Our verdict
Is Lifelong Beef + Sweet Potato Recipe a good dog food?
We score it 60/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete wet food in chunks for dogs of all life stages, with beef, cooking broth and chicken liver as the main ingredients.
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
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Doesn't list turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken liver
- Your dog avoids beef: the label lists beef
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
- You are limiting fat: 27.3% on a dry-matter basis is in the high 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 8% · Fat 6%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 8% |
| Fat | 6% |
| Fibre | 1.50% |
| Moisture | 78% |
Energy: 98 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Feeding guide
1 can of 354g of food for every 10 kg of body weight per day. Puppies may need up to twice the amount, and pregnant and nursing females may need up to three times the amount.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin E Supplement; Niacin Supplement; L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (Source of Vitamin C); Thiamine Mononitrate (Source of Vitamin B1); Calcium Pantothenate; Vitamin A Supplement; Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Source of Vitamin B6); Riboflavin Supplement (Source of Vitamin B2); Folic Acid; Vitamin B12 Supplement; Biotin; Vitamin D3 Supplement; Zinc Sulfate; Iron Sulfate; Copper Sulfate; Manganese Sulfate; Selenium Yeast (inactive); Potassium Iodide
Ingredients (7)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 33.8%
- veg 24.7%
- other 16.9%
- carb 14.3%
- additive 10.4%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Beef | Beef | meat · medium | - | 18.2 |
| 2 | Beef Broth | Cooking broth | other · medium | - | 16.9 |
| 3 | Chicken Liver | Chicken Liver | meat · good | - | 15.6 |
| 4 | Organic Sweet Potato | Sweet Potatoes | carb · good | - | 14.3 |
| 5 | Organic Peas | Peas | veg · good | - | 13.0 |
| 6 | Organic Carrots | Carrots | veg · good | - | 11.7 |
| 7 | Guar Gum | Guar gum | additive · medium | - | 10.4 |
- 1. Beef18.2% estimated
- 2. Beef Broth16.9% estimated
- 3. Chicken Liver15.6% estimated
- 4. Organic Sweet Potato14.3% estimated
- 5. Organic Peas13.0% estimated
- 6. Organic Carrots11.7% estimated
- 7. Guar Gum10.4% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-10-07
Brand and contact: Lifelong
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-10-07
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- livelongpetnutrition.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 rating of 60 out of 100. The inclusion of ingredients without printed percentages contributed -10.6 points to the score. Meanwhile, the overall quality of the ingredient list added +6.6 points, and the additives in the recipe contributed +5.7 points. Finally, the additive load impacted the rating by -2.8 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 | 0.7 | 9.191 | +6.55 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 13.3% | -0.115 | -1.53 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 13.7% | -0.005 | -0.07 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 34.7% | 0.163 | +5.66 |
| Other share of dry matter | 3.1% | -0.375 | -1.17 |
| 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 | -12.47 | 0.222 | -2.77 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.7 | 9.191 | +6.55 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 13.3% | -0.115 | -1.53 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.092 | +0.00 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 13.7% | -0.005 | -0.07 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 34.7% | 0.163 | +5.66 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.012 | +0.00 |
| Other share of dry matter | 3.1% | -0.375 | -1.17 |
| 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 | -12.47 | 0.222 | -2.77 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| 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 | no | -6.713 | +0.00 |
| 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 | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.08
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 60.2
- Final score
- 60/100
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 | 8 | 36.4 (band 20.045454545454547 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 6 | 27.3 (band 6.125000000000001 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 1.5 | 6.8 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 98 | 445.5 | 100 |
Scored over 4 declared nutrients (combined weight 60); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 18 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin E Supplement
- Niacin Supplement
- L-ascorbyl-2-polyphosphate (Source of Vitamin C)
- Thiamine Mononitrate (Source of Vitamin B1)
- Calcium Pantothenate
- Vitamin A Supplement
- Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Source of Vitamin B6)
- Riboflavin Supplement (Source of Vitamin B2)
- Folic Acid
- Vitamin B12 Supplement
- Biotin
- Vitamin D3 Supplement
- Zinc Sulfate
- Iron Sulfate
- Copper Sulfate
- Manganese Sulfate
- Selenium Yeast (inactive)
- Potassium Iodide
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) | 5/10 |
| 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.
100/100 · moderate — 1 checkable claim: 1 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "Grain-free source of nourishment" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
4 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Moderate: every checkable claim is consistent with the declared label.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| perfect for dogs with skin and or food allergies (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Grain-free source of nourishment (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| made with high quality BEEF (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| mixed with organic sweet potatoes, organic carrots, and organic peas (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| can be used exclusively as superb source of nutrition (on page) | Functional | 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 Beef + Sweet Potato Recipe
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.