Workinghprs Lamb & Rice Working Dog

Dry Extruded · completeClear label

Lamb & Rice Working Dog
Average
our rating

Our verdict

Is Workinghprs Lamb & Rice Working Dog a good dog food?

We score it 55/100 (Average). This reflects the ingredient quality, composition and label transparency of the recipe as declared on the label.

Complete extruded dry food for adult dogs, with lamb, rice and barley as the main ingredients.

How we score

48% of this recipe has no printed percentage. Estimated shares are model estimates, not label facts.

Why you might choose it

  • Prints ingredient percentages on the label.
  • Low in fat for its format: 9% fat on a dry-matter basis.

Why you might not

We found no significant drawbacks in the data we hold for this product.

Who is this food for?

Suits

  • Labelled by the manufacturer for adult dogs
  • Doesn't list beef, fish, venison, pork, duck as ingredients

Consider something else if:

  • Your dog avoids chicken: the label lists poultry fat
  • Your dog avoids turkey: the label lists poultry fat
  • Your dog avoids lamb: the label lists lamb
  • Your dog avoids grain: the label lists rice - white
  • 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 22% · Fat 8.50%

Typical analysis (as fed)

NutrientAs fedDry matter
Protein22%23.91%
Fat8.50%9.26%
Fibre2.50%2.72%
Ash8.50%9.26%
Moisture8.50%-
Carbohydrates50%54.42%
Omega-3 fatty acids0.69%-
Omega-6 fatty acids2.27%-
Calcium2%-
Phosphorus1.15%-

Energy: 315 kcal/100g

Additives & feeding info

Feeding and storage

Feeding guide

Data sheet and feeding guide available via PDF document linked on the page

Additives declared on the label

Nutritional additives

Vitamin A (as retinyl acetate) 15,000 IU/kg; Vitamin D3 (as cholecalciferol) 2,250 IU/kg; Biotin 150 mcg/kg; Ferrous Sulphate Monohydrate 167 mg/kg (Iron 50 mg/kg); Zinc Sulphate Monohydrate 139 mg/kg (Zinc 50 mg/kg); Manganous Sulphate Monohydrate 109 mg/kg (Manganese 35 mg/kg); Cupric Sulphate Pentahydrate 60 mg/kg (Copper 15 mg/kg); Calcium Iodate Anhydrous 1.64 mg/kg (Iodine 1 mg/kg); Sodium Selenite 0.67 mg/kg (Selenium 0.3 mg/kg)

Ingredients (8)48% of the recipe is estimated

Estimated composition

  • carb 45.4%
  • meat 31.9%
  • supplement 8.4%
  • oil 7.6%
  • fibre 6.7%
#As declaredMatchedLabel readingDeclared %Est. %
1Lamb Meal (26%)Lambmeat · medium2626.0
2Rice (26%)Rice - whitecarb · medium2626.0
3BarleyBarleycarb · medium-10.1
4OatsOatscarb · medium-9.3
5Brewers YeastBrewer's Yeastsupplement · good-8.4
6Poultry FatPoultry Fatoil · medium-7.6
7Sugar Beet PulpBeet Pulpfibre · medium-6.7
8Lamb DigestDigestmeat · poor-5.9
  1. 1. Lamb Meal (26%)26% declared26.0% estimated
    Lamb · meat · medium
  2. 2. Rice (26%)26% declared26.0% estimated
    Rice - white · carb · medium
  3. 3. Barley10.1% estimated
    Barley · carb · medium
  4. 4. Oats9.3% estimated
    Oats · carb · medium
  5. 5. Brewers Yeast8.4% estimated
    Brewer's Yeast · supplement · good
  6. 6. Poultry Fat7.6% estimated
    Poultry Fat · oil · medium
  7. 7. Sugar Beet Pulp6.7% estimated
    Beet Pulp · fibre · medium
  8. 8. Lamb Digest5.9% estimated
    Digest · meat · poor

Trust and sourceNo recalls recorded in our database · checked 2026-10-07

Brand and contact: Workinghprs

Trust and provenance

Recall history
No recalls recorded in our database
Label data last checked
2026-10-07
Scored with
Model v3 (methodology)

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?

This recipe achieves an overall rating of 55 out of 100 based on several distinct factors. The processing format detracts from the score by -6.7, while the carbohydrate content further reduces it by -5.3. Additionally, ingredients without printed percentages account for a deduction of -5.1. On the positive side, the overall quality of the ingredient list adds +4.7 to 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.

