Journal of Nutrition Science Research
Open Access

Distillers dried grain; Elusieve; Enzymatic milling; Poultry

Introduction

The production of ethanol from corn is increasing, and new processes are being developed to improve the yield and quality of coproducts such as distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS) [1]. Two new processes, the enzymatic processing (E-Plant) and the Elusieve cycle, were evaluated in a recent study to determine their effectiveness in producing modified DDGS with higher protein and lower fiber content [2]. The E-Mill process involves exposing the corn kernel to enzymes that break down starch and remove fiber from the germ, pericarp, and endosperm. The resulting DDGS has higher protein content and better amino acid digestibility than conventionally processed DDGS [3]. The Elusieve process involves sieving the DDGS and extracting fiber through elutriation. The study found that the Elusieve process can also produce DDGS with higher protein and energy content, but the quality depends on screen size and elutriation air velocity. The higher fiber fractions of DDGS produced by the Elusieve process had lower protein content and amino acid digestibility, as expected. Overall, the study concluded that both the Elusieve and E-Mill processes can be used to improve the nutritional value of DDGS for poultry [4].

Materials and Methods

Nutritional analysis E-Mill DDG

Samples of the E-Mill DDG were obtained from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Department of Agricultural and Biological, Urbana, Illinois. The E-Plant method was finished by dousing corn tests for 12 h at 55°C. In the wake of splashing, tests were ground coarsely and hatched with a crude starch hydrolyzing compound. After the protein brooding step, microorganism and pericarp fiber were recuperated utilizing the technique framed by Singh. Similar to Singh’s dry-grind method, the remaining material was liquefied, saccharified, and fermented. After aging, the pound tests were screened to eliminate endosperm fiber and afterward centrifuged to create flimsy stillage and wet grains. The E-Mill DDG was made by drying the wet grains for 48 hours at 50°C in a convection oven.

Elusieve DDGS Nine DDGS samples from various Elusieve process stages were obtained from the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign’s Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering. Using laboratory-scale equipment, the Elusieve procedure was carried out in accordance with the method laid out by Srinivasan. Table 1 contains descriptions and labels for various preparation samples. The DDGS prior to going through the Elusieve interaction is marked as the first DDGS. After being sieved through five screen sizes (2,800, 869, 582, 389, and 295 m), the smallest residual DDGS was collected in the pan. This was the pan DDGS. The DDGS material utilized in this study contained a couple of huge lumped particles with size more than 2,800 μm, which had low fiber content, and consequently, an extra screen (2,800 μm) was utilized contrasted and before executions of the Elusieve cycle. High air velocities (HAV) were used for elutriation in the first processing scheme, resulting in a 20% yield of lighter fractions from the four intermediate size fractions. The sample that was obtained through four screens at HAV (enhanced DDGS-4S-HAV) consisted of the four heavier fractions, the pan DDGS, and the largest size fraction. Low air velocities (LAV) were used for elutriation in the second processing scheme, resulting in a 10% yield of lighter fractions from the four intermediate size fractions [5]. The sample that was obtained through four screens at LAV (enhanced DDGS-4S-LAV) consisted of the four heavier fractions, the pan DDGS, and the largest size fraction. Aside from the fact that only three size fractions were elutriated in the subsequent two processing schemes, the two big DDGS products (HAV and LAV) are big DDGS-3S-HAV and big DDGS-3S-LAV, respectively. Two different air speeds were utilized to represent potential execution situations [6].

Table 1: Description of the samples and summary of the abbreviations for the different distillers dried grains with solubles (DDGS)

Results and Discussion

E-Mill Ddg

The TMEn was viewed as altogether expanded for E-Plant DDG when contrasted and the first or traditional DDGS utilized for Elusieve handling (Table 2). Before fermentation, the germ, pericarp, and endosperm fiber are removed using the E-Mill method. Because of their high fiber content, these fractions are difficult for poultry to digest. The neutral detergent fiber (NDF) concentration of 6.79% found in the E-Mill DDG demonstrated fiber removal [7]. Belyea announced the normal NDF content of 10 distinct DDG tests as 33%, showing that the E-Plant process significantly diminishes how much NDF in DDG. The protein content in the E-Mill DDG is then concentrated by removing these fractions, nearly doubling. According to NRC, the E-Mill DDG’s protein content is comparable to that of corn gluten meal, which is said to contain 62% protein. As a result, removing these corn fractions can result in a coproduct that is easier to digest and has more energy [8].

True to form in view of CP values, the complete amino corrosive fixations in the E-Plant DDG were a lot higher than the DDGS that was delivered through an ordinary dry-grind technique (unique DDGS;) [9]. In addition, with the exception of lysine, the concentrations of all amino acids in the E-Mill DDG were either slightly lower than those in corn gluten meal or comparable to them. Even though the CP content of the E-Mill DDG is slightly lower than that of the corn gluten meal, the level of lysine in the E-Mill DDG was significantly higher than the level that was reported for corn gluten meal (1.45 vs. 1.03%, respectively) [10]. The mild drying conditions (50°C) may have contributed to the E-Mill DDG’s higher lysine content, reducing the amount of lysine destruction compared to commercial corn gluten meal processing. The E-Mill DDG consistently had higher digestibilities for amino acids than the original DDGS.

