Mixing: A Detailed Look at the Factors that Influence Mix Uniformity

Jared R. Froetschner, M.Sc.

Marketing Manager
DSM Nutritional Products, Inc.
Parsippany, NJ

Introduction
Feed manufacturing consists of a series of steps, or processes, in which individual
ingredients are combined into a homogenous mix, further processed into customer
desired forms (coarse dairy rations, pellets, flakes, etc.), and packaged or delivered, again
to the customer specifications.
Some work has been done evaluating the further processing stages as these steps
can directly influence the nutritional performance of the animal. However, very little has
been done regarding the process of ingredient mixing.
Therefore, the purpose of this article will be to discuss the mixing process and the
variables that effect a successful mix. In addition, the measurement of mix uniformity
will be examined in detail.

General Mixing Theory

Mixing is the step in feed manufacturing where the individual ingredients are
combined into their proper ratios and uniformity distributed throughout the entire mass.
In principle, mixing is very simplistic. Essentially, by adding energy to the ingredients
we allow them to disperse into and between each other.
Imagine for a moment a drum that is filled, first, with 50 lbs. of basketballs and
then 10 lbs. of baseballs; for the purposes of this discussion, the size of the baseball is 1/5
the size of the basketball. Our goal is to empty ¼ of the “mix” with the intention of
having equal numbers of baseballs and basketballs.
Is this possible? Using the 1/5 size assumption, theoretically it is possible to
obtain equivalent numbers of baseballs and basketballs in a given sample. However, we
must mix the drum first. If we choose to add the ingredients, and then sample, then
depending on the sample location, we will not meet our goal of equal numbers of
baseballs and basketballs. Therefore, we need to rotate the drum a sufficient number of
times to disperse the baseballs throughout the mix.
While the above analogy is simplistic, it does drive home an important point:
mixing is the most important step in the feed manufacturing process; if the ingredients are
not properly mixed, then the nutritional quality can not be assured.

General Mixer Design

Mixers can be divided into three categories: 1) horizontal; 2) vertical; 3)
TMR/box mixers. Each mixer has advantages/disadvantages.
Horizontal mixers – horizontal mixers (Figure 1) consist of a horizontal tub that
contains a shaft, through the center, with the mixing elements. The center shaft is driven
by a flywheel connected to a drive motor via a chain or belt drive. In addition, the drive
motor shaft is stepped down via a gear reducer.
 The mixing
elements generally
consist of a paddle or
ribbon configuration.
The use of a paddle vs. a
ribbon configuration is a
source of much debate;
however, in general, the
industry has chosen to
move toward a ribbon
configuration. Paddle
configurations were first
utilized in horizontal
mixers. The paddle
concept utilizes a series
of paddles connected
perpendicular to the
center shaft via a series of secondary shafts. The paddles essentially lift and fold the
ingredients, similar to a shovel lifting a scoop out of a sand pile.
In contrast, the ribbon configuration utilizes an Archimedean screw concept in
which a continuous ribbon is connected to the center shaft. The continuous ribbon
essentially mixes the feed ingredients by pushing/pulling them throughout the length of
the mixer.
By far, the ribbon design is
more effective than the paddle design.
This is because the ribbon design
encourages co-mingling of the
ingredients with each other, across the
entire batch. In contrast, the paddle
mixer only encourages co-mingling in
the locus of the paddle itself; consequently, paddle mixers are
notorious for dead spots. Dead spots are locations in the mixer in which no mixing
occurs due to a lack of mixing action. This propensity for dead spots requires some
modifications to the mixing procedure (Mix Cycle/Time section) to account for the
reduced mixing action.
Vertical mixers – vertical mixers are quickly disappearing from the feed mill;
however, they are still very common in on-farm feed manufacturing operations. This is
due, primarily, to their reduced cost; however, because of their design, vertical mixers do
fit nicely into an on-farm feed scenario.
Vertical mixers have changed to some extent over the course of the years. Much
of this change has been driven by change in animal feeding operations. Twenty years
ago, on-farm feed manufacturing was mainly centered on medium to large independent
swine operations. However, with the vertical integration of the swine industry much of
the on-farm feed manufacturing has shifted towards the medium to large independent
dairyman.
 The early designs of vertical mixers consisted of a vertical mixing tub. The
mixing element consisted of one or two vertical screws that lifted the feed from the
bottom to the top of the mixer. When the feed reached the top, it spilled over and was
worked back through the center auger configuration. In concept, the mixing action is
effective and it is capable of producing a homogenous mix; however, because of the slow
mixing action, the amount of time required to achieve a homogenous mix is considerable
longer (up to 5x) than the horizontal ribbon design.
The next generation of vertical mixers, primarily designed for the dairy, utilizes
the same center auger concept, but also includes knife blades on the auger flightings to
produce some degree of particle size reduction in the coarse, roughage fraction.

