234 DOI 10.1002/star.

200600542 Starch/Stärke 59 (2007) 234–238

Maryke T. Labuschagnea The Influence of Environment on Starch Content

Nemera Geletaa
Garry Osthoffb
a
Department of Plant Sciences,
University of the Free State,
Bloemfontein, South Africa
b
Department of Microbial,
Biochemical and Food
Biotechnology,
University of the Free State,
Bloemfontein, South Africa
and Amylose to Amylopectin Ratio in Wheat
There is evidence that starch content plays an active role in determining dough rheo-
logical characteristics. The aim of this study was to determine the influence of envi-
ronment on starch content and amylose: amylopectin ratio, and how this affects
breadmaking quality. Ten hard red spring wheat cultivars were planted in three different
environments in a randomized complete block design with three replications. Total
starch content, amylose: amylopectin ratio, milling, rheological and baking character-
istics were measured. Starch content was significantly influenced by the environment.
It was significantly negatively correlated with loaf volume, wet gluten content and flour
protein content across the three environments. Starch content and protein content
were significantly negatively correlated, yet the value was relatively small (r = 20.4) and
the relationship was therefore not directly inverse, and other factors influenced this
relationship. Some cultivars interacted with specific environments, and they ranked
high for starch content and loaf volume. Amylose: amylopectin ratio was very con-
sistent for the three environments but was not significantly correlated with breadmak-
ing quality characteristics across the environments, although there were significant
correlations at individual environments. Cultivar choice and environment where culti-
vars are planted will therefore affect the starch content. High starch content will not
necessarily lead to poor baking quality.

Keywords: Environment; Starch quality; Amylose: amylopectin ratio; Wheat

1 Introduction starch, gluten and water-solubles [5, 6]. Factors such as

Proteins and carbohydrates are the major components
of wheat and wheat flour. Protein content can vary from
about 7% to about 15%. Depending on this value, car-
bohydrates can account for about 68-76% of total flour
weight (14% moisture base). The major carbohydrate is
starch (63-72% of flour weight) [1]. Starch contains two
broad classes of molecules, amylose and amylopectin,
that differ in degree of polymerization and branch fre-
Research Paper
protein-matrix structure are also important in determin-
ing endosperm hardness. Interaction between protein
and starch occurs at all stages of processing. A study
[7] showed that the protein film formed during dough
mixing and fermentation was closely associated with
starch granules. During baking, this film was expanded
and pulled into gelatinous strings to which starch still
adhered [8]. The changes occurring in the structure of
dough during processing were also followed by electron

quency. These differences are functionally important [2].
In hexaploid wheat, amylose content ranges from about
18 to 35% [1]. There is evidence that starch-gluten
interaction in dough and starch content plays an active
role in determining dough rheological characteristics [3].
Protein-starch interactions appear to be closely asso-
ciated with endosperm hardness [1]. It was shown [4]
that the amount of water-soluble proteins associated
with starch granules was dependent on wheat hard-
ness, suggesting that these proteins were important in
this trait. Hard and soft wheat are fractionated into
Correspondence: Maryke T. Labuschagne, Department of Plant
Sciences, University of the Free State, P. O. Box 339, Bloemfon-
tein 9300, South Africa. Phone: 127-51-4012715, Fax. 127-51-
4446318, e-mail: labuscm.sci@mail.uovs.ac.za.
micrographs, where it was shown [9] that protein-starch
interactions increased during mixing. It was suggested
that at optimum development, starch granules act as
anchor points, and facilitate formation of gluten fibrils
upon stretching. Scanning electron microscopy studies
[10] indicated that swollen starch granules interacted
most strongly with protein in bread. Increased protein
content appeared to strengthen protein-starch interac-
tion [11, 12]. Starches from different wheat varieties
have been shown to affect quality of bread produced
from starch-gluten blends [13]. Wheat quality is influ-
enced by both the genotype and environment, but be-
cause of the polygenic nature of the characteristics
involved, the environment largely influences their
expression [14]. The aim of this study was to determine
the influence of different environments on starch con-