Elusieve DDGS

The outcomes demonstrate that there is a huge impact of sieving and the blend of sieving and air elutriation (Elusieve process) on the dietary organization of DDGS (Table 2). The pan DDGS, the smallest DDGS particles that were collected in the pan after being sieved through all screen sizes, is a particularly good example of the effect of sieving. When contrasted and the first DDGS, protein content was expanded from 30 to 37%, while TMEn was additionally altogether expanded from 3.299 to 3.529 kcal/g of DM. Additionally, the pan DDGS’s NDF content decreased from 36.88 to 30.55% in comparison to the original DDGS [11]. The pan DDGS’s amino acid digestibility coefficients were found to be indistinguishable from the original DDGS , despite the increased total amino acid concentrations. Because more fiber was recovered as the DDGS was continuously sieved through smaller screen sizes, it is likely that the lower fiber content in the pan DDGS was the cause of the increases in protein, total amino acids, digestible amino acid concentrations, and TMEn [12]. The information from this study demonstrate that sieving DDGS through a few different screen sizes can expand the healthy benefit of DDGS by eliminating bigger fiber particles [13]. Absorbability of the amino acids in the knot DDGS was additionally higher (P < 0.05) than in the Elusieve fiber. The digestibility of lysine in the lump DDGS was significantly lower than that of any of the other amino acids, and it was also significantly lower than that of lysine in the original DDGS (although a statistical comparison of the latter samples is impossible due to the fact that they were determined in distinct experiments) [14]. Because this sample had a very dark color and was mostly made up of large, round particles that looked like balls of syrup or solubles, Martinez Amezcua speculate that the lump DDGS’s low digestibility of lysine was mostly caused by excessive heating and the development of advanced products from the Maillard reaction [15].

Table 2: Total amino acid concentrations, amino acid digestibility coefficients, and digestible amino acid concentrations for the Elusieve fiber and lump dried distillers grains with solubles (DDGS) samples.

New corn ethanol coproducts with a higher nutritional value for poultry are being produced by modifying ethanol production technologies. In comparison to conventional DDGS, the E-Mill process yields a coproduct with significantly higher TMEn, protein, and digestible amino acids [16]. Additionally, products with increased TMEn, protein, and amino acids can be produced using the Elusieve process; However, the specific products produced will be influenced by processing conditions like screen size and air velocity.

Acknowledgement

None

Conflict of Interest

None

1. Shonisani Ramashia, ET Gwata, Stephen Meddows-Taylor, Tonna A Anyasi, Afam I O Jideani (2017) Some physical and functional properties of finger millet ( Eleusine coracana ) obtained in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Research International 104:110-118.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

2. Encyclopedia of Food and Health (2016) Finger millet and fonio have lower energy densities, probably due to their lower lipid and protein contents and high fiber contents.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

3. SE Ramashia, ET Gwata, S Meddows-Taylor TA, Anyasia AIO Jideania (2018): Some physical and functional properties of finger millet (Eleusine coracana) obtained in sub-Saharan Africa. Int Food Res J 104.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

4. Sreeni KR(2022) Millet Village Attappady, Kerala: Choice for Healthy Food Consumption, Food Security, Livelihood, Income and Employment.

Indexed at, Crossref

5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/panicum-sumatrense

Indexed at

6. MI Gomez, SC GuptaEncyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition.

Google Scholar

7. Benhur D Bhaskarachry Kandlakunta Rao Bhaskarachry Kandlakunta G D Arlene Christina GD Arlene Christina (2017) Nutritional and Health Benefits of Millets:ICAR_Indian Institute of Millets Research (IIMR) Rajendranagar, Hyderabad

Indexed at, Google Scholar

8. Avanza M, Acevedo B, Chaves M, Añón M (2013) Nutritional and anti-nutritional components of four cowpea varieties under thermal treatments: principal component analysis. Food Sci Technol 51: 148-157.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

9. Kyei-Boahen S, Savala CEN, Chikoye D, Abaidoo R (2017) Growth and yield responses of cowpea to inoculation and phosphorus fertilization in different environments. Front Plant Sci 8: 646.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

10. Kirse, Karklina D (2015) Integrated evaluation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) and maple pea (Pisum sativum var. arvense L.) spreads. Agron Res 13: 956-968.

Indexed at, Google Scholar

11. Trehan, Benzoni NS, Wang AZ, Bollinger LB, Ngoma TN, Chimimba UK, et al.Common beans and cowpeas as complementary foods to reduce environmental enteric dysfunction and stunting in Malawian children: study protocol for two randomized controlled trials. Trials 16: 520.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

12. Gonçalves, Goufo P, Trindade H, Rosa EA, Ferreira L, Dominguez-peris R, et al.(2016) Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp), a renewed multipurpose crop for a more sustainable Agri-food system: nutritional advantages and constraints. Sci Food Agric 96: 2941-2951

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

13. Liyanage R, Perera OS,Wethasinghe P, Jayawardana BC,Vidanaarachchi Jk, et al. (2014) Nutritional properties and antioxidant content of commonly consumed cowpea cultivars in Sri Lanka. Food Legum. Indian J Pulses Res 27: 215-217.

Google Scholar

14. Chivenge P, Mabhuadhi T, Modi AT, Mafongoya P (2015) The potential role of neglected and underutilised crop species as future crops under water scarce conditions in sub-Sahara Africa. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 12: 5685-5711.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

15. Panesar SS, Javad S, de Silva D, Nwaru BI, Hickstein L, et al. (2013) The epidemiology of anaphylaxis in Europe: a systematic review. Allergy 68:1353-1361.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

16. Vetander M, Helander D, Flodström C, Östblom E, Alfven T, et al. (2012) Anaphylaxis and reactions to foods in children-a population-based case study of emergency department visits. Clin Exp Allery 42:568-577.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref