WHEATS AND FI.OURS OF AROOSTOOK COUNTY. 



135 



BAKING TEST OF FLOURS FROM MILLING EXPERIMENTS AND A FEW" 

 MISCELLANEOUS FLOURS FOR COMPARISON. 







B 



s 

 c 



>> 



u 



c 



c 

 .J 



Appearance of 

 Flour. 



s 

 s 



» 



o 



6349 

 6356 

 6382 

 6383 



6384 

 6385 



6386 

 6605 

 6608 

 6613 

 6618 

 66-23 

 6628 



Coarse 

 Coarse. 



(*) 



Even clears 

 bakers 



or 



Uneven 



Even clears 

 bakers 



or 



(*) 

 Short gray . . 



Soft; 



Soft 



High quality 



Dark 



High quality 

 Standard .... 



Very short. 

 Very short . 



(*) 



Very short 



Standard. 



Per 

 cent. 



2.29 



28.12 

 35.65 



35.65 

 37.92 



39.58 

 37.71 

 .30.00 

 25.21 

 25.00 

 29.16 

 37.79 

 33.12 

 38.75 



(*) Compares favorablj' with standard. No. 6382 the best all around flour. 



The flours from the two milHng experiments at \\^ashburn are 

 too coarsely ground. The weight of the loaf is good, but the 

 percentage of wet gluten and the size of the loaf are much less 

 than would have been the case if the wheat (these are ^linnesota 

 grown, hard wheats) had been milled at Minneapolis. The 

 criticisms on these flours are due to the milling and not to the 

 wheat from which they are made. The low gluten content 

 explains the smallness of the loaves and this is in turn due to the 

 small amount of flour made from the wheat which left a large 

 part of the richest gluten-bearing portions in the offals. 



Although made by another company, the [Minneapolis expert 

 readily recognizes a Alinneapolis milled flour in 6382 which 



