Historic, archived document Do not assume content reflects current scientific knowledge, policies, or practices. PLATE I. ae (op) =) jam faa) ‘ SI . E : a oO a a : oS ron ac D ae g ag (a) oO oS > O uw % AG; 2 ul fe 2 q eg peat ie oO A © o a S S = re ® | o y 3 = o é x i = aa) Ceo Ohana Nee Ol OAGRICULTURE: BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY—BULLETIN NO. 74. B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau. THE PRICKLY PEAR AND OTHER CACTI AS FOOD FOR STOCK. BY DAVID GRIFFITHS. ASSISTANT AGROSTOLOGIST IN CHARGE OF RANGE INVESTIGATIONS, GRASS AND FORAGE PLANT INVESTIGATIONS. IssuepD Marcu 8, 1905. =i) a7 REX \ eae 7 ee a BN \S Wass N ae NY QT nate NATO << WASHINGTON: GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. : 1905. BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY. Bot. GALLOWAY, Pathologist and Physiologist, and Chief of Bureau. VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS. ALBERT F. Woops, Pathologist and Physiologist in Charge, Acting Chief of Bureau in Absence of Chief. BOTANICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS. FREDERICK V. CoviLLe, Botanist in Charge. GRASS AND FORAGE PLANT INVESTIGATIONS. W. J. SPILLMAN, Agrostologist in Charge. POMOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS. G. B. Brackert, Pomologist in Charge. SEED AND PLANT INTRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION. A. J. Pierers, Botanist in Charge. ARLINGTON EXPERIMENTAL FARM. L. C. Corsett, Horticulturist in Charge. EXPERIMENTAL GARDENS AND GROUNDS. E. M. Byrnes, Superintendent. J. E. RockweE.., Editor. JAMES E. Jones, Chief Clerk. GRASS AND FORAGE. PLANT INVESTIGATIONS. SCIENTIFIC STAFF. W. J. SprntMan, Agrostologist. A. S. Hitrcucock, Assistant Agrostologist in Charge of Alfalfa and Clover Investigations C. V. Preer, Systematic Agrostologist in Charge of Herbarium. Davip GrirFitus, Assistant Agrostologist in Charge of Range Investigations. C. R. Basu, Assistant Agrostologist in Charge of Work on Arlington Farm. S. M. Tracy, Special Agent in ‘Charge of Gulf Coast Investigations. D. A. Bropig, Assistant Agrostologist in Charge of Cooperative Work. P. L. Ricker, Assistant in Herbarium. J. M. Wesreate, Assistant in Sand-Binding Work. Byron Hunter, Assistant in Charge of Pacific Coast Investigations. R. A. Oak ey, Assistant in Domestication of Wild Grasses. C. W. Warsurton, Assistant in Fodder Plant and Millet Investigations. M. A. Crospy, 4ssistant in Southern Forage Plant Investigations. . J.S. Corron, Assistant in Range Investigations. Lesuiz F. Pauy, Assistant in Investigations at Arlington Farm. Haroup T. NrIevsen, Assistant in Alfalfa and Clover Investigations. AaGnes Cuase, Agrostological Artist. 2 PEM ER OR ERANSMITT AT. U. S$. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BurEAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF, Washington, D. C., December 14, 1904. Str: I have the honor to transmit herewith, and to recommend for publication as Bulletin No. 74 of the series of this Bureau, the accom- panying manuscript entitled *‘The Prickly Pear and Other Cacti as Food for Stock.” This paper was prepared by Dr. David Griffiths, Assistant Agrostologist in Charge of Range Investigations, and has been submitted by the Agrostologist with a view to its publication. The five half-tone plates are necessary to a complete understanding of the text of this bulletin. Respectfully, B. T. GatLoway, Chief of Bureau. Hon. James WILSON, Secretary of Agriculture. iS) eT 18 ese G18, For several years past letters have been coming to this Office regard- ing the forage value of different species of cactus. Some two years ago a number of letters were received in which the writers claimed high feeding value for this class of plants when properly handled. The fact that much land which must be classed as desert is covered with a considerable growth of cactus plants, and the certainty that if these could be shown to have forage value the fact would render use- ful enormous stretches of lands which are now even worse than useless seemed to justify investigating the subject. Our first efforts were to collect the experience of those who had used prickly pear and other cacti for feed. The amount of informa- tion secured in this manner was astonishingly large, and being on a subject which had hitherto received practically no attention from investigators in this country, much of it was of a nature to create some surprise. The information thus gleaned is here presented as a basis for further work, which is now under way. While the opinions of those who have had experience in feeding cactus are not always justi- fied, they are nevertheless suggestive and are presented in the follow- ing pages because of the value of some of these suggestions. In view" of the large amount of information collected by Doctor Griffiths, it is somewhat remarkable that investigators have not heretofore recog- nized the possibilities evidently existing in the cacti as forage plants. It is shown that this use of them is very old and is quite general over a large extent of territory in this country. In this connection it may be remarked that were it not for the spines on this class of plants they would probably have been exterminated long ago, and there is some doubt whether there would be any use for spineless forms in the future. It is practically certain that under no circumstances does the prickly pear possess as much forage value as some enthusiastic feeders claim for it, but the subject is certainly worthy of the investigations that have been undertaken. The principal lines of investigation now in progress are: Chemical composition of the most useful forms, methods of planting, yield, the frequency with which cacti may be harvested, varieties and their distribution, methods of preparation and feeding, and the value of these plants compared with other forage plants. - 9) 6 PREFACE. We have been able to find only very meager accounts of any previous investigations in this field. A little has been done in Australia and in India. The results of these investigations are not in accord with the experience of stockmen in this country. In reporting on feeding trials in India, the experimenter says, **‘ The result of our extended and thorough trial proves conclusively that prickly pear has hardly any value as a cattle feed.” In the experiments referred to, the cactus was roasted in order to remove the spines. The experience of Amer- ican feeders indicates that the unfavorable results in these experiments may be due to the method of preparation of the material. They may also, of course, be due to differences in the species used, but the fact that practically all forms of cactus found in this country make very good famine feed would point to a different conclusion. The cattle on experiment in these investigations in India at no time consumed over 25 pounds of cactus per day, while numerous instances are known where cattle in this country have eaten 100 pounds or more per day. It would seem that when fed with a limited amount of cotton-seed meal, properly prepared cactus is readily eaten in large quantities and that it has considerable feed value. Prickly pear has undoubtedly saved many herds in famine years and thus prevented the wiping out of the ranchers’ capital—often the result of years of patient labor. Other publications will be issued as the investigations now in prog- ress are completed. These investigations are being conducted by Dr. David Griffiths, of this Office, under the direction of the Agrostologist. In this work we are cooperating extensively with the New Mexico Experiment Station and with a large number of stockmen in the Souta- west. W. J. SPILLMAN, Agrostologist in Charge. OFFICE OF GRASS AND ForAaGE PLANT INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, D. C., December 5, 1904. GON PEN TES. / Page TRO MUIGITOM a eee aerate ee ee nee ere eae oh Se ss 9 Ja TSO 6 pooh SO SR SB a AG ae Se RIES SS iE eee ees ee a ne 10 Geographical distribution of economic cacti in the United States........-..-- it Mietitod sroteiee cin oes ene ees ee ee, St Oe Ee So ae 12 SS UITOV OREN OVE 1H] OVS) SS ON UVES SB et see ep Pa eh la al a a ae 12 SHUDYEREMI AYES AFL ARO) OOS IE eae es a a a Fr a EL 13 S Lead Cee metre n ees Oates MMO Sin AY ae a ode oe nee 2a lk 13 Shoppes ovemachinenvees tetas es. se tp ae Se Sa Oe Slee 14 Othemchoppinedevicesss : .ie0 68s 22 ee Sle ees SM HU eT See 14 iRemovalorche edeeomthe joimts:. Se 5 fete 2) eae et es 14 LamalimMenuine sp lAMbG ites ey ete ee ee oe el OK Ae Be Se EE ol ae 15 ecient MIC Ty aee mer eames cree mets he eke RO ORG O)e ON carl ele ae a ed oe ae ae 16 Oricimyompearsmachinetay ee si secs ees es eae Sa 16 CcICHLLC LSet eets a ee ated parte ete as Sata Kae Ere Oo ee eas Neb pe yo 17 LESaE [NUS TSR SSE is Se ee eps ee a et epg me ere ele 19 Reare Ons Mil ka prOdUGlO Mw ma tra 4) ee Rh oe fod ie a ee oe 20 SOmerdviaygratonsim ChUCIMS PCat as. cP Ls 6. PE eee se re 22 Rear iormiattenimovanc maintamimse Cattle 25.3252 2222-525) ect ee gee 24 LEGRETE Bis) GL LN SLOG Lee ese es a ae ge eg ned ie en 29 eC UHOTES MCC pAC sO MAL street Senne Oke 8 yak cy c) Ve Seg ae A Cig oe ite 30 Redizasmrabion tor workime- animals. 