Developments of Corn for Dry Grind Corn Processing

Vijay Singh, Kent Rausch, Carl Miller and Jim Vijay Singh, Kent Rausch, Carl Miller and Jim GraeberGraeberUniversity of Illinois at UrbanaUniversity of Illinois at Urbana--ChampaignChampaign

Syngenta Inc.Syngenta Inc.

BioenergyBioenergy--I ConferenceI ConferenceMarch 5March 5--10, 200610, 2006TomarTomar, Portugal, Portugal

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

Conventional Dry Grind ProcessConventional Dry Grind ProcessEthanol Production Capacity and Growth in Dry Grind Corn ProcessEthanol Production Capacity and Growth in Dry Grind Corn Processing ing Industry in USIndustry in USDevelopment of Corn in Dry Grind Corn ProcessingDevelopment of Corn in Dry Grind Corn Processing

Effect of hybrid variability on dry grind corn processEffect of hybrid variability on dry grind corn processHigh fermentable corn hybridsHigh fermentable corn hybridsCorrelation between extractable starch and fermentable starchCorrelation between extractable starch and fermentable starchGranular starch hydrolyzing enzymesGranular starch hydrolyzing enzymesCorn hybrids with endogenous liquefaction enzymesCorn hybrids with endogenous liquefaction enzymesCorn hybrids for modified dry grind corn processesCorn hybrids for modified dry grind corn processes

ConclusionsConclusions

2.5-2.7 gal of Ethanol

One bushel of Corn(25.4 kg) Corn Dry Grind Facility

15-17 lbs of DDGS

Ruminant Feed

Dry Grind Process

Saccharification &Fermentation

Yeast& Enzymes

CO2

DDGS

Liquefaction

Mash

Corn

Water

Grinding (Hammermill)

Blending

Ethanol

Overhead product(Recycled back)

Dehydration column

Stripping/Rectifying column

Dry Grind Process

Enzymes

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

Ethanol Production in the USEthanol Production in the US

Bill

ion

Gal

lon

s

Year

Ethanol Production in the USEthanol Production in the US

Currently 4.3 billion gal of ethanol is produced in the US everyCurrently 4.3 billion gal of ethanol is produced in the US everyyearyearEstimates indicate that ethanol production in the US will Estimates indicate that ethanol production in the US will increase to 6.0 billion gals/yr by 2006.increase to 6.0 billion gals/yr by 2006.Most of the increase in the ethanol capacity will come from new Most of the increase in the ethanol capacity will come from new dry grind ethanol plantsdry grind ethanol plants

Low capital cost for dry grind corn plantsLow capital cost for dry grind corn plantsTax incentives from federal and state governmentsTax incentives from federal and state governmentsFarmer coFarmer co--opsops

Developments of Corn for Dry Grind ProcessDevelopments of Corn for Dry Grind Process

Hybrid VariabilityHybrid VariabilityHigh fermentable corn hybridsHigh fermentable corn hybridsCorrelation between extractable starch and fermentable starchCorrelation between extractable starch and fermentable starchCorn hybrids with endogenous liquefaction enzymesCorn hybrids with endogenous liquefaction enzymesCorn hybrids for modified dry grind corn processesCorn hybrids for modified dry grind corn processes

Hybrid VariabilityHybrid Variability

Hybrid variability in a dry grind corn facility is generally defHybrid variability in a dry grind corn facility is generally defined ined by two factors:by two factors:1.1. Differences in Differences in fermentabilityfermentability2.2. Variation in the composition of DDGSVariation in the composition of DDGS

Effect of Hybrid Variability on Dry Grind Effect of Hybrid Variability on Dry Grind Corn ProcessCorn Process

Final ethanol concentration in beerFinal ethanol concentration in beerCoproduct qualityCoproduct qualityCapital and Operating CostCapital and Operating Cost

Process fluctuationsProcess fluctuationsMaintenanceMaintenance

Extent of Hybrid Variability for Ethanol ProductionExtent of Hybrid Variability for Ethanol Production

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

161 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89

Hybrids

Etha

nol C

onc.

