Specific Special Care Treats
Treat · complementary
Our verdict
Is Specific Special Care 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 baked dry treats for dogs of all life stages, with sorghum, protein hydrolysate and krill as the main ingredients.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
100% 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 all lifestages
- Single named protein: fish
- Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists sorghum
- You need more protein than this: 16.2% 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 14 ingredients.
- Names its animal sources (1 named ingredient).
- Every animal ingredient is a named source.
- Lists no artificial colours or preservatives.
- Prints no ingredient quantities.
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 14.50% · Fat 5.80%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 14.50% |
| Fat | 5.80% |
| Fibre | 2.50% |
| Moisture | 10.40% |
| Carbohydrates | 64.60% |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 0.33% |
| Calcium | 0.24% |
| Phosphorus | 0.31% |
| Sodium | 0.12% |
Energy: 344.5 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
Dogs on a special care diet: 10 treats replace 20-31 g of various SPECIFIC diets (see table). Healthy dogs of all breeds and ages: 10 treats replace 20-24 g of various SPECIFIC diets (see table).
Additives declared on the label
Technological additives
Natural antioxidants (tocopherols and vitamin C)
Ingredients (14)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- veg 20.3%
- supplement 18.6%
- additive 18.3%
- carb 9.3%
- other 9.0%
- meat 8.6%
- oil 8.3%
- fibre 7.6%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sorghum | Sorghum | carb · medium | - | 9.3 |
| 2 | Fish Protein Hydrolysate | Protein Hydrolysate | other · poor | - | 9.0 |
| 3 | Antarctic Krill | Krill | meat · good | - | 8.6 |
| 4 | Sunflower Oil | Sunflower oil | oil · good | - | 8.3 |
| 5 | Hydrolysed Yeast Extract | Hydrolysed Yeast | additive · medium | - | 8.0 |
| 6 | Psyllium Husk | Psyllium fibre | fibre · good | - | 7.6 |
| 7 | Algae Meal | Seaweed | veg · good | - | 7.3 |
| 8 | Fructo-oligosaccharides | Fructo-oligosaccharides | supplement · good | - | 7.0 |
| 9 | Rosemary Extract | Rosemary | veg · good | - | 6.6 |
| 10 | Green Tea Extract | Green Tea | veg · good | - | 6.3 |
| 11 | Pomegranate Extract | Pomegranate | veg · good | - | 6.0 |
| 12 | Cranberry Extract | Cranberry Extract | supplement · good | - | 5.6 |
| 13 | Tocopherols | Tocopherols | additive · good | - | 5.3 |
| 14 | Vitamin C. | Vitamin C | supplement · good | - | 5.0 |
- 1. Sorghum9.3% estimated
- 2. Fish Protein Hydrolysate9.0% estimated
- 3. Antarctic Krill8.6% estimated
- 4. Sunflower Oil8.3% estimated
- 5. Hydrolysed Yeast Extract8.0% estimated
- 6. Psyllium Husk7.6% estimated
- 7. Algae Meal7.3% estimated
- 8. Fructo-oligosaccharides7.0% estimated
- 9. Rosemary Extract6.6% estimated
- 10. Green Tea Extract6.3% estimated
- 11. Pomegranate Extract6.0% estimated
- 12. Cranberry Extract5.6% estimated
- 13. Tocopherols5.3% estimated
- 14. Vitamin C.5.0% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-14
Brand and contact: Specific
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-14
- Product page
- www.specific-diets.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
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 | +5.45 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 11.3% | -0.115 | -1.30 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 11.4% | -0.092 | -1.05 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 11.8% | -0.005 | -0.06 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 22.8% | 0.163 | +3.71 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 23.7% | -0.012 | -0.29 |
| Other share of dry matter | 6.2% | -0.375 | -2.33 |
| Recipe graded poor | 14.0% | -0.065 | -0.91 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 2 | -0.876 | -1.75 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 9.0% | 0.060 | +0.54 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -22.18 | 0.222 | -4.92 |
| Processing multiplier | 0.98 | 33.786 | +33.11 |
| Processing: Dry Baked | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.45 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 11.3% | -0.115 | -1.30 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 11.4% | -0.092 | -1.05 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 11.8% | -0.005 | -0.06 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 22.8% | 0.163 | +3.71 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 23.7% | -0.012 | -0.29 |
| Other share of dry matter | 6.2% | -0.375 | -2.33 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 14.0% | -0.065 | -0.91 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 2 | -0.876 | -1.75 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 9.0% | 0.060 | +0.54 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| 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 | -22.18 | 0.222 | -4.92 |
| 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 | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
| 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
- +0.02
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 41.7
- Final score
- 42/100
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 (voluntary) - not on file | 0/20 |
| 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.
Claims on file; none we can check against the label
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Low allergenicity ingredients make them suitable for dogs with allergy and dermatological issues (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Calories and fat at levels that make these treats suitable for dogs with joint and mobility issues (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Fat at a level that make these treats suitable for dogs with pancreatitis (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Low protein, magnesium, phosphorus, calcium and sodium levels makes these treats suitable for dogs with kidney disease, heart disease and bladder stones (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| With natural antioxidants (tocopherols and vitamin C) (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Slowly baked for added palatability (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| The treats contain no artificial colours or flavourings (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| hydrolysed blue whiting, krill, algae and sorghum – a naturally gluten-free, slow release carbohydrate (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.