to provide independent assurance of the claim by the manufacturer that products comply with the stated Standard.

M 3.2 The certifi cation scheme should meet the criteria described in SAA/SNZ HB 18 series in that, as well as full type testing from independently sampled production and subsequent verifi cation of conformance, it requires the manufacturer to maintain effective quality planning to control production.

M 3.3 The certifi cation scheme serves to indicate that the products consistently conform to the requirements of the Standard.

M 5.1 If theabove methods are considered inappropriate, determination of compliance with the requirements of this Standard may be assessed from the results of testing coupled with the manufacturer’s guarantee of product conformance.

M 5.2 Irrespective of acceptable quality levels (AQLs) or test frequencies, the responsibility remains with the manufacturer or supplier to supply products that conform to the full requirements of the Standard.

Figure 17: Means of Demonstrating Compliance with NZS4454

14. Appendix M: Means of Demonstrating Compliance

39

Exploring NZS4454 from an Operator’s Perspective

Inside this sheet

1.15 Demonstration / Pilot Compliance Test

1.16 Sample Preparation and Handling Procedures

1.17 Testing Equipment

1.18 Table 2.1

1.19 Biological: Appendix D - Toxicity

1.20 Biological: Appendix J - Plant Propagules

1.21 Biological: Appendix N - Plant Growth Index (PGI)

1.22 Physical: Appendix E - Particle Size

1.23 Physical: Appendix G - Volume and Mass

1.24 Chemical: Appendix F - Mositure Content

1.25 Commerical Testing Hill Laboratories

1.26 Contaminants: Appendix P - Visible Contamination

1.27 Other Appendices

40

Background to this Trial:

Because a formal, accredited certifi cation procedure has not yet been developed for New Zealand various interpretations and assumptions were made in how this exercise was structured. These decisions were made on the basis of commonsense, convenience and are largely self-evident. In the future, as the accredited certifi cation procedure is fi nalised such value judgments will be unnecessary. Therefore the structure of this exercise should not be construed as defi ning how the NZS4454 will ultimately be implemented and verifi ed. Whilst not necessarily 100% accurate in application of the standard (this is yet to be made clear) the outcome of this exercise was valuable hands-on experience of the tests and a suite of learning resources which have contributed to the content of the tool-kit.

This exercise was set up as a small client-funded trial and provided a practical opportunity to benchmark some compost products against the new standard, as well as to physically ‘test drive the testing processes’ from the perspective of a producer seeking compliance via a certifi cation procedure (which currently does not exist). Time and motion data plus photographic resources were recorded for use in the ‘tool-kit’, subsequent workshops and possible discussion relating to certifi cation.

Originally this project was jointly conceived by Mike Spiers (Hort Research) and the ZWA as a much broader benchmarking project to record the pre-NZS4454 state of New Zealand compost products, so as to be able to chart future progress with the development of quality assurance. The actual mini-trial was costed out and offered on an individual user pays basis. Two composting companies participated by supplying samples and funding the following regime of tests. All data remained confi dential to the individual trial participants. Where results are published, this is done with the permission of the parties concerned.

Trial Structure:

With the exception of Pathogen testing, which is required if the input materail consists of “high risk sources such as animal manures, parts of animals or animal mortalities, kitchen / food residuals, meat processing residuals and fi sh and shellfi sh (see Table 3.1)”), it appears that annual testing using the following minimum set of ‘end product’ tests is required to verify compliance with the NZS4454.

NB: A proviso is that all other General Requirements - Section 2 - are met and the material is collected via the sampling criteria outlined in Section 2.4.

NB: In respect of Pathogen testing, whilst section 2.6.3 outlines the comprehensive suite of necessary verifi cation and routine tests, for the purposes of this trial as a learning exercise a single sample test was included in which Total, Faecal coliform and E-coli were examined.

Limitations:

Please note that, due to time and cost restrictions, only three conventionally composted compost samples were trialled during this exercise. No mulches, or vermicomposts were forthcoming in the request for participation. In spite of this limitation this exercise has provided a signifi cant illustration of - and insight - into the practical application of the NZS4454 standard tests.

15. Demonstration/Pilot Compliance Trial


41

Testing Regime Utilised in this Trial :

A. Testsconducted by Hill Laboratories Ltd. • Chemical - Complete compost (CC) - Water extractable B (WEB) - Microbiological sample (Total, Faecal coliform

and E-coli) - OCPCB screen B. Tests conducted at the Massey Plant Growth

Unit (PGU).

• Physical:- Particle size grading (Appendix E)- Volume / Mass / Density (Appendix G)- Moisture content (Appendix F)• Biological: - Toxicity (Appendix D)- Plant propagules (Appendix J) - Plant growth index (Appendix N)• Contamination: - Glass, metal & rigid plastics, stones & lumps of

clay, plastics light or fl exible (Appendix P).

Notes____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________________________

42

Recommended Sample Preparation:

Step one:

For the purposes of this exercise the producers were directed in the preparation of a single total composite sample of approximately 25 L volume.

Step Two:From this total composite sample, the respective, A- (chemical and pathogen) and B– (physical, biological, and contaminant) samples were drawn and dispatched to the respective testing facilities. It was essential that the composite sampling to create these respective two samples be undertaken as a single integrated activity. This ensured that the testing regime as a whole was recording information from the same single body of product, even though this was via two separate facilities.

Sample A: In order to fi t within the microbiological timelines established in the NZS4454, (see Table 2.1 and Section 2.6) it was necessary for the producer to send the approximately one litre, sample A, directly to Hill Laboratories (Hill Labs require at least 500 grams upon which they can process the above suite of tests).

Sample B: The remaining, approx. 24 L, sample B, was sent direct to the PGU @ Massey. A set of sampling, handling, packing and dispatch instructions was developed and sent to the two producers in order to provide them with guidance. The following photographic sequence demonstrates the recommended sampling procedure and the accompanying Graphic 1 outlines the instructional sequence.

To ensure the integrity of this trial (and all product testing) it is important that composite samples are as far as possible representative of the production from the host process. This concept is outlined in Appendix M2.1

“The sample shall be drawn randomly froma population of product of known history. The history needs to enable verifi cation that the product was made from known materials at essentially the same time, by essentially the same processes and under essentially the same system of control. Sampling shall be inaccordance with the Biosolids Guidelines, or current equivalent guideline or Standard. For eachdifferent situation, a suitable sampling plan needs to be defi ned and shall be representative. More sampling may be required for larger processes or where feedstocks change frequently. Sampling may also be undertaken during processing in

16. Sample Preparation and Handling Procedures

Figure 18: Repeated sub-sampling from evenly distributed sites selected from the screened fi nal product stockpile.Figure 19: Collected measured volume sub-samples to make up representative total composite sample of 25 L.


43

order to ensure that the product meets the criteria in Table 3.1, rather than waiting until the end of the process”.

In addition it is critical to maintain the integrity of these samples prior to testing. Please note the accompanying extract from the NZS4454, section 2.5 Microbiological Testing:

“Grab samples should be used for microbiological sampling and determinants that deteriorate or change quickly. This method of sampling is suitable for pathogen testing as outlined in 2.6.3. The following must be taken into account:

(a) Containers and sampling tools shall be sterilised;

(b) Lids should have seals, and the seal should be broken just before taking the sample;

(c) The use-by date of the container, if applicable, should be adhered to;

(d) The neck of the container or inside of the lid should not be touched. The lid must not be placed on any surface that is likely to be contaminated with the sample;

(e) During transportation, the microbiological samples should be kept separately from other samples and stored in ice. Samples must not be exposed to direct sunlight and must reach the laboratory within 6 hours of collection (modifi ed from the Biosolids Guidelines)”.

The suggested consignment volumes (and suitable sample containers and the time frame for completion of the tests etc.) for this trial were

developed as an amalgamation of the suggested quantities contained in Table 2.1 and the actual recommendations from the testing agencies

Recommended Composite Sample Collection Process:

Sub-sampling (of approx. 1 L through to 2.5 L size, depending on the stockpile size) be undertaken at various intervals from the screened fi nal product stockpile. These sub-samples are combined and mixed to form the total composite starting sample. Composite sampling can be achieved by taking at least ten subsamples throughout the fi nal product stockpile (at varying depths and heights) and combining these to form a representative sample.

