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 Discus sion 8

Materials and Methods 3 6

Conclusion s 41

Certification 4 2J.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 mad e 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 counterpart s were

grown at multiple locations represent ing 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

Design 3 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) 1x 20 (1x15

for Atlantic) Mini

tubers Typical for Southwest Idaho, an important potato

growing 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. N ot required 1

09

- 049

- 114n ID Bingham Ranger Russet,

Russet
Burbank RCB, 5

reps/line 1x 20 Mini

tubers Typical for Southeast Idaho, an important potato

growing 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. N ot required 1

09

- 049

- 114n WI Oneida G, H 1 rep /line 1x100 Mini

tubers Typical 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. N ot required 1

08

- 353

- 103n FL St. Johns G, H RCB, 4 reps/line 1x2 5 Mini

tubers Typical for Florida that produces almost 8 million cwt/year, mainly for the chip and fresh potato industry, with harvests in Spring. N ot required 1

08

- 353

- 104n MI Montcalm Ranger Russet,

Russet Burbank, G, H RCB, 4

reps/line 1x 20 Mini

tubers Typical for Mi chigan, 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. N ot required 1J.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

Design 3 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) (Mini

tubers 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) (Mini

tubers for Atlantic) See above for Bingham county UOIABE2010

10

- 053

- 132n WI Oneida G, H RCB, 4 reps/line 1x 20 Field seed

(G1) See above for Oneida county RHI2010

10

- 053

- 132n WI Adams Atlantic RCB, 5 reps/line 1x20 Mini

tubers Typical 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

- 07 6

- 013n WI Vilas G, H 1 rep Seed bulkup 4 Mini

tuber/ G1 Typical 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) (Mini

tubers for Atlantic) See above for Montcalm county MSUMONT2010

10

- 053

- 132n MI Missaukee G, H RCB, 4 reps/line 1x 20 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) (Mini

tubers 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

Forks 2 Ranger

Russet,

Russet Burbank,
Atlantic RCB, 3

reps/line (5 reps/line
for Atlantic) 3x20

(1x20 for Atlantic) Field seed

(G1) (Mini

tubers for Atlantic) Typical for North Dakota, a Midwest state that

produces abou t 20 million cwt/year, mainly for the French fry industry, with harvests in Fall. The

Re d River V alley is the 3 rd 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) (Mini

tubers 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 1x 25 Field seed

(G1) See above for St. Johns county U FL2010J.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

Design 3 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, Mini

tubers for F37) See above for Canyon county UOIPAR2 011

11

- 063

- 103n ID Bingham Ranger Russet,

Russet Burbank, Atlantic, RCB, 3

reps/line 3x20 Field seed

(G2) (G1 for Atlantic, Mini

tubers for F37) See above for Bingham county UOIABE201 1

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 MSUMONT201 1

11

- 063

- 103n ND Grand

Forks Ranger

Russet,

Russet Burbank,
Atlantic RCB, 3

reps/line 3x20 Field seed

(G2) (G1 for Atlantic, Mini

tubers for F37) See above for Grand Forks county NDSU201 1

11

- 063

- 103n WA Adams Ranger Russet,

Russet Burbank,
Atlantic RCB, 3

reps/line 3x20 Field seed

(G2) (G1 for
Atlantic , Mini

tubers for F37) See above for Adams county, Washington WSU201 1

10

- 326

- 103n FL St. Johns G, H,
Atlantic RCB, 4

rep s/line 1x20 Field seed

( G1) See above for St. Johns county U FL2011

11

- 063

- 103n WI Oneida G, H RCB, 4

rep s/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 Midw est 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 C ounty 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 a gronomic 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, f ertilizer application, irrigation, and pesticide

based control methods. E vents and untransformed varieties received identical inputs and treatments
within each site. The trial sites selected for the agronomic evaluations were different eco

- agricultural

zon es, and represent ed 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 potato es . The traits e valuated are listed in Table 2 and are used by plant breeders in PlantJ.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

timing 1 Data description Scale 2

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 Disease s 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 C olor 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

Leaf let S ize 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

Leaf let C url 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 Observat ion 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 o f 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 emerge nce. Midseason observations were made during the early bloom stage. Late season notes were taken during the crop senescence stage.

