Glass .^' V, , Book VI si 2- IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT ^^ BY T: L: LYON Thesis presented to the University Faculty of Cornell University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1904 Also printed as Bulletin No. 78, Bureau of Plant hidustry, U. S. Department of Agriculture Cornell TJuiv. Lib. BxohangP ^c" r-. \ PREFACE. I wish to express my appreciation of the guidance of Professor I. P. Roberts, Professor G. C. Caldwell and Professor Thomas F. Hunt, who constituted the committee having my work in charge, also of the advice given by Dean L,. H. Bailey and the assistance of Mr. G. N. Lauman. For the analytical work, extending through a period of seven years and involving several thousand chemical determinations, I am indebted to Professor S. Avery, Mi. R. S. Hiltner, Professor R. W. Thacher, Mr. Y. Nikaido, Miss Rachael Corr, Mr. H. B. Slade and Mr. G. H. Walker. Mr. Alvin Keyser has kept records of the wheat breeding plats and Mr. E. G. Montgomery has assisted in keeping other records. CONTENTS Page. Object of the investigation 13 Part I. — Historical: Some conditions affecting the composition and yield of wheat 17 Composition as affected by time of cutting 17 Influence of immature seed upon yield 20 Influence of climate upon composition and yield 20 Influence of soil upon composition and yield 23 Influence of soil moisture upon composition and yield 29 Influence of size or weight of the seed-wheat kernel upon the crop yield... 30 Relation of size of kernel to nitrogen content 35 Influence of the specific gravity of the seed kernel upon yield 37 Relation of specific gravity of kernel to nitrogen content 39 Conditions affecting the production of nitrogen in the grain 40 Part II. — Experimental: Some properties of the wheat kernel 49 Yield of nitrogen per acre '2 Method for selection to increase the quantity of proteids in the kernel 76 A basis for selection to increase the quantity of proteids in the endosperm of the kernel 8"! Improvement in the quality of the gluten - 91 Some results of breeding to increase the content of proteid nitrogen 95 Yield of g; ain as affected by susceptibility to cold - 100 Yield and nitrogen content of grain as affected by length of growing period. . 104 Relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant Ill Summary and conclusions 11° 9 TABLES OF EXPERIMENTS. Table 1 . Analyses of kernels of high and of low specific gravity 49 2. Proportion of light and of heavy seed 50 3. Analyses of large, heavy kernels and of small, light kernels 50 4. Analyses of spikes of wheat, arranged according to nitrogen content of kernels. Crop of 1902 52 5. Summary of analyses of spikes of wheat, arranged according to nitrogen content of kernels. Crop of 1902 56 6. Summary of analyses of spikes of wheat, arranged according to specific gravities of kernels. Crop of 1902 56 7. Summary of analyses of spikes of wheat, arranged according to weight of average kernel. Crop of 1902 .57 8. Analyses of plants, arranged according to percentage of proteid nitrogen. Crop of 1903 59 9. Summary of analyses of plants, arranged according to percentage of pro- teid nitrogen. Crop of 1903 64 10. Analyses of plants, arranged according to weight of average kernel. Crop of 1903 65 11. Summary of analyses of plants, arranged according to weight of average kernel. Crop of 1903 71 12. Summary of analyses of plants, arranged according to grams of proteid nitrogen in average kernel. Crop of 1903 72 13. Crops grown from light and from heavy seed for four years 73 14. Analyses of twenty-five spikes of wheat, showing their total organic nitro- gen : 77 15. Analyses of twenty-three spikes of wheat, showing their percentage of proteid nitrogen _ 77 16. Analyses of twenty-one plants, showing total nitrogen and proteid nitro- gen 78 17. Analyses of spikes of wheat, showing difference in proteid nitrogen 79 18. Variations in content of proteids 80 19. Relation of gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen to proteid nitrogen 85 20. Summary of analyses, showing relation of gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen to proteid nitrogen 88 21. Relation of proteid nitrogen to gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen 88 22. Summary of analyses, showing relation of proteid nitrogen to gliadin-plus- glutenin nitrogen 91 23. Ratio of gliadin to glutenin as the content of their sum increases 92 24. Summary of analyses, showing the ratio of gliadin to glutenin as the con- tent of their sum increases 94 25. Analyses showing transmission of nitrogen from one generation to another 96 11 12 TABLES OF EXPEKIMENTS. Table 26. Summary of analyses, showing transmission of nitrogen from one genera- tion to another 98 27. Analyses showing transmission of proteid nitrogen in average kernel 99 28. Analyses showing transmission of kernel weight 100 29. Yields of plants, arranged according to percentage killed in each family. , 101 30. Summary of yields of plants, arranged according to percentage killed in each family 104 31. Yield and nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to length of growing period 105 32. Summary of yield and nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to length of growing period Ill 33. Summary of nitrogen content, etc., tabulated according to yield per plant Ill 34. Summary of yield, etc., tabulated according to nitrogen content Ill 35. Relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant 112 36. Summary of relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant . 118 37. Relation of yield of plant to height and tillering, and to the yield per head . 118 38. Relation of yield per head to yield, height, and tillering of plant, and to weight of average kernel 118 B. P. I.-158. V. P. P. I.-133. IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. OBJECT OF THE INVESTIGATION. Efforts to improve the wheat plant have been numerous and have accomplished important results. The work of Fultz, Clawson, Rudy, Wellman, Powers, Hayne, Bolton, Cobb, Green, and Hays in improving by selection, and of Pringle, Blount, Schindel, Saunders, Farrar, Jones, Carleton, and Hays in improving by hybridization, has resulted in giving this country many prolific strains and varieties of wheat, while Garton Brothers, of England, Farrar, of New South Wales, Vilmorin, of France, Rimpau, of Germany, and others have accomplished the same for other portions of the world. Attempts at improvement have, however, been directed primarily tow^ard effect- ing an increase in the yield rather than in the equality of the crop. While the latter property has not been entirely lost sight of, selection based on quality has never been applied to the individual plant, but only to the progeny of otherwise desirable plants. Why selection for quality of grain in the individual plant has not gone hand in hand with, selection for other desirable properties is perhaps to be explained by the fact that no method for such selection has ever been devised. Mr. W. Farrar, of Queanbeyen, New South Wales, in an address made a short time ago, said: Before we can make any considerable progress in improving the quality of the grain of the wheat plant we shall have to devise a method for making a fairly correct quantitative estimate of the constituents * * * of the grain of a single plant and yet have seeds left to propagate from that plant. In devising a method for increasing the percentage of nitrogen in wheat it becomes desirable to know the causes that produce variation in this constituent of the kernel. Numerous experiments and obser- vations have been made on this subject, the results of which agree in the main in attributing such variation to the following conditions : (1) Stage of development of the kernel. (2) Variation in temperature of different regions. (3) Variation in temperature of different years in the same region. (4) Variation in the supply and form of soil nitrogen. (5) Variation in the supply of soil moisture. 13 14 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. All of these factors have been studied, and are recognized as opera- tive. Nothing, however, appears to have been done to show their influence upon the actual amount of nitrogen taken up by the wheat plant and deposited in the kernel. This is really the point of greatest interest; for although it is desirable to secure a wheat of greater nutri- tive value, it should not be done at the sacrifice of yield of nitrogenous substance. Admitting that variation in the nitrogen content of wheat is induced by the conditions mentioned, it is essential to the plant breeder to know whether a high or low nitrogen content may be, under similar conditions, a characteristic of an individual plant; whether this quality is transmitted to the offspring; with what con- stant characteristics it is correlated, and whether a high percentage of nitrogen in a normal, perfectly matured wheat plant is an indica- tion of a large accumulation of nitrogen by that plant. The data contained in this paper cover the points mentioned, and it is hoped that some definite information has been gained that will lead to a practical solution of the problem of improving by breeding the quality of wheat for bread making. Fj!^Tirn I HISTORICAL 15 SOME CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE COMPOSE TION AND YIELD OF WHEAT. Experiments to ascertain the effect of different conditions upon the composition and yield of wheat have been conducted mainly along the following lines: (1) Stage of growth at which the grain is harvested. (2) Influence of immature seed upon the resulting crop. (3) Effect of chmate. (4) Effect of soil. (5) Effect of soil moisture. (6) Influence of size or weight of seed upon the resulting crop. (7) Influence of specific gravit}^ of seed upon the resulting crop. A brief summary of a number of these experiments is herewith given. COMPOSITION AS AFFECTED BY TIME OF CUTTING. In 1879/' and again in 1892/^ Dr. R. C. Kedzie conducted very careful experiments to note the chemical changes that occur in the wheat kernel during its formation and ripening. These agree in the main in showing a gradual decrease in the percentage of total nitrogen, albuminoid nitrogen, and non-albuminoid nitrogen from the time the grain set to the time the kernel was ripe. The decrease in all of these constituents was much more rapid during the first than during the last stages of this development. The percentage of ash decreased at the same time. In 1897 Prof. G. L. Teller'' carried on some experiments in which he covered the ground already gone over by Doctor Kedzie and also contributed to the knowledge of the subject some very important data concerning the proportion of the various proteids contained in the wheat kernel during the process of development. Teller found that the proportion of total nitrogen in the dry matter steadily decreased from the time the kernel was formed up to about a week before ripening, but that, unlike Doctor Kedzie's results, it gradually increased from that time on. He intimates , that this increase before ripening may have been due to defective sampling and hoped to a Report of Michigan Board of Agriculture, 1881-82, pp. 233-239. ''Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 101. '■ Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 53. 27889— No. 78—05 2 17 18 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. repeat the experiment to remedy this, but he has pubHshed nothing further. Tlie amid nitrogen continued to decrease up to the time of ripening, as did also the ash, fats, fiber, dextrins, and pentosans. There was a gradual and marked increase in the proportion of ghadin up to the time of ripening, and a somewhat less and rather irregular decrease in the proportion of glutenin during the same period. Failyer and Willard " report analyses of wheat in the soft-dough stage and when ripe. The ash, crude fiber, fat, and the total and albuminoid nitrogen were higher in the soft-dough wheat, and the nitrogen-free extract and non-albuminoid nitrogen were higher in the ripe wheat. Dietrich and Konig -' quote results from five experimenters — Reiset, Stockhardt, Heinrich, Nowacki, and Handtke. Only in one case (Heinrich) is there a constant decrease in total nitrogen as the grain approaches ripeness. There is much inconstanc}^ in the results, there being in some cases a decrease, in nitrogen between the milk stage and full ripeness and sometimes an increase. There is little informa- tion to be gained from the results quoted b}" Dietrich and Konig. Kornicke and Werner in their "Handbuch des Getreidebaues "'^ refer to the work of Stockhardt, and also that of Heinrich, to show that during the process of ripening the percentage of nitrogen in the wheat kernel gradually diminishes, as does also the percentage of ash, and that, on the other hand, the percentage of carbohydrates increases during the same period. Heinrich also shows by a state- ment of the number of grams of these constituents in 2,600 kernels at different stages of development that the absolute amount of nitrogen and ash increases up to the time of ripening, and that consequently the decrease in the percentage of these constituents is due to the rapid increase in the carbohydrates. The results obtained by Heinrich appear as follows when tabulated: stage of growth. 