The total volume of starting material requiredfor the trial is 25 L, hence the size of each sub-sample would be approx 2.5 L). For larger operations where the fi nal product storage pile is very large (i.e. greater than 50 m3), the recommendation was to reduce the individual container volume and increase the number of sub-samples taken in order to ensure representation of the larger storage pile (i.e. take 25 approx 1 L sub-samples). The producer was instructedto gather sub-samples using a clean sterilemeasuring container. As each sub-sample was collected it was amalgamated in a clean sterilecontainer or bag until the desired 25 L volume was reached. NB: See the following Graphic 1:

Figure 20: Thoroughly mixing all the sub-sampled material creating a uniform representative total composite sample. Figure 21: Approx. 500 g / 1 litre sample (from composite) sent directly for laboratory testing. NB frozen ‘slicker pads’ and reusable ‘chilly bag’ and consignment note with details of required tests and order # / payment details.


44

Transport:

The respective 500 gram (approx .1 L) and remaining, approximately, 24 L samples need to be bagged and placed within the polystyrene transport boxes. They were packed with one or more frozen slicka pads (not ice), taped securely shut and freighted on overnight courier direct to the respective addresses:

Product testing:

The Product testing for pathogens, heavy metals and organic contaminants was undertaken by Hill Laboratories Ltd. and carried out according to accredited test methodology in laboratories accredited to NZS ISO/IEC 17025 and/or recognised by IANZ (International Accreditation New Zealand, formerly TELARC). The other tests undertaken by the PGU @ Massey University were carried out according to the test methodology prescribed in the various respective appendices of the NZS4454 standard.

Storage before testing:

The microbiological and other testing to be undertaken by Hill Laboratories had to commence upon receipt of the sample materail. The product was tested as soon as possible after receipt at the testing facilities and within the appropriate time frame recommended in Table 2.1 of the NZS4454 (maximum within 7 days). If it must be

stored after receipt, a sub-sample shall be taken for as-received moisture determination. If the sample is dry, water shall be added to bring it into a consistency for testing, and this added water shall be recorded. The samples shall be stored in a large container, which shall be loosely sealed (e.g. with plastic fi lm) to minimise water loss but to allow oxygen entry, at 18 – 25 °C. (This information shall be recorded in the test report).

Procedure upon receipt of samples:

1. Hill Laboratories are an IANZ accredited laboratory, hence their internal procedures follow these protocols

2. In contrast the testing @ the PGU / Massey was undertaken as a one-off demonstration for the purpose of developing resources and understanding to contribute to the NZS4454 tool-kit. In this instance the following general procedures and order were followed:

• Upon arrival re-mix sample thoroughly to ensure uniformity

• Measure Volume Mass and establish Density (Appendix G)

• Measure Moisture content (Appendix F)• Divide up the sample into the respective

suggested test portions (see Table 2.1). • Undertake Particle size grading (Appendix E)• Undertake Contamination test (-Glass, metal

& rigid plastics >5mm, stones & lumps of clay >5mm, plastics light or fl exible >5mm (Appendix P).

• Undertake Toxicity test (Appendix D)• Undertake Plant propagules test (Appendix J) • Undertake Plant growth index (Appendix N)NB: Additional detailed information is contained in the following sections, which cover each of the relevant Appendix tests.

Reporting the Results:

The longest individual test durations are -28 daysfor Appendix J and 4 -8 weeks for Appendix N. So it is expected that the results will be reported within a maximum 6-week period from receipt of the samples.

All of the fi nal results were be accumulated andreported in a single document. Where possibleadditional notes were provided to supplement and expand on the meaning and relevance of theinformation. Whilst the results remain confi dential to the clients, the generic learning from this exercise was reported as part of the NZS4454 tool-kit and workshop series whose objectives are to encourage the adoption and achivement of theNZS4454.

Client Participation and Acknowledgements: Delta Utilities from Dunedin and thePalmerston North City Council ‘Organic

Matters’ programme, supplied samples and paid for the subsequent testing programme. Test results are included with the permission of the relevant producers. These producers generously consented to meet the user pays participation cost for this trial. Their support should be considered as a valued form of sponsorship ofthis important step in the industry’s development.


45

Graphic 22: This instructional schematic illustrating the proposed sampling, sample preparation and consignment procedures used in this NZS4454 trial, was sent as client instructions along with the appropriate prearranged order forms to the two parties participating in this trial.

SUMMARY OF SAMPLING PROCESS FOR NZS4454 BENCHMARKING

SCREENED

FINAL

PRODUCT STOCKPILE

READY FOR SALE.

STEP 1 If small stockpile: x10 2.5 L subsamples

from various areas.

If large stockpile x25 1 L subsamples

from various areas.

STEP 2 Sub-samples combined & thoroughly mixed to form approx.

25 L total composite sample

Take approx x10 -50 gram sub-samples to create 500 g test sample for Hill Labs

Pack the remaining sample

into retail sales bag fi lled to

normal labeled volume for PGU

STEP 3 A STEP 5 B STEP 4

Pack sample in polystyrene chiller box with frozen slicka pad and send with, ZWA supplied quote form / number to:

Hills Labs, 1 Clyde St,

Hamilton. NB: must arrive within 6 -24 hrs from collection!

Tests:

• Complete compost (CC)

• Water extractable B (WEB)

• Microbiological sample (Total, Faecal coliform and Ecoli)

• OCPCB screen

Pack bagged sample bag in polystyrene chiller box send with, ZWA supplied quote form / number to:

The Plant Growth Unit,

Batchelar Rd, Massey

University, Palmerston

North. Attn Steve Ray

Tests:

Physical: [Particle size grading (E), Volume / Mass / Density (G), Moisture content (F)] Biological: [Toxicity (D),

Plant propagules (J), Plant growth index (N)] Contamination: [Glass, metal& rigid plastics >5mm, stones & lumps of clay >5mm, plastics light or fl exible >5mm (P)].

46

Examples of some of the equipment used in the PGU part of the trial:

Figure 23: Tweezers, engineer’s ruler (mm) and 5 mm screen Figure 24: Polystyrene container for transporting samples and Daltons # 1 propagation sand

Figure 25: Graduated Measuring Jug (Total 5 L in 100 ml increments).Figure 26: Electric Scales for Weighing down to 0.01 (g) and foil tray for drying and weighing samples.

17. Testing Equipment


47

Equipment Summary:

Summary of Apparatus and Materials Necessary for the tests Appendices test D to P. NB: Text in blue is where an item has been duplicated from earlier test.

D -The following are required:(a) Radish cultivar Long Scarlet seeds, with a germination percentage of at least 80 %. The germination percentage of each batch shall be verifi ed before it is used. (NB:– It is preferable to purchase fresh seeds every year).(b) Deionised or distilled water;(c) Nursery pots or other containers at least 150 mm tall;(d) Seed germinating cabinet or an enclosure capable of being maintained at a temperature of 25 ±2 °C and providing a 12 h day/night cycle. If an enclosure is used, a fl uorescent light for illuminating the enclosure from a height of about 250 mm shall be used to provide the 12 h day/night cycle.(e) Means of measuring in millimetres;(f) Container greater than 300 mm tall;(g) Sieve with apertures of 10 mm;(h) Dalton sand as control.

E -The following apparatus is required:(a) Sieve with apertures of 20 mm;(b) Sieve with apertures of 1.18 mm (only required for vermicast / vermicompost);(c) Balance accurate to 0.5 g;(d) Means of measuring in millimetres.

F -The following apparatus is required:(a) Oven capable of heating to a temperature of at least 105 °C, preferably forced draught;(b) Balance accurate to 0.5 g;(c) Weighing dishes (cleaned and dried) that are large enough to hold 200 mL (fi ne product) or 500 mL (coarse product).

