I started this journey for one reason: I want Jivita to be the gold standard in what we stock.

Not “whatever’s trending on TikTok this week.” Not letting the market dictate what’s popular, but curating what’s proven, what’s high-integrity, and what genuinely helps people thrive. Products that do what they say they do, with transparency and deep integrity. That’s why I created Jivita… and I have zero intention of that mission changing.

Over time, though, I kept hearing whispers (and then louder conversations) that the bovine collagen industry might be a little more… distorted than many of us realised. It’s a massive industry, and the concern wasn’t “collagen is useless” (because there’s evidence it can be beneficial). The concern was more like: are some claims inflated? Are we paying for a story more than a substance? Are “premium” price tags always matched by premium quality?

So I decided to find out.

Below are the brands I tested. I hoped to find the best ones and stock them on Jivita:

(there are some practitioner only brands here too. When i asked the Jivita community which brands they wanted tested, these ones came up a lot)

• Chief
• Kissed Earth
• Etre Health
• My Way Up
• Best of the Bone
• Nutra Organics
• Nutraviva
• Nutraviva Australian
• Love Ya Guts
• True Protein
• Metagenics
• Protein Supplies
• Thankfully Nourished 
• ATP
• Switch
• Therapure
• imbibe
• Designs for Health
• Orthoplex
• Saturee 

Results below.

Where I Started: The “Dalton Number”

My first checkpoint was something called a Dalton number (don’t worry, i'll explain what that is shortly). The plan was simple:

1. Test the top collagen brands I could think of for their molecular weight (Daltons).

2. Identify which performed best.

3. Then put the best performers through further testing—heavy metals, PFAS, verifying “grass-fed/finished” claims and more… the full integrity audit.

I could go on about where I thought this investigation was going.

But it took a sharp halt at the first hurdle.

When I received the lab results back from Macquarie on 23 collagen samples and their Dalton numbers… none of them were what I expected they’d be.

Before I share the results, let’s break down what the frick a Dalton number is, and why it’s even part of this conversation.

 

---

What a “Dalton Number” Actually Means

A Dalton (Da) is a unit used to describe molecular weight. In plain terms: it’s a way of describing how big a molecule is.

When we’re talking collagen powder, we’re usually talking about hydrolysed collagen (also called collagen peptides). “Hydrolysed” means the original collagen protein has been broken down into smaller peptide fragments.

Why does size matter? Because in general:

• Large proteins are harder to absorb intact.

• Smaller peptides are more likely to make it through the gut wall and into circulation.

Human studies show that after people ingest collagen hydrolysate, specific collagen-derived peptides can be detected in the bloodstream, particularly small di- and tripeptides like Gly–Pro–Hyp and Pro–Hyp. Pub Med study

There’s also evidence (including animal modelling and mechanistic work) that absorption of hydroxyproline-containing peptides occurs and that peptides can show up beyond the gut, supporting the idea that collagen hydrolysate isn’t just “expensive protein,” it can yield circulating peptides of interest. Pub Med study

So what’s an “optimal” Dalton range for collagen powders?

This is where we keep it honest: there isn’t one single universally-agreed magic number that guarantees therapeutic effects in every person.

But based on how peptide absorption works and what we see in the collagen literature, a practical, commonly targeted range for hydrolysed collagen supplements is roughly:

Ideally, the majority of a collagen product should sit below 5,000 Da. If we’re being generous, you could extend that upper limit to below 10,000 Da.

Why that range? Because it aligns with how collagen is understood to function when used for therapeutic purposes, broken down into small peptides that are more plausibly absorbed and detectable in circulation, rather than behaving like a standard dietary protein.

What becomes clear when you look through the data below is that every batch I tested contains a significant proportion of peptides above this range. That alone is worth paying attention to.

Most concerning, were two fold. Firstly, the products making claims that they are “100% 1,000 Da.” Based on the independent results I received, this is not an accurate reflection of the finished product. The data simply does not support those claims. Secondly, were that many companies had test results reflecting a completely different figure. When i was in discussions directly with suppliers, these figures had been supplied by the manufacturers, not by the brands themselves. There could be many reasons for this disparity, one potentially being these tests results were old and had not been retested with updated batches. 

The collagen Jivita has chosen to stock is Thankfully Nourished one that batch tests consistently, communicates results transparently, and continues to update data as new batches are produced. Based on the Dalton results available at the time of testing, it currently demonstrates the strongest alignment with what I was looking for — though it may not be the only product capable of meeting that standard. When I find others, i will bring them on too.

And that matters.

Jivita’s intention has always been clear: to stock products that meet a gold standard, not just in marketing, but in measurable reality. If you want to check out Thankfully Nourished on Jivita, click here.

