# Raw Fed Dogs - Blood Levels



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

I saw this going around recently, a study trying to explain how raw fed dogs may have certain blood levels that are out of the normal range of kibble fed dogs, and that these levels should be considered a different "normal" for raw fed dogs. Seemed to makes sense at first...
http://www.mountaindogfood.com/RawHelp/Raw_Food_Study.pdf

...but after discussing it, I started doubting that there should be a difference. For example hematocrit basically, from my understanding, measures the viscosity of the blood. Higher = thicker blood = harder on the dog's heart and such. So if it's higher in raw fed dogs, is that really ok? I dug around on another forum and found blood level reports users had posted. Raw fed dogs were falling well within normal ranges.

This has been bugging me ever since! I mentioned it to my best friend and she said she's be interested to see what wolf levels are. DUH! Of course!! I quickly start digging again and pulled this up, in Wolves: Behavior, Ecology, and Conservation on page 215.









Check that out! Blood levels from wolves! Now we were getting somewhere. I looked around online to compare those levels with normal dog levels.

Lo and behold, the wolf levels fell within normal dog ranges in all but 3 categories where the wolves were even so slightly above the normal dog range. (Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin, Mean Corpuscular Hemoglobin Concentration, and Band neutrophils).










That wolf chart did not include BUN or creatinine, two of the three levels mentioned in the raw feeding study. So once again, let's dig. I pulled this up, the wild wolf levels are outlined in the red box; the normal dog levels are on the right. This is a study apparently done by Champion pet foods so I'm not sure if there be underlying bias or anything. Just something to keep in mind.









Wolves seem to fall within the normal range, but have a _big_ range when it comes to their BUN and BUN/creatinine ratios. Perhaps due to whatever meal they just ate?


Bottom line I'm getting is that a healthy rawfed dog should not be outside of normal levels. We can assume these wolves are eating a natural diet, as we try to mimic by feeding a raw diet. Therefore, since the wolves fall within normal ranges, so should our raw fed dogs.


What do you all think?


----------



## JulieK1967 (May 29, 2011)

That's very interesting information. I was wondering if the reason the blood is slightly thicker is because raw fed dogs don't drink as much water as kibble fed dogs. I know Molly drinks way less water as a raw fed dog than when she got kibble. Just anecdotally, maybe the blood of raw fed dogs is actually what it should be and kibble fed dogs are actually thinning their blood by drinking so much water. Those of us who feed raw would all agree it's what dogs "should" be eating. I look at Molly's teeth and can see plainly that they're not designed to chew kibble but to crunch bone. Given that, it would follow that a result of that diet, slightly thicker blood, is actually how their blood should be and that's why its also showing up that way in wolves.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

Plus, even though the blood viscosity is thicker, the wolf also has an excellent cardio workout daily. So it wouldn't be as tough on a strong heart and vessels how it could be on a house dog who walks two blocks a day. There are fasting periods for wolves, and they don't always have access to water. 

I don't feed raw, but completely agree it is what dogs should eat!


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

From what I was getting from the wolf data vs normal dog levels, they are the same. Wolves fall within the dog levels, even if the dogs are kibble fed.


----------



## Miss Bugs (Jul 4, 2011)

my raw fed dogs have always come back with perfectly normal blood levels, the only thing "different" about their blood tests have been that they have the levels of much younger dogs.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JulieK1967 said:


> That's very interesting information. I was wondering if the reason the blood is slightly thicker is because raw fed dogs don't drink as much water as kibble fed dogs. I know Molly drinks way less water as a raw fed dog than when she got kibble. Just anecdotally, maybe the blood of raw fed dogs is actually what it should be and kibble fed dogs are actually thinning their blood by drinking so much water. Those of us who feed raw would all agree it's what dogs "should" be eating. I look at Molly's teeth and can see plainly that they're not designed to chew kibble but to crunch bone. Given that, it would follow that a result of that diet, slightly thicker blood, is actually how their blood should be and that's why its also showing up that way in wolves.


 She almost certainly GETS as much, maybe more, water than when she got kibble, it's just that most of the water is in the meat, not the water bowl. One study shows that cats who eat only raw or canned food consume twice as much water as kibble-fed cats, even though they don't drink as much (or at all) from the water bowl. I would assume it's the same for dogs. Raw meat is about 75% water.

On my cat forum, the raw-fed cats have the same bloodwork as canned-fed cats (kibble-only-fed cats usually have something hinky going on with their kidneys). Except sometimes their white blood cell count is slightly higher, but only high-normal (someone's holistic vet attributed it to a higher-functioning immune system). So I don't see any reason raw-fed dogs' bloodwork should be any different.


----------



## JulieK1967 (May 29, 2011)

Willowy said:


> She almost certainly GETS as much, maybe more, water than when she got kibble, it's just that most of the water is in the meat, not the water bowl.


Absolutely. I was talking just about the amount they take in via straight up water. She doesn't need to drink as much water because she's getting so much hydration from her food.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

After thinking about it, why would a higher hematocrit be bad? Is it really thickening the blood? Cyclists who "dope" give themselves blood tranfusions or epo to raise their red blood cell count, because it increases endurance--more oxygen carried to the muscles. I would think thicker blood would be a bad thing for a cyclist. 

Anyway, all the levels were within normal ranges. Without prior bloodwork from those dogs (before they went on raw), we can't be sure that it's not just differences in their individual body chemistry.


