Pet Supplement Manufacturer Audit Checklist: Trace a Batch During Your Visit

A pet supplement manufacturer audit checklist connects the proposed product and site to the records behind one batch. Use this guide to classify findings A–D, follow a connected batch trail and leave the visit with unresolved questions, named owners and agreed next actions.

A genuine certificate and a clean corridor do not establish that you are visiting the site that will manufacture your pet supplement. You may be looking at a sales office.

Before sampling, requesting a quote or placing a first order, a factory visit should help answer one question: who will make, check and release this product, at which site, and against which records? Connect what you see with the product specification, actual process and traceable records. A showroom and an equipment list alone cannot supply that answer.

This supplier qualification checklist gives brand owners, buyers and quality coordinators a method for initial screening: establish the brief and evidence requests before visiting, follow linked batch records on site, and assign owners to unresolved issues afterward. It does not replace a formal good manufacturing practice (GMP) or food safety audit. Relevant quality and regulatory personnel should confirm how destination-market rules apply.

Use this pet supplement factory visit checklist to leave with three results: evidence checked, questions still open, and the person responsible for the next assessment.

Revised 29 October 2026

On this page

Definitions for the visit record

Same-batch traceability test

Follow one connected trail from an ingredient or packaging lot through linked production, testing, release and label records. Raw-material and finished-product lot numbers need not be identical.

Evidence levels A–D

This guide’s classification for an individual finding, from verified within the reviewed scope to no relevant material shown.

Open issue

A question that remains unresolved, recorded with its impact, next action, owner and deadline.

1. Define what the evidence supports

Use evidence levels A/B/C/D as a working classification for visit notes. These are this guide's categories for individual findings, not a certification scheme or an overall factory score.

Evidence level	What you have reviewed	Decision it can support
A	Key fields in original records link the product, related batches, site, date and version relevant to the finding	Supports that checked fact within the stated scope
B	A sample or partial record with key connections still missing	Helps explain the record structure; missing links need follow-up
C	A verbal explanation without supporting records	Requires clarification
D	Nothing reviewed or provided, or material cannot be linked to the question being checked	Keep the issue open

Level A depends on the evidence reviewed, not on permission to take photographs. Redacted records or records viewed only on site can support a level A finding when the necessary links remain verifiable. Conversely, a complete-looking file with conflicting fields still creates an open issue.

When you hear the following phrases, ask for the corresponding record:

What you hear	What remains to be checked	Record to request
“The supplier says it is possible.”	Which specification or process supports the proposed work?	Relevant specification, procedure or development record
“We will send the certificate later.”	Its holder, site, scope and current validity	Certificate and a way to verify its status
“It is handled centrally by the group.”	How the central function relates to this site and product	Responsibility record naming the site and approver
“The auditor did not raise it.”	Whether the audit covered this question and site	Audit scope and relevant findings or summary
“This line is not running today, but it is usually the same.”	What evidence covers work not observed today?	Relevant production-day records and the applicable procedure

These statements do not close a question. Record C for an unsupported verbal explanation and D when relevant material has not been shown. Update the classification when verifiable records arrive.

2. Before visiting: send the brief, request records, then review them

Send a one-page product brief

Explain that the visit is an initial capability review. Ask the manufacturer to show normal operations and existing records, and to identify any steps arranged as demonstrations.

Organize the brief into four groups:

• Product direction: species, format and proposed ingredients.
• Market and claims: target market and intended claims.
• Packaging and volume: packaging format and expected quantity.
• Release documentation: the records and documents you expect to see.

Use the pet supplement manufacturing brief template to organize these inputs, mark open decisions and share one version before the visit.

For a US launch that includes Chinese candidates, compare the China, US and Thailand sourcing routes before choosing which sites deserve a visit.

Ask the supplier to identify the manufacturing and packing legal entities, addresses, steps performed at each site and outsourced steps. These answers establish the starting point for verification.

