Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Kibble Shape and its Effect on Feline Palatability Kristopher Figge Senior Scientist, Technical Services Mgr. AFB International.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Kibble Shape and its Effect on Feline Palatability Kristopher Figge Senior Scientist, Technical Services Mgr. AFB International."— Presentation transcript:

1 Kibble Shape and its Effect on Feline Palatability Kristopher Figge Senior Scientist, Technical Services Mgr. AFB International

2 Presentation Layout Introduction Experimental design Definitions & Results Other related topics Comments / discussion

3 General Items about Cats As obligate carnivores, will choose higher protein diets over lower protein diets. More likely than dogs to avoid spoilage aromas. Lack lateral jaw movement; hence, texture and size are very important. Lack molars, and cannot grind their food. Acidification helps salivation. Surface texture plays a role in palatability. – Different breeds of cats pick up their food differently with their tongue. In PAL testing, cats tend to consume food from both bowls. First choice is not necessarily linked to total consumption. Feeding time is generally 15 hours.

4 Factors Affecting Feline PAL Raw Materials (Fats, oils, meals, palatants, etc.) Texture / Size / Shape Processing

5 Hypothesis Kibble shape affects the PAL of dry cat food(s).

6 Experimental Design Standard / fixed reference points: – A finely ground (#3) 34/13, grain-based meal – Same lot of meal used for all shapes – All variables coated with the same components Fat: 5.0% poultry fat Palatant: 1.5% dry cat palatant – Same moisture specification: 6.5% - 9.5% – Same density specification: 19 - 24 lbs./ft 3

7 Experimental Design (contd) Variable(s) in the study: – Kibble shapes 1)X Cross / Star 2) Triangle 3)O Flat Disc 4)Cylinder 5)Triangle w/ center hole

8 Experimental Design (contd) What was measured: – Texture a)Max. Loadc) Energy to Break Pt. b)Energy to Yield Pt.d) Toughness – PAL due to kibble shape a)2 bowl, paired comparison test b)25 cats x 2 days c)Same panel of cats was used d)All possible paired tests were done (10)

9 Equipment

10 Results In-process data Kibble shape pictures Texture terms & results PAL data terms & results

11 In-Process Data Moisture:6.5% - 9.5% Bulk Density:19 – 24 lbs. / ft 3 Based on In-Process data, all variables were within target specifications. Shape Moisture (%) Density (lbs./ft 3) Diameter (cm) Thickness (cm) O [Disc]7.4021.130.360.19 X [Cross]8.5922.250.540.18 [Triangle]8.5923.250.450.18 Triangle w/ hole6.9620.000.410.20 Cylinder8.5821.370.320.39

12 Kibble Shape Pictures Uncoated kibble is shown on the top row; comparable commercial products are on the bottom.

13 Texture Analysis Terms Maximum Load – maximum amt. of force necessary to fracture a kibble (measured in kgs of force). Energy to Yield Point – energy required to reach a point where kibble begins to fracture (measured in graminch). Energy to Break Point – energy required to reach a point where kibble finally gives way and fractures completely (measured in graminch) Toughness – energy to break point divided by gauge length * kibble width * kibble thickness (measured in g/inch 2 )

14 Texture Analysis Measurements done with an Instron Texture Analyzer #3342 and Cherry Pitter Needle probe Shape Max. Load (kg-Force) Energy to Yield Pt. (gram-inch) Energy to Break Pt. (gram-inch) Toughness (g/inch 2 ) O [Disc] 5.3941.4656.85227.39 X [Cross] 8.0851.3969.06276.23 [Triangle] 7.0663.79100.10400.41 Triangle w/ hole 2.4814.0720.5482.15 Cylinder 4.2361.99145.45626.90

15 Maximum Load

16 Energy to Yield Point

17 Energy to Break Point

18 Toughness

19 Texture Summary The Triangle w/ hole had the lowest texture numbers. The Cylinder had the highest scores in all categories except maximum load. The O [Disc] had the second lowest texture numbers. The X [Cross] scored in the middle except for max. load where it had the highest number. The [Triangle] had the second highest scores.

20 PAL Data Interpretation Consumption Ratio (CR): Consumed A / Consumed B Intake Ratio (IR-A): Consumed A (Consumed A + Consumed B) First Choice (FC-A): % Animals eating out of Bowl A first Preference: Outside the range of 0.45-0.55 IR p-Value (p): Probability that A is significantly different from B (want < 0.05 = 95% confidence level)

21 O [Discs] Ration ARation BIR-ACRFC-APREFp-Value X [Cross / Star]0.571.3A0.5710A : 3B0.013 [Triangle]0.471.0B0.557A : 9B0.222 Cylinder0.641.9A0.3912A : 2B0.002 Triangle w/ hole0.662.0A0.5612A : 1B0.000 O > X, Cylinder & Triangle-hole O =

22 X [Cross / Star] Ration ARation BIR-ACRFC-APREFp-Value [Triangle]0.611.5A0.5514A : 5B0.007 O [Disc]0.431.3B0.433A : 10B0.013 Cylinder0.631.7A0.5217A : 5B0.000 Triangle w/ hole0.561.3A0.5012A : 6B0.078 X > Cylinder, Triangle & Triangle-hole X < Disc

23 [Triangle] Ration ARation BIR-ACRFC-APREFp-Value X [Cross / Star]0.391.5B0.455A : 14B0.007 O [Disc]0.531.0A0.459A : 7B0.222 Cylinder0.711.5A0.4112A : 3B0.086 Triangle w/ hole0.511.0B0.5710A : 9B0.408 > Cylinder = Disc & Triangle-hole < X

24 Triangle w/ Hole Ration ARation BIR-ACRFC-APREFp-Value X [Cross / Star]0.441.3B0.506A : 12B0.078 [Triangle]0.491.0A0.439A : 10B0.408 O [Disc]0.342.0B0.441A : 12B0.000 Cylinder0.611.6A0.6111A : 5B0.028 Triangle-hole < O Triangle-hole > Cylinder Triangle-hole = & X

25 Cylinder Ration ARation BIR-ACRFC-APREFp-Value X [Cross / Star]0.371.7B0.485A : 17B0.000 [Triangle]0.291.5B0.593A : 12B0.086 O [Disc]0.361.9B0.612A : 12B0.002 Triangle w/ hole0.391.6B0.395A : 11B0.028 Cylinder lost to the other (4) shapes

26 Conclusions Kibble shape was the primary driver for PAL - texture across a given range did not drive PAL. – Triangle-hole had the lowest texture scores, but few cats preferred this shape. – The O [Disc] had mid-range texture scores and was the most preferred shape. – The Cylinder was outside the range and was least preferred. – The X [Cross] had slightly more favorable texture scores than the cylinder; however, its PAL was closer to the O [Disc] – The [Triangle] had higher texture scores than the O [Disc] but similar PAL

27 Product Considerations The O and the X had the best overall PAL – Head-to-head, the O was better. Operations Implications The O is easier to extrude Less potential for die blockage drag = throughput The O has lower tooling costs Product Implications The O is more durable The O had less fines The O has more surface area

28 References Royal Canin Almond 11 / Persian cat study

29 Thank You! Kristopher Figge AFB International Sr. Scientist; Tech. Service Mgr. Tel: (636) 634-4142 Fax:(636) 634-4644 Other Contributors: Pat Moeller, PhD Amy McCarthy, PhD Cheryl Murphy Bola Oladipupo, DA

Download ppt "Kibble Shape and its Effect on Feline Palatability Kristopher Figge Senior Scientist, Technical Services Mgr. AFB International."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google