Wilsons Chicken Cold Pressed Working Dog Food
Dry Cold Pressed · complete
Our verdict
Is Wilsons Chicken Cold Pressed Working Dog Food a good dog food?
We score it 61/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.
Complete cold-pressed dry food for dogs of all life stages, with chicken, sweet potatoes and peas as the main ingredients.
Only part of the analytical constituents are declared, so the nutritional picture is incomplete.
68% 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 beef, lamb, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients
Consider something else if:
- Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists chicken
- Your dog avoids turkey: the label lists hydrolysed poultry
- 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 29% · Fat 12%
Typical analysis (as fed)
| Nutrient | As fed |
|---|---|
| Protein | 29% |
| Fat | 12% |
| Fibre | 3% |
| Ash | 6% |
| Calcium | 0.80% |
| Phosphorus | 0.50% |
Energy: 375 kcal/100g
Additives & feeding info
Feeding and storage
Storage
Store in a cool, dry place. If decanting use a breathable container.
Feeding guide
Use as a guide considering breed, condition and activity levels. Cold pressed is more nutritionally dense so may require less food. Switching guide: Day 1-3 switch 25%, Day 4-6 switch 50%, Day 7-9 switch 75%, Day 9+ feed 100% Wilsons. Feed cold pressed as a separate meal while switching. Ensure fresh water is always available.
Additives declared on the label
Technological additives
natural antioxidants (rosemary extract)
Ingredients (20)68% of the recipe is estimated
Estimated composition
- meat 36.3%
- veg 19.9%
- supplement 19.2%
- carb 9.6%
- fibre 7.7%
- oil 4.5%
- additive 2.7%
| # | As declared | Matched | Label reading | Declared % | Est. % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dry ground chicken (32%) | Chicken | meat · medium | 32 | 32.0 |
| 2 | sweet potato | Sweet Potatoes | carb · good | - | 4.7 |
| 3 | peas | Peas | veg · good | - | 4.6 |
| 4 | tapioca | Tapioca | carb · medium | - | 4.4 |
| 5 | chicken fat | Chicken Oil and Fat | oil · good | - | 4.3 |
| 6 | beet pulp | Beet Pulp | fibre · medium | - | 4.2 |
| 7 | chicken hydrolysate | Hydrolysed Poultry | meat · medium | - | 4.1 |
| 8 | DL-methionine | Methionine | supplement · good | - | 3.9 |
| 9 | L-tryptophan | L-Tryptophan | supplement · good | - | 3.8 |
| 10 | mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS) | Mannanoligosaccharides | supplement · good | - | 3.7 |
| 11 | yucca schidigera | Yucca Schidigera | supplement · good | - | 3.6 |
| 12 | glucosamine | Glucosamine | supplement · good | - | 3.5 |
| 13 | chondroitine sulphate | Chondroitin | supplement · good | - | 3.3 |
| 14 | chicory | Chicory | veg · good | - | 3.2 |
| 15 | inulin | Inulin | fibre · good | - | 3.1 |
| 16 | cranberry | Cranberries | veg · good | - | 3.0 |
| 17 | dandelion root | Dandelion Root | veg · good | - | 2.8 |
| 18 | marigold | Calendula | veg · good | - | 2.7 |
| 19 | natural antioxidants | Antioxidants | additive · medium | - | 2.6 |
| 20 | rosemary extract. | Rosemary | veg · good | - | 2.5 |
- 1. Dry ground chicken (32%)32% declared32.0% estimated
- 2. sweet potato4.7% estimated
- 3. peas4.6% estimated
- 4. tapioca4.4% estimated
- 5. chicken fat4.3% estimated
- 6. beet pulp4.2% estimated
- 7. chicken hydrolysate4.1% estimated
- 8. DL-methionine3.9% estimated
- 9. L-tryptophan3.8% estimated
- 10. mannan-oligosaccharides (MOS)3.7% estimated
- 11. yucca schidigera3.6% estimated
- 12. glucosamine3.5% estimated
- 13. chondroitine sulphate3.3% estimated
- 14. chicory3.2% estimated
- 15. inulin3.1% estimated
- 16. cranberry3.0% estimated
- 17. dandelion root2.8% estimated
- 18. marigold2.7% estimated
- 19. natural antioxidants2.6% estimated
- 20. rosemary extract.2.5% estimated
Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-10-07
Brand and contact: Wilsons
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
- www.wilsonspetfood.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.
