J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 1

Appendix 6

Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations

INDEX

Section Page

Index 1

Introduction 2

Results and Discussion 8

Materials and Methods 36

Conclusions 41

Certification 42
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 2

INTRODUCTION

Plants and tubers of the events were compared phenotypically to those of untransformed parent 

varieties in diverse growing locations to determine whether the transformation had affected agronomic 

performance, ecological interactions, and/or tuber yield and quality. The assessments made it possible 

to select for events that displayed the intentionally incorporated new traits and maintained all beneficial 

traits of the conventional varieties (from among a larger number of events). They also made it possible 

to ensure that the transformations had not resulted in the introduction of unintended effects associated 

with weediness or pest-like characteristics. 

During 2009, 2010, and 2011, plants of the ten events and their untransformed counterparts were 

grown at multiple locations representing the major production areas for the potato varieties used (Table 

1).

Table 1. Field Trial Locations

USDA 

Notificat

ion #

Site 

State

Site 

County

Material 

Tested

Trial 

Design3

Rows x 

Planted 

Tubers/ Rep

Seed 

Type

Regional Specifics Location 

ID Code

2009 Field trials

09-049-

114n

ID Canyon Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank, 

Atlantic

RCB, 5 

reps/line 

(1 

rep/line 

for 

Atlantic)

1x20 (1x15 

for Atlantic)

MinitubersTypical for Southwest Idaho, an important potatogrowing region in a state in the Northwest that

produces about 120 million cwt/year, mainly for the 

French fry industry, Careful management is needed to 

limit or prevent heat-associated agronomic issues.

Not

required1

09-049-

114n

ID Bingham Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank

RCB, 5 

reps/line

1x20 MinitubersTypical for Southeast Idaho, an important potatogrowing region in a state that produces about 120 

million cwt/year, mainly for the French fry industry, 

with harvests in Fall. The growing season is relatively 

short because of cooler temperatures.

Not 

required1

09-049-

114n

WI Oneida G, H 1 rep/line 1x100 MinitubersTypical for Wisconsin, a Midwest state that produces 

about 20 million cwt/year, for both the chip and fresh 

potato industry, with harvests in Fall. Large areas are 

dominated by muck soils.

Not 

required1

08-353-

103n

FL St. Johns G, H RCB, 4 

reps/line

1x25 MinitubersTypical for Florida that produces almost 8 million 

cwt/year, mainly for the chip and fresh potato industry, 

with harvests in Spring.

Not 

required1

08-353-

104n

MI Montcalm Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank, 

G, H

RCB, 4 

reps/line

1x20 MinitubersTypical for Michigan, a Midwest state that produces 

about 15 million cwt/year, for both the chip and fresh 

potato industry, with harvests in Fall. The climate is 

characterized by mild temperatures and ample rain.

Not 

required1
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 3

Table 1 (Continued). Field Trial Locations 

USDA 

Notificat

ion #

Site 

State

Site 

County

Material 

Tested

Trial 

Design3

Rows x 

Planted 

Tubers/ 

Rep

Seed 

Type

Regional Specifics Location ID Code

2010 Field trials

10-053-

132n

ID Canyon Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank, 

Atlantic

RCB, 3 

reps/line

3x20 Field seed 

(G1)

(Minitubers for 

Atlantic)

See above for Canyon county UOIPAR2010

10-053-

132n

ID Bingham Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank, 

Atlantic, 

G, H

RCB, 3 

reps/line (4 

reps/line 

for G, H; 5 

reps/line 

for 

Atlantic)

3x20 

(1x20 for 

G, H, 

Atlantic)

Field seed 

(G1) 

(Minitubers for 

Atlantic)

See above for Bingham county UOIABE2010

10-053-

132n

WI Oneida G, H RCB, 4 

reps/line

1x20 Field seed 

(G1)

See above for Oneida county RHI2010

10-053-

132n

WI Adams Atlantic RCB, 5 

reps/line

1x20 MinitubersTypical for Wisconsin, a Midwest state that 

produces about 20 million cwt/year, for both the 

chip and fresh potato industry, with harvests in 

Fall.

WI2010

10-076-

013n

WI Vilas G, H 1 rep Seed 

bulkup4

Minituber/ G1Typical for Wisconsin, a Midwest state that 

produces about 20 million cwt/year, for both the 

chip and fresh potato industry, with harvests in 

Fall.

VILAS2010

10-053-

132n

MI Montcalm Atlantic,

G, H

RCB, 3 

reps/line (4 

reps/line 

for G, H)

3x20 

(1x20 for 

G, H)

Field seed 

(G1) 

(Minitubers for 

Atlantic)

See above for Montcalm county MSUMONT2010

10-053-

132n

MI Missaukee G, H RCB, 4 

reps/line

1x20 Field seed 

(G1)

Typical for Michigan, a Midwest state that 

produces about 15 million cwt/year, for both the 

chip and fresh potato industry, with harvests in 

Fall.

MSULAKE2010

10-053-

132n

NE Cherry Atlantic RCB, 5 

reps/line

1x20 Field seed 

(G1) 

(Minitubers for 

Atlantic)

Typical for Nebraska, a Midwest state that 

produces about 9 million cwt/year, mainly for 

the seed industry, with harvests in Fall.

CSS2010

10-053-

132n

ND Grand 

Forks2

Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank, 

Atlantic

RCB, 3 

reps/line (5 

reps/line 

for 

Atlantic)

3x20 

(1x20 for 

Atlantic)

Field seed 

(G1) 

(Minitubers for 

Atlantic)

Typical for North Dakota, a Midwest state that 

produces about 20 million cwt/year, mainly for 

the French fry industry, with harvests in Fall. The 

Red River Valley is the 3rd largest potato growing 

region in the US.

NDSU2010

10-053-

132n

WA Adams Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank, 

Atlantic

RCB, 3 

reps/line (5 

reps/line 

for 

Atlantic)

3x20 

(1x20 for 

Atlantic)

Field seed 

(G1) 

(Minitubers for 

Atlantic)

Typical for Washington, a state in the Northwest 

that produces about 85 million cwt/year, mainly 

for the French fry industry, with harvests in Fall. 

Ideal growing conditions give rise to very high 

yields per acre. 

WSU2010

09-336-

103n

FL St. Johns G, H RCB, 4 

reps/line

1x25 Field seed 

(G1)

See above for St. Johns county UFL2010
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 4

Table 1 (Continued). Field Trial Locations 

USDA 

Notifica

tion #

Site 

State

Site 

County

Material

Tested

Trial 

Design3

Rows x 

Planted 

Tubers/ 

Rep

Seed Type Regional Specifics Location ID Code

2011 Field trials

11-063-

103n

ID Canyon Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank, 

Atlantic

RCB, 3 

reps/line

3x20 Field seed 

(G2) (G1 for 

Atlantic, Minitubers for 

F37)

See above for Canyon county UOIPAR2011

11-063-

103n

ID Bingham Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank, 

Atlantic, 

RCB, 3 

reps/line 

3x20 Field seed 

(G2) (G1 for 

Atlantic, Minitubers for 

F37)

See above for Bingham county UOIABE2011

11-063-

103n

WI Adams Atlantic RCB, 3 

reps/line

3x20 Field seed 

(G1)

See above for Adams county, Wisconsin WI2011

11-063-

103n

MI Montcalm Atlantic RCB, 3 

reps/line 

3x20 Field seed 

(G1)

See above for Montcalm county MSUMONT2011

11-063-

103n

ND Grand 

Forks

Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank, 

Atlantic

RCB, 3 

reps/line 

3x20 Field seed 

(G2) (G1 for 

Atlantic, Minitubers for 

F37)

See above for Grand Forks county NDSU2011

11-063-

103n

WA Adams Ranger 

Russet, 

Russet 

Burbank, 

Atlantic

RCB, 3 

reps/line 

3x20 Field seed 

(G2) (G1 for 

Atlantic, Minitubers for 

F37)

See above for Adams county, Washington WSU2011

10-326-

103n

FL St. Johns G, H, 

Atlantic

RCB, 4 

reps/line

1x20 Field seed 

(G1)

See above for St. Johns county UFL2011

11-063-

103n

WI Oneida G, H RCB, 4 

reps/line

1x20 Field seed 

(G1)

See above for Oneida County RHI2011

11-063-

103n

IN Pulaski Atlantic RCB, 3 

reps/line

1x20 Field seed 

(G1)

Typical for Indiana, a Midwest state that 

produces about 2 million cwt/year, for both 

the chip and fresh potato industry, with 

harvests in Fall.

Indiana2011

11-094-

106n

WI Oneida G,H RCB, 4 

reps/ line

1x13 Field seed (G1 See above for Oneida County ONEIDA2011

1

USDA/APHIS did not require a unique location identification code in 2009.

2

Because parts of this field were flooded extensively, Ranger Russet and Russet Burbank tubers were evaluated 

only biochemically.

3

Randomized Complete Block Designs contained the same number of blocks as the number of reps in the table.

4

This was a seed bulkup site, no data were collected.

The agronomic practices and pest control measures employed were location-specific and typical for 

potato cultivation. They were recommended by both regional potato extension specialists and corporate 

agronomists and related to all aspects of soil preparation, fertilizer application, irrigation, and pesticidebased control methods. Events and untransformed varieties received identical inputs and treatments 

within each site. The trial sites selected for the agronomic evaluations were different eco-agricultural 

zones, and represented the main production areas for potatoes that are destined for fry and chip 

production in the USA.

