Organic Fresh Produce: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Subjects: Nursing
Contributor:
Mohammad Zahirul Islam

Growing and purchasing demand for organic fresh produce is increasing rapidly. Consumers are aware of health, environmental safety, pesticide harmfulness, nutrients, bioactive compounds, and safe food. Many research works are available on organic and conventional fresh produce. As organic fresh produce growing and purchasing demand is increasing, it has become necessary to review the recent trends in quality, safety, and consumer preferences of organic and conventional fresh food products. A few reports have been compiled on organic and conventional fresh produce. Researchers have started working on organic and conventional fresh produce with the help of modern technology to improve nutritional and functional quality, safety, and consumer preferences. Nutritional and functional quality, safety, and consumer preferences depend on cultivation techniques, treatment, crop cultivar, and appearance of products. Therefore, it is necessary to compile the literature on organic and conventional fresh produce based on quality, safety, and consumer preferences.

  • antioxidant
  • phenolic content
  • sugar content
  • vitamin C

1. Introduction

Organic and conventional fruit, vegetable, and cereal quality, safety, and preferences are becoming an issue for producers and consumers considered in the literature. Consumers demand quality and safety of fresh produce. Fresh produce quality reflects on taste, color, nutritional value, and microbial safety [1][2].

As it is grown in an organic manner, there undoubtedly are no synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, which can be harmful to human health. While synthetic pesticides are not authorized in many countries for organic farming, growers use manure and compost as organic fertilizer [3][4]. Growing and consumption trends are increasing daily. For example, there has been around 90% sales increase in North America and Europe [5]. The organic food industry is convincing the public that it is healthier, tastier, and better for the environment. Consumers prefer organic produce due to socioeconomics and attitudes to human health and the environment.

The conventional system typically uses synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, which can be harmful to human health if growers use them improperly [4][6]. For the careful application of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, growers need proper knowledge about plant nutrients and food safety. Adequate application of fertilizers, pesticides, and manure can be beneficial for human health.

It is very difficult to compare organic and conventional foods. A valid comparison requires the same cultivar, proximity of the farms, similar growing media, same climate conditions, and a similar growing system. In this review paper, we tried to compare organic and conventional fresh produce according to quality, safety, and consumer preferences. Moreover, we focused on fresh produce growing materials in the organic and conventional systems. This article highlighted an overview of the recent works on organic and conventional fruit, vegetable, and cereal production systems, product quality, product safety, and consumer preferences.

2. Consumer Perception of Fresh Produce

Organic fresh produce markets are the fastest-growing in agriculture. In the year 2018, the organic food revenue in the USA was 40.56 billion euros, followed by Germany (10.91 billion euros) and France (9.14 billion euros), China (8.09 billion euros), Italy (3.48 billion euros), Canada (3.12 billion euros), Switzerland (2.66 billion euros), UK (2.54 billion euros), Sweden (2.30 billion euros) and Spain (1.90 billion euros) [7]. The growing and purchasing trends may vary from one country to another because of consumer demand. The per capita consumption of organic food in 2018 was the highest in both Denmark and Switzerland (312 euros), followed by Sweden (231 euros), Luxemburg (221 euros), Austria (205 euros), France (136 euros), Germany (132 euros), and the USA (124 euros) [7]. Consumers agreed to pay more for pesticide-free fresh produce because of perceptions of the negative health impact of synthetic pesticides [8]. Paying more for organic produce mainly depends on higher income, and the negative impact—on pesticides [8].

Safe consumption depends on personal and economic factors, sociocultural factors, and marketing factors [9]. These are age, gender, education, and marital status (personal factors); income and purchase intentions (economic factors); family size, status, and composition (sociocultural factors); price, advertising, and place (marketing factors). Besides, organic food consumption is influenced by the 4 P’s: product, price, place, and promotion.

