Dr.habil. Dr. Seronei arap Chelulei Cheison

Have we confused nutritional replacement with behavioural replacement?

The industry has made remarkable progress in demonstrating that many alternative proteins can contribute to nutritionally complete diets. Essential amino acids can be balanced. Micronutrients can be supplemented. Digestibility continues to improve. In many respects, the question of nutritional adequacy is becoming increasingly manageable. But nutrition and feeding behaviour are not the same challenge.

Is meat an ingredient, or a sensory language?

One of the unintended consequences of alternative proteins is that they oblige us to reconsider what meat actually contributes. Perhaps meat is not simply an ingredient.

Are we designing for one animal, or two?

We speak of petfood palatability as though it were a single discipline. It may be closer to two. Dogs, shaped by millennia of proximity to human settlements, display considerable dietary flexibility, and their food selection appears substantially odour-led.

Are we designing formulations, or engineering preference?

Historically, palatability has been treated as a finishing operation. Formulate, extrude, dry, coat, validate. That workflow has served the industry exceptionally well. But as meat inclusion declines, it may become increasingly difficult to separate formulation from palatability. One observation illustrates this particularly well.

Are we measuring the right outcome?

The industry has long relied upon robust palatability methodologies, particularly paired preference testing, and these methods have served ingredient developers extremely well. Yet the transition towards alternative proteins raises a question about what, exactly, we are measuring. A two-bowl comparison is exceptionally sensitive to small formulation differences.