Scientific Papers Series B Horticulture

sugar accumulated in grapes and 1,01 for mustacidity) which shows the fact that, the varietyreached at the moment of full maturation atechnological potential close to the optimal(variety potential). For the productionparameter, the value obtained of 0,84 or84,35% shows that from this point of view, thevariety was situated under the optimalparameter.Appreciating the qualitative potential of thevariety in conformity with the relative qualitycoefficient values underline that, underaccumulated sugar quantity and reachedacidity, the biostimulators variant recordsvalues close to zero, which shows a very goodadaptability of the variety and the chosenresearch variant, based on favorableecopedoclimatic conditions in which theexperiment took place. For the control variant,it is observed that the sugar parameter recordsvalues close to 1 (0,96 or 96,19%), underliningthe fact that, the variety has reached at the fullmaturity moment a technological potential veryclose to optimal (variety potential). For theother two parameters, the production per vineand the grape must acidity, the values recordedare even too low (0,79), even too high (1,13),showing the fact that, from this point of viewthe variety situated under its potential. Forappreciating the qualitative variety potentialcompared to the relative quality coefficient it isunderlined the same tendancy – under the sugaraccumulation the control variant records valuesclose to zero (0,04), hierarchically followed bythe values recorded by the acidity and theproduction/vine, with lower values, but not thatlow so that the differences could be statisticallyinsured.Table 5. Cuantification of the effects of biofertilizers on quality parameters of Cabernet Sauvignon variety in theconditions of Urlati vineyardExperimental variants Vectors that define quality parametersc p =P/P opt *c pr = /P opt = c p -1Cabernet Sauvignon(fertilized)Cabernet Sauvignon(control)0,84c z =Z/Z opt *1,042c a =A/A opt *1,01c p =P/P opt0,79c z =Z/Z opt0,96c a =A/A opt1,13c = ( c p, c z, c a )0,84, 1,042, 1,0184,35%, 104,2%, 101,1%c = ( c p, c z, c a )0,79, 96,19, 1,1379,69%, 96,19%, 113,18%0,16c zr = /Z opt = c z -10,042c ar = /A opt = c a -10,013c pr = /P opt = c p -10,20c zr = /Z opt = c z -10,04c ar = /A opt = c a -10,13c r = (c pr, c zr, c ar )0,16 , 0,042 , 0,013c r = (c pr, c zr, c ar )0,20 , 0,04 , 0,13CONCLUSIONSThe results obtained under the aspect ofquantity and quality lead to the idea that thebiostimulating substances used had a positiveinfluence on Cabernet Sauvignon, observingthat at a production rate of 5,8%, parametersthat define quality (sugar, acidity, polyphenols)are situated at the same limits, sometimes evenhigher, justifying their use. Regardingproduction quality it is underlined the fertilizedvariant, the deviation from the optimalproduction being minor – 84,35% and for theaccumulated sugar and the grape must aciditythe values obtained are closer to 1 showing thefact that the variety reached at the moment offull maturity a technological potential close tothe optimal one (variety potential). For thecontrol variant it is observed that the sugarparameter records values close to 1 (0,96 or96,19%), and for production and acidity thevalues recorded are even too low (0,79 or79,69%,) or even too high (1,13 or 113,18%),situating the variety under its optimal potential,but not that far to have and influence on thequality of the wine.REFERENCESAntonacci D., Perniola R., 2012. Trattamento conbiostimolanti per il miglioramento della qualitàdell’uva e della differenziazione a frutto delle gemmein varietà di uve da tavola senza semi. OrganisationInternationale de la Vigne et du Vin, Paris, le 13 mars2012.119