Tarador Premium Hundefutter Tarador Hundefutter mit Lachs 200g
Wet Chunks complete High meat Clear label Full label
Is Tarador Premium Hundefutter Tarador Hundefutter mit Lachs 200g a good dog food?
We score it 74/100 (Good). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Why this score?
The recipe scored 74 out of 100. +7.9 points came from the overall quality of the ingredient list, and the meat content contributed a further +4.8 points. However, -2.6 points were deducted because of the carbohydrate content, and a further -0.7 points were lost due to the processing format.
- Recipe74
- Nutritionalmedium90
- Transparency60
- Safety100
- EvidenceNot recorded
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
Typical analysis (as fed)
- Protein
- 6.40%
- Fat
- 7.80%
- Fibre
- 2.60%
- Ash
- 2.10%
- Moisture
- 77.60%
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 (6)
Brand
- [email protected]
- 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)
- Product page
- tarador-hundefutter.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.
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.
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.9 | 9.191 | +7.89 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 49.7% | 0.096 | +4.77 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 22.2% | -0.115 | -2.55 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 25.0% | -0.005 | -0.13 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 3.1% | -0.027 | -0.08 |
| Undeclared quantities | 1.0% | -0.106 | -0.11 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| 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 | 0.9 | 9.191 | +7.89 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 49.7% | 0.096 | +4.77 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 22.2% | -0.115 | -2.55 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 25.0% | -0.005 | -0.13 |
| 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 | 3.1% | -0.027 | -0.08 |
| 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 | 1.0% | -0.106 | -0.11 |
| Prints ingredient percentages | no | 0.000 | +0.00 |
| Complete diet | no | 2.294 | +0.00 |
| 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 | 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
- Subtotal
- 74.4
- Final score
- 74/100
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 | 6.4 | 28.6 (band 18 to 40%) | 98.8 |
| Fat | 7.8 | 34.8 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 2.6 | 11.6 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 54.9 |
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.
| Item | Points |
|---|---|
| Ingredient list on the label (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Printed percentages on the label (99% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 19.8/20 |
| 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) | 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 (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
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.