aapfco winter-annual 2016 february 21-24, 2016 hyatt regency albuquerque, nm · ·...

1

AAPFCO Winter-Annual

2016

February 21-24, 2016

Hyatt Regency

Albuquerque, NM

Schedule, Meeting Rooms &

Committee Agenda

Effective 2-17-16

See you there!!!

AAPFCO Winter Annual 2016


AAPFCO Midyear Meeting

Association of American of Plant Food Control Officials

February 20-24, 2016 Updated: February 17, 2016

For Meeting and Hotel Details click here:

www.aapfco.org

GROUP PROFILE

This February conference attracts approximately 140 delegates. The participants are involved in all phases

of the fertilizer industry, but focus heavily on product registration, guidelines, and development of fertilizer

and fertilizer laws, which are regulated on a state-by-state basis.

Affiliated attendees of AAPFCO are state employees with small budgets treating this mid-year meeting as a

time to discuss changes in fertilizer laws, challenges facing the industry and to obtain feedback from the

industry.

Conference office for the duration is needed for conference supplies.

AAPFCO Winter Annual &

Methods Forum

February 20 -24, 2016

Tentative Schedule

2-17-16 Date Day Start

Time

End Time Function Type Activity Location

2-20-16 Sat 8:00 AM 12:00 PM Office Pavilion Ofc 1-2

2-21-16 Sun 8:00 AM 12:00 PM Office Pavilion Ofc 1-2

2-21-16 Sun 12:00

PM

4:00 PM Long Range

Planning

Fiesta 1-2, Foyer

2-22-16 Mon 8:00 AM 12:00 PM Office Pavilion Ofc 1-2

2-22-16 Mon 7:30 AM 5:00 PM Registration Pavilion Landing

2-22-16 Mon 7:30 AM 5:00 PM Coffee Break

Snacks,

Pavilion Court

2-22-16 Mon 9:00 AM 10:00 AM Welcome,

Opening

Comments, Roll

Call and Vote

Pavilion I-III, Foyer

10:00 10:15 Break Pavilion Court

2-22-16 Mon 10:15 11:30 Model

Documents

Uniform Reports


2-22-16 Mon 11:30 1:00 First Time

Attendee

Luncheon

Fiesta 1-2, Foyer

2-22-16 Mon 1:00 4:30 Model

Documents

Terms &

Definitions



2-22-16 Mon 4:45 5:45 Control Officials

Closed Session

Enchantment C-D

2-22-16 Mon 6:00 PM 7:30 PM Welcome

Reception

Fiesta

http://www.aapfco.org/


2-23-16 Tue 8:00 AM 5:00 PM Office Pavilion Ofc 1-2

2-23-16 Tue 7:30 AM 5:00 PM Registration Pavilion Landing

2-23-16 Tue 7:30 AM 5:00 PM Coffee

Break/Snacks/

Beverages

Pavilion Court

2-23-16 Tue 8:00 AM 5:00 PM Laboratory

Group

Slow Release

Laboratory Service

Magruder

Pavilion IV-V

2-23-16 Tue 9:00 AM 11:00 AM Communications

Group

Education and

Information

BMP & Plant

Security



2-23-16 Tue 11:00

AM

12:00 PM Industry

Regulatory

Council

Enchantment E-F,

Foyer

2-23-16 Tue 12:00

PM

1:30 PM Lunch (on your

own)

2-23-16 Tue 1:30 PM 5:00 PM Model

Documents

Group

Uniform Bills

Environmental

Affairs 3:15



2-23-16 Tue 6:00 PM 7:00 PM Reception 2nd

Floor Atrium

2-24-16 Wed 8:00 AM 5:00 PM Office Pavilion Ofc 1-2

2-24-16 Wed 7:30 AM 5:00 PM Registration Pavilion Landing

2-24-16 Wed 8:00 AM 12:00 PM AAPFCO Board

Meeting

Sierra Vista

2-24-16 Wed 9:00 AM 12:00 PM TFI Product

Quality

Fiesta

2-24-16 Wed 9:00 AM 11:00 AM RISE Enchantment A-B

2-24-16 Wed 1:00 PM 6:00 PM Methods Forum Pavilion VI

2-24-16 Wed 1:00 PM 6:00 PM Breakout 1 Pavilion III

2-24-16 Wed 1:00 PM 6:00 PM Breakout 2 Pavilion V

2-24-16 Wed 1:00 PM 6:00 PM Breakout 3 Pavilion I-II

2-24-16 Wed 6:00 PM 9:30 PM Dinner Enchantment C-D,

Foyer

2-25-16 Thu 8:00 AM 5:00 PM Office Pavilion Ofc 1-2

2-25-16 Thu 7:30 AM 5:00 PM Registration Pavilion Landing

2-25-16 Thu 7:30 AM 5:00 PM Coffee

Break/Snacks/

Beverages

Pavilion Court

2-25-16 Thu 8:00 AM 6:30 PM Methods Forum Pavilion VI

2-25-16 Thu 3:30 PM 6:30 PM Breakout 1 Pavilion III

2-25-16 Thu 3:30 PM 6:30 PM Breakout 2 Pavilion V

2-25-16 thu 3:30 PM 6:30 PM Breakout 3 Pavilion I-II


AAPFCO Long Range Planning Committee ........................................................................................... 6

Minutes .............................................................................................................................................. 7

Opening General Session ..................................................................................................................... 12

Voting Topics Winter Annual 2016 ....................................................................................................... 12

Model Documents .................................................................................................................................. 19

Uniform Reports Committee ................................................................................................................. 19

AGENDA ......................................................................................................................................... 19

Minutes ............................................................................................................................................ 19

Terms & Definitions............................................................................................................................ 21

AGENDA ............................................................................................................................................. 21

2015 Summer Annual Meeting Report ................................................................................................ 24

Laboratory Group ..................................................................................................................................... 33

Slow Release ........................................................................................................................................ 33

DRAFT MEETING AGENDA ........................................................................................................ 33

Laboratory Service ............................................................................................................................... 35

AGENDA ......................................................................................................................................... 35

Minutes ............................................................................................................................................. 36

Magruder .............................................................................................................................................. 38

Minutes ............................................................................................................................................. 39

Communications Group ............................................................................................................................ 40

Education and Information ................................................................................................................... 40

AAPFCO MINUTES EDUCATION & INFORMATION COMMITTEE ......................................... 41

BMP & Plant Security .......................................................................................................................... 43

AGENDA ......................................................................................................................................... 43

Minutes ............................................................................................................................................. 43

Model Documents Group .......................................................................................................................... 46

Uniform Bills ........................................................................................................................................ 46

Minutes ............................................................................................................................................. 47

Environmental Affairs .......................................................................................................................... 49

Minutes ............................................................................................................................................. 50

Product Quality and Technology Committee ......................................................................................... 56

Draft - Agenda .................................................................................................................................. 56

PUBLICATIONS ORDER FORM ........................................................................................................... 57


AGENDA

AAPFCO Long Range Planning Committee Winter Annual Meeting, 2016

Albuquerque, NM

February 21, 2016 12:00 PM – 4:00 PM

Fiesta 1-2, Foyer

Purpose: To develop and update a strategic plan keeping the Association aware of

industry and regulatory trends and promote AAPFCO as the national and international

regulatory authority for fertilizer and related products; To delegate responsibility for

implementing the strategic plan.

We will review the strategic plan with additional items added to the agenda at of start of

the meeting.

1:00 Call to Order

Approve Agenda

Any additional items time permitting?

Approve Report from Summer Annual Meeting in Colorado

1:10 AAPFCO Strategic Plan

Review progress toward implementation of Strategic Objectives and Goals

3:00 Break

3:30 Additional items to discuss

Discussion on creating the new strategic plan (Brett)

Discussion on purchasing the OP via Summer Annual registration(Jamey)

o Have printer do the shipping

Plant growth hormones, chelates, urease inhibitors, Silicon, etc. (James)

o Customer demand/interest may dictate what we need to do

o Do we have the expertise in place, resources, or a new

committee?

o What’s AAPFCO’s role?

4:00 Next Steps, Assignments and Agenda Items for Next Meeting

4:10+ Adjourn Committee

Future Meeting Date/Place: Pittsburg, PA

Contact Information:

Brett Groves Ron Larson

[email protected] [email protected]

765-494-1552 801-538-7187

mailto:[email protected]


AAPFCO Long Range Planning Committee 2015 Summer Annual Meeting

Minutes Denver, CO

August 8, 2015

Purpose: To develop and update a strategic plan keeping the Association aware of industry and

regulatory trends and promote AAPFCO as the national and international regulatory authority for fertilizer and related products; to delegate responsibility for implementing the strategic plan.

The Long Range Planning Committee (LRP) was called to order at 8:00 AM on August 8, 2015.

The committee consisted of ten control officials and four industry liaisons in attendance. The agenda for the meeting was approved; motion by Katie and second by April. The notes from the Winter Annual were approved; motion by James and second by Lance. The primary agenda item

for the meeting was to review progress toward implementation of the Strategic Plan. The record of this discussion is inserted into the document below as indicated by text in italics. Action items developed during this meeting will be in the green font.

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES AND GOALS BORN ON DATE, AUGUST 2011

I. Improve the engagement of participants, states, and stakeholders in association activities.

A. Develop and distribute a new participant and new stakeholder information packet and pilot a first-timer orientation and reception (highlight this on name badges)…the board secretary by January 31, 2012.

Jamey gave us an update on where we’re at for this meeting. o 4 scholarships given

3 came from Seminar attendance o 13 new regulatory first timers o 24 first time industry attendees o 6 speakers o 53 regulators o 109 industry

We have 168 total registrations at this meeting, 37 states represented o 8 states with first time attendees o Possibly a record state representation

Jim suggested creating a letter of thanks for the new attendees o Jamey thought it should go with the reimbursement checks o Joe will email all of the first attendees with the link to the

presentations

Jim sent 18 letters out for this meeting to the different states not attending

o He felt he had better response this time


o Jim will also send a letter of thanks to the states officials he contacted (NASDA) and attended and a different letter to the states that did not attend

OFFICIAL ACTION to the BOD: April motioned for a change in the scholarship program or setting a limit for the scholarship

o One per state per event, 2 total per year, $750 maximum to the same individual with a total maximum to the state to be determined by the BOD

Phil second, motion passed B. Develop a tiered “Magic 5” list of non-participating states in association events,

then strategize the most effective methods to attract their presence, (i.e. call them to emcee events, present a paper of national prominence, etc.)

Need to keep the database updated by the Membership Committee o 10 to 11 states were contacted for this meeting

Discussion on looking into a US map and highlighting the states that attended the previous meeting for our website.

o Can be found under Past Meetings o More discussion on the map and its location.

Jim suggested attaching the map to the letter he sends out to the states (NASDA)

Routinely show the map of attendance at the NASDA meeting to possibly motivate the states NOT attending at the Director level.

Need to have Melinda place it on the very first page to make it more prominent.

Brett will check on this Need to attach it to the newsletter

Brett will have Melinda send it to Katie when it’s done

C. Explore methods to attract associations…

James suggested we build an AAPFCO pamphlet (trifold) to hand out at the different meetings we attend explaining who we are

o Committee is still working on the “rookies guide” pamphlet This is still ongoing but almost done and out of the

Education and Information Committee by the end of August

Discussion morphed to Slow Release Committee o Suggested that we start looking at the ISO definitions o James was a little discouraged about the progress of the

committee even when they are meeting every month on conference calls

Too many different industry opinion’s and agendas “Delayed Release” is now on the table

o James will attempt one more conference call to accept the original work out there

If that cannot be accomplished, adopt the ISO definitions/terms

Katie would like to participate in the next conference call


II. Become the national information resource, voice, and authority on challenges, issues, regulations, and nutrient stewardship.

A. Promote the necessity, concept, wording, and importance of the model/ uniform bill…on-going.

The suggestion at Winter Annual 2013 that industry be asked to identify the top 5 issues that cause the most problems as a result of lack of uniformity among states was referred to the Uniform Bills Committee

o Inconsistencies in state fertilizer rules Patrick/Melinda said 30 states reported

o Jim Skillen and Katie will now focus on soil amendments

B. Retool the Association web site and make it more educationally useable, allow for the creation of a hub Best Management Practices (BMP) on fertilizer use, update at least semiannually, allow for online registrations by states, at least annually post accomplishments or talking points of association benefits, secure the site, allow for posting of state laws and add appropriate links…on-going. (Responsibility of the Education and Communication Committee.)

BOD had a meeting with Melinda on the website issues o Adding pictures of members from meetings to the website o The group would like to see the presentations by committee

Did we all agree to this or keep them all together on the same page?

o Email addresses added to the committee member list o Inspector video on You Tube o Frequently asked questions section

Most likely need a better website to support all our wants and desires o Even discussed putting the OP on our website o We need to have another conference call with Brett, Melinda,

Joe, Phil, and April o We can check with ARA and TFI to see what they are using for

web support

C. Explore and identify ways to play a more visible and prominent role in other stakeholder state and national functions…Review and rework the PowerPoint on the association…by February 1, 2012 (Responsibility of the Long Range Planning Committee.)

Discussion on putting on a labeling training at the February 2017 Winter Meeting

Bill Hall would like to attach an ISO meeting to the annual methods within the next 5 years

April discussed the development of a AAPFCO banner to display at the different meetings we attend

o The BOD will charge the Education and Information Committee Jamey will house the banner at his office and ship

wherever it might be needed

III. Improve communication throughout the stakeholder group.


A. Board establish committee expectations, charges, responsibility of vice chairs, term limits, and parameters and meet with chairs at least annually.

James Bartos led discussion on ways to facilitate or hasten development of new members into leaders of the association. Among the ideas to emerge was: 1) encourage attendance at the Fertilizer Administrators Seminar as a good opportunity to learn quickly how the association works; 2) ask them to participate on Working Groups in committees; 3) remind committee chairs to ask new participants to join Working Groups.

o Still desirable but did not do at this meeting

B. Conduct a program evaluation of each association educational meeting…to begin with the 2012 mid-year meeting in San Antonio.