Request material for the preliminary review and on-site discussion

Agree in advance which commercially sensitive information can be redacted:

1. Site and scope: addresses, activities performed there and outsourced steps. For certificates or audit summaries, identify the holder, issuer, scope, site and current validity.
2. Production route: the proposed format's process from incoming materials to finished pack, including steps performed at other sites.
3. Specifications and example records: the current or proposed finished-product specification, a batch production record (BPR) and release documentation. Establish what can be viewed on site and what can follow later.
4. Materials and testing: how ingredients and packaging are specified, received, identified, stored and released; which tests are performed in house and which go to external laboratories.
5. Quality responsibilities: who approves specifications, investigates deviations, reviews results and authorizes release, and who will answer those questions during the visit.
6. Visit access: production, laboratory, warehouse and record areas available for review; activities running that day; permission for photographs, notes or redacted records.

Make three checks when the material arrives

First, connect the entities and sites. Can the declared manufacturer and packer, certificate holder and production address be linked? A group company, laboratory, brand office or sales company may be separate from the production site.

Second, check certificate scope and validity. Review the holder, issuer, standard, scope, address and validity period against the proposed activities. The NASC Quality Seal requires member companies to pass an independent quality audit and maintain ongoing compliance. Membership alone does not establish permission to use the Quality Seal. Verify the company permitted to use the seal and its current status, then ask how it relates to the proposed site and product.

Third, check whether records connect: document title, version, date, site, product, batch, person making the entry, reviewer and release decision. A certificate image alone does not establish who released this product, where or against which records.

For a redacted sample, ask how its fields relate to actual records. Use B where only the structure or some connections can be reviewed; use D where nothing is shown or the material cannot be linked to the question. The pet supplement documentation guide explains what a Certificate of Analysis (COA), specification or test report can tell you.

3. Assess pet supplement R&D capability through one sample development cycle

If the factory develops or adjusts formulas, include this module in a preliminary technical meeting or the visit. If it manufactures established formulas, focus on how development outputs transfer to the proposed line. Use the soft chew, powder and liquid format guide to narrow the brief if the format is still undecided.

Ask the technical lead to select a shareable example in a comparable format. Follow how the request entered development, who planned the work, how the sample changed and what the team observed. Assess responsibility and traceability across formulation, sampling, testing and production transfer.

The R&D checks in this section also draw on a partner manufacturer's factory-visit video, which covers development roles, trial preparation and sample observation. Use these observations to identify which records to request for your proposed product.

Who performs and reviews development and testing?

Map the roles of the technical lead and development assistants. Who checks raw materials, intermediates and finished products? Who performs and reviews the physical/chemical, microbiological, content/potency, viable-count or stability tests relevant to this product? Which activities use an external laboratory? Ask the team to show shareable work records along the development route.

Responsibilities, records and review should connect. A fixed headcount of technical managers or assistants is not a universal qualification threshold. Complete, relevant links can support an A finding; incomplete sample records are B, explanations alone are C, and work not shown is D.

Are the materials and trial records ready?

Ask which ingredients for your proposed formula are available, which need sourcing, whether specifications are defined and who approves material changes. Review one permitted trial record. Establish the formula version and preparation process, then ask what problem arose and why the next version changed.

If sampling is underway, compare the work with the record. Otherwise, ask for a walkthrough using redacted records. Then follow the planned transfer to the production line and identify what still needs verification during scale-up. Useful development evidence connects each adjustment with a version, reason, result and next step.

What stability observations or studies support the sample?

Ask which attributes the study will monitor, with what packaging, storage conditions and observation points. Will accelerated testing be used, and how will it support the proposed shelf life? Review the available plan and interim results against their formula and packaging versions, including unresolved issues.

Owning stability-testing equipment does not establish that this sample has been tested or that results support its shelf life. Connect the equipment with the study plan and actual results.

