HUMPBACK WHEAT. 3 
hard spring wheats. Attention is called to the fact that the results 
on the Humpback wheat, as shown in the table, include tests of sam- 
ples representing the crops of the three years, 1908, 1909, and 1910. 
The crops of 1908 and 1909 are represented by one sample each, and 
the crop of 1910 by nine samples. Five of the samples of the 1910 
crop were secured near Hoffman, Minn., and the remaining four from 
near Kensington, Minn. At each of these points a sample of Blue- 
stem wheat was also obtained, the results of milling and baking tests 
upon the same being likewise shown in Table I. The figures at the 
bottom of the table give the average of tests of Bluestem and Velvet 
Chaff wheats from North Dakota and Minnesota of the 1910 crop and 
afford an interesting comparison with the Humpback wheat, to the 
disadvantage of the latter. With the exception of samples 255 and 
502, the results as given in the table are based on the yield of “straight 
flour,” the tests on these two samples being on the patent flour. 
Taste I1.—Comparison of results of milling and baking tests of Humpback 
wheats with other hard red spring wheats. 
Crude protein 
Volume ofloaf— Absorp- (N X 5.7). 
ield G te 
Yie. Sa Oe 
ay = of , | used Color 
Description and source of sample. No. : Per de) rior ee of 
straight per 100 
: 340 100 is crumb. 
flour. : grams In In 
SCS See te fone flour. | wheat. 
flour. | flour. 
Humpback wheat from— PZ CPICE Oar Cs Cae: C.c. | Score.| Per ct.| Per ct: 
Kensington, Minn., crop of 1908-.-.) 1255 |1 70.82 | 2,138 629 51.8 96 12.31 12.31 
Kensington, Minn., crop of 1909. -=.| 1 502 | 169.7 2,260 681 SIND 91 11.91 12 i 
Hoffman, Minn. , crop OH IOLO Se sacs 637 | 65.6 2, 230 656 DL Se ie STE 14.19 
AD YOV A ea ot EN 8 ofan Gane eR On 700 | 68.7 2,400 706 50. 6 97 14. 65 14. 88 
TOs He hes 8 AIA ee a Ne ROLE C256 2,100 618 50. 0 96 13.97 14. 82 
Be SRO Oe Oo ABO Se as eae COZ ano 2,010 591 50. 0 95 14. 99 15.79 
ERPS aac A RS Re ae ea 703 | 69.7 2,150 632 50. 0 95 14. 54 15. 16 
Kensington, Minn., crop of 1910. 704 | 72.8 2, 150 632 50. 0 96 12. 60 UDOT 
SPU MMI OUI ac) 1oA 2 ah 705 | 72.4 2,120 624 49.7 96 13. 34 14. 02 
Do se eee Reape eh a le Re 706 72.8 2,090 615 48.2 95 13.05 13. 22 
HD) OR Pie lees PUR CN aL ol oe 708 | 73.4 2,050 603 48.2 95 13.91 14. 36 
Bluestem wheat from— 
Hoffman, Minn., crop of 1910...-..-.. 699 | 69.5 2,590 762 52.4 98 14. 36 14. 82 
Kensington, Minn., CroprorquglOee sel 10% Paroa2: 2,260 665 50. 3 97 14.02 13.91 
AVERAGES. 
Humpback wheats from— 
Hoffman, Minn., crop of 1910.....-.|..---- 69.8 2,176 640 50. 5 94.8 | 14.19 14.95 
Kensington, Minn. MCLOP On LOM Ole eee es (2:9 2,105 619 | 49.0 955 On|) 3e23 13. 59 
Both Hoffman and Kensington, 
EOP OLE Oi Osea aye Ses sok a UL 2 2,145 631 49.8 95 o1 a ielsa76 14. 35 
Eight samples of Bluestem wheat from 
North Dakota and Minnesota, crop 
OIE Tey eae ea es clea SN 2 aE 69.2 2,430 715 52et 97.1) || 12559 13.4 
Seventeen samples of Velvet Chaff 
wheat, grown in North Dakota, 1910-..).._... 66.9 2,428 713 52.4 99 IS 23% 14. 52 
A 1 With samples 255 and 502 the tests were made on the patent flour, but in all other cases on the straight 
our. 
From the standpoint of flour yield, as obtained upon the experi- 
mental mill of the North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station, 
it will be noticed that the Humpback wheat, like other large-berried 
varieties, gives a high yield of flour, in this respect probably excel- 