---

The Testing: What Was Done

All samples were tested using Size-Exclusion Chromatography (SEC) at Macquarie University’s APAF, an ISO/IEC 17025-accredited laboratory.

• 23 collagen products available in Australia were analysed. You'll find 21 of the results below. 2 were suppliers that weren't brands, i was curious, so put them in. They did not fair well. 

• Samples were tested as received. All samples have been retained and this test is easily replicated.

• Molecular weight distribution was reported across defined ranges

• Results show the percentage of material falling within each molecular size bracket

 

---

A Note on Suppliers

One thing that became clear through this process is that there appear to be only  approximately 4–6 primary collagen manufacturers in Australia. Meaning that most of what's out there is similar (depending on batch) if not the same as many other brands out there.

This is not unusual. Many industries operate this way, same raw material, different branding. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. It does, however, make independent testing more important if brands are making specific claims about their products.

 

---

A Note on Blends (Important Context)

Some of the tested products were blends, which may slightly influence the molecular weight distribution. I tried to avoid blended products where possible, but they are noted here for transparency:

• Therapure – contains small amounts of vitamin C

• Switch – a combination of marine and bovine collagen (this product should not have been included due to this blend, but on spotting it, was expecting it to perform very well)

  • Marine collagen tends to achieve smaller molecular sizes more easily

  • Marine collagen is primarily Type I, whereas bovine collagen is typically Type I & III

• Nutra Organics – contains small amounts of vitamin C

These additions were minimal but are worth acknowledging when interpreting results. Therapure and Nutra Organics you should expect will have a small percentage that is higher due to the vitamin C included. 

 

---

Sharing the Results

Below are the raw molecular weight distribution results for each collagen sample tested. These results are taken directly from the APAF (Australian Proteome Analysis Facility, Macquarie University) Size-Exclusion Chromatography (SEC) report.

**Please note that some companies do not publicly share the Dalton (molecular weight) information of their collagen products. A small number do reference it, either in marketing materials or when asked directly. However, the results from this testing suggest that some of the figures circulating are not always an accurate reflection of the finished product.

Information is communicated in a variety of ways: some brands advertise it openly, some provide details privately upon request, some respond via automated or AI-generated replies, and others choose not to respond at all. 

For this reason, I encourage consumers to explore and question their preferred brands if and when they choose, and to form their own understanding based on the information available to them.**

How to Read These Tables

Each table shows the percentage of collagen peptides falling within defined molecular weight (MW) ranges.

Based on the research I explored during this process, collagen products are generally considered more appropriate for therapeutic use when a large proportion of the peptides sit below 10 kDa. As molecular weight increases beyond this range (for example into the 20, 30, 40 kDa range and above), available research suggests that absorption becomes more limited, and the collagen behaves more like a general dietary protein rather than a targeted therapeutic input.

Higher molecular weight fractions are not inherently “bad,” but they may be less relevant for therapeutic outcomes and, for some individuals, may be more difficult to digest or tolerate. As with many biological inputs, individual response varies, and context matters. And, in my opinionated opinion should not be sold with the inflated benefits like they are. 

Retention time windows used by the laboratory were:

MW (kDa)	Retention Time (min)
50	15.51
25	16.82
10	18.55
5	19.87
2.5	21.18
1	22.91

Percentages represent the area under the curve for each molecular weight range. Ideally, my research found, that we are looking for a product with majority of their dalton number below 5000. 

Chief - Unflavoured

Batch number - 332

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.2%
50–25 kDa	2.4%
25–10 kDa	31.4%
10–5 kDa	50.2%
5–2.5 kDa	15.5%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.1%

Kissed Earth - unflavoured

Batch number - 24362

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	4.5%
50–25 kDa	10.1%
25–10 kDa	41.8%
10–5 kDa	35.7%
5–2.5 kDa	7.3%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.6%

Gelpro - The original

Batch number - B112028

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.4%
50–25 kDa	2.8%
25–10 kDa	30.1%
10–5 kDa	50.0%
5–2.5 kDa	15.7%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	1.0%

Etre Health - Beauty & Digest

Batch number - 270116

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.2%
50–25 kDa	2.3%
25–10 kDa	30.8%
10–5 kDa	50.2%
5–2.5 kDa	15.5%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	1.1%

My Way Up - Restore

Batch number B5325.270

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	2.8%
50–25 kDa	8.5%
25–10 kDa	40.2%
10–5 kDa	38.5%
5–2.5 kDa	10.1%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.1%

Best of the Bone - Flavour free

Batch number - 0209

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	1.0%
50–25 kDa	3.7%
25–10 kDa	28.5%
10–5 kDa	51.3%
5–2.5 kDa	15.2%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.4%

Nutra Organics - Beauty

Batch number - T3008 F4192

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	1.8%
50–25 kDa	6.2%
25–10 kDa	37.1%
10–5 kDa	44.6%
5–2.5 kDa	10.2%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.04%

