Goodboy Friday
The Protein Myth

@goodboy_friday  ·  goodboyfriday.com  ·  info@alwaysfriday.com

Which food has more protein?

The label can be misleading. When you remove the water, the answer flips.

Where was your pet’s food labelled?

US packs — Guaranteed Analysis. Protein and fat are stated as minimums, moisture and fibre as maximums. Both moisture figures appear on the pack, so you can run the formula straight from the label. A calorie statement (kcal per kg and per cup or can) is also required — useful for the protein-per-100-kcal comparison.

Your wet food

Your dry food

View your saved comparisons

About The Label Comparison Card

The Label Comparison Card settles a single question: of two pet foods, which actually contains more protein? Pack percentages are quoted 'as fed', which means a wet food's figure is diluted by the water in the tin and a dry food's is not. Comparing them directly is meaningless. This tool removes the water from both and compares them on a dry matter basis.

What it looks at

  • Crude protein and moisture percentages for the first food
  • Crude protein and moisture percentages for the second food
  • Both are converted to dry matter protein, then compared

What your result means

One food is higher
The tool names which food contains more protein once water is excluded, and by how many percentage points. A wet food quoting 10% protein at 78% moisture is roughly 45% protein on a dry matter basis — usually far higher than the dry food it looked lower than on the pack.
The two are level
Once water is excluded the two foods contain effectively the same protein. Any difference on the pack was water, not nutrition, and the choice between them should turn on other factors.

What this tool cannot tell you

A higher percentage alone does not make a food better. Digestibility, protein source, amino acid profile and overall balance all matter, and none of them appear on a label. Label figures are regulatory minimums and maximums rather than measured values, so this is a screening estimate rather than an analysis.