Our verdict
Is Royal Canin Cocker Spaniel Puppy 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".
Complete extruded dry food for puppies, with dehydrated poultry proteins, maize and unspecified animal fats and oils 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 puppies
- Doesn't list beef, lamb, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists dehydrated poultry proteins
- Your dog avoids turkey: the label lists dehydrated poultry proteins
- Your dog avoids fish: the label lists crustaceans
- Your dog avoids grain: the label lists maize / corn
- You want a single-protein recipe: this one lists more than one animal protein
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 32% · Fat 18%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 32% |
| Fat | 18% |
| Fibre | 1.80% |
| Ash | 7.70% |
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
To be stored in a cool, dry place.
Feeding guide
Age (months) | Adult weight = 10 kg | Adult weight = 12 kg | Adult weight = 16 kg 2 m | 150 g (1+6/8 cups) | 171 g (1+7/8 cups) | 209 g (2+3/8 cups) 3 m | 177 g (2 cups) | 201 g (2+2/8 cups) | 247 g (2+6/8 cups) 4 m | 188 g (2+1/8 cups) | 214 g (2+3/8 cups) | 266 g (3 cups) 6 m | 190 g (2+1/8 cups) | 217 g (2+4/8 cups) | 271 g (3 cups) 7 m | 172 g (1+7/8 cups) | 197 g (2+2/8 cups) | 252 g (2+7/8 cups) 8 m | 154 g (1+6/8 cups) | 176 g (2 cups) | 234 g (2+5/8cups) 10 m | 136 g (1+4/8 cups) | 156 g (1+6/8 cups) | 195 g (2+2/8 cups) 11 m | 135 g (1+4/8 cups) | 154 g (1+6/8 cups) | 193 g (2+1/8 cups) 12 m | Transition to Cocker Adult | Transition to Cocker Adult | 192 g (2+1/8 cups) 13 m | Transition to Cocker Adult | Transition to Cocker Adult | Transition to Cocker Adult
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin A: 29500 IU; Vitamin D3: 800 IU; Vitamin E: 590 mg; E1 (Iron): 35 mg; E2 (Iodine): 3.5 mg; E4 (Copper): 11 mg; E5 (Manganese): 46 mg; E6 (Zinc): 96 mg; E8 (Selenium): 0.06 mg
Technological additives
Clinoptilolite of sedimentary origin: 10 g
Ingredients (23)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 37.6%
- supplement 15.9%
- oil 14.9%
- meat 14.5%
- fibre 9.6%
- additive 3.9%
- veg 3.6%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | dehydrated poultry protein | Dehydrated Poultry Proteins | meat · good | - | 6.2 |
| 2 | maize | Maize / Corn | carb · medium | - | 6.1 |
| 3 | animal fats | Unspecified Animal Fats and Oils | oil · poor | - | 5.9 |
| 4 | vegetable protein isolate | Vegetable protein extracts | carb · poor | - | 5.8 |
| 5 | beet pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 5.6 |
| 6 | wheat | Wheat | carb · poor | - | 5.5 |
| 7 | wheat flour | Wheat | carb · poor | - | 5.3 |
| 8 | rice | Rice - white | carb · medium | - | 5.2 |
| 9 | maize gluten | Maize gluten | carb · poor | - | 5.0 |
| 10 | hydrolysed animal proteins | Hydrolysed Animal Protein | meat · medium | - | 4.9 |
| 11 | maize flour | Maize Flour | carb · medium | - | 4.7 |
| 12 | fish oil | Fish Oil | oil · good | - | 4.6 |
| 13 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 4.4 |
| 14 | soya oil | Soybean oil | oil · medium | - | 4.3 |
| 15 | yeasts and parts thereof | Yeast | supplement · good | - | 4.1 |
| 16 | fructo-oligo-saccharides (0.34%) | Fructo-oligosaccharides | supplement · good | 0.34 | 0.3 |
| 17 | psyllium husks and seeds | Psyllium | fibre · good | - | 4.0 |
| 18 | hydrolysed yeast | Hydrolysed Yeast | additive · medium | - | 3.9 |
| 19 | yeasts extracts | Yeast | supplement · good | - | 3.7 |
| 20 | borage oil (0.1%) | Borage oil | oil · good | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| 21 | marigold extract (source of lutein) | Calendula | veg · good | - | 3.6 |
| 22 | hydrolysed crustaceans (source of glucosamine) | Crustaceans | meat · good | - | 3.4 |
| 23 | hydrolysed cartilage (source of chondroitin) | Hydrolysed Cartilage | supplement · good | - | 3.3 |
- 1. dehydrated poultry protein6.2% estimated
- 2. maize6.1% estimated
- 3. animal fats5.9% estimated
- 4. vegetable protein isolate5.8% estimated
- 5. beet pulp5.6% estimated
- 6. wheat5.5% estimated
- 7. wheat flour5.3% estimated
- 8. rice5.2% estimated
- 9. maize gluten5.0% estimated
- 10. hydrolysed animal proteins4.9% estimated
- 11. maize flour4.7% estimated
- 12. fish oil4.6% estimated
- 13. minerals4.4% estimated
- 14. soya oil4.3% estimated
- 15. yeasts and parts thereof4.1% estimated
