Arden Grange Prestige Adult Rich in fresh chicken
Raw · completeHigh meatClear label
Our verdict
Is Arden Grange Prestige Adult Rich in fresh chicken a good dog food?
We score it 67/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete raw food for adult dogs, with chicken, meat meal and rice as the main ingredients.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
60% 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, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists fish meal
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists rice - white
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You are limiting fat: 21.0% 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 30% · Fat 21%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 30% |
| Fat | 21% |
| Fibre | 3% |
| Ash | 7% |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 1.10% |
| Omega-6 fatty acids | 4.85% |
| Calcium | 1.40% |
| Phosphorus | 0.95% |
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (21)60% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 53.9%
- supplement 24.5%
- carb 8.2%
- veg 5.7%
- oil 3.9%
- fibre 3.8%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fresh chicken (20%) | Chicken | meat · medium | 20 | 20.0 |
| 2 | min 20% chicken meat meal | Meat Meal | meat · medium | 20 | 20.0 |
| 3 | rice | Rice - white | carb · medium | - | 4.1 |
| 4 | maize | Maize / Corn | carb · medium | - | 4.0 |
| 5 | refined chicken oil | Chicken Oil and Fat | oil · good | - | 3.9 |
| 6 | beet pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 3.8 |
| 7 | whole dried egg | Dried Egg | meat · medium | - | 3.7 |
| 8 | fish meal | Fish Meal | meat · medium | - | 3.6 |
| 9 | chicken digest | Digest | meat · poor | - | 3.5 |
| 10 | whole linseed | Linseed | veg · good | - | 3.4 |
| 11 | yeast | Yeast | supplement · good | - | 3.3 |
| 12 | krill | Krill | meat · good | - | 3.2 |
| 13 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 3.0 |
| 14 | prebiotic FOS | Prebiotics | supplement · good | - | 2.9 |
| 15 | prebiotic MOS | Mannanoligosaccharides | supplement · good | - | 2.8 |
| 16 | yucca extract | Yucca Schidigera | supplement · good | - | 2.7 |
| 17 | glucosamine | Glucosamine | supplement · good | - | 2.6 |
| 18 | MSM | MSM | supplement · good | - | 2.5 |
| 19 | chondroitin | Chondroitin | supplement · good | - | 2.4 |
| 20 | cranberries | Cranberries | veg · good | - | 2.3 |
| 21 | nucleotides | Nucleotides | supplement · medium | - | 2.2 |
- 1. Fresh chicken (20%)20% declared20.0% estimated
- 2. min 20% chicken meat meal20% declared20.0% estimated
- 3. rice4.1% estimated
- 4. maize4.0% estimated
- 5. refined chicken oil3.9% estimated
- 6. beet pulp3.8% estimated
- 7. whole dried egg3.7% estimated
- 8. fish meal3.6% estimated
- 9. chicken digest3.5% estimated
- 10. whole linseed3.4% estimated
- 11. yeast3.3% estimated
- 12. krill3.2% estimated
- 13. minerals3.0% estimated
- 14. prebiotic FOS2.9% estimated
- 15. prebiotic MOS2.8% estimated
- 16. yucca extract2.7% estimated
- 17. glucosamine2.6% estimated
- 18. MSM2.5% estimated
- 19. chondroitin2.4% estimated
- 20. cranberries2.3% estimated
- 21. nucleotides2.2% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-13
Brand and contact: Arden Grange
- Website
- https://www.ardengrange.com/
- [email protected]
- Phone
- 01273894617
- Address
- Danworth House, Jobs Lane, Sayers Common, BN6 9HE
- Contact page
- www.ardengrange.com
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-13
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.ardengrange.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: 4.8/5 · 1,967 reviews
1 reviews on this product · 5.0/5
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 an overall score of 67 out of 100 based on several key factors. The meat content contributed +3.2 points and the overall quality of the ingredient list added +5.9 points to the total. However, the carbohydrate content resulted in a deduction of -1.1 points, and ingredients without printed percentages reduced the score by -6.3 points.
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 | +5.89 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 32.9% | 0.096 | +3.16 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 9.8% | -0.115 | -1.13 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 5.3% | -0.092 | -0.49 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 4.6% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 30.9% | -0.012 | -0.38 |
| Recipe graded poor | 3.5% | -0.065 | -0.23 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 3.5% | -0.179 | -0.62 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 3.5% | 0.060 | +0.21 |
| Undeclared quantities | 60.0% | -0.106 | -6.33 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.12 | 33.786 | +37.84 |
| Processing: Raw | yes | -0.054 | -0.05 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.89 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 32.9% | 0.096 | +3.16 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 9.8% | -0.115 | -1.13 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 5.3% | -0.092 | -0.49 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 4.6% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 30.9% | -0.012 | -0.38 |
| 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 | 3.5% | -0.065 | -0.23 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 3.5% | -0.179 | -0.62 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 3.5% | 0.060 | +0.21 |
| Undeclared quantities | 60.0% | -0.106 | -6.33 |
| 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 | 1.12 | 33.786 | +37.84 |
| Processing: Raw | yes | -0.054 | -0.05 |
| 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 | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -1.74
- Subtotal
- 66.8
- Final score
- 67/100
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 | 30 | 97.4 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 21 | 68.2 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 3 | 9.7 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 78.2 |
| Calcium | 1.4 | 4.5 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 18.2 |
| Phosphorus | 0.95 | 3.1 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 7.2 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.5 | 1.5 (band 1 to 2%) | 98.4 |
| Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3) | - | - | 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 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 90); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 69.2% 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 (40% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 8/20 |
| 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) | 10/10 |
| 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.
See all current recalls we track.
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.
100/100 · moderate — 1 checkable claim: 1 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "HIGH PROTEIN" — supported by the declared high protein data.
1 further claim on file that we cannot check against the label.
Moderate: every checkable claim is consistent with the declared label.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| HIGH PROTEIN (on page) | High/low level | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| rich in fresh chicken (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 Prestige Adult Rich in fresh 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.