HelloBello Ringeltanz frisch gekochtes Hundefutter mit Schwein
Fresh Frozen · completeClear labelFull label
Our verdict
Is HelloBello Ringeltanz frisch gekochtes Hundefutter mit Schwein 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.
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, venison, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists salmon oil
- Your dog avoids pork: the label lists pork
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You are limiting fat: 30.3% on a dry-matter basis is in the high band
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 (11)4% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- unknown 47.0%
- carb 31.3%
- veg 18.0%
- supplement 2.4%
- oil 1.3%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pork | Pork | meat · medium | - | 4.3 |
| 2 | Pork Muscle Meat 27% | Muscle Meat | meat · good | 27 | 27.0 |
| 3 | Fresh Pork Lung 9% | Lung | meat · medium | 9 | 9.0 |
| 4 | Fresh Pork Kidney 9% | Kidney | meat · good | 9 | 9.0 |
| 5 | Potatoes (30%) | Potatoes | carb · medium | 30 | 30.0 |
| 6 | Parsnips (15%) | Parsnips | veg · good | 15 | 15.0 |
| 7 | Linseed (1.5%) | Linseed | veg · good | 1.5 | 1.5 |
| 8 | Salmon Oil (1.2%) | Salmon Oil | oil · good | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 9 | Milk Thistle (0.5%) | Milk Thistle | veg · good | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 10 | Parsley (0.2%) | Parsley | veg · good | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| 11 | Mineral Mix (2.3%) | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | 2.3 | 2.3 |
- 1. Pork4.3% estimated
- 2. Pork Muscle Meat 27%27% declared27.0% estimated
- 3. Fresh Pork Lung 9%9% declared9.0% estimated
- 4. Fresh Pork Kidney 9%9% declared9.0% estimated
- 5. Potatoes (30%)30% declared30.0% estimated
- 6. Parsnips (15%)15% declared15.0% estimated
- 7. Linseed (1.5%)1.5% declared1.5% estimated
- 8. Salmon Oil (1.2%)1.2% declared1.2% estimated
- 9. Milk Thistle (0.5%)0.5% declared0.5% estimated
- 10. Parsley (0.2%)0.2% declared0.2% estimated
- 11. Mineral Mix (2.3%)2.3% declared2.3% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 10.10% · Fat 8.60%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 10.10% |
| Fat | 8.60% |
| Fibre | 0.70% |
| Ash | 2.20% |
| Moisture | 71.60% |
| Carbohydrates | 0% |
| Calcium | 0.35% |
| Phosphorus | 0.31% |
| Sodium | 0.18% |
Energy: 140 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Kühl oder gefroren lagern
Feeding guide
Fütterungsmenge individuell auf den Hund abgestimmt (persönlicher Ernährungsplan); Futterumstellung über 7 Tage (25% → 50% → 75% → 100%)
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Kupfer (3b413) 4 mg/kg; Zink (3b606) 16,5 mg/kg; Mangan (3b504) 5,5 mg/kg; Vitamin A (3a672c) 13160 I.E./kg; Vitamin D3 (3a671) 393 I.E./kg; Vitamin E (3a700) 393 mg/kg
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-19
Brand and contact: HelloBello
- Website
- https://www.hellobello.de/
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
- www.hellobello.de
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: 4.5/5 · 242 reviews
822 reviews on this product · 4.8/5
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 62 out of 100. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +2.4 points, while the processing format subtracted -2.4 and the carbohydrate content subtracted -2.3. Being labelled nutritionally complete added +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 | 0.3 | 9.191 | +2.41 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 20.3% | -0.115 | -2.33 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 3.2% | -0.092 | -0.30 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 10.0% | -0.005 | -0.05 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 5.7% | -0.012 | -0.07 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 60.8% | -0.027 | -1.61 |
| Undeclared quantities | 4.3% | -0.106 | -0.45 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.10 | 33.786 | +37.16 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | yes | -2.354 | -2.35 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.3 | 9.191 | +2.41 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 20.3% | -0.115 | -2.33 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 3.2% | -0.092 | -0.30 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 10.0% | -0.005 | -0.05 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 5.7% | -0.012 | -0.07 |
| Other share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.375 | +0.00 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 60.8% | -0.027 | -1.61 |
| 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 | 4.3% | -0.106 | -0.45 |
| 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 | 1.10 | 33.786 | +37.16 |
| Processing: Raw | no | -0.054 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | no | -2.354 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | yes | -2.354 | -2.35 |
| 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
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 61.7
- 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.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 10.1 | 35.6 (band 22.183098591549296 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 8.6 | 30.3 (band 6.778169014084506 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.7 | 2.5 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 96.2 |
| Calcium | 0.35 | 1.2 (band 0.6161971830985915 to 2.5%) | 89.6 |
| Phosphorus | 0.31 | 1.1 (band 0.49295774647887325 to 1.6%) | 100 |
| Sodium | 0.18 | 0.6 (band 0.12323943661971831+%) | 100 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.1 | 1.1 (band 1 to 2%) | 77.7 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 140 | 493 | 100 |
Scored over 8 declared nutrients (combined weight 95); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 6 nutritional additives on the label
- Kupfer (3b413) 4 mg/kg
- Zink (3b606) 16,5 mg/kg
- Mangan (3b504) 5,5 mg/kg
- Vitamin A (3a672c) 13160 I.E./kg
- Vitamin D3 (3a671) 393 I.E./kg
- Vitamin E (3a700) 393 mg/kg
High confidence: full analysis plus minerals or omegas and declared energy.
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 (95.7% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 19.1/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| 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 (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.
100/100 · moderate — 1 checkable claim: 1 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "Getreidefrei" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
8 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Moderate: every checkable claim is consistent with the declared label.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 100% Schweinefleisch aus AT und DE (on page) | provenance | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 86% gesünderes und glänzenderes Fell (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 92% spürbare Verdauungsverbesserung (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Verdaulichkeit von über 90% (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Gemüse aus dem österreichischen Marchfeld (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 100% Zutaten in Lebensmittelqualität (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Schonend gekocht, direkt eingefroren (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Getreidefrei (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Täglich frisch zubereitet (on page) | 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 Ringeltanz frisch gekochtes Hundefutter mit Schwein
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.