ComponentInputCoefficientContribution
Base score-30.909+30.91
Average ingredient quality0.59.191+4.74
Meat share of dry matter27.6%0.096+2.65
Carb share of dry matter46.0%-0.115-5.29
Oil share of dry matter8.6%-0.092-0.80
Supplement share of dry matter8.9%-0.012-0.11
Recipe graded poor5.9%-0.065-0.38
Poor-quality meat in recipe5.9%-0.179-1.05
Number of poor ingredients1-0.876-0.88
Largest single poor ingredient5.9%0.060+0.35
Undeclared quantities48.0%-0.106-5.07
Complete dietyes2.294+2.29
Processing multiplier0.9833.786+33.11
Processing: Dry Extrudedyes-6.713-6.71
Show all 40 components
ComponentInputCoefficientContribution
Base score-30.909+30.91
Average ingredient quality0.59.191+4.74
Meat share of dry matter27.6%0.096+2.65
Carb share of dry matter46.0%-0.115-5.29
Oil share of dry matter8.6%-0.092-0.80
Vegetable share of dry matter0.0%-0.005+0.00
Additive share of dry matter0.0%0.163+0.00
Supplement share of dry matter8.9%-0.012-0.11
Other share of dry matter0.0%-0.375+0.00
Unrecognised share of dry matter0.0%-0.027+0.00
Recipe graded poor5.9%-0.065-0.38
Poor-quality meat in recipe5.9%-0.179-1.05
Number of poor ingredients1-0.876-0.88
Largest single poor ingredient5.9%0.060+0.35
Undeclared quantities48.0%-0.106-5.07
Prints ingredient percentagesno0.000+0.00
Complete dietyes2.294+2.29
Frozen or chilled freshno0.000+0.00
High meat (30%+ of dry matter)no0.707+0.00
Low meat (under 10% of dry matter)no-3.158+0.00
High carb and low meatno-1.180+0.00
Meat share × printed percentages0.00.000+0.00
Meat share × fresh0.00.000+0.00
Fresh × high meat0.011.084+0.00
Additive penalty0.000.222+0.00
Processing multiplier0.9833.786+33.11
Processing: Rawno-0.054+0.00
Processing: Fresh Chilledno-2.354+0.00
Processing: Fresh Frozenno-2.354+0.00
Processing: Fresh Refrigeratedno0.000+0.00
Processing: Fresh Shelfno-0.672+0.00
Processing: Dry Freeze Driedno6.629+0.00
Processing: Dry Air Driedno6.331+0.00
Processing: Dry Cold Pressedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Bakedno-6.713+0.00
Processing: Dry Extrudedyes-6.713-6.71
Processing: Dry Semi Moistno-6.174+0.00
Processing: Dry Mueslino-10.146+0.00
Processing: Wet Pateno-0.672+0.00
Processing: Wet Chunksno-0.672+0.00
Processing-type offset
+0.02
Additives declared on label
+1 transparency bonus
Subtotal
54.8
Final score
55/100

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.

ModelScore
v355/100current
v256/100
v155/100
v1.956/100
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.

NutrientAs fed (label)Dry matter (scored)Score
Protein2224 (band 18 to 40%)86.5
Fat8.59.3 (band 5.5 to 20%)85.7
Fibre2.52.7 (band 0.5 to 5%)99.8
Calcium22.2 (band 0.5 to 2.5%)100
Phosphorus1.151.3 (band 0.4 to 1.6%)100
Calcium:phosphorus ratio1.71.7 (band 1 to 2%)100
Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3)--100
Energy (kcal/100g)315344.3100

Omega fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3): scored as the mean of its declared components (omega-6 100). The FEDIAF minimum for omega-6 is linoleic acid specifically.

Scored over 8 declared nutrients (combined weight 100); undeclared nutrients do not affect the score.

Declared fortification: 9 nutritional additives on the label
  • Vitamin A (as retinyl acetate) 15,000 IU/kg
  • Vitamin D3 (as cholecalciferol) 2,250 IU/kg
  • Biotin 150 mcg/kg
  • Ferrous Sulphate Monohydrate 167 mg/kg (Iron 50 mg/kg)
  • Zinc Sulphate Monohydrate 139 mg/kg (Zinc 50 mg/kg)
  • Manganous Sulphate Monohydrate 109 mg/kg (Manganese 35 mg/kg)
  • Cupric Sulphate Pentahydrate 60 mg/kg (Copper 15 mg/kg)
  • Calcium Iodate Anhydrous 1.64 mg/kg (Iodine 1 mg/kg)
  • Sodium Selenite 0.67 mg/kg (Selenium 0.3 mg/kg)

High confidence: full analysis plus minerals or omegas and declared energy.

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.

ItemPoints
✓ Ingredient list on the label (mandatory)10/10
✓ Printed percentages on the label (52% of the recipe mass) (voluntary)10.4/20
✓ 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 file0/5

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.

0/100 · limited — 1 checkable claim: 0 consistent, 1 contradicted.

Contradicted by the label

  • "Wheat gluten free" — the declared label says otherwise on grain-free.

3 further claims on file that we cannot check against the label.

Limited: at least one claim contradicts the declared label, or a recent upheld ASA ruling applies.

ClaimTypeCheckSubstantiation
Natural Dog Food For Working Dogs (on page)Contentnot checkableManufacturer assertion
A complete food with lamb as the main protein source (on page)Contentnot checkableManufacturer assertion
an ideal alternative for working dogs with a sensitivity to chicken or beef (on page)Functionalnot checkableManufacturer assertion
Wheat gluten free (on page)Free-fromcontradictedManufacturer assertion

The full scoring method is published. See the methodology for exactly how the headline score and each dimension are calculated.

Alternatives to Lamb & Rice Working Dog

Similar on ingredients, protein, format or nutrition, using the same stored data.

See all alternatives

See all products from Workinghprs

Community0 comments

Owners' verdict
0 votes

Comments (0)

No comments yet. Be the first to share how this went down with your dog.

Comments are reviewed before they appear.