Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

(Mark One)

For the quarterly period ended December 27, 2003

or

For the transition period from              to             

Commission File Number: 0-20242

CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

3697 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 310, Lafayette, California 94549

(Address of principle executive offices)

(925) 283-4573

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    x  Yes    ¨  No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

Table of Contents

Safe Harbor Statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

This quarterly report contains “forward-looking” statements based on current expectations that involve risks and uncertainties. Actual results and the timing of certain events may differ significantly from those projected in these forward-looking statements due to the factors listed below, under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Risk Factors” in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 27, 2003, and from time to time in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Central undertakes no obligation to publicly update these forward-looking statements to reflect new information, subsequent events or otherwise.

2

Table of Contents

PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. Financial Statements

CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except share and per share amounts)

(unaudited)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS

(in thousands, except per share amounts)

(unaudited)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(in thousands)

(unaudited)

See notes to condensed consolidated financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Three Months Ended December 27, 2003

(unaudited)

1. Basis of Presentation

The condensed consolidated balance sheet of Central Garden & Pet Company and subsidiaries (the “Company” or “Central”) as of December 27, 2003, the condensed consolidated statements of operations for the three months ended December 28, 2002 and December 27, 2003 and the condensed consolidated statements of cash flows for the three months ended December 28, 2002 and December 27, 2003 have been prepared by the Company, without audit. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (which include only normal recurring adjustments) considered necessary to present fairly the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company for the periods mentioned above, have been made.

Due to the seasonal nature of the Company’s business, the results of operations for the three months ended December 27, 2003 are not indicative of the operating results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending September 25, 2004. It is suggested that these interim financial statements be read in conjunction with the annual audited financial statements, accounting policies and financial notes thereto, included in the Company’s 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K which has previously been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

2. Stock Plan Information

The Company has various non-qualified stock-based compensation programs, which include stock options and restricted stock awards.

The Company has various stock option plans that provide for the granting of stock options to officers, key employees and directors. The Company has elected to continue to account for stock-based compensation using the intrinsic value method prescribed in Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees,” whereby the options are granted at market price, and therefore no compensation costs are recognized. As required by SFAS No. 148, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure,” the Company has provided fair value based pro-forma disclosures in its interim financial statements.

If compensation expense for the Company’s various stock option plans had been determined based upon the projected fair values at the grant dates for awards under those plans in accordance with SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation”, the Company’s pro-forma net earnings, basic and diluted earnings per common share would have been as follows:

6

Table of Contents

3. Earnings Per Share

Options to purchase 2,418,547 and 2,348,741 shares of common stock at prices ranging from $1.30 to $33.94 per share were outstanding during the three-month periods ended December 27, 2003 and December 28, 2002, respectively, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share because the assumed exercise would have been anti-dilutive in each period. Shares of common stock from the assumed conversion of the company’s previously outstanding convertible securities totaling 4,107,143 were also not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the three-month period ended December 28, 2002 because the assumed conversion would have been anti-dilutive.

4. Segment Information

Management has determined that the reportable segments of the Company are Garden Products and Pet Products, based on the level at which the chief operating decision making group reviews the results of operations to make decisions regarding performance assessment and resource allocation.

7

Table of Contents

5. Contingencies

Central does not believe that the outcome of the following legal proceedings will have a material adverse effect on its results of operations, liquidity or financial position taken as a whole. However, because these proceedings may raise complex factual and legal issues and are subject to uncertainties, Central cannot predict with assurance the outcome of these proceedings. Accordingly, adverse settlements or resolutions may occur and negatively impact earnings in the quarter of settlement or resolution.

TFH Litigation. In December 1997, Central acquired all of the stock of TFH Publications, Inc. (“TFH”). In connection with the transaction, Central made a $10 million loan to the sellers, which was evidenced by a Promissory Note. In September 1998, the prior owners of TFH brought suit against Central and certain executives of Central for damages and relief from their obligations under the Promissory Note, alleging, among other things, that Central’s failure to properly supervise the TFH management team had jeopardized their prospects of achieving certain earnouts. Central believes that these allegations are without merit. Central counterclaimed against the prior owners for enforcement of the Promissory Note, rescission and/or damages and other relief, alleging, among other things, fraud, misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty by the prior owners of TFH. These actions, Herbert R. Axelrod and Evelyn Axelrod v. Central Garden & Pet Company; Glen S. Axelrod; Gary Hersch; William E. Brown; Robert B. Jones; Glenn Novotny; and Neill Hines, Docket No. MON-L-5100-99, and TFH Publications, Inc. v. Herbert Axelrod et al., Docket No. L-2127-99 (consolidated cases), are in the New Jersey Superior Court.

During the course of discovery in this action, Central has become aware of certain information which shows that prior to the acquisition of TFH by Central, certain records of TFH were prepared in an inaccurate manner which, among other things, resulted in underpayment of taxes by certain individuals. Those individuals could be liable for back taxes, interest, and penalties. In addition, even though all of the events occurred prior to the acquisition of TFH by Central, there is a possibility that TFH could be liable for penalties for events which occurred under prior management. Central believes that TFH has strong defenses available to the assertion of any penalties against TFH. Central cannot predict whether TFH will be required to pay any such penalties. In the event that TFH were required to pay penalties, Central would seek compensation from the prior owners.

Scotts Litigation. On June 30, 2000, The Scotts Company filed suit against Central to collect the purchase price of certain lawn and garden products previously sold to Central. See The Scotts Company v. Central Garden & Pet Company, Docket No. C2 00-755 (U.S. Dist Ct. N.D. Ohio). Central filed its answer and a counter complaint asserting various claims for breaches of contracts.

