SUMMARY OF Ph.D. THESIS RESEARCH ON ORGANIC … · UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE . AND...

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE AND VETERINARY MEDICINE CLUJ–NAPOCA

PhD SCHOOL FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE

Specialization: Phytotechnie

Eng. Imre-Ottó ALBERT

SUMMARY OF Ph.D. THESIS

RESEARCH ON ORGANIC POTATO CULTIVATION

37

SCIENTIFIC COORDINATOR: Prof. univ. dr. Leon Sorin MUNTEAN

CLUJ – NAPOCA 2010

INTRODUCTION Potato is one of the most important crop in the world being cultivated in more than

one hundred countries. Potato represent the raw material for many food stuffs. It’s spreaded all over the world, coming from South America.

The disparity between rapid population growth and cereals demand, on one hand, and global acreage and yields, on the other hand, has driven to wheat shortage in many areas around the world. In such cases, potato becomes the staple food.

One prior condition for high and stable yields is the choice of the most suitable potato varieties in compliance to the region’s climate and soil particularities. Beyond the high yield potential, the chosen varieties must be resistant to main stress environmental factors and must have high quality potential.

Cultivated potato varieties have to give satisfactory results in quantity and quality. Nowadays the quantity is overwhelmed by the quality issue. Consumers are more and more oriented to buy healthy food, and they are award that healthy food is produced mainly in organic farming system.

Beginning with `80’s, in trend with the overall increasing demand for healthy food it has been reported a growth in potato demand. This fact has convinced many farmers lately to be in trend and switch for a farming system to fulfill the consumer’s demands.

In order to reach the required quantity and quality it is necessary to solve the fundamental problems of organic farming:

• To ameliorate new crop varieties with better quality potential; • To intoduce minimum soil tillage technologies; • To introduce pest and disease resistant crop varieties; • To use at maximum the local conditions, traditions and good

agriculture practices; • To make brand products;

38

• To increase competitivity through local conditions apprentice; • To introduce new crop technologies.

I express my deepest gratitude and consideration to. Mr. Professor LEON SORIN MUNTEAN, scientific coordinator of this Doctoral thesis, for the great honour he granted by accepting me in the group of PhD students and for his entire support from the first experimental protocol untill the fulfilment of the research work and written material.

I want to express sincerely gratitude to the Board of the University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine from Cluj-Napoca and especially to the Board of the Faculty of Agriculture for the overall outstanding research conditions.

Special gratitude to the whole team from the Phytotechny Department for the granted support.

And I adress my deepest gratitude to my family members for their unconditionned generosity and moral support

CHAPTER I THE ECOLOGIC AGRICULTURE SYSTEM IN THE WORLD

AND IN ROMANIA (general information)

As a consequence of many alarm signals regarding environment endangering there were adopted several alternative systems to conventional farming, such as: susteinable agriculture, bio-dynamic agriculture, „green” agriculture and ecologic agriculture (biologic – organic). 1.1. THE CONCEPT OF ECOLOGIC AGRICULTURE (ORGANIC FARMING) Ecologic agriculture, or biologic or organic farming (according to each country language acceptance in compliance with Regulation EC 834/2007; in Romania it was adopted the word „ecologic” trough the Government Ordinance 34/2000, which is similar to biologic and to organic) means the unpolluted and nonpolluant agriculture system with low inputs and friendly environment technologies, where the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and other chemical substances is totally forbidden. 1.2. THE ECOLOGIC AGRICULTURE STATUS IN THE WORLD After Albert Howard’s researches in India (1910-1931) and after Rudolf Steiner’s „Course for bio-dynamic farming” (1924), organic farming began to gain more and more symphatizers in England, Germany, USA, Swisserland, France. The most recent world survey on organic farming shows an acreage of 31 milion hectars under ecologic management and 633,891 farmers. The organic farmland share from total in use land in the countries included was of 0.7% (SOEL-FiBL 2007) Oceania has 11.8 milion ha under organic management (39% of the total organic farmland), second is Europe with aproximately 7 milion ha (23%), then comes Latin

39

America with 5.8 milion hectars (19%), Asia (aproximately 2.9 milion ha), North America (2.2. milion ha) and Africa (0.9 milion ha). Figure 1.2. shows the organic farmland distribution in the first 10 countries having large areas under ecologic management.

Fig.1.2 First 10 countries in the world with organic farmland shares Certification and acreditation Nowadays, more than 395 organizations around the world are offering certification services. Most of them are operating in Europe (160), Asia (93) and North America (80). 1.3.THE ECOLOGIC AGRICULTURE STATUS IN ROMANIA Organic farming in Romania is at the first steps. More developed is the conceptual issue, as an experience gained after 16 yeard of theoretical and applied studies and researches and of steady promotion by several NGO’s like the Romanian Association for Susteinable Agriculture, the Romanian Organic Farmers Association „BIOTERRA”, the ”AGROECOLOGIA” Association. Acreditation of two national inspection and certification bodies, ECOINSPECT in Cluj-Napoca and BIOCERT in Bucharest was of great help for the organic farming evolution and means that merchandise from Romania have now the opportunity to be sold as organic to export and domestic market. The organic market Due to the ongoing developing organic market in Romania 38% of the vegetal origin products, 22% of the livestock products and 65% of the honey were exported in 2006 to Germany, Swisserland, the Nederlands and Italy, where demand for such products is steadly increasing. In 2003 more than 90% of the domestic organic products were exported, while in 2007 it was foreseen a change in the ballance to 60% domestic market share and only 40% to export. Romania has a huge potential in producing, consuming and exporting organic products. That’s why organic farming system is representing a good oportunity for romanian farmers.

