Vet-Concept Hundemenü Sana Büffel
Wet Pate · complete
Our verdict
Is Vet-Concept Hundemenü Sana Büffel a good dog food?
We score it 51/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
38% of this recipe has no printed percentage. Estimated shares are model estimates, not label facts.
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, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- You need more protein than this: 10.3% on a dry-matter basis is in the low 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 (4)38% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- unknown 62.0%
- veg 15.2%
- oil 12.7%
- supplement 10.1%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Meat and Animal Derivatives (Buffalo)(62%) | Meat and Animal Derivatives | meat · poor | 62 | 62.0 |
| 2 | Vegetables (Sweet Potato) | Vegetables | veg · medium | - | 21.4 |
| 3 | Oils and Fats (Rapeseed Oil)(0.5%) | Oils and Fats | oil · poor | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 4 | Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 16.1 |
- 1. Meat and Animal Derivatives (Buffalo)(62%)62% declared62.0% estimated
- 2. Vegetables (Sweet Potato)21.4% estimated
- 3. Oils and Fats (Rapeseed Oil)(0.5%)0.5% declared0.5% estimated
- 4. Minerals16.1% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 10.30%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed | Dry matter | Directory average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 10.30% | 10.30% | 35.95% (31 eligible foods) |
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-19
Brand and contact: Vet-Concept
- Contact page
- www.vet-concept.com
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.vet-concept.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: 0.0/5 · 0 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?
This food scores 51 out of 100, and the ingredient breakdown pulls it down in four ways. Undeclared ingredient shares came to -4, because ingredients without printed percentages make up more of the recipe than they should. Oil and fat content contributed -2.1, with the oil and fat content sitting higher than we would like. Unclassified ingredients added -1.5 for ingredients we could not classify, and the overall quality of the ingredient list contributed -1.1.
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 | -0.1 | 9.191 | -1.12 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 22.7% | -0.092 | -2.09 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 4.1% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 16.9% | -0.012 | -0.21 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 56.2% | -0.027 | -1.49 |
| Recipe graded poor | 12.7% | -0.065 | -0.82 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 12.7% | 0.060 | +0.76 |
| Undeclared quantities | 38.0% | -0.106 | -4.01 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | -0.1 | 9.191 | -1.12 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.115 | +0.00 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 22.7% | -0.092 | -2.09 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 4.1% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 16.9% | -0.012 | -0.21 |
| Other share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.375 | +0.00 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 56.2% | -0.027 | -1.49 |
| Recipe graded poor | 12.7% | -0.065 | -0.82 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 12.7% | 0.060 | +0.76 |
| Undeclared quantities | 38.0% | -0.106 | -4.01 |
| 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) | 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 | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.08
- Subtotal
- 50.9
- Final score
- 51/100
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 | 10.3 | 46.8 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
Scored over 1 declared nutrients (combined weight 25); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 78% from the food type.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
Low confidence: partial analysis or moisture 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 (62% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 12.4/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| 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 (Analytical constituents declared, 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
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.
Claims on file; none we can check against the label
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| beste Verträglichkeit bei futtersensiblen Hunden (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| ideal zur Ausschlussfütterung (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| mit nur einer ausgewählten Protein- und Kohlenhydratquelle (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Diät-Alleinfuttermittel für Hunde zur Minderung von Ausgangserzeugnis- und Nährstoffintoleranzerscheinungen (on pack) | Functional | 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 Hundemenü Sana Büffel
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.