MILLETS 



MILLETS 



473 



on the digestive organs. If cut late, when the seeds 

 are well formed, the feed has an injurious effect 

 on the kidneys of the horse. The millets may also 

 be of much value in pasturing, especially for sup- 

 ^ plementing exhausted pastures. 



Proso is no^ so good as the other 

 millets for forage, though it is used 

 considerably in this way. It is much 

 more valuable for the seed. An in- 

 creased amount of seed is being used 

 for feeding to stock each year. Seed 

 should be ground. In this way proso 

 ( '^^v^m, ®^®° ^°^^ ^® ^ substitute for corn 

 .< ^'-'yJ^K where that crop will not succeed and 

 the sorghums will not mature. These 

 millets have been found so well adapted 

 for hog-feeding that they are often 

 called hog millets. They are also ex- 

 cellent poultry food, and in North Da- 



.. ,^M«a8E!?- ...^s^^ \io\,& aro profitably fed 



to sheep. Because of the 



large percentage of protein 



the seed contains, proso should be well 



adapted for feeding to dairy cattle. 



In Konig's work on " The Chemistry 

 of Human Food Materials," the protein 

 content of the common millets in the 

 hulled form is given as 7.40 per cent ; 

 of the Hungarian millets, 12.46 per 

 cent ; of the proso millets, 10.51 per 

 cent ; and the barnyard millets, 9.14 

 per cent. It will be noted that the 

 Hungarian millets and the prosos 

 stand rather high in their percentage 

 of protein, the amount being about the 

 same as the average for ordinary 

 wheat. It is highest in the Hungarian 

 millet. Hungarian millet is not nearly 

 so much grown as other millets in this 

 country. Of the millets commonly 

 grown in the United States, therefore, 

 the proso group has the highest pro- 

 tein content. Shepard, in Bulletin No. 

 69 of the South Dakota Agricultual 

 Experiment Station, gives the protein 

 content of a few millets on the air-dry' 

 basis, as follows : Barnyard millet, 

 9.69 per cent ; Tambov millet, 14.28 

 per cent ; Black Voronezh, 15.68 per 

 cent. No analysis of fhe common mil- 

 lets is given. Tambov and Black Vo- 

 ronezh are prosos. It may be stated 

 also that the Black Voronezh has so 

 far proved to be much the best of the 

 prosos in South Dakota. According to 

 these analyses, the protein of proso in 

 South Dakota runs very high. In Russia 

 and Oriental regions the seed of these millets is one 

 of the most common food grains not only for stock, 

 but also for man. 



Fig. 702. 

 Peart millet 



{Pennisctum 

 spicatum). 

 One-fourth 

 natural size. 



Enemies. 



The millet crops are apparently fortunate in 

 being less subject to attacks of insect and fungous 

 pests than probably any other cereal crops. Al- 

 though several fungi may be found on millet, the 

 only one that does any considerable damage is the 

 millet smut (Ustilago Crameri, Korn.), and it has 

 been shown that this smut can be prevented by 

 the ordinary formalin treatment. It seems to suc- 

 cumb also to the hot-water treatment. [See report 

 by W. Stuart in the annual report of the Indiana 

 Experiment Station, 1901. See also Index.] 



Several insects occasionally attack millet, but 

 ordinarily they are of little importance. At cer- 

 tain periods and in certain districts the chinch-bug 

 becomes a rather serious pest. In such cases the 

 millet should not be planted in proximity to other 

 grasses and should be grown in complete rotation 

 with other crops. 



Literature. 



, Carleton R. Ball, Pearl Millet, 

 Farmers' Bulletin No. 168, Uni- 

 ted States Department of Agri- 

 culture, 1903 ; M. A. Carleton, Russian Cereals 

 Adapted for Cultivation in the United States, Bulle- 

 tin No. 23, Division of Botany, United States Depart- 

 ment of Agriculture, pp. 27-30 and 40-41, 1900 ; 

 E. C. Chilcott, Forage Plants for South Dakota, Bul- 

 letin No. 51, South Dakota Agricultural Experiment 

 Station, 1897 ; E. C. Chilcott and James H. Shep- 

 ard, Forage and Garden Crops in the James River 

 Valley, Bulletin No. 59, South Dakota Agricultural 

 Experiment Station, 1898 ; E. C. Chilcott and D. A. 

 Saunders, Millet, Bulletin No. 60, South Dakota 

 Agricultural Experiment Station, 1898 ; A. H. 

 Church, Food Grains of India, 1886 ; A. A. Crozier, 

 Millet, Bulletin No. 117, Michigan Agricultural 

 Experiment Station, 1894 ; J. T. Duthie, The Fodder 

 Grasses of Northern India, 1888 ; H. Garman, 

 Bulletin No. 98, Kentucky Agricultural Experiment 

 Station, 1902 ; A. S. Hitchcock and J. M. Westgate, 

 Forage Plants for Kansas, Bulletin No. 102, Kansas 

 Agricultural Experiment Station, 1901 ; Clarence 

 B. Lane and B. B. Voorhees, Forage Crops, Bulletin 

 No. 130, New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Sta- 

 tion, 1898 ; Jos. B. Lindsey, Forage Crops, Bulletin 

 No. 72, Hatch Experiment Station, Amherst, Mass. ; 

 Thomas Shaw, Forage Crops Other Than Grasses, 

 1900 ; D. A. Saunders, Drought-Resistant Forage 

 Experiments at Highmore Substation, Bulletin 

 No. 74, South Dakota Agricultural Experiment 

 Station, 1902 ; D. A. Saunders, Drought-Resistant 

 Forage Experiments at Highmore, South Dakota, 

 Bulletin No. 70, South Dakota Agricultural Experi- 

 ment Station, 1901 ; D. A. Saunders, James H. 

 Shepard and W. H. Knox, Native and Introduced 

 Forage Plants, Bulletin No. 69, South Dakota Agri- 

 cultural Experiment Station, 1901 ; James H. Shep- 

 ard, Drought-Resisting Forage Plants at the Co- 

 operative Range Experiment Station, . Highmore, 

 South Dakota, Bulletin No. 66, South Dakota Ex- 

 periment Station, 1900 ; W. J. Spillman, Farm 

 Grasses of the United States, 1905 ; T. A. Williams, 

 Millets, Reprint from United States Department of 



