Our verdict
Is Leader Engage Chicken a good dog food?
We score it 47/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
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 all lifestages
- Doesn't list beef, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists dried chicken protein
- Your dog avoids turkey: the label lists poultry fat
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists fish meal
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists rice - white
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You need more protein than this: 20.0% 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 20% · Fat 11%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 20% |
| Fat | 11% |
| Fibre | 2.40% |
| Ash | 9% |
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
Body weight vs. Activity: Resting, Light Work, Rigorous Work, Sustained Work. 4 - 10kg: 100 - 170g, 110 - 190g, 125 - 225g, 150 - 300g. 11 - 25kg: 170 - 345g, 190 - 400g, 225 - 440g, 300 - 600g. 25 - 32kg: 345 - 400g, 400 - 470g, 440 - 500g, 600 - 750g. 30kg+: 90g for every 10kg body weight, 110g for every 10kg body weight, 125g for every 10kg body weight, 175g for every 10kg body weight.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin A 24,000 i.u./kg; Vitamin D3 2,000 i.u./kg; Vitamin E (Alpha Tocopherol Acetate) 250 i.u./kg; Copper (Copper Sulphate Pentahydrate) 7 mg/kg; Selenium (Sodium Selenite) 0.15 mg/kg; Iron (Iron Sulphate Monohydrate) 75 mg/kg; Manganese (Manganese Oxide) 40 mg/kg; Zinc (Zinc Oxide) 70 mg/kg; Zinc (Zinc Chelate of Glycine Hydrate) 30 mg/kg; Iodine (Calcium Iodate) 1.50 mg/kg
Technological additives
Antioxidants; Preservatives
Ingredients (12)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 26.1%
- carb 20.7%
- fibre 14.4%
- additive 13.1%
- oil 9.5%
- veg 9.0%
- supplement 7.2%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Rice | Rice - white | carb · medium | - | 10.8 |
| 2 | Dehydrated Chicken | Dried chicken protein | meat · good | - | 10.4 |
| 3 | Dehulled Oats | Oats | carb · medium | - | 9.9 |
| 4 | Poultry Fat | Poultry Fat | oil · medium | - | 9.5 |
| 5 | Whole Linseed | Linseed | veg · good | - | 9.0 |
| 6 | Beet Pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 8.6 |
| 7 | Fishmeal | Fish Meal | meat · medium | - | 8.1 |
| 8 | Chicken Gravy | Chicken | meat · medium | - | 7.7 |
| 9 | Calcium Carbonate | Calcium Carbonate | supplement · medium | - | 7.2 |
| 10 | Sodium Chloride | Salt | additive · poor | - | 6.8 |
| 11 | Yeast Extract | Hydrolysed Yeast | additive · medium | - | 6.3 |
| 12 | Chicory Extract | Chicory Root Extract | fibre · good | - | 5.9 |
- 1. Rice10.8% estimated
- 2. Dehydrated Chicken10.4% estimated
- 3. Dehulled Oats9.9% estimated
- 4. Poultry Fat9.5% estimated
- 5. Whole Linseed9.0% estimated
- 6. Beet Pulp8.6% estimated
- 7. Fishmeal8.1% estimated
- 8. Chicken Gravy7.7% estimated
- 9. Calcium Carbonate7.2% estimated
- 10. Sodium Chloride6.8% estimated
- 11. Yeast Extract6.3% estimated
- 12. Chicory Extract5.9% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-13
Brand and contact: Leader
- Website
- https://redmillsstore.co.uk/
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-13
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- redmillsstore.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.
Brand and retailer reviews
External platform ratings are not scores for this individual 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 47 out of 100 based on several key factors. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +4.6 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 -3.5 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 | 0.5 | 9.191 | +4.64 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 21.5% | -0.115 | -2.48 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 11.1% | -0.092 | -1.02 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 9.6% | -0.005 | -0.05 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 13.9% | 0.163 | +2.26 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 7.8% | -0.012 | -0.10 |
| Recipe graded poor | 6.8% | -0.065 | -0.44 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 6.8% | 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 | -15.81 | 0.222 | -3.51 |
| 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 | 0.5 | 9.191 | +4.64 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 21.5% | -0.115 | -2.48 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 11.1% | -0.092 | -1.02 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 9.6% | -0.005 | -0.05 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 13.9% | 0.163 | +2.26 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 7.8% | -0.012 | -0.10 |
| 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 | 6.8% | -0.065 | -0.44 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 1 | -0.876 | -0.88 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 6.8% | 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 | -15.81 | 0.222 | -3.51 |
| 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
- 46.7
- Final score
- 47/100
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 | 20 | 22.1 (band 18 to 40%) | 81.2 |
| Fat | 11 | 12.2 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 97.5 |
| Fibre | 2.4 | 2.7 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 98.7 |
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: 10 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin A 24,000 i.u./kg
- Vitamin D3 2,000 i.u./kg
- Vitamin E (Alpha Tocopherol Acetate) 250 i.u./kg
- Copper (Copper Sulphate Pentahydrate) 7 mg/kg
- Selenium (Sodium Selenite) 0.15 mg/kg
- Iron (Iron Sulphate Monohydrate) 75 mg/kg
- Manganese (Manganese Oxide) 40 mg/kg
- Zinc (Zinc Oxide) 70 mg/kg
- Zinc (Zinc Chelate of Glycine Hydrate) 30 mg/kg
- Iodine (Calcium Iodate) 1.50 mg/kg
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) - not on file | 0/5 |
| 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Featuring 25% meat content (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| fully balanced dog food (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Rich in oils (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| 25% protein (on page) | Nutrient | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| extra protein for muscle strength (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| shiny coat (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| High energy formula for the active dog (on page) | High/low level | 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 Engage 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.