Our verdict
Is Monty's Larder Comforting Cottage Pie a good dog food?
We score it 84/100 (Good). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete frozen fresh food for dogs of all life stages, with beef, liver and potatoes as the main ingredients.
40% 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
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list chicken, turkey, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids beef: the label lists beef
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists salmon oil
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You are limiting fat: 32.1% 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 13% · Fat 9%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 13% |
| Fat | 9% |
| Fibre | 1% |
| Ash | 1% |
| Moisture | 72% |
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Your order will be frozen prior to despatch, when it arrives, simply pop the meals in the freezer and serve as required.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Manganese 3.4 Mg; Vitamin D3 17 IU; Vitamin E 7.1 IU; Magnesium 153 Mg
Ingredients (14)40% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 64.0%
- veg 24.0%
- oil 5.2%
- carb 3.8%
- supplement 2.9%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | beef (60%) | Beef | meat · medium | 60 | 60.0 |
| 2 | (mince beef 35%, beef heart 20%, liver 5%) | Liver | meat · good | - | 4.0 |
| 3 | potatoes | Potatoes | carb · medium | - | 3.8 |
| 4 | spinach | Spinach | veg · good | - | 3.7 |
| 5 | parsnips | Parsnips | veg · good | - | 3.5 |
| 6 | carrots | Carrots | veg · good | - | 3.4 |
| 7 | savoy cabbage | Cabbage | veg · good | - | 3.2 |
| 8 | apples | Apples | veg · good | - | 3.1 |
| 9 | calcium carbonate | Calcium Carbonate | supplement · medium | - | 2.9 |
| 10 | salmon oil | Salmon Oil | oil · good | - | 2.8 |
| 11 | hemp | Dried Hemp | veg · good | - | 2.6 |
| 12 | sunflower | Sunflower oil | oil · good | - | 2.5 |
| 13 | safflower | Safflower | veg · medium | - | 2.3 |
| 14 | kelp | Kelp | veg · good | - | 2.2 |
- 1. beef (60%)60% declared60.0% estimated
- 2. (mince beef 35%, beef heart 20%, liver 5%)4.0% estimated
- 3. potatoes3.8% estimated
- 4. spinach3.7% estimated
- 5. parsnips3.5% estimated
- 6. carrots3.4% estimated
- 7. savoy cabbage3.2% estimated
- 8. apples3.1% estimated
- 9. calcium carbonate2.9% estimated
- 10. salmon oil2.8% estimated
- 11. hemp2.6% estimated
- 12. sunflower2.5% estimated
- 13. safflower2.3% estimated
- 14. kelp2.2% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-14
Brand and contact: Monty's Larder
- Website
- https://montyslarder.co.uk/
- [email protected]
- Phone
- 01747 859911
- Address
- Monty’s Larder Coldcot Farm Stourton Warminster BA12 6QR
- Contact page
- montyslarder.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
- montyslarder.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 quality of the ingredient list contributed +6.2 points, and the meat content contributed +4.8 points, both helping to lift the score. Ingredients without printed percentages reduced the score by -4.2, while the processing format also pulled it down by -2.4. Taken together, the product reached a score of 84 out of 100.
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 | +6.18 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 49.5% | 0.096 | +4.75 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 2.8% | -0.115 | -0.33 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 15.3% | -0.092 | -1.40 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 21.2% | -0.005 | -0.11 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 7.9% | -0.012 | -0.10 |
| Undeclared quantities | 40.0% | -0.106 | -4.22 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Fresh × high meat | 1.0 | 11.084 | +11.08 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.10 | 33.786 | +37.16 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | yes | -2.354 | -2.35 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.7 | 9.191 | +6.18 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 49.5% | 0.096 | +4.75 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 2.8% | -0.115 | -0.33 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 15.3% | -0.092 | -1.40 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 21.2% | -0.005 | -0.11 |
| 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 | 40.0% | -0.106 | -4.22 |
| 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) | 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 | 1.0 | 11.084 | +11.08 |
| Additive penalty | 0.00 | 0.222 | +0.00 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.10 | 33.786 | +37.16 |
| Processing: Raw | no | -0.054 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | no | -2.354 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | yes | -2.354 | -2.35 |
| 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 | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -1.74
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 83.8
- Final score
- 84/100
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 | 13 | 46.4 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 9 | 32.1 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 1 | 3.6 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 4 nutritional additives on the label
- Manganese 3.4 Mg
- Vitamin D3 17 IU
- Vitamin E 7.1 IU
- Magnesium 153 Mg
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 (60% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 12/20 |
| 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) - 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 (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.
100/100 · moderate — 2 checkable claims: 2 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "100% grain-free" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
- "Grain free" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
8 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| high in Vitamin K to maintain healthy eye function (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| full of anti-inflammatory properties (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| high in fibre and an excellent source of Vitamins A and C to improve gut health (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| supports strong muscles, healthy digestion, a glossy coat and steady energy (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| high in Omega 3 (on page) | High/low level | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 100% grain-free (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| No fillers (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| No artificial colours, flavours, or preservatives (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| No preservatives (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Grain free (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Alternatives to Comforting Cottage Pie
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.