Pedigree DENTATUBOS Puppy Dog Dental Treats
Treat · complementaryClear label
Our verdict
Is Pedigree DENTATUBOS Puppy Dog Dental Treats 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 extruded dry treats for puppies, with cereals, vegetable by and vegetable protein extracts as the main ingredients.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
94% 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 puppies
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists cereals
- You need more protein than this: 9.0% 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 8 ingredients.
- Names its animal sources (1 named ingredient).
- Uses generic terms (Chicken): the specific animal source is not stated.
- Lists no artificial colours or preservatives.
- Prints quantities for 2 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% · Fat 2%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 9% |
| Fat | 2% |
| Fibre | 1.20% |
| Ash | 5% |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 176% |
| Calcium | 0.60% |
Energy: 324 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
Small breed puppies e.g. Dachshund, feed up to half a chew per day. Medium breed puppies e.g. Cocker Spaniel, feed up to 1 chew per day. Large breed puppies e.g. Labrador, feed up to one and a half chews per day. Suitable for puppies aged 4-12 months. Not suitable for puppies under 5 kg. Fresh drinking water should always be available.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin A 5090 IU; Vitamin E 50.9 mg; Iron (Iron(II) sulphate monohydrate) 15.3 mg
Ingredients (8)94% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 36.2%
- other 18.1%
- meat 17.8%
- supplement 14.8%
- veg 13.2%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cereals | Cereals | carb · poor | - | 19.7 |
| 2 | Derivatives of Vegetable Origin | Vegetable By-Products | other · poor | - | 18.1 |
| 3 | Vegetable Protein Extracts | Vegetable protein extracts | carb · poor | - | 16.4 |
| 4 | Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 14.8 |
| 5 | Vegetables | Vegetables | veg · medium | - | 13.2 |
| 6 | Meat and Animal Derivatives | Meat and Animal Derivatives | meat · poor | - | 11.5 |
| 7 | 2.3% Dried Chicken Liver Powder | Liver | meat · good | 2.3 | 2.3 |
| 8 | 4% Chicken | Chicken | meat · medium | 4 | 4.0 |
- 1. Cereals19.7% estimated
- 2. Derivatives of Vegetable Origin18.1% estimated
- 3. Vegetable Protein Extracts16.4% estimated
- 4. Minerals14.8% estimated
- 5. Vegetables13.2% estimated
- 6. Meat and Animal Derivatives11.5% estimated
- 7. 2.3% Dried Chicken Liver Powder2.3% declared2.3% estimated
- 8. 4% Chicken4% declared4.0% 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 | -0.5 | 9.191 | -4.91 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 5.1% | 0.096 | +0.49 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 50.6% | -0.115 | -5.82 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 3.1% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 21.6% | -0.012 | -0.26 |
| Other share of dry matter | 14.4% | -0.375 | -5.38 |
| Recipe graded poor | 65.8% | -0.065 | -4.27 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 11.5% | -0.179 | -2.06 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 19.7% | 0.060 | +1.18 |
| Undeclared quantities | 93.7% | -0.106 | -9.89 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| High carb and low meat | yes | -1.180 | -1.18 |
| Additive penalty | -1.91 | 0.222 | -0.42 |
| 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 | -0.5 | 9.191 | -4.91 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 5.1% | 0.096 | +0.49 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 50.6% | -0.115 | -5.82 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 3.1% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 21.6% | -0.012 | -0.26 |
| Other share of dry matter | 14.4% | -0.375 | -5.38 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 65.8% | -0.065 | -4.27 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 11.5% | -0.179 | -2.06 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 19.7% | 0.060 | +1.18 |
| Undeclared quantities | 93.7% | -0.106 | -9.89 |
| 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 | yes | -1.180 | -1.18 |
| 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 | -1.91 | 0.222 | -0.42 |
| 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
- 19.1
- Final score
- 19/100
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 (6.3% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 1.3/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 5/10 |
| 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 (Analytical constituents 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 · moderate — 1 checkable claim: 1 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "low in fat" — supported by the declared low fat data.
5 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| rich in calcium for healthy growth and development especially teeth and bones (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| promote oral health (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| low in fat (on page) | High/low level | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| calcium rich for healthy growth and development (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| no added sugar (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| free from artificial colours and flavours (on page) | Free-from | 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.