622 22 ooo eee ee ee 30 Brine GigO is Mec neu OUM SLO © Kearns tas aye Pere ys eater RO ANF. Re ee te 33 Oreiussonrhersilors* eran eae eer. oS BEE ea ates eh gage als eas nisl ora 35 iPeormumnckeisean anv nei CesthuctlOms: 42252528 a.g es 2os eos e et aeoe ees ce see Ss 36 SMeciesolrerehuc.Warchiareor forage: value) 2.22. 252505. 2 22 aes. ook 37 stu shmeemlaMbAahOns- Of peat s—<- 5. sae Coe oe Oe oe Ssh see 38 “ETRELG! OIE DSRS <5 Ss RASA ee eae RO eo aU i em 39 Benawmomeaispeararver Narvestingy.<.2.2- 25) oo 4 s2.ece See Sb. et ce sek es 40 Mgncime comomicraspects, Ol bMe Cactl.'s 9 2 25552. aes 2s Pe oe soe ee Sa 40 Some conditions obtaining in the prickly-pear region ...........--.-..------ 41 Eopmlarenosullaves ob. cactus feeding 2225). 0.225 2.25 26252 -. le etee aol eset ee 43 wn BUSI GIT. GI GO AN RES) chek SA a ae a ae ea a a 48 IEG Why EI EO, S.: PLATES. Page Puate I. Old.and new ways of singeing cacti. Fig. 1.—The cane cactus of southeastern Colorado, singed with brush. Fig. 2.—The prickly peaworfexas, singed awithsa tone he ase ea) eee eee Frontispiece. Il. The prickly pear and a pear machine. Fig. 1.—One of the com- mon prickly pears of Texas in full fruit. Fig. 2.—A type of pear cutter as set up and operated by Mr. J. C. Glass........-.. 48 III. Another type of pear cutter. Fig. 1.—Front view, showing knives. Fig. 2.—Rear view, with casing removed, showing boxes behind - the knives: 2. 4 2224 ice oe ee ae ee oy 48 TV. Prickly pears in California and Texas. Fig. 1.—Nopal de Castilla, cultivated in southern California. Fig. 2.—A pear thicket on the Glass ranch Waele :Pase: esse. seas cn ee 48 V. The Tapuna pear. Fig. 1.—A single plant of the Tapuna pear, near Alonzo, Mexico. Fig. 2.—Fruit of the Tapuna pear in one of the market places at San Luis Potosi, Mexico ..--.--.-----.--. 48 TEXT FIGURE. Fieri A pear forko. co 2 sae hc eee see oe Se ee 2 ee 15 8 B. P. 1.—183. G. F. P. 1.—108. THE PRICKLY PEAK AND OTHER CACTI AS FOOD FOR STOCK. INTRODUCTION. In the arid and semiarid regions of the United States the rancher is periodically contronted with a condition of drought which endangers the well-being, if not the actual existence. of his flocks and herds. His pastures are usually taxed to their utmost capacity during average years, and when a season of famine occurs he suffers tremendous losses by death of animals. Under these conditions he is obliged to sell when neither his stock nor the market prices are favorable to his interests. Under such circumstances it is sometimes advisable to buy hay or grain, but the prices of these feeds where freight rates are high are often prohibitive. It is very seldom that a rancher can afford to feed hay at $10 per ton to stockers, even if it can be secured conveniently. The case is much more aggravated when the haul to the feeding grounds is long, necessitating a considerable expenditure of money for hauling the same expensive feed. This latter expense may often be obviated by driving the stock to a region in close proximity to the feed; in other words, to the feeding ground. This common practice in the West is a very important factor in the stock business. Stockers are shipped from the southwest to the Pacific coast, Montana, and Canada to take advantage of feed in those localities when it is unob- tainable in the southern breeding grounds. The practice, while com- mon, if not universal, is expensive, because of the long distance to feed. Short pasture and the settling up of the intervening regions render driving impracticable, although formerly this could be more easily done. The large holder usually has a knowledge of the con- ditions which prevail in other sections of the country, and his superior experience gives him a decided advantage over the small rancher, who has less means and usually less knowledge of the conditions of the country at large at his command. The rancher of moderate means is therefore confronted, during years of famine, with the alternative of feeding expensive feed or selling at ruinous prices in order to save his stock from starvation. 9 30445—No. 74—05 2 | 10 THE PRICKLY PEAR AS FOOD FOR STOCK. It is to meet the requirements for an emergency ration for these seasons of short feed and to call attention to the varied uses of the cacti that this bulletin is published; and it is hoped that it will answer, in a preliminary way, many questions which are asked of the Depart- ment of Agriculture each year regarding cacti. The various species of cactus which occur in the arid and semiarid portions of the country are well adapted to the purpose of feeding when properly prepared, and furnish a feed which, although low in nutritive value, is inexpensive and will tide the stock over a period of shortage. | This bulletin is based upon personal observations and the experience of ranchers, and was instigated by the numerous inquiries and pressing demands which have been apparent for the past few months. This publication is a preliminary one, giving a general exposition of the subject. It will be followed later by several technical treatises, which are now in process of preparation, dealing with carefully planned experiments upon the different phases of the subject. Here techni- calities are avoided, and the aim in writing has been to include such information as has been secured by field observations and inquiry among ranchers, dairymen, teamsters, and others having experience in the premises. The paper is therefore intended to be popular, sug- gestive, and preliminary to more technical publications which are to follow. he HISTORY. It is impossible to tell where or when the feeding of pear began in Texas, but it is certain that the practice was common several years before the civil war. There are people now living who can remember distinctly its use during the droughts of 1857 and 1859. From this time until long after the war there were very extensive freight trans- portations carried on between Brownsville, Indianola, San Antonio, Eagle Pass, etc. Teaming was especially heavy in this region during the civil war, when Brownsville and Matamoras, Mexico, became bustling, flourishing cities, built up by the teaming trade, which brought the products, especially cotton, of the Confederate States to this point for export—at times the safest outlet for the products of the South. By far the greatest amount of freighting was done with oxen. At that time corn was not produced in any appreciable quan- tities, and any other grain was prohibitive in price. Upon their long hauls the cattle got no feed but that produced by the country through which they passed. This was meager in localities and often poor everywhere. It is said that the teamster considered himself for- tunate when there was pear to be had, and there was plenty of it on many of the roads. The teamsters at this time scorched the pear by burning brush, and chopped or slashed it with ax, spade, or GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION. Hey ~ machete. This, together with such dry grass and browse as the region afforded, was all the feed that the cattle obtained. It is quite probable that the Americans learned the use of prickly pear from the Spanish people, who appear to have learned its value and practiced feeding it long before it was employed for that purpose In this:country,.; GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF ECONOMIC CACTI IN THE UNITED STATES. Roughly speaking, we may designate the northern boundary of the cactus area in this country as follows: From the Texas—Louisiana line westward on the thirty-third degree of north latitude to the Texas-New Mexico border; thence, northward to the thirty-ninth degree of north latitude; thence, westward along this parallel. In describing the boundary in this manner it is to be understood that only avery small fraction of the area of the United States south of this line has pear or other cacti in sufficient quantity to be of economic impor- tance in a state of nature. Indeed, the areas of economic cactus in this country are very circumscribed, although they are scattered over a considerable territory. Outside of this area there are only one or two situations where the cacti are at all prominent, and they never grow large enough to be of any particular value. The same is true of much of the territory included in the general region designated above, but some of this ter- ritory is covered with growths of various species of these spiny plants that render it difficult for cattle to travel through them, and such growths are scattered here and there over the entire region. The cactus region par excellence, and the only region where any great amount of feeding has been done in this country, may be described as that portion of Texas situated south of the thirtieth par- allel of north latitude. In this region the species of prickly pear are sufficiently abundant and the grasses so scarce during portions of the year that the stock industry becomes almost dependent upon the pear for its existence. It is estimated by many ranchers that one-half less stock would have to be handled by them were it not for prickly pear. In the general cactus region outside of southern Texas, cactus from an economic point of view occurs in limited areas only. Arizona, New Mexico, and southern California, while often spoken of as great cactus regions, have only comparatively small areas where any of the species grow in sufficient abundance to render them of any commercial importance in a condition of nature. These States have many botani- cal species of great interest, but in. many cases the number of indi- viduals is small, or, if numerous, they are too diminutive to be economically prepared for stock feeding. But even so, there are many areas scattered all over these regions 12 THE PRICKLY PEAR AS FOOD FOR STOCK. where some of the various species occur in great profusion, giving a reserve food supply which under intelligent use can be made immensely valuable, even if the plants will not respond readily when planted. The experience of a few ranchers in the vicinity of Magdalena, N. Mex., the Pinal Mountains and Colorado River Valley of Arizona, and in southeastern Colorado testifies to the value of the various spe- cies of cactus as emergency rations in the general region south of the thirty-ninth degree of north latitude and west of eastern Texas. METHODS OF FEEDING. In Australia, so far as the literature of the subject indicates, steam- ing is the principal method of utilizing the prickly pear, which has been introduced and widely disseminated in that country. In this country various methods have been developed independently in the several cactus regions, and apparently, at least, without knowledge of the practices in vogue in other sections. The greatest progress in this line, however, is exhibited in the vicinity of San Antonio, Tex. SINGEING THE SPINES. The most prevalent practice in southeastern Colorado consists in singeing the spines over a brush fire. (PI. I, fig. 1.) This operation is practicable where there is considerable brush or wood conveniently situated, but it has many disadvantages. The plants are collected and hauled to some convenient place, where a fire is built. A brisk fire will remove the spines from one side of the joints almost instantly. It is then necessary to turn the plants over and burn them again on the other side. Some careful feeders often leave the plant on the fire until much of the outside has turned black from the heat, in order to insure the removal of the short as well as the long spines. Others exercise less care, and simply allow the flames to pass over the plant, burning off only the distal half or more of the long spines and leaving practically all of the short ones for the cattle to contend with. It often happens that the fuel used is greasewood (Sarcobatus vermé- culatus) or shad scale (Atriplex canescens), the young shoots of which are of greater nutritive value than the pear itself. On the arroyos and washes dead cottonwood timber is used, while in many localities juniper furnishes the fuel. This is the most primitive method of feeding and one which has been practiced in Texas since before the civil war, and is still very extensively employed not only in Texas but also in old Mexico, where singeing the thorns with brush is about the only method employed in feeding prickly pear and other species of cacti. METHODS OF FEEDING. 13 SINGEING WITH A TORCH. The use of a gasoline torch for removing the spines of the prickly pear (and it is applicable to other species of cacti) originated in Texas. (Pl. I, fig. 2.) This is a common practice in vogue upon the range, and is to be recommended as economical in both the utility of the feed and the labor of preparing it. The process consists in passing a hot- blast flame over the surface of the plant, which can be very quickly done at small expense. The spines themselves are dry and inflamma- _ble. In many species one-half or two-thirds of them will burn off by touching a match to them at the lower part of the trunk. The ease with which they are removed depends upon the condition of the atmos- phere, the age of the joints, and the number of the spines. A large number of spines is very often an advantage when singeing is to be practiced, because the spines burn better when they are abun- dant. The instrument used for this purpose is a modified plumber’s torch. Any other convenient torch which gives a good flame can be employed, the efficiency depending upon the lightness of the machine and the ease with which the innermost parts of the cactus plants can be reached by the flame. In southern Texas two excellent torches, described elsewhere, are commonly used in singeing the prickly pear. In Arizona one or two ranchers consulted have used an ordinary kerosene torch with mod- erate success in handling the tree cacti of that region. With the use of.these machines there is no labor involved in the feeding, except that of removing the spines by the passage of the blast flame over the surface of the joints. The cattle follow the operator closely, and graze all the joints which have been singed. STEAMING. So far as known, Mr. J. M. John, of Hoehne, Colo., is the only rancher who has practiced steaming cactus for cattle in this country. Mr. John discovered by accident and without any knowledge of Australian practices that the spines became innocuous when moistened for some time. He happened to use the plants in the construction of a dam, which soon washed out. Upon repairing the dam it was dis- covered that the spines of those plants which had been kept wet were perfectly harmless. This suggested that hot water or steam would accomplish the purpose in a much shorter time. Acting upon this suggestion he fitted up a tank and boiler, which happened to be on hand, for the purpose of steaming the cactus. The tank employed was an open one holding two loads, or, approximately, 6,000 pounds of cactus. In order to prevent the loss of heat as much as possible, corn chop, which was to be fed with the cactus, was poured upon the top of the loaded vat. This mixture was steamed for about ten hours, a eee ee 14 THE PRICKLY PEAR AS FOOD FOR STOCK. allowed to stand one night, and fed in the morning, with good results during one or two winters. It should be stated that all of the liquid was lost. This was a pure experiment, adapted to local conditions and material convenient for the operations. The form of tank, the length of time, and the consequent expense of keep'nge up steam, could be greatly improved upon. CHOPPING BY MACHINERY. In southern Texas there have been some rapid advances made during the last twenty years in the matter of pear-handling machinery. By use of the machines now in vogue pear and other cacti may be chopped into such small pieces that the spines are rendered innocuous by the abrasion. The two machines manufactured for this purpose and described later are both set so as to cut the pear into 1-inch to 13-inch pieces. Owing to the succulent nature, the whole thing is practically macerated in the operation. It is the practice to set these machines up in the pastures convenient to pear and water. The pear is cut down, hauled to the machines in wagons or carts, chopped, reloaded, and hauled out again to be fed in troughs constructed for that purpose. A further discussion of this topic will necessarily occur in connec- tion with a description of the machines and their operation. OTHER CHOPPING DEVICES. Many feeders in Texas hire cheap labor to chop the prickly pear with machetes or spades. A small quantity of the pear is placed in a trough or a pile is built upon the ground. A machete or spade is then employed to slash it into small pieces, when it can be more read- ily eaten by the cattle. This is rather a poor way of feeding, for the spines are only imperfectly gotten rid of, and the cattle consequently get their mouths so full of them that after a time they are unable to eat at all. The practice does gct rid of some of the spines, however, and stock are able to eat the pear much better when prepared in this way than in the natural state. REMOVAL OF THE EDGE OF THE JOINTS. All pastors (herders) carry machetes as a part of their equipment in all prickly-pear regions of Texas and Old Mexico. With this most useful Mexican instrument they very dextrously lop off the edge of the pear joint for the purpose of giving the sheep a chance to get into the thickets or bunches of pear to better advantage. As a usual thing the greatest number of spines occur on the edges of the joints, the more effectually protecting them. The pastors simply cut off an inch or two of this spiny portion and the animals are then able to : METHODS OF FEEDING. 