Dry dog food ingredients, part 4: three recipes and questions labels cannot answer

Reading time: about 9 min

From time to time, customers ask me at FendaF what I think about one dry dog food or another. I usually answer the way I would while looking at my own dog’s food bowl: I read the ingredient list, compare the numbers and ask whether the manufacturer can explain its choices. My aim is not to grade every food, because a dog’s actual tolerance, nutritional value and manufacturing quality cannot be reduced to an ingredient list.

In the fourth part of this series, I revisit three recipes I analysed some time ago: Diusapet Alleva with lamb and venison, Grandorf with duck and sweet potato, and Belcando with lamb and rice. One clarification matters: the analysis below is based on the ingredient declarations preserved with the original FendaF article, not on technical sheets verified with the manufacturers in November 2026. Recipes, product names and markets may have changed. This is an exercise in reading labels and making critical comparisons, not a current, independently verified recommendation to buy a particular bag.

What should we know before criticising an ingredient list?

EU pet food labelling rules allow raw materials to be described either by individual names or, in certain cases, by categories. Ingredients are generally listed according to their weight when added during manufacture, but fresh meat contains considerably more water than dried meat. Consequently, the “first ingredient” does not by itself tell us where most of the food’s protein comes from or how digestible it is.

For example, 20 grams of fresh meat containing roughly 70% water leaves about 6 grams of dry matter after the water is removed. Twenty grams of dried meat containing about 10% water leaves roughly 18 grams of dry matter. This is a calculation to illustrate the principle, not a laboratory result for any of the foods discussed below. It helps explain why ingredient percentages should not be compared blindly.

I also like to ask about what the label does not show: where the raw materials come from, their amino acid profile, digestibility, energy content and whether the food is complete and appropriate for the dog’s life stage. A certification such as FSSC 22000 can be a valuable indicator of food safety management, but does not prove that a particular recipe suits every dog. Likewise, the phrase “human grade” does not, on its own, establish nutritional balance.

1. Diusapet Alleva: lamb and venison

When I first examined this recipe, pea starch alongside sweet potato caught my attention. Today I would take the question one step further: are these necessary sources of energy and structure in the recipe, how much energy do they provide, and where does the protein actually come from? Starch is not automatically bad. Properly processed starch can provide digestible energy for dogs, although heavy use of starch and plant protein can change the overall character of a recipe. The mere presence of two ingredients is not enough to judge that.

There is also a very real issue with the old declarations. In the Estonian ingredient list saved with the original FendaF article, dehydrated lamb was 35%, fresh lamb 20% and dehydrated venison 15%. The English declaration beside it listed 30%, 20% and 10%, respectively. The order of some other ingredients differed too. If both lists supposedly refer to the same product and recipe version, that discrepancy matters. I cannot simply choose whichever numbers I like and base an assessment on them. We would need the label from the specific bag or a dated technical data sheet from the manufacturer.

The original recipe also listed chicken fat and chicken liver. So although the product name emphasised lamb and venison, its animal ingredients were not limited strictly to those two species. For a dog that must avoid a certain animal source, that matters more than the presence of pea starch. With a sensitive dog, it is also worth asking about how thoroughly the fat is purified and whether residual animal proteins may remain.

Potassium carbonate also caught my attention. In other parts of the food industry, it is used, among other things, to regulate acidity. This does not establish a danger in dog food: potassium is an essential mineral, and the specific compound must be assessed in relation to its function and quantity. I would still want to know precisely what role it plays in this recipe.

What about peas, taurine and heart health?

The frequent use of peas and other legume ingredients in certain dry foods has raised questions about a potential link to dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) in dogs. The U.S. FDA has investigated reports involving dogs fed diets that in some cases contained substantial amounts of legumes. However, the agency stresses that such reports alone do not demonstrate a causal relationship with any particular food or ingredient.

It would be too great a leap to claim that every food containing pea starch “blocks taurine absorption”. Possible dietary mechanisms relating to DCM are still being investigated; amino acids, fibre behaviour, the complete recipe and other factors may all matter. It therefore makes sense to examine the proportion of legumes and the formulation as a whole rather than putting an automatic warning label on peas.

2. Grandorf: duck and sweet potato

I had few major objections to the overall impression of this historical recipe. Its animal ingredients included dried duck meat, dried turkey meat, fresh duck meat and turkey fat. This is a good example of why “duck and sweet potato” on a label does not mean that a food is single-protein. If a dog needs to avoid turkey, it will not help that the word “duck” is printed prominently on the front.

In my original article, I singled out DL-methionine because I had read about possible gastrointestinal adverse effects. Today I would put it more precisely. Methionine is an essential amino acid for dogs, and added DL-methionine can be a deliberate part of a formulation. Risks associated with excessive or inappropriate doses do not make a permitted quantity in a food automatically problematic. More useful questions concern why it was added, whether the food meets amino acid requirements, the amounts used and the analytical data for the complete recipe.

