Aug. ifi. I9I5 Prickly-Pears as a I'^'cd for Pdiry Cows 425 



wcij^lu'd 850 poniuls at flic bc^iniiiiijf riiul 851 pounds at flic close. Slic 

 profluci-d 2,204.8 pounds of milk and 87.76 ])onnds of fa(. Dnrinj.,^ (lie 

 preceding year, under siniiiar ((Midif ions rxcc pi for feed, she produced in 

 the same lenj^dh of time 1,522..] potuuls of milk and 58.98 pounds of fat. 

 Her feerl during the; first year cfnisisled of mixed grain, ha^^ and prickly- 

 pear. Owing to better ])hysical cf)ndilioii at lime of jtarl nril ion, ;i.1l I lie 

 cows used for the first year's work gave, an increase of both milk a.nd 

 butter fat during the second year's work. IIf)wever, the percentage 

 of increase of cow 1 was double that of the average of the reiiiaiiiiiig 

 cows. This cow remained in good condition all the time and appeared 

 to be as well nourished as the ])receding year, bike cow i,^, she scoured 

 badly, but ceased to df) so when the chanicter of the ration was changed. 



It is evident that there is a great dirference in individual cows in their 

 ability to subsist upon a ration containing prickly jx-ar as the sole 

 roughage. Cow 1 always ale prick- 1 v pear with ^real relish; cow r'5 

 always ate it reluctantly. In fad, these two cows perhaps n^pre- 

 sented the two extrc^mes as regards their appetite ff)r prickly pear. 

 It is evident that the mailer of j)alatability is an import ani consifl- 

 eration in ch^termining whet her or not to feed ;i ration containing prickly- 

 pear as the sole rfnighage. 



Suimiiiiig up the results obtained with these two cows, it was found 

 that both scoured badly but tlia.t neither was [)ermanently injincd in 

 any way. One of them thriverl, while the other flid not. The expla.na- 

 tion offered for 1 his is t he diderence in 1 he individnalil y of 1 he I wo criws. 



It may not be wis(;, however, to feed any cf)ws exclusively on prickly- 

 pear, as it may cause an f)bst ruction of the intestine, and the death 

 of the animal. Cow 2, which was f(<l 120 poinifls of j)rickly-pear each 

 day, becam(t ill ffjllowing the exijcrimental work, and after s(;vc'n days 

 of f(teding on y)rickly-f)(-ar alone- refus(-d to eat fecfl of any kinrl. I'rif)r 

 to being fed on prickly-pear a.lone this cow was on a. ration of 120 

 pounds of prickly-jK-ar, 5 pounds of sorghum hay, and 6 pounds of mix<;d 

 grain a day for a i)eriod of 15 days. Her illness was diagnosed as an 

 obstruction of the intestine, and every effort was made to remove i(. 

 When a post-mortem examinalion was made, a lightly c-omprctssed 

 mass of fiber about the size of a goose egg was found at the beginning 

 of the small intestine. In addition, there was a large amomit r)f unrli 

 gested fiber closely matted together in the fourth stomach. No ollxr 

 animals suffered from any trouble of this sort, although thre<- ollur 

 cows were fed a ration of prickly-pear only, and at dirTerent times dur- 

 ing these experiments seven wen- ferl a heavy jjrickly-pear ration. 



INFUJKNCK <)V THJv MINIvKAI, MATTJvK CONTAINIvI) IN I'KICKI.Y-IMvAK 



Prickly-pear contains a large amount of mineral matter, which no 

 doubt is responsible, in j)art for the well-known laxative nature of th(; 

 plant. While in f>rdinary fecfl j)ractic(r this high content of mineral 

 matter is p(;rhai>s of no advantage, it may be desirable if the remainder 



