Aims This study aimed to evaluate in vitro individual and combined antifungal activity of propolis extract (PE) and oregano essential oil (OEO) against Penicillium allii, causal agent of blue mold disease. The chemical characterization of both products was also included. Methods and Results Chromatographic analysis of PE and OEO confirmed the presence of bioactive compounds. The antifungal susceptibility assays showed that PE and OEO were highly active against the mycelial growth and conidial germination of P. allii. PE and OEO MICs were 12.5 μL mL^‐1 and 1.5 μL mL^‐1, respectively. The MFCs of these products were 50 μL mL^‐1 and 3.1 μL mL^‐1, respectively. PE acted mainly through diffusion, while OEO acted by a mixed contribution of vapor and diffusion. Synergism and additive effect between both products were found in some combination ratios. Conclusion PE and OEO, both natural products with different chemical composition, have a strong antifungal activity against P. allii and show a favorable interaction causing synergism. Significance and Impact of the Study The results of this study indicated the potential use of PE combined with OEO as a non‐conventional strategy towards the formulation of a biofungicide to control blue mold disease in garlic seed‐cloves.

Propolis is a viable alternative for chemical control of plant pathogens due to its antimicrobial properties. The present study was conducted to determine the sensorial, physical and chemical characteristics of four propolis from Argentina, and their respective hydroalcoholic extracts. In vitro antifungal activity of hydroalcoholic propolis extracts against Penicillium sp. that cause the decay of garlic (Allium sativum) was also studied. All propolis samples were composed of irregular fragments. The aroma was mainly resinous. The predominant colour was brown. The analysis of the raw samples showed differences in the parameters wax content (9.43- 31.16 %), loss by heating (1.04-1.46 %), ashes (0.98-7.18 %) and melting point (63.16-67.5 degrees C). The hydroalcoholic extracts of propolis also differ in the dry residue (5.50-9.30 %), content of phenols (23.44-53.91 mg eq galic/g propolis), total flavonoids (11.23-15.88 mg eq quercetin/g propolis) and oxidation index (2.25-4.33 seconds). The evaluation of the antifungal activity demonstrated that all the treatments containing propolis had an inhibitory effect over 99 % on fungi colony-forming units' development. Although the physical and chemical study showed significant differences between propolis samples, all exhibited excellent antifungal activity against Penicillium sp. This demonstrates the potential of different propolis for the development of a biofungicide for agricultural use.

The antimicrobial activity of four concentrations of hydroalcoholic extracts from honeybee propolis and Scaptotrigona jujuyensis geopropolis was screened in vitro against five tomato pathogenic bacteria. The agar-well diffusion method was used and the tested bacteria were Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, Xanthomonas gardneri, Xanthomonas vesicatoria, Pseudomonas corrugata, and Pseudomonas mediterranea. The main chemical characteristics of propolis and geopropolis, including the polyphenol profile through HPLC-DAD, were also determined. Geopropolis raw sample presented higher values of moisture (7.78%), waxes (50.79%) and ashes (3.69%) than propolis (4.59%, 31.16% and 2.42% respectively). The total polyphenol content and the dry extract were higher in propolis hydroalcoholic extract (3.83 mg eq galic acid mL-1 and 7.87%, respectively) than in the extract of geopropolis (0.16 mg eq galic acid mL-1 and 0.15%, respectively). Chromatographic analysis confirmed the presence of caffeic acid, quercetin, 1,5,7-trihydroxy-flavanone, apigenin, pinobanksin, chrysin, pinocembrin, and galangin in both extracts. The antimicrobial assay showed significant differences between the hydroalcoholic extract activities, as well as between the sensitivity of the tested bacteria. Propolis hydroalcoholic extract dilutions had an inhibitory effect over four of the five tested bacteria, while geopropolis hydroalcoholic extract dilutions were only effective against C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis, and to a lesser extent. The sequence of bacteria sensitivity to propolis treatments was: C. michiganensis subsp. michiganensis > X. gardneri > X. vesicatoria > P. corrugata. Pseudomonas mediterranea was not sensitive to any of the hydroalcoholic extracts. The antimicrobial activity of both extracts was dose-dependent where the most concentrated treatments were the most effective (15.0 mg mL?1 of geopropolis and 78.7 mg mL?1 of propolis dry extract, respectively). The polyphenol content and the HPLC-DAD profile of the hydroalcoholic extracts disclosed differences in chemical composition that helped to explain the outcomes of the in vitro assay. These results are a contribution to the characterization of bee bioactive products, specifically to propolis and geopropolis. This study indicates the likelihood of using propolis as a non-conventional strategy to control tomato bacterial diseases.

Dekkera bruxellensis is one of the most important contaminant yeasts of alcoholic fermentation. The use of propolis, which can selectively target contaminating yeasts without affecting the starter one, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, could be a useful nonconventional strategy for controlling the growth of contaminant yeasts. The objective of this research was to evaluate four samples of propolis produced by Apis mellifera honeybees from different regions of Argentina as antimicrobial agents against the growth of D. bruxellensis and S. cerevisiae. Hydroalcoholic extracts of propolis were prepared with ethanol:water (70:30 v/v), and the specific absorbance and final concentration of the samples were evaluated. A qualitative in vitro assay in solid medium was performed with different propolis concentrations, and the evaluation of yeast growth was based on a qualitative scale. A quantitative in vitro assay in liquid medium was also performed to assess the yeast cell number, using two different propolis concentrations. The cell number of D. bruxellensis decreased 1.52 and 1.85 log cycles with the two propolis extracts utilised at a concentration of 4.5 mg mL-1 while the cell number of S. cerevisiae decreased 0.48 and 0.76 log cycles with the same samples of propolis. The results from both assays demonstrated the selectivity of propolis use on the yeast species, leading to a higher inhibition of D. bruxellensis growth. This indicates a good potential for using propolis at the concentration of 4.5 mg mL-1, as a nonconventional strategy to control the growth of D. bruxellensis without significantly affecting S. cerevisiae, the yeast starter of ethanol fermentation.