Our verdict
Is Bowlsome Chicken Bowl a good dog food?
We score it 70/100 (Good). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for all lifestages
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists green-lipped mussel
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists barley
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
These points are derived from declared ingredients and analysis, not a substitute for veterinary advice. If your dog has a diagnosed condition, food choice is a medical nutrition decision: speak to your vet. Find foods that fit your dog.
Ingredients (14)0% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 62.7%
- carb 18.6%
- veg 12.4%
- fibre 2.6%
- supplement 1.8%
- additive 1.4%
- oil 0.5%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 62.59% Chicken | Chicken | meat · medium | 62.59 | 62.6 |
| 2 | 9.57% Barley | Barley | carb · medium | 9.57 | 9.6 |
| 3 | 9% Sweet Potato | Sweet Potatoes | carb · good | 9 | 9.0 |
| 4 | 9% Carrots | Carrots | veg · good | 9 | 9.0 |
| 5 | 3.28% Green Beans | Green Beans | veg · good | 3.28 | 3.3 |
| 6 | 2.58% Bamboo Fibre | Bamboo Fibre | fibre · medium | 2.58 | 2.6 |
| 7 | 1.73% Vitamins and Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | 1.73 | 1.7 |
| 8 | 0.72% Natural Palatant | Palatant | additive · poor | 0.72 | 0.7 |
| 9 | 0.6% Natural Gelling Agent | Vegetable Gelling Agent | additive · medium | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| 10 | 0.34% Flaxseed Oil | Linseed oil | oil · good | 0.34 | 0.3 |
| 11 | 0.14% Fish Oil | Fish Oil | oil · good | 0.14 | 0.1 |
| 12 | 0.11% Natural Antioxidant | Antioxidants | additive · medium | 0.11 | 0.1 |
| 13 | 0.08% Algimun | Seaweed | veg · good | 0.08 | 0.08 |
| 14 | 0.07% Green Lipped Mussel | Green-Lipped Mussel | supplement · good | 0.07 | 0.07 |
- 1. 62.59% Chicken62.59% declared62.6% estimated
- 2. 9.57% Barley9.57% declared9.6% estimated
- 3. 9% Sweet Potato9% declared9.0% estimated
- 4. 9% Carrots9% declared9.0% estimated
- 5. 3.28% Green Beans3.28% declared3.3% estimated
- 6. 2.58% Bamboo Fibre2.58% declared2.6% estimated
- 7. 1.73% Vitamins and Minerals1.73% declared1.7% estimated
- 8. 0.72% Natural Palatant0.72% declared0.7% estimated
- 9. 0.6% Natural Gelling Agent0.6% declared0.6% estimated
- 10. 0.34% Flaxseed Oil0.34% declared0.3% estimated
- 11. 0.14% Fish Oil0.14% declared0.1% estimated
- 12. 0.11% Natural Antioxidant0.11% declared0.1% estimated
- 13. 0.08% Algimun0.08% declared0.08% estimated
- 14. 0.07% Green Lipped Mussel0.07% declared0.07% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 9.20% · Fat 7.10%
Declared analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed | Dry matter | Directory average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 9.20% | 28.50% | - |
| Fat | 7.10% | 22.03% | - |
| Moisture | 67.77% | - | - |
| Carbohydrates | 5.50% | 17.05% | - |
Energy: 143 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Sealed in stay-fresh pouches, keeping quality high without refrigeration—simply open and serve, mess-free.
Feeding guide
0-5kg: up to 307g; 5-10kg: 307g to 516g; 10-15kg: 516g to 700g; 15-25kg: 700g to 1026g; 25-50kg: 1026g to 1726g (guide only)
No additives recorded yet.
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-18
Brand and contact: Bowlsome
- Website
- https://bowlsome.au/
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-18
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- bowlsome.au
Recall history is presentation-only and never affects the score. Dates are when we recorded the data, not when the manufacturer last changed the recipe.
Spotted a mistake in this listing? Report it here and we'll take a look.
Score details and methodologyCalculations, history and evidence
Recipe: how the 1-100 score is calculated
Why this score?
This recipe scores 70 out of 100. The overall quality of the ingredient list helped, contributing +5.1 points, while the meat content also added +4.7 points. On the downside, the carbohydrate content pulled the score down by -3.4 points, and the processing format reduced it further by -0.7 points.
Scored with model v3 on 2026-10-25. Each component is the feature value for this product multiplied by the model's published coefficient.
