Animonda Renal Yummy Bits
Treat · complementary
Our verdict
Is Animonda Renal Yummy Bits a good dog food?
This is a treat, not a complete diet, so it is not scored on our 1-100 scale. The ingredient breakdown below shows what is in it; a treat should be fed alongside, not instead of, a complete diet.
Complementary baked dry treats for dogs of all life stages, with potatoes, peas and meat meal as the main ingredients.
100% 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 lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists dehydrated poultry proteins
- Your dog avoids beef: it is listed as an ingredient
- Your dog avoids turkey: the label lists dehydrated poultry proteins
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists salmon oil
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You are limiting fat: 26.1% 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.
What the label tells us
- The label lists 13 ingredients.
- Names its animal sources (2 named ingredients).
- Uses generic terms (Meat Meal): the specific animal source is not stated.
- Lists no artificial colours or preservatives.
- Prints no ingredient quantities.
Why is this treat not scored?
Our 1 to 100 rating applies to complete diets, so treats and complementary foods are presented as what the label tells us rather than a number that would invite comparison with complete meals.
What should I look for on a treat label?
A short ingredient list, named animal sources instead of generic terms, and no artificial colours or preservatives. Printed quantities are a good transparency signal, though few treat labels provide them.
These points are derived from the published ingredient list, not a rating.
Nutrition and feedingProtein 26% · Fat 24.50%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 26% |
| Fat | 24.50% |
| Fibre | 2% |
| Ash | 4% |
| Moisture | 6% |
| Calcium | 0.65% |
| Phosphorus | 0.45% |
| Sodium | 0.35% |
Additives & feeding info
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin A 15000 IE; Vitamin D3 1500 IE; Copper(II) sulphate pentahydrate 1.35 mg; Zinc oxide 18 mg; Manganese oxide 1.8 mg; Calcium iodate 0.5 mg
Ingredients (13)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 23.5%
- oil 22.7%
- carb 18.8%
- fibre 14.2%
- supplement 11.2%
- veg 9.6%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Potatoes | Potatoes | carb · medium | - | 10.0 |
| 2 | peas | Peas | veg · good | - | 9.6 |
| 3 | greave meal | Meat Meal | meat · medium | - | 9.2 |
| 4 | potatoe starch | Potato starch | carb · poor | - | 8.8 |
| 5 | poultry fat | Poultry Fat | oil · medium | - | 8.5 |
| 6 | beef tallow | Tallow | oil · medium | - | 8.1 |
| 7 | poultry protein | Dehydrated Poultry Proteins | meat · good | - | 7.7 |
| 8 | beet pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 7.3 |
| 9 | lignocellulose | Lignocellulose | fibre · medium | - | 6.9 |
| 10 | poultry liver | Chicken Liver | meat · good | - | 6.5 |
| 11 | salmon oil | Salmon Oil | oil · good | - | 6.2 |
| 12 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 5.8 |
| 13 | yucca schidigera | Yucca Schidigera | supplement · good | - | 5.4 |
- 1. Potatoes10.0% estimated
- 2. peas9.6% estimated
- 3. greave meal9.2% estimated
- 4. potatoe starch8.8% estimated
- 5. poultry fat8.5% estimated
- 6. beef tallow8.1% estimated
- 7. poultry protein7.7% estimated
- 8. beet pulp7.3% estimated
- 9. lignocellulose6.9% estimated
- 10. poultry liver6.5% estimated
- 11. salmon oil6.2% estimated
- 12. minerals5.8% estimated
- 13. yucca schidigera5.4% 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
- 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
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 | +5.77 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 6.8% | -0.115 | -0.78 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 32.5% | -0.092 | -2.99 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 2.1% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 14.9% | -0.012 | -0.18 |
| Recipe graded poor | 8.8% | -0.065 | -0.57 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 8.8% | 0.060 | +0.53 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Processing multiplier | 0.98 | 33.786 | +33.11 |
| Processing: Dry Baked | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.77 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 6.8% | -0.115 | -0.78 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 32.5% | -0.092 | -2.99 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 2.1% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 14.9% | -0.012 | -0.18 |
| Other share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.375 | +0.00 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 8.8% | -0.065 | -0.57 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 8.8% | 0.060 | +0.53 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| 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 | 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 | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
| 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 | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- +0.02
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 45.5
- Final score
- 45/100
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.
This is not a complete diet, so the 1-100 rating does not apply to it. Read the recipe breakdown above as ingredient-quality context only.
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
Not applicable to complementary food. FEDIAF reference ranges apply to complete diets.
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 (voluntary) - not on file | 0/20 |
| 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.
Community0 comments
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.