Purina CA Classic Ground Chicken & Brown Rice Entrée
Wet Pate · complete
Our verdict
Is Purina CA Classic Ground Chicken & Brown Rice Entrée a good dog food?
We score it 48/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
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 adult dogs
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids pork: it is listed as an ingredient
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists rice - brown / whole grain
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
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 (15)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 39.4%
- additive 16.5%
- carb 14.8%
- veg 13.6%
- supplement 10.7%
- fibre 4.9%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Chicken | Chicken | meat · medium | - | 8.7 |
| 2 | Chicken Broth | Chicken Broth | meat · medium | - | 8.4 |
| 3 | Liver | Liver | meat · good | - | 8.1 |
| 4 | Pork Lungs | Lung | meat · medium | - | 7.8 |
| 5 | Brown Rice | Rice - brown / whole grain | carb · medium | - | 7.5 |
| 6 | Oat Meal | Oats | carb · medium | - | 7.2 |
| 7 | Carrots | Carrots | veg · good | - | 7.0 |
| 8 | Spinach | Spinach | veg · good | - | 6.7 |
| 9 | Egg Product | Egg | meat · good | - | 6.4 |
| 10 | Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 6.1 |
| 11 | Carrageenan | Carrageenan | additive · poor | - | 5.8 |
| 12 | Guar Gum | Guar gum | additive · medium | - | 5.5 |
| 13 | Salt | Salt | additive · poor | - | 5.2 |
| 14 | Locust Bean Gum | Carob Flour | fibre · medium | - | 4.9 |
| 15 | Vitamins | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 4.6 |
- 1. Chicken8.7% estimated
- 2. Chicken Broth8.4% estimated
- 3. Liver8.1% estimated
- 4. Pork Lungs7.8% estimated
- 5. Brown Rice7.5% estimated
- 6. Oat Meal7.2% estimated
- 7. Carrots7.0% estimated
- 8. Spinach6.7% estimated
- 9. Egg Product6.4% estimated
- 10. Minerals6.1% estimated
- 11. Carrageenan5.8% estimated
- 12. Guar Gum5.5% estimated
- 13. Salt5.2% estimated
- 14. Locust Bean Gum4.9% estimated
- 15. Vitamins4.6% estimated
Nutrition and feedingProtein 8% · Fat 7%
Guaranteed analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 8% |
| Fat | 7% |
| Fibre | 1.50% |
| Moisture | 78% |
Energy: 114 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Refrigerate unused portion.
Feeding guide
Adult dogs need about one can per 12 lbs (5.4 kg) of body weight daily. Adjust the feeding amount as needed to maintain your dog in ideal body condition. Divide daily amount into multiple feedings.
No additives recorded yet.
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-19
Brand and contact: Purina CA
- Website
- https://www.purina.ca/
- Phone
- 1.800.268.5345
- Address
- ATTN: CONSUMER CARE, 2500 ROYAL WINDSOR DRIVE, MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO L5J 1K8
- Contact page
- www.purina.ca
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-19
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.purina.ca
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: 1.8/5 · 190 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 is 48 out of 100. Undeclared ingredient shares, meaning ingredients without printed percentages, led to a deduction of -10.6 points. The additives in the recipe contributed +4.5 points to the score, while the additive load reduced it by -4.5. The carbohydrate content also had a negative effect, changing the score by -2.8.
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 | 0.3 | 9.191 | +2.59 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 24.5% | -0.115 | -2.82 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 3.8% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 27.7% | 0.163 | +4.51 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 18.4% | -0.012 | -0.22 |
| Recipe graded poor | 11.0% | -0.065 | -0.72 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 2 | -0.876 | -1.75 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 5.8% | 0.060 | +0.35 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -20.16 | 0.222 | -4.48 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.3 | 9.191 | +2.59 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 24.5% | -0.115 | -2.82 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 3.8% | -0.005 | -0.02 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 27.7% | 0.163 | +4.51 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 18.4% | -0.012 | -0.22 |
| 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 | 11.0% | -0.065 | -0.72 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 2 | -0.876 | -1.75 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 5.8% | 0.060 | +0.35 |
| 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 | -20.16 | 0.222 | -4.48 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| 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 | 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 | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.08
- Subtotal
- 47.7
- Final score
- 48/100
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 | 8 | 36.4 (band 23.318181818181817 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 7 | 31.8 (band 7.125 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 1.5 | 6.8 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 114 | 518.2 | 100 |
Scored over 4 declared nutrients (combined weight 60); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 78% from the food type.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
Low confidence: partial analysis or moisture 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) - not on file | 0/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) | 5/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| 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 (Analytical constituents declared, Additives 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.
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.
100/100 · moderate — 1 checkable claim: 1 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "100% complete and balanced" — supported by the declared complete and balanced data.
6 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Moderate: every checkable claim is consistent with the declared label.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| high-quality ingredient is highly digestible for maximum nutritional absorption (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| natural sources of glucosamine ... helps support joint health (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Real Chicken #1 Ingredient (on pack) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 0% fillers (on pack) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| No Poultry By-Products (on pack) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 100% complete and balanced (on pack) | Content | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Natural with Added Vitamins, Minerals and Nutrients (on pack) | 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 Classic Ground Chicken & Brown Rice Entrée
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.