14 days after bloom Beginning to ripen. Ripe Overripe Starch. Percentage in 100 parts of dry matter of kernel 61.44 74.17 75.66 76.38 Grams in 2,600 kernels. 22.0 .58.5 67.0 70.0 Protein. Percentage in 100 parts of dry matter of kernel 14.05 12.21 11.82 11.67 Grams in 2,600 kernels. 5.0 10.0 10.5 10.7 Percentage in 100 parts of dry matter of" kernel. Grams in 2,600 kernels. 2.48 2.14 1.97 1.88 0.84 1.70 1.75 1.79 Nedokutschajew'' analyzed wheat kernels at different stages of development and found*an almost uniform decrease in the percentage (' Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 32. b Zusammensetzung u. Verdaulichkeit der Futterraittel, 1, p. 419. c Handbuch des Getreidebaues, Berlin, 1884, 2, pp. 474-476. rfLandw. Vers. Stat., 56 (1902), pp. 303-310. COMPOSITION" AS AFFECTED BY TIME OF CUTTING. 19 of total nitrogen, a slight but irregular decrease in the percentage of proteid nitrogen in tlie dry matter, and a constant decrease in the percentage of amid nitrogen. He holds that the amid substances are converted into albumen as the kernels ripen. His figures are as follows : Date. Weight of kernel (mg.). Percentage of- Dry I Total Proteid ^^^^' Amid matter, nitrogen, nitrogen.! uitrogen i^itrogen. Julv 13.. Julv 18. . July 24 . . July 29.. August 3 August 9 9.17 15.80 .30. 79 37.99 46.39 45.46 30.14 37.23 45.18 38.37 51.52 49.83 2.87 2.55 2.65 2.46 2.32 2.37 1.90 1.94 2.33 2.08 1.98 2.13 0.29 .20 .19 .16 .13 .11 0.68 .41 .13 . 22 i'ii .13 Judging from these results there can be no doubt that the per- centage of nitrogen, both total and proteid, decreases as the kernel develops, ow^ng to the more rapid deposition of starch that goes on during the later stages of growth. The larger part of the nitrogen used by the wheat plant appears to be absorbed during the early life of the plant. This is transferred in large amounts to the kernel in the early stages of its development, after which nitrogen accretion by the kernel is comparatively slight. The deposition of starch, on the other hand, continues actively during the entire development of the kernel. It would further appear that the amid nitrogen is converted into proteid compounds as development proceeds. As showing the stages of growth of the wheat plant at which the greatest absorption of nitrogen occurs, some experiments may be quoted. Lawes and Gilbert" say: In 1884 we took samples of a growing wheat crop at different stages of its progress, commencing on June 21, and determind tb.e dry matter, ash, and nitrogen in them. Calcu- lation of the results showed that, while during little more than five weeks from June 21 there was comparatively little increase in the amount of nitrogen accumulated over a given area, more than half the total carbon of the crop was accumulated during that period. Snyder's analyses'' show that of the total amount of nitrogen taken up by the wheat plant, 85.97 per cent is removed from the soil within fifty days after coming up, 88.6 per cent by time of heading out, and 95.4 per cent by the time the kernels are in the milk. Adorjan'' finds that assimilation of plant food from the soil is not proportional to the formation of dry matter in the plant, but that it proceeds more rapidly in the earl}^ stages of growth. During early growth nitrogen is the principal requirement. The nitrogen stored « On the Composition of the Ash of Wheat Grain and Wheat Straw, London, 1884. b Minnesota Experiment Station Bulletin 29, pp. 1.52-160. '■ Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 14, p. 4.36, from Jour. Landw., .50 (1902), pp. 193-230. 20 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. up at that time is, he says, used later for the development of the grain. It is too well known to require substantiation by experimental evidence that the yield of grain per acre and the weight of the indi- vidual kernel increase as the grain approaches ripeness. It is there- fore quite evident that immaturity, although resulting in a higher percentage of nitrogen in the wheat kernel, would curtail the pro- duction of nitrogen by the crop, and, furthermore, that the produc- tion of proteids would be still further lessened by reason of the greater proportion of amid substances present in the grain at that time. INFLUENCE OF IMMATURE SEED UPON YIELD. Georgeson " selected kernels from wheat plants that were fully ripe, and from plants cut while the grain was in the milk. He seeded these at the same rate on 2 one-tenth acre plots of land. The immature seed yielded at the rate of 19.75 bushels per acre of grain and 0.8 ton of straw, while the mature seed produced 22 bushels of grain and 1.04 tons of straw per acre. Georgeson says that in a similar experi- ment the previous year the difference in favor of the mature seed was still more pronounced. Although the evidence is limited, it may safely be considered that the use of immature seed w^ill result in a smaller yield of wheat than if fully ripe seed be used. INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE UPON COMPOSITION AND YIELD. Lawes and Gilbert* state that "high maturation in the wheat crop as indicated by the proportion of dressed corn in total corn, propor- tion of corn in total product (grain and straw), and heavy weight of grain per bushel, is, other things being equal, generally associated with a high percentage of dry substance and a low percentage of both mineral and nitrogenous constituents." This is based upon the wheat crops at Rothamsted for the years 1845 to 1854, inclusive. More recent publications' by these investigators reaffirm their belief that the composition of the wheat kernel depends more largely upon the conditions that affect its degree of development than upon any other factor. They found almost invariably that a season that favored a long and continuous growth of the plant after heading, residting in a large yield of grain, a high weight per bushel, and a plump kernel, produced a kernel of low nitrogen content. "Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 4, p. 407, from Kansas Experiment Station Bulletin 33, p. 50. ^ On Some Points in the Composition of Wheat Grain, London, 1857. c Our Climate and Our Wheat Crops, London, 1880, and On the Composition of the Ash of Wheat Grain and Wheat Straw, London, 1884. INFLUENCE OF CLIMATE UPON COMPOSITION AND YIELD. 21 Kornicke and Werner " cite an experiment in which winter wheat grown in Poppelsdorf for several years was sent to and grown in the moist chmate of Great Britain, in Germany, and in the continental climate of Russia (steppes) . The results were as follows : Number of exper- iments. Weight (in grams) of— Percentage of— Locality. 100 plants. Kernels from 100 plants. Grain. Straw. 37 18 19 600 500 365 227 204 160 37.8 40.8 44.0 62.3 59.2 56.0 These investigators conclude from the results that in a moist cli- mate relatively more straw and less grain are produced than in a dry, warm climate. The thickness of the straw and the weight of the kernels from 100 heads are greater, while the percentage by weight of kernels to straw is much less in a moist climate. They also quote Haberlandt as saying that a continental climate produces a small, hard wdieat kernel, rich in gluten and of especially heavy weight. Deherain and Dupont * report some interesting observations as to the efTect of climate on the composition of wheat. They state that the harvest of 1888 at Grignon was late and the process of ripening slow. There was a heavy yield of grain having a gluten content of 12.60 per cent and a starch content of 77.2 per cent. The following season was dry and hot, with a rapid ripening of the grain, resulting in a smaller crop. The gluten content of the grain was 15.3 per cent and the starch content 61.9 per cent. They removed the heads from a num- ber of plants. The next day the stems were harvested, as were also an equal number of entire plants. The stems without heads showed that carbohydrates equal to 5.94 per cent of the dry matter had been formed. The stems on which the heads remained one day longer contained 1.63 per cent carbohydrates. They argue from this that the upper portion of the stem, provided it is still green, performs the functions of the leaves in other plants and thus elaborates the starch that fills out the kernel in its later development. A report from the Ploti Experiment Station ' states that the con- ditions that favored an increase in yield caused a reduction in the relative proportion of nitrogen in the grain. Excessive humidity favored the process of assimilation of carbohydrates, while drought hastened maturation and produced a grain relatively rich in proteids. « Handbuch des Getreidebaues, Berlin, 1884, pp. 69, 70. &Ann. Agron., 1902, p. .522. <-' Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 14, p. 340, from Sept. Rap An. Sta. Expt. Agron. Ploty, 1901, pp. xiv-180. 22 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Wiley" sent wheat of the same origin to Cahfornia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. The original grain and the product from each State were analyzed. The results of one year's test were reported. Regarding the effect of climate, he says: There appears to be a marked relation between the content of protein matter and starcli and the length of the growing season. The shorter the period of growth and the cooler the climate the larger the content of protein and the smaller the content of starch, and vice versa. Shindler/' in his book upon this subject, says (p. 75): With the length of the growing period, especially with the length of the interval between bloom and ripeness, varies not only the size of the kernel, but also the relative amount of carbohydrates and protein it contains. Again, on page 76, Shindler says: All this shows that the protein constituent of the kernel depends in the first place upon the length of the growing period and next upon the richness of the soil. Melikov ^ made analyses of different varieties of wheat of the crops of the years 1885-1899 grown in southern Russia. The protein varied in different years from 14 to 21.2 per cent. Melikov concludes that the nitrogen content is highest in dry years and lowest in years of larger rainfall, in which years the yield of wheat per acre is also greater. Gurney and Morris,'' in one of their reports, say: This increased gluten [over previous years] is probably largely due to differences in the seasons, the weather being hot and dry while the grain was ripening, since it is character- istic not of thpse wheats alone but of most of the grain grown in the colony. The conclusion to be inevitably derived from these observations is that climate is a potent factor in determining the yield and compo- sition of the wheat crop, and, further, that its effect is produced by lengthening or shortening the growing season, particulai'ly that por- tion of it during which the kernel is developing. A moderately cool season, with a liberal supply of moisture, has the effect of prolonging the period during wliich the kernel is developing, thus favoring its filling out with starch, the deposition of which is much greater at that time than is that of nitrogenous material. With this goes an increase in volume weight and an increased yield of grain per acre. On the other hand, a hot, dry season shortens the period of kernel development, curtails the deposition of starch, leaving the per- « Yearbook U. S. Department of Agriculture, 1901, pp. 299-308. '' Der Weizen in seinem Beziehungen zum Klima und das Gesetz der Korrelation, Berlin, 1893. 'Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 13 p. 451, from Zhur. Opuitn. Agron., 1 (1900), pp. 256-267. (I Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 12, pt. 2, pp. 140:3-1424. INFLUENCE OF SOIL UPON YIELD. 