Our methodology

Nutritional profile

• Protein density (RPC)

  Protein amount relative to the food's energy, not the raw percentage on the label. It shows whether the calories come mainly from protein (the hallmark of a carnivore-appropriate diet) or from carbohydrates and fat. It is one of the most decisive criteria in the score.

• Fat content

  Fat level, the main energy source. The target depends on the profile: higher for a puppy or an active dog, lower for a neutered or weight-loss animal. Both excess and deficiency are penalized.

• Carbohydrates

  Carbohydrate share (starch, sugars), estimated by difference. Of little use to dogs and cats, it mostly binds the kibble; an excessive share is penalized, especially for cats (metabolic and diabetes risk).

• Ash (total minerals)

  Total mineral content (the residue after combustion). A high level can reveal a large share of bone, carcass or by-products, and therefore lower-quality protein.

• Fiber

  Dietary fiber: in the right amount it supports transit, satiety and a balanced gut flora. Too little, or too much, hinders digestion and nutrient absorption.

• Calcium / phosphorus balance

  Ratio between calcium and phosphorus. Even with correct individual levels, an imbalance disrupts bone mineralization; the references (FEDIAF, NRC) target roughly 1.1 to 1.5 in adults, with tighter bounds during growth.

• Calcium level

  Calcium actually supplied (relative to energy, see below). Scored on a "U" curve: deficiency hampers bone growth, excess is risky, particularly for large-breed puppies.

• Phosphorus level

  Phosphorus supplied. An excess strains the kidneys over the long term; this criterion weighs more for senior profiles and animals at renal risk.

• Omega-6 / omega-3 balance

  Ratio between omega-6 and omega-3. A good balance supports skin, coat and inflammation control; an excess of omega-6 relative to omega-3 is unfavorable.

• Protein / ash ratio

  Protein relative to ash (minerals). A high ratio indicates nobler protein and fewer mineral residues: a good indicator of the real quality of protein sources, beyond the protein level alone.

• Fat / protein ratio

  Balance between fat and protein. It helps tell a genuinely protein-rich food apart from one whose calories come mostly from fat.

• Protein / phosphorus ratio (adjusted)

  Protein-to-phosphorus ratio corrected by the share of animal protein. Plant proteins supply little phosphorus and artificially inflate the raw ratio: the adjustment neutralizes this bias, so that only mainly animal, noble protein earns a good score. It cross-checks and strengthens the protein/ash criterion rather than duplicating it.

Ingredient quality

• Animal protein content

  Share of animal-based protein versus plant-based protein. Dogs, and especially cats (obligate carnivores), make better use of animal protein, whose amino-acid profile is complete; the score rises with this share.

• High glycemic index ingredients

  Presence of high-glycemic-index ingredients (certain starches such as potato or tapioca in large proportion), which cause undesirable blood-sugar spikes, particularly in cats.

• Gluten-free

  Presence or absence of gluten (wheat, barley…). Not dangerous for most animals, but often used as a cheap plant protein and a problem for sensitive individuals.

• Fresh meat / fish

  Presence of fresh meat or fish in the recipe (not only dehydrated meals). Fresh material is a mark of quality, even if its real weight drops after cooking.

• Taurine

  Taurine, an amino acid essential for cats (heart function, vision, reproduction). Its addition or presence is rewarded; its absence in cat food is a genuine weakness.

• Controversial additives

  Controversial additives: chemical preservatives (BHA, BHT, ethoxyquin), artificial colorings and flavorings. Their presence lowers the score and can, in the most sensitive cases, cap it.

• Legumes in ingredient list

  Legumes (peas, lentils, chickpeas). When percentages are declared, we score the real load (cumulative dose); otherwise we combine the position in the ingredient list and the number of distinct sources. This count neutralizes "splitting": breaking peas into several entries (peas, pea protein, pea fiber…) so each looks minor no longer hides the total dose. The goal: to catch the dilated cardiomyopathy risk signal (FDA alert, 2018) on legume-heavy diets.

Transparency and manufacturing

• Cooking method

  Declared cooking method (high-temperature extrusion, low temperature, freeze-drying). Gentler processes preserve nutrients better; the absence of information is itself a transparency signal.

• Fat traceability

  Fat source: named (e.g. "chicken fat") or generic ("animal fats"). A named source is a mark of traceability and quality.

• Calcium / phosphorus disclosure

  Does the manufacturer disclose calcium and phosphorus levels? Without these values the mineral balance cannot be verified: the score is then corrected and capped (see redhibitory alerts).

Nutritional imbalances

• Protein density (RPC) too low for the intended profile.
• Insufficient fat relative to the profile's needs.
• Calcium too high, or conversely below the recommended minimum.
• Phosphorus too high (renal caution), or insufficient.
• Unbalanced calcium/phosphorus ratio.
• Carbohydrate level above recommendations, especially in cats.
• Excessive ash: high mineral load, often a sign of bone or by-products.
• Excessive fiber, which dilutes nutritional density and digestibility.

Ingredients and transparency

• Presence of controversial synthetic preservatives (BHA, BHT, ethoxyquin).
• Dominant legumes (1st or 2nd position), split across several sources, or dominant without added taurine in cats (FDA alert, 2018).
• A recipe that discloses neither calcium nor phosphorus: with the mineral balance unverifiable, the grade is capped.