Fresh and sustainable consumption, extrinsic attributes, health, sensory appeal, weight concern, and social status are used to consider organic food products. Furthermore, consumer motives, preferences, and attitudes can vary depending on the product category. Consumers are willing to pay additional 0.18 euro/kg organic apples in Italy [10], whereas in Denmark, it is 0.72 euro/kg [11]. Marketing strategy, product competition, social status, product satisfaction, and income may influence product purchases. Consumers like to buy organic vegetables at a higher price [12] because of safety. They also mentioned that purchasing organic food depends on attitudes, experiences, health status, knowledge, income, price, and sales. Organic food price is 10–40% higher in Denmark than the conventional food price [13] and 50–100% higher in Romania [14] due to consumers’ demand and high production cost. Organic fruits are safer because there are no pesticide residues. Appearance, freshness, nutritive value, and taste determine organic food preferences of consumers. Consumers prefer organic food due to its healthfulness and less environmental impact [15]. As a result, there is an increasing trend to consume organic foods instead of conventional foods.

3. Organic and Conventional Methods of Growing Fresh Produce

Organic fresh produce demand is increasing [7]. We need to confirm that organic fresh produce is rich in nutritional quality for human health. The improved nutritional value mainly depends on the cultural system, treatment, growing position, and environment. In the past two decades, many different research works have been compiled on organic and conventional systems [3][4][16][17][18][19][20]. According to Reganold and Wachter, [47] conventional cultivation showed higher yield and higher total cost. The impact of organic and conventional methods on the quality of fresh produce is presented in Figure 1.

Foods 10 00105 g001 550

Figure 1. Difference between conventional and organic farming [21].

The quality of fresh produce grown using organic and conventional methods is shown in Table 1. Among blueberries, the content of fructose, glucose, citric acid, malic acid, anthocyanin, total phenols, and flavonoids was higher in the organic ones than in the conventional produce [17]. Jin et al. [18] reported that organically grown strawberries contained higher glutathione, ascorbic acid, total anthocyanin, total phenolic acids, and had higher antioxidant activity compared to the conventionally grown ones. Organic tomatoes contained high sugar, phenols, flavonoids, whereas the conventionally grown ones had high acidity and high content of total polyphenols [16]. Organic bell peppers showed high dry matter, vitamin C, total carotenoids, total phenolic acids, quercetin, and kaempferol and conventional bell peppers showed high antheraxanthin, lutein, total flavonoids, myricetin, and luteolin [19]. In organic beetroots, dry matter, sugar, and vitamin C were increased [3], while antioxidant activity and ascorbic acid content were increased in lettuce [4]. Conventional beetroots showed high total polyphenols, flavonoids, and quercetin [3], while conventional lettuce showed high total soluble solids content, titratable acidity, total phenolic and total chlorophyll content [4]. Therefore, quality variation depends on the treatment, crops, and cultivation practice, but it is not possible to assign positive effects only to organic farming [3][4][16][17][18][19].

Table 1. The impact of organic and conventional methods on the quality of fresh produce.