23 centage of nitrogen relatively higher, and gives a grain of lighter weight per bushel and smaller yield per acre. The fact that one variety of wheat is adapted to a hot, dry climate and another to a cool, moist one does not mean that the former under- goes as complete maturation as the latter, even though the grain is not shriveled. This is shown by the fact that a variety of wheat well adapted to a hot, dry climate will, when planted in a cool, moist one, immediately grow plumper and the kernel weight will increase, as was the case in the experiment of taking Minnesota wheats to Maine. INFLUENCE OF SOIL UPON COMPOSITION AND YIELD. In considering the effect of the soil upon the wheat crop there will naturally be included experiments designed to show the effect of fertilizers upon the crops. It is, in fact, upon experiments with fer- tilizers that we must depend for most of our information on this subject. Experiments to ascertain the effect of fertilizers upon the composi- tion of the wheat kernel were conducted by Lawes and Gilbert for a period of years extending from 1845 to 1854." Plots of land in which wheat was grown continually were treated annually as follows : Unmanured, manured with ammoniacal fertilizer alone, and manured with ammoniacal fertilizer and proportionate amounts of mineral salts. In composition calculated to dry matter, the wheat on the plots receiving ammoniacal fertilizer alone contained quite uniformly a slightly larger amount of nitrogen than either of the other two. The averages for the ten years were as follows: Kind of fertilizer, if any. Percent Nitrogen in dry matter. age of— Ash in dry matter. Weight of grain per bushel (pounds). Percent- age of good kernels. Yield per acre (pounds). 2.13 2.26 2.22 2.07 1.85 1.96 58. 51 5S. 9 60.2 90.6 90. .3 92.8 1,045 Ammonium salts Minerals and ammonium salts 1,668 1,969 There was practically no difference in the nitrogen content of the straw. From these experiments the authors quoted conclude that there is no evidence that the nitrogen content of the wheat kernel can be increased at pleasure by the use of nitrogenous manures. Ritthausen and Pott '^ report an experiment in which plots of land were manured (1) with superphosphate alone, (2) with nitrate alone, (3) with a mixture of superphosphate and nitrate, and (4) were left f On Some Points in the Composition of Wheat Grain, London, 1857. &Landw. Vers. Stat., 16 (1873), pp. 384-399. 24 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. iinmanured. There were three plots of each. The followmg is a tahulated statement of their results : Kind of fertilizer, if any. Unfertilized Superphosphate Nitrate Superphosphate and nitrate ' Yield of grain on plot (kilos) . Percentage of nitrogen in dry matter. 2.72 2.30 2.03 2.60 3.49 3.43 3.62 It will be noticed that the effect of the nitrate fertilizer was to decrease the yield of grain, but to increase the size of the kernel and its content of nitrogen. Wolff/' as early as 1856, in summing up the experiments of Hermb- stadt, Muller, and John with barley, and of Lawes and Gilbert with wheat, says: In the presence of a sufficient amount of phosphoric acid and alkaH the effect of manuring with an easily soluble nitrogen compound is an improvement in the grain both in quantity and cjuality [meaning plumper kernels]. The kernels decrease in percentage of nitrogen, but become plumper, become absolutely and relatively richer in starch, and have a better appearance and a higher commercial value. But when the nitrogenous food in the soil exceeds a certain relation to the temperature and rainfall the quality of the grain becomes poorer [harder], it becomes lighter and smaller, takes on a darker color, and generally becomes richer in percentage of nitrogen in the air-dry substance. VonGohren^ also reports results of experiments in fertilizing wheat. All experiments were apparently made in the same year. He grew the crop on six different plots of land, five of which were manured and each with a different fertilizer. In- the crop he distinguished between large kernels and small kernels to show the quality of the product. Determinations of proteids and starch were made, and these were calculated to the yield of each constituent on each plot. The following table shows the yield of each of the characters deter- mined, and compares those raised on the unmanured plot with those on the manured ones by taking the former as one and reducmg the others to the corresponding figure : Yield and percentage. Yield of grain Yield of large kernels . Yield of small kernels. Yield of proteids Yiell of starch Percentage of proteids Percentage of starch . . Unferti- lized. Ashes. 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 14.42 62.67 i.on .146 .953 .999 1.009 14. 2.5 62.56 Oil cake. Oil cake g— • I ashel Bat 1.071 1.92S .704 .915 1.081 12.70 63.25 1.143 2. .552 .538 .936 1.174 11.81 64.41 1.215 2.226 .781 1.070 1.264 12.70 65.24 Peruvian guano. 1.286 2.786 .642 1.114 1.303 13. 22 63.55 The results show an increased yield from the use of fertihzers, the production increasing wdth the application of complete manures. « Die naturgesetzlichen Grundlagen des Ackerbauef , Leipzig, 1856, p. 774. fcLandw. Vers. Stat., 6 (1864), pp. 15-19. INB^LUENCE OF SOIL UPON YIELD. 25 The yield of grain of good quality increases in the same way, and the yield of grain of poor quality decreases proportionately. It must be remembered that by good quality of grain in these early writings is meant plump kernels and not necessarily what would be considered wheat of good milling quality at the present day. The production of proteids per acre decreased with the use of the incomplete fertilizers, ashes and oil cake, and even with the bat guano. It increased, how- ever, with the use of oil cake and ashes combined and of Peruvian guano. The percentage of proteids was greatest in the unfertilized grain and the percentage of starch least, with the exception of one fertilized plot. The very evident effect of the fertilizers in this case was to produce a more completely matured kernel. It will be noticed that the plots producing grain of highest starch content were those having the greatest proportion of plump kernels. Again, in 1884, Lawes and Gilbert" report results obtained from manured and unmanured soils. These experiments cover a period of sixteen years and are divided into two periods of eight years each. In one of these periods the seasons were favorable for wheat, in the other unfavorable. Character. Favorable seasons. Unfavorable seasons. Barnyard manure. Weight of grain per bushel (pounds) 62.6 Percentage of grain to straw . : 62. 5 Grain per acre (pounds) 2, 342. Straw per acre (pounds) 6,089.0 Percentage of nitrogen in dry " matter 1. 7.3 Percentage of ash in dry mat- ter 1.98 Nitrogen per bushel (pounds) | 1. 083 Un- manured. 60.5 67.4 1,156.0 2, 872. 1.84 1.96 1. 113 Ammo- nium salts alone. 60.4 66.2 1,967.0 4, 774. 2.09 1.74 1.262 Barnyard Un- manure. manured. 57.4 54.3 .54.5 51.1 1,967.0 823.0 5, 574. 2,4.33.0 1.96 1.98 2.06 2.08 1.125 1.075 Ammo- nium salts alone. 53. 7 46.7 1,147.0 3,601.0 2.25 1.91 1.208 It is evident from this statement that the largest crops and best developed kernels were obtained from the soils treated with barnj^ard manure, and that these kernels contained the lowest percentage of nitrogen. The crops on unmanured soil stood next in these respects, except in Afield . Those on the soil receiving ammonium salts pro- duced the most poorly developed kernels and those of highest nitrogen content, but gave larger yields than the unmanured soil. In the unmanured soil there was a very evident lack of plant food, as indicated by the light crops. The effect upon the kernel was to curtail its development, leaving it of light weight and with a relatively high nitrogen content. « On the Composition of the Ash of Wheat Grain and Wheat Straw, London, 1884. 26 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Hermbstadt obtained some curious results, as quoted by D.G. F. MacDonald/' as follows: He sowed equal quantities of wheat upon the same ground and manured them with equal weights of the different manures set forth below. From 100 parts of each sample of grain produced he obtained starch and gluten in the following proportions: Kind of fertilizer, if any. Unfertilized Potato peels Cow dung Pigeon dung Horse dung Goat dung Sheep dung Dried night soil Dried ox blood Dried human urine. Gluten. Starch. 9.2 66.7 9.6 65.94 12.0 62.3 12.2 63.2 1.3.7 61.64 .32.9 42.4 32.9 42.8 .33. 14 41.44 34.24 41.43 31.1 39.3 Produce. Threefold. Fivefold. Sevenfold. Ninefold. Tenfold. Twelvefold. Do. Fourteenfold. Do. Twelvefold. These results are not to be considered seriously, representing as they do an impossible condition. Prof. H. A. Huston^ treated 0.01-acre plots ^of land each with nitrate of soda, dried blood, sulphate of ammonia, rotted stable manure, and muck, respectively, either in the autumn or spring, or in both seasons. In 1891 all the plots treated with nitrogenous com- pounds showed marked increase in the percentage of nitrogen in the grain. In 1892 the results were by no means so uniform and would not justify the conclusion that nitrogenous fertilizers increased the nitrogen content of the wheat. Vignon and Couturier'" tested the effect of phosphate fertilizer alone upon the nitrogen content of the grain of two varieties of wheat. On Plot 1 the}^ used 75 kilograms of phosphoric acid per hectare; on Plot 2, 150 kilograms, and on Plot 3, 225 kilograms. Variety. Percentage of nitrogen in grain. Plot 1. Plot 2. Plot 3. 1.83 2.07 1.61 1.98 1.54 Riete 1.82 There was a very evident decrease in the nitrogen content of the crop as the quantity of fertilizer was increased. It was concluded from experiments conducted at the Ploti Experi- ment Station '^ that, with favorable meteorological conditions, manure increased the total amount of nitrogen taken up by wheat, but, « Practical Hints on Farming, London, 1868. ^ Indiana Experiment Station Bulletins 41 and 45. ^Compt. Rend., 132 (1901), p. 791. '/Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 14, p. 340, from Sept. Rap. An. Sta. Expt. Agron. Ploty, 1901, pp. xiv-180. INFLUENCE OF SOIL UPON YIELD. 27 although it thus increased the total production of nitrogen, it decreased the relative proportion of nitrogenous substance. Bogdau" conducted investigations the results of which indicated that with an increase in the soluble salt content of 22 alkali soils the nitrogen and ash contents of the wheat kernels increased, but the absolute weight of the kernels diminished. These soluble salts are rich in nitrates. Experiments were conducted by Whitson, Wells, and Vivian-' in which plants were grown in pots the soils of which were in some cases fertilized with nitrates and in others with leachings of single and of double strengths from fertile soils. Field experiments were con- ducted on manured and unmanured plots. All of the analyses, except in the case of oats, were of the whole plant. Of the ripe oat kernels those from the unfertilized soil contained 2.57 per cent of nitrogen, while the average of those from the fertilized soil was 2.78 per cent. Guthi-ie*^ conducted experiments with fertilizers for wheat during two years, in which he kept a record of the yield and gluten content of the grain. The following is a statement of the results: KLad of fertilizer, if any. Experiments in 1901- At Wagga. At Bathurst. Yield per acre (bush- els). None 7.7 Ammonium sulphate 8.7 Superphosphate 13. 3 Potassium sulphate 13.0 Ammonium sulphate, superphosphate, potassium sulphate ' 10. Percent- age of gluten. 11.99 10.43 12.06 12.02 11.70 Yield per acre (bush- els). 13 16 13.5 13.0 13.7 Percent- age of gluten. 11.80 11; 21 12.01 11.29 12.05 Experiments in 1902, at Wagga. ^^®^^ i Percent- per acre i „„„ „J (bush- J ^^eof els). gluten. 17.6 17.6 22.6 19.2 20.3 9.8 11.4 10.0 12.0 In this experiment there was in each case a higher percentage of gluten in the wheat raised on the fertilized soil than in that from the soil fertilized with ammonium sulphate, and in the latter less than in the grain fertilized with other material. The most striking feature of these results is their apparent lack of uniformity. In some cases the use of nitrogenous fertilizers was accompanied by an increase in the nitrogen content of the grain and in other cases no increase appeared; in some cases phosphoric acid fertilizers apparently increased the nitrogen content and in others they did not have this effect. Climatic influences have doubtless operated largely in these results, but they are not considered by any of the experimenters except Wolff. ^'Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 13, p. 329, from Report of Department of Agri- culture, St. Petersburg, 1900. '^ Wisconsin Experiment Station Report, 19 (1902), pp. 192-209. f Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 13 (1902), No. 6, p. 664; and No. 7, p. 728. 