Royal Canin Mini Ageing In Loaf
Wet Pate · complete
Our verdict
Is Royal Canin Mini Ageing In Loaf a good dog food?
We score it 30/100 (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 wet paté food for senior dogs, with meat and animal derivatives, cereals and oils and fats as the main ingredients.
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 senior dogs
- Labelling or feeding guide is aimed at small 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 are limiting fat: 27.5% 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 8.40% · Fat 5.50%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 8.40% |
| Fat | 5.50% |
| Fibre | 0.60% |
| Ash | 1.50% |
| Moisture | 80% |
Energy: 94.2 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Store the product in a cool, dry place.
Feeding guide
Feeding amounts provided are a guideline. Fresh water should be available at all times.
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin D3: 170 IU; Vitamin C: 70 mg; Iron (3b103): 9 mg; Iodine (3b202): 0.24 mg; Copper (3b405, 3b406): 1.9 mg; Manganese (3b502, 3b503, 3b504): 2.7 mg; Zinc (3b603, 3b605, 3b606): 27 mg
Technological additives
Clinoptilolite of sedimentary origin: 2 g
Ingredients (6)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- supplement 26.3%
- meat 21.1%
- carb 19.3%
- oil 17.5%
- other 15.8%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | meat and animal derivatives | Meat and Animal Derivatives | meat · poor | - | 21.1 |
| 2 | cereals | Cereals | carb · poor | - | 19.3 |
| 3 | oils and fats | Oils and Fats | oil · poor | - | 17.5 |
| 4 | derivatives of vegetable origin | Vegetable By-Products | other · poor | - | 15.8 |
| 5 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 14.0 |
| 6 | yeasts | Yeast | supplement · good | - | 12.3 |
- 1. meat and animal derivatives21.1% estimated
- 2. cereals19.3% estimated
- 3. oils and fats17.5% estimated
- 4. derivatives of vegetable origin15.8% estimated
- 5. minerals14.0% estimated
- 6. yeasts12.3% 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.
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?
The product scored 30 out of 100. Undeclared ingredient shares contributed -10.6 points. Lower-quality ingredients contributed -4.8 points. The remaining ingredients contributed -4.1 points, and the overall quality of the ingredient list contributed -3.9 points, reflecting the negative impact across all four areas of the formula.
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 | -0.4 | 9.191 | -3.86 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 23.5% | -0.115 | -2.70 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 24.0% | -0.092 | -2.21 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 33.5% | -0.012 | -0.41 |
| Other share of dry matter | 10.9% | -0.375 | -4.09 |
| Recipe graded poor | 73.7% | -0.065 | -4.79 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 21.1% | -0.179 | -3.76 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 21.1% | 0.060 | +1.26 |
| 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 | -1.68 | 0.222 | -0.37 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Wet Pate | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | -0.4 | 9.191 | -3.86 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 23.5% | -0.115 | -2.70 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 24.0% | -0.092 | -2.21 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.005 | +0.00 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.163 | +0.00 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 33.5% | -0.012 | -0.41 |
| Other share of dry matter | 10.9% | -0.375 | -4.09 |
| Unrecognised share of dry matter | 0.0% | -0.027 | +0.00 |
| Recipe graded poor | 73.7% | -0.065 | -4.79 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 21.1% | -0.179 | -3.76 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 4 | -0.876 | -3.50 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 21.1% | 0.060 | +1.26 |
| 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 | -1.68 | 0.222 | -0.37 |
| 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 | yes | -0.672 | -0.67 |
| Processing: Wet Chunks | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- -0.08
- Additives declared on label
- +2 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 30.1
- Final score
- 30/100
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 | 8.4 | 42 (band 21.195 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 5.5 | 27.5 (band 6.47625 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 0.6 | 3 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 94.2 | 471 | 100 |
Scored over 4 declared nutrients (combined weight 60); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.
Declared fortification: 7 nutritional additives on the label
- Vitamin D3: 170 IU
- Vitamin C: 70 mg
- Iron (3b103): 9 mg
- Iodine (3b202): 0.24 mg
- Copper (3b405, 3b406): 1.9 mg
- Manganese (3b502, 3b503, 3b504): 2.7 mg
- Zinc (3b603, 3b605, 3b606): 27 mg
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 (voluntary) - not on file | 0/20 |
| Analytical constituents declared (mandatory) | 15/15 |
| Additives declared (mandatory) | 10/10 |
| 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) | 5/5 |
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
- "Complete feed for dogs - For mature and senior small breed dogs" — supported by the declared complete and balanced data.
3 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Helps maintain dogs' ideal weight by perfectly meeting their specific energy needs through an adapted calorie content. (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Helps maintain healthy bones with a right balance of nutrients. (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Enriched with essential nutrients (EPA, DHA and vitamins) to enjoy a lifelong vitality. (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Complete feed for dogs - For mature and senior small breed dogs (on page) | Content | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.
Alternatives to Mini Ageing In Loaf
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.