New discussion on Roberts Rules training at the Administrators Seminar o April will talk about how the association works

Discussion on leadership training for the new board member o Official Action to the BOD: James made the motion for $1,000.00 be

earmarked for leadership training for the current and newest director at the American Society of Association Executives

Second by Katie, motion passes Joe said he would look into it

C. At multiple opportunities (newsletter editions, national meeting presentations, web site, etc.) exploit the beneficial uses of the association’s “List-Serve” and stay poised for the latest electronic technology methods…

o Responsibility of the Education and Information Committee. o Katie will have the newest version out before Christmas

D. When warranted, survey the needs of the association stakeholder groups (federal agencies, industry groups, trade associations, etc.).

o It was decided that we would send out a 5 question survey to all of the new attendees

o Deb said she would help Jamey develop the questions

IV. Maintain a sound financial position for the organization.

A. Evaluate financial needs of the association (dues, registration fees, book sales, possible new programs, hiring more labor, determining costs of select meetings, determining what is the new long range plan going to cost to activate)…on-going, but the initial report due by February 1, 2012.

o It was discussed that the annual AAPFCO dues will increase to $200 in January 2016

Additional items to discuss

Is the Strategic Plan still serving it purpose? o Brett discussed the proposal he had received from Cocciardi and

Associates, Inc.


Most all of the work would be done via conference calls They would present to the membership in Pittsburg during the

Summer Annual Meeting 2016 The cost is right at $11,000.00

o Discussion on why we need a new plan o I had received two other names to look into and April asked that I do

that before they make a decision

Discussion on the next Winter Annual Meeting and the location o Still in the air o We discussed moving it to a different month

Might happen this year if it’s in Tucson o Discussed tagging it on to the AAFCO winter meeting

Phil likes the way the Lab Committee is able to attend the Terms and Definitions Committee Meeting and would like it to continue

Pat Johnson has asked to be removed from the LRP Action Items to be moved to the Board

James made the motion for $1,000.00 be earmarked for leadership training for the current and newest director at the American Society of Association Executives

o Second by Katie, motion passes o Joe said he would look into it

April motioned for a change in the scholarship program or setting a limit for the scholarship

o One per state, 2 total per year, $750 maximum to the same individual with a total maximum to the state to be determined by the BOD

Phil second, motion passed

April discussed the development of a AAPFCO banner to display at the different meetings we attend

o The BOD will charge the Education and Information Committee Jamey will house the banner at his office and ship wherever

it might be needed

Meeting adjourned 11:00 AM, motion by Lance Kunneman, second by Joe Slater


Opening General Session Pavilion I-III, Foyer

Opening Comments

Host State Representative from New Mexico Agriculture Secretary Jeff Witte, will be joining us at the Reception

Roll Call of States

Introduction of Industry Liaison Down to Business!

Voting Topics Winter Annual 2016 Move to Official

ELECTRONIC AND CONFERENCE CALL VOTING POLICY

Pg 34 OP 69 * Conference Call Voting - Only the Chair or Vice Chair may be in charge of the meeting - If this is a working group, the Chair or Vice Chair may not be in attendance and is not mandatory - Need to give the entire committee (members and industry liaisons) 10 business day notice that the committee is meeting and will take official action (vote) - Roberts Rules apply - Only members can vote, no industry liaisons - A motion and a second must be made before any discussion - Before any motions, seconds, comments or friendly amendments can be made, speakers must identify themselves - Each voting member must be recognized before voting - Chair shall ask individual members for their vote - Chair will have someone record the votes of each voting member - Committee members must identify themselves prior to making a motion - A motion passes on an official vote of [75%] [51%] or greater[favorable vote of the voting members present..] - Committee meeting minutes shall be forwarded to the AAPFCO Secretary for posting in the Official Publication (Tentative 2015 SA) Pg 34 OP 69 * Electronic Voting (email) - Although a meeting held via email would be very difficult, a vote on an action item is feasible - a motion can be made by any committee member - Only the Chair or the Vice Chair may be in charge of the voting - If this is a working group, the Chair or Vice Chair may not be in attendance and is not mandatory - Need to give the entire committee (members and industry liaisons) 10 business day notice that the committee will propose official action and a vote will be taken - item to be voted should be presented to the committee - Roberts Rules apply - A motion and a second must made before any discussion - Only members can vote, no industry liaisons - The committee should be instructed that any replies to an action, friendly amendment or discussion must be available for all to read by use of the "reply all" button - Must give deadlines for each action - Allow 3 business days for a second to a motion


- If no second, motioner should consult with the Chair for further action - After second, allow 3 business days for discussion and friendly amendments - Following discussion and amendments, the Chair shall present the final motion to the committee members for a vote, allowing 3 business days for the vote - Motion passes on an official vote of [75%] [51%] or greater [favorable vote of the voting members present.] - Committee meeting minutes shall be forwarded to the AAPFCO Secretary for posting in the Official Publication (Adopted by Board August 2012) (Tentative 2015 SA)

Pg 433 OP69

AAPFCO ORGANIZATIONAL AND PROCEDURAL POLICIES

CONSENSUS-BUILDING AND DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES The Association of American Plant Food Control Officials' (AAPFCO) board of directors, committees and

task forces will seek consensus on decisions and recommendations regarding developing and implementing

Association policies and procedures. (Association business)

The Association's consensus building and decision making process is a participatory one whereby on

matters of substance, the members jointly strive for agreements which all of the members can accept,

support or at least agree not to oppose. In instances where, after vigorously exploring possible ways to

enhance the members' support for the final decision on an issue or package of recommendations, and where

100% acceptance or support is not achievable, final decisions of the Association will require at least a

[75%] [51%] favorable vote of all voting members present and voting. [This super majority decision rule

underscores the Association's view of the importance of seeking and developing agreements with the

participation of all members and with which all can live with and support.] (Tentative 2015 SA)

The Association will make decisions only when a quorum is present. A quorum shall be constituted by

those members present in person or by alternate. [The Association will utilize Robert’s Rules of Order to

make and approve motions; however, the 75% supermajority voting requirement will supercede the

normal voting requirements used in Robert’s Rules of Order for decision making on substantive motions

and amendments to motions. In addition, the Association will utilize their adopted meeting guidelines for

conduct during meetings.] (Tentative 2015 SA)

The presiding chair and/or facilitator of the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials, in

general, should use parliamentary procedures set forth in Robert’s Rules of Order:

Any voting member may make a motion when a quorum is present.

A second is required to discuss the motion.

If a motion is seconded, the chair/facilitator opens the floor for discussion. The chair/facilitator will

recognize members wishing to speak on the motion. The chair/facilitator will, if time permits, recognize

other participants wishing to speak on the motion.

The chair/facilitator may elect or be requested by the member making the motion to take a “straw poll”

on the motion. Based on the result, the chair/facilitator may table the motion with the agreement of the

member moving it, pending further discussion. The member making the motion may accept friendly

amendments to the motion.

After completing discussion, the chair/facilitator will call the discussion to a close and restate the

motion, with any friendly amendments, and call for a vote.

If the motion receives a [75%] [51%] favorable vote of the voting members present.


(Tentative 2015, SA)

Pg435 OP 69

MEETING PROCESS FORMAT GUIDELINES

Chair introduces each agenda item.

Proponent/Presenter provides overview, rationale for proposal, and any requested action.

Clarifying questions from members (something you don’t understand). Names stacked.

Committee/board begins discussion only after all questions are answered.

General discussion by committee members.

Chair asks if any members of the public wishes to address the board/committee on the current issue under

board/committee consideration

Chair asks for those who wish to speak in favor of the proposal or topic under discussion to offer brief

comments, others who wish to speak in favor will be asked to offer new points or simply state agreement with

previous speakers.

The same opportunity and requirements will be offered for those who wish to speak in opposition to the

proposal or topic under discussion.

Chair ensures that all views are expressed and similar views are not repeated.

Chair may instruct public to avoid repeating points, and to summarize key points and to submit lengthy

prepared statements into the record (instead of reading them).

Members of the public will be provided one opportunity to comment per discussion agenda item, and may be

limited to three (3) minutes.

Members may, through the chair, ask clarifying questions to members of the public offering comments.

After public comment, chair calls for members discussion and stacks names of members wishing to speak.

Members explore all options (pros and cons) prior to making a formal motion.

Any voting member may make a motion when a quorum is present. Requires a second.

If a motion is seconded, the chair opens the floor for discussion. The chair will recognize members wishing to

speak on the motion.

If the motion involves an option that the public has already commented on, then no additional public comment

is taken, if the proposed action (motion) is materially different from what was previously discussed, an

additional opportunity is provided for public comment, and then the board/committee votes on the motion.

Once a motion is on the floor discussion is restricted to committee/board members except as allowed by the

chair for purposes of clarification.

Voting member offers a second (may be seconded for purposes of discussion, and not necessarily due to

agreement with the motion).

Voting members may offer friendly amendments and if accepted by maker of the motion, friendly amendment

becomes a part of the motion currently under discussion.

In order to get a “read” on a motion, the chair may elect or be requested by the member making the motion to

take a “straw poll” on the motion Based on the result, the chair may withdraw or table the motion with the

agreement of the member moving it, pending further discussion.

Voting members may offer an amendment to the motion: second required, discussion, vote on the amendment

only.

The motion on the table is now the motion as amended (if amendment was approved).

After completing discussion, the chair will call the discussion to a close and restate the motion, with any

friendly amendments or approved amendments, and call for a vote.

If the motion receives a [75%] [51%] or greater favorable vote of the voting members it will be deemed

approved. (Tentative 2015 SA)

Move to Tentative Environmental Control Concerning the Application of Fertilizer

(Page 129 in Official Publication No. 69)

The Environmental Affairs Committee moved this version to tentative status on August 7, 2015


The Association of American Plant Food Control Officials is vitally interested in the protection of the environment. Research has established the beneficial effects of proper fertilizer application on crop growth, which lessens pollution of surface waters by protecting soils from erosion. Conversely, research has also shown that under certain management and climatic conditions, [improper] applications of fertilizer can result in movement of fertilizer nutrients to surface and/or ground water sources. The Association [is extremely concerned that future] [supports] that use of fertilizer [does not undesirably affect our environment and has organized our Associations Environmental Affairs Committee to address this issue] [W][w]hen combined with best management practices[, the Association believes that appropriate fertilizer applications can improve the quality of the environment by] [such as the 4R’s (right product, right time, right place, and right rate) can improve the quality of the environment by]:

(1) Increasing the quality of biomass produced per unit area of land surface, which aids in stabilizing and protecting the soil from erosion.

(2) Increasing production of food and fiber per unit area, thereby eliminating the necessity for producing crops on land unsuited for cultivation.

(3) Increasing accumulation of soil nutrients into biomass, thereby minimizing [percolation of] [the loss] of soluble nutrients to ground water.

(4) Reducing the [forest land] [conversion of non-agricultural land] placed into cultivation as a result of improved yields.

The Association strongly [commends the research efforts of various which will provide additional] [supports peer reviewed research to provide scientifically credible] information vital to the continued use of plant nutrients without adversely affecting the environment. The [continued] use of this information by extension service agronomists, commercial agronomists and other advisors in an educational program [and in making] [or] in making [specific nutrient] recommendations will [surely provide for] [be critical for ensuring] an adequate [but safe] source of food for the nation and world. The Association recognizes and endorses the following activities:

(1) [The use of soil testing and plant tissue analysis as] [Soil, plant, or other forms of testing needs to be] scientifically correlated with [the fertilizer] [the nutrient] needs of [soil, crop, climate,and yield] [specific crops. Outreach and education for

consumers and laboratories is necessary to make testing convenient and understandable.]

(2) Protecting our land resources against erosion losses through employment of best management practices which include application of appropriate quantities of fertilizer.

(3) Funding of long term research programs to quantify the effects of fertilizer on the environment under diverse combinations of soils, climate, crop, and management.

[(4 ) A continuing dialogue between fertilizer and environment experts that achieves a mutual understanding of environmental issues related to the use of crop inputs.

( 5) Balancing the need for environmental protection with the need to beneficially reuse materials that would otherwise be waste.


( 6) The development and implementation of uniform requirements.]

The Association further encourages the thorough evaluation of all appropriate [peer reviewed] research data before additional regulations on fertilizer application are invoked. Inappropriate or unnecessary regulations [of inputs] could [reduce the amount of

biomass produced,] increase erosion of crop land, increase cost of food and fiber to consumers, and cause deterioration of the competitive position of the American farmer in the world market. [(Official 1988)]

[The Policy of the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials Regarding

Fertilizer for Urban Landscapes The Environmental Affairs Committee moved this version to tentative status on August 7,

2015 Fertilizer is essential for maintaining vigorous, attractive and functional urban landscapes. However, if fertilizer is adulterated or is improperly or excessively applied, then fertilizer can adversely affect public health and the environment. Issues range from contaminants in vegetable gardens to nutrient runoff from turf. To prevent these problems, fertilizer use must involve the right product, the right rate, the right time, and the right place (4Rs). Manufacturers, retailers, testing laboratories, professional landscapers, consumers, and lawmakers each play a role in preventing inappropriate fertilizer use in urban landscapes. (1) Fertilizer formulations need to be appropriate for their intended use. (2) Application instructions for the end user need to be clear and accurate. (3) Soil, plant tissue, or other forms of sampling and analysis to evaluate nutrient requirements needs to be convenient and understandable. (4) Users need to apply fertilizer appropriately. (5) Legal requirements limiting fertilizer application should be based on peer reviewed

science, and written to be easily understood, implemented, and enforced. Therefore, the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials supports: (1) Including environmental scientists, policy makers, fertilizer manufacturers, control

officials and educators in discussions of nutrient issues, policy, and legal requirements;

(2) Soil, plant tissue, and other forms of testing, and nutrient management planning to

ensure that fertilizer applications are appropriate for the specific needs of the soil, climate, and plants;

(3) Outreach and education to consumers, landscaping professionals, and laboratories to

make soil, plant tissue, and other forms of testing convenient, understandable, and useful;

(4) Discussions of public policy for nutrient management should be informed by the


latest peer reviewed research regarding how nutrients, including fertilizers, in urban landscapes affect public health and the environment;

(5) Continuing research to improve understanding of how nutrient management in urban

landscapes affects the environment. (6) Balancing the need for environmental protection with the need to beneficially reuse

materials that would otherwise be waste. (7) Outreach and education to consumers promoting best management practices in

urban landscapes.] The following terms or definitions were moved by committee to stay or approved to tentative status:

T-93 Soluble Silicon – is that portion of the silicon contained in non-liquid fertilizer materials and/or beneficial compounds that is soluble in a mixture of 0.094 Molar Sodium Carbonate and 0.20 Molar Ammonium Nitrate and is a measure of monosilicic acid by a validated or approved

method. It is expressed as H4SiO4 (Tentative 2016 WA) Pg 80 OP69 T-70 Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer – Describes fertilizer products with characteristics that allow increased nutrient availability and reduce potential of nutrient losses to the environment e.g., gaseous losses, leaching or runoff when compared to an appropriate reference product.

