Our verdict
Is Animonda Renal with Chicken a good dog food?
We score it 30/100 (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".
Complete wet food in chunks for adult dogs, with meat and animal derivatives, chicken and cereals as the main ingredients.
86% 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 beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists cereals
- You are limiting fat: 29.7% 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.
Nutrition and feedingProtein 6.30% · Fat 5.50%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 6.30% |
| Fat | 5.50% |
| Fibre | 0.50% |
| Ash | 1.50% |
| Moisture | 81.50% |
| Calcium | 0.20% |
| Phosphorus | 0.13% |
Additives & feeding info
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin D3 195 IE; Calcium iodate 0.4 mg; Copper amino acid 1.5 mg; Manganous sulphate monohydrate 1.2 mg; Zinc sulphate monohydrate 20 mg
Ingredients (6)86% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 35.5%
- carb 19.4%
- oil 17.2%
- supplement 15.0%
- other 12.9%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Meat and animal derivatives | Meat and Animal Derivatives | meat · poor | - | 21.5 |
| 2 | chicken 14% | Chicken | meat · medium | 14 | 14.0 |
| 3 | cereals | Cereals | carb · poor | - | 19.4 |
| 4 | oils and fats | Oils and Fats | oil · poor | - | 17.2 |
| 5 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 15.0 |
| 6 | vegetable by-products | Vegetable By-Products | other · poor | - | 12.9 |
- 1. Meat and animal derivatives21.5% estimated
- 2. chicken 14%14% declared14.0% estimated
- 3. cereals19.4% estimated
- 4. oils and fats17.2% estimated
- 5. minerals15.0% estimated
- 6. vegetable by-products12.9% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-08-22
Brand and contact: Animonda
- Website
- https://animonda.de/en/
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-08-22
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- animonda.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.
Score details and methodologyCalculations, history and evidence
Recipe: how the 1-100 score is calculated
Why this score?
The product received a score of 30 out of 100. The presence of ingredients without printed percentages reduced the score by -9.1 points. The overall quality of the ingredient list lowered it by -5.4, while lower-quality ingredients contributed a further -4.6 point change. The remaining ingredients added -3.8 to the deduction.
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 | -0.6 | 9.191 | -5.38 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 6.1% | 0.096 | +0.59 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 26.5% | -0.115 | -3.05 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 26.5% | -0.092 | -2.44 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 21.5% | -0.012 | -0.26 |
| Other share of dry matter | 10.0% | -0.375 | -3.76 |
| Recipe graded poor | 71.0% | -0.065 | -4.61 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 21.5% | -0.179 | -3.84 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 21.5% | 0.060 | +1.29 |
| Undeclared quantities | 86.0% | -0.106 | -9.08 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -1.72 | 0.222 | -0.38 |
| 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 | -0.6 | 9.191 | -5.38 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 6.1% | 0.096 | +0.59 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 26.5% | -0.115 | -3.05 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 26.5% | -0.092 | -2.44 |
| 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 | 21.5% | -0.012 | -0.26 |
| Other share of dry matter | 10.0% | -0.375 | -3.76 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 71.0% | -0.065 | -4.61 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 21.5% | -0.179 | -3.84 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 21.5% | 0.060 | +1.29 |
| Undeclared quantities | 86.0% | -0.106 | -9.08 |
| 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 | -1.72 | 0.222 | -0.38 |
| 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
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 29.6
- Final score
- 30/100
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.
Score history across model versions
The score shown above is always computed with the latest published model. Earlier scores are kept for the record and are never edited or deleted; a scoring change ships as a new model version with a public write-up 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 | 6.3 | 34.1 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 5.5 | 29.7 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.5 | 2.7 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 99.4 |
| Calcium | 0.2 | 1.1 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 87.4 |
| Phosphorus | 0.13 | 0.7 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 85.1 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.5 | 1.5 (band 1 to 2%) | 100 |
Scored over 6 declared nutrients (combined weight 80); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 5 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin D3 195 IE
- Calcium iodate 0.4 mg
- Copper amino acid 1.5 mg
- Manganous sulphate monohydrate 1.2 mg
- Zinc sulphate monohydrate 20 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 (14% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 2.8/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| 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 (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.
See all current recalls we track.
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.
Alternatives to Renal with Chicken
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.