Palatants in dry and wet pet food: what a decade of studies shows
Palatants decide whether a well-formulated food is actually eaten. We reviewed the published studies from the last decade — from liver hydrolysates and yeast extracts to Maillard flavours, plasma and plant extracts — and what they mean for kibble and wet formats.
- Palatants work through aroma first: Maillard-derived aldehydes, pyrazines and furans track closely with how much dogs and cats eat.
- The same palatant can behave differently in dry and wet food — a yeast-extract blend that lifted preference on kibble did not work raw in wet cat food.
- More is not always better: dogs preferred 2% spray-dried plasma, but preference fell at 4%.
- Most studies use small panels (8–38 animals) over two days, so results should be confirmed on your own recipe.
Animal-protein hydrolysates and Maillard aroma systems have the most consistent support; yeast extract, plasma and plant extracts depend on dose and format. Shortlist from the literature, then confirm on your own recipe.
01Why palatants matter
A complete and balanced recipe only delivers its nutrition if the pet eats it. Palatants — liquid or powder flavour systems, usually built on animal digests, hydrolysed proteins, yeast and Maillard reaction products — are the main tool formulators use to make that happen 1. A 2025 review of the field found that peer-reviewed evidence is still limited compared with the pace of product launches, and that most published work focuses on dry food 1.
Dogs and cats respond to different cues. Cats lack a functional sweet receptor and are strongly driven by umami from amino acids and nucleotides 16, while dogs respond strongly to meaty, roasted aromas 7. That is why palatant choice starts with the species, then the format.
02How palatants are applied: dry vs wet
| Dry food (kibble) | Wet food | |
|---|---|---|
| Where | Mostly coated onto kibble after extrusion and drying, together with or after the fat coat | Mixed into the recipe, emulsion or gravy before filling and retort |
| Form | Liquid palatants and dry powders, often used together | Liquid digests, hydrolysates and flavour bases |
| Typical levels in studies | Around 0.2–0.5% for blends, up to about 2% for commercial palatants | Around 2% for yeast extract; varies by system |
| Main challenge | Even coverage, oxidation of coated fat and loss of aroma over shelf life | Retort heat and moisture change flavour release; ingredients that work on kibble may not work here |
These ranges come from the studies summarised by Klinmalai and colleagues 1. In practice, coating gives formulators direct control of the surface aroma on kibble, while in wet food the palatant has to survive heat processing inside the product. See how we approach each format in dry pet food development and wet and retort pet food development.
03The evidence, palatant by palatant
Nine of 13 studies found the palatant improved intake or preference. Plasma results depended on dose, olive extract was neutral, and two studies found reduced acceptance. Classification by Guires PNL from the studies cited below.
View data table
| Group | Improved | Depends on dose | No effect | Reduced | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All studies | 9 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 13 |
| Dogs | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| Cats | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 |
The most hydrolysed version, richest in free amino acids and peptides, was chosen first by 70% of cats, and generated key Maillard flavour compounds. 4
Hydrolysed liver increased palatability, especially at higher protein levels, with protein digestibility similar to poultry by-product meal. 5
Dogs strongly preferred the chicken-liver attractant (intake ratio about 63%) over shiitake mushroom and mealworm attractants (each under 25%). 6
Only 23 of 53 aroma compounds were linked to preference; benzaldehyde, vanillin and 2,5-dimethylpyrazine increased preference for dry food. 7
Both a self-made and a commercial attractant roughly doubled intake versus an uncoated food (about 75–80% vs 38%); the self-made version, with fewer volatile compounds, was approached less quickly. 15
Coating added brothy, toasted notes and masked stale, bitter and oxidised-oil notes — showing how coating changes the whole sensory profile, not just aroma. 8
Only the 0.5% blend increased cats’ preference. 9
Cats preferred the control diet; raw yeast extract did not act as a palatant in wet food. 10
Plasma was highly digestible, but 4% already reduced palatability; the authors recommend testing levels below 4%. 11
2% was the most preferred level across products (73% in wet food) and 4% the least preferred. 12
Intake was not reduced at these levels, so the extract can be included for functional reasons without hurting acceptance. 3
Diets with fermented glasswort and mugwort were eaten significantly more than the control. 13
Dogs ate more of the diet containing the herbal choline source than of the control. 14
04What the studies tell formulators
- Aroma is the lever. Across dog studies, specific Maillard-derived aldehydes, furans and pyrazines tracked with intake, while many other volatiles did not 7,1. Measuring aroma alongside feeding results helps explain why a palatant works.
