37 



the cntiro-whoat, and tlio nutrients of the hitter more thorouulily than 

 tho.se of the (xrahaiii Hour. Likewi.se the enero-y of the .stnii^ht-iijrade 

 flour was more avaihibh'. than that of entire-wheat or Graham. 



In the experiments with Okhihoma wheat, tiiere were also a[)pre- 

 ciable differences in the digestibility of the protein of the entire-wheat 

 flour by the different subjects, and the same in the case of the (Iraham 

 flour. The results for the protein of the straight-grade flour were in 

 close agreement. As was the ease with the Oregon flours, the results 

 with the different subjects on the same flour agreed quite clo.sely 

 in respect to the digestibility of carbohydrates and the availability 

 of energy. Furthermore, with each su])jeet the digestibility of the 

 •nutrients and the availability of the energy of the ditterent flours was 

 in the following order: Straight-grade, entire-wheat, and Graham. 



In l)rief, then, the flours from both kinds of wheat give the .same 

 results, namely, the nutrients of the straight-grade flour are more 

 digestil)le than those of the entire-wheat flour, and the latter are more 

 digestible than those of the Graham flour. 



This means that, when the three flours compared are ground from 

 the same lot of wheat, in actual nutritive value the straight-grade 

 flour stands flrst, entire-wheat flour next, and Graham flour last. 

 This mav be more clearly apparent when the data are summarized in 

 the manner shown in the following ta])le: 



Table 2b.—Pv(>portiuii of total and digediUe nutrients and total and available energy in 

 different gradei^ of Oregon and Oklahoma flour as milled. 



In the case of the Oregon wheat, considering total protein, the (Ti-a- 

 ham flour contained 8.97 per cent, the entire- wheat 8.2.5 per cent, and 

 the straight-grade 7.55 per cent; but, considering digestible i)rotein, 

 the straight-grade flour contained 6.41 per cent, whereas the Graham 

 flour contained only 5.65 per cent. Likewise the total energy per 

 gram was 3.990 calories for Graham flour and 3.880 calories for straight- 

 grade; but the available energy per gram was 3.686 calories for the 

 straight-grade flour and only 3.28-1: calories for the Graham flour. In 

 the case of the Oklahoma wheat also the proportions of total protein 

 and enero-y were laroest in the Graham and smallest in the straight- 



o«^ • •1*1 



grade flour, whereas tiie proportions of digestil)le protein and avail- 

 able energy were largest in the straight-grade and smallest in the 



