Ritzenberger Tiernahrung Ente - Seerosenteich
Fresh Shelf · completeHigh meatClear label
Our verdict
Is Ritzenberger Tiernahrung Ente - Seerosenteich a good dog food?
We score it 79/100 (Good). 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 adult dogs
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, venison, pork as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists trout
- Your dog avoids duck: the label lists duck
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You are limiting fat: 31.3% 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)3% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 85.4%
- unknown 13.0%
- veg 1.1%
- oil 0.4%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Duck Meat (40%) | Duck | meat · medium | 40 | 40.0 |
| 2 | Duck Offal | Offal | meat · medium | - | 0.6 |
| 3 | 29% - Stomach | Stomach | meat · medium | 29 | 29.0 |
| 4 | Heart | Duck Heart | meat · good | - | 0.6 |
| 5 | Necks | Fresh Duck Necks | meat · good | - | 0.5 |
| 6 | Trout (15%) | Trout | meat · good | 15 | 15.0 |
| 7 | Duck Broth (10%) | Cooking broth | other · medium | 10 | 10.0 |
| 8 | Berries (3%) | Goji Berries | veg · good | 3 | 3.0 |
| 9 | Rosehip | Rose Hip | veg · good | - | 0.5 |
| 10 | Seaweed | Seaweed | veg · good | - | 0.4 |
| 11 | Salmon Oil | Salmon Oil | oil · good | - | 0.4 |
- 1. Duck Meat (40%)40% declared40.0% estimated
- 2. Duck Offal0.6% estimated
- 3. 29% - Stomach29% declared29.0% estimated
- 4. Heart0.6% estimated
- 5. Necks0.5% estimated
- 6. Trout (15%)15% declared15.0% estimated
- 7. Duck Broth (10%)10% declared10.0% estimated
- 8. Berries (3%)3% declared3.0% estimated
- 9. Rosehip0.5% estimated
- 10. Seaweed0.4% estimated
- 11. Salmon Oil0.4% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 13.60% · Fat 7.90%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 13.60% |
| Fat | 7.90% |
| Fibre | 0.90% |
| Ash | 1.90% |
| Moisture | 74.80% |
Energy: 128 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Mindestens 12 Monate ohne Kühlung haltbar, nach dem Öffnen gekühlt lagern und innerhalb von 3-4 Tage verbrauchen.
Feeding guide
Active/adult dogs: <5 kg 200g, 12 kg 400g, 20 kg 600g, 28 kg 800g, 35 kg 1000g, 42 kg 1200g, 50 kg 1400g. Feed at room temperature in at least two meals. Adjust to breed, age and husbandry.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin D3 (202 I.E./kg); Taurin (1000mg/kg)
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-19
Brand and contact: Ritzenberger Tiernahrung
- Website
- https://www.ritzenberger.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.ritzenberger.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: 4.9/5 · 2,278 reviews
29 reviews on this product · 4.9/5
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?
The overall score for this recipe is 79 out of 100. The meat content contributed +7.2 points, while the overall quality of the ingredient list added +4.4 points. Being labelled nutritionally complete gave the recipe +2.3 points, and printing percentages for most of the recipe provided a further +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 | 0.5 | 9.191 | +4.44 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 74.8% | 0.096 | +7.18 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 1.4% | -0.092 | -0.13 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 1.8% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 20.7% | -0.027 | -0.55 |
| Undeclared quantities | 3.0% | -0.106 | -0.32 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| 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 | +4.44 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 74.8% | 0.096 | +7.18 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.115 | +0.00 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 1.4% | -0.092 | -0.13 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 1.8% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| 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 | 20.7% | -0.027 | -0.55 |
| 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 | 3.0% | -0.106 | -0.32 |
| 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) | 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 | 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 | 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
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 78.6
- Final score
- 79/100
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 | 13.6 | 54 (band 22.85714285714285 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 7.9 | 31.3 (band 6.984126984126982 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.9 | 3.6 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 128 | 507.9 | 100 |
Scored over 4 declared nutrients (combined weight 60); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 2 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin D3 (202 I.E./kg)
- Taurin (1000mg/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 (97% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 19.4/20 |
| 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.
50/100 · limited — 2 checkable claims: 1 consistent, 1 contradicted.
Contradicted by the label
- "Single-Protein" — the declared label says otherwise on single protein.
Consistent with the label
- "Alleinfuttermittel" — supported by the declared complete and balanced data.
3 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Limited: at least one claim contradicts the declared label, or a recent upheld ASA ruling applies.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| ausgewogenes Futter für empfindliche Hunde (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Single-Protein (on pack) | Content | contradicted | Manufacturer assertion |
| ohne Füllstoffe und künstliche Zutaten (on pack) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Alleinfuttermittel (on pack) | Content | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| 100% Naturprodukt (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 Ente - Seerosenteich
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.