2 While i t 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 ( C ontinued). Characteristics Evaluated

General
characteristic Characteristic
measured Evaluation

timing 1 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 nu m ber 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 Mana gement 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 a nd 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 tha t 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 indic ated 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 con cluded 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
combine d 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, Bur bank, 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 y ield 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 P erformance and T uber A ssessment for Ranger Russet Events F10 and F37

E valuations of p henotypic characteristics and ecological interactions (stressors) of the Ranger Russet F10
and F37 events and controls grown in 2009 , 2010, and 2011 are shown in Table s 3

- 7

. Results were analyzed by statistical methods where possible. Over all 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 difference s 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 stem s 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, respecti vely), 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 analyze d 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 t he 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 i nsect, 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 2 1
observations of the five abiotic stressors. The four observed differences between F37 and the control
are detaile d 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 plant

environment interactions.

Notes were also taken on inci dental 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 c an 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, ba sed 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

Co mC 3 Range 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

Sug ar E nds 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

Co mC 2 Range 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 20 10

- 2011 Field Trials

– Stressor Observations

Stressor F10 F37

Total
# Obs. # Obs. Without

O bserved

D ifferences * Total

# Obs. # Obs. Without

O bserved

D ifferences *

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 14 3 9 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 th e range of the control.

1 During one observation F37 ranged 3

- 3 and control ranged 5

- 5 ( Adams Co. , WA 2011)

. 2 During one observation F37 ranged 4

- 4 and control ranged 0

- 3 ( Canyon Co. , ID 2011)

. 3 During one observation F10 ranged 0

- 5 and control ranged 4

- 5 ( Grand Forks Co. , ND 2011)

. 4 During 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)

. 5 During 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 Observations 1

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

Ran ger 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 P erformance and T uber A ssessment for Russet Burbank Events E12 and E24

E valuations of p henotypic characteristics and ecological int eractions (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 b etween 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 o f 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 de tected 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 betwe en 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 difference s 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

, w ere 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.

T he 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 ra nge. 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 d ifferences 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. ca tegory (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 E 12 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
bet ween E12 and the control. No differences between E 12 and the control were observed during any of

3 4 total observations of the five abiotic stressors. The two observed differences between E12 and theJ.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 15

control are detailed in the footnotes of Table 11

. The la ck 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 betwee n E24 and the control. No differences between E24 and the control were observed during 34 observations of the f ive abiotic stressors. The three observed differences between E24 and
the control are detailed in the footnotes of Table 11

. The lack of differen ces between E24 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 E12, E24, and the Burbank cont rol 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 diff erences 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

Co mC 2 Range 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 Com C = combined control range . The range of mean v alues 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 E nds 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

Co mC 2 Range 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

O bserved D ifferences * Total
# Obs. # Obs. Without

O bserved D ifferences *

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 14 3 15 14 4

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 th e range of the control.

1 During one observation E12 ranged 4

- 5 and control ranged 4

- 4 ( Adams Co. , WA 2011)

. 2 During one observation E24 ranged 4

- 5 and control ranged 4

- 4 ( Adams Co. , WA 2011).

3 During one observation E12 ranged 3

- 5 and control ranged 3

- 4.5 ( Bingham Co. , ID 2011).

4 During one observation E24 ranged 3

- 5 and control ranged 3

- 4.5 ( Bingham Co. , ID 2011).

5 During 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

– Incide ntal Stressor Observations 1

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 A ssessment for Atlantic Events J3, J55 and J78

E valuations of p henotypic 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. Leafle t 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 value s 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 combi ned 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 bet ween 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 wer e 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 d etected 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
foli age 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 f or 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 locati ons 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 out s (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 detecte d 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. Percen t 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
th e 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 observ ations 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 evaluat ed, 97 of 99 observations lacked
observed differences between J55 and the control. No differences between J 55 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 stre ssor 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 J78 and the Atlantic control are shown in Table

16 . No differe nces 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 contr ol 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 t he conclusion that the event did not alter plant

- insect, plant

- disease, or plant

environment interactions.

