Vet-Concept Sensitive Diet Ziege
Dry Extruded · complete
Our verdict
Is Vet-Concept Sensitive Diet Ziege 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".
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
75% 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 adult dogs
- Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists cereals
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 (6)75% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- unknown 40.0%
- carb 18.8%
- oil 16.9%
- other 13.1%
- supplement 11.3%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cereals (Millet, Amaranth) | Cereals | carb · poor | - | 18.8 |
| 2 | Meat and Animal Derivatives (Goat Meal) (25%) | Meat and Animal Derivatives | meat · poor | 25 | 25.0 |
| 3 | Oils and Fats | Oils and Fats | oil · poor | - | 16.9 |
| 4 | Vegetables (Parsnip*) | Vegetables | veg · medium | - | 15.0 |
| 5 | Plant Derivatives (Cellulose) | Cellulose | fibre · medium | - | 13.1 |
| 6 | Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 11.3 |
- 1. Cereals (Millet, Amaranth)18.8% estimated
- 2. Meat and Animal Derivatives (Goat Meal) (25%)25% declared25.0% estimated
- 3. Oils and Fats16.9% estimated
- 4. Vegetables (Parsnip*)15.0% estimated
- 5. Plant Derivatives (Cellulose)13.1% estimated
- 6. Minerals11.3% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 22.10% · Fat 14.20%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 22.10% |
| Fat | 14.20% |
| Fibre | 2.20% |
| Ash | 7% |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 0.25% |
| Omega-6 fatty acids | 2.20% |
| Calcium | 1.40% |
| Phosphorus | 0.95% |
| Sodium | 0.25% |
Energy: 376 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin A 12.000 IE; Vitamin D3 1.200 IE; Vitamin E (all rac-alpha-Tocopherylacetat) 100 mg; Eisen (Eisen(II)-sulfat-Monohydrat) 114 mg; Zink (Zinkoxid, Aminosäuren-Zinkchelat, Hydrat) 105 mg; Kupfer (Kupfer(II)-sulfat-Pentahydrat) 12 mg; Mangan (Mangan(II)-oxid) 14 mg; Jod (Kalziumjodat, wasserfrei) 1,5 mg; Selen (Natriumselenit) 0,1 mg
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 recipe achieves a final score of 31 out of 100 based on our evaluation. Ingredients without printed percentages change the score by -7.9, while the processing format adjusts it by -6.7. Additionally, the overall quality of the ingredient list accounts for a change of -4.5, and the remaining ingredients contribute -3.5 to the total.
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 | -4.53 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 23.5% | -0.115 | -2.71 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 23.8% | -0.092 | -2.19 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 14.8% | -0.012 | -0.18 |
| Other share of dry matter | 9.4% | -0.375 | -3.51 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 28.5% | -0.027 | -0.76 |
| Recipe graded poor | 48.8% | -0.065 | -3.17 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 3 | -0.876 | -2.63 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 18.8% | 0.060 | +1.13 |
| Undeclared quantities | 75.0% | -0.106 | -7.92 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Processing multiplier | 0.98 | 33.786 | +33.11 |
| Processing: Dry Extruded | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | -0.5 | 9.191 | -4.53 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 23.5% | -0.115 | -2.71 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 23.8% | -0.092 | -2.19 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.005 | +0.00 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 14.8% | -0.012 | -0.18 |
| Other share of dry matter | 9.4% | -0.375 | -3.51 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 28.5% | -0.027 | -0.76 |
| Recipe graded poor | 48.8% | -0.065 | -3.17 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 3 | -0.876 | -2.63 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 18.8% | 0.060 | +1.13 |
| Undeclared quantities | 75.0% | -0.106 | -7.92 |
| 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 | 0.98 | 33.786 | +33.11 |
| 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 | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
| 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
- +0.02
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- 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.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 22.1 | 24.4 (band 18.696132596685082 to 40%) | 86.1 |
| Fat | 14.2 | 15.7 (band 5.712707182320442 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 2.2 | 2.4 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 95.7 |
| Calcium | 1.4 | 1.5 (band 0.5193370165745856 to 2.5%) | 100 |
| Phosphorus | 0.95 | 1 (band 0.4154696132596685 to 1.6%) | 100 |
| Sodium | 0.25 | 0.3 (band 0.10386740331491713+%) | 100 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.5 | 1.5 (band 1 to 2%) | 98.4 |
| Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3) | - | - | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 376 | 415.5 | 100 |
Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3): scored as the mean of its declared components (omega-6 100). The FEDIAF minimum for omega-6 is linoleic acid specifically.
Scored over 9 declared nutrients (combined weight 105); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 9.5% from the food type.
Declared fortification: 9 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin A 12.000 IE
- Vitamin D3 1.200 IE
- Vitamin E (all rac-alpha-Tocopherylacetat) 100 mg
- Eisen (Eisen(II)-sulfat-Monohydrat) 114 mg
- Zink (Zinkoxid, Aminosäuren-Zinkchelat, Hydrat) 105 mg
- Kupfer (Kupfer(II)-sulfat-Pentahydrat) 12 mg
- Mangan (Mangan(II)-oxid) 14 mg
- Jod (Kalziumjodat, wasserfrei) 1,5 mg
- Selen (Natriumselenit) 0,1 mg
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 (25% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 5/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) | 5/5 |
| 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, 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.
0/100 · limited — 1 checkable claim: 0 consistent, 1 contradicted.
Contradicted by the label
- "Glutenfreie Rezeptur" — the declared label says otherwise on grain-free.
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hochverdauliche Premiumnahrung für futtersensible Hunde (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Alleinfuttermittel für adulte Hunde (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Glutenfreie Rezeptur (on page) | Free-from | contradicted | Manufacturer assertion |
| Bewusster Verzicht auf häufig allergieauslösende Futterstoffe (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Außergewöhnliche Zutaten und nur eine Fleischquelle (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 Sensitive Diet Ziege
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.