28 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. It is evident that in all experiments with depleted soils the plants on the plots receiving complete fertilizers would take up larger amounts of plant food, including nitrogen, than would plants on immanured soils. Any conditions that would prevent the normal ripening of the crop on both soils would therefore leave a higher percentage of nitro- gen in the plants upon the unmanured soil. On the other hand, under conditions which would permit of a complete maturation of the crop there might be no difference in the composition of the grain from the manured and unmanured soils. It is evident, however, that the production of both nitrogen and starch in pounds per acre would be greater on the manured soils. Another condition that may affect the results is the arrested devel- opment of kernels on unmanured soils that are seiiously depleted of plant food. Such depletion may interfere with complete maturation of the crop while the crop on the manured soil will mature fully. In consequence the grain on the unmanured soil will contain a higher percentage of nitrogen but a smaller yield per acre. The use of a nitrogenous manure alone on exhausted soils may likewise result in •a grain of higher nitrogen content. Expressed in a more general way, this means that wheat of the same variety grown under the same climatic conditions will have approximately the same percentage of nitrogen if allowed to mature fully, l)ut any permanent interruption in the process of maturation will result in a higher percentage of nitrogen, and in the latter case the percentage of nitrogen will depend upon the stage at which develop- ment was interrupted, and also upon the amount of nitrogen accumu- lated by the plant, that being greater on soils manured with nitroge- nous fertilizers alone than on exhausted soils, and greater on soils receiving complete manures than on exhausted soils receiving only nitrogenous fertilizers, provided the stage at which development ceased be the same in both cases. It thus happens that wheat grow- ing on the soil allowing it to absorb the largest amount of nitrogen will, other things being equal, have a higher nitrogen content if the development of the kernel be permanently checked, although if it were allowed to mature fully it would not have a greater percentage of nitrogen than that grown on the soil affording less nitrogen. Reviewing the experiments, we find that in Lawes and Gilbert's first experiment the percentage of nitrogen in the unmanured soil was less than on the soil receiving only nitrogenous fertilizer, and that the weight of grain per bushel and the percentage of good kernels on the two plots were practically the same. It would not appear, therefore, that the wheat on the plot receiving the nitrogenous fertilizer was less w^ell matured than that on the unmanured plot. In this case there appears to be a slight increase in the percentage of nitrogen, due entirely to the use of nitrogenous fertilizers. Comparing the grain on INFLUENCE OF SOIL MOISTURE UPON YIELD, 29 the plot receiving only nitrogenous fertilizer with that receiving the complete fertilizer it will be seen that the former has a higher percent- age of nitrogen, but this is evidently due to the poorly developed ker- nels which weigh less per bushel than the grain on the completely fertilized plot. Yon Gohren's results show plainly that the kernels on the manured land developed better than on the unmanured, and with tliis better development there was an increase in the percentage of starch and a decrease in the nitrogen. In Lawes and Gilbert's second experiment the percentage of nitro- gen in the w^heat on the soil manured with ammonium salts was less than that in the wheat on the unmanured soil, but the weight of grain per bushel shows that the higher nitrogen content was due, in part at least, to incomplete maturation. The higher percentage of nitrogen in the wheat on the soil receiving only nitrogenous manures as com- pared with that receiving complete manures can be traced to the same condition of the grain. INFLUENCE OF SOIL MOISTURE L'PON COMPOSITION AND YIELD. Experiments were conducted b}' D. Prianishinkov " in which wheat was raised with different degrees of moisture, but in the same soil and under the same conditions of light and temperature. With a larger amount of moisture in the soil there was a lower nitrogen content in the grain. It was also stated that the duration of the period of vege- tation was somewhat shorter when the moisture supply was greater. Traphagen'^ reports marked changes in the composition of wheat grown with and without irrigation at the Montana Experiment Station. A wheat grown under irrigation on the station farm was planted the following year on land not irrigated. Presumably the land was of similar character. The two crops of grain were analyzed and the percentages stated below were found. Crop. Mois- ture. Crude protein. Ether extract. Nitrogen- free extract. Crude fiber. Irrigated wheat . . . Unirrigated wheat. Per ct. 7.87 7.65 Per ct. 8.81 14.41 Per ct. 1.93 2.23 Per ct. 76.99 71.33 Per ct. 2.60 2.65 Por ct. 1.80 1.70 No records of yields or of weights of kernels are given , but it is fair to suppose that the unirrigated wheat possessed the light, shrunken kernel which is characteristic of wheat raised without sufficient moisture. " Akstract, Experiment Station Record, 13, p. 631, from Zhur. Opuitn. Agron., 1 (1900), No. 1, pp. 13-20. ^Montana Experiment Station Report (1902), pp. 59-60. 30 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Irrigation experiments were conducted b}- Widtsoe ■' in which wheat of the same variety was raised on plots of land each one of which received a different quantity of water. A record was kept of the yield and composition of the grain on each plot. Plot. Water applied (inches). Yield per acre (bush- els). Percentage of— Yield ( in pounds) per acre of— Protein in grain. Ash in grain. Nitrogen. Ash. 317 319 320 318 321 325 322 326 327 328 329 330 4.63 5.14 8.73 8.89 10.30 12.09 12.18 12.80 17.50 21.11 30.00 40.00 4.50 3.83 10.33 11.33 14.66 11.16 11.66 13.00 15.33 17.33 26.66 14.50 24.8 23.2 19.9 19.4 18.4 21.3 23.1 17.1 17.2 15.9 14.0 17.1 2.50 3.07 2.54 2.93 2.34 3.25 2.88 2.52 2.57 2.34 4.14 2.52 10.7 6.75 8.5 7.05 19.7 15.74 21.1 ' 19.72 25.9 20.24 22.8 21.44 25.8 20.30 21.3 21.50 25.3 23.64 26.4 1 24.33 35.8 I 66.20 23.8 21.92 The results show that w ith an increase in the water used for irriga- tion up to 30 inches there were in general an increase in the yield of grain and a decrease in the nitrogen content. No volume weights or other means of judging of the development of the kernels on the different plots are given, but there is no reason to suppose that the grain on the plots receiving small quantities of water was not poorly developed. The column added showing the jield of nitrogen in pounds per acre indicates a lack of nutriment in the grain on these plots.'' High nitrogen content arising from a small supply of soil moisture is sometimes due to a restricted development of the kernel. There is nothing in these results to indicate a greater absorption of nitrogen by the crop on soil having less moisture, but results of this nature are cited elsewhere in this bulletin. INFLUENCE OF SIZE OR WEIGHT OF THE SEED-W HEAT KERNEL UPON THE CROP YIELD. Sanborn ^ reports experiments to ascertain the effect of separating seed wheat into kernels of different grades to ascertain the effect upon the yield. He divided the kernels into large, medium, small, ordinary (grain as it came from the thrasher), and shriveled, and continued the experiments for four years. Apparently the large kernels were separated from the crop grown from large seed the previous year, and « Utah Experiment Station Bulletin 80. '' Nitrogen has been calculated from proteids by dividing by 6.25. c Utah Experiment Station Report, 1893, p. 168. INFLUENCE OF SIZE OR WEIGHT OF SEED KERNEL, 31 SO with the other classes of kernels. He tabulates his results as follows : Kind of seed. Yield of grain on plots (in ^J^l^P pounds). - }°^l^l 1890. 1891. 1892. 1893. Bushels per acre. 88.5 72.5 70.0 105.0 95.0 43.0 Ill 63.0 87 67.0 64 74.0 87 29.5 78 31.0 18.72 16.60 Small -. 94.6 84.0 18.72 16.42 11.25 The relation between yields of the crops representing different sized kernels is so irregular from year to year that suspicion is aroused regarding the accuracy of the results, due to lack of uni- formity in soil. Sanborn's conclusion is that very little, if any, advantage is to be gained by separating seed wheat and planting the large kernels. At the Indiana Experiment Station, Latta" conducted experi- ments in which wheat was separated by means of a fanning mill into heavy and light kernels, but impurities and chaffy seed were fanned out of each lot of wheat. The experiments were continued three years, but the separations were made each year from seed that had not been so separated the year before. The average gain from the large seed for three years was 2.5 bushels per acre. Georgeson,* at the Kansas station, seeded plots of land with (1) light seed weighing 56 pounds per bushel, (2) common seed weighing 62.5 pounds, (3) heav}" seed weighing 63 pounds, and (4) selected seed, obtained by picking the largest and finest heads in the field just before the crop was cut, weighing 61.5 pounds per bushel. Seed was separated each year from wheat not grown from previously selected seed. The average results for three years w^ere as follows: Grade of seed. Light Common. Yield of grain per acre (bush- els). 25.19 26.57 Grade of seed. Heavy Select (average for 2 years) . Yield of grain per acre (bush- els). 27.07 25.82 Desprez'" reports experiments extending through three years In which large kernels were selected from a crop grown from large seed « Indiana Experiment Station Bulletin 36, pp. 110-128. f> Kansas Experiment Station Bulletin 40, pp. 51-62. 'Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 7, p. 679, from Jour. Agr. Prat., 59 (1895), 2, pp. 694-698. 32 TMPE0VINC4 THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. for several years and small seed from a crop grown from small seed for several years. Five varieties of wheat were used. The average results for three years were a difference of 1,067 to 1,828 kilograms of grain per hectare in favor of the large seed, but the difference was in general greater the first year than later. The use of large seed gave a crop with kernels larger than those grown from small seed. ]\liddleton" reports the yields obtained from large wheat kernels to be almost double those obtained from small seed kernels. Bolley, ^ as the results of experiments continuing for four years in which plump kernels of large size and plump kernels of small size were selected for seed, concludes that "perfect grains of large size and greatest weight produce better plants than perfect grains of small size and light weight, even when the grains come from the same head." At the Ontario Agricultural College. Zavitz'' selected large plump seed, small plump seed, and shrunken seed of both spring and winter wheat. Experiments were continued for eight years with spring wheat and five years with winter wheat, the selections each year being from a crop grown from previously unselected seed. His results are as follows: Yield per acre (in bushels). Kind of seed. Large, plump Small, plump , Shioinken Deherain and Dupont ■' report that the yields from small and large kernels of a numl^er of varieties of wheat were in all cases in favor of the large kernels, but a large diiference in yield was obtained only when there was a marked difference in the weight of the kernels. Soule and Vanatter'^ conducted experiments for three years in which large and small kernels were separated by means of sieves. In addition a plot of unselected seed was planted. The large seed was, each year after the first, selected from the crop grown from large seed the previous year. The same was true of the small seed. These investigators say: « Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 12, p. 441, from Univ. Coll. of Wales Kept., 1899, pp. 68-70. ''North Dakota Experiment Station Report, 1901, p. 30. '' Ontario Agricultural College and Experiment Farm Report, 1901, p. 84. ''Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 15, p. 672, from Compt. Rend., 135 (1902), p. 6.54. '^ Tennessee Experiment Station Bulletin, vol. 16, No. 4, p. 77. INFLUENCE OF SIZE OK WEIGHT OF SEED KERNEL. 