Stability evidence should show what changed, under which conditions, and whether the change affects the agreed specification or method of use. Use the following topics to connect observations to records:

Product or factor	Focus and records to review	Decision supported
Fish-oil formulas	Assess oxidation as a quality change. Review matrix-appropriate indicators, methods, storage conditions and results over time. Fish-oil research has tracked peroxide and anisidine values. Food Science, 2018	Whether oxidation controls and packaging/storage choices have supporting data; ask the laboratory whether the method suits the finished formula
Live-microorganism formulas	Viable counts depend on the strain, product matrix and storage conditions. Review strain-specific colony-forming units (CFU), method, packaging and results at each time point. EFSA Journal, 2018	Whether data support the required viable count through the proposed shelf life; an ingredient COA at input is insufficient for that conclusion
Soft chews	Assess moisture migration for the formula. Review moisture content, water activity (aw), hardness/texture, sticking and packaging condition over time	Check methods, approved limits and time-point results against the specification version; review investigations and disposition of results outside limits. Record water activity and moisture content separately
Powders	Moisture uptake and caking can affect handling and use. Review temperature/humidity conditions, observations of uptake or caking, and records relevant to pouring, measuring or reconstitution. Brazilian Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, 2016	Define the assessment method and acceptable condition for pouring, measuring or reconstitution, then compare time-point results; record needed formula, pack or use changes when caking interferes with intended use
Liquids containing suspended particles	Assess sedimentation and separation against the formula and use instructions. Review stored appearance, sediment and redispersion after the proposed shaking procedure	Whether formulation, packaging or use instructions need adjustment; not every liquid system requires zero sediment
Packaging barrier and seal	Link packaging material/specification, seal integrity and relevant barrier information to storage results for the same formula in the proposed pack	For a bottle, pouch or seal change, compare old/new pack specifications, relevant barrier/seal information and product storage data; review the quality lead’s rationale for reusing existing evidence

The fish-oil study tested oil samples; the EFSA evidence concerns a specific strain in dog and cat feed; the powder study concerns a food powder. The soft-chew and suspension observation choices also draw on gelled-food research and suspended-beverage research. These inform methods; development and quality personnel must select specifications and study conditions for the intended pet formula.

FEDIAF's Guide to Good Practice for the Manufacture of Safe Pet Foods (2018) also includes shelf-life controls, storage/transport conditions and packaging integrity in relevant product examples. Review these factors alongside sample and packaging versions and interim findings. A claim that accelerated testing supports shelf life needs an explanation and data for the product concerned.

R&D is the start of the capability assessment. Continue through ingredient identity, processing, test review, release, packaging versions and labels to establish a controlled route for the selected product batch.

4. On site: run a same-batch traceability test

This guide calls the exercise of checking linked upstream and downstream records a same-batch traceability test. Select an ingredient or packaging lot that can be reviewed. Follow receipt, storage, issue and use records into the related finished-product batch, then check its testing, release and label version.

“Same-batch” means staying with one connected batch trail; raw materials, intermediates and finished products do not need identical lot numbers. Ask how the links are maintained through splits, combined batches or multiple sites.

1. 01Receipt

   Ingredient / packaging lot

   Verify the link

2. 02Production

   Linked batch records

   Verify the link

3. 03Test & release

   Results + authorization

   Verify the link

4. 04Pack & label

   Approved version

   Verify the link

Log breaks in the batch trail and check the adjacent records. A verbal explanation cannot fill a missing record link. Use the red flags below to prioritize follow-up and escalation; a single observation does not establish an overall factory pass or fail.

Area	Observe or ask	Evidence or explanation	Red flag requiring follow-up
People and handoffs	Who develops formulas, approves changes, tests materials and releases batches? Can they explain their work using procedures and records?	A product-relevant role map or procedure identifying review and approval roles	“Quality handles everything,” with no identified reviewer or release authority
Incoming materials	Follow an ingredient or packaging lot from receipt to storage. How are identity and status maintained?	Receipt, status and acceptance/release records; classify according to the links actually reviewed	Status labels exist, but movements for the selected lot cannot be explained
Warehouse	Check stacking, status cards, segregation, stock movements and cold/ambient storage requirements. How are rejected materials segregated?	Location/status records, monitoring and movement into production; an explanation of receipt/distribution record retention	Released, pending and rejected materials are mixed without segregation, or locating lots depends on memory
Production	Follow the format's process; observe the environment, clothing and actual work. Ask about clearance, setup, process checks, changeovers and authorization after clearance	Redacted batch records showing entries, reviews, exceptions, signatures and deviation triggers	Unexplained blank or late entries; no acceptance criteria for process checks
Testing and release	Which tests apply, where are they done, how are external laboratories evaluated, and who reviews results?	Test plan/method, results, Certificate of Analysis (COA) review and release decision linked to the selected finished batch	A report without a release authority; an out-of-specification result without a documented disposition basis
Packaging and labels	How do approved artwork, component versions, label text and the packed product match?	Approved versions and packing/line checks. US label basics generally include identity/intended use where needed, ingredients by descending weight, manufacturer/packer/distributor name and address, net quantity, English text and necessary warnings	Packaging used without approved artwork; obsolete components not controlled and segregated
Deviations and traceability	What happens after a failed check? Trace a material lot into finished goods and the disposition	A redacted deviation and corrective and preventive action (CAPA) example; traceability or mock recall records where applicable	“We rarely have deviations” used to avoid records, or a claimed exercise without a corresponding record

