1 Srpr., 1897.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 265 
PRICKLY PEAR FOR STOCK. 
Mr. J. O’Suna, of Singleton, in a communication to the Agricultural 
Gazette of New South Wales, appears to bear out what we wrote in our first 
issue on the subject of prickly pears in Mexico. He says:— 
“The experience in the troubles of drought that this district 1s under- 
going at present tend to show that the Government committed an error in 
ordering destruction of the plant known as prickly pear. We were compelled to 
destroy them some years ago; and if we only had them back now, we would have 
no fear of losing our valuable dairy herd, which will take almost a lifetime to 
put in profitable order again. Those who have pears in this district are 
feeding them to cows in a boiled state, either pure or, better (those who have 
the means), mixing a little bran with them; and the cattle are not only living 
but are giving a very fair share of milk. They also make an excellent mess 
for pigs, and they are keeping alive all the pigs that are in this district—in 
fact, those who could find a little paddock of pears have shifted their cattle 
and pigs thereto, and erected boilers, from which a daily supply is served 
‘round to hungry and longing beasts. Those who cannot get pears, and they 
are many, have their cattle dying already with only the approach of winter. 
Some have shifted them to the coastal districts, which is certain death to cattle 
reared in this district. By the above you may see the error of eradicating the 
prickly pear.” ne 
Jo this, the editor appends the following note :—‘ There can be no doubt 
prickly pear has come in very handy during the present trying season, but 
stacks of hay or ensilage put aside for times of scarcity would look more 
business-like than clumps of this horrible pest.” 
We quite endorse this latter opinion. The prickly pear in Queensland is 
a pest and a sorry substitute for ensilage, the materials for which are always 
at hand during a fair season; and provident farmers will, by its means, not be 
driven to the last refuge of the destitute to keep their stock alive. If a dairy 
herd is worth keeping, it is worth providing for, not only in the matter of food 
but in that of proper housing. 
GRAPES AND BEES. 
In is generally believed among fruitgrowers that bees destroy grapes. The 
California Fruit Grower reports the result of an experiment made at the 
Indiana Experiment Station by Professor J. Troop, which proved the falsity of 
this belief :—‘‘ All defective berries were removed from a Worden vine when 
the fruit was well ripened, and a colony of bees placed in close proximity to it, 
-and the whole enclosed with mosquito netting. The bees were thus confined 
for twenty-one days, and provided no further food. At the end of the three 
weeks the colony was removed and grapes examined, but not a single grape had 
been injured. Other observations showed that certain species of wasps first 
cut the grape-skins, and the bees would usually finish the work. He 
thinks it would be a very stupid bee that would not avail itself of such an 
opportunity.” 
BEES AND FRUIT TREES. 
Ar one of the experiment stations (says the Florida Times-Union) it was decided 
-to try an experiment to determine the value of bees to fruit trees. T'wo peach- 
trees were removed to a greenhouse, and a colony of bees was moved in and the 
trees were forced to bloom at midwinter. One of the trees was so protected 
as to prevent the bees from getting to it, while they were allowed free access to 
the other. During the time of bloom the bees worked industriously on the 
flowers of the tree to which access was had. As the season advanced, the fruit 
on both trees set and grew without appreciable difference until stoning period, . 
-when the fruit dropped from the tree’that the bees had been kept away from 
while that on which they had fed held its fruit until ripe. 