No. Cultural Methods Fresh Produce Treatment Quality References
1 Organic and conventional Blueberries Organic: cover crops, peat, compost, fish meal, humus, and manure and organic herbicides (crop oils, vinegar, and soaps)
Conventional: NPK fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides		 Organic: fructose, glucose, citric acid, malic acid, anthocyanin, total phenolic acids, and flavonoids are high.
Conventional: fructose, glucose, citric acid, malic acid, anthocyanin, total phenolic acids, and flavonoids are low.		 [17]
2 Organic and conventional Strawberries Organic: horse manure, granite dust, no herbicides or insecticides, NPK from steamed bone meal, feather meal, soybean meal, langbeinite, and compost.
Conventional: NPK fertilizers, fungicides Switch and Captec, insecticides Lorsban and Brigade, herbicides Stinge and Herbimax.		 Organic: glutathione, ascorbic acid, total anthocyanin, total phenolic acids, and antioxidant activity are high.
Conventional: glutathione, ascorbic acid, total anthocyanins, total phenolic acids, and antioxidant activity are low.		 [18]
3 Organic and conventional Tomatoes Organic: green manure, 60% compost; biohumus, cow manure
Conventional: NPKMgS fertilizers		 Organic: sugar, phenol, flavonoids are high.
Conventional: acidity and total polyphenols are high.		 [16]
4 Organic and conventional Bell peppers Organic: green manure, compost, cow manure, organic protection.
Conventional: NPKS fertilizers, synthetic protection.		 Organic: dry matter, vitamin C, total carotenoids, total phenolic acids, quercetin, and kaempferol are high.
Conventional: antheraxanthin, lutein, total flavonoids, myricetin, and luteolin are high.		 [19]
5 Organic and conventional Beetroots Organic: N (low and high) from compost and manure, no pesticides.
Conventional: N (low) with pesticides.		 Organic: dry matter, sugar, and vitamin C are high.
Conventional: total polyphenols, flavonoids, and quercetin are high.		 [3]
6 Organic and conventional Lettuce Organic: Altavita, Altaverde, cow and chicken manure, no pesticides.
Conventional: NPK with deep irrigation.		 Organic: antioxidant activity and ascorbic acid content are high.
Conventional: total soluble solids content, titratable acidity, total phenolic content, and total chlorophyll content are high.		 [4]

Note: No. 6 refers to the greenhouse soil and the rest of them refer to field soil.

4. Nutritional Quality of Fresh Produce

In this section, soluble solids, sugar content, dry matter content, and dietary fiber are discussed. Increase and decrease in nutritional quality may depend on growing conditions and environmental factors.

4.1. Soluble Solids Content

The soluble solids content is an important parameter for consumer preferences. A higher soluble solids content is often associated with better taste [20]. The seawater treatment may convert organic acids to soluble sugar. In organic apples and strawberries (Diamante and San Juan), the soluble solids content increased [22][23] (Table 2). In the conventional cultivation system, the soluble solids content also increased in strawberries (Lanai), tomatoes, beets, and lettuce [3][4][6][24][22][23]. Some discovered that organic tomatoes, oranges, kiwifruits, lemons, and mandarins are rich in soluble solids [25][26]. Benge et al. [27] mentioned that conventional kiwifruits showed higher soluble solids than the organic ones, resulting in maturity. They mentioned that organic kiwifruits were probably harvested less mature. The increase and decrease in the soluble solids content may be influenced by cultivar, cultivation practices, treatment, nutritional concentration, and maturity stages of harvesting fresh produce.

Table 2. Soluble solids and sugar content of organic and conventional fresh produce.

Fresh Produce Soluble Solids Content References
Organic Conventional
Apples Starking Delicious: 12.66 (Brix) Starking Delicious: 12.40 (Brix) [23]
Strawberries Diamante: 8.97, Lanai: 8.98, and San Juan: 8.96 (Brix) Diamante: 7.68, Lanai: 9.52, and San Juan:8.71 (Brix) [22]
Tomatoes Redondo: 4.38 (Brix) Redondo: 4.46 (Brix) [6]
Beetroots Libero: 6.0–7.4 (g/kg FW) Libero: 6.1–6.3 (g/kg FW) [3]
Lettuce Caipira: 28–29 (g/kg) Caipira: 36 (g/kg) [4]
Sweet peppers Green: 3.8, red: 5.8 (Brix) Green: 4.4, red: 7.6 (Brix) [24]
Sugar content
Apples, pears, carrots, blackcurrants, beetroots, and celery Red Boskoop (apples): 7.9, Bartlett (pears): 6.9, Tiben (blackcurrants): 7.7, Perfection (carrots): 5.6, Czerwona Kula (beetroots): 8.4, and Jabłkowy (celery): 1.3 (%) Red Boskoop (apples): 9, Bartlett (pears): 6.7, Tiben (blackcurrants): 7.5, Perfection (carrots): 7.1, Czerwona Kula (beetroots): 5.9, and Jabłkowy (celery): 0.6(%) [28]
Tomatoes Merkury, Akord, Rumba: 85.22 (g)
Picolino and Conchita: 88.93 (g)		 Merkury, Akord, Rumba: 83.48 (g)
Picolino and Conchita: 78.12 (g)		 [16]
Beetroots Libero: 131.1–142.6 (g/kg FW) Libero: 125.8–129.6 (g/kg FW) [3]
Cabbages Sufama F1: 6.59 (g/100 g FW) Sufama F1: 6.63 (g/100 g FW) [29]

