Raw Fed Dog Blood work Database

[CorgiPaws]

As a raw feeder, I am constantly being asked for blood work, tests, and other "proof" that my dogs are healthy on this kind of diet. (As if gleaming coats, clean teeth, great energy levels, and clear eyes wasn't enough....) I also find that this question comes up quite frequently in discussions online in forums, message boards, and groups.
I know many of us have annual blood panels done on our raw fed animals, and I thought we should have a collective place to post them. A place to send people who so desperately need to see numbers to feel better. No one is going to pay for data gathering because with PMR there is no money trail, but us advocates of raw feeding can at least gather our own data to put out there@

Please include: Breed, Age, and length of time on raw diet along with your results.

[CorgiPaws]

Mousse
Great Dane
1 year, 7 months
4 months of Prey Model Raw feeding

[RawFedDogs]

The problem with this premise is that bloodwork does not measure the health of a dog. It does not measure how good his diet is. All it measures is how good certain organs are performing at the very instant that the blood was drawn. It can vary widely from time to time depending on what the dog just ate and when he ate it. It does not measure muscle tone, health of bones, endurance, or how well the body is functioning other than those few organs. You can't prove the worth of a diet by these blood panels. All you can prove is whether or not the liver, kidneys, and pancreas are functioning normally at that very instant that blood was drawn.

Anyway, I don't have copies of Abby's blood panel and I don't think I have ever had one run on Thor.

OK, I'll stop raining on your parade. Carry on. Can you tell im just not a big fan of random blood panels?

[CorgiPaws]

The problem with this premise is that bloodwork does not measure the health of a dog. It does not measure how good his diet is. All it measures is how good certain organs are performing at the very instant that the blood was drawn. It can vary widely from time to time depending on what the dog just ate and when he ate it. It does not measure muscle tone, health of bones, endurance, or how well the body is functioning other than those few organs. You can't prove the worth of a diet by these blood panels. All you can prove is whether or not the liver, kidneys, and pancreas are functioning normally at that very instant that blood was drawn.

Anyway, I don't have copies of Abby's blood panel and I don't think I have ever had one run on Thor.

OK, I'll stop raining on your parade. Carry on. Can you tell im just not a big fan of random blood panels?

All points I understand.
BUT.
It's just further data on Raw fed dogs that can easily be gathered and shared. As much as you or I or anyone else might know that raw is wonderful, the lack of "data" (read also: useless) is one thing that makes a lot of people hesitate when it comes to taking the reins on their dog's diet.
A blood panel shows PART of the dog's overall health, and we all know diet plays a role in overall health.

I'm not generally a fan either, and only have them done if I see reason (Mousse's was done today prior to being under anesthesia for PennHIP) but I know a lot of people do bloodwork frequently.

[DaneMama]

Bill is correct in saying that a random blood panel doesn't show much, other than at the time of the blood draw how organs are functioning. But if something is very elevated or low, you can pull more extensive tests to help diagnose the issue. But usually if things are elevated blood work is being drawn because the animal is sick or old.

Also, repeated annual, or semi annual blood work is when you start to see trends in organ function. If for years and years blood panels always look fantastic you can assume that a raw diet is as ideal as it seems (and is from what I believe lol). I'm an advocate for routine blood work PAIRED with extensive physical examinations.

[magicre]

blood work is one amongst many objective findings to gauge the health of your dog.

if his white count is up or down, then it is the clue to look further for something wrong.

we get senior panels once a year....and it gives us a timeline....it's not the be all, end all, but it's certainly useful.

[D'Lynn]

It would take a lot of data accumulation, in other words, people posting results for their raw fed dogs, but eventually there would be data to point to norms for raw fed dogs vs kibble fed dogs. Doctors pay a lot of attention to numbers.

[nykea]

The problem with this premise is that bloodwork does not measure the health of a dog. It does not measure how good his diet is. All it measures is how good certain organs are performing at the very instant that the blood was drawn. It can vary widely from time to time depending on what the dog just ate and when he ate it. [...] All you can prove is whether or not the liver, kidneys, and pancreas are functioning normally at that very instant that blood was drawn.

But the functioning of the organs forms a very important part of the health of our dogs! Of course, it doesn't say everything, but it it an indicator. Also, there are some guidelines for certain blood tests, and although when something is wrong the vet will take the sample here and now, most of the "planned" blood pannels are done on either full or empty stomach. at least I was always told not to feed the dog (or to feed, depending on the type of test) up to 6/12 hours before the test.
As people said, it's not telling you everything, but I wouldn't think say they're totally useless.

And they definitely give the arguments against die hard kibble feeders. For example the myths about too high protein content, or difficulties with Ca:P balance....

[magicre]

i was thinking about this...and the values for a healthy raw fed dog would be different than what is used now.

these are pretty much arbitrary numbers, just like cholesterol in humans...normal was 250, then 200, now some are changing to 150, which i think is ridiculous, but that's me....the same goes for LDL and HDL, etc...

so, for raw fed dogs, i believe the numbers for the lab work would have to change....because if you change a diet, the blood values will change....and that would not play well into the vet's hardwired belief system..

i'm not knocking blood values. i think they are important...and enough of them saying pretty much the same thing, in spite of it not conforming to what is considered normal.....a raw fed dog would create its own normal...if enough were taken and turned into a database....

plus, pictures, which are also objective, measurements of the dogs, health issues if any...there would have to be a list of objective findings over the lifespan of the dog...

if we had a programmer who could create a database and each owner would be part of the study and fill in the blanks, with whatever we decided were the pertinent questions....and let's say once a week or once a month, fill it in...you'd have several thousand people and that would be something....really something....

granted, it's a rough thought....but refined and it would turn some heads.

[Maxy24]

I think it's a great idea. People like numbers, people like SOLID proof, and this would give it. It might not say that this diet is best, but it will quiet those who say it's dangerous because it's not giving the dog everything he needs.

Now as Magicre was saying "normal" for a commercial fed animal might not be "normal" for a raw fed animal. Since the majority of pets are fed commercial food, the normals vets use might not apply perfectly to raw fed dogs . I remember that when I was reading about raw for cats I read that cats on raw can have higher BUN levels (though still in "normal" range, just the high end of normal) and a few other things and that this is not a sign of illness, it is what should happen to a cat being fed more meat.

However I think anything way above or below normal would still be a red flag. I also think it's important to look at things over time, if things stay stable and the dog shows no signs of illness then his numbers are normal for him, right? And in any case you'll have a data base with trends between many raw fed dogs which would be interesting to see.