Our verdict
Is Engage Duck & Rice a good dog food?
We score it 44/100 (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".
Complete extruded dry food for adult dogs, with rice, duck and sunflower oil as the main ingredients.
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, venison, pork as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists fish meal
- Your dog avoids duck: the label lists duck
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists rice - white
- 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.
Nutrition and feedingProtein 22% · Fat 11%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 22% |
| Fat | 11% |
| Fibre | 2% |
| Ash | 7.50% |
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (15)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 22.0%
- supplement 21.4%
- carb 16.5%
- fibre 12.5%
- additive 11.9%
- oil 8.1%
- veg 7.5%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rice | Rice - white | carb · medium | - | 8.7 |
| 2 | Dehydrated Duck Meat | Duck | meat · medium | - | 8.4 |
| 3 | Sunflower Oil | Sunflower oil | oil · good | - | 8.1 |
| 4 | Dehulled Oats | Oats | carb · medium | - | 7.8 |
| 5 | Whole Linseed | Linseed | veg · good | - | 7.5 |
| 6 | Beet Pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 7.2 |
| 7 | Fishmeal | Fish Meal | meat · medium | - | 7.0 |
| 8 | Chicken Gravy | Chicken | meat · medium | - | 6.7 |
| 9 | Sodium Chloride | Salt | additive · poor | - | 6.4 |
| 10 | Calcium Carbonate | Calcium Carbonate | supplement · medium | - | 6.1 |
| 11 | Mono-Dicalcium Phosphate | Dicalcium phosphate | supplement · medium | - | 5.8 |
| 12 | Yeast Extract | Hydrolysed Yeast | additive · medium | - | 5.5 |
| 13 | Chicory Extract | Chicory Root Extract | fibre · good | - | 5.2 |
| 14 | Chondroitin Sulphate | Chondroitin | supplement · good | - | 4.9 |
| 15 | Glucosamine Hydrochloride | Glucosamine | supplement · good | - | 4.6 |
- 1. Rice8.7% estimated
- 2. Dehydrated Duck Meat8.4% estimated
- 3. Sunflower Oil8.1% estimated
- 4. Dehulled Oats7.8% estimated
- 5. Whole Linseed7.5% estimated
- 6. Beet Pulp7.2% estimated
- 7. Fishmeal7.0% estimated
- 8. Chicken Gravy6.7% estimated
- 9. Sodium Chloride6.4% estimated
- 10. Calcium Carbonate6.1% estimated
- 11. Mono-Dicalcium Phosphate5.8% estimated
- 12. Yeast Extract5.5% estimated
- 13. Chicory Extract5.2% estimated
- 14. Chondroitin Sulphate4.9% estimated
- 15. Glucosamine Hydrochloride4.6% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-14
Brand and contact: Engage
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-14
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.redmillspet.co.uk
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 rating of 44 out of 100 based on several key factors. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +5.2 points to the total. However, ingredients without printed percentages reduced the score by -10.6, the processing format subtracted -6.7, and the additive load contributed -3.2 points.
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 | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.19 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 17.0% | -0.115 | -1.95 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 9.4% | -0.092 | -0.86 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 7.9% | -0.005 | -0.04 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 12.5% | 0.163 | +2.03 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 23.0% | -0.012 | -0.28 |
| Recipe graded poor | 6.4% | -0.065 | -0.41 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 6.4% | 0.060 | +0.38 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.106 | -10.56 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -14.39 | 0.222 | -3.19 |
| Processing multiplier | 0.98 | 33.786 | +33.11 |
| Processing: Dry Extruded | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.6 | 9.191 | +5.19 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 17.0% | -0.115 | -1.95 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 9.4% | -0.092 | -0.86 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 7.9% | -0.005 | -0.04 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 12.5% | 0.163 | +2.03 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 23.0% | -0.012 | -0.28 |
| 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 | 6.4% | -0.065 | -0.41 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 6.4% | 0.060 | +0.38 |
| 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 | -14.39 | 0.222 | -3.19 |
| Processing multiplier | 0.98 | 33.786 | +33.11 |
| 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 | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
| 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
- +0.02
- Subtotal
- 43.6
- Final score
- 44/100
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 | 22 | 24.3 (band 18 to 40%) | 87.2 |
| Fat | 11 | 12.2 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 97.5 |
| Fibre | 2 | 2.2 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 92.8 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 9.5% 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) - 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 (Analytical constituents declared, Additives declared, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26% meat content (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| hypoallergenic characteristics (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| with hypoallergenic characteristics (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| omega 3 oils for healthy skin and coat (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| high quality recipe, with hypoallergenic characteristics (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| high rice inclusion level offers slow release energy (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| additional glucosamine and chondroitin to aid joint care (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| high oil content can help keep coats strong (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| added vitamins and minerals, for optimum health and vitality (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| duck, salmon and rice included to offer hypoallergenic diets (on page) | 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 Duck & Rice
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.