Our verdict
Is Naturea Fit & Senior Chicken a good dog food?
We score it 45/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete extruded dry food for senior dogs, with dried chicken protein, rice and rice flour as the main ingredients.
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 senior dogs
- Single named protein: chicken
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists rice - white
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 23% · Fat 10%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 23% |
| Fat | 10% |
| Fibre | 4.50% |
| Ash | 7.50% |
| Moisture | 9% |
| Calcium | 1.20% |
| Phosphorus | 0.85% |
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (14)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 33.9%
- supplement 29.2%
- meat 15.9%
- fibre 7.6%
- oil 7.3%
- veg 6.0%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dehydrated Chicken | Dried chicken protein | meat · good | - | 9.3 |
| 2 | Rice | Rice - white | carb · medium | - | 9.0 |
| 3 | Whole Rice Flour | Rice flour | carb · medium | - | 8.6 |
| 4 | Barley | Barley | carb · medium | - | 8.3 |
| 5 | Rice Flour | Rice flour | carb · medium | - | 8.0 |
| 6 | Beet Pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 7.6 |
| 7 | Chicken Fat | Chicken Oil and Fat | oil · good | - | 7.3 |
| 8 | Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 7.0 |
| 9 | Hydrolysed Chicken Proteins | Hydrolysed Chicken Protein | meat · medium | - | 6.6 |
| 10 | Yeasts | Yeast | supplement · good | - | 6.3 |
| 11 | Inulin from Chicory | Chicory | veg · good | - | 6.0 |
| 12 | Mannan-Oligosaccharides (MOS) | Mannanoligosaccharides | supplement · good | - | 5.6 |
| 13 | Glucosamine | Glucosamine | supplement · good | - | 5.3 |
| 14 | Chondroitin Sulphate | Chondroitin | supplement · good | - | 5.0 |
- 1. Dehydrated Chicken9.3% estimated
- 2. Rice9.0% estimated
- 3. Whole Rice Flour8.6% estimated
- 4. Barley8.3% estimated
- 5. Rice Flour8.0% estimated
- 6. Beet Pulp7.6% estimated
- 7. Chicken Fat7.3% estimated
- 8. Minerals7.0% estimated
- 9. Hydrolysed Chicken Proteins6.6% estimated
- 10. Yeasts6.3% estimated
- 11. Inulin from Chicory6.0% estimated
- 12. Mannan-Oligosaccharides (MOS)5.6% estimated
- 13. Glucosamine5.3% estimated
- 14. Chondroitin Sulphate5.0% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-28
Brand and contact: Naturea
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-28
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.natureapetfoods.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.
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 a final score of 45 out of 100 based on several key factors. The overall quality of the ingredient list added +6.2 points. However, ingredients without printed percentages reduced the score by -10.6. Additionally, the processing format deducted -6.7 and the carbohydrate content contributed -4.
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 | +6.15 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 34.8% | -0.115 | -4.00 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 8.3% | -0.092 | -0.77 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 1.0% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 31.0% | -0.012 | -0.38 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| 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 | 0.7 | 9.191 | +6.15 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 34.8% | -0.115 | -4.00 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 8.3% | -0.092 | -0.77 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 1.0% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 31.0% | -0.012 | -0.38 |
| 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 | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| 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) | 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 | 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
- 44.6
- Final score
- 45/100
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 | 23 | 25.3 (band 18 to 40%) | 89.8 |
| Fat | 10 | 11 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 92.7 |
| Fibre | 4.5 | 4.9 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Calcium | 1.2 | 1.3 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 94.6 |
| Phosphorus | 0.85 | 0.9 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 96.7 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.4 | 1.4 (band 1 to 2%) | 94.7 |
Scored over 6 declared nutrients (combined weight 80); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
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) | 15/15 |
| 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) | 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 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| promote healthy digestion (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| to support their health and happiness (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| strengthening joints (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| supporting sensitive digestion (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| ensuring a silky, shiny coat (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| freshness of the sea takes centre stage (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| preservatives, artificial flavours, corn and wheat (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| With this recipe we guarantee that, in terms of food, there will be no compromise in the meals of our little friends (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| no maize, no wheat and no preservatives or artificial flavourings (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| chicken meat is the main ingredient (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| no preservatives, artificial flavours, corn or wheat (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Iberian pork takes the lead (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| exclusive combination of sardines, mackerel, horse mackerel, bonito and tuna provides a highly digestible source of protein (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Naturally rich in Omega-3 (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| a lot of chicken meat, complemented with essential ingredients, for many Naturally Appropriate meals (on page) | provenance | 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 Fit & Senior Chicken
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.