- 16. fructo-oligo-saccharides (0.34%)0.34% declared0.3% estimated
- 17. psyllium husks and seeds4.0% estimated
- 18. hydrolysed yeast3.9% estimated
- 19. yeasts extracts3.7% estimated
- 20. borage oil (0.1%)0.1% declared0.1% estimated
- 21. marigold extract (source of lutein)3.6% estimated
- 22. hydrolysed crustaceans (source of glucosamine)3.4% estimated
- 23. hydrolysed cartilage (source of chondroitin)3.3% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-09-09
Brand and contact: Royal Canin
Trust and provenance
- Recall history
- No recalls recorded in our database
- Label data last checked
- 2026-09-09
- Scored with
- Model v3 (methodology)
- Product page
- www.royalcanin.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.
6 reviews on this product · 5.0/5
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 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 -10.5, the processing format takes away -6.7, and the carbohydrate content reduces the score by -4.3.
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 | 0.2 | 9.191 | +2.05 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 37.5% | -0.115 | -4.32 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 16.6% | -0.092 | -1.53 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 3.9% | 0.163 | +0.64 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 16.5% | -0.012 | -0.20 |
| Recipe graded poor | 27.6% | -0.065 | -1.79 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 5.9% | 0.060 | +0.36 |
| Undeclared quantities | 99.6% | -0.106 | -10.51 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Low meat (under 10% of dry matter) | yes | -3.158 | -3.16 |
| Additive penalty | -5.30 | 0.222 | -1.18 |
| 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 | 0.2 | 9.191 | +2.05 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 37.5% | -0.115 | -4.32 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 16.6% | -0.092 | -1.53 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 0.6% | -0.005 | -0.00 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 3.9% | 0.163 | +0.64 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 16.5% | -0.012 | -0.20 |
| 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 | 27.6% | -0.065 | -1.79 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 5.9% | 0.060 | +0.36 |
| Undeclared quantities | 99.6% | -0.106 | -10.51 |
| 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 | -5.30 | 0.222 | -1.18 |
| 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
- 37.6
- 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.
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 puppies and growth. 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.
Scored against FEDIAF growth minima; puppy scoring is under review.
| Nutrient | As fed (label) | Dry matter (scored) | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protein | 32 | 35.4 | 100 |
| Fat | 18 | 19.9 | 100 |
Scored over 2 declared nutrients (combined weight 40); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 9.5% from the food type.
Declared fortification: 9 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin A: 29500 IU
- Vitamin D3: 800 IU
- Vitamin E: 590 mg
- E1 (Iron): 35 mg
- E2 (Iodine): 3.5 mg
- E4 (Copper): 11 mg
- E5 (Manganese): 46 mg
- E6 (Zinc): 96 mg
- E8 (Selenium): 0.06 mg
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 (0.4% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 0.1/20 |
| 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) | 5/5 |
Capped at 60: mandatory items missing (Analytical constituents declared).
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| help support your puppy's natural defences thanks particularly to a complex of antioxidants including vitamin E (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| help support the skin's “barrier” role (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| maintain skin health (EPA & DHA, vitamin A) and nourish the coat. Enriched with borage oil (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| support digestive health and balance of intestinal flora, which contributes to good stool quality (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| help reduce the risk of tartar formation thanks to calcium chelators (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 Cocker Spaniel Puppy
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.