You are on page 1of 8

The effect of some foliar fertilizers upon some tomato hybrids with determined growth cultivated cold solariums

in different fertirrigation conditions


Horgo A.1, Becherescu Alexandra1, Popa D.1, ru O.1
Banats University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Timioara, Faculty of Horticulture and Sylviculture

*Corresponding author. Email: horgos_a@yahoo.com


Abstract Growers bearing to cultivating vegetables in cold spaces, mainly solariums, is a consequence of energy rising costs. In this way, there were and still are affected the small producers and mainly those who cultivate vegetables as beginners and dont have sufficient funds for this. For a profitable culture, in our case tomatoes culture is not sufficient to reduce only the energy or heating costs, which represent an important part in the economical efficiency of a culture. According to this, it is necessary to improve the technological parts of a culture that can compensate the lack of heating, which determined the decrease of early culture and its quality in the first harvest period. Improving the varieties by cultivating the newest created hybrids, with high productivity and early planting features together with improving the fertilization and irrigation systems by applying them at the same time and fertilizing in certain phenophases, mainly foliar, can contribute to obtaining efficient productions in cold solariums. The lack of temperature influences the culture technology and has to be compensated by improving some other independent operations, in this case foliar fertilization. In this article, we present the effect of some foliar fertilizers (Agroleaf, Cropmax, Bionex) upon tomatoes production and quality of two hybrids with determined growth Magnus F1 and Maximus F1, as a compensation to classical and modern fertirrigation systems with common Kemira fertilizers. Fuels and energys rising costs determined the impossibility of cultivating vegetables in heated solariums by most of the private vegetable growers. There were and still are affected the small producers and mainly those who cultivate vegetables as beginners and dont have sufficient funds for this. Because of all these, vegetable cultivators turned to cultivating vegetables in not heated spaces, such as cold solariums. For a profitable culture, in our case tomatoes culture is not sufficient to reduce only the energy or heating costs, which represent an important part in the economical efficiency of a culture. First of all, it is necessary to improve the technological parts of a culture that can compensate the lack of heating, which determined the decrease of early culture and its quality in the first harvest period. The hybrid, by its features, together with the leading vegetation system by modifying or not the axial plants system, by improving the irrigation and fertilization systems and by completing the nutrients with foliar fertilization can contribute to obtaining Key words hybrids, solarium, production, fertilizers, culture, fertirrigation

efficient tomato productions in the new conditions. These conditions manifest through abridgement of culture technology and a higher competition on the market with similar imported products and not only. The contribution of the mentioned factors, which compete to solving the problem in the interrelations that take place between them, can be considered as reducing the costs of energy, seeds and seedlings and increasing the profit as a result of quality productions and a good harvesting dynamic.

Material and Method


The study concerning the efficient tomato culture developed in a family society from Arad County, where tomato culture developed on larger and larger surfaces, cultivated mainly with tomatoes, but also with peppers, cabbage and cauliflower. The experiment was done on two new tomato hybrids Magnus F1, from Sluis & Groot Dutch society belonging to Novartis

183

group and Maximus F1 from De Ruiter Seeds Dutch society. Both hybrids where studied concerning their productivity and quality potential under the influence of two fertilization systems (classic and modern) and also by using foliar fertilizers with natural or synthesis products. The culture was set up in 15-17 March 2009 in cold solariums. The seedlings were of 65 days and the planting density of 3.2 plants/m2. It was settled a three-factors experiment: Factor A The type of foliar fertilizer a1 control variant not fertilized a2 Agroleaf soluble foliar fertilizer a3 Cropmax complex nutrient super concentrate for foliar fertilization (100% natural) a4 Bionex foliar fertilizer with plants extract (biological product) Factorul B Fertilization system b1 classic fertilization system (with common fertilizers) b2 modern fertilization system with Kemira fertilizers (Cropcare for basis fertilization and Ferticare in vegetation) Factorul C The hybrid c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 The applied technology concerning the watering and nutrition of plants was done by: - irrigation by Netafim (Israel) dripping irrigation system; - fertilization by dripping irrigation system (fertirrigation) using Kemira fertilizers (based on complexes for basis systems, starter and phenophases with microelements for fertilizing irrigation and foliar irrigation). The researches made had as a goal establishing the possibilities of obtaining efficient tomatoes productions in cold solariums in the conditions of market competition, by using the newest hybrids with determined growth. At the same time, we observed their behaviour as productivity and quality potentials by using foliar fertilizers for completing the root nutrition.

