Where Does Waste Actually Live in Animal Food Manufacturing?

There’s a particular kind of operational problem that’s easy to overlook not because it’s hidden exactly, but because it doesn’t announce itself.

In animal food manufacturing, most leaders have a clear picture of the waste they’re managing: reject rates, downtime, rework. These appear on dashboards. They have owners. They get discussed in the right meetings.

What tends to receive less structured attention is the waste that sits inside processes that are working, just not as well as they could be. 

That’s the waste worth looking at more carefully.

A Different Way of Seeing the Same Operation

One framework that proves particularly useful in this context is TIMWOODS. Originally developed in lean manufacturing, it organises waste into eight categories, Transport, Inventory, Motion, Waiting, Overproduction, Over-processing, Defects, and Skills, each representing a distinct type of loss that standard operational reporting tends to miss. 

Take a look at some of the examples of each waste below – do any of them feel familiar?

Transport – more movement than the process needs

Ingredients are often moved between silos and mixing areas more times than the process actually requires, and finished product is frequently routed through intermediate storage before despatch simply because scheduling and production are not fully aligned. Each movement is individually small, but cumulatively they add up in time, in handling risk, and in a cost that rarely appears on a standard report.

Inventory – the buffer that becomes a liability

Vitamins and premixes bought in volume to secure a good price can easily be written off when production planning shifts and shelf life runs out, while finished goods held beyond their optimal storage window lose condition quietly. Stock that felt like prudent supply chain management becomes a write-off. The cost of holding too much is rarely as visible as the cost of holding too little.

Motion – how people move, not just materials

Operators walk significant distances between control panels and adjustment points on a mixer, quality technicians return to a central lab to log results that could be recorded at the line, and maintenance teams retrace steps for tools and parts that are not stored near the point of use. None of it looks wasteful in isolation, but together, across a shift, it represents meaningful lost time.

Waiting – the idle time that gets accepted as normal

Lines stand idle while a changeover clean is completed to a standard that was set years ago and has not been reviewed since, batches sit on hold pending a quality release that could have been processed sooner, and product waits for a mixer to become available because scheduling decisions were not made with sequencing in mind. Some waiting is genuinely unavoidable, but much of it is not. It has simply become expected.

Overproduction – running beyond what’s actually needed

Extruders and dryers run beyond what scheduling requires because short runs feel uneconomical given setup costs, and while the logic is understandable, overproduction creates inventory pressure, increases the risk of condition loss in finished goods, and over time obscures true demand signals. Producing closer to plan requires scheduling confidence that takes time to build, but the cost of not building it compounds.

Over-processing – doing more than the specification requires

Mixing cycles run longer than validated minimums because a little extra time feels safer, product is dried to a moisture level meaningfully below specification because operators are not confident in where the true limit sits, and material is sieved when it does not need to be. Each step adds cost without adding value, and the habit tends to develop gradually, without anyone making a deliberate decision to work that way.

Defects – addressing the symptom, not the cause

Pellets fail hardness checks due to inconsistent conditioning, fines are generated by over-milling, and coating non-uniformity develops from worn spray nozzles. Rework and reject rates are tracked in most operations, but what is less consistently tracked is the upstream condition that caused them. The same defect recurs month after month because the process variable was not the focus, only the outcome was.

Skills – capability that lives in people, not in the process

Perhaps the most underestimated category of all. In animal food manufacturing, process knowledge is often highly personal, held by experienced operators who have developed an intuitive feel for how a line behaves but have not had the opportunity to make that knowledge explicit or transferable. When those people are not available, performance varies, and capability that exists in individuals rather than in the process is effective but it is not resilient.

What this Means in Practice

None of these are dramatic failures. That’s precisely why they persist.

The challenge for operational leaders in this sector isn’t usually awareness that waste exists. It’s that the losses described above sit in places that day-to-day focus doesn’t naturally reach, in accepted norms, long-standing procedures, and workarounds that became standard practice before anyone decided they should be.

From Activity to Capability

Running through TIMWOODS as a structured exercise, not a quick conversation but a deliberate review with the right people in the room, tends to surface a different quality of opportunity than a standard efficiency review. Not because the problems were hidden, but because the lens wasn’t being applied.

The operations that tend to make the most durable improvements in this sector aren’t necessarily the ones with the most improvement activity. They’re the ones that have built the internal capability to see their own processes clearly and to address what they find systematically, rather than intermittently.

That kind of capability takes time to develop. But it starts with knowing where to look.

Back to top