Regulatory standards that control the production of feeds do not allow any margin of error. All ingredients of the blend should be traceable. Each batch should be tested in accordance with nutritional and safety standards. It is not just a quality assurance requirement. It is a precondition of licensing, trade certification, and further access to the market.

Why Documentation Holds Equal Weight to Formulation

Bureau of Indian Standards mandates that nutrient values, physical properties and contamination levels of animal feed of regulated categories be verified periodically. This includes aquaculture feed, poultry mash, dairy rations and compound livestock meal. The lack of recording of test results at various checkpoints enhances the chances of batch rejection or regulatory fines.

Interstate feed plants or export feed plants are also required to meet the quality audits required by APEDA. These audits demand third party verification reports of proximate values, pesticide levels, mycotoxin residue, heavy metal content and microbiological status. Manufacturers who sell to GMP+ or ISO 22000 customers are required to keep certified laboratory records of each raw material and each final formulation.

Traceability Requires More Than In-House Checks

Numerous feed plants have internal quality control measures. These are physical observation, on site moisture tests and periodic protein profiling. Although these measures assist in the day-to-day operations, they do not substitute third-party validation. Reports issued by labs that are accredited according to ISO 17025 and recognised by NABL satisfy audit thresholds. Such labs adhere to method-specific protocols, which are standardised and internationally comparable.

Internal checks are usually based on quick kits or old protocols. This causes inconsistency of data in external inspection. When the in-house value is 24 percent crude protein, and the third-party value is 21 percent, then the whole batch can be flagged. Accredited laboratories reduce this variation through validated equipment, traceable reference standards and trained analysts.

What Auditors Examine Beyond Test Reports

Audits are no longer checklist-based. The inspectors often compare lab reports against production logs, raw material registers, and dispatch records. They match test dates with blending schedules. They review how non-conformities were managed. They verify whether reports follow accepted methods such as AOAC, BIS, or EC protocols. They may also request corrective action evidence for past deviations.

To pass these audits, manufacturers must not only have valid reports. They must also ensure that the lab’s scope of accreditation matches the tested parameter. For instance, if the lab is not accredited for aflatoxin B1, then its results may be rejected during BIS or APEDA inspection.

Key Parameters That Need Certified Validation

• Moisture content for raw materials and finished feed.
• Crude protein, fibre, fat, and ash values across all formulations.
• Aflatoxin B1, B2, G1, G2 for maize, oilseed cake, and compound feed.
• Organochlorine and organophosphate pesticide residue for grains and premixes.
• Salmonella, E. coli, and total plate count for microbial safety.

These parameters do not only influence the quality of products. They affect the health of animals, their feed ratio, shelf life and brand liability. Above all, they cannot be negotiated in accordance with the existing regulatory standards.

How Test Frequency Shapes Audit Outcomes

Feed manufacturers must build a calendar-based testing system. APEDA recommends fortnightly mycotoxin tests during monsoon months. BIS standards require every new raw batch to undergo verification. Global Good Agricultural Practices (GlobalG.A.P) and GMP+ require raw material testing to occur before blending and post-formulation. Labs that support such systems must have the bandwidth to process high volumes in short cycles.

Manufacturers that only test when shipments are ready often face trouble. By then, the product has been bagged and scheduled for dispatch. If the report indicates deviation, the entire shipment is delayed or discarded. Regular scheduled testing prevents this risk by detecting issues earlier in the chain.

Certified Labs Minimise Test Variability

Analyst bias, machine drift or inconsistent sample handling is normally the cause of variability of the test. Specified sample collection procedures, drying protocols, and repeat test policies are some of the methods used by accredited laboratories to mitigate such errors. An example is that the moisture content may vary by one percent between samples dried in the sun and those dried in the oven. These processes are recorded in certified laboratories to make it easier to ask audit questions in future.

During international shipment repeatability is important. A large number of export purchasers demand re-testing at port or destination. When the new outcome is very different as compared to the original, it creates financial and legal issues. Internationally recognized labs and audit-friendly procedures assist manufacturers to evade these controversies.

Root Cause Analysis and Corrective Action

In case feed does not pass a test, it is necessary to find the cause. Was it a raw input problem or a blending problem? Was it cross-contamination or improper storage? This investigation can be assisted by accredited labs by parallel testing, control sample analysis and degradation studies. They assist manufacturers to determine the point of failure and redesign procedures to prevent the same.

Such corrective measures are frequently requested by auditors. The evidence can be given by labs that keep detailed logs and trend analysis. This generates a clear record of compliance that meets the local and foreign inspectors.

Digital Lab Reports Improve Audit Readiness

The contemporary feed audit is becoming more digital. Inspectors like PDF reports that have QR codes, batch traceability, and validation of digital signature. Labs which offer such reports ease the burden on the manufacturer. These reports may be connected to ERP systems, distributed through compliance dashboards and stored safely to be reviewed by trace-back.

Physical reports that lack metadata or the ability to time stamp are no longer regarded as reliable. Digital validation offers time logs, lab stamp validation and scope cross-checks. These features come in handy especially when handling port authorities or APEDA panels who demand immediate verification.

Accredited Reports Only Have Legal Effect

A report of a non-accredited lab can seem complete. It can even demonstrate optimal outcomes. However, when it is not supported by ISO 17025 or NABL, it does not count in the certification. Such reports can be prohibited by regulatory bodies and the feed batch can be considered non-compliant. This stops sales, causes product recall and opens up to scrutiny.

Manufacturers should also verify whether their testing partner has all the relevant parameters in its scope. There are labs that can be accredited to do proximate testing but not pesticide residue. The result of using such labs is incomplete documentation that does not meet audit expectations.

Conclusion

Being audit-ready is not a question of quantity or cost. It concerns test quality, traceability and documented repeatability. The accredited labs assist in ensuring that these expectations are not compromised by the manufacturers of the feeds. They provide proven procedures, accredited findings, and prompt assistance in case of audit queries.

ISSPL Testing Lab assists the feed manufacturers through the provision of accredited reports that comply with the BIS, APEDA, and international audit frameworks. Their testing systems are aimed at avoiding disruptions and facilitating full spectrum compliance of both local and global markets.