TMR mixer - The final type of mixer that is

commonly utilized in the United States is a TMR
mixer. While the argument can be made that the next generation of vertical mixers are
TMR mixers, the traditional TMR mixer is more of a truck mounted horizontal mixer.
The mixing elements in these mixers consist of two horizontal, intermeshing augers
mounted along one of the sides of the box. Off-set from the center of the box is a
horizontal shaft with three horizontal bars. This type of mixer is very common in
feedyard settings and is also becoming more prevalent in dairy operations (commodity
barn and on-farm manufacturing). While the

vertical mixer and the TMR mixer both utilize different principles of action, they both
serve a common purpose: the efficient mixing of rations that contain high levels of
coarse forage. Traditional ribbon or paddle horizontal mixers are not that effective at
diets that contain roughage. This is evidenced by the hesitancy to include whole
cottonseed in the feed manufacturing process. Instead, horizontal ribbon and paddle
mixers are designed to mix ingredients with a fairly similar particle size, quickly and
efficiently.
On the other hand, vertical and TMR mixers are designed to blend coarse forage
particles with other coarse ingredients, such as beet pulp and whole cottonseed. Keeping
this concept in mind, it is very easy to see that the TMR or vertical mixer is not designed
to effectively mix ingredients with a very small particle size or are included in very small
proportions in the ration. Therefore, the concept of pre-mixing some ingredients provides
the necessary transition between horizontal feed mixing and on-farm ration mixing.

Effect of Mixer Components on Mixing

Mixers are mechanical devices. Therefore, wear is associated with mixers and
attention should be paid to the physical components of the mixer. These components
include: mixing elements, tub liner, liquid addition ports, and the discharge gate.
Mixing elements – the heart and soul of horizontal mixers (or any mixer for that
matter) are the mixing elements. The mixing elements consist of a center support/drive
shaft and the actual components that provide the mixing action. In general, these
components are either ribbons or paddles.
Ribbons – ribbons are more resistant to wear than paddles, since the mixing load
is distributed evenly across then entire circumference of the ribbon. However, this
resistance to wear is also one of the key checkpoints for ribbon mixers in that they should
be inspected on a monthly basis to determine wear patterns. Ribbons are also sensitive to
broken flighting concerns, especially with high mineral or high liquid loads. Because of
their design, the leading edge of the ribbon stays fairly clean, but the backside of the
ribbon and the center shaft need to be cleaned on a frequent basis; especially if liquids are
added to the mixer.
Paddles – paddles are very sensitive to wear. The increased propensity for wear is
due to the constant and direct contact of the individual paddle amongst the feed. In
contrast, a ribbon varies contact due to constant rotation; however, a paddle does not have
that luxury and is therefore in constant contact with abrasive feed particles. Therefore, a
paddle mixer should be inspected monthly to determine which paddles are worn and
require replacement. The advantage of a paddle mixer is that the mixing elements can be
changed on an individual basis, in contrast to the ribbon mixer, which requires an entire
ribbon change.
The paddles have several wear points of concern; these wear points will vary by
make and model of mixer, however, for the purposes of this discussion, the focus will be
on Marion paddle mixers. The attached photo displays the backside of a Marion paddle.
The points of concern on this paddle are
the tips (red arrows) and the width of the
paddle from the top to the bottom, in the
center (green arrow). In general, the
Marion paddle will demonstrate wear on
the right tip first; once this tip is worn,
the center width (green arrow) will begin
to wear. This wear point is the most
significant as it affects the distance of
the paddle from the mixer shell. The
gap between the mixing element and the mixer shell is the key determinant in wear of a
mixing element; if the gap is excessive (x > ½”), mix quality will be affected
substantially. While the center width is wearing, the edge points also begin to wear.
Consequently, the paddle begins to take on a more defined parabolic shape along the top,
leading edge. When this occurs, the gap between the shell and the mixer paddle becomes
uneven, which leads to poor mixer performance and feed buildup. Table One displays a
wear point analysis of the actual mixer paddles from the mixer in the previous picture.

Table 1. Marion paddle mixer paddle analysis

Analysis Date
Blade New May Septembera

90°
Width, in. 6.500 6.000 6.375
Length, in. 18.625 18.500 18.375
Shell clearance, in. .25 .500 1.250
180°
Width, in. 6.500 6.500 6.375
Length, in. 18.625 16.750 18.250
Shell clearance, in. .25 .190 .281
270°
Width, in. 6.500 6.250 6.500
Length, in. 18.625 18.250 18.500
Shell clearance, in. .25 .500 .250
a
Blades were changed the first of June, 2003.

