4.7 Article

Comparison of physicochemical, microscopic and sensory characteristics of ecologically and conventionally grown crops of two cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE SCIENCE OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
Volume 89, Issue 5, Pages 743-749

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.3505

Keywords

tomato; ecological; conventional; cultivar; sensory; microscopy

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology [AGL 2002-03018]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have compared ecologically produced foods with conventionally produced competitors, with contradictory results. In this work we investigated the physicochemical, microscopic and sensory properties of two tomato cultivars (LIado and Antillas), which were grown both ecologically and conventionally. RESULTS: The physicochemical variables size, weight, firmness, total acidity, pH, total solids content, lycopene content and CIELab a*,b*,a*/b*, C* and h* were all significantly influenced by cultivar, as were the sensory variables external colour, internal colour, external aroma intensity and flavour persistence. Compared with conventionally grown tomatoes, ecologically grown tomatoes had larger total solids contents and larger values of the CIELab colour parameters b*, C* and h*, but smaller sizes and weights and smaller values of the CIELab parameter ratio a*/b*; however, these physicochemical differences were insufficient for growing method to have a significant influence on any of the sensory attributes that were evaluated. Microscopy showed the influence of cultivar on lycopene content, but no other structural differences were observed between the two cultivars or between tomatoes grown by different methods. CONCLUSIONS: The statistically significant differences found in this study were mainly between cultivars rather than between tomatoes grown using different management practices. (C) 2009 Society of Chemical Industry

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available