18 



BULLETIN 522, U. S. DEPAETMENT OF AGKICULTUKE. 



s >•<. &s 



/e f ^eis 



Br. 



).^ 





other hard winter-wheat sections, a very large percentage of the sam- 

 ples falling between 60 and 

 64 pounds in both instances. 

 The general relationship be- 

 tween weight per bushel and 

 flour yield is also illustrated 

 in this diagram. With in- 

 crease in weight per bushel 

 it will be noted that there is 

 also an increase in the aver- 

 age flour yield. 



As is illustrated in figure 9, 

 the baking strength of Mon- 

 tana hard winter-wheat flour 

 is lower on the average than 

 that of other sections, when 

 the factors of loaf volume 

 and texture are considered. 

 This difference is undoubt- 

 edly emphasized by the unusually low strength of the Montana wheat 



in 1912, but, on the 



other hand, very few of 



the Montana samples 



showed the very high 



strength of the "shoe- 

 peg" or dark Turkey 



wheat of central and 



western Kansas. Figure 



10 illustrates this point. 



The loaf marked a is 



made from a hard dark 



TurkeV wheat from •^'''" ^" — diagram comparing the weight per bushel of Montana hard 



. 1-1 winter wheat with that of the hard winter wheat of other sections, 



ji.ansas and is aeCld- showing the relationship of this factor to the average flour yield. 



Fig. 7.— Diagram comparing the moisture content of Mon- 

 tana hard winter wheat with the hard winter wheat of 

 other sections and showing the relationship of this factor 

 to the average flour yield. 



§ •*■■* 



■ 'SG *-. ^T-.-t 



\ G-* ro GS.if 



y/z^i-a or 



B^^BBb 



Fig. 9. — Comparison of loaves from Montana-grown wheat with a composite sample of No. 2 hard winter 

 wheat from Chicago, 111., crop of 1912: a, Chicago No. 2 hard winter; 6, Turkey, from Rosebud County, 

 Mont.; c, d, and e, Turkey, from Gallatin County, Mont.; /, Spring Club (western white), from Gal- 

 latin County. 



edly superior in strength to any of the other samples shown. On 