The shell clearance category will be dealt with at a later point, as there are other
concerns/solutions to this problem. The key to any analysis is to examine a new paddle
alongside the current paddles being examined. In this case, three paddles were examined
and two salient points emerge: the wear is occurring along the width transversal and the
length as well. Therefore, the take home point here is that even though the width is still
within specification, if the length is significantly shorter than the new paddle, then the
paddle should be changed. Again, the wear on this design of paddle occurs in two places
and the paddle should be analyzed in this context.
Analysis of this mixer revealed that the length dimension (horizontal, point-to-
point) was the cause of the most concern, especially in the paddle in the 180° position.
Consequently, based on the excessive build-up in the mixer and the dimensional analysis,
it was suggested that the entire paddle configuration be changed to improve mixer
performance.
Mixing Element/Mixer Shell Clearance – going hand-in-hand with the blade
analysis is the gap between the mixer shell and the mixing element. In this discussion,
the differentiation between paddle vs. ribbon can be ignored, as the only difference is the
method of adjustment. A good rule of thumb is that when the gap between the shell and
the mixing element exceeds ¼”, then the mixing element should be adjusted to decrease
this gap. For ribbon mixers, this is accomplished by removing individual sheaves in the
main shaft bearing mount. For paddle mixers, the individual paddle is moved closer to
the shell by adjusting the location of the paddle bolt in relation to the support shaft; all
paddles have an oblong bolt hole that allows for some degree of adjustment, closer or
further from the mixer shell. It is important to note that whenever adjustments are made
to the ribbon or paddle, care should be given to the uniformity of the mixer shell or any
deformations in the center shaft. Consequently, this adjustment should be undertaken by
competent maintenance personnel who know the physical condition of the entire mixer.
If this is ignored, severe damage to the mixer can occur as metal-to-metal contact will
ensue.
Mixer tub liner – the mixer tub liner should be inspected every 6 months for signs
of excessive wear. In general, the warning signs are ridges and valleys that occur with
improperly adjusted ribbons and paddles. This occurs primarily by ignoring the gap
between the mixing elements and the tub. When the gap becomes too excessive, the feed
flow pattern becomes layered. When this occurs, any movement of the bottom feed layer
is due to friction imparted by the mixing element. Over time, this excessive friction will
cause wear patterns to develop in the tub surface, which will increase the incidence of
wear. Similar to a pellet mill door, the uneven wear of a mixer liner is an expensive
problem that can be, to a large extent, minimized by routine preventative maintenance.
Liquid addition – in today’s feed
manufacturing environment, liquids are
routinely added to the mix. These
liquids can include: water, molasses, fat,
and liquid amino acid sources. Proper
maintenance/design of the liquid
addition system is key, as ignorance of
the issues can lead to excessive build-up,
ingredient carry-over, and increased
mixer liner wear. The attached picture
demonstrates this issue very well. The
liquid addition system for this mixer consisted of two copper pipes with a crimped
discharge end. This “arrangement” was responsible for excessive build-up along the
walls; furthermore, the actual amount of liquid that was added to the mixer could not be
verified, as it was strongly suspected that a portion of the liquid did not make it to the
feed, but was instead entrained in the build-up. Consequently, some changes to the
addition system were required to facilitate uniform liquid application. One change that
can be attempted would be to fit the addition line with a spray nozzle to facilitate some
degree of backpressure in an attempt to get the liquid away from the side of the mixer
walls. In addition, the use of the spray nozzles would allow for a pattern to be applied to
the stream, which would facilitate more uniform liquid distribution throughout the mix.
Another issue with this liquid addition system was the use of copper piping. The
use of copper piping with animal fat is strongly discouraged, as copper will react with the
fat and cause rapidly accelerated oxidation of the fat, which can lead to off-flavors. This
is especially important in swine diets, as pigs are very sensitive to these off-flavors.
 Discharge gate – the most
overlooked and ignored component of the
mixer is the discharge. Proper maintenance
and function of the discharge is essential to
insuring that all ingredients have an equal
opportunity to co-mingle with one another.
Mixer discharges can be classified in two
categories: gate and drop bottom. Gate discharges are essentially comprised of a port
installed in the bottom of the mixer that typically has a movable slide installed over the
mouth of the port. When the mix cycle is complete, the gate is opened (via pneumatic or
hydraulic means, primarily) and the feed is discharged into a conveyor below the mixer.
In contrast, drop bottom discharges are composed of two doors that also function
as the mixer tub liner. When the mix cycle is complete, the doors are opened and the
entire batch of feed is dropped into a surge bin installed between the mixer and the take-
away conveyor.
From an efficiency stand-point, drop bottom discharges are the most efficient and
allow for maximization of the mix cycle. However, the drop bottom design is also more
prone to the one major concern with the discharge: ingredient leakage. One of the issues
that will be dealt with in more detail is density of the individual ingredients. For this
discussion, however, it is important to realize that the ingredients in the mix have a wide
range of bulk densities. As a result, heavier ingredients have a tendency to settle during
the mixing cycle, compared to the lighter ingredients (cobalt carbonate vs. wheat midds).
Because of the difference in ingredient densities, there is a propensity for greater density
ingredients to settle towards the bottom of the mix, especially if the mixing elements are
not functioning as designed. If the discharge gate is completely closed, or if gaps exist
along the run of the drop bottom discharge, ingredient leakage can occur. Therefore,
some attention must be paid to ensure that when the discharge gate/doors are closed, that
the seal is tight and ingredient leakage is not occurring.

