IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v11y2021i3p230-d514514.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Industrial Processing Affects Product Yield and Quality of Diced Tomato

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco De Sio

    (Experimental Station for Food Preserving Industry of Parma, Angri Branch, 84012 Salerno, Italy)

  • Mariateresa Rapacciuolo

    (Experimental Station for Food Preserving Industry of Parma, Angri Branch, 84012 Salerno, Italy)

  • Alessandro De Giorgi

    (Experimental Station for Food Preserving Industry of Parma, Angri Branch, 84012 Salerno, Italy)

  • Luca Sandei

    (Experimental Station for Food Preserving Industry of Parma, Angri Branch, 84012 Salerno, Italy)

  • Bonaventura Giuliano

    (National Association of Food Preserving Manufacturers, 80143 Naples, Italy)

  • Alessio Tallarita

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, 80055 Naples, Italy)

  • Nadezhda Golubkina

    (Federal Scientific Center of Vegetable Production, Selectsionnaya 14 Vniissok, 143072 Moscow, Odintsovo, Russia)

  • Agnieszka Sekara

    (Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Biotechnology and Horticulture, University of Agriculture, 31-120 Krakow, Poland)

  • Vasile Stoleru

    (Department of Horticultural Technologies, “Ion Ionescu de la Brad” University of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, 3 M. Sadoveanu, 700440 Iasi, Romania)

  • Antonio Cuciniello

    (Council for Agricultural Research and Economics (CREA)—Research Center for Cereal and Industrial Crops, 81100 Caserta, Italy)

  • Giuseppe Morano

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, 80055 Naples, Italy)

  • Gianluca Caruso

    (Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, 80055 Naples, Italy)

Abstract

The tomato industry has been searching for new genotypes with improved fruit production, both in the field and industrially processed, together with high-quality performance under sustainable management conditions. This research was carried out in Southern Italy with the aim of assessing the effects of industrial processing on the yield and quality of four tomato hybrids grown according to organic farming methods and addressed at dicing. MAX 14111 and HMX 4228 showed the highest values of field and processing yield as well as reduced sugars and fructose. MAX 14111 had the highest values of total solids and soluble solids, titratable acidity, fiber, energetic value, polyphenols, and also rutin, though not significantly different from Impact. HMX 4228 performed best in terms of sugar ratio, color and naringenin. Concerning the diced products, the sensorial qualities of the four hybrids differed significantly. Total polyphenols, naringenin and rutin in the tomato fruits were higher in the processed than in the raw product. The appreciable fruit yield and quality resulting from both field and processing phase represent a promising perspective for identifying improved tomato genotypes addressed at dicing.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco De Sio & Mariateresa Rapacciuolo & Alessandro De Giorgi & Luca Sandei & Bonaventura Giuliano & Alessio Tallarita & Nadezhda Golubkina & Agnieszka Sekara & Vasile Stoleru & Antonio Cuciniello, 2021. "Industrial Processing Affects Product Yield and Quality of Diced Tomato," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:230-:d:514514
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/3/230/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/11/3/230/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anthony Trewavas, 2001. "Urban myths of organic farming," Nature, Nature, vol. 410(6827), pages 409-410, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Seufert, Verena & Ramankutty, Navin & Mayerhofer, Tabea, 2017. "What is this thing called organic? – How organic farming is codified in regulations," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 10-20.
    2. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    3. Nesar Ahmed & Shirley Thompson & Giovanni M. Turchini, 2020. "Organic aquaculture productivity, environmental sustainability, and food security: insights from organic agriculture," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(6), pages 1253-1267, December.
    4. Gregor Devine & Michael Furlong, 2007. "Insecticide use: Contexts and ecological consequences," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 24(3), pages 281-306, September.
    5. de la Cruz, Vera Ysabel V. & Tantriani, & Cheng, Weiguo & Tawaraya, Keitaro, 2023. "Yield gap between organic and conventional farming systems across climate types and sub-types: A meta-analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 211(C).
    6. Patrick M. Carr & Greta G. Gramig & Mark A. Liebig, 2013. "Impacts of Organic Zero Tillage Systems on Crops, Weeds, and Soil Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(7), pages 1-30, July.
    7. A. Łukanowski & A. Baturo & Cz. Sadowski, 2002. "Healthiness of winter wheat and spring barley farmed under different systems," Plant Protection Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 38(SI2-6thCo), pages 662-666.
    8. Weerahewa, Jeevika & Dayananda, Dasuni, 2023. "Land use changes and economic effects of alternative fertilizer policies: A simulation analysis with a bio-economic model for a Tank Village of Sri Lanka," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    9. Wheeler, Sarah Ann, 2008. "What influences agricultural professionals' views towards organic agriculture?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 145-154, March.
    10. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    11. Desquilbet, Marion & Maigné, Elise & Monier-Dilhan, Sylvette, 2018. "Organic Food Retailing and the Conventionalisation Debate," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 194-203.
    12. Sklenicka, Petr & Zouhar, Jan & Molnarova, Kristina Janeckova & Vlasak, Josef & Kottova, Blanka & Petrzelka, Peggy & Gebhart, Michal & Walmsley, Alena, 2020. "Trends of soil degradation: Does the socio-economic status of land owners and land users matter?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    13. Heather M. Beach & Ken W. Laing & Morris Van De Walle & Ralph C. Martin, 2018. "The Current State and Future Directions of Organic No-Till Farming with Cover Crops in Canada, with Case Study Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, January.
    14. José Luis Aleixandre & José Luis Aleixandre-Tudó & Máxima Bolaños-Pizarro & Rafael Aleixandre-Benavent, 2015. "Mapping the scientific research in organic farming: a bibliometric review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 105(1), pages 295-309, October.
    15. Mamouni Limnios, Elena & Schilizzi, Steven G.M. & Burton, Michael & Ong, Angeline & Hynes, Niki, 2016. "Willingness to pay for product ecological footprint: Organic vs non-organic consumers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 338-348.
    16. Zagata, Lukas & Uhnak, Tomas & Hrabák, Jiří, 2021. "Moderately radical? Stakeholders' perspectives on societal roles and transformative potential of organic agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    17. Olha Alieksieieva, 2020. "Trends And Problems Of Innovative Activities Development Of Domestic Industrial Enterprises," Green, Blue & Digital Economy Journal, Publishing house "Baltija Publishing", vol. 1(2).
    18. Matthew Heron Wilson & Sarah Taylor Lovell, 2016. "Agroforestry—The Next Step in Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-15, June.
    19. Radka Redlichová & Gabriela Chmelíková & Ivana Blažková & Eliška Svobodová & Inez Naaki Vanderpuje, 2021. "Organic Food Needs More Land and Direct Energy to Be Produced Compared to Food from Conventional Farming: Empirical Evidence from the Czech Republic," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, August.
    20. Silvia-Elena Cristache & Mariana Vuță & Erika Marin & Sorin-Iulian Cioacă & Mihai Vuţă, 2018. "Organic versus Conventional Farming—A Paradigm for the Sustainable Development of the European Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:11:y:2021:i:3:p:230-:d:514514. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.