Results and Discussions


Out of table 1, according to the interaction of factor As graduations (a1 not foliar fertilized, a2 Agroleaf soluble foliar fertilizer, a3 Cropmax complex nutrient super concentrate for foliar fertilization, a4 Bionex foliar fertilizer with plants extract) and factor Bs (b1 classic fertilization and b2 Kemira fertilizatiom) and their effects upon production and its quality show up the superiority of Kemira fertilization for both hybrids, but mainly to Maximus F1 as production level and Magnus F1 as quality level. The synthesis of results presented in table 2 and figure 1 show that: - in case of factor A graduations the production obtained under the influence of b2 Kemira fertilization is with 27,5% (a1 control variant not fertilized) till 38,1% (a3 Cropmax) higher than under the influence of b1 classic fertilization, the maximum production being of 159,2 t/ha (a4-Bionex); - to a5- Mx1 (127,1 t/ha -100,0%) which for b1 (classic fertilization) is of 107,9 t/ha representing 84,9 %, the production for b2 (Kemira fertilization) is of 146,3 t/ha representing 115,1%, while to b1 (classic fertilization) is 135,6%; - to a6 - Mx2 the values are different, producia the production of b2 (Kemira fertilization) is of 155,6 t/ha (137,6%), higher than in b1 (classic fertilization) where it is of 113,1 t/ha (100,0%). By comparing the productions of b1 (classic fertilization) and b2 (Kemira fertilization) to Mx2 134,4 t/ha (100,0%) they represenr 89,0% in b1 and 122,4 % in b2; - under the influence of factor A (foliar fertilizer) the obtained productions have really close limits to Mx1-127,1 t/ha and to Mx2-134,4 t/ha; - the highest production was obtained under the influence of a4-Bionex, of 137,8 t/ha (130,7% to a1not fertilized, 108,4% to Mx1 and 102,5% to Mx2); - all the productions obtained under the influence of a1 not fertilized, a2 Agroleaf soluble foliar fertilizer, a3 Cropmax complex nutrient super concentrate for foliar fertilization are under 100,0% than Mx2, which highlights a4-Bionex.

184

Table 1 Experimental results concerning the culture of determined growth tomato hybrids in cold solariums in the Ist cycle 2009 Factor A (Foliar fertilizer) Factor B (Fertilizing Average no. of Factor C (The hybrid) system) fruits/plant b1-classic fertilization 23,9 24,7 24,3 27,6 28,2 27,9 26,1 27,5 28,5 28,0 35,3 35,8 35,6 31,8 26,2 27,0 26,6 33,2 34,8 34,0 30,3 27,0 28,3 27,7 34,3 35,9 35,1 31,4 Average weight/fruit (g/piece) 119,6 118,5 119,0 133,7 130,8 132,2 126,1 125,6 124,9 125,3 136,8 135,5 136,1 131,4 130,2 129,5 129,8 140,7 139,9 140,3 135,7 132,6 130,1 131,4 142,8 140,9 141,7 137,2 Average production Kg/plant 2,858 2,927 2,893 3,690 3,689 3,690 3,292 3,459 3,556 3,508 4,834 4,856 4,845 4,177 3,413 3,494 3,453 4,669 4,869 4,769 4,113 3,588 3,688 3,638 4,891 5,056 4,975 4,307 Kg/m2 9,15 9,37 9,26 11,81 11,80 11,81 10,54 11,1 11,4 11,3 15,5 15,5 15,5 13,4 10,9 11,2 11,1 14,9 15,6 15,3 13,2 11,5 11,8 11,6 15,7 16,2 15,9 13,8 t/ha 91,5 93,7 92,6 118,1 118,0 118,1 105,4 110,7 113,8 112,3 154,7 155,4 155,1 133,7 109,2 111,8 110,5 149,4 155,8 152,6 131,6 114,8 118,0 116,4 156,5 161,8 159,2 137,8 Extra and Ist quality production t/ha 69,1 71,5 70,3 94,4 93,8 94,1 82,2 88,4 89,8 89,1 126,5 125,7 126,1 107,6 87,6 89,3 88,5 123,2 124,8 124,0 106,3 93,3 95,3 94,3 132,2 134,5 133,4 113,9 % 75,5 76,3 75,9 79,9 79,5 79,7 78,0 79,9 78,9 79,3 81,8 80,9 81,3 80,5 80,2 79,9 80,1 82,5 80,1 81,3 80,8 81,3 80,8 81,0 84,5 83,1 83,8 82,7

