44 BULLETIN 698, U. S. DEPARTMEKT OF AGRICULTtTEE. 1 



days, in the abnormally dry season of 1916. The average duration | 



in normal seasons is about 95 days. j 



Germination, and consequent plant space, has been moxe uniform \ 



in this durra than in any of the milo varieties. In the very dry \ 



spring of 1910, stands of one plant every 12.8 and 14.8 inches, i 



respectively, were obtained from the two lots. In the wet spring of ^ 



1915, when the milos germinated to rather poor stands, the one i 



selection of White durra grown had a plant space of only 11.7 inches, i 



The most striking physiological difference between the White durra ] 



and the milos is in relation to tillering. In some cases, as No. 27 j 



in 1910 and 1912, absolutely no suckers were produced. In 1915, the j 



very wet year, No. 81 produced only 34 per cent of suckers in the ; 



total stalks. j 



In height these selections exceed milo and White milo to a small \ 



extent. The average height is about 5 or 5.5 feet and the variation ■ 



was from 4 feet in 1912 to 7 feet in 1913. i 



In yield these White durra selections fall below milo and feterita. \ 



The average acre yields of the two in the first six years, when both ] 



were grown, are 16.9 and 17.3 bushels, respectively, as shown in \ 



Table XIII. The average acre yield of No. 81 in the 9-year period i 



was only 18.7 bushels. In 1915, the year of bumper yields, its i 



record was only 36.9 bushels, about 1 bushel more than it yielded in | 



1908 and about 30 bushels less than that of the best milo. The j 



yields of this selection are compared with those of other milos and ; 



durras in Table XVIII. '] 



BtTFF DURRA. 



Under Buff durra are grouped, for convenience, several diverse : 



varieties. None has been found to have any economic importance in j 



the Panhandle. ' 



Nos. 104 and 374 are the domestic Brown durra, which is the : 



brown-seeded coimterpart of White durra. No. 101 is a similar plant ' 



from North Africa. No. 183 is the Durra Safra or Yellow durra from j 



Egypt, more truly a milo. No. 389 is a brown-seeded Dzhugara from j 



Turkestan. Nos. 246, 249, and 250 are from India. Nos. 371, 372, \ 



and 376 are lots obtained from shiploads of chicken feed brought i 



in ballast from Liverpool, England, but probably originating in j 



India. ! 



It is evident from the data in Table XIV that the performance of j 



these varieties was so poor as to warrant discarding the entire lot at j 



the end of 1913. No. 246, Dagdi Jowar, from India, seemed to be j 



the most promising of all, but its average annual acre yield in. the j 



6-year period was only 14 bushels. Most of the varieties were both | 



tall in stature and late in maturing. I 



