# Horses - Blood Banks - anyone any experiences?



## allbnl (10 June 2009)

Heard that my old eventer has been forced to retire due to injury. Heard current owners are thinking of blood bank donation, as dont want to put him down. Any one had any experiences?


----------



## bailey14 (10 June 2009)

Yes two of my friends have taken their horses there.  There is a place down Milton Keynes that accepts horses that can no longer be ridden.  The horse can be either sex, not sure if age limit, my friends two horses were approx six and ten years old,  but horses need to be, from what I gathered about 16hh or thereabouts, middleweight/heavyweight (better for giving blood, i.e lightweight arab of 14.2hh not stocky enough) and not be on any drugs, so therefore needs to be able to live a non medicated pain free existence.  They also require to be adaptable to living out for most of the year, as far as I know they live rug free and are bought into huge indoor barns from Oct - April, the rest of the year they have huge fields where they live in organised herds.  My friend took her horse down a couple of years ago now as he had kissing spine and could no longer be ridden.  She said if she didn't like the look of the place she wasn't going to leave her horse.  She said as far as the eye could see where loads of fields with all sorts of horses, breeds, colours and sizes and you could have heard a pin drop, they were all stood with their heads down happily grazing.  Her horse got turned out into a paddock with a couple of other horses and they had one sniff of each other and next thing you know they were grazing side by side as if they'd known each other all their lives.  She is happy with her decision (as happy as she could be).  She is, like a lot of people, a one horse owner and could not afford to retire her horse and get another, but nor did she feel it was right to put him down.  The horses are brought in, in turns to give blood, the whole process takes about ten minutes, and each horse is given a bucket feed as a thank you.  They live the most natural lives non wild horses could possibly live.  Of course there are the exceptions like any large horse herds where horses don't get on, and very ocassionaly there are casualties, but I wouldn't hesitate in sending my horse to such a place if I had no other option but to put it down.  The only thing is that you have to sign your horse over to them, so this is a decision that only you can make, as you cease legal ownership.  The chap concerned has in 'intake' I believe it was twice a year, April and October from what I can remember from the conversation I had with him (on behalf of my friend), he is very busy doing this operation as he has a lot of horses as you can imagine.  I think the chap will ring to let you know if a) your horse won't settle (which is almost unheard of) b) requires to be put down due to natural or accidental causes - like I explained earlier, an operation of this size will always lose the odd one or two horses, as is the norm on any large yard of horses, accidents between horses do sadly happen from time to time.  Please feel free to PM for the details, but have a good think if you feel this would be the right course of action for you.  I don't know, I might be wrong, but as far as I believe they do not encourage visitors as they are so busy, so you would probably never see your horse again, but it wouldn't really be fair on it if you did.  Its a big decision to take, but like I said in the case of both my friends the only other option was for their horses to be PTS, and at least they have a wonderful life.  Most people have a picture in their mind of loads of horses tied up in stalls being attached to equipment morning noon and night wheras the reality is nothing like.  For health and safety of the animals I think they are only allowed to give blood every couple of months as are humans.  Sorry for long reply but I would love to be able to give you assistance in what must be a very hard time for the current owners of your old horse.


----------



## longtalltilly (10 June 2009)

I know the RVC at potters Bar has a small herd of blood donor horses - may be worth talking to large equine vet practices in you area! The may be able to point you in the right direction!


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

My understanding of blood banks is very different to this and I would say don't send your horse to one unless it can go on loan so that you have some say over the horses future - they buy horses very cheaply and get far more than they need so only keep the quiet, easy to manage ones. It dosen't take much imagination to work out what happens to the rest .....


