Embark on Raw Tender Chicken Complete Working Dog
Raw · completeHigh meatClear label
Our verdict
Is Embark on Raw Tender Chicken Complete Working Dog a good dog food?
We score it 95/100 (Good). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete raw food for dogs of all life stages, with chicken, beef liver and beef kidney 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 turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids beef: the label lists beef liver
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You are limiting fat: 37.7% 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 13.10% · Fat 10.30%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 13.10% |
| Fat | 10.30% |
| Fibre | 0.20% |
| Ash | 2.80% |
| Moisture | 72.70% |
| Calcium | 0.75% |
| Phosphorus | 0.47% |
Energy: 137 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (16)7 of 16 percentages printed
Estimated composition
- meat 80.0%
- veg 20.0%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 65% Chicken with Bone | Chicken | meat · medium | 65 | 65.0 |
| 2 | 5% Ox Liver | Beef Liver | meat · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 3 | 5% Ox Kidney | Beef Kidney | meat · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 4 | 5% Ox Heart | Heart | meat · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 5 | 9% Carrot | Carrots | veg · good | 9 | 9.0 |
| 6 | 8% Parsnip | Parsnips | veg · good | 8 | 8.0 |
| 7 | 3% Broccoli | Broccoli | veg · good | 3 | 3.0 |
| 8 | Flaxseed Oil | Linseed oil | oil · good | - | 0.0 |
| 9 | Kelp | Kelp | veg · good | - | 0.0 |
| 10 | Turmeric | Turmeric | veg · good | - | 0.0 |
| 11 | Celery Seeds | Celery Seeds | veg · good | - | 0.0 |
| 12 | Alfalfa | Alfalfa | veg · good | - | 0.0 |
| 13 | Nettles | Nettles | veg · good | - | 0.0 |
| 14 | Psyllium Husk | Psyllium fibre | fibre · good | - | 0.0 |
| 15 | Clivers | Cleavers | veg · good | - | 0.0 |
| 16 | Wild Yam | Wild Yam | veg · medium | - | 0.0 |
- 1. 65% Chicken with Bone65% declared65.0% estimated
- 2. 5% Ox Liver5% declared5.0% estimated
- 3. 5% Ox Kidney5% declared5.0% estimated
- 4. 5% Ox Heart5% declared5.0% estimated
- 5. 9% Carrot9% declared9.0% estimated
- 6. 8% Parsnip8% declared8.0% estimated
- 7. 3% Broccoli3% declared3.0% estimated
- 8. Flaxseed Oil0.0% estimated
- 9. Kelp0.0% estimated
- 10. Turmeric0.0% estimated
- 11. Celery Seeds0.0% estimated
- 12. Alfalfa0.0% estimated
- 13. Nettles0.0% estimated
- 14. Psyllium Husk0.0% estimated
- 15. Clivers0.0% estimated
- 16. Wild Yam0.0% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-10-07
Brand and contact: Embark on Raw
- Website
- https://embarkonraw.co.uk/
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-10-07
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- embarkonraw.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.
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 product scored 95 out of 100 in this assessment. The meat content contributed +8.5 points, the overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +5.8 points, and being labelled nutritionally complete contributed +2.3 points. However, the vegetable and fruit content had a negative effect, subtracting -0.1 points from the final score.
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 | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.85 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 88.2% | 0.096 | +8.47 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 11.8% | -0.005 | -0.06 |
| 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 | 1.12 | 33.786 | +37.84 |
| Processing: Raw | yes | -0.054 | -0.05 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.85 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 88.2% | 0.096 | +8.47 |
| 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 | 11.8% | -0.005 | -0.06 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.012 | +0.00 |
| 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 | 0.0% | -0.106 | +0.00 |
| 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 | 1.12 | 33.786 | +37.84 |
| Processing: Raw | yes | -0.054 | -0.05 |
| 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 | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -1.74
- Subtotal
- 95.3
- Final score
- 95/100
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 | 13.1 | 48 (band 22.582417582417587 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 10.3 | 37.7 (band 6.900183150183151 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.2 | 0.7 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 73.1 |
| Calcium | 0.75 | 2.7 (band 0.6272893772893774 to 2.5%) | 90.1 |
| Phosphorus | 0.47 | 1.7 (band 0.5018315018315019 to 1.6%) | 92.4 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.6 | 1.6 (band 1 to 2%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 137 | 501.8 | 100 |
Scored over 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 90); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
High confidence: full analysis plus minerals or omegas and declared energy.
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 (100% 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) | 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) | 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.
Claims on file; none we can check against the label
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| human-grade chicken (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 Tender Chicken Complete Working Dog
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.