Choosing food

Burns Original Chicken vs Lamb & Brown Rice: what changes between the recipes?

Compare the ingredients and declared nutrients in these two Burns Original recipes, including what changes when chicken is replaced with lamb.

  • Dog

Short answer

A switch between these two Burns Original recipes changes more than the animal name. Both have brown rice, oats, peas, seaweed and minerals, but the animal ingredients, their inclusions and several analytical values differ. The declaration can help compare the recipes; it cannot certify allergy suitability.

Read Original Chicken & Brown Rice and read Original Lamb & Brown Rice.

Open these exact UK formulations in the existing EP comparison tool

A dated source check, with the EP comparison tool alongside it

The table records current manufacturer information checked 24 October 2026. The existing comparison tool lets readers explore the recorded facts and selected recipes. Some older profiles contain partial summaries and still show verification pending. The table here is a dated check of manufacturer declarations, not an independent food analysis.

Manufacturer-declared snapshot checked 24 October 2026
Field Burns Original Chicken & Brown Rice Burns Original Lamb & Brown Rice
Role and life stage Manufacturer complete adult recipe; adult/senior feeding guide. EP records this as a complete food; the current manufacturer says it supplies everything an adult dog needs, with an adult/senior guide. Exact current pack complete wording was not inspected.
Format and processing dry. Specific processing not established by checked declaration. dry. Specific processing not established by checked declaration.
Composition, current manufacturer wording Brown Rice (67%), Dried Chicken (20%), Oats, Peas, Chicken Oil, Sunflower Oil, Seaweed (0.5%), Minerals. Brown Rice (58%), Dried Lamb (24%), Oats, Lamb Fat, Peas, Seaweed (0.5%), Minerals.
Declared analysis (%) protein: 20%; fat: 7.5%; fibre: 2.2%; ash: 6%; calcium: 1.1%; phosphorus: 0.9% protein: 20%; fat: 9%; fibre: 2.5%; ash: 8%; calcium: 2%; phosphorus: 1.3%
Energy Not found in checked product page Not found in checked product page
Storage Storage instructions not found in checked product-page scope; check current pack. Storage instructions not found in checked product-page scope; check current pack.

Source details: EP products 450 and 451; matching UK formulation records 90268 and 90269. Source check: 24 October 2026.

Percentages are reproduced on the manufacturer’s declared basis; no dry-matter conversion has been made. No minimum or maximum qualifier was shown for the values in the checked sections. Missing values have not been replaced by zero or typical values. The current source section does not explicitly label analytical basis unless stated here.

What stays and what changes

The chicken recipe declares dried chicken and chicken oil, with 67% brown rice. The lamb recipe declares dried lamb and lamb fat, with 58% brown rice. Both contain oats and peas. A change of animal ingredient does not remove those shared food materials, nor does the manufacturer’s wording establish cross-contact controls.

The current lamb composition does not name chicken among its food materials. This is a statement about the checked declaration. Additive origins, processing aids and factory cross-contact were not audited. The manufacturer’s positioning for dogs avoiding chicken should not be presented as an independent allergy guarantee or as a treatment recommendation.

Equal protein does not make the recipes equivalent

Both analyses declare 20% protein. Fat is 7.5% in the chicken recipe and 9% in the lamb recipe; fibre is 2.2% and 2.5%; ash is 6% and 8%. These are label values, not results from a purchased-batch laboratory comparison. We do not interpret a higher or lower number as an overall quality score.

The checked pages do not give moisture or numeric energy for these recipes. We have not invented dry-matter values, calories, an equal-energy portion or a feeding-cost winner. Calcium and phosphorus values in the source register differ too; their presence alone is not a complete nutritional assessment.

Role, use and evidence

EP records both as complete adult foods. The current chicken page explicitly calls its recipe complete; the lamb page says it supplies everything an adult dog needs and provides an adult/senior feeding guide. We did not inspect current pack complete-food wording for lamb. Neither is compared here as a puppy food or a therapeutic diet.

Burns makes digestion, wellness or ingredient-choice claims. We have not reviewed a trial directly comparing these two exact current formulations. Research on an ingredient does not validate the finished recipe. The useful decision is whether the ingredients, declaration and feeding guidance fit the owner’s requirements, with missing information retained.

Sources, scope and what remains missing

These are manufacturer declarations, not purchased-batch measurements. Source-page gaps are not a claim of manufacturer-wide non-disclosure. Additive origins and cross-contact have not been audited. Exact finished-product evidence was not systematically searched for this pair, so “not verified here” must not be read as “no research exists”. Product and formulation IDs, market and original catalogue appraisals are preserved.

For the wider scientific context, see what raw-versus-cooked digestibility studies show. For fair label use, see how to compare two pet foods and what complete food means.