Our verdict
Is Butternut Box Tuck in Chicken a good dog food?
We score it 84/100 (Good). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete frozen fresh food for dogs of all life stages, with chicken, chicken liver and chicken heart as the main ingredients.
40% 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
- Single named protein: chicken
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists barley
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 13% · Fat 5%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 13% |
| Fat | 5% |
| Fibre | 0.70% |
| Ash | 2% |
| Moisture | 72% |
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Delivered freshly frozen. Once defrosted, use within 7 days. Once opened, use within 2 days.
Feeding guide
Portion sizes are bespoke and calculated based on age, weight, body condition, activity level and snacking habits.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin D3 150IU per kg; Vitamin E 40mg per kg; Zinc (as Zinc Chelate of Protein Hydrolysates) 25mg per kg; Iron (as Iron (II) Chelate of Protein Hydrolysates) 15mg per kg; Manganese (as Manganese Chelate of Protein Hydrolysates) 2.5mg per kg; Copper (as Copper (II) Chelate of Amino Acids Hydrate) 2.5mg per kg; Iodine (as Calcium Iodate Anhydrous) 0.7mg per kg
Ingredients (16)40% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 60.0%
- veg 23.4%
- supplement 7.8%
- carb 6.6%
- herb 2.2%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 27.5% Chicken | Chicken | meat · medium | 27.5 | 27.5 |
| 2 | 5% Chicken Liver | Chicken Liver | meat · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 3 | 27.5% Chicken Heart | Chicken Heart | meat · good | 27.5 | 27.5 |
| 4 | Carrots | Carrots | veg · good | - | 4.0 |
| 5 | Pumpkin | Pumpkin | veg · good | - | 3.8 |
| 6 | Green Beans | Green Beans | veg · good | - | 3.7 |
| 7 | Cauliflower | Cauliflower | veg · good | - | 3.5 |
| 8 | Whole Pearl Barley | Barley | carb · medium | - | 3.4 |
| 9 | Quinoa | Quinoa | carb · good | - | 3.2 |
| 10 | Broccoli | Broccoli | veg · good | - | 3.1 |
| 11 | Apple | Apples | veg · good | - | 2.9 |
| 12 | Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 2.8 |
| 13 | Brewer’s Yeast | Brewer's Yeast | supplement · good | - | 2.6 |
| 14 | Ground Flaxseed | Ground Flaxseed (2%) | supplement · good | - | 2.5 |
| 15 | Dried Thyme | Dried Thymus Vulgaris | veg · medium | - | 2.3 |
| 16 | Dried Rosemary | Rosemary Leaves | herb · good | - | 2.2 |
- 1. 27.5% Chicken27.5% declared27.5% estimated
- 2. 5% Chicken Liver5% declared5.0% estimated
- 3. 27.5% Chicken Heart27.5% declared27.5% estimated
- 4. Carrots4.0% estimated
- 5. Pumpkin3.8% estimated
- 6. Green Beans3.7% estimated
- 7. Cauliflower3.5% estimated
- 8. Whole Pearl Barley3.4% estimated
- 9. Quinoa3.2% estimated
- 10. Broccoli3.1% estimated
- 11. Apple2.9% estimated
- 12. Minerals2.8% estimated
- 13. Brewer’s Yeast2.6% estimated
- 14. Ground Flaxseed2.5% estimated
- 15. Dried Thyme2.3% estimated
- 16. Dried Rosemary2.2% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-08-22
Brand and contact: Butternut Box
- Phone
- 020 3936 4888
- Contact page
- butternutbox.com
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
- butternutbox.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 · 43,000 reviews
Facebook: - · 1,878 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
Why this score?
The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +7.1 points, and the meat content contributed +4.5 points, both helping to lift the score. Ingredients without printed percentages reduced the score by -4.2, while the processing format also pulled it down by -2.4. Taken together, the product reached a score of 84 out of 100.
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 | +7.08 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 46.5% | 0.096 | +4.46 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 16.1% | -0.115 | -1.85 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 14.5% | -0.005 | -0.07 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 20.0% | -0.012 | -0.24 |
| Undeclared quantities | 40.0% | -0.106 | -4.22 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Fresh × high meat | 1.0 | 11.084 | +11.08 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.10 | 33.786 | +37.16 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | yes | -2.354 | -2.35 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.8 | 9.191 | +7.08 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 46.5% | 0.096 | +4.46 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 16.1% | -0.115 | -1.85 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 14.5% | -0.005 | -0.07 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 20.0% | -0.012 | -0.24 |
| 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 | 0.0% | -0.065 | +0.00 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 0 | -0.876 | +0.00 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 0.0% | 0.060 | +0.00 |
| Undeclared quantities | 40.0% | -0.106 | -4.22 |
| 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) | 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 | 1.0 | 11.084 | +11.08 |
| Additive penalty | 0.00 | 0.222 | +0.00 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.10 | 33.786 | +37.16 |
| Processing: Raw | no | -0.054 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | no | -2.354 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | yes | -2.354 | -2.35 |
| 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
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 84.2
- Final score
- 84/100
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 | 13 | 46.4 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 5 | 17.9 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.7 | 2.5 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 96.7 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 7 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin D3 150IU per kg
- Vitamin E 40mg per kg
- Zinc (as Zinc Chelate of Protein Hydrolysates) 25mg per kg
- Iron (as Iron (II) Chelate of Protein Hydrolysates) 15mg per kg
- Manganese (as Manganese Chelate of Protein Hydrolysates) 2.5mg per kg
- Copper (as Copper (II) Chelate of Amino Acids Hydrate) 2.5mg per kg
- Iodine (as Calcium Iodate Anhydrous) 0.7mg per kg
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 (60% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 12/20 |
| 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) | 10/10 |
| 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 (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.
33/100 · limited — 3 checkable claims: 1 consistent, 2 contradicted.
Contradicted by the label
- "Low Fat" — the declared label says otherwise on low fat.
- "Low in fat" — the declared label says otherwise on low fat.
Consistent with the label
- "60% protein" — supported by the declared high protein data.
5 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Limited: at least one claim contradicts the declared label, or a recent upheld ASA ruling applies.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easy to digest (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Helps maintain healthy weight (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Supports a healthy gut (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Low Fat (on page) | High/low level | contradicted | Manufacturer assertion |
| No nasties (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| With fibre-rich pearl barley and quinoa (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Low in fat (on page) | High/low level | contradicted | Manufacturer assertion |
| 60% protein (on page) | High/low level | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Alternatives to Tuck in 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.