0506 - 1015 - Food Dry General Protein Hand Out
0506 - 1015 - Food Dry General Protein Hand Out
Protein ressources
Opportunities for NETZSCH
International Sales Meeting BF Food & Confectionery, Germany, June 3 to 6, 2019
Frank Maringer
Definition
Plants we eat
Direct consumption
Eating habits in Western countries shifting to eat alternatives to meat
Healthy eating advices put more value to proteins as to carbohydrates
Animal feed by far the biggest market for plant based proteins
in Europe approx. 93% of produced protein plants is going into animal feed
China increased their soy import by factor 10 the last 10 years
Market demands shifting to
non-GMO animal feed
organic feed products
EU is focusing and supporting efforts to replace soy imports with local grown
plants
In EU 60% of plant based proteins are imported
The last five years the farm areas for legumes and soy in EU as been tripled
To Note: plant based proteins in human food is increasing 11-14% in the EU by 2018
grind sieving
Process
pack
Protein Shifting
Result:
protein content above 80% in the range of 40 – 60 %
called “Isolate”
Source: Pascalle J.M. Pelgrom , Dry fractionation for sustainable
production of plant protein concentrates , University of Wageningen
Start:
Proteins are part of the cell together with starch and cell structure
Example: Pea Example: Lupine
Example: Pea
Source: Dry fractionation for sustainable production of plant protein concentrates, University of Wagening
Disadvantage: Advantage:
No exact top cut and loss of yield Exact top cut and optimum yield
High energy consumption and machinery Less energy consumption and machinery
efforts efforts
High temperature treatment Very little temperature increase
Separation by
Weight
Size
Exact adjustment of cut point necessary
Good separation between particles important
However: mainly customers are asking for maximum content and yield!
This is not the right process to fulfill this request!
Minus Explosion
Protection valve
Classifier Mill Coarse
More machinery
Higher energy consumption as In-line
Recent customers always asking what max. values we can achieve in terms of
protein content in the high protein fraction
yield of high protein fraction = output
We are sure that with our technology we can achieve all the highest values BUT
how is the content measured:
NIR (high accuracy – we do with NFT), Dumas (total Nitrogen content, standardized)
Dry or wet mass based
to consider: the protein content in a raw material varies up to +/- 4%
and as usual:
it´s a natural product – ability to separate proteins depends on……
With some customers we did some extended trials incl. Protein measurements:
Product
Flour (for further details see appendix 1)
Grinding for high protein: optimum d99 = 40 - 45 µm
Protein content: in the range of 24 – 26%
Yield fine fraction: in the range of 25 - 30%
Load for classification 0,3 - 0,4
Chickpea
Grinding for high protein: optimum d97 = 70 - 80 µm
Protein content: in the range of 48– 58%
Yield fine fraction: in the range of 15 - 30%
Load for classification: 0,3 - 0,4
Reference throughput: CSM 900 = 3.250 kg/h at d98 = 57 ± 8 µm
CSM 900 = 5.000 kg/h at d97 = 100 µm
Palm oil
Rape oil
Source: www.proplanta.de
Soy oil
Sunflower oli
ATTENTION
Process to achieve the press cake is important if grindable or not
Cake from excenter press or extruder the oil content is high > 10 – 15%
→ impossible to grind without cryogenic help
→ too expensive
Cake from filter press give oil content < 8%
→ grinding with CONDUX or CSM possible
Source: www.proplanta.de
Mealworm
Conclusion:
Grinding of adult insects < 800 µm seems not possible
Grinding of larva might be better – to be tested
Get involved into the more sophisticated wet process as grinding is required
there as well but product is defatted
Proteinshifting
Comparison between grinding energy and achievable product quality
Feed product Typical wheatflour Typ 550 (European type)
Parameter Dimension
Finenss with Classifyer Mill CSM d99 in
micron 80 80 80 55 55 55 47 47 47 39 39
Specific grinding energy kWh/t 42 42 42 75 75 75 84 84 84 110 110
Divided product flow after Coarse
classification fraction % 65 74 67 65 68 70 66 77 70 72 75
(low protein
content)
Fine fraction
(high protein % 35 26 33 35 32 30 34 23 30 28 25
content)
Protein content Coarse % 9,4 9,1 9,5 7,5 7,7 7,6 7,6 7,6 8,4 7,5 7,7
Fine % 15,7 19,5 15,6 19,9 20,1 20,6 22,7 24,7 24,3 24,9 26,3
Specific grinding energy in respect to high
protein fraction kWh/t 120 161 127 214 234 250 250 360 280 390 440
Please Note: the Classifier size will be individually selected, based on the actual throughput