(Tentative 2016 WA) Pg 76 OP69

T-71 Slow Release – Are fertilizer products that release (convert to a plant-available form) their plant nutrients at a slower rate relative to a “reference soluble” product. Examples of slow-release products are coated or occluded, which control the release of soluble nutrients through coating or occlusion of the water soluble nutrient compounds, water insoluble, or slowly available water-soluble.


BSC-1 Calcium Silicate – Is derived from naturally occurring minerals such as Wollastonite or may be synthetically derived, having the principal formula of CaSiO3, and is a source of Calcium and Soluble Silicon.


N-62 Feather Meal - Consisting of ground and processed bird feathers, a byproduct of poultry

processing. (Tentative 2016 WA) Pg 83 OP69

Motion to accept as tentative made by Katie, Second by Lance. Motion Passed T-77 Low Phosphate Fertilizer – Means fertilizer products intended for new or established urban turf or lawns, with available phosphate levels equal to or above 0.5% P2O5 and an application rate not to exceed 0.25 lb P2O5/1000 sq ft/application and 0.5 lb P2O5/1000 sq ft/year.


Calcium Polysaccharide – a complex formed by the reaction of calcium with polysaccharide long chain carbohydrates.

(Tentative 2016 WA) Iron EDDHSA – Is an iron(III) chelate of ethylenediamine di-(2-hydroxyl-5sulfophenylacetic)

acid and is commonly expressed as FeEDDHSA.

(Tentative 2016 WA) UAN/Calcium Solutions – Manufactured as liquid mixtures of UAN solution and water soluble calcium solutions containing calcium chloride or calcium nitrate. If sufficient water soluble calcium is added to produce a calcium to urea nitrogen ratio equal to or greater than 0.2, the


resulting product can be considered an enhanced efficiency fertilizer since the soluble calcium mitigates ammonia volatilization loss when compared to UAN, the enhanced efficiency reference product standard

(Tentative 2016 WA) BSC-7 Calcium Magnesium Silicates - are compounds derived from fused silicates, mined materials, or synthetically manufactured materials contained in fertilizer, fertilizer materials, fertilizer blends, and/or beneficial compounds and are sources of calcium and magnesium when extracted with a validated method that includes hydrochloric acid. They may also be a source of Soluble Silicon.

(Tentative 2016 WA)

N-47 Soybean Meal – Is the product remaining after extracting most of the oil from whole soybeans.

(Tentative 2016 WA)

The following terms or definitions were moved by committee to official status: K-8 Sulfate of Potash-Magnesia - Is a potash salt containing not less than twenty percent (20%) soluble potash (K2O) nor less than ten percent (10%) magnesium (Mg) and not more than two and one-half percent (2.5%) chlorine (Cl) [may be expressed as chloride (Cl-)]. (Official 2016 WA) Pg 91 OP69 K-9 Double Sulfate of Potash and Magnesia (Langbeinite) - Is a commercial product containing not less than twenty-one percent (21%) soluble potash (K2O) nor less than fifty-three percent (53%) sulfate of magnesia and not more than two and one-half percent (2.5%) chlorine [may be expressed as chloride (Cl-)]. (Official 2016 WA) Pg 90 OP69 SUIP 32 – When appearing on a label, chlorine (Cl) may be expressed as Chloride (Cl-) or

Chlorine (Cl). (Official 2016 WA) Pg 73 OP69 N-42 Protein Hydrolysate – is the organic material obtained by the hydrolysis of proteins to their constituent amino acids and short polypeptides. They are a source of nitrogen. The definition is used by prefixing the term with the name of the protein from which the hydrolysate is derived. Examples include Fish Protein Hydrolysate or Soy Protein Hydrolysate. (Official 2016 WA) Pg 85 OP69 T-101 Biochar - is a solid material obtained from thermochemical conversion of biomass in an

oxygen-limited environment (pyrolysis) containing at least 60% carbon. Feedstocks may be composed of crop residue, wood or other forest waste, and animal manures. Materials transported in salt water, painted, or treated with preservatives are not permitted. When listing biochar in an ingredient statement, the feedstock shall be designated by prefixing the term biochar with the feedstock from which it was produced; i.e. poultry litter biochar, green waste biochar, papermill biochar, etc. When more than one feedstock is involved, all feedstocks greater than 10% of the total volume are to be listed by decreasing volume. Their uses include soil amendments (Official 2016 WA) Pg 74 OP69


Model Documents

Uniform Reports Committee April Hunt, Chair

AAPFCO 2016 Winter Annual Meeting

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Monday, February 22, 2016

Time: 10:15 am (approximate)


AGENDA

Purpose: To promote uniformity among states who register fertilizer commodities, issue fertilizer licenses and

report fertilizer tonnage sales by improving the ease of the registration and licensing process between regulatory

agencies and the fertilizer industry; ensuring the accuracy of the national fertilizer consumption database that will

provide a statistical report summarizing fertilizers consumed in the US; increasing the ease of reporting for fertilizer

dealers, manufacturers and licensees and serving as a liaison between dealer, manufacturers and state regulatory

offices in reporting fertilizer tonnage.

Welcome and Introductions

Approval of Agenda and Minutes

UFTRS & Commercial Fertilizers Report Update

Joe Slater, University of Missouri

UFTRS Program Update and how paperless fertilizer tonnage reports can be submitted from uDeal

Jon Nevins, Lion Software, Inc.

Paperless Fertilizer Tonnage Reporting (PFTR) Project Update

Public Comment

Committee Member Comments and Issues

Next steps, Assignment and Agenda Items for Next Meeting

Adjourn

Minutes

AAPFCO Uniform Reports Committee August 7, 2015 Meeting Summary

April Hunt, Chair

The Uniform Reports Committee met the morning of August 7, 2015 in Denver, Colorado. 7 committee members, 9

industry liaisons and over 65 guests were in attendance. The agenda and February 2015 minutes were approved

(Slater/McMurry) by the committee.

Joe Slater provided an update on the Uniform Fertilizer Tonnage Reporting System (UFTRS). The 2012

Commercial Fertilizers Report is available and he working with a few states to wrap up reporting/data verification


for the 2013 report. 14 states remain to submit the 2013-2014 data for the 2014 report and 2 states have already

submitted 2015 data, thank-you. UFTRS is in Office 2010 and Windows 7.

There are nutrient definitions in the AAPFCO Official Publication (OP) that are not on the UFTRS code list. The

policy is that if there are more than 3 manufactures of the same product, then that product’s nutrient definition will

be assigned a code. The Micronutrient Product Association is reviewing the nutrient definitions in the OP to find

out if there are at least 3 manufactures of a product. Those that meet this criterion will be assigned a number on the

UFTRS code list.

They are still working on the review, there is no list yet.

Melinda Sposari with The Fertilizer Institute (TFI) gave an update on the Paperless Fertilizer Tonnage Reporting

(PFTR) project. The goal is to move to paperless tonnage reporting in a flexible format that will be consistent state

to state. Four states (GA, MI, ND, SC) are already accepting electronic reports and AgGateway is working with its

partners on developing an XML transformation tool for the 22 states that exclusively use UFTRS.

Lila Brown, Crystal Certified Solutions, discussed the products the PFTR initiative has developed. Most companies

fall into 1 of 2 categories: Internal IT staff is available to assist or IT assistance is unavailable. PFTR has products

to help both. The usage tool (in MS Excel) is a bundle of documents that companies can use to write reports. This

includes reporting guidance, transformation tools, readiness assessments and implementation webinars for industry

members. States tend to fall into 1 of 3 categories: 1) ready to receive paperless data 2) custom systems so the

paperless ability vary and 3) UFTRS standard language

Information on the PFTR products is at:

www.fertton.com www.pftrguide.com and

http://www.aggateway.org/WorkingGroups/IndustryInitiatives/PaperlessTonnageReporting.aspx

PFTR Cover Letter Working Group: Lila Brown, Patrick Hart, Joe Slater, Steve McMurry, April Hunt, David

Chinn and Bette Jo Evans – no action at this time

Jon Nevins, Lion Software, presented and provided a handout, “State Fertilizer Tonnage Reporting Just Got Easier”

to the group. He explained that UFTRS is fixed to import standard text files. The UDEAL software is modernized

with a mobile app, uDealMobile, to export new XML as well as proposed CSV files to help industry meet the

paperless reporting initiative. Information on uDealMobile is at: www.uftrs.com or www.lionsoftware.net

http://www.fertton.com/

http://www.pftrguide.com/

http://www.aggateway.org/WorkingGroups/IndustryInitiatives/PaperlessTonnageReporting.aspx

http://www.uftrs.com/

http://www.lionsoftware.net/


Terms & Definitions

AGENDA Terms & Definitions Committee

AAPFCO 2016 Winter Annual Meeting

Albuquerque, NM

February 22, 2016 (1 – 4:30 pm) Pavilion I-III, Foyer

CALL TO ORDER

1. Welcome, roll call of committee members and introduction of guests. (5 minutes) Facilitator: Katie Laney

2. Agenda review and approval (5 minutes) Chair

3. Annual Meeting Report Review and Approval (5 minutes) Chair

4. AAPFCO Membership Voting Items at Winter Annual 2016, Terms and Definitions can act on these depending on the outcome of the Membership vote. Available to delete, stay tentative, official. (20 minutes) Chair

T-93 Soluble Silicon – is that portion of the silicon contained in non-liquid fertilizer materials and/or beneficial compounds that is soluble in a mixture of 0.094 Molar Sodium Carbonate and 0.20 Molar Ammonium Nitrate and is a measure of monosilicic acid by a validated or approved method. It is expressed as H4SiO4

T-70 Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer – Describes fertilizer products with characteristics that

allow increased nutrient availability and reduce potential of nutrient losses to the environment e.g., gaseous losses, leaching or runoff when compared to an appropriate reference product.

T-71 Slow Release – Are fertilizer products that release (convert to a plant-available form) their

plant nutrients at a slower rate relative to a “reference soluble” product. Examples of slow-release products are coated or occluded, which control the release of soluble nutrients through coating or occlusion of the water soluble nutrient compounds, water insoluble, or slowly available water-soluble.

BSC-1 Calcium Silicate – Is derived from naturally occurring minerals such as Wollastonite or may be synthetically derived, having the principal formula of CaSiO3, and is a source of Calcium and Soluble Silicon.

N-62 Feather Meal - Consisting of ground and processed bird feathers, a byproduct of poultry

processing.

Working Group Recommendation:

Feather Meal - Ground and dried poultry feathers.

Hydrolyzed Feather Meal - The product resulting from the heating by steam under


pressure of undecomposed feathers from slaughtered poultry.

T-77 Low Phosphate Fertilizer – Means fertilizer products intended for new or established urban turf or lawns, with available phosphate levels equal to or above 0.5% P2O5 and an application rate not to exceed 0.25 lb P2O5/1000 sq ft/application and 0.5 lb P2O5/1000 sq ft/year.

Calcium Polysaccharide – a complex formed by the reaction of calcium with polysaccharide long chain carbohydrates.

Iron EDDHSA – Is an iron(III) chelate of ethylenediamine di-(2-hydroxyl-5sulfophenylacetic) acid and is commonly expressed as FeEDDHSA.

UAN/Calcium Solutions – Manufactured as liquid mixtures of UAN solution and water soluble calcium solutions containing calcium chloride or calcium nitrate. If sufficient water soluble calcium is added to produce a calcium to urea nitrogen ratio equal to or greater than 0.2, the resulting product can be considered an enhanced efficiency fertilizer since the soluble calcium mitigates ammonia volatilization loss when compared to UAN, the enhanced efficiency reference product standard

BSC-7 Calcium Magnesium Silicates - are compounds derived from fused silicates, mined

materials, or synthetically manufactured materials contained in fertilizer, fertilizer materials, fertilizer blends, and/or beneficial compounds and are sources of calcium and magnesium when extracted with a validated method that includes hydrochloric acid. They may also be a source of Soluble Silicon.

N-47 Soybean Meal – Is the product remaining after extracting most of the oil from whole

soybeans.

5. Old Business ( hours) Chair Available to move to tentative, table, or no action

Managing required statements for labeling of naturally occurring nutritive metals derived from

phosphate materials – (10 minutes) Working Group: Ben Jones, Eddies Simmons, Don Wolf, Dale Woods, Frank Sikora, Vicky Childs, Michelle shot, Betty Joe Evans, Mary Provance-Bowley, John yzenas, Bill Hall, Bill Easterwood, Jack Peters, Sandy Simon, Kerry Cooner

Working Group Recommendation:

_________________________________________________________________________________ Phosphorous acid and its potassium and calcium salts – Verdesian Life Sciences, Gary Orr (New material

located on the AAPFCO secure site)

Proposed Definition: Are phosphite fertilizer products that, when applied to soil, provide phosphate at a slower rate relative to phosphate based fertilizers. (20 minutes)

_________________________________________________________________________________ Maleic – itaconic copolymer and its salts – enhanced efficiency fertilizer products for use in nitrogen or

phosphorus management. (20 minutes) – Verdesian Life Sciences, Gary Orr (New material located on the AAPFCO secure site)

Proposed Definitions:

The partial Calcium Salt of Maleic-Itaconic Copolymer – A substance composed of a partial calcium salt of Maleic-Itaconic Copolymer that stabilizes soil nitrogen when applied on granular ammoniacal nitrogen fertilizers or mixed into liquid ammoniacal nitrogen fertilizers


The partial Ammonium Salt of Maleic-Itaconic Copolymer – A substance that, when applied to mixed with liquid phosphate fertilizers, reduces the fixation of phosphorus in fertilizers derived from treated fertilizers in soil.

The partial Sodium Salt of Maleic-Itaconic Copolymer – A substance that, when applied to liquid granular phosphate fertilizers, reduces the fixation of phosphorus in fertilizers in soil.

________________________________________________________________________________ Biosolids (Aquaculture) – Florida Organic Aquaculture, Adam Hernandez (Secure Site)

Proposed Definition: A primary organic solid material produced by farming processes that can be beneficially recycled for its plant nutrient content and soil amending characteristics. Aquaculture By-product - A solid material, primarily organic matter, produced by cultivating aquatic animals and plants. It can be beneficially recycled for its plant nutrient content and soil amending characteristics. Below is the most up to date definition request: Aquaculture By-product - A solid material, primarily organic matter, produced by cultivating aquatic animals and plants. It can be beneficially recycled for its plant nutrient content and soil amending characteristics.