Influence of Ingredient Characteristics on the Mixing Process

Previously, mixing was compared to an analogy using basketballs and baseballs.
This analogy is a great launching point for a discussion concerning ingredients and their
effect on the mixing process. While the nutritional characteristics of ingredients is
always a good discussion issue, the purpose of this discussion is to examine the physical
characteristics of the ingredients, as these characteristics primarily effect the mixing
process; of interest in this discussion is ingredient density, particle size, and particle
count.
Ingredient density – a simplistic definition of bulk density is the quantity of a
given ingredient that can fit into a given space. For example, corn has a density of 56
pound per bushel; therefore, 56 pounds of corn will fit into a leveled, bushel basket.
The influence of ingredient density on the mixing process must be taken into
account. Mixers, by nature, are volumetric; consequently, the density of the ingredients
plays a critical role in regard to mixer performance. It is common industry practice to
refer to a mixer’s capacity in terms of weight; however, this practice can be very
misleading and ignores the issue of degree of fill in the mixing volume.
 If ingredient density is ignored, then the probability of overfilling or underfilling
the mixer is a distinct possibility. From a process standpoint, the issue of over- or
underfilling results in the same problem: poor mixing element performance due to
excessive or minimal degree of fill.
From the commercial feed manufacturing perspective, overfilling is more
common. This is due to the use of wheat midds and other “fluffy” ingredients as primary
components of the mix. If the density of the “mix” is ignored, then it is possible for the
very light ingredients to render the mixing elements useless as they cannot efficiently
move the bulky mass in the normal mixing pattern. Instead, the top portion remains
motionless while the lower regions of the mix follow the standard mixing pattern.
Conversely, when the ingredient density is very heavy (e.g. mineral mixes), the
required batch weight may not fill enough space in the mixer for the mixer elements to do
an effective job of mixing the ingredients.
In general, a couple of rules of thumb: for light fluffy mixes (density < 37.5
lbs/bu), adjust the batch weight to achieve a degree of fill of no more than 65%; for very
dense products (density > 65 lbs/bu), do not attempt to mix if your degree of fill is less
than 30%. This last point is very critical. Occasionally, these mixes are attempted by
adjusting the weight to achieve the desired degree of fill. This is not wise as the amount
of weight required for very dense mixes may be greater than the load allowed on the
mixer shaft.
Particle size / particle count – a discussion on mixing without considering particle
size would be incomplete. Particle size is key in this discussion due to that fact that most
of the ingredients in traditional feed manufacturing have undergone some degree of
particle size modification.
Particle size, in regard to mixing, can be either smaller or larger than the
beginning substrate. However, for purposes of this discussion, it is assumed that the
particles will be made smaller than the substrate.
Reducing particle size is accomplished through grinding. The grinding process
relies on either a hammermill or a roller mill to take the original particle and reduce it to
the desired particle size. When we reduce the particle size, it is of definite interest to the
mixing process to quantify the change due to grinding. This has largely been ignored in
the literature except for isolated references with no attached data.
At this point, it becomes necessary to discuss particle size analysis, to some
degree. Currently, there are two widely used techniques for particle size analysis: sieve
analysis and laser diffraction. Laser diffraction is more common in the chemical and
pharmaceutical industries, as this tool is very effective at quantifying particle size of
liquids and other dispersants necessary for emulsions and chemical solutions. However,
laser diffraction is finding a home in the dry chemical field in regard to paint dispersants
and other particle size dependent processes. Laser diffraction truly excels with
ingredients that have a very uniform particle size distribution. If the distribution is fairly
uniform, the resolution is down to the .1 μm (.0001 mm) range.
In the feed industry, sieve analysis is the method of choice. Sieve analysis relies
on the quantity of a given sample that is retained on the top of a selection of screens. The
benefit of this analysis is that it is robust enough to deal with the fairly non-uniform
particle distributions found in animal feed manufacturing. Furthermore, a sieve analysis
allows the user to define the screen sizes that are important in their process. The
drawback to sieve analysis is that the screens only provide a range of particle sizes upon
which to quantify the particle size distribution.
To contend with the problem of the non-
uniform distribution and the sieve screen range
issue, Pfost and Headley (1976) developed a
method to quantify particle size using a log-
normal distribution. This test, ASAE S319 allows
the user to measure the average particle size (Dgw)
and the uniformity of the particle size (Sgw). This
method is wonderful for the great majority of feed
ingredients; however, it is not a good method for
the determination of ingredients with very large
(e.g. hay) or very small (cobalt carbonate,
Rovimix H-2) particle sizes.
Particle size is very important when the
process of mixing is considered. Table Two
highlights the particle size analysis of several
common feed ingredients. It is important to note
that the values presented in Table Two are single point observations. The particle size
analysis may vary considerably by supplier and sampling location. Instead, the purpose
of Table Two is to visually present the issue of particle size in regard to mixing.

