Getting started

Weight and volume

On this page13

A powder supplement is declared by weight A container is specified by volume And the conversion is a property of the powder So we publish no fill weight Which puts one measurement on your side And it has to be taken after settling The statute names two functional reasons for empty space The FDA regulation names six and settling is the third For a powder that difference is the whole question Our two dimension fields are the other half of the answer And 2 of 171 have no capacity recorded at all Measure the settled volume, then pick the jar References

We publish a volume. The declaration is a mass.

A powder supplement is declared by weight

Grams on the label and grams per serving, which is how the category is bought and compared.

A container is specified by volume

Our capacity field is millilitres, published on 169 of the 171 containers here, running 100 to 3,000 with a median of 355.

And the conversion is a property of the powder

Bulk density. A sea moss gel powder, a colostrum and a scooped recovery blend do not pack the same way into the same jar.

So we publish no fill weight

Because any figure would be wrong for most products and would be laid out against. The gummies property makes the same point about a confection.

Which puts one measurement on your side

Fill the jar you are considering, weigh the contents, and you have the number. One measurement per recipe and per size.

And it has to be taken after settling

A powder packs down in transit, so the volume at the filler is not the volume on the shelf. Which is where the slack fill definitions come in.

The statute names two functional reasons for empty space

Protection of the contents, and the requirements of the machines used for enclosing the contents. Settling is not one of them.

The FDA regulation names six and settling is the third

Which the pet food property quotes in full. So the same concept has a narrow statutory definition and a generous regulatory one.

For a powder that difference is the whole question

Settling is what a dry bulk product does, and which definition you are reading decides whether that accounts for the gap.

Our two dimension fields are the other half of the answer

Diameter on 152 containers and height on 161, both with a median of 3.56 inches. A square proportion empties better than a tall narrow one, whatever the capacity says.

And 2 of 171 have no capacity recorded at all

For those the volume side of the arithmetic is missing from our data too, which is a reason to ask rather than to estimate.

Measure the settled volume, then pick the jar

Not the other way round. The jar is the long lead time and the measurement is an afternoon.

References

The Davis Pack Supply catalog, measured 19 October 2026. Our capacity field is a volume in millilitres, published on 169 of the 171 containers in this group and running 100 to 3,000 mL with a median of 355. A powder supplement is declared by weight. We publish no bulk density and no fill weight, so a volume cannot be converted to a mass from our data. Bulk density is a property of the powder, and the five leaves in this group differ widely in it.

15 U.S.C. 1454(c)(4), requiring regulations effective to "prevent the nonfunctional-slack-fill of packages containing consumer commodities", with the statutory definition: "a package shall be deemed to be nonfunctionally slack-filled if it is filled to substantially less than its capacity for reasons other than (A) protection of the contents of such package or (B) the requirements of machines used for enclosing the contents in such package." The FDA regulation at 21 CFR 100.100(a) gives six functional reasons rather than two; the pet food and treats property quotes all six. law.cornell.edu

Written from 15 U.S.C. 1454(c) and from the catalog as it stood on 19 October 2026. That subsection authorizes regulations and is not itself a packaging requirement; nothing here describes the content of any regulation promulgated under it. Our capacity field is a volume and a powder is declared by weight, and we publish no bulk density, so the two cannot be reconciled from our data. Whether any ingredient in this group may be used is the new dietary ingredient question covered in the adjacent botanicals property and is not addressed here.