c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 Average of c for a1xb1 a1- control variant not fertilized c1 - Magnus F1 b2- Kemira fertilization c2 - Maximus F1 Average of c for a1xb2 Average of factor B for factor a1 c1 - Magnus F1 b1-classic fertilization c2 - Maximus F1 Average of c for a2xb1 a2- Agroleaf c1 - Magnus F1 b2- Kemira fertilization c2 - Maximus F1 Average of c for a2xb2 Average of factor B for factor a2 c1 - Magnus F1 b1-classic fertilization c2 - Maximus F1 Average of c for a3xb1 a3- Cropmax c1 - Magnus F1 b2- Kemira fertilization c2 - Maximus F1 Average of c for a3xb2 Average of factor B for factor a3 c1 - Magnus F1 b1-classic fertilization c2 - Maximus F1 Average of c for a4xb1 a4- Bionex c1 - Magnus F1 b2- Kemira fertilization c2 - Maximus F1 Average of c for a4xb2 Average of factor B for factor a4 Culture density: 32.000 plants/ha

185

Table 2 Synthesis of the experimental results concerning the culture of determined growth tomato hybrids in cold solariums in conditions of foliar fertilization with different fertilizers in the Ist cycle 2009
Average production for: Factor A Factor B (Foliar fertilizer) (Fertilizing system) b1-classic fertilization Factor C (The hybrid) Kg/pl c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 Average of c for a1xb1 b2- Kemira c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 fertilization Average of c for a1xb2 Average of factor B for factor a1 b1-classic c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 fertilization Average of c for a2xb1 b2- Kemira c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 fertilization Average of c for a2xb2 Average of factor B for factor a2 b1-classic c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 fertilization Average of c for a3xb1 b2- Kemira c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 fertilization Average of c for a3xb2 Average of factor B for factor a3 b1-classic c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 fertilization Average of c for a4xb1 b2- Kemira c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 fertilization Average of c for a4xb2 Average of factor B for factor a4 b1-classic * fertilization b2- Kemira fertilization * 2,858 2,927 2,893 3,690 3,689 3,690 3,292 3,459 3,556 3,508 4,834 4,856 4,845 4,177 3,413 3,494 3,453 4,669 4,869 4,769 4,113 3,588 3,688 3,638 4,891 5,056 4,975 4,307 * * * * * * 3,925 4,013 3,970 * * 4,14, 4,253 4,198 t/ha 91,5 93,7 92,6 118,1 118,0 118,1 105,4 110,7 113,8 112,3 154,7 155,4 155,1 133,7 109,2 111,8 110,5 149,4 155,8 152,6 131,6 114,8 118,0 116,4 156,5 161,8 159,2 137,8 * * * * * * 125,6 128,5 127,1 * * 132,6 136,1 134,4 Factor C % to a1-5 86,8 88,9 87,9 112,0 111,9 112,0 100,0 82,8 85,1 84,0 115,7 116,2 116,0 100,0 83,0 85,0 84,0 113,5 118,4 115,9 100,0 83,3 85,6 84,5 113,6 117,4 115,5 100,0 * * * * * * 98,8 101,1 100,0 * * 98,7 101,3 100,0 Of which prod.E+I t/ha % 69,1 75,5 71,5 76,3 70,3 75,9 94,4 79,9 93,8 79,5 94,1 79,7 82,2 78,0 88,4 79,9 89,8 78,9 89,1 79,3 126,5 81,8 125,7 80,9 126,1 81,3 107,6 80,5 87,6 80,2 89,3 79,9 88,5 80,1 123,2 82,5 124,8 80,1 124,0 81,3 106,3 80,8 93,3 81,3 95,3 80,8 94,3 81,0 132,2 84,5 134,5 83,1 133,4 83,8 113,9 82,7 85,5 119,4 101,8 103,1 102,5 90,6 127,8 108,5 117,1 112,8 79,2 81,6 81,1 80,2 80,6 80,1 82,1 81,8 86,0 83,9 t/ha 92,6 118,1 105,4 112,3 155,1 133,7 110,5 152,6 131,6 116,4 159,2 137,8 107,9 146,3 * * * 113,1 155,6 * * * Factor B % to a1-5b1 100,0 127,5 113,8 100,0 138,1 119,1 100,0 138,1 119,1 100,0 136,8 118,4 100,0 135,6 * * * 100,0 137,6 * * * % a1-5b1-2 to Mx1 72,9 105,4 92,9 82,9 88,4 133,7 122,0 105,2 86,9 131,6 120,1 103,5 91,6 137,8 125,3 108,4 84,9 115,1 * * * 89,0 122,4 * * * 134,4 127,5 105,7 134,4 105,7 127,1 120,6 100,0 127,1 100,0 130,7 108,4 ______ 102,5 124,9 103,5 _____ 97,9 126,8 105,2 _____ 99,5 127,1 100,0 100,0 t/ha Factor A % to a1 % a1-5 to Mx1/Mx2 82,9 _____ 78,5 Average value Mx1 and Mx2 t/ha %

a1- control variant not fertilized

a2- Agroleaf

a3- Cropmax

a4- Bionex

a5- Average value (Mx1)


