MF-2051 • Feed Manufacturing 1

Department of Grain Science and Industry

T he particle size
of ground grain per-
Evaluating After some changes
in wire diameter specifica-
forms a critical role tions, the current USA se-
in determining feed
digestibility, mixing
Particle Size ries was adopted by the
International Standards
performance, and Organization (ISO). Both
pelleting. Therefore, Scott Baker sieve series meet the stan-
periodic particle size Graduate Research Assistant dards set forth in the
evaluation is a necessary American Standards for
Tim Herrman Testing Materials Standard
component of a feed Extension State Leader
manufacturing quality Grain Science and Industry
E11 (Tyler, 1976).
assurance program. The These sieve series are
purpose of this bulletin differentiated based on the
is to describe the equip- method used to express the
ment, procedure, costs, diameter opening. The
and interpretation of Tyler series identifies sieves
particle size analysis. by the number of meshes
(openings) per inch. The
Equipment USA sieves are most commonly identified by an arbi-
The equipment required for particle size analysis trary number that does not necessarily represent the
includes a scale, shaker, sieves, sieve cleaners, and number of meshes per inch. They also are identified by
brushes. size opening in millimeters or microns. Tyler Standard
A scale that is accurate to ±0.1 grams is required Screen Scale sieves and USA Series sieves can be used
(ASAE, 1993). interchangeably. Each sieve has the appropriate
The recommended sieve shaker is a Tyler RoTap equivalent printed on the name plate. Table 1 shows a
(Mentor, OH). The RoTap mechanically reproduces comparison of the Tyler and USA Standard sieve num-
the circular motion that occurs during hand sieving, bers in a “full-set.”
while at the same time tapping the sieve stack to help
the particles fall through the mesh screens. It is de-
signed to hold a maximum of six full-height (13 half-
height), 8-inch diameter sieves and a pan (Tyler,
1976).
Table 1. Comparison of Tyler and USA sieve numbers
A less expensive portable sieve shaker also is
manufactured by the Tyler company. It is similar to the Opening in microns Tyler Number USA Number
RoTap, but it does not have the tapping mechanism. It (meshes/inch)
has the same capacity as the RoTap. When using a 3360 6 6
portable sieve shaker, sufficient action is produced if 2380 8 8
the wing nuts are tightened approximately 1.5 mm 1680 10 12
(1/16 inch) above the sieve stack. 1191 14 16
A stack of sieves (each sieve possessing a different 841 20 20
diameter opening) separates feed particles according 594 28 30
to size. In the United States, there are two commonly 420 35 40
recognized standard sieve series: Tyler and USA. The 297 48 50
Tyler Standard Screen Scale sieve series was intro- 212 65 70
duced in 1910 by W.S. Tyler Inc. The original USA 150 100 100
Series was proposed 103 150 140
by the National Bureau 73 200 200
of Standards in 1919. 53 270 270

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
 2

Sieves vary in diameter and height and may be and Extension publication MF-2036. After the 100-
constructed of brass or stainless steel. Full-height gram sample has been obtained, the following steps
sieves are 2 inches from the rim to cloth. Half-height are required:
sieves are 1 inch from the rim to the cloth. It is recom- ■ arrange the sieve stack so the coarsest is on top and
mended that the USA Standard, 8-inch diameter, half- the finest on bottom (as the USA Sieve number
height sieve with a brass frame and cloth be used increases, the opening becomes smaller)
(Tyler, 1976). ■ put the sample on the top sieve and place sieve
Screen cleaners should be used to ensure that ev- stack on the shaker
ery particle has the same chance to pass through the ■ allow shaker to run for 10 minutes
openings. If the RoTap is used, the authors recommend ■ remove the sieves stack from shaker
using two carmicheal sieves on USA Number 16 and ■ clean and remove carmicheals
finer sieves. If the portable shaker is used, it is recom- ■ gently tap the sides of each sieve with the brush
mend to use three carmicheals. If the feed has a high before removing from the stack
fat or whey content, a dispersion agent may be re- ■ place the sieve with the retained material on the
quired to prevent clogging (blinding) of scale
the screens. ■ tare the scale (if using a triple beam balance, weigh
It also is important that sieves be properly cleaned the sieve and retained material together)
during weighing. Literature from Tyler (1976) recom- ■ remove and thoroughly clean the sieve
mends that a soft brass wire brush be used to clean ■ weigh back the empty sieve and record the weight;
sieves coarser than 100 mesh (USA Number 100) and the weight should be negative, but only the value
a nylon bristle brush for sieves finer than 100 mesh. needs to be recorded (if you are using a triple beam
The authors have found that a circular vacuum attach- balance, subtract the difference between the sieve
ment brush also works well for the finer sieves. Exert- with and without material)
ing too much pressure should be avoided because ■ enter the weight values in the appropriate columns
it will cause the screens to sag, and their accuracy will of the spreadsheet
decrease. Tapping the sides of the sieve can be used to
dislodge particles. Equations
It also may be necessary to wash the sieves The average particle size of material retained on a
to remove particles that cannot be removed with sieve is calculated as the geometric mean of the diam-
a brush. Sieves should be washed in a warm, eter openings in two adjacent sieves in the stack (Pfost
soapy water. and Headley, 1976). Equation 1 shows this calculation.
In the feed industry, computer software provides
the easiest method for calculating particle size. Pfost Equation 1
and Headley (1976) have described equations that can di = (du x do)0.5
be used to calculate dgw, Sgw, surface area, and particles
per gram based upon a log-normal distribution of di = diameter of ith sieve in the stack
du = diameter opening through which particles will pass
ground grain samples. (sieve proceeding ith)
The authors have created a program for particle do = diameter opening through which particles will not pass
size analysis using a spreadsheet (see Case Study). (ith sieve)
This program is based upon the same sieve set used by
Pfost and Headley, but it eliminates the first two sieves Because it is not practical to count each particle
in the series. The program identifies the sieves using individually and calculate an average, the average
the USA Number, since the USA series is specified particle size can be calculated on a weight basis. This
by the ISO for international publication. The spread- can be done with the following equation.
sheet program also includes a graph of the distribution.
Equation 2
Steps in Particle Size Analysis 3 (Wi log di)
The first step in particle size analysis is to obtain a dgw = log–1 [ ]
representative sample. A 100-gram sample is recom- 3 Wi
mended when using a full stack of sieves to avoid ac-
cumulation of more than 20 grams over any one sieve. The standard deviation can be calculated as
Procedures for collecting and splitting down a repre- follows:
sentative sample are describe in the K-State Research
 3

