i88 journal of Agriculture . [jo March, 1910. 



PRICKLY PEAR. 



A Fodder Plant for Cultivation ? 



Alfred J. Ewart, D.Sc., Ph.D., F.L.S., Government Botanist and 

 Professor of Botany in the University of Melbotirne. 



As this matter is one of some importance it will be worth while discuss- 

 ing the last two publications on this question by the United Stales 

 Department of Agriculture. They are the work of Dr. David Griffiths, 

 Assistant Agriculturist, and are directed to show that Prickly Pear is 

 adapted for profitable cultivation as a farm crop. The species to which 

 these statements apply is (9^7/;?z'/(3 Lindheimeri, Englm., whereas the plant 

 naturalized in Victoria, and which has proved sufficiently troublesome and 

 threatening to^ be proclaimed under the Thistle Act for the whole State, is 

 Ofimtia monacantha, Haw.,, a different species. It is by no means 

 uncommon that one species of a genus may be useful while another is the 

 reverse. For instance, in the genus Brassica we have included under 

 Brassica oleracea, L. the cabbage, cauliflowex, Brussels-sprouts, &c. , 

 which are among the most useful of cultivated plants, while under Brassica 

 Sinapistrum, L. we have the Charlock, which is one of the worst weeds 

 of cultivation. 



It does not appear, however, that we have a similar instance in this 

 case, or that Opuntia Lindheimeri, is markedly .superior as a fodder plant 

 to O . monacantlia. As the two Bulletins recently issued, though slightlv 

 tinged with enthusiasm, are characterized by a strict regard for fact, it 

 will be sufficient to give an epitome of the facts thev establish and leave 

 farmers to judge for themselves as to whether the evidence justifies them in 

 undertaking the cultivation and spread of this or any other form of 

 Prickly Pear. 



Spiny versus Spineless Forms. 



Dr. Griffiths does not recommend the cultivation of any of the spineless 

 forms, at present known, in preference to the spiny forms, his reasons 

 being quoted below in tabular form as follows : — 



Advantage of the sfineless forms. 

 'rhe\' do not require singeing. 



Advantages of sfiny native forms. 



1. They are hardy. 



2. They do not require fencing. 



3. They are injured but little bv wild 



animals. 



4. They require a minimum of handling. 



5. They accomplish the distribution of the 



manure during the day. 



An additional disadvantage of the spineless forms is that unless fenced 

 in with wire netting they are eaten by rabbits, &c. In regard to the spiny 

 forms, before the plants can be eaten with safety, or in fact eaten at all, 

 the spines must be burnt off or otherwise removed, or softened. Neither 

 Bulletin gives any satisfactory estimate of the cost of this treatment. 



Under the head of cultivation, however, it is mentioned that the 

 labourers used were Negroes and Mexicans, and it is po.ssible that the 

 presence of cheap coloured lalx>ur in abundance may give this plant a value 

 it could not possibly enjov under white labour conditions in Australia. 

 Thus, the wages of a man work out at 5d. an hour in the calculation of the 

 cost of planting. Useful labour is not easy to obtain at this rate in Aus- 

 tralia. 



