MONTANA-GROWN WHEAT. 19 



the other hand, the loaf marked b represents "yellow" Turkey 



a. 



. b .■ c- . d e 



\ - ■ . ' A 



Fig. 10. — Comparison of loaves from No. 2 hard winter wheat obtained at Kansas City, Mo., with samples 

 of Montana Turkey wheat, crop of 1911: o. No. 2 hard winter (dark), Kansas City; 6, No. 2 hard winter 

 (yellow), Kansas City; c, i, and e, Montana-grown Turkey. Part of the apparent difference in color 

 is due to unequal lighting. Notice the similarity of h to c, d,, and e and the superiority of a in baking 

 strength. 



wheat from Kansas and resembles veiry closely loaves c, d, and e, 

 which are from Mon- 

 tana Turkey wheat. 

 The conclusion that 

 maybe drawn from this 

 illustration is that al- 

 though Montana wheat 

 does not often exhibit 

 exceptionally high 

 strength, yet practi- 

 cally all samples fall Fig.ii.— cross section ofloaves baked from the flour of Montana-grown 

 ■writViin flip D-PTip-pfll hard winter wheat and St. Louis No. 2 hard winter: o, St. Louis No. 

 WlUim LUe geneid.1 2 hard winter; 6, No. 2 hard winter wheat, from the port of New 

 range in quality found York, said to be Montana wheat; c, Turkey, from Fergus County, 



in the hard winter 



Mont. All loaves are similar; o, however, has the best texture. 



wheat of other sections. That this condition might be reversed in 



Fig. 12. — Comparison of bread from Montana wheat with a sample of No. 2 hard winter from Chicago: 

 o, Chicago No. 2 hard winter; 6, Turkey, from Yellowstone County; c, i, and e, Turkey, from Gallatin 

 Coimty; /, Spring Club (white), from Gallatin County. 



some seasons is within the range of possibihty. The point is that local 

 climatic and other environmental factors have great influence on the 



