Our verdict
Is Royal Canin Mini Light Weight Care a good dog food?
We score it 39/100 (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 adult dogs, with dehydrated poultry proteins, maize and vegetable fibre 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 adult dogs
- Labelling or feeding guide is aimed at small dogs
- 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 30% · Fat 11%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 30% |
| Fat | 11% |
| Fibre | 8.60% |
| Ash | 5% |
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
To be stored in a cool, dry place.
Feeding guide
Low activity | - | Normal activity | - | High activity | - Dog's weight | kibbles only | kibbles + 1/2 pouch | kibbles only | kibbles + 1 pouch | kibbles only | kibbles + 1 pouch 1 kg | 23 g (2/8 cup) | 14 g (1/8 cup) | 30 g (3/8 cup) | 20 g (2/8 cup) | 34 g (3/8 cup) | 25 g (3/8 cup) 2 kg | 53 g (5/8 cup) | 34 g (3/8 cup) | 68 g (7/8 cup) | 49 g (5/8 cup) | 79 g (1 cup) | 60 g (6/8 cup) 6 kg | 89 g (1+1/8 cups) | 70 g (7/8 cup) | 114 g (1+4/8 cups) | 95 (1+2/8 cups) | 132 g (1+5/8 cups) | 114 g (1+3/8 cups) 10 kg | 130 g (1+5/8 cups) | 112 g (1+3/8 cups) | 167 g (2+1/8 cups) | 149 g (1+7/8 cups) | 194 g (2+4/8 cups) | 175 g (2+2/8 cups)
Additives declared on the label
Nutritional additives
Vitamin A: 22000 IU; Vitamin D3: 1000 IU; Iron (3b103): 35 mg; Iodine (3b201, 3b202): 3.5 mg; Copper (3b405, 3b406): 11 mg; Manganese (3b502, 3b504): 45 mg; Zinc (3b603, 3b605, 3b606): 134 mg; Selenium (3b801, 3b811, 3b812): 0.04 mg; L-carnitine: 200 mg
Technological additives
Preservatives; Antioxidants
Ingredients (23)100% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- carb 30.7%
- fibre 18.5%
- oil 16.0%
- supplement 14.3%
- meat 13.8%
- additive 3.6%
- veg 3.1%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dehydrated poultry protein | Dehydrated Poultry Proteins | meat · good | - | 5.7 |
| 2 | maize | Maize / Corn | carb · medium | - | 5.6 |
| 3 | vegetable fibres | Vegetable fibre | fibre · medium | - | 5.5 |
| 4 | barley | Barley | carb · medium | - | 5.3 |
| 5 | rice | Rice - white | carb · medium | - | 5.2 |
| 6 | vegetable protein isolate | Vegetable protein extracts | carb · poor | - | 5.1 |
| 7 | maize gluten | Maize gluten | carb · poor | - | 5.0 |
| 8 | hydrolysed animal proteins | Hydrolysed Animal Protein | meat · medium | - | 4.8 |
| 9 | animal fats | Unspecified Animal Fats and Oils | oil · poor | - | 4.7 |
| 10 | beet pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 4.6 |
| 11 | maize flour | Maize Flour | carb · medium | - | 4.5 |
| 12 | cellulose powder | Powdered Cellulose | fibre · poor | - | 4.3 |
| 13 | fish oil | Fish Oil | oil · good | - | 4.2 |
| 14 | psyllium husks and seeds | Psyllium | fibre · good | - | 4.1 |
| 15 | yeasts and parts thereof | Yeast | supplement · good | - | 4.0 |
| 16 | minerals | Vitamins and minerals | supplement · medium | - | 3.9 |
| 17 | soya oil | Soybean oil | oil · medium | - | 3.7 |
| 18 | fatty acid salt | Salt | additive · poor | - | 3.6 |
| 19 | fructo-oligo-saccharides | Fructo-oligosaccharides | supplement · good | - | 3.5 |
| 20 | borage oil | Borage oil | oil · good | - | 3.4 |
| 21 | hydrolysed crustaceans (source of glucosamine) | Crustaceans | meat · good | - | 3.2 |
| 22 | marigold extract (source of lutein) | Calendula | veg · good | - | 3.1 |
| 23 | hydrolysed cartilage (source of chondroitin) | Hydrolysed Cartilage | supplement · good | - | 3.0 |
- 1. Dehydrated poultry protein5.7% estimated
- 2. maize5.6% estimated
- 3. vegetable fibres5.5% estimated
- 4. barley5.3% estimated
- 5. rice5.2% estimated
- 6. vegetable protein isolate5.1% estimated
- 7. maize gluten5.0% estimated
- 8. hydrolysed animal proteins4.8% estimated
- 9. animal fats4.7% estimated
- 10. beet pulp4.6% estimated
- 11. maize flour4.5% estimated
- 12. cellulose powder4.3% estimated
- 13. fish oil4.2% estimated
- 14. psyllium husks and seeds4.1% estimated
- 15. yeasts and parts thereof4.0% estimated
- 16. minerals3.9% estimated
- 17. soya oil3.7% estimated
- 18. fatty acid salt3.6% estimated
- 19. fructo-oligo-saccharides3.5% estimated
- 20. borage oil3.4% estimated
- 21. hydrolysed crustaceans (source of glucosamine)3.2% estimated
- 22. marigold extract (source of lutein)3.1% estimated
- 23. hydrolysed cartilage (source of chondroitin)3.0% 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.
105 reviews on this product · 4.8/5
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 rating of 39 out of 100 based on several key factors. The overall quality of the ingredient list contributed +2.8 points to the total. However, the presence of ingredients without printed percentages reduced the score by -10.6. Furthermore, the processing format decreased the score by -6.7, and the carbohydrate content lowered the final result by -3.5.
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 | 0.3 | 9.191 | +2.81 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 30.4% | -0.115 | -3.50 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 17.8% | -0.092 | -1.64 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 3.6% | 0.163 | +0.59 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 14.7% | -0.012 | -0.18 |
| Recipe graded poor | 22.7% | -0.065 | -1.48 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 5.1% | 0.060 | +0.31 |
| 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 | -4.99 | 0.222 | -1.11 |
| 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 | 0.3 | 9.191 | +2.81 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 0.0% | 0.096 | +0.00 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 30.4% | -0.115 | -3.50 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 17.8% | -0.092 | -1.64 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 0.5% | -0.005 | -0.00 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 3.6% | 0.163 | +0.59 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 14.7% | -0.012 | -0.18 |
| 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 | 22.7% | -0.065 | -1.48 |
| Poor-quality meat in recipe | 0.0% | -0.179 | +0.00 |
| Number of poor ingredients | 5 | -0.876 | -4.38 |
| Largest single poor ingredient | 5.1% | 0.060 | +0.31 |
| 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 | -4.99 | 0.222 | -1.11 |
| 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
- 39.3
- Final score
- 39/100
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 | 30 | 33.1 (band 18 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 11 | 12.2 (band 5.5 to 20%) | 97.5 |
| Fibre | 8.6 | 9.5 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 81.2 |
Scored over 3 declared nutrients (combined weight 50); 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: 22000 IU
- Vitamin D3: 1000 IU
- Iron (3b103): 35 mg
- Iodine (3b201, 3b202): 3.5 mg
- Copper (3b405, 3b406): 11 mg
- Manganese (3b502, 3b504): 45 mg
- Zinc (3b603, 3b605, 3b606): 134 mg
- Selenium (3b801, 3b811, 3b812): 0.04 mg
- L-carnitine: 200 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 (voluntary) - not on file | 0/20 |
| 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.
100/100 · moderate — 1 checkable claim: 1 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "Complete feed for dogs - For adult and mature small breed dogs (from 1 to 10 kg) - Over 10 months old - Dogs with a tendency to gain weight." — supported by the declared complete and balanced data.
2 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 88% of slightly overweight dogs fed with Royal Canin Mini Light Weight Care achieved healthier weight in 8 weeks (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Adapted protein content to help maintain muscle mass for healthy weight maintenance. Enriched with L-carnitine. (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Complete feed for dogs - For adult and mature small breed dogs (from 1 to 10 kg) - Over 10 months old - Dogs with a tendency to gain weight. (on pack) | 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 Light Weight Care
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.