Healthy Paws British Free-Run Chicken & Brown Rice
Dry Extruded · completeClear label
Our verdict
Is Healthy Paws British Free-Run Chicken & Brown Rice a good dog food?
We score it 55/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete extruded dry food for senior dogs, with dried chicken protein, rice and oats as the main ingredients.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
76% 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 senior dogs
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists dried chicken protein
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists salmon oil
- 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
- You need more protein than this: 19.5% 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 19.50% · Fat 12%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 19.50% |
| Fat | 12% |
| Fibre | 4.50% |
| Ash | 6% |
Additives & feeding info
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin A 14400 IU; Vitamin D3 2160 IU; Vitamin C 168 mg; Vitamin E 100 mg; Ferrous Sulphate Monohydrate 160 mg; Zinc Sulphate Monohydrate 133 mg; Manganous Sulphate Monohydrate 105 mg; Cupric Sulphate Pentahydrate 58 mg; Calcium Iodate Anhydrous 1.57 mg; Sodium Selenite 0.64 mg; DL-M 2200 mg
Ingredients (10)76% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 34.2%
- meat 29.4%
- oil 19.0%
- fibre 9.9%
- veg 7.6%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dried Chicken 21% | Dried chicken protein | meat · good | 21 | 21.0 |
| 2 | Brown Rice | Rice - brown / whole grain | carb · medium | - | 12.2 |
| 3 | White Rice | Rice - white | carb · medium | - | 11.4 |
| 4 | Oats | Oats | carb · medium | - | 10.6 |
| 5 | Beet Pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 9.9 |
| 6 | Sunflower Oil | Sunflower oil | oil · good | - | 9.1 |
| 7 | Chicken Fat 3% | Chicken Oil and Fat | oil · good | 3 | 3.0 |
| 8 | Chicken Stock | Chicken Broth | meat · medium | - | 8.4 |
| 9 | Alfalfa | Alfalfa | veg · good | - | 7.6 |
| 10 | Salmon Oil | Salmon Oil | oil · good | - | 6.8 |
- 1. Dried Chicken 21%21% declared21.0% estimated
- 2. Brown Rice12.2% estimated
- 3. White Rice11.4% estimated
- 4. Oats10.6% estimated
- 5. Beet Pulp9.9% estimated
- 6. Sunflower Oil9.1% estimated
- 7. Chicken Fat 3%3% declared3.0% estimated
- 8. Chicken Stock8.4% estimated
- 9. Alfalfa7.6% estimated
- 10. Salmon Oil6.8% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-14
Brand and contact: Healthy Paws
- Website
- https://healthypaws.co.uk/
- [email protected]
- Phone
- +44 (0)116 260 2100
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
- healthypaws.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 a final score of 55 out of 100 based on several key factors. The overall quality of the ingredient list added +6.3 points. However, ingredients without printed percentages reduced the score by -8. Additionally, the processing format deducted -6.7 and the carbohydrate content contributed -4.4.
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 | 0.7 | 9.191 | +6.33 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 24.5% | 0.096 | +2.35 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 38.2% | -0.115 | -4.39 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 23.8% | -0.092 | -2.19 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 1.4% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Undeclared quantities | 76.0% | -0.106 | -8.02 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| 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 | 0.7 | 9.191 | +6.33 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 24.5% | 0.096 | +2.35 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 38.2% | -0.115 | -4.39 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 23.8% | -0.092 | -2.19 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 1.4% | -0.005 | -0.01 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.012 | +0.00 |
| 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 | 76.0% | -0.106 | -8.02 |
| 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) | no | -3.158 | +0.00 |
| 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
- 54.7
- Final score
- 55/100
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 | 19.5 | 21.5 (band 18 to 40%) | 79.7 |
| Fat | 12 | 13.3 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 4.5 | 5 (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.
Declared fortification: 11 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin A 14400 IU
- Vitamin D3 2160 IU
- Vitamin C 168 mg
- Vitamin E 100 mg
- Ferrous Sulphate Monohydrate 160 mg
- Zinc Sulphate Monohydrate 133 mg
- Manganous Sulphate Monohydrate 105 mg
- Cupric Sulphate Pentahydrate 58 mg
- Calcium Iodate Anhydrous 1.57 mg
- Sodium Selenite 0.64 mg
- DL-M 2200 mg
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 (24% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 4.8/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) - not on file | 0/15 |
| 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 (Analytical constituents 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crunchy kibble promotes good oral hygiene (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| added glucosamine, chondroitin and MSM to support and maintain healthy hips and joints (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| low GI rice and oats supplying more fibre to keep hunger at bay for longer (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| delicious blend of vegetables and herbs helps to keep fleas and worms at bay too (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| wheat and wheat gluten free recipe (on page) | Free-from | 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 British Free-Run Chicken & Brown 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.