CHAPTER III

40

THE STUDY OBJECTIVES. THE SOIL AND CLIMATE CONDITIONS IN

WHICH RESEARCHES WERE DRIVEN. THE BIOLOGIC MATERIAL AND RESEARCH METHODS

3.1. THE STUDY OBJECTIVES In the ecologic conditions from Luna de Sus (Cluj county) there have been studied the following aspects: • Suitability of four potato varieties (Adora, Desiree, Rustic, Sante) for organic cultivation; • Yield’s compounds which are more vulnerable and which are participating more visible to the yield’s obtained in the specific ecological conditiond for each potato variety; • Potato vegetation cycle in compliance with the local climate conditions; • Fertilizers influence (Eurobio 26, Ecofertil, Azotofertil şi Biomit plus) on yield level; • Desease spraying materials (Novodor, Neemazal); • Conections between yields and climate conditions for each variety and farming season; • Economic performance of the tehnological measures applied for each potato variety. 3.3. FACTORS AND GRADUATIONS Factors which have been studied: Factor (A) : potato variety, with the following graduations: a1 – Adora variety (origin: the Nederlands) a2 – Desiree variety (origin: the Nederlands) a3 – Rustic variety (origin: NRDIPSB Braşov) a4 – Sante variety (origin: the Nederlands)

Factor (B) : fertilization, with the following graduations:

1. The (A) factor: potato variety, with the following graduations: a1 – Adora (The Nederlands) a2 – Desirée (The Nederlands) a3 – Rustic (Romania, the NIRDPSB Brasov) a4 – Santé (The Nederlands)

2. The (B) factor: fertilization, with the following graduations: b1 – soil fertilization, in spring time, before planting, with phosphate fertilizer Eurobio 26 (150 kg/ha) and Azotofertil biofertilizer (10 l/ha) b2 – soil fertilization, in spring time, before planting, with phosphate fertilizer EUROBIO 26 (150 kg/ha) and Azotofertil biofertilizer (10 l/ha) + in green fertilization, on bud stage, with Ecofertil P (10 l/ha) and Biomit Plussz (5 l/ha) biofertilizers b3 – in green fertilization, on bud stage, with Ecofertil P (10 l/ha) and Biomit Plussz (5 l/ha) biofertilizers b4 – without fertilization

41

3. The (C) factor: pests treatment, in green, when there are L1 stage maggots, with the following graduations: c1 – Novodor (4 l/ha) c2 – NeemAzal (2 l/ha).

CHAPTER IV OBSERVATIONS AND MEASUREMENTS DONE IN THE EXPERIMENTAL

FIELD 4.3.1.Planting In 2009 farming season, there has been calculated the average weight of the seed tubers before planting for each studied variety (table 4.9.).

Table 4.9. Tubers number and weight and per hectare correspondence (Luna de Sus, 2009)

Standard tubers (30-45mm) Variety

Gr. med. tub. plantat.(gr.)

Average weight /seed tuber (gr)

Gr. med. tub. pl. varianta exp.(kg)

Average weight of seed tuber/vartant(kg)

Nr. tub. pl. varianta exp.(buc)

Number of seed tubers/variant(pcs)

Gr. tub. pl./ Ha/kg

Average weight of seed tubers (Ha/kg)

Nr. tub pl. Ha/buc

Average tuber no. planted/ha(Ha/pcs)

ADORA 43 4,000 100 3071,40 71.428 DESIREE 48 4,700 100 3428,50 71.428 RUSTIC 38 3,700 100 2714,26 71.428 SANTE 45 4,600 100 2928,54 71.428

• The average weight of seed tubers was 43 grams (standard category 30-45 mm) 3071,40 kg/ha for Adora variety, 48 grams (standard category 30-45 mm) 3428,50 kg/ha for Desiree variety, 38 grams (standard category 30-45 mm) 2714,26 kg/ha for Rustic variety and 45 grame (standard category 30-45 mm) 2928,54 kg/ha for Sante variety.

4.3.2. Springing – Buding – Blossoming Table 4.9

Average number of main stems for each potato variety (Luna de Sus, 2009) Variety No. of main stems/planting hole No. of main stems/ha Adora 3,0 221426,80 Desiree 3,3 249998,00 Rustic 2,8 214284,00 Sante 3,7 271426,40 • Average number of main stems/planting hole for each studied potato variety was as following: 3,0 main stems/planting hole for Adora variety, 3,3 main stems/planting hole for Desiree variety, 2,8 main stems/planting hole for Rustic variety and 3,7 main stems/planting hole for Sante variety.

Table 4.11. The average time period of phenological stages from springing to buding and

blossoming for the studied potato varieties (Luna de Sus, 2009) Variety Springing-buding (days) Buding-blossoming (days) Adora 20 10 Desiree 22 15 Rustic 22 14 Sante 22 16

42

• The average time period from springing to bud stage was 20 days for Adora variety and 22 days for Desiree, Rustic and Sante varieties. • The average time period from bud stage to blossoming was 10 days for Adora variety, 15 days for Desiree variety, 14 days for Rustic variety and 16 days for Sante variety. 4.3.3.Blossoming – ripeness.

Table 4.12. The average time period from blossoming to physiological ripeness

for the studied potato varieties (Luna de Sus, 2009) Variety Blossoming - physiological ripeness stage (days)

Adora 59 Desiree 79 Rustic 78 Sante 77 • The average time period from blossom stage to physiological ripeness is 59 days for Adora variety, 79 days for Desiree variety, 78 days for Rustic variety and 77 days for Sante variety, determined by the specific plants morphological and physiological features.

CHAPTER V

PREVAILFOG WEEDS IN THE STUDIED VARIANTS

Table 6.1 Average weed incidence in control plots (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009)

Variety Average incidence (weeds no./m2) 2007 2008 2009 1. Agropyron repens (AGRRE) - 2.6 1.8 2. Cirsium arvense (CIRAR) 3.3 1.1 1.1 3. Convolvulus arvensis (CONAR) 3.0 2.1 1.6 4. Chenopodium album (CHEAL) 2.4 - - 5. Equisetum arvense (EQUAR) 1.7 1.7 1.7 6. Gallium aparine (GALAP) 2.9 1.2 0.7 7. Galinsoga parviflora (GALPA) 1.2 - - 8. Lollium arvense (LOLAR) - 1.5 1.1 9. Polygonum lapathypholiu (POLLA) 1.6 - - 10. Papaver rhoeas (PAPRH) 1.4 - - 11. Polygonum spp. - - 0.7 12. Sonchus arvense (SONAR) 1.5 1.1 1.2 13. Sollanum tuberosum (SOLTU) 1.8 - - 14. Vicia spp. - - 0.7 Total 20.8 11.3 10.6 The average data for the three farming seasons have confirmed the hypothesis that bio fertilizers usage is reducing the weed incidence. This result was significant for all the

43

fertilized variants, and the pests control was done through NeemAzal and Novodor treatments.