Notes were taken on incidental stressors for J3, J55, J78, and the Atlantic control and are presented in
Table 1 7 . No incidental insect stressors we re noted for J3, J78 , or the control during 32 observa tions.
One incidental insect stressor was noted for J55 out of 32 observations. Out of 6 6 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 signifi cant 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

ComC 3 Range 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 0J.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

Co mC 1 Range 17.2

-

80. 1 64.0

-
9 5 .0 3.0

-
36.0 61.0

-

92.3 0.0

-

33.0 0.0

-

6.0 1.0 74

-
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 ha rvest 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

O bserved

D ifferences * Total

# Obs. # Obs.

Without

O bserved

D ifferences * Total

# Obs. # Obs.

Without

O bserved

D ifferences *

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 50 1 51 50 2 51 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 th e range of the control.

1 During one observation J3 ranged 2.5

- 4.5 and control ranged 3

- 4 ( Bingham Co. , ID 2011).

2 During one observation J55 ranged 3

- 4.5 and control ranged 3

- 4 ( Bingham Co. , ID 2011).

3 During one observation J3 ranged 2.5

- 3 and control ranged 3

- 3.5 ( Bingham Co. , ID 2011).

4 During one observation J55 ranged 2.5

- 2.5 and control ranged 3

- 3.5 ( Bingham Co. , ID 2011).

5 During 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 Observations 1

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 P erformance and T uber A ssessment for G and Event G11

E valuations of p henotypic characteristics and ecological interacti ons (stressors) of the G11 event and
controls grown in 2009 , 2010, an d 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 cha racteristics. 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 st ressor 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 conclus ion 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 co ntrol during 20 observations. Also, n o 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 signifi cant 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

- 201 0 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

Co mC 6 Range 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

- 201 0 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

Co mC 1 Range 17.2

-

80. 1 64.0

-
9 5 .0 3.0

-
36.0 61.0

-
92

. 3 0.0

- 33.0 0.0

-

6.0 1.0 74

-
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 O bserved

D ifferences *

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

oc curred when the range of the event was outside the range of the control.

1 During one observation G11 ranged 4

- 5 and control range d 5

- 5 ( Oneida Co., WI 2011)

. 2 During two observations G11 ranged 4

- 5 and 3

- 5 and control ranged 5

- 5 and 4

- 5, respectively (both at Oneida Co., WI 2011 ).

3 During one observation G11 ranged 4

- 5 and control ranged 5

- 5 ( Oneida Co., WI 2011 )

.

Table 21 . G 20 10

- 2011 Field Trials

– Incidental Stressor Observations 1

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 A ssessment for H and Events H37 and H50

E valuations of p henotypic characteristics and ecological interactions (stressors) of H37 and H50 events
and controls grown in 2009 , 2010, and 2011 a re shown in Table s 22

- 25

. Results were analyzed by statistical methods where possible. Overall

, the data suggest that there are no major differences
between the H control an d t he 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 c ombined 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 differenc es 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 gr avity. 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 f or 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 value s for H50 w ere 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 la ck 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 cont rol 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 con trol. 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 stressorJ.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 32

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 H37, H50, and the H control and are presented in Table

2 5 . Incidental Verticillium was not noted for H37 and H control, and noted twice for H50 out of 20 total
observations for each line

. N o 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 t hat 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, t he 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

- 201 0 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

Co mC 6 Range 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 stati stical 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

- 201 0 Field Trials

– Yield and Grading Characteristics

Entry Statistic Characteris tic 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

Co mC 1 Range 17.2

-

80. 1 64.0

-
9 5 .0 3.0

-
36.0 61.0

-
92

. 3 0.0

-
33.0 0.0

-

6.0 1.0 74

-
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

O bserved

D ifferences * Total

# Obs. # Obs. Without

O bserved

D ifferences *

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.

1 During one observation H50 ranged 4

- 5 and control ranged 5

- 5 ( Oneida Co., WI 2011 ).

2 During one observation H50 ranged 3

- 5 and control range d 4

- 5 ( Oneida Co., WI 2011 ).

Table 25. H 20 10

- 2011 Field Trials

– Incidental Stressor Observations 1

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 S eed. T he 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 t ypical seed bulk

- up program. In the initial year, propagation in tissue culture would produce about 10 0 plants , and then t hese plants are

gr own 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 gener ation

- 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
dist ributed within blocks across the field ( Table 1 ). This r an domized 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 replication s (plots per event) equal to the number of blocks. E ach 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 mini

tubers . The Ranger Russet and Russet Burbank seed for the 2011 trials was second generation (G2) produced in Che rry County, NE in 2010 , except for F37 which was planted with “nuclear seed” mini

tubers . 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 genera tion (G2), respectively produced in Oneida County, WI in 2009 and 2010. In all trials, the seed of the events were handled similar ly to the

un transformed control s

.