Mx 1 a 1 ... a 4 4

a6- Average value (Mx2)


Mx 2 Mx1 a1

c1 - Magnus F1 c2 - Maximus F1 Average value of the exp.. (Mx1) b1-classic * fertilization b2- Kemira * fertilization c1 - Magnus F1 * c2 - Maximus F1 Average value of the exp. (Mx2)

186

Producia medie pentru Factorul C (t/ha) Producia medie pentru Factorul C (% fa de a1-5)

Producia medie pentru Factorul B (t/ha) Producia medie pentru Factorul B (% fa a1-5b1)

Producia medie pentru Factorul A (% fa de a1) Producia medie pentru Factorul A (% fa a1)

250 225 200 175 150 125 100


100,0 86,8 100,0 88,9 82,8 85,1 127,5 127,5 126,8 126,8

138,1 126,8 115,7 111,9 100,0 100,0 100,0

138,1 126,8 116,2 124,9 124,9

138,1 124,9 113,5

138,1 130,7 124,9 130,7

150
136,8 130,7 136,8 130,7 117,4

135 120 105 90 75 60

112,0 100,0

113,6 118,4 100,0 100,0

100,0

100,0

83,0

85,0

83,3

85,6

114,8 116,4 137,8

110,7 112,3 133,7

113,8 112,3 133,7

109,2 110,5 131,6

118,1 118,1 105,4

91,5 92,6 105,4

50 25 0

93,7 92,6 105,4

118,0 118,1 105,4

111,8 110,5 131,6

118,0 116,4 137,8

75

155,8 152,6 131,6

155,4 155,1 133,7

154,7 155,1 133,7

149,4 152,6 131,6

161,8 159,2 137,8

156,5 159,2 137,8

45 30 15 0

c1 c2 c1 c2 c1 c2 c1 c2 c1 c2 c1 c2 c1 c2 c1 c2 Magnus F1 Maximus Magnus F1 Maximus Magnus F1 Maximus Magnus F1 Maximus Magnus F1 Maximus Magnus F1 Maximus Magnus F1 Maximus Magnus F1 Maximus F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 F1 b1-fertilizare clasic b2-fertilizare Kemira b1-fertilizare clasic b2-fertilizare Kemira b1-fertilizare clasic b2-fertilizare Kemira b1-fertilizare clasic b2-fertilizare Kemira

a1- Martor nefertilizat extraradicular

a2- Agroleaf

a3- Cropmax

a4- Bionex

Fig.1. Experimental results concerning the culture of determined growth tomato hybrids in cold solariums in conditions of foliar fertilization with different natural and synthesis fertilizers in the Ist cycle 2009 In table 3, there are presented the results of the statistic calculation concerning the significations of the differences as a result of different factors interaction. By analysing point 1 the unilateral influence of foliar fertilizer upon the production results that the production obtained under the influence of a2 Agroleaf, a3 Cropmax and a4-Bionex are statistically assured, having significant positive differences (in case of a2 Agroleaf and a3 Cropmax) and distinct significant positive differences (in case of a4-Bionex) to a1-the control not fertilized. In the rest of the situations there is no significance of the production differences obtained under the influence of foliar fertilizers. From point 2, by analysing the unilateral influence of fertilizing system upon the production, we see that the production obtained under the influence of b2 (Kemira fertilization) is statistically assured, having distinct significant differences, the production rise being of 35.5%. By analysing point 3 the unilateral influence of the hybrid upon the production it shows that both of the productions obtained from the two hybrids is not statistically covered, having no significance of the production differences. This means that the two hybrids are close as biological value and showing the productivity potential in the same climatic conditions. From the other points of the table, we noticed that in most of the cases under the interaction of the experimental factors there are no significant differences, showing that the productions obtained dont vary that much under the influence of either factors.

