Hill's Pet Nutrition Metabolic Chicken Flavor Dog Food
Dry Extruded · complete
Our verdict
Is Hill's Pet Nutrition Metabolic Chicken Flavor Dog Food a good dog food?
We score it 38/100 (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".
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
- Single named protein: chicken
- Doesn't list beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists wheat
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 28% · Fat 11.70%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed | Dry matter | Directory average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 28% | 28% | 37.69% (137 eligible foods) |
| Fat | 11.70% | 11.70% | 23.89% (134 eligible foods) |
| Fibre | 13.60% | 13.60% | 3.81% (135 eligible foods) |
| Carbohydrates | 40.60% | 40.60% | 30.63% (76 eligible foods) |
| Calcium | 1.05% | - | - |
| Phosphorus | 0.76% | - | - |
| Sodium | 0.30% | - | - |
Energy: 312 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
Weight Control feeding table provided in cups/grams for weight loss and adult maintenance across dog weights 5-120 lbs; gradually transition over 7 days, exclusively feed recommended Prescription Diet dry and wet foods, keep fresh water available, and have veterinarian monitor pet's condition.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin E Supplement; L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of Vitamin C); Niacin Supplement; Thiamine Mononitrate; Vitamin A Supplement; Calcium Pantothenate; Riboflavin Supplement; Biotin; Vitamin B12 Supplement; Pyridoxine Hydrochloride; Folic Acid; Vitamin D3 Supplement; Choline Chloride; Manganese Sulfate; Ferrous Sulfate; Zinc Oxide; Copper Sulfate; Calcium Iodate; Sodium Selenite; L-Carnitine 337.3 ppm
Technological additives
Mixed Tocopherols for freshness
Ingredients (19)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 25.8%
- fibre 17.8%
- supplement 16.5%
- meat 12.0%
- oil 10.2%
- veg 9.3%
- additive 8.5%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Whole Grain Wheat | Wheat | carb · poor | - | 6.9 |
| 2 | Whole Grain Corn | Whole-Grain Maize | carb · medium | - | 6.7 |
| 3 | Chicken Meal | Dried chicken protein | meat · good | - | 6.5 |
| 4 | Powdered Cellulose | Powdered Cellulose | fibre · poor | - | 6.4 |
| 5 | Soybean Meal | Soybean Meal | carb · poor | - | 6.2 |
| 6 | Corn Gluten Meal | Maize gluten | carb · poor | - | 6.0 |
| 7 | Dried Beet Pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 5.8 |
| 8 | Dried Tomato Pomace | Tomato Pomace | fibre · medium | - | 5.6 |
| 9 | Hydrolyzed Chicken Flavor | Chicken | meat · medium | - | 5.4 |
| 10 | Chicken Fat | Chicken Oil and Fat | oil · good | - | 5.3 |
| 11 | Flaxseed | Linseed | veg · good | - | 5.1 |
| 12 | Coconut Oil | Coconut Oil | oil · medium | - | 4.9 |
| 13 | Lactic Acid | Lactic Acid | additive · medium | - | 4.7 |
| 14 | DL-Methionine | Methionine | supplement · good | - | 4.5 |
| 15 | L-Lysine | Lysine | supplement · medium | - | 4.4 |
| 16 | Carrots | Carrots | veg · good | - | 4.2 |
| 17 | Potassium Chloride | Potassium Chloride | supplement · medium | - | 4.0 |
| 18 | Iodized Salt | Salt | additive · poor | - | 3.8 |
| 19 | Lipoic Acid | Lipoic Acid | supplement · good | - | 3.6 |
- 1. Whole Grain Wheat6.9% estimated
- 2. Whole Grain Corn6.7% estimated
- 3. Chicken Meal6.5% estimated
- 4. Powdered Cellulose6.4% estimated
- 5. Soybean Meal6.2% estimated
- 6. Corn Gluten Meal6.0% estimated
- 7. Dried Beet Pulp5.8% estimated
- 8. Dried Tomato Pomace5.6% estimated
- 9. Hydrolyzed Chicken Flavor5.4% estimated
- 10. Chicken Fat5.3% estimated
- 11. Flaxseed5.1% estimated
- 12. Coconut Oil4.9% estimated
- 13. Lactic Acid4.7% estimated
- 14. DL-Methionine4.5% estimated
- 15. L-Lysine4.4% estimated
- 16. Carrots4.2% estimated
- 17. Potassium Chloride4.0% estimated
- 18. Iodized Salt3.8% estimated
- 19. Lipoic Acid3.6% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-18
Brand and contact: Hill's Pet Nutrition
- Website
- https://www.hillspet.com/
- Contact page
- www.hillspet.com
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-18
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.hillspet.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.
