Is Yumwoof Chicken Pot Pie Homemade Dog Food Recipe a good dog food?
We score it 38/100 (Poor). The main reasons are set out in "Why you might not" below, and every step of the calculation is shown under "How we calculated this score".
Why this score?
The product scored 38 out of 100. Undeclared ingredient shares cost it -10.6 points, as the recipe lists ingredients without printed percentages. The carbohydrate content took a further -7 points off the score, while the overall quality of the ingredient list reduced it by -3.5. Finally, the processing format led to a deduction of -2.4 points.
100% of this recipe has no printed percentage. Estimated shares are model estimates, not label facts.
- Recipe38
- Nutritionalmedium76
- Transparency50
- Safety100
- EvidenceNot recorded
The Recipe score measures how attractive and transparent the declared ingredient list is. It is not, by itself, proof that the food is nutritionally appropriate for long-term feeding. The Nutritional and Evidence scores measure what we can verify towards that stronger claim.
Why you might choose it
- Single named animal protein: chicken.
- Nutritionally complete: formulated to be fed as the whole diet.
Why you might not
- 1 poor-graded ingredient makes up about 23% of the recipe.
- 100% of the recipe mass has no printed percentage, so the exact split cannot be verified.
Estimated composition
Typical analysis (as fed)
- Protein
- 20%
- Fat
- 6%
- Fibre
- 2%
- Ash
- 2%
- Moisture
- 64%
- Carbohydrates
- 5%
- Omega-3 fatty acids
- 0.64%
- Omega-6 fatty acids
- 3.49%
- Calcium
- 1.76%
- Phosphorus
- 1.45%
- Sodium
- 0.59%
Additives & feeding info
Nutritional additives
Vitamin A 50236.28 IU/kg; Thiamin 8.63 mg/kg; Riboflavin 10.03 mg/kg; Niacin 189.31 mg/kg; Pantothenic Acid 29.80 mg/kg; Pyridoxine 8.98 mg/kg; Folate 0.69 mg/kg; Vitamin B12 0.06 mg/kg; Vitamin D 1020.23 IU/kg; Vitamin E 76.85 IU/kg; Choline 2490.63 mg/kg; Copper 29.96 mg/kg; Iron 182.79 mg/kg; Magnesium 0.09%; Manganese 23.65 mg/kg; Potassium 0.73%; Selenium 0.001 mg/kg; Sodium 0.59%; Zinc 194.97 mg/kg; Iodine 4.52 mg/kg; Arginine 3.50%; Cystine 2.26%; Histidine 1.68%; Isoleucine 2.86%; Leucine 4.16%; Lysine 4.59%; Methionine 1.51%; Phenylalanine 2.24%; Threonine 2.34%; Tyrosine 4.09%; Tryptophan 0.65%; Valine 2.77%
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for all lifestages
- Single named protein: chicken
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists wheat gluten
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. Use the homepage filter to find foods that fit your dog.
Ingredients (4)
| # | As declared | Matched | Category | Tier | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | ground chicken | Chicken | meat | medium | - | 30.8 |
| 2 | chicken broth | Cooking broth | other | medium | - | 26.9 |
| 3 | gluten-free crackers | Wheat Gluten | carb | poor | - | 23.1 |
| 4 | celery stalks | Celery Seeds | veg | good | - | 19.2 |
Brand
- Website
- https://yumwoof.com/
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-08-22
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- yumwoof.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.
Spotted a mistake in this listing? Report it here and we'll take a look.
Recipe: how the 1-100 score is calculated
Scored with model v3 on 2026-09-26. 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 | -0.4 | 9.191 | -3.49 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 61.3% | -0.115 | -7.05 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 8.7% | -0.005 | -0.04 |
| Other share of dry matter | 4.1% | -0.375 | -1.52 |
| Recipe graded poor | 23.1% | -0.065 | -1.50 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 23.1% | 0.060 | +1.38 |
| 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 |
| High carb and low meat | yes | -1.180 | -1.18 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.07 | 33.786 | +36.15 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | yes | -2.354 | -2.35 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | -0.4 | 9.191 | -3.49 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 61.3% | -0.115 | -7.05 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 8.7% | -0.005 | -0.04 |
| 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 | 4.1% | -0.375 | -1.52 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 23.1% | -0.065 | -1.50 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 23.1% | 0.060 | +1.38 |
| 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 | 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 | 0.00 | 0.222 | +0.00 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.07 | 33.786 | +36.15 |
| Processing: Raw | no | -0.054 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | yes | -2.354 | -2.35 |
| 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
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 38.3
- Final score
- 38/100
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.
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 | 20 | 55.6 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 6 | 16.7 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 2 | 5.6 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Calcium | 1.76 | 4.9 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 4.4 |
| Phosphorus | 1.45 | 4 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 0 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.2 | 1.2 (band 1 to 2%) | 82.8 |
| Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3) | - | - | 100 |
Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3): scored as the mean of its declared components (omega-6 100). The FEDIAF minimum for omega-6 is linoleic acid specifically.
Scored over 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 90); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
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) | 5/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) - not on file | 0/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| 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 (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
No on-pack claims on file: nothing to verify.
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Other products from Yumwoof
Alternatives to Chicken Pot Pie Homemade Dog Food Recipe
Foods in our database that are similar on ingredients, protein, format or price. Scores and figures are from the same deterministic model used everywhere on the site.
Community
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.