Our verdict
Is Gilpa Sensitive Complete Extra Chicken a good dog food?
We score it 32/100 (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 cereals, meat and animal derivatives and oils and fats as the main ingredients.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
74% 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, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: it is listed as an ingredient
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists cereals
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 10%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 22% |
| Fat | 10% |
| Fibre | 3% |
| Ash | 9% |
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
Our pack provides full instructions on how to change over and feed to condition, but our food can be fed dry or with water or gravy as preferred. Small Dogs Adult size in kilograms: Under 10kg Working Terrier, e.g. Jack Russell, Border Terrier Feeding amount per day: Up to 200g (can be given in one or more meals) Medium Dogs Adult size in kilograms: 10-20kg Working Gun Dog, e.g. Springer Spaniel, Border Collie Feeding amount per day: 200-370g (can be given in one or more meals) Large Dogs Adult size in kilograms: 20-45kg Working Gun Dog, e.g. Labrador, Greyhound Feeding amount per day: 370-680g (can be given in one or more meals) Giant Dogs Adult size in kilograms: Over 45kg Working Rescue Dog, e.g. Newfoundland
No additives recorded yet.
Ingredients (7)74% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 33.2%
- meat 26.0%
- supplement 24.2%
- oil 16.6%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cereals | Cereals | carb · poor | - | 18.4 |
| 2 | meat and animal derivatives (26%) | Meat and Animal Derivatives | meat · poor | 26 | 26.0 |
| 3 | oils and fats | Oils and Fats | oil · poor | - | 16.6 |
| 4 | vegetable protein extracts (maize gluten) | Vegetable protein extracts | carb · poor | - | 14.8 |
| 5 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 12.9 |
| 6 | FOS (0.2%) | Fructo-oligosaccharides | supplement · good | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| 7 | yucca extract | Yucca Schidigera | supplement · good | - | 11.1 |
- 1. Cereals18.4% estimated
- 2. meat and animal derivatives (26%)26% declared26.0% estimated
- 3. oils and fats16.6% estimated
- 4. vegetable protein extracts (maize gluten)14.8% estimated
- 5. minerals12.9% estimated
- 6. FOS (0.2%)0.2% declared0.2% estimated
- 7. yucca extract11.1% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-14
Brand and contact: Gilpa
- Website
- https://www.gilpa.co.uk/
- [email protected]
- Phone
- +44 (0)1707 367900
- Address
- Gilbertson & Page Limited, 45-55 Brownfields, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, AL7 1AN
- Contact page
- www.gilpa.co.uk
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.gilpa.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?
The overall score came in at 32 out of 100, after several negative factors weighed against the product. Ingredients without printed percentages contributed -7.8 points, while the processing format took off -6.7. The carbohydrate content reduced the score by -4.5, and lower-quality ingredients cost a further -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 | -0.3 | 9.191 | -3.14 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 9.7% | 0.096 | +0.93 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 38.9% | -0.115 | -4.47 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 21.9% | -0.092 | -2.01 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 29.6% | -0.012 | -0.36 |
| Recipe graded poor | 49.8% | -0.065 | -3.24 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 3 | -0.876 | -2.63 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 18.4% | 0.060 | +1.11 |
| Undeclared quantities | 73.8% | -0.106 | -7.79 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -0.89 | 0.222 | -0.20 |
| 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 | -0.3 | 9.191 | -3.14 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 9.7% | 0.096 | +0.93 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 38.9% | -0.115 | -4.47 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 21.9% | -0.092 | -2.01 |
| 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 | 29.6% | -0.012 | -0.36 |
| 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 | 49.8% | -0.065 | -3.24 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 3 | -0.876 | -2.63 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 18.4% | 0.060 | +1.11 |
| Undeclared quantities | 73.8% | -0.106 | -7.79 |
| 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 | -0.89 | 0.222 | -0.20 |
| 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
- 32.4
- Final score
- 32/100
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 | 10 | 11 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 93 |
| Fibre | 3 | 3.3 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
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 (26.2% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 5.2/20 |
| 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) | 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.
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.
0/100 · limited — 1 checkable claim: 0 consistent, 1 contradicted.
Contradicted by the label
- "Made without wheat" — the declared label says otherwise on grain-free.
4 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Limited: at least one claim contradicts the declared label, or a recent upheld ASA ruling applies.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Optimised for digestion and with prebiotic FOS (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| No added artificial colours, flavours or sugars as standard (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Extra chicken (14%) (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| with 22% protein, 10% fat (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Made without wheat (on page) | Free-from | contradicted | Manufacturer assertion |
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Alternatives to Sensitive Complete Extra Chicken
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.