Growling Tums Superfood Duck with Parsnip, Beetroot, Orange, Asparagus & Pumpkin
Dry Extruded · completeHigh meatClear label
Our verdict
Is Growling Tums Superfood Duck with Parsnip, Beetroot, Orange, Asparagus & Pumpkin a good dog food?
We score it 69/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete extruded dry food for adult dogs, with duck, poultry fat and sweet potatoes as the main ingredients.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for adult dogs
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list beef, lamb, fish, venison, pork 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 duck: the label lists duck
- 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.
Ingredients (10)5% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 90.0%
- oil 5.0%
- veg 3.1%
- carb 1.1%
- fibre 0.9%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 65% Duck (35% Freshly Prepared Duck | Duck | meat · medium | 65 | 65.0 |
| 2 | 22% Dried Duck | Duck | meat · medium | 22 | 22.0 |
| 3 | 5% Duck Fat | Poultry Fat | oil · medium | 5 | 5.0 |
| 4 | 3% Duck Stock) | Duck | meat · medium | 3 | 3.0 |
| 5 | Sweet Potato | Sweet Potatoes | carb · good | - | 1.1 |
| 6 | Haricot Beans | Haricot beans | veg · medium | - | 1.0 |
| 7 | Sugar Beet Fibre | Beet Fibre | fibre · medium | - | 0.9 |
| 8 | Dried Superfood Blend* (Including Parsnip | Parsnips | veg · good | - | 0.8 |
| 9 | Beetroot | Beetroot | veg · good | - | 0.7 |
| 10 | Orange | Orange | veg · medium | - | 0.6 |
- 1. 65% Duck (35% Freshly Prepared Duck65% declared65.0% estimated
- 2. 22% Dried Duck22% declared22.0% estimated
- 3. 5% Duck Fat5% declared5.0% estimated
- 4. 3% Duck Stock)3% declared3.0% estimated
- 5. Sweet Potato1.1% estimated
- 6. Haricot Beans1.0% estimated
- 7. Sugar Beet Fibre0.9% estimated
- 8. Dried Superfood Blend* (Including Parsnip0.8% estimated
- 9. Beetroot0.7% estimated
- 10. Orange0.6% 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?
The overall score for this food is 69 out of 100. The meat content contributed +8.1 points, while the processing format took -6.7 points off the score. The overall quality of the ingredient list added +4.7 points, though the oil and fat content reduced the score by -1 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 | 0.5 | 9.191 | +4.71 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 84.6% | 0.096 | +8.12 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 0.6% | -0.115 | -0.07 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 10.8% | -0.092 | -1.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 2.3% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Undeclared quantities | 5.0% | -0.106 | -0.53 |
| 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 | 0.5 | 9.191 | +4.71 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 84.6% | 0.096 | +8.12 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 0.6% | -0.115 | -0.07 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 10.8% | -0.092 | -1.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 2.3% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| 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 | 5.0% | -0.106 | -0.53 |
| 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
- 69.3
- Final score
- 69/100
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
Analytical constituents not declared
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
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 (95% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 19/20 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypoallergenic (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| No artificial additives (on page) | Free-from | 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 Superfood Duck with Parsnip, Beetroot, Orange, Asparagus & Pumpkin
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.