CHAPTER VI RESULTS REGARDING THE TUBERS YIELD FOR THE STUDIED

POTATOES INDUCED BY VARIETY, FERTILIZATION SCHEME AND TREATMENTS APLIED

6.1. RESULTS REGARDING THE TUBERS YIELD FOR THE STUDIED POTATOES INDUCED BY VARIETY, FERTILIZATION SCHEME AND TREATMENTS APLIED – THE AVERAGE FOR 2007-2009 FARMING SEASONS

6.1.9. Yields variance analysis, 3 years average, treatment with Novodor (c1) Table 6.28.

The B Factor (fertilization) influence on the obtained yields (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009)

Item no. Variant Yield (kg/ha) % Difference (kg/ha) Significance 1. Control plot 20471.58 100.0 0.00 Mt. 2. Soil fertilization 24051.83 117.5 3580.25 *** 3. Soil+in green fertilization 26354.12 128.7 5882.54 *** 4. In green fertilization 22843.52 111.6 2371.94 *** DL (p 5%) 225.57 kg/ha DL (p 1%) 306.61 kg/ha DL (p 0.1%) 410.63 kg/ha

The variance analysis in the case of fertilization factor influence reveals very distingtive positive significant differences compared to the control plot for all the three variants (table 6.28), the positive differences ranking between 111.6-128.7%, respectively an overyield of 2371.94 – 5882.54 kg/ha.

Table 6.31. The B Factor (fertilisation) and A Factor (crop variety) interactions

(Luna de Sus, 2007-2009)

Symbol Variant Yield (kg/ha) % Difference

(kg/ha) Significance

b4 a1 Control plot – Adora 19881.43 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a1 Adora 23568.07 118.5 3686.64 *** b2 a1 Adora 26063.64 131.1 6182.22 *** b3 a1 Adora 22104.25 111.2 2222.82 ***

b4 a2 Control plot – Désirée 20126.12 100.0 0.00 Mt.

b1 a2 Désirée 21743.24 108.0 1617.12 *** b2 a2 Désirée 24862.65 123.5 4736.54 *** b3 a2 Désirée 21462.99 106.6 1336.88 ***

b4 a3 Control plot – Rustic 19024.92 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a3 Rustic 20873.03 109.7 1848.11 *** b2 a3 Rustic 22894.82 120.3 3869.90 *** b3 a3 Rustic 20687.07 108.7 1662.15 ***

44

b4 a4 Control plot – Sante 22853.87 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a4 Sante 30022.97 131.4 7169.11 *** b2 a4 Sante 31595.37 138.2 8741.50 *** b3 a4 Sante 27119.78 118.7 4265.92 ***

DL (p 5%) 451.15 kg/ha DL (p 1%) 613.21 kg/ha DL (p 0.1%) 821.26 kg/ha

The B factor (fertilization) to A factor (variety) interaction reveals very distinctive significant differences to all variants compared to the control plot (table 6.31).

Table 6.33. The A Factor (crop variety) and B Factor (fertilisation) interactions

(Luna de Sus, 2007-2009)



a0 b1 X – soil fertilization 24051.83 100.0 0.00 Mt. a1 b1 Adora 23568.07 98.0 -483.76 - a2 b1 Désirée 21743.24 90.4 -2308.59 000 a3 b1 Rusric 20873.03 86.8 -3178.80 000 a4 b1 Sante 30022.97 124.8 5971.15 ***

a0 b2 X – soil + in green fertilization

26354.12 100.0 0.00 Mt.

a1 b2 Adora 26063.64 98.9 -290.48 - a2 b2 Désirée. 24862.65 94.3 -1491.47 000 a3 b2 Rustic. 22894.82 86.9 -3459.30 000 a4 b2 Sante. 31595.37 119.9 5241.25 ***

a0 b3 X – in green fertilization

22843.52 100.0 0.00 Mt.

a1 b3 Adora 22104.25 96.8 -739.27 0

a2 b3 Désirée 21462.99 94.0 -1380.53 000 a3 b3 Rustic 20687.07 90.6 -2156.45 000 a4 b3 Sante. 27119.78 118.7 4276.26 ***

a0 b4 X – control plot 20471.58 100.0 0.00 Mt.

45

a1 b4 Adora 19881.43 97.1 -590.16 0 a2 b4 Désirée 20126.12 98.3 -345.47 - a3 b4 Rustic 19024.92 92.9 -1446.66 000 a4 b4 Sante 22853.87 111.6 2382.28 *** DL (p 5%) 523.39 kg/ha DL (p 1%) 744.23 kg/ha DL (p 0.1%) 1082.37 kg/ha

The A factor (variety) to B factor (fertilization scheme) interaction (table

6.33) reveals that, no matter the fertilization scheme (on soil, in green, on soil + in green fertilization), Sante variety obtains very significant positive differences in yields compared to the control plot. In the same time, Desiree and Rustic varieties are registering very significant negative differences compared to the control plot in all fertilization variants.

Adora variety obtains yields similar to the control plot yield in the on soil and on soil + in green fertilization variants, and a significant negative difference for the in green fertilization variant.

Sante variety shows a very significant positive difference in yield compared to the control plot yield, Rustic variety reveals a very significant negative difference and Adora and Desiree varieties obtained yields alike the control plot yield. 6.1.9. Yields variance analysis, 3 years average, treatment with NeemAzal (c2)

Table 6.37. The B Factor (fertilization) influence on the obtained yields (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009)

Item no. Variant Yield (kg/ha) % Difference (kg/ha) Significance

1. Control plot 19960.93 100.0 0.00 Mt. 2. Soil fertilization 23688.04 118.7 3727.11 *** 3. Soil+in green

fertilization 25820.41 129.4 5859.48 *** 4. In green fertilization 22333.68 111.9 2372.75 ***


The variance analysis in the case of fertilization factor influence reveals very distingtive positive significant differences compared to the control plot for all the three variants (table 6.37), the positive differences ranking between 111.9-129.4%, respectively an overyield of 2372.75 – 5859.48 kg/ha.

Table 6.40. The B Factor (fertilisation) and A Factor (crop variety) interactions

(Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Symbol Variant Yield

(kg/ha) % Difference (kg/ha) Significance

13 Control plot – Adora 19195.84 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a1 Adora 23540.13 122.6 4344.29 *** b2 a1 Adora 25777.57 134.3 6581.73 *** b3 a1 Adora 21711.19 113.1 2115.35 ***

46

b4 a2 Control plot – Désirée 19813.21 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a2 Désirée 21485.79 108.4 1672.58 *** b2 a2 Désirée 24244.62 122.4 4431.40 *** b3 a2 Désirée 20819.36 105.1 1006.15 ***

b4 a3 Control plot – Rustic 18660.68 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a3 Rustic 20084.85 107.6 1424.17 *** b2 a3 Rustic 22015.54 118.0 3354.86 *** b3 a3 Rustic 19517.99 104.6 857.30 **



The B factor (fertilization) to A factor (variety) interaction reveals very significant pozitive differences in yields for all varieties compared to the control plot, no matter the fertilization variant (table 6.40).