4.2. Sugar Content

Organic pears, blackcurrants, beetroots, celery, kiwifruits, and tomatoes showed higher sugar content compared with the conventionally grown ones [3][28][16] (Table 2). Organic fruits contain less sugar [30] due to less Na, because Na treatment enhances the sugar content [31]. In contrast, the increased sugar content was found in conventional strawberries, apples, carrots, and cabbages [22][28][29]. Guilherme et al. [24] found that conventional and red peppers showed higher total soluble solids than the organic and green ones. The increase and decrease in sugar content may be influenced by crops, cultivars, treatment, and maturity of fresh produce.

4.3. Dry Matter Content

Organic melons, tomatoes, potatoes, beets, and watermelons showed increased dry matter [28] and conventional strawberries, wheat, barley, faba beans, and lettuce exhibited high dry matter [32][33] (Table 3). Organic cabbages, red beets, peppers, tomatoes, and potatoes showed high dry matter content [24][19][34]. Moreover, the perilla and cabbage total dry matter content is higher in organic produce than in the conventionally grown one [29][35]. The dry matter content increases and decreases may happen due to water absorption by the plant. There was no difference in the water content of organic and conventional plums [30].

Table 3. Dry matter and dietary fiber content of organic and conventional fresh produce.

Fresh Produce Dry Matter Content References
Organic Conventional
Wheat, barley, faba beans, potatoes Wheat: 89.4, barley: 89.5, faba beans: 88.1, potatoes: 19.2 (%) Wheat: 89.6, barley: 90.3, faba beans: 87.9, potatoes: 20.5 (%) [32]
Apples, pears, carrots, blackcurrants, beetroots, and celery Red Boskoop (apples): 12.4, Bartlett (pears): 12, Tiben (blackcurrants): 15.2, Perfection (carrots): 9.7, Czerwona Kula (beetroots): 12.2, and Jabłkowy (celery): 10.4 (%) Red Boskoop (apples): 13.4, Bartlett (pears): 11.2, Tiben (blackcurrants): 12.6, Perfection (carrots): 10.4, Czerwona Kula (beetroots): 8.3, and Jabłkowy (celery): 8.9 (%) [28]
Bell peppers Roberta: 82.2 (g/kg) Spartacus: 75.9 and Berceo: 78.4 (g/kg) [19]
Beetroots Libero: 163.7–182.4 (g/kg FW) Libero: 163.7–182.4 (g/kg FW) [3]
Cabbages Sufama F1: 9.22 (g/100 g FW) Sufama F1: 8.81 (g/100 g FW) [29]
Sweet peppers Green: 6.38, red: 5.87 (%) Green: 4.98, red: 5.03 (%) [24]
Dietary fiber content
Grapes Flour: 62.70 (%) Flour: 69.70 (%) [36]
Pumpkins 2.68 (%) 2.47 (%) [37]
Talinum triangulare 42–79 (g/100 g Deionized water, DW) 40–73 (g/100 g DW) [38]
Sweet peppers Green: 11.4, red: 9.23 (%) Green: 11.6, red: 10.3 (%) [24]

Dry matter content increases the flesh product of organic lettuce and, as a result, produce shows less decay and decomposition with increased storage life [39]. Yu et al. [40] reported that dry matter content accumulated by photosynthesis is almost 7–20% higher in organic crops than in the conventionally grown ones. However, conventional potato tubers had more dry matter than organic tubers [41]. There is no difference in the dry matter content of beetroots, cabbages, and carrots [3].

