Growling Tums Digestion Meal Plan
Dry Extruded · completeHigh meatClear label
Our verdict
Is Growling Tums Digestion Meal Plan a good dog food?
We score it 66/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete extruded dry food for dogs of all life stages, with chicken, sweet potatoes and peas as the main ingredients.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for all lifestages
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids lamb: it is listed as an ingredient
- 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 27% · Fat 14%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 27% |
| Fat | 14% |
| Fibre | 4% |
| Ash | 8% |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 1.30% |
| Omega-6 fatty acids | 2% |
| Calcium | 1.70% |
| Phosphorus | 1.10% |
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (10)15% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 52.0%
- carb 30.4%
- veg 10.8%
- supplement 3.9%
- fibre 2.9%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chicken & Lamb (52%) | Chicken | meat · medium | 52 | 52.0 |
| 2 | Sweet Potato (25%) | Sweet Potatoes | carb · good | 25 | 25.0 |
| 3 | Peas (8%) | Peas | veg · good | 8 | 8.0 |
| 4 | 0.03% Potato | Potatoes | carb · medium | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| 5 | 0.03% Beet Pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| 6 | 0.03% Linseed | Linseed | veg · good | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| 7 | 0.03% Pea Protein | Pea protein | carb · medium | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| 8 | 0.03% Omega 3 Supplement | Omega-3 Supplement | supplement · good | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| 9 | 0.03% Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | 0.03 | 0.03 |
| 10 | 0.03% Herbs | Herbs | veg · medium | 0.03 | 0.03 |
- 1. Chicken & Lamb (52%)52% declared52.0% estimated
- 2. Sweet Potato (25%)25% declared25.0% estimated
- 3. Peas (8%)8% declared8.0% estimated
- 4. 0.03% Potato0.03% declared0.03% estimated
- 5. 0.03% Beet Pulp0.03% declared0.03% estimated
- 6. 0.03% Linseed0.03% declared0.03% estimated
- 7. 0.03% Pea Protein0.03% declared0.03% estimated
- 8. 0.03% Omega 3 Supplement0.03% declared0.03% estimated
- 9. 0.03% Minerals0.03% declared0.03% estimated
- 10. 0.03% Herbs0.03% declared0.03% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-14
Brand and contact: Growling Tums
- [email protected]
- Address
- Net Potential Ltd, Clyde Offices, 2nd Floor, 48 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 1BP
- Contact page
- www.growlingtums.co.uk
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-14
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- growlingtums.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?
This recipe achieves a total score of 66 out of 100. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributes +6.8 points to the total, while the processing format contributes -6.7 points. Additionally, the meat content adds +5.6 points, and the carbohydrate content contributes -2.3 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 | 0.7 | 9.191 | +6.80 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 58.4% | 0.096 | +5.61 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 20.1% | -0.115 | -2.31 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 7.9% | -0.005 | -0.04 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 7.9% | -0.012 | -0.10 |
| Undeclared quantities | 14.8% | -0.106 | -1.56 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| 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 | 0.7 | 9.191 | +6.80 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 58.4% | 0.096 | +5.61 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 20.1% | -0.115 | -2.31 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 7.9% | -0.005 | -0.04 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 7.9% | -0.012 | -0.10 |
| 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 | 14.8% | -0.106 | -1.56 |
| 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 | 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
- Subtotal
- 66.4
- Final score
- 66/100
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 | 27 | 29.8 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 14 | 15.5 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 4 | 4.4 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Calcium | 1.7 | 1.9 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 100 |
| Phosphorus | 1.1 | 1.2 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 100 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.5 | 1.5 (band 1 to 2%) | 100 |
| Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3) | - | - | 100 |
Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3): scored as the mean of its declared components (omega-6 100). The FEDIAF minimum for omega-6 is linoleic acid specifically.
Scored over 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 90); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 9.5% from the food type.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
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 (85.2% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 17/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| 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) | 10/10 |
| 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, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| HELPS WIND & STOOL ISSUES (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| DESIGNED BY VETS TO HELP DIGESTION PROBLEMS (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| MINT TO INCREASE DIGESTION (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| PREBIOTICS TO IMPROVE GUT BIOME (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| DOG FOOD TO IMPROVE DIGESTION (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Omega 3 Supplement (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Peas (8%) (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Fructooligosaccharides (FOS, 96 mg/kg) (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Mannanoligosaccharides (MOS, 24 mg/kg) (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Sweet Potato (25%) (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Herbs (0.2% including Mint, Marjoram, Basil, Oregano, Sage, Thyme, Parsley) (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 Digestion Meal Plan
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.