A STUDY OF COLORADO WHEAT 
By W. P. HEADDEN 
PART I 
It is generally conceded that the flour made from Colorado 
wheat is inferior to that made from Kansas hard wheat or the bet¬ 
ter grades of Minnesota flour. Such is the opinion of the bakers 
and of the public. I have made inquiry regarding the difference in 
the bread-yield between Kansas and Colorado flours on the suppo¬ 
sition that they were equally well milled. As nearly as I can learn, 
there is a difference of from 30 to 40 loaves per barrel. 
Having established the fact that soil conditions are, in the 
main, responsible for the characteristic properties of our sugar 
beets, it seemed advisable to study our wheat crop to find out if 
possible, the factors that determine the quality of our Colorado 
wheats. In beginning this work, we assume that the popular esti¬ 
mate of our wheat for the purpose of bread-making, i. e., that it is 
inferior to the best, is established. 
In looking over the literature we find no published results of 
work done on Colorado wheats since the early eighties. Mr. Clif¬ 
ford Richardson published in the Report U. S. Department of Ag¬ 
riculture, 1883 , forty-five analyses of Colorado Wheats. Protein 
(NX 6 . 25 ) ran from 11.0 to 15 . 94 , average 13 . 27 , and in the Report 
of 1884 , sixty-one analyses. The protein ranged from 8.93 to 
14 . 00 , average 11.79 percent. The average of eleven Minnesota 
samples in 1883 Report is 12.4 percent, with one as high as 17.15 
percent, and for fourteen Minnesota samples in the Report of 1884 
the protein is 15.14 percent. The Colorado samples recorded seem 
to have been furnished by Prof. Blount, at that time Professor of 
Agriculture in this institution. In the Report of the U. S. Depart¬ 
ment of Agriculture for 1885 there is reference made to the low 
protein content shown in the results published in 1884 . The state¬ 
ment is made that the low protein content was due to a storm which 
knocked down the plants and prevented the assimilation of nitrogen. 
It seems that the average nitrogen content of the sixty-one samples 
analyzed was 1.8864 percent which, so far as the amount is con¬ 
cerned, by no means calls for any apology and it matters little 
whether the reason assigned for its being lower than for the pre¬ 
vious year, 2.00 percent, is correct or not. While Mr. Richardson’s 
analyses are now upwards of thirty years old, they are probably as 
serviceable as they ever were, still we have deemed it advisable to 
