Kibble Shape and its Effect on

Feline Palatability

Kristopher Figge
Senior Scientist, Technical Services Mgr.
AFB International

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

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.

Factors Affecting Feline PAL

Raw Materials
(Fats, oils, meals, palatants, etc.)

Texture / Size /
Shape

Processing

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

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./ft3

Experimental Design (contd)

Variable(s) in the study:

Kibble shapes
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)

X Cross / Star
Triangle
O Flat Disc
Cylinder
Triangle w/ center hole

Experimental Design (contd)

What was measured:

Texture
a) Max. Load
b) Energy to Yield Pt.

c) Energy to Break Pt.

d) Toughness

PAL due to kibble shape

a)
b)
c)
d)

2 bowl, paired comparison test

25 cats x 2 days
Same panel of cats was used
All possible paired tests were done (10)

Equipment

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

In-Process Data
Shape

Moisture
(%)

Density
(lbs./ft3)

Diameter
(cm)

Thickness
(cm)

O [Disc]

7.40

21.13

0.36

0.19

X [Cross]

8.59

22.25

0.54

0.18

[Triangle]

8.59

23.25

0.45

0.18

Triangle w/ hole

6.96

20.00

0.41

0.20

Cylinder

8.58

21.37

0.32

0.39

Moisture:
6.5% - 9.5%
Bulk Density:
19 24 lbs. / ft3
Based on In-Process data, all variables were within target
specifications.

Kibble Shape Pictures

Uncoated kibble is shown on the top row; comparable commercial products are on the bottom.

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/inch2)

Texture Analysis

Shape

Max. Load
(kg-Force)

Energy to Yield Pt.

(gram-inch)

Energy to Break Pt.

(gram-inch)

Toughness
(g/inch2)

O [Disc]

5.39

41.46

56.85

227.39

X [Cross]

8.08

51.39

69.06

276.23

[Triangle]

7.06

63.79

100.10

400.41

Triangle w/ hole

2.48

14.07

20.54

82.15

Cylinder

4.23

61.99

145.45

626.90

Measurements done with an Instron Texture Analyzer

#3342 and Cherry Pitter Needle probe

Maximum Load
9

8.08
8

7.06
7

kg-Force

5.39
5

4.23
4

2.48

"O" [Disc]

"X" [Cross]

"" [Triangle]

Triangle w/
hole

Cylinder

Energy to Yield Point

Energy to Break Point

Toughness

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.

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)

O [Discs]
Ration A

Ration B

IR-A

CR

FC-A

PREF

p-Value

X [Cross / Star]

0.57

1.3A

0.57

10A : 3B

0.013

[Triangle]

0.47

1.0B

0.55

7A : 9B

0.222

Cylinder

0.64

1.9A

0.39

12A : 2B

0.002

Triangle w/ hole

0.66

2.0A

0.56

12A : 1B

0.000

O > X, Cylinder & Triangle-hole

O =

X [Cross / Star]
Ration A

Ration B

IR-A

CR

FC-A

PREF

p-Value

[Triangle]

0.61

1.5A

0.55

14A : 5B

0.007

O [Disc]

0.43

1.3B

0.43

3A : 10B

0.013

Cylinder

0.63

1.7A

0.52

17A : 5B

0.000

Triangle w/ hole

0.56

1.3A

0.50

12A : 6B

0.078

X > Cylinder, Triangle & Trianglehole

X < Disc

 [Triangle]
Ration A

Ration B

IR-A

CR

FC-A

PREF

p-Value

X [Cross / Star]

0.39

1.5B

0.45

5A : 14B

0.007

O [Disc]

0.53

1.0A

0.45

9A : 7B

0.222

Cylinder

0.71

1.5A

0.41

12A : 3B

0.086

Triangle w/ hole

0.51

1.0B

0.57

10A : 9B

0.408

> Cylinder

= Disc & Triangle-hole

< X

Triangle w/ Hole
Ration A

Ration B

IR-A

CR

FC-A

PREF

p-Value

X [Cross / Star]

0.44

1.3B

0.50

6A : 12B

0.078

[Triangle]

0.49

1.0A

0.43

9A : 10B

0.408

O [Disc]

0.34

2.0B

0.44

1A : 12B

0.000

Cylinder

0.61

1.6A

0.61

11A : 5B

0.028

Triangle-hole < O

Triangle-hole > Cylinder

Triangle-hole = & X

Cylinder
Ration A

Ration B

IR-A

CR

FC-A

PREF

p-Value

X [Cross / Star]

0.37

1.7B

0.48

5A : 17B

0.000

[Triangle]

0.29

1.5B

0.59

3A : 12B

0.086

O [Disc]

0.36

1.9B

0.61

2A : 12B

0.002

Triangle w/ hole

0.39

1.6B

0.39

5A : 11B

0.028

Cylinder lost to the other (4)

shapes

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

Product Considerations
The O and the X had the best overall PAL
Head-to-head, the O was better.
Operations Implications

Product Implications

The O is easier to extrude

The O is more durable

Less potential for die blockage

The O had less fines

drag = throughput

The O has more surface area

The O has lower tooling costs

References
Royal Canin Almond 11 / Persian cat study

Thank You!
Kristopher Figge

Other Contributors:

AFB International
Sr. Scientist; Tech. Service Mgr.

Pat Moeller, PhD

Amy McCarthy, PhD
Cheryl Murphy
Bola Oladipupo, DA

Tel:
(636) 634-4142
Fax:(636) 634-4644
Email:
kfigge@afbinternational.com