Our verdict
Is Golden Eagle Hypo-Allergenic Duck & Potato a good dog food?
We score it 51/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete extruded dry food for dogs of all life stages, with duck, potatoes and poultry fat 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 all lifestages
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list beef, lamb, fish, venison, pork as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists poultry fat
- Your dog avoids turkey: the label lists poultry fat
- Your dog avoids duck: the label lists duck
- 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 26% · Fat 12%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 26% |
| Fat | 12% |
| Fibre | 4% |
| Ash | 11% |
| Moisture | 8% |
| Omega-3 fatty acids | 0.80% |
| Omega-6 fatty acids | 1.50% |
| Calcium | 2.20% |
| Phosphorus | 1.40% |
Additives & feeding info
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
A-vitamin 26000 iu/kg; D3 -vitamin 1700 iu/kg; E-vitamin 192 iu/kg; Iron 96 mg/kg; Copper 15 mg/kg; Zink 154 mg/kg; Selenium 0.24 mg/kg
Ingredients (14)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- supplement 40.6%
- carb 16.2%
- meat 15.7%
- veg 13.9%
- oil 8.1%
- fibre 5.5%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Duck | Duck | meat · medium | - | 9.3 |
| 2 | potato | Potatoes | carb · medium | - | 9.0 |
| 3 | duck fat | Poultry Fat | oil · medium | - | 8.6 |
| 4 | sugar beet flour | Beet Flour | carb · medium | - | 8.3 |
| 5 | linseed | Linseed | veg · good | - | 8.0 |
| 6 | brewer’s yeast | Brewer's Yeast | supplement · good | - | 7.6 |
| 7 | duck liver sauce | Liver | meat · good | - | 7.3 |
| 8 | yucca extract | Yucca Schidigera | supplement · good | - | 7.0 |
| 9 | seaweed | Seaweed | veg · good | - | 6.6 |
| 10 | L’carnitine | L-Carnitine | supplement · medium | - | 6.3 |
| 11 | betaglucans | Beta-Glucans | supplement · good | - | 6.0 |
| 12 | inulin | Inulin | fibre · good | - | 5.6 |
| 13 | lactic acid bacteria | Lactic Acid | additive · medium | - | 5.3 |
| 14 | vitamins and minerals. | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 5.0 |
- 1. Duck9.3% estimated
- 2. potato9.0% estimated
- 3. duck fat8.6% estimated
- 4. sugar beet flour8.3% estimated
- 5. linseed8.0% estimated
- 6. brewer’s yeast7.6% estimated
- 7. duck liver sauce7.3% estimated
- 8. yucca extract7.0% estimated
- 9. seaweed6.6% estimated
- 10. L’carnitine6.3% estimated
- 11. betaglucans6.0% estimated
- 12. inulin5.6% estimated
- 13. lactic acid bacteria5.3% estimated
- 14. vitamins and minerals.5.0% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-08-22
Brand and contact: Golden Eagle
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.goldeneaglepetfoods.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 51 out of 100 based on several key factors. The inclusion of ingredients without printed percentages contributed -10.6 points, while the overall quality of the ingredient list added +7.1 points. Additionally, the processing format adjusted the score by -6.7, and being labelled nutritionally complete contributed +2.3 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 | 0.8 | 9.191 | +7.13 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 12.0% | -0.115 | -1.38 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 10.5% | -0.092 | -0.97 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 16.4% | -0.005 | -0.08 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 48.9% | -0.012 | -0.60 |
| 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 | 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 | 0.8 | 9.191 | +7.13 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 12.0% | -0.115 | -1.38 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 10.5% | -0.092 | -0.97 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 16.4% | -0.005 | -0.08 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 48.9% | -0.012 | -0.60 |
| 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 | 0.0% | -0.065 | +0.00 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 0 | -0.876 | +0.00 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 0.0% | 0.060 | +0.00 |
| 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 | 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
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 51.0
- Final score
- 51/100
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 | 26 | 28.3 (band 18 to 40%) | 98 |
| Fat | 12 | 13 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 4 | 4.3 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Calcium | 2.2 | 2.4 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 100 |
| Phosphorus | 1.4 | 1.5 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 100 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.6 | 1.6 (band 1 to 2%) | 100 |
| Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3) | - | - | 100 |
Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3): scored as the mean of its declared components (omega-6 100). The FEDIAF minimum for omega-6 is linoleic acid specifically.
Scored over 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 90); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 7 nutritional additives on the label
- A-vitamin 26000 iu/kg
- D3 -vitamin 1700 iu/kg
- E-vitamin 192 iu/kg
- Iron 96 mg/kg
- Copper 15 mg/kg
- Zink 154 mg/kg
- Selenium 0.24 mg/kg
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.
67/100 · limited — 3 checkable claims: 2 consistent, 1 contradicted.
Contradicted by the label
- "single animal protein source diet, meaning there is only duck from UK farms, as the main protein source" — the declared label says otherwise on single protein.
Consistent with the label
- "grain-free composition, which has been stripped of ingredients that commonly cause allergies" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
- "grain free" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contains pre and probiotics to help maintain microbial balance in the digestive tract. (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| supports the dog’s metabolism with pure and natural complete food (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| grain-free composition, which has been stripped of ingredients that commonly cause allergies (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| does not contain generally allergenic ingredients (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| grain free (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| single animal protein source diet, meaning there is only duck from UK farms, as the main protein source (on page) | Content | 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 Hypo-Allergenic Duck & Potato
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.