3.2. Compositions of enhanced DDGS
About 55–75% of samples passed through the sieve (Table 2).Corresponding to retentate recoveries, GWS showed about 1.2-foldhigher eDDGS recoveries than WS, WSP and WSS. Sieving reducedNDF contents and increased oil contents in eDDGS. The originalsamples had 36.32% NDF contents, while treated samples had 5.67%to 20.69% NDF contents. WSP showed much lower NDF contentcompared to others, which was likely caused by sample losses. Thesum of the actual weight of NDF in the retentate and eDDGS wasonly 70% of that of the sample. The original sample had 29.03% pro-tein contents, and similar or lower protein contents were observedin treated samples. As mesh number increases (smaller sieve size),less protein was observed in eDDGS. Sieving helped increase oilcontents in eDDGS by 1.08-fold to 1.31-fold compared to the orig-inal sample. As observed in retentate samples, grinding beforesieving would be a good option to separate fiber with high over-all DDGS recovery compared to other methods, but with decreasedNDF contents and increased oil contents.