G -The following apparatus is required: Rigid, straight-sided pails (the size of the package may require more than one pail to be used) made from translucent plastic, calibrated in litres from the bottom and having the following nominal capacities:(a) For packages of 11 L or more 10 L to 20 L(b) For packages of 6 L to 10 L 10 L(c) For packages of 2 L to 5 L 5 L(d) Verifi ed scales;(e) Density measurement equipment (?)

J -The following apparatus and materials are required:(a) Sieves with apertures of 20 mm;(b) Planter bags of PB5 size for testing compost. For testing mulch, fl at tray or trays constructed of wood or plastic that is suffi ciently large to hold 10 L so that the maximum depth is no greater than 5 cm. (More than one container may be used for each sample.) The base of the tray(s) shall have drainage holes drilled or cut into it.

N -The following apparatus and materials are required:(a) Tomato seedlings at fi rst true leaf stage, preferably cultivar Moneymaker, but any cultivar can be used;(b) Daltons No. 1 washed sand (available in 20 L packs from Daltons Ltd., Matamata, or stockists of Daltons products);(c) A plant growth room such as a glasshouse, plastic house or any room with suffi cient light for plant growth;(d) Planter bags, size PB5 (3 L volume);(e) Container, about 5 L volume;(f) Balance or scales capable of weighing to the nearest gram.

P -The following apparatus is required:(a) Oven capable of heating to a temperature of at least 105 °C, preferably forced draught;(b) Balance accurate to 0.5 g;(c) Weighing dishes (cleaned and dried) that are large enough to hold 3 L of product;(d) Tweezers;(e) Sieve with 5 mm aperture.

48

Reference to test method Table 3.1

Sample Size Sample container Time frame within which testing should occur after receipt of sample at the laboratory

A and B 2L for mulch Plastic bag Within 48 hours

1L for fi ne mulch/compost

C 100mL Plastic bag Within 7 days

D 500mL Plastic bag Within 7 days

E 500mL forcompost and soil conditioners

Plastic bag Within 7 days

1L for coarse mulch

500mL forvermicast

F 1L Plastic bag Within 24 hours

H 1L or 1kg Plastic bag Within 7 days

J 10L Plastic bag N/A

N 5L Plastic bag Within 7 days

P 500mL forcompost

Plastic bag N/A

3L for mulch

Q 1L Plastic bag Within 7 days

Organic contaminants

250mL Sterile glass jar Within 24 hours

Heavy metals 250mL Plastic bag Within 7 days

Testing of limits for pathogens, E. coli of faecal coliforms (grab sample)

500g Sterilised glass container and tools

It is recommended that samples are received at the laboratory for analysis within 6 hours of sampling. Delivery to the laboratory shall not exceed 24 hours after sampling. Samples shall be kept at 4ªC in transit and anaylsed immediately upon receipt.

Table 2.1 Outlines the respective test volumes and relevant time frames

18. Table 2.1- sample size, containers and time frames

49

APPENDIX D: METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF TOXICITY TO PLANTS

(Normative)

D1 SCOPE

This Appendix sets out a method for determining whether a product is suffi ciently toxic to inhibit the growth of roots.

NOTE – Table 3.1 specifi es the compliance requirements.

D2 PRINCIPLE

Seeds are germinated on a sample of the product and the early growth of roots is assessed against a minimum length requirement.

D3 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS

The following are required:

(a) Radish cultivar Long Scarlet seeds, with a germination percentage of at least 80 %. The germination percentage of each batch shall be verifi ed before it is used.

NOTE – It is preferable to purchase fresh seeds every year.

(b) Deionised or distilled water;

(c) Nursery pots or other containers at least 150 mm tall;

(d) Seed germinating cabinet or an enclosure capable of being maintained at a temperature of 25 ±2 °C and providing a 12 h day/night cycle. If an enclosure is used, a fl uorescent light for illuminating the enclosure from a height of about 250 mm shall be used to provide the 12 h day/night cycle.

(e) Means of measuring in millimetres;

(f) Container greater than 300 mm tall;

(g) Sieve with apertures of 10 mm;

(h) Dalton sand as control.

D4 PROCEDURE

If the test sample is dry, it should be moistened at least eight days before testing. The procedure shall be as follows:

(a) Screen the product to remove all particles that do not pass a 10 mm sieve (see D3(g)). The <10 mm fraction is the test sample.

19. Biological: Appendix D - Toxicity


50

Figure 27: Measuring samples in graduated measuring jug Figure 28: Screening sample via 10 mm screen

(b) Moisten the sample until water can just be squeezed from it. On measurement, the moisture content (water mass/wet sample mass) shall be greater than 40 % and preferably between 50 – 55 %;

(c) If the electrical conductivity (EC) is not over 2.5 dS/m, proceed to D4(d). If the EC is over 2.5 dS/m proceed to D4(e);

(d) Fill two nursery pots (see D3(c)) with the test sample to within 1 cm of the upper rim, to form replicates;

(e) Fill the soil into two containers that are at least 300 mm tall (see D3(f)) to form replicates. Apply deionised water (D3(b)) to the surface of both replicates until there is a small amount of drainage from each container (no more than about 50 mL per litre of soil).

(f) Sprinkle 10 radish seeds (see D3(a)) onto the surface of each of the replicates. Lightly press the seeds into the surface to ensure rapid uptake of water. Cover loosely with plastic sheeting and place the containers close to one another in the germination cabinet (see D3(d)) for four days, maintaining the samples at anappropriate moisture level.

Figure 29: Planting radish seeds 10 per replicate. Figure 30: lightly pressed into surfaces of samples.


51

Figure 31: Germination cabinet –controlled, monitored environment. Figure 32: Computerized Control and monitoring system.

Figure 33: Toxicity test samples in controlled germination cabinet NB: the 300 mm sample vs 150mm PB5 samplesFigure 34: Retest failed samples and control with plastic sheet.

(g) Remove the containers from the germination cabinet, and the seedlings from the containers. Measure the average length of the roots in millimetres for each replicate separately.

Figure 35: Initial test samples patchy result on one sample plus 300 mm test Figure 36: close up of 4 day old radish seedlings -90% germination.


52

Figure 37: Radish germination control using Dalton’s sand to test germination % Figure 38: seedling extraction to measure root length.

(h) An average root length of 20 mm or greater, in both replicates, indicates that the product is not toxic to plants. However, where EC is over 2.5 dS/m, customers shall be advised of the need to apply the product in accordance with the provisions of Table 3.2.

NOTE –

(1) Laboratories should ensure that adequate incubation conditions are maintained through appropriate calibration of equipment.

(2) Good contact of the seed with the test sample is vital to encourage both germination and seedling growth. This is generally achieved by pushing the seed into the surface to a depth of about 2 mm.

(3) The root length is averaged over the number of seedlings obtained, not over the number of seeds (i.e. 10) used. If fewer than 7 seeds germinate in both or either replicate, or where the difference in average root length between replicates is greater than 20 mm, the test should be repeated, after investigating seed viability, seed/sample contact and incubation conditions.

Figure 39 & 40: Seedling from compost samples illustrating successful germination and root development. Each test group is laid out ready for root measurement.


53

Figure 41: Radish seedling at 4 days of growth Figure 42: Measuring radish seedling root length.

Trial Repeated - After Failure of Initial Test:

Figure 43: Second trial of failed samples and repeat control Figure 44: Illustration of 300 mm container and 150mm PB5 sample containers.

Figure 45 & 46: Second set of 4-day-old radish seedlings ready for root measurement. Successful outcome second time around may indicate reduction of EC from additional washing via watering, or better technique, or limitations of test methodology?


54

Figure 47: Control repeated with different results second time around -query outcome? Suggest utilising a dedicated propagation mix for control, e.g. vermiculite, which improves water retention and is lighter enabling easier extraction. Figure 48: NB: When PB5’s were emptied out for disposal at end of trial there was evidence of extended root networks not evident with extraction. This could mean extraction technique was faulty and the results mask greater root development than measured. A possible alternative extraction might involve washing seedling free of media.