Field evaluations were carried out by agronomists and scientists with extensive experience in growing 

and analyzing potatoes. The traits evaluated are listed in Table 2 and are used by plant breeders in Plant 
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 5

Variety Protection (PVP) filings. These traits might help identify plants displaying characteristics that are 

typical of pests or noxious weeds and, therefore, of interest to the USDA-APHIS. 
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 6

Table 2. Characteristics Evaluated

General

characteristic

Characteristic 

measured

Evaluation

timing1

Data

description

Scale2

Early Emergence Emergence 30 days after 

planting

% emergence Percent based on number of

seed pieces planted

Final Emergence Emergence Early season % emergence Percent based on number of

seed pieces planted

Insect Stressors Population Early, Mid, & Late

season

Visual estimate of relative 

population

1 to 5 point scale; 1=high 

population, 3=average 

population, 5=low population

Disease Stressors Symptoms Early, Mid, & Late 

season

Visual estimate of relative 

pressure

1 to 5 point scale; 1=high 

pressure, 3=average pressure, 

5=low pressure

Abiotic Stressors

Symptoms Early, Mid, & Late 

season

Visual estimate of relative 

symptom expression

1 to 5 point scale; 1=high 

symptom expression, 3=average 

symptom expression, 5=low 

symptom expression

Stems Per Plant Stems per Plant Early season Count of stems per plant Number of stems per plant

Incidental Stressors Diseases Mid & Late season Observations Presence/absence

Insects Midseason Observations Presence/absence

Above ground 

characteristics

Plant Vigor Midseason Visual estimate of relative vigor 1 to 5 point scale; 

3=control/normal, 1= less or 

worse than control/normal, 5 = 

greater or better than 

control/normal

Foliage Color Midseason Visual estimate of relative foliage 

color

1 to 5 point scale; 

3=control/normal, 1= less or 

worse than control/normal, 5 = 

greater or better than 

control/normal

Leaflet Size Midseason Visual estimate of relative leaflet 

size

1 to 5 point scale; 

3=control/normal, 1= less or 

worse than control/normal, 5 = 

greater or better than 

control/normal

Leaflet Curl Midseason Visual estimate of relative leaflet 

curl

1 to 5 point scale; 

3=control/normal, 1= less or 

worse than control/normal, 5 = 

greater or better than 

control/normal

Flower Color Midseason Observation of flower color Flower color recorded as purple, 

white, or mixed per plot

Senescence Late season Visual estimate of % necrotic 

foliage at maturity

% of necrotic vine per plot

Vine Size Late season Visual estimate of relative vine 

size

1 to 5 point scale; 

3=control/normal, 1= less or 

worse than control/normal, 5 = 

greater or better than 

control/normal

Vine maturity Late season Visual estimate of relative vine 

maturity

1 to 5 point scale; 

3=control/normal, 1= less or 

worse than control/normal, 5 = 

greater or better than 

control/normal

1

Early season observations were made at approximately 45 days after emergence. Midseason observations were

made during the early bloom stage. Late season notes were taken during the crop senescence stage.

2 While it was expected when using the 1 to 5 scale that all controls would have mean values of 3, however, some 

observers treated the scale as if 3 were normal, rather than a comparison to the control.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 7

Table 2 (Continued). Characteristics Evaluated

General

characteristic

Characteristic 

measured

Evaluation

timing1

Data

description

Scale

Yield Total yield After harvest Plot weight Lbs./row of 20 seed pieces

Tuber grading After harvest Tubers categorized as 4-6 oz., 6-

10 oz., 10-14 oz., >14 oz., U.S. #1, 

Grade B, Grade A, Oversize, or 

Pick Out, as appropriate

% of tubers by weight in each 

category

Specific gravity After Harvest Tuber sample weight in 

air/(weight in air - weight in 

water)

Numeric specific gravity value

High Sugar After Harvest Color rating of test fried strips 

based on USDA Color Chart for 

French Fried Potatoes 

% of tubers with >1/2 of the 

fried strip has a number 3 or 

darker color

Sugar ends After Harvest Color rating of the end of test 

fried strips based on USDA Color 

Chart for French Fried Potatoes

% of tubers with an end 1⁄4” long 

or longer on the darkest end of 

the strip, testing number 3 or 

darker color

Total Internal 

Defects

After Harvest Sum of internal defects such as 

hollow heart, vascular 

discoloration, brown center, etc. 

% of internal defects

1

Early season observations were made at approximately 45 days after emergence. Midseason observations were

made during the early bloom stage. Late season notes were taken during the crop senescence stage.

BQMS Quality Management Systems: All agronomic trials were conducted according to USDA 

Biotechnology Quality Management System (BQMS) standards and were USDA-APHIS compliant. 

Compliance to USDA requirements described in CFR 7 part 340 was assured by: 

(1) Providing details on the introduced DNA in the submitted Design Protocol

(2) Confirming that plants and tubers are free of Agrobacterium

(3) Monitoring eight critical control points (CCPs) in the process of transporting, evaluating, 

harvesting, storing, and eliminating potatoes that are no longer needed. The associated 

documents were developed in collaboration with APHIS/BQMS and include: (1) Record of 

Transport indicating the USDA movement permit number, (2) Record of Storage and Inventory 

Change, (3) Record of Planting, (4) Record of Spatial Isolation, (5) Record of Harvest, (6) Record 

of Processing, (7) Record of Post-Harvest Monitoring, which commits to monitoring trials for the 

establishment of volunteers during the two years following an experiment, and (8) Record of 

Corrective Action. 

Both internal and external audits were undertaken to inspect all records and ensure that regulated 

plants or tubers were not lost or mixed with other plants or tubers during transport, planting, and 

storage.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 8

RESULTS and DISCUSSION

Interpretation of the Results

For each comparison between a test line and the appropriate conventional control, the following logic 

was employed to assess the results. First, when p-values were available, statistical significance was 

determined for each comparison. If the p-value indicated no statistical significance, it was unlikely that 

there was a difference that would be biologically meaningful or indicative of increased pest potential. 

Next, if the p-value indicated statistical significance or if a p-value was not present, the mean value of 

the test line was compared to the combined control range, which represents the minimum and 

maximum mean values of all conventional lines included in the experiments. If the value for the test line 

was within the combined control range, it was concluded that the test line exhibited characteristics 

within the natural variation of potatoes and that the difference was unlikely to be biologically 

meaningful or indicative of increased pest potential. If the value of the test line was outside the 

combined control range, further consideration was given to the difference in the context of agronomic 

impact and increased pest potential. 

The combined control range for the agronomic characteristics used a total of 319 mean values from 

conventional Ranger, Burbank, Atlantic, G, and H varieties grown as controls in the field trials. For the 

yield and grading data for the Burbank and Ranger lines, the combined control range used a total of 170 

mean values of the Burbank and Ranger conventional controls. For the yield and grading data for the 

Atlantic, G, and H lines, a total of 160 mean values of Atlantic, G, and H conventional controls were used 

to determine the combined control range.

Field Performance and Tuber Assessment for Ranger Russet Events F10 and F37

Evaluations of phenotypic characteristics and ecological interactions (stressors) of the Ranger Russet F10 

and F37 events and controls grown in 2009, 2010, and 2011 are shown in Tables 3-7. Results were 

analyzed by statistical methods where possible. Overall the data suggest that there are no major 

differences between the Ranger Russet control and the F10 and F37 Ranger Russet events.

The agronomic characteristics for F10 and the Ranger control are shown in Table 3. No statistically 

significant differences were detected between F10 and the control for any agronomic characteristic. 

Foliage color and vine maturity rating data were not able to be statistically compared; however, the 

observed values of F10 for foliage color and vine maturity rating were within the combined control 

range.

The agronomic characteristics for F37 and the Ranger control are shown in Table 3. There were no 

differences detected between F37 and the control for early emergence, final emergence, leaflet curl, or 

senescence. Foliage color and vine maturity rating data were not able to be statistically compared; 

however, the observed values of F37 for both characteristics were within the combined control range. 

Three significant differences were detected between F37 and the control for stems per plant (1.5 vs. 

2.5), plant vigor (3.4 vs. 3.1), and leaflet size (3.3 vs. 3.0). The value of F37 for plant vigor was within the 

combined control range. The values of F37 for stems per plant and leaflet size were outside of the 

combined control range (1.5 vs. 1.6-5.0 and 3.3 vs. 2.0-3.0, respectively), but these differences were 

small and would not contribute to increased weediness or pest potential. 
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 9

The flower colors of F10, F37, and the Ranger control are shown in Table 4. All flowers observed were

purple or mixed, as expected.

The yield and grading characteristics of F10 and the Ranger control are shown in Table 5. There were no 

statistically significant differences detected for the 6-10 oz. tuber size category, >14 oz. category, 

specific gravity, high sugar, or sugar ends. Statistical analysis was not possible for total internal defects 

but the values for F10 were within the combined control range. Three differences were detected 

between F10 and the control for total yield (53.7 vs. 60.0, respectively), the 4-6 oz. category (23.9 vs. 

18.4), and the 10-14 oz. category (13.9 vs. 19.3). All values for F10 were within the combined control 

range for these characteristics.

The yield and grading characteristics of F37 and the Ranger control are shown in Table 5. There were no 

differences detected between F37 and the control for five characteristics: the 4-6oz. category, the 10-14 

oz. category, the >14 oz. category, specific gravity, and sugar ends. Total internal defects could not be 

statistically analyzed and the mean value of F37 for total internal defects was outside the combined 

control range (3.4 vs. 0.0-0.7); however, this difference would not contribute to increased weediness or 

pest potential. Significant differences were detected between F37 and the control for total yield (45.4 

vs. 60.0), the 6-10 oz. category (29.4 vs. 35.5), and high sugar (14.7 vs. 0.3). All values of F37 for these 

three characteristics were within the combined control range. 

The insect, disease, and abiotic stressor evaluations for F10 and the Ranger control are shown in Table 

6. No differences were noted between F10 and the control during 42 individual observations of four 

insect stressors. For the disease stressors, 46 of 48 observations lacked observed differences between 

F10 and the control. No differences between F10 and the control were observed during 36 observations 

of the five abiotic stressors. An observation is described as looking for an insect, disease, or abiotic 

stressor during a point in time. Even if no stressors are present, 0’s were recorded because the stressors 

were looked for and therefore comparisons can be made beteween the events and the conventional 

controls. The two observed differences between F10 and the control are detailed in the footnotes of

Table 6. The lack of differences between F10 and the control for stressor observations supports the 

conclusion that the event did not alter plant-insect, plant-disease, or plant-environment interactions.

The insect, disease, and abiotic stressor evaluations for F37 and the Ranger control are shown in Table 

6. No differences were noted between F37 and the control during 29 out of 30 individual observations of 

four insect stressors. For the disease stressors, 33 of 36 observations lacked observed differences 

between F37 and the control. No differences between F37 and the control were observed during 21

observations of the five abiotic stressors. The four observed differences between F37 and the control 

are detailed in the footnotes of Table 6. The lack of differences between F37 and the control for stressor 

observations supports the conclusion that the event did not alter plant-insect, plant-disease, or plantenvironment interactions.

Notes were also taken on incidental stressors for F10, F37, and the Ranger control and are presented in 

Table 7. No incidental insect stressors were found for F10, F37, or the control during 27 observations. 

Out of 47 observations, incidental Verticillium was noted five times for F10, three times for F37, and five 

times for the control. No incidental virus was found out of 47 observations for F10, F37, or the control. 

Other incidental stressors were identified three times each for F10, F37, and the control out of 44 

observations.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 10

It can be concluded that there are no major differences in agronomic characteristics, flower color, yield 

and grading, and ecological interactions between the untransformed Ranger Russet variety and events 

F10 and F37 (Tables 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). Therefore, based on our multi-year data, the Ranger Russet events

F10 and F37 pose no significant risk of persistence in the environment as a result of weediness or 

increased plant pest potential.