- Degree of hydrolysis matters. More extensively hydrolysed liver released more free amino acids and peptides and was chosen first more often by cats 4.
- Dose has an optimum. Spray-dried plasma was preferred at 2% but disliked at 4% 11,12. Test a range, not one level.
- The format changes the result. Yeast extract with pyrophosphate lifted preference on cat kibble 9, while raw yeast extract in wet cat food did not 10.
- Coating does more than add flavour. It can mask off-notes from oxidised fat and stale ingredients 8 — so fat quality and antioxidants are part of palatability.
- Functional ingredients can be neutral or positive. Olive extract, fermented plants and herbal choline did not reduce intake, and some increased it 3,13,14.
The hydrolysate richest in free amino acids and peptides was chosen first most often 4.
View data table
| Hydrolysate | First choice (%) |
|---|---|
| 1 | 60 |
| 2 | 60 |
| 3 | 55 |
| 4 | 70 |
Both attractants roughly doubled acceptance compared with the same food without an attractant 15.
View data table
| Food | Feeding rate (%) |
|---|---|
| Uncoated | 37.63 |
| + self-made attractant | 75.37 |
| + commercial attractant | 80.07 |
2% plasma was the most preferred level and 4% the least; 1% had only marginal effects 12.
View data table
| Level | Preference in wet food (%) |
|---|---|
| 2% | 73 |
| 4% | 30 |
05How strong is the evidence?
The evidence is useful but limited. Most studies used panels of 8–38 animals, ran for two days, and tested one recipe in one facility 1. Two-bowl tests measure preference but are prone to side bias unless bowl positions are alternated 2,18, and kennel results do not always match home feeding 17. Many palatant studies are linked to ingredient suppliers, and wet-food studies are far fewer than dry-food studies 1.
Eleven of 13 studies tested dry food only — wet-food evidence is thin, so wet formulas need their own testing.
View data table
| Format | Studies |
|---|---|
| Dry food | 11 |
| Wet food | 1 |
| Dry, wet and treats | 1 |
06Palatant checklist for formulators
Formulator checklist
- Start with the species: umami and amino acids for cats, roasted and meaty aromas for dogs.
- Choose the application point: coating for kibble, in-recipe or gravy for wet food.
- Test at least three dose levels — there is often an optimum.
- Protect coated fats from oxidation; off-notes reduce acceptance.
- Check aroma stability through shelf life, not just at production.
- Confirm with a two-bowl test against your current product or a benchmark, with bowl positions alternated.
- Re-test after any change of palatant supplier, fat source or process.
Palatants are worth testing early, not adding late. Use published studies to shortlist systems and dose ranges, then confirm them on your own recipe, format and species — the same palatant can help kibble and fail in wet food.
07Questions brands ask
Should palatants go on the kibble or in it?
Most dry-food studies coat palatants onto kibble after extrusion, often with the fat; in wet food they are mixed into the recipe or gravy before retort.
How much palatant should I use?
Studies used roughly 0.2–2% depending on the system, but optimums exist — plasma was preferred at 2% and disliked at 4% — so test a range.
Can functional ingredients reduce palatability?
They can, but olive extract, fermented plant extracts and an herbal choline source did not reduce intake in published tests.