% (v

/v)

3.26%

Hybrid Specific ProcessingHybrid Specific Processing

Limited number of elite line hybridsLimited number of elite line hybridsgood producer yields but with good ethanol yield, toogood producer yields but with good ethanol yield, too

Identifying of Hybrids with High Identifying of Hybrids with High FermentabilityFermentability

Source: http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/us_ag/content/enhanced_value/pro_per/pro_per_corn/brochure.pdf

Identifying of Hybrids with High Identifying of Hybrids with High FermentabilityFermentability

What Causes Hybrid VariabilityWhat Causes Hybrid Variability

Variability due to geneticsVariability due to geneticsStarch?Starch?Protein?Protein?Other constituents?Other constituents?

Variability due to environment (phenotype)Variability due to environment (phenotype)Effect of locationEffect of locationEffect of crop yearEffect of crop year

Correlation between Starch and EthanolCorrelation between Starch and Ethanol

Starch Yield and Ethanol Starch Yield and Ethanol (Dien et al 2002)(Dien et al 2002)

R2 = 0.42

82

84

86

88

90

92

94

96

68 69 70 71 72 73Extractable Starch Yield (% db)

Eth

anol

(g/

L)

Dien, B.S., Bothast, R.J., Dien, B.S., Bothast, R.J., ItenIten, L.B., Barrios, L. and Eckhoff, S.R. 2002. Fate of Bt , L.B., Barrios, L. and Eckhoff, S.R. 2002. Fate of Bt protein and influence of corn hybrid on ethanol production. Cerprotein and influence of corn hybrid on ethanol production. Cereal Chem. 79:582eal Chem. 79:582--585585

Starch Yield and Sugars Starch Yield and Sugars ((PruiettPruiett 2002)2002)

R2 = 0.048

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70

Extractable Starch Yield (%db)

Suga

rs (

%db

)

PruiettPruiett, L. 2002. Unpublished Data. University of Illinois., L. 2002. Unpublished Data. University of Illinois.

Starch Content and Ethanol Yield Starch Content and Ethanol Yield (Haefele et al 2004)(Haefele et al 2004)

R 2 = 0 .5 1 9 8

R 2 = 0 .6 2 2 3

6 7 .0 06 8 .0 06 9 .0 07 0 .0 07 1 .0 07 2 .0 07 3 .0 07 4 .0 07 5 .0 07 6 .0 07 7 .0 0

0 .3 4 0 0 0 .3 6 0 0 0 .3 8 0 0 0 .4 0 0 0 0 .4 2 0 0Et h a n o l Y ie ld ( C O 2 g /g D M )

Star

ch (w

/w%

, 100

%D

M)

HaefeleHaefele, D., Owens, F., O’Bryan, K. and , D., Owens, F., O’Bryan, K. and SevenichSevenich, D. 2004. Selection and optimization , D. 2004. Selection and optimization of corn hybrids for fuel ethanol production. 21 pp. Proc. Am. of corn hybrids for fuel ethanol production. 21 pp. Proc. Am. Seed Trade Assoc. 59th Seed Trade Assoc. 59th Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference, Chicago, IL. Annual Corn and Sorghum Research Conference, Chicago, IL.

Starch Yield and Ethanol Conc.Starch Yield and Ethanol Conc.(Singh and (Singh and GraeberGraeber 2005)2005)

Singh, V. and Singh, V. and GraeberGraeber, J.V. 2005. Effect of corn hybrid variability and planting lo, J.V. 2005. Effect of corn hybrid variability and planting location cation on ethanol yields. Trans. ASAE 48:709on ethanol yields. Trans. ASAE 48:709--714714

R2 = 0.00388

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

58 60 62 64 66 68 70

Extractable Starch Yield (%db)

Eth

anol

(%

v/

v)

Starch Yield and Ethanol Conc.Starch Yield and Ethanol Conc.(Zhan et al, 2005)(Zhan et al, 2005)

R2 = 0.25

8.0

8.1

8.2

8.3

8.4

8.5

8.6

65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72

Extratable Starch Yield (%)

Eth

anol

Con

c. %

(v/

v)

Ethanol

Linear (Ethanol)

Zhan, X., Wang, D, Zhan, X., Wang, D, TuinstraTuinstra, M.R., Bean, S., , M.R., Bean, S., SiebSieb, P.A. and Sun, X.S. 2003. Ethanol and , P.A. and Sun, X.S. 2003. Ethanol and lactic acid production as affected by sorghum genotype and locatlactic acid production as affected by sorghum genotype and location. Industrial Crops ion. Industrial Crops and Products 18:245and Products 18:245--255255

Variability Due to EnvironmentVariability Due to Environment

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

Hyb 1 Hyb 2 Hyb 3 Hyb 4 Hyb 5 Hyb 6

Hybrids

Etha

nol C

onc.