187

Table 3

The unilateral and interaction influences of the experimental factors upon the production Relative Difference Significance production (%) ( t/ha) 1. Unilateral influence of foliar fertilizers upon the production a2-a1 133,65 105,33 126,89 28,33 * a3-a1 131,55 105,33 124,90 26,23 * a4-a1 137,78 105,33 130,81 32,45 ** a3-a2 131,55 133,65 98,43 -2,10 a4-a2 137,78 133,65 103,09 4,13 a4-a3 137,78 131,55 104,73 6,23 DL 5%= 21,05 DL 1%= 31,87 DL 0,1%= 51,20 2. Unilateral influence of the fertilizing system upon the production b2-b1 146,21 107,94 135,46 38,28 ** DL 5%= 23,79 DL 1%= 32,77 DL 0,1% = 45,11 3. Unilateral influence of the hybrid upon the production c2-c1 128,54 125,61 102,33 2,92 DL 5%= 17,54 DL 1%= 23,76 DL 0,1% = 31,76 4. The interaction influence of different foliar fertilizers and the same or different fertilizing systems a2b1-a1b1 112,25 92,60 121,22 19,65 a3b1-a1b1 110,50 92,60 119,33 17,90 a4b1-a1b1 116,40 92,60 125,70 23,80 a3b1-a2b1 110,50 112,25 98,44 -1,75 a4b1-a2b1 116,40 112,25 103,70 4,15 a4b1-a3b1 116,40 110,50 105,34 5,90 a2b2-a1b2 155,05 118,05 131,34 37,00 a3b2-a1b2 152,60 118,05 129,27 34,55 a4b2-a1b2 159,15 118,05 134,82 41,10 * a3b2-a2b2 152,60 155,05 98,42 -2,45 a4b2-a2b2 159,15 155,05 102,64 4,10 a4b2-a3b2 159,15 152,60 104,29 6,55 a2b2-a1b1 155,05 92,60 167,44 62,45 ** DL 5% = 39,61 DL 1% = 55,92 DL 0,1% = 80,48 5. The interaction influence of the same foliar fertilizer and different fertilizing systems a1b2- a1b1 118,05 92,60 127,48 25,45 a2b2- a2b1 155,05 112,25 138,13 42,80 a3b2- a3b1 152,60 110,50 138,10 42,10 a4b2- a4b1 159,15 116,40 136,73 42,75 DL 5% = 47,58 DL 1% = 65,54 DL 0,1% = 90,22 6. The interaction influence of the same foliar fertilizer and different hybrids a1c2- a1c1 105,85 104,80 101,00 1,05 a2c2- a2c1 134,60 132,70 101,43 1,90 a3c2- a3c1 133,80 129,30 103,48 4,50 a4c2- a4c1 139,90 135,65 103,13 4,25 DL 5% = 35,08 DL 1% = 47,52 DL 0,1% = 63,53 7. The interaction influence of the same fertilizing system and different hybrids b1c2- b1c1 109,33 106,55 102,60 2,78 b2c2- b2c1 147,75 144,68 102,13 3,08 DL 5% = 24,81 DL 1% = 33,60 DL 0,1% = 44,92 8. The interaction influence of different fertilizing system and the same hybrids b2c1- b1c1 144,68 106,55 135,78 38,13 * b2c2- b1c2 147,75 109,33 135,15 38,43 * b2c2- b1c1 147,75 106,55 138,67 41,20 ** DL 5% = 29,56 DL 1% = 40,47 DL 0,1% = 55,14 Variant Average production (t/ha)

