Fleischeslust Pure chicken with chickpeas
Wet Chunks · completeHigh meatClear label
Our verdict
Is Fleischeslust Pure chicken with chickpeas a good dog food?
We score it 68/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete wet food in chunks for adult dogs, with chicken, stomach and chicken heart as the main ingredients.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for adult dogs
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Single named protein: chicken
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- You are limiting fat: 28.3% 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 9.20%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 13.10% |
| Fat | 9.20% |
| Fibre | 0.50% |
| Ash | 2.20% |
| Moisture | 67.50% |
| Calcium | 0.25% |
| Phosphorus | 0.18% |
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Store in a cool, dry place.
Feeding guide
(adult, normal weight dog): 5 kg: 200-330 g 10 kg: 330-560 g 20 kg: 560-760 g 30 kg: 760 g Ideally spread over two meals. Approximate values, to be adapted to exercise, activity, breed, metabolism, season. We recommend regular weight checks. Feed at room temperature and always provide fresh water. Store in a cool, dry place. Once opened, store in the refrigerator and consume as soon as possible.
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (11)6% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 57.5%
- oil 17.5%
- other 12.4%
- veg 7.0%
- supplement 3.9%
- carb 1.7%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17.5% meat | Chicken | meat · medium | 17.5 | 17.5 |
| 2 | 17.5% stomachs | Stomach | meat · medium | 17.5 | 17.5 |
| 3 | 17.5% hearts | Chicken Heart | meat · good | 17.5 | 17.5 |
| 4 | 5% liver | Chicken Liver | meat · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 5 | 17.5% fat | Crude Fat | oil · medium | 17.5 | 17.5 |
| 6 | 12.4 % broth | Cooking broth | other · medium | 12.4 | 12.4 |
| 7 | 7 % chickpeas | Chickpeas | veg · good | 7 | 7.0 |
| 8 | potato starch | Potato starch | carb · poor | - | 1.7 |
| 9 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 1.5 |
| 10 | eggshell flour | Crushed Eggshells | supplement · good | - | 1.3 |
| 11 | yucca root | Yucca Schidigera | supplement · good | - | 1.1 |
- 1. 17.5% meat17.5% declared17.5% estimated
- 2. 17.5% stomachs17.5% declared17.5% estimated
- 3. 17.5% hearts17.5% declared17.5% estimated
- 4. 5% liver5% declared5.0% estimated
- 5. 17.5% fat17.5% declared17.5% estimated
- 6. 12.4 % broth12.4% declared12.4% estimated
- 7. 7 % chickpeas7% declared7.0% estimated
- 8. potato starch1.7% estimated
- 9. minerals1.5% estimated
- 10. eggshell flour1.3% estimated
- 11. yucca root1.1% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-08-22
Brand and contact: Fleischeslust
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.fleischeslust-tiernahrung.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 score is 68 out of 100. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +5.6 points, while the meat content contributed +4 points. On the other hand, the oil and fat content reduced the score by -4.1 points, and the processing format contributed -0.7 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 | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.60 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 41.2% | 0.096 | +3.95 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 1.1% | -0.115 | -0.13 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 44.3% | -0.092 | -4.08 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 2.7% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 9.1% | -0.012 | -0.11 |
| Other share of dry matter | 1.6% | -0.375 | -0.59 |
| Recipe graded poor | 1.7% | -0.065 | -0.11 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 1.7% | 0.060 | +0.10 |
| Undeclared quantities | 5.6% | -0.106 | -0.59 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.60 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 41.2% | 0.096 | +3.95 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 1.1% | -0.115 | -0.13 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 44.3% | -0.092 | -4.08 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 2.7% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 9.1% | -0.012 | -0.11 |
| Other share of dry matter | 1.6% | -0.375 | -0.59 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 1.7% | -0.065 | -0.11 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 1.7% | 0.060 | +0.10 |
| Undeclared quantities | 5.6% | -0.106 | -0.59 |
| 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) | 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 | 0.0 | 11.084 | +0.00 |
| Additive penalty | 0.00 | 0.222 | +0.00 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| 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 | 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 | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.08
- Subtotal
- 67.8
- Final score
- 68/100
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 | 40.3 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 9.2 | 28.3 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.5 | 1.5 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 83.8 |
| Calcium | 0.25 | 0.8 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 78.1 |
| Phosphorus | 0.18 | 0.6 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 77.7 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.4 | 1.4 (band 1 to 2%) | 93.3 |
Scored over 6 declared nutrients (combined weight 80); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
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 (94.4% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 18.9/20 |
| 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) | 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 (Additives declared, 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
- "only one source of animal protein" — supported by the declared single protein 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| easily digestible ingredients are particularly suitable for dogs with sensitive diets (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| sensitive complete food menu naturally species-appropriate (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| rich in fiber, which can promote healthy digestion (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| consists of 75% of the finest chicken meat and offal (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| contain numerous B vitamins, minerals such as magnesium and iron as well as antioxidants (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| only one source of animal protein (on page) | Content | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| single carbohydrates (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| reduced fat content (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 Pure chicken with chickpeas
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.