33 The average difference in yield at the end of three years between iai'ge grains (607 per ounce), commercial sample (689 per ounce), and small grains (882 per ounce), with Med- iterranean wheat, was 2.06 Inishels in favor of large grains as compared with the commercial sample, and 5.18 bushels in favor of large grains over small grains. The difference in yield l)etween the large grains and the commercial sample chiefly occurred the first year; but it is possible, though hardlv probable, that the difference was partly due to variation in the soil. The experiment has been carried on in different parts of the field for the last two j'ears, and the difference in yield is now only 0.32 bushel per acre in favor of the large grains. Cobb " reports tests of various grades of wheat kernels with respect to size, and conchides that large kernels give better yields of grain. The seed of one year was not the product of the corresponding grade of the previous one. GrenfelP selected plump and shriveled kernels from the same bulk of grain. Of these 150 kernels were sown in each row, with rows of plump and shriveled kernels alternating. The germination in both rows appeared much alike, but the plants in the rows sown from plump grain soon began to gain on the others and kept ahead for the remainder of the season. The tillering was better in the plump- grain plants. Grenfell tabulates his results thus: Variety. Kind. Stein vvedel Plump Do : Sliriveled . Purple Straw do Do Plump Do Sliriveled . Do Plump Do Shriveled . Plump-kernel averages ■Shriveled-ke' nel averages . I Average '^TZntf ^ Number Tillering ' ^i^ld Per tha?gfew. °f5^e^ds.| power. ^^^Jl_ els). 96.0 89.3 89.. 3 90.0 7B.0 92.0 98.0 92.7 88.5 179 174 1.53 200 140 161 1.5.5 180 1.5.5 1.24 1.29 1.14 1.49 1.16 1.23 1.34 1.32 1.23 10.9 9.9 6.1 10 6.9 8.4 7.2 9.8 As bearing upon this subject some experiments conducted by Riinker'" are of interest. He weighed each of the kernels of a large number of heads of wheat of the Spalding Prolific and ^Martin Amber varieties, and found that the heaviest kernels occur in the lower half of the spike. With spikes of different lengths and weights, the weight of the average kernel increases with the size of the spike. Weights of individual kernels from the same spikes show that there is a great range in this respect. One spike, of which Ranker gives the weights of all the kernels, and which is given as representa- tive of the average, shows kernels varying in weight from 36 to 71 milligrams. « Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 14 (1903), No. 2, pp. 14.5-169. «> Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 12 (1901), No. 9, pp. 1053-1062. e Jour. f. Landw., 38 (1890), p. 309. 27889— No. 78—05 3 34 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. It is therefore quite evident that a sample of wheat taken from spikes of different sizes when separated into lots of light and heavy kernels would have both the larger spikes and smaller spikes repre- sented in each lot of kernels, but doubtless the proportion of kernels from large heads would be greater in the lot of heavy kernels. It would appear from these results that the evidence was over- whelmingly in favor of large or heavy wheat kernels for seed. ]\Iost of the experimenters selected seed of different kinds each year without reference to previous selection. If large seed or small seed represent plants of different characteristics and if these properties are' hered- itary, the results of selection of large or small seeds for several years may be quite different from what they would be the first year. It is only those experiments in which selection of the same kind of seed has been continued for several generations that may be relied upon to indicate the value of continuous selection of large kernels for seed. Such experiments have been conducted by Sanborn, b}" Desprez, and by Soule and Vanatter. The work of Desprez indicates that the size of the kernel is a hereditar}^ equality. That being the case, it is evident that the small seed of the first separation may be composed partly of seed that is small on account of immaturity and partly of seed that is small by inheritance, but which is perfectly normal. When such seed is planted the immature seed will be largely elimi- nated in the crop, but the naturally small seed will have reproduced itself and will compose most of the crop. When the seed is again separated a much smaller percentage of small seed will be immature, and in consequence a larger number, of kernels will produce plants. It would appear from Desprez's experiments, however, that those plants producing small kernels are not so prolific as those producing large kernels. Sanborn's results make a very good showing for the small kernels, but, as before stated, the extreme irregularity would lead to the belief that the soil on the plots lacked uniformity, or that some other errors had influenced the results. To offset this the tests cover a period of four 3'ears, which shoidd help to rectify mistakes, and in consequence the good showing made l)y the small kernels is entitled to some consideration. Soule and Vanatter's results fulfill exactly the conditions of the hypothesis that the small seed would the first year contain a much larger proportion of immature kernels than it would in subsecjuent years, and hence yield more poorl}- the first year. Their results with heavy kernels as compared with ordinary" seed offer little encourage- ment to the continuous selection of large kernels. RELATION OF SIZE OF KERNEL TO NITROGEN CONTENT. 35 The fact before referred to that both large and small kernels are found on the same head of wheat is perhaps an argument against the superior value of large seed. If the plant and not the seed is the unit of reproduction, small seed from a plant whose kernels averaged large size may be better than large seed from a plant whose kernels averaged small size. On the other hand, there can be no doubt that the majority of the kernels in the lot of heavy kernels would be from plants having large spikes, and vice versa. This would give the kernels in the heavy lot some advantage. Again, the advantage that the large kernel is sup- posed to possess for seed may not be in producing a large kernel in the resulting crop, but in giving the plant a better start in hfe, or producing a more vigorous plant. RELATION OF SIZE OF KERNEL TO NITROGEN CONTENT. Richardson" has made a large number of analyses of wheats from different parts of the United States. The weight of 100 kernels was also determined in each sample. There can not be said to be Sinj constant relation between the nitrogen content and the kernel weight, but in the main the large kernels have a lower percentage of nitrogen than the small kernels, and inversely. PagnouF' reports that in a test of eleven varieties of w^heat there was in the main a decrease in the percentage of nitrogen in the crop as compared with the seed when there was an increase in the w^eight of 1,000 kernels in the crop as compared with the seed. The same investigator' again states that in an examination of seventy" varieties of wheat there was no constant relation between the size of the kernels and their nitrogen content, but that in general the varieties with small kernels were the varieties richest in nitrogen. Marek'' separated wheat of the same variety into lots of large and of small kernels. He found on analj^sis that the large kernels con- tained 12.52 per cent protein and the small kernels 13.55 per cent protein. Woods and ]\Ierrill' made analyses of a number of wheats grow^n in Minnesota and of the same varieties grown in Maine. The wheats uniformly developed a larger kernel when grown in Maine. Grouping five varieties raised in Minnesota and five raised in Maine, it will be seen that with this increase in the size of the kernel there was a (' U. S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Chemistry, Bulletins 1 and 3. '' Abstract in Centrlb. f. Agr. Chem., 189.3, p. 616, from Ann. Agron., 1892, p. 486. c Abstract in Centrlb. f. Agr. Chem., 1888, p. 767, from Ann. Agron., 14, pp. 262-272. '^ Abstract in Centrlb. f. Agr. Chem., 1876, from Landw. Zeitung f. Westfalen u. Lippe, 1875, p. 362. i Maine Experiment Station Bulletin 97. 36 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. decrease in the nitrogen content. The analyses, reduced to a water- free basis, are as follows: Where grown. Minnesota . Weight of 100 kernels (grams). 2. 239 Maine ' 3. 109 Percentage cf protein. 16.22 15.43 In a review of the experiments concerning the relation of weight to composition of cereals, Gwallig" says that the results ol)tained by Marek, Wolhi}^, Marcker, Hoffmeister, and Nothwang divide barley and rye into one group, and wheat and oats into another, as regards this relation. With barley and rye, the largest, heaviest kernels are the richest in protein. With wheat and oats, the smallest, lightest kernels have the highest protein content. Gwallig says further that with an increased protein content there is a decrease in nitrogen-free extract. The fat and ash do not stand in a definite relation to the kernel weight, but the small, light kernels have a higher percentage of crude fiber, which circumstance is accounted for by the larger surface possessed l)y the smaller kernels. Snyder'^ has divided small kernels into two classes — those which are small because shrunken and tliose which are small although well filled. He finds that as between small kernels of the first class and large, well-fdled kernels, the former contain a higher percentage of nitrogen, l)ut as between the small, well-filled and the large, well-filled kernels, the latter contain the higher percentage of nitrogen. In testing this he used large and small kernels of the same variety in each case, and the wheats represented a large portion of the wheat- growing ai'ea of the United States. As regards the relation of large, perfect, and small, perfect kernels there were twenty-four out of twenty-seven cases in which the large kernels contained a greater percentage of nitrogen. Johannsen and Weis,'" in experiments with five varieties of wheat, find that as a general rule the percentage of nitrogen is increased witli increasing grain v/eight, but that there are many exceptions to tlie rule. Cobb'' states that small wheat kernels contain a larger proportion of gluten than do large ones, but he does not submit any analyses to substantiate his statement. "Abstract in Centrlb. f. Agr. Chem., 24 (189.5), p. 388, from Lanchv. .TahrhucluT, 23 (1834), p. 8.3.5. '' Minnesota Exporinient Station Bulletin 8.5. '■Al).stract, Experiment Station Record, 12, p. .327, from Tidsskr. Landl)r. Planteavl., 5 (1899), pp. 91-100. ''Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, .5 (1894), No. 4, pp. 239-2.50. INFLUENCE OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SEED KKRNEL. 37 Kornicke and Werner" quote the experiments of Reiset to show that shriveled kernels hav;^ a higher nitrogen content than plump ones. With different varieties of wheat he found the following: Variety. Snaldins Do. \'i:'tnria Do. -Vlbprt . . Do. Percent- age cf nitrcgen in dry matter. Shriveled Plump . . . Shriveled Plump... Shriveled Plump . . . 2.48 2.33 2.44 2.08 2., 59 2.35 Carleton* records the weight of 100 kernels and the percentage of ''albuminoids" in sixty-one samples of wheat from various parts of the world. Dividing these into classes according to the weight of 100 kernels we have the following: Weight of 100 kernels (grams). Average weight of kernels (grams). Percent- age of albu- minoids. Number of sam- ples. 2 to 3 3 to 4 over 4 2.66 3.67 4. .57 14.58 12.31 11.62 6 25 30 Reviewing these experiments there would seem to be no doubt that shrunken kernels contain a higher percentage of nitrogen than do well-filled ones, but as between large and small kernels, both of which are well hlled, there is not a great deal of information. Snyder's experiments are the only ones that cover this ground, but they are extensive and very uniform, and may be considered as deciding the question in favor of a higher nitrogen content for the large kernels, so far as small, plump kernels and large, plump kernels are concerned. But, as small and light kernels are usually not plump, taking the crop as a whole and dividing it equally into large and small or heavy and light kernels, the evidence would be in favor of the small or light kernels for high nitrogen content. As between wheats Irom different regions and of different varieties, those having small kernels are generally of higher nitrogen content. INFLUENCE OF THE SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF THE SEED KERNEL UPON YIELD. Sanborn'" separated seed wheat with a sieve into large, medium, small, and shriveled kernels. The large seed was separated by means "Handbuch des Getreidebaues, 1, pp. 520-521, Berlin, 1884. ''U. S. Department of Agriculture, Division of Vegetable Physiology and Pathology', Bulletin 24. ^ Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 5, p. 58, from Utah Experiment Station Report, 1892, pp. 133-135. 