veterinary diet
This is a medical nutrition decision. Speak to your vet.
This is a veterinary diet product: a "dietetic" feed designed for a particular nutritional purpose and intended for use under veterinary direction. The score and figures below are readings of the label, the same as for any other food: they can't tell you whether this product is right for your dog.
Our verdict
Is Lenda VET Hepatic a good dog food?
We score it 47/100 (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 rice, maize flour and hydrolysed chicken protein as the main ingredients.
Declared analysis sits below the FEDIAF minimum for protein.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
100% 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 adult dogs
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists hydrolysed chicken protein
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists krill
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists rice - white
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You need more protein than this: 15.0% on a dry-matter basis is in the low 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.
Ingredients (37)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 23.2%
- meat 19.9%
- supplement 18.9%
- oil 14.3%
- veg 11.0%
- fibre 6.6%
- fruit 6.1%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Whole Rice | Rice - white | carb · medium | - | 3.6 |
| 2 | Maize meal | Maize Flour | carb · medium | - | 3.5 |
| 3 | hydrolyzed Chicken protein | Hydrolysed Chicken Protein | meat · medium | - | 3.5 |
| 4 | refined Chicken oil | Chicken Oil and Fat | oil · good | - | 3.4 |
| 5 | Maize gluten | Maize gluten | carb · poor | - | 3.4 |
| 6 | fish oil | Fish Oil | oil · good | - | 3.3 |
| 7 | lignocellulose | Lignocellulose | fibre · medium | - | 3.3 |
| 8 | dehydrated Egg | Dried Egg | meat · medium | - | 3.2 |
| 9 | dehydrated Apple pulp | Dried Apples | fruit · good | - | 3.2 |
| 10 | dehydrated Krill (Euphausia superba, source of Omega-3 fatty acids and astaxanthin) | Krill | meat · good | - | 3.1 |
| 11 | Moringa oleifera | Moringa Oleifera | veg · good | - | 3.1 |
| 12 | Yucca schidigera extract | Yucca Schidigera | supplement · good | - | 3.0 |
| 13 | yeast extract (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, as a source of MOS and nucleotides) | Hydrolysed Yeast | additive · medium | - | 3.0 |
| 14 | chicory root | Chicory root | veg · good | - | 2.9 |
| 15 | rosemary | Rosemary | veg · good | - | 2.9 |
| 16 | lemon balm | Lemon Balm | veg · good | - | 2.8 |
| 17 | dandelion | Dandelion Root | veg · good | - | 2.8 |
| 18 | sage | Sage | veg · good | - | 2.8 |
| 19 | mint | Mint | veg · good | - | 2.7 |
| 20 | cranberry | Cranberries | veg · good | - | 2.7 |
| 21 | globe artichoke | Artichoke | veg · good | - | 2.6 |
| 22 | milk thistle | Milk Thistle | veg · good | - | 2.6 |
| 23 | Saccharomyces cerevisiae | Brewer's Yeast | supplement · good | - | 2.5 |
| 24 | source of MOS and nucleotides | Nucleotides | supplement · medium | - | 2.5 |
| 25 | Chicory root (inulin source) | Chicory root | veg · good | - | 2.4 |
| 26 | rosemary | Rosemary | veg · good | - | 2.4 |
| 27 | lemon balm | Lemon Balm | veg · good | - | 2.3 |
| 28 | dandelion | Dandelion Root | veg · good | - | 2.3 |
| 29 | sage | Sage | veg · good | - | 2.2 |
| 30 | mint | Mint | veg · good | - | 2.2 |
| 31 | cranberry | Cranberries | veg · good | - | 2.1 |
| 32 | globe artichoke | Artichoke | veg · good | - | 2.1 |
| 33 | milk thistle | Milk Thistle | veg · good | - | 2.0 |
| 34 | Enterococcus faecium | Enterococcus Faecium | supplement · good | - | 2.0 |
| 35 | Lactobacillus plantarum | Lactobacillus plantarum | supplement · good | - | 1.9 |
| 36 | Lactobacillus acidophilus | Dried Lactobacillus acidophilus Fermentation Product | supplement · good | - | 1.9 |
| 37 | Lactobacillus rhamnosus. | Lactobacillus rhamnosus | supplement · good | - | 1.8 |
- 1. Whole Rice3.6% estimated
- 2. Maize meal3.5% estimated
- 3. hydrolyzed Chicken protein3.5% estimated
- 4. refined Chicken oil3.4% estimated
- 5. Maize gluten3.4% estimated
- 6. fish oil3.3% estimated
- 7. lignocellulose3.3% estimated
- 8. dehydrated Egg3.2% estimated
- 9. dehydrated Apple pulp3.2% estimated
- 10. dehydrated Krill (Euphausia superba, source of Omega-3 fatty acids and astaxanthin)3.1% estimated
- 11. Moringa oleifera3.1% estimated
- 12. Yucca schidigera extract3.0% estimated
- 13. yeast extract (Saccharomyces cerevisiae, as a source of MOS and nucleotides)3.0% estimated
- 14. chicory root2.9% estimated
- 15. rosemary2.9% estimated
- 16. lemon balm2.8% estimated
- 17. dandelion2.8% estimated
- 18. sage2.8% estimated
- 19. mint2.7% estimated
- 20. cranberry2.7% estimated
- 21. globe artichoke2.6% estimated
- 22. milk thistle2.6% estimated
- 23. Saccharomyces cerevisiae2.5% estimated
- 24. source of MOS and nucleotides2.5% estimated
