Arizona republican., 1914-08-23

would be if the latter kind had been used These experiments on account of the great interest in spineless cac- tus will prove of great value to large percentage of farmers.
 "The department says the following regarding the rsults obtained: "Prickly pear was found to be very palatable and when judiciously fed, was in no way detrimental to the COW or her product during the two years trial
 "The most satisfactory amount was
 60 to 100 pounds of the pear per COW per day, depending upon the size of the COW and upon the yield of milk. With this medium ration the cows looked thrifty, and there was no detrimental effect upon the size and vigor of the offspring or upon the COW after par turition. Larger quantities of the pear caused a very laxative condition of the
 bowels and kept the stable in a more ol less unsanitacy condition. "Chemical analysis showed that the pear was low in protein, high in min eral matter, and contained from 87 to to 93 per cent of water. This analy- sis. and also the feeding trials, indi |. cated that the pear should be used with some dry. feed containing a large amount of protein, and that the pear on account of it's high mineral content is a good feed to give with a ration, deficient in mineral matter,
 
 like cottOnSeed hulls.
 "By substituting 60 to 75 pounds of pear for a portion of the dry rough age the percentage of fat in the milk was decreased fortytwo hun dredths per cent on an average. It also decreased somewhat the total amount of fat and the percentage of solids not fat, but increased the total yield of milk. Like pasture grass the pear produced a higher colored butter than did the dry feed. The flavor of the milk and butter was not impaired in any way.
 "A good daily maintenance ration for graded Jersey cows when dry | was found to be to pounds of
 sorghum hay, one pound cOttonseed
 meal, 60 to 100 pounds of pear. (Ap-
 parently 10 pounds of alfalfa hay
 would make the proper combination
 in California.-Editor)
 Two dry cows were maintained for 50 and 50 days respectively, on I113 and 1O5 pounds of pear per day with two pounds of cottonseed meal as as supplement. One COW fed pear | \
 pounds in weight. Another COW died l from stoppage of the small intes- tines with balls of fiber. when fec l on pear alone.
 | Cows fed pear appeared to be more sensitive to cold weathet than l when fed dry feed. This was borne l out by the decrease in milk produc- ton following "northers." Those re- ceiving a heavy ration of pear de creased in milk flow 7.46 per cent cent. and those receiving only dry I feed 1.91 per cent. Cows fed nc
 roughage except peac, drank nc water for days at a time and then only few swallows: those fed 15t 1 pounds per day drank an average oi five pounds daily; those fed seventy
 five pounds drank three pounds
 daily; those on dry feed drank sixty
 nine pounds per day on an average From these results it appears that pear is valuable feed when there 1 is a scarcity of stock water. Working at the usual rate, one
 man using a gasoline torch could singe one ton of pear in fifty min- utes with one and two-thirds gallons of gasoline. After singeing, the pear | can be harvested by cutting and | hauling to the feed lots, or the cattle can be turned into the field The latter method is more wasteful of the feed but requires less labor. Both spiny and spineless varieties were fed in these trials. but no diff | ference could be detected in chemi- cal composition or feed value for milk
 production.
 1 The spineless pear can be har- vested more cheaply than the spiny because it does not need singeing but in Southern Texas the yield is l less.
 | establishing field of pear will be $6 or s7 per acre. When once es tablished and properly cared for. the yield of pear will last indefiniately
 tlle young growth springing from the old stumps as soon as the pear is harvested. In Southern Texas no ir-
 r:gation is necessary, but shallow cultivation sufficient to keep out weeds and grass should be given. | The average yield at Browns | vile, Texas, under very favorable
 conditions, two years from planting
 was eighty-five tons per acre peI l year. The growth from old stumps
 is considerably greater, amounting ir
 one test to over 200 tons per acre for the two years growth. These yields were made under good dry land cultivation. At San Antonio the yield of native spring cactus was twenty-three tons per acre without