DOG FOOD PORTION-LABEL RECORD
Label arithmetic only. No daily requirement, nutritional ranking or diet-change approval.
Keep personal and veterinary details in your own record; nothing needs to be submitted.

Date:
Exact old product, recipe and package size:
Old net food weight:
Old calorie number AND unit:
Old cup definition and matching gram information, if relevant:
Old whole-container size and calories, if relevant:
Exact new product, recipe and package size:
New net food weight:
New calorie number AND unit:
New cup definition and matching gram information, if relevant:
New whole-container size and calories, if relevant:
Data source and date (current label / manufacturer / identified measurement):
Known amount and its meaning (weighed portion / supplied kcal amount):
Calculation and unrounded arithmetic:
Displayed rounding and any uncertain input:
Amount served versus amount eaten:
Other foods, treats, toppers and other feeders:
Existing veterinary feeding plan:
Question for veterinary team:
Missing manufacturer data to request:
Follow-up amount and review point: to be agreed with veterinary team.

FOUR FICTIONAL WORKED EXAMPLES

Only bag net weight changes | Old 6 kg bag and new 4 kg bag both state 3,600 kcal/kg. | A recorded 100 g portion contains 100 × 3.6 = 360 kcal in either example. | The new bag has fewer total calories, but this gram portion’s label-based calories are unchanged.

Cup weight changes at the same kcal/g | Old label cup: 100 g and 360 kcal. New matching cup: 125 g and 450 kcal. Both give 3.6 kcal/g. | Keeping one label cup changes 360 to 450 kcal. Expressing the known 360 kcal in the new example gives 360 ÷ 450 = 0.8 cup; 0.8 × 125 = 100 g. | Same cup count is not the same gram amount. These cup weights are fictional matched data, not a generic conversion.

Calorie density changes | Old food: 3,600 kcal/kg. New food: 4,000 kcal/kg. | The same 100 g describes 360 kcal then 400 kcal. Expressing a known 360 kcal in the second food gives 360 ÷ 4 = 90 g. | Equal-calorie arithmetic does not decide whether this food or portion suits the dog.

Whole-container size changes | Old can: 400 g and 400 kcal. New exact can: 300 g and 300 kcal. Both give 1 kcal/g. | One whole can changes 400 to 300 kcal. Expressing a known 400 kcal in the new example gives 400 ÷ 300 = 1⅓ containers, or 400 g. | Use the new whole-can value. A fractional container is a calculated equivalent; it is not a recommended daily amount.

SIX FICTIONAL CASES AND EXPLANATIONS

Case 1: The bag shrinks from 6 kg to 4 kg. Both labels state 3,600 kcal/kg. Did the label-based calories in a 100 g portion change?
Answer: No. That portion is 360 kcal in both fictional examples.
Explanation: The net package weight changes the amount of food in the bag, while the matched calorie density stays 3.6 kcal/g. Multiplying the same 100 g by that density gives the same portion value. Recheck the exact current recipe and statement in a real comparison; package appearance alone does not establish that density is unchanged.

Case 2: A new matching label cup is 125 g and 450 kcal. How does a known 360 kcal amount translate in that food?
Answer: 0.8 label cup, equivalent to 100 g using the stated matching data.
Explanation: Divide 360 by 450 to obtain 0.8 cup equivalent, then multiply by 125 g per that cup to obtain 100 g. The cup weight must describe the same food and serving definition. This is arithmetic from fictional matching data, not a generic kibble conversion or an instruction that any dog should receive 360 kcal.

Case 3: You have kcal per cup and bag net weight, but no matching grams per cup or kcal/kg. Can you derive calories in a weighed gram portion using a standard cup weight?
Answer: No. Obtain the missing matching information.
Explanation: A cup is a volume unit; the actual food mass in it is not a universal number. Bag net weight describes the whole bag, not one cup. Ask for the current product’s weight-based calories or the matching cup definition and gram information. Leave the result unknown rather than filling the gap from another recipe or a generic internet conversion.

Case 4: The old whole can contains 400 kcal; the new exact can contains 300 kcal. Does retaining one whole can retain the same calories?
Answer: No. The whole-can amount now describes 300 kcal in this example.
Explanation: Read the calories for the exact new size and recipe. The known 400 kcal corresponds arithmetically to 400 ÷ 300 = 1⅓ new-can equivalents. That fraction is not a recommended daily allowance or permission to replace a prescribed food. Net food weight helps express the calculation in grams when matching data are available.

Case 5: Two foods provide equal calories in the portions you calculated. Does this establish equal nutritional suitability for a growing puppy or a dog on a therapeutic diet?
Answer: No. Calories do not establish diet suitability.
Explanation: Keep species, life stage, adequacy wording, intended feeding role and the individual veterinary plan separate from the calculation. FDA’s complete-and-balanced explanation concerns a whole-diet claim, not the equality of two calorie numbers. An equal-calorie substitution can still change nutrients or interfere with the purpose of a veterinarian-directed diet.

Case 6: A fictional daily note lists 180 kcal at breakfast, 180 kcal at dinner and 40 kcal of extras. Is the recorded total 360 kcal?
Answer: No. The recorded sum is 400 kcal.
Explanation: Add the extras to the meal values: 180 + 180 + 40 = 400. This records what the supplied numbers describe; it does not decide the dog’s required allowance or what to remove from the diet. Keep portions, products, amounts eaten and other feeders visible so that the actual feeding question can be discussed with the veterinary team.