(%v/

v)

Illinois 1 Illinois 2 Iowa Michigan

Effect of Planting LocationEffect of Planting Location

Singh, V. and Graeber, J.V. 2005. Effect of corn hybrid variability and planting location onethanol yields. Trans. ASAE 48:709-714

Significant Interaction between Hybrids and Significant Interaction between Hybrids and YearsYears

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Hybrid A Hybrid B Hybrid C Hybrid D Hybrid E Hybrid F Hybrid G Hybrid H

Etha

nol C

once

ntra

tion

(%v/

v)

Average Year 1 Year 2

Comparison of Ethanol Conc. for 5 Hybrids Comparison of Ethanol Conc. for 5 Hybrids Over 3 YearsOver 3 Years

-1.2

-0.7

-0.2

0.3

0.8

N33-V5 N35-B8 N32-K3 N32-L9 N25-J7

Eth

anol

Con

c. D

evia

tion

from

Ave

rage

(%v/

v)

200220032004

Comparison of Ethanol Conc. for 4 Hybrids Comparison of Ethanol Conc. for 4 Hybrids Over 3 YearsOver 3 Years

-1.2

-0.7

-0.2

0.3

0.8

N43-M9 N45-A6 N46-J7 N50-P5

Eth

anol

Con

c. D

evia

tion

from

Ave

rage

(%

v/v)

200220032004

Granular Starch Hydrolyzing (GSH) Granular Starch Hydrolyzing (GSH) EnzymesEnzymes

Starch Granule Hydrolyzed by GSH EnzymeStarch Granule Hydrolyzed by GSH Enzyme

Dry Grind Process

Saccharification &Fermentation

Glucoamylase

CO2

DDGS

Liquefaction

Mash

Corn

Water

Grinding (Hammermill)

Blending

Ethanol

Overhead product(Recycled back)

Dehydration column

Stripping/Rectifying column

Alpha-Amylase

Yeast &

Wang, P., Singh, V., Johnston, D.B., Rausch, K.D. and Tumbleson, M.E. 2006. A granularstarch hydrolyzing enzyme for the dry grind corn process. Cereal Chem. (In review)

Extent of Hybrid Variability for Ethanol ProductionExtent of Hybrid Variability for Ethanol Production

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89

Hybrids

Etha

nol C

onc.

% (v

/v)

3.26%

With GSH enzyme hybrid variability was only approximately 11% compared to 23% with conventional dry grind enzymes

Development of New Transgenic Corn Development of New Transgenic Corn Specifically for Dry Grind ProcessSpecifically for Dry Grind Process

Saccharification &Fermentation

Yeast& Enzymes

CO2

DDGS

Liquefaction

Mash

Corn

Water

Grinding (Hammermill)

Blending

Ethanol

Overhead product(Recycled back)

Dehydration column

Stripping/Rectifying column

Dry-grind Process

Enzymes

Liquefaction Enzymes for Dry Grind Ethanol Liquefaction Enzymes for Dry Grind Ethanol ProcessProcess

A new transgenic corn with endogenous liquefaction A new transgenic corn with endogenous liquefaction enzymes has been developed that is activated enzymes has been developed that is activated

in presence of water at high temperaturein presence of water at high temperature

Swollen Starch MoleculeDextrins

LiquefactionEnzymes

Amylase Expressing CornAmylase Expressing Corn

500 ml Fermentations500 ml FermentationsControl Control vsvs 3, 5 and 10% amylase corn addition3, 5 and 10% amylase corn addition

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 24 48 72

Control3%5%10%

Fermentation Time (hr)

Eth

anol

Con

c. %

(v/

v)

Singh, V, Batie, C.J., Aux, G.W., Rausch, K.D. and Miller, C. 2006. Dry grind processingof corn with endogenous liquefaction enzymes. Cereal Chem. (In press)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

0 24 48 72

Fermentation Time (hr)

Eth

anol

Con

c. (

%v/

v)

Control1%2%3%

500 ml Fermentations500 ml FermentationsControl Control vsvs 1, 2 and 3% amylase corn addition1, 2 and 3% amylase corn addition

