Our verdict
Is Platinum Menu Adult Fish a good dog food?
We score it 79/100 (Good). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete wet paté food for adult dogs, with sardines, tuna and trout as the main ingredients.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for adult dogs
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Single named protein: fish
- Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- You are limiting fat: 28.1% 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 16.50% · Fat 9%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 16.50% |
| Fat | 9% |
| Fibre | 0.20% |
| Ash | 2.40% |
| Moisture | 68% |
| Calcium | 0.52% |
| Phosphorus | 0.46% |
Energy: 162.6 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Wet food can be kept unopened for 36 months and can be stored in the refrigerator for up to 3 days after opening.
Feeding guide
Daily feeding amount per kg body weight, depending on age, activity level and breed: 1–4 kg: 40–52 g/kg; 5–9 kg: 32–42 g/kg; 10–19 kg: 27–35 g/kg; 20–39 kg: 22–29 g/kg; 40+ kg: 19–25 g/kg. Example portions: 2 kg dog 80–104 g (≈1×90g or ½×185g); 4 kg dog 160–208 g (≈2×90g, 1×185g or ½×375g); 12 kg dog 324–420 g (≈2×185g); 30 kg dog 660–870 g (≈2×375g).
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamins: 3a700/vitamin E 60 mg; Trace elements: 3b405/copper 1 mg; Trace elements: 3b603/zinc 15 mg
Ingredients (9)17% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 83.0%
- veg 8.1%
- oil 5.7%
- carb 3.3%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Fresh sardine (40%) | Sardines | meat · good | 40 | 40.0 |
| 2 | fresh tuna (25%) | Tuna | meat · good | 25 | 25.0 |
| 3 | fresh trout (18%) | Trout | meat · good | 18 | 18.0 |
| 4 | sunflower oil | Sunflower oil | oil · good | - | 3.6 |
| 5 | dehydrated potato | Potatoes | carb · medium | - | 3.3 |
| 6 | broccoli | Broccoli | veg · good | - | 3.0 |
| 7 | carrots | Carrots | veg · good | - | 2.7 |
| 8 | leek | Leek | veg · good | - | 2.4 |
| 9 | olive oil. | Olive oil | oil · good | - | 2.1 |
- 1. Fresh sardine (40%)40% declared40.0% estimated
- 2. fresh tuna (25%)25% declared25.0% estimated
- 3. fresh trout (18%)18% declared18.0% estimated
- 4. sunflower oil3.6% estimated
- 5. dehydrated potato3.3% estimated
- 6. broccoli3.0% estimated
- 7. carrots2.7% estimated
- 8. leek2.4% estimated
- 9. olive oil.2.1% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-14
Brand and contact: Platinum
- Website
- https://www.platinum.co.uk/
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.platinum.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.
Brand and retailer reviews
External platform ratings are not scores for this individual recipe.
Trustpilot: 4.8/5 · 514 reviews
29 reviews on this product · 4.6/5
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 recipe scores 79 out of 100. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +8.8 points, and the meat content contributed +6.8. Being labelled nutritionally complete added a further +2.3 points. On the downside, ingredients without printed percentages deducted -1.8 points from the total.
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 | 1.0 | 9.191 | +8.75 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 70.4% | 0.096 | +6.76 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 8.9% | -0.115 | -1.03 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 17.0% | -0.092 | -1.56 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 3.7% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Undeclared quantities | 17.0% | -0.106 | -1.79 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 1.0 | 9.191 | +8.75 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 70.4% | 0.096 | +6.76 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 8.9% | -0.115 | -1.03 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 17.0% | -0.092 | -1.56 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 3.7% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| 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 | 17.0% | -0.106 | -1.79 |
| 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 | 0.0 | 11.084 | +0.00 |
| Additive penalty | 0.00 | 0.222 | +0.00 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| 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 | no | -6.174 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Muesli | no | -10.146 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.08
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 79.0
- Final score
- 79/100
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 | 16.5 | 51.6 (band 22.865624999999998 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 9 | 28.1 (band 6.98671875 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.2 | 0.6 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 71.7 |
| Calcium | 0.52 | 1.6 (band 0.63515625 to 2.5%) | 100 |
| Phosphorus | 0.46 | 1.4 (band 0.508125 to 1.6%) | 100 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.1 | 1.1 (band 1 to 2%) | 77.8 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 162.6 | 508.1 | 100 |
Scored over 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 90); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 3 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamins: 3a700/vitamin E 60 mg
- Trace elements: 3b405/copper 1 mg
- Trace elements: 3b603/zinc 15 mg
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 (83% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 16.6/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| 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 (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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Excellent for building muscle (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Quickly digestible (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Effectively absorbed (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| reduces the risk of gastric torsion because it does not swell in the stomach (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| complete feed to meet all of your dogs needs (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Extra tasty (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| top rated dog food by the independent online portal CheckForPet (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Overwhelmingly positive customer reviews at Trusted Shops (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| prepared with FSG (Fleischsaftgarung) (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| No added water or broth (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| free from attractants, flavourings, colourings, odours, and flavour enhancers (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Juicy wet food made from fresh meat - Fish (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| no animal experiments are done for the product development and production (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.
Alternatives to Menu Adult Fish
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.