Dried spinach, apples, chicory, krill, glucosamine and chondroitin may all sound appealing, but simply listing them does not tell us whether the doses are clinically meaningful or whether they are attractive names on a label. The same goes for “natural antioxidants”: the phrase does not automatically tell us how well the fats are protected from oxidation or what the product’s real quality is.

3. Belcando: lamb and rice

I have a personal history with Belcando. I fed a previous German Shepherd on this range and thought it was an excellent choice. Later, when I began researching the ingredients, several things gave me pause. That experience was part of what inspired me to look beyond the attractive front of a bag.

The Estonian declaration in the earlier article listed rice at 40%, lamb meal at 15% and low-ash poultry meal at 12.5%. The English list in the very same article, however, placed “fresh lamb meat, liver, lung” at 30% after rice, alongside dried poultry protein at 12.5% and dried lamb protein at 10%. This is not a trivial translation difference. One version describes 15% lamb meal; the other describes 30% fresh lamb including organs and 10% dried lamb protein. These entries cannot be compared directly. Without the bag version, recipe code and a confirmed manufacturer declaration, we cannot establish which list describes the food being assessed.

The reported 40% rice content is still worth discussing. I often prefer formulations where the contribution of animal ingredients is more prominent and clearly described. But neither rice itself nor even a figure of 40% automatically proves a food is nutrient-poor. We need to consider energy, the amount and quality of protein, amino acids, fat content and the individual dog’s requirements. The same recipe may not be equally suitable for an active young dog and an older dog with sensitive digestion.

Nor is meat meal automatically inferior to fresh meat. Good-quality dried animal raw material can be a concentrated source of nutrients. The questions concern the precise description, original raw material, processing and quality control. A broad name such as “poultry meal” tells us less about the species than “dried turkey meat”, especially if a dog needs to avoid a particular protein.

I also questioned sodium chloride and potassium chloride in the recipe. These substances are used in other industries too, but that tells us nothing about the safety of the amounts contained in food. Sodium and potassium are electrolytes needed for normal physiological function. I still want to know why they were added. Excessive levels, or levels unsuitable for certain health conditions, can pose problems; actual mineral quantities and veterinary advice when relevant matter more than the fact that a substance is also used in fertilisers.

The “plain white bag” test for all three recipes

Imagine removing the brand, the breed photo and the word “premium” from a bag. What remains? An ingredient list, some percentages and perhaps analytical constituents. From those alone we still cannot establish digestibility, amino acid value, raw material controls, laboratory testing, energy content or a dog’s long-term clinical response.

Comparisons based on dry matter and calories matter too. Two foods both labelled as containing 25% protein need not deliver the same amount of protein per 1,000 kilocalories if their energy densities differ. At 3,500 kcal/kg, 100 grams supplies 350 kcal; at 4,000 kcal/kg, the same quantity supplies 400 kcal. Similar-looking percentages may translate into different amounts of nutrients in the dog’s actual daily portion. A sound comparison requires accurate declarations.

What are the limits of this comparison?

These three recipes illustrate historical ingredient declarations. I am not claiming that every product named still contains exactly the same ingredients or percentages. Nor can we conclude from ingredient lists alone that one of the foods causes illness or another is best for all dogs. Manufacturers can change recipes, and what is written on the actual bag matters more than an old web page.

I still care deeply about transparent sourcing, clear labelling and thoughtful protein and fat choices. But the most valuable outcome, for me, is learning to ask better questions. Finding two different figures for lamb in what appears to be the same product is a far more significant discovery than recognising the name of a perfectly ordinary mineral salt. In the next instalments, we will use the same approach: a plain white bag, real data and the dog itself.

Sources

FEDIAF. Code of Good Labelling Practice for Pet Food and guidance. https://europeanpetfood.org/self-regulation/labelling/
FEDIAF. Nutritional Guidelines for Complete and Complementary Pet Foods for Cats and Dogs, 2025. https://europeanpetfood.org/self-regulation/nutritional-guidelines/
Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine, Tufts University. Nutrition FAQs: ingredient lists and quality assessment. https://vet.tufts.edu/foster-hospital-small-animals/specialty-services/nutrition/nutrition-faqs
WSAVA. Global Nutrition Guidelines: selecting pet food. https://wsava.org/global-guidelines/global-nutrition-guidelines/
U.S. FDA. Investigation into potential link between certain diets and canine dilated cardiomyopathy (status update 23 December 2022). https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/outbreaks-and-advisories/fda-investigation-potential-link-between-certain-diets-and-canine-dilated-cardiomyopathy