prickly pear as stock feed. smith. 13 



The Utility and Limitations of Prickly Pear as a 

 Roughage for Steers. 



The trials here described demonstrate the ability of rations 

 comprising a high proportion of prickly pear properly supple- 

 mented by other feeds to produce substantial gains in steers. 

 Prickly pear is a satisfactory sole roughage fed with meals. 



The insuflKciency as a maintenance feed of prickly pear 

 alone was shown in the first maintenance trials when three 

 steers receiving it and no other feed rapidly lost weight, scoured 

 badly, and exhibited stariness of coat and other signs of un- 

 thriftiness. Steer No. 1 6, iriitially in rather low store condition, 

 showed signs of wealoiess at the end of fifty days, when all 

 three were given meal or lucerne in addition to prickly pear. 

 Thereupon improvement in appearance and condition was 

 soon noticed. 



Animals receiving a medium allowance of ordinary hays, 

 though maintaining body weight during sixty and sixty-five 

 day periods, showed in dvilness of coat sign of unthriftiness 

 attributable to improper rather than insufficient feed. 



Besides its use as a maintenance feed and drought emer- 

 gency fodder, the employment of prickly pear in rations for 

 fattening steers is reported from Texas, cotton-seed meal 

 being generally combined \vith it for the purpose. Griffiths (1) 

 records good results with this ration at Encinal, Texas. Twenty- 

 seven head fed chopped prickly pear, and consuming 96 lb. 

 per head and about 4-4 lb. cotton-seed meal daily, averaged 

 in gain If lb. per day. For this result the starch equivalent 

 of the daily ration would have approached 12 lb., of which 

 the prickly pear contributed 9 lb. 



With 0. inermis the highest ration, including medium allow- 

 ance of meal, consumed by steers does not, as shown in the 

 experimental part of this paper, much exceed 10 lb. starch 

 equivalent, adequate only to production of 1 lb. fattening 

 increase daily. It is also shown that increase of meal with the 

 object of improving the ration would reduce the amount of 

 prickly pear eaten, and the total nutritive value of the ration 

 would not be increased proportionately to the added meal. 

 A rate of fattening increase equal to that of the Texan experi- 

 ments quoted coiold not, therefore, be procured except by 

 including high amounts of meal in the feed, which would then 

 comprise a comparatively low proportion of prickly pear. 