In addition, for all varieties the best yields were obtained for the on soil + in green fertilization variant, then for the soil fertilization and in green fertilization variants.

Table 6.42.

The A Factor (crop variety) and B Factor (fertilisation) interactions (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009)



a0 b1 X – Soil fertilization 23688.04 100.0 0.00 Mt. a1 b1 Adora 23540.13 99.4 -147.91 - a2 b1 Désirée 21485.79 90.7 -2202.25 000 a3 b1 Rusric 20084.85 84.8 -3603.19 000 a4 b1 Sante 29641.38 125.1 5953.35 ***

a0 b2 X – Soil + in green fertilization

25820.41 100.0 0.00 Mt.

a1 b2 Adora 25777.57 99.8 -42.84 - a2 b2 Désirée. 24244.62 93.9 -1575.80 000 a3 b2 Rustic. 22015.54 85.3 -3804.88 000 a4 b2 Sante. 31243.93 121.0 5423.52 ***

a0 b3 X – in green fertilization

22333.68 100.0 0.00 Mt.

a1 b3 Adora 21711.19 97.2 -622.49 -

a2 b3 Désirée 20819.36 93.2 -1514.32 000 a3 b3 Rustic 19517.99 87.4 -2815.70 000 a4 b3 Sante. 27286.20 122.2 4952.52 ***

a0 b4 X – Control plot 19960.93 100.0 0.00 Mt. a1 b4 Adora 19195.84 96.2 -765.09 0

47

a2 b4 Désirée 19813.21 99.3 -147.72 - a3 b4 Rustic 18660.68 93.5 -1300.25 00 a4 b4 Sante 22173.99 111.1 2213.06 *** DL (p 5%) 673.16 kg/ha DL (p 1%) 966.12 kg/ha DL (p 0.1%) 1427.38 kg/ha

Sante variety registers very significant positive differences in yields

compared to the control plot for all the fertilization variants. Desiree and Rustic varieties are registering very significant negative differences in all the fertilization variants. As for Adora variety, the yields are very much alike the control plot yield in all the fertilization variants.

CHAPTER VII RESULTS REGARDING THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF TUBERS IN ONE

PLANTING HOLE FOR THE STUDIED POTATOES INDUCED BY VARIETY, FERTILIZATION SCHEME AND TREATMENTS APLIED

7.1.9. Average number of tubers obtained in one planting hole variance analysis - 3 years average, treatment with Novodor (c1)

Table 7.28. The B Factor (fertilization) influence on the average number of tubers

obtained/planting hole (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Item no. Variant Average tubers number

/ planting hole % Difference (kg/ha) Significance

1. Control plot 5.80 100.0 0.00 Mt. 2. Soil fertilization 7.29 125.5 1.48 *** 3. Soil+in green fertilization 9.16 157.8 3.35 *** 4. In green fertilization 6.84 117.9 1.04 *** DL (p 5%) 0.16 tubers/planting hole DL (p 1%) 0.22 tubers/planting hole DL (p 0.1%) 0.29 tubers/planting hole

The variance analysis in the case of fertilization factor influence reveals very distingtive positive significant differences compared to the control plot for all the three variants (table 7.28), the positive differences ranking between 117.9-157.8%, respectively an overyield of 1.04 – 3.35 tubers/planting hole.

Table 7.31.

48

The B Factor (fertilisation) and A Factor (crop variety) interactions influence on the average number of tubers obtained/planting hole (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009)

Symbol Variant Average tubers number / planting hole % Difference


b4 a1 Control plot – Adora 4.96 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a1 Adora 5.90 119.0 0.94 *** b2 a1 Adora 6.97 140.5 2.01 *** b3 a1 Adora 5.65 113.8 0.69 ***




DL (p 5%) 0.32 tubers/planting hole DL (p 1%) 0.43 tubers/planting hole DL (p 0.1%) 0.58 tubers/planting hole

The B factor (fertilization) to A factor (variety) interaction reveals very distinctive significant differences for all varieties, and, as a general roule, the soil fertilization, the in green fertilization and the combined soil plus in green fertilization variants give to all varieties very significant pozitive differences (table 7.31).

7.1.10. Average number of tubers obtained in one planting hole variance analysis - 3 years average, treatment with NeemAzal (c2)

Table 7.37. The B Factor (fertilization) influence on the average number of tubers

obtained/planting hole (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Item no. Variant Average tubers number/

planting hole % Difference (kg/ha) Significance

1. Control plot 5.27 100.0 0.00 Mt. 2. Soil fertilization 6.68 126.6 1.40 ***

3. Soil+in green fertilization 9.08 172.3 3.81 ***

4. In green fertilization 6.43 121.9 1.16 ** DL (p 5%) 0.66 tubers/planting hole DL (p 1%) 0.90 tubers/planting hole DL (p 0.1%) 1.20 tubers/planting hole


Table 7.40. The B Factor (fertilisation) and A Factor (crop variety) interactions influence on the

average number of tubers obtained/planting hole (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Symbol Variant Average tubers number / % Difference Significance

49

planting hole (kg/ha) b4 a1 Control plot – Adora 4.50 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a1 Adora 5.86 130.3 1.36 * b2 a1 Adora 6.95 154.4 2.45 *** b3 a1 Adora 5.70 126.7 1.20 -

b4 a2 Martor – Désirée 4.58 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a2 Désirée 5.82 127.1 1.24 - b2 a2 Désirée 7.77 169.5 3.18 *** b3 a2 Désirée 5.80 126.6 1.22 -

b4 a3 Control plot – Rustic 5.59 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a3 Rustic 6.35 113.6 0.76 - b2 a3 Rustic 9.85 176.3 4.26 *** b3 a3 Rustic 6.50 116.2 0.91 -

b4 a4 Control plot – Sante 6.41 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a4 Sante 8.67 135.1 2.25 ** b2 a4 Sante 11.76 183.3 5.34 *** b3 a4 Sante 7.70 120.1 1.29 -


For each variety the soil plus in green fertilization variant ensures very

significant positive differences compared to the control plot results.

