MONTANA-GROWN WHEAT. et eG) 
the other hand, the loaf marked 6 represents “‘yellow’’ Turkey 
Fic. 10.—Comparison of loaves from No. 2 hard winter wheat obtained at Kansas City, Mo., with samples 
of Montana Turkey wheat, crop of 1911: a, No. 2 hard winter (dark), Kansas City; 6, No.2 hard winter 
(yellow), Kansas City; c, d, and e, Montana-grown Turkey. Part of the apparent difference in color 
is due to unequal lighting. Notice the similarity of 6 to c, d, and e and the superiority of a in baking 
strength. 
wheat from Kansas and resembles very closely loaves c, d, and e, 
which are from Mon- 
tana Turkey wheat. 
The conclusion that 
may be drawn from this 
illustration is that al- 
though Montana wheat 
does not often exhibit 
exceptionally high 
strength, yet practi- 
cally all samples fall te. 11.—Cross section of loaves baked from the flour of Montana-grown 
“a1: hard winter wheat and St. Louis No. 2 hard winter: a, St. Louis No. 
within the : s eneral 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; a, however, has the best texture. 
wheat of other sections. That this condition might be reversed in 
Fic. 12.—Comparison of bread from Montana wheat with a sample of No. 2 hard winter from Chicago: 
a, Chicago No. 2 hard winter; 6, Turkey, from Yellowstone County; c, d, and e, Turkey, from Gallatin 
County; f, Spring Club (white), from Gallatin County. 
some seasons is within the range of possibility. The point is that local 
climatic and other environmental factors have great influence on the 
