Pulverized ingredients put pet food processing in focus
Bottom line
A consumer-facing post from Truth about Pet Food is drawing attention to a largely invisible part of kibble manufacturing: many pet food ingredients aren’t simply “ground,” but processed into very fine powders through pulverization before extrusion. In her April 7, 2026, article, Susan Thixton argues that this distinction matters because pulverization is a more intensive physical process than conventional grinding, even though it may not be obvious to pet parents reading a label. AAFCO’s current official feed terms define “powder, powdered” as pulverizing a feed or feed ingredient into fine or very small particle size, and list “pulverized, pulverizing” as a process term tied to grinding. FDA, meanwhile, continues to oversee animal food ingredients through its Center for Veterinary Medicine and its animal food ingredient review pathways. (truthaboutpetfood.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the takeaway isn’t that pulverized ingredients are inherently unsafe, but that processing intensity can shape how pet foods are formulated, manufactured, and discussed with pet parents. Industry sources note that fine particle size supports uniform mixing, hydration, cooking, and extrusion performance, which can improve consistency in finished diets. At the same time, equipment manufacturers and processing experts have noted that size reduction and friction can generate heat, raising questions about nutrient stability in some ingredients. That leaves room for a more nuanced clinical conversation: not all “processed” foods are the same, and ingredient form, manufacturing method, digestibility, safety controls, and the finished diet’s nutrient adequacy all matter. (petfoodindustry.com)
What to watch: Watch for whether this discussion stays in the realm of consumer advocacy or prompts broader scrutiny of how processing terms are explained in pet food labeling and veterinary nutrition conversations. (aafco.org)
A new post from Truth about Pet Food is putting a spotlight on a technical but important part of pet food manufacturing: pulverization. In her April 7, 2026, article, Susan Thixton argues that many pet food ingredients are processed beyond ordinary grinding into ultra-fine particles before they ever become kibble, and that pet parents may have little sense of that from the finished product or the label. (truthaboutpetfood.com)
The issue lands in a broader regulatory and industry context where ingredient names, process terms, and safety standards don’t always translate cleanly for consumers. AAFCO requires ingredients used in pet food to comply with recognized definitions or common or usual names, and its official publication includes process descriptors such as “powder, powdered,” defined as pulverizing a feed or feed ingredient into fine or very small particle size. The same publication lists “pulverized, pulverizing” as a process term linked to grinding. FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine remains the federal regulator for animal foods and continues to manage ingredient review through premarket pathways and consultations. (aafco.org)
Thixton’s piece leans on pet food processing market materials and equipment claims to argue that pulverization is not just routine milling, but a more aggressive step designed to create uniform particle size for binding, extrusion, and nutrient distribution. That framing is directionally consistent with trade coverage of extrusion, which describes particle size reduction as a key upstream step in manufacturing dry diets. Pet food processing sources say uniform particle size helps hydration and cooking during extrusion and supports consistency in the final kibble. In other words, the practice she highlights appears real and commonplace, even if the article takes a more skeptical tone than industry sources do. (truthaboutpetfood.com)
Where the article becomes more interpretive is in linking pulverization to “ultra-processed” concerns and possible nutrient loss. Thixton cites a hammer mill manufacturer noting that friction can generate heat that may degrade some heat-sensitive nutrients. That’s plausible as a processing consideration, but the available sources reviewed here don’t show a regulator warning specifically against pulverized ingredients in pet food, nor do they establish that pulverization alone makes a finished diet nutritionally inferior. In fact, some research and trade reporting suggest extrusion and related processing can improve uniformity and, in some contexts, nutrient availability or digestibility, depending on the ingredient matrix and process conditions. (truthaboutpetfood.com)
Industry-facing commentary tends to frame fine grinding as a manufacturing control issue rather than a red flag. PetfoodIndustry has reported that precision in grinding and material handling is increasingly important to extrusion performance, while older technical coverage notes that uniform particle size helps prevent uneven cooking and hard particles in finished food. That doesn’t negate consumer concerns about transparency, but it does suggest the core veterinary question is less “Is pulverized bad?” and more “How does this processing affect nutrient integrity, digestibility, safety, and consistency in the final diet?” (petfoodindustry.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, this story is a reminder that pet parents are paying closer attention not just to ingredient panels, but to how diets are made. That can create tougher exam-room questions about processing, especially as “ultra-processed” language from human nutrition increasingly crosses into pet food discussions. The most useful response will likely be a balanced one: explain that dry pet foods commonly rely on particle size reduction and extrusion for manufacturability and safety, that regulatory oversight focuses on ingredient acceptability and adulteration, and that the clinical priority remains whether a diet is complete and balanced, appropriate for the patient, and supported by quality control. (fda.gov)
There’s also a communication challenge here. Labels generally won’t tell a pet parent much about the degree of size reduction used in processing, and AAFCO’s terminology is technical, not consumer-friendly. As a result, advocacy pieces like this can resonate because they fill an information gap, even when the science is more nuanced than the headline suggests. For clinics, that may be an opportunity to talk more clearly about formulation, processing, digestibility, and what evidence actually supports diet selection. (aafco.org)
What to watch: The next step to watch is whether consumer advocates, regulators, or industry groups push for clearer public explanations of pet food processing terms, especially as scrutiny of ingredient transparency and processing intensity continues to grow. (aafco.org)