4.4. Dietary Fiber

Conventional plums, grapes, and wheat performed better in total dietary fiber and soluble fiber than the organic ones [30][36] (Table 3). In insoluble fiber, no differences between organic and conventional plum cultivation systems were found. The total dietary fiber content of the conventional Bordô grape flour and pumpkins was higher than of the organic ones [36][37]. Fruits and vegetables are a good source of dietary fiber. They are rich in bioactive compounds, which reduce the bioavailability of fat in the human diet. The dietary fiber might lower the bioavailability of carotenoids. Organically grown Talinum triangulare and pumpkins contained more dietary fiber than the conventionally grown ones [37][38]. The most important is the growth/differentiation balance (GDB) hypothesis. Growth denotes the production of roots, stems, and leaves or cell division and elongation; differentiation indicates the enhancement of the structure or function of the existing cells [42]. In the case of the GDB hypothesis, growth and differentiation are necessary for primary and secondary metabolism [43]. Secondary metabolism gives a distinct aroma in grapes [44]. The conventionally grown sweet peppers showed higher fiber content than the organic ones at both the green and the red maturity stages [24].

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/foods10010105

References

  1. Islam, M.Z.; Mele, M.A.; Baek, J.-P.; Kang, H.-M. Iron, iodine and selenium effects on quality, shelf life and microbial activity of cherry tomatoes. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici 2018, 46, 388–392.
  2. Mele, M.A.; Islam, M.Z.; Baek, J.-P.; Kang, H.-M. Quality, storability, and essential oil content of Ligularia fischeri during modified atmosphere packaging storage. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 743–750.
  3. Kazimierczak, R.; Hallmann, E.; Lipowski, J.; Drela, N.; Kowalik, A.; Püssa, T.; Matt, D.; Luik, A.; Gozdowski, D.; Rembiałkowska, E. Beetroot (Beta vulgaris L.) and naturally fermented beetroot juices from organic and conventional production: Metabolomics, antioxidant levels and anticancer activity. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2014, 94, 2618–2629.
  4. Kurubas, M.S.; Maltas, A.S.; Dogan, A.; Kaplan, M.; Mustafa, E. Comparison of organically and conventionally produced Batavia type lettuce stored in modified atmosphere packaging for postharvest quality and nutritional parameters. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2019, 99, 226–234.
  5. Arbenz, M.; Willer, H.; Lernoud, J.; Huber, B. The World of Organic Agriculture–Statistics and Emerging Trends; BIOFACH: Nuremberg, Germany, 2015.
  6. Vinha, A.F.; Barreira, S.V.P.; Costa, A.S.G.; Alves, R.C.; Oliveira, M.B.P.P. Organic versus conventional tomatoes: Influence on physicochemical parameters, bioactive compounds and sensorial attributes. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2014, 67, 139–144.
  7. FiBL & IFOAM—Organics International. The World of Organic Agriculture. Frick and Bonn; ITC: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020; Available online: www.owc.ifoam.bio/2020 (accessed on 27 July 2020).
  8. Boccaletti, S.; Nardella, M. Consumer willingness to pay for pesticide-free fresh fruit and vegetables in Italy. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2000, 3, 297–310.
  9. Méndez-Picazo, M.-T.; Galindo-Martín, M.-A.; Castaño-Martínez, M.-S. Effects of sociocultural and economic factors on social entrepreneurship and sustainable development. J. Innov. Knowl. 2020, 76, 77.
  10. Ceschi, S.; Canavari, M.; Castellini, A. Consumer’s preference and willingness to pay for apple attributes: A choice experiment in large retail outlets in Bologna (Italy). J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 2017, 30, 1–18.
  11. Denver, S.; Jensen, J.D. Consumer preferences for organically and locally produced apples. Food Qual. Prefer. 2014, 31, 129–134.
  12. Vietoris, V.; Kozelová, D.; Mellen, M.; Chreneková, M.; Potclan, J.E.; Fikselová, M.; Kopkáš, P.; Horská, E. Analysis of consumer preferences at organic food purchase in Romania. Pol. J. Food Nutr. Sci. 2016, 66, 139–146.
  13. Tranter, R.; Bennett, R.M.; Costa, L.; Cowan, C.; Holt, G.C.; Jones, P.J.; Miele, M.; Sottomayor, M.; Vestergaard, J. Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for organic conversion grade food: Evidence from five EU countries. Food Policy 2009, 34, 287–294.
  14. Pop, N.A.; Dabija, D.C. The Changing Business Landscape of Romania, Lessons for and from Transition Economies; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 45–60.
  15. Sucio, N.A.; Ferrari, F.; Trevisan, M. Organic and conventional food: Comparison and future research. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 84, 49–51.
  16. Hallmann, E. The influence of organic and conventional cultivation systems on the nutritional value and content of bioactive compounds in selected tomato types. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 2840–2848.
  17. Wang, S.Y.; Chen, C.-T.; Sciarappa, W.; Wang, C.Y.; Camp, M.J. Fruit quality, antioxidant capacity, and flavonoid content of organically and conventionally grown blueberries. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 5788–5794.
  18. Jin, P.; Wang, S.Y.; Wang, C.Y.; Zheng, Y. Effect of cultural system and storage temperature on antioxidant capacity and phenolic compounds in strawberries. Food Chem. 2011, 124, 262–270.
  19. Hallmann, E.; Rembiałkowska, E. Characterisation of antioxidant compounds in sweet bell pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) under organic and conventional growing systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 2409–2415.
  20. Magwaza, L.S.; Opara, U.L. Analytical methods for determination of sugars and sweetness of horticultural products-A review. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 184, 179–192.
  21. Reganold, J.P.; Wachter, J.M. Organic agriculture in the twenty-first century. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 1-8.
  22. Reganold, J.P.; Andrews, P.K.; Reeve, J.R.; Carpenter-Boggs, L.; Schadt, C.W.; Alldredge, J.R.; Ross, C.F.; Davies, N.M.; Zhou, J. Fruit and soil quality of organic and conventional strawberry agroecosystems. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e12346.
  23. Roussos, P.A.; Gasparatos, D. Apple tree growth and overall fruit quality under organic and conventional orchard management. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 123, 247–252.
  24. Guilherme, R.; Reboredo, F.; Guerra, M.; Ressurreição, S.; Alvarenga, N. Elemental composition and some nutritional parameters of sweet pepper from organic and conventional agriculture. Plants 2020, 9, 863.
  25. Juroszek, P.; Lumpkin, H.M.; Yang, R.-U.; Ledesma, D.R.; Ma, C.-H. Fruit quality and bioactive compounds with antioxidant activity of tomatoes grown on-farm: Comparison of organic and conventional management systems. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2009, 57, 1188–1194.
  26. Khalil, H.A.; Hassan, S.M. Ascorbic acid, β-carotene, total phenolic compound and microbiological quality of organic and conventional citrus and strawberry grown in Egypt. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2015, 14, 272–277.
  27. Benge, J.; Banks, N.; Tillman, R.; de Silva, H.N. Pairwise comparison of the storage potential of kiwifruit from organic and conventional production systems. HortScience 2000, 28, 147–152.
  28. Gąstoł, M.; Domagała-Świątkiewicz, I.; Krośniak, M. Organic versus conventional-A comparative study on quality and nutritional value of fruit and vegetable juices. Biol. Agric. Hortic. 2011, 27, 310–319.
  29. Hallmann, E.; Kazimierczak, R.; Marszałek, K.; Drela, N.; Kiernozek, E.; Toomik, P.; Matt, D.; Luik, A.; Rembiałkowska, E. The nutritive value of organic and conventional white cabbage (Brassica oleracea L. Var. Capitata) and anti-apoptotic activity in gastric adenocarcinoma cells of sauerkraut juice produced therof. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 8171–8183.
  30. Lombardi-Boccia, G.; Lucarini, M.; Lanzi, S.; Aguzzi, A.; Cappelloni, M. Nutrients and antioxidant molecules in yellow plums (Prunus domestica L.) from conventional and organic productions: A comparative study. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 90–94.
  31. Islam, M.Z.; Mele, M.A.; Choi, K.-Y.; Kang, H.-M. Nutrient and salinity concentrations effects on quality and storability of cherry tomato fruits grown by hydroponic system. Bragantia 2018, 77, 385–393.
  32. Laursen, K.H.; Schjoerring, J.K.; Olesen, J.E.; Askegaard, M.; Halekoh, U.; Husted, S. Multielemental fingerprinting as a tool for authentication of organic wheat, barley, faba bean, and potato. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 4385–4396.
  33. Herencia, J.F.; García-Galavís, P.A.; Dorado, J.A.R.; Maqueda, C. Comparison of nutritional quality of the crops grown in an organic and conventional fertilized soil. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 129, 882–888.
  34. Sobieralski, K.; Siwulski, M.; Sas-Golak, I. Nutritive and health-promoting value of organic. Acta Sci. Pol. Technol. Aliment. 2013, 12, 113–123.
  35. Rouphael, Y.; Raimondi, G.; Paduano, A.; Sacchi, R.; Barbieri, G.; Pascale, S.D. Influence of organic and conventional farming on seed yield, fatty acid composition and tocopherols of Perilla. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2015, 9, 303–308.
  36. Gauera, P.O.; Silva, M.C.A.; Hoffmann, S. Evaluation of oil and flour for human nutrition obtained from conventional and organic grape seed Bordô from a winery in the South of Brazil. Grasas Aceites 2018, 69, e237.
  37. Armesto, J.; Rocchetti, G.; Senizza, B.; Pateiro, M.; Barba, F.J.; Domínguez, R.; Lucini, L.; Lorenzo, J.M. Nutritional characterization of Butternut squash (Cucurbita moschata D.): Effect of variety (Ariel vs. Pluto) and farming type (conventional vs. organic). Food Res. Int. 2020, 132, 109052.
  38. Andarwulan, N.; Faridah, D.; Prabekti, Y.; Fadhilatunnur, H.; Mualim, L.; Aziz, S.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L. Dietary fiber content of waterleaf (Talinum triangulare (Jacq.) Willd) cultivated with organic and conventional fertilization in different seasons. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 334–343.
  39. Mello, J.C.; Dietrich, R.; Dias, P.L.F.; Amante, E.R. Evaluation of respiratory parameters in minimally processed lettuce grown under organic or conventional system. Rev. Ceres. 2010, 57, 730–735.
  40. Yu, X.; Guo, L.; Jiang, G.; Song, Y.; Muminov, M.A. Advances of organic products over conventional productions with respect to nutritional quality and food security. Acta Ecologica Sinica 2018, 38, 53–60.
  41. Brazinskiene, V.; Asakaviciute, R.; Miezeliene, A.; Alencikiene, G.; Ivanauskas, L.; Jakstas, V.; Viskelis, P.; Razukas, A. Effect of farming systems on the yield, quality parameters and sensory properties of conventionally and organically grown potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tubers. Food Chem. 2014, 145, 903–909.
  42. Stamp, N. Can the growth-differentiation balance hypothesis be tested rigorously? Oikos 2004, 107, 439–448.
  43. Bloksma, J.; Northolt, M.; Huber, M.; van der Burgt, G.-J.; van de Vijver, L. Handbook of Organic Food Safety and Quality—A New Quality Concept Based on Life Processes; Louis Bolk Instituut: Driebergen, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 1–16.
  44. Mele, M.A.; Kang, H.-M.; Lee, Y.-T.; Islam, M.Z. Grape terpenoids: Flavor importance, genetic regulation, and future potential. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 1–19.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback