Our verdict
Is Dr. Clauder's Vollkost Croc a good dog food?
We score it 34/100 (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 extruded dry food for adult dogs, with barley, wheat and pork protein and beef protein as the main ingredients.
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 adult dogs
- Doesn't list lamb, fish, venison, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists dehydrated poultry proteins
- Your dog avoids beef: the label lists pork protein and beef protein
- Your dog avoids turkey: the label lists dehydrated poultry proteins
- Your dog avoids pork: the label lists pork protein and beef protein
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists barley
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
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 24% · Fat 10%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 24% |
| Fat | 10% |
| Fibre | 3% |
| Ash | 8% |
| Calcium | 1.60% |
| Phosphorus | 1.15% |
| Sodium | 0.30% |
Additives & feeding info
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin A 15000 IE; D3 1500 IE; E 85 mg; Kupfer 12 mg; Zink 85 mg; Jod 2.5 mg; Selen 0.25 mg
Technological additives
Antioxidationsmittel
Ingredients (13)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 28.8%
- supplement 18.1%
- meat 16.9%
- fibre 8.5%
- oil 7.7%
- other 7.3%
- veg 6.5%
- additive 6.2%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Barley | Barley | carb · medium | - | 10.0 |
| 2 | Wheat | Wheat | carb · poor | - | 9.6 |
| 3 | Wheat flour | Wheat | carb · poor | - | 9.2 |
| 4 | Pork protein and beef protein | Pork Protein and Beef Protein | meat · medium | - | 8.8 |
| 5 | Wheat semolina bran | Wheat Semolina Bran | fibre · medium | - | 8.5 |
| 6 | Poultry protein | Dehydrated Poultry Proteins | meat · good | - | 8.1 |
| 7 | Animal fat | Unspecified Animal Fats and Oils | oil · poor | - | 7.7 |
| 8 | Protein hydrolysate | Protein Hydrolysate | other · poor | - | 7.3 |
| 9 | Yeast | Yeast | supplement · good | - | 6.9 |
| 10 | Peas | Peas | veg · good | - | 6.5 |
| 11 | Sodium chloride | Salt | additive · poor | - | 6.2 |
| 12 | Calcium carbonate | Calcium Carbonate | supplement · medium | - | 5.8 |
| 13 | Potassium chloride | Potassium Chloride | supplement · medium | - | 5.4 |
- 1. Barley10.0% estimated
- 2. Wheat9.6% estimated
- 3. Wheat flour9.2% estimated
- 4. Pork protein and beef protein8.8% estimated
- 5. Wheat semolina bran8.5% estimated
- 6. Poultry protein8.1% estimated
- 7. Animal fat7.7% estimated
- 8. Protein hydrolysate7.3% estimated
- 9. Yeast6.9% estimated
- 10. Peas6.5% estimated
- 11. Sodium chloride6.2% estimated
- 12. Calcium carbonate5.8% estimated
- 13. Potassium chloride5.4% estimated
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 came in at 34 out of 100, after several negative factors weighed against the product. Ingredients without printed percentages contributed -10.6 points, while the processing format took off -6.7. The carbohydrate content reduced the score by -3.8, and lower-quality ingredients cost a further -2.6 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 | -0.1 | 9.191 | -0.66 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 32.8% | -0.115 | -3.78 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 9.8% | -0.092 | -0.91 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 1.3% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 7.2% | 0.163 | +1.17 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 21.5% | -0.012 | -0.26 |
| Other share of dry matter | 4.7% | -0.375 | -1.77 |
| Recipe graded poor | 40.0% | -0.065 | -2.60 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 9.6% | 0.060 | +0.58 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -7.74 | 0.222 | -1.72 |
| 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 | -0.1 | 9.191 | -0.66 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 32.8% | -0.115 | -3.78 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 9.8% | -0.092 | -0.91 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 1.3% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 7.2% | 0.163 | +1.17 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 21.5% | -0.012 | -0.26 |
| Other share of dry matter | 4.7% | -0.375 | -1.77 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 40.0% | -0.065 | -2.60 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 9.6% | 0.060 | +0.58 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| 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) | 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 | -7.74 | 0.222 | -1.72 |
| 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
- Additives declared on label
- +2 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 33.6
- Final score
- 34/100
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 | 24 | 26.5 (band 18 to 40%) | 93.2 |
| Fat | 10 | 11 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 93 |
| Fibre | 3 | 3.3 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Calcium | 1.6 | 1.8 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 100 |
| Phosphorus | 1.15 | 1.3 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 100 |
| Sodium | 0.3 | 0.3 (band 0.1+%) | 100 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.4 | 1.4 (band 1 to 2%) | 93.5 |
Scored over 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 85); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 9.5% from the food type.
Declared fortification: 7 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin A 15000 IE
- D3 1500 IE
- E 85 mg
- Kupfer 12 mg
- Zink 85 mg
- Jod 2.5 mg
- Selen 0.25 mg
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) | 10/10 |
| 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 (Analytical constituents 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
- "Alleinfuttermittel für ausgewachsene Hunde" — supported by the declared complete and balanced data.
7 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Made in Germany (on page) | provenance | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Rind (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Schwein (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| abgestimmter Nährstoffgehalt auf Energiebedarf der Hunde (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Alleinfuttermittel für ausgewachsene Hunde (on page) | Content | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| für Hunde mit normaler und aktiver Lebensweise (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Vollnahrung für alle Hunderassen (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Nachhaltige Produktion in Deutschland ... am Niederrhein (on page) | provenance | 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 Vollkost Croc
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.