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.starch-journal.com

Starch/Stärke 59 (2007) 234–238Influence of Environment on Starch Content and Amylose to Amylopectin Ratio 235

tent and amylose: amylopectin content in different and single kernel hardness. For all traits except starch
spring wheats, and to establish its influence on bread- content and vitreous kernels, there were significant dif-
making quality. ferences between entries. There were location differences
for all characteristics except amylose: amylopectin ratios
and mixograph development time (Tab. 1).
2 Materials and Methods
Ten hard red spring wheat cultivars and lines used were: Tab. 1. Mean squares for all measured characteristics
Marico, Kariega, SST 825, SST 822, SST 876, Steenbras, and the residual for three localities.
Baviaans, BSP 98/14, BSP 98/18 and BSP 98/16. They
were grown under irrigation in three different spring wheat Genotype Location Genotype6 Residual
growing areas (Vaalharts, 27.917 24.839 E, altitude location
1175 m, Douglas, 29.062 23.778 E, altitude 1030 m, and DF 9 2 18
Rietrivier 28.741 24.753 E, altitude 1140 m) in the Eastern Starch 10.82 226.95** 22.16** 5.246
Cape in South Africa. At each site a randomized complete Ratio 0.014** 0.0009 0.0029** 0.000
block design with three replications was used. Eight rows HLM 4.56** 44.55** 0.48 0.422
of 5 m each were planted per plot, with 0.17 m between TKM 59.54** 239.34** 4.83 4.011
rows. The seeds were planted at a rate that equals BFY 32.53** 20.41** 1.64** 0.440
120 kg/ha, which is the rate planted by the farmers in the FLY 6.75** 9.00** 1.13** 0.335
VK 41.61 302.18** 36.94 26.635
trial areas. Fertilizing was done to an optimum after soil
WGC12 35.63** 164.00** 2.94 1.880
analysis. The middle six rows were harvested. FPC 1.12** 12.10** 0.262 0.175
The following variates were measured in triplicate at the FABS 29.34** 44.45** 3.52** 1.265
MDT 2.55** 0.274 0.132 0.091
laboratories of the Small Grains Institute, Bethlehem,
P/L 0.237** 0.191** 0.014* 0.007
South Africa: Hectoliter weight (kg/hL), thousand kernel Strength 511.06** 383.10** 37.90 24.00
mass in gram, breakflour yield (AACC 26-21A), flour yield LFV 5801.58** 56933** 2198.77** 876.595
(AACC 26-21A), vitreous kernels (sliced and counted), SDSS 397.34** 68.61** 16.90* 9.394
gluten content standardized to 12% protein content SKW 76.83** 275.01** 16.96 17.586
(Glutomatic system), flour protein content (AACC 39-11), SKD 0.127** 0.565** 0.011 0.010
mixograph development time (AACC 54-40A), farino- SKH 328.38** 1673.66** 30.43** 9.897
graph water absorption (AACC 54-21), alveograph P/L
ratio and strength (AACC 54-30A), loaf volume (AACC HLM = hectoliter mass, TKM = thousand kernel mass,
method 10-9), SDS-sedimentation test (AACC 56-70), BFY = breakflour yield, FLY = flour yield, VK = vitreous
kernels, WGC12 = wet gluten content at 12% protein,
single kernel characteristic system (model 4100 of Perten
FPC = flour protein content, FABS = farinograph absorp-
Instruments Co, Reno, NV) - hardness index, SKCS-seed tion, MDT = mixograph development time, P/L = alveo-
diameter and SKCS-seed weight (AACC 53-31) [15]. The graph P/L ratio, Strength = alveograph strength, LFV =
data was not corrected for moisture content, and was loaf volume, SDSS = SDS sedimentation, SKW = single
used as is. kernel weight, SKD = single kernel diameter, SKH = single
kernel hardness, * p  0.05, ** p  0.001.
The starch content and amylose/amylopectin analysis
were performed in the Food Science laboratories of the
University of the Free State. The total starch and amylose/
amylopectin assay kits were supplied by Megazyme A significant variation of starch content values was found
(Megazyme International Ltd., Wicklow, Ireland) and ana- between the three localities (Tab. 2). The largest variation
lyses were done according to the protocols included with was at Vaalharts. The average at Vaalharts was also
the kits on white flour. Simple and combined ANOVA’s and higher than at the other two localities, with Rietrivier hav-
correlation analyses [16] were performed on the data. ing the lowest values. The range of amylose: amylopectin
also varied extensively between entries, with a lowest
value of 0.195 and a highest of 0.554, but the averages of
3 Results the localities were close together. The average values
across localities for cultivars (Tab. 2) showed that SST876
There was a significant genotype6environment interac- had a significantly higher starch content than SST825,
tion for starch content, amylose: amylopectin ratio, SST822 and Steenbras. Amylose: amylopectin ratios of
breakflour yield, flour yield, farinograph absorption, Kariega and BSP98/16 were significantly higher than that
alveograph P/L ratio, loaf volume, SDS sedimentation of all other entries. In terms of the end product, Baviaan