Equation 3 Table 2. Comparison of the RoTap and portable sieve shakers using a full
–1
3 Wi (log di –log dgw) 2 0.5 stack and a short stack of sieves
Sgw = log [ ]
3 Wi Average Standard
Particle Size Deviation
The number of particles per gram and amount sur- (Dgw) Microns (Sgw)
face area can be calculated from the dgw and Sgw. This Sample 1
RoTap
information can be used by an animal nutritionist in Full Stack 461 2.29
determining the rate of digestibility or by a process Short Stack 421 2.55
engineer to calculate grinding efficiency in terms of Portable
the surface area created per unit of input (Behnke, Full Stack 480 2.16
1985). For these calculations, the shape factors βs and Short Stack 417 2.52
βv are assumed to be 6 and 1 respectively (Pfost and Sample 2
RoTap
Headley, 1976) for a cube. The specific weight is as- Full Stack 920 1.80
sumed to be 1.320 grams per cubic centimeter. Since Short Stack 897 2.00
the specific weight is expressed in grams per cubic Portable
centimeter, it is necessary to convert the dgw to centi- Full Stack 925 1.76
meters. This can be done by multiplying by 0.0001. Short Stack 900 1.94

Equation 4 Case Study

Particles/gram = l exp (4.5 ln Sgw – 3 ln dgw)
2
Appendix A shows an Excel spreadsheet that can
ρβv be used to calculate particle size. The first column
identifies the screen number. The second column re-
Equation 5 fers to the diameter opening of the sieves in microns.
SA (cm2/gram) = βs exp (0.5 ln S – ln d )
2 In the third column, the amount of feed or ground
gw gw
ρβv grain retained over each sieve is recorded. The “%”
and “% less than” columns are not necessary for the
βs = shape factor for calculating surface area of calculations, but are useful when graphing. The “%” is
particles used to create the histogram, and the “% less than” can
βv = shape factor for calculating volume of particles be used when graphing using probability paper. The
ρ = specific weight of material “log dia” column represents the log transformation of
the average particle size retained over each sieve
(Equation 1). The “wt*log dia” and “wt(log dia – log
Equipment Comparison dgw)2” columns contain the values whose summation
A study was conducted to compare the RoTap per- are used to calculate dgw (Equation 2) and Sgw (Equa-
formance to the portable shaker performance and a full tion 3), respectively. The “log dia – log dgw” is an in-
set of sieves to a short stack of sieves (USA Numbers termediate step for calculating the last column.
16, 30, 50, 100, 200, and a pan). The intent of this Feed manufacturers are generally only interested in
study was to explore the feasibility of using a less the dgw and Sgw. The recommended dgw for swine diets
expensive option compared to the standard 14 sieves is 600 to 800 microns (MF-2050). The Sgw is the stan-
described in the official ASAE procedure for particle dard deviation. It is a measurement of the particle size
size evaluation. We used 50-gram samples to avoid variation about the average. Most feed samples will
accumulations of more than 20 grams over any one have a Sgw ranging from 2.0 to 2.4. The best possible
sieve. Table 2 presents the results of this study. Sgw is 1.0. By dividing and multiplying the dgw by the
Study results indicated that the portable shaker Sgw, a range into which 68 percent of the particles will
produced similar results to the RoTap when using ei- fall can be calculated. In our example, dgw = 754 mi-
ther stack of sieves. Reducing the number of sieves crons and Sgw = 2.23. Therefore, the range into which
from 13 to five resulted in particle size estimates that 68 percent of the particles will fall is 338 to 1681 mi-
were approximately 20 to 40 and 25 to 60 microns less crons.
when using the RoTap and portable shaker, respec-
tively. The standard deviation was approximately 0.2
to 0.3 points higher when using the short stack.
 4