15 nibble at the cut surface without serious injury. This practice has probably done more toward the creation of impenetrable thickets than any other, for a large number of the pieces which are cut off strike root and grow. HANDLING THE PLANTS. The species of cactus which is fed in southeastern Colorado is one of the so-called tree cacti. The spines are very numerous upon this species, rendering it difficult to handle, so an ordinary fork is used to - collect and handle it over the fire. Some feeders employ an ax in cutting the tree down, but the majority of them use a fork for that purpose also. A comparatively hHght pressure of the fork against a large limb is sufficient either to break it off or cause it to split at the crotch, when it can be loaded directly on the wagon which is driven along for this purpose. The limbs break off very readily when they are frosty. If collected in cool, crisp mornings, therefore, chopping is not necessary, for a simple pressure of the fork will break off a large limb. An average load upon a hay frame will weigh 2,000 to 3,000 pounds. This the collector can gather and throw upon the wagon with no particular attention to the arrangement of the plants, as with Fig. 1.—A pear fork. aload of hay. The practice in vogue requires a great deal of handling. The plants are first loaded on the wagon, thrown off in heaps, forked over at least twice in the singeing, and then thrown out to the cattle to feed upon. This makes not less than four handlings. The feed is comparatively easy to handle, however, a large branch, such as is usually obtained, weighing as much or more than an average forkful of hay. In southern Texas the handling does not differ very materially from that described for southern Colorado, except in unimportant details. Here, on account of the peculiar influence of the Mexican labor employed, the methods are often very primitive. Instead of a fork, a sharpened or forked stick is often used in gathering and hauling the pear of this region. In feeding to the pear choppers a stick is invariably employed, on account of the danger to the knives of the machine when an iron fork is used. In some cases a specially constructed fork (fig. 1) is used by the freighters. This instrument has a handle much like an ordinary pitchfork; the tine, however, is single, short, stout, and sharply curved, with a stout buttress or projecting arm at the base to prevent the soft joints through which the instrument is thrust from sliding 16 THE PRICKLY PEAR AS FOOD FOR STOCK. upon the handle when raised above the operator in the act of pitching upon the wagon. None of these was seen upon the ranges, but such forks were commonly used by the wood choppers and freighters. The vast majority of the Mexicans use a forked stick, and this is the only method of handling which was observed in old Mexico, where pear feeding is very extensively practiced. PEAR MACHINERY. So far as the writer is aware, all pear machines that have been invented—and there are four ave emanated from the country tributary to San Antonio, Tex. At present there are four machines in common use, two choppers and two torches, as described below. ORIGIN OF PEAR MACHINERY. Dr. W. 8S. Carruthers, a retired army surgeon, is said to have originated the idea of pear-cutting machinery. Doctor Carruthers submitted a sketch with notes to a foundryman at San Antonio, Tex., who put the idea into mechanical execution about 1886 or 1887. The first machine was constructed of wood. It consisted essentially of a vertically mounted revolving wheel, with an iron band shrunken upon it in much the same way as the tire of a wagon wheel. Knives for cutting the pear were fastened to the surtace of this wheel. It was not essentially different in principle from the machines of more modern construction. Although many mechanical improvements on the original machine have been made, it is admitted that the honor of the invention belongs to Doctor Carruthers, who not only designed the original, but was the first to operate a pear-cutting machine. Mr. T. R. Keck, of Cotoula, Tex., who was associated with Doctor Carruthers during his experimentation with his first machine, reports that the first machine used was made by himself out of boards and two old hay knives. This machine was used one winter ona very small scale as an experiment in testing the efficiency of pear and cotton-seed meal for fattening cattle. The following winter about 5,000 head of cattle were fed upon cotton-seed meal and machine-cut pear. Mr. Keck reports that the first homemade machine was used in 1885, as nearly as he can remember. Since the invention of the pear ehomner some feeders have used some of the standard fodder cutters with moderate success. It is difficult to feed pear to these machines, however, for they are not run at a high enough rate of speed to get rid of the spines. They are not suitable for handling pear. PEAR MACHINERY. 176 PEAR CUTTERS. The machine shown in Plate IJ, figure 2, consists essentially of a solid cast-iron wheel, + feet in diameter, with two knives arranged at a narrow angle with the radius on one of its faces. Behind each knife, hollowed out of the face of the solid casting, there is a pocket extend- ing the length of the radius. The front face of this wheel is plain, save for these pockets, which receive the chopped pear end carry it out of the machine. These are 14 inches deep, 22 inches long, and 9 inches wide. The back of the wheel is made irregular by the projec- tion of the knife pockets, radial thickenings, and a perimeter 2 inches wide, for strengthening the casting. The knives are bolted on to the face of the wheel over the pockets, and are one-half inch in thickness, with a bevel toward the wheel. In revolving, the knives pass a shear plate which is adjustable and bolted into the frame. , The wheel is supported vertically on a horizontal shaft running in boxes supported on a wooden frame. The wheel is operated by a pair of gears with a ratio of 54 to 1, the shaft of which is squared to receive the knuckle of the horsepower ground rod. The main shaft also has sprockets for the operation of the carrier chain. To it also may be attached a pulley for the adaptation of steam power. When the machine is set up, a short chute is bolted at an acute angle with the face of the vertical wheel, in such a position that it terminates in the same horizontal plane as the axis of the wheel. The pear is forked into the chute, fed against the face of the wheel with its revolving knives, and is cut and mashed into small pieces. The chopped mate- rial is carried down in the pockets and dropped into a carrier, operated upon the same principle as the common straw stacker, which carries the chop off into whatever receptacle is provided for it. This is usually the ordinary wagon box, for the chop is hauled directly from the machine to the feeding ground. The machine as operated by Mr. J. C. Glass, of Eagle Pass, Tex., has a few labor-saving devices attached to the regular construction as shipped from the factory. Upon the cutting side and opposite the horsepower a large platform about 3% feet high is constructed to reach up to and partially surround the wheel. This is large enough to hold one day’s feed of uncut pear, which is thrown on to it from wagons. From this platform the pear is fed into the chute, which is situated just above it. Under the elevated carrier is constructed a triangular box of about the same capacity as a double wagon box. On the lower end of this is a trap gate which can be sprung so as to allow the chop to slide into the wagon with no handling. The cost of the machine, | together with the additional construction, is about $125. 