MILLIXG AXD BAKIXG EXPERIMENTS. 
17 
Table 14. — Summary of milling and baking data on b~k samples of Hayne* Blue- 
stem and .?-) comparable samples of Marquis grown during the seven years 
from 1915 to 19.21 inclusive. 
Descriptive data. 
Haynes 
Blue'stem. 
Marquis. 
54 
54 
56.6 
59.2 
15.6 
15.5 
70.1 
70.3 
14.8 
15.7 
15.1 
14.0 
61.3 
60.8 
2,228 
2,3-54 
498 
498 
90.0 
91.1 
90.2 
92.8 
0.50 
0.48 
Percentage 
of Marquis. 
Number of samples 
Test weight per bushel (mill-cleaned wheat pounds. . 
Crude protein content of wheat per cent . . 
Yield of st raight flour do 
Yield ol shorts do 
Yield of bran do 
Water absoqDtion of flour do 
Volume of loaf cubic centimeters. . 
Weight of loaf grams. . 
Texture of loaf score. . 
Color of loaf do 
Ash in flour l per cent . . 
95.6 
100.6 
99.7 
94.3 
107.9 
100.8 
94.6 
100.0 
9& 8 
97.2 
104.2 
1 Average of 28 samples. 
Humpback. — The Humpback variety originated from field selec- 
tions made by J. P. Berglund, a farmer living near Kensington, 
Minn. The original head was probably the result of natural hybridi- 
zation. Two strains were developed, the first being distributed about 
1905. This strain is often called Bearded Bluestem, as the head is 
bearded and has pubescent or velvety chaff (glumes). A second 
strain, having glabrous or smooth chaff, was distributed somewhat 
later than the first, and both strains were grown as Humpback. The 
second strain has recently been named Dixon. In recent years the 
acreage of both strains has been reduced, principally because of their 
poor milling and'baking quality. In 1919 it was estimated that about 
o2,000 acres of both strains were grown in Illinois, Minnesota, Ne- 
braska. North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. Since that 
year the acreage is believed to have been still further reduced. 
Sixty-two samples of the so-called Humpback wheat have been 
milled. These were obtained almost entirely from commercial sources 
in Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota, where the variety 
was principally grown. No distinction was made between the two 
strains when most of these samples were obtained, and it is therefore 
not possible to present the results from the varieties separately. 
There are also few samples of Marquis grown under conditions 
which would make it possible to give a fair comparison between 
Humpback and that variety. The data given in Table 9. however, 
show that the Humpback variety produces a high percentage of 
straight flour but is exceptionally low in crude protein content, water 
absorption, and loaf volume, as well as in color and texture of the 
bread. These experiments confirm the results obtained from com- 
mercial mills which early showed Humpback to be poorly adapted 
to the manufacture of bread-making flour. Because of its inferior 
bread-making qualities, the requirements of the Federal wheat stand- 
ards for hard red spring wheat places it in the red spring subclass. 
In addition to its poor bread-making quality, Humpback wheat 
has produced low yields in nearly all comparative experiments. The 
growing of this variety should be discontinued. 
53480°— 24 2 