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.starch-journal.com

236 M. T. Labuschagne et al. Starch/Stärke 59 (2007) 234–238

Tab. 2. Average values for all measured characteristics for cultivars and for three localities.

Genotype Starch Ratio HLM TKM BFY FLY VK WGC FPC FABS MDT P/L Strgth LFV SDSS SKW SKD SKH

Marico 68.34 0.265 78.99 38.86 18.78 77.11 91.78 31.26 11.53 61.82 3.51 0.55 45.89 892 86.00 38.36 2.45 62.37
Kariega 67.36 0.315 79.03 43.77 20.10 77.17 91.00 35.94 12.24 64.56 2.52 0.44 47.57 930 88.44 43.47 2.78 53.65
SST 825 66.59 0.222 80.14 43.24 14.59 75.70 92.67 35.18 11.88 67.08 2.40 0.83 52.32 911 73.67 42.11 2.86 69.56
SST 822 65.62 0.261 79.61 40.98 17.32 74.21 96.33 36.40 12.29 64.76 2.56 0.51 40.76 921 79.44 40.26 2.64 66.17
SST 876 68.99 0.224 80.62 40.92 15.56 75.78 94.44 37.12 11.89 64.11 1.80 0.59 29.36 889 69.56 39.71 2.62 65.33
Steenbras 67.08 0.208 80.27 38.69 16.00 75.70 90.11 32.88 11.62 62.56 2.72 0.54 42.37 908 81.67 37.73 2.70 64.14
Baviaans 66.46 0.234 79.08 42.42 20.12 76.58 93.00 36.08 12.30 62.51 2.57 0.44 43.66 950 88.67 41.77 2.68 53.89
BSP98/14 68.40 0.227 80.72 42.91 18.98 78.61 92.78 34.48 11.73 60.71 2.56 0.32 35.83 937 86.33 41.91 2.59 54.62
BSP98/18 68.51 0.248 78.92 40.87 18.56 76.02 93.22 31.96 11.69 62.47 3.58 0.79 53.78 865 86.44 37.03 2.61 65.73
BSP98/16 68.16 0.282 79.24 47.43 18.14 76.43 88.78 33.81 11.23 63.60 2.31 0.41 37.03 926 87.67 46.71 2.79 55.48
Average 67.55 0.243 79.66 42.01 17.81 76.13 92.41 34.51 11.84 63.42 2.65 0.54 42.86 913 82.79 40.90 2.67 61.10
LSD(0.05) 1.8 0.015 0.5 1.6 0.5 0.5 4.1 1.1 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.07 3.9 23.4 2.4 3.3 0.0879 2.5
Vaalharts 70.63 0.251 81.07 45.17 17.11 75.64 89.37 32.32 11.16 62.65 2.64 0.63 38.85 874 81.07 44.38 2.83 63.58
Douglas 66.70 0.252 78.99 39.72 18.72 76.72 95.70 36.97 12.42 64.82 2.56 0.48 45.72 960 83.40 39.50 2.59 67.01
Rietrivier 65.33 0.260 78.93 41.14 17.61 76.04 92.17 34.24 11.95 62.78 2.75 0.52 44.00 905 83.90 38.84 2.59 52.70