Comment for future review:

The sample volume of two PB5 -150 mm deep pots is approx. (3L x 2) 6 litres. In this case we developed a duplicate sample using 300 mm PVC tubes (90 mm in diameter) as alternative high EC replicate. For two replicates this has a combine volume of approx 4 litres. (NB: We did not, at this point of having to make the decision, have the EC results back from the commercial Laboratory NB: the complexity of the chemical tests and cost of equipment mean it appears unlikely, in a NZ context, that these will be undertaken in-house). In fact, if the respective testing time frames are followed, this is likely to be a recurring scenario, as the physical trials need to occur within a week and the decision required between the 300 mm or 150mm deep pots is dependent on the EC results. Irrespective of pot size chosen the recommended sample volume 500 ml indicated in Table 2.1 of NZS4454 does not correlate with the volumes required to fi ll either of the specifi ed pot sizes.

D5 TEST REPORT

The test report shall contain the following:

(a) Sample identifi cation, including suffi cient details to show the time period between the manufacture and testing of the product;

(b) Whether the product passes or fails the tests (see D4(g) and (h));

(c) Reference to this test method, i.e. Appendix D of NZS 4454.


55

56

APPENDIX J: METHOD FOR INDICATING THE LIKELY PRESENCE OF PLANT PROPAGULES IN PASTEURISED PRODUCTS AND VERMICAST

(Normative)

J1 SCOPE

This Appendix sets out a method for indicating the likely presence of plant propagules that are capable of easily germinating or sprouting in samples of pasteurised products.

NOTE –

(1) Table 3.1 specifi es the compliance requirements.

(2) It should be noted that no test can guarantee the complete absence of plant propagules. The protocol provided here gives a method that will show the presence or absence of propagules of many of the worst environmental weeds. Those with hard seed coats or other dormancy mechanisms that are not deactivated during processing will not always be detected.

(3) Producers are encouraged to use this test to assess the effi ciency of their production systems.

J2 PRINCIPLE

Viable plant seeds and plant parts in a product shall be germinated or sprouted under optimum conditions.

J3 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS


(a) Sieves with apertures of 20 mm;

(b) Planter bags of PB5 size for testing compost. For testing mulch, fl at tray or trays constructed of wood or plastic that is suffi ciently large to hold 10 L so that the maximum depth is no greater than 5 cm. (More than one container may be used for each sample.) The base of the tray(s) shall have drainage holes drilled or cut into it.

J4 PROCEDURE

The procedure shall be as follows:

(a) Pass suffi cient product through a sieve (see J3(a)) to provide a <20 mm screened sample for testing of about 10 L;

(b) Add suffi cient water to the sample to bring it to its optimum moisture content. Mix thoroughly;

20. Biological: Appendix J - Plant Propagules


57

Figure 49: Measuring sample size from courier box Figure 50: Filling PB 5 planter bags with screened sample

(c) Fill 3 planter bags (see J3(b)), with the sample. Alternatively for mulch, spread it evenly in the germination tray or trays (see J3(b)), such that the depth is no more than 5 cm. Cover the planter bags and/or tray(s) loosely with plastic sheeting and set them out in the area chosen for the incubation;

(d) Daily or as required, spray the surface of the sample with water so as to maintain its moisture content in the optimum range for seed germination orpropagule sprouting. It is essential that the surface of the sample not be allowedto dry down to below this optimum range at any time;

Figure 51: Propagation unit -heated soaker pad and over-head misting spray Figure 52: PB5 test samples vs. propagation trays (greater surface area per volume)

(e) If after, 28 days, there are plants in the sample, then the product fails -conduct a further test, in duplicate, on the sample.


58

Figures 53 & 54: Samples @ 28 days -end of germination test PB test, (left) one sample with 1 seedling in each of 2 of 3 replicates and (right) a tray test sample failure, 1 seedling germination, from a sample which had passed the PB test.

Figures 55 & 56: Alternative tray test samples @ 28 days -end of germination test, (left) confi rmation of PB test failure as failure is replicated in tray test and (right) front two trays are the same sample, one passes whilst, the other fails. The back tray test confi rms sample pass of PB test.

Comments for review:

It appears worthwhile querying the use of PB5 pots for the compost samples vs. the use of fl at trays used for mulch in this test. The 10 L of compost used to create 3 replicates provides only 123 cm2 of surface area reasonably exposed to light (hence positive conditions for germination). Using PB5s in this way means that any viable plant propagules in 2/3 of the sample are not subject to conditions likely to cause germination.

In contrast, using the same volume in 5 cm deep trays will provide a surface area of 2000 cm2 which, comparatively, will provide a greater indication of the presence of viable plant propagules. Alternatively, as in the above picture, an approx. 30 cm / 20 cm / 5 cm deep tray provides 600 cm2 whilst requiring a sample volume of only 3 L. Given the cost of transporting samples this would appear to be an improvement in test design, and better use of resources.


59

J5 TEST REPORT


(a) Sample identifi cation;

(b) Whether the sample has passed the test or failed;

(c) Reference to this test method, i.e. Appendix J of NZS 4454.

60

APPENDIX N: METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF PLANT GROWTH INDEX

(Normative)

N1 SCOPE

This Appendix sets out a method for determining whether a product supports plant growth, based on the HortResearch in-house procedure (2005).

N2 PRINCIPLE

Tomato seedlings are planted in a 1:1 mix of the product and sand and grown until the fi rst truss of fl owers form. Plant fresh weight is compared to the weight of plants grown in pure sand.

N3 APPARATUS AND MATERIALS


(a) Tomato seedlings at fi rst true leaf stage, preferably cultivar Moneymaker, but any cultivar can be used;

(b) Daltons No. 1 washed sand (available in 20 L packs from Daltons Ltd., Matamata, or stockists of Daltons products);

(c) A plant growth room such as a glasshouse, plastic house or any room withsuffi cient light for plant growth;

(d) Planter bags, size PB5 (3 L volume);

(e) Container, about 5 L volume;

(f) Balance or scales capable of weighing to the nearest gram.

N4 PROCEDURE

If the test sample is dry, it should be moistened at least 8 days before testing. The procedure shall be as follows:

(a) Fill the container (see N3(e)) with the test sample and empty onto a clean surface;

21. Biological: Appendix N - Plant Growth Index (PGI)


61

Figure 57: Measuring compost sample volume Figure 58: Mix 50 : 50 Compost with Daltons Sand

(b) Fill the same container with sand (see N3(b)) and add to the measured test sample;

(c) Mix well until homogeneous;

Figure 59: Thoroughly mixing to create homogeneous sample. Figure 60: Filling three PB 5 planter bags.

(d) Fill three planter bags (see N3(d)) with the sample-sand mix;

(e) Fill another three planter bags with sand;

(f) Transplant a tomato seedling (see N3(a)) into each planter bag and water;


62

Figure 61: Tomato seedlings propagated in vermiculate on an automated fl ood and drain table. Approx. twice as many germinated as needed to ensure a selection of uniform seedlings for use can be made.Figure 62: Ready for transplant / potting up on test PB 5 planter bags.

Figures 63 & 64: Careful transplantation from vermiculite (very absorbent and light which makes for good growth and easy extraction and less damage of the seedling when transplanting by skilled horticulturalist NB: clearly marked test samples.

Figure 65: Test sample PB5s with transplanted tomato seedlings set out on heated soaker beds in automated temp. controlled glasshouse. Figure 66: Seedlings growing on, in PB5s at approx day 10 stage, -some differentiation in plant size.


63

Figures 67 & 68: Automated glass house NB: white shade covers and controller system (regular watering, temp. monitoring vents and fans).

(g) Grow until the fi rst truss of fl owers form (about four weeks in summer, up to eight weeks in winter), watering as required;

Figure 69: (left) Close up of sample / seedling tomatoes at day 10 stage. NB: At this point there is a distinct size differential between samples and between samples and control.Figure 70: (middle) Same sample / seedling at day 31 stage (right) control seedling at day 31 showing spectrum of sample / seedling size differential @ harvest.

(h) Cut off each plant at the mix surface and weigh on the balance or scales (see N3(f));

(i) Average the three weights for the sample-sand mix plants (Wsample) and thethree weights for the sand only plants (Wsand);

(j) Calculate the plant growth index by dividing Wsample by Wsand. An index of at least two is required to demonstrate that the product supports plant growth.