Table 2. Particle size analysis of common feed ingredients

Response Criteria
Ingredient Dgw Sgw Particle count, #/gram

Corn 1125 1.9 3,763

Soybean meal 974 2.1 9,300
Wheat midds 449 1.5 18,032
NaCl 498 1.4 5,227
ZnSO4 730 1.4 1,909
MnSO4 614 1.4 2,766
CaCO3 559 2.5 118,870
CoCO3 a 3.0 - 2,000,000
Rovimix Biotina 60 - 20,000,000
a
Obtained using laser diffraction analysis.

As can be seen, the average particle size of the ingredients can vary tremendously.
Recall, 1 mm is approximately 1000 μm. Therefore, the particle size of the ingredients in
a common feed mix can vary tremendously.
But why is particle size important? The differences in particle size allow us to
mix much more efficiently. For example, if the goal was to mix 1 blue basketball into
5000 red basketballs, how much confidence would one have that the target recipient
would have an equal chance of finding the blue basketball. On the other hand, if the 1
blue basketball was equivalent to 100 blue baseballs, it is very easy to make the
connection that the probability of finding a blue baseball is significantly greater than
finding the blue basketball.
The above discussion lends well to the particle count issue. Examination of Table
two demonstrates a very salient point: significant differences in particle size also lead to
significant differences in particle count. This fundamental concept is very critical in
mixing theory, as significant differences in particle count can lead to fundamental
differences in the distribution of the ingredients throughout the mix.
One of the trends in animal nutrition is the push to include micro-nutrients into
the daily rations of animals. These micro-nutrients can be defined as any ingredient that
goes in at rates lower than .5% in the mix; however, it is not uncommon to find
ingredients that are being included at rates lower than 100 ppm. Because of this trend to
feed the animal on the micro-level, it is absolutely critical that the micro-ingredients are
uniformly distributed throughout the entire mix. For example, consider biotin; biotin is
typically included in the ration at very low levels. Consequently, it is very important that
the biotin is distributed throughout the mix, so that the animal has an equal opportunity to
receive the biotin it requires in each and every bite. Table Three illustrates this point
very nicely; with broiler chicks, considering that the daily feed consumption is

Table 3. A comparison of biotin intake by broiler chicks consuming two sources of biotin
Product
Category Rovimix Biotin Competitive Triturate

Inclusion rate, mg/ton 100 100

Biotin consumption, particles/day 1000 12

very low, it is absolutely essential that the micro-nutrient have a very large particle count,
so that the animal is assured that, in each and every bite, it has an equal opportunity to
ingest the proper amount of active nutrient.
Analogous
to the particle
count discussion is
uniformity. From a
practical stand-
point, the more
uniform an
ingredient is, the
greater the chance
the ingredient will
be distributed
uniformly
throughout the
mix. The attached
pictures compare
Rovimix H-2 (left
picture) to a competitive triturate product (right picture). Examination of the pictures
demonstrates an important point: using the product on the left insures that each particle
delivered to the animal contains biotin; in contrast, each particle, in the picture to the
right, delivered to the animal may be biotin, or it may be a carrier.
This area of discussion is not complete without covering the area of premixing.
Premixing is the practice of taking very small inclusion micro-ingredients and mixing
them with a nutritive carrier to “pre-disperse” the micro-ingredients in, with, and under a
carrier. The completed premix is then added to the feed at the desired inclusion rate.
The primary advantage of premixing is that the end user only has to mix the
premix carrier into the finished feed; the micro-nutrients have already been successfully
mixed into the carrier. Therefore, if the premix is uniformly distributed throughout the
mix, it can be assumed that the micro-ingredients are also uniformly distributed.
One of the primary reasons for the improvement of micro-ingredient delivery is
that the use of a premix can significantly alter the physical properties of the “ingredient”
added to the mixer, many times to benefit of the end-user. Table Four presents a
comparison of the physical properties of Rovimix A-500 and a common premix, an A-30
dilution.

Table 4. Physical properties of Rovimix A-500 and an A-30 dilution premix

Product
Response Criteria Rovimix A-500 A-30 Dilution

Bulk density, g/cc .50 .58

Dgw 225 459
Particle count, particles/g 4,698,151 628,541
Heubach dust index, mg/100 g 71 16
Flowability 7.0 6.5

Table Four is instructive for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that it clearly
shows that the use of a premix can improve some of the more important handling
properties of a micro-nutrient, such as bulk density and dustiness (Heubach dust index).
Secondly, Table Four demonstrates that the use of premix helps minimize the difference
in particle size between ingredients.
Previously, it was suggested that large differences in particle count and particle
size can make a tremendous difference in the mixability of an ingredient. Taking this
concept a step further, a premix allows the end-user the flexibility of uniformly pre-
distributing several micro-nutrients at once and then, only having to worry about
dispersing the premix into the desired finished product; the end-user no longer has to
worry about the micro-ingredients, as they have already been “pre-mixed” into the
finished product!

