# The Impact of Effective Microorganisms on Flesh Color and Chemical Composition of Raw Potato Tubers
## 3 Results
### Share of Individual Variances in the Total (Phenotypic) Variance  
The evaluation of variance components (Table 12) shows that the share of genotypic variation was highest for the a* parameter (23.3%). The crop practices with EMs had a significant influence on all color characteristics of tuber flesh. The share of variability in cultivation practices in the overall phenotypic variability ranged from 6.4 to 9.6%. The share of the random factor, which was years, ranged from 6.2% to 15.7% in the total variance. The highest share of this factor was found for the L* parameter (15.7%), and the lowest for the a* parameter (6.2%). The interaction of EM cultivation practices with cultivars had a significant effect on all parameters, and the share of variability of this interaction in the total variability ranged from 15.9 to 23.0%. The interaction between EM cultivation practices \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**DM (\%)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Starch (\%)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Vitamin C**} \\ \cline{3-10}
**Experimental Factors** & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Years**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(mg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\))**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **2015** & **2016** & **2017** & **2015** & **2016** & **2017** & **2015** & **2016** & **2017** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Cultivation practices *} & A & 22.7a & 21.4b & 22.7a & 14.9a & 15.4a & 15.3a & 13.7b & 13.9b & 16.7a \\ \cline{2-10}  & B & 23.3a & 21.8b & 23.1a & 15.2a & 15.8a & 15.9a & 14.2b & 14.5b & 16.7a \\ \cline{2-10}  & C & 23.2a & 21.8b & 23.2a & 15.2a & 15.7a & 15.7a & 13.9b & 14.1b & 16.6a \\ \cline{2-10}  & D & 23.2a & 21.6b & 23.1a & 15.1a & 15.6a & 15.6a & 13.9b & 14.1b & 16.6a \\ \hline HSD p\({}_{0.05}\) & & 1.2 & & & ns ** & & & 1.3 & \\ \hline ’Bellarosa’ & 21.4b & 20.3b & 21.6b & 14.5b & 14.2b & 13.9b & 10.3b & 12.3b & 13.0b \\ \cline{2-10}  & Tajfun’ & 24.7a & 23.0a & 24.4a & 15.7a & 17.0a & 17.3a & 17.5a & 16.0a & 20.4a \\ \hline HSD p\({}_{0.05}\) & & 0.6 & & & 0.6 & & & 0.7 & \\ \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 10: Influence of cultivation practices, cultivars, and years on DM, starch, and vitamin C content. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Total Sugars (\%)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Reducing Sugars (\%)**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Saccharose (\%)**} \\ \cline{3-10}
**Experimental Factors** & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Years**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**(mg\(\cdot\)kg\({}^{-1}\))**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **2015** & **2016** & **2017** & **2015** & **2016** & **2017** & **2015** & **2016** & **2017** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Cultivation practices *} & A & 0.62b & 0.93a & 0.45c & 0.35b & 0.52a & 0.26b & 0.27b & 0.40a & 0.20b \\ \cline{2-10}  & B & 0.55b & 0.86a & 0.39c & 0.31b & 0.49a & 0.22b & 0.24b & 0.37a & 0.17b \\ \cline{2-10}  & C & 0.55b & 0.86a & 0.40c & 0.31b & 0.48a & 0.22b & 0.24b & 0.37a & 0.17b \\ \cline{2-10}  & D & 0.56b & 0.86a & 0.40c & 0.32b & 0.48a & 0.22b & 0.24b & 0.37a & 0.17b \\ \hline HSD p\({}_{0.05}\) & & 0.16 & & & 0.10 & & & 0.09 & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Cultivars} & ’Bellarosa’ & 0.62a & 0.92a & 0.42a & 0.35a & 0.52a & 0.24a & 0.27a & 0.40a & 0.18a \\ \cline{2-10}  & Tajfun’ & 0.52b & 0.83b & 0.40a & 0.30b & 0.47b & 0.22a & 0.23b & 0.36b & 0.17a \\ \cline{2-10}  & HSD p\({}_{0.05}\) & & 0.08 & & & 0.05 & & & 0.04 & \\ \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).  
\end{table} 
Table 11: Influence of cultivation practices, cultivars, and years on total sugars, reducing sugars, and saccharose. and years had a significant effect on all color parameters of tuber flesh and accounted for from 11.2 to 16.9% of the phenotypic variability.