A recent investigation conducted by Kansas State University has unveiled a notable disparity between what pet owners articulate as crucial considerations in their pet food selections and their actual purchasing patterns. This research indicates that while specific health advantages, such as digestive well-being, are often cited as paramount, other attributes, including 'limited ingredients' and 'grain-free' formulations, appear far more frequently in shopping carts despite being ranked lower in stated importance. This divergence highlights a complex interplay of factors influencing consumer choices in the pet food market, extending beyond mere declared preferences.
Dr. Aleksan Shanoyan, a distinguished professor of agricultural economics at Kansas State University (KSU), initiated his presentation at the Pet Food Collab event on September 9, 2025. He began by outlining a fundamental formula for customer value: perceived benefits divided by price. However, as those familiar with the pet food sector are aware, and as his research data corroborates, the perception of value in this industry is far from straightforward. The strong emotional bond between pet owners and their animals introduces layers of complexity and nuance to purchasing decisions, making them uniquely different from other consumer markets.
The Pet Food Collab, a two-day seminar, was meticulously organized and hosted by KSU's Pet Food Program. Its primary objectives were to showcase the university's cutting-edge research in pet food, spanning both faculty and student contributions, and to foster dynamic discussions and networking opportunities among industry professionals. From an attendee's vantage point, the event successfully achieved both these goals, providing valuable insights and facilitating meaningful interactions.
Dr. Shanoyan's findings, particularly those detailed in his presentation titled 'From wish list to shopping cart: Understanding pet food buyers’ preferences and purchasing behavior,' were especially compelling. His study illuminated a discernible gap between pet owners' stated preferences and their actual purchasing habits. Although Dr. Shanoyan emphasized that his research is still in progress and did not offer a complete explanation for this discrepancy, the emerging data offers promising avenues for pet food and treat manufacturers to explore and leverage.
The study, which surveyed 5,000 dog owners across the United States, delved into the pet food and treat attributes respondents considered most influential in their buying decisions. The scope of attributes examined was broad, encompassing health benefits, ingredient profiles, processing methods (such as format), and supply chain considerations. A comparison of these desired attributes with those found in the dog foods and treats actually purchased by the respondents revealed striking differences in several key areas. For instance, while digestive health was ranked highest among health attributes by 28% of respondents as most important, it only featured in 16% of their actual purchases. Conversely, skin and coat care was present in 41% of purchases, despite only 7% of respondents identifying it as a top priority.
The findings related to ingredient attributes were particularly revealing. No single ingredient attribute was rated as most important by more than 26% of respondents (with 'natural' leading at this percentage). Yet, many of these attributes were prominently featured in a significant proportion of purchased dog foods. For example, 39% of purchases included natural ingredients, and a remarkable 55% contained limited ingredients, even though only 8% of respondents considered this a primary factor. Similarly, 'grain-free' appeared in 45% of purchases but was only deemed most important by 18% of respondents, and 'human grade' and 'non-GMO' were found in 42% and 41% of purchases respectively, despite being top priorities for only 6% and 7% of owners. These trends suggest that the prevalence of certain attributes in the market might heavily influence what consumers ultimately buy, regardless of their stated preferences.
Discrepancies in processing attributes were even more pronounced. Dry kibble, despite its market dominance, was conspicuously absent from the list of most important attributes for dog owners, possibly because it is considered a default option. Conversely, 'fresh' (undefined but chosen by 45%) and 'minimally processed' (35%) were ranked as highly important but appeared infrequently in actual purchases (fresh dog food at 5%, minimally processed at 1%). This contrast underscores that consumer desires for fresh or minimally processed options are not consistently met in their buying habits. The sole area where stated importance aligned closely with purchases was in the supply chain, specifically for products 'made in the USA,' which 44% rated as most important and appeared in 57% of dog food and 49% of treat purchases. Other attributes like 'eco-friendly' and 'sustainable' were important to 18% and 16% of owners, respectively, but only appeared in 1% of purchases.
The question then arises: why do such significant gaps exist between what pet owners express as important in their pet food purchasing decisions and their actual buying behaviors? Dr. Shanoyan offered several potential explanations, including the affordability and accessibility of products, which he plans to investigate further in his ongoing research. It is also plausible that factors such as pets' perceived tastes and dietary suitability, coupled with established brand loyalty and habitual buying, play a considerable role. Future collaborations with the pet food industry are being sought by Dr. Shanoyan and his colleague, Dr. Lonnie Hobbs Jr., to deepen their understanding of these complex consumer dynamics and to shed more light on why purchasing choices often diverge from stated desires.