188

9. The interaction influence of different foliar fertilizers and the same or different hybrids a2c1- a1c1 132,70 104,80 126,62 27,90 a3c1- a1c1 129,30 104,80 123,38 24,50 a4c1- a1c1 135,65 104,80 129,44 30,85 a3c1- a2c1 129,30 132,70 97,44 -3,40 a4c1- a2c1 135,65 132,70 102,22 2,95 a4c1- a3c1 135,65 129,30 104,91 6,35 a2c2- a1c2 134,60 105,85 127,16 28,75 a3c2- a1c2 133,80 105,85 126,41 27,95 a4c2- a1c2 139,90 105,85 132,17 34,05 * a3c2- a2c2 133,80 134,60 99,41 -0,80 a4c2- a2c2 139,90 134,60 103,94 5,30 a4c2- a3c2 139,90 133,80 104,56 6,10 a2c2- a1c1 134,60 104,80 128,44 29,80 DL 5% = 32,42 DL 1% = 45,86 DL 0,1% = 66,30 10. The interaction influence of the same foliar fertilizer and the same fertilizing systems and different hybrids a1b1c2- a1b1c1 93,70 91,50 102,40 2,20 a2b2c2- a2b2c1 155,40 154,70 100,45 0,70 DL 5% = 49,62 DL 1% = 67,20 DL 0,1% = 89,84 11. The interaction influence of different fertilizing systems and the same foliar fertilizer and the same hybrid a1b2c1- a1b1c1 118,10 91,50 129,07 26,60 a2b2c2- a2b1c2 155,40 113,80 136,56 41,60 DL 5% = 59,11 DL 1% = 80,93 DL 0,1% = 110,27 12. The interaction influence of different foliar fertilizer and the same fertilizing systems and the same hybrids a2b1c1- a1b1c1 110,70 91,50 120,98 19,20 a3b1c1- a1b1c1 109,20 91,50 119,34 17,70 a4b1c1- a1b1c1 114,80 91,50 125,46 23,30 a3b1c1- a2b1c1 109,20 110,70 98,64 -1,50 a4b1c1- a2b1c1 114,80 110,70 103,70 4,10 a4b1c1- a3b1c1 114,80 109,20 105,13 5,60 a2b1c2- a1b1c2 113,80 93,70 121,45 20,10 a3b1c2- a1b1c2 111,80 93,70 119,32 18,10 a4b1c2- a1b1c2 118,00 93,70 125,93 24,30 a3b1c2- a2b1c2 111,80 113,80 98,24 -2,00 a4b1c2- a2b1c2 118,00 113,80 103,69 4,20 a4b1c2- a3b1c2 118,00 111,80 105,55 6,20 a2b2c1- a1b2c1 154,70 118,10 130,99 36,60 a3b2c1- a1b2c1 149,40 118,10 126,50 31,30 a4b2c1- a1b2c1 156,50 118,10 132,51 38,40 a3b2c1- a2b2c1 149,40 154,70 96,57 -5,30 a4b2c1- a2b2c1 156,50 154,70 101,16 1,80 a4b2c1- a3b2c1 156,50 149,40 104,75 7,10 a2b2c2- a1b2c2 155,40 118,00 131,69 37,40 a3b2c2- a1b2c2 155,80 118,00 132,03 37,80 a4b2c2- a1b2c2 161,80 118,00 137,12 43,80 a3b2c2- a2b2c2 155,80 155,40 100,26 0,40 a4b2c2- a2b2c2 161,80 155,40 104,12 6,40 a4b2c2- a3b2c2 161,80 155,80 103,85 6,00 DL 5 % = 52,88 DL 1% = 73,29 DL 0,1% = 102,13

189

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. The use of foliar fertilizers as a part of tomato culture technology in cold solariums determines a favourable increase of the obtained production from the cultivated hybrids, by extra fertilization. The rises of production were between 31.6 and 37,8% than the not fertilized control variant; 2. The highest rise of production was obtained after using the natural fertilizer Bionex, being of +32,4 t/ha than the not fertilized control variant (137,8 t/ha a4-Bionex 130,7% than 105,4 t/ha in a1-Mt not fertilized 100,0%); 3. The productions obtained under the influence of Kemira fertilization (b2) are with 27.5% till 36,8% than those obtained under the classic fertilization (b1); 4. The average production a5 - Mx1b2 is of 146,3 t/ha, which represents 115,1% than a5 - Mx1, while Mx1b1 is of only 84,9%; 5. The average production a6 - Mx2b2 is of 155,6 t/ha, which represents 122,4% than Mx1 and a6 - Mx2b1 is of 113,1 t/ha, which means 89,0%.

6. Both tomato hybrids, Magnus F1 and Maximus F1 are valuable concerning their quantitative production, but also concerning the quality and the percentage of extra and Ist quality fruits of the average production. 7. We recommend the continuing of this research in order to consolidate the results and conclusions obtained in this experiment.

References
1. Ciofu, Ruxandra and col. 2003 Tratat de Legumicultur, Editura Ceres, Bucureti 2. Horgo A., 2003- Legumicultur special, Editura Agroprint, Timioara 3. Horgo, A., Oglejan Doina., Kondor, F., Becherescu Alexandra, 2002 Influena fertilizrilor cu ngrminte tip Kemira asupra nivelului cantitativ i calitativ a produciei de tomate din solarii nenclzite, Simpozionul 150 de ani de nvmnt superior agricol 1852-2002, U.S.A.M.V. Bucureti, 10-12 octombrie.

190