Dr. Clauder's Best Selection No 2 Kalb mit Apfel

Wet Pate · completeHigh meatClear label

Best Selection No 2 Kalb mit Apfel
Good
our rating

Our verdict

Is Dr. Clauder's Best Selection No 2 Kalb mit Apfel 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 wet paté food for adult dogs, with heart, liver and lung as the main ingredients.

How we score

Why you might choose it

  • Scores 86, in the top quarter of wet foods we track.
  • Meat makes up an estimated 95% of the dry matter (97% as fed).
  • Prints ingredient percentages on the label.

Why you might not

  • High in fat: 31% fat on a dry-matter basis.

Who is this food for?

Suits

  • Labelled by the manufacturer for adult dogs
  • Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
  • Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients

Consider something else if:

  • You are limiting fat: 31.0% 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 10.30% · Fat 6.20%

Typical analysis (as fed)

NutrientAs fed
Protein10.30%
Fat6.20%
Fibre0.40%
Ash2.30%
Moisture80%

Additives & feeding info

Additives declared on the label

Nutritional additives

Vitamin D3 200 IE; Zink 25 mg; Mangan 1.4 mg; Jod 0.75 mg; Taurin 1500 mg

Ingredients (7)7 of 7 percentages printed

Estimated composition

  • meat 96.7%
  • veg 2.1%
  • supplement 1.0%
  • oil 0.2%
#As declaredMatchedLabel readingDeclared %Est. %
145.85% heartHeartmeat · good45.8545.9
25% liverLivermeat · good55.0
345.85% lungLungmeat · medium45.8545.9
42% appleApplesveg · good22.0
51% mineralsVitamins and mineralssupplement · medium11.0
60.2% safflower oilSafflower Oiloil · good0.20.2
70.1% cressCressveg · medium0.10.1
  1. 1. 45.85% heart45.85% declared45.9% estimated
    Heart · meat · good
  2. 2. 5% liver5% declared5.0% estimated
    Liver · meat · good
  3. 3. 45.85% lung45.85% declared45.9% estimated
    Lung · meat · medium
  4. 4. 2% apple2% declared2.0% estimated
    Apples · veg · good
  5. 5. 1% minerals1% declared1.0% estimated
    Vitamins and minerals · supplement · medium
  6. 6. 0.2% safflower oil0.2% declared0.2% estimated
    Safflower Oil · oil · good
  7. 7. 0.1% cress0.1% declared0.1% estimated
    Cress · veg · medium

Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-08-22

Brand and contact: Dr. Clauder's

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
www.dr-clauder.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?

The overall score for this recipe is 84 out of 100. The meat content contributed +9.1 points, while the overall quality of the ingredient list added +7 points. Being labelled nutritionally complete gave the recipe +2.3 points, and printing percentages for most of the recipe provided a further +1 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.