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

Bonny - With respect, I do think you shouldn't comment on something unless you know for definite, ie. you have been there and seen it for yourself.  This is not what my friend knows as she took her horse to the one down in Milton Keynes.  There is a lot of speculation, unthoughtful comments and the like when people make comments about things they do not know for fact and it would be a shame if a horse does not have a second chance at life because its owner has read a speculative reply to a post on this forum when that poster really doesn't have a clue.  On what basis to you assume to know these facts?  Blood banks do not buy horses, they are gifted them (after all they have to make a living out of the blood which is sold to labs and hospitals) by owners who clearly love their animals.  It is not an easy option as I explained in my earlier post, sometimes it is a very hard decision to make, and it was for my friend.  And lets face it, who it their right mind would take on a 16.2hh WB gelding that could never be ridden again as a field companion?  Sometimes there is no other choice x


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

I can comment on whatever I like !! and for the record I do know for definite and I have been there and seen it for myself - have you ?
It's not a good option if you are a horse, but it is a way for people not wanting the responsiblity of dealing with their own horse and it's future .....it's a good option if you want to bury your head in the sand which is what you seem to be suggesting ....
A 16.2 warmblood would not be the type of horse that a bloodbank would want - think about it .....


----------



## nicnag (11 June 2009)

The bloodbank at Falkirk (http://www.eolabs.com/facilities.htm) actually has had a pretty good reputation in the past apart from the one story regarding the womn who had put her horse out on loan , the loanee in turn gave it to the bloodbank and they sent it on to Turners as part of a load when they had finished with them.
The way they are kept is well regulated, they have a happy life - I have been there to visit the unit when my friend was looking into options for her 18hh warmblood.
The truth is that they can only keep horses until 15 years as the quality of the blood starts to decrease. Obviously a lot of these horses are there because they cannot be ridden so the only option is to put them down if they cannot be returned to the owners.
It is something I would consider but I'd also want the choice of what happens once my horse is no longer suitable for donation, that way I can make the decision of retiring them at home or putting down.
Contrary to popular belief the horses still have to be physically healthy and not in pain to be donors, they have to be paddock sound otherwise the home office would be down on them like a ton of bricks.


----------



## ihatework (11 June 2009)

I have never been to one of these places personally however I have an old friend who knows the owners of the place in MK.

This friend of mine is an experienced horsewoman but sways towards the bunny hugger tendancies. She has seen all the goings on at the blood bank and she maintains it is a place she would send a horse to provided the horse would suit living a more natural lifestyle.

I don't think anyone sending a horse there should be under the illusion that it will live a pampered lifestyle forever and a day. At the end of the day these places run as a business, so the horses have to be relatively fit, healthy and robust and easy to handle. They need blood to sell on with as little hassle as possible. As soon as your horse reaches a point where it is unproductive then it will be PTS.

However in the 1, 2, X number of years your horse is there it will have food, shelter, companionship and be safe in the knowledge that it will not get shunted around from home to home. In that time your horse will also have an important purpose in life, it will supply blood for use in the veterinary industry.

And unless I am missing something I don't see any reason why a 16.2hh warmblood wouldn't be a suitable candidate on the proviso it could live out minus rugs/shoes


----------



## hussar (11 June 2009)

I can also comment favourably on the blood bank near Falkirk, having visited it in the course of writing an article. I was impressed by the condition of the horses and the care taken to give them as natural an environment as possible. I would certainly consider it as an option for any horse who couldn't be sold on or retired and wasn't rideable.

My only concern would be for horses right at the bottom of the pecking order, as they work on a herd system, and I suppose there is potential for bullying.


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

I wasn't commenting on the condition or lifestyle of the horses that are kept at bloodbanks and I accept that the ones that are kept are well looked after and healthy - they have to be to give blood regularly.  They are kept in a large herd environment and only fed hay/hayledge etc to cut down on the bullying but it is a system that only suits some easygoing horses.  My problem with sending a horse there is many of the horses are not kept, they are running a business at the end of the day, not  a horse welfare charity and I believe it is passing on the responsibility of horse ownship by people who can't or won't face the alternatives .....


----------



## ihatework (11 June 2009)

Okay, let me turn it around for you.

You have a horse, fairly young, unrideable but otherwise fit and well and in no significant pain.

As an owner you can:
1. Pay lots of money to keep it pampered for the rest of it's life
2. Pay a smaller amount of money to keep it on grass/retirement
3. Put it to sleep
4. Sell it as a companion (don;t start me on that)
5. Donate as blood horse

Being practical few can afford option 1. Lets rule out option 4 because that really is passing the buck.

So we have options 2, 3 and 5 left. 

