Our verdict
Is 808 Raw Pet Food Chicken Blend a good dog food?
We score it 60/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
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
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Single named protein: chicken
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
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.
Ingredients (7)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 63.6%
- mineral 14.3%
- veg 11.7%
- oil 10.4%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chicken | Chicken | meat · medium | - | 18.2 |
| 2 | Chicken Hearts | Chicken Heart | meat · good | - | 16.9 |
| 3 | Chicken Gizzards | Chicken Gizzard | meat · good | - | 15.6 |
| 4 | Chicken Bone | Bone | mineral · medium | - | 14.3 |
| 5 | Chicken Liver | Chicken Liver | meat · good | - | 13.0 |
| 6 | Organic Ocean Kelp | Kelp | veg · good | - | 11.7 |
| 7 | Coconut Oil | Coconut Oil | oil · medium | - | 10.4 |
- 1. Chicken18.2% estimated
- 2. Chicken Hearts16.9% estimated
- 3. Chicken Gizzards15.6% estimated
- 4. Chicken Bone14.3% estimated
- 5. Chicken Liver13.0% estimated
- 6. Organic Ocean Kelp11.7% estimated
- 7. Coconut Oil10.4% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 16.98% · Fat 8.12%
Declared analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 16.98% |
| Fat | 8.12% |
| Fibre | 0.23% |
| Ash | 4.56% |
| Moisture | 70.81% |
| Calcium | 1595% |
| Phosphorus | 976% |
Energy: 124.4 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-13
Brand and contact: 808 Raw Pet Food
- [email protected]
- Phone
- 808-426-3111
- Address
- 46-217 Kahuhipa Street #10, Kaneohe, HI 96744
- Contact page
- www.808rawpetfood.com
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-13
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.808rawpetfood.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: 3.2/5 · 1 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
Why this score?
The overall score for this recipe is 60 out of 100. It gained +6.6 points for the overall quality of the ingredient list and +2.3 points for being labelled nutritionally complete. It lost -10.6 points for ingredients without printed percentages and -1.8 points for the oil and fat content.
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 | 0.7 | 9.191 | +6.64 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 19.7% | -0.092 | -1.81 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 20.2% | -0.005 | -0.10 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.12 | 33.786 | +37.84 |
| Processing: Raw | yes | -0.054 | -0.05 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.7 | 9.191 | +6.64 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.115 | +0.00 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 19.7% | -0.092 | -1.81 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 20.2% | -0.005 | -0.10 |
| 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 | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| 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) | 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 | 0.00 | 0.222 | +0.00 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.12 | 33.786 | +37.84 |
| Processing: Raw | yes | -0.054 | -0.05 |
| 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 | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -1.74
- Subtotal
- 60.3
- Final score
- 60/100
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.
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.
Guaranteed-analysis FEDIAF score: crude minimums and maximums are bounds, not typical values; moisture (a maximum) uses the processing median where available; experimental US score.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 16.98 | 55.1 (band 18.17532467532468 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 8.12 | 26.4 (band 5.553571428571431 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.23 | 0.7 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 73.3 |
| Calcium | 1595 | 5178.6 (band 0.50487012987013 to 2.5%) | 0 |
| Phosphorus | 976 | 3168.8 (band 0.40389610389610403 to 1.6%) | 0 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.6 | 1.6 (band 1 to 2%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 124.4 | 403.9 | 100 |
Scored over 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 90); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 69.2% from the food type.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
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 (voluntary) - not on file | 0/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) | 5/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| Manufacturer identity and address (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| Country of manufacture stated (voluntary) | 10/10 |
| Batch and date labelling (mandatory) - not on file | 0/5 |
Capped at 60: mandatory items missing (Additives declared, Feeding guidance given, 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.
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 and balanced for all life stages (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Includes kelp and coconut oil for added health benefits (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| enhanced with organic ocean kelp and coconut oil to support skin, coat, and immune health (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Made with high-quality, pasture-raised chicken and nutrient-rich organ meats (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Free from fillers and preservatives (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| No fillers, no preservatives (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 80-10-10 formulation: meat, bone, and organs (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.
Alternatives to Chicken Blend
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.