MONTANA-GROWN WHEAT. 



11 



of high baking strength, though containing a fair amount of gluten. 

 In strength, as indicated by loaf volume and texture, this wheat was 

 decidedly the poorest of the three years. This characteristic was 

 apparently due to certain chmatic conditions that were general 

 throughout the 1912 wheat-growing season, as the same variations 

 were noted with Mon 



i^CZ. UMe Of^ LOy^/^- c c- 







A/0/^T/-/£^A/ ^^/P/A/i^ 



^|^^^<5 







MON.T^/V/^ ^/='/=P/Aj<S 



^^O 





^^^^^^ 



A/fO^T/^/^^ l^'/A/T£^ 



^^^^^^oeo 









rBrruf?£ or /lcw/^- •sca/^£r 







A/O^TH£'f^/^ ^/=-^/A/3 



^^^^\3J 







A^C/VT^yAW ^/='^/AJG 



^^^^^^j 







AiOA/T^A/y^ ^/NTEf? 



^3/ 



tana spring wheat and 

 the spring wheat of 

 Minnesota and the Da- 

 kotas. This is shown 

 diagrammatically in 

 figure 4, which com- 

 pares the loaf volume 

 and texture of loaves 

 made from flour rep- 

 resenting wheats of 

 the crops of 1911 and 

 1912. The results for 

 northern spring wheat 

 are based upon the average of tests with composite samples of spring 

 wheat secured at Minneapolis and Chicago. Figure 5 is a diagram- 

 matic presentation of the results of the milling and baking tests of 

 the samples of the three years 1910, 1911, and 1912 and summarizes 



the results presented in Table II 



Fig. 4. — Diagram comparing northern-grown wheat of the 1911 and 

 1912 crops, showing the generally lower strength of the wheat crop 

 of 1912. 



/3/0 



/•9/r 



/SIS 



/s// 



/3V3 



/3IO 

 /■9// 

 /O/S 



y7£LO or s^rn^/ef/r r/^oufp—rr/? c 



co/^or' or Br'£AO-^cor'r 



\3a.o 

 \ss.o 



y^a^o/r'rT/bA/ or /r/^rrr'-rrr' cr/vr 





i^Oi-UME or /-Oy^r— c.c. 





TE^ruffE or L.o^rsc-or'r 



■ 3a 



for those years. 



CORRELATION OF PHYSICAL 

 CHARACTERS AND MILLING 

 QUALITY. 



In order to determine how far 

 the physical characteristics and 

 condition of these samples could 

 be correlated with actual qual- 

 ity, as evidenced by the milling 

 and baking tests, several group- 

 ings were arranged in Table III. 

 The arrangement of the sam- 

 ples in these tables was based 

 upon notes taken after careful 



examination of the external appearance of each sample and then 



dividing them into several groups, as follows : 



(1) Montana hard winter (Turkey) wheat, plump or fairly plump and bright to 

 sKghtly bleached. Samples answering to this description were arranged in group A 

 of Table HI. 



Fig. 5, — Diagram comparing the crops of 1910, 1911, 

 and 1912 of Montana Turkey wheat. 