For US projects, labeling can include promotional material. False or misleading statements, including implications that a beneficial ingredient is present at a higher level than it actually is, can create misbranding concerns. See FDA: How do I Start an Animal Food Business?.

For the visit, also check the approved artwork version, packaging lot, first-pack check, retained sample and change triggers.

FDA describes animal food current good manufacturing practice (CGMP) as the baseline for safety and sanitation in manufacturing, processing, packing and holding. Hazard analysis and preventive control obligations depend on registration requirements, activities and applicable exemptions or modified requirements. See FDA: FSMA Final Rule for Preventive Controls for Animal Food.

For facilities subject to those animal food preventive control requirements under 21 CFR Part 507, ask:

• Which hazards were identified, and which require preventive controls?
• Who monitors the controls, and how are deviations corrected?
• Who verifies the work, and where are the records?

Separately assign responsibility for assessing Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) applicability and importer obligations. See FDA: FSMA Final Rule on Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (FSVP) for Importers of Food for Humans and Animals.

5. A real project, shared anonymously: a genuine certificate, an unresolved production trail

The following real project is shared anonymously with permission. A brand preparing a dog soft-chew product visited a factory that displayed the group's laboratory ISO certificate, a bright showroom and an imported mixer. The buyer's first impression was positive.

Following a fish-oil ingredient through the batch trail revealed a group trading company on the receipt record, another address in the warehouse ledger, and an input lot reference pointing to an outsourced filling location. The certificate was genuine, but it concerned the management system of a group laboratory; it did not establish that this soft chew was made at the visited site against the production record being reviewed.

List the trading entity, warehouse and outsourced production site separately in the visit notes. At each handover, identify the missing lot reference or record and the supplier-selection decision it leaves unresolved.

A teaching example of an A finding: ingredient lot RM-01 has an issue record linked to finished batch FG-01. FG-01's batch record, results, release signature and label version agree.

If these key fields were checked without unexplained conflicts, record “links for the sampled batch checked” as A, with the sampling scope stated.

6. After visiting: maintain an unresolved issues log

Example wording: “Proposed soft-chew ingredient lot movement not verified. Request a redacted trace showing lot references, date, site and operator/reviewer. Brand quality lead to assess before supplier selection.” This identifies an evidence gap without declaring the warehouse compliant or noncompliant.

Escalate when records conflict, a critical process cannot be explained, certificate scope/holder/site is unclear, or product hazards, destination-market claims, import obligations or recall responsibilities need assessment. For applicable US supplier verification, onsite audits, sampling/testing or record reviews can form part of verification activities; the responsible party determines the approach based on risk. See FDA: FSVP Final Rule for these verification options. For onsite audit context, see FDA: Industry Resources on Third-Party Audit Standards and FSMA Supplier Verification Requirements.

7. Turn the visit into a supplier decision

Compare candidate sites against the same brief and record which findings reached A, which B findings still lack key connections, which remain C/D, and what must be resolved before sampling, quotation or production. Distinguish manufacturing responsibilities, brand review and destination-market obligations. Keep product-to-site links requiring clarification out of the verified category.

For the coordination scope and division of responsibilities in an Anivor-supported project, see our manufacturing and quality-control support.

Ten questions to ask a pet supplement manufacturer

Use the last column to record the evidence level, remaining gap, next action, owner and date for each question. A record title alone does not establish that its contents answer the question.

