Our verdict
Is Paleo Ridge Essentials Duck Dinner a good dog food?
We score it 95/100 (Good). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete raw food for dogs of all life stages, with duck, beef tripe and broccoli as the main ingredients.
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, fish, venison, pork as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids beef: the label lists beef tripe
- Your dog avoids duck: the label lists duck
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You are limiting fat: 51.9% 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% · Fat 14%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 12% |
| Fat | 14% |
| Fibre | 0.50% |
| Ash | 1.76% |
| Moisture | 73% |
| Calcium | 0.43% |
| Phosphorus | 0.36% |
Energy: 177 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Keep frozen
Feeding guide
Use our dog food calculator to find the perfect amount to feed your pooch.
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (11)11 of 11 percentages printed
Estimated composition
- meat 80.0%
- veg 19.5%
- oil 0.5%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 36% Duck Meat with Bone | Duck | meat · medium | 36 | 36.0 |
| 2 | 34% Beef Tripe | Beef Tripe | meat · medium | 34 | 34.0 |
| 3 | 3.25% Broccoli | Broccoli | veg · good | 3.25 | 3.3 |
| 4 | 3.25% Carrot | Carrots | veg · good | 3.25 | 3.3 |
| 5 | 3.25% Kale | Kale | veg · good | 3.25 | 3.3 |
| 6 | 3.25% Parsnips | Parsnips | veg · good | 3.25 | 3.3 |
| 7 | 3.25% Cauliflower | Cauliflower | veg · good | 3.25 | 3.3 |
| 8 | 3.25% Cabbage | Cabbage | veg · good | 3.25 | 3.3 |
| 9 | 5% Beef Kidney | Beef Kidney | meat · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 10 | 5% Beef Liver | Beef Liver | meat · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 11 | 0.5% Extra Virgin Olive Oil | Olive oil | oil · good | 0.5 | 0.5 |
- 1. 36% Duck Meat with Bone36% declared36.0% estimated
- 2. 34% Beef Tripe34% declared34.0% estimated
- 3. 3.25% Broccoli3.25% declared3.3% estimated
- 4. 3.25% Carrot3.25% declared3.3% estimated
- 5. 3.25% Kale3.25% declared3.3% estimated
- 6. 3.25% Parsnips3.25% declared3.3% estimated
- 7. 3.25% Cauliflower3.25% declared3.3% estimated
- 8. 3.25% Cabbage3.25% declared3.3% estimated
- 9. 5% Beef Kidney5% declared5.0% estimated
- 10. 5% Beef Liver5% declared5.0% estimated
- 11. 0.5% Extra Virgin Olive Oil0.5% declared0.5% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-09
Brand and contact: Paleo Ridge
- Website
- https://paleoridge.co.uk/
- [email protected]
- Phone
- 02394 210 800
- Address
- Paleo Ridge, 3 The Meadows, Waterberry Drive, Waterlooville, Hampshire, PO7 7XX
- Contact page
- paleoridge.co.uk
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-09
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- paleoridge.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?
This product scores 95 out of 100. The meat content contributed +8.3 points, while the overall quality of the ingredient list added +6. Being labelled nutritionally complete also helped, adding a further +2.3 points. However, the oil and fat content weighed the score down by -0.2 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 | 0.7 | 9.191 | +5.99 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 86.8% | 0.096 | +8.33 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 1.9% | -0.092 | -0.18 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 11.3% | -0.005 | -0.06 |
| 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 | 1.12 | 33.786 | +37.84 |
| Processing: Raw | yes | -0.054 | -0.05 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.7 | 9.191 | +5.99 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 86.8% | 0.096 | +8.33 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.115 | +0.00 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 1.9% | -0.092 | -0.18 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 11.3% | -0.005 | -0.06 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.012 | +0.00 |
| 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 | 0.0% | -0.106 | +0.00 |
| 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 | 1.12 | 33.786 | +37.84 |
| Processing: Raw | yes | -0.054 | -0.05 |
| 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 | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -1.74
- Subtotal
- 95.1
- Final score
- 95/100
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 | 44.4 (band 29.5 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 14 | 51.9 (band 9.01388888888889 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.5 | 1.9 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 88 |
| Calcium | 0.43 | 1.6 (band 0.8194444444444444 to 2.5%) | 97.6 |
| Phosphorus | 0.36 | 1.3 (band 0.6555555555555556 to 1.6%) | 100 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.2 | 1.2 (band 1 to 2%) | 81.7 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 177 | 655.6 | 100 |
Scored over 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 90); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
High confidence: full analysis plus minerals or omegas and declared energy.
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 (100% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 20/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) | 5/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| 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 (Additives declared, 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 · strong — 4 checkable claims: 4 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "Pork Free" — supported by the declared pork data.
- "complete and balanced meal" — supported by the declared complete and balanced data.
- "Grain Free" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
- "Chicken Free" — supported by the declared chicken data.
3 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Strong: at least three checkable claims, all consistent with the declared label, and no compliance cap.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hypoallergenic (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| complete to FEDIAF standards (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Gluten Free (on pack) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Pork Free (on pack) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| complete and balanced meal (on pack) | Content | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Grain Free (on pack) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Chicken Free (on pack) | 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 Essentials Duck Dinner
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.