Dog foods substantiated by AAFCO feeding trials

Captured 2026-07-25

Most foods are formulated to meet AAFCO profiles: the recipe matches the nutrient table on paper. A minority were actually fed to dogs under AAFCO protocols. Both are legal standards of adequacy; only one involved dogs. Each statement below is quoted verbatim on the food's page.

What a feeding trial substantiates, and what it does not

Two sentences can appear on a US label under nutritional adequacy, and they are not the same claim. Formulated to meet means the recipe was matched to an AAFCO nutrient profile on paper. Animal feeding tests using AAFCO procedures substantiate means the finished food was fed to dogs under a defined protocol. Both are legal standards of adequacy; only one of them involved dogs.

This page lists the foods whose published statement uses the second wording. Membership is decided by the words on the label — quoted verbatim on each food's own page — and by nothing else, including our opinion of the food.

The protocol is real and it is small: a minimum of eight dogs over twenty-six weeks, with defined blood values and body-weight limits. It substantiates that the food maintained those dogs across that period. It does not establish that the food is better, more digestible or more suitable for any individual dog, and it says nothing at all about ingredient quality or sourcing.

The scarcity is the part worth taking away. A trial costs money and takes half a year, so this wording clusters in a very small number of manufacturers, and its absence on a bag is not evidence of anything except that no trial was run for that recipe.

18 formulas from 3 brands match this filter today. 10 publish a guaranteed analysis, 8 publish typical dry-matter values instead, 18 a calorie statement, 18 an ingredient list and 18 an AAFCO nutritional adequacy statement. Dry-matter protein across the 18 that publish it runs 18.7% to 34%, median 29.5% — against 18.7% to 50% across the whole database.

Captured 2026-07-25 · Methodology