In April 2002, trial occurred on the claims and counterclaims of the parties (excluding one oral contract claim that was severed from the remainder of the case). The net verdict was in favor of Scotts in the amount of $10.4 million which had previously been recorded as an obligation by the Company. Scotts and Central filed post-trial motions. In a March 20, 2003 order, the district court denied Scotts’ motion for attorneys’ fees, granted Scotts’ motion to set aside $750,000 of the jury amount awarded to Central, denied Central’s motion for a new trial, granted Central’s motion for prejudgment interest, and granted in part and denied in part Scotts’ motion for prejudgment interest. The court directed each party to re-determine the amount of their respective interest claims in light of the Court’s ruling and to submit their respective determinations. On July 11, 2003, the Court issued an order resolving the remaining prejudgment interest issues and directing the parties to submit calculations in accordance with its decision. Pursuant to this order, the Court awarded prejudgment interest to Scotts in the net amount of $2.8 million. On October 3, 2003, Central and Scotts settled the oral contract claim that had previously been severed from the remainder of the case. Pursuant to the settlement, Scotts reduced the judgment amount by $300,000. Central and Scotts have each filed notices of appeal from different aspects of the prior judgment and post-judgment orders. In connection with the appeal, Central has paid approximately $15 million into an escrow account which is reported as restricted investments on our balance sheet.

On July 7, 2000, Central filed suit against Scotts and Pharmacia Corporation (formerly know as Monsanto Company) seeking damages and injunctive relief for, among other things, violations of the antitrust laws. See Central Garden & Pet Company, v. The Scotts Company, and Pharmacia Corporation, formerly known as Monsanto Company, Docket No. C 00 2465, (U.S. Dist Ct. N.D. Cal.). Pursuant to a settlement reached with Pharmacia, Central and Pharmacia agreed that all antitrust claims against Pharmacia and Monsanto would be resolved, and the federal action has been dismissed as to Pharmacia and Monsanto. In May 2002, Scotts filed a motion for summary judgment in the federal action based on res judicata. The court granted the res judicata motion. Central has appealed the judgment entered pursuant to the court’s order. On January 15, 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Phoenix Fire. On August 2, 2000, a fire destroyed Central’s leased warehouse space in Phoenix, Arizona, and an adjoining warehouse space leased by a third party. On July 31, 2001, the adjoining warehouse tenant filed a lawsuit against Central and other parties in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, seeking to recover $47 million for property damage from the fire. See Cardinal Health Inc., et al. v. Central Garden & Pet Company, et al., Civil Case No. CV2001-013152. Local residents also filed a purported class action lawsuit alleging claims for bodily injury and property damage as a result of the fire. This lawsuit has now been settled as to all parties, subject to Court approval. As part of the settlement, Central’s liability insurers will pay $8 million on behalf

8

Table of Contents

of Central, once the settlement becomes final in 2004. The building owner and several nearby businesses have also filed lawsuits for property damage and business interruption, which are being coordinated with the remaining tenant lawsuit. Each of these lawsuits is currently pending in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, after monitoring the cleanup operations and asking Central, the building owner and the adjoining warehouse tenant to assess whether the fire and fire suppression efforts may have caused environmental impacts to soil, groundwater and/or surface water, has now issued a letter stating that Central need take no further action at the site with respect to environmental issues. In early 2001, the EPA requested information relating to the fire. On July 17, 2002, the EPA informed Central that it intended to file a civil administrative complaint seeking penalties of up to $350,000 for certain alleged post-fire reporting violations. Central and the EPA have settled those allegations for $65,000. The overall amount of the damages to all parties caused by the fire, and the overall amount of damages which Central may sustain as a result of the fire, have not been quantified. At the time of the fire, Central maintained property insurance covering losses to the leased premises, Central’s inventory and equipment, and loss of business income. Central also maintained insurance providing $51 million of coverage (with no deductible) against third party liability. Central believes that this insurance coverage will be available with respect to third party claims against Central if parties other than Central are not found responsible. The precise amount of the damages sustained in the fire, the ultimate determination of the parties responsible and the availability of insurance coverage are likely to depend on the outcome of complex litigation, involving numerous claimants, defendants and insurance companies.

6. Consolidating Condensed Financial Information of Guarantor Subsidiaries

Certain wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company (as listed below, collectively the “Guarantor Subsidiaries”) have guaranteed fully and unconditionally, on a joint and several basis, the obligation to pay principal and interest under the Company’s $150,000,000 9-1/8% Senior Subordinated Notes (the “Notes”) issued on January 30, 2003. Certain subsidiaries and operating divisions are not guarantors of the Notes and have been included in the financial results of the Parent in the information below. Those subsidiaries that are guarantors of the Notes are as follows:

Four Paws Products Ltd.

Grant Laboratories, Inc.

Kaytee Products, Incorporated

Matthews Redwood & Nursery Supply, Inc.

Pennington Seed, Inc. (including Phaeton Corporation (dba Unicorn Labs), Seeds West, Inc., All-Glass Aquarium Co., Inc.

(including Oceanic Systems, Inc.))

T.F.H. Publications, Inc.

Wellmark International

Norcal Pottery Products, Inc.

Pennington Seed, Inc. of Nebraska

Gro Tec, Inc.

In lieu of providing separate unaudited financial statements for the Guarantor Subsidiaries, the Company has included the accompanying unaudited consolidating condensed financial statements based on the Company’s understanding of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s interpretation and application of Rule 3-10 of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation S-X.

9

Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATING CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS

10

Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATING CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET

CONSOLIDATING CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET

11

Table of Contents

CONSOLIDATING CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS