18 BULLETIN 522, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
other hard winter-wheat sections, a very large percentage of the sam- 
ples falling between 60 and 
EE ten LE 
SAMPLES FALLING STRAIGHT 
WITHIN EACH FPPANGE-PERCENT FLOLA— 
FER CENT 
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- 
tanahard winter-wheat flour 
re ce reese 1S lower Omit hemenieemmtean 
Fic. 7—Diagram comparing the moisture content of Mon- that of other sections, when 
tana hard winter wheat with the hard winter wheat of the factors of loaf volume 
Cae te, sre ae the relationship of this factor and textur e 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 i Se ee ee ee 
WAVTAIN EACH FRAN GCE—-FPER CENT FLOUR 
the Montana samples BER CENT 
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 MR wenrann ware irene 
made from a hard dark oe Was | 
Turkey “wheat from’ "2. Sn ee ae 
Kansas and is decid- showing the relationship of this factor to the average flour yield. 
MOS TUE CONTENT — PER CENT 
WEIGHT PER BUSHEL~POUNOS 
Fic. 9.—Comparison of loaves from Montana-grown wheat with a composite sample of No. 2 hard winter 
wheat from Chicago, Ill., crop of 1912: a, Chicago No.2 hard winter; b, Turkey, from Rosebud County, 
Mont.; c, d, and e, Turkey, from Gallatin County, Mont.; f, Spring Club (western white) ,from Gal- 
latin County. 
edly superior in strength to any of the other samples shown. On 