NOTE – If one plant dies during the test, the weights of the remaining two plants in that set of three can be averaged. If more than one plant dies, the test must be repeated.


64

Figure 71: (left) Sample / seedling variation at Day 31 harvest, -good uniformity within sample replicate group. Figure 72: (right) The most successful sample / seedling, -large healthy plants.

Figure 73: Another sample / seedling group all showing growth distortion / tissue damage, typical of chemical spray residues present if compost sample. NB: Day 31 harvest.Figure 74: Control (right of photo) and unsuccessful compost sample (left of photo). Both are small, relatively stunted, but otherwise healthy in appearance. NB: Day 31 harvest.

Figures 75, 76 & 77: Various samples / seedlings during post harvest weighing. NB: Notable size difference.


65

Figure 78: (right) Very clear growth distortion, most evident at growing tips, but leads to mature leaves being mis-shapen. NB: bottom tissue sample showing fi rst true fl ower trussFigure 79: Healthy branch off non-spray residue affected sample for comparison.

Comments for future review:

The Daltons sand appeared to require additional washing. Tomato seedlings were not available from local plant retailers out of season. In this case we grew the recommended plant type from seeds. In order to ensure the necessary number of uniform seedlings are available, approximately twice as many as required is prudent. This allowed us to range the seedlings from tallest to shortest and specifi cally select evenly matched plants to ensure fairness in this comparative test. The germination time was approximately two weeks on the fl ood and drain propagation table. This methodology produced a balanced and very satisfactory test result. In order to reduce unnecessary variation it appears sensible for in-house preparation of the tomato seedlings by germination from seed to be adopted as the norm where possible.

There appeared to be signifi cant growth from distortion typical of spray residue contamination evident on some of the seedlings grown in one of the compost samples. It may in future be possible to includeas an additional element to this test a visual assessment based upon the development of a diagnostic protocol, i.e. similar to the ROU poster. Clearly, future reviews of the standard will need to include protocols for dealing with spray residues, once these have been fi rstly researched, then established.

It seems unusual for this test to apply only to composted compost and soil conditioners rather than all compost products. The pasteurisation classifi cation appears to have more relevance to pathogen and plant propagules control than, being justifi cation for an exclusion from a test that examines the holistic growth promotion capabilities of compost products.

N5 TEST REPORT



(b) Whether the sample passes or fails the test (see N4(j));

(c) Reference to this test method, i.e. Appendix N of NZS 4454.


66

67

APPENDIX E METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF PARTICLE SIZE GRADING

(Normative)

E1 SCOPE

The Appendix sets out a method for determining the particle size grading of a product and the classifi cation of the product based on this.


E2 PRINCIPLE

Soil conditioners, mulches and fi ne mulches are assessed using a sieve with 20 mm apertures. Vermicast and vermicompost are assessed using a sieve with 1.18 mm apertures.

E3 APPARATUS

The following apparatus is required:

(a) Sieve with apertures of 20 mm;

(b) Sieve with apertures of 1.18 mm (only required for vermicast / vermicompost);

(c) Balance accurate to 0.5 g;

(d) Means of measuring in millimetres.

E4 PROCEDURE

E4.1Soil conditioners and mulch


(a) Select a representative sample of at least 500 mL from the bag or batch ofproduct being assessed. Air/oven dry at no higher than 40 °C;

Figure 80: Measuring 500 ml sample size Figure 81: Placing measured sample in drying trays

22. Physical: Appendix E - Particle Size


68

(b) Determine its mass to the nearest 10 g;

(c) Place the sample as collected on the sieve (see E3(a)) with 20 mm apertures;

(d) Shake in a horizontal plane for 1 min;

Figure 82: Oven drying overnight at 40 0C Figure 83: Weighing dried samples.

(e) The material complies with the particle size grading requirement (see Table 3.1) for soil conditioners if not more than 5 %, of its particles by mass of product are retained on the sieve, or for mulch if not more than 80 % of its particles by mass of product are retained on the sieve.

Figure 84: Screening dried sample through 20 mm screen aperture –minimal shaking necessary.Figure 85: Identifying and weighing oversize elements of sample

E4.2 Coarse mulch


(a) Select a representative sample of at least 1 L from the bag or batch of product being assessed. Air/oven dry at 40 °C;


(c) Place the sample as collected on the sieve (see E3(a)) with 20 mm apertures;


(e) The material complies with the particle size grading requirement (see Table 3.1) for coarse mulch if the mass of material retained by the sieve is not less than 80 % of the total mass.


69

E4.3 Vermicast / vermicompost


(a) Select a representative sample of at least 500 mL from the bag or batch ofproduct being assessed. Air/oven dry at 40 °C;


(c) Place the sample as collected on the sieve (see E3(b)) with 1.18 mm apertures;


(e) The material complies with the particle size grading requirement (see table 3.1) for vermicast if the mass of material retained by the sieve is less than 10 % of the total mass, otherwise the material is classifi ed as vermicompost.


Query E4.2 (b) determine mass to nearest 20 grams –This seems an excessively large graduation? In this instance this trial recorded dry mass to nearest 0.1 of a gram, which seems more appropriate.

E5 TEST REPORT



(b) Whether the material meets the requirements of step E4.1(e) for soil conditioners and mulch or step E4.2(e) for coarse mulch or step E4.3 (e) forvermicast, thus achieving a pass for that grading;

(c) If the material fails to meet the requirements of step E4.1(e) for soil conditioners and mulches or step E4.2(e) for coarse mulch, report the percentagemass of oversized or undersized material;

(d) Reference to this test method, i.e. Appendix E of NZS 4454.


70

71

APPENDIX G: METHOD FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF VOLUME AND MASS

(Normative)

G1 SCOPE

This Appendix sets out the method for measurement of a volume and mass of packaged product.

NOTE – Table 3.1 specifi es the compliance requirement.

G2 PRINCIPLE

The product is poured into a rigid, calibrated container and the contents levelled.

G3 APPARATUS

Rigid, straight-sided pails (the size of the package may require more than one pailto be used) made from translucent plastic, calibrated in litres from the bottom and having the following nominal capacities:

(a) For packages of 11 L or more 10 L to 20 L

(b) For packages of 6 L to 10 L 10 L

(c) For packages of 2 L to 5 L 5 L

(d) Verifi ed scales;

(e) Density measurement equipment.

G4 PROCEDURE

G4.1 Volume


(a) Calibrate the pail by pouring into it water to the nominal volume of the smallestpackage to be measured. Include a small amount of detergent in the water toallow wetting of the container. Allow the water in the pail to come to rest then mark the container at the surface of the water. Continue adding further water to the nominal volumes of other packages whose volumes are to be measured.

(b) Select one package at random from a batch of packages. Sit the package upright on the fl oor. Completely cut off the upper end of the package to exposethe contents.

(c) Empty the package loosely into the chosen pail and allow its contents to fl ow out. Use more than one pail if necessary.

23. Physical: Appendix G - Volume and Mass


72

Figure 86: Demonstrating the pour / fi ll technique to establish bag volume Figure 87: Container calibration to check graduated volume measure.

Figure 88: Levelling tool utilised to level the surface for accurate volume measurement Figure 89: Demonstration of levelling tool and transparent graduated measuring container.

(d) Level off the surface of the product and read the volume.

NOTE – A possible method is to gently rest on the surface of the product, a fl at object with a diameter about 2 cm smaller than that of the pail and with a previously calibrated indicator projecting upwards out of the pail. This indicator is marked so that a reading taken from it at the position level with the top of the pail corresponds to the volume of product in the pail. The volume of product in the pail is derived from the reading taken from this inner indicator.

(e) Add the volume for each pail used if more than one pail was required for a single package of product.

G4.2 Mass


(a) Choose a bag of compost with known correct volume of product in it;


73

Figures 90 & 91: Calibrated scales suitable for 0 - 50 kg weighting a sample bag sampled from point of sale.