Table 3. Ranger Russet 2009-2011 Field Trials – Agronomic Characteristics

Entry Statistic

Characteristic (see Table 2. for descriptions)

Early Emergence

Final Emergence

Stems Per Plant

1

Plant Vigor

Foliage Color

Leaflet Size

Leaflet Curl

Senescence

Vine Size

2

Vine Maturity Rating

F10

Mean 87.9% 94.3% 2.5 3.3 3.2 3.0 2.3 30.6 . 2.7

SD 13.0% 6.9% 0.35 0.60 0.47 0.08 0.93 14.02 . 0.71

90% CI 81.2-

94.7%

92.4-

96.2%

2.34-

2.71

3.13-

3.46

3.05-

3.31

2.99-

3.03

2.08-

2.58

21.87-

39.25 .

2.40-

2.91

p-Value 1.0000 0.1700 0.8433 0.0659 NA 0.8171 0.1401 0.6270 . NA

F37

Mean 82.5% 93.8% 1.5 3.4 3.3 3.3 2.1 27.2 . 3.3

SD 14.5% 6.5% 0.19 0.79 0.46 0.45 1.01 20.33 . 0.92

90% CI 75.0-

90.0%

91.9-

95.6%

1.41-

1.61

3.11-

3.59

3.17-

3.46

3.13-

3.41

1.75-

2.38

14.62-

39.82 .

3.00-

3.66

p-Value 0.4898 0.0687 0.0001 0.0237 NA 0.0001 0.4108 0.8075 . NA

Ranger Ctrl

Mean 87.9% 96.0% 2.5 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.2 28.3 . 3.0

SD 24.2% 6.2% 0.49 0.46 0.32 0.00 0.99 13.46 . 0.10

90% CI 75.4-

100%

94.2-

97.7%

2.24-

2.76

2.93-

3.17

2.86-

3.04

3.00-

3.00

1.96-

2.50

19.99-

36.68 .

2.98-

3.06

ComC3Range 7.0-

100.0

79.0-

100.0

1.6-

5.0

2.3-

4.3

2.3-

4.0

2.0-

3.0

1.0-

3.0

8.7-

91.7 .

2.3-

4.5

1

Stems per plant data from 2011 only.

2

Vine size data not collected.

3

ComC = combined control range. The range of mean values of conventional Ranger, Burbank, Atlantic,

G, and H controls.

NA = Statistical comparison not possible.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 11

Table 4. Ranger Russet 2011 Field Trials – Flower Color Characteristics

Entry

Number of Plots

Purple or Mixed Flowers White Flowers

F10 12 0

F37 6 0

Ranger Ctrl 12 0

Table 5. Ranger Russet 2009-2011 Field Trials – Yield and Grading Characteristics

Entry Statistic

Characteristic

Total Yield

4-6 oz

6-10 oz

10-14 oz

>14 oz

Specific Gravity

1

High Sugar

Sugar Ends

Total Internal 

Defects

F10 Mean 53.7 23.9 35.6 13.9 9.9 1.095 1.3 3.0 0.0

SD 20.8 9.6 8.8 8.4 10.4 0.008 3.1 4.7 0.0

90% CI 47.1-

60.3

19.8-

27.9

31.9-

39.4

10.4-

17.5

5.5-

14.3

1.092-

1.099

0.0-

2.6

1.0-

5.0

0.0-

0.0

p-Value 0.0083 0.0108 0.7564 0.0323 0.0638 0.4808 0.8457 0.7387 NA

F37 Mean 45.4 18.3 29.4 16.0 13.3 1.096 14.7 4.0 3.4

SD 24.7 7.2 7.9 9.4 12.0 0.009 27.8 7.1 5.6

90% CI 37.7-

53.1

15.2-

21.3

26.1-

32.8

12.0-

19.9

8.2-

18.4

1.092-

1.100

2.9-

26.4

1.0-

7.0

0.4-

6.3

p-Value 0.0001 0.7573 0.0054 0.2431 0.5446 0.3735 0.0127 0.4323 NA

Ranger

Ctrl

Mean 60.0 18.4 35.5 19.3 15.2 1.096 0.3 2.5 0.0

SD 21.1 10.0 9.5 8.5 16.9 0.008 0.8 4.1 0.0

90% CI 53.3-

66.6

14.3-

22.5

31.6-

39.4

15.8-

22.8

8.3-

22.2

1.093-

1.100

0.0-

0.7

0.8-

4.2

0.0-

0.0

ComC2Range 26.0-

107.7

2.3-

32.2

8.8-

51.6

6.7-

31.7

0.0-

59.3

1.071-

1.112

0.0-

36.1

0.0-

70.3

0.0-

0.7

1

Specific gravity data from 2011 only.

2

ComC = combined control range. The range of mean values of conventional Ranger and Burbank

controls.

NA = Statistical comparison not possible.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 12

Table 6. Ranger Russet 2010-2011 Field Trials – Stressor Observations

Stressor

F10 F37

Total 

# Obs.

# Obs. Without 

Observed 

Differences*

Total

# Obs.

# Obs. Without 

Observed 

Differences*

Insect

Aphids 18 18 12 12

Colorado Potato Beetle 18 18 12 12

Looper 3 3 3 3

Seed Corn Maggot 3 3 3 2

1

Totals 42 42 30 29

Disease

Black Leg 3 3 3 3

Botrytis 12 12 6 5

2

Early Blight 15 1439 7

4

Rhizoctonia 3 3 3 3

Verticillium 3 2

5

3 3

Virus 3 3 3 3

White Mold 9 9 9 9

Totals 48 46 36 33

Abiotic

Frost 3 3 3 3

Hail 12 12 9 9

Heat 3 3 3 3

Herbicide 15 15 6 6

Wind 3 3 0 0

Totals 36 36 21 21

*Stressor evaluations were intended to be categorical and were not statistically analyzed. The range of 

ratings for each event and its control were compared for each observation and an observed difference 

occurred when the range of the event was outside the range of the control. 

1During one observation F37 ranged 3-3 and control ranged 5-5 (Adams Co., WA 2011).

2During one observation F37 ranged 4-4 and control ranged 0-3 (Canyon Co., ID 2011).

3During one observation F10 ranged 0-5 and control ranged 4-5 (Grand Forks Co., ND 2011).

4During two observations F37 ranged 4-5 and 3-5 and control ranged 0-4 and 3-4.5, respectively

(Bingham Co., ID 2011 and Canyon Co., ID 2011).

5During one observation F10 ranged 3-4.5 and control ranged 4-5 (Bingham Co., ID 2011).
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 13

Table 7. Ranger Russet 2009-2011 Field Trials – Incidental Stressor Observations1

Entry

Incidental Insect Incidental 

Verticillium Incidental Virus Incidental Other

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

F10 27 0 42 5 47 0 41 3

F37 27 0 44 3 47 0 41 3

Ranger

Ctrl 27 0 42 5 47 0 41 3

1

Specific stressors, except Verticillium, were not identified during the incidental stressor observations 

and only presence/absence data were collected. Counts are the number of observations where 

incidental stressors were found (yes) or looked for but not found (no).
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 14

Field Performance and Tuber Assessment for Russet Burbank Events E12 and E24

Evaluations of phenotypic characteristics and ecological interactions (stressors) of the Russet Burbank 

E12 and E24 events and controls grown in 2009, 2010, and 2011 are shown in Tables 8-12. Results were 

analyzed by statistical methods where possible. Overall the data suggest that there are no major 

differences between the Russet Burbank control and the E12 and E24 Russet Burbank events.

The agronomic characteristics for E12 and the Burbank control are shown in Table 8. No statistically 

significant differences were detected between E12 and the control for seven of the eight agronomic 

characteristics which were statistically analyzed. Vine maturity rating data were not able to be 

statistically compared but the observed value of E12 was within the combined control range. A 

statistically significant difference was detected between E12 and the control for plant vigor (3.4 vs. 3.1); 

however, the value of E12 was within the combined control range.

The agronomic characteristics for E24 and the Burbank control are shown in Table 8. There were no 

differences detected between E24 and the control for early emergence, final emergence, foliage color, 

or senescence. Vine maturity rating data were not able to be statistically compared but the observed 

value of E24 was within the combined control range. Four significant differences were detected 

between E24 and the control for stems per plant (3.1 vs. 2.7), plant vigor (3.3 vs. 3.1), leaflet size (3.1 vs. 

2.9), and leaflet curl (2.4 vs. 2.2); however, the E24 values for all the characteristics for which differences 

were detected, were within the combined control range except for leaflet size, where the E24 value was 

just outside the combined control range (3.1 vs. 2.0-3.0). This difference in leaflet size is small and would 

not contribute to increased weediness or pest potential.

The flower colors of E12, E24, and the Burbank control are shown in Table 9. Both purple/mixed flowers 

and white flowers were observed in different plots for each entry.

The yield and grading characteristics of E12 and the Burbank control are shown in Table 10. There were 

no statistically significant differences detected for total yield, specific gravity, high sugar, or sugar ends. 

Statistical analysis was not possible for total internal defects but the values for E12 were within the 

combined control range. Four differences were detected between E12 and the control for the 4-6 oz. 

category (25.3 vs. 21.5), the 6-10 oz. category (33.1 vs. 30.3), the 10-14 oz. category (12.6 vs. 16.2), and 

the >14 oz. category (8.9 vs. 13.1). All values for E12 for these differences were within the combined 

control range.

The yield and grading characteristics of E24 and the Burbank control are shown in Table 10. There were 

no differences detected between E24 and the control for the 6-10 oz. category, specific gravity, high

sugar, and sugar ends. Total internal defects could not be statistically analyzed, but the mean of E24 was 

within the combined control range. Significant differences were detected between E24 and the control 

for total yield (52.7 vs. 56.8), the 4-6 oz. category (27.3 vs. 21.5), the 10-14 oz. category (10.7 vs. 16.2), 

and the >14 oz. category (5.7 vs. 13.1). All values of E24 for these three characteristics were within the 

combined control range.

The insect, disease, and abiotic stressor evaluations for E12 and the Burbank control are shown in Table 

11. No differences were noted between E12 and the control during 41 of 42 individual observations of 

four insect stressors. For the seven disease stressors, 47 of 48 observations lacked observed differences 

between E12 and the control. No differences between E12 and the control were observed during any of 

34 total observations of the five abiotic stressors. The two observed differences between E12 and the 
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 15

control are detailed in the footnotes of Table 11. The lack of differences between E12 and the control 

for stressor observations supports the conclusion that the event did not alter plant-insect, plant-disease, 

or plant-environment interactions.

