Billy & Margot Puppy Salmon With Superfood Recipe Wet Dog Food
Wet Pate · complete
Our verdict
Is Billy & Margot Puppy Salmon With Superfood Recipe Wet Dog Food a good dog food?
We score it 38/100 (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 paté food for puppies, with salmon, pork and vegetables as the main ingredients.
Declared analysis sits below the FEDIAF minimum for protein.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
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 puppies
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, venison, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists salmon
- Your dog avoids pork: the label lists pork
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You need more protein than this: 6.0% 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.
Nutrition and feedingProtein 6% · Fat 5%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 6% |
| Fat | 5% |
| Fibre | 1% |
Energy: 110 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (11)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 23.0%
- additive 19.3%
- veg 18.2%
- carb 16.0%
- supplement 15.5%
- oil 8.0%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Salmon | Salmon | meat · good | - | 11.8 |
| 2 | Pork | Pork | meat · medium | - | 11.2 |
| 3 | Vegetables | Vegetables | veg · medium | - | 10.7 |
| 4 | Gelling agents | Gelling agents and thickeners | additive · poor | - | 10.2 |
| 5 | Starch | Pea Starch | carb · poor | - | 9.6 |
| 6 | Flavours | Artificial flavourings | additive · poor | - | 9.1 |
| 7 | Vitamins & Minerals | Vitamin | supplement · good | - | 8.6 |
| 8 | Oils | Unspecified Animal Fats and Oils | oil · poor | - | 8.0 |
| 9 | Blueberries | Blueberries | veg · good | - | 7.5 |
| 10 | Taurine | Taurine | supplement · good | - | 7.0 |
| 11 | Honey | Honey | carb · medium | - | 6.4 |
- 1. Salmon11.8% estimated
- 2. Pork11.2% estimated
- 3. Vegetables10.7% estimated
- 4. Gelling agents10.2% estimated
- 5. Starch9.6% estimated
- 6. Flavours9.1% estimated
- 7. Vitamins & Minerals8.6% estimated
- 8. Oils8.0% estimated
- 9. Blueberries7.5% estimated
- 10. Taurine7.0% estimated
- 11. Honey6.4% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-02
Brand and contact: Billy & Margot
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-02
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.billyandmargot.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.
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 rating of 38 out of 100 based on its formulation. Ingredients without printed percentages subtract -10.6 points due to undeclared ingredient shares. Furthermore, the additive load decreases the final score by -5.3, while the additives in the recipe contribute +4.5. Finally, the carbohydrate content deducts -2.6 points from the overall evaluation.
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 | -0.2 | 9.191 | -1.67 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 22.5% | -0.115 | -2.59 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 12.6% | -0.092 | -1.16 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 4.3% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 27.6% | 0.163 | +4.49 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 22.7% | -0.012 | -0.28 |
| Recipe graded poor | 36.9% | -0.065 | -2.40 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 10.2% | 0.060 | +0.61 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -23.90 | 0.222 | -5.31 |
| 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 | -0.2 | 9.191 | -1.67 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 22.5% | -0.115 | -2.59 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 12.6% | -0.092 | -1.16 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 4.3% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 27.6% | 0.163 | +4.49 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 22.7% | -0.012 | -0.28 |
| 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 | 36.9% | -0.065 | -2.40 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 10.2% | 0.060 | +0.61 |
| 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 | -23.90 | 0.222 | -5.31 |
| 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
- 38.4
- Final score
- 38/100
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 puppies and growth. 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.
Scored against FEDIAF growth minima; puppy scoring is under review.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 6 | 27.3 | 61.1 |
| Fat | 5 | 22.7 | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 110 | 500 | 100 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); 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 (voluntary) - not on file | 0/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| 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) - not on file | 0/10 |
| 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 · strong — 3 checkable claims: 3 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "no added grains" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
- "Grain free dog food." — supported by the declared grain-free data.
- "completely grain-free" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
7 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Strong: at least three checkable claims, all consistent with the declared label, and no compliance cap.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| no added grains (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Grain free dog food. (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| completely grain-free (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Complete and balanced formulation. (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Superfood blend bursting with antioxidants, phytonutrients and essential vitamins and minerals to promote optimal vitality and wellbeing. (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Crude Fibre max 1% (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Packed with quality protein (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Crude Protein min 6% (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Crude Fat min 5% (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Natural with added vitamins and minerals. (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 Puppy Salmon With Superfood Recipe Wet Dog Food
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.