TRUST
Editorial Policy
Our research standards, source hierarchy, correction process, review cadence and disclosure of how content is produced.
Evidence-led guidance · UK focus · Veterinary-science reviewed
Research standards
Every page begins with research rather than with a keyword. We read the primary and specialist sources on a topic before writing, verify factual claims independently, and do not assemble content from competitors’ food lists.
Where a claim is contested or the evidence is thin, we say so rather than choosing whichever version reads more cleanly.
Source hierarchy
| Tier | Sources | Used for |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Peer-reviewed research, veterinary literature, government and regulatory sources, official manufacturer specifications | Factual claims, nutritional data, legal and product specifications |
| 2 | Recognised specialist organisations, principally the Tortoise Trust, the British Chelonia Group and The Tortoise Table | Husbandry guidance and species-specific practice |
| 3 | Other published guidance and commercial sources | Context and product information, verified before use |
| 4 | Keeper communities and forums | Identifying real questions and common mistakes, never as evidence for a factual claim |
Community discussion tells us what people are struggling with. It does not settle whether a plant is safe.
Where sources conflict
This happens regularly in tortoise nutrition, and we handle it the same way every time: state that sources disagree, summarise both positions, give ours and the reason for it.
Examples on this site include commercial pellets, alfalfa hay for grazing species, daisies, and the proportion of fruit appropriate for forest species.
What we will not do
- Invent precise quantities. We do not publish grams per feed or supplement doses. Portion and dosage depend on species, age, size, season and the individual animal.
- Claim testing we have not done. We do not test food products and say so on every product page.
- Imply credentials we do not hold. See authors.
- Diagnose. Health pages describe when to seek veterinary help, not what the problem is.
- Accept payment for coverage. No manufacturer pays for inclusion or placement. See our affiliate disclosure.
Review cadence
| Content type | Review interval |
|---|---|
| Food database records | Annually, and whenever specialist guidance changes |
| Species and nutrition pages | Annually |
| Product pages | Annually, and when a composition changes |
| Health-adjacent pages | Annually, and on veterinary feedback |
Every page carries a last reviewed date. Published site content is reviewed by Huzaifah Khalid, MSc Veterinary Science, a PhD student in Veterinary Science at the University of Turin, Italy. His name, qualification and review scope are set out on the authors page.
Corrections
We correct errors rather than quietly editing them away.
- Factual corrections are made as soon as they are verified.
- Substantive corrections are noted on the page.
- Corrections from vets, specialists and experienced keepers are welcome and taken seriously regardless of how they arrive.
Report an error through contact.
How this content is produced
Content on this site is researched and drafted with the assistance of AI tools, then checked against the underlying sources, edited and published under human editorial control. We think readers are entitled to know that.
Before publication, the site’s content is reviewed by Huzaifah Khalid, MSc Veterinary Science, for accuracy, clarity and species-aware application of the cited sources.
What that does not change: every factual claim is traceable to a named source, product figures come from manufacturers’ published specifications, and nothing is published because a tool produced it fluently.
For how food records specifically are built and reviewed, see our sources and review policy.
Last reviewed: September 12, 2026.