The insect, disease, and abiotic stressor evaluations for E24 and the Burbank control are shown in Table 

11. No differences were noted between E24 and the control during 41 out of 42 individual observations 

of four insect stressors. For the seven disease stressors, 46 of 48 observations lacked observed 

differences between E24 and the control. No differences between E24 and the control were observed 

during 34 observations of the five abiotic stressors. The three observed differences between E24 and 

the control are detailed in the footnotes of Table 11. The lack of differences between E24 and the 

control for stressor observations supports the conclusion that the event did not alter plant-insect, plantdisease, or plant-environment interactions.

Notes were also taken on incidental stressors for E12, E24, and the Burbank control and are presented in 

Table 12. No incidental insect stressors were recorded for E12, E24, or the control during 27 

observations. Out of 47 observations, incidental Verticillium was noted eight times for E12, seven times 

for E24, and eight times for the control. No incidental virus was found out of 47 observations for E12, 

E24, or the control. Other incidental stressors were identified three times each for E12, E24, and the 

control out of 44 observations.

It can be concluded that there are no major differences in agronomic characteristics, flower color, yield 

and grading, and ecological interactions between the untransformed Russet Burbank variety and events 

E12 and E24 (Tables 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12). Therefore, based on our multi-year data, the Russet Burbank

events E12 and E24 pose no significant risk of persistence in the environment as a result of weediness or 

increased plant pest potential.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 16

Table 8. Russet Burbank 2009-2011 Field Trials – Agronomic Characteristics

Entry Statistic

Characteristic (see Table 2. for descriptions)

Early Emergence

Final Emergence

Stems Per Plant

1

Plant Vigor

Foliage Color

Leaflet Size

Leaflet Curl

Senescence

Vine Size

Vine Maturity Rating

2

E12

Mean 80.7% 93.7% 2.8 3.4 3.2 3.0 2.3 49.4 . 3.7

SD 22.7% 8.8% 0.61 0.60 0.38 0.24 0.95 36.27 . 0.90

90% CI 70.0-

91.5%

91.1-

96.2%

2.52-

3.16

3.22-

3.55

3.05-

3.26

2.95-

3.08

2.05-

2.56

26.96-

71.92 .

3.33-

3.97

p-Value 0.9367 0.6269 0.2200 0.0096 0.1812 0.0815 0.2051 0.1013 . NA

E24

Mean 75.0% 93.2% 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.1 2.4 57.8 . 3.7

SD 26.1% 6.5% 0.68 0.68 0.45 0.22 0.82 39.93 . 0.69

90% CI 62.7-

87.3%

91.3-

95.1%

2.77-

3.48

3.15-

3.52

3.05-

3.29

2.99-

3.11

2.19-

2.63

33.03-

82.53 .

3.47-

3.96

p-Value 0.2401 0.4373 0.0032 0.0298 0.1196 0.0138 0.0038 0.1477 . NA

Burbank

Ctrl

Mean 80.4% 94.4% 2.7 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.2 53.9 . 3.1

SD 21.5% 7.9% 0.50 0.35 0.27 0.27 0.99 36.04 . 0.31

90% CI 70.2-

90.5%

92.1-

96.7%

2.41-

2.93

2.98-

3.17

3.00-

3.15

2.85-

3.00

1.96-

2.50

31.55-

76.23 .

2.95-

3.18

ComC2Range 7.0-

100.0

79.0-

100.0

1.6

-5.0

2.3-

4.3

2.3-

4.0

2.0-

3.0

1.0-

3.0

8.7-

91.7 .

2.3-

4.5

1

Stems per plant data from 2011 only.

2

ComC = combined control range. The range of mean values of conventional Ranger, Burbank, Atlantic,

G, and H controls.

NA = Statistical comparison not possible.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 17

Table 9. Russet Burbank 2011 Field Trials – Flower Color Characteristics

Entry

Number of Plots

Purple or Mixed Flowers White Flowers

E12 3 5

E24 3 5

Burbank Ctrl 3 8

Table 10. Russet Burbank 2009-2011 Field Trials – Yield and Grading Characteristics

Entry Statistic

Characteristic

Total Yield

4-6 oz

6-10 oz

10-14 oz

>14 oz

Specific Gravity

1

High Sugar

Sugar Ends

Total Internal 

Defects

E12 Mean 53.2 25.3 33.1 12.6 8.9 1.082 12.3 18.0 0.3

SD 21.8 9.4 7.2 6.6 8.9 0.008 27.7 15.4 0.8

90% CI 46.3-

60.0

21.4-

29.1

30.1-

36.1

9.9-

15.3

5.3-

12.6

1.079-

1.085

0.9-

23.6

11.6-

24.3

0.0-

0.7

p-Value 0.2079 0.0061 0.0434 0.0431 .0077 0.1048 0.4455 0.3789 NA

E24 Mean 52.7 27.3 30.1 10.7 5.7 1.083 5.5 19.1 0.5

SD 22.8 7.7 7.9 5.5 9.3 0.008 9.7 20.0 1.0

90% CI 45.6-

59.8

24.0-

30.7

26.6-

33.5

8.3-

13.1

1.7-

9.8

1.079-

1.086

1.3-

9.8

10.3-

27.8

0.0-

1.0

p-Value 0.0061 0.0011 0.8441 0.0115 0.0002 0.2915 0.6629 0.8068 NA

Burbank

Ctrl

Mean 56.8 21.5 30.3 16.2 13.1 1.084 8.2 21.4 0.3

SD 20.9 8.4 8.0 7.3 9.9 0.007 13.9 21.4 0.7

90% CI 50.5-

63.2

18.1-

25.0

27.0-

33.6

13.2-

19.1

9.0-

17.2

1.081-

1.087

2.4-

13.9

12.6-

30.2

0.0-

0.7

ComC2Range 26.0-

107.7

2.3-

32.2

8.8-

51.6

6.7-

31.7

0.0-

59.3

1.071-

1.112

0.0-

36.1

0.0-

70.3

0.0-

0.7

1

Specific gravity data from 2011 only.

2

ComC = combined control range. The range of mean values of conventional Ranger and Burbank

controls.

NA = Statistical comparison not possible.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 18

Table 11. Russet Burbank 2009 and 2011 Field Trials – Stressor Observations

Stressor E12 E24

Total

# Obs.

# Obs. Without 

Observed Differences*

Total

# Obs.

# Obs. Without 

Observed Differences*

Insect

Aphids 18 18 18 18

Colorado Potato Beetle 18 18 18 18

Looper 3 3 3 3

Seed Corn Maggot 3 2

1

3 2

2

Totals 42 41 42 41

Disease

Black Leg 3 3 3 3

Botrytis 12 12 12 12

Early Blight 15 14315 144

Rhizoctonia 3 3 3 3

Verticillium 3 3 3 3

Virus 3 3 3 3

White Mold 9 9 9 8

5

Totals 48 47 48 46

Abiotic

Frost 3 3 3 3

Hail 10 10 10 10

Heat 3 3 3 3

Herbicide 15 15 15 15

Wind 3 3 3 3

Totals 34 34 34 34

*Stressor evaluations were intended to be categorical and were not statistically analyzed. The range of 

ratings for each event and its control were compared for each observation and an observed difference 

occurred when the range of the event was outside the range of the control. 

1During one observation E12 ranged 4-5 and control ranged 4-4 (Adams Co., WA 2011).

2During one observation E24 ranged 4-5 and control ranged 4-4 (Adams Co., WA 2011).

3During one observation E12 ranged 3-5 and control ranged 3-4.5 (Bingham Co., ID 2011).

4During one observation E24 ranged 3-5 and control ranged 3-4.5 (Bingham Co., ID 2011).

5During one observation E24 ranged 3-5 and control ranged 4-5 (Bingham Co., ID 2011).
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 19

Table 12. Russet Burbank 2009-2011 Field Trials – Incidental Stressor Observations1

Entry

Incidental Insect Incidental 

Verticillium Incidental Virus Incidental Other

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

E12 27 0 39 8 47 0 41 3

E24 27 0 40 7 47 0 41 3

Burbank 

Ctrl

27 0 39 8 47 0 41 3

1

Specific stressors, except Verticillium, were not identified during the incidental stressor observations 

and only presence/absence data were collected. Counts are the number of observations where 

incidental stressors were found (yes) or looked for but not found (no).
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 20

Field Performance and Tuber Assessment for Atlantic Events J3, J55 and J78

Evaluations of phenotypic characteristics and ecological interactions (stressors) of J3, J55, and J78 

events and controls grown in 2010 and 2011 are shown in Tables 13-17. Results were analyzed by 

statistical methods where possible. Overall, the data suggest that there are no major differences 

between the Atlantic control and the J3, J55, and J78 events.

The agronomic characteristics for J3 and the Atlantic control are shown in Table 13. No statistically 

significant differences were detected between J3 and the control for five of the seven agronomic 

characteristics which were statistically analyzed. Leaflet curl and vine maturity rating data were not able 

to be statistically compared; however, the mean values of J3 for these characteristics were within the 

combined control range. Statistically significant differences were detected between J3 and the control

for stems per plant (3.4 vs. 3.1) and senescence (52.4 vs. 47.4); however, the values for J3 were within 

the combined control range in both cases. Although not significantly different from the control, the 

value for leaflet size was just outside the combined control range (3.1 vs. 2.0-3.0); however, this small 

difference would not contribute to increased weediness or pest potential.

The agronomic characteristics for J55 and the Atlantic control are shown in Table 13. There were no 

differences detected between J55 and the control for five of the seven agronomic characteristics which 

were statistically analyzed. Leaflet curl and vine maturity rating data were not able to be statistically 

compared; however, the mean values of J55 for these characteristics were within the combined control 

range. Two significant differences were detected between J55 and the control for early emergence (68.6 

vs. 74.3, respectively) and senescence (52.4 vs. 47.4). The values of J55 for both characteristics where 

differences were detected were within the combined control range.

The agronomic characteristics for J78 and the Atlantic control are shown in Table 13. There were no 

differences detected between J78 and the control for early emergence, final emergence, plant vigor, or 

foliage color. Leaflet size, leaflet curl, and vine maturity rating data were not able to be statistically 

compared; however, the mean values of J78 were within the combined control range. Two significant 

differences were detected between J78 and the control for stems per plant (3.4 vs. 3.1) and senescence 

(51.9 vs. 47.4). The values of J78 for these characteristics were within the combined control range.