________________________________________________________________________________ N-(n-propyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NPPT) – BASF, George Fountas (Secure Site)

Proposed Definition: Compound that is the normal propyl derivative of thiophosphoric triamides and is a urease inhibitor. CAS Number 916809-14-8. (20 minutes)

6. New Business – Proposed Definitions (40 minutes) Chair. Available to move to tentative, table, or no action Potassium Sulphite – Michael Hojjatie, Tessenderlo Kerley (Submitted 10/20/15)

Proposed Definition: is a potash salt (K2SO3) containing not less than 59% soluble K2O soluble potash (K2O) and 20% S sulfur (S). It is often sold as an aqueous solution containing twenty-three percent (23%) soluble potash (K2O), and eight percent (8%) sulfur (S). Label: http://tirmsdev.com/Tessenderlo-Kerley-Inc-K-ROW-23-p44747#.ViUeBK2FMdU Methods of Analyses: AOAC Official Method 958.02 (STBP), potassium in fertilizers for measurement of K AOAC Official Method 980.02, Sulfur in Fertilizers, Gravimetric Method, for analyses of S. The product has a low salt index and has been recommended for in furrow use. It is safe to seedlings. This is a patented application.

_____________________________________________________________________________ Ron Alexander – Proposing changes to T-33 Composting and T-34 Compost definitions. Proposed changes

were given to control officials for review. Working group will need to be formed to review proposed changes, if needed. (Submitted 11/20/15)

_____________________________________________________________________________ Sulfur – Bill Hall (Application on AAPFCO Secure Site) (Submitted 12/22/15)

S 13# Sulfur (S°) - Free sulfur in its elemental form. Sulfur particles that are less than 100µ can oxidize over time and are a source of slow release sulfur. If slow release sulfur is claimed, only the portion that is

http://tirmsdev.com/Tessenderlo-Kerley-Inc-K-ROW-23-p44747#.ViUeBK2FMdU


less than 100µ would be considered slow release.

___________________________________________________________________________ Gluconate – Lesley Lyle (ProPlus Products) application on AAPFCO Secure Site (Submitted 1/4/16)

Calcium Gluconate – Is a calcium chelate of gluconic acid, and is commonly expressed as Ca gluconate. Magnesium Gluconate – is a magnesium chelate of gluconic acid, and is commonly expressed as Mg

gluconate. Manganese Gluconate – is a manganese chelate of gluconic acid, and is commonly expressed as Mn

gluconate. Iron Gluconate – is an iron chelate of gluconic acid, and is commonly expressed as Fe gluconate. Zinc Gluconate – is a zinc chelate of gluconic acid, and is commonly expressed as Zn gluconate. Boron Gluconate – is a boron chelate of gluconic acid, and is commonly expressed as B gluconate.

___________________________________________________________________________ GSSG – Masahiko Yamada, Kaneka Corporation (submitted 1/7/16) Proposed Nitrogen source

Oxidized glutathione (GSSG), is a dimer of a tripeptide reduced glutathione (GSH), consisting of glycine, cysteine, and glutamic acid

7. Next Steps - Assignments and Agenda Items for next meeting (5 minutes) Chair

Association of American Plant Food Control Officials Terms & Definitions Committee

2015 Summer Annual Meeting Report Denver, CO

August 6, 2015

Members Present: Sarah Adams, James Bartos, Phil Davidson, Ben Jones, Katie Laney, Lance Kunneman, Mark LeBlanc, Chad Linton, Steve McMurry, Matt Pearson, Eddie Simons, Joe Slater, Sharon Webb, Don Wolf, Nick Young Industry Liaisons Present: Ron Alexander, Deborah Allen, David Beaudreau, Fred Carney, David Chinn, Kerry Cooner, Bill Easterwood, Angela Fields, Wade Foster, Greg Haberkost, Bill Hall, Michael Hojjatie, Eric Johnson, Pat Johnson, Robert LaGasse, Rusty Millar, Jack Peters, John Peterson, Mary Provance-Bowley, Rebekah Ramirez, Craig Robinson, Michelle Schott, Sandy Simon, Jim Skillen, Jamie Staufenbeil, Lisa Strong, Russell Taylor Facilitator – Phil Davidson Scribe – Sharon Webb Committee Objectives

Review list of tentative terms and definitions previously brought before the committee and vote to retain them in tentative status, move to official status, or delete them.

Review and discuss new agenda items brought before the committee

Agenda Review and Approval The Annual agenda was approved unanimously without modifications. (Matt Pearson/Katie Laney) Motion passed Meeting Report Review and Approval The Summer Annual meeting report was reviewed and approved. (Katie Laney/Joe Slater) Motion passed. Overview of Action Items -


Old Business

T-93 Soluble Silicon – is that portion of the silicon contained in fertilizer or fertilizer materials that is

soluble in a mixture of 0.094 Molar Sodium Carbonate and 0.20 Molar Ammonium Nitrate by a validated or approved method, which is an indicator of available silicon. (Tentative status)

Working Group poses this as a replacement term: T-93 Soluble Silicon – is that portion of the silicon contained in non-liquid fertilizer materials

and/or beneficial compounds that is soluble in a mixture of 0.094 Molar Sodium Carbonate and 0.20 Molar Ammonium Nitrate and is a measure of monosilicic acid by a validated or approved method. It is expressed as H4SiO4 Comments:

Bartos (IN, Chair, Working Group): recommendation to H4SiO4 from Si(OH)4 Wolf (WA): unclear as to how make claim on label available vs soluble definition; manufacturers have many label claims; need to be clear as to what we require and what is supposed to do. McMurry: labeling guidelines are in the OP. Why does it have to be non-liquid? Bartos (IN): The current method best correlates plant uptake with available silicon. For liquids the result is total silicon. Available: to get away from the term available, too much subjectivity and side reactions; we can say with certainty as it is soluble. McMurry: new working group, with Bartos chair. There are many different labels coming through offices so there is much confusion. Charge to Labeling (David): need to address complications; on the agenda for tomorrow Bill: from soil chemistry point of view, first coming off is silicate acid forms which is the water soluble form. The above form is the driving force behind the chemistry in soil. If we guarantee Beneficial Substances with a number, do we need a minimum or no? Need to know agronomic amount to be? McMurry: we don’t have them yet, could be created, Laney will address in uniform bills. John (levey) some of the foliar applications have very low Si numbers, well below 1%, depending on the product. McMurry: remember Si intro for lawn and garden. No other data has been presented.

Motion to stay tentative with H4SiO4 correction: James Bartos/Joe Slater: Motion passed T-70 Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer – Describes fertilizer products with characteristics that allow

increased nutrient availability and reduce potential of nutrient losses to the environment e.g., gaseous losses, leaching or runoff when compared to an appropriate reference product. (Tentative status) Motion to stay tentative: Chad Linton/Matt Pearson. Motion passed

T-71 Slow Release – Are fertilizer products that release (convert to a plant-available form) their plant

nutrients at a slower rate relative to a “reference soluble” product. Examples of slow-release products are coated or occluded, which control the release of soluble nutrients through coating or occlusion of the water soluble nutrient compounds, water insoluble, or slowly available water-soluble. (Tentative status) Motion to stay tentative: Joe Slater/Katie Laney. Motion passed

BSC-1 Calcium Silicate – Is derived from naturally occurring minerals such as Wollastonite or synthetically derived, having the principal formula of CaSiO3, and is a source of Calcium. (Tentative status)

Working Group poses this as a replacement term: BSC-1 Calcium Silicate – Is derived from naturally occurring minerals such as Wollastonite or may

be synthetically derived, having the principal formula of CaSiO3, and is a source of Calcium and Soluble Silicon. Comments: Bartos: just want to emphasize as source as Ca and Si. Motion to stay tentative: James Bartos/Mark LeBlanc: Motion passed

K-8 Sulfate of Potash-Magnesia - Is a potash salt containing not less than twenty percent (20%) soluble

potash (K2O) nor less than ten percent (10%) magnesium (Mg) and not more than two and one-half percent (2.5%) chlorine (Cl) [may be expressed as chloride (Cl-)]. (Tentative status)


Motion to move to official: Joe Slater/Lance Kunneman: Motion passed K-9 Double Sulfate of Potash and Magnesia (Langbeinite) - Is a commercial product containing not

less than twenty-one percent (21%) soluble potash (K2O) nor less than fifty-three percent (53%) sulfate of magnesia and not more than two and one-half percent (2.5%) chlorine [may be expressed as chloride (Cl-)]. (Tentative status) Motion to move to official: Joe Slater/Mark LeBlanc: Motion passed

SUIP 32 – When appearing on a label, chlorine (Cl) may be expressed as Chloride (Cl-) or Chlorine (Cl).

Motion to move to official: Matt Pearson/Don Wolf: Motion passed N-42 Protein Hydrolysate – is the organic material obtained by the hydrolysis of proteins to their

constituent amino acids and short polypeptides. They are a source of nitrogen. The definition is used by prefixing the term with the name of the protein from which the hydrolysate is derived. Examples include Fish Protein Hydrolysate or Soy Protein Hydrolysate. (Tentative status) Motion to move to official: Joe Slater/James Bartos: Motion passed

N-62 Feather Meal - Consisting of ground and processed bird feathers, a byproduct of poultry processing.

Working Group: Ben Jones, Ron Alexander, Michelle Schott, Lawrence Mayhew, Sharon Webb Working Group Recommendation:

Feather Meal - Ground and dried poultry feathers.

Hydrolyzed Feather Meal - The product resulting from the heating by steam under pressure of

undecomposed feathers from slaughtered poultry. Motion to keep N-62 tentative and table the working group recommendation to the next meeting. James Bartos/Joe Slater. Motion passed. Comments: Jones: I don’t know what to say. This was the result of a majority vote.

Carney: years ago we decided not to tie definitions to process. Now here it is. May want to reconsider that. SM: part of the discussion we had. They didn’t like not having it undefined.

Schott: Trying to get away from “hydrolyzed” as part of the term, but have it in the definition to tie to potential processes in the future to make products.

Bartos: if you have something currently labeled as feather meal, but it’s hydrolyzed, can you still use feather meal? SM: currently yet. But in the future it would have to be changed.

Simon: hydro and feather meal have both been used on labels for many years and not defined. Shouldn’t really affect industry either way; but currently undefined. Michael: Looks like ground & dried feather meal are insoluble in H2O, but hydrolyze implies h2o soluble. Hydrolyze distinction from undissolved. Young (CA): what is the necessity of “undecomposed” in definition? Bartos (IN): To move forward, I make a motion to keep as tentative then have these 2 defs for vote at next meeting.

Motion to keep tentative. (Bartos/Slater). Discussion: Simon: since in tentative status, can’t just make changes now? SM: I agree with you, not what the motion was for. JB: I accept friendly amendment to accept working group recommends change to N-62, and hydrolyzed feather

meal as a new term. Ron: any reason can’t remove “undecomposed”? SM: no Jones: no. thoughts and recommendation from working group members? Michael: maybe question is feathermeal as decomposes as something else… SM: it turns to something else… Michael: so that’s why we need the term to differentiate it.


Slater: do we know when feathers start to decompose Ron: I can’t speak to this, but if we vote I will research and report back to the committee. Slater: I’ll research and determine the # for new term will be. Motion carries

T-101 Biochar - is a solid material obtained from thermochemical conversion of biomass in an oxygen-limited environment. Labeling biochar materials shall be designated by prefixing the name with the feedstock from which it was produced; i.e. poultry litter biochar, green waste biochar, papermill biochar, etc. When more than one feedstock is involved, all feedstocks greater than 10% of the total volume are to be listed by decreasing volume. Their uses include soil amendments.

Working Group: Lance Kunneman, Dale Woods, Don Delorme, Don Wolf, Glenn Murray, Angela

Fields, Debbie Reed, John Peterson, Sandy Simon Working Group Recommendation: Biochar - is a solid material obtained from thermochemical conversion of biomass in an oxygen-limited

environment (pyrolysis) containing at least 60% carbon. Feedstocks may be composed of crop residue, wood or other forest waste, and animal manures. Materials transported in salt water, painted, or treated with preservatives are not permitted. When listing biochar in an ingredient statement, the feedstock shall be designated by prefixing the term biochar with the feedstock from which it was produced; i.e. poultry litter biochar, green waste biochar, papermill biochar, etc. When more than one feedstock is involved, all feedstocks greater than 10% of the total volume are to be listed by decreasing volume. Their uses include soil amendments.

Motion to move to official: Don Wolf/Lance Kunneman: Motion passed

Comments: Bartos: Question, since mentioned specifically soil amendments, can they not also be classified as fertilizer. Thayer Tomlin: Depending on the feedstock their levels will vary quite a bit.

Mary: Because of all of these different sources, do all of these perform the same function and doing the same thing? If it’s wood based, d(source), the next feedstock of wood could be different than previous. Very hard to control to make it uniform with each stock from lot to lot. Am I correct? Do all of these act the same? Thayer Tomlin: 1st part, we as IBI created standards to have definition and methodology. We consider hard woods as 1 type; soft wood as 1 type; if process is same, then each type should be very similar. We require if lot changes by 10% or more, then have to retest. 2nd part, the feed stock will definitely change as they change. Biochar is a spectrum of materials. Wolf: Starts off as organic material (gave eg), there will be variation in the product. No big deal. This is the nature of the product. Lance: reason we are talking about different kinds of biochars, use prefix to differentiate. Don’t know how many of these are really going to claim nutrients. Kind of like compost. That’s why we included the soil amendment Eddie: feedstock, before as feed stocks coming in doesn’t it follow federal waste laws. David: before falls into that, they can manipulate it. D(what doing before it’s biochar). Eddie: same issue with compost. Wolf: move to change to official

Motion to move to official. (Wolf/Lance). Discussion: Russell Taylor: concern for heavy metal contaminants in biochar? Wolf: why not allowed with preservatives, as Canada has dealt. Mary: is there a minimum time to remain in aerobic environment or certain temperature? Thayer Tomlin: Again it d(fs & time) about 400 to 450 C, c is stable.

Mary: have issue of export/import of materials in/out of US, even though community is self-policing. How do we make sure imported biochar is meeting our standards.

Bill: can this be addressed with only temp? Slater: if this is a fertilizer or a soil amendment, we have contamination issues addressed/clauses. Have to meet federal requirements and be certified.

Motion carries Hall: Heard about a method? How do we access it? Has it been peer reviewed? Skillen: only thing referenced is a % of carbon. Pyrolysis is defined too.


