26 
Colorado Experiment Station 
I have given the analyses olgeneral samples of spring- and winter- 
wheats in the preceding tables in order to convey a general idea of 
what the composition of Colorado wheats really may be. Some of the 
samples analyzed were from Minnesota; these have been introduced 
simply for comparison. It is true that I could have found analyses of 
Minnesota wheats, but I wanted analyses made by the same analyst, to 
eliminate personal equations. The South Dakota samples are intro¬ 
duced because we used their crops of 1912 as seed wheats. Their sam¬ 
ples of the 1913 crop were obtained to see how their crops for this 
year compare in composition with the preceding, as well as with our 
own. I do not know how the seasons differed in South Dakota not 
how they differed from ours, besides, our wheats were grown with, 
and theirs without irrigation. 
I fully realize that it is almost useless to try to compare wheats 
grown in different localities, as the composition evidently depends upon 
so many conditions that cannot be given in the statement of the analy¬ 
ses, that differences in the composition cannot readily be interpreted. 
As an illustration of this, the three samples of Turkey Red wheat given 
in the table of winter-wheats, General Samples of 1914, serve very 
well. These are samples labeled “Fruita’’, which I personally collect¬ 
ed. Two of these samples were grown within one-half mile of one 
another, while the third sample was grown a short distance east of 
these in the same district. I was informed that these growers received 
seed from the same lot. These three samples were produced under the 
same conditions of w'eather; they were all threshed directly from the 
field. The grains were all protected from tlfe weather, in fact were 
stored in granaries and they were all grown with irrigation. I do not 
know definitely, but I think it quite safe to assume, that they were 
grown with one irrigation, and without any fertilization. So far, the 
conditions under which the three samples were grown may be consider¬ 
ed as identical and yet their composition is very different. This is not 
only the case with the protein, which is 9.6, 10. i and 13.2 percent re¬ 
spectively, but we find the phosphorus and potassium varying to a sig¬ 
nificant extent, but inversely with the protein content. Were it not for 
my personal knowledge of the soil conditions, and of the other condi¬ 
tions as well, the analytical results obtained in these cases would be 
impossible of interpretation. This pertains to all general samples with 
much force. I am so fully convinced that it is wholly useless to try to 
interpret an analysis of a wheat, without a rather full knowledge of the 
conditions under which the sample was grown, that I have sought no 
general samples during the past year and a very few in the past two 
years. As a further justification for this conviction I may cite the 
case of two samples given in the table of general samples of spring- 