30445—No. 74—05——3 18 THE PRICKLY PEAR AS FOOD FOR STOCK. The machine has never been worked by Mr. Glass to its full capac- ity, but an estimate can be made of its efficiency from the operations during the drought of 1902. At that time an average of seven or eight men was employed, and they cut pear for 1.500 head of cattle. Ten men could be employed to better advantage. and it is estimated that this number could, with pear conveniently at hand, cut a full ration for 2,000 head of cattle. This means that the machine would be operated ten hours a day, and that four horses would be neces- sary to furnish the power. The machine is calculated to be run by two horses, but four operate it to much better advantage, especially if heavy, old pear is used and a large amount of material is to be cut. It was the practice here to run the machine only about six hours a day, the entire crew being employed in cutting and feeding and in gathering pear from the field. The cutting occupied the forenoon and a part of the afternoon, while the gathering required only a por- tion of the afternoon of each day. By employing men enough both to run the machine and gather the pear, thereby operating the machine ten hours a day, there is little doubt that ten men could feed 2,000 cattle a full ration. Seven men constitute the operating crew, and three can supply them with pear if the haul is not too great. The machine shown in Plate III, figures 1 and 2, is constructed throughout of iron. It has a 36-inch revolving wheel, in which three adjustable knives are set at a narrow angle with the radius of the wheel. Behind each knife are set cast-iron pieces, which, bolted upon the wheel, make a box 23 inches deep opening upon the periphery. The entire wheel is cased in, except the delivery opening, through which the chopped pear is thrown out of the machine. The knives cut against a shear plate, essentially as in the machine first mentioned, and a feed hopper or chute is built of boards, as described for that cutter. No carrier is used with this machine, for the centrifugal force of the revolying wheel throws the cut material 30 or 40 feet. A back stop 10 feet high is usually built to stop the chop, where it can be shoveled up handily. If the cutter is run with an engine and fed steadily, the centrifugal force delivers the chop into a wagon, but with a horse power and unsteady feeding the motion is not uniform enough for this, and the chop must be shoveled into the wagon. The wheel makes about 225 revolutions a minute when operated by four strong animals. It is claimed that it will chop 20,000 pounds of pear an hour. Mr. T. A. Coleman, of Encinal, Tex., operates this cutter with an engine, and all of his hauling is done in the common Mexican ox cart. A coyer is constructed of lumber to fit the carts. This is put in place and fastened down. when the cart is backed up to the machine in such a position that the chop is delivered into the rear end, which 1s left PEAR MACHINERY. 19 open, by the centrifugal force of the revolving wheel. In this way the carts are not only thoroughly but uniformly filled. While the pear is passing through the machine the spines become thoroughly broken up, and, being lighter than the pulpy material, are largely winnowed out when the chop passes out of the machine. Ranchers report that this is very noticeable when the machine is in operation, the stream of broken spines and lighter material being quite effectually separated a few feet from the machine. With this, as with the other machine, it is necessary to build a plat- form and a feed chute from which the pear is fed with sticks, as pre- viously described. The chute is in the form of a flat trough, set at an angle of 45 degrees from the face of the wheel, its base being ‘eoincident with the horizontal diameter. The pear to be chopped is in this way carried into the machine by its own weight for the most part, but, owing to its straggling method of growth, its passage into the machine must be facilitated by the use of crude forks. The machine differs from that shown in Plate II, figure 2, in being con- structed of iron throughout, in being smaller and more compact, in having the boxes behind the knives removable, and in utilizing the centrifugal force of the wheel in discharging the chop. Both machines are reported to be very efficient. There is but little about them to wear out, and they are reported to last indefinitely. PEAR BURNERS. Pear burners were first manufactured in 1898. As now used they are essentially a modification of the plumber’s torch. The two pear burners upon the market are very similar in construc- tion and are both efficient machines, according to the best evidence that it has been possible to obtain. ‘They consist essentially of a strong, well-riveted, metal tank, which in actual use is supported upon the shoulders of the operator by a strap; a long delivery pipe, and a burner for generating and consuming gas from gasoline. The two machines differ only in minor mechanical contrivances and in the form of the burner. It has been found by experience that it is absolutely essential that the tank be strongly built in order to prevent accident. Several of the first burners used were too light in construction and caused seri- ous accidents. It is said that one or two men were killed by the explo- sion of the tanks and the burning of the gasoline. The distinguishing features of one of the pear burners on the market are the turning joints of the delivery pipe and the simple coiled-pipe burner, which is covered with a sheet-iron cylinder to prevent escape of heat, to give direction to the flame, and to protect the burner in windy weather. The other style of burner differs from the one just described mainly 20 THE PRICKLY PEAR AS FOOD FOR STOCK. in the burner, which is somewhat more complicated. The generated gas In this machine passes through a chamber filled with a bundle of fine brass wires before being ignited. It also has some safety arrange- ments for insuring the heating of the oil and consequent generation of gas, which are claimed to have merit. Both machines require gasoline for their operation, and are handled to best advantage with a good quality of oil and in weather free from wind. Practically no labor is necessary with the burners other than that of passing the blast flame from the torch over the surface of the joints momentarily. Indeed, it is not usually necessary to do this with over two-thirds of the plant, for there is commonly enough dead herbage at the base, and growing up through the pear plants, to assist in burn- ing off at least one-half of the spines. Besides, the spines are com- monly less numerous upon the old stems, and cattle experience but little difficulty in eating the remainder after the outer two to four joints have been freed of them. The process of singeing the joints with one of these machines is therefore not a laborious or expensive one. Indeed itis by far the cheapest method yet devised for utilizing the prickly pear. It has, however, one or two disadvantages which are discussed later. Cattle brought up in pear pastures do not have to be taught to eat pear. They take to the feed very naturally. After a day or two of feeding the sound of the pear burners, or the sight of smoke when pear is burned with brush, brings the whole herd to the spot immedi- ately, and they follow the operator closely all day long, grazing the pear to the ground—old woody stems and all—if the supply that the operator can furnish is short. PEAR FOR MILK PRODUCTION. It is universally recognized throughout the pear region of south- western Texas that the plant has a decided tendency to increase the flow of milk. In spite of the fact that the average ranch feeder claims that pear is of little or no value in the summer, there are hundreds of people who feed more or less definite quantities of this plant from one year’s end to another. It is always used as a supplementary ration. Pear alone has not been fed to a great extent, for it.is recognized that it is properly a supplementary ration to a more concentrated feed. Mr. John Bowles, near Eagle Pass, has fed pear, with hay and bran, to a milch cow for the past three years and would not think of discon- tinuing the practice. Some dairymen in the small towns where pear is accessible feed it regularly, and nearly all of the Mexican families who keep a cow in town depend upon this as their mainstay. One example of very successful feeding, where somewhat definite data were obtainable, came under the observation of the writer and PEAR FOR MILK PRODUCTION. Dt might be cited here. Mr. Albert Ingle, of Eagle Pass, Tex., keeps one Jersey cow to supply milk and butter for family use. The cow has the run of the commons about town, but the pasturage is very short the greater part 01 the time. In addition to what she can pick up in this way she is fed 3 quarts of bran, 1 quart of cotton-seed meal, and all the singed and chopped pear she will eat. Mr. Ingle was feed- ing when his place was visited. The quantity chopped that morning, he stated, was an average one, and weighed 35 pounds, which amount was fed twice each day. The cow at the time was raising a calf and fur- nishing milk for the family, and