Lance: as we were doing this, toby looked into checking c methods in products: found 3. but didn’t put into definition.

T-77 Low Phosphate Fertilizer – Means fertilizer products intended for new or established urban turf or lawns, with available phosphate levels equal to or above 0.5% P2O5 and an application rate not to exceed 0.25 lb P2O5/1000 sq ft/application and 0.5 lb P2O5/1000 sq ft/year.

Motion to keep as tentative with addition of equal to or: Mark LeBlanc/Matt Pearson: Motion passed

Board Recommendation: T-77 Low Phosphate Fertilizer – Means fertilizer products intended for new or established urban turf or

lawns, with available phosphate levels of 0.5% to 5% P2O5 equal to or above 0.5% P2O5 and an application rate not to exceed 0.25 lb P2O5/1000 sq ft/application and 0.5 lb P2O5/1000 sq ft/year. Comments: SM: As it is above, matches Florida. Change to below, it will be different. Wolf: problem was that 0.5% is not defined unless we change it. Phil: discussion arose, because above 0.5% is a low p2O5? SM: if it meets the application rate, then yes it is.

SS: was part of the painful experiment in Florida, when you put > 0.5%, 0.5% was considered AV, originally there was no upper limit. No upper limit due to attempting to balance out nitrogen rates. Very challenging from a formulation point of view. Gave manufacturers a little flexibility to meet regulations in Florida. Eddie: says it’s for new or established turf or lawns. Does it mean fertilizer for other purposes can’t use that term now? Eddie: there are situations where low may be effective. Peters: my question too…low phosphate, has 10 ratio of n to p. has nothing to do with turf or rates. Bartos: part of the sensitivity is not to get hung up on 5%; it was so that a MAP or DAP can’t be a low phosphate product. SM: yes they should if they follow the rate of application. Application determines the low phosphate or not. SS: not seen a product in Florida as a low-phosphate product. Intent was to address necessity of this, but not labeled as it. Mary: low phosphate only applies to city turf? Not suburbs. SM: intent is to any lawns and any turfs anywhere. Not applicable to turf farm. Chinn: look at p. 78 for clarification Smith: definition of established? Phil: in op, turf older than 1 year. New lawn up to 1 year is starter Peterson: t 73 p 79

Motion to below definition to remain tentative . (LaBlanc/Slater). Discussion: SM: bottom version is inconsistent to Florida law. 5% is arbitrary. Linked to application rate is sufficient. Ayes (yes): 6 Ayes (no): 6 Tie broken by Laney against. Motion fails. SM: Clarification of why 0.5% discretion/discreet LaBlanc: Move T-77 with equal to or above to tentative. Slater: still allows a MAP sample to be labeled as a low phosphate fertilizer. Calcium Polysaccharide – is an organic compound of calcium with polysaccharide long chain carbohydrates.

Calcium Polysaccharide – is an organic compound mixture of calcium with polysaccharide long chain carbohydrates. Discussion at Winter Annual 2015

Sponsoring company would like to propose the following revised definition (May 2015): Calcium Polysaccharide – a complex formed by the reaction of calcium with polysaccharide long chain carbohydrates. Comments: SM: representing company is here. They submitted the revised version (below).


Discussion: Bartos: I support this. Was concerned that someone would mix calcium with sugar. This corrects this. Michael: what reaction makes this? What is the structure? What is the organic portion? How long does the chain have to be? Erik McGee: It is a reaction under controlled temperature, pressure, and pH. It’s not just a mixing. The reaction is a liquid and it’s a complexed mineral with a saccharide. It’s essentially a long chain of glucose that are broken down by the process. Bartos: have method for determining ca, but is there one for carbohydrate? Erik: ca originates from cano32. Method determining ca is not affected by carbohydrate chain. Bartos: if you want to measure polysaccharide, is there a reference for this? Erik: not that I’m aware of. SM: ca source, no polysaccharide guarantee. Bartos: how do we know source? Peterson: Since it’s from calcium nitrate, is there going to be a n guarantee? And what about the source of N? Erik: currently source of nitrogen is calcium nitrate and is on the label. With new definition we’d still have to have to have n on label. But not sure if need to have n source on label. Sharon: claiming N? Erik: We do. SM: what’s typical Ca guarantee? Erik: 6%. Joe: n? Erik: 4% Michael: how do you differentiate between ca from calcium nitrate vs ca from polysaccharide? SM: if derived from statement lists both, it doesn’t matter. Bill Easterwood: say derived from both? SM: unless they had different form of ca…it would Eddie: looking at OP p. 92, cu sucrate: an organic complex. I’m not a chemist, but definition should be similar to this and replace short chain with long chain as it is here. SM: got me man. Erik: Originally proposed it as organic and currently Zn, Mn, and Cu has that organic. At time organic eludes to containing c, but now organic has different meaning in the industry. So that’s the reason we changed from organic to complex.

Motion to tentative status: Matt Pearson/Katie Laney: Motion passed Managing required statements for labeling of naturally occurring nutritive metals derived from

phosphate materials – (10 minutes) Working Group: Ben Jones, Eddies Simons, Don Wolf, Dale Woods, Frank Sikora, Vicky Childs, Michelle shot, Betty Joe Evans, Mary Provance-Bowley, John Yzenas, Bill Hall, Bill Easterwood, Jack Peters, Sandy Simon, Kerry Cooner

Working Group Recommendation: Comments:

Bill: Recommendation is to keep moving on. No motion required. Bill: Kerry Cooner needs to be added, was erroneously left off. Discussed in TFI Quality. This is an issue concerning other materials as well. TFI agreed to act as resource for working group. SM: Working group needs some time…by February working group needs to have time for face to face at next meeting.

Phosphorous acid and its potassium and calcium salts – Are phosphite fertilizer products that, when

applied to soil, provide phosphate at a slower rate relative to phosphate based fertilizers. (20 minutes) Comments:

Bartos: may conflict with what we are working on in SR right now. We are recommending that slow release needs to be 50% of material available. Gary: no precise kinetics across all soil types. Study in Germany doesn’t show that mass balance. But we can do that research. People only care about P2O5 and ignore the rest. Need a definition for CA use. SM: all material submitted is on secure site on the AAPFCO for control officials to review. Bartos: one caveat that may help, “unless otherwise stated”…if not more than half is available in the first year, you would have to have that statement on the label. You don’t have to have the quantification of the


nutrient. Eddie: I have multiple issues with these. Most phophite products are for foliar applications. If it’s not touching the soil, it won’t be available later. P2O5 compete with uptake with phosphite. Get starvation response & stops puling P2O5 in. So plant can’t use it. Phosphite is a known pesticide that must be registered with EPA and EU will be requiring this label. Gary: levels proposing on labels are much lower than phosphate so there will be no competing this. EU allows it to be used as fertilizers for years. Rates on our labels don’t approach the pesticide levels. Sharon: foliar or not? Gary: both on label depends on what grower wants to do. Eddie: looked at labels and rates and timing match pesticide and fert. Gary: did you do the conversion? Eddie: yes. Gary: I did too, we should compare notes. Amy: I see these as well. I want to know what the slower rate is and guaranteed on label. What is the slower rate as vs P2O5 SM: covered in slow release definition Bartos: Joe brought up point, determining phosphorus using our methods wouldn’t detect this form at all. I do not know if we have to define a method here or not. Gary: phosphite can be determined by using a differential method (moly gravimetric) Bartos: my point, you need to specify or you would get a violation

Motion to table until more information is available: Matt Pearson/James Bartos: Motion passed

Maleic – itaconic copolymer and its salts – enhanced efficiency fertilizer products for use in nitrogen or phosphorus management.

The partial Calcium Salt of Maleic-Itaconic Copolymer – A substance composed of a partial calcium salt of Maleic-Itaconic Copolymer that stabilizes soil nitrogen when applied on granular ammoniacal nitrogen fertilizers or mixed into liquid ammoniacal nitrogen fertilizers

The partial Ammonium Salt of Maleic-Itaconic Copolymer – A substance that, when mixed with liquid phosphate fertilizers, reduces the fixation of phosphorus derived from treated fertilizers in soil.

The partial Sodium Salt of Maleic-Itaconic Copolymer – A substance that, when applied to granular phosphate fertilizers, reduces the fixation of phosphorus in fertilizers in soil. Comments:

Bartos: need to evaluate methods before considering this. Gary: method was in package. Only finished using the method last week. Had a faulty column. Limitations are the limitations of SPC and detector is RI. SM: all of this is available on secure AAPFCO site, even the new method. Jim True: looking at 2nd definition, left out word “derived” or were they supposed to be the same. Gary: yes they are. SM: I’ll correct that as we move forward.

Motion: Table for further review (Slater/Eddie). Discussion: Mary: Since heading is EEF and there is separation of slow/control, is it better to have under slow rather than just EEF. Michael: First one with ca salt, looks like it stabilizes n, so it’s a n stabilizer. 2nd &3rd says fixation. Gary: Soluble P2O5 becomes fixed with various metals in the soil. We’ve submitted some research demonstrating where the polymer makes it so that the P2O5 doesn’t become fixed. Michael: is there any research that supports the claims. Gary: more concerned with the analytical method. Field research is there. Bartos: can have working group make a recommendation on the method to the committee. Gary: method is 2 parts: demonstrates the presence of the polymer; 2nd demonstrates quantifies water and solvents SM: trade names are out there and can google and get all the data you want. Good or bad. Used to be defined in AAPFCO OP and was deleted. There is as much as good as Bill: If moves forward, needs to be discussed in slow released committee too. Should be part of the work. Galen Mooso: Worked with these products for many years. They aren’t slow release products, they are management products. I disagree with SM. Motion: Aye (yes): 9 Aye (no): 4


Motion passes.

Motion to table until more information is available: Joe Slater/Eddie Simons: Motion passed

N-(n-propyl) thiophosphoric triamide (NPPT) – Compound that is the normal propyl derivative of thiophosphoric triamides and is a urease inhibitor. CAS Number 916809-14-8.

Comments: Michael: NBPT is well known and established. Is this product a ME product or behaves differently? More information needed. Bartos: is all the efficacy data presented? SM: on secure AAPFCO Michael: the sponsor not here. For other is method and data. What method was provided? SM: IDK

Motion to table until more information is available: Mark LeBlanc/Joe Slater: Motion passed

New Business – Proposed Definitions

Iron EDDHSA – Is an iron(III) chelate of ethylenediamine di-(2-hydroxyl-5sulfophenylacetic) acid and is commonly expressed as FeEDDHSA.

Comments: Rebecca Ramirez: We didn’t submit this definition, but are willing to provide method of analysis if will help move forward. Peterson: we see a lot of this material being offered to us. It is a true chelate. Ph in soil and higher solubility and can be handled more conveniently. We don’t make it but support it. Pat Johnson: these are new business, so they submitted to you, so you have the efficacy data…but they are not here. How do you progress? SM: yes on secure site. Yes they submit to me. You’ve been in my position, you know how it works. Pat: so, what happened to company being here? SM: I informed them the best way to move forward was to be in the room. Pat: so Rebecca has that information about methods, can it move forward

Motion to move to tentative (Wolf/Young). Discussion:

Bartos: I think they should be here to defend their position. If you can’t be here to defend, then it’s low bar. To explain my no vote.

Aye (yes): 9 Aye (NO): 5

Motion to move to tentative status: Don Wolf/Nick Young: Motion passed UAN/Calcium Solutions – Manufactured as liquid mixtures of UAN solution and water soluble calcium

solutions containing calcium chloride or calcium nitrate. If sufficient water soluble calcium is added to produce a calcium to urea nitrogen ratio equal to or greater than 0.2, the resulting product can be considered an enhanced efficiency fertilizer since the soluble calcium mitigates ammonia volatilization loss when compared to UAN, the enhanced efficiency reference product standard Comments:

Bill Easterwood: This has been used in the EU…mixed with thiosulfate. It’s a beautiful thing because the supporting work was done in 1970’s (have to be liquid to mix with urea). Other companies have used the cl way to do it. Mechanism on how it works: professor with IL, it’s an insurance policy to get your fert on the ground. You precipitate the carbonate out and you don’t have the volatization of NH3. Why did I use 0.2%? That’s where you saw the first reduction in the original papers. Saw it work positively in the late 90’s and in the Ukraine. Had some amazing results from NCState when the weather is perfect. pH matters too. POV of EEF, to reduce NH3 volatization. Joe: What is the guarantee? Bill: I have breakdown. Eg., 23% N, 22% NH3, 8.05% N is NO3, 9.89 is Urea N. With that this was a solution that had the ratio of 0.43 Michael: p. 89 in the OP, it is a n stabilizer by forming cano32. Peterson: is it the ratio of urea? Or urea n? Bill: ratio of ca to urea. (% Ca/% urea); urea n (% Ca/%urea N) SM: need to change?


Bill: I agree with Peterson. Slater: yeah we can change that to urea nitrogen. Will qualify for # symbol to allow product to claim EEF. N-63.

Motion to move to tentative: Joe Slater/Katie Laney: Motion passed Biosolids (Aquaculture) – A primary organic solid material produced by farming processes that can be

beneficially recycled for its plant nutrient content and soil amending characteristics. Comments: Ron: Biosolids created to be specific to ONLY treated, processed, sewage. Bartos: IDK if there are any safety issues? Ron: biosolids refers to type 2dry treated sewage. SM: yes this is treated and feel that biosolids matches.

Mary: IIUC, I think biosolid originally EPA term. So, not sure feces from human/cow/fish…got diseases to be treated. IDU why you’re making the distinction. Katie: concerned with solid material produced by farming processes too vague. Phil: biosolids is EPA definitions from 90’s to address the human waste. There are allowances for it on agriculture environment Joe: SUIP : meet n-19, p. 67. Kelly Friend: Florida has over 900 fish farms, not sure where this fits, but it would be nice to have a specific term.

Motion to table until more information is available: James Bartos/Matt Pearson: Motion passed

BSC-7 Calcium Magnesium Silicates - are compounds derived from fused silicates, mined materials, or synthetically manufactured materials contained in fertilizer, fertilizer materials, fertilizer blends, and/or beneficial compounds and are sources of calcium and magnesium when extracted with a validated method that includes hydrochloric acid. They may also be a source of Soluble Silicon.

Motion to move to tentative: James Bartos/Mark LeBlanc: Motion passed

Next Steps - Assignments and Agenda Items for next meeting

Comments: David Chinn: would committee like to consider making sponsoring company be here in order to consider new terms. Slater: we missed N-47 soybean meal…needs to delete. Motion to move N-47 to tentative because we have seed meal definition. Joe Slater/Katie Laney. Motion passed.

