Jack and Chelo Beef and Beets with Lentils Meal
Fresh Chilled · complete
Our verdict
Is Jack and Chelo Beef and Beets with Lentils Meal a good dog food?
We score it 58/100 (Average). 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.
100% of this recipe has no printed percentage. Estimated shares are model estimates, not label facts.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for adult dogs
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list chicken, turkey, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids beef: the label lists beef
- Your dog avoids lamb: it is listed as an ingredient
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists sardines
- 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 (17)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- veg 48.2%
- meat 29.0%
- supplement 9.5%
- carb 4.8%
- oil 4.5%
- other 4.1%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tasmanian Beef Meat | Beef | meat · medium | - | 7.7 |
| 2 | Beef Heart | Beef Heart | meat · good | - | 7.5 |
| 3 | Beef Liver | Beef Liver | meat · good | - | 7.2 |
| 4 | Beetroot | Beetroot | veg · good | - | 7.0 |
| 5 | Lentils | Lentils | veg · medium | - | 6.8 |
| 6 | Sardines | Sardines | meat · good | - | 6.6 |
| 7 | Celery | Celery Seeds | veg · good | - | 6.3 |
| 8 | Carrot | Carrots | veg · good | - | 6.1 |
| 9 | Parsley | Parsley | veg · good | - | 5.9 |
| 10 | Sunflower Seeds | Sunflower Seeds | veg · good | - | 5.7 |
| 11 | Linseed | Linseed | veg · good | - | 5.4 |
| 12 | Eggshell Powder | Crushed Eggshells | supplement · good | - | 5.2 |
| 13 | Seaweed | Seaweed | veg · good | - | 5.0 |
| 14 | Wheatgrass Powder | Wheatgrass | carb · good | - | 4.8 |
| 15 | Cod-liver Oil | Cod Liver Oil | oil · good | - | 4.5 |
| 16 | Nutritional Yeast | Yeast | supplement · good | - | 4.3 |
| 17 | trace vitamins and minerals and Jack and Chelo Lamb Bone Broth | Cooking broth | other · medium | - | 4.1 |
- 1. Tasmanian Beef Meat7.7% estimated
- 2. Beef Heart7.5% estimated
- 3. Beef Liver7.2% estimated
- 4. Beetroot7.0% estimated
- 5. Lentils6.8% estimated
- 6. Sardines6.6% estimated
- 7. Celery6.3% estimated
- 8. Carrot6.1% estimated
- 9. Parsley5.9% estimated
- 10. Sunflower Seeds5.7% estimated
- 11. Linseed5.4% estimated
- 12. Eggshell Powder5.2% estimated
- 13. Seaweed5.0% estimated
- 14. Wheatgrass Powder4.8% estimated
- 15. Cod-liver Oil4.5% estimated
- 16. Nutritional Yeast4.3% estimated
- 17. trace vitamins and minerals and Jack and Chelo Lamb Bone Broth4.1% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 13.82% · Fat 7.82%
Declared analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed | Dry matter | Directory average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 13.82% | 50.85% | - |
| Fat | 7.82% | 28.78% | - |
| Fibre | 1.20% | 4.40% | - |
| Moisture | 72.81% | - | - |
| Carbohydrates | 2.81% | 10.35% | - |
Energy: 137 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-19
Brand and contact: Jack and Chelo
- Website
- https://jackandchelo.com.au/
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-19
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- jackandchelo.com.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?
The product reached a score of 58 out of 100. Undeclared ingredient shares (ingredients without printed percentages) contributed -10.6 points, while the overall quality of the ingredient list added +8.6 points. The processing format deducted -2.4 points, and being labelled nutritionally complete added back +2.3 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 | 0.9 | 9.191 | +8.59 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 9.5% | -0.115 | -1.09 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 9.9% | -0.092 | -0.91 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 42.8% | -0.005 | -0.22 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 19.4% | -0.012 | -0.24 |
| Other share of dry matter | 0.5% | -0.375 | -0.17 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.07 | 33.786 | +36.15 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | yes | -2.354 | -2.35 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.9 | 9.191 | +8.59 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 9.5% | -0.115 | -1.09 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 9.9% | -0.092 | -0.91 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 42.8% | -0.005 | -0.22 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 19.4% | -0.012 | -0.24 |
| Other share of dry matter | 0.5% | -0.375 | -0.17 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 0.0% | -0.065 | +0.00 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 0 | -0.876 | +0.00 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 0.0% | 0.060 | +0.00 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Prints ingredient percentages | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Frozen or chilled fresh | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | no | 0.707 | +0.00 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| 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 | 0.00 | 0.222 | +0.00 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.07 | 33.786 | +36.15 |
| Processing: Raw | no | -0.054 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | yes | -2.354 | -2.35 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | no | -2.354 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Refrigerated | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Shelf | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
| 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
- -1.74
- Subtotal
- 57.5
- Final score
- 58/100
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 | 13.82 | 50.8 (band 22.673777123942628 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 7.82 | 28.8 (band 6.928098565649136 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 1.2 | 4.4 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 137 | 503.9 | 100 |
Scored over 4 declared nutrients (combined weight 60); 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 (voluntary) - not on file | 0/20 |
| 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) - not on file | 0/10 |
| 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, Feeding guidance given, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| beef we use in this meal is 100% Tasmanian and is 85% lean (on page) | provenance | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| includes offal including both liver and heart which are essential for muscle growth and energy (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| addition of fresh sardines ensures your doggo will get the Vitamin D they need, which plays a crucial role in bone health, immune system function, and overall bodily functions (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| cooked sous vide (in bag), at low temperatures to retain flavor and nutrients (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| formulated by a registered pet nutritionist to meet and exceed the requirements for Adults dogs according to AAFCO and NRC levels (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Tasmanian raised or grown (on pack) | Content | 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 Beef and Beets with Lentils Meal
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.