http://www.safergrass.org/pdf/AftertheCrash.pdf

There's a venogram on page 12, figure 9.

I've encountered significant variation in density of blood vessels the LCs I've dissected, but compared to other cartilage structures, the LCs are quite profuse with blood vessels.

I have also pumped a significant amount of blood out of a cadaver by creating a small opening in one the LCs and loading the limb from the carpus - like squirting blood 20 feet across the room. Makes for an interesting demonstration, but it only works with a fresh cadaver that has not been drained of blood. Most cadavers I have gotten from a renderer were from horses that laid in the field for a while before being picked up. Or they have dried out in a freezer and the tissues have lost a lot of water, thus the blood and the vessels containing it have shrunk. Once in a while I've gotten them fresh from clients who have lost horses - same day, immediately vacuum bagged and then frozen. This makes a better specimen for dissection.

When you consider the actual blood volume of the whole foot, the LCs can contain several tablespoons full of blood each - more than the various other venous plexus. But the evidence of blood volume in the LCs is also obvious in a venogram.

vessels run through the lateral cartilages. Some feet have thicker cartilages with a larger number of smaller vessels imbedded in the cartilage. Others have thinner cartilages with a smaller number of larger vessels . The ones with thicker cartilages and a larger number of smaller vessels are better shock absorbers. (Bowker)
This drawing is one from an article of Dr Bowker's somewhere.

Donnie Walker wrote:

I see no contradiction, if read carefully .He is clearly saying that the cartilage itself has limited blood supply BUT it structurally supports veins surrounds which run though it. '"Interspersed" does not necessarily mean the veins supply blood to the cartilage. It means they are situated in the same area. Make more sense now?

calshoer wrote:I did read it carefully - which is why I caught the contradiction.

Lacking capillary feeders and slow healing is a "characteristic" of ALL cartilage. Compared to most other kids of soft tissue, ALL cartilage has a poor blood supply. So, no it does not make sense to point out a non-unique characteristic of something as though it is a unique and differentiating feature, and then follow up with actual unique differentiating features. It is an illogical progression in the flow of information. Quite typical of expressions made by victims of the "Peter Principle."