Certainly looks like it Andi!!

Can I use gluten free flour or coconut flour instead of oats?

Like the oats??

Isn't there something missing from thr chicken and oat biscuits?

Where can I buy this product in UK. Pets at Home no longer stock it.

The goals you have set out are, indeed, worthy of the effort and I agree with your general and specific replies. Trying to grasp the complexity of the task you have set for yourselves is not easy at first. Reconciling the manufacturers claims against the critical analysis in the AADF reports requires a significant investment in understanding the process and the meaning of the results when making comparisons. Reducing the results to a meaningful high level summary requires some incredible communications skills.

Giving the problem more thought, I can see how (and why) the information deficit is reflected in the ratings. However, it is probably safe to assume that most people will not want to devote the time to do a detailed evaluation of what is being presented. They will look at the headline number and make a decision. To give greater value to that level of decision-making, may I suggest two ‘flags’ to go with the rating?

First, put a star or a question mark, perhaps, next to the rating number to indicate that it is not based upon complete information. Then add,

Flag 1: “This rating is based upon known information. The manufacturer has not disclosed all of the ingredients used.”

Flag 2: “This rating is based upon known information. The manufacturer has not disclosed the percentage of all the ingredients used.”

One or both flags may apply to a rating.

That sets out the justification for the rating and raises awareness of the issues at the highest level of the presentation. The details regarding the value (or harm) of specific ingredients is already easy to access and the flags might encourage more people to consider that information.

Regardless of my opinionated ramblings, what you are offering is unique and very valuable and I hope you will continue to fight for your principles and continue to share the fruits of your efforts with all of us. Thank you.

To pick up on a couple of points about Orijen, it is a good food - still one of the best extruded foods out there. It contains around 65% meat in the finished product, which is great. On the down side, it is ultra-processed and much of the of the remaining 35% is a mixture of legumes, which is not so great. Due to the lack of percentages, that's about all we know for sure. I think most people would agree that based on those facts a rating of 70% is fair.

You're absolutely right that we want to pressure manufacturers to reveal more about what's in their foods but I'm not sure that I would define that as a 'political' aim. Without ingredient transparency it's impossible to know what your dog is eating. Without knowing what your dog is eating, it's impossible to know whether your choice of diet is helping or hindering them. Is wanting the best for dogs 'political'? If so, I think we're all a bit political.

Thank you for your post commune. A lot of ratings have changed so we couldn't really go into the specifics of exactly why each one has done so in this article but I have just posted a lengthy breakdown of why Orijen's score was so badly impacted over on the Orijen Puppy product page. Hope it helps

Progress is normally a good and useful thing. However, the latest update to the evaluation algorithm isn’t progress that improves the value of the data produced. Instead, it has completely changed the goal from being a consumer tool to a political platform. AADF presents itself as a scientifically based consumer tool, which it has been for some time. Now, however, the consumer audience has been abandoned in favour of a political platform to coerce dog food manufacturers to “play the game”. That perverts and undermines its value to the consumer.

Previously, the absolute nutritional value of the dog food, insofar as it could be determined, was the benchmark for providing a graded rating. Now, the rating system tells me that a dog food with four ingredients which is almost 40% carbohydrates rates much better than one that is 85% meat because the latter has a large number of so called “vanity ingredients”. This, even though the products have a similar price. As long as the unquantified ingredients are not harmful, even if they provide little or no benefit, wouldn’t 85% meat be preferable to 40% carbs when it reaches the dog’s digestive system? That’s the information dog owners need.

The notes, which already existed, pointing out the lack of data from the manufacturers was adequate to alert consumers to the idea that twenty plus ingredients crammed into the last 5 or 6 percent of the ingredients list meant that they were present in very, very small quantities. Another advisory note pointing out that these ingredients have no nutritional value in such small quantities, if that is the case and they are not legitimate “trace elements,” would have more value than turning the whole rating system on its head.

The alternative goal of convincing the dog food producers to be transparent also has value for consumers and is a worthy effort. However, convoluting the distinct purposes of providing nutritional and economic guidance versus raising awareness of opacity in labelling doesn’t accomplish either objective.

You require transparency from the food producers but your own transparency is severely lacking. When you downgrade a food from 85% to 70%, like Orijen, you have to be much more specific than what you are in this article. I cannot see how serious dog food producers like Orijen, Carnilove or Platinum have become "worse" at declaring ingredient percentages or using "vanity" ingredients in the same proportion as their rating has been lowered. If anything, they have become better during the last years. Also, Orijen or Carnilove have never been using brown rice, so that criterium cannot affect the score.

It is incredibly important to add that unripe tomatoes and tomato plants are unsafe for dogs. Unripe tomatoes contain solanin and tomatin whereas plants can give neurological conditions.

In general, tomatoes shouldn't be a "base" in any kibble or homemade recipe. Even if they contain some important vitamins and minerals their contribution is very small.

Why can't I find the article??

Hi Anna.Jones and many thanks for posting.

We try not to make updates more frequently than we need to as we know how disruptive they can be. The last big updates, for example, were over two years ago. The trouble is, after building up a back-log of updates for a long time, when we do eventually roll them out, the score changes can be quite big which can also be difficult for our followers to come to terms with.

Please rest assured that all of our updates are data-driven. They are the results of hundreds of hours of research and tinkering to make sure that our scores are as accurate as they possibly can be and we've tried to be fully transparent about what the changes are and why we have chosen to make them.

Above all, I can promise you that they aren't for any commercial gain. Every time we update our ratings, our revenue actually drops as companies that previously chose to advertise with us cancel due to their new lower ratings. Every single time.

Updating our ratings is a truly thankless task. Our followers don't like it and assume there must be some ulterior motive. Manufacturers complain about their new ratings and advertisers cancel. If we were more business minded, we simply wouldn't bother. We'd still be scoring on exactly the same system that we started with in 2012 and would live a lovely stress-free existence. But that's not how we do things. When we know our ratings could be better and could and help even more people to find the truly best food for their dogs, we can't just let it slide.

Hopefully that helps set your mind at ease a little but of you have any other doubts or queries at all, do let us know.

Yes the food l am very pleased with Platinum has been downgraded Yet the last comment l can find from AADF is from 10 years ago