Growling Tums Luscious Lamb & Rice Dog Food
Dry Extruded · completeClear label
Our verdict
Is Growling Tums Luscious Lamb & Rice Dog Food a good dog food?
We score it 58/100 (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 meat meal, rice and barley as the main ingredients.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
48% 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 all lifestages
- Doesn't list beef, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists poultry fat
- Your dog avoids turkey: the label lists poultry fat
- Your dog avoids lamb: it is listed as an ingredient
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists rice - white
- 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 22% · Fat 8%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 22% |
| Fat | 8% |
| Fibre | 2.50% |
| Ash | 8.50% |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 0.69% |
| Omega-6 fatty acids | 2.24% |
Energy: 353.12 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
A full feeding guide is available on the rear of our bags.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin A 15,000 IU/kg; Vitamin D3 2,250 IU/kg; Ferrous Sulphate Monohydrate 167 mg/kg; Zinc Sulphate Monohydrate 139 mg/kg; Manganous Sulphate Monohydrate 109 mg/kg; Cupric Sulphate Pentahydrate 60 mg/kg; Calcium Iodate Anhydrous 1.64 mg/kg; Sodium Selenite 0.67 mg/kg
Ingredients (8)48% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 36.1%
- meat 26.0%
- supplement 21.9%
- oil 8.4%
- fibre 7.6%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Lamb meat meal (min 26%) | Meat Meal | meat · medium | 26 | 26.0 |
| 2 | rice (min 26%) | Rice - white | carb · medium | 26 | 26.0 |
| 3 | barley | Barley | carb · medium | - | 10.1 |
| 4 | brewers yeast | Brewer's Yeast | supplement · good | - | 9.3 |
| 5 | poultry fat | Poultry Fat | oil · medium | - | 8.4 |
| 6 | beet pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 7.6 |
| 7 | yucca | Yucca Schidigera | supplement · good | - | 6.7 |
| 8 | minerals and vitamins | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 5.9 |
- 1. Lamb meat meal (min 26%)26% declared26.0% estimated
- 2. rice (min 26%)26% declared26.0% estimated
- 3. barley10.1% estimated
- 4. brewers yeast9.3% estimated
- 5. poultry fat8.4% estimated
- 6. beet pulp7.6% estimated
- 7. yucca6.7% estimated
- 8. minerals and vitamins5.9% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-15
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
- 2026-09-15
- 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 an overall score of 58 out of 100 based on several key factors. The processing format contributed -6.7 points, and the overall quality of the ingredient list added +5.3 points. On the other hand, ingredients without printed percentages resulted in -5.1 points, while the carbohydrate content accounted for -4 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 | +5.34 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 26.3% | 0.096 | +2.52 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 34.9% | -0.115 | -4.02 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 9.2% | -0.092 | -0.84 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 22.1% | -0.012 | -0.27 |
| Undeclared quantities | 48.0% | -0.106 | -5.07 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| 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 | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.34 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 26.3% | 0.096 | +2.52 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 34.9% | -0.115 | -4.02 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 9.2% | -0.092 | -0.84 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.005 | +0.00 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 22.1% | -0.012 | -0.27 |
| 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 | 48.0% | -0.106 | -5.07 |
| 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) | 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
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 58.3
- Final score
- 58/100
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 | 22 | 24.3 (band 18 to 40%) | 87.2 |
| Fat | 8 | 8.8 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 83.8 |
| Fibre | 2.5 | 2.8 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3) | - | - | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 353.12 | 390.2 | 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 5 declared nutrients (combined weight 70); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 9.5% from the food type.
Declared fortification: 8 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin A 15,000 IU/kg
- Vitamin D3 2,250 IU/kg
- Ferrous Sulphate Monohydrate 167 mg/kg
- Zinc Sulphate Monohydrate 139 mg/kg
- Manganous Sulphate Monohydrate 109 mg/kg
- Cupric Sulphate Pentahydrate 60 mg/kg
- Calcium Iodate Anhydrous 1.64 mg/kg
- Sodium Selenite 0.67 mg/kg
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 (52% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 10.4/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) | 5/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| 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, 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
- "All of the ingredients in this lamb and rice dog food are hypoallergenic" — the declared label says otherwise on lamb.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gentle on digestion (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| No artificial additives (on pack) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| All of the ingredients in this lamb and rice dog food are hypoallergenic (on page) | Free-from | contradicted | Manufacturer assertion |
| Hypoallergenic (on pack) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Prebiotics FOS and MOS work well to increase the overall health of digestive systems (on page) | Functional | 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 Luscious Lamb & Rice Dog Food
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.