Brand and retailer reviews
External platform ratings are not scores for this individual recipe.
Trustpilot: 3.0/5 · 3 reviews
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 38 out of 100. Being labelled nutritionally complete adds +2.3 points to the total. However, ingredients without printed percentages deducts -10.6, the processing format takes away -6.7, and the carbohydrate content reduces the score by -3.
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 | 0.1 | 9.191 | +1.36 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 26.0% | -0.115 | -2.99 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 11.4% | -0.092 | -1.05 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 5.9% | -0.005 | -0.03 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 8.7% | 0.163 | +1.42 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 17.3% | -0.012 | -0.21 |
| Recipe graded poor | 29.2% | -0.065 | -1.90 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 6.9% | 0.060 | +0.41 |
| 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 |
| Additive penalty | -10.49 | 0.222 | -2.33 |
| 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 | 0.1 | 9.191 | +1.36 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 26.0% | -0.115 | -2.99 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 11.4% | -0.092 | -1.05 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 5.9% | -0.005 | -0.03 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 8.7% | 0.163 | +1.42 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 17.3% | -0.012 | -0.21 |
| 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 | 29.2% | -0.065 | -1.90 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 6.9% | 0.060 | +0.41 |
| 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 | -10.49 | 0.222 | -2.33 |
| 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
- +2 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 38.2
- Final score
- 38/100
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.
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.
Guaranteed-analysis FEDIAF score: crude minimums and maximums are bounds, not typical values; moisture (a maximum) uses the processing median where available; experimental US score.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 28 | 30.9 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 11.7 | 12.9 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 13.6 | 15 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Calcium | 1.05 | 1.2 (band 0.5 to 2.5%) | 89.8 |
| Phosphorus | 0.76 | 0.8 (band 0.4 to 1.6%) | 92 |
| Sodium | 0.3 | 0.3 (band 0.1+%) | 100 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.4 | 1.4 (band 1 to 2%) | 92.9 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 312 | 344.8 | 100 |
Fibre: Declared as a maximum; the high-fibre taper is not applied.
Scored over 8 declared nutrients (combined weight 95); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 9.5% from the food type.
Declared fortification: 20 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin E Supplement
- L-Ascorbyl-2-Polyphosphate (source of Vitamin C)
- Niacin Supplement
- Thiamine Mononitrate
- Vitamin A Supplement
- Calcium Pantothenate
- Riboflavin Supplement
- Biotin
- Vitamin B12 Supplement
- Pyridoxine Hydrochloride
- Folic Acid
- Vitamin D3 Supplement
- Choline Chloride
- Manganese Sulfate
- Ferrous Sulfate
- Zinc Oxide
- Copper Sulfate
- Calcium Iodate
- Sodium Selenite
- L-Carnitine 337.3 ppm
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) | 10/10 |
| Energy value declared (voluntary) | 5/5 |
| Complete/complementary designation (mandatory) | 5/5 |
| Feeding guidance given (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| 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, 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Formulated to promote a urinary environment that reduces the risk of developing struvite & calcium oxalate crystals (on pack) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Activates pet's metabolism for easy and effective weight loss (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 96% of dogs lost weight at home in 2 months when fed the nutrition of Metabolic (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Provides complete and balanced nutrition for maintenance of adult dogs (on pack) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Made with chicken flavor (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 Metabolic Chicken Flavor Dog Food
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.