Option 2 the horse is living in a field not doing anything and costing the owner money. Nothing wrong with that if that is what the owner wants (I infact have one in this catagory)

Option 3 - again I see no problem with this

Option 5 - The horse is living as per option 2, with option 3 being inevitable at some point in time. In the interim horsey donates much needed blood (so has a purpose), saves owner some money, and is a small part of a business that pays taxes. Is it really that bad???


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

I don't see any reason why a 16.2hh warmblood could go there.  Any horse can be conditioned to live out 24/7 without rugs, it is simple in reality, its just that we choose to molly coddle ours.  There's an event rider who rides to 3*** and hers live out all year round.

Is the owner contacted once the horse reaches the age where it is unproductive for the owner to have the option to have the horse back, or is the horse put to sleep regardless and the owner not notified?  Is it put to sleep on the premises or sent away somewhere?  Is it used for meat?  Does anyone actually know the answers to these questions as I am curious?


----------



## nicnag (11 June 2009)

You have the option to retain ownership on your horse and take them back once they are no longer useful to the bloodbank.
As it is I do believe that by putting them down/sending them to Turners  when they are no good to them in fact the bloodbank are doing the best thing by the horses. They aren't returned to the public market where they could be passed on. They will always source horses from somewhere.
I understand what you are saying about people passing on the responsibility but at the same time I think it is a perfectly acceptable option providing you do your research and understand exactly what will happen during and after your horses time there.


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

Sorry but you are living in cloud cuckoo land ! the horses aren't conditioned to live out or in a herd, they are either suitable or not - the ones that aren't kept for whatever reason go to be slaughtered they are not put to sleep on the premises - this is a business


----------



## nicnag (11 June 2009)

Nobody said they were to put to sleep on the premises, but at least you can be guaranteed that they are going to be disposed off ( I won't say PTS) and not sold from pillar to post.
I definately don't agree that horses can't be conditioned to live ot - that is what they are designed for! My TB mare happily lived out all winter in a similar set up and she was the fattest I've ever seen her and much more settled.
Yes, this is a business and as such the money from Turners will be part of their return. 
That is why I'm saying you have to research it, and  the option to have your horse back is still there


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

I was replying to Applecart's message not yours ! you sound pretty sensible about the whole thing - they don't !


----------



## nicnag (11 June 2009)

Ok - sorry, bored trying to do an online health and safety course - obviously failing miserably!


----------



## SpottedCat (11 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry but you are living in cloud cuckoo land ! the horses aren't conditioned to live out or in a herd, they are either suitable or not - the ones that aren't kept for whatever reason go to be slaughtered they are not put to sleep on the premises - this is a business 

[/ QUOTE ]

So are you by the sounds of it! It is feasible that the owners of the horse could condition it to live out then send it to the blood bank, is it not? It actually is not terribly hard to condition a horse to live out, I did it with a v feeble TB:

Step 1: take off shoes
Step two: put in field
Step three: check, and over time decrease rugs if it went out with one on. 

My horse went from pampered stabled horse to living out horse (with a full clip in the middle of winter) overnight - they are tougher than you think. I stuck a HW rug on her for the first couple of months, then a MW then none. 

In terms of the end result - well if the horse can't be ridden and the owner can't afford to keep it, PTS was inevitable anyway, so what's the problem if it has a few more years herd life then gets PTS? Ok so it is at a slaughter house rather than a bullet in the back garden, but the end result is the same.....

I'm afraid it sounds like you're being a bit sentimental about the PTS aspect rather than anything else.


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

I should go out and leave this but I have to point out that you're making assumtions about things i never said. Of course horses can live out - mine do as well, I was saying that bloodbanks won't do the job for you - horses have to be suitable for the lifestyle or not .....
I'm not being sentimental about horses being PTS as you put it  - in fact they are taken miles to slaughter houses, but that's a separate issue.  My problem about the whole thing is owners like Applecart who want to believe that they are doing the best for their horse when in fact they should take responsibilty for it themselves


----------



## SpottedCat (11 June 2009)

I don't understand why it isn't taking responsibility? It is far, far better than selling on or giving away as a companion, surely? You know that at some indeterminate point in the future the horse will be PTS. In the meantime, no-one will try and ride it or sell it on to be ridden for profit or neglect it etc etc.