Bartos: Echo what David said…have a time limit if no consensus reached and company not here, to go on so as not to waste time. SM: This is a terms and definitions policy, doesn’t need to go to the board. We can go on and put a qualifier in the paperwork that it is highly encouraged that they be here. Also asking if can put on secure site because the files are too big for email. Dick Camp: If I have a question on labeling, who do I go see? David: Uniform Bills

Motion to adj


Laboratory Group

Slow Release

DRAFT MEETING AGENDA Association of American Plant Food Control Officials

Slow Release Committee Tuesday February 23, 2016 Time: 8:00 am to 10:00 am

Albuquerque, NM Pavilion IV-V

All Agenda Times—Including Public Comment and Adjournment—Are Subject to Change

Meeting Objectives

Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda, Report, Meeting Schedule, and Work Plan)

Provide Updates on Existing Programs, Initiatives and Studies.

Consider Public Comment

Consider Committee Member Comments and Issues

Identify Needed Next Steps, Assignments, and Agenda Items For Next Meeting

Meeting Agenda Discussion Leader Min.

Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review and Approval James Bartos 5

Approval of Last Meetings Minutes/Report James 5

Old business - Status of the following terms:

Update/Comments regarding SR and CR terms James 5

Update/Status on Soil and Accelerated Lab Methods Bill Hall 5

Concerns/recommendations regarding EE term James/Group 20

Current:

T-70 Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer – Describes fertilizer products with characteristics that allow increased [plant uptake] nutrient availability and reduce potential of nutrient losses to the environment [e.g. gaseous losses, leaching or runoff] when compared to an appropriate reference product. (Official 2009) (Tentative 2014) Some expressed concerns: 1) How is nutrient availability determined, by plant uptake? What if nutrient availability is

increased, but the plant does not take up the nutrient is it still an EE? 2) What about conditions (e.g. adequate moisture, temperature variations, proper use, etc.),

does something about the conditions need to be stated in the definition? 3) Is the definition broad enough to cover any new technologies or approaches? 4) How do you get an EE designation (€, *, # in OP)? 5) Others? Some suggested changes: T-70 Enhanced Efficiency Fertilizer – under normal growing conditions in which the product would be used, Enhanced Efficiency describes fertilizer products with characteristics that allow


increased nutrient availability and/or plant uptake and reduce potential of nutrient losses to the environment [e.g. gaseous losses, leaching or runoff] when compared to an appropriate reference product. (Official 2009) (Tentative 2016)

Meeting Agenda Discussion Leader Min.

New Business

Nutrient Star Rating/Certification (Environmental Defense Fund) Alan Blaylock/ Lara Moody 25 Slow Release Policy and Stabilized Fertilizers (p. 128 OP#68) James/Group 20

Updates and/or issues brought up during SR/CR/EE terms discussions:

Inclusion of 15% rule

Clarity on longevity claims (need examples?)

Clarity on approach to substantiate claims (lab and/or field data; number and type of studies, etc.)

Recognized or approved methodology

Pure products vs. blends

Time frame and/or labeling criteria for SR (e.g. what portion needs to be released in first growing season)

What if product has components of both SR and CR (i.e. SCU) or isn’t a good fit for either?

Clarity on release variability (moisture, temperature, product handling, etc.)

International/ISO TC-134 Efforts Regarding SR/CR Fertilizers Hugh Rodrigues/Bill 10

Educational Efforts? Group 5

Application, handling, blending, etc.

Approaches

Other possible topics Group 5

Other topics of interest?

Public Comment/Input/Issues Guests 5

Committee Member’s Comments and Issues Members 5

Next Steps, Assignments & Agenda Items for Next Meeting James/Group 5

Adjourn

Contact Information: James Bartos, Chair (interim); [email protected] ; 765-494-1560

Committee Members:

Control Officials James Bartos (acting chair), Eric Delzer, Paul Eggeman, Kris Gulliver, Patty Lucas, Yong Pu, Bobby Sanchez, Eddie Simons, Robert Waltz, Sharon Webb

Industry Liaison Deb Allen, Bob Ames, Beth Anderson, Alan Blaylock, Fred Carney, Tom Fairwether, Wade Foster, Greg Haberkost, Bill Hall, Jon Hartshorn, Dave Heegard, Michael Hojjatie, Jim Jenkins, Michelle Le Heiget, Galen Mooso, Michelle Schott,



Douglas Sell, Sandy Simon, Jim Skillen, Jamie Staufenbeil, Nancy Thiex, Dion Tsourides, Lucia Villaviencio, Chris Wible

Advisors Dr. James Robbins, University of Arkansas Extension Service Dr. Jerry Sartain, University of Florida, Soil and Water Science Department Dr. Max Schlossberg, Professor Penn State University, turfgrass research

Laboratory Service Pavilion IV-V

AGENDA

Association of American Plant Food Control Officials

Lab Services Committee

10:15 am-12:30 pm; Tuesday February 23, 2016

Albuquerque, NM


Meeting Objectives

Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda, Report, Meeting Schedule, and Workplan)

Provide updates on existing method validation studies and plan future studies.

Evaluate laboratory and method performance data and investigational allowances.

Propose educational and sample reference materials.



Identify Needed Next Steps, Assignments, and Agenda Items For Next Meeting Meeting Agenda

10:15 am Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review Sharon Webb

10:25 am Approval of Last Meeting Minutes Group

10:35 am Species Separation for hexavalent Cr as pertains to phosphite Dion Tsourides, Spectro

10:50 am Video Status Update Wade

10:55 am Laboratory Method Proposal Gary Orr, Verdesian

11:15 am TC 134 Update Activities Hugh Rodriguez, Thornton

Labs

11:25 am Chinese Zinc Sulfate Dick Camp, Kronos

11:45 am Other topics as time permits:

Methods Status: ICP P/K; Slow Release/ MA Microwave/ICP metals;

Biuret/HPLC; Humic & Fulvic Acids; Soluble Silicon

Homogeneity Ruggedness Spreadsheet

Committee Member’s Comments and Issues

James/Sharon/Bill/

Michael/Lawrence/Hugh

Barbara James/Group

Group

12:15 pm Next Steps, Assignments and Agenda Items for Next Meeting Sharon

12:30 pm Adjourn Motion


Contact Information: Sharon Webb, Vice-Chair [email protected] 859-218-2451 Future Meeting Dates: Annual Summer 2016 –Pittsburg, PA Committee Members:

Control Officials James Bartos, Chair Ametra Berry Paul Eggeman Patty Lucas Teresa Grant Dough Marsh Sharon Webb, Vice-Chair Keith Wegner Industry Liaison Dave Benefiled William Hall, Jr. Michael Hojjatie Barbara James John Peterson Hugh Rodrigues Sanford Siegel Dion Tsourides

Minutes

Association of American Plant Food Control Officials Lab Services Committee

Meeting Minutes

2015 Summer Annual Meeting Denver CO

Friday August 7, 2015 Dick Camp from Kronos from Kronos Micronutrient and Bill Anders from Nutrient Agri Products discussed low S recoveries, 30% Zn was not soluble, not a true ZnSulfate, may be Zinc Oxide Motion to accept agenda –first Bartos (IN), second Grant (NC) Motion to accept minutes –first Lucas (FL), second Berry (GA) A sign-up sheet was distributed Keith (CO) update on working group’s activities Preliminary data – not intended to represent all water soluble products (i.e. unofficial work) 20-20-20 product, One sample was hand ground, 250 g subsample in 1000 ml flask, from that make dilutions, solution approach did decrease std dev John something unusual about results - only 2% of sample is micros, 98% is NPK so if one of these is low then another should be high, but if all of them are low, that is unusual. Sanford high P and K by ICP could cause of suppression. Hugh did you weigh or take a volume from the 250, riffle to 35 g then take weight aliquot. Bill clean up method before second sample goes out with Magruder and provide prep directions. Andy – distributional vs. compositional heterogeneity? Andy – crystalline vs. amorphous? Jon – lots of variability


Bill – can you get individual ingredients and do some blending and testing? Jon – he can provide individual ingredients. Keith – he’d be glad to this. Measure Total, Soluble, Chelated Jon – EDTA in std as well? Has seen some variability when stds and samples are different. Hugh – have to watch pH very carefully, expecially with Zn have seen some differences when stds and samples aren’t matrix matched. Watch for Zn oxide – will fall out Bill will help on this. Working Group to provide support includes: Jon, Bill, Hugh Patty, Kristen Gilbert Dr. Mary – suggestions for methods to move forward through ISO Spreadsheet for homogeneity - would be useful with AFPC going through certification of reference materials/standards. Would like to have a spreadsheet for homogeneity and/or ruggedness. Sanford – what about work done for IFA, is this available? Andy – set a target, be careful otherwise everyone uses the same %RSDs Dennis – what about AOAC guide. All results are published on Web Fungi and bacterial products, Don Wolf (OR) Arrangement with plant pathology lab Expiration approx 2 years Competition, sitting on shelf; outside, Take home: look more, products are failing, path lab can only run a few samples during their non-busy season. Hugh - 1st general plate count if no counts don’t go any further. No IA automatically implement a 15% deficiency rule. Jon – Use Eurofins Bill – did submit MSDS, Sharon – how long did you wait, our IAs for microbes are 30%. Don – ran right away

Hugh – Madrid end of April reviewed bunch of European methods; US initiative: ICP PK method; Metals

microwave/hotplate, Si, Humic Acids; N by combustion; Urea by HPLC; free moisture for ammoniated products,

next meeting end of Oct in Scottsdale AZ. Netherlands, Spain and Switzerland, France, been pretty regular

attendees that will hopefully be present; Vocab up for final vote, meeting held in conjunction with IFA meeting

Bill – TC = Technical committee 134 Fert and soil conditioners; US – Std body is ANSI; 22 members of TAG;

Sharon –what do I need to do – 1st submit NWIP,


Magruder Draft Agenda

Magruder Check Sample

Approximately 2-5 PM, February 23, 2016

Albuquerque, NM

Pavilion IV-V


Meeting Objectives

Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda, Report, Meeting Schedule, and Work Plan)

Provide Updates on Existing Programs, Initiatives and Studies



Identify Needed Next Steps, Assignments, and Agenda Items For Next Meeting Agenda Topic Discussion

Leader

Welcome, Introductions, Agenda Review and Approval Bill

Presentation and Approval of Last Meetings Minutes Patty

Presentation and Approval of Treasurer’s Report

Jamey

Old Business

Transition Team – Final Report

Frank/Transition Team

Lab Database Unification, Method Code Revisions, Website Revision Frank

Statistics, Reporting Units, Using Reports Andy &

Frank

Cost Estimates Going Forward

Frank & Jamey

Sample Supply Schedule 2015-16 Bill &

Patty

Special Samples Discussion

Soluble Sample With Instructions

Unground Sample For Sample Prep And Controlled Release Testing

Providing Samples – Timing, SDS, Label & Shipping Issues for Sample Providers

Bill

International Opt In/Opt Out of Sample Shipments

Potential Value Added Program Modifications Bill

Marketing & Expansion of the Program – Expertise On Committee?

Using Data to Verify Samples with Acceptable Non-Homogeneity Andy

Can/Should We Market Magruder Samples As Certified Reference Materials? Bill &

Andy

Sample Retention Plan and Quantity to Produce

Sampling/Blending Study, Segregation and Sample Preparation Discussion Bill


Report on Methods Forum, Lab Video, IFA, ISO, ANSI & AOAC Initiatives

Bill

New Business

Newsletter Update Sharon

Nominating Committee Keith

Public Comment/Input/Issues Guests

Committee Member’s Comments and Issues

Members

Next Steps, Assignments & Agenda Items for Next Meeting

Bill/Group

Adjourn

Minutes Magruder Check Sample

Minutes August 7, 2015

Denver, CO, FL

Bill Hall called the meeting to order at 10:05 am. He welcomed everyone and members and

visitors were introduced. There were 29 attendees at the meeting (16 state and 13 industry).

Minutes of the February 2015 meeting in Jacksonville were distributed and approved.

Jamey Johnson distributed the treasurer’s report, it was approved with no changes.

Frank Sikora gave a presentation and update on the transition to the new program – data entry,

method code revisions and website changes (attached).

Andy Crawford gave a presentation on the statistical updates and reports available (attached).

The upcoming sample schedule was reviewed and some modifications were made (see attached

revised sample schedule).

There was an informational discussion regarding sample provider requirements including

customs, shipping, and SDS and labeling issues.

There was a short presentation and discussion regarding program enhancements such as a

separate program for raw materials and the possibility of preparing and selling certified reference

materials, the subject was tabled until the next meeting.

Ideas for increasing participation in the program were discussed. A goal of 130 participating labs

for 2016 was proposed.

Due to increased costs of data handling, preparations ad statistical analysis it was moved,

seconded and approved to move fees from $240 to $300 for the 2016 calendar year.

Bill Hall gave a short update on Methods Forum, Lab Video, IFA, ISO, ANSI & AOAC

activities

Sharon Webb agreed to compile the next newsletter as long as she had input and articles

prepared by Bill Hall, Frank Sikora and others.

A plaque and letter of appreciation has been prepared and will be accepted by Bill on behalf of

Bob during the general session. Bill will forward the materials to Bob with a letter of thanks

from the committee.


Keith Wegner presented a slate of committee members for the class of 2015. All current

members agreed to continue in their roles. Keith will present the 2016 class nominations at the

winter annual meeting in New Mexico.

No other business was brought forward and the meeting adjourned at 12:10 pm.