The flower colors of J3, J55, J78, and the Atlantic control are shown in Table 14. All lines at all locations 

in all years had purple or mixed flower color, as expected.

The yield and grading characteristics of J3 and the Atlantic control are shown in Table 15. There were no 

statistically significant differences detected for total yield, % grade A, % pick outs (tubers discarded due 

to quality issues like rot and mold), or total internal defects. Statistical analysis was not possible for % 

grade B, but the mean of J3 was within the combined control range. Three statistically significant 

differences were detected between J3 and the control for % U.S. #1 (84.7 vs. 87.1), % oversize (5.4 vs. 

8.3), and specific gravity (1.094 vs. 1.092). All values for J3 for these differences were within the 

combined control range.

The yield and grading characteristics of J55 and the Atlantic control are shown in Table 15. There were 

no differences detected between J55 and the control for any of the seven analyzed yield and grading 

characteristics. Percent grade B could not be statistically analyzed, but the mean of J55 was within the 

combined control range.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 21

The yield and grading characteristics of J78 and the Atlantic control are shown in Table 15. There were 

no differences detected between J78 and the control for any of the seven analyzed yield and grading 

characteristics. Percent grade B could not be statistically analyzed, but the mean of J78 was within the 

combined control range.

The insect, disease, and abiotic stressor evaluations for J3 and the Atlantic control are shown in Table 

16. No differences were noted between J3 and the control during any of the 106 insect stressor 

observations, which included six different insects. For the eight disease stressors evaluated, 97 of 99 

observations lacked observed differences between J3 and the control. No differences between J3 and 

the control were observed during any of 72 total observations of five abiotic stressors. The two 

observed differences between J3 and the control are detailed in the footnotes of Table 16. The lack of 

differences between J3 and the control for stressor observations supports the conclusion that the event 

did not alter plant-insect, plant-disease, or plant-environment interactions.

The insect, disease, and abiotic stressor evaluations for J55 and the Atlantic control are shown in Table 

16. No differences were seen between J55 and the control during the 106 insect stressor observations 

including six different insects. For the eight disease stressors evaluated, 97 of 99 observations lacked 

observed differences between J55 and the control. No differences between J55 and the control were 

observed during any of 72 total observations of five abiotic stressors. The two observed differences 

between J55 and the control are detailed in the footnotes of Table 16. The lack of differences between 

J55 and the control for stressor observations supports the conclusion that the event did not alter plantinsect, plant-disease, or plant-environment interactions.

The insect, disease, and abiotic stressor evaluations for J78 and the Atlantic control are shown in Table 

16. No differences were noted between J78 and the control during 106 individual observations of six 

insect stressors. For the eight disease stressors, 98 of 99 observations lacked observed differences 

between J78 and the control. No differences between J78 and the control were observed during 72 

observations of five abiotic stressors. The single observed difference between J78 and the control is 

detailed in the footnotes of Table 16. The lack of differences between J78 and the control for stressor 

observations supports the conclusion that the event did not alter plant-insect, plant-disease, or plantenvironment interactions.

Notes were taken on incidental stressors for J3, J55, J78, and the Atlantic control and are presented in 

Table 17. No incidental insect stressors were noted for J3, J78, or the control during 32 observations. 

One incidental insect stressor was noted for J55 out of 32 observations. Out of 66 observations, 

incidental Verticillium was noted eight times each for J3, J55, J78, and the control. No incidental virus 

was recorded out of 66 observations for any entry. Other incidental stressors were not found for J3, J55, 

J78, or the control in any of 63 observations.

It can be concluded that there are no major differences in agronomic characteristics, flower color, yield 

and grading, and ecological interactions between the untransformed Atlantic variety and events J3, J55, 

J78 (Tables 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17). Therefore, based on our multi-year data, the Atlantic events J3, J55, 

and J78 pose no significant risk of persistence in the environment as a result of weediness or plant pest 

potential.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 22

Table 13. Atlantic 2010-2011 Field Trials – Agronomic Characteristics

Entry Statistic

Characteristic (see Table 2. for descriptions)

Early Emergence

Final Emergence

1

Stems Per Plant

2

Plant Vigor

Foliage Color

Leaflet Size

Leaflet Curl

Senescence

Vine Size

Vine Maturity Rating

J3

Mean 71.7% 97.8% 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.0 52.4 . 2.9

SD 23.9% 3.3% 1.34 0.78 0.36 0.45 0.00 31.31 . 0.68

90% CI 66.0-

77.3%

96.7-

98.9%

2.93-

3.92

3.01-

3.36

3.02-

3.19

3.01-

3.21

3.00-

3.00

39.91-

64.82 .

2.71-

3.07

p-Value 0.3204 0.0879 0.0023 0.8352 0.3916 0.1360 NA 0.0044 . NA

J55

Mean 68.6% 99.3% 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0 52.4 . 3.0

SD 26.2% 2.2% 1.22 0.72 0.51 0.26 0.00 30.38 . 0.94

90% CI 62.4-

74.7%

98.6-

100%

2.86-

3.76

2.98-

3.30

3.07-

3.30

2.98-

3.09

3.00-

3.00

40.28-

64.46 .

2.73-

3.22

p-Value 0.0308 0.6324 0.0593 0.5226 0.6899 0.9144 NA 0.0044 . NA

J78

Mean 71.8% 98.2% 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.0 3.0 51.9 . 2.7

SD 25.9% 3.2% 1.25 0.46 0.48 0.00 0.00 30.96 . 0.85

90% CI 65.7-

77.9%

97.1-

99.3%

2.89-

3.80

3.02-

3.22

3.07-

3.28

3.00-

3.00

3.00-

3.00

39.58-

64.21 .

2.46-

2.91

p-Value 0.3455 0.2527 0.0233 0.4170 0.7954 NA NA 0.0094 . NA

Atlantic

Ctrl

Mean 74.3% 99.0% 3.1 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 47.4 . 3.0

SD 30.4% 2.5% 1.14 0.46 0.32 0.00 0.00 32.56 . 0.11

90% CI 67.2-

81.4%

98.2-

99.8%

2.72-

3.55

3.06-

3.27

3.04-

3.19

3.00-

3.00

3.00-

3.00

34.42-

60.32 .

3.00-

3.06

ComC3Range 7.0-

100.0

79.0-

100.0

1.6-

5.0

2.3-

4.3

2.3-

4.0

2.0-

3.0

1.0-

3.0

8.7-

91.7 .

2.3-

4.5

1

Final emergence data from 2011 only.

2

Stems per plant data from 2011 only.

3

ComC = combined control range. The range of mean values of conventional Ranger, Burbank, Atlantic,

G, and H controls.

NA = Statistical comparison not possible.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 23

Table 14. Atlantic 2011 Field Trials – Flower Color Characteristics

Entry

Number of Plots

Purple or Mixed Flowers White Flowers

J3 22 0

J55 22 0

J78 22 0

Atlantic Ctrl 22 0
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 24

Table 15. Atlantic 2010-2011 Field Trials – Yield and Grading Characteristics

Entry Statistic

Characteristic

Total Yield

% US#1

% Grade B

% Grade A

% Oversize

% Pick Outs

2

Specific Gravity

Total Internal 

Defects

J3 Mean 42.2 84.7 14.3 79.3 5.4 1.1 1.094 30.4

SD 15.8 7.3 7.7 7.7 7.0 1.8 0.007 23.1

90% CI 37.5-

46.9

82.5-

86.9

12.0-

16.6

76.9-

81.6

3.3-

7.5

0.5-

1.6

1.092-

1.096

23.5-

37.3

p-Value 0.0604 0.0175 NA 0.7763 0.0371 0.9161 0.0133 0.9572

J55 Mean 46.2 86.3 11.8 78.5 7.8 2.0 1.093 36.6

SD 18.9 8.2 7.2 7.6 8.9 4.8 0.009 24.8

90% CI 40.5-

51.9

83.9-

88.8

9.6-

14.0

76.2-

80.8

5.1-

10.4

0.5-

3.4

1.090-

1.095

29.1-

44.0

p-Value 0.3913 0.4341 NA 0.8392 0.6937 0.1049 0.4442 0.1472

J78 Mean 45.4 87.4 11.5 79.6 7.9 1.0 1.092 28.9

SD 17.0 7.3 7.4 10.2 11.8 1.9 0.008 31.3

90% CI 40.3-

50.5

85.2-

89.6

9.3-

13.7

76.5-

82.6

4.3-

11.4

0.5-

1.6

1.090-

1.094

19.5-

38.3

p-Value 0.7721 0.7541 NA 0.6264 0.7633 0.9580 0.6616 0.6676

Atlantic

Ctrl

Mean 45.0 87.1 11.9 78.8 8.3 1.0 1.092 30.6

SD 18.4 6.7 7.3 8.6 9.9 2.1 0.009 30.5

90% CI 39.4-

50.5

85.1-

89.1

9.7-

14.1

76.2-

81.4

5.3-

11.3

0.4-

1.6

1.090-

1.095

21.5-

39.8

ComC1Range

17.2-

80.1

64.0-

95.0

3.0-

36.0

61.0-

92.3

0.0-

33.0

0.0-

6.0

1.074-

1.109

0.0-

120.0

1

ComC = combined control range. The range of mean values of conventional Atlantic, G, and H controls.

2

Pick outs refer to tubers discarded at harvest due to quality issues, i.e. rot and mold.

NA = Statistical comparison not possible.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 25

Table 16. Atlantic 2011 Field Trials – Stressor Observations

Stressor

J3 J55 J78

Total

# Obs.

# Obs. 

Without 

Observed 

Differences*

Total

# Obs.

# Obs. 

Without 

Observed 

Differences*

Total

# Obs.

# Obs. 

Without 

Observed 

Differences*

Insect

Aphids 21 21 21 21 21 21

Colorado Potato Beetle 65 65 65 65 65 65

Flea Beetle 8 8 8 8 8 8

Looper 3 3 3 3 3 3

Potato Leafhopper 6 6 6 6 6 6

Seed Corn Maggot 3 3 3 3 3 3

Totals 106 106 106 106 106 106

Disease

Black Leg 3 3 3 3 3 3

Botrytis 24 24 24 24 24 24

Early Blight 51 50151 50251 51

Late Blight 3 3 3 3 3 3

Rhizoctonia 6 6 6 6 6 6

Verticillium 3 2

3

3 2

4

3 2

5

Virus 3 3 3 3 3 3

White Mold 6 6 6 6 6 6

Totals 99 97 99 97 99 98

Abiotic

Frost 6 6 6 6 6 6

Hail 12 12 12 12 12 12

Heat 3 3 3 3 3 3

Herbicide 21 21 21 21 21 21

Wind 30 30 30 30 30 30

Totals 72 72 72 72 72 72

*Stressor evaluations were intended to be categorical and were not statistically analyzed. The range of 

ratings for each event and its control were compared for each observation and an observed difference 

occurred when the range of the event was outside the range of the control. 

