Every manufacturer's claim, beside the independent research.
Browse feed additives by EU classification, company and species. We read the literature for each — meta-analyses, trials, regulators — and show what holds up. The verdict is free; the credibility analysis is a Power feature.
What the evidence says, across the index
From the dataPatterns we compute from the credibility analysisRecent research in the index
Individual studies behind the verdictsNew verdicts and studies, in your inbox.
When a new product is reviewed or an independent study lands, we summarise what changed and what it means for buyers. No marketing — just the evidence.
Buy on evidence, not marketing.
Power turns every listing into a purchase you can defend. You see who funded each study, whether a claim still holds once the maker's own trials are set aside, and the numbers behind the verdict — the kind of due diligence that protects a whole herd's feed budget.
An independent index of what feed additives actually do.
feedmaterials puts every manufacturer's claim beside the published research — so buyers, nutritionists and vets can see what holds up, who funded it, and what's still unproven.
How we research
For each additive we run a research-first pass: we lead with meta-analyses and systematic reviews, then regulatory opinions (EFSA), controlled trials, and patents — across all years. We record what we searched, and never invent a figure: where a pivotal paper is paywalled, we request the full text rather than guess.
How we weigh funding
Every study is classified by who paid for it — stated as a fact about the study, never a judgement of the researchers:
- Independent — university or research body, no manufacturer funding or co-authors.
- Competitor-confirmed — a rival's own study that still confirms the claim; the bias runs against the maker, so it carries the most weight.
- Company-supported — the maker funded it, supplied materials, or co-authored it.
- Sponsor comparison — a maker-run study comparing its own product against rivals; read with caution.
The Independence Test then asks: does a claim still stand once company-funded studies are set aside?
Keeping it current
Each product shows when its evidence was last reviewed and how many new studies we've found but not yet read into the verdict. We re-scan the literature and the EU register on a rolling basis, so every verdict is a dated snapshot — not a one-off claim that quietly goes stale.
Our rules
- Manufacturer claims are shown as published and are not independently verified.
- A missing independent study is a gap in the evidence, not a mark against the product.
- Advertising never changes a verdict (see Ads & Sponsorship).
Reach the people who choose feed additives.
feedmaterials is read by nutritionists, vets, producers and buyers comparing additives before they purchase. You can put your product in front of them — clearly, and without ever touching the science.
The one rule that doesn't bend
Sponsorship never affects research, funding analysis, or a verdict. Ads are always labelled "Sponsored", carry no credibility badge, and are kept separate from the editorial index. A company can buy attention — never a better score.
Placements
Leaderboard
A labelled sponsored unit at the top of the index and search results.
Native card
A sponsored card within the product grid — clearly marked, no verdict.
Sidebar
A persistent unit beside the filters on the index.
Verified company presence
Labelled ad units across the index. Pay for reach, not ranking.
- Leaderboard / native / sidebar
- Always labelled "Sponsored"
- No effect on any verdict
Claim your company profile, respond to listings, and unlock advertising.
- Verified company badge
- Right of reply on your products
- Eligibility to advertise
- Still cannot alter research or funding analysis
Log in or create an account.
Free accounts get claims, verdicts and evidence strength. Power unlocks the credibility analysis — the funding behind every study, the Independence Test, Cite, and the source links.
- Every claim & verdict
- Evidence-strength rating
- Browse by EU class, company, species
- The funding behind every study
- The Independence Test
- Ask Cite — 10 questions per product
- Source links & full effect sizes
Plain-language definitions, and how we reach a verdict.
Feed science is full of jargon. Here's what the terms on this site mean, the kinds of studies we weigh, and exactly how the funding labels work.
The science
Kinds of study, weakest to strongest
How we label who funded the evidence
EU classification, in brief
EU feed additives fall into five regulated families — technological, sensory, nutritional, zootechnical, and coccidiostats — each authorised under Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003. Some products are not additives at all but feed materials or complementary feeds, governed by labelling rules rather than an additive authorisation. We show each product's status and link to the relevant EU register.
How a verdict is reached
We run a research-first pass for each product — leading with meta-analyses and systematic reviews, then EFSA opinions, controlled trials and patents, across all years. We tag every study by who funded it, summarise the effect size, then apply the Independence Test: does the claim still stand once company-funded studies are set aside? A claim with no independent support isn't marked false — it's flagged as not yet independently verified. See About for the full method and our integrity rules.