93 



on one-qnartei' of an acre at the rate of 72 bushels of seed and 4344 

 pounds of straw per acre. The average of the ''special corn fertil- 

 izers " costing within four cents of three dollars more per acre, gave 

 a crop worth at least (at current prices for common millet) $6.38 less 

 per acre than the fertilizer richer in potash — a net advantage in favor 

 of the latter fertilizer of S9.34. This result affords further evidence, 

 therefore, of the correctness of my conclusion in regard to fertilizers. 

 They are undoubtedly, as a rule, too poor in potash. 



COMPARISON OF CORN AND MILLET AS GRAIN CROPS. 



It is impossible to publish at present an exact comparison of this 

 millet and corn as grain crops, as the necessary analytical work has 

 not been completed. We have also in progress at this time experi- 

 ments for the comparison of meals made from these two grains as 

 food for milch cows as well as others for comparison of millet straw 

 with corn stover. In the light of the results of analyses of these 

 pioducts — both grain and straw — and of these feeding experiments 

 we shall be able to make exact comparisons. 



For the present I desire simply to call attention to the fact that the 

 millet has enormous cropping capacity. It gave us to the half-acre, 

 37.2 bushels of seed, weighing 47 pounds per bushel, while the corn 

 gave us 30.6 bushels of shelled grain. The millet straw weighed 

 2191 pounds; the corn stover, (by no means as dry) 2100 pounds. 

 The millet straw chopped, crushed, moistened and sprinkled with 

 meal is readily eaten by both horses and cattle ; but it does not 

 appear to be equal to the corn stover in feeding value. The millet 

 seed, as shown by the results of foreign analyses, appears to resem- 

 ble oats very closely in composition. So far as our experience in 

 feeding it has gone, the meal from it appears to equal corn-meal in 

 feeding value for milk production. The fertilizers, it will be remem- 

 bered, were the same'for the two crops. The labor cost considerably 

 more for the millet than for the corn. The crop, however, was cul- 

 tivated in drills and hand-hoed and weeded, while in ordinary farm 

 practice by judicious rotation it would be possible to secure good 

 crops by sowing broadcast without cidtivatiou. The cost of threshing 

 also is high when the work is done by hand as it does not thresh 

 easily. On a large scale the work could doubtless be done by 

 machine at a much lower cost. In short, I believe the labor cost 

 per acre can be brought as low as for corn. 



