Pet Soft Chew Manufacturing: What to Confirm Before Sampling

Start from a specific reference product

Select a named reference product that matches the intended species and format. Put the requirements you want to retain and the proposed changes in one brief before discussing formula adjustments.

A request such as "a joint-support soft chew with more glucosamine" leaves several decisions open. Which starting formula? More per chew or per daily serving? Should the chew stay the same size? Which species will use it?

Our Glucosamine & Chondroitin Soft Chews for Dogs & Cats provide one reference direction: the selected soft-chew profile includes glucosamine hydrochloride, chondroitin sulfate and methylsulfonylmethane (MSM), alongside other listed ingredients. Final declared levels, piece weight, serving instructions and pack specifications are confirmed for the selected project.

The product page lists distinct meat-bite and lecithin-chew recipe directions; select the intended profile before applying the meat-based formula framework below.

When using that reference, describe both sides of the request: what you want to retain and what you want to change. For example, you might retain the joint-nutrition direction while asking the manufacturer to review a different flavor and chew size. Record whether the original ingredient combination must stay intact or can also change.

If your team is still comparing dosage forms, start with soft chews, powders and liquids. This article begins once soft chews are the chosen direction.

Understand what has to fit inside a meat-based chew

For the meat-based soft-chew route discussed here, it helps to think in three parts:

• Functional ingredients: the ingredients selected for the product's nutritional purpose, such as glucosamine, chondroitin or vitamins.
• The meat component: part of the food base and flavor profile. Specify the intended meat source and any ingredient exclusions.
• The excipient system: the supporting ingredients used to help the mixture bind, form and achieve the intended texture.

These parts have to work within the same finished piece. Raising the functional ingredient share means reviewing the space available for the rest of the formula. Ask the manufacturer to evaluate the proposed combination at the intended piece weight, with flavor and texture included in that discussion.

Replace "as much glucosamine as possible" with a usable target

We have encountered requests to push glucosamine content as high as possible. Our development experience highlights the trade-off: its bitter, astringent taste can make the proposed chew less acceptable. A higher number on the specification loses its purpose if the animal will not eat the intended serving.

In coordinating soft-chew development, we prioritize palatability and then work toward a suitable functional ingredient level.

Ingredient supplier Colorcon’s published case provides two specific experimental formulations: glucosamine hydrochloride represented 19.48% and 22.45% by weight in a 2.5 g piece. These are experimental compositions, rather than a basis for setting a project’s maximum ingredient level.

Coordinating development projects with manufacturing partners, we have watched this play out in full: a buyer asked for glucosamine at the formula's upper limit; the first version met the level, but most dogs in the at-home feeding check stopped accepting it within days. After the level was brought back to about two-thirds of the request and the flavor base reworked, acceptance recovered — and the final specification carried the lower, accepted number, not the highest one we could make.

Define the nutritional target with the appropriate formulation expertise, and compare ways of meeting it within a chew the intended animal will accept.

Translate the request into the amount per chew, the proposed number of chews per serving and the intended species or size group. Confirm whether the stated amount refers to the source ingredient or a declared component within it; use the same basis throughout the comparison.

A calculation example, rather than a feeding recommendation: the table compares the same specified ingredient across three piece-weight scenarios.

Reducing piece weight from 2 g to 1.5 g means choosing between a lower amount per piece and a higher ingredient share. Your team needs to identify which requirement has priority: the amount per piece, the smaller size, or flexibility in the serving concept. The manufacturer can then evaluate the revised formula, flavor and forming requirements together. The calculation alone does not establish that the revised chew will perform well.

Review forming and stored texture together

Some customers ask for more gum or binder to improve cohesion during forming. In projects coordinated by Anivor, we discuss improved binding alongside changes in hardness during storage. That makes stored texture part of the sampling question from the start.

One partner has seen both directions hold true: adding binder let the chew keep its shape through forming and packing. The side-by-side stored samples turned noticeably harder by the 60-day check, while the pre-adjustment version stayed soft at the cost of a slightly rougher surface. The binder stayed in the formula at about one-third lower share, with part of the oil moved to the surface.

For an extrusion-based route, ask what formula and forming conditions the sample represents. If the binding system changes, compare shape retention and how the chew breaks or portions, including springback after pressing, ease of breaking and adhesion. Also compare texture changes under the agreed storage and packaging conditions. Record the method, conditions and reference sample used for the comparison.

A Colorcon soft-chew formulation case study used different starch types and oil levels, alongside other compositional changes. Texture was measured on days 0, 1, 7, 14, 21 and 60 after manufacture, with differences in texture and sample-to-sample variability between the systems. The purchasing implication is to review the complete formulation over the relevant observation period, rather than judging softness only when a sample is freshly made.

Before samples are prepared, agree which observations belong in this round and which longer-term texture or stability evidence will follow. Agree at the same time whether this round's samples compare one change at a time or the combined revision. This keeps an early preference for a texture from becoming an undocumented assumption about its performance in the final pack.

Match each customization request to the review it needs

Use the following as a discussion guide when changing a reference product.

Reducing a chew from 2 g to 1.5 g while retaining 200 mg of the specified ingredient reopens both the “ingredients or levels” and “piece weight” reviews, including a re-check of acceptance.

A change limited to label layout can be reviewed as artwork. Changing the product-contact pack, closure or fill quantity calls for reviewing the affected packaging requirements as well. Use the pet supplement packaging brief for the detailed packaging inputs.

If several features change at once, ask the manufacturer which earlier conclusions remain applicable and what the new round needs to establish.

Make the quotation and sample describe the same version

When the quotation and sample do not match, the team cannot confirm that it is evaluating the quoted product. The next step may require a documented explanation of the differences, a revised quotation or further sampling of the affected requirements.

Before accepting a quotation as the basis for sampling, check that it identifies the reference product and proposed changes. It should also identify the intended formula or specification version, the piece and pack configuration, and any requirements still awaiting confirmation.

Ask the manufacturer to identify the version represented by the sample and to explain any difference from the quoted proposal.

Version mismatches are not always announced: in one project, the quotation referenced the reference product’s original formula while the sample was produced from a revised base with a different starch. Neither document highlighted the formula change. It was caught only by comparing the formula code printed on the sample bag against the specification version in the quotation, after one sampling round and three weeks had gone into comparing two different products.

Record the purpose of the round: comparing flavors, reviewing a higher ingredient level, checking a new shape, or assessing the proposed pack. A temporary sample container should be identified as such when packaging remains open.

Use the manufacturing brief to assemble the full inquiry. Once samples arrive, follow the sample review and approval guide to record observations, feedback and the scope of each decision.

The handover should leave your team able to answer one question clearly: which proposed product are we pricing, and which part of that proposal will this sample help us decide?

Frequently asked questions