20 BULLETIN 522, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
quality of the wheat and these factors may vary greatly from year to 
year. 
winter-wheat flour are well illustrated in figures 11 and 12 
The usual differences that are found in bread made from hard 
, and it will 
be noted Haat as a rule the loaves from jhe Montana aan do not 
SAMPLES FALLING 
WITHIN EACH FRANGE—-PER CENT 
VOLUME 
CGS 7a 
9/729 
9F To 
9S 70 
or To 
GI To 
4970 50.9R— 
ABSORP P= 
7T/ON 
OF 
| WATER, 
PEP CENT 
GB MONTANA HAO WINTER WHEAT 
OO A4FO WINTER, WHEAT FROM 
SECTIONS OTHE THAN MONTANA 
Fig. 13—Diagram comparing the strength (loaf volume, texture, 
and water absorption) of the flour from Montana hard winter 
wheat with that from hard winter wheat of other sections. The 
results of tests of samples of the crops of 1908 to 1913, inclusive, are 
shown. 
likewise equal, if not better. 
suffer by comparison. - 
One factor which 
has not yet been men- 
tioned is water ab- 
sorption of the flour. 
Thecomparisons made 
diagrammatically in 
figure 13 show that 
the Montana wheat 
flour shows up rather 
more favorably than 
the general runof flour 
from hard winter 
wheat of other sec- 
tions. 
To summarize these 
comparisons between 
Montana hard winter 
wheat and that of 
other sections, it may 
be said that, eliminat- 
ing the _ differences 
brought about by high 
moisture content, the 
Montana wheat, which 
is plump and sound 
and of high weight per 
bushel, gives about the 
same flour yield as 
similar hard winter 
wheat from other sec- 
tions and that the 
color of the flour is 
In baking quality few, if any, of the 
Montana samples showed exceptionally high strength, but all of them 
fell within the range of quality found in the hard winter wheat of 
other sections, although with a lower general average. 
The flour 
from the Montana wheat averages considerably higher in water 
absorption. 
