Is a brand that runs its own feeding trials more trustworthy?
It is a good sign, with conditions. A trial run to AAFCO or FEDIAF protocols tests the food on real animals, over a set duration, with health parameters tracked (WSAVA, 2021). But not all trials are equal, and formulation by calculation remains a recognised route.
General documentary information. For an individual animal, a veterinarian's advice takes precedence over any online content.
What a feeding trial validates
A feeding trial tests the food on live animals and validates the formulation beyond calculation alone. The WSAVA reads it as a marker of seriousness (WSAVA, 2021). An AAFCO adult maintenance trial requires at least 8 animals, fed the food exclusively for 26 weeks, of which at least 6 must finish with no sign of deficiency or excess (AAFCO, 2024). The limit worth knowing: this standardised protocol stays modest in numbers and duration, and does not necessarily detect slow imbalances or long-term effects.
Trial versus formulation by calculation
A rigorous brand can also formulate by calculation from validated profiles, with no trial, a route recognised by AAFCO and FEDIAF (AAFCO, 2024; FEDIAF, 2019). A trial strengthens confidence, especially combined with a board-certified nutritionist and documented quality control (Tufts Petfoodology, 2023). By contrast, a total absence of trials in a brand that does not formulate to validated profiles either is a warning sign.
| Element of the AAFCO maintenance trial | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Animals at the start | At least 8 |
| Duration | 26 weeks |
| Animals completing the trial | At least 6 |
| Criterion | No sign of deficiency or excess |
Petipedia explains the reach and the limits of feeding trials to place them among the reliability criteria, without ranking brands.
Sources
WSAVA, Global Nutrition Guidelines (2021); AAFCO, feeding trial protocols (2024); FEDIAF, Nutritional Guidelines (2019); Tufts Petfoodology (2023).