## 3 Results and Discussion
### Antimicrobial Activity  
The antimicrobial activity results for the pruning firewood and stem extracts, as determined using the disc diffusion method, are presented in Table 6. Specifically, for Gram + bacteria, the observed inhibition halos ranged from undetected to 13 mm for the pruning firewood extracts, while for the tested stem extracts, the range was from undetected to 11 mm. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Pruning Firewood**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Stems**} \\ \hline
**Samples** & **ABTS\({}^{**}\)\({}^{\star}\)** & **DPPH\({}^{\star}\)** & **FRAP** & **ABTS\({}^{**}\)\({}^{\star}\)\({}^{\star}\)** & **DPPH\({}^{\star}\)** & **FRAP** \\ \hline Touriga Nacional & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.01 ab & 0.14 \(\pm\) 0.01 ab & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.00 ab & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.00 ab & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.00 a \\ Tinta Roriz & 0.22 \(\pm\) 0.02 ab & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.01 bc & 0.02 \(\pm\) 0.00 bc & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.01 c & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.00 c & 0.09 \(\pm\) 0.00 c \\ Alfredcheiro & 0.19 \(\pm\) 0.02 a & 0.12 \(\pm\) 0.01 ab & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.07 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.00 b \\ Jaen & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.02 b & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.01 c & 0.02 \(\pm\) 0.00 c & 0.16 \(\pm\) 0.01 d & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.01 d & 0.18 \(\pm\) 0.01 d \\ Borrado das Moscas & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.00 ab & 0.11 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.01 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.04 \(\pm\) 0.01 a & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.00 a \\ Encruzado & 0.24 \(\pm\) 0.02 b & 0.15 \(\pm\) 0.01 bc & 0.02 \(\pm\) 0.00 ab & - & - & - \\ \hline \(p\)**-value** & * & ** & *** & *** & *** \\ \hline \end{tabular} Values are presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters indicate significantly different results (ANOVA, \(p\) < 0.05). Significance, NS: not significant (\(p\) > 0.05), * significant at \(p\) < 0.05, ** significant at \(p\) < 0.01, *** significant at \(p\) < 0.001.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Results of the antioxidant capacity of pruning firewood and stems (mmol Trolox g\({}^{-1}\) DW). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Samples** & **ABTS\({}^{\star}\)\({}^{\star}\)** & **DPPH\({}^{\star}\)** & **FRAP** \\ \hline White Hees & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.05 \(\pm\) 0.00 a & 0.03 \(\pm\) 0.00 a \\ Red Wine Lees & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.01 b & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.00 b & 0.23 \(\pm\) 0.01 b \\ \hline Values are presented as mean \(\pm\) standard deviation (n = 3). Different letters indicate significantly different results (ANOVA, \(p\) < 0.05). Significance, NS: not significant (\(p\) > 0.05), * significant at \(p\) < 0.05, ** significant at \(p\) < 0.01, *** significant at \(p\) < 0.001. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Results of the antioxidant capacity of lees (mmol Trolox g\({}^{-1}\) DW). In the context of pruning wood, it is noteworthy that all evaluated varieties exhibited inhibition of bacterial growth against Gram + bacteria. Meanwhile, for the stem samples, there was also inhibition of bacterial growth across all varieties, albeit with smaller halos compared to the halos observed in the same varieties' pruning firewood by-product. Switching focus to Gram-bacteria, the inhibition halos varied from non-detected to 13 mm for the pruning firewood extracts, and from non-detect to 11 mm for the stem extracts. Interestingly, in the case of Gram-bacteria, both the pruning firewood and stem extracts demonstrated no inhibition of bacterial growth in _E. coli_ and _A. baumannii_ MJMC 525 strains. Furthermore, for the _A. baumannii_ MJMC 561 strain, the stem extracts of all three varieties similarly showed no inhibition of bacterial growth. In contrast, the tested antibiotic, gentamicin (10 \(\mu\)g), successfully prevented growth for most isolates, except for the _A. baumannii_ MJMC 561 strain.