Nutraviva - Unflavoured 

Batch number - 02899

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	1.6%
50–25 kDa	6.8%
25–10 kDa	40.6%
10–5 kDa	38.6%
5–2.5 kDa	12.3%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.1%

Nutraviva Australian - Unflavoured

Batch number - BC241212

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.7%
50–25 kDa	4.3%
25–10 kDa	33.6%
10–5 kDa	44.9%
5–2.5 kDa	16.1%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.4%

Love Ya Guts

Batch number - 270113

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.6%
50–25 kDa	3.7%
25–10 kDa	30.2%
10–5 kDa	50.3%
5–2.5 kDa	14.0%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	1.1%

True Protein

Batch number - 31113 

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.1%
50–25 kDa	1.5%
25–10 kDa	27.4%
10–5 kDa	50.9%
5–2.5 kDa	18.6%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	1.4%

Metagenics 

Batch number - 2434801

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.5%
50–25 kDa	3.6%
25–10 kDa	34.1%
10–5 kDa	47.1%
5–2.5 kDa	13.3%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	1.4%

Protein Supplies - Unflavoured

Batch number - 5814001

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.7%
50–25 kDa	3.9%
25–10 kDa	35.2%
10–5 kDa	46.8%
5–2.5 kDa	12.4%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.9%

Thankfully Nourished 

Batch number - HCP120225

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.5%
50–25 kDa	3.6%
25–10 kDa	30.9%
10–5 kDa	46.5%
5–2.5 kDa	15.5%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	2.9%

 

Thankfully Nourished made it clear from the moment we contacted them that they test every batch, and could happily and quickly share the results with us. From the dalton number, heavy metals and many other metrics. At first point of this discussion they laid out how they were trying new suppliers and less harsh manufacturing processes to get the dalton number lower, whilst maintaining molecular integrity. Not denaturing the product as they went. They changed supplier just after I did these results and below are there new results. 

In saying the above, this does not say that other companies don't do this too. Many don't and some i did not talk to or they didn't respond. 

New* Thankfully Nourished

Batch number - 20250806

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.68%
50–25 kDa	3.4%
25–10 kDa	24.3%
10–5 kDa	42.5%
5–2.5 kDa	24.4%
2.5–1 kDa	4.2%
<1 kDa + retained peptides	0.5%

ATP - J.O.L.T.

Batch number - B3942

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	1.2%
50–25 kDa	5.4%
25–10 kDa	37.7%
10–5 kDa	45.6%
5–2.5 kDa	9.4%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.6%

Switch - Unflavoured

Batch number - 214800

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	1.1%
50–25 kDa	5.9%
25–10 kDa	38.3%
10–5 kDa	37.0%
5–2.5 kDa	11.0%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	6.7%

Therapure - Pure + C

Batch number - 41817

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	1.6%
50–25 kDa	7.4%
25–10 kDa	42.8%
10–5 kDa	40.6%
5–2.5 kDa	6.9%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.7%

Imbibe

No batch number could be spotted. It may have come in a box and I may have thrown that part away, i can't remember. 

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>25 kDa	1.9%
25–10 kDa	28.4%
10–5 kDa	55.4%
5–2.5 kDa	13.1%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	1.2%

Designs for Health - Whole Body Collagen

Batch number - 28241

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.7%
50–25 kDa	4.7%
25–10 kDa	39.4%
10–5 kDa	45.5%
5–2.5 kDa	8.9%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.9%

Orthoplex - Collagen Clinical

Batch number - B52151.540

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	0.3%
50–25 kDa	3.2%
25–10 kDa	34.0%
10–5 kDa	50.5%
5–2.5 kDa	11.2%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.9%

Saturee - Premium

Batch number - HCP240225

Molecular Weight Range	% Area
>50 kDa	1.1%
50–25 kDa	7.5%
25–10 kDa	45.9%
10–5 kDa	36.5%
5–2.5 kDa	8.1%
<2.5 kDa + retained peptides	0.9%

This data represents a snapshot in time, of one batch, not a definitive judgement on any product or brand.

---

My Biggest Concerns

~ Some brands are advertising that 100% of their collagen sits as 1,000Da. As per these independent results, that is far from accurate.

~ Other brands will disclose Dalton (Da) information when asked. In many cases, the figures provided did not align with the laboratory results, indicating significant inaccuracies.

~ It became evident that most (though not all) brands do not conduct their own independent testing, including routine batch testing. Instead, many appear to rely on manufactuer-provided data. Which again, according to these independent labs, indicate significant inaccuracies.