Question	Supporting record to review	Visit note
What are the manufacturing and packing legal entities and sites for this product?	Site and activity list, including outsourced steps	Evidence A/B/C/D: ____; gap/action: ____; owner/date: ____
Which ingredient or packaging lot will start the trace, and how does it link to intermediate and finished batches?	Receipt, issue and batch-linking records	Evidence A/B/C/D: ____; gap/action: ____; owner/date: ____
Who approves the finished-product specification and label version, and what triggers change control?	Specification and label approvals; change-control procedure	Evidence A/B/C/D: ____; gap/action: ____; owner/date: ____
How are received, pending, accepted and rejected ingredients/packaging identified and segregated?	Status records and identification or segregation arrangements	Evidence A/B/C/D: ____; gap/action: ____; owner/date: ____
Who records batch exceptions, investigates deviations and closes CAPA?	Deviation, investigation and CAPA records	Evidence A/B/C/D: ____; gap/action: ____; owner/date: ____
Which tests are internal or outsourced? Who checks the external laboratory's credentials, method suitability and results?	Test plan, method and external laboratory scope	Evidence A/B/C/D: ____; gap/action: ____; owner/date: ____
Who reviews testing, labels, packaging and batch records before finished-product release?	Release authorisation and supporting batch records	Evidence A/B/C/D: ____; gap/action: ____; owner/date: ____
When was the latest traceability or mock recall exercise? If none has been performed, why, and what requirements apply? Can a finished batch be traced back to ingredients?	Traceability or mock-recall record and its reviewed scope	Evidence A/B/C/D: ____; gap/action: ____; owner/date: ____
What evidence can cover lines or areas not operating during the visit?	Relevant production-day records and procedures	Evidence A/B/C/D: ____; gap/action: ____; owner/date: ____
Which records can follow afterward, by when, and from which contact?	Dated follow-up list with named owners	Evidence A/B/C/D: ____; gap/action: ____; owner/date: ____

FAQ

Does FDA registration, an ISO certificate or the NASC Seal replace a factory visit?

These statuses do not directly establish product-specific capability. FDA does not issue or recognize certificates as proof of facility registration; registration is not third-party quality certification. Check the meaning, entity and scope of ISO certification and NASC status separately, then examine the intended product's production records. See FDA: Animal Food Facility Registration and Qualified Facility Attestation: Frequently Asked Questions.

What if photography is not allowed?

Ask to view original records and, with permission, note document identifiers, key links and the person explaining them. Redacted records are another option. Classify according to what can actually be verified, without automatically downgrading records because photographs are prohibited. Agree a follow-up date for remaining gaps. If the supplier refuses to explain the critical fields or links needed to check a finding, keep it unresolved and escalate to the quality lead before relying on it for supplier approval.

Can a visit replace a GMP or FSMA audit?

No. This checklist supports initial screening. Formal audit scope, personnel and verification methods require separate determination.

What is the most useful exercise to insist on?

A same-batch traceability test: follow one connected trail through ingredient use, finished product, testing and release. Log breaks and the next action.

Which phrases deserve follow-up?

“We will send it later,” “the group handles it,” “it is not running today but is usually the same,” and “the auditor did not raise it.” Treat them as unresolved explanations, not grounds to close a question.

Stability methods: supporting reading

These studies inform the observations in section 3, where their subjects and application limits are described.

1. Quality Changes in Crude and Refined Fish Oil at Different Storage Temperatures, 2018.
2. Safety and efficacy of Lactobacillus acidophilus D2/CSL as a feed additive for cats and dogs, EFSA, 2018, section 3.1.
3. Hygroscopic behavior of lyophilized acerola pulp powder, 2016.
4. Sustainable use of coffee roasting by-products: development of high value-added gummy candies, 2024. Used for physical stability observations, not as a pet-formula ingredient recommendation.
5. Evaluation of the effect of adding passion fruit albedo flour and storage temperature on the suspension of mixed sugarcane juice-based beverage, 2026.

Related reading

• Compare manufacturing locations and sourcing trade-offs
• COA, TDS, SDS and test reports
• Review pet supplement samples before production