(b) Monitor the density of the product due to changes in the moisture content;

(c) Tare the weight of the packaging to obtain the net mass;

(d) Obtain the tared weight product, to the nearest g, and obtain volume based on the volume/mass/density relationship obtained.


This test relies on the random selection of a representative sample bag from a batch of sample bags. The other tests collectively undertaken in this trial require a random composite sample be gathered from a fi nal product stockpile. For the sake of cost effectiveness it would be ideal if only one single randomly developed total composite sample (suffi cient to be utlised for all the relevant tests in thecomplete trial). was developed from which the sample for laboratory testing was extracted and sent ,with the remainder being bagged as per the normal procedures.

This would work, providing the bagging procedure was uniformly representative of normal practices (i.e. not manipulated to ensure Appendix G was passed, for example, where mechanical bagging systems were used). The other constraint would be bag volume, which would need to be ≥approximately 25 L. In this trial only one of the two producers bagged product for retail sale. So the Appendix G test was undertaken on a randomly selected bag. This was ≥ 30 L and would have, had it been developed via random composite sampling, been an adequate volume for undertaking all the tests in the complete trial.

G5 TEST REPORT



(b) The volume for the package;

(c) Reference to this test method, i.e. Appendix G of NZS 4454.


74

75

APPENDIX F: METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF MOISTURE CONTENT

(Normative)

F1 SCOPE

This Appendix sets out methods for determining the moisture content of a product.


F2 PRINCIPLE

The mass of a portion of the product is determined before and after it is dried in an oven.

F3 APPARATUS


(a) Oven capable of heating to a temperature of at least 105 °C, preferably forceddraught;

(b) Balance accurate to 0.5 g;

(c) Weighing dishes (cleaned and dried) that are large enough to hold 200 mL (fi ne product) or 500 mL (coarse product).

F4 PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF MOISTURE CONTENT


(a) Determine the mass of a dish (see F3(c)) (m1);

(b) Place a representative sample of the product (as received) of about 200 to 500 mL volume in the dish and determine the combined mass of dish and product (m2).;

Figure 92: Calibrated scales tare weight of drying dish. Figure 93: Creating x3 500ml replicates ready for drying.

24. Chemical: Appendix F - Mositure Content


76

Figure 94: Weighing sample to determine the mass Figure 95: Samples placed in dry oven overnight @ 105 0C

(c) Place the dish of moist product in an oven (see F3(a)) set at 105 °C. Leave it there until its mass is constant.

NOTE –

(1) Constant mass is achieved when, after the initial drying period, successive drying over 1 h periods gives rise to a weight loss of not more than 1 % of the initial weight loss.

(2) Ovens vary considerably in the rapidity with which they dry moist materials. Also, different areas in a given oven can vary in drying ability. Analysts should check their ovens and set test methods according to how long it takes drying to occur, also taking into account how the product is spread and the size of the dishes.

(d) Determine the mass of the dish plus dried product (m3).

F5 CALCULATION

Calculate the moisture content expressed as percentages, from the following equation:

Per cent by mass moisture in the product as received =

((m2 – m3 ) / (m2 – m1 )) x 100 % ........................................................... (Eq. F1)

NB: Alternatively this can be written as:

((wet sample + dish) – (dry sample plus + dish) / (wet sample + dish ) – (dish tare weight)) x 100%

or in other words:

((moisture content dried off by heating @ 105 0C) / (original net wet compost sample)) x 100%


The cluster of tests deemed necessary to cover the requirements of the NZS4454 which were ordered from Hill Laboratories include % dry matter which is the inverse of Moisture Content (i.e. 100 % - % Dry Matter = % Moisture Content). This should represent a good back-up check on the methodology undertaken in this Appendix F test.

In addition the sample prepared for the Moisture Content test is prepared by exactly the same initial methodology as Appendix P meaning that these two tests can, providing the original net weight is recorded on the Appendix P samples, be effectively combined, enabling the formation of duplicate replications of each other’s test. This would appear to be a common sense approach to under take, which for little extra effort, signifi cantly increases the respective strength of each test result.


77

F6 TEST REPORT


(a) Sample identifi cation, including suffi cient details to show the time period between manufacture and testing of the product;

(b) Report the percentage moisture in the product to the nearest 1 %.

NOTE – Balls or clods of material may be broken up during sieving, however their presence indicates high moisture content. This should be reported to the manufacturer and discouraged.

(c) Reference to this test method, i.e. Appendix F of NZS 4454.

78

Please note the following comments:

In respect of the Microbiological tests Hill Laboratory is IANZ accredited but this test isn’t specifi cally accredited.

This issue needs clarifi cation at review as the NZS4454 contains outdated nomenclature.

The respective BHC test results require further clarifi cation, and interpretation is uncertain: i.e. is total BHC required by adding together separate values, in which case does this mean the result is a fail or is each result considered separately as BHC, which case each is a pass? Possibly a greater level of sensitivity is required. This will necessitate a considerable step up in the test cost.

The Ammonium N plus Nitrate N has been inserted by combining the above two values. With this result there no requirement unless a contribution to plantnutrition is claimed.

Dry Matter is the opposite of the Moisture content. This can be checked back against the actual MC test result.

The Phosphorous result has no limits unless claimed as suitable for Phosphorous sensitive plants or a contribution to plant nutrition is claimed.

Hill Laboratory publish their Phosphorous results as mg / kg whereas the NZS4454 requires a % of dry mass value. This can be obtained by dividing mg / kg by 10000 to arrive at a % dry matter value

NB: One of the other composts tested failed the Pathogen testing standard The most likely explanation for the failed pathogen test (92000 mpn/g) is the presence of un-pasteurised animal manure.

NB: One of the other composts tested failed the failed on the Arsenic (87.8 mg/kg) standard. This is most likely due to CCA (treated timber) contamination. This is indicated be the high levels (relative to other composts tested) of Chromium (129 mg/kg) and Copper (80 mg/kg) which are the other ingredients alongside Arsenic in CCA treatment chemicals. Also the different between the GIC and NTC composts relative Copper, Chromium and Arsenic levels is likely to also due to a slight contamination of shredded CCA treated timber.

NB: One of the other composts failed the NH4-N + NO3 – N standard. This is likely to be related to the failure by the same product of the PGI, which possibly due to low nutrient levels (available N = 3mg/L, soluble P = <1mg/L). Note this compost passed the toxicity test.

NB: Although not a failure the GIC had a relatively high lead level (151 mg/kg)

25. Commerical Testing Hill Laboratories


79

R J Hill Laboratories LtdLaboratory Job Number: 449546

Date Registered: 21-Mar-07

File Creation Date: 3-Apr-07

Submitter Name: Jonathon Hannon

Client Name: Zero Waste Academy, Massey University, PN414.

Client Address: Private Bag 11 222, PALMERSTON NORTH, 4412.

Client Reference: NZS4454 Compost Analyses

Client Order Number: 189783

Delta Compost

Microbiological quality NZS4454 GIC RESULT NTC RESULT

Total Coliforms MPN/g 79 17

Faecal Coliforms MPN/g 2 2

Escherichia coli MPN/g 100 2 PASS 2 PASS

ES: OCPs (Organochlorine pesticides, screening)

2,4’-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.01 PASS < 0.01 PASS

2,4’-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.01 PASS < 0.01 PASS

2,4’-DDT mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.01 PASS < 0.01 PASS

4,4’-DDD mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.01 PASS < 0.01 PASS

4,4’-DDE mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.07 PASS < 0.01 PASS

4,4’-DDT mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.01 PASS < 0.01 PASS

Aldrin mg/kg dry wt < 0.02 < 0.01 PASS < 0.01 PASS

Alpha-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

Beta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

Delta-BHC mg/kg dry wt < 0.02 < 0.01 ???? < 0.01 ????

