Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

NC-213 The U.S. Quality Grains Research Consortium Marketing and Delivery of Quality Grains and BioProcess Coproducts Intrinsic Characteristics of Modified.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "NC-213 The U.S. Quality Grains Research Consortium Marketing and Delivery of Quality Grains and BioProcess Coproducts Intrinsic Characteristics of Modified."— Presentation transcript:

1 NC-213 The U.S. Quality Grains Research Consortium Marketing and Delivery of Quality Grains and BioProcess Coproducts Intrinsic Characteristics of Modified DDGS and Development of Effective Handling Strategies: Chemical Properties Studies Kristin Whitney (Presenter). Kaliramesh Siliveru, Mark Casada, Kingsly Ambrose, Rumela Bhadra, and Senay Simsek (Co-Authors)

2 Introduction Grinding Cooking Liquifaction Saccharifaction Fermentation Conversion of Corn to EtOH

3 Introduction Distillers Dried Grains with Solubles (DDGS) –coproduct from dry-grind corn to ethanol conversion http://andersonsgrain.com/

4 Introduction 1 bu Corn (56 lbs) Fermentation to Fuel EtOH 17 lbs DDGS 18.4 lbs CO2 17.6 lbs EtOH Volume produced Vital importance for feed

5 Introduction DDGS composition Essential amino acids Minerals Trace unfermented starch

6 Introduction Non-fermentable component –Whole stillage (5-15% solids) Thin stillage (5-10% solids) –Condensed distillers solubles (CDS) → syrup Wet cake –Mixed with syrup –Drum dried DDGS

7 Introduction Corn oil extraction from DDGS –Viable and lucrative option 2 extraction types –Extraction from thin stillage (30% oil removed) –After mixing syrup with wet cake before drying “back end” extraction Increases profit and sustainability

8 Introduction Nutritional Value –Digestibility –Total digestible nutrients –Net energy Reduced fat – energy content in low oil DDGS –Amino acid and mineral profiles

9 Objective Comparison of chemical properties of regular DDGS ( ≈ 9% fat), and modified DDGS ( ≈ 4 and 7% fat) samples

10 Materials Low oil DDGS (4% fat) –POET Nutrition (Sioux Falls, SD) Regular DDGS (9% fat) –Lifeline Foods, Inc. (St. Joseph, MO) Moisture conditioning and DDGS samples with intermediate fat (7%) content preparation were carried out at KSU.

11 Methods Proximate analysis –Moisture: Gravimetric (AACC-I, 44-15.02) –Ash: Gravimetric (AACC-I, 08-01.01) –Protein: N combustion (AACC-I, 46-30.01) Conversion factor = 6.25 –Fat*: Soxhlet extraction with hexane (AOCS Ba 3-38) *Analysis done by: The University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Chemical Laboratories

12 Methods Carbohydrate composition –Crude fiber*: Enzyme digestion and filtration (AOAC, 978.10) –Reducing sugars: Somogyi assay (Chow and Landhäusser, 2004) –Arabinoxylan content: Alditol acetate derivitization and analysis by GC-FID (Blakeney et al. 1983) *Analysis done by: The University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Chemical Laboratories

13 Methods Mineral composition* –AOAC, 985.01 a, b and d, Inductively coupled plasma - optical emission spectroscopy (ICP- OES) Amino acid profile* –AOAC Official Method 982.30 E(a,b,c) *Analysis done by: The University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Chemical Laboratories

14 Methods Surface fat staining and imaging –Surface fat staining with Nile red dye was done according to the method of Bhadra et al, (2009) –Images taken at 20x using Zeiss Observer Z1 microscope with LSM 700 confocal laser scanning module (Zeiss Thornwood, NY). –Excited at 488 nm with short pass emission filter at 555 nm to visualize DDGS particles and 555 nm with long pass filter set at 560 nm to visualize nile red stained lipid droplets –Solid-state lasers of LSM 700 set at fixed power value for entire experiment 6% and 5.7% for 488 nm and 555 nm, respectively (Greenspan et al. 1985) –This procedure was performed at the Advanced Imaging and Microscopy Core Facility at North Dakota State University

15 Methods DDGS prepared for staining according to Bhadra et al, 2009 with some modifications. –Embedded in low melting point agarose –Processed in a Leica ASP 300 Automated Processor and embedded in wax –Sections (5 micron) were cut using a Leica RM2255 Automated Rotary Microtome Carbohydrate staining –Periodic Acid Schiff (PAS), according to the methodology of Bhadra et al. (2009) (Prophet and Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 1992) Protein staining –Hematoxylin and Eosin (H & E) staining for proteins was done following the method described by AFIP Laboratory methods in histotechnology

16 Methods Images of HE and PAS stained slides were taken with Zeiss Iamger.M2 brighfield microscope equipped using 5x objective and AxioCam HRc camera (Zeiss, Thornwood, NY) Images were analyzed using ImagePro-Premiere software (Ver.9.0.1 Media Cybernetics, Inc., Silver Spring, MD) For PAS staining areas of light red vs. intense red staining were extracted using smart segmentation module of ImagePro software, data expressed as % area

17 Methods Statistical analysis –All analysis was conducted in triplicate for each of the samples –Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted with completely random design (CRD) using SAS version 9.3 (Cary, NC) –Mean separation was performed by calculation of least significant difference (LSD, P<0.05) *Analysis done by: The University of Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Chemical Laboratories

18 Results: Proximate Composition %Temp%% DWB Oil°C°CRHMoistAshProteinFatGlycerol 420408.194.8833.845.735.39 4208020.334.2129.715.654.22 440 7.424.9434.246.865.41 4408010.934.7332.976.635.41 720407.726.3031.149.843.75 7408026.075.2025.357.832.95 920407.835.8828.3912.464.96 9408022.315.1224.289.953.96 LSD (P<0.05)0.450.060.270.440.25 RH = Relative Humidity, DWB = Dry weight basis, LSD = Least significant difference

19 Results: Carbohydrates RH = Relative Humidity, DWB = Dry weight basis, LSD = Least significant difference, A/X = arabinose to xylose ratio %Temp% DWB Oil °C°C RHCrude FiberArabinoxylanA/XReducing Sugars 420408.0911.920.680.31 420807.338.620.670.41 440 8.3911.180.680.32 440808.4312.640.720.28 720407.088.960.831.54 740805.926.870.790.92 920407.129.850.832.21 940806.198.860.772.39 LSD (P<0.05)0.271.340.030.08

20 Results: Overall Composition

21 Results: Mineral Composition *As is moisture basis RH = Relative Humidity, ppm = Parts per million, LSD = Least significant difference %Temp% w/w*ppm* Oil°C°CRHCalciumPhosphorusSodiumPotassiumZinc 420400.030.870.121.1056.63 420800.030.780.100.9649.05 440 0.030.900.121.1257.83 440800.030.880.111.0856.73 720400.071.440.350.9674.45 740800.061.110.270.7564.03 920400.051.360.341.0474.73 940800.051.140.290.8568.37 LSD (P<0.05)0.000.030.01 1.70

22 Results: Amino Acid Profile Essential amino acids % Oil Temp °C % RH Methionine Valine Arginine Tryptophan Leucine Isoleucine Phenylalanine Lysine Histidine Threonine % w/w* 420400.571.531.380.213.701.161.591.070.881.20 420800.491.321.190.183.201.011.380.930.761.04 440 0.581.561.390.203.761.191.611.070.881.22 440800.561.481.340.203.571.131.531.020.841.16 720400.571.441.370.203.281.141.451.000.811.18 740800.441.151.060.152.630.911.110.720.610.92 920400.501.341.380.212.911.041.370.880.701.07 940800.411.141.130.172.500.881.120.670.570.89 LSD (P<0.05)0.010.02 0.010.050.03 0.02 *As is moisture basis RH = Relative Humidity, LSD = Least significant difference

23 Results: Amino Acid Profile Non-essential amino acids % Oil Temp °C % RH Hydroxyproline Aspartic Acid Serine Glutamic Acid Proline Glycine Alanine Cysteine Tyrosine Hydroxylysine % w/w* 420400.111.971.414.632.601.222.200.601.220.20 420800.101.711.234.172.171.061.900.521.070.16 440 0.112.001.444.752.621.232.240.611.240.21 440800.111.901.374.522.471.182.140.571.190.20 720400.141.831.344.102.471.202.030.601.160.18 740800.131.461.083.441.930.951.620.450.910.12 920400.131.671.213.271.841.081.740.481.010.19 940800.031.431.052.981.570.931.500.390.840.14 LSD (P<0.05)0.050.030.040.070.040.020.030.010.030.04 *As is moisture basis RH = Relative Humidity, LSD = Least significant difference

24 Results: Surface Fat Staining *RH = Relative Humidity, RED = Fat, Green = DDGS particles

25 Results: Carbohydrate and Protein Composition Cross-Sectional Imaging of DDGS Particles Periodic acid/Shiff Stain for Carbohydrates Hematoxylin & Eosin (H&E) Stain for Proteins CARBOHYDRATEPROTEIN

26 Results: Carbohydrate and Protein Composition Cross-Sectional Imaging of DDGS Particles %Temp%Area (um 2 )Area %Area (um 2 )Area % Oil°C°CRHTotalCarbohydrate TotalProtein 42040176044.0113137.964.19134270.440178.332.19 42080226886.5148896.265.59188880.874515.038.15 440 163389.2100012.661.53117159.741721.237.54 44080181648.7122915.167.58122768.838834.232.39 72040145416.358813.341.8227424.93072.610.32 74080180809.287248.445.7461260.218777.425.24 92040137294.460679.142.5746285.113032.920.94 94080151668.082675.155.1265252.922134.728.12 LSD (P<0.05)47686.031351.07.7136998.018223.010.22 RH = Relative Humidity, LSD = Least significant difference

27 Conclusion For Low Oil DDGS (4% Fat) Protein Glycerol Fiber Arabinoxylan Some amino acids Ash (minerals) Reducing sugars Phosphorus Sodium Zinc

28 Take Home Message DDGS Composition No major effect from temp. or moist. Treatment Low oil DDGS have higher fraction of protein Removal of oil reduces mineral content

29 THANK YOU Questions? www.wheatquality.com

30 Results: Amino Acid Profile Essential amino acids *RH = Relative Humidity, Error bars represent least significant difference

31 Results: Amino Acid Profile Non-essential amino acids *RH = Relative Humidity, Error bars represent least significant difference

32 20 °C 40% RH 40 °C 80% RH 7% Oil 9% Oil 4% Oil

33

34

35 Conclusion Increased Protein Glycerol Fiber Arabinoxylan Some amino acids Decreased Ash (minerals) Reducing sugars Phosphorus Sodium Zinc For Low Oil DDGS (4% Fat)


Download ppt "NC-213 The U.S. Quality Grains Research Consortium Marketing and Delivery of Quality Grains and BioProcess Coproducts Intrinsic Characteristics of Modified."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google