Table 7.42. The A Factor (crop variety) and B Factor (fertilisation) interactions influence on the

average number of tubers obtained/planting hole (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Symbol Variant Average tubers number/

planting hole % Difference (kg/ha) Significance a0 b1 X – Soil fertilization 6.68 100.0 0.00 Mt. a1 b1 Adora 5.86 87.8 -0.81 - a2 b1 Désirée 5.82 87.2 -0.85 - a3 b1 Rustic 6.35 95.1 -0.33 - a4 b1 Sante 8.67 129.8 1.99 *

a0 b2 X – Soil + in green fertilization

9.80 100.0 0.00 Mt.

a1 b2 Adora 6.95 76.5 -2.13 00 a2 b2 Désirée. 7.77 85.5 -1.31 - a3 b2 Rustic. 9.85 108.5 0.77 - a4 b2 Sante. 11.76 129.5 2.68 **

a0 b3 X – In green fertilization 6.43 100.0 0.00 Mt. a1 b3 Adora 5.70 88.7 -0.72 -

a2 b3 Désirée 5.80 90.3 -0.62 - a3 b3 Rustic 6.50 101.1 0.07 - a4 b3 Sante. 7.70 119.9 1.28 -

a0 b4 X – Control plot 5.27 100.0 0.00 Mt. a1 b4 Adora 4.50 85.4 -0.77 - a2 b4 Désirée 4.58 86.9 -0.69 - a3 b4 Rustic 5.59 106.0 0.32 - a4 b4 Sante 6.41 121.7 1.14 -

DL (p 5%) 1.46 tubers/planting hole

DL (p 1%) 2.06 tubers/planting hole

DL (p 0.1%) 2.96 tubers/planting hole

The A factor (variety) to B factor (fertilization) interaction (table 7.42) reveals that Sante variety obtains very significant positive differences in the average

50

tubers number/planting hole compared to the control plot in the on soil fertilization and on soil + in green fertilization variants. In the same time, Adora, Desiree and Rustic varieties are registering results very alike to the control plot results.

CHAPTER VIII

RESULTS REGARDING THE TUBERS SIZE IN ONE PLANTING HOLE FOR THE STUDIED POTATOES INDUCED BY VARIETY, FERTILIZATION SCHEME AND TREATMENTS APLIED

8.1.25. Tubers size <30 mm variance analysis, average for 3 years, treatment with Novodor (c1)

Table 8.76. The B Factor (fertilization) influence on the tubers size <30 mm obtained

(Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Item no. Variant Tubers size/planting hole<30mm % Difference


1. Control plot 1.92 100.0 0.00 Mt. 2. Soil fertilization 2.38 123.9 0.46 *** 3. Soil+in green

fertilization 2.99 155.6 1.07 *** 4. In green fertilization 2.23 116.2 0.31 *** DL (p 5%) 0.08 tubers/planting hole DL (p 1%) 0.11 tubers/planting hole DL (p 0.1%) 0.14 tubers/planting hole



tubers size <30 mm obtained (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Symbol Variant Tubers size/planting

hole<30mm % Difference (kg/ha) Significance

b4 a1 Control plot – Adora 1.41 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a1 Adora 1.58 112.1 0.17 * b2 a1 Adora 1.98 140.4 0.57 *** b3 a1 Adora 1.63 115.6 0.22 **


b1 a2 Désirée 1.87 119.6 0.31 *** b2 a2 Désirée 2.51 160.2 0.94 *** b3 a2 Désirée 1.79 114.0 0.22 **



DL (p 5%) 0.16 tubers/planting hole DL (p 1%) 0.22 tubers/planting hole

51

DL (p 0.1%) 0.29 tubers/planting hole

The B factor (fertilization) to A factor (variety) interaction influence on the tubers size <30 mm obtained reveals various differences, but, as a general roule, the soil + in green fertilization variant gives to all varieties very significant pozitive differences (table 8.79).

8.1.26. Tubers size <30 mm variance analysis, average for 3 years, treatment with NeemAzal (c2)

Table 8.85. The B Factor (fertilization) influence on the tubers size <30 mm obtained

(Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Item no. Variant Tubers size/planting


1. Control plot 1.76 100.0 0.00 Mt. 2. Soil fertilization 2.21 125.0 0.44 *** 3. Soil+in green fertilization 2.95 167.1 1.18 *** 4. In green fertilization 2.10 119.1 0.34 ** DL (p 5%) 0.22 tubers/planting hole DL (p 1%) 0.30 tubers/planting hole DL (p 0.1%) 0.41 tubers/planting hole

The variance analysis in the case of fertilization factor influence reveals two very distingtive positive significant differences and one distingtive positive significant difference compared to the control plot (table 8.85), the positive differences ranking between 2.10-2.95%, respectively an overyield of 0.34 – 1.18 tubers/planting hole.


tubers size <30 mm obtained (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Symbol Variant Tubers size/planting


b4 a1 Control plot – Adora 1.32 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a1 Adora 1.71 129.3 0.39 - b2 a1 Adora 1.94 147.2 0.62 ** b3 a1 Adora 1.62 122.7 0.30 -


b1 a2 Désirée 1.85 123.4 0.35 - b2 a2 Désirée 2.42 161.5 0.92 *** b3 a2 Désirée 1.82 121.8 0.33 -




The B factor (fertilization) to A factor (variety) interaction influence on the tubers size <30 mm obtained reveals various differences, but, as a general roule, the soil + in green fertilization variant gives to all varieties very significant pozitive

52

differences (table 8.88).

8.1.27. Tubers size 30-45 mm variance analysis, average for 3 years, treatment with Novodor (c1)

Table 8.94. The B Factor (fertilization) influence on the tubers size 30-45 mm obtained

(Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Item no. Variant Tubers size/planting hole

30-45 mm % Difference (kg/ha) Significance


The variance analysis in the case of fertilization factor influence reveals very

distingtive positive significant differences compared to the control plot for all the three variants (table 8.94), the positive differences ranking between 2.06-3.31%, respectively an overyield of 0.39 – 1.24 tubers/planting hole.

Table 8.97. The B Factor (fertilization) to A factor (variety) interaction influence on the tubers size

30-45 mm obtained (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Symbol Variant Tubers size/planting

hole 30-45 mm % Difference (kg/ha) Significance

b4 a1 Control plot – Adora 1.73 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a1 Adora 2.15 124.5 0.42 *** b2 a1 Adora 2.44 140.8 0.71 *** b3 a1 Adora 1.97 114.1 0.24 **





The B factor (fertilization) to A factor (variety) interaction influence on the tubers size

30-45 mm obtained reveals various differences, but, as a general roule, the on soil + in green fertilization variant gives to all varieties very significant pozitive differences (table 8.97).

