Pedigree DENTASTIX Daily Dental Chews Small Dog Chicken & Beef
Treat · complementaryClear label
Our verdict
Is Pedigree DENTASTIX Daily Dental Chews Small Dog Chicken & Beef a good dog food?
This is a treat, not a complete diet, so it is not scored on our 1-100 scale. The ingredient breakdown below shows what is in it; a treat should be fed alongside, not instead of, a complete diet.
Complementary semi-moist dry treats for adult dogs, with cereals, vegetable by and vitamins and minerals as the main ingredients.
93% 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
- Labelling or feeding guide is aimed at small dogs
- Doesn't list turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids beef: the label lists beef
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists cereals
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You need more protein than this: 11.5% 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.
What the label tells us
- The label lists 11 ingredients.
- Names its animal sources (2 named ingredients).
- Uses generic terms (Chicken, Beef): the specific animal source is not stated.
- Lists no artificial colours or preservatives.
- Prints quantities for 3 ingredients.
Why is this treat not scored?
Our 1 to 100 rating applies to complete diets, so treats and complementary foods are presented as what the label tells us rather than a number that would invite comparison with complete meals.
What should I look for on a treat label?
A short ingredient list, named animal sources instead of generic terms, and no artificial colours or preservatives. Printed quantities are a good transparency signal, though few treat labels provide them.
These points are derived from the published ingredient list, not a rating.
Nutrition and feedingProtein 9.60% · Fat 1.80%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 9.60% |
| Fat | 1.80% |
| Fibre | 0.40% |
| Ash | 5.70% |
| Moisture | 16.50% |
Energy: 301 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
Feed one stick every day for a healthy dental routine.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin E: 65 mg; Zinc (Zinc sulphate, heptahydrate): 218 mg
Technological additives
Preservatives
Ingredients (11)93% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 37.9%
- oil 17.6%
- carb 14.8%
- other 13.9%
- supplement 13.0%
- additive 2.8%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cereals | Cereals | carb · poor | - | 14.8 |
| 2 | Derivatives of Vegetable Origin | Vegetable By-Products | other · poor | - | 13.9 |
| 3 | Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 13.0 |
| 4 | Sodium Tripolyphosphate 2.8% | Sodium Tripolyphosphate | additive · poor | 2.8 | 2.8 |
| 5 | Meat and Animal Derivatives | Meat and Animal Derivatives | meat · poor | - | 12.0 |
| 6 | Dried Chicken Liver 2.16% | Liver | meat · good | 2.16 | 2.2 |
| 7 | equivalent to Chicken 4.2% in the Light Brown Stick | Chicken | meat · medium | - | 11.1 |
| 8 | Dried Beef Liver 2.42% | Liver | meat · good | 2.42 | 2.4 |
| 9 | equivalent to Beef 4.2% in the Dark Brown Stick | Beef | meat · medium | - | 10.2 |
| 10 | Oils | Unspecified Animal Fats and Oils | oil · poor | - | 9.3 |
| 11 | Fats | Unspecified Animal Fats and Oils | oil · poor | - | 8.3 |
- 1. Cereals14.8% estimated
- 2. Derivatives of Vegetable Origin13.9% estimated
- 3. Minerals13.0% estimated
- 4. Sodium Tripolyphosphate 2.8%2.8% declared2.8% estimated
- 5. Meat and Animal Derivatives12.0% estimated
- 6. Dried Chicken Liver 2.16%2.16% declared2.2% estimated
- 7. equivalent to Chicken 4.2% in the Light Brown Stick11.1% estimated
- 8. Dried Beef Liver 2.42%2.42% declared2.4% estimated
- 9. equivalent to Beef 4.2% in the Dark Brown Stick10.2% estimated
- 10. Oils9.3% estimated
- 11. Fats8.3% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-08-29
Brand and contact: Pedigree
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-08-29
- Product page
- www.uk.pedigree.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.
Brand and retailer reviews
External platform ratings are not scores for this individual recipe.
Trustpilot: - · 3 reviews
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
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 | -4.09 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 6.4% | 0.096 | +0.62 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 19.9% | -0.115 | -2.29 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 26.6% | -0.092 | -2.45 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 3.9% | 0.163 | +0.63 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 18.2% | -0.012 | -0.22 |
| Other share of dry matter | 10.6% | -0.375 | -3.98 |
| Recipe graded poor | 61.2% | -0.065 | -3.97 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 12.0% | -0.179 | -2.15 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 6 | -0.876 | -5.26 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 14.8% | 0.060 | +0.89 |
| Undeclared quantities | 92.6% | -0.106 | -9.78 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -4.85 | 0.222 | -1.08 |
| Processing multiplier | 0.97 | 33.786 | +32.77 |
| Processing: Dry Semi Moist | yes | -6.174 | -6.17 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | -0.4 | 9.191 | -4.09 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 6.4% | 0.096 | +0.62 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 19.9% | -0.115 | -2.29 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 26.6% | -0.092 | -2.45 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.005 | +0.00 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 3.9% | 0.163 | +0.63 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 18.2% | -0.012 | -0.22 |
| Other share of dry matter | 10.6% | -0.375 | -3.98 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 61.2% | -0.065 | -3.97 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 12.0% | -0.179 | -2.15 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 6 | -0.876 | -5.26 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 14.8% | 0.060 | +0.89 |
| Undeclared quantities | 92.6% | -0.106 | -9.78 |
| 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 | -4.85 | 0.222 | -1.08 |
| Processing multiplier | 0.97 | 33.786 | +32.77 |
| 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 | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Semi Moist | yes | -6.174 | -6.17 |
| 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
- -0.05
- Additives declared on label
- +2 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 23.1
- Final score
- 23/100
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.
This is not a complete diet, so the 1-100 rating does not apply to it. Read the recipe breakdown above as ingredient-quality context only.
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
Not applicable to complementary food. FEDIAF reference ranges apply to complete diets.
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 (7.4% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 1.5/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) | 5/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| 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 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| clinically proven to reduce tartar build-up by up to 80% (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Supports gum health and reduces tartar build-up by up to 80% (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Scientifically proven oral care for healthier gums (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| natural tasty chicken and beef for healthier gums and better breath (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| made with no added sugar (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Natural tasty chicken or beef in a chewy X-shape make these dog treats irresistible (on page) | 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.