## 4 Discussion
### Antimicrobial Activity  
Our results showed that the evolutionary trend of antimicrobial activity is obvious, namely the development of an inhibitory effect over time. The inhibitory properties are much more evident in the case of Harvest III (Table 4). In the studies conducted by [PERSON] et al. (2008), the antimicrobial activity of honey was tested using six bacterial tupins (_Bacillus pulitis, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus lentus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Escherichia coli_) [70]. By determining the antimicrobial activity of honey extracts, it was found that _Staphylococcus aureus_ strains were the most sensitive (0.4 mg/mL). The strains of _Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Staphylococcus lentus_ and _Bacillus subtilis_ were moderately susceptible, and no antimicrobial activity was observed for bacterial strains of _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_. In our study, the case of _S. pyogenes_, the antimicrobial activity is very weak in the samples taken in Harvest II. Table 3 shows in yellow the values denoting inhibition evaluated as MIC, but these values are not simultaneously supported as evolution with the increase of concentration. Instead, the increase in the concentration of samples taken in Harvest II led to an obvious potentiating effect, with values much higher than those of the control. There is only one test with an obvious inhibitory effect sustained with increasing concentration, namely in the case of samples R 75 and R100. The MIC values obtained vary between 0.747-0.719, with values lower than those obtained in the case of _S. pyogenes_ strain (0.796) increased as a control. The only samples with an inhibitory effect that increases with increasing concentration are C (with values ranging from 0.734 to 0.748) as well as O 25 (0.787), CL 25 (0.78) and M 25 (0.704). All other values are higher than the control value,thus, cannot be considered MIC and have an obvious potentiating effect. The situation is a bit different in the case of Harvest III, when in addition to maintaining the inhibitory effect of R, it also occurs in the case of M 50 (0.729), M 75 (0.716) and M 100 (0.705) as well as in the case of B. The inhibition trend in the case of samples B should be discussed, in which, if in the case of Harvest II, they presented MIC values but with potentiation effect synchronized with the increase of concentration, in the case of Harvest III, the effect is clearly one of inhibition, sustained a with increasing concentration, with values ranging between 0.782 and 0.714. It should be noted that the values in the case of R samples are much lower in Harvest III than in Harvest II, the pattern of the action being maintained. In addition, obvious MIC values with increasing concentration appear in the case of C 100 (0.701). In the case of _S. aureus_ (ATCC 25923), according to the values presented in Tables 3 and 4, the evolution of inhibition between Harvest II and Harvest III is obvious. Thus, if in the case of Harvest II only R, O and J obviously have antistaphylococcal activity, sustained by the increase of concentration, in the case of Harvest III, the number of samples with inhibitory effect are in greater numbers, namely B, T, R, O and J. Even the values obtained in the case of samples with effect in both sampling periods have an improved antimicrobial effect in Harvest III. This is evident in the case of R samples, in which in the case of Harvest II, the inhibition values are present only at two of the tested concentrations R75 and R100 (0.67, 0.534) while in the case of Harvest III, all four tested concentrations have effect inhibition, with values ranging from 0.564 to 0.621 compared to the control which had an optical density of 0.629. Other authors reported similar data regarding the antimicrobial activity of honey samples against _S. aureus_[71;72]. [PERSON] et al.