ComponentInputCoefficientContribution
Base score-30.909+30.91
Average ingredient quality0.89.191+6.97
Meat share of dry matter95.0%0.096+9.12
Oil share of dry matter0.7%-0.092-0.06
Vegetable share of dry matter1.1%-0.005-0.01
Supplement share of dry matter3.2%-0.012-0.04
Complete dietyes2.294+2.29
High meat (30%+ of dry matter)yes0.707+0.71
Processing multiplier1.0033.786+33.79
Processing: Wet Pateyes-0.672-0.67
Show all 40 components
ComponentInputCoefficientContribution
Base score-30.909+30.91
Average ingredient quality0.89.191+6.97
Meat share of dry matter95.0%0.096+9.12
Carb share of dry matter0.0%-0.115+0.00
Oil share of dry matter0.7%-0.092-0.06
Vegetable share of dry matter1.1%-0.005-0.01
Additive share of dry matter0.0%0.163+0.00
Supplement share of dry matter3.2%-0.012-0.04
Other share of dry matter0.0%-0.375+0.00
Unrecognised share of dry matter0.0%-0.027+0.00
Recipe graded poor0.0%-0.065+0.00
Poor-quality meat in recipe0.0%-0.179+0.00
Number of poor ingredients0-0.876+0.00
Largest single poor ingredient0.0%0.060+0.00
Undeclared quantities0.0%-0.106+0.00
Prints ingredient percentagesno0.000+0.00
Complete dietyes2.294+2.29
Frozen or chilled freshno0.000+0.00
High meat (30%+ of dry matter)yes0.707+0.71
Low meat (under 10% of dry matter)no-3.158+0.00
High carb and low meatno-1.180+0.00
Meat share × printed percentages0.00.000+0.00
Meat share × fresh0.00.000+0.00
Fresh × high meat0.011.084+0.00
Additive penalty0.000.222+0.00
Processing multiplier1.0033.786+33.79
Processing: Rawno-0.054+0.00
Processing: Fresh Chilledno-2.354+0.00
Processing: Fresh Frozenno-2.354+0.00
Processing: Fresh Refrigeratedno0.000+0.00
Processing: Fresh Shelfno-0.672+0.00
Processing: Dry Freeze Driedno6.629+0.00
Processing: Dry Air Driedno6.331+0.00
Processing: Dry Cold Pressedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Bakedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Extrudedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Semi Moistno-6.174+0.00
Processing: Dry Mueslino-10.146+0.00
Processing: Wet Pateyes-0.672-0.67
Processing: Wet Chunksno-0.672+0.00
Processing-type offset
-0.08
Additives declared on label
+1 transparency bonus
Subtotal
83.9
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.

ModelScore
v384/100current
v286/100
v167/100
v1.968/100
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.

NutrientAs fed (label)Dry matter (scored)Score
Protein10.351.5 (band 18 to 40%)100
Fat6.231 (band 5.5 to 20%)100
Fibre0.42 (band 0.5 to 5%)90

Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.

Declared fortification: 5 nutritional additives on the label
  • Vitamin D3 200 IE
  • Zink 25 mg
  • Mangan 1.4 mg
  • Jod 0.75 mg
  • Taurin 1500 mg

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.

ItemPoints
✓ Ingredient list on the label (mandatory)10/10
✓ Printed percentages on the label (100% of the recipe mass) (voluntary)20/20
✓ Analytical constituents declared (mandatory)15/15
✓ Additives declared (mandatory)5/10
✗ Energy value declared (voluntary) - not on file0/5
✓ Complete/complementary designation (mandatory)5/5
✗ Feeding guidance given (mandatory) - not on file0/10
✓ Manufacturer identity and address (mandatory)5/10
✓ Country of manufacture stated (voluntary)10/10
✗ Batch and date labelling (mandatory) - not on file0/5

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

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.

0/100 · limited — 1 checkable claim: 0 consistent, 1 contradicted.

Contradicted by the label

  • "Single-Protein Kalb" — the declared label says otherwise on single protein.

8 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.

ClaimTypeCheckSubstantiation
Made in Germany (on page)provenancenot checkableManufacturer assertion
Single-Protein Kalb (on page)ContentcontradictedManufacturer assertion
Hochwertiges Protein, ideal für empfindliche Katzen. (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
Apfel für Zahnpflege (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
Unterstützt die Zahngesundheit natürlich. (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
Distelöl für gesunde Haut (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
Fördert glänzendes Fell und gesunde Haut. (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
Alleinfuttermittel für erwachsene Katzen. (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
Nachhaltige Produktion in Deutschland ... am Niederrhein (on page)provenancenot checkableManufacturer assertion

The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.

Alternatives to Best Selection No 2 Kalb mit Apfel

Similar on ingredients, protein, format or nutrition, using the same stored data.

See all alternatives

See all products from Dr. Clauder's

Community0 comments

Owners' verdict
0 votes

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.

Comments are reviewed before they appear.