4o8 Journal of Agricultural Research voi.xm, no. s 



On the contrary, the data in both our tables and in their own are such as 

 to prove the fallacy of their contention and to cause the theory to be 

 definitely discarded. 



Guthrie (5) concluded that the property of absorbing water, which a 

 flour possesses, was dependent on the physical nature of the gluten present 

 in the flour rather than upon the absolute quantity of the gluten. He 

 suggests that this physical difference may be due to the relative propor- 

 tions of glutenin and gliadin in the gluten, inasmuch as he found that dry 

 glutenin will absorb nearly twice as much water as will dry gliadin. 

 However, when his data are recalculated it is at once apparent that the 

 moist gluten from the flours milled from "good bread wheats" were 

 hydrated to almost exactly the same extent as v/ere those from the weak 

 flours, the glutens from the two flours of the former class of the 1896 crop 



Fig. 14. — Graph showing the unbibition curves for Ws gluten in oxalic acid and in oxalic acid plus certain 



salts. 



containing 68.19 ^^^ 68.53 per cent of water and those from the weak 

 flours 66.44 and 69.10 per cent. Similarly, for the 1895 flours, the strong 

 flour gave 65.58 per cent of water in the moist gluten, while the glutens 

 from three weaker flours contained 63.37, 64.80, and 64.51 per cent of 

 water, respectively. There are certainly no differences in either set of 

 figures large enough to account for the wide differences which were ob- 

 served in the physical properties of the glutens. Neither do these figures 

 tend to support Guthrie's conclusion that strength is regulated by the 

 glutenin to gliadin ratio. 



Turning now to our own data as given in Tables I to IV and in figures 

 I to 5, inclusive, we find two noteworthy differences between the strong 

 and weak glutens. These are (a) rate of hydration and (b) maximum 

 capacity for hydration. 