Tab. 3. Averages at three localities of cultivars for starch, amylose: amylopectin ratio and loaf volume.

Genotype Vaalharts Douglas Rietrivier Vaalharts Douglas Rietrivier Vaalharts Douglas Rietrivier
Starch Ratio LFV

Marico 72.55(3) 68.77(2) 63.70(8) 0.27(3) 0.24(7) 0.29(2) 831.7(10) 968.3(5) 875.0(10)
Kariega 71.55(5) 64.63(9) 66.19(4) 0.29(2) 0.33(1) 0.32(1) 886.7(3) 967.7(6) 936.7(3)
SST 825 69.72(8) 65.41(8) 64.64(6) 0.22(9) 0.23(8) 0.22(6) 865.0(5) 976.7(2) 890.0(9)
SST 822 71.29(6) 64.01(10) 61.55(10) 0.24(6) 0.28(3) 0.27(3) 861.7(7) 970.0(4) 930.0(4)
SST 876 70.79(7) 66.67(5) 69.63(1) 0.25(4) 0.21(9) 0.21(8) 831.7(9) 938.3(9) 898.3(8)
Steenbras 68.32(9) 66.31(7) 66.63(3) 0.24(8) 0.25(5) 0.22(7) 866.7(4) 940.0(8) 916.7(5)
Baviaans 62.90(10) 68.87(1) 67.62(2) 0.20(10) 0.21(10) 0.15(9) 951.7(1) 958.3(7) 940.0(2)
BSP98/14 72.95(2) 66.43(6) 65.81(5) 0.24(5) 0.24(6) 0.12(10) 927.3(2) 975.0(1) 908.3(7)
BSP98/18 74.20(1) 67.38(4) 63.96(7) 0.24(7) 0.27(4) 0.24(4) 851.7(8) 933.3(10) 810.0(6)
BSP98/16 72.32(4) 68.53(3) 63.64(9) 0.33(1) 0.28(2) 0.23(5) 863.3(6) 970.0(3) 943.3(1)
LSD(0.05) 3.69 2.38 3.50 0.030 0.020 0.028 47.52 31.15 45.20

Ranking in parentheses.

had a significantly higher loaf volume than all other
cultivars except BSP98/14 and Kariega. When starch
content, amylose: amylopectin ratio and loaf volume,
all three of which had highly significant geno-
type6environment interaction, were ranked for separate
localities (Tab. 3); it was clear that the rankings were
very different for the same cultivars planted in the dif-
ferent environments. The variance between the highest
and lowest ranking cultivars for starch content within
environments was as high as 11.2% at Vaalharts. At
separate localities (Tab. 4), amylose: amylopectin ratios
were significantly negatively correlated with vitreous
kernels, wet gluten, flour protein content at Vaalharts,
positively correlated with hectoliter mass and SDS
sedimentation at Douglas; and positively with farino-
graph water absorption at Rietrivier. At Douglas, starch
content was significantly positively correlated with flour
yield and negatively with wet gluten and flour protein
content. In a combination of all three localities, starch
content played a far more important role in quality than
amylose: amylopectin ratio. Starch content was sig-
nificantly positively correlated with single kernel diam-
eter and weight, hectoliter mass, and thousand kernel
mass. It was significantly negatively correlated with
loaf volume, alveograph strength, wet gluten content
and flour protein and farinograph absorption. The latter
was also significantly correlated with amylose: amylo-
pectin ratio.

