Leader Greyhound Maintenance 20% Dog Food
Dry Extruded complete
Is Leader Greyhound Maintenance 20% Dog Food a good dog food?
We score it 23/100 (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".
Why this score?
This food achieves a score of 23 out of 100 based on our evaluation of its recipe. Ingredients without printed percentages contributed -13.1 points, and the overall quality of the ingredient list added -8.1 points. Additionally, the processing format accounted for -7 points, while the remaining ingredients contributed -6.7 points to the final calculation.
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.
- Recipe23
- Nutritionallow85
- Transparency30
- Safety100
- Evidencelimited33
The Recipe score measures how attractive and transparent the declared ingredient list is. It is not, by itself, proof that the food is nutritionally appropriate for long-term feeding. The Nutritional and Evidence scores measure what we can verify towards that stronger claim.
Estimated composition
Typical analysis (as fed)
- Protein
- 20%
- Fat
- 8%
- Fibre
- 3%
- Ash
- 9%
Additives & feeding info
No additives recorded yet.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for adult dogs
- Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists cereals
- 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. Use the homepage filter to find foods that fit your dog.
Ingredients (4)
| # | As declared | Matched | Category | Tier | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Cereals | Cereals | carb | poor | - | 30.8 |
| 2 | meat & animal derivatives | Fresh Meat | meat | medium | - | 26.9 |
| 3 | derivatives of vegetable origin | Vegetable By-Products | other | poor | - | 23.1 |
| 4 | oils & fats & sodium chloride. | Salt | additive | poor | - | 19.2 |
Brand
- 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 v2 (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.
Spotted a mistake in this listing? Report it here and we'll take a look.
Recipe: how the 1-100 score is calculated
Scored with model v2 on 2026-09-22. Each component is the feature value for this product multiplied by the model's published coefficient.
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 32.336 | +32.34 |
| Average ingredient quality | -0.8 | 9.915 | -8.15 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 11.9% | 0.116 | +1.38 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 42.7% | -0.113 | -4.80 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 27.3% | 0.177 | +4.83 |
| Other share of dry matter | 18.2% | -0.371 | -6.75 |
| Recipe graded poor | 73.1% | -0.045 | -3.27 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 3 | -0.868 | -2.60 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 30.8% | 0.056 | +1.73 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.131 | -13.09 |
| Complete diet | yes | 1.703 | +1.70 |
| Additive penalty | -23.46 | 0.236 | -5.53 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 32.336 | +32.34 |
| Processing: Dry Extruded | yes | -6.996 | -7.00 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 32.336 | +32.34 |
| Average ingredient quality | -0.8 | 9.915 | -8.15 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 11.9% | 0.116 | +1.38 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 42.7% | -0.113 | -4.80 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.088 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.002 | +0.00 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 27.3% | 0.177 | +4.83 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.009 | +0.00 |
| Other share of dry matter | 18.2% | -0.371 | -6.75 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.022 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 73.1% | -0.045 | -3.27 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.182 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 3 | -0.868 | -2.60 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 30.8% | 0.056 | +1.73 |
| Undeclared quantities | 100.0% | -0.131 | -13.09 |
| Prints ingredient percentages | no | 3.194 | +0.00 |
| Complete diet | yes | 1.703 | +1.70 |
| Frozen or chilled fresh | no | 11.440 | +0.00 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | no | -0.506 | +0.00 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | no | -1.988 | +0.00 |
| High carb and low meat | no | -1.250 | +0.00 |
| Meat share × printed percentages | 0.0 | -0.073 | +0.00 |
| Meat share × fresh | 0.0 | -0.339 | +0.00 |
| Fresh × high meat | 0.0 | 16.475 | +0.00 |
| Additive penalty | -23.46 | 0.236 | -5.53 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 32.336 | +32.34 |
| Processing: Raw | no | 13.322 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Chilled | no | 7.712 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Frozen | no | 6.583 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Refrigerated | no | 4.857 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Fresh Shelf | no | 0.072 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Freeze Dried | no | 11.127 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Air Dried | no | 9.320 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Cold Pressed | no | 4.569 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Baked | no | -2.321 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Extruded | yes | -6.996 | -7.00 |
| Processing: Dry Semi Moist | no | -6.833 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Dry Muesli | no | -10.711 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | no | 2.935 | +0.00 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | no | 2.292 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.01
- Subtotal
- 23.1
- Final score
- 23/100
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.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 20 | 21.7 (band 18 to 40%) | 80.2 |
| Fat | 8 | 8.7 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 83.2 |
| 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 8% from the food type.
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) - not on file | 0/10 |
| 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, Additives 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 marketing claims made on the pack and product page, and how much evidence sits behind them. We record the claims as stated; we do not assess whether they are true.
| Claim | Type | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|
| complete balanced nutrition in every mouthful (on page) | Nutrient | Manufacturer assertion |
| Highly Digestible (on page) | Functional | Manufacturer assertion |
| optimum digestion and firmer stools (on page) | Functional | Manufacturer assertion |
| Quality Meat and Protein for Better Condition (on page) | Functional | Manufacturer assertion |
| Our Diets are Manufactured in a BRC Global Food Standard Accredited Site (on page) | Content | Manufacturer assertion |
| a complete feed for greyhounds & similarly sized sight dogs that are currently not in hard work (on page) | Content | Manufacturer assertion |
| medium level of protein & fats (on page) | High/low level | Manufacturer assertion |
Limited: at least one claim rests on manufacturer assertion alone.
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Other products from Leader
Alternatives to Greyhound Maintenance 20% Dog Food
Foods in our database that are similar on ingredients, protein, format or price. Scores and figures are from the same deterministic model used everywhere on the site.
Community
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.