Field grown tubers are more desirable than mini

- tubers as seed because they generate more v igorous 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 co nditions. G1 seed pieces were obtained by harvesting pathogen

free potato tubers produced from the nuclear seed and then cutting them, either mechanical ly or by hand, into 2

- 4 oz. seed pieces.

In

- row seed s pacing varied between 8

- 12 inches depend ing on the commercial standard for the variety and region. P lanting 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 f or 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

Pheno typic 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 tr ia ls except for the Florida trials, which were evaluated in April ), to assess plant vigor, leaf
colo r, 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 rat e 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 p lants were monitored for symptoms caused by the pathogens and insects such as those li sted in
Table 2 6 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 inten ded to ensure tuber maturation and late

- season skin set. Vine killing is induced either by mow ing or flail ing the vines or by using approved herbicides such as Reglone ® according to the manufacturer’s recommendations (JR Johnson, Roseville, MN )

. At this t ime, 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 t he 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 2 6

. Common Potato Disease and Insect Symptoms 1

Insect or Disease Agent Symptom Emposasca fabae (Potato L eafhopper) Leaf feeding damage Epitrix species (F lea 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) Sever e vine wilting above point of injury Bactericera ( Paratrioza ) cockerelli (Potato Psyllid) Yellows Phthorimaea operculella (Tuberworm) Foliar and tuber damage Various aphid sp p. 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, a erial stem rot and tuber soft rot Corynebactium sepedonicum Bacterial ring rot

Ralstonia solanacearum Brown r ot Phytophthora infe s tans Late blight Phytophthora erythroseptica Pink rot

Verticillium spp. Early dying

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum Sclerotinia stalk rot

Rhizoctonia solani Canker Streptomyces scabies Scab

Fusarium sp p

. Dry rot Pythium ultimum Water rot, shell rot, Pythium leak

Alternaria solani Early b light Botrytis cinerea Gray m old

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 G rading

. The g rading methods employed were identical to those used to grade commercial
potatoes intended for the produc tion of fries or chips

.

T ubers 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 f rom each plot and kept separate

. Harvested material was stored for two to six weeks in temperature and humidity
controlled facilities at 5 0

- 5 5 O F and 95%, respectively. Material from the St Johns County, FL, trial was harvested, graded on site, and then sh ipped immediately for evaluation.

Yields were determined by weighing the total amount of potatoes harvested from each plot. S ample s of
tubers w ere graded for characteristics listed in Table 2 at (a) the State of Idaho Department of Agriculture Grading Fac ility 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 h ad at least one of the following: hollow heart, vascular ring discoloration, heat/ i nternal 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 inte rnal 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 produce s optimalJ.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 chip ping 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

- sample s of tubers were first weighed in air and then weighed submer ged 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 soli ds and is thus an important characteristic to compare the events to the conventional controls.

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

JMP 9.0.2. A combined control range was generated by obtaini ng the minimum and maximum mean values (year*location*entry) of all conventional varieties included in the experiments.

A ll characteristics for the Ranger Russet, Russet Burbank, Atlantic, G, and H varieties were analyzed in JMP 9.0.2 by combining data fr om multiple years and locations using the following linear mixed model:

Y ijkm =  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 j th year (random effect),  k(j) are the random locati on (within year effect),  l(j,k) are the rep within year and location effect, (   ) ik denotes th e interaction between the i th treatment and random k th 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 contro l 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 e qual 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:

Y ijkm =  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 equa l

variances ).

Where  i denotes the mean of the i th treatment (fixed effect),  j denotes the effect of the j th location (random effect),  k(j) are the random replicate (within location) effects, (   ) ij denotes the interaction

between i th treatment and j th location (random effect), and  ijkm denot es the residual random error.J.R. Simplot Company Field Performance and Tuber Evaluations 41 CONCLUSION S

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 c oncluded that n o 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 i nteractions, 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 )

. I t
can be concluded that event s are not different from the ir untransformed controls in terms of agronomy, tuber yield, and tuber composition. Therefore, t he transformation of potato with pSIM127 8
does not introduce characteristics that will encourage or enhance weediness or pest potential

.