Our verdict
Is Dr. Clauder's Special Diet Low Protein 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.
Complete wet paté food for adult dogs, with rice, chicken and maize as the main ingredients.
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 lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids beef: the label lists beef
- Your dog avoids turkey: the label lists poultry fat
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists salmon
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists rice - white
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You are limiting fat: 27.1% on a dry-matter basis is in the high band
- You need more protein than this: 20.0% on a dry-matter basis is in the low band
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.
Nutrition and feedingProtein 4.80% · Fat 6.50%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 4.80% |
| Fat | 6.50% |
| Fibre | 0.50% |
| Ash | 1.30% |
| Moisture | 76% |
| Calcium | 0.23% |
| Phosphorus | 0.12% |
| Sodium | 0.05% |
Additives & feeding info
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamine A 2000 IE; D3 200 IE; E 25 mg; Zink 15 mg; Mangan 3 mg; Jod 0.75 mg
Ingredients (10)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 31.0%
- carb 24.5%
- oil 19.4%
- supplement 14.8%
- other 10.3%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rice | Rice - white | carb · medium | - | 12.9 |
| 2 | Chicken | Chicken | meat · medium | - | 12.3 |
| 3 | Maize | Maize / Corn | carb · medium | - | 11.6 |
| 4 | Poultry fat | Poultry Fat | oil · medium | - | 11.0 |
| 5 | Beef | Beef | meat · medium | - | 10.3 |
| 6 | Whole egg | Egg | meat · good | - | 9.7 |
| 7 | Salmon | Salmon | meat · good | - | 9.0 |
| 8 | Sunflower oil | Sunflower oil | oil · good | - | 8.4 |
| 9 | Yeast | Yeast | supplement · good | - | 7.7 |
| 10 | Minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 7.1 |
- 1. Rice12.9% estimated
- 2. Chicken12.3% estimated
- 3. Maize11.6% estimated
- 4. Poultry fat11.0% estimated
- 5. Beef10.3% estimated
- 6. Whole egg9.7% estimated
- 7. Salmon9.0% estimated
- 8. Sunflower oil8.4% estimated
- 9. Yeast7.7% estimated
- 10. Minerals7.1% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-08-22
Brand and contact: Dr. Clauder's
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
- www.dr-clauder.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.
Score details and methodologyCalculations, history and evidence
Recipe: how the 1-100 score is calculated
Why this score?
This recipe achieves an overall score of 48 out of 100 based on several key factors. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +4.9 points, while ingredients without printed percentages contributed -10.6 points. Additionally, the carbohydrate content contributed -3.6 points and the remaining ingredients contributed -2.8 points to the final calculation.
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 | 0.5 | 9.191 | +4.94 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 31.6% | -0.115 | -3.64 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 28.1% | -0.092 | -2.58 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 20.0% | -0.012 | -0.24 |
| Other share of dry matter | 7.6% | -0.375 | -2.83 |
| Recipe graded poor | 10.3% | -0.065 | -0.67 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 10.3% | 0.060 | +0.62 |
| 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 | 1.00 | 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 | 0.5 | 9.191 | +4.94 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 31.6% | -0.115 | -3.64 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 28.1% | -0.092 | -2.58 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.005 | +0.00 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 20.0% | -0.012 | -0.24 |
| Other share of dry matter | 7.6% | -0.375 | -2.83 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 10.3% | -0.065 | -0.67 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 10.3% | 0.060 | +0.62 |
| 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 | 1.00 | 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
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 48.2
- 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.
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.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 4.8 | 20 (band 18 to 40%) | 75.5 |
| Fat | 6.5 | 27.1 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.5 | 2.1 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 91.1 |
| Calcium | 0.23 | 1 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 83.8 |
| Phosphorus | 0.12 | 0.5 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 75 |
| Sodium | 0.05 | 0.2 (band 0.1+%) | 100 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.9 | 1.9 (band 1 to 2%) | 100 |
Scored over 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 85); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 6 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamine A 2000 IE
- D3 200 IE
- E 25 mg
- Zink 15 mg
- Mangan 3 mg
- Jod 0.75 mg
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.
See all current recalls we track.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Made in Germany (on page) | provenance | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Nachhaltige Produktion in Deutschland (on page) | provenance | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Ein hoher Eiweißgehalt kann die Nieren belasten (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Die leicht verdauliche Kost (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Dieses schonende Alleinfutter kann eine sinnvolle Nahrung zur Entlastung sein (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Jedes Produkt mit Zusatznutzen (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Niedriger Phosphor- und Natriumgehalt (on page) | High/low level | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Erhöhter Fettgehalt für optimale Energieversorgung (on page) | High/low level | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Vollnahrung mit reduziertem Eiweißgehalt und erhöhtem Fettgehalt (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Reduzierter Eiweißgehalt zur Entlastung der Nieren (on page) | High/low level | 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 Special Diet Low Protein
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.