# The Impact of Effective Microorganisms on Flesh Color and Chemical Composition of Raw Potato Tubers
## 3 Results
### Chemical Composition of Tubers
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Specification**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**DM**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Starch (\%)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Vitamin C**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Reducing**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Saccharose**} \\  & & **(\%)** & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Cultivation practices *} & A & 22.3b \(\pm\) 0.1 & 15.2b \(\pm\) 0.2 & 14.8 a \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.66 a \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.37 a \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.29 a \(\pm\) 0.02 \\  & B & 22.7a \(\pm\) 0.1 & 15.6a \(\pm\) 0.3 & 15.1 a \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.60 b \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.34 b \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.26 b \(\pm\) 0.01 \\  & C & 22.7a \(\pm\) 0.2 & 15.5 ab \(\pm\) 0.3 & 14.9 a \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.60 b \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.34 b \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.26 b \(\pm\) 0.01 \\  & D & 22.6 ab \(\pm\) 0.1 & 15.4 ab \(\pm\) 0.1 & 14.9 a \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.60 b \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.34 b \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.26 b \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HSD p\({}_{0.05}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.4} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.4} & \multirow{2}{*}{ns **} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.05} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.03} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.03} \\  & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Cultivars} & ‘Bellarosa’ & 21.1b \(\pm\) 0.1 & 14.2b \(\pm\) 0.2 & 11.9 b \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.65 a \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.37 a \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.28 a \(\pm\) 0.02 \\  & ‘Tajfun’ & 24.1a \(\pm\) 0.3 & 16.6a \(\pm\) 0.1 & 18.0 a \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.58 b \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.33 b \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.25 b \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HSD p\({}_{0.05}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.2} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.03} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.02} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.01} \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Years} & 2015 & 23.0a \(\pm\) 0.2 & 15.1b \(\pm\) 0.2 & 13.9 b \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.57 b \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.32 b \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.25 b \(\pm\) 0.01 \\  & 2016 & 21.7b \(\pm\) 0.3 & 15.6a \(\pm\) 0.3 & 14.1 b \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.87 a \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.49 a \(\pm\) 0.02 & 0.38 a \(\pm\) 0.02 \\  & 2017 & 23.1a \(\pm\) 0.2 & 15.6a \(\pm\) 0.2 & 16.7 a \(\pm\) 0.1 & 0.41 c \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.23 c \(\pm\) 0.01 & 0.18 c \(\pm\) 0.01 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{HSD p\({}_{0.05}\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.3} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.3} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.3} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.04} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.03} & \multirow{2}{*}{0.02} \\  & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* A—3 applications of fungicide, B—3 applications, C—5 applications, and D—8 applications of effective organisms (EmFarmaTM plus Ema5 TM); ** not significant at p\({}_{0.05}\).  
\end{table} 
Table 9: Influence of cultivation practices, varieties, and years on the content of DM, starch, total sugars, reducing sugars, and saccharose. The interaction of applied cultivation practices and meteorological conditions in the years the research took place had an impact on total sugars, reducing sugars, and sucrose. There were significant differences in total sugars with all cultivation management systems between 2016 and 2015 and 2016 and 2017. The values of reducing sugars and sucrose in the research years 2015 and 2017 were homogeneous in this respect. They were significantly lower than the values recorded in 2016, with optimal conditions during the growing season (Table 11).