53

8.1.28. Tubers size 30-45 mm variance analysis, average for 3 years, treatment with Neemazal (c2)

Table 8.103. The B Factor (fertilization) influence on the tubers size 30-45 mm obtained







30-45 mm obtained (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Symbol Variant Tubers size/planting hole


b4 a1 Control plot – Adora 1.58 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a1 Adora 2.02 127.8 0.44 * b2 a1 Adora 2.47 156.0 0.89 *** b3 a1 Adora 2.03 128.4 0.45 *


b1 a2 Désirée 2.28 129.3 0.52 * b2 a2 Désirée 3.05 173.2 1.29 *** b3 a2 Désirée 2.28 129.5 0.52 *


b4 a4 Control plot – Sante 1.93 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a4 Sante 2.67 138.4 0.74 ** b2 a4 Sante 3.66 189.8 1.73 *** b3 a4 Sante 2.41 124.9 0.48 *


The B factor (fertilization) to A factor (variety) interaction influence on the tubers size 30-45 mm obtained reveals various differences, but, as a general roule, the on soil + in green fertilization variant gives to all varieties very significant pozitive differences (table 8.106).

54

8.1.29. Tubers size >45 mm variance analysis, average for 3 years, treatment with Novodor (c1)

Table 8.112. The B Factor (fertilization) influence on the tubers size >45 mm obtained


>45 mm % Difference (kg/ha) Significance

1. Control plot 1.82 100.0 0.00 Mt. 2. Soil fertilization 2.31 126.6 0.49 ***

3. Soil+in green fertilization 2.86 156.9 1.04 ***

4. In green fertilization 2.17 118.9 0.35 *** DL (p 5%) 0.06 tubers/planting hole DL (p 1%) 0.09 tubers/planting hole DL (p 0.1%) 0.12 tubers/planting hole




>45 mm obtained (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Symbol Variant Tubers size/planting hole


b4 a1 Control plot – Adora 1.82 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a1 Adora 2.17 119.0 0.35 *** b2 a1 Adora 2.55 140.0 0.73 *** b3 a1 Adora 2.04 112.1 0.22 **





The B factor (fertilization) to A factor (variety) interaction influence on the tubers size >45 mm obtained reveals various differences, but, as a general roule, the

55

fertilized variants, and especially the on soil + in green fertilization variant, give to all varieties very significant pozitive differences (table 8.115).

8.1.30. Tubers size >45 mm variance analysis, average for 3 years, treatment with Neemazal (c2)

Table 8.121. The B Factor (fertilization) influence on the tubers size >45 mm obtained

(Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Item no. Variant Tubers size / planting hole


1. Control plot 1.66 100.0 0.00 Mt. 2. Soil fertilization 2.14 128.4 0.47 *** 3. Soil+in green fertilization 2.89 173.8 1.23 *** 4. In green fertilization 2.04 122.9 0.38 ** DL (p 5%) 0.25 tubers/planting hole DL (p 1%) 0.34 tubers/planting hole DL (p 0.1%) 0.46 tubers/planting hole




tubers size >45 mm obtained (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009) Symbol Variant Tubers size/planting hole


b4 a1 Control plot – Adora 1.60 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a1 Adora 2.13 133.3 0.53 * b2 a1 Adora 2.52 157.7 0.92 *** b3 a1 Adora 2.06 128.5 0.46 -

b4 a2 Control plot – Désirée 1.33 100.0 0.00 Mt. b1 a2 Désirée 1.70 128.1 0.37 - b2 a2 Désirée 2.30 173.4 0.97 *** b3 a2 Désirée 1.71 128.9 0.38 -




The B factor (fertilization) to A factor (variety) interaction influence on the tubers size >45 mm obtained reveals various differences. In the on soil + in green fertilization variant all varieties show very significant positive differences. In the on soil fertilization and the in green fertilization variants the differences are not

56

significant compared to the control plot results (table 8.124).

CHAPTER IX

9.4. RESULTS ON ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN 2007÷2009 FARMING SEASONS

Table 9.23. Economic performance of organic potato cultivation (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009)

Economic parameter/Potato variety Adora Desiree Rustic Sante Gross margin/ha (revenue/ha - direct costs/ha) 34891.51 24446.41 22263.62 34022.04 Per unit cost (direct costs / units of staple product)

0.37 0.42 0.48 0.30

Change in Gross margin (revenue / control revenue)

122% 112% 113% 131%

Change in Per unit cost (Per unit cost / Control per unit cost)

86% 93% 93% 79%

Change in yields (no. of staple product units/no. of control staple product units)

122% 112% 113% 132%

Comparing the yields obtained for the four studied potato varieties reveals the highest yield in the on soil + in green fertilization scheme, with the best performance for Sante variety, overcoming it’s own control by 31%. The highest gross margin was registered for Adora variety (34,891.51 lei) and the lowest gross margin was registered for Rustic variety.

Table 9.24. Potato varieties main economic parametres (Luna de Sus, 2007-2009)

Parameter Adora Desiree Rustic Sante

Average yield Fert 23794.13 22436.53 21292.42 29256.09 Control 19539.65 19969.67 18904.23 22299.16

Difference (kg) 4254.48 2466.86 2388.19 6956.93

Revenue (lei) Fert 40713.31 30268.21 28085.42 39843.84

Control 33492.00 26989.67 24949.33 30415.56

Difference to control (%) 122% 112% 113% 131% Expenditures (lei) Fert 5821.80 5821.80 5821.80 5821.80

Control 5566.80 5566.80 5566.80 5566.80

Difference to control (%) 105% 105% 105% 105% Gross margin Fert 34891.51 24446.41 22263.62 34022.04

Control 27925.20 21422.87 19382.53 24848.76

Difference to control (lei) 6966.31 3023.54 2881.09 9173.28

Difference to control (%) 125% 114% 115% 137%

As regarding the gross margin, the first in range is Adora variety, due to the highest market price, followed by Sante, Rustic and Desiree varieties.