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.starch-journal.com

Starch/Stärke 59 (2007) 234–238Influence of Environment on Starch Content and Amylose to Amylopectin Ratio 237

Tab. 4. Significant correlations between starch, and amylose: amylopectin ratios and quality char-
acteristics at separate and combined localities.

Locality Trait 1 Trait 2 r value

Vaalharts Amylose: amylopectin vitreous kernels 20.487**

Amylose: amylopectin wet gluten 20.384*
Amylose: amylopectin flour protein 20.602**
Douglas Amylose: amylopectin SDS sedimentation 0.426*
Amylose: amylopectin hectoliter mass 20.441*
Starch flour yield 0.394*
Starch wet gluten 20.377*
Starch flour protein 20.412*
Rietrivier Amylose: amylopectin farino water absorption 0.422*
Combined Starch single kernel diameter 0.270*
Starch single kernel weight 0.263*
Starch loaf volume 20.298**
Starch alveo strength 20.250*
Starch hectoliter mass 0.421**
Starch thousand kernel mass 0.305**
Starch wet gluten 20.329**
Starch flour protein 20.400**
Starch farino absorption 20.213*
Amylose: amylopectin farino absorption 0.219*

* p  0.05, ** p  0.001.

4 Discussion
Starch content ranged between 62.9 and 74.2% (data not
shown) which concurs with the ranges published pre-
viously [1, 17]. Starch content was significantly influenced
by environment. This is important, as starch content was
significantly (p0.01) negatively correlated with the most
important quality characteristics, especially loaf volume,
wet gluten content and flour protein content, across all
environments. At the same time, there was high geno-
type6environment interaction for starch content, and
some cultivars such as BSP98/14 and Kariega had high
starch contents but still had good loaf volumes. In barley it
was also reported [18] that starch accumulation in differ-
ent environments was very different for various cultivars.
So, specific cultivars interacted with specific environ-
ments for starch content. This was also reflected in rank-
ings that varied between the three environments. For
example, the starch content of Baviaans was the lowest
at Vaalharts, but the highest and second highest at Dou-
glas and Rietrivier, and for loaf volume Baviaans ranked
first at Vaalharts but seventh at Douglas, which was
related to the starch content ranking. This would be the
main contributing factor to the significant G6E interac-
tion. It would therefore seem that cultivar performance for
these characteristics is environment specific, and no
general conclusions can be made on how a cultivar will
perform. At Vaalharts a very large range of starch con-
tents and loaf volume was evident, while at the other two
environments the ranges were smaller. Both the farmer
and the breeder would have to choose cultivars that suit
the environment for optimal end-use quality. In this set of
material, performance was largely determined by where
the cultivars were grown. This was true for average values
as well as correlations between characteristics. Amylose:
amylopectin ratio was significantly correlated with some
important quality characteristics at especially Vaalharts,
but the correlations were not consistent at the different
localities. Flour protein content and total starch content
were significantly negatively correlated (r = 20.40, data
no shown), so although the value was significant, there
was not a direct inverse relationship. This indicates that
although an increase in starch content will cause a
reduction in flour protein content, and consequently in
other quality characteristics, there are other factors that
also influence the starch content: protein relationship.
5 Conclusion
Starch content was significantly influenced by the envi-
ronment and starch content also had a significant influ-
ence on baking quality. The environment in which the
cultivars are planted will largely affect starch content and
the quality characteristics. Specific cultivars interacted
with certain environments, and it is possible that a cultivar

© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim www.starch-journal.com

238 M. T. Labuschagne et al.
can have a high starch content and still have very good
baking quality in that environment. Cultivar choice and
environment where cultivars are planted will therefore
affect the starch content, and high starch content will not
necessarily lead to poor baking quality.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank the Small Grains Institute, Bethle-
hem, for providing the seed material for this study.
References
[1] K. R. Preston: Protein-carbohydrate interactions, in Interac-
tions: The keys to cereal quality. (Eds. R. J. Hamer, R. C.
Hoseney), AACC, Minnesota, USA, 1998, p. 81–93.
[2] S. Rahman, Z. Li, I. Batey, M. P. Cochrane, R. Appels, M.
Morell: Genetic alteration of starch functionality in wheat. J.
Cereal Sci. 2000, 31, 91–110.
[3] H. Larsson, A. C. Eliasson: Influence of starch granule surface
on the rheological behaviour of wheat flour dough. J. Texture
Stud. 1997, 28, 487–501.
[4] D. H. Simmonds, K. K. Barlow, C.W. Wrigley: The biochemical
basis of grain hardness in wheat. Cereal Chem. 1973, 50,
553–562.
[5] R. B. Malouf, R. C. Hoseney: Wheat hardness. I. A method to
measure endosperm tensile strength using tablets made from
wheat flour. Cereal Chem. 1992, 69, 164–168.
[6] R. B. Malouf, W. D. A. Lin, R. C. Hoseney: Wheat hardness. II.
Effect of starch granule protein on endosperm tensile
strength. Cereal Chem. 1992, 69, 169–173.
[7] J. C. Baker: The structure of the gas cell in bread dough.
Cereal Chem. 1941, 18, 34–41.
[8] R. M. Sandsted, L. Schaumburg, J. Fleming: The micro-
structure of bread and dough. Cereal Chem. 1954, 31, 43–49.
© 2007 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim
Starch/Stärke 59 (2007) 234–238
[9] L. G. Evans, A. M. Pearson, G. R. Hooper: Scanning electron
microscopy of flour-water doughs treated with oxidizing and
reducing agents. Scanning Electron Microscopy 1981, 3,
583–592.
[10] Y. Pomeranz, D. Meyer, W. Seibel: Wheat, wheat-rye, and
rye dough and bread studied by scanning electron micros-
copy. Cereal Chem. 1984, 61, 53–59.
[11] R. Moss, P. J. Gore, I. C. Murray: The influence of ingredients
and processing variables on the quality and microstructure
of hokkien, Cantonese and instant noodles. Food Micro-
structure 1987, 6, 63–74.
[12] Z. Gan, P. R. Ellis, J. G. Vaughan, T. Galliard: Some effects of
non-endosperm components of wheat and of added gluten
on whole-meal bread structure. J. Cereal Sci. 1989, 10, 81–
91.
[13] A. B. Soulaka, W. R. Morrison: The breadmaking quality of
six wheat starches differing in composition and physical
properties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1985, 36, 719–727.
[14] C. S. Gaines, P. L. Finney, G. Raubenthaler: Milling and
baking qualities of some wheats developed for Eastern or
North-western Regions of the United States and grown at
both locations. Cereal Chem. 1996, 73, 521–525.
[15] AACC (American Association of Cereal Chemists):
Approved methods of the AACC, 10th ed., The Association,
St. Paul, MN, 2000.
[16] Agrobase: Agronomix Software Inc., 71 Waterloo St. Winni-
peg, Manitoba R3N0S4, Canada, 2000.
[17] P. A. Seib: Wheat starch as a quality determinant, in Pro-
ceedings of the International Wheat Quality Conference.
(Eds. J. L. Steele, O. K. Chung). Grain Industry Alliance,
Manhattan, KS, 1997, p. 61.
[18] R. Savin, M.E. Nicolas: Effects of short periods of drought
and high temperature on grain growth and starch accumu-
lation of two malting barley cultivars. Aust. J. Plant Phys.
1996, 23, 201–210.
(Received: July 11, 2006)
(Revised: February 22, 2007)
(Accepted: March 15, 2007)
www.starch-journal.com