Scientific Papers Series B Horticulture

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSBecause of the fact that to both of theexperimental variants was applied the sameagrotechnics (pruning type, pruning system,load of buds per vine, planting distances, andso on), it is observed that there weren’tsignificant differences regarding the elementsthat define the fertility of a variety (c.f.a, c.f.r,number of grapes per vine) values obtained forboth of the variants being very close (Table 4).Productivity level was appreciated with thehelp of the productivity indexes (absolute andrelative) that gives informations about thegrape quantity on a fertile sprout, and from thispoint, it is observed that, the fertilized variantobtains higher values (173 g/sprout), incomparation with the control variant (165g/sprout) because the values of a grape’saverage weight know the same differences.The differences more or less significant showedas a result of applying the biofertilizers, in thegrape growing phenophase, practically insuringa better growth of the grapes, gradually in thethree applying stages (13.06.2012, 30.06.2012,14.07.2012), as well as a higher grape weight.At the harvesting moment, Cabernet Sauvignonafter the three treatments obtains grapes with ahigher average weight (92 g), compared to thecontrol variant, difference that is observed inthe average weight of 100 grapes. Regardingthe production that was obtained and itsquality, higher accumulations of sugar areshowed at the fertilized variant (219 g/l),comparing to the control with values of only202 g/l.Production per vine, also shows suchdifferences, and a plus of 5,8% in case of biostimulatorstreatment was made, can beobserved. Surprisingly, comparing the averagevalues of the anthocyans accumulations and thetotal polyphenol index, it is underlined the factthat, at the control variant these values aresuperior, comparing to the fertilized variant.It can be concluded partially that, applying biofertilizersto avoid massive flower shaking anda good grape binding and growing, brings aplus of quality production through grapegrowth, enhances the sugar content and doesn’tenhance grape color (at least in the chosenvariants Tecnophyt PK 3 l/ha, Tecamin BRIX 2l/ha, Tecnokel amino CaB 2 l/ha and for vine,especially).Table 4. Cuantification of the biofertilizers effects on the productive and technological potential of Cabernet Sauvignonvariety in the conditions of Urlati vineyard Experimental variantsand specificationCabernet Sauvignon(fertilized)Cabernet Sauvignon(control)Experimental variantsand specificationCabernet Sauvignon(fertilized)Cabernet Sauvignon(control)Experimental variantsand specificationCabernet Sauvignon(fertilized)Cabernet Sauvignon(control)Absolute fertilitycoefficientRelative fertilitycoefficientAbsolute productivityindex (g/sprout)Relative productivityindex (g/sprout)1,78 1,38 173,0 132,481,89 1,36 165,0 118,4No. ofgrapes/vineAverage weightof a grape (g)Weight of100 grapesProduction(kg /vine)25 92 96,5 2,21024 87 92,3 2,088Sugar(g/l)Evaluating the parameters that defineproduction quality of Cabernet Sauvignon inaccordance to the results obtained after theexperiment was realised through dividing eachquality component (production, sugar, acidity)at optimal values of each variety, (optimalAcidity(g/l tartric)Anthocyans(mg/l)219 4,46 1187,6Total polyphenolicindex202 4,98 1466,7 447,44118values or productive potential of the variety areconsidered average multi-annual values of theclosest area, Valea Clugreasc (Table 5).It is observed that, applying some biofertilizersin different growing stages of the grapes, theseparameters record values close to 1 (1,042 – for