1. Quality parameters of wheat. Bio-ethanol versus bread? Pál SZAKÁL 1 – Rezső SCHMIDT 1 – Juraj LESNY 2 – Renátó KALOCSAI 3 – Margit BARKÓCZI 1 1 University of West Hungary, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences, Mosonmagyaróvár 2 Faculty of Natural Sciences, University of SS. Cyril and Methodius in Trnava, 917 01 Trnava, SK. 3 UIS Ungarn Laboratories, Mosonmagyaróvár 6th ALPS-ADRIA SCIENTIFIC WORKSHOP 30 April - 5 May, 2007 Obervellach, Austria ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF SUSTAINABILITY

2. 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)

3. 6 H 2 O + 6 CO 2 C 6 H 12 O 6 (C 6 H 10 O 5 )n + n H 2 OnC 6 H 12 O 6 C 6 H 12 O 6 2CH 3 – CH 2 – OH + 2CO 2 h amilase CH 3 CH 3 C – OH + HO – CH 2 – CH 3 = CH 3 C – O – CH 2 – CH 3 CH 3 ETBE

4. Why to use bio-ethanol? 1.Environmental reasons. Glasshaouse effects, climate change. 2.Ceasing the dependance on crude oil.

5. STARCH GLUCOSE ALCOHOL Starch, cellulose, inulin Saccharose containing materials (sugar beet, sorghum, etc.) Decomposition of starch (cooking with thermo stabile  - amylase; Hydrolysis (gluco-amilase) Fermentation The production of bio-ethanol

7. PlantYieldTransformation efficiency % Ethanol yield tha -1 total million t lt -1 lha -1 Sugar beet 38.0143.035954300 Wheat3.582243561200 Maize4.549323872100 Potato10.30.1821103050 Sugar cane 57.018731675300 The alcohol production potential of different plants

8. Aim: to increase the starch content of wheat for increasing bio- ethanol yield STARCH RAW PROTEIN, GLUTEN

9. Material and methods Treatment: manganese carbohydrate Plant: winter wheat Phenological phase: booting Way of application: foliar Soil type: Danube alluvial, Darnózseli, Hungary Experiment: 10 m 2 plots, 4 repetitions, randomised block design Doses: 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5 kgha -1 Mn

10. pH KAKA CaCO 3 Humus % AL-soluble mgkg -1 Mg mgkg - 1 EDTA-soluble mgkg -1 H2OH2OKClP2O5P2O5 K2OK2ONaZnCuMnFe 7.77.3425.12.122820551581.20.91819.7 Soil analysis results. Darnózseli 2005.

11. There was not any significant yield increase due to the treatments (LSD 5% = 0.57). The effect of the treatments on the yield 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. The lowest yield was measured at 0.5 kgha -1 Mn dose, the value was lower than that of the control.

12. Raw protein content 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.

13. Starch content 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 (LSD 5% = 1.5).

14. 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.

15. Thank you for your attention!