1During one observation J3 ranged 2.5-4.5 and control ranged 3-4 (Bingham Co., ID 2011).

2During one observation J55 ranged 3-4.5 and control ranged 3-4 (Bingham Co., ID 2011).

3During one observation J3 ranged 2.5-3 and control ranged 3-3.5 (Bingham Co., ID 2011).

4During one observation J55 ranged 2.5-2.5 and control ranged 3-3.5 (Bingham Co., ID 2011).

5During one observation J78 ranged 2-3 and control ranged 3-3.5 (Bingham Co., ID 2011).
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 26

Table 17. Atlantic 2010-2011 Field Trials – Incidental Stressor Observations1

Entry

Incidental Insect Incidental 

Verticillium Incidental Virus Incidental Other

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

Count of 

No

Count of 

Yes

J3 32 0 58 8 66 0 63 0

J55 31 1 58 8 66 0 63 0

J78 32 0 58 8 66 0 63 0

Atlantic 

Ctrl

32 0 58 8 66 0 63 0

1

Specific stressors, except Verticillium, were not identified during the incidental stressor observations 

and only presence/absence data were collected. Counts are the number of observations where 

incidental stressors were found (yes) or looked for but not found (no).
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 27

Field Performance and Tuber Assessment for G and Event G11

Evaluations of phenotypic characteristics and ecological interactions (stressors) of the G11 event and 

controls grown in 2009, 2010, and 2011 are shown in Tables 18-21. Results were analyzed by statistical 

methods where possible. Overall the data suggest that there are no major differences between the G 

control and the G11 event.

The agronomic characteristics for G11 and the G control are shown in Table 18. No statistically 

significant differences were detected between G11 and the control for five of the six agronomic 

characteristics which were analyzed. Early emergence and vine maturity rating data were not able to be 

statistically compared. The mean values for G11 for both of these characteristics were within the 

combined control range. A statistically significant difference was detected between G11 and the control 

for plant vigor (3.5 vs. 3.0); however, the value of G11 was within the combined control range. Although 

not statistically significant, the values for G11 for leaflet size and vine size were outside the combined 

control range (3.3 vs. 2.0-3.0 and 3.3 vs. 2.1-3.0, respectively). These small observed differences are 

unlikely to contribute to increased weediness or pest potential.

The yield and grading characteristics of G11 and the G control are shown in Table 19. There were no 

statistically significant differences detected for % oversize, specific gravity, or total internal defects. 

Statistical analysis was not possible for % U.S. #1, % grade B, or % grade A; however, the value for G11 

was within the combined control range for these yield and grading characteristics. Two differences were 

detected between G11 and the control for total yield (34.9 vs. 41.6, respectively) and % pick outs (0.5 vs. 

1.8). All values for G11 for these differences were within the combined control range.

The insect and disease stressor evaluations for G11 and the G control are shown in Table 20. No 

differences were noted between G11 and the control during 44 of 48 individual observations of six 

insect stressors. For the single disease stressor, Verticillium, all four observations lacked observed 

differences between G11 and the control. The four observed differences between G11 and the control 

are detailed in the footnotes of Table 20. The lack of differences between G11 and the control for 

stressor observations supports the conclusion that the event did not alter plant-insect, plant-disease, or 

plant-environment interactions.

Notes were also taken on incidental stressors for G11 and the G control and are presented in Table 21. 

Incidental Verticillium was not noted for G11 or the control during 20 observations. Also, no incidental 

virus was found during 20 observations. Other incidental stressors were identified four times each for 

G11 and the control out of 24 total observations.

It can be concluded that there are no major differences in agronomic characteristics, flower color, yield 

and grading, and ecological interactions between the untransformed G variety and event G11 (Tables 

18, 19, 20, and 21). Therefore, based on our multi-year data, the G event G11 poses no significant risk of 

persistence in the environment as a result of weediness or plant pest potential.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 28

Table 18. G 2009-2010 Field Trials – Agronomic Characteristics

Entry Statistic

Characteristic (see Table 2. for descriptions)

Early Emergence

Final Emergence

Stems Per Plant

Plant Vigor

1

Foliage Color

2

Leaflet Size

3

Leaflet Curl

4

Senescence

Vine Size

5

Vine Maturity Rating

6

G11

Mean 72.7% 90.8% . 3.5 2.9 3.3 2.9 . 3.3 2.8

SD 13.6% 10.0% . 0.81 0.49 0.71 0.56 . 0.66 0.75

90% CI 65.6-

79.7%

86.4-

95.2% .

3.18-

3.76

2.73-

3.08

3.04-

3.55

2.71-

3.11 .

2.96-

3.54

2.48-

3.07

p-Value NA 0.2822 . 0.0090 0.4066 0.0582 0.4946 . 0.1495 NA

G Ctrl

Mean 77.7% 92.1% . 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 . 3.0 2.8

SD 5.0% 9.0% . 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.05 . 0.00 0.57

90% CI 75.1-

80.2%

88.1-

96.0% .

2.97-

3.01

2.97-

3.01

3.00-

3.00

2.97-

3.01 .

3.00-

3.00

2.58-

3.02

ComC6Range 7.0-

100.0

79.0-

100.0 .

2.3-

4.3

2.3-

4.0

2.0-

3.0

1.0-

3.0 .

2.1-

3.0

2.3-

4.5

1

Lakeview, MI 2009 plant vigor data excluded from statistical analysis due to lack of variability.

2

Lakeview, MI 2009 foliage color data excluded from statistical analysis due to lack of variability; foliage

color data from 2010 only.

3

Lakeview, MI 2009 leaflet size data excluded from statistical analysis due to lack of variability; leaflet

size data from 2010 only.

4

Lakeview, MI 2009 leaflet curl data excluded from statistical analysis due to lack of variability; leaflet

curl data from 2010 only.

5

Vine size data from 2010 only.

6

ComC = combined control range. The range of mean values of conventional Ranger, Burbank, Atlantic,

G, and H controls.

NA = Statistical comparison not possible.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 29

Table 19. G 2009-2010 Field Trials – Yield and Grading Characteristics

Entry Statistic

Characteristic

Total Yield

% US#1

% Grade B

% Grade A

% Oversize

% Pick Outs

2

Specific Gravity

Total Internal 

Defects

G11 Mean 34.9 85.4 14.1 84.5 0.9 0.5 1.085 0.8

SD 10.2 5.6 5.7 5.8 2.1 0.8 0.005 1.3

90% CI 29.6-

40.2

82.5-

88.3

11.1-

17.0

81.5-

87.5

0.0-

2.0

0.1-

0.9

1.082-

1.087

0.1-

1.4

p-Value 0.0266 NA NA NA 0.8499 0.0426 0.6318 0.2064

G Ctrl Mean 41.6 82.0 16.3 80.9 1.1 1.8 1.084 0.2

SD 8.9 8.1 6.8 7.4 2.0 2.1 0.003 0.6

90% CI 37.0-

46.2

77.8-

86.2

12.8-

19.9

77.1-

84.7

0.1-

2.1

0.8-

2.9

1.082-

1.086

0.0-

0.5

ComC1Range 17.2-

80.1

64.0-

95.0

3.0-

36.0

61.0-

92.3

0.0-

33.0

0.0-

6.0

1.074-

1.109

0.0-

120.0

1

ComC = combined control range. The range of mean values of conventional Atlantic, G, and H controls.

2

Pick outs refer to tubers discarded at harvest due to quality issues, i.e. rot and mold.

NA = Statistical comparison not possible.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 30

Table 20. G 2011 Field Trials – Stressor Observations

Stressor

G11

Total

# Obs.

# Obs. Without Observed 

Differences*

Insect

Aphids 8 8

Blister Beetle 8 8

Colorado Potato Beetle 8 7

1

Flea Beetle 8 8

Grasshopper 8 6

2

Potato Leafhopper 8 7

3

Totals 48 44

Disease

Verticillium 4 4

Totals 4 4

*Stressor evaluations were intended to be categorical and were not statistically analyzed. The range of 

ratings for each event and its control were compared for each observation and an observed difference 

occurred when the range of the event was outside the range of the control. 

1During one observation G11 ranged 4-5 and control ranged 5-5 (Oneida Co., WI 2011).

2During two observations G11 ranged 4-5 and 3-5 and control ranged 5-5 and 4-5, respectively (both at 

Oneida Co., WI 2011).

3During one observation G11 ranged 4-5 and control ranged 5-5 (Oneida Co., WI 2011).

Table 21. G 2010-2011 Field Trials – Incidental Stressor Observations1

Entry

Incidental Verticillium Incidental Virus Incidental Other

Count of No Count of Yes Count of No Count of Yes Count of No Count of Yes

G11 20 0 20 0 20 4

G Ctrl 20 0 20 0 20 4

1

Specific stressors, except Verticillium, were not identified during the incidental stressor observations 

and only presence/absence data were collected. Counts are the number of observations where 

incidental stressors were found (yes) or looked for but not found (no).
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 31

Field Performance and Tuber Assessment for H and Events H37 and H50

Evaluations of phenotypic characteristics and ecological interactions (stressors) of H37 and H50 events 

and controls grown in 2009, 2010, and 2011 are shown in Tables 22-25. Results were analyzed by 

statistical methods where possible. Overall, the data suggest that there are no major differences 

between the H control and the H37 and H50 events.

The agronomic characteristics for H37 and the H control are shown in Table 22. No statistically 

significant differences were detected between H37 and the control for six of the statistically analyzed 

agronomic characteristics. Early emergence data were not able to be statistically compared, but the 

mean value for H37 was within the combined control range. One statistically significant difference was 

detected between H37 and the control for plant vigor (3.5 vs. 3.0); however, the value of H37 was within 

the combined control range. Although not statistically significant, the values for leaflet size and leaflet 

curl were outside the combined control range (3.2 vs.2.0-3.0 and 3.1 vs. 1.0-3.0, respectively). These 

small observed differences would not contribute to increased weediness or pest potential.

The agronomic characteristics for H50 and the H control are shown in Table 22. No statistically 

significant differences were detected for any of the statistically analyzed agronomic characteristics. Early 

emergence data were not able to be statistically compared but the mean value for H50 was within the 

combined conventional control range. Although not statistically significant, the values for leaflet size and 

leaflet curl were outside the combined control range (3.3 vs.2.0-3.0 and 3.1 vs. 1.0-3.0, respectively). 