Singh, V, Batie, C.J., Aux, G.W., Rausch, K.D. and Miller, C. 2006. Dry grind processingof corn with endogenous liquefaction enzymes. Cereal Chem. (In press)

DDGS CompositionDDGS Composition

ComponentsComponents 3% amylase 3% amylase corn additioncorn addition

Control Control TreatmentTreatment

Crude Protein (%)Crude Protein (%)Crude Fat (%)Crude Fat (%)Crude Fiber (%)Crude Fiber (%)Ash (%)Ash (%)

26.1 ± 0.226.1 ± 0.214.1 ± 0.114.1 ± 0.16.6 ± 0.16.6 ± 0.13.78 ± 0.13.78 ± 0.1

25.8 ± 0.125.8 ± 0.113.6 ± 0.213.6 ± 0.26.8 ± 0.16.8 ± 0.13.35 ± 0.13.35 ± 0.1

No significant difference in composition of DDGS for 3% amylase cornaddition and control treatment

Singh, V, Batie, C.J., Aux, G.W., Rausch, K.D. and Miller, C. 2006. Dry grind processingof corn with endogenous liquefaction enzymes. Cereal Chem. (In press)

Dry Milling (1 kg Procedure)Dry Milling (1 kg Procedure)

FractionsFractions ControlControl0.1% 0.1% AmyAmy

1.0% 1.0% AmyAmy

10%10%AmyAmy

30.5930.59

31.7931.79

16.6516.65

GermGerm 13.0213.02 12.8812.88 13.3213.32 13.7913.79

PericarpPericarp 7.457.45 7.577.57 7.647.64 7.607.60

99.9899.98

+5(Large Grits)+5(Large Grits) 31.4231.42 33.2333.23 28.7328.73--10+2410+24

(Small Grits)(Small Grits) 29.8829.88 28.9128.91 31.4631.46

--24(Fines)24(Fines) 18.0118.01 17.4717.47 18.1818.18

TotalTotal 99.7899.78 100.06100.06 99.7699.76Singh, V, Batie, C.J., Rausch, K.D. and Miller, C. 2006. Wet and dry milling properties of dentcorn with addition of amylase corn. Cereal Chem. (In press)

Wet Milling (1 kg Procedure)Wet Milling (1 kg Procedure)

FractionsFractions ControlControl0.1%0.1%AmyAmy

1.0%1.0%AmyAmy

10%10%AmyAmy

Solubles (%)Solubles (%) 4.524.52 4.404.40 4.384.38 4.824.82

Germ (%)Germ (%) 6.216.21 6.356.35 6.436.43 6.746.74

Fiber (%)Fiber (%) 12.3612.36 11.7211.72 11.9811.98 11.9011.90

Starch (%)Starch (%) 67.2467.24 67.6667.66 67.3367.33 66.1966.19

Gluten (%)Gluten (%) 10.2510.25 10.1810.18 10.1610.16 10.6510.65

Total (%)Total (%) 100.59100.59 100.31100.31 100.29100.29 100.30100.30

Singh, V, Batie, C.J., Rausch, K.D. and Miller, C. 2006. Wet and dry milling properties of dent corn with addition of amylase corn. Cereal Chem. (In press)

Corn for Modified Dry Grind ProcessesCorn for Modified Dry Grind Processes

Modified Dry Grind Ethanol ProcessesModified Dry Grind Ethanol Processes

Wet fractionation technology: similar to wet millingWet fractionation technology: similar to wet millingEnzymatic dry grind process (EEnzymatic dry grind process (E--Mill process)Mill process)Recovers germ, pericarp fiber and endosperm fiber at front end oRecovers germ, pericarp fiber and endosperm fiber at front end of f dry grind ethanol plantdry grind ethanol plant

Dry fractionation technology: similar to dry millingDry fractionation technology: similar to dry millingDry Dry degermdegerm defiberdefiber process (3D process)process (3D process)Recovers germ and pericarp fiber at front end of dry grind ethanRecovers germ and pericarp fiber at front end of dry grind ethanol ol plantplant

These modified dry grind processes, recover valuable coproducts,These modified dry grind processes, recover valuable coproducts,improve efficiency of dry grind process and reduce improve efficiency of dry grind process and reduce volume of volume of DDGS producedDDGS produced

