Our verdict
Is Lukullus Menu Gustico Duck a good dog food?
We score it 78/100 (Good). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Who is this food for?
Suits
- Labelled by the manufacturer for adult dogs
- Grain-free: no grain ingredients listed
- Single named protein: duck
- Doesn't list chicken, beef, turkey, lamb, fish, venison, pork as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- You are limiting fat: 34.0% 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 8.80% · Fat 6.80%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 8.80% |
| Fat | 6.80% |
| Fibre | 1.60% |
| Ash | 1.10% |
| Moisture | 80% |
Energy: 101 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Once opened the food should be stored in a cool place. Serve at room temperature.
Feeding guide
5kg: 345-470g; 10kg: 575-790g; 20kg: 970-1325g; 30kg: 1315-1800g daily
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin D3 200 IU/kg; Vitamin E 20 IU/kg; Vitamin B1 0.80 mg/kg; Copper (copper(II) sulphate pentahydrate) 0.23 mg/kg; Iodine (potassium iodide) 0.13 mg/kg; Manganese (manganous sulphate monohydrate) 0.7 mg/kg; Zinc (zinc sulphate monohydrate) 1.8 mg/kg; Biotin 91.99 µg/kg
Ingredients (12)12 of 12 percentages printed
Estimated composition
- meat 54.9%
- veg 24.5%
- carb 16.5%
- supplement 2.1%
- oil 2.0%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25% meat | Duck | meat · medium | 25 | 25.0 |
| 2 | 25% heart | Duck Heart | meat · good | 25 | 25.0 |
| 3 | 5% liver | Liver | meat · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 4 | 16.5% carrots | Carrots | veg · good | 16.5 | 16.5 |
| 5 | 16.5% potato | Potatoes | carb · medium | 16.5 | 16.5 |
| 6 | 5% pumpkin | Pumpkin | veg · good | 5 | 5.0 |
| 7 | 2% cowberries | Lingonberries | veg · good | 2 | 2.0 |
| 8 | 2% linseed oil | Linseed oil | oil · good | 2 | 2.0 |
| 9 | 1.9% seaweed meal | Seaweed Meal | supplement · medium | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| 10 | 1% rosemary | Rosemary | veg · good | 1 | 1.0 |
| 11 | 0.1% Andean salt | Andean salt | supplement · medium | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 12 | 0.1% minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | 0.1 | 0.1 |
- 1. 25% meat25% declared25.0% estimated
- 2. 25% heart25% declared25.0% estimated
- 3. 5% liver5% declared5.0% estimated
- 4. 16.5% carrots16.5% declared16.5% estimated
- 5. 16.5% potato16.5% declared16.5% estimated
- 6. 5% pumpkin5% declared5.0% estimated
- 7. 2% cowberries2% declared2.0% estimated
- 8. 2% linseed oil2% declared2.0% estimated
- 9. 1.9% seaweed meal1.9% declared1.9% estimated
- 10. 1% rosemary1% declared1.0% estimated
- 11. 0.1% Andean salt0.1% declared0.1% estimated
- 12. 0.1% minerals0.1% declared0.1% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-15
Brand and contact: Lukullus
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-15
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.zooplus.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.
24 reviews on this product · 3.9/5
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 scored 78 out of 100 in our review. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +7 points, while the meat content added +5.5 points and being labelled nutritionally complete added a further +2.3 points. The carbohydrate content worked against the score, taking -1.8 points off the total.
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 | 0.8 | 9.191 | +6.98 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 56.8% | 0.096 | +5.45 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 15.2% | -0.115 | -1.75 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 7.3% | -0.092 | -0.67 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 13.6% | -0.005 | -0.07 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 7.1% | -0.012 | -0.09 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| High meat (30%+ of dry matter) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| 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 | 0.8 | 9.191 | +6.98 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 56.8% | 0.096 | +5.45 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 15.2% | -0.115 | -1.75 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 7.3% | -0.092 | -0.67 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 13.6% | -0.005 | -0.07 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 7.1% | -0.012 | -0.09 |
| 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 | 0.0% | -0.106 | +0.00 |
| 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) | yes | 0.707 | +0.71 |
| 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 | 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
- 77.8
- Final score
- 78/100
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 | 8.8 | 44 (band 22.724999999999998 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 6.8 | 34 (band 6.94375 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 1.6 | 8 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 101 | 505 | 100 |
Scored over 4 declared nutrients (combined weight 60); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 8 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin D3 200 IU/kg
- Vitamin E 20 IU/kg
- Vitamin B1 0.80 mg/kg
- Copper (copper(II) sulphate pentahydrate) 0.23 mg/kg
- Iodine (potassium iodide) 0.13 mg/kg
- Manganese (manganous sulphate monohydrate) 0.7 mg/kg
- Zinc (zinc sulphate monohydrate) 1.8 mg/kg
- Biotin 91.99 µg/kg
Medium confidence: the full five-part analysis is on file; where moisture was not declared it was 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 (100% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 20/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| 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 (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 · strong — 3 checkable claims: 3 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "grain-free" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
- "100% grain-free" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
- "Mono-protein – only one source of animal protein" — supported by the declared single protein data.
5 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.
Strong: at least three checkable claims, all consistent with the declared label, and no compliance cap.
| Claim | Type | Check | Substantiation |
|---|---|---|---|
| grain-free (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| 100% grain-free (on page) | Free-from | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Mono-protein – only one source of animal protein (on page) | Content | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Free from artificial colouring, preservatives and aromas (on page) | Free-from | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Made from human-grade quality ingredients (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| A combination of vitamin E and biotin help to keep skin supple (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Enriched with linseed oil (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| With lots of meat and offal (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 Menu Gustico Duck
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.