Tarador Premium Hundefutter Hundemenü Rind für Senior Hunde mit präbiotischer Wirkung

Wet Pate complete Clear label Full label

Hundemenü Rind für Senior Hunde mit präbiotischer Wirkung
Poor
our rating

Is Tarador Premium Hundefutter Hundemenü Rind für Senior Hunde mit präbiotischer Wirkung a good dog food?

We score it 31/100 (Poor). The main reasons are set out in "Why you might not" below, and every step of the calculation is shown under "How we calculated this score".

How we score

Why this score?

The recipe score is 31. Other ingredients contributed -22.6. Overall ingredient quality contributed -3.3. Carbohydrate content contributed -2.6. Lower-quality ingredients contributed -2.6.

The Recipe score measures how attractive and transparent the declared ingredient list is. It is not, by itself, proof that the food is nutritionally appropriate for long-term feeding. The Nutritional and Evidence scores measure what we can verify towards that stronger claim.

Estimated composition

other40.0%
carb30.0%
veg27.6%
unknown1.6%
oil0.5%
supplement0.3%

Typical analysis (as fed)

Protein
6.60%
Fat
8.30%
Fibre
0.80%
Ash
1.50%
Moisture
77.30%

Additives & feeding info

No additives recorded yet.

Who is this food for?

We could not match this product's ingredients to our glossary, so suitability flags are unknown rather than clear.

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. Use the homepage filter to find foods that fit your dog.

Ingredients (8)

#As declaredMatchedCategoryTierDeclared %Est. %
1Beef 40%Beefmeatmedium4040.0
2Potatoes 30%Potatoescarbmedium3030.0
3Carrots 20%Carrotsveggood2020.0
4Kohlrabi 7.6%Kohlrabiveggood7.67.6
5Spent Grain 1%unmatched--11.0
6Fish Oil 0.5%Fish Oiloilgood0.50.5
7Eggshell Powder 0.4%Crushed Eggshellssupplementgood0.40.4
8Iodine 165 ug/kgIodinesupplementmedium-0.5

Brand

Tarador Premium Hundefutter logo
Phone
+49 331 / 887 670 -0

Trust and provenance

Recall history
No recalls recorded in our database
Label data last checked
2026-09-27
Scored with
Model v3 (methodology)

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.

Recipe: how the 1-100 score is calculated

Scored with model v3 on 2026-09-27. Each component is the feature value for this product multiplied by the model's published coefficient.

ComponentInputCoefficientContribution
Base score-30.909+30.91
Average ingredient quality-0.49.191-3.25
Carb share of dry matter22.6%-0.115-2.60
Oil share of dry matter1.5%-0.092-0.14
Vegetable share of dry matter12.5%-0.005-0.06
Supplement share of dry matter0.8%-0.012-0.01
Other share of dry matter60.2%-0.375-22.57
Unrecognised share of dry matter2.4%-0.027-0.06
Recipe graded poor40.0%-0.065-2.60
Number of poor ingredients1-0.876-0.88
Largest single poor ingredient40.0%0.060+2.40
Undeclared quantities0.5%-0.106-0.05
Low meat (under 10% of dry matter)yes-3.158-3.16
Processing multiplier1.0033.786+33.79
Processing: Wet Pateyes-0.672-0.67
Show all 40 components
ComponentInputCoefficientContribution
Base score-30.909+30.91
Average ingredient quality-0.49.191-3.25
Meat share of dry matter0.0%0.096+0.00
Carb share of dry matter22.6%-0.115-2.60
Oil share of dry matter1.5%-0.092-0.14
Vegetable share of dry matter12.5%-0.005-0.06
Additive share of dry matter0.0%0.163+0.00
Supplement share of dry matter0.8%-0.012-0.01
Other share of dry matter60.2%-0.375-22.57
Unrecognised share of dry matter2.4%-0.027-0.06
Recipe graded poor40.0%-0.065-2.60
Poor-quality meat in recipe0.0%-0.179+0.00
Number of poor ingredients1-0.876-0.88
Largest single poor ingredient40.0%0.060+2.40
Undeclared quantities0.5%-0.106-0.05
Prints ingredient percentagesno0.000+0.00
Complete dietno2.294+0.00
Frozen or chilled freshno0.000+0.00
High meat (30%+ of dry matter)no0.707+0.00
Low meat (under 10% of dry matter)yes-3.158-3.16
High carb and low meatno-1.180+0.00
Meat share × printed percentages0.00.000+0.00
Meat share × fresh0.00.000+0.00
Fresh × high meat0.011.084+0.00
Additive penalty0.000.222+0.00
Processing multiplier1.0033.786+33.79
Processing: Rawno-0.054+0.00
Processing: Fresh Chilledno-2.354+0.00
Processing: Fresh Frozenno-2.354+0.00
Processing: Fresh Refrigeratedno0.000+0.00
Processing: Fresh Shelfno-0.672+0.00
Processing: Dry Freeze Driedno6.629+0.00
Processing: Dry Air Driedno6.331+0.00
Processing: Dry Cold Pressedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Bakedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Extrudedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Semi Moistno-6.174+0.00
Processing: Dry Mueslino-10.146+0.00
Processing: Wet Pateyes-0.672-0.67
Processing: Wet Chunksno-0.672+0.00
Processing-type offset
-0.08
Subtotal
31.0
Final score
31/100

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.

NutrientAs fed (label)Dry matter (scored)Score
Protein6.629.1 (band 18 to 40%)100
Fat8.336.6 (band 5.5 to 20%)100
Fibre0.83.5 (band 0.5 to 5%)100

Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.

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.

ItemPoints
✓ Ingredient list on the label (mandatory)10/10
✓ Printed percentages on the label (99.5% of the recipe mass) (voluntary)19.9/20
✓ Analytical constituents declared (mandatory)15/15
✗ Additives declared (mandatory) - not on file0/10
✗ Energy value declared (voluntary) - not on file0/5
✓ Complete/complementary designation (mandatory)5/5
✗ Feeding guidance given (mandatory) - not on file0/10
✓ Manufacturer identity and address (mandatory)5/10
✓ Country of manufacture stated (voluntary)10/10
✗ Batch and date labelling (mandatory) - not on file0/5

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.

Other products from Tarador Premium Hundefutter

See all products from Tarador Premium Hundefutter

Community

Owners' verdict
0 votes

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.

Comments are reviewed before they appear.