38 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. of a brine solution into two nearl}^ equal parts. The seed thus sepa- rated was planted on separate plots. The experiment was con- tinued three years. The heavy seed yielded 10.8 bushels and the light 16.3 bushels per acre. Unselected seed yielded 16.4 bushels per acre. Seed wheat of four varieties was separated by Church" by means of solutions of calcium clilorid having specific gravities of 1.247, 1.293, and 1.31. The seed was first treated with a solution of mer- curic chlorid to remove adherent air. Each lot of seed was planted separately. From the results the following conclusions are drawn: (1) The seed wheat of the greatest density produced the densest seed. (2) The seed wheat of the greatest density yielded the largest amount of dressed grain. (3) The seed of medium density generally gave the largest number of ears, but the ears were poorer than those from the densest seed. (4) Seed of medium density generally produced the largest number of fruiting plants. (5) The seed wheat that sank in water, but floated in a solution having the density 1.247, was of very low value, yielding on an average only 34.4 pounds of dressed grain for every 100 yielded by the densest seed. Haberlandt,'' as the result of experiments with several cereals, has shown that the comparative weight of kernels is transmitted to the grain resulting from this seed. This was the case with wheat, rye, barley, and oats. The results with wheat were as follows: Number of pounds. Weight of kernels. Light. Medium. Heavy. Grams. 29.5 34.3 Grams. .31.2 35.5 Grams. 33.0 36.3 Wollny'' objects to the results of the experiments by F. Haberlandt, Church, Trommer, Hellriegel, and Ph. Dietrich with various cereals, in which almost without exception the kernels of high specific gravity produced the best yields, because no distinction was made between absolute weight and specific gravit}^ in the kernels. He claims that the value of the seed lies in the kernels of absolutely heavy weight rather than in the kernels of high specific gravity. He concludes that the specific gravity of the seed exerts no influence on the yield of the crop. « Science with Practice. ''Jahresb. Agr. Chem., 1866-67, p. 298. <^ Abstract in Centrlb. f. Agr. Chem., 1887, p. 169, from Forschungcn a.d. Gebiete Agri- kulturphysik, 9 (1886), pp. 207-216. SPECIFIC GEAVITY AND NITROGEN CONTENT. 39 In the light of the experiments that have been conducted with seed wheat of high and low specific gravities, it would appear that, in general, seed of very low specific gravity does not yield well, and it is evident that such seed must be deficient in mineral matter and is probal)ly not normal in other respects. There would not appear, however, to be any marked difi'erence in the productive capacity of kernels of medium specific gravity and kernels of great specific gravity. RELATION OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF KERNEL TO NITROGEN CONTENT. Marek'' found that with an increase in the specific gravity of the kernel there was a decrease in nitrogen content. Pagnoul,* in testing seventy varieties of wheat, found that the nitrogen content rose with the specific gravity, but not regularly, and that a definite relation could not be traced. Wollny'' took kernels of horny structure and kernels of mealy structure. He says it is generally recognized that the hard, horii}^ kernels have a higher specific gravity, and that it is commonly attributed to their higher content of proteids. He contends that as starch has a higher specific gravity than protein the mealy kernels must really have a higher specific gravity than the horny ones. Kornicke and Werner'' state the specific gravities of the various chemical constituents of the wheat kernel as follows: Starch, 1.53; sugar, 1.60; cellulose, 1.53; fats, 0.91 to 0.96; gluten, 1.297; ash, 2.50; water, 1.00; air, 0.001293. They state also (p. 121) that the specific gravity of the kernel does not stand in any relation to the volume weight, for the factor which results from weighing a certain volume mass is influenced by the air spaces between the kernels, and these depend upon the form and size as well as the surface and acci- dental structure of the kernel. They also contend that there is no relation between the volume weight and the content of proteid material. Schindler^ shows that by tabulating a large number of varieties of wheat from different parts of the world, and representing different varieties, there is no relation between the weight of 1,000 kernels and the volume weight of 100 c. c. By separating these into varieties, even when grown in different localities, kernels of the same variety did show a definite and constant relation. The volume weight increased with an increase in the weight of 1,000 kernels. « Abstract in Centrlb. f. Agr. Chem., 1876, p. 46, from Lanchv. Zeitung f . Westfalen u. Lippe, 1875, p. 362. & Abstract in Centrlb. f. Agr. Chem., 1888, p. 767, from Ann. Agron., 14, pp. 262-272. '"Abstract in Centrlb. f. Agr. Chem., 1887, p. 169, from Forschungen a. d. Gebiete Agri- kulturphysik, 9 (1886), pp. 207-216. '^Handbuch des Getreidebaues, 2, p. 120, Berlin, 1884. ^Jour. Landw., 4.5 (1897), p. 61. ■10 IMPROVING THE QQALITY OF WHEAT. There has long been a desire manifested by workers in this field to establish some definite relation between the specific gravity of the wheat kernel and its composition, or at least its nitrogen content. Very contradictory results have been obtained by several experi- menters, and little progress has been made. It is true that the various chemical constituents that go to com- pose the wheat kernel have different specific gravities, and as those of the carbohydrates are ail less than those of the proteids it might be argued that a wheat having a large proportion of proteid material would have a low specific gravity. However, the specific gravity of the ash is so much greater than that of any other constit- uent and the ash in wheats from different soils and climates varies so much that these factors completely prevent the establishment of a definite relation. The size and number of the vacuoles also influence the specific gravity. In general, it may be said that as between kernels of the same variety grown in the same season and upon the same soil, the specific gravity is inversely proportional to the nitrogen content. CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE PRODUCTION OF NITROGEN IN THE GRAIN. So far as the writer has been able to ascertain there is' no literature bearing directly upon the conditions affecting the production of nitrogen in the grain of wheat. Regarding high nitrogen in the wheat crop as arising merely from failure on the part of the kernel to develop fully, it would seem that a high percentage of nitrogen would inevitably be accompanied b}^ a small production of nitrogen per acre. This, however, does not always appear to be the case. Taking, for instance, the yields of wheat obtained b}- Lawes and Gilbert-' for a period of twenty years, which they divide into two periods of good and of poor crops, each covering ten years, we have the following figures: Good crop seasons. Poor crop seasons. , ^'''^^^S^ Yipld of yield of Weight | ^^^^^^f^ gram per per bushel "p,!"|,.p acre (pounds). , fP^' ^^'J^, (pounds). i Cpounas). 1,833 ' 60.2 28.0 1,740 I 57.1 29.8 It will l)e noticed that the largest production of nitrogen per acre was in those years in which the weight per bushel and the yield per acre were least. Of course this is not always the case, but that it should occur at all is an indication that the conditions that make for high nitrogen " On the Composition of the Ash of Wheat Grain and Wheat Straw, London, 1884. CONDITIONS AFFECTING PEODUCTION OF NITROGEN. 41 content in the grain also conduce to a large accumulation of nitrogen b}^ the crop, or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the conditions which favor a large accumulation of nitrogen by the crop often result in giving it a high nitrogen content. Reference has already been made to the o])servations of Deherain and Dupont" on the wheat crops of 1888 and 1889 at Grignon. The figures for the yields of grain, the percentages of starch and gluten, and the production per acre of these constituents for the two years are as follows: Year. Yield of grain per hectare (kilos). Percentage of— Gluten. Starch. Gluten per hectare (kilos). Starch per hectare (kilos). 1888 3,445 2,922 12.6 15.3 77.2 61.9 434 447 2,659 1,808 1889 From tliis it will be seen that for the year in which the yield of grain was less per acre the production of gluten per acre was greater. Apparently the conditions were favorable for a large accumulation of nitrogen by the plant in 1889, but were unfavorable to the pro- duction of starch. If the latter had not been the case, the crop of 1889 would have been larger than the crop of 1888. A number of instances of this kind have occurred among the wheat crops at the Nebraska Experiment Station. In fact, it may be said that, in general, large yields of grain have there been accompanied by a low percentage of nitrogen per acre as compared with the same properties in small yields of grain. The following table will show this : Production of nitrogen per acre in xoheat raised at the Nebraska Experiment Station. Variety. Turkish Red. Do Do Do Yaroslav Do Do Weissenburg . Do Pester Boden. Do Average . Yield of Percent- Proteid Year grain age of nitrogen per acre proteid per acre (pounds). nitrogen. (pounds). 1900 1,980 3.02 52.73 1901 2.370 2.00 43.04 1902 1,800 2.86 51.48 1903 1,864 2.40 44.74 1900 1,320 3.01 34. .58 : 1901 ■^ 1,794 2.18 36.08 1903 o962 2., 54 24.43 1902 1,605 3.16 46.32 1903 1,891 2.10 39.71 1902 1,475 2.92 43.10 1903 1,830 2.16 39.53 1,717 41.43 Date of ripen- ing. June 27 June 24 June 23 July 9 July 2 July 1 July 14 June 24 July 10 June 24 July 10 n Yield decreased by lodging of grain. A word in regard to the character of the seasons that produced these crops may help to an understanding of their differences. a Ann. Agron., 28 (1902), ;i. 42 IMPKOVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. The season of 1900 was rather dry and hot from the time growth started in the spring until harvest. There was no time when there was an abundant supply of moisture, but occasional rains wet the soil for a few da3's at a time. The temperatures during the da}" were high and the air was dry. In 1901 the spring was quite moist and cool until June, when it became extremely hot and dry. A few days before harvest the temperatures ranged above 100° F. daily, with no rainfall. The season of 1902 was the direct opposite of that of 1901, except that the change came earlier. It was extremely dry and hot until the middle of May, when abundant rains came, and the temperatures were considerably below normal until harvest. The season of 1903 was wet and cool throughout. In general, it may be said that in those seasons, like 1900 and 1902, in which the temperatures were high and moisture scarce dur- ing all or the early part of the growing season, the grain had a high percentage of nitrogen, and there was a large production of nitrogen per acre. In years of low temperatures and abundant moisture, as in 1903, or even when such conditions obtained late in the sea- son, as in 1901, there were a low percentage of nitrogen in the grain and a small production of nitrogen per acre. High temperatures an are used to represent "less than" and "greater than," respectively. Thus " <1.29" means that the kernels have a specific gravity of less than 1.29, while ">1.29" indicates that the kernels have a specific gravity greater than 1.29. Table 1. — Analyses of kernels of high and of low specific gravity . Serial number. Specific gra\-ity. 1 <1.290 2 >1.290 30 <1.286 31 >1.286 38 <1.250 39 >1.2o0 40 <1.265 41 >1.265 59 <1.264 60 1 >1.264 Percentage of - Total Proteid Nonpro- teid nitrogen. nitrogen. nitrogen." 