Security of Scale

by Tom Bryan (Ethanol Producer Magazine) As one of America’s largest biorefiners moves forward with two more installations of Fluid Quip Technologies’ 50% protein technology, critical production redundancy is in hand. Products with even higher protein levels are already in the pipeline.

This fall, when Green Plains Inc. announced plans for a third installation of Fluid Quip Technologies’ patented Maximized Stillage Co-Products technology—while its second installation was just breaking ground—other U.S. producers with the same systems took the news well.

It seems counterintuitive that ethanol plants already possessing MSC technology would welcome more of the trademarked product it yields—Still Pro 50—into the marketplace, but scale matters in the feed business and volume can be a rising tide that lifts all boats.

“It’s about resiliency,” says Keith Jakel, sales and marketing manager at FQT. “Having multiple plants producing the same product provides a secure supply for end users. With the MSC protein system, end users are assured of a consistent product; regardless of whether the product comes from one plant or several, you’re assured of a reliable, consistent supply. Redundancy brings confidence and confidence brings product value.”

Green Plains’ interest in taking other producers under its MSC wing sits well with FQT, which introduced the platform to the industry over a decade ago. On the webinar with Cronin, Michael Franko, FQT partner and vice president of business development, reflected on the early days of MSC’s development when large companies like Tyson Foods expressed interest in MSC 50% protein, but had concerns about its volume. “They said, ‘Call us when you have six plants running,’” Franko said. “There was that barrier to entry. They weren’t going to make bin space until we had true redundancy.”

Joe Ward, FQT senior nutritionist, says he understands why buyers would be cautious about supply disruptions. “It’s the worst thing in the world if you adopt a new product and start using it in your operation widely, and all of a sudden it isn’t available,” he says. “That’s a disaster, not only to the formulator, but also down the line, because performance values can be changed, and that will make a producer reluctant to come back to the product when it’s available.”

But Ward stresses that volume is only part of the supply resiliency story. “Beyond scale, your product has to be repeatable and uniform—you need consistency—not only within a plant but between plants,” he says.

In addition to the challenge of scale, FQT and its MSC marketing partners, which include Flint Hills Resources and Green Plains, are making nutritionist outreach a top priority. Cronin said Green Plains is intent on reshaping how feed nutritionists view its ultra-high protein product. He explained on the webinar that it’s more than just saying a product is 50% protein and different, it’s showing customers that downstream considerations are being taken to manufacture, store and ship the product.

“The focal point of a dry mill was to produce 2.6 gallons of ethanol and, later, we evolved to 2.9 gallons. But DDGS was an afterthought, and that cannot be the future,” he says. “We have to convince nutritionists that what we have now is a product that is not DDGS, but something completely different.”

“Most plants are running at 110% to 130% of their dryer design rate—cranking the heat up to run harder and faster—which essentially denatures the DDGS. When we take that load off the dryers, they can run the way they’re supposed to, which produces a residual DDGS with a lighter color, and protein that isn’t denatured. So you end up with better protein and amino acid profiles than if you wouldn’t have taken any protein material off at all. We believe you will begin to see producers selling their residual DDGS at higher values.”

Jakel says the MSC process diverts about 30% of the coproduct volume to the high-protein stream, leaving 70% as reconstituted DDGS.

“There’s a difference between the 50% proteins being produced by chemical extraction versus mechanical extraction, and there are even clear differences between the technologies using mechanical separation. For example, some pre-fermentation systems have larger fiber particles, which can limit the type of species the feed is suitable for.”

And because FQT’s process captures the yeast produced during the ethanol fermentation process, it has enhanced functionality.

We have easy-to-understand summaries of every feeding trial we have done, all compiled into a dossier,” he says. “So, if someone in Asia calls up and says, ‘Pete, can you send me the details of your Atlantic salmon trial, your shrimp trial and your tilapia trial?’ I can say, ‘Yep, I’ll get it right off to you.’ The information is there. It’s readable and we’re happy to share it with our customers and partners.”

We said, from the start, ‘We’re going to bring a technology to the industry that is going to create an additional coproduct, but we’re also going to help create and develop the market for that product.” READ MORE