was in good milking condition. This shows that the amount of pear fed was large. The ration each day was 6 quarts of bran, 2 quarts of cotton-seed meal, 70 pounds of chopped pear, and what the animal was able to pick up on very short range. This ration is kept up during the year, except when the mesquite beans are abundant, when no pear is fed. The experience of Mr. Alexander Sinclair appears to be exhaustive and intelligent. He does not claim for pear any great feeding value, but he uses it entirely, he says, for the succulence. So faras feed is con- cerned, even roughage of some other kind could be fed cheaper, but as a succulence for milk production there is but little that can be secured during the winter. Attempting, as he does, to maintain an equal milk and butter production during the entire year, green feed is essential for winter use. This is furnished by the prickly pear, which is fed during that portion of the year when there is no green feed. During a portion of the summer, succulence is secured from the native grasses. When these dry up green sorghum is fed, and during the remainder of the year prickly pear. In spite of the fact that the range feeders taboo the pear after it begins to grow, Mr. Sinclair has fed it well into May with good results.. The ration of a cow during the winter is about as follows: Cotton- seed meal, 3 pounds; brewers’ grains, 9 pounds; pear, 100 pounds. Besides the above, the cows have the run of brushy pastures and are able to pick up much in the form of dry grass and browse. The quantity of pear fed is only an estimate, but is thought to be very close to the amount which an average cow gets. Even with this apparently large amount of pear the animals never get all they want of it. With this feeding the milk production is greater in the winter than in the summer when the cattle are on good grass. This, however, is not considered to be due to any peculiar advantage of the pear over the native grass, but rather to the unfavorable temperature and the annoy- ance of insect pests in summer. Originally it was the custom to chop the pear with a pear cutter, but during the past winter it was hauled a distance of six miles, unloaded in long rows in the feeding lots, and singed with a pear burner. 22 THE PRICKLY PEAR AS FOOD FOR STOCK. Mr. Thomas Duggar, of Hoehne, Colo., has fed the common tree cactus of that region to milk cows with good success. The informa- tion secured from Mr. Duggar, while not so definite as that which one is able to obtain from the dairymen around San Antonio, Tex., where the feeding is better established and not so much of an experiment, nevertheless indicates that the cane cactus of this region is probably as good feed for milk production as prickly pear. Cactus, singed with brush, has been fed with a good quality of hay for two or three winters with what is considered good results. Doubtless some con- centrated feed stuff, such as cotton-seed products, or corn chop, would add very materially to the quality of the ration for milk production. SOME DAIRY RATIONS INCLUDING PEAR. The practice of feeding dairy cows upon a partial ration of pear is very common—indeed, general—in the entire region of the lower Rio Grande, and as far northas San Antonio, Tex. The necessity for feed- ing this plant depends upon the condition of the seasons. When the winter rains are abundant and green feed is plentiful no pear to speak of is fed; but during a dry winter it is resorted to as the most economi- cal method of supplying the succulence so essential to the maintenance of a good flow of milk. The amount fed depends largely upon the quan- tity of pear available and the labor at hand for handling it. In some cases which haye come under the writer’s direct observation the pear has been hauled six miles to feed to dairy cattle, and it is as much prized by many dairymen as any other part of their feedstuffs. Mr. J. W. Statcher feeds 100 dairy cows regularly for three or four months during the winter. The feeding begins when the leaves fall off the brush in the autumn, and continues until they appear again in the spring. The ration for a cow is about as follows: Cotton-seed meal, 2 pounds: cotton-seed hulls, 8 pounds; bran of wheat or rice, 1 gallon; singed pear, +0 pounds; the run of brush pasture. Mr. J. G. Hagenson’s practice does not differ materially from that of Mr. Statcher. Having no pear, however, he buys it at 25 cents per load, a load consisting of about 2,000 pounds. His cattle get a ration approximately as follows: Bran, 9 pounds; cotton-seed hulls, 10 pounds; singed pear, 30 to 40 pounds; the run of dry-brush pasture. In order to secure a better idea of the practices in vogue in feeding pear in the vicinity of San Antonio than time for personal inquiry would warrant, a circular letter was addressed to several dairymen. The following questions and answers in connection with the above dis- cussion give a good idea of the practices which obtain and the estimate placed upon the prickly pear of the region as a succulence for milk production. Answers to the questions proposed were furnished by SOME DAIRY RATIONS INCLUDING PEAR. 23 several dairymen. The following are considered typical, and are reproduced here practically in full: (1) Do vou feed prickly pear to your dairy herd? How many years has this practice been followed? Answers.—(a) During the winter months only. (4) I do in winter; five years. (c) Yes; for fourteen years. (d) Yes; have fed off and on for a number of ‘years. (e) Yes; during the winter time; for about twelve years. (7) I have fed prickly pear to my dairy cows for nine years. (2) How long did you feed during the past winter? Answers.—(a) About fourteen weeks. (b) All winter. (c) All winter. (d) Did not feed pear last winter, because other feeds were very cheap. (e) Noneatall. (f) Did not feed during the past winter, on account of having moved to a place where it was inconyenient to get it. (3) How do you prepare prickly pear for feeding? Answers.—(a) Make brush fire and burn thorns off. (b) I use a pear burner. (c) Singe the thorns off and cutit up. (d) I run the pear through a pear cutter and mix with cotton-seed meal and hulls. (e) Burn the thorns off; then chop in small pieces. (f/f) I first burn off the thorns with a dry brush fire, and then cut into small pieces with a large carving knife. (4) How much pear do you feed a cow each day? Ii you do not know the exact number of pounds, estimate it as closely as possible. How many loads per day do you feed to how many cows? Answers.—(a) I feed about two-thirds of a common water bucket full to each cow in the morning. (b) I give the cows as much asthey can eat onceaday. (c) About 10 or 15 pounds per cow. (d) I feed 14 bushels to a cow each day. (e) One load of about 3,000 pounds lasts 16 cows about three days. (jf) I give each cow about 6 gallons of pear cut up into pieces about 25 inches square. (5) What other feeds do you give the cows with pear? How much of each kind of feed per cow? Answers.—(a) I feed cotton-seed meal and bran. (%) Bran and cotton-seed meal. (c) One quart of cotton-seed meal, 1 peck of cotton-seed hulls, and all the cane they want. (d) One quart of cotton seed, 1 quart of cotton-seed meal, and 20 pounds of hulls per day. (e) One and one-half quarts of cotton-seed meal, 8 quarts of wheat bran, 20 pounds of cotton-seed hulls. (/) I give my cows 10 pounds per day of a mixture of cotton seed and wheat bran, in addition to the 6 gallons of prickly pear. (6) Do your cows have the run of any pasture while you feed pear? Answers.—(a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) No. (e) Very little. (jf) Yes. (7) Do you consider that pear influences the flavor, odor, or quality of the milk in any way? Answers.—(a) It does if fed more than two-thirds of a common water bucket full to each cow in the morning, or in any other way. Feeding at night affects the odor of the milk slightly and gives butter a palecolor. (6) It increases the quantity of milk 40 per cent. (c) It does not affect the flavor or color, but it may reduce the weight or richness of it. It increases the quantity. (d) No; I do not think it influences the flavor, odor, or quality of the milk at all when fed as I have mentioned. (e) When too much pear is fed, and not enough solid feed, the milk has a peculiar odor, is very poor in quality, and blue in color. (jf) Prickly pear does not injure the flavor of the milk. It increases the flow. Cattle are very fond of it. (8) Do you have pear in your pastures, or do you buy it? If you buy, how much do you pay per load? 24 THE PRICKLY PEAR AS FOOD FOR STOCK. Answers.—(a) Ihaveitin my pastures. (5b) Ihave pearinmy pastures. (c) Yes. (7d) I buy it at 25 cents per load and haulit myself. (e) I buy my pear. It costs me 25 cents per load of 3,000 pounds. I haul it myself. (f) I have pear in my pastures. (9) What is your estimate of the value of pear for milk production? Answers.—(a#) I consider pear very valuable as a feed, and it is a good milk pro- ducer. Itis very healthful to be fed with cotton-seed meal, ete. (4b) [No answer. ] (c) Itisfar ahead of any kind of hay or forage, and mixed with meal or bran nothing can beatit. (d) Is a good milk and butter producer. (e) A very good feed when you have no roughage. (/) It does not pay to buy pear unless hay is scarce and dear. When sorghum hay is only $7.50 per ton, as it is now, hay is cheaper than pear at 25 cents per load when you have to haul and burn it. (10) After a crop of pear has been cut, how many years will it take for another crop to grow on the same land? Answers.—(a) About two; but this will depend a good deal on the season. Pear burners are discarded by some, for the reason that they destroy the plant. (b) The pear begins to grow the following year. (c) Three years. (d) It takes from three to five years to make good-sized pear. (e) I donot know, but think about two years. (7) About two years. It is very difficult to formulate a definite opinion regarding the effect of pear upon the quality of milk. There appears, however, to be avery well-established opinion that it produces blue milk if not fed with concentrated feeds. There seems to be a great diversity of opin- ion regarding the flavor of milk from pear-fed cows. Many maintain stoutly that it produces a slightly bitter taste, which is less noticeable when a good ration of corn or cotton-seed meal is added, while others defy tests that will detect in any way pear milk from any other except by its poorer quality in cases where the amount of pear fed is large and the entire ration is of low nutritive value. Personally the writer has been unable to verify any of these opinions. PEAR FOR FATTENING AND MAINTAINING CATTLE. Since the early days when teaming was much more extensively prac- ticed than at the present time, the bulk of the pear feeding in southern Texas has been done either to maintain stock or to prepare them for the market. While feeding cactus to dairy cows and work oxen is common all oyer the pear region, the amount fed for these purposes is Insignificant compared with that used for maintenance and fattening. By far the greatest amount is fed as an emergency ration, to keep cat- tle alive during a severe and prolonged drought. For this purpose its value can not well be overestimated, for, as has been aptly said by many ranchers consulted during the past year, pear often means the difference between live and dead cattle. A drought of from four to seven months, as sometimes occurs, in a country which has no sod to speak of and where a large portion of the grazing is furnished by PEAR FOR MAINTAINING CATTLE. PHD) annual plants of short duration, is fraught with serious consequences to the stock industry. A rancher works faithfully a fourth of his life- time to get his herd up to the desired standard of numbers and quality when a drought strikes him and he is obliged to sacrifice possibly his entire herd. He naturally waits for the weather to change from week to week, until his animals get into such a condition that he dares not moye them, and they are then in too low a condition physically to be disposed of at anything like what they are worth, to say nothing about what they have cost him. In such a plight he loses everything, or sells out at a figure which practically means an entire loss, when it is almost certain that if he could keep his animals alive for a month or two there would be feed again and he would be out of danger. It is this uncertainty of the seasons which has often made the grazing of native pasture both hazardous and expensive in the Southwest. The rancher with small means is often caught with his cattle so poor that he can not think of moving them to better pastures, even if he has the means and can find the feed. He waits day after day, hoping for rains which do not come, until his stock begins to die from starvation. Then it is too late to remove them to new pastures, for experience teaches that working or driving starving animals is invariably pro- ductive of tremendous losses. It is in an emergency of this kind that the prickly pear and other forms of cactus become a boon to the rancher. It is owing to the existence of the prickly pear that the success of the rancher in south- ern Texas is largely due. A score of ranchers have acknowledged to the writer during the past year that were it not for pear they would have to move their cattle out of the country once every four or five years on account of droughts. Theoretically,.a rancher can safely stock his pastures to their capacity during the years of poorest pro- duction only, for the weakest link in his monthly chain of feed measures his strength in the stock business. For what matters it if he can accumulate a herd of 500 head of cattle, if a six months’ drought causes a loss of 30 or 60 per cent in his herd? With plenty of pear or other cacti in his pastures, however, this danger is largely removed. He has in this crop a feed which does not deteriorate if not used for three or four or even ten years; it is as good at one time as another, and can be fed by him at a couple of days’ notice under any circumstances, although it is the general belief that it is much more valuable in winter than in summer. A brief report of feeders in various portions of southern Texas will be to the point at this juncture. None of these has accurate accounts of his feeding. Everything is pure estimate, almost entirely from memory, but the accounts which follow are based upon statements of responsible feeders, whose estimates are as accurate as could 26 THE PRICKLY PEAR AS FOOD FOR STOCK. be obtained without definitely planned experiments. Their experi- ences are of great value in planning future investigations and in sug- gesting to those who have not had experience how best to proceed in feeding these plants. | The Messrs. Furnish, of Spofford, Tex., have fed pear three win- ters. Two years ago they simply cut the cactus with a pear cutter and fed it in troughs with two pounds of cotton-seed cake a day for each animal. The following winter they scorched it with brush in the field and then chopped and fed it in the same way. Their experience appears to indicate that chopping does not destroy the spines suffi- ciently to prevent injury from them. During the first year they were feeding pear they lost many calves and they attributed the loss to this cause. They are confident that there is no danger for older stock. They experimented with a pear burner, but were not pleased with it, as their machine used up about a gallon of gasoline per hour under careful manipulation, and with the employment of cheap Mexican labor, much more. ‘They discarded their machines and put the men at work singeing with brush, which, on account of the irresponsible labor available, they considered much more economical. There are various ways of harvesting cactus. These people employ one or two men to cut the pear off with a hoe, and then another gang comes along and loads it on a wagon fitted usually with a hay frame. The felled pear is handled with forks, and from a ton to a ton anda half constitute a load. This is then hauled to the machine and chopped up. A machete is sometimes employed for cutting the cactus off at the ground. It is claimed that the old stocks are much more nutritious than the younger joints. An effort 1s made, therefore, whenever extensive feeding is done, to go into the thickest, rankest pear areas and cut the plants off at the surface of the ground in order to get as much of the old stumps as possible. What relation there is between the young joints and these older stocks should be determined chemically as soon as possible. In practice it is always considered that the older joints and stalks are most nutritious. The chop is loaded on to wagons and hauled to the feeding lot, where it is fed in large flat-bottomed troughs, 3 feet wide and 8 inches deep, the cotton-seed meal being sprinkled over the chop at the rate of about 2 pounds for each animal a day. The first winter feeding was done steadily for two months, and the cattle were given all the pear they would eat, together with 2 pounds of cotton-seed meal. All stock had a limited run of brush pastures. After this first period of two months was up they fed a bunch of the poorer animals for two or three weeks longer until they got strong. These were then turned on to native pastures to ‘‘rustle” for them- selves, while another bunch of weaker ones was fed two or three weeks PEAR FOR MAINTAINING CATTLE. OE longer. It is a very common