57

CHAPTER X

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSIONS 10.1. RESULTS OF MEASUREMENTS DONE IN THE EXPERIMENTAL FIELD

• The seed tubers used for planting from each variety were standard tubers (30-45 mm), with an average weight of 43 grams/tuber and a seedload of 3071,40 kg/ha for Adora variety, 48 grams/tuber and a seedload of 3428,50 kg/ha for Desiree variety, 38 grams/tuber and a seedload of 2714,26 kg/ha for Rustic variety and 45 grams/tuber and a seedload of 2928,54 kg/ha for Sante variety. • The average number of main stems/planting hole for the studied varieties is as following : 3,0 main stems/planting hole for Adora variety, 3,3 main stems/planting hole for Desiree variety, 2,8 main stems/planting hole for Rustic variety and 3,7 main stems/planting hole for Sante variety. • The average vegetation cycle registered in the experimental field was of 89 days for Adora variety, 116 days for Desiree variety, 114 days for Rustic variety and 115 days for Sante variety. 10.2. RESULTS ON WEED INCIDENCE • In the first experimental year (the 2006-2007 farming season) it was impossible to appreciate if the cultivated variety has a significant influence on weed incidence, the differences could be resulting also from other factors’ influence. • This farming seasons’ conclusion was that the perenial dicotiledonates group (including Equisetum arvense) could make problems for the organic potato farmers in this area due to the soil biologic potential, the specific climate conditions and the vegetation features of weeds in this group. • Even if there were observed differences in the weed incidence on the control plots of the four potato varieties tested in organic system (table 5.60) the weed incidence doesn’t exceed the statisticaly significant limit which to permit us to conclude that the potato variety, through it’s own competition capacity, can represent a diminishing weed incidence factor in organic potato cultivation. Thus, no potato variety have had a significant distinguished behaviour in the Duncan test comparative analysis as refering to the weed incidence issue. • From the 3 years average data it was confirmed that the technological factors are influencing the weed incidence and the interspecific competition. 10.3. TUBERS YIELDS FOR THE STUDIED POTATO VARIETIES INDUCED BY FERTLIZATION VARIANTS AND TREATMENTS APLIED

• From the experimental measurements – three years average (2007-2009) we can positive state that Sante variety has obtained the highest yield (27744.69 kg/ha),

58

followed by Adora variety (22730.27 kg/ha), Desiree variety (21819.75 kg/ha) and Rustic variety (20469.87 kg/ha). • The fertilized variants have revealed the highest yields, no matter the potato variety. The difference to the control plot yield was inbetween 32% for Sante variety and 12% for Desiree variety. • Average data in the three experimental years shows with no doubth the variety influence on the obtained yields. Thus, comparing the yields to the overall average yield of 23191.14 kg/ha, there are revealed unsignificant yield differences to all studied varieties. As refering to the fertilization variants interaction on the yields obtained, there have been determined higher yields and positive significant differences for the fertilized variants compared to the control plot results. • Duncan test data processing for the on soil + in green fertilization variants is ranking the variants in the yields decreasing order as following: Sante variety fertilized on soil+in green; Adora variety fertilized on soil+in green; Desiree variety fertilized on soil+in green; Rustic variety fertilized on soil+in green; a.s.o. • The variety interaction to the fertilization scheme is much more diversified as influence on the obtained yields and in generaly shows the overall superiority of Sante and Adora varieties. • Keeping the potato plants green until the physiological ripeness of tubers through cultural works and using the permitted pests and diseases treatment methods represents the main objective in cultivation and ensures the potato crop profitability.

10.4 AVERAGE TUBERS NUMBER IN ONE PLANTING HOLE FOR THE STUDIED VARIETIES INDUCED BY THE TREATMENTS APLIED

• From the 3 years average data it’s been highlighted the Rustic variety (a3b2c1) variant (on soil + in green fertilization) as being the variant with the highest average tubers number in one planting hole (11.76 tubers/planting hole), followed by Sante variety (9.82 tubers/planting hole), Desiree variety (8.08 tubers/planting hole) and Adora variety (6.97 tubers/planting hole). • Comparing the tubers number obtained in 2007-2009 farming seasons for the studied varieties influenced by the interraction of the evaluated factors (variety, fertilization, pest and desease treatments), the highest performances were obtained by Rustic variety. • All varieties have revealed best results as regarding the number of tubers in the (b2c1) variant, respectively in the factor b2 – soil + in green fertilization and factor c1 – treatment with Novodor and copper hidroxid combination. 10.5. TUBERS SIZE INDUCED BY VARIETY, FERTLIZATION AND TREATMENTS APLIED • For Sante variety the prevailfog tubers size is >45 mm, with 129.8% participation and a very significant positive difference to the average control plot.

59

• Statistical analysis on tubers size for Rustic variety shows the gratest tubers size of 30-45 mm participation (with 110.3%), the difference to the average being unsignificant. • The Sante variety analysis reveals the prevailance of <30 mm tubers (126.9%) and a positive difference to the average size. • The fertilization influence on tubers size is significant. For the studied varieties, the 3 years average (in the Novodor case treatment) is highlighting the very significant difference in the on soil + in green fertilization variants; for Adora variety (114.1-140.8%), for Desiree variety (118.2-167.9%), for Rustic variety (121.9-178.5%) and for Sante variety (115.1-146.9%) compared to the control plot. The unfertilized variants have registered average three years results as following: Adora variety (83.8%), Desiree variety (93.1%), Rustic variety (123.9%) and Sante variety (99.2%), with differences close to the control plot results. 10.6. ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE • Comparing the yields of the four studied potato varieties the outcome is that the best yield was registered in the on soil + in green fertilization variant, the best yield being obtained for Sante variety, followed by Adora, Desiree and Rustic varieties. • The highest gross margin was obtained for Adora variety (34,891.51 RON/ha) and the worst result was revealed by Rustic variety (22,263.62 RON/ha). • The difference is explained through the higher market price for Adora variety (being an early variety). • Comparing the unit acreage yield for the studied varieties, the conclusion is that yield difference in the fertilized variant compared to the control is of 6,956.93 kg/ha for Sante variety, followed by Adora variety with 4,254.48 kg/ha, Desiree variety with 2,466.86 kg/ha and Rustic variety with 2,388.19 kg/ha. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Choosing the most suitable varieties for organic cultivation • In organic farming, due to the technological features of this agricultural system, the basic criteria in choosing the varieties for cultivation must be related to: pests and deseases resistance, drought and other stress factors resistance. • For organic cultivation, in hilly and mountaneous regions, we recommand the Sante, Desiree, Adora and Rustic potato varieties. • Rustic variety, although is a high value variety, has proof an unconviencing behaviour in drought conditions. 2. The correct organic farming agrotechnical works application • In organic farming, because of just a few methods to control the limitative cultural factors, besides the suitable varieties choice, application of specific agrotechnical methods is strictly necessary. • The optimum moment for mechanical works and the use of the most suitable equipment is the guarantee of the main objectives fulfilment. Climate conditions, especially the rain falls in the planting season, are endengering the germinating layer

60

preparation. The irregular plants emergence has a bad influence on the yields obtained. • It is better to wait for the optim moment to do the seed bed works than to follow the optimum seeding period, no matter what. • For the weed contol the agrotechnical works have a great importance. The weed curry can solve the weed problem up to 60%. We underline the great importance of the right choice of the nursing works period and it’s very important that the device to be adjusted in accordance with the soil moisture and the phenological potato plant stage. • It has been proof that using the biofertilizers has a positive impact on weed incidence. The most efficient fertilization system for all the studied varieties was the on soil + in green fertilization scheme. We highly recommand to use the fertilizers • In spring, before planting, EUROBIO 26 fertilizer (doze 150 kg/ha) and Azofertil fertilizer (doze 10l/ha). • In bud stage, Ecofertil P (doze 10 l/ha) and the on leaves Biomit Plussz fertilizer (doze 5l/ha). Pests and desease control • Novodor treatment (doze 4 l/ha) • NeemAzal treatment (doze 2 l/ha) • Late blight treatment with copper hidroxid Selective references 1. Albert I.O., 2010, Cerceăari privind cultura cartofului în sistem ecologic, Lumea Satului anul IV, nr 7 (108) 1-15 aprilie 2. Albert I.O., 2010, Research on organic potato cultivation, Agricultura anul IXX, 1, 2, 73-74 3. Alexandri Al, şi colab., 1969, Tratat de fitopatologie agricolă, vol. II, Ed. Academiei R.S. România; 4. Ardelean M, R. Sestraş, 1996, Ameliorarea plantelor horticole şi tehnică experimentală, Partea a II – a, Tehnică experimentală, îndrumător de lucrări practice, Tipo AGRONOMIA, Cluj – Napoca 5. Blain P., Friedlander Jr., Researchers study biological control for wheat crop threat 6. Carlier L., I. Puia, I. Rotar, 1998, For a better grass production, Editura Risoprint, Cluj- Napoca ; 7. Draica C., Bredt H., Gorea T., (1999) – Tendinţe privind producerea şi valorificarea cartofului în Europa, Anale I.C.P.C., Vol. XXVI. 8. Horvath S., Proszka, P., Tas, L. (1995), Amit a vetoburgonyarol tudni kell, Agroinform Kiado, Budapest. 9. ea pachetului de programe MSTAT – C. 10. Ianosi S. (1995) – Calitatea materialului de plantat la cartof, Cartoful în România, vol. 5, nr.1, ian – mart, p.15 – 17. 11. Ianosi S. (1995) – Pregătirea materialului de plantat, Cartoful în România, vol. 5, nr.1, ian – mart., p. 18 – 19.

61

62

12. Ianosi S. (1995) – Norma de plantare la cartof , Cartoful în România, vol.5, ian – mart. p. 20 – 24. 13. Fiţiu A., Morar G. şi colab., 2003, Fertilizarea în agricultura ecologică, vol. Tehnologii în agricultura ecologică, Ed. Risoprint, Cluj- Napoca; 14. Măzăreanu I., IANOSI Maria, W. Copony, (1990) – Eficacitatea îngrăşămintelor minerale funcţie de desimea plantelor, în diferite condiţii pedoclimatice la cartoful de consum. Anale I.C.P.C., vol. XVII. 15. Morar M., Rusu T., Albert I., 2005, Ghid de combatere a buruienilor în agricultura ecologică, ed. Risoprint Cluj Napoca; 16. Morar G., 1999 Cultura cartofului, Ed. Risoprint, 17. Morar G., Marin Ş., 2004, Fitotehnie, Ed I. Ionescu de la Brad, Iaşi; 18. Morar G., şi colab. 2003, Tehnologii în agricultura ecologică, Ed. Risoprint 19. Muntean L.S., Borcean I., Roman Gh. V., Axinte M., 2003 Fitotehnie, Ed I. Ionescu de la Brad, Iaşi; 20. Muntean L.S., Luca E., Fiţiu A., Munteanu L., Munteanu S., Albert I.,2005, Bazele agriculturii ecologice, Ed. Risoprint, Cluj Napoca; 21. Puia,I., V.Soran, I.Rotar, 1998, Agroecologie, Ecologism, Ecologizare. Editura Genesis, Cluj-Napoca. 22. Puia,I., V.Soran, L.Carlier, I.Rotar, M.Vlahova, 2001, Agroecologie şi Ecodezvoltare. Editura Academicpres, Cluj-Napoca. 23. Rusu T., Albert I., Bodiş A., 2005, Metode şi tehnici de producţie în agricultura ecologică, Ed. Risoprint, Cluj- Napoca ; 24. Salontai AL., L. S. Muntean, G. Morar, S. Cernea, M. Bârsan, 1994, Asolamentele, factor esenţial al agriculturii ecologice. Lucrările sesiunii ştiinţifice „Tehnologii moderne în cultura plantelor de câmp”. Simpozionul „125 de ani de învăţământ superior agronomic la Cluj”; 25. Solti G., Rusu T., Nagy M., Albert I. O., 2006, Utilizarea rumeguşului şi a deşeurilor lemnoase pentru compostare, Ed. Risoprint, Cluj- Napoca pg. 30-60 26. Toncea I., 2000, Ecological Agriculture Theory- A Point of View, Proceedings of 13th International IFOAM Scientific Conference; 27. *** Ghid legislativ pentru agricultura ecologică, 2004, Ed. Risoprint, Cluj- Napoca; 28. ***The world’s healthiest Food Feeling Great.htm; 29. ***Wheat Taxonomy: The Legacy of John Percival, 1999, ed. Caligari and Brandham; 30. ***Elemente tehnologice specifice agriculturii ecologice - extras din norme IFOAM -; 31. www.fas.usada.gov – World Agricultural Production; 32. www.fibl.org – The World of Organic Agriculture Statistics and Emerging Trends 2007 33. http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/97/8.14.97/wheat_scab.html 34. http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofile/docs/cawheat.html

http://www.fas.usada.gov/

http://www.fibl.org/

http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/97/8.14.97/wheat_scab.html

http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofile/docs/cawheat.html

Date post:	28-Mar-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vanthuan
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

SUMMARY OF Ph.D. THESIS RESEARCH ON ORGANIC … · UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE . AND...

Documents