DDGS Utilization (2005)DDGS Utilization (2005)

Poultry 4%

Swine 11%

Dairy 46%

Beef39%

Coproduct valuesCoproduct values

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Cop

rodu

ct V

alue

($/

ton)

.

corn DDGS

Economic Research Service 2005: www.ers.usda.gov/db/feedgrains/

Cattle and Calves InventoryCattle and Calves InventorySource: USDASource: USDA--NASS 2002 Census of AgricultureNASS 2002 Census of Agriculture

Beef Cows Milk Cows

Poultry and Swine InventoryPoultry and Swine InventorySource: USDASource: USDA--NASS 2002 Census of AgricultureNASS 2002 Census of Agriculture

Broiler and Other MeatType Chicken

Pigs

Wet Fractionation Technology:Enzymatic Dry Grind Process (E-Mill)

One bushel CornCorn Dry Grind Facility

2.6 gal Ethanol

3.7 lb Residual DDGS

Ruminant Food

QuickGerm

QuickFiber

Nonruminant Food

E-Mill

3.3 lb Germ

4 lb Pericarp Fiber 4 lb

Endosperm Fiber

Dry Fractionation Technology:Dry Degerm Defiber Process (3D Process)

One bushel CornCorn Dry Grind Facility

2.6 gal Ethanol

7.0 lb Residual DDGS

Ruminant Food

Dry DegermDefiberProcess

Nonruminant Food

4 lb Germ

4 lb Pericarp Fiber

+

Effect of Hybrid Variability on Enzymatic Dry Effect of Hybrid Variability on Enzymatic Dry Grind Corn ProcessGrind Corn Process

x2 LocationsWaupun, WI Brookings, SD

5 HybridsN36-R6N22-T8NX2603N34-F1

Enzymatic Dry Grind Process

Coproducts and

EthanolYield

Coproducts and Ethanol Yield for Coproducts and Ethanol Yield for Waupun, WIWaupun, WI

FractionFraction(% db)(% db)

N36N36--R6R6 N22N22--T8T8 NX2603NX2603 N34N34--F1F1

GermGerm 9.189.18 9.229.22 9.419.41 8.858.85

PericarpPericarpFiberFiber

8.628.62 7.797.79 8.618.61 6.046.04

EndospermEndospermFiberFiber

3.893.89 5.465.46 5.045.04 3.933.93

DDGSDDGS 7.387.38 8.148.14 8.298.29 8.318.31

Ethanol Conc.Ethanol Conc.(% (% v/vv/v))

13.4113.41 14.6014.60 14.3414.34 13.3513.35

Coproducts and Ethanol Yield for Coproducts and Ethanol Yield for Brooking, SDBrooking, SD

FractionFraction((% db% db))

N36N36--R6R6 N22N22--T8T8 NX2603NX2603 N34N34--F1F1

GermGerm 8.878.87 9.219.21 9.549.54 8.898.89

Pericarp FiberPericarp Fiber 10.4510.45 7.517.51 9.379.37 8.058.05

Endosperm Endosperm FiberFiber

5.605.60 6.506.50 5.535.53 6.566.56

DDGSDDGS 8.018.01 10.8310.83 9.349.34 8.638.63

Ethanol Conc.Ethanol Conc.(% (% v/vv/v))

13.4013.40 12.9312.93 13.5613.56 13.3813.38

ConclusionsConclusions

New Developments in Dry Grind Corn ProcessingNew Developments in Dry Grind Corn ProcessingSignificant variability in corn hybrids for dry grind ethanol Significant variability in corn hybrids for dry grind ethanol productionproduction

23% total variability23% total variability75% of this variability is due to genetics and 25% is due to 75% of this variability is due to genetics and 25% is due to environmentenvironmentVariability can be reduced with hybrid specific processing or byVariability can be reduced with hybrid specific processing or by using using GSH enzymeGSH enzyme

Negligible or weak correlation between starch content or Negligible or weak correlation between starch content or extractability and starch extractability and starch fermentabilityfermentabilityCorn with endogenous liquefaction enzymesCorn with endogenous liquefaction enzymesHybrid specific processing for conventional and modified dry griHybrid specific processing for conventional and modified dry grind nd processes to increase ethanol yield and coproduct qualityprocesses to increase ethanol yield and coproduct quality