4 
The Colorado Experiment Station 
had their attention directed to the subject by the complaints of 
farmers, grain dealers, and millers. Their statement is that the in¬ 
vestigation of this subject was begun in 1902. Following this in 
1908, Bulletin 156 of the Kansas Experiment Station on “The Yel¬ 
low-berry Problem in Kansas Hard Wheats” appeared. It would 
appear that others, among them Prof. H. Snyder of Minnesota Ex¬ 
periment Station, had discussed the same question without desig¬ 
nating it by any special name. 
The first and most important question regards its effects 
upon the quality of the grain. I find no definite data given upon 
this subject. Lyon and Keyser give a measure of the injury to the 
Nebraska crop in terms of loss to the fanner. This is put down 
at from one-half to one million dollars annually. This was the es¬ 
timated loss on a market where the wheat was not sharply graded, 
many of the millers making no difference at all in the price. I 
have been informed that Kansas and Oklahoma at times have suf¬ 
fered to a much greater extent in the matter of market values than 
Nebraska, because their wheat sought a market where the grading 
was much stricter. I have found an instance in Colorado in which 
a mill would not buy yellow-berry wheat, at any price. The reason 
given me was that one could not be sure of the quality of the flour 
turned out. This particular mill was blending winter and spring 
wheats. The sample in question was a winter wheat, Turkey Red, 
and was very badly affected by yellow-berry. That the generally 
accepted effect of this affection on the value of the wheat is a det¬ 
rimental one, is indicated by the use of the term “deteriorated 
wheat.” We find this term used quite frequently when it is diffi¬ 
cult to know just what is meant by it. 
Lyon and Keyser established the fact that the yellow-berry 
kernels contained less nitrogen than the flinty or horny ones, so 
that there is more in the problem than a prejudice on the part of 
the wheat-buyers. If we are correct in using the percentage of 
nitrogen present in wheat as a measure of its value, these yellow- 
berries are really inferior to the flinty ones, and this is a good 
reason why they should command a lower price. 
If there is any sharp and satisfactory distinction between the 
use of the terms yellow-berry and soft wheats, I have failed to no¬ 
tice it. I am strongly inclined to think that such a distinction should 
be made, but it does not seem to have been made and there is> cer¬ 
tainly some confusion. The California and Oregon wheats are 
spoken of as soft, starchy wheats. The yellow-berry wheats are 
spoken of in the same way, but that the same thing is meant in 
the two cases is not clear. It is, however, true, I think, that they 
are low in protein, high in starch, and light in color. Wheats af- 
