OCR Text |
Show WHEAT ON DRY FARM Influence of Combined Harvester on Value of Crop. Results Obtained by Utah Experiment Station Indicate That Machine Does Not Affect Quality of Flour Produced. ftv .R. ItonKrtT BTnWAHT. ri.mlal laboratory. L'Uh Kxprrltnrnt Station. This question has recently been studied by the chemical department of the I'tah experiment station. The introduction in-troduction of the combined harvesier Into tbe dry farming operation of the inter-mountaln west has resulted in a reduction of the cost of operation on the larger dry farms. Tbe claim was soon made by the millers of certain sections of the state that wheat cut with tbe harvester could not be converted con-verted into flour of good quality. In studying this question, samples of Turkey snd Kofod wheat cut with the harvester In 1909 and 1910, together to-gether with samplea of the same whost cut with tbe binder and atacked. were obtained. The wheal was milled In our experimental flour mill and the yield of bran, shorts and flour recorded re-corded The bran, shorts and flour were submitted to chemical analysis and the flour was made into bread un-ler un-ler standard conditions. The results obtained are reported In bulletin No. 113 of the I'tah experiment station ; and Indicate clearly that tho combined harvester does not have influence, : either unfavorable or favorable, upon ; the milling, chemical or baking quali- ties of the flour produced. The yield of flour obtained from the Turkey variety cut with the harvester In 1S10 was 72.63 per cent, of the wheat while the yield of flour obtained ob-tained from the wheat cut with the binder and stacked was 72.77 per cent. The yletd of flour obtained from the Kofod wheat cut with the harvester In 1910 was 72.17 per cent., while the yield of flour produced from the wheat cut with the binder stacked was 7212 per cent. It Js thus readily seen that with respect to the yield of the flour the method of harvesting . has no influence in-fluence whatever. It Is Interesting to note, however, that a greater per cent, of hlj;h grado floqr may bo obtained from the Turkey variety of wheat. About eighty per cent, of the flour produced pro-duced from the Turkey wheat would be classed as a high grade flour, while only about forty per cent, of the flour produced from the Kofod would be classed as high grade. In case of the chemical composition of the flour obtained, no conclusion can be safely drawn regarding the Influence In-fluence of tbe harvester. In case of the Turkey variety of wheat, the flour produced from the wheat which had been stacked is slightly higher than that of the flour produced from wheat cut with harvester. In case of the Kofod variety of wheat, however, this Is not true. The Kofod wheat cut with the harvester In 1910 has a slightly slight-ly lower protein content than the same wheat cut the aame year with the binder and stacked. However, the wheat cut with the harvester In 1909 bas a higher protein content than that cut wltb tbe binder and stacked. Tbe chemical composition of the bran and shorts Indicate only that these mill products ere rich In protein and would probably be good cattle feed. The volume of tho loaf produced from the Turkey variety cut with the harvester w as 1.6CC cc. and 1.653 cc. In 1909 and 1910, respectively, while the volume of loaf of the bread made from the flour produced from tbe Turkey Tur-key which has been cut with the binder an atacked was l,fG7 cc. In case of the Kofod variety, these numbers num-bers become 1.C76 cc. and 1,450 cc, respectively, for 1909 and 1910, and 1,294 cc. for the wheat which had bfen stacked. The flour was all treated treat-ed under uniform standard conditions and It is thus seen that If any Influence Influ-ence can be ascribed to the harvester t all It must be a favorable Influence. While tbe Investigation did not show any Influence of the harvester on the bread-making value of the flour produced. It did demonstrate the value of Turkey Red wheat for flour production. produc-tion. The Turkey Ited wheat produces ja uniform flour of hlph grade which 1 has the strength to produce a loaf of bread of good volume. The flour produced pro-duced from new Turkey Red wheat (teemed to make as good bread as flour produced from old Turkey Red wheat, while the flour produced from new Kofod wheat produced a loaf of bread very much Inferior In quality sr.J yet the year-old Kofod wheat produced a good flour. Actual photo-; traphs cf the breed msde are given in the original publication. The millers of the inter mountain west still Insist that the harvester has t detrimental Influence on the value of the wheat. This claim may be Justified Justi-fied when the wbest Is stored In larger quantities as was done with the wheat cut with the header or binder and stacked. It Is quite probable that wheat cut with the harvester must receive re-ceive different storsge treatment. It may be that wheat cut with the harvester har-vester and stored in lots of 40,000 bushels will not produce good flour, but this cannot be charged against '.he harvester, but le a special etor-ige etor-ige proposition which merits Investigation. Investi-gation. Keeping Ripe Plums Picked. Gather plums promptly. Over-ripe fruit will transmit rot fungus to other specimens, and cause loss. Tbe trees should be examined every day. and the fruit gathered, whether It Is wanted or cot. This will reduce the tpresd of disease. |