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.5 | 9.191 | +5.05 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 48.9% | 0.096 | +4.69 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 29.8% | -0.115 | -3.43 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 1.3% | -0.092 | -0.12 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 5.3% | -0.005 | -0.03 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 3.6% | 0.163 | +0.58 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 4.6% | -0.012 | -0.06 |
| Recipe graded poor | 0.7% | -0.065 | -0.05 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 0.7% | 0.060 | +0.04 |
| Undeclared quantities | 0.2% | -0.106 | -0.02 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Additive penalty | -1.72 | 0.222 | -0.38 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Fresh Shelf | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.5 | 9.191 | +5.05 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 48.9% | 0.096 | +4.69 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 29.8% | -0.115 | -3.43 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 1.3% | -0.092 | -0.12 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 5.3% | -0.005 | -0.03 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 3.6% | 0.163 | +0.58 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 4.6% | -0.012 | -0.06 |
| Other share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.375 | +0.00 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 0.7% | -0.065 | -0.05 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 0.7% | 0.060 | +0.04 |
| Undeclared quantities | 0.2% | -0.106 | -0.02 |
| Prints ingredient percentages | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Complete diet | no | 2.294 | +0.00 |
| Frozen or chilled fresh | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | no | -3.158 | +0.00 |
| High carb and low meat | no | -1.180 | +0.00 |
| Meat share × printed percentages | 0.0 | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Meat share × fresh | 0.0 | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Fresh × high meat | 0.0 | 11.084 | +0.00 |
| Additive penalty | -1.72 | 0.222 | -0.38 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Raw | no | -0.054 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | no | -2.354 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | no | -2.354 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Refrigerated | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Shelf | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
| Processing: Dry Freeze Dried | no | 6.629 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Air Dried | no | 6.331 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Cold Pressed | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Baked | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Extruded | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Semi Moist | no | -6.174 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Muesli | no | -10.146 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.08
- Subtotal
- 70.1
- Final score
- 70/100
Contributions are rounded to two decimals, so they may not sum exactly to the subtotal. The full coefficient table is published on the methodology page.
Nutritional: declared analysis vs reference ranges
How the declared analysis compares with FEDIAF reference ranges for adult dogs. The label prints as-fed values; we convert to a dry-matter basis before scoring, and the bands are dry-matter ranges. Scores rise to 100 at the band midpoint: the reference is adequacy, not maximisation. Nutrients with a published upper limit taper again above it; fat is policed through calorie density rather than a direct penalty.
Guaranteed-analysis FEDIAF score: crude minimums and maximums are bounds, not typical values; moisture (a maximum) uses the processing median where available; experimental US score.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 9.2 | 28.5 (band 19.965870307167233 to 40%) | 95.7 |
| Fat | 7.1 | 22 (band 6.1006825938566545 to 20%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 143 | 443.7 | 100 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
Low confidence: partial analysis or moisture estimated from the food type.
This measures agreement with published reference ranges, not suitability for an individual dog. For medical conditions, follow veterinary guidance.
Transparency: what the label discloses
How much the manufacturer discloses, measured against the FEDIAF Code of Good Labelling Practice and Regulation 767/2009. Mandatory items dominate the weighting.
| Item | Points |
|---|---|
| Ingredient list on the label (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Printed percentages on the label (99.8% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 20/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) | 5/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Manufacturer identity and address (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| Country of manufacture stated (voluntary) | 10/10 |
| Batch and date labelling (mandatory) - not on file | 0/5 |
Capped at 60: mandatory items missing (Analytical constituents declared, Additives declared, Batch and date labelling).
Safety: recall history
Recall and safety-notice history, time-decayed. This dimension is shown alongside the score and never feeds the headline number.
No recalls recorded in our database.
Evidence: what the brand claims, and what supports it
The claims made on the pack and product page, checked against the declared label. We record claims as stated; "consistent" means our stored label data supports the claim, "contradicted" means it conflicts with it. Functional claims are recorded but never scored.
Claims on file; none we can check against the label
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gently cooked with digestible carbs like sweet potato and barley (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Green Lipped Mussel and Omega-3 reduce inflammation (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Tasty slow-cooked texture dogs love (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| supporting their health and immune function (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Made with premium Australian chicken and market-fresh seasonal veggies (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Meeting AAFCO nutritional standards, it's suitable for dogs at every life stage (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Alternatives to Chicken Bowl
Similar on ingredients, protein, format or nutrition, using the same stored data.
Community0 comments
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.