6th ALPS-ADRIA SCIENTIFIC WORKSHOP
30 April - 5 May, 2007 Obervellach, Austria
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SUSTAINABILITY
Quality parameters of wheat.
Bio-ethanol versus bread?
Pál SZAKÁL1 – Rezső SCHMIDT1 – Juraj LESNY2 – Renátó KALOCSAI3 –
Margit BARKÓCZI1
1 University
2
of West Hungary, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences,
Mosonmagyaróvár
Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of SS. Cyril and Methodius in
Trnava, 917 01 Trnava, SK.
3
UIS Ungarn Laboratories, Mosonmagyaróvár
Decrease of fossil energy carriers
Bio-ethanol is a potential replacement of oil and natural gas
The increasing importance of high-starch content plants (Wheat,
maize)
Bio-ethanol, bio polymers, dextrin, starch syrup, D-glucose, etc.
EU’s cereal production 285 million tons; Hungary’s cereal production 6
million tons
1 l bio-ethanol appr. 3.1 kg wheat, 2.8 kg maize. (Maize
germ)
h
6 H2O + 6 CO2
(C6H10O5)n + n H2O
C6H12O6
C6H12O6
amilase
nC6H12O6
2CH3 – CH2 – OH + 2CO2
CH3
CH3
CH3
C – OH + HO – CH2 – CH3 = CH3
CH3
CH3
C – O – CH2 – CH3
ETBE
Why to use bio-ethanol?
1. Environmental reasons. Glasshaouse effects, climate
change.
2. Ceasing the dependance on crude oil.
The production of bio-ethanol
Starch, cellulose, inulin
Saccharose containing
materials (sugar beet,
sorghum, etc.)
STARCH
GLUCOSE
Decomposition of starch
(cooking with thermo stabile amylase;
Hydrolysis (gluco-amilase)
Fermentation
ALCOHOL
The alcohol production potential of different plants
Plant
Yield
tha-1
total
million t
Sugar
beet
38.0
143.0
Wheat
3.5
Maize
Transformation
efficiency
%
Ethanol yield
lt-1
lha-1
35
95
4300
82
24
356
1200
4.5
49
32
387
2100
Potato
10.3
0.1
82
110
3050
Sugar
cane
57.0
187
31
67
5300
Aim: to increase the starch content of wheat for increasing bioethanol yield
STARCH
RAW PROTEIN,
GLUTEN
Material and methods
Treatment: manganese carbohydrate
Plant: winter wheat
Phenological phase: booting
Way of application: foliar
Soil type: Danube alluvial, Darnózseli, Hungary
Experiment: 10 m2 plots, 4 repetitions, randomised
block design
Doses: 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 kgha-1 Mn
Soil analysis results. Darnózseli 2005.
pH
KA
CaCO
3
H2O
KCl
7.7
7.3
42
5.1
Humus
%
2.1
AL-soluble
mgkg-1
Mg
mgkg-
EDTA-soluble
mgkg-1
1
P2O5
K2O
Na
228
205
51
58
Zn
Cu
Mn
Fe
1.2
0.9
18
19.7
The effect of the treatments on the yield
5
5
The lowest yield was measured
at 0.5 kgha-1 Mn dose, the value
was lower than that of the
control.
4,9
Yield t/ha
The Mn-complexes increased
the yield generally, the highest
yield was measured at the 0.05
kgha-1 dose, at the higher doses
the yield decreased.
4,9
4,8
4,7
4,7
4,7
4,6
4,6
4,5
4,4
Dose
kg/ha
0
0,05
0,1
0,3
0,5
There was not any significant yield increase due to the treatments (LSD5% = 0.57).
The manganese treatments
decreased the protein content.
We measured the lowest
protein content at the Mn-dose
of 0.05 kgha-1. The Mn-doses
higher than this increased the
protein content a little, but it
was still lower than the protein
content of the control.
Raw protein %
Raw protein content
13,2
13,1
13
12,9
12,8
12,7
12,6
12,5
12,4
12,3
13,2
13,1
12,9
12,6
Dose
kg/ha
0
0,05
12,7
0,1
0,3
0,5
Starch content
(LSD5% = 1.5).
58,7
59
58,7
58,2
58,5
Starch %
As a result of the
treatments the starch
content increased and
at the 0.1 and 0.3
kgha-1 Mn-saccharose
treatment
the
increase of the starch
content
was
significant
57,8
58
57
57,5
57
56,5
56
Dose
kg/ha
0
0,05
0,1
0,3
0,5
Conclusions
The lower doses of Mn-saccharose increased the yield.
The 0.05 kgha-1 increased the yield the most, but it still
was not significant.
At the same time at this dose we measured the lowest
(12.63 m%) raw protein content.
Due
to the raising Mn-doses the starch content
increased, compared to the control. This increase was
significant in the case of the Mn-dose of 0.1 kgha-1 and 0,3
kgha-1.
Thank you for your attention!