Our verdict
Is BARFGOLD Gourmetglas Huhn a good dog food?
We score it 64/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for all lifestages
- Single named protein: chicken
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids grain: it is listed as an ingredient
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)0% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- unknown 62.4%
- veg 16.8%
- meat 10.0%
- carb 5.0%
- oil 3.1%
- supplement 2.1%
- mineral 0.6%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chicken Breast (60%) | Chicken Breast | meat · good | 60 | 60.0 |
| 2 | Chicken Liver (10%) | Chicken Liver | meat · good | 10 | 10.0 |
| 3 | Sweet Potato (5%) | Sweet Potatoes | carb · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 4 | Carrot (5%) | Carrots | veg · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 5 | Spinach (3%) | Spinach | veg · good | 3 | 3.0 |
| 6 | Apple (3%) | Apples | veg · good | 3 | 3.0 |
| 7 | Peas (2.5%) | Peas | veg · good | 2.5 | 2.5 |
| 8 | Courgette (2%) | Courgette | veg · good | 2 | 2.0 |
| 9 | Pumpkin Seeds (2%) | Pumpkin Seeds | veg · good | 2 | 2.0 |
| 10 | Brewer's Yeast (2%) | Brewer's Yeast | supplement · good | 2 | 2.0 |
| 11 | Algae Oil (1.6%) | Algae Oil | oil · good | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| 12 | Wheat Germ Oil (1.5%) | Wheatgerm Oil | oil · medium | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| 13 | Blueberries (1%) | Blueberries | veg · good | 1 | 1.0 |
| 14 | Algae Lime (0.6%) | Algae Lime | mineral · medium | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| 15 | Rosehip Shells (0.4%) | Rosehip Shells | supplement · good | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 16 | Rosemary (0.3%) | Rosemary | veg · good | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| 17 | Seaweed Meal (0.1%) | Seaweed Meal | supplement · medium | 0.1 | 0.1 |
- 1. Chicken Breast (60%)60% declared60.0% estimated
- 2. Chicken Liver (10%)10% declared10.0% estimated
- 3. Sweet Potato (5%)5% declared5.0% estimated
- 4. Carrot (5%)5% declared5.0% estimated
- 5. Spinach (3%)3% declared3.0% estimated
- 6. Apple (3%)3% declared3.0% estimated
- 7. Peas (2.5%)2.5% declared2.5% estimated
- 8. Courgette (2%)2% declared2.0% estimated
- 9. Pumpkin Seeds (2%)2% declared2.0% estimated
- 10. Brewer's Yeast (2%)2% declared2.0% estimated
- 11. Algae Oil (1.6%)1.6% declared1.6% estimated
- 12. Wheat Germ Oil (1.5%)1.5% declared1.5% estimated
- 13. Blueberries (1%)1% declared1.0% estimated
- 14. Algae Lime (0.6%)0.6% declared0.6% estimated
- 15. Rosehip Shells (0.4%)0.4% declared0.4% estimated
- 16. Rosemary (0.3%)0.3% declared0.3% estimated
- 17. Seaweed Meal (0.1%)0.1% declared0.1% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 14.20% · Fat 5.50%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 14.20% |
| Fat | 5.50% |
| Fibre | 1% |
| Ash | 4% |
| Moisture | 65% |
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
Puppy up to 8 months: ~4% of body weight daily; Dogs up to 15 kg: ~2-3%; Dogs over 15 kg: ~2-2.5%. Example: a 20 kg dog at 2% needs ~400 g per day.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin D (3a671) 350 IE/kg; Mangan (3b503) 2 mg/kg; Kupfer (3b405) 2 mg/kg; Selen (3b801) 125 µg/kg; Zink (3b603) 35 mg/kg
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-19
Brand and contact: BARFGOLD
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
- barfgold.com
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.
Brand and retailer reviews
External platform ratings are not scores for this individual recipe.
Trustpilot: 3.4/5 · 11 reviews
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 score is 64 out of 100. Overall ingredient quality made the biggest difference, contributing +2.3 points, while being labelled nutritionally complete added +2.3 points. Ingredients we could not classify reduced the score by -1.9 points, and printing percentages for most of the recipe contributed +1 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 | 0.3 | 9.191 | +2.35 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 6.5% | 0.096 | +0.62 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 2.9% | -0.115 | -0.33 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 7.1% | -0.092 | -0.65 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 5.8% | -0.005 | -0.03 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 4.5% | -0.012 | -0.05 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 72.0% | -0.027 | -1.91 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.3 | 9.191 | +2.35 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 6.5% | 0.096 | +0.62 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 2.9% | -0.115 | -0.33 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 7.1% | -0.092 | -0.65 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 5.8% | -0.005 | -0.03 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 4.5% | -0.012 | -0.05 |
| Other share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.375 | +0.00 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 72.0% | -0.027 | -1.91 |
| 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 | 0.0% | -0.106 | +0.00 |
| 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 | 1.00 | 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 | 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 | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.08
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 64.1
- Final score
- 64/100
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.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 14.2 | 40.6 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 5.5 | 15.7 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 1 | 2.9 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 5 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin D (3a671) 350 IE/kg
- Mangan (3b503) 2 mg/kg
- Kupfer (3b405) 2 mg/kg
- Selen (3b801) 125 µg/kg
- Zink (3b603) 35 mg/kg
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 (100% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 20/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) - not on file | 0/5 |
| 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 (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 Gourmetglas Huhn
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.