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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
Top Related