Sources
- Klinmalai P, Kamonpatana P, Sodsai J, et al. (2025). Modern palatant strategies in dry and wet pet food: formulation technologies, patent innovations, and market evolution. Foods 14(16):2824. Source ↗
- Aldrich GC, Koppel K (2015). Pet food palatability evaluation: a review of standard assay techniques and interpretation of results with a primary focus on limitations. Animals 5(1):43–55. Source ↗
- Kokemuller et al. (2025). Olive extract and cat food palatability. Pets (summary: PetfoodIndustry). Source ↗
- Wei et al. (2024). Generation of olfactory compounds in cat food attractants: chicken liver-derived protein hydrolysates and their contribution to enhancing palatability. J Agric Food Chem. Source ↗
- Sezerotto PP, Pinto CFD, da Silva AM, et al. (2025). Hydrolyzed chicken liver and increasing crude protein levels on palatability, digestibility, and intestinal fermentation products of cats. J Anim Sci. Source ↗
- Feng et al. (2020). Preparation and evaluation of mushroom (Lentinus edodes) and mealworm (Tenebrio molitor) as dog food attractant. Heliyon. Source ↗
- Yin et al. (2020). Characterization of the key aroma compounds in dog foods by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, acceptance test, and preference test. J Agric Food Chem. Source ↗
- Koppel K et al. (2015). The effects of fiber inclusion on pet food sensory characteristics and palatability. Animals 5(1):110–125. Source ↗
- Oliveira et al. (2016). Palatability of cat food with sodium pyrophosphate and yeast extract. Ciência Rural. Source ↗
- Lima et al. Evaluation of raw yeast extract (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as an ingredient, additive or palatability agent in wet diet for cats. Int J Biol. Source ↗
- Andrade et al. (2019). Spray-dried porcine plasma in dog foods: implications on digestibility, palatability and haematology. Semina: Ciências Agrárias. Source ↗
- Kazimierska K, Biel W, Iwański R (2024). Palatability testing of spray-dried animal plasma-infused dog foods and treats. Appl Sci 14(17):7671. Source ↗
- Park et al. (2019). Effect of fermented medicinal plants as dietary additives on food preference and fecal microbial quality in dogs. Animals 9(9):690. Source ↗
- Effects of an herbal source of choline on diet digestibility and palatability, blood lipid profile, liver morphology, and cardiac function in dogs (2022). Animals. Source ↗
- Sun K et al. Effects of Maillard reaction on volatile compounds and antioxidant capacity of cat food attractant. Source ↗
- McGrane SJ et al. (2023). Umami taste perception and preferences of the domestic cat. Chem Senses. Source ↗
- Calderón et al. (2024). Measuring palatability of pet food products: sensory components, evaluations, challenges, and opportunities. J Food Sci. Source ↗
- Le Guillas et al. (2024). Animals. Source ↗
Evidence reviewed by the Guires Pet Nutrition Lab scientific team. This article is general information for product developers and is not legal or veterinary advice.
How to cite this article
Choose your referencing style, then copy. Check your university’s, journal’s or regulator’s guide for local variations.
Guires Pet Nutrition Lab. (2026, October 3). Palatants in dry and wet pet food: what a decade of studies shows. Guires Pet Nutrition Lab Insights. https://www.petnutritionlab.com/insights/palatants-dry-wet-pet-food
Guires Pet Nutrition Lab. “Palatants in dry and wet pet food: what a decade of studies shows.” Guires Pet Nutrition Lab Insights, 3 Oct. 2026, www.petnutritionlab.com/insights/palatants-dry-wet-pet-food. Accessed [date].
Guires Pet Nutrition Lab (2026) Palatants in dry and wet pet food: what a decade of studies shows. Available at: https://www.petnutritionlab.com/insights/palatants-dry-wet-pet-food (Accessed: [date accessed]).
Guires Pet Nutrition Lab. “Palatants in dry and wet pet food: what a decade of studies shows.” Guires Pet Nutrition Lab Insights. October 3, 2026. https://www.petnutritionlab.com/insights/palatants-dry-wet-pet-food.
Guires Pet Nutrition Lab, ‘Palatants in dry and wet pet food: what a decade of studies shows’, Guires Pet Nutrition Lab Insights, 3 October 2026, <https://www.petnutritionlab.com/insights/palatants-dry-wet-pet-food>, accessed [date accessed].
Guires Pet Nutrition Lab. Palatants in dry and wet pet food: what a decade of studies shows [Internet]. Guires Pet Nutrition Lab Insights; 2026 Oct 3 [cited [date]]. Available from: https://www.petnutritionlab.com/insights/palatants-dry-wet-pet-food
Guires Pet Nutrition Lab, “Palatants in dry and wet pet food: what a decade of studies shows,” Guires Pet Nutrition Lab Insights, Oct. 3, 2026. [Online]. Available: https://www.petnutritionlab.com/insights/palatants-dry-wet-pet-food
@misc{guirespnl2026palatantsdrywetpet,
author = {{Guires Pet Nutrition Lab}},
title = {{Palatants in dry and wet pet food: what a decade of studies shows}},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
howpublished = {\url{https://www.petnutritionlab.com/insights/palatants-dry-wet-pet-food}},
note = {Guires Pet Nutrition Lab Insights}
}
This article summarises published evidence for product developers. Cite the original sources above for specific findings, and do not reproduce this article as your own work.
Choosing a palatant for your product?
Our formulation and palatability teams can shortlist palatant systems and dose ranges, then confirm them with partner panels on your recipe.