Gamma-BHC (Lindane) mg/kg dry wt < 0.02 < 0.01 PASS < 0.01 PASS

Cis-Chlordane mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

Trans-Chlordane mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

Total Chlordane ((cis+trans)*100/42) mg/kg dry wt < 0.05 < 0.05 PASS < 0.05 PASS

Dieldrin mg/kg dry wt < 0.02 < 0.02 PASS < 0.01 PASS

Endosulphan I mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

Endosulphan II mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

Endosulphan sulphate mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

Endrin mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

Endrin aldehyde mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

Heptachlor mg/kg dry wt < 0.02 < 0.01 PASS < 0.01 PASS

Heptachlor epoxide mg/kg dry wt < 0.02 < 0.01 PASS < 0.01 PASS

Hexachlorobenzene (HCB) mg/kg dry wt < 0.02 < 0.01 PASS < 0.01 PASS

Methoxychlor mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01


80

ES: PCBs (Polychlorinated biphenyls)

PCB-28 (Tri) + PCB-31 (Tri) mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

PCB-52 (Tetra) mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01



PCB-121 (Penta) mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01







PCB-151 (Hexa) mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01















PCB-180 (Hepta) mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01




PCB-194 (Octa) mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

PCB-206 (Nona) mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

PCB-209 (Deca) mg/kg dry wt < 0.01 < 0.01

Total PCB (Sum of individualcongeners) mg/kg dry wt < 0.5 < 0.3 PASS < 0.3 PASS


81

General Analysis

pH unit 5.0 to 8.5 7.8 PASS 6.6 PASS

Electrical Conductivity (mS/cm) no limit 3.9 PASS 1.1 PASS

Soluble Salts (g/100g) 1.4 0.4

Nitrate-N (mg/L) 130 2

Ammonium-N (mg/L) 3 1

Ammonium-N plus Nitrate- N (mg/L) > 10 133 PASS 3 FAIL

Phosphorus (mg/L)≤ 5 (if

claimed) 2 PASS < 1 PASS

Sulphur (mg/L) 82 2

Potassium (mg/L) 848 191

Calcium (mg/L) 90 8

Magnesium (mg/L) 37 5

Sodium (mg/L) 185 67

Total Carbon (%) 15.4 21.6

Total Nitrogen (%)≥ 0.6 (if claimed) 1.47 PASS 1.03 PASS

C/N Ratio ratio 10 21

Organic Matter (%) ≥ 25 % 26.5 PASS 37.3 PASS

Dry Matter (%) 66.5 49

Total Phosphorus (%) ≤ 0.1 % 0.343 SENSITIVE 0.198 SENSITIVE

Total Sulphur (mg/kg) 1910 1160

Total Potassium (mg/kg) 8590 4370

Total Calcium (mg/kg) 23300 6970

Total Magnesium (mg/kg) 4700 2730

Total Sodium (mg/kg) 1580 1360

Total Iron (mg/kg) 18200 15700

Total Manganese (mg/kg) 736 427

Total Zinc (mg/kg) < 600 310 PASS 77 PASS

Total Copper (mg/kg) < 300 58 PASS 28 PASS

Total Boron (mg/kg) < 200 34 PASS 8 PASS

Total Chromium (mg/kg) < 600 22.2 PASS 14 PASS

Total Arsenic (mg/kg) < 20 14.5 PASS 10.7 PASS

Total Lead (mg/kg) < 250 151 PASS 14.3 PASS

Total Nickel (mg/kg) < 60 16.5 PASS 11.5 PASS

Total Mercury (mg/kg) < 2 0.12 PASS 0.05 PASS

Total Cadmium (mg/kg) < 3 0.71 PASS 0.16 PASS

NB: from 2.7 (h) -Test results apply to the sample(s) submitted for analysis and do not necessarily imply that the product meets all of the requirements of this standard

82

APPENDIX P: METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF LEVEL OF VISIBLE CONTAMINATION

(Normative)

P1 SCOPE

This Appendix sets out methods for determining the level of visible contamination with glass, plastics and metal in compost and mulch.


P2 PRINCIPLE

The amount of visible contamination in compost and mulch is determined by mass from a sieved, dried product sample.

P3 APPARATUS


(a) Oven capable of heating to a temperature of at least 105 °C, preferably forceddraught;

(b) Balance accurate to 0.5 g;

(c) Weighing dishes (cleaned and dried) that are large enough to hold 3 L of product;

(d) Tweezers;

(e) Sieve with 5 mm aperture.

P4 PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF VISIBLE CONTAMINANTS


(a) Place 3 L of moist product (as received) into the dish in an oven (see P3(a)) set at 105 °C. Leave it there until its mass is constant.

(b) Record dried weight of product (see P3(b)).

NOTE –

(1) Constant mass is achieved when, after the initial drying period, successive drying over 1 h periods gives rise to a weight loss of not more than 1 % of the initial weight loss.

(2) Ovens vary considerably in the rapidity with which they dry moist materials. Also, different areas in a given oven can vary in drying ability. Analysts should check their ovens and set test methods according to how long it takes drying to occur, also taking into account how the product is spread and the size of the dishes.

26. Contaminants: Appendix P - Visable Contamination


83

Figure 96: Preparing measured volume samples ready for drying overnight at 105 0CFigure 97: Initial weights were collected so as to double the data set of Moisture Content recording.

Figure 98: Forced aeration drying oven set and monitored at 105 0C overnight Figure 99: Dry weights recorded once, then again at a one-hour interval to ensure sample is fully dry.

P5 PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINATION OF VISIBLE CONTAMINANTS


(a) Screen the dried product through a sieve (see P3(e)) with 5 mm apertures. Discard the fi ne fraction.

Figures 100 & 101: Dried sample is screened through 5 mm screen to leave oversize materail for examination of contamination.


84

(b) Remove by hand or tweezers from the >5 mm fraction all visible pieces of glass, hard plastic and metal. Determine their mass (m4).

(c) Remove by hand from the >5 mm fraction all visible pieces of light plastic, or plastic fi lm. Determine their mass (m5).

Figure 102: Using tweezers to separate out the three classes of contaminants, leaves the fourth remaining > 5 mm acceptable (not designated as contamination) organic materail. NB: the collective weights provide a total > 5 mm % for general comparison.Figure 103: The four-way split from a compost sample. NB: In this case there was no ‘light plastic’, or ‘plastic fi lm’ found.

Figures 104 & 105: Respectively Glass / hard plastic / metal contamination and visible stones and lumps of clay.

Figure 106: Materail designated ‘Non-contamination’. Figure 107: All the samples processed into grades where contamination can be identifi ed. NB the ‘Moisture Content’ samples were also processed so as to double and hence strengthen the data set.


85

(d) Remove by hand from the >5 mm fraction, all visible stones and clods of clay. Determine their mass (m6).

P6 CALCULATION

Calculate the contamination of the product, expressed as percentages, from thefollowing equations:

Percentage by mass contamination by glass,

metal and hard plastic

Percentage by mass contamination

by light plastic

Percentage by mass contamination by stones

and clods of clay

COMMENT:

NB: These formulae appear somewhat confusing as P3 (b) is a note referring to the accuracy of the scales used in this test. In the AS4454 the formulae are written as follows:

% contamination by (glass, metal, hard plastic)

= (M4 x 100%) / (total dried wt of sample – tare wt of dish)

% contamination by (soft plastic & plastic fi lm)


% contamination by (stones & clods of clay)


In other words:

(Contamination weight x 100%) divided by

the (total dried wt of sample – tare wt of dish)


In the absence of signifi cant guidance the selection criteria were scrupulously applied in this test and subsequently with the benefi t of hindsight, it is clear that the propensity for subjective bias needs to beclarifi ed. This test could be viewed as relatively subjective, based upon indeterminate selection criteria and a question mark over the relevance of the extent of selection (with the option of using tweezers) may or may not include, what is in reality, only partially discernable materail.

The experience of this trial was that it is very hard to determine what any given dried hard piece of material actually is, as all particles are coated with organic materail and are relatively indistinguishable from each other. For example this test, as it stands, will not pick up sand contamination (which can be high on some sites) and which is no less of a commercially relevant form of contamination than, for example, the 5 to 20 mm particles designated as ‘stones and lumps of clay’, but which are in all likelihood aggregates soil organic matter.