~ Collagen is marketed for its therapeutic benefits, which are generally associated with a (generously) optimal molecular weight of 10,000 Da or below to support absorption. Several products tested contained a large proportion of peptides above this range, where absorption is likely to be limited and, for some individuals, may increase the likelihood of digestive stress or inflammatory responses.

How This Ranking Works

Below are two separate lists, slightly differing.
The first, focusing on optimal outcomes fro absorption. Highest % ≤5,000 Da.
The second, focusing on generously optimal outcomes for absorption. Highest % ≤10,000 Da

This reflects therapeutic peptide relevance, not heavy metals, grass-fed, PFAS or many other things that I would REALLY like to take into consideration

TOP PERFORMERS

When only looking at optimal absorption ≤5,000 Da

1. Thankfully Nourished - 29.1%
2. True Protein - 20.0%
3. Gelpro - 16.7%
4. Etre Health - 16.6%
5. Nutraviva Australian - 16.5%

MID-RANGE PERFORMERS

≤5,000 Da

• 6. Best of the Bone - 15.6%
• 7. Chief - 15.6%
• 8. Love ya Guts - 15.1%
• 9. Metagenics - 14.7%
• 10. Imbibe - 14.3%

MID-LOW PERFORMERS

≤5,000 Da

• 11. Protein Supplies - 13.3%
• 12. Nutraviva - 12.4%
• 13. Orthoplex - 12.1%
• 14. Nutra Organics Beauty (Vit C) - 10.24%
• 15. My Way Up - 10.2%

LOW PERFORMERS

≤5,000 Da

• 16. ATP - 10%
• 17. Designs for Health - 9.8%
• 18. Saturee - 9%
• 19. Kissed Earth - 7.9%
• 20. Therapure (Vit C) - 7.6%

Second Ranking

Focusing on generously optimal outcomes for absorption. Considered the 'upper boundary' for bioavailability.
Highest % ≤10,000 Da

Above this:
~ peptides behave more like intact proteins
~ digestion relies more heavily on gastric and pancreatic enzymes ~ absorption becomes slower and less predictable

Important nuance:
This does not mean peptides above 10 kDa are "useless" - it means they are less likely to contribute to the marketed therapeutic effects attributed to collagen peptides.

TOP PERFORMERS

When only looking at generously optimal absorption ≤10,000 Da

• 1. Thankfully Nourished - 71.6%
• 2. True Protein - 70.9%
• 3. Imbibe - 69.7%
• 4. Best of the Bone - 66.9%
• 5. Etre Health - 66.8%

MID-RANGE PERFORMERS

≤10,000 Da

• 6. Gelpro - 56 70%
• 7. Chief - 65.8%
• 8. Love ya Guts - 65.4%
• 9. Orthoplex - 62.6%
• 10. Metagenics - 61.8%

MID-LOW PERFORMERS

≤10,000 Da

• 11. Nutraviva Australian - 61.4%
• 12. Protein Supplies - 60.1%
• 13. ATP - 55.6%
• 14. Designs for Health- 55.3%
• 15. Nutra Organics Beauty (Vit C) - 54.84%

LOW PERFORMERS

≤10,000 Da

• 16. Nutraviva - 51%
• 17. Therapure (Vit C) - 48.2%
• 18. My Way Up - 48.7%
• 19. Saturee - 45.5%
• 20. Kissed Earth - 43.6%

IMPORTANT CONTEXT
This ranking reflects
molecular weight distribution ONLY
It does not assess:
• sourcing
• formulation, there's two that have vit c included
• processing quality
• batch variability

A Bigger Takeaway

One of the biggest things I’ve learned through this process is that many companies do not conduct their own independent testing. Instead, they rely on data provided by their supplier.

This small snapshot of testing highlights why companies working with whole-food, biologically variable ingredients may need to take a more active role in:

• Testing finished products

• Testing batches, not just formulations

• Taking responsibility for the accuracy of the messaging shared with consumers

---

Holding Space for New Information

This is not gospel. This is not the final word.

This is simply where my research led me.

I had a hunch. I followed it carefully. This is what I found.

One of the realities of working with synthetic ingredients is consistency, you can replicate exact amounts, every time, in a lab. When working with nature, two batches are rarely identical.

I work with companies who honour this reality, test every batch, and update labelling accordingly. I believe consumer awareness can only lead to better outcomes, not just for customers, but for brands too.

We are learning this together.

---

Do I Still Believe in Collagen the supplement?

Yes - absolutely.

Collagen can be incredibly helpful for the right person, for the right reason (particularly injury support), at the right dose, and with a strong focus on quality.

I also believe most collagen should come from what’s on your plate first.

---

 

If you have questions, feel free to DM @thejivitaway on Instagram.

My hope is that this sheds light, not confusion. I’ve moved slowly and deliberately through this process because clarity matters, and people deserve information that empowers rather than overwhelms.

Big love,
Kirsty