Suppliers References
Table 3 lists the required equipment and suppliers ASAE, 1993. Method of determining and expressing
and the approximate costs of the equipment for par- fineness of feed materials by sieving. ASAE Stan-
ticle size analysis. dard ASAE S319.2.
Behnke, K. 1985. Measuring and defining particle size
Table 3. Equipment, Suppliers, and Prices for Particle Size Analysis of feedstuffs. In: First International Symposium on
Equipment SupplierA PriceB Particle Size Reduction in the Feed Industry. Kan-
RoTap Sieve Fisher, $1,500
sas State University, Manhattan, KS.
Shaker Seedburo MF-2036. 2002. Sampling: Proceedures forFeed. Kan-
Tyler Portable Fisher, $540 sas State University Agricultural Experiment Sta-
Shaker Seedburo tion and Cooperative Extension Service. Manhattan,
Scale KS.
Balance Fisher, $160 MF-2050. 1995. The Effects of Diet Particle Size on
Electronic Seedburo $850 Animal Performance. Kansas State University Agri-
Sieves (each) Fisher, $50 cultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Exten-
Seedburo
sion Service. Manhattan, KS.
Sieve Cleaners (each) H.R. Williams $5
Pfost, H. and V. Headley. 1976. Methods of determin-
Brass Sieve Brush Fisher $12
ing and expressing particle size. In: H. Pfost (ed),
Nylon Sieve Brush Fisher $10
Feed Manufacturing Technology II - Appendix C.
Software Kansas State $20
Am. Feed Manufacturers Assoc., Arlington, VA.
A
These are suppliers known to the authors and there could be
Tyler Industrial Products. 1976. Handbook 53: Testing
others. The authors have no preference of suppliers. sieves and their uses. W.S. Tyler, Inc. Mentor, OH.
B
Prices are approximate.

■ Fisher Scientific
711 Forbes Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15219-9919
1-800-776-7000
■ Seedburo Equipment Company
1022 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60607-2990
1-800-284-5779
■ H.R. Williams Mill Supply Co.
208 West 19th Street
Kansas City, MO 64108
(816) 471-1511
 5

Appendix A
Particle Size Analysis
Material:
Date:
U.S. Micron Wt. %less log wt*log log dia – wt(log dia –
Sieve Size grams % than dia dia log dgw log Dgw)2
6 3360 1.60 1.62 98.38 3.601 5.762 0.724 0.839
8 2380 3.20 3.24 95.15 3.451 11.045 0.574 1.055
12 1680 7.90 7.99 87.16 3.301 26.077 0.424 1.418
16 1191 19.40 19.62 67.54 3.151 61.122 0.273 1.450
20 841 18.00 18.20 49.34 3.000 54.006 0.123 0.273
30 594 15.00 15.17 34.18 2.849 42.739 –0.028 0.012
40 420 11.60 11.73 22.45 2.699 31.303 –0.179 0.370
50 297 8.00 8.09 14.36 2.548 20.384 –0.329 0.867
70 212 6.60 6.67 7.68 2.400 15.837 –0.478 1.506
100 150 3.40 3.44 4.25 2.251 7.654 –0.626 1.332
140 103 3.20 3.24 1.01 2.094 6.702 –0.783 1.961
200 73 0.90 0.91 0.10 1.938 1.744 –0.939 0.794
270 53 0.10 0.10 –0.00 1.794 0.179 –1.083 0.117
Pan 37 0.00 0.00 –0.00 1.646 0.000 –1.231 0.000
Summation 98.90 100.00 284.556 11.995

Particle Size, dgw 754 Surface Area (cm2/gram) 83.2

Standard Dev., Sgw 2.23 Particles/gram 31953

25.00
% Over Sieve

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

0.00
3360 1680 841 420 212 103 53
Sieve Opening (microns)
 6

This, and other information, is available

from the Department of Grain Science at
www.oznet.ksu.edu/grsiext,
or by contacting Tim Herrman,
Extension State Leader
E-mail: tjh@wheat.ksu.edu
Telephone: (785) 532-4080

Brand names appearing in this publication are for product identification purposes only. No endorsement is intended,
nor is criticism implied of similar products not mentioned.
Publications from Kansas State University are available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.oznet.ksu.edu

Contents of this publication may be freely reproduced for educational purposes. All other rights reserved. In each case, credit Scott Baker and
Tim Herrman, Evaluating Particle Size, Kansas State University, May 2002.

Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service
MF-2051 May 2002
It is the policy of Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service that all persons shall have equal opportunity and
access to its educational programs, services, activities, and materials without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age or disability. Kansas State
University is an equal opportunity organization. Issued in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, as amended. Kansas
State University, County Extension Councils, Extension Districts, and United States Department of Agriculture Cooperating, Marc A. Johnson, Director.