1. Feasibility of Discontinuing the Factoring Procedure in Fine Fescues
Oregon State University Seed laboratory
Feasibility of Discontinuing the Factoring Procedure in Fine Fescues

2. AOSA Requires to Factor the Following Fine Fescues
Hard fescue.
Sheep fescue.
Chewing fescue.
Creeping red fescue.

3. Factoring applies these percentages

4. Problems Associated with Factoring Fine Fescues
It is subjective: can change from analyst to analyst.
It is time consuming: MSU’s must be:
- Separated,
- Weighed,
-Run calculations.
Then the MSU’s have to be mixed back with single florets for germination test.
Harmonization issue: with ISTA.
It puts USA seed producers at a disadvantage in the international markets.

5. Factoring requires these Separations

6. Better alternative! Consider multiple floret as a pure seed unit, if it has a fertile floret (it has a planting value!). There are many benefits for this approach supported by research findings

7. Three main research studies
1. Preliminary research at OSU. 2. Research with data from 3 Northwest Labs. 3. National referee with 9 laboratories.

8. 1. Preliminary Study at OSU 4 fine fescue species - 2 samples each
1. Preliminary Study at OSU fine fescue species - 2 samples each. Objectives - Compare the % pure seed with & without factoring procedure Measure the % germination of single and multiple seed units Measure time saving.

9. Materials & Methods
2 samples of Hard, sheep, chewing, and creeping red fescues from different varieties and production years containing MSU’s.
Procedure: % Purity was calculated first by factoring according to the AOSA rules and then without factoring (consider MSU’s as pure seeds).
Germination tests: of MSU vs. SSU: seeds were chilled at 10°C for 7d. Germination % was reported after 14 days.

10. Pure seed % of 8 F.F. samples tested with and without applying Factoring Procedure
Avg. diff 0.49%)

11. Germination of single and multiple seed units of 8 F. F. samples
Avg. diff 1%

12. Germination of Single and Multiple Seed Units in Fine Fescue
Single Seed Units
Multiple Seed Units

13. Conclusions of the Preliminary Study
The average difference in purity results between factoring and no-factoring is 0.49
Multiples that have fertile florets have similar germination capacity as single seed units.
MSU have planting value and should be considered pure seed units without factoring.

14. Study 2. Comparison of factoring and no-factoring using data from 3 NW Labs
Materials and methods
3 labs participated in the referee, WA, AgriSeed, and OR.
A total of 659 samples representing 4 FF species were used by all labs from different production years:
159 chewing, 145 hard, 88 sheep, and 267 creeping red samples.
All samples tested with and without applying the factoring procedure across the 3 labs.
Average pure seed % were recorded and compared between the two methods.

15. I. AgriSeed Testing
Figure 1. Pure seed % of 10 hard fescue samples tested in 2010
with and without factoring procedure at AgriSeed.

16. I. AgriSeed Testing
Figure 2. Pure seed % of hard fescue samples tested with and without
factoring procedure at AgriSeed.
n = 10 (2010); n = 12 (2011); n = 8 (2012).

17. without factoring procedure at AgriSeed.
I. AgriSeed Testing
Sheep fescue, 2011
Figure 3. Pure seed % of 6 sheep fescue samples tested in 2011 with and
without factoring procedure at AgriSeed.

18. I. AgriSeed Testing
Figure 4. Pure seed % of sheep fescue samples tested with and without factoring procedure at Agri Seed.
n = 1 (2010); n = 6 (2011); n = 1 (2012).

19. I. AgriSeed Testing
Figure 5. Pure seed % of 24 chewing fescue samples tested in 2010 with
and without factoring procedure at AgriSeed.

20. I. AgriSeed Testing
Figure 6. Pure seed % of chewing fescue samples tested with and
without factoring procedure at AgriSeed.
n = 24 (2010); n = 22 (2011); n=50 (2012).

21. Creeping red fescue 2010
Figure 7. Pure seed % of 48 creeping red fescue samples tested
in 2010 with and without factoring procedure at AgriSeed.

22. Figure 8. Pure seed percentage of creeping red fescue samples tested with and without factoring procedure at AgriSeed.
n = 48 (2010); n = 133 (2011); n = 204 (2012).

23. II. Oregon state University
Figure 1. Pure seed % of 50 hard fescue samples tested in 2013 with
and without factoring procedure at Oregon State University Seed Lab.

24. II. Oregon state University
Figure 2. Pure seed % of hard fescue samples tested with and without factoring procedure at OSU Seed Lab.
n = 50 (2012); n = 50 (2013).

25. II. Oregon state University
Figure 3. Pure seed % of 17 sheep fescue samples tested in 2013 with and without factoring procedure at OSU Seed Lab.

26. Figure 4. Pure seed % of sheep fescue samples tested with and without factoring procedure at OSU Seed Lab.
n = 49 (2012); n = 17 (2013).

27. II. Oregon state University
Figure 5. Pure seed % of 50 chewing fescue samples tested with and without factoring procedure at OSU Seed Lab.

28. factoring procedure at OSU Seed Lab.
II. Oregon state University
Figure 6. Pure seed % of chewing fescue samples tested with and without
factoring procedure at OSU Seed Lab.
n = 50 (2012); n = 50 (2013).

29. II. Oregon state University
Figure 7. Pure seed % of 50 red fescue samples tested in 2013 with and
without factoring procedure at OSU Seed Lab.

30. II. Oregon state University
Figure 8. Pure seed % of creeping red fescue samples tested with and without factoring procedure at OSU Seed Lab.
n = 50 (2012); n = 50 (2013).

31. III. WA State Seed Lab
Figure 1. Pure seed % of 7 hard fescue samples tested in 2013 with and without factoring procedure at WA State Seed Lab.

32. Figure 2. Pure seed % of hard fescue samples tested with and without factoring procedure at WA State Seed Lab.
n = 8 (2012); n = 7 (2013).

33. and without factoring procedure at Washington State Seed Lab.
III. WA State Seed Lab
Figure 3. Pure seed percentage of 6 sheep fescue samples tested in 2013 with
and without factoring procedure at Washington State Seed Lab.

34. Figure 4. Pure seed % of Sheep fescue samples tested with and
without factoring procedure at WA State Seed Lab.
n = 10 (2012); n = 6 (2013).

35. III. WA State Seed Lab
Figure 5. Pure seed % of 6 chewing fescue samples tested in 2013 with and without factoring procedure at WA State Seed Lab.

36. III. WA State Seed Lab
Figure 6. Pure seed % of chewing fescue samples tested with and
without factoring procedure at WA State Seed Lab.
n = 3 (2012); n = 6 (2013).

37. III. WA State Seed Lab
Figure 7. Pure seed percentage of 4 creeping red fescue samples tested in 2012 with and without factoring procedure at Washington State Seed lab.

38. III. WA State Seed Lab Avg. diff 0.91%
Figure 8. Pure seed % of creeping red fescue samples tested with and
without factoring procedure at WA State Seed Lab.
n = 4 (2012); n = 7 (2013).

39. Figure 5. Average pure seed percentage of: chewing (159), hard (145), sheep (88), and creeping red (267 samples), tested with and without applying the factoring procedure across 3 labs during two years.

40. Conclusions from Northwest Labs
Discontinuing factoring would increase purity by an average of 0.53% (average of 659 samples).
The average increase in each species is:
0.38% for hard fescue ( 145 samples ).
0.45% for sheep fescue ( 88 samples ).
0.63% for chewing fescue ( 159 samples ).
0.67% for creeping red fescue ( 267 samples ).

41. 3. National Referee Objectives
Compare the purity results of factoring vs. no-factoring across laboratories.
Measure consistency of both methods across labs.
Measure the time saving with the no-factoring method.

42. Materials & Methods
11 different analysts representing 9 seed labs participated in the study from AR, USDA-FSL, BioVision, KY, NST, Turf Tech, WA, and OR.
Labs were asked to compare the purity results of 8 FF samples representing creeping, chewing, hard and sheep fescue, with different varieties, years of production, and MSU contents, using factoring and no-factoring procedures.
Labs were also asked to measure the time used to complete each test using factoring and non-factoring methods.
Data were collected to measure the consistency of both methods across laboratories.

43. Results

51. methods (with and without factoring). Data are average of 8 samples.
Table 1. Average time to complete purity test of fine fescue in different labs using two
methods (with and without factoring). Data are average of 8 samples.
Labs
Factoring
With
Without
Time (min) 1
44.9
24.1 2
50.6
24.8 3
57.5
35.6 4
50.9 21 5
23.4
17.8 6
7.9
4.5 7
32.3
19.9 8
31.5
18.9 9
14.8
9.8 10
48.1
38.3 11
29.5
14.1
Mean
20.8
Average saving using the non-factoring method: 41%

52. Conclusions of the National Referee
The difference in purity results between factoring and non-factoring across labs was 0.58%.
Time saving using the non-factoring method is 41.6%.
Consistency of performing purity tests of fine fescues among labs are similar using factoring or non-factoring method as measured by the SD.

53. The overall conclusions:
Non-factoring method simpler, and has less potential errors in separating, weighing, and calculating the factors.
MSU in FF have similar planting value to SSU.
Non-factoring method produces a bit higher pure seed % (avg %) compared to factoring method.
It represent the real weight and conditions in the bag of seeds.
Therefore, it is feasible to discontinue the factoring procedure in fine fescue.

54. Potential Benefits of No-factoring
Reduces analyst to analyst variation (subjectivity) in assessing MSU.
The higher purity (of about 0.5%) would represent the true quality of fine fescue seed lots.
Harmonized of AOSA, ISTA, and Canadian Rules.
Time saving of about 40%.

55. Acknowledgements
Thanks to all the labs that participated in the referees from the PNW and around the nation