These small observed differences would not contribute to increased weediness or pest potential.

The yield and grading characteristics of H37 and the H control are shown in Table 23. There were no 

statistically significant differences detected for % grade A, % pick outs, or specific gravity. Statistical 

analysis was not possible for % U.S. #1, % grade B, or total internal defects. The value for H37 was within 

the combined control range for all yield and grading characteristics. Two differences were detected 

between H37 and the control for total yield (36.8 vs. 46.9, respectively) and % oversize (4.3 vs. 9.1). All 

values for H37 for these differences were within the combined control range.

The yield and grading characteristics of H50 and the H control are shown in Table 23. There were no

statistically significant differences detected between H50 and the control for any of the analyzed yield 

and grading characteristics. Statistical analysis was not possible for % U.S. #1, % grade B, or total internal 

defects. The values for H50 were within the combined control range for all yield and grading 

characteristics.

The insect and disease stressor evaluations for H37 and the H control are shown in Table 24. No 

differences were noted between H37 and the control during any of the 48 individual observations of six 

insect stressors. For the one disease stressor evaluated, Verticillium, all four observations lacked 

differences between H37 and the control. The lack of differences between H37 and the control for 

stressor observations supports the conclusion that the event did not alter plant-insect, plant-disease, or 

plant-environment interactions.

The insect and disease stressor evaluations for H50 and the H control are shown in Table 24. No 

differences were noted between H50 and the control for 46 out of 48 observations of six insect 

stressors. For the single disease stressor, Verticillium, all four observations lacked observed differences 

between H50 and the control. The two observed differences between H50 and the control are detailed 

in the footnotes of Table 24. The lack of differences between H50 and the control for stressor 
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 32

observations supports the conclusion that the event did not alter plant-insect, plant-disease, or plantenvironment interactions.

Notes were also taken on incidental stressors for H37, H50, and the H control and are presented in Table 

25. Incidental Verticillium was not noted for H37 and H control, and noted twice for H50 out of 20 total 

observations for each line. No incidental virus was found during 20 observations for H37, H50, or the 

control. Other incidental stressors were identified four times each for H37, H50, and the control out of

24 observations.

It can be concluded that there are no major differences in agronomic characteristics, flower color, yield 

and grading, and ecological interactions between the untransformed H variety and events H37 and H50 

(Tables 22, 23, 24, and 25). Therefore, based on our multi-year data, the H events H37 and H50 pose no 

significant risk of persistence in the environment as a result of weediness or increased plant pest 

potential.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 33

Table 22. H 2009-2010 Field Trials – Agronomic Characteristics

Entry Statistic

Characteristic (see Table 2. for descriptions)

Early Emergence

Final Emergence

Stems Per Plant

Plant Vigor

1

Foliage Color

2

Leaflet Size

3

Leaflet Curl

4

Senescence

Vine Size

5

Vine Maturity Rating

H37

Mean 67.0% 88.3% . 3.5 3.0 3.2 3.1 . 2.9 3.1

SD 10.5% 10.7% . 0.80 0.52 0.80 0.46 . 0.78 0.77

90% CI 61.5-

72.5%

83.6-

93.0% .

3.15-

3.77

2.83-

3.23

2.92-

3.54

2.96-

3.31 .

2.56-

3.25

2.78-

3.37

p-Value NA 0.1554 . 0.0222 0.8207 0.1434 0.2844 . 0.4534 0.0617

H50

Mean 73.3% 92.1% . 3.2 3.0 3.3 3.1 . 2.8 3.1

SD 8.4% 8.4% . 0.80 0.49 0.62 0.46 . 0.75 0.95

90% CI 69.0-

77.7%

88.4-

95.7% .

2.85-

3.47

2.82-

3.20

3.03-

3.51

2.95-

3.31 .

2.45-

3.11

2.73-

3.47

p-Value NA 0.9371 . 0.4187 0.9226 0.0859 0.2994 . 1.0000 0.0913

H Ctrl

Mean 77.0% 91.9% . 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 . 2.8 3.3

SD 4.9% 9.2% . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 0.41 0.67

90% CI 74.5-

79.5%

87.8-

95.9% .

3.00-

3.00

3.00-

3.00

3.00-

3.00

3.00-

3.00

2.60-

2.96

3.06-

3.59

ComC6Range 7.0-

100.0

79.0-

100.0 .

2.3-

4.3

2.3-

4.0

2.0-

3.0

1.0-

3.0 .

2.1-

3.0

2.3-

4.5

1

Lakeview, MI 2009 plant vigor data excluded from statistical analysis due to lack of variability.

2

Lakeview, MI 2009 foliage color data excluded from statistical analysis due to lack of variability; foliage

color data from 2010 only.

3

Lakeview, MI 2009 leaflet size data excluded from statistical analysis due to lack of variability; leaflet

size data from 2010 only.

4

Lakeview, MI 2009 leaflet curl data excluded from statistical analysis due to lack of variability; leaflet

curl data from 2010 only.

5

Vine size data from 2010 only.

6

ComC = combined control range. The range of mean values of conventional Ranger, Burbank, Atlantic,

G, and H controls.

NA = Statistical comparison not possible.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 34

Table 23. H 2009-2010 Field Trials – Yield and Grading Characteristics

Entry Statistic

Characteristic

Total Yield

% US#1

% Grade B

% Grade A

% Oversize

% Pick Outs

2

Specific Gravity

Total Internal 

Defects

H37 Mean 36.8 88.3 11.4 83.8 4.3 0.5 1.075 1.6

SD 8.5 5.2 5.1 7.1 5.9 0.9 0.005 1.5

90% CI 32.4-

41.2

85.6-

90.9

8.8-

14.0

80.2-

87.5

1.3-

7.4

0.0-

1.0

1.072-

1.077

0.8-

2.4

p-Value 0.0425 NA NA 0.2460 0.0048 0.1456 0.0777 NA

H50 Mean 47.3 91.2 7.8 83.1 8.0 1.2 1.076 3.7

SD 16.7 4.4 4.0 8.0 7.4 1.2 0.004 2.1

90% CI 38.6-

56.0

88.9-

93.4

5.7-

9.8

78.9-

87.2

4.2-

11.8

0.5-

1.8

1.074-

1.078

2.6-

4.8

p-Value 0.9309 NA NA 0.4886 0.4818 1.0000 0.4950 NA

H Ctrl Mean 46.9 91.2 7.8 82.0 9.1 1.2 1.077 1.8

SD 8.9 5.0 4.4 8.3 9.0 1.6 0.004 1.2

90% CI 42.2-

51.5

88.6-

93.7

5.5-

10.0

77.7-

86.3

4.4-

13.8

0.3-

2.0

1.075-

1.079

1.1-

2.4

ComC1Range 17.2-

80.1

64.0-

95.0

3.0-

36.0

61.0-

92.3

0.0-

33.0

0.0-

6.0

1.074-

1.109

0.0-

120.0

1

ComC = combined control range. The range of mean values of conventional Atlantic, G, and H controls.

2

Pick outs refer to tubers discarded at harvest due to quality issues, i.e. rot and mold.

NA = Statistical comparison not possible.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 35

Table 24. H 2011 Field Trials – Stressor Observations

Stressor

H37 H50

Total

# Obs.

# Obs. Without 

Observed 

Differences*

Total

# Obs.

# Obs. Without 

Observed 

Differences*

Insect

Aphids 8 8 8 8

Blister Beetle 8 8 8 7

1

Colorado Potato Beetle 8 8 8 8

Flea Beetle 8 8 8 8

Grasshopper 8 8 8 7

2

Potato Leafhopper 8 8 8 8

Totals 48 48 48 46

Disease

Verticillium 4 4 4 4

Totals 4 4 4 4

*Stressor evaluations were intended to be categorical and were not statistically analyzed. The range of 

ratings for each event and its control were compared for each observation and an observed difference 

occurred when the range of the event was outside the range of the control. 

1During one observation H50 ranged 4-5 and control ranged 5-5 (Oneida Co., WI 2011).

2During one observation H50 ranged 3-5 and control ranged 4-5 (Oneida Co., WI 2011).

Table 25. H 2010-2011 Field Trials – Incidental Stressor Observations1

Entry

Incidental Verticillium Incidental Virus Incidental Other

Count of No Count of Yes Count of No Count of Yes Count of No Count of Yes

H37 20 0 20 0 20 4

H50 18 2 20 0 20 4

H Ctrl 20 0 20 0 20 4

1

Specific stressors, except Verticillium, were not identified during the incidental stressor observations 

and only presence/absence data were collected. Counts are the number of observations where 

incidental stressors were found (yes) or looked for but not found (no).
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 36

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Tuber Seed. The 2009, 2010, and 2011 trials were planted mechanically to facilitate harvests and ensure 

that the regulated potatoes were kept separate from unmodified material. To explain the terminology 

used for multiple generations of tuber seed, the following describes a typical seed bulk-up program. In 

the initial year, propagation in tissue culture would produce about 100 plants, and then these plants are 

grown in a greenhouse to produce thousands of mini-tubers, also called “nuclear seed”. In the second 

year, mini-tubers are planted at field sites with the lowest possible incidence of diseases and pests, 

producing generation-1 (G1) seed. Those G1 tubers are grown in the third year to increase the amount 

of tubers, producing G2 seed. In the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, bulk-up continues with commercial 

seed often representing G3, G4, and G5 tubers respectively.

For the 2009 evaluations, “nuclear seed” mini-tubers from each event and the control varieties were 

used to plant four or five single-row plots (20 mini-tubers/plot) whereby the plots were randomly 

distributed within blocks across the field (Table 1). This randomized complete block design (RCB) is 

typical for the evaluation of new potato varieties and events. The approach taken in 2010 and 2011 was 

to use three random plots per event and control per site, also using the RCB design with the number or 

replications (plots per event) equal to the number of blocks. Each plot in 2010 consisted of three rows 

of 20 seed pieces each from first generation (G1) tubers produced in Cherry County, NE, in 2009 for 

Ranger Russet and Russet Burbank, and from G1 tubers produced in Oneida County, WI, in 2009 for the 

G and H varieties (Table 1). The Atlantic trials of 2010 were still based on the use of nuclear seed minitubers. The Ranger Russet and Russet Burbank seed for the 2011 trials was second generation (G2) 

produced in Cherry County, NE in 2010, except for F37 which was planted with “nuclear seed” minitubers. The Atlantic seed was first generation (G1) also produced in Cherry County, NE in 2010. In 2010 

and 2011, the G and H seed was first generation (G1) and second generation (G2), respectively produced 

in Oneida County, WI in 2009 and 2010. In all trials, the seed of the events were handled similarly to the 

untransformed controls.

