50 



GRAHAM FLOUR. 



No. 9103 was ground as fine as possible without injuring the 

 product at the request of the representative of the bureau in order 

 to determine whether it was possible that the miller could have 

 furnished the above jobber with his finely ground Graham flour. 

 The separations on the various sieves follow: 



Separation of samples specially milled from hard spring wheat. 



The following table gives the analysis of the wheat and Graham 

 flour and also of the three samples of Graham flour: 



Analysis of samples from one miller at different times. 



The above analyses clearly show that Graham flour No. 9048 could 

 not have been produced from wheat No. 9047 unless a portion of 

 the bran had been bolted. This is evident from the difference in both 

 the percentage of ash and of fiber of the wheat and the flour and the 

 same might be indicated from the difference in the gliadin number. 

 Again, it is manifestly impossible to have made Graham flours Nos. 

 9049, 055, and 9103 from wheat No. 9047. The percentages of 

 nitrogen and ash clearly lead one to this conclusion. Inasmuch as 

 these three samples were milled under observation there is no doubt 

 about the impossibility of wheat No. 9047 serving for the three 

 flours. This incident is related here simply to show that the jobber 

 was not getting from the miller the kind of flour he thought he was. 

 It is quite probable that No. 9047 may have been used for the pro- 

 duction of No. 9048. In this case No. 9048 was more of the nature of 

 a wheat meal than of a Graham flour, as much of the bran must have 

 been removed in milling. 



The following sets of two samples each are from three different 

 millers, the first sample of each series having been collected by the 

 representative of the bureau at one time, while the second sample in 

 each set was collected about six months later. 