3.51 2.49 1.02 3.27 2.39 .88 2.51 1.88 .63 2.51 1.94 .57 2.80 2.26 • .54 2.78 2.15 .63 2.95 2.13 .82 2.66 2.01 .65 3.30 2.41 .89 3.06 2.29 .77 Name of variety and year of growtfi. •Hickman, grown in 1895. Turkish Red, grown in 1897. \Spring wheat, Marvel, grown ■ in 1897. Spiing wheat, Velvet Chaff grown in 1897. [■Turkish Red, grown in 1898. a Proteid nitrogen in this ppper = nitrogen by Stutzer's method. Proteids = proteid nitrogen x 5.7. With the exception of serial Nos. 30 and 31 the kernels of low specific gravity have in each case a higher percentage of both total and proteid nitrogen than have the kernels of high specific gravity. It will also be noticed that the percentage of nonproteid nitrogen is greater in the kernels of low specific gravity. Samples of wheat were also divided into light and heavy portions by means of a machine which operates ])y directing upward a current of air, the velocity of which can be regulated. Into this current the grain is directed. The result is that the heavy kernels and the large 27889— No. 78—05 4 49 50 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. kernels fall, and the light kernels and small kernels are driven out. The separation thus accomplished is somewhat different from that effected by a solution, the difference being that the latter separates the kernels entirely according to their specific gravities while with the air blast a large kernel of a certain specific gravity might descend with the heavy kernels, when if it were smaller, although of the same specific gravity, it would be blown out. The number of light kernels that descend on account of their large size is relatively small, owing to the fact that large kernels are, as a rule, of higher specific gravity than small ones. The following test was made to determine the relation between the size of wheat ker- nels and their specific gravity. An average lot of wheat was nearly equally divided by means of two sieves into three portions represent- ing medium, small, and large kernels. Each of these portions was then thrown upon solutions of the same specific gravity, and the pro- portion by weight that floated, or light seed, and the proportion that sank, or heavy seed, were determined. Table 2. — Proportion of light and of heavy seed. Kind of seed. Heavy seed Light seed Ratio. (grams) . i (grams) . Heavy. Light. Small 8.72 9.62 11.96 11.28 10.78 8.04 1 1 1 1.29 Medium 1.12 Large .67 The weight of light kernels among the small was nearly twice that of light kernels among the large seeds. Analyses of samples of wheat separated by this machine into light and heavy kernels gave about the same results as the samples sepa- rated by solutions of certain specific gravities. Table 3. — Analyses of large, heavy Icernels and of small, light Icernels. Relative weight. Percentage of— Serial number. Total nitrogen. Proteid nitrogen. Nonpro- teid nitrogen. Name of variety and year of growth. 9 Light 2.99 2.76 2.77 2.70 2.91 2.65 2.45 2.19 3.12 3.02 3.13 2.95 3.30 2.46 2.35 2.11 2.21 2I04 2.11 2.04 2.29 2.04 2.00 1.96 3.10 2.93 2.82 2.65 3.06 2.24 2.13 1.94 0.78 .72 .66 .66 .62 .61 .45 .23 .02 .09 .31 .30 .24 .22 .22 .17 \ Spring wheat, Marvel, grown 1 in 1896. 10 .... Heavy Light 57 58 Heavy Light 65 [•Spring wheat, grown in 1898. [•Big Frame, grown in 1899. 66. Heavy Light 80 81. . Heavv Light 383 JTurkish Red, grown in 1900. 384 385 Heavy Light 386 602 Heavy Light [Big Frame, grown in 1900. >Big Frame, grown in 1901. 603 Heavy Light 613 JTurkish Red, grown in 1901. 612 Heavy SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL. 51 It thus becomes very apparent that the percentage of nitrogen is relatively greater in the light wheat selected in the manner described. It is well known that immature wheat is of lighter weight than mature wheat and that it contains a greater percentage of nonproteid nitrogen. In a field of wheat there are alw^ays certain plants that mature early, others that mature late, and some that never reach a normal state of maturity. The last condition is very likely to occur in a region of limited rainfall and intense summer heat. The con- ditions most favorable for the filling out of the grain are shown to be an abundance of soil moisture and a fair degree of warmth. The more nearly the conditions are the reverse of this the more shriveled the kernel and the lighter the weight. In the same variety and in the same field there are kernels that are small and shriveled because of immaturity, disease, or lack of nutriment. All of these classes would appear among the "light" kernels separated in this way. In order to approach the question from another standpoint, a num- ber of spikes of wheat of the Turkish Red variety were selected in the field, care being taken that all were fully ripe, and that they were composed of healthy, well-formed kernels. These spikes were sam- pled by removing one row of spikelets from each spike and the kernels so removed were tested for moisture, proteid nitrogen, specific gravity, and weight of kernel, and from the last tw^o the relative volume was calculated. It will be shown later that a sample taken in this way permits of an accurate estimation of the average com- position of the kernels on the spike. The number of grams of proteid nitrogen in the row of spikelets on each spike was calculated from the data mentioned, and the average weight of the kernels on the row of spikelets w as determined from their total weight and number, thus permitting of the estima- tion of the number of grams of proteid nitrogen in the average kernel on each spike. In Table 4 the spikes having a proteid nitrogen content of from 2 to 2.5 per cent are arranged in one group, and on the same line with each spike are placed the number of kernels on one row of spikelets, weight of these kernels, weight of average kernel, relative volume of average kernel, specific gravity of kernel, grams of proteid nitrogen in one row of spikelets, and grams of proteid nitrogen in average kernel. Spikes having a proteid nitrogen content of from 2.5 to 3 per cent are similarly arranged, and so with all spikes up to 4 per cent. The aver- age for each group is shown in the table. There are, in all, 257 spikes, of which 18 have from 2 to 2.5 per cent proteid nitrogen, 82 from 2.5 to 3 per cent, 107 from 3 to 3.5 per cent, and 49 from 3.5 to 4 per cent. 52 IMPROVING TH?: QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 4. — Analyses of spikes of wheat, arranged according to nitrogen content of kernels. Crop of 1902. 2 TO 2.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. Record number. Number of ker- nels on row of spikelets. Weight (in grams) of— Volume of aver- age ker- nel. Specific gravity of ker- nels. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen (gram) in — Kernels. Average kernel. Kernels. Average kernel. 183 188 193 205 17 16 14 15 18 21 22 15 15 21 14 19 17 2L 13 0.4772 .4425 .3724 .4824 .5221 .5336 . 6708 .4549 .4063 .6689 .4336 .4787 .4594 .5878 .2771 .4566 .4110 .4318 0.0280 .0276 .0266 .0321 .0290 .0254 .0304 .0303 .0270 .0318 .0309 .0251 .0258 .0279 .0213 .0268 .0256 .0269 2.06 2.37 2.41 2.41 2.23 2.24 2.02 2.44 2.36 2.33 2.35 2.28 2.33 2.44 2.44 2.36 2.38 2.37 0.00983 .01049 .00897 0.000577 .000654 . 000642 0.0241 .0209 .0189 .0220 .0216 .0192 .0235 .0225 .0183 .0188 .0200 1.3323 1.3850 1.3424 1.3853 1.4031 1.4074 1.3544 1.3735 1.3680 1.3718 1.3915 .01548 000774 291 304 318 347 357 358 380 396 402 406 415 .01616 .01195 .01354 .01110 .00959 .01559 .01019 .01091 .01070 .01434 .00676 .000647 .000569 .000614 .000739 .000637 .000742 .000726 .000572 .000601 .000681 nnn.wn 440 i 17 444 1 16 445 16 .01078 ' .000632 .00978 ! .000609 .01023 I .000638 Average... 17 .4759 .0266 .0209 1.374 2.323 .01141 .000643 2.5 TO 3 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 181 182 185 187 189 196 197 199 207 210 211 212 217 218 219 222 227 229 230 238 239 241 242 252 277 288 289 293 294 302 306 308 315 319 320 322 329 330 332 334 335 337 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 348 0.4482 .4299 .5041 .3945 .4871 .4995 .5683 .4589 .4584 .3955 .5211 .4298 .6299 .5130 .3862 .4611 . 5581 .4849 .4867 .5166 .3910 .4230 .4562 .4898 .3792 .4956 .5042 .4858 .4173 .5569 .4922 .4951 .4994 .4644 .5668 .5107 .3903 .3431 .4847 .5399 .6474 .4497 .4155 .5058 .4486 .4112 .4004 .5422 .6393 .6328 0.0235 .0252 .0265 .0263 .0270 .0293 .0284 .0269 .0305 .0282 .0306 .0286 .0349 .0285 .0203 .0242 .0293 .028.5 .0324 .0303 .0230 .0235 .0253 .02578 .0270 .0291 .0265 .0285 .0219 .0253 .0258 .0330 .0312 .0273 .0314 .0219 .0325 .0201 .0302 .0299 .0359 .0299 .0207 .0337 .0320 .0316 .0250 .0301 .0336 .0351 0.0230 .0288 .0228 .0211 .0259 .0214 .0157 .0182 .0214 .0206 .0234 .0220 .01649 .0178 .0184 .0186 .0203 .0217 .0187 .0206 .0159 .0190 .0185 .0237 .0224 .0203 .0229 .0236 .0234 .0161 .0218 .0215 .0258 .0215 .0153 .0243 .0228 .0224 .0184 .0216 .0242 .0262 1.3248 1.2363 1.3416 1.3537 1.3461 1.3303 1.2950 1.3331 1.3704 1.3856 1 . 3815 • 1.3794 1.3941 1.3196 1.3753 1.3875 1.3286 1.3428 1.4155 1.3835 1.3813 1.3312 1.3996 1.392 1.3916 1.3447 1.3710 1.352 1.3911 1.2498 1.3879 1.3922 1.3928 1.3877 1.3550 1.3890 1.4037 1.4107 1.3611 1.3919 1.3913 1.3415 2.66 2.76 2.71 2.99 2.64 2.71 2.85 2.99 2.73 2.95 2.90 2.97 2.86 2.58 2.71 2.93 2.71 2.96 2.54 2.70 2.60 2.76 2.96 2.55 2.86 2.82 2.53 2.64 2.56 2.68 2.51 2.85 2.75 2.86 2.98 2.55 2.88 2.62 2.58 2.62 2.82 2.89 2.74 2.97 2.60 2.50 2.93 2.56 2.55 2.88 0.01192 .01187 .01366 .01180 .01286 .01354 .01620 .01372 .01709 .01167 .01511 .01277 .01802 .01324 .01047 .01351 . 01624 .01387 .01236 .01395 .01017 .01168 .01350 .01249 .01085 .01398 .01276 .01283 .01068 .01437 .01235 .01411 .01373 .01328 .01689 .01302 .01241 .00899 .01251 .01415 .01826 .01345 .01138 .01502 .01166 . 01028 .01173 .01388 .01630 .01822 0.000625 .000696 .000718 .000786 .000713 .000794 .000809 .000804 .000833 .000832 .000887 .000849 .000998 .000735 .000550 .000709 .000794 . 000844 .000823 .001)818 .000598 .000o49 .000749 .000o55 .000772 .000821 .000670 .000752 .000561 .000678 . 000650 .000941 .000858 .000781 . 000938 .000813 .000936 .000527 .000779 .000783 .001012 .000864 . 000567 .001001 .000832 . 000791 .000733 .000771 .0008.57 .001010 SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL. 5o Table 4. — Analyses of spikes of wheat, arranged according to nitro.5007 .55008.... 55206 55306. . . . 55507. . . . 56106 56205 56206 57007.... 57306.... 57307.... 57406.... 57407.... 57507.... 57H0S 57S05.... 5SS0o 59605 63505.... 65306 65307.... (KiOOS ri9305.... 69505 72406.... 72607.... 72806.... 74.507.... 81405 81.505 8490.5 84906 8S905 88906 9220S 92408 92409 92.507 92909 94205 94206 94207 912(19 9440(1 9490(i 919(17 91908 9550(1 95.108 95706 Average . Weight Num- of aver- ber of age Icernels kernel on (gram). plant. 0.01967 94 . 01866 67 .01806 101 .018.34 220 .01964 82 .01919 608 .01858 603 . 01898 67 . 01986 30 . 01804 862 . 01828 118 .01846 944 .01965 578 .01931 214 .01949 504 .01866 644 .01959 333 . 01829 509 .01975 168 .01838 434 .01801 261 .01846 135 .01968 762 . 01946 359 .01968 438 .01814 270 .01999 1,158 . 01880 382 .01934 208 .01807 544 .01878 373 .01814 174 .01984 103 .01847 255 .01929 430 .01832 188 .01906 110 .01869 493 .01862 240 .01940 146 .01927 37 .01975 382 .01811 293 .01814 546 . 01876 353 .01827 207 .01814 315 .01916 505 .01916 529 .01893 64 .01866 402 . 01909 718 .01895 190 .01923 549 .01808 685 .01948 626 .01894 125 .01852 597 .01954 740 .01934 267 .01901 349.6 Weight of ker'nels Per centage of pro- teid ni on plant froaen (grams), ^ogen 1.8494 1.2499 1.8246 4.0358 1.6103 11.6655 11.2008 1.2716 .5958 15. 5835 2.1571 17. 4226 11.3592 4. 1323 9. 8228 12.0161 6. 5232 9.3093 3. 3176 7.9772 4.7117 2.4923 14.9992 6.9861 8.6189 4. 8988 23. 1471 7. 1828 4.0230 9.8298 7.0051 3. 1.5.55 2. 0430 4.7116 8. 2929 3.4442 2.0970 9.2130 4. 5737 2. 8327 .7130 7. 5438 5. 3069 9.9034 6. 6206 3. 7820 5.7131 9. 6779 10. 1363 1.2117 7. 5006 13. 70.57 3. 6006 10. 55.56 12.3862 12.1918 2. 3678 11.0548 14.4617 5.1629 6.6327 in ker- nels. 3.63 3.17 2.44 1.91 2.54 2.38 2.76 3.24 3.54 1.34 4.21 2.60 2.56 2.18 2.63 2.57 2.51 2.42 2.65 2.86 2.43 2.75 2.62 2.85 2.64 2.87 2.74 2.12 1.90 2.41 2.28 3.59 4.42 2.29 2.95 5.59 3.01 3.02 2.62 2.94 ■2.32 3.43 2.83 2.65 2.72 2.97 2.30 2.58 2.70 1.65 2.78 2.86 2.49 2.47 3.41 2.94 1.96 2.74 2.56 2.73 2.88 Proteid nitrogen (gram) in- Average kernel. 0.0007142 .000.5447 .0004408 .0003504 .0004988 .0004567 . 0005127 . 0006149 .0007032 . 0002422 . 0007696 . 0(IJ4799 .0005031 . 0004210 . 0005126 .0004795 .0004917 . 0004426 . 0005233 . 00052,57 . 0004387 . 0005077 . 0005157 .0005545 .0005195 .0005207 .0005464 .0003986 . 0003674 . 0004282 .0004355 .0006510 . 0008767 . 0004231 . 0005689 .0010241 . 0005738 .000.5644 . 0004879 . 0005704 . 0004471 . 0008773 .0005126 . 0004807 . 0005102 . 0005426 . 0004171 .0004944 .0005173 .0003124 .0005187 . 0005460 . 0004719 . 0004749 . 0006166 . 0005726 .0003713 . 0005074 .0005003 .0005279 .0005476 Kernels on plant, 0.06713 . 036.50 .044.52 .07708 .04090 .27765 . 