Purizon Senior Chicken Fillet with Black Angus Beef
Wet Pate · completeHigh meatClear label
Our verdict
Is Purizon Senior Chicken Fillet with Black Angus Beef a good dog food?
We score it 76/100 (Good). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete wet paté food for senior dogs, with chicken, cooking broth and liver as the main ingredients.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for senior dogs
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list beef, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids turkey: it is listed as an ingredient
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists salmon oil
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
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 14.20% · Fat 4.20%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 14.20% |
| Fat | 4.20% |
| Fibre | 1.20% |
| Ash | 2.10% |
| Moisture | 76% |
Energy: 99 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Once opened, keep refrigerated. Serve at room temperature.
Feeding guide
Dog's weight in kg / Daily serving in g: 5kg 270-405g; 10kg 455-685g; 20kg 770-1150g; 30kg 1040-1560g; 40kg 1290-1940g. Ensure fresh drinking water is always available.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin E 20 IU/kg; vitamin D3 200 IU/kg; zinc (zinc sulphate monohydrate) 25 mg/kg; manganese (manganous(II)-sulphate monohydrate) 1.4 mg/kg; iodine (calcium iodate anhydrous) 0.75 mg/kg; copper (cupric(II)-sulphate pentahydrate) 1.5 mg/kg
Ingredients (11)11 of 11 percentages printed
Estimated composition
- meat 60.0%
- other 27.8%
- oil 5.2%
- carb 3.0%
- veg 2.0%
- fibre 1.0%
- supplement 1.0%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chicken fillet (45%) | Chicken | meat · medium | 45 | 45.0 |
| 2 | stock (27.8%) | Cooking broth | other · medium | 27.8 | 27.8 |
| 3 | turkey liver and turkey gizzard (10%) | Liver | meat · good | 10 | 10.0 |
| 4 | Black Angus lung and Black Angus heart (5%) | Heart | meat · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 5 | chicken fat (5%) | Chicken Oil and Fat | oil · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 6 | sweet potato (3%) | Sweet Potatoes | carb · good | 3 | 3.0 |
| 7 | cranberries (2%) | Cranberries | veg · good | 2 | 2.0 |
| 8 | minerals (1%) | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | 1 | 1.0 |
| 9 | cellulose (0.5%) | Cellulose | fibre · medium | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 10 | inulin (0.5%) | Inulin | fibre · good | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| 11 | salmon oil (0.2%) | Salmon Oil | oil · good | 0.2 | 0.2 |
- 1. Chicken fillet (45%)45% declared45.0% estimated
- 2. stock (27.8%)27.8% declared27.8% estimated
- 3. turkey liver and turkey gizzard (10%)10% declared10.0% estimated
- 4. Black Angus lung and Black Angus heart (5%)5% declared5.0% estimated
- 5. chicken fat (5%)5% declared5.0% estimated
- 6. sweet potato (3%)3% declared3.0% estimated
- 7. cranberries (2%)2% declared2.0% estimated
- 8. minerals (1%)1% declared1.0% estimated
- 9. cellulose (0.5%)0.5% declared0.5% estimated
- 10. inulin (0.5%)0.5% declared0.5% estimated
- 11. salmon oil (0.2%)0.2% declared0.2% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-15
Brand and contact: Purizon
- Contact page
- www.zooplus.co.uk
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-15
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.zooplus.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.
2 reviews on this product · 5.0/5
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 76 out of 100. The meat content contributed +6.2 points, while the overall quality of the ingredient list added +5.7 points. Being labelled nutritionally complete contributed +2.3 points, and the remaining ingredients deducted -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 | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.75 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 64.1% | 0.096 | +6.15 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 2.9% | -0.115 | -0.33 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 19.6% | -0.092 | -1.81 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 1.1% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 3.5% | -0.012 | -0.04 |
| Other share of dry matter | 5.3% | -0.375 | -1.99 |
| 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 | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.75 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 64.1% | 0.096 | +6.15 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 2.9% | -0.115 | -0.33 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 19.6% | -0.092 | -1.81 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 1.1% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 3.5% | -0.012 | -0.04 |
| Other share of dry matter | 5.3% | -0.375 | -1.99 |
| 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 | 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
- 75.7
- Final score
- 76/100
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 | 14.2 | 59.2 (band 18.562500000000004 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 4.2 | 17.5 (band 5.671875000000001 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 1.2 | 5 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 99 | 412.5 | 100 |
Scored over 4 declared nutrients (combined weight 60); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 6 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin E 20 IU/kg
- vitamin D3 200 IU/kg
- zinc (zinc sulphate monohydrate) 25 mg/kg
- manganese (manganous(II)-sulphate monohydrate) 1.4 mg/kg
- iodine (calcium iodate anhydrous) 0.75 mg/kg
- copper (cupric(II)-sulphate pentahydrate) 1.5 mg/kg
Medium confidence: the full five-part analysis is on file; where moisture was not declared it was 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 (100% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 20/20 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Complete wet food for senior dogs (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Grain-free recipe (on pack) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Increased protein content: with 45% high-quality tender chicken fillet (on pack) | High/low level | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| made without any artificial colours or preservatives (on pack) | provenance | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| helping to ensure optimum digestibility (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| high protein content to help support muscle mass (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| enriched with zinc and salmon oil for healthy skin function and a glossy coat (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| free from GMOs and added sugar (on pack) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| low in carbohydrates (on pack) | High/low level | 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 Senior Chicken Fillet with Black Angus Beef
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.