An alternative, less subjective option might be to remove the obvious plastic contamination and then undertake a combustion / ash weight test, which will objectively derive the exact percentage of non-


86

organic material in any given sample. If samples from across NZ were reviewed, then an acceptable range for non-organic material could be developed and become the standardized measure for this form of contamination. In New Zealand, because of the comparative development of our organic recycling industry (and fact that the accompanying diversity of processes are mostly undertaken on unsealed sites), the apparent subjectivity of the results of this test could result in it becoming punitive and unrealistic to industry circumstances in NZ.

P7 TEST REPORT


(a) Sample identifi cation, including suffi cient details to show the time period between manufacture and testing of the product;

(b) Report the percentages of contaminants to two signifi cant fi gures;

(c) Reference to this test method, i.e. Appendix P of NZS 4454.


87

88

NB: In respect of Appendix Q please note the following. Unlike AS4454 where this test appears in the equivalent Table 3.1, this test is not mentioned inthe NZS4454 Table 3.1. Therefore the inclusion of this test as Appendix Q of NZS4454 appears to be an anomaly which may be reviewed over time.

APPENDIX Q: METHOD FOR DETERMINING IF A MATERIAL DESCRIBED AS VERMICAST IS SUFFICIENTLY UNCONTAMINATED WITH LARGE PARTICLES

(Normative)

Q1 SCOPE

This Appendix sets out a method for determining whether or not a product labelled as vermicast is suffi ciently uncontaminated with material other than worm castings to be considered for further testing within the Standard.

NOTE –

(1) Table 3.1 specifi es the compliance requirements.

(2) It is recommended that manufacturers carry out this test on a routine basis to test the validity of their systems. It should be noted that no test can guarantee the complete absence of plant propagules from these materials.

Q2 PRINCIPLE

A sample of the product is pre-wetted and washed through a 1.18 mm sieve and the percentage by volume not passing through is determined. Products derived from a composting process will not pass due to the quantity of woody oversized particles present.

27. Other Appendices


89

APPENDIX 1: COSTING STUDY:

During the trial process time and motion data were collected based upon observational estimates ofthe time and cost accrued during the various elements of the trial. The following data is presented for discussion as indicative only, given the limited sample size of this trial.

Estimated Time / Cost involved -Appendices P (Visable Contamination)

Time CostAction Detail Total Time

(min)

Work space / gear set up 5

Sample handling and prep 5

Sample select screen weigh 3

Set up & calibrate equip 2

Sample dry weights inc set up Approx 2.5 min per sample x 2 to check drying 4

Selection and weighting Approx 12 mins / sample 12

Clean up and disposal 5

Data processing / Reporting Load formats in test report analyse / comment email results 10

Total time (min) 46

Total time @ 46 min @ $35 / hr x two people $53.67

Fixed costsSpace utilisation model * Universal Massey charge $ 1.50 / m2 / wk (64 x1.5) /5 $19.20

Use of Equipment cost / power Drying Oven overnight @ 105 0C for 12 hrs $7.50

Misc equipment Scales, measuring equip, screens, hand tools $2.50

Total fi xed costs ($) 29.20

TOTAL COST PER SAMPLE APPENDICES P TEST (ex GST) $82.87NB: * Total Lab space required for processing 30 m2 x total of three full days spread over 6 weeks ** Growth Chamber / Glass house / Propagation house.


90

Estimated Time / Cost involved -Appendices D (Toxicity) Time Cost

Action Detail Total Time (min)




Set up & calibrate equip inc monitoring and watering over 4 days 10

Seedling extract wash measure Approx 8 min / sample x 2 replicates 16

Clean up and disposal clean equipment benches wash out growth cabinet etc 5


Total time (min) 55



Use of Equipment cost / power Growth cabinet for 4 days ($30 / dy / (5+) $24.00

Misc equipment screens, hand tools $1.00


TOTAL COST PER SAMPLE APPENDICES D TEST (ex GST) $108.37NB: * Total Lab space required for processing 30 m2 x total of three full days spread over 6 weeks ** Growth Chamber / Glass house / Propagation house.

Estimated Time / Cost involved -Appendices E (Particle Size Grading) Time Cost






Sample dry weight inc set up Approx 2 min for single sample 2

Screen dry weigh > 20 mm 20 mm screen discard fi nes weigh record 4



Total time (min) 35





Total fi xed costs ($) $29.20

TOTAL COST PER SAMPLE APPENDICES E TEST (ex GST) $70.03NB: * Total Lab space required for processing 30 m2 x total of three full days spread over 6 weeks ** Growth Chamber / Glass house / Propagation house.


91

Estimated Time / Cost involved -Appendices F (Moisture Content) Time Cost

Action Detail Total Time(min)





Sample dry weights inc set up Approx 2.5 min for single x 2 to check drying 4



Total time (min) 34






TOTAL COST PER SAMPLE APPENDICES F TEST (ex GST) $68.87NB: * Total Lab space required for processing 30 m2 x total of three full days spread over 6 weeks ** Growth Chamber / Glass house / Propagation house.

Estimated Time / Cost involved -Appendices G (Volume and Mass) Time Cost




Weigh bag & tare package 4


Repeat volume measures approx x 7 pour fi ll level record for single 30 l bag 14



Total time (min) 46






TOTAL COST PER SAMPLE APPENDICES G TEST (ex GST) $82.87NB: * Total Lab space required for processing 30 m2 x total of three full days spread over 6 weeks ** Growth Chamber / Glass house / Propagation house.


92

Estimated Time / Cost involved -Appendices J (Plant Propagules) Time Cost

Action Detail Total Time(min)



Screen sample of 10 l 20 mm screen and fi ll 3 PB5ʼs or trays 5

Set up & calibrate equip water and relocate to propagation house 3

Monitoring over 28 days monitor and record results 5



Total time (min) 38



Use of Equipment cost / power Propagation house / heated pad for 28 days @ $22.50/ wk(5+) $18.00



TOTAL COST PER SAMPLE APPENDICES J TEST (ex GST) $84.03NB: * Total Lab space required for processing 30 m2 x total of three full days spread over 6 weeks * Growth Chamber / Glass house / Propagation house.


93

NB: These prices are indicative only, as there are a number of variables and assumptions implicit in these estimates.

NB: The prices stated would only apply for an organised group of a minimum of 10 samples !!

NB: A signifi cant challenge exists in the development of a single all encompassing commercial per sample costing, due to the requirement to provide allowance for an unspecifi ed number of re-tests in the event of test failure.

NB: If any given test fails and is required, under the standard to be repeated, then the full individual test cost will be charged as in effect the entire procedure and associated cost needs to be repeated !!

Estimated Time / Cost involved -Appendices N (Plant Growth Index) Time Cost




Sample preparation 50:50 of Daltions sand + compost blended and bagged 4

transplant seedlings water and relocate to propagation house 9

Monitoring over 4 - 8 weeks monitor & water and record results (I min / day) (5+) 12

harvest and record weights cut at surface junction, weigh & calculate PGI 5



Total time (min) 55


Fixed costsDaltons sand approx 5 L $5.00

Purchase or grow tomatoes seedling selection (1st true leaf) labour + 2 wks space + equip +seed (5+)

$14.10

Space utilisation model * Universal Massey charge $ 1.50 / m2 / wk (64 x1.5) /5 $19.20

Space utilisation model ** Glass house for 4 - 8 weeks $18.75 / wk (5+) $30.00



TOTAL COST PER SAMPLE APPENDICES N TEST (ex GST) $134.97NB: * Total Lab space required for processing 64 m2 x total of fi ve full days spread over 6 weeks (5+) ** Growth Chamber / Glass house / Propagation house.

Total Cost ex GST $632.000

Total Cost of Tests For Appendices D, E, F, G, J, P, N. (inc GST)

$711.00NB: This price only should apply for an organised group of a minimum of 10 samples !!

NB: Also it should be noted that a signifi cant challenge exists in the development of acommercial per sample costing due to the requirement to provide allowance for an unspecifi ced number of re-tests in the event of test failure. Where it applies the costing assumptions in respect of this issue aremade evident in the relevent text !! NB: Also if any given test fails and is required dunder the standard to be repeated, then the full individual test cost will be charged as in effect the entire proceedure and associated cost needs to be repeated !!