Field grown tubers are more desirable than mini-tubers as seed because they generate more vigorous 

and uniform plants that produce higher tuber yield and quality. Nuclear seed mini-tubers (10-30 mm 

size) were produced from pathogen-free tissue culture parent stock using a proprietary hydroponic 

system under controlled greenhouse conditions. G1 seed pieces were obtained by harvesting pathogenfree potato tubers produced from the nuclear seed and then cutting them, either mechanically or by 

hand, into 2-4 oz. seed pieces.

In-row seed spacing varied between 8-12 inches depending on the commercial standard for the variety 

and region. Planting depth of mini-tubers varied between 2-3 inches, and for field grown seed pieces 

between 7-12 inches, dependent on both the planting material used and the environmental conditions. 

Emergence. Sprout surfacing during the early season (May-June for most trials except for the Florida 

trials, which were evaluated in March) was evaluated by determining the frequency of plants that 

emerged from either mini-tubers (in 2009 for all varieties) or seed pieces (in 2010 for most varieties 

except for Atlantic, and in 2011 for all varieties). Emergence rates vary among conventional varieties and 

are dependent on both the physiological age of the “seed” and environmental factors such as 

temperature and moisture levels.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 37

Phenotypic Assessments. Each plot was evaluated qualitatively, in some cases using standardized 

monitoring scales, for differential responses to insect, disease, and environmental stresses that were not 

induced artificially, but might occur spontaneously during the growing season. Mid-season monitoring 

was conducted 2009, 2010, and 2011 just prior to or during early row closure and flowering (June-July

for most trials except for the Florida trials, which were evaluated in April), to assess plant vigor, leaf 

color, leaf size, leaf curl, disease symptoms (presence/absence), and insect-associated plant damage. In 

2011, specific insects, diseases, and abiotic stressors common to the growing region were evaluated. 

The 1 to 5 rating scale, which is used routinely by breeders to rate plants in potato variety evaluations, is 

explained in Table 2. Disease and insect pressure are generally highest during the mid and late season, 

so the plants were monitored for symptoms caused by the pathogens and insects such as those listed in 

Table 26 from July to September (March through May for Florida trials). Not all insects or diseases were 

evaluated or found at each site. Late season monitoring of vine maturity and diseases was performed 

once prior to vine killing, a process intended to ensure tuber maturation and late-season skin set. Vine 

killing is induced either by mowing or flailing the vines or by using approved herbicides such as Reglone®

according to the manufacturer’s recommendations (JR Johnson, Roseville, MN). At this time, plants were 

also assessed for disease symptoms and insect damage. In some cases when disease symptoms were 

identified, a sprout test was also conducted to confirm the findings. The events were evaluated for 

susceptibility to Phytophthora infestans and Erwinia carotovora, and this data can be found in Appendix 

8. Disease Susceptibility. To summarize the insect, disease, and abiotic stressor ratings, the individual 

observations for each stressor were totaled across time points and sites. The total number of 

observations includes observations where a stressor was found and rated as well as observations where 

a stressor was looked for but not found (i.e., rating = 0). When the range of insect, disease, or abiotic 

stressor ratings for the event did not overlap with the control they were considered different.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 38

Table 26. Common Potato Disease and Insect Symptoms1

Insect or Disease Agent Symptom

Emposasca fabae (Potato Leafhopper) Leaf feeding damage

Epitrix species (Flea Beetle) Shot-holes in leaves

Leptinotarsa decemlineata (Colorado Potato Beetle) Defoliation

Limonius californicus (Wireworm) Bored holes in tubers and shoots

Ostrinia nubilalis (European Corn Borer) Severe vine wilting above point of injury

Bactericera (Paratrioza) cockerelli (Potato Psyllid) Yellows

Phthorimaea operculella (Tuberworm) Foliar and tuber damage

Various aphid spp. Leaf suckling damage

Aster Yellows MLO Purple top disease

Potato Leafroll Virus Rolling of leaves and net necrosis

Potato Spindle Tuber Viroid Potato spindle tuber disease

Potato Virus A,M, X, Y Mosaic symptoms

Tobacco Rattle Virus Stem mottling

Erwinia carotovora Blackleg, aerial stem rot and tuber soft rot

Corynebactium sepedonicum Bacterial ring rot

Ralstonia solanacearum Brown rot

Phytophthora infestans Late blight

Phytophthora erythroseptica Pink rot

Verticillium spp. Early dying

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Sclerotinia stalk rot

Rhizoctonia solani Canker

Streptomyces scabies Scab

Fusarium spp. Dry rot

Pythium ultimum Water rot, shell rot, Pythium leak

Alternaria solani Early blight

Botrytis cinerea Gray mold

1

Not necessarily observed at all sites or observation timings. This table is meant to give the reader an accurate list 

of insects and diseases that may impact potatoes.

Tuber Grading. The grading methods employed were identical to those used to grade commercial 

potatoes intended for the production of fries or chips.

Tubers were harvested during early fall except for trials in St Johns County, FL, where tubers were 

harvested during late-spring. At each site in 2009, approximately 16 lbs. of tubers were collected from 

each plot and replicates were pooled for each entry. In 2010 and 2011, samples were taken from each 

plot and kept separate. Harvested material was stored for two to six weeks in temperature and humidity

controlled facilities at 50-55

O

F and 95%, respectively. Material from the St Johns County, FL, trial was 

harvested, graded on site, and then shipped immediately for evaluation.

Yields were determined by weighing the total amount of potatoes harvested from each plot. Samples of 

tubers were graded for characteristics listed in Table 2 at (a) the State of Idaho Department of 

Agriculture Grading Facility in Caldwell, ID, for Ranger Russet and Russet Burbank, (b) Michigan State 

University by Dr. David Douches for Atlantic, and (c) the facilities of an industry partner for the G and H 

varieties. Tubers were considered to have internal defects if they had at least one of the following: 

hollow heart, vascular ring discoloration, heat/internal brown spot, brown center, net necrosis and 

insect damage. Percentages of each individual defect were summed and these data are presented in the 

results as total internal defects.

Size profiles of Ranger Russet and Russet Burbank were determined by weighing tubers from a subset of 

the sample (50-60 lbs.) sorted in batches of 4, 6, 10 and 14 oz. Six-ounce tuber size produces optimal 
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 39

French fries and allows the French fry processor to meet most customer specifications at a highest 

potential recovery for fry production. For the Atlantic, G, and H lines, tubers were categorized as U.S. 

#1, Grade B, Grade A, oversize, or pick out. These categories are appropriate for chipping varieties.

The specific gravity of tuber lots was determined by evaluating approximately 8 lbs. of tubers from each 

sample using a weight in air/weight in water measurement. The sub-samples of tubers were first 

weighed in air and then weighed submerged under water at room temperature. From the two 

measurements, specific gravity was calculated using the following formula: specific gravity = weight in 

air/ (weight in air - weight in water). Specific gravity is the industry standard for measuring solids and is 

thus an important characteristic to compare the events to the conventional controls.

Statistical Methods. Means, standard deviations, and 90% confidence intervals were calculated using 

JMP 9.0.2. A combined control range was generated by obtaining the minimum and maximum mean 

values (year*location*entry) of all conventional varieties included in the experiments. 

All characteristics for the Ranger Russet, Russet Burbank, Atlantic, G, and H varieties were analyzed in 

JMP 9.0.2 by combining data from multiple years and locations using the following linear mixed model:

Yijkm = i + j + k(j) +  l(j,k) + ( )ik + ijklm

•  = mean of treatment (fixed)

•  = year (random)

•  = effect of location [year] (random)

•  = rep[year, location] (random)

•  = residual random error

j ~ iidN(0, 

2

year), k(j) ~ iidN(0, 

2

loc(year)),  l(j,k) ~ iidN(0, 

2

rep(year, loc)),( )ik ~ iidN(0, 

2

loc*treatment), and ijkm ~

iidN(0, 

2

)

(This means that all error terms are assumed to be normally distributed with a mean of 0 and equal 

variances).

Where i denotes the mean of the i

th treatment (fixed effect), j denotes the effect of the jth year 

(random effect), k(j) are the random location (within year effect),  l(j,k) are the rep within year and

location effect, ( )ik denotes the interaction between the i

th treatment and random kth location within 

year effect, and ijklm denotes the residual random error. 

The difference between LS means of test lines and the LS means of corresponding control lines was 

compared using contrasts. A significant difference was established with a p-value < 0.05. Every effort 

was made to generate p-values to aid in the interpretation of the data. Some departures from the 

assumptions of normality and equal variances were allowed since the results were always interpreted in 

the context of variation observed in the combined control range. In some cases, it was necessary to omit 

data from the analysis as noted in the data tables. In a few cases, generating a p-value was not possible 

and ‘NA’ was reported.
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 40

For characteristics where data were available only from a single year the following linear mixed model 

was used instead:

Yijkm = i + j + k(j) + ( )ij + ijkm

•  = mean of treatment (fixed effect)

•  = effect of location (random)

•  = rep within location effect (random)

•  = residual random error

j ~ iidN(0,

2

loc), k(i) ~ iidN(0, 

2

loc(rep)),( )ij ~ iidN(0, 

2

loc*treatment), and ijkm ~ iidN(0, 

2

)

(This means that all error terms are assumed to be normally distributed with a mean of 0 and equal 

variances).

Where i denotes the mean of the i

th treatment (fixed effect), j denotes the effect of the jth location 

(random effect), k(j) are the random replicate (within location) effects, ( )ij denotes the interaction 

between i

th treatment and jth location (random effect), and ijkm denotes the residual random error. 
J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 41

CONCLUSIONS

Although some significant agronomic differences were observed between events and controls, most fell 

within the combined control range of the conventional varieties. For example, some differences in yield 

and tuber size were observed in the events, and these attributes will be investigated further in 

commercial trials. Thus, we concluded that no biologically meaningful differences that would contribute 

to increased weediness or pest potential were observed for any of the agronomic characteristics, yield 

and grading characteristics, or ecological interactions (namely plant-insect interactions, plant-disease 

interactions, and plant interactions with abiotic stressors) of the events compared to their 

untransformed controls. There were no meaningful differences in phenotype and tuber composition 

(Appendix 9. Compositional Analyses) or disease susceptibility (Appendix 8. Disease Susceptibility). It 

can be concluded that events are not different from their untransformed controls in terms of 

agronomy, tuber yield, and tuber composition. Therefore, the transformation of potato with pSIM1278 

does not introduce characteristics that will encourage or enhance weediness or pest potential.