The container problem
On this page11
What is here
854 rows: 399 containers and 455 closures. 224 PET, 100 HDPE, 74 glass and 1 LDPE, from 10 to 9,464 mL with a median of 118.
Read the median
118 mL. The depth is in small bottles, which serves the topical and does nothing for a mineral supplement bought by the kilogram.
The feed half
22 containers at a litre or more. That is the honest answer for a supplement in the 250 to 4,000 mL window the archetype describes, and it is a short list rather than a deep one.
Which is not a failure of the catalog
Livestock feed is sold in sacks and pails from agricultural suppliers. A rigid packaging catalog serves the small, retail, high-value end of this craft, and saying so is more useful than implying otherwise.
The topical half
60 glass Boston rounds, 49 PET Boston rounds, 32 cosmo bullets, with 43 dropper assemblies behind them. Properly served.
By color
97 white, 96 clear, 69 amber, 46 blue, 33 natural. The amber and the opaque whites are doing light protection; the clear is presentation.
By neck
89-400 at 127 is the wide-mouth finish for jars, and 20-410 at 107 and 24-410 at 84 are the small bottle finishes. Those three cover most of the shelf between them.
How to shop it
Decide whether the product is eaten or applied. That single question splits this shelf cleanly and makes every subsequent filter easy.
Which is why the two halves need different suppliers
A small topical and a bulk supplement are not one sourcing conversation. Expecting one catalog to serve both well is what produces a compromise container for the half it serves badly.
And why the product mix question comes first
A range that is all topicals can be built entirely from this shelf. A range that leads with a 2 kg mineral supplement cannot, and knowing that before the brand is designed saves redesigning it around a container you can actually buy.