Our verdict
Is Pets Go Raw Bison/Duck Power Diet a good dog food?
We score it 62/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Declared analysis sits below the FEDIAF minimum for protein.
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 all lifestages
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids duck: it is listed as an ingredient
- 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 (12)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- veg 59.5%
- meat 20.7%
- mineral 10.4%
- carb 9.5%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Bison | Bison | meat · good | - | 10.8 |
| 2 | bone-in duck | Bone | mineral · medium | - | 10.4 |
| 3 | bison liver | Liver | meat · good | - | 9.9 |
| 4 | sweet potato | Sweet Potatoes | carb · good | - | 9.5 |
| 5 | pumpkin with seed | Pumpkin | veg · good | - | 9.0 |
| 6 | zucchini | Courgette | veg · good | - | 8.6 |
| 7 | celery | Celery Seeds | veg · good | - | 8.1 |
| 8 | strawberry | Strawberries | veg · good | - | 7.7 |
| 9 | cranberry | Cranberries | veg · good | - | 7.2 |
| 10 | blueberry | Blueberries | veg · good | - | 6.8 |
| 11 | lettuce | Lettuce | veg · medium | - | 6.3 |
| 12 | kelp | Kelp | veg · good | - | 5.9 |
- 1. Bison10.8% estimated
- 2. bone-in duck10.4% estimated
- 3. bison liver9.9% estimated
- 4. sweet potato9.5% estimated
- 5. pumpkin with seed9.0% estimated
- 6. zucchini8.6% estimated
- 7. celery8.1% estimated
- 8. strawberry7.7% estimated
- 9. cranberry7.2% estimated
- 10. blueberry6.8% estimated
- 11. lettuce6.3% estimated
- 12. kelp5.9% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 7% · Fat 19%
Declared analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 7% |
| Fat | 19% |
| Fibre | 3% |
| Ash | 2.70% |
| Moisture | 61.10% |
| Carbohydrates | 10.20% |
| Calcium | 0.40% |
| Phosphorus | 0.30% |
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-19
Brand and contact: Pets Go Raw
- Website
- https://petsgoraw.ca/
- [email protected]
- Phone
- 250.417.0487
- Address
- 3185 Theatre Road, Cranbrook, BC V1C 7B8
- Contact page
- petsgoraw.ca
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
- petsgoraw.ca
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 achieves a total score of 62 out of 100 based on several key factors. The overall quality of the ingredient list adds +7.6 points, and being labelled nutritionally complete contributes an additional +2.3 points. However, ingredients without printed percentages deduct -10.6 points, and the carbohydrate content further reduces the score by -0.9 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 | 0.8 | 9.191 | +7.61 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 7.6% | -0.115 | -0.87 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 42.5% | -0.005 | -0.22 |
| 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 | 1.12 | 33.786 | +37.84 |
| Processing: Raw | yes | -0.054 | -0.05 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.8 | 9.191 | +7.61 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 7.6% | -0.115 | -0.87 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 42.5% | -0.005 | -0.22 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.012 | +0.00 |
| 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 | 0.0% | -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 | 1.12 | 33.786 | +37.84 |
| Processing: Raw | yes | -0.054 | -0.05 |
| 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 | 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
- 62.1
- Final score
- 62/100
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 | 7 | 18 (band 18 to 40%) | 70 |
| Fat | 19 | 48.8 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 3 | 7.7 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Calcium | 0.4 | 1 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 85.8 |
| Phosphorus | 0.3 | 0.8 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 88.6 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.3 | 1.3 (band 1 to 2%) | 90 |
Scored over 6 declared nutrients (combined weight 80); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
Medium confidence: the full five-part analysis is on file; where moisture was not declared it was 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) | 15/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) - not on file | 0/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| Manufacturer identity and address (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Country of manufacture stated (voluntary) | 10/10 |
| Batch and date labelling (mandatory) - not on file | 0/5 |
Capped at 60: mandatory items missing (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
No on-pack claims on file: nothing to verify.
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Alternatives to Bison/Duck Power Diet
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.