The Mixing Process

The mixing process consists of several vital process components. These include:
Mix cycle, mix time, tip speed, and mixing element design.
Mix cycle – the mix cycle consists of a dry mix time and wet mix time. This
differentiation is very important. As a general rule of thumb, the mixing process requires
that the dry ingredients be added to the mixer and mixed for a predetermined amount of
time. This is due to the fact that liquids can reduce the dispersiblity of dry ingredients
within each other by coating the dry particles with liquid. On the other hand, the wet mix
time is required to efficiently disperse the liquid throughout the mix. This dispersion is
necessary as some liquids (i.e. molasses, fat) have the tendency to clump. Therefore, the
uniform distribution of the liquids throughout the mix cannot be assured.
Table Five presents data collected during a mix uniformity trial conducted for a
large layer account. The account in question did not have a formal dry mix time; instead,
the liquids were added immediately after the addition of the last dry ingredient. The wet
mix time was 2.5 minutes. The results indicate a poor mix uniformity for the mixer in

Table 5. Mix uniformity of a mixer with no dry mix time

Response Criteria Value

Batch variance 70.10

Mix uniformity test

Target Na, % .17
Actual Na, % .15
Standard deviation .03
Coefficient of variation, % 21.61

question, with a coefficient of variation (C.V.) greater than 21%.

Mix time – probably the most controversial area of discussion regarding the
mixing process is the topic of mix time. Without a doubt, most feed mills with a solid
reputation agree on the need for a separate dry and wet mix time. What they disagree on
is the length of the dry/wet mix.
This issue is necessarily intertwined with the manufacturing costs of the feed
plant. A 1 minute change in the dry mix time of a plant can have a significant effect on
the overall capacity and efficiency of a plant. For example, assume a plant is currently
manufacturing 3 tons of feed on a 1 minute dry mix time; if the dry mix time is increased
to 2 minutes, this results in a loss of 8000 tons of feed per year.
Even though the mix time issue is intertwined with the economic status of the
plant, it is an issue that must be addressed, especially if the uniformity of the mix needs
some improvement. Many times, when the uniformity exceeds acceptable limits (Table
6), the only option left to a feed manufacturer is to increase the overall mix time.

Table 6. Mix uniformity guidea

C.V., % Rating Corrective Action

< 10 Excellent None

10-15 Good Increase mixing time by 25-30%

15-20 Fair Increase mixing time 50%; look for worn equipment,
overfilling, or ingredient sequencing

> 20 Poor Possible combination of all the above. Consult

extension personnel or feed equipment manufacturer
a
Adapted from Herrman and Behnke (1994).

Many times, the equipment manufacturer provides solid advice regarding the appropriate
dry/wet mix times for the make and model of mixer installed. However, it is important to
note that these times may be adjusted up or down according to product mix and
production requirements. As a note of caution: the batch cycle needs to be considered
any time that the mix cycle is changed. Many times, the batch cycle is synchronized with
the mix cycle to insure that the ingredients are scaled in time for the mixer to complete its
mix cycle and discharge. A dramatic shift in mix time, in either direction, can have
additional ramifications to production efficiency, irrespective of the mix cycle.

Table 7. Recommended mix times by mixer type

Mix Time, min.
Mixer Type Dry Mix Wet Mix

Paddle 3 3
Twin shaft, double paddle .5 1
Ribbon 2 3
Double ribbon 1-2 2-3
Twin shaft, twin ribbon .75-1 2

Vertical tub mixer 5-10 5-10

TMR mixer 5-10 5-10

Tip speed – if a mixer has a poor uniformity result and changing the mix times is
not an option, the speed of the mixing elements at their tips can be increased. There is
limited data in the public domain regarding this issue (Table 8); however, most mixer
manufacturers can assist regarding the proper balance between tip speed and mix
uniformity.

Table 8. Effect of mixer shaft revolutions on uniformity of a broiler dieta

Main Shaft Revolutions, RPM
Item 5 20 80

Coefficient of Variation
Salt, % 40.5 12.1 9.7
Red micro-tracer, % 53.4 16.6 11.3
Blue micro-tracer, % 53.9 17.0 10.6
Sodium, % 44.5 23.2 22.8
a
Adapted from McCoy et al., 1994.

Mixer/mixing element design – occasionally, a change in the mixing element or

mixer design may be necessary to achieve a good, uniform mix. This decision is not one
to be made lightly; many times, this modification requires a substantial capital
investment. However, occasionally, this decision must be made. Table Nine presents
data collected from two mixer designs (paddle vs. twin shaft, twin ribbon) using the same
formula composition and tracer. As can be seen, a major difference exists in dry mix
time between the two mixers. Furthermore, the customer with the paddle mixer cannot
increase the dry mix time as this would have deleterious effects on the daily production
rate of the plant.

Table 9. Mix uniformity comparison of two mixer designs

Mixer Design
Item Paddle Twin Shaft, Twin Ribbon

Dry mix time, min. 3.50 .75

Target Co, ppm 100.0 100.0
Actual Co, ppm 72.5 74.6
C.V., % 16.2 5.52
Mix Uniformity
Earlier in this document, the concept of mix uniformity has been introduced. The
issue was not developed because it requires a section of its own. Therefore, the issue of
mix uniformity will be examined in the context of measurement, interpretation, and
effects on animal performance.
Measurement – the measurement of mix uniformity is a much debated issue.
However, a standard method does exist. The standard method is ASAE S303.1. This
method provides a routine methodology for testing the performance of a mixer. The
standard method was developed from work completed by Pfost (1976) and relies on the
analytical measurement of a known marker placed in the feed.
Essentially, mix uniformity is
determined by adding an ingredient that
provides a necessary nutrient that is not
found in great abundance in the diet,
with the exception of the added
ingredient. Once the ingredient is added
to the mix, the diet is mixed according to
the standard mix procedure and the
mixer is then sampled. Ideally, ten
samples are collected from ten,
independent sampling locations,
identified prior to the test.
The sampling locations should be
uniform across all tests. For example, if sample location one is located on the right hand
side of the drive end, then this location should be maintained for all tests conducted on
this mixer. This allows for analysis of uniformity by sampling location, across test. As a
general rule of thumb, a linear pattern blocking the mixer into 10 sampling zones is the
most effective. However, this can vary based on the physical size of the mixer and the
number of samples required to give a statistically meaningful result.
The marker utilized in the
test should be one that contributes as
much of the target nutrient as
possible, with very little interference
from the rest of the diet. For
example, Chloride is a poor choice
as a marker because it is present in
many feed ingredients; on the other
hand, Cobalt is a wonderful choice
because it is found in very low
levels in most feed ingredients.
While the endogenous
content of the marker is of a
concern, so is the analytical
variability that accompanies analysis. Pfost (1976) stated that the uniformity of a mix
consists of several variance components. These components can include: batching
weights, mixing uniformity, sampling variance, and analytical variance. Consequently,
prior to conducting a mix uniformity test, all of the sources of variance need to be
documented and either quantified or eliminated to strengthen the test and allow the
researcher the opportunity to discern the true uniformity of the mix.
Earlier it was suggested that a mixer be sampled at the mixer. It has become
common practice to sample mixers at points further down the process. Unless absolutely
necessary for safety reasons, it is strongly suggested that the samples pulled for a mix
uniformity test be taken at the mixer. If the samples are taken at a location other than the
mixer itself, then the sample size will need to be increased to strengthen the test by
increasing the degrees of freedom in the calculation of mix uniformity.
Interpretation of results – once the samples have been collected, submitted for
analysis, and results have been returned, the next step is interpretation. Assuming that
the variability in the analytical procedure is known, the ultimate goal is to determine the
coefficient of variation between the collected samples.
The first step is to quantify what distribution best describes the numerical data.
The accompanying distribution is critical to the proper calculation of the coefficient of
variation.
Normally Distributed Data Set
The figures to the left
illustrates two, independent sets of
6
Frequency
data that illustrate two different
120.00%

5 Cumulative % distributions. The top figure

100.00%

4 illustrates a normal distribution and

80.00%

3 the bottom figure illustrates a non-

60.00%

2 normal (double-peaked)
40.00%

1
distribution. 20.00%

0
Distribution analysis is
.00%
76 82 88critical to the proper calculation of
More
Co, ppm
the uniformity. Pfost (1976)
proposed that the uniformity of a
mix can be best described by calculating the coefficient of variation (C.V.). The C.V.
relates the standard deviation to the
Binomial Distribution
mean in the form of a percentage.
7 120.00% Said another way, the C.V. is
6 Frequency
100.00%
essentially a method to express the
Cumulative %
5
80.00%
sample standard deviation as a
4
60.00%
percentage of the sample mean. In
3
40.00%
general, in properly categorized
2
distributions, the standard deviation
1 20.00%
and the mean change together.
0 .00%
0.11 0.14 0.17 More Therefore, the C.V. is an effective
Sodium, % tool for describing the variability
present in the sample population
(Snedcor and Cochran, 1967). The general equation for the C.V. is as follows:

⎛s⎞
C.V .,% = ⎜ − ⎟ × 100 (eq. 1)
⎜ ⎟
⎝ x⎠
 where:

s = sample standard deviation

−
x = sample average

The general equation for the C.V., as can be seen above, is dependent on the accurate
calculation of the sample standard deviation and the sample average (or mean).
Consequently, these calculations are strongly dependent on the classification of the data
distribution. In general, two data distributions are commonly observed in mixer testing.
These include the normal and non-normal distributions.
Normal distributions – equations 2 and 3 can be used to calculate the sample
average and sample standard deviation for data that approximates a normal distribution.

