Our verdict
Is Nutrivet TAO Maintenance a good dog food?
We score it 26/100 (Poor). The main reasons are set out in "Why you might not" below, and every step of the calculation is shown under "How we calculated this score".
Complete extruded dry food for adult dogs, with cereals, meat and animal derivatives and beef as the main ingredients.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
80% 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 chicken, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids beef: the label lists beef
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists cereals
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 26% · Fat 12%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 26% |
| Fat | 12% |
| Fibre | 2.50% |
| Ash | 9% |
Additives & feeding info
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamine A 21500 UI; vitamine D3 1600 UI; vitamine E 80 mg; fer (sulfate de fer (II) monohydraté) 135 mg; iode (iodure de potassium) 2 mg; cuivre (sulfate de cuivre(II) pentahydraté) 12 mg; manganèse (oxyde de manganèse) 28 mg; zinc (oxyde de zinc) 95 mg; sélénium (sélénite de sodium) 0.2 mg
Ingredients (8)80% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 27.0%
- unknown 20.0%
- supplement 17.7%
- meat 13.5%
- oil 11.4%
- other 10.4%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cereals | Cereals | carb · poor | - | 14.5 |
| 2 | meat and animal derivatives | Meat and Animal Derivatives | meat · poor | - | 13.5 |
| 3 | 20% beef | Beef | meat · medium | 20 | 20.0 |
| 4 | vegetable protein extracts | Vegetable protein extracts | carb · poor | - | 12.5 |
| 5 | oils and fats | Oils and Fats | oil · poor | - | 11.4 |
| 6 | derivatives of vegetable origin | Vegetable By-Products | other · poor | - | 10.4 |
| 7 | yeasts | Yeast | supplement · good | - | 9.4 |
| 8 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 8.3 |
- 1. Cereals14.5% estimated
- 2. meat and animal derivatives13.5% estimated
- 3. 20% beef20% declared20.0% estimated
- 4. vegetable protein extracts12.5% estimated
- 5. oils and fats11.4% estimated
- 6. derivatives of vegetable origin10.4% estimated
- 7. yeasts9.4% estimated
- 8. minerals8.3% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-14
Brand and contact: Nutrivet
- Website
- https://www.nutrivet.fr/
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
- www.nutrivet.fr
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 product received a score of 26 out of 100. Ingredients without printed percentages weighed against the score, contributing -8.4 points. The processing format reduced the score by -6.7, while the overall quality of the ingredient list and the presence of lower-quality ingredients knocked off a further -4.1 and -4.1 points respectively.
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 | -0.4 | 9.191 | -4.14 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 33.8% | -0.115 | -3.89 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 16.1% | -0.092 | -1.48 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 23.1% | -0.012 | -0.28 |
| Other share of dry matter | 7.4% | -0.375 | -2.77 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 14.2% | -0.027 | -0.38 |
| Recipe graded poor | 62.3% | -0.065 | -4.05 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 13.5% | -0.179 | -2.41 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 14.5% | 0.060 | +0.87 |
| Undeclared quantities | 80.0% | -0.106 | -8.45 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -1.83 | 0.222 | -0.41 |
| 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 | -0.4 | 9.191 | -4.14 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 33.8% | -0.115 | -3.89 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 16.1% | -0.092 | -1.48 |
| 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 | 23.1% | -0.012 | -0.28 |
| Other share of dry matter | 7.4% | -0.375 | -2.77 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 14.2% | -0.027 | -0.38 |
| Recipe graded poor | 62.3% | -0.065 | -4.05 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 13.5% | -0.179 | -2.41 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 14.5% | 0.060 | +0.87 |
| Undeclared quantities | 80.0% | -0.106 | -8.45 |
| 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 | -1.83 | 0.222 | -0.41 |
| 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
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 25.7
- Final score
- 26/100
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 | 26 | 28.7 (band 18 to 40%) | 99.3 |
| Fat | 12 | 13.3 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 2.5 | 2.8 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 9.5% from the food type.
Declared fortification: 9 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamine A 21500 UI
- vitamine D3 1600 UI
- vitamine E 80 mg
- fer (sulfate de fer (II) monohydraté) 135 mg
- iode (iodure de potassium) 2 mg
- cuivre (sulfate de cuivre(II) pentahydraté) 12 mg
- manganèse (oxyde de manganèse) 28 mg
- zinc (oxyde de zinc) 95 mg
- sélénium (sélénite de sodium) 0.2 mg
Low confidence: partial analysis or moisture 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 (20% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 4/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| 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) | 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.
100/100 · moderate — 1 checkable claim: 1 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "Alimentation 100% complète et équilibrée" — supported by the declared complete and balanced data.
14 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alimentation 100% complète et équilibrée (on page) | Content | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Recette riche en bœuf (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Cette recette riche en bœuf (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| fabriquée sans colorants (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| ni conservateurs chimiques (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| bœuf 20 % (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Protéine brute : 26 % (on pack) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Aliment complet pour chien (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Bon rapport qualité/prix (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 12% de matières grasses brutes (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Matieres grasses brutes 12% (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| sans arômes artificiels (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Elle contient 26% de protéine brute (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Proteines brutes 26% (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Matières grasses brutes : 12 % (on pack) | Nutrient | 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 TAO Maintenance
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.