It will be cared for until it is no longer useful, then PTS. It's not a worse option than PTS yourself, it's a different one, and probably the only way in which you can transfer ownership of a horse that can no longer be ridden and be certain what will happen to it.


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

If they keep the horse then fine - I accept that is an option, however there are 100's of unrideable, unwanted horses looking for homes. Bloodbanks tend to keep horses that suit them, they don't need a constant supply of new ones - what do you think happens to the rest ?


----------



## SpottedCat (11 June 2009)

They get PTS/sent for slaughter. But if as an owner you can't ride it and can't keep it and were going to have to have it PTS anyway, what's the difference?


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

there is no difference, but if the horses is going to go for slaughter then why not take it yourself ? It's the same as sending the horse to the sales if it has no value as a riding horse - it's passing the buck


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

bonny - It wasn't my horse I was referring to, and you would have gathered that if you had read my OP. It was a reply about my two friends horses (one of whom is my current friend).  It is better for a six year old horse to be put down some 9 years later at the age of 15 by the blood bank when its spent 9 years enjoying a life of riley then to be put down at the age of 6 after hardly any experience of life at all.  My friends horse was roughed off without rugs over a three month period before he went to the blood bank.  His feeds were gradually decreased until he was on good grass/haylage only and was turned out 24/7 for a couple of weeks prior to going.  His shoes were removed and he went barefoot for a month prior to leaving the yard too.  He had as much preparation for his new life that my friend was able to give him.  The vet highly recommended the place and our farrier was hoping to get a contract there trimming the feet of the horses.  I can't understand what the issue is.  There is no way of knowing what happens to the horses at the age of 15 or whenever it is that they become unsuitable for giving blood anymore, but government legislation would ensure that they are either put down in a certain humane manner or travel a short distance to an licensed slaughter house.  At the end of the day its about doing what is best for your horse, and its personal preference but I back my friend and her decision 100%.  Bonny you are entitled to your opinion, freedom of speech and all that, i was merely pointing out that unless you have hard facts you shouldn't speculate on what you may or may not have heard through gossip and the like. x


----------



## SpottedCat (11 June 2009)

No it isn't - the horse a) has a useful few more years, and b) contributes to veterinary medicine - why is that so so bad? And are you saying if your horse needs any kind of blood products that you will refuse them then? Because if it is so morally wrong to send a horse to the blood bank, then surely logic dictates it is also morally wrong to use products produced by the blood bank...


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

like I said before you are living in cloud cuckoo land - but lucky you if you are happy there .....


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

What does the OP think about all this debate anyway?  Being as I was trying to help them in the first place and the new owner of their horse and not start yet another long and agonising debate it would be interesting to hear their comments on the situation.  Are you there OP?  Can you comment?


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

I'm not saying it is bad - I've said several times that the conditions at bloodbanks are fine - that wasn't my point ....


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

I think the OP wanted people's views and experiences which is exactly what she/he has got ....


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

Hasn't she just!


----------



## SpottedCat (11 June 2009)

I'm afraid you aren't making your point very well, because I really don't understand what the problem is.

Given that we have established that:
1. Collection at blood banks is fine;
2. Horses go there which would otherwise be either sold on/given away because they are unridable;
3. These horses could either be PTS by the owner or could contribute to vet medicine then be PTS, the end result of which is, being blunt, a dead horse; and
4. You think it is fine to use products from a blood bank.

Could you possibly explain the following two points, a) what exactly is so wrong about a horse having its blood harvested for a few years then being PTS as opposed to the owner having it PTS first and b) where you think blood banks should get their horses from and why that is more morally acceptable than someone signing over a horse to them?


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

I've explained several times - life is too short to do so again - the world is full of old/unwanted/unrideable horses, bloodbanks are few and keep suitable horses for a long time - it's not an option except for a few, you do the maths .....


----------



## SpottedCat (11 June 2009)

The blood bank says no and the owner has to make a different choice?!


----------



## nicnag (11 June 2009)

I think Applecart14 is perfectly well informed about the blood banks and understands how they work. It's a fairly simple plan
1 horses roughed off
2 harvest blood as long as viable
3 removed from b/bank and returned to owner or sent for slaughter.