−
x=
∑x i
(eq. 2)
n

∑ ⎛⎜⎝ x − x ⎞⎟⎠
−
i
s= (eq. 3)
n −1

These equations are dependent on the data assuming a normal distribution. Therefore,
the data must be categorized prior to making these calculations.
One area that deserves some mention is the determination of outliers in a data set.
The presence of outliers in a data set can skew a distribution and can be responsible for
faulty data analysis. One of the best tools to test for the presence of outliers in a data set
is the Kurtosis value. Kurtosis measures the degree of departure from normality present
in a given data set. The general equation for the kurtosis of a population is given in
equation 4:

k=
( xi − μ )
4
(eq. 4)
σ4

Equation 4 is a good general equation to demonstrate the concept behind kurtosis;

however, this equation is only good for data sets with n ≥ 100 observations. The equation
for data sets with much smaller sets of observations is very complicated and beyond the
scope of this paper. However, the value is very easily calculated using the Univariate
analysis functions of most spreadsheets and statistical packages.
As stated previously, kurtosis provides the end-user with the ability to spot an
outlier in a given data set. In general, if the kurtosis is greater than ⏐3⏐, there is a
significant probability that an outlier exists in a data set. Typically, if an outlier exists,
the kurtosis will be significantly greater than ⏐3⏐.
Non-normal distributions – the normal distribution, by definition, is a probability
distribution. The defining characteristic of a normal distribution is a single, defined peak.
When a data set does not contain a single peak, but instead has a double peak, the
probability distribution is no longer normal and cannot be represented by the equations
that govern a normal distribution.
If this situation is encountered, the best tool available is to calculate the frequency
distribution for the data and interpret the results in light of the probability that a given
observation will occur. Table Ten highlights this approach to determining the uniformity
of a mixer in which the results indicate that the data is behaving in a non-normal fashion.

Table 10. Analysis of a non-normal mix uniformity data set

Item Value

Target Na, % .15

Distribution analysis, %
< .11% 13.33
.12-.15% 40.00
.16-17% 20.00
>.17% 26.66

Using this approach, it is apparent that 40% of the observations fall within an acceptable
range of variability. However, 60% fall outside of the range. As can be quickly noted,
the use of this approach requires some understanding of the acceptable ranges in a
system. Furthermore, the data must be categorized prior to analysis to allow for the
determination of the frequency distribution.
Sample size is a critical issue to consider, especially if the distribution is
suspected to be non-normal. The industry average in regard to the appropriate number of
samples is ten. However, if non-normality is suspected, that number should be increased
to at least 15; twenty is a more reliable value.
An alternate approach that can be used to determine a C.V., is to make a normal
approximation to a binomial distribution. Using the distribution analysis above, it is
apparent that 40% of the observations fell within the desired range of values. Therefore,
a C.V. can be calculated using equations 5 and 6 and applying the values to equation 1.

−
x = nπ (eq. 5)
where:
n = number of observations
π = probability that a sample will result in the desired value

s = nπ (1 − π ) (eq. 6)

Analyzed using equations 2 and 3, the C.V. for this set of data was found to be 22%.
When the binomial equations were applied, the C.V. was found to be 32%. This
difference is significant enough to change the entire interpretation of the data set.
The above example clearly illustrates the importance of quantifying mixer
performance correctly. Many times, 10 samples are obtained from the mixer, and are
tested for an analyte that has been added at a relatively high inclusion rate. Following
this approach and neglecting to test for ingredients at critical inclusion levels can result in
a misleading mixer profile. As a general rule of thumb, a mixer should be tested for
uniformity using a tracer at the lowest ingredient inclusion rate utilized in the plant.
Using this approach can help quality and production managers adjust appropriate mixing
variables to achieve a consistent mix.

Conclusion
Mixing is one of the most critical operations in a feed mill. Factors such as
equipment type/condition, ingredient size, and mix time can significantly alter the
uniformity of the mixed product. However, a recognition of these critical factors can
help maintain acceptable mix C.V’s, which will result in the delivery of nutritionally
uniform diet to the animal.
 Literature Cited

American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1976. Test Procedure for Solids – Mixing
Equipment for Animal Feeds. In: H.B. Pfost (Ed.), Feed Manufacturing
Technology. AFMA, Arlington, VA. pp. 521.

Herrman, T. and K. Behnke. 1994. Testing Mixer Performance. MF-1172. Kansas

State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension
Service Bulletin. Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.

McCoy, R.A., K.C. Behnke, J.D. Hancock, and R.R. McEllhiney. 1994. Effect of
mixing uniformity on broiler chick performance. Poult. Sci. 73:443.

Pfost, H.B. 1976. Feed Mixing. In: H.B. Pfost (Ed.), Feed Manufacturing Technology.
AFMA, Arlington, VA. pp. 85.

Pfost, H.B. and V. Headley. 1976. Methods of determining and expressing particle size.
In: H.B. Pfost (Ed.), Feed Manufacturing Technology. AFMA, Arlington, VA.
pp. 512.

Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. Iowa State University
Press, Ames, IA.