Submitted by

Patty Lucas

Secretary, Magruder Committee

Communications Group

Education and Information AAPFCO Education and Information Committee

2016 AAPFCO Winter Annual Meeting Albuquerque, New Mexico

August 7, 2015 2:00 pm Pavilion I-III, Foyer


Meeting Objectives

To Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda, Report, Meeting Schedule, and Workplan)

AAPFCO Insider – work assignments for future newsletters

To Consider results from the AAPFCO Meeting Survey

To Discuss items that should appear on the AAPFCO Website/Secure Website

To Consider Public Comment

To Consider Committee Member Comments and Issues

To Identify Needed Next Steps, Assignments, and Agenda Items For Next Meeting

Meeting Agenda

2:00 Welcome and Introductions (Chair)

2:05 Agenda and Previous Minutes Review and Approval (Chair)

2:10 AAPFCO Labeling Guide (Chair)

2:15 Inspection and Sampling Report Brett Groves

2:20 Fertilizer Administrators Seminar Lance

Kunneman

2:30 AAPFCO Website & draft “Rookies guide to meetings” (Chair)

2:40 AAPFCO Insider Katie Laney

2:45 AAPFCO.org website (Chair)

2:50 Committee Member’s Comments and Issues (Chair)

2:55 Next Steps, Assignments and Agenda Items for Next Meeting (Chair)

3:00 Adjourn

Contact Information:

Matt Pearson, Chair James True, Vice Chair Future Meeting Dates:

[email protected] [email protected] AAPFCO Winter Annual Meeting

765 494-1547 859 257-7363 February 2016




Education and Information Committee Members:

Control Officials Industry Liaisons

Matt Pearson Deborah Allen

Jim True Beth Anderson

Jane Boerboom Leanna Bosarge

Michael Crush Shirley Chandler

Partick Hart Amy Covington

Jamey Johnson Bette Jo Evans

Lance Kunneman Wade Foster

Katie Laney Rick Geise

Yong Pu Bethany Henderson

Suzanne Turcotte Jim Jenkins

Don Wolf Jennifer Lilly

Theresa Wybrant Cheryl Prinster

Nick Young Gene Ruppe

Jessica Walsh

AAPFCO MINUTES EDUCATION & INFORMATION COMMITTEE AUGUST 7, 2015, DENVER, CO

SUBMITTED BY JIM TRUE The meeting was called to order by vice-chair Jim True.

Committee members in attendance:

Control Officials: Industry Liaisons:

Jim True- Kentucky Jim Jenkins- Agrium

Tim Hoffman-Ohio Debe Allen- Potash Corp

Phil Davidson- Maryland Wade Foster- TFI

Mike Crush - Maine

Joe Slater- Missouri

Pat Hart- North Dakota

Lance Kunneman – Oklahoma

Motion to approve minutes by Mike Crush. Second by Pat Hart. Motion passed.

Brett Groves gave an Inspection and Sampling update:

1) BITS will be held in Decatur, AL.

2) Dates are September, 29 to October 1, 2015

3) Register online

4) Limited to 50 inspectors

5) Cost estimated between $150-$175

6) Hotel info will be available soon.

7) Nearest airport is Huntsville, AL.

Lance Kunneman gave an update on the Fertilizer Administrators Seminar:

1) Nashville, TN

2) October, 20-22, 2015


3) Control officials only

4) Opryland Inn Hotel: room rate of $132.00 per night

Jim True led a discussion on the “Rookies Guide to AAPFCO”:

1) Was recommended to add a description of each AAPFCO committee to the

guide.

2) Document will be on the AAPFCO website for review until August 31st for

comments and then will be sent to the board for approval.

3) Rookies guide should be sent to all first time attending registrations before

meeting.

Jim True led a discussion about the AAPFCO newsletter for Katie Laney:

1) Have summary of Responsible Ag in the next newsletter.

2) Put info on “Rookies Guide to AAPFCO” in the newsletter. Anyone the

marks first time attendee on registration will receive a copy with their

packet.

3) Suggested to add a description of each committee to the “Rookies Guide”

but also may want to have that in the AAPFCO newsletter.

4) All presentations from the meeting will be on the website for regulators

and industry

Next steps:

1) Start a “Frequently Asked Questions” section on the AAPFCO website.

Send out information for discussion in December in advance of mid-year

Feb meeting.

Steve McMurry announced that KY will be hosting the Association of Southern

Feed, Fertilizer and Pesticide Officials meeting June 20-23, 2016 in Lexington.

Motion to adjourn by Mike Crush. Second by Lance Kunneman. Motion passed.


BMP & Plant Security

AGENDA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP) COMMITTEE

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PLANT FOOD CONTROL OFFICIALS

WINTER ANNUAL

ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO

All Agenda Items—Including Public Comment and Adjournment---Are Subject to Change

Meeting Objectives

Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda, Report, Meeting Schedule, and Work Plan for the Next

Meeting)

Report on Bulk Blend Workshops.

Plant Security Sub-Committee Topics.

Consider Committee Member/Liaison Comments and Issues


Identify Needed Next Steps, Assignments, and Agenda Items For Next Meeting

Meeting Agenda (Please Note: Times listed below are estimates and may change.)

2.5 Minutes Welcome and Introductions Chair

Review and Approval of the Agenda Chair

Review and Approval of Report from 2014 Summer Annual Chair

Old Business:

10 Minutes Report on Bulk Blend Workshops. Wade Foster

Plant Security Sub-Committee

10 Minutes Update on fertilizer security outreach materials. Deb Allen

5 Minutes Responsible Ag Progress Report Richard Gupton

New Business:

2.5 Minutes Open for discussion of any new business Chair

Next Steps, Assignments and Agenda Items for Next Meeting Chair

Adjourn Chair

Minutes Association of American Plant Food Control Officials

Summer Annual 2015

Best Management Practices (BMP) Committee and Plant Security Sub-Committee

August 7, 2015 Denver, CO

Members Present: Stephen McMurry, Lance Kunneman, Joe Slater, Matt Pearson, Dan Danielson, and Buzz

Vance.

Industry Liaisons Present: Debe Allen, Jim Jenkins, Brian Spencer, and Wade Foster.

Guests Attending: 41 guests.

Committee Objectives: To promote and make available to the manufacturers of commercial fertilizer, with

emphasis directed to blenders, information and technology related to best manufacturing practices, to ensure

consumers receive quality products meeting agronomic needs and values.


Called to Order: 2:10 pm.

Agenda Review and Approval: Motion to approve agenda as presented (Pearson/McMurry); Approved.

Meeting Minutes Review and Approval: Motion to approve minutes from Summer Annual meeting in Sacramento

(Pearson/McMurry); Approved.

Committee Actions:

Bulk Blend Workshops – Wade Foster with TFI

Louisiana has expressed interest in have Bulk Blend workshops for their dealers

Brian White with CF Industries has also expressed interest in helping coordinate workshops.

Michigan hosted one in 2014

o The Fertilizer Institute does all of the hard work, States just need to have a place

Joe Slater added that Missouri hosted a Bulk Blend workshop several years ago in conjunction with

their Ag Chem dealer association meeting. CCH credits were given and it was well attended and

received.

o Dan Danielson asked if it was necessary to have the workshop near a facility

o Foster and Slater both gave examples of where they have seen workshops in the past; most are

done in a meeting room and not at a blending facility

Cutting 32% with water to make 28%

Stephen McMurry asked the group if they had a written BMP procedure for cutting 32% UAN with

water in a truck tank to make 28% UAN.

o Much discussion followed with suggestions and humorous anecdotes.

Requested Action of the Association and/or Board: None.

Next Steps: Winter Annual Meeting February 2016

Report on any Bulk Blend Workshops.

Responsible Ag progress report.

BMP Plant Security Sub-Committee

Members Present: Dan Danielson, Steve McMurry, Buzz Vance, and Joe Slater

Industry Liaisons Present: Debe Allen, Jim Jenkins, Brian Spencer, and Wade Foster

Agenda Review and Approval: Included with BMP approval.

Meeting Minutes Review and Approval: Included with BMP approval.

Committee Actions:

Fertilizer security outreach materials – Debe Allen

US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is hopeful that after an 8 year delay they will have their

ammonium nitrate rule available later this summer provided – See presentation from the meeting for

details

OSHA’s changes to their policy to no longer exempt most ag dealers from their Process Safety

Management (PSM) requirement was discussed. This will greatly impact the industry

o TFI is working with The ASMARK Institute to develop a MyPSM self audit as well as

several 2 day trainings.

More information can be found at www.asmark.org

o The PSM requirement appears to be very site specific with details about processes and a

cookie cutter plan probably will not suffice.

Executive Order 13650 update was provided

o EPA’s Risk Management Plan will propose changes in late 2015

o DHS plans on making changes to their CFATS rule

o See presentation from the meeting for details

http://www.asmark.org/


Requested Action of the Association and/or Board: None

Next Steps: Winter Annual February 2016

Follow Ammonium Nitrate Rulemaking

CFATS and Executive Order updates

Adjournment: With nothing further to discuss motion to adjourn (Slater/Danielson); Approved

Adjourned: 2:45 pm.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES COMMITTEE

Control Officials

Lance Kunneman , C ................................................................................................. Oklahoma City, OK

Steve McMurry , VC .......................................................................................................... Lexington, KY

Dan Danielson .........................................................................................................................Nashville, TN

Matt Haynes ................................................................................................................................ Salem, OR

April Hunt ................................................................................................................................. Lansing, MI

Jamey Johnson...................................................................................................................... Little Rock, AR

Ben Jones ...................................................................................................................... College Station, TX

Alan Lowman .............................................................................................................................Atlanta, GA

Joseph Slater.......................................................................................................................... Columbia, MO

Danny Turner ............................................................................................................................ Raleigh, NC

Buzz Vance ............................................................................................................................... Lincoln, NE

Matt Pearson……………………………………………………………………………………………………..W.

Lafayette, IN

Meagan Davis……………………………………………………………………………………………………..Baton

Rouge, LA

Sarah

Adams……………………………………………………………………………………………………………Pendle

ton, SC

Industry Liaison Debe Allen…………………………… ……………………………………………… ...... Augusta, GA

Scott Rosenquist ........................................................................................................................ Lathrop, CA

Jim Jenkins .................................................................................................................. Calgary, Alberta, CN

Wade Foster ....................................................................................................................... Washington, DC

Robert LaGasse ................................................................................................................... Shallowater, TX

Rich Adderley ............................................................................................................. Saskatoon, Sask., CN

Brian Spencer ........................................................................................................................... Deerfield, IL

BethanyHenderson……………………………………………………….………….………….Collierville, TN

Plant Security Sub-Committee

Control Officials

Dan Danielson,VC ................................................................................................................ Nashville, TN

Matt Haynes ................................................................................................................................ Salem, OR

Steve McMurry ..................................................................................................................... Lexington, KY

April Hunt ................................................................................................................................. Lansing, MI

Alan Lowman .............................................................................................................................Atlanta, GA

Joseph Slater.......................................................................................................................... Columbia, MO

Buzz Vance ............................................................................................................................... Lincoln, NE

Industry Liaison

Deborah Allen .......................................................................................................................... Augusta, GA

Scott Rosenquist ...................................................................................................................... Lanthrop, CA

Jim Jenkins .................................................................................................................. Calgary, Alberta, CN

Wade Foster ....................................................................................................................... Washington, DC

Rich Adderley ............................................................................................................. Saskatoon, Sask., CN


Model Documents Group

Uniform Bills

AGENDA

UNIFORM BILLS COMMITTEE

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN OF PLANT FOOD CONTROL OFFICIALS


Model Documents Group


All Agenda Items and times—Including Public Comment and Adjournment---Are Subject to

Change

Meeting Objectives

Approve Regular Procedural Topics (Agenda, Minutes, Meeting Schedule, and Work Plan for the Next Meeting)

Provide updates on existing projects and working groups

Consider Committee Member/Liaison Comments and Issues:


Identify Needed Next Steps, Assignments, and Agenda Items for Next Meeting

Meeting Agenda Welcome and Introductions …………………………………………………………..….….....2

Review and Approval of the Agenda ………………………………………………………..…5

Review and Approval of the Minutes from Denver, CO………...…………..….…….……….5

Old Business:

Globally Harmonized System Labeling: Products which must meet the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) requirements in

accordance with the Occupational Safety & Health Administration’s (OSHA) Hazard

Communication Standards, may include the information required by OSHA on the

fertilizer label. Such statements and labeling are recognized as valid label text and will

not be considered in violation of the State fertilizer laws.

Labeling material work group is in favor of the definition for labeling: "Means any

advertising or promotion of any fertilizer, including, but not limited to, all written,

printed, graphic, or electronic communication." The group recommends the same

definition be used for any uniform bill which has been adopted and in which the term

“Labeling” is defined, except that the appropriate word or term be substituted for the

word “fertilizer” in the above definition, e.g. in the Soil Amendment act the term “soil

amendment” be substituted for the word “fertilizer.” Pg. 35, 99, 103, 117………….…..10

State-by-State Regulation Inconsistencies Working Group Update (Patrick Hart)…………………………………………………………………………………..….30

New Business:

Committee Member/Liaison Comments and Issues………………..…………………..…….20


o Chinese made zinc sulfate

Public Comment………………………………………….................................................5

Next Steps, Assignments and Agenda Items for Next Meeting ………………………....5

Adjourn

Contact Information

Katie Laney, Chair

New Mexico Department of Agriculture

MSC 3150

New Mexico State University

PO Box 30005

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005

Phone Number: (575)646-7906

Email: [email protected]

Minutes Association of American Plant Food Control Officials

Uniform Bills AAPFCO 2015 Annual Meeting Report

Denver annual meeting 2015

Facilitator: Phil Davidson

Members Present:

Control Officials: 9

Industry Liaisons: 8

Other People: 49 Meeting Minutes Review and Approval Approved, passed by committee

Committee Actions:

Continued work from the labeling inconsistency work group

Old Business

State-by-State Regulation Inconsistencies

Discussion by committee: - Will focus on identifying inconsistencies in fertilizer - TFI state surveys, several states did not respond, survey was long and some

questions needed further explanation. - Phosphorous restrictions may end up on these surveys as more states put

phosphorous restrictions in law - Identify Requirements on labels which are not part of AAPFCO model documents

o Working group members: Ron Alexander, Vicky Childs, Robert LaGasse, Tonya Ritsch, Pat Johnson, Katie Laney, Patrick Hart, Amy Basel, Lance Kunneman, Nick Young and Eddie Simon

Committee Member/Liaison Comments and Issues:

Silicon – soluble fraction guarantees

-beneficial substances

- silicon still in terms and definitions


-California is accepting soluble silicon

-total silicon versus water soluble silicon

-Monosyclic acid

Grade

-Extensions on grade statement

- should list NPK only

- second line below of NPK would be acceptable

Complexed Calcium

- can’t test, used for marketing

Chinese Zinc Sulfate

-derived from source seems to be an issue

Maximum Chlorine analysis

- Warning for chlorine out of terms and definitions

Meeting Adjourn: By general consent.


Environmental Affairs ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AGENDA

Vacant, Chair

April Hunt, Vice Chair & Bob Waltz, Vice Chair

AAPFCO Winter Annual Meeting


February 23, 2016

3:15 pm (after Uniform Bills)

Pavilion I-III,Foyer

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

Purpose: To inform the AAPFCO membership about state and national legislation on nutrient

management and to draft and update a model bill and rules that will guide agencies in developing nutrient

management legislation.

