## 3 Results and Discussion
### Identification of Microorganisms in the Extraction Area and Juice Purification
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Periods**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Process**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sampling Points**} & \multicolumn{8}{c}{**Bacterial Count (log\({}_{\text{in}}\)/mL)**} \\ \cline{3-14}  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Rosin Acid**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**No Treatment**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Rosin Acid**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**No Treatment**} \\ \cline{3-14}  & & & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SD**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SD**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SD**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SD**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SD**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{**SD**} \\ \hline \multirow{10}{*}{Jumuary} & Fresh water & 0.38 & * & 0.21 & 0.21 & 1.13 & * & 2.16 & 1.44 & 5.36 & 0.89 & 4.88 & 0.41 \\  & Press water & 0.18 & 0.06 & 0.28 & 0.03 & 2.06 & 0.21 & 1.59 & 0.08 & 6.11 & 0.06 & 6.14 & 0.17 \\  & juice of mid-lower 1 & 0.48 & 0.22 & 0.55 & 0.12 & 1.08 & 0.39 & 0.99 & 0.32 & 5.95 & 0.07 & 4.69 & 2.64 \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & Joint or mid-lower 2 & 0.12 & 0.05 & 0.73 & 0.02 & 2.58 & 0.31 & 0.48 & 0.02 & 5.64 & 0.01 & 6.31 & 0.21 \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & Tower juice 1 & 0.65 & 0.11 & 0.68 & 0.32 & 1.32 & 0.36 & 0.63 & 0.46 & 5.27 & 0.11 & 5.31 & 0.33 \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & Tower juice 2 & 0.18 & 0.24 & 0.87 & 0.06 & 3.36 & 1.56 & 0.38 & 0.16 & 5.34 & 0.05 & 5.58 & 0.02 \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & Cosette-juice mixture 1 & 0.50 & 0.14 & 0.86 & 0.07 & 1.49 & 0.05 & 0.42 & 0.17 & 5.33 & 0.04 & 5.47 & 0.01 \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & Cosette-juice mixture 2 & 0.25 & 0.33 & 0.65 & 0.28 & 3.07 & 1.94 & 0.75 & 0.44 & 5.46 & 0.02 & 5.61 & 0.02 \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & Raw juice & 0.29 & 0.01 & 0.22 & 0.04 & 1.87 & 0.06 & 2.37 & 0.49 & 7.11 & 0.13 & 7.33 & 0.07 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Juce purification} & Hard juice & 0.91 & 0.08 & 0.96 & 0.00 & 0.28 & 0.23 & 0.13 & 0.01 & 3.25 & 0.09 & 3.58 & 0.09 \\  & Thin juice & 1.00 & 0.00 & 1.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 0.00 & 5.60 & 0.26 & 5.29 & 0.57 \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & Fluid before UV & 0.36 & 0.00 & 0.37 & 0.03 & 1.15 & 0.00 & 1.25 & 0.09 & 3.31 & 0.04 & 4.09 & 0.19 \\  & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & Elaut after UV & 0.37 & * & 0.37 & 0.00 & 1.13 & * & 1.13 & 0.01 & 2.62 & 0.52 & 4.58 & 0.01 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Only one Illumina MSGu Sequencing analyze was possible.  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._The influence of the processing time period and the related storage period of the beet was also investigated in this study. Practical experience has shown that beets stored for an extended period of time are more difficult to process than fresh beets. The texture of the beets changes [55] and the changes in chemical composition of the beets during storage can lead to slicing problems also involving reduced processing quality [56]. The increase in levels of non-sucrose substances, such as betaine, raiffinose and invert sugar (glucose and fructose), results in poor beet quality and a stronger need for processing aids [56]. For example, dextran can be produced by _Letoconstoc_ species. This effect especially occurs after freeze-thaw cycles during the storage period of beets [57]. To prevent technological problems, the addition of dextranase is recommended in such cases. Deteriorated processing quality observed at the end of the season could be of microbiological origin, but our investigations showed no significant influence of processing period / storage duration on the diversity of the bacterial community in the process. The sampling points where different processing conditions are observed seem to be the primary influence on the diversity of the detected antimicrobial effects of rosin acids.