Our verdict
Is mera Rind Nassfutter a good dog food?
We score it 59/100 (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 beef, lung and udder 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: beef
- Doesn't list chicken, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- You are limiting fat: 36.8% 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 12.36% · Fat 8.81%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 12.36% |
| Fat | 8.81% |
| Fibre | 1.89% |
| Ash | 1.70% |
| Moisture | 76.05% |
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Bitte alle mera Produkte kühl und trocken lagern, damit die Qualität unserer Produkte über den gesamten Haltbarkeitszeitraum gewährleistet ist.
Feeding guide
2 kg = 120 g/Tag, 5 kg = 250 g/Tag, 7 kg = 340 g/Tag, 10 kg = 450 g/Tag, 15 kg = 650 g/Tag, 20 kg = 800 g/Tag; zimmerwarm füttern; ständig frisches Wasser zur Verfügung stellen; Angaben sind Richtwerte.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin D3 300 IE/kg; Vitamin E 40 mg/kg; Zink (als Zinksulfat, Monohydrat) 30 mg/kg; Mangan (als Mangan-(II)-Sulfat, Monohydrat) 3 mg/kg; Jod (als Calciumjodid) 0,25 mg/kg
Ingredients (9)1% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- unknown 72.1%
- other 27.2%
- meat 0.5%
- supplement 0.1%
- oil 0.1%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beef | Beef | meat · medium | - | 0.2 |
| 2 | 72% consisting of beef lung | Lung | meat · medium | 72 | 72.0 |
| 3 | beef udder | Beef Udder | meat · good | - | 0.2 |
| 4 | beef heart | Beef Heart | meat · good | - | 0.2 |
| 5 | beef tripe | Beef Tripe | meat · medium | - | 0.1 |
| 6 | beef meat and beef liver | Liver | meat · good | - | 0.1 |
| 7 | 27% broth | Cooking broth | other · medium | 27 | 27.0 |
| 8 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 0.1 |
| 9 | rapeseed oil. | Rapeseed oil | oil · good | - | 0.1 |
- 1. Beef0.2% estimated
- 2. 72% consisting of beef lung72% declared72.0% estimated
- 3. beef udder0.2% estimated
- 4. beef heart0.2% estimated
- 5. beef tripe0.1% estimated
- 6. beef meat and beef liver0.1% estimated
- 7. 27% broth27% declared27.0% estimated
- 8. minerals0.1% estimated
- 9. rapeseed oil.0.1% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-02
Brand and contact: mera
- Contact page
- www.mera-petfood.com
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-02
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- shop.mera-petfood.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.
Brand and retailer reviews
External platform ratings are not scores for this individual recipe.
Trustpilot: 3.6/5 · 9 reviews
13 reviews on this product · 4.9/5
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 scored 59 out of 100. The complete recipe, being labelled nutritionally complete, contributed +2.3 points, and printing percentages for most of the recipe added +1 points. On the downside, ingredients we could not classify cost -2.5 points, and the remaining ingredients deducted a further -1.4 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 | 0.0 | 9.191 | +0.17 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.3% | -0.092 | -0.03 |
| Other share of dry matter | 3.8% | -0.375 | -1.43 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 95.3% | -0.027 | -2.53 |
| Recipe graded poor | 0.2% | -0.065 | -0.01 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 0.2% | 0.060 | +0.01 |
| Undeclared quantities | 1.0% | -0.106 | -0.11 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| 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 | 0.0 | 9.191 | +0.17 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.115 | +0.00 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.3% | -0.092 | -0.03 |
| 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 | 0.3% | -0.012 | -0.00 |
| Other share of dry matter | 3.8% | -0.375 | -1.43 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 95.3% | -0.027 | -2.53 |
| Recipe graded poor | 0.2% | -0.065 | -0.01 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 0.2% | 0.060 | +0.01 |
| Undeclared quantities | 1.0% | -0.106 | -0.11 |
| 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) | 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
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 59.3
- Final score
- 59/100
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 | 12.36 | 51.6 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 8.81 | 36.8 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 1.89 | 7.9 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 5 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin D3 300 IE/kg
- Vitamin E 40 mg/kg
- Zink (als Zinksulfat, Monohydrat) 30 mg/kg
- Mangan (als Mangan-(II)-Sulfat, Monohydrat) 3 mg/kg
- Jod (als Calciumjodid) 0,25 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 (99% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 19.8/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| 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 (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
- "Ohne Getreide & Zuckerzusatz" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
11 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Made in Germany – Familienunternehmen seit 1949 (on page) | provenance | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Rind Nassfutter (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Gesunde Haut & glänzendes Fell (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Ohne Getreide & Zuckerzusatz (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Rind (72 % bestehend aus Rinderlunge, Rindereuter, Rinderherz, Rinderpansen, Rindfleisch und Rinderleber) (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Feuchtigkeit 76,05% (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Rohfaser 1,89% (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Fettgehalt 8,81% (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Mit saftigem Fleisch und Innereien (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Rohasche 1,7% (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Protein 12,36% (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Nur eine tierische Proteinquelle (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 Rind Nassfutter
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.