- 25. Chicory root (inulin source)2.4% estimated
- 26. rosemary2.4% estimated
- 27. lemon balm2.3% estimated
- 28. dandelion2.3% estimated
- 29. sage2.2% estimated
- 30. mint2.2% estimated
- 31. cranberry2.1% estimated
- 32. globe artichoke2.1% estimated
- 33. milk thistle2.0% estimated
- 34. Enterococcus faecium2.0% estimated
- 35. Lactobacillus plantarum1.9% estimated
- 36. Lactobacillus acidophilus1.9% estimated
- 37. Lactobacillus rhamnosus.1.8% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 15% · Fat 19%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 15% |
| Fat | 19% |
| Fibre | 2.10% |
| Ash | 4.80% |
| Calcium | 0.70% |
| Phosphorus | 0.50% |
| Sodium | 0.20% |
Energy: 400.9 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Glucosamine 500 mg/Kg; Chondroitin sulphate 500 mg/Kg; Methylsulfonylmethane 250 mg/Kg
Technological additives
conservantes; antioxidantes (extractos de origen natural ricos en tocoferoles procedentes de aceites vegetales ricos en bioflavonoides (1b306(i))); antiaglomerantes
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-14
Brand and contact: Lenda
- Website
- https://lenda.net/
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
- shop.lenda.net
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 is 47 out of 100. Ingredients without printed percentages contributed -10.6, and the processing format contributed -6.7. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +5.2, while the carbohydrate content contributed -2.9. This is a general explanation of how the score works, not veterinary advice. For any health condition, food choice is a decision for your vet.
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 | +5.16 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 25.4% | -0.115 | -2.92 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 17.4% | -0.092 | -1.61 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 2.0% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 21.4% | -0.012 | -0.26 |
| Recipe graded poor | 7.1% | -0.065 | -0.46 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 7.1% | 0.060 | +0.43 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -0.21 | 0.222 | -0.05 |
| 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 | +5.16 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 25.4% | -0.115 | -2.92 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 17.4% | -0.092 | -1.61 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 2.0% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 21.4% | -0.012 | -0.26 |
| 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 | 7.1% | -0.065 | -0.46 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 7.1% | 0.060 | +0.43 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| 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 | -0.21 | 0.222 | -0.05 |
| 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
- +2 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 47.3
- Final score
- 47/100
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 | 15 | 16.6 (band 19.934254143646413 to 40%) | 58.2 |
| Fat | 19 | 21 (band 6.091022099447515 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 2.1 | 2.3 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 94.3 |
| Calcium | 0.7 | 0.8 (band 0.5537292817679559 to 2.5%) | 76.8 |
| Phosphorus | 0.5 | 0.6 (band 0.44298342541436475 to 1.6%) | 75.7 |
| Sodium | 0.2 | 0.2 (band 0.11074585635359119+%) | 100 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.4 | 1.4 (band 1 to 2%) | 94 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 400.9 | 443 | 50 |
Scored over 8 declared nutrients (combined weight 95); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 9.5% from the food type.
Portion-control flag: 400.9 kcal/100g as fed with fat at 21% dry matter, above the reference band. High-energy foods need smaller portions.
Declared fortification: 3 nutritional additives on the label
- Glucosamine 500 mg/Kg
- Chondroitin sulphate 500 mg/Kg
- Methylsulfonylmethane 250 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 (voluntary) - not on file | 0/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) | 5/5 |
| 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 (Analytical constituents 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete veterinary complete feed for adult dogs with liver disease (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Indicated to support liver function in case of chronic hepatic insufficiency (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Probiotics, reinforcement of the digestive system (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Botanicals with antioxidant properties (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Moderate protein content, selected and highly digestible (on pack) | 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.
Community0 comments
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.