Our verdict
Is FRESCO Complete Plus Rind a good dog food?
We score it 42/100 (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".
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for all lifestages
- Doesn't list chicken, turkey, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids beef: the label lists beef heart
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists cod liver oil
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists wheat germ
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You are limiting fat: 30.4% 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 9.50% · Fat 7%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 9.50% |
| Fat | 7% |
| Fibre | 0.60% |
| Ash | 2.50% |
| Moisture | 77% |
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (17)17 of 17 percentages printed
Estimated composition
- unknown 50.9%
- other 32.0%
- veg 14.4%
- oil 1.4%
- meat 0.8%
- mineral 0.4%
- supplement 0.1%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 13% Fresh Beef Heart | Beef Heart | meat · good | 13 | 13.0 |
| 2 | 13% Fresh Beef Lung | Beef lung | meat · medium | 13 | 13.0 |
| 3 | 8% Fresh Beef Kidney | Beef Kidney | meat · good | 8 | 8.0 |
| 4 | 8% Fresh Green Beef Tripe | Green Beef Tripe | meat · good | 8 | 8.0 |
| 5 | 6% Fresh Beef Liver | Beef Liver | meat · good | 6 | 6.0 |
| 6 | 8% Carrots | Carrots | veg · good | 8 | 8.0 |
| 7 | 4% Beetroot | Beetroot | veg · good | 4 | 4.0 |
| 8 | 2% Apples | Apples | veg · good | 2 | 2.0 |
| 9 | 2% Pears | Pears | veg · good | 2 | 2.0 |
| 10 | 0.4% Blueberries | Blueberries | veg · good | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 11 | 0.4% Rosehip Shells | Rosehip Shells | supplement · good | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 12 | 0.8% Cod Liver Oil | Cod Liver Oil | oil · good | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| 13 | 0.5% Gluten-free Wheat Germ Oil | Wheat germ | carb · good | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 14 | 0.4% Salmon Oil | Salmon Oil | oil · good | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 15 | 1% Sunflower Oil | Sunflower oil | oil · good | 1 | 1.0 |
| 16 | 0.4% Algae Lime | Algae Lime | mineral · medium | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| 17 | 0.1% Seaweed Meal | Seaweed Meal | supplement · medium | 0.1 | 0.1 |
- 1. 13% Fresh Beef Heart13% declared13.0% estimated
- 2. 13% Fresh Beef Lung13% declared13.0% estimated
- 3. 8% Fresh Beef Kidney8% declared8.0% estimated
- 4. 8% Fresh Green Beef Tripe8% declared8.0% estimated
- 5. 6% Fresh Beef Liver6% declared6.0% estimated
- 6. 8% Carrots8% declared8.0% estimated
- 7. 4% Beetroot4% declared4.0% estimated
- 8. 2% Apples2% declared2.0% estimated
- 9. 2% Pears2% declared2.0% estimated
- 10. 0.4% Blueberries0.4% declared0.4% estimated
- 11. 0.4% Rosehip Shells0.4% declared0.4% estimated
- 12. 0.8% Cod Liver Oil0.8% declared0.8% estimated
- 13. 0.5% Gluten-free Wheat Germ Oil0.5% declared0.5% estimated
- 14. 0.4% Salmon Oil0.4% declared0.4% estimated
- 15. 1% Sunflower Oil1% declared1.0% estimated
- 16. 0.4% Algae Lime0.4% declared0.4% estimated
- 17. 0.1% Seaweed Meal0.1% declared0.1% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-19
Brand and contact: FRESCO
- Website
- https://www.fresco.dog/
- Phone
- +49 231 98 67 94 45
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-19
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.fresco.dog
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: 4.4/5 · 617 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?
This product received an overall score of 42 out of 100. The remaining ingredients contributed -13.1 points, while the overall quality of the ingredient list contributed -2.4 points. Lower-quality ingredients contributed -2.1 points, and ingredients we could not classify contributed -1.5 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 | -0.3 | 9.191 | -2.41 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.5% | 0.096 | +0.05 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 3.0% | -0.092 | -0.28 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 4.7% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Other share of dry matter | 35.0% | -0.375 | -13.12 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 55.7% | -0.027 | -1.48 |
| Recipe graded poor | 32.0% | -0.065 | -2.08 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 32.0% | 0.060 | +1.92 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| 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 | -0.3 | 9.191 | -2.41 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.5% | 0.096 | +0.05 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.115 | +0.00 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 3.0% | -0.092 | -0.28 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 4.7% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 0.2% | -0.012 | -0.00 |
| Other share of dry matter | 35.0% | -0.375 | -13.12 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 55.7% | -0.027 | -1.48 |
| Recipe graded poor | 32.0% | -0.065 | -2.08 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 32.0% | 0.060 | +1.92 |
| Undeclared quantities | 0.0% | -0.106 | +0.00 |
| 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) | 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 | 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
- 42.5
- Final score
- 42/100
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.
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 | 9.5 | 41.3 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 7 | 30.4 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.6 | 2.6 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 98.1 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); 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 (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) - 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 (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.
0/100 · limited — 1 checkable claim: 0 consistent, 1 contradicted.
Contradicted by the label
- "Als Monoproteinprodukt gilt Rind als besonders nahrhaft und lecker" — the declared label says otherwise on single protein.
4 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Liebevoll dampfgegart und in Dosen abgefüllt, ist es geschlossen über Monate haltbar (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Als Monoproteinprodukt gilt Rind als besonders nahrhaft und lecker (on page) | Content | contradicted | Manufacturer assertion |
| nur grob zerkleinertes Naturprodukt (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Der Liebling unserer NassBarf-Reihe! (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| In Kombination mit marktfrischem Obst und Gemüse sowie hochwertigen Ölen avanciert dieses Produkt zum beliebten Hauptfutter, natürlich in Barf-Qualität (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 Complete Plus Rind
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.