BY PRODUCTS AND RECYCLED MATERIALS

Purpose: Maintain membership awareness of by-products and recycled materials proposed for use as

fertilizers, soil amendments, or conditioners and the environmental concerns associated with them.

Develop and recommend guidelines that address the major concerns about by-products and recycled

materials proposed for use.

Welcome and Introductions

Approval of Agenda and Minutes

Phosphorus Restrictions Working Group Update

AAPFCO Environmental Policy (update to existing policy)

Discussion and Potential Vote to Move to Official

Urban Landscape Policy (new policy)

Discussion and Potential Vote to Move to Official

Uniform Phosphorus Restriction Language

Discussion

Committee Member Comments and Issues

Next steps, Assignments and Agenda Items for Next Meeting


Minutes

Environmental Affairs – AAPFCO Summer Annual Meeting August 7, 2015

Minutes **There are 2 action items for the Board of Directors. These are outlined at the end of the notes.** The Committee met this afternoon from 10:30am-noon and 1:30-2pm MST. Control Officials: Hart, Hunt, Bowers, Crush, Davidson, Delzer, Gornert, Wolf (OR for Hayes), Jones (TX for Hostenbach), Simons, Vance. The February 2015 minutes were review and approved (April Hunt/Phil Davidson). (side note – Brian Spencer seconded, but only control officials can vote)

1. Presentation by Dr. Mike Amaranthus – Mycorrhizal fungi: A Look Beneath the Surface.

PowerPoint presentation, will be posted on the AAPFCO website

Dr. Mike mentioned that there are over 100,000 research studies on the materials.

i. It is important that it is 3rd party research and peer reviewed. Diversity is important.

The committee and audience had a number of good questions

Dr. Mike brought a microscope and samples for the group to view

Q & A Q: Do fertilizers negatively affect the mycorrhizae? A: No, The roots are signaling with specific compounds. The only exception would be high levels of soluble phosphorus. Q: If the products go into soil that is low in myco, how to we know if they will flourish? A: If near a natural area (like a park or woodlot), don’t use myco. But it the soil is in a disturbed urban environment (stripped soil) the myco will help. Q: Are there myco specific to a particular plant? A: most myco are generalists. The ecto – tree fungi are more specific to trees , 4,000 types of ecto myco. The endo are buscular myco, there are thousands of species of myco. Q: Do I already have myco on my site? A: In natural areas – yes. In managed lands – probably not, the management of the lands tend to reduce or eliminate myco. Q: How long does it take to grow a colony? A: 4 weeks to start, typically 6-8 weeks. Q: Can I add a synthetic isoponoid or synthetic carrier to speed up the process? You could , but it only works in specific circumstances. If the synthetic products and myco are all combined in a bag, they are alive and you have to keep them alive or they die. The key is to keep the myco dormant until there a real root for them to attach to. You could have separate packs (syn and myco) to prevent them from combining and dying in the bag too soon. Q: Can biochar and myco work together? A: yes, discussion about helping in no till establishment. Q: Can myco help in drought tolerance? Yes, there are studies focusing on this at the University of Wisconsin. Looking a leachates in potatoes. Myco may help reduce leachates.


2. Phosphorus Restrictions Working Group Report Patrick Hart gave a PowerPoint presentation that went over the findings of the Phosphorus Restrictions Working Group. The group worked on 4 different projects.

a. Environmental Control Concerning the Application of Fertilizer Policy (pg 126 OP)

a. The working group revised this policy and shared the edited version with the committee.

b. Motion to move the edited version to tentative status (Jennifer Gornnert/Hunt) – Motion Carried

c. NOTE: After the motion there was a comment to use “supports” in

place of “believes” in paragraph 2. The committee and working group agreed to the change.

d. ACTION: Goes to the Board of Directors for review and vote.

b. The Policy of the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials Regarding Fertilizer for Urban Landscapes (new policy)

a. Edit to the draft policy was made. (2) Application instructions for the end user need to be clear and accurate.

b. Question about “convenient and understandable” in (3). Why convenient? Is this science based?

c. Motion to move policy on Urban Landscapes to tentative status. (April Hunt/Don Wolf). Motion Carried.

d. ACTION: Goes to the Board of Directors for review and vote.

c. Phosphorus Restrictions Summary Spreadsheet a. This spreadsheet lists the states with phosphorus restrictions on the

books and summarizes the state’s requirements. b. There are 14 states with these restrictions and 2 more in progress.

The spreadsheet is a work in progress, the workgroup will continue to update the draft and new information becomes available.

d. Uniform phosphorus restriction language. a. A draft was shared with the committee, the working group will

continue its work on this language and present at the February 2016 meeting.

b. Comments included: i. Application by whom? – homeowners, commercial applicators ii. Clarify by whom iii. Soil tests done within 2 years

*Jan Morawski from New York asked to be on the working group. E-mail: [email protected]

3. Presentation by Don Wolf, Oregon Control Official “What’s really in the Bag”

Don gave a PowerPoint presentation that shared OR Dept of Ag’s findings after testing bacteria genus and counts in 12 products 2014. OR also did some testing in 2013.

Out of the 2014 testing, only 2 met the guarantee.

The BIG question: What effects the viability in the bag? The committee and audience discussed possible causes. Storage and packaging the inoculant separate from the materials. Shelf life. What are ideas the industry can do to make products better? Commercial lab testing.


Meeting adjourned (Eric Delzer/ Michael Crush)

Environmental Affairs Committee Action Items for the Board August 2015

1. Edits to the Environmental Control Concerning the Application of Fertilizer Policy (pg 126 OP)

i. Committee moved to tentative status ii. Change to paragraph 2: use “supports” in place of “believes”

2. The Policy of the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials Regarding

Fertilizer for Urban Landscapes (new policy) i. Committee moved to tentative status ii. Edit: (2) Application instructions for the end user need to be clear and

accurate.

The Association of American Plant Food Control Officials is vitally interested in the protection of the environment. Research has established the beneficial effects of proper fertilizer application on crop growth, which lessens pollution of surface waters by protecting soils from erosion. Conversely, research has also shown that under certain management and climatic conditions, [improper] applications of fertilizer can result in movement of fertilizer nutrients to surface and/or ground water sources. The Association [is extremely concerned that future] [supports] that use of fertilizer [does not undesirably affect our environment and has organized our Associations Environmental Affairs Committee to address this issue] [W][w]hen combined with best management practices[, the Association believes that appropriate fertilizer applications can improve the quality of the environment by] [such as the 4R’s (right product, right time, right place, and right rate)

can improve the quality of the environment by]:

(5) Increasing the quality of biomass produced per unit area of land surface, which aids in stabilizing and protecting the soil from erosion.

(6) Increasing production of food and fiber per unit area, thereby eliminating the necessity for producing crops on land unsuited for cultivation.

(7) Increasing accumulation of soil nutrients into biomass, thereby minimizing [percolation of] [the loss] of soluble nutrients to ground water.

(8) Reducing the [forest land] [conversion of non-agricultural land] placed into cultivation as a result of improved yields.

The Association strongly [commends the research efforts of various which will provide additional] [supports peer reviewed research to provide scientifically credible] information vital to the continued use of plant nutrients without adversely affecting the environment. The [continued] use of this information by extension service agronomists, commercial agronomists and other advisors in an educational program [and in making] [or] in making [specific nutrient] recommendations will [surely provide for] [be critical for ensuring] an adequate [but safe]


source of food for the nation and world. The Association recognizes and endorses the following activities:

(4) [The use of soil testing and plant tissue analysis as] [Soil, plant, or other forms of testing needs to be] scientifically correlated with [the fertilizer] [the nutrient] needs of [soil, crop, climate,and yield] [specific crops. Outreach and education for

consumers and laboratories is necessary to make testing convenient and understandable.]

(5) Protecting our land resources against erosion losses through employment of best management practices which include application of appropriate quantities of fertilizer.

(6) Funding of long term research programs to quantify the effects of fertilizer on the environment under diverse combinations of soils, climate, crop, and management.

[(4 ) A continuing dialogue between fertilizer and environment experts that achieves a mutual understanding of environmental issues related to the use of crop inputs.

( 5) Balancing the need for environmental protection with the need to beneficially reuse materials that would otherwise be waste.

( 6) The development and implementation of uniform requirements.]

The Association further encourages the thorough evaluation of all appropriate [peer reviewed] research data before additional regulations on fertilizer application are invoked. Inappropriate or unnecessary regulations [of inputs] could [reduce the amount of biomass produced,] increase erosion of crop land, increase cost of food and fiber to consumers, and cause deterioration of the competitive position of the American farmer in the world market. [(Official 1988)]

[The Policy of the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials Regarding

Fertilizer for Urban Landscapes The Environmental Affairs Committee moved this version to tentative status on August 7,

2015 Fertilizer is essential for maintaining vigorous, attractive and functional urban landscapes. However, if fertilizer is adulterated or is improperly or excessively applied, then fertilizer can adversely affect public health and the environment. Issues range from contaminants in vegetable gardens to nutrient runoff from turf. To prevent these problems, fertilizer use must involve the right product, the right rate, the right time, and the right place (4Rs). Manufacturers, retailers, testing laboratories, professional landscapers, consumers, and lawmakers each play a role in preventing inappropriate fertilizer use in urban landscapes. (1) Fertilizer formulations need to be appropriate for their intended use. (2) Application instructions for the end user need to be clear and accurate. (3) Soil, plant tissue, or other forms of sampling and analysis to evaluate nutrient requirements needs to be convenient and understandable.


(4) Users need to apply fertilizer appropriately. (5) Legal requirements limiting fertilizer application should be based on peer reviewed

science, and written to be easily understood, implemented, and enforced. Therefore, the Association of American Plant Food Control Officials supports: (1) Including environmental scientists, policy makers, fertilizer manufacturers, control

officials and educators in discussions of nutrient issues, policy, and legal requirements;

(2) Soil, plant tissue, and other forms of testing, and nutrient management planning to

ensure that fertilizer applications are appropriate for the specific needs of the soil, climate, and plants;

(3) Outreach and education to consumers, landscaping professionals, and laboratories to

make soil, plant tissue, and other forms of testing convenient, understandable, and useful;

(4) Discussions of public policy for nutrient management should be informed by the

latest peer reviewed research regarding how nutrients, including fertilizers, in urban landscapes affect public health and the environment;

(5) Continuing research to improve understanding of how nutrient management in urban

landscapes affects the environment. (6) Balancing the need for environmental protection with the need to beneficially reuse

materials that would otherwise be waste. (7) Outreach and education to consumers promoting best management practices in

urban landscapes.]

Model Language for

Phosphate Restrictions for Urban Turf or Lawns

1/25/16 Draft

Urban Turf or Lawns means non-agricultural land planted in closely mowed, managed grasses

except golf courses, parks and athletic fields (AAPFCO Official Term T-74).

(1) A person may not apply fertilizer:

(a) when the ground is frozen,

(b) to an impervious surface,

(c) during rain or when rain is imminent, or

(d) within “x” feet of surface water.


(2) A person may apply fertilizer that is labeled as containing phosphate to urban turf or lawns

only for the following uses:

(a) establishing grass in its first growing season;

(b) repairing damaged grass or overseeding and the fertilizer is applied along with either

seeds or sod; or

(c) the soil is deficient in plant available phosphate, as shown by a soil test performed no

more than “x” years before the application.

3) (a) A person may sell fertilizer that contains phosphate for use on urban turf or lawns only

if the label identifies the prohibitions in sec. (1) and the use limitations of sec. (2)(a)

to (c), except as provided in par. (b) and sec. (5).

(b) If fertilizer not in compliance with par. (a) was present at a point of sale before [the

effective date of this law], then a person may continue to sell this fertilizer until

existing stock is depleted.

(4) Retail display of a fertilizer that contains phosphate is prohibited unless the fertilizer is

labeled for the following uses:

(a) a use identified in sec. 2(a) to (c); or

(b) for use on house plants, flowers, vegetables, trees, or shrubs.

(5) This law does not require local governments to monitor compliance, verify soil tests, take

enforcement action, or otherwise participate in the administration or enforcement of this law.

(6) Any fertilizer requirements adopted by a local government shall be consistent with the

requirements of secs. (1) to (4).

Addendum (Parking Lot)

(1.) The restrictions of secs. (2), (3)(a), and (4) do not apply when the exclusive source of

phosphorus is biosolids or compost.


Product Quality and Technology Committee Meeting

Draft - Agenda February 24, 2016

9:00 am

1. Welcome and Introductions/Antitrust Statement

2. Slow and Controlled Release Terms

3. OSHA Hazard Communication Standard

4. Paperless Tonnage Reporting

5. Standard/Method Development Update

a. AOAC

b. ISO

c. Oil/Grease in Anhydrous Ammonia

d. Method Needs

6. Product Contamination Issues

a. Fertilizer Imports

b. Labeling requirements for naturally occurring micronutrients

c. UNEP Lead and Cadmium Working Group

7. Ongoing activities

a. Blending Study

b. Lab Best Practices Video

8. Other Business

a. Future Meetings


Association of American Plant Food Control Officials

FEIN 52-0854569

PUBLICATIONS ORDER FORM (Copy form and mail or fax as shown below)

Orders are shipped via UPS within one week of receipt of order.

Payment Method: Check __________ Credit Card ____________ Make Checks payable to: ‘AAPFCO’ Credit Card Payment: Visa _________ MasterCard ____________ (Only ones accepted)

Card Number ____________________________ Expiration Date _____ / ______ Signature ___________________________________ Name ____________________________________ Address: ____________________________ City: ___________________ State: _____ Zip: _________

(Name and Address must be exactly as it appears on credit card) Ship To: ________________________________________________________________ -Name- ________________________________________________________________ -Company/Organization Name- ________________________________________________________________ -Street Address- ________________________________________________________________ -City, State, Zip, Country- ________________________________________________________________ Phone Number – required for shipment- For Faster Shipment: FEDEX # ______________________________________________

Publication No. Copies Cost/Each Total

Off. Pub. No. 69 $60.00 $

Off. Pub. No. 68 $60.00 $

Inspection Manual $25.00 $

Laboratory Sample Prep. Manual

Being Revised/ NA $20.00 $

Inspection Video $15.00 $

Grand Total $

Mail Order To: FAX Order To: Email Order To:

AAPFCO Attn: Jamey Johnson Div. of Feed & Fertilizer No. 1 Natural Resources Dr AR State Plant Board Little Rock, AR 72205

Jamey Johnson AR State Plant Board 501-219-1746

[email protected]