743 Research Article Received: 14 May 2008 Revised: 17 November 2008 Accepted: 26 November 2008 Published online in Wiley Interscience: 2 February 2009 (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.3505 Comparison of physicochemical, microscopic and sensory characteristics of ecologically and conventionally grown crops of two cultivars of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) Luis Eduardo Ord ´ o˜ nez-Santos, a,b Enrique Arbones-Maci ˜ neira, c Jos ´ e Fern ´ andez-Perej ´ on, a Matilde Lombardero-Fern ´ andez, d Lourdes V ´ azquez-Od ´ eriz a and Angeles Romero-Rodr´ ıguez a* Abstract 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 (Llad ´ o 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 Keywords: tomato; ecological; conventional; cultivar; sensory; microscopy INTRODUCTION In 2005, worldwide sales of ecological products amounted to US $36 200 million, of which 40% corresponded to fruit and vegetables. 1 One of the main reasons for the current growth of the ecological food industry is consumer demand for safe foods produced by methods with minimal negative environmental im- pact. However, it is also often claimed that ecological foods are nutritionally superior to foods produced by conventional mod- ern farming methods. To investigate these questions, numerous studies have compared ecologically produced foods with con- ventionally produced competitors. 2 In a 1997 review of over 150 such studies it was found that for most food types there were no significant differences between ecological and non-ecological products, although ecologically produced cereals and leaf vegeta- bles tended to have less protein and greater total solids contents. 3 Similarly, Bourn and Prescott 2 found no clear evidence that ecolog- ical foods had higher nutrient levels than conventional foods, and no sensory differences. By contrast, Worthington 4 reported that ecologically produced fruit, vegetables and cereals had 27% more vitamin C, 21% more iron, 29% more magnesium and 13% more phosphorus than conventional competitors; and Rembialkowska 5 concluded that potatoes had more dry matter and more vitamin ∗ Correspondence to: Angeles Romero-Rodr´ ıguez, Areas de Tecnolog´ ıa de Alimentos y de Nutrici´ on y Bromatolog´ ıa, Departamento de Qu´ ımicaAnal´ ıtica, Nutrici´ on y Bromatolog´ ıa, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Facultad de Ciencias, Campus de Lugo, 27002 Lugo, Spain. E-mail: angeles.romero@usc.es a Areas de Tecnolog´ ıa de Alimentos y de Nutrici´ on y Bromatolog´ ıa, Depar- tamento de Qu´ ımica Anal´ ıtica, Nutrici´ on y Bromatolog´ ıa, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Facultad de Ciencias, Campus de Lugo, 27002 Lugo, Spain b Departamento de Ingenier´ ıa, Facultad de Ingenier´ ıa y Administraci´ on, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Palmira, Valle del Cauca, Colombia c Departamento de Ingenier´ ıa Agroforestal, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Escuela Polit´ ecnica Superior, 27002 Lugo, Spain d Area de Anatom´ ıa y Anatom´ ıa Patol´ ogica Comparadas de la Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Facultad de Veterinaria, Campus de Lugo, 27002 Lugo, Spain J Sci Food Agric 2009; 89: 743–749 www.soci.org c  2009 Society of Chemical Industry