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 overall score for this product is 61 out of 100. Undeclared ingredient shares, meaning ingredients without printed percentages, contributed -7.2 points. The overall quality of the ingredient list added +6.9 points. The processing format contributed -6.7 points, and being labelled nutritionally complete contributed +2.3 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 | 0.8 | 9.191 | +6.95 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 18.0% | 0.096 | +1.73 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 4.8% | -0.115 | -0.56 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 9.0% | -0.092 | -0.83 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 6.0% | -0.005 | -0.03 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 5.0% | 0.163 | +0.81 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 35.5% | -0.012 | -0.43 |
| Undeclared quantities | 68.0% | -0.106 | -7.18 |
| Complete diet | yes | 2.294 | +2.29 |
| Additive penalty | -3.30 | 0.222 | -0.73 |
| Processing multiplier | 1.00 | 33.786 | +33.79 |
| Processing: Dry Cold Pressed | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
Show all 40 components
| Component | Input | Coefficient | Contribution |
|---|---|---|---|
| Base score | - | 30.909 | +30.91 |
| Average ingredient quality | 0.8 | 9.191 | +6.95 |
| Meat share of dry matter | 18.0% | 0.096 | +1.73 |
| Carb share of dry matter | 4.8% | -0.115 | -0.56 |
| Oil share of dry matter | 9.0% | -0.092 | -0.83 |
| Vegetable share of dry matter | 6.0% | -0.005 | -0.03 |
| Additive share of dry matter | 5.0% | 0.163 | +0.81 |
| Supplement share of dry matter | 35.5% | -0.012 | -0.43 |
| 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 | 68.0% | -0.106 | -7.18 |
| 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) | 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 | -3.30 | 0.222 | -0.73 |
| 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 | yes | -6.713 | -6.71 |
| 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 | no | -0.672 | +0.00 |
- Processing-type offset
- +0.02
- Additives declared on label
- +1 transparency bonus
- Subtotal
- 61.0
- Final score
- 61/100
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 | 29 | 31.6 (band 18.402399127589966 to 40%) | 100 |
| Fat | 12 | 13.1 (band 5.622955288985823 to 20%) | 100 |
| Fibre | 3 | 3.3 (band 0.5 to 5%) | 100 |
| Calcium | 0.8 | 0.9 (band 0.5111777535441657 to 2.5%) | 80.9 |
| Phosphorus | 0.5 | 0.5 (band 0.4089422028353326 to 1.6%) | 76.9 |
| Calcium:phosphorus ratio | 1.6 | 1.6 (band 1 to 2%) | 100 |
| Energy (kcal/100g) | 375 | 408.9 | 100 |
Scored over 7 declared nutrients (combined weight 90); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score. Moisture was not declared and was estimated at 8.3% from the food type.
No nutritional additives section declared on the label.
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 (32% of the recipe mass) (voluntary) | 6.4/20 |
| 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 · strong — 3 checkable claims: 3 consistent, 0 contradicted.
Consistent with the label
- "Grain Free" — supported by the declared grain-free data.
- "Nutritionally Complete" — supported by the declared complete and balanced data.
- "Made in the UK" — supported by the declared made in the UK data.
13 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 |
| Nutritionally Complete (on page) | Content | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Made in the UK (on page) | Content | consistent | Manufacturer assertion |
| Minimally Processed (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Fussy-Dog Approved (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Transparent Recipes (on page) | Content | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| This Food is Safe for Puppies (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Joint care (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Slow Release Energy (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Vision Support (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Urinary Support (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Improved Skin & Coat (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Firmer Poos (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Improved Digestion (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Allergy Support (on page) | Functional | not checkable | Manufacturer assertion |
| Reduced Gas and Bloating (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 Chicken Cold Pressed Working Dog Food
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.