Burns Pet Nutrition YAKERS Blueberry Dog Chew
Treat · complementaryClear labelFull label
Our verdict
Is Burns Pet Nutrition YAKERS Blueberry Dog Chew 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 treats for dogs of all life stages, with milk and milk derivatives, blueberries and fresh lime juice as the main ingredients.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for all lifestages
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
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 4 ingredients.
- Lists no artificial colours or preservatives.
- Prints quantities for 2 ingredients.
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 57% · Fat 5%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 57% |
| Fat | 5% |
| Fibre | 0.50% |
| Ash | 5% |
| Moisture | 13% |
| Calcium | 1.50% |
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (4)0% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- other 90.0%
- veg 10.0%
- additive 0.0%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Milk and Milk Derivatives (90%) | Milk and Milk Derivatives | other · poor | 90 | 90.0 |
| 2 | Blueberry (9.9%) | Blueberries | veg · good | 9.9 | 9.9 |
| 3 | Lime Juice | Fresh Lime Juice | veg · medium | - | 0.06 |
| 4 | Salt | Salt | additive · poor | - | 0.04 |
- 1. Milk and Milk Derivatives (90%)90% declared90.0% estimated
- 2. Blueberry (9.9%)9.9% declared9.9% estimated
- 3. Lime Juice0.06% estimated
- 4. Salt0.04% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-09
Brand and contact: Burns Pet Nutrition
- Website
- https://burnspet.co.uk/
- [email protected]
- Phone
- 0800 083 6696
- Contact page
- burnspet.co.uk
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-09
- Product page
- burnspet.co.uk
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: 4.7/5 · 2,000 reviews
Facebook: - · 307 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
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 | -0.8 | 9.191 | -7.12 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 11.3% | -0.005 | -0.06 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.3% | 0.163 | +0.05 |
| Other share of dry matter | 88.4% | -0.375 | -33.13 |
| Recipe graded poor | 90.0% | -0.065 | -5.85 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 2 | -0.876 | -1.75 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 90.0% | 0.060 | +5.40 |
| Undeclared quantities | 0.1% | -0.106 | -0.01 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -0.05 | 0.222 | -0.01 |
| 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 | -0.8 | 9.191 | -7.12 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.115 | +0.00 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 11.3% | -0.005 | -0.06 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.3% | 0.163 | +0.05 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.012 | +0.00 |
| Other share of dry matter | 88.4% | -0.375 | -33.13 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 90.0% | -0.065 | -5.85 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 2 | -0.876 | -1.75 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 90.0% | 0.060 | +5.40 |
| Undeclared quantities | 0.1% | -0.106 | -0.01 |
| 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 | -0.05 | 0.222 | -0.01 |
| 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
- Subtotal
- 11.7
- Final score
- 12/100
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 (99.9% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 20/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| 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) | 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 (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 — 2 checkable claims: 2 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "LOW-FAT, HEALTHY TREAT OPTION" — supported by the declared low fat data.
- "RICH IN PROTEIN & CALCIUM FOR STRONG GROWTH" — supported by the declared high protein data.
5 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Moderate: every checkable claim is consistent with the declared label.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| help to support your dog’s cognitive function (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| PROMOTES HEALTHY TEETH & GUMS (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| LOW-FAT, HEALTHY TREAT OPTION (on page) | High/low level | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Packed with antioxidants (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| full of vitamins A, C & E (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| RICH IN PROTEIN & CALCIUM FOR STRONG GROWTH (on page) | High/low level | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| great source of dietary fibre (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
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.