Home Office regs will insist that the animals are all inspected by a vet prior to leaving the blood bank. They will have to be considered suitable for slaughter or return to owner as a pet. If the vet deems it not fit to travel it will have to be put down on site. 

As a small thing though the blood harvested isn't that often for Veterinary use and is  actually used for culture preps etc in labs


----------



## Amymay (11 June 2009)

I do have some sympathy with bonny's position - and personally it's certainly not a route I would go down with a horse of mine.

But as someone pointed out to me some months ago (BB's I think) - If my horse needs a blood transfusion - where do I expect it to be comming from??????

We can't have it both ways.


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I was replying to Applecart's message not yours ! you sound pretty sensible about the whole thing - they don't ! 

[/ QUOTE ]

You are really getting on my wick Bonny.  I am completely sensible about the whole thing, it is you that seems the one unable to comprehend the situation.  Admitedly I do not have first hand experience, but if fate had not intervened with my previous four horses and the decision of what happened to them had not be chosen by nature, Act of God, call it what you will, then I would have wanted my horses to go there had the only alternative to that being them being PTS.  I would like to thank NicNag for bringing some sense into this whole post and thank her for her help in answering my questions.


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

sure - you sound very sensible and articulate ....do you just read what you want to see ? why not try being a little more open minded .....


----------



## kerilli (11 June 2009)

is it absolutely guaranteed that when the blood bank doesn't want them any more, they will definitely be returned to the owner or pts, and absolutely no chance that they will be sent to market for example? 
this would be my greatest fear.
fwiw, i was told as an absolute fact that horses taken to a certain hunt for slaughter a while ago were, if the owner did not insist on watching them shot (which i have always done, fwiw, however upsetting, it is the only guarantee), taken to the sales for a bit of profit...


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

they are not returned to the owner - you are not the owner anymore and have no say what happens. That's why i said in my first post that i wouldn't consider it unless the bloodbank would take the horse as a loan .....


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

Was it you that said you were a friend of the owner of the bank in Milton Keynes?  Could you not get him to put details on here of EXACTLY what the protocol is and what happens to the horses when they are no longer of use.  Then it would solve the whole discussion/debate.  It would be in his best interests if this was resolved as my friend was told she would be notified if her horse had to be PTS.


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

no that wasn't me ....has your friend heard about her horses, been to see them, do you know if they are still alive ?


----------



## hussar (11 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
My problem about the whole thing is owners like Applecart who want to believe that they are doing the best for their horse when in fact they should take responsibilty for it themselves 

[/ QUOTE ]

I do actually resent this remark. I was faced last year with the possibility of having two unrideable horses (one with navicular and one with tendon damage) and a private grazing agreement that allowed for only two horses at any one time.

My options were:
1. Keep both horses as field ornaments and resign myself to having no riding horse until one of them died.
2. Giving one/both away as a companion.
3. Selling the one with tendon damage (but not lame) as a light hack.
4. Having one or both PTS.
5. Sending the younger one to the blood bank.

I simply couldn't countenance option 1 - being in my fifties I couldn't face the prospect of not having a riding horse again for possibly ten years. Options 2 and 3 would have been irresponsible and my horses deserved better than that. Option 4 would have to be a very final resort for two healthy field-sound horses. Option 5 seemed to me an acceptable alternative: send one of them somewhere guaranteed to look after him, where he'd fit in fine (being a fairly dominant animal), where he would be sent back to me in five years' time having served a useful purpose, by which time the  home situation could have changed - and maybe, who knows, with five years' rest the tendon could have improved enough to let him be rideable again.

Thankfully in the event I haven't had to make any of these choices, but they were given a lot of thought and, faced with a similar situation in the future, I wouldn't hesitate to consider the blood bank again.


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

blood banks aren't charities that would take your horse until your situation improves - they only need a limited supply of suitable horses, which at the end of the day they are trying to make money on.  Part of the money they make is from sending horses to be slaughtered ....


----------



## Amymay (11 June 2009)

Surely the money they make is from the product they sell?


