Containers

Powder formats

On this page11

The jar is the default here The tub is better and rarer Bottles are almost absent Opacity is the axis to check Which matters because the archetype flags light sensitivity So the honest choice is usually opaque Volume tops out at 473 mL And starts at 30 mL The liner decides whether it cakes Pick in this order References

78 jars and 12 tubs. For a scooped product the tubs are the better format and the smaller set.

The jar is the default here

78 of 97 containers. Wide necks, mostly 89-400 and 70-400, which take a scoop without spilling down the side.

The tub is better and rarer

12 of 97. A tub opens to its full diameter, so the last of the powder comes out and a scoop goes in flat. For a bulk consumable that is the right shape.

Bottles are almost absent

6 of 97, which is right for a powder and wrong for a liquid extract. A tincture belongs on a different shelf.

Opacity is the axis to check

29 white and 11 black are opaque. 19 clear and 24 natural are not, and natural polypropylene is translucent rather than opaque.

Which matters because the archetype flags light sensitivity

A concentrated botanical degrades in light, and the protective set that still shows the product is 8 amber and 4 frosted out of 97.

So the honest choice is usually opaque

White or black, and accept that the customer cannot see the contents. Showing a powder through clear plastic is an appearance decision with a shelf-life cost.

Volume tops out at 473 mL

13 containers, which is the largest here. A light botanical powder in kilogram quantities needs several litres and this shelf does not reach it.

And starts at 30 mL

3 containers. Which is a sample size rather than a retail one for a powder, and too large for a concentrated extract.

The liner decides whether it cakes

Covered in full in the concentrates property, which shares this shelf. The short version is that 54 of the 260 closures here have no liner or no record of one.

Pick in this order

Format, then volume, then opacity, then liner by name. Getting the format wrong makes the other three irrelevant.

References

The Davis Pack Supply catalog, measured 19 October 2026. This group returns 357 rows: 97 containers and 260 closures, the same rows the edibles and concentrates and flower groups return, because the packaging archetype is assigned at the spoke level and all three spokes resolve to the same one. The full inventory is enumerated in the edibles property. In outline: 30 to 473 mL with a median of 177, nothing below 30; 66 PP and 31 glass; 78 jars, 12 tubs and pails, 6 bottles, 1 tube; necks mostly 89-400 and 70-400.

The Davis Pack Supply catalog, measured 19 October 2026, a single snapshot rather than a trend. Of the 97 containers in this group: 66 are flagged available, 30 are not and 1 has nothing recorded; 32 of the 96 with a recorded quantity are at zero; 31 are quote only; 33 are full case only, with case packs ranging from 12 to 6,370; 14 are drop ship only. Unit prices run from 30 cents to $3.69 with a median of 90 cents. The shipping weight field on this shelf reaches 2,002 lb, which is a case or pallet weight sitting in a unit field, so it should not be relied on.

Written from 21 U.S.C. 321(ff) and 21 U.S.C. 350b and from the catalog as it stood on 19 October 2026. Nothing here says whether any particular botanical is a lawful dietary ingredient, a new dietary ingredient or saleable: those are per-ingredient determinations, federal agencies have taken positions on several of these which this property does not summarize, and state law differs. Availability and stock figures are a single snapshot rather than a trend. The shipping weight field on this shelf reaches 2,002 lb, which is a case weight in a unit field, so do not rely on it.