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

Willowy said:


> After thinking about it, why would a higher hematocrit be bad? Is it really thickening the blood? Cyclists who "dope" give themselves blood tranfusions or epo to raise their red blood cell count, because it increases endurance--more oxygen carried to the muscles. I would think thicker blood would be a bad thing for a cyclist.
> 
> Anyway, all the levels were within normal ranges. Without prior bloodwork from those dogs (before they went on raw), we can't be sure that it's not just differences in their individual body chemistry.


 I was discussing it with a woman on facebook who, when I asked her if she had studied these thing a lot, said "I do know a lot about animal circulatory systems and how they work." This is what she had to say about the hematocrit:
*"High hematocrit is very bad - it's why blood doping is so dangerous for distance athletes: too much hematocrit means the blood is too thick, working the heart too hard with each pump, and stressing the artery walls, increasing risk for aneurysm, blood clot, heart disease."

**"High hematocrit is bad because it makes blood more viscous (like honey, harder to shear). To move a more viscous fluid, the heart has to pump with more force or move a smaller volume of blood per beat. I don't see how it would be any less of a concern for raw-fed dogs because the bad consequences of having too-thick blood won't change with the *reason* that the blood is too thick...** In humans, this is called polycythemia. There are serious risks involved with having blood that is too thick, including blood clots, hypertension, and pulmonary embolism and stroke."*


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, I know a guy with polycythemia. He passes out a lot (because the blood is too thick to pump to his brain), is on blood thinners, and has to be bled (they take like a quart every time 0_o) once every 2 weeks. But his red blood cell numbers are crazy high, I don't see how high-normal hematocrit numbers would be a problem.


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

I agree slightly high would probably not be an issue. My thing is that the "study" of the 200 rawfed dogs that prompted this is claiming that rawfed dogs have different normal levels, and from what I've been able to find that shouldn't be the case, and dogs should have levels within the regular normal range whether fed kibble or raw. If a rawfed dog is high-normal on a regular scale, ok. Still acceptable. But if they're high-normal on an altered scale that already allows them to have a higher "normal" level, then that high-normal is possibly too high and outside of normal. If that makes sense?


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

This is interesting. High hematocrit is a bit of a concern. The way Dr. Dodds explains it as producing more red blood cells because "dogs fed a raw diet receive more adequate levels of protein" is well...stupid to me. Polycythemia is a *disorder* where the body produces too much blood cells.......

I wonder if salt levels has anything to do with it. Also I wonder about the lack of blood in the diet as a source of more hydration when compared to wolves.

Elevated BUN and creatine levels could just be from elevated protein intake. On that front, it tends to make me wonder about how balanced the raw groups tested were. Feeding pure chicken breast would still be "raw" but would certainly present abnormal protein levels.


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

Bumping this to post results. Took both girls to the vet last week. Currently both are 2 yr 8 mos old. Denali has been raw fed 2 years, Kaytu for 1 year.

Denali


















Neutrophils LOW: 50% Normal: 60-77
Lymphoctyes HIGH: 38% Normal: 12-30
Monocytes  LOW: 2% Normal: 3-10 


Kaytu








(Laugh with me on that comment^ And he's right, feeding raw meat alone is not balanced. But SD being high quality? LOL)










Neutrophils LOW: 49% Normal: 60-77
Lymphoctyes HIGH: 36% Normal: 12-30
BUN/Creatinine ratio HIGH: 32 Normal: 4-27 

Both had normal sodium levels, and fecal tests were negative. Both also had parvo and distemper titers done and all titers were greater than 1:5 indicating immune response to vaccines (meaning they don't need boosters).


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

hmm interesting so the only things that were off are ratios. I have no idea what the white cell ratios would mean but atleast those were fairly consistent between the two dogs.

Kaytu's slightly elevated BUN and elevated BUN/creatinine ratio is.....interesting. I wonder what's causing her BUN to be elevated.

How did the vet interpret the results?


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

Vet comments are shown, second pic from the bottom. Basically, the dogs are fine but he still thinks I should feed Science Diet








"10-22-12 (ae) called O- Wellness test results: fecal parasite test neg, blood shows the white and red blood count ok, liver and kidney values normal, blood sugar not elevated, electrolytes ok, blood protein normal, vaccine titer results show good protective levels for distemper and parvovirus infections. Dr. Keith says feeding raw meat is risky and some pets have become very ill from infections, and aside from bacterial problems raw meat alone is not a balance diet, better to feed high quality dog food like science diet. -kh "

At least he's right in saying meat alone is not a balanced diet. I was very clear with the new vet (who doesn't mind me feeding raw) that they get a variety of meat as well as bone and organ.

I did feed them really late at night to try to get them to poop in the morning to have a stool sample (of course they didn't poop anyway and I'd been watching like a hawk that entire day. They pooped at 6am when hub let them out then nothing the rest of the day). They were fed about 1:00am and the appt was at 9:30am so maybe that's why it was elevated? I didn't know until after the appt that you're supposed to fast them 12 hours.

We also walked to the vet. 1.3 miles and it was a bit hot. Not sure if that has an affect on anything.


----------



## Kathyy (Jun 15, 2008)

Thanks for the fallow up.

High BUN can simply be from a bit of dehydration. If the BUN is off it stands to reason the BUN/creatinine ratio won't be right either.


----------



## zhaor (Jul 2, 2009)

Oh that's all the vet said.

I guess dehydration would fit considering the walk.


----------



## Sibe (Nov 21, 2010)

That would make sense then. They didn't drink before the walk, and it was pretty warm.


----------