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

I have told my friend about this particular post as it is her horse that I wrote about in reply to the OP comments.  My friend has never been on this forum before but is rather distressed and annoyed by the comments which have been made and has decided to give her side of the story, which she is entitled to do.  She is waiting for verification of her account being set up by admin and then she will be on here to reply to peoples questions/comments and to give her account.  I am sure she will be only too happy to assist with any questions you might have, but  I would ask that you remain polite and respectful of her feelings as indeed you should any one who writes on here.  Thank you. x


----------



## hussar (11 June 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
blood banks aren't charities that would take your horse until your situation improves - they only need a limited supply of suitable horses, which at the end of the day they are trying to make money on.  Part of the money they make is from sending horses to be slaughtered .... 

[/ QUOTE ]

For goodness' sake, give me some credit - of course I understand that. Obviously I'd done some research! And as I understood it, there was an option to have the horse returned when it reached 15 rather than signing ownership over to the bank. I wasn't looking for somewhere 'to take my horse until my situation improves'! Read my post again. The point I was making was that after 5 years the situation  _might_  have improved - who knows? - and the options  _might_  have changed.


----------



## bonny (11 June 2009)

I'm always polite ! I hope that wasn't aimed at me ?


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

No bonny it wasn't. I don't even know you.  I guess at the end of the day all contributions to this forum are useful, we can't all agree, in most respects we have to agree to disagree!


----------



## nicnag (11 June 2009)

It is absolutely guaranteed that these horses are slaughtered or returned. They wouldn't be able to sell on unfit horses if the vet signed them off as only been suitable for one purpose.
As Hussar says you have the option to retain ownership but you also must be prepared to take the horse back at any point. IT's not an easy get out option but it might be the answer to allowing a paddock sound horse a life in a technically idealistic lifestyle which you can guarantee is regulated and regularly inspected.
There is no pretty end to the story if you sell to them but if you go in with the educated understanding that they WILL be slaughtered at the end of their time there then you have to weigh up how you feel about that before signing them over.


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

I forgot to add that the one horse had to have an L in a circle freezebranded on his back as a loss of use, the owners insurance insisted this had to be done before he was allowed to go to the blood bank as she was claiming loss of use for him.  My other friends horse didn't require this freezemark as she was not able to claim under the terms of her policy anyway.


----------



## NikkiF (11 June 2009)

I'm one of those irresponsible owners who has sent a horse to the blood bank at Milton Keynes. 

Like others I was caught between a rock and a hard place. I had 2 horses, one was my first horse, sadly retired due to arthritis (we'd learnt everything together, so she has a home for life). My 2nd horse damaged her stifle, initially told would never be ridden again, but 18 mths later deemed ok for light hacking. Unfortunately, whether it was due to such a long time off, she became very spooky,  making hacking out quite dangerous, plus to be honest I wanted do to more than hacking. I had loss of use on her, so she also has the L on her back.

There was no way I could afford 3 horses, so do I put down a 9yr old who was fine in the field??

I really don't believe that there is any way these places would try to sell on the horses, the horsey world is a small one and eventually word would get around.

Do I know if she is still alive? Sadly no, but how often do you keep in touch with people that you have sold horses to? Initially yes, but normally that contact fades with time.

I deeply regret what happened to my horse, but I don't regret sending her to the blood bank.


----------



## bailey14 (11 June 2009)

Thank you for sharing your experience of this.  I am glad you have no regrets.  I can't believe how this whole post has exploded and all the myths surrounding blood bank donation have come to the fore.  Like I said previously its a shame we can't get the guy who runs the bank on the forum, as it would be interesting to hear from him.  I would back my friends 100% as the decision they made was the only one they could make given their circumstances and that of their horses and like I said, if I was in the unfortunate circumstance of having to make a decision over my horses future I would seriously contemplate the blood bank.


----------



## allbnl (11 June 2009)

Having read all the comments (mostly negative) it has made me think, about whats its like and just wish we had a field to let me have him back, retire in or at least not send him to slaughter house, this part chills me. Would prefer to have him PTS at home and cremated. Its the not knowing, that has stirred the emotions.


----------



## Hester (13 July 2009)

I am looking for contact details for the Milton Keynes  blood bank.  Can anyone help? Thanks


----------

