# The Impact of Effective Microorganisms on Flesh Color and Chemical Composition of Raw Potato Tubers
## 3 Results
### Interaction of Experimental Factors with Flesh Color Indicators
Homogeneous technologies turned out to be (A) and (B) as well as (C) and (D) (Figure 7). The cultivars showed a significantly different response to EM use only in cultivation practices C and D. The 'Bellarosa' cultivar reacted with a significant reduction in red color saturation, while the flesh of the 'Tajfun' cultivar was characterized by an increase in red color saturation (Figure 7). Meteorological conditions in individual years of research did not significantly impact the value of the b* parameter in individual cultivation practices; the differences were not statistically proven. Cultivation practices had no significant effect on the value of the b* parameter, regardless of the meteorological conditions in the years of the study. The weather conditions in 2016 and 2017 had a different effect on the b* parameter value between the cultivars tested. The 'Tajfun' cultivar was characterized by a more favorable response to optimal weather conditions and was characterized by a significantly greater shift of the blue color towards yellow than the 'Bellarosa' cultivar (Table 8). The interaction of the cultivation practices and genetic properties of the tested cultivars significantly impacted the b* parameter value. The pulp of the 'Tajfun' cultivar was distinguished by a significantly greater yellow color saturation than the pulp of the 'Bellarosa' cultivar only in the standard cultivation practices (A) with the use of fungicides and in the cultivation practices (C) with five EM applications during the vegetation period. In other technologies, these differences were insignificant (Figure 8). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Experimental Factors**} & **2015** & **2016** & **2017** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Cultivation practices **} & A & 3.02a \(\pm\) 0.14 & 3.30a \(\pm\) 0.11 & 3.45a \(\pm\) 0.07 \\  & B & 2.96 ab \(\pm\) 0.12 & 3.28a \(\pm\) 0.13 & 3.38a \(\pm\) 0.10 \\  & C & 2.26b \(\pm\) 0.08 & 2.64b \(\pm\) 0.10 & 2.71b \(\pm\) 0.09 \\  & D & 2.55a \(\pm\) 0.16 & 2.88a \(\pm\) 0.08 & 3.00a \(\pm\) 0.13 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{HSD p\({}_{0.05}\)} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{ns ***} \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Cultivars} & ‘Bellarosa’ & 2.45b \(\pm\) 0.09 & 2.48b \(\pm\) 0.05 & 2.81b \(\pm\) 0.04 \\  & ‘Tajfun’ & 2.94a \(\pm\) 0.03 & 3.57a \(\pm\) 0.07 & 3.47a \(\pm\) 0.18 \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{c}{HSD p\({}_{0.05}\)} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{0.6} \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Parameter a*—green to red color, ** 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 7: Effects of cultivation practices, cultivars, and years on the a* parameter of raw tubers. Figure 8: Effects of cultivation practices and cultivars on the value of b* parameter of raw tubers. Cultivation practices: A—3 applications of fungicide, B—3 applications, C—5 applications, and D—8 applications of effective organisms (EmFarmaTM plus Ema5 TM).