practice throughout the pear region to feed only the poorer stock. The herd is worked over every few days for the purpose of cutting out those animals which are weak and most in need of feed. These are fed until they get on the mend, and are then turned out to ‘‘rustle” for themselves in the pastures, while ” another bunch is fed in their place. Very often all that is attempted is to keep stock alive until grass begins to grow. : Pear is considered good roughage in time of need in this vicinity, although no one regards it as a nutritious feed and all prefer to give -even the stock which they are only attempting to carry through the winter some concentrated feed with it. It is impossible to estimate the total quantity of pear fed by the Messrs. Furnish. Three years ago Mr. M. T. Cogley, of Laredo, Tex., fed 40 head of cattle for ninety days on a daily ration for each animal of 1 quart of cotton-seed meal, increased to 3 quarts as feeding progressed, and 200 pounds (estimated) of pear, chopped with machetes. Three men did the feeding and hauling. Tbe animals fattened well, but it is believed they were held too long for the best results. They are sup- posed to have weighed about 50 pounds less than would have been the case ten days earher. The falling off is thought to be due largely to too prolonged feeding of cotton-seed meal, but also to some extent to wet weather, which made the pastures boggy. Mr. T. A. Coleman, .of Encinal, Tex., is among the most extensive, if not really the largest, feeder of pear in Texas, and his experience is as varied as any in the country. His feeding has been done both to save cattle and to fatten them, and both operations have been con- ducted with uniform success. During the past winter four methods of feeding were employed: (1) One lot of steers was fed in a closed pen. When feeding began they were given 3 pounds of cotton-seed meal, which was gradually increased to 6 pounds as the feeding progressed. The pear they ate was chopped and fed to them in troughs at the estimated rate of 80 pounds toa feed, or 160 poundsa day. During the last ten days each received about 8 pounds of sorghum fodder a day. The feeding con- tinued seventy days, and Mr. Coleman and his men assert that they never saw stock fatten in better shape than did these; while Mr. Cameron, a buyer with a varied experience, authorizes the statement that they were far above the average of fleshy cattle in that section. (2) In one pasture, cattle were fed pear scorched with a gasoline torch and were allowed free access to cotton-seed cake ina self-feeder. The cake feeding in this experiment was especially unsatisfactory, and the use of the self-feeder will be discontinued. These cattle had the run of dry grass pasture in addition to the cake and pear fed. (3) A third lot was fed cotton-seed cake in a self-feeder, and allowed 28 THE PRICKLY PEAK AS FOOD FOR STOCK. the run of dry pasture containing an abundance of pear, of whick stock eat a great deal during the winter without any preparation whatever. (4) A fourth lot was fed similarly to the first, except that only one- half of the amount of meal was used. These cattle were held ina large pasture also. 3 The first of these methods is said to have proved by far the most satisfactory. Some idea of the extent to which pear is resorted to in times of drought can be had from Mr. Coleman’s operations during the drought of 1901-2. From the latter part of November to the 5th of May, four pear cutters and twenty pear burners were in con- stant operation. Besides these, there were employed as many as 50 men, who traveled through the pear thickets with machetes, cutting the pear down so that cattle could get into it and feed upon it without further preparation. In some respects Mr. Samuel Wolcott’s experience has been as varied and definite as any which has come under the writer’s observation. The methods which he has finally adopted for his work are consider- ably at variance with the practices .of other Americans. Instead of using machinery, he chops all the pear he feeds with machetes, and all pear is scorched on a brush fire just enough to take off the thorns. His method increases the labor of handling considerably in some ways: but having to entrust the work largely to an unintelligent class of labor Mr. Wolcott believes that the additional expense of using machinery with such labor would be greater than the additional cost of using the machete and brush fires. 3 It has been his practice, in feeding for beef, to turn the stock into a pasture of considerable size in the morning; there they get a large picking of grass and some browse. While they are in the pasture the day’s ration is prepared. The troughs are cleaned and filled; the pear is singed, put in the troughs, and chopped, and cotton-seed meal is sprinkled over it at.the rate of from 3 to 6 pounds for each animal. It was the practice during the past winter to feed 3 pounds for thirty days, + pounds for thirty days, and 6 pounds for thirty days, making in all ninety days’ feeding. It requires about ten days to get the cattle into the habit of eating out of a trough, so that the feeding period really extends over a period of about one hundred days. In reality the feeding period is governed largely by the condition of the feed in the pastures. The cattle are turned out on to grass after ninety days of pear feeding. One pasture is reserved for finishing cattle which have been fed pear and cotton-seed meal during the winter. This pasture is, therefore, always in good condition; but the intention is to feed so that the period of ninety days will be up about the time that grass is in good shape in the spring. The cattle are marketed off of grass. The feeding of 125 head was done by three Mexicans and a foreman. Were it not for cheap labor the cost of pear feeding in this way would PEAR AS A HOG FEED. 29 be considerable. With cheap labor, however, even this method is profitable in average years. This spring, cattle were fed on grass for two months after the pear feeding, but in an average year they are sold after four weeks’ run on grass. The reason for the longer period this year was the prolonged drought of the spring season, which made pear feeding much less profitable than usually is the case. It is Mr. Wolcott’s practice to ship off grass or some other than the pear and meal ration, on account of the large shrinkage which the stock suffers after this kind of feed. If it were possible to furnish a partial ‘ration of hulls to supplant a portion of the pear, he thinks that feeding would be very much more satisfactory; but it is to get rid of the expense of the hulls that the pear is resorted to. In all cases in southeastern Colorado, as in Texas, only a partial ration of cactus has been fed. In some cases the remainder of the feed has been supplied in the form of corn chop, and in others cattle have had the run of poor pastures, as is almost universal in Texas. Mr. K. M. Bages, of Trinidad, Colo., during the past winter fed his 40 head of cattle 1,000 pounds (estimated) of cactus per day. He states that the pastures were so short that all the cottonwood leaves (Populus sp.) which had fallen during the past winter were cleaned up. They, however, got some grass as well as greasewood (Sarcobatus vermicu- latus) and shad-seale (Atriplex canescens) browse. His practice was to gather. one load of about 2,000 pounds of cactus on alternate days. The spines were singed off over an open fire of dead poplar wood. The stock were in poor condition when the ranch was visited, about the middle of April, but it is very questionable whether they would ‘have been able to live at all without this additional feed. Mr. J. M. John, of, Trinidad, Colo., who is the only person in this country known to have steamed any of the cactus plants for cattle, reports that he had good success one winter in feeding daily to each animal 30 pounds of steamed cactus and 4 pounds of corn chop, together with a small ration of hay. A lot of poor cows was made into beef between the first of January and the middle of April upon a somewhat larger ration than the above. These data, while not so definite as one could wish, are suggestive and form a splendid basis for future work. | PEAR AS A HOG FEED. While several reports have come to us through the Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales regarding the feeding of prickly pear to hogs, there appears to have been but little attention paid to it for this purpose in this country. The only place known to us where pear has been fed successfully to hogs is at the asylum in San Antonio, Tex. The feeding here is done in such a way that the data, while vaiuable, give very little idea of the amount consumed by each animal. The ae - = = 2 ee et a thn