30986 .04120 .02109 . 20881 .09082 .45299 . 29079 .09008 .25834 .30881 . 16373 .22529 . 08792 .22815 .11445 .06854 . 39297 . 19905 . 22756 . 14060 . 63422 . 15228 .07644 .23690 . 1.5971 . 11328 .09030 .10790 .24464 . 19253 .06312 . 27823 .11710 .08328 .01654 . 25873 . 15019 . 26245 .18008 .11233 . 13140 . 24969 . 27367 .01999 . 20851 .39199 .08965 .26073 .42236 .35844 .04641 .30291 .37023 .14095 Percent- age of gliadin- plus-glu- tenin ni- trogen in kernels. Gliadin-plus-glu- tenin nitrogen (gram) in — Average kernel. Kernels on plant . 18039 2.73 0.0005370 0.05049 l.SO .00034.54 , .20997 2.21 1.58 1.87 2.07 2.09 1.85 1.95 2.13 1.86 2.68 2.11 1.68 1.81 . 0004040 .0002917 . 0003675 . 0004034 . 0003900 .0003624 .0003566 . 0003932 . 0003660 .0004861 . 0004218 .0003036 .0003399 . 0004598 . 04767 .27528 . 21241 . 20333 .25114 . 12068 . 18153 .05309 . 27898 . 10828 . 13126 . 48839 . 16514 , 12680 .08645 .15541 WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.020 TO 0.022 GRAM. 17308.. 17405.. 20706. . 20708.. 20709.. 20895. . 0. 02012 61 .02127 738 . 02033 163 . 02024 122 .02063 258 .02157 C97 1:2275 3.25 15. 6996 2.13 3.3138 2.78 2.4690 2.58 5.3229 3.05 14. 6942 3.32 0.0006540 . 0004531 .0005652 . 0005221 .0006292 . 000 1999 0. 03994 .33441 .09212 .06399 . 16235 .48784 2.05 2.31 2.26 0. 0004168 .0004766 .0004875 0. 06793 .12296 . 33208 SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL. 69 Table 10. — Analyses of plants, arranged according to weight of average TcerneJ. Crop of iy'OJ— Continued. WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.020 TO 0.022 GRAM— Continued. Record num.^er. Weight of aver- age kernel (gram) . Num- ber of kernels on plant. Weight of kernels on j)lant (grams) . Per- centage of pro- teid ni- trogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen (gram) in— Percent- age of gliadin- plus-glu- tenin ni- trogen in kernels. Gliadin-plus-glu- tenin aitrogen (gram) in — Avei-age kernel. Kernels on plant. Average kernel. Kernels on plant'. 21212 21305 21707 21709 21811 21908 21913 22210 22211 25205 26908 27207 37305 27505 28806 32206 32606 33305 33606 33607 33905 37703 38606 39205 39405 40305 44605 44606 48409 5500o 55506 55605 55908 57405 57408 58806 63106 65308 66005 69506 69806 72705 72707 73306 74305 74606 80305 81705 81706 81709 84405 88606 88608 88609 92406 92907 9.5.507 95509 Average . 0.02049 .02004 .02125 .02141 .02101 .02056 .02072 .02019 .02062 .02066 .02073 .02004 .02085 .02183 .02111 .02052 .02145 .02090 .02144 .02125 .02194 .021.55 .02110 .02089 . 02093 .02011 .02049 . .02035 . 02048 . 02028 .02062 .02184 .02175 .02031 .02047 .02049 . 02001 . 02008 .02073 .02047 .02153 .02191 .02036 .02062 . 02047 .02079 .02165 .02106 .02132 .02175 .02043 .02068 .02075 .02100 .02168 .02040 .02029 .02136 84 312 582 361 .567 173 492 298 561 522 192 166 267 539 685 507 94 1.50 382 136 508 56 401 1,031 447 179 55 124 314 393 866 500 562 41 596 95 165 583 370 663 558 372 225 414 216 464 729 465 722 757 428 481 74 470 380 219 571 138 1.7216 6.2514 12.3685 7.7296 11.9114 3.. 5.574 10. 1925 6.0173 11.5675 10. 7836 3.9797 3.3266 5. .5666 12.0399 14. 46.30 10. 4036 2.0162 3. 1346 8. 1890 2.8903 11.1476 1.2069 8. 4605 21.. 5399 9.3541 3. 6003 1.1271 2. .5235 6. 4302 7.9684 17.8.506 10.9180 12.2210 .8328 12.2004 1.9469 3.3006 11.7066 7. 6690 13.. 5696 12.0136 9. 1.522 4.5806 8.5373 4. 4222 9. 6451 15.78.35 9.7922 15.3928 16.4692 8. 7448 9.9456 1.. 53.55 9.8719 8. 2366 4.4673 12. 1.592 2.9475 2.16 2. 67 2.19 2.47 3.75 3.82 3.01 3.17 3.17 2.71 2.96 2.92 2.58 2.12 3.02 1.81 2.88 3.41 2.21 3.22 1.61 2.34 2.63 2.11 2.88 3.11 2.86 2.90 2.02 3.05 2.80 2.64 2.42 1.98 2.61 1.88 2.79 2.09 2.63 2.50 1.66 2.13 3.49 2.45 1.98 2.30 1.81 1.98 2.71 2. 28 2.48 2.53 2.47 2.42 3.11 2.. 56 2. ,59 2.48 0.0004427 .00053.50 .0004654 .0005289 .0007877 .0(X)7S.55 .0006235 .0006401 . 0006537 . 0005599 .0006135 .0005850 .0005379 .0004627 .0006.376 .0003714 .0006177 .0007126 .0004738 .0006843 .0003533 .000.50.53 .000.5.549 .0004407 .0006027 . 0006255 .000.5861 . 000.5902 .0004137 .0006185 . 0005773 .000.5765 .0005262 .0004022 .0005343 .000.3853 .0005581 .0004197 .0005451 .0005117 .0003574 .00046ti8 .0007105 .0005052 .0004054 .0004781 .0003919 .0004170 . 0005778 . 0004960 . 0005067 . 0005231 . 0005125 .000.5082 .OOOr.741 . 0005220 .000.5515 .0005297 0.03718 . 16691 . 27086 . 19092 . 446(if) . 13589 . 30680 . 19075 .36671 . 28560 .11780 .09712 . 14362 . 24942 .43679 . 18831 . 05807 . 10(89 . 18098 1.97 0. 0003948 0. 12315 :::::::::::::::::: 2.16 1.88 . 0004538 . 0003955 . 25728 . 06688 1..55 1.69 .0003129 . 0003485 .09327 . 19548 2. 16 1.95 1.73 1.65 1.86 . 0004478 . 0003908 .0003607 .0003602 . 0003926 .08596 .06487 .09630 . 19866 . 26901 ..................... 2.41 . 0005037 . 07554 . 09307 . 17948 . 02824 .22251 . 45435 .21399 .11197 .03223 .07318 .12989 . 24303 .4995 . 28823 . 29575 .01649 .31.842 . 03660 .09208 . 244(i8 .20170 . 33923 . 19943 . 19936 .15986 . 20918 . 08756 . 221S4 . 2S5ti9 . 19388 .41715 .37548 .21687 .25162 .03793 . 23890 .2.5616 .11436 .31492 .07310 2.45 . 0a)5206 .07081 ::::::::::::::: 1.39 1.84 1.44 . 0002933 . 0003844 . 0003014 .11760 . 39635 . 13470 ::::::::::: ; 1.29 1..50 1.99 2.20 1.96 1.96 . 0002625 . 0003072 . 0004036 . 0004536 .0004281 . 0004263 . 03255 . 09645 . 15857 . 39272 . 21400 . 239.53 1.64 .0003357 .20008 2.20 1.95 2.18 .0004402 .0003916 .0004519 .07261 .22828 . 16714 2.05 1.77 1.96 2.03 . 0004262 . 0003832 .0004128 . 0004328 . 19772 . 27937 . 19193 .31248 .02085 386.6 8. 1267 2.60 .000.5422 .20510 1.92 .0003999 . 17351 WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNi-:L, 0.022 TO 0.024 GRAM. 17307 17410 20707 21706 21708 21806 21909 21911 0.02279 .02285 .02282 .02390 .02381 . 02378 .02317 .02209 138 744 444 807 390 599 525 383 3. 1454 16.9987 9.9070 19.3318 9.28.50 14. 2450 12. 1819 8.4593 3.46 2.88 2.77 4.71 2.33 2.71 4.43 5.48 0.0007886 .0006580 .0006181 .0011283 . 0005547 .0006444 . 0010265 .0012103 0. 10883 . 48957 .27443 .91052 .21634 . 38604 . 53889 .46356 1.85 0. 0004222 0. 18328 1.98 .0005677 .29846 70 IMPROVING thp: quality of wheat. Table 10. — Analyses of plants, arranged according to weigld of average Tcernel. Crop of i^aS— Continued. WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, J.022 TO 0,024 GRAM— Continued. Record number. Weight of aver- age kernel (gram). 25206.... 26106. . . . 26805.... 26807.... 27506.... 27508.... 27509.... 32605.... 33407.... 33605.... 34207 34606 38.505. . . . 38609. . . . 42405. . . . 43405.... 48507.... 55308. . . . 55606.... 56207.... 56208.... 57606.... 57607.... 63107.... 65305.... 69805.... 71905.... 72708 73307.... 73308. . . . 81707.... 81710.... 88607.... 91305.... Average 0.02281 .02304 .02248 .02390 .02252 . 02287 . 02206 . 02323 .02271 . 02345 . 02219 .02213 .02252 .02309 .02251 .02258 .02296 .02395 .02205 .02361 . 02356 .02333 . 02234 .02233 .02310 .02220 .02239 .02270 . 02229 .02291 .02336 .02308 .02205. .02242 Num- ber of Ivernels of kernels «' P"^i. on plant ^ej^m in ker- nels. : Proteid nitrogen (gram) in — plant. (g'-^"i^>- .022&J 205 90 220 721 444 251 243 225 305 301 611 280 563 293 66 124 70 397 503 462 563 132 736 417- 78 110 1,260 398 396 234 138 4. 6754 2.0737 4.9456 17.2324 10.0005 5. 5324 5. 3615 5. 2268 7. 0889 7.0596 13.5.556 6. 1962 12. 1088 6. 7665 1.4892 2.8000 1.6036 9. 5078 11.0930 10.9073 13. 5720 3.0790 16.4433 9.3120 1.8018 2.4420 28. 2136 9.0386 . 5572 14.2986 18.3814 9.1411 5.1584 3.0940 2.76 2.63 2.81 2.80 2.70 2.64 2.90 1.20 1.62 2.39 2.84 3.12 3.61 2.74 3.07 2.92 2.64 2.54 2.58 2.34 2.61 2.74 1.73 2.43 4.92 5.82 2.47 2.27 2.39 2.92 2.34 1.92 2.61 3.21 Average kernel. 0.0006295 . 0006060 .0006317 .0006692 .0006082 .0006037 .0006399 .0002788 .0003679 .0005605 .0006273 .0006904 .0007764 .0006475 .0006927 .0006594 .0006062 . 0006225 .0005690 .0005.524 .0003149 . 0006391 .0003865 .0005426 .0011365 . 0012921 . 0005531 .0005154 .0005327 . 0006539 . 0005466 .000*432 .0005754 . 0007197 Kernels on plant. Percent- age of gliadin- plus-glu- tenin ni- trogen in j kernels. I Gliadin-plus-glu- tenin nlwogen (gram) in- Average kernel. Kernels on plant. 0. 12904 .05454 . 13897 .48250 .27003 . 14608 . 15549 .06272 . 11223 . 16872 . 38.505 . 19332 : 43713 .18540 .04572 .08176 .04233 . 24150 .28580 . 25.522 .34616 .08436 . 248^7 . 22628 .088B5 .14'>13 .69^88 .20^^18 .01.332 . 4r52 .429n5 . l''5.50 . 13^63 .09932 1.98 0.00044,59 0.19800 2.32 .000,5306 i .12835 1.09 .0002405 , .0,5844 i 1 1.92 .0004602 .13554 1.77 1.34 .0003986 .0003094 . 21432 . 09067 1.18 .0002664 . 03304 1.49 1.83 1.95 . (X)02609 . (HM)4321 .0004594 .16529 . 19960 . 26465 1 . 94 . 0(H)4307 . 047;-if< 1 ■ ■ 1 2.90 .0006624 .25166 1.74 I .0004011 WEIGHT OF AVER.\GE KERNEL, 0.024 TO 0.026 GRAM. 17506.... 21807.... 21906.... 27206.... 28805. . . . 37905. . . . 40505. . . . 48305.... 55907. . . . 72706.... 81708.... 92206.... 94105.... Average 0.02460 93 .02498 . 377 .02.563 408 .02469 777 .02512 87 .02555 37 .02444 170 1 .02543 473 .02590 749 .02484 591 . 02578 287 .02407 46 . 02543 22 ■ 2. 2881 3.52 9. 4172 2.73 10.4800 3.18 19. 1854 2.36 2. 1851 2.91 .9452 2.53 4. 1546 2.82 12.0278 2.87 19.3966 2.59 14.6802 3.86 7.3993 2.41 1.1074 2.67 .5595 2.67 7. 9866 2.86 0. 0008660 . 0006664 .0008168 . 0005827 . 0007309 . 0006463 . 0006892 . 0007299 .0006707 .0000.588 .0006213 . 0006428 . 0OOB79O .0007154 0.08044 . 25709 .33403 .45276 .06359 .02391 .11716 .34.524 . 50''38 . 56666 . 17833 . 02957 . 01494 . 22816 2.23 0.000,5486 2. 11 : .000.5271 2.10 ! .0a).5382 1.46 I .0003605 1.55 .0003894 2.19 .000,5352 1.77 .0004.501 1.61 .0004170 0.05102 . 19870 . 22008 .28010 . 03387 .09099 .21289 .31229 .0004228 .12135 .0004654 .16903 WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.026 GRAM AND OVER. 21211 21705 39506 49905 55608 55909 57,508 58505 72405 Average . 0. 02806 .02659 .02869 . 029,39 .02699 . 03050 .03177 .02730 .03963 10 58 67 23 837 302 380 273 213 0.2806 1.5420 1.9218 .6760 22., 5848 9.2120 12.0728 7.4516 8. 4415 3.15 2.45 2.93 3.62 2.31 2.30 2.21 2.95 3.36 0.0008839 .0006514 .0008404 .0010640 . 0006236 .OOu-016 .0007021 .0008052 .0013316 0.00884 .03778 .05631 .02436 .,52194 .21187 . 26680 .21982 .2&363 2.06 0.0005915 0.03959 1 1.66 2.05 . 0005063 .0006513 . 15292 . 24750 .02988 240.3 7. 2425 2.81 .0008449 . 18126 1.92 .0005829 . 14667 SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL. 71 T.\BLE 11. — Siimmani of analyses of plants, arranged according to veight of average Icernel. Crop of 1903. Num- ber of analy- ses." Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram). Num- ber cf kernels 219 179 155. 7 232 305.9 349. 6 386.6 388.1 316.7 240.3 Weight of ker- nels (grams). ■ 2. 0334 2.0187 2.0510 3. 5480 5.2055 6. 6327 8. 1257 8. 8879 7.9866 7.2425 Per- cent- age of pro- teid ni- trogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen (gram) in- Per cent- age of glia- din- plus- glu- tenin nitro- gen in ker- nels. Gliadin-plus- glutenin nitro- gen(gram)in— Range of weights of average kernel (gram). Average kernel. Ker- nels. Average kernel. Ker- nels. 0.000 to 010.... 0.010 to 0.012.... 0.012 to 0.014.... 0.014 to 0.016.... 016 to 0.018.... O.OIS to 0.020.... 0.020 to 0.022.... 0.022 to 024.... 024 to 026 ... 0.026 and over.. 4 6 19 27 69 . 103 64 42 13 9 0.00915 .01118 .01323 . 01516 .01709 .01901 .02085 .02285 .02511 .02988 2.76 2.98 3:12 3.00 2.93 2.88 2.60 2.90 2.86 2.81 0.0002628 . 0003326 .0004120 .0004555 .0005020 . 0005476 .0005422 .0006624 .0007154 .0008449 0. 05618 . 06270 . 06687 . 10619 . 14618 . 18039 .20510 . 25166 .22816 . 18126 1.97 2.69 1.98 1.76 2.07 2.08 1.92 1.74 1.85 1.92 0.0001877 . 0002968 .0002641 .0002805 . 0003519 .0003979 . 0003999 .0004011 . 0004654 .0005829 0.05312 .067.-.2 .07499 .09320 . 1354S . 15541 . 17351 . 15515 . 16903 . 14667 With an increase in the weight of the kernel, as shown by this table, there is an irregular increase in the number of kernels on the plant up to a point somewhat bej'ond the kernel of average weight, after which there is a decrease. The weight of the kernels on the plant seems to follow the same rule. The percentage of proteid nitrogen in the kernels decreases, in general, with the weight of the average kernel, w^hile the number of grams of proteid nitrogen in the average kernel increases steadily. The grams of proteid nitro- gen in all the kernels on the plant increase up to the same point as do the number of kernels on the plant, and then decrease. Table 12 shows the summary of the analys^^s of the crop of 190.3, ananged according to the grams of proteid nitrogen in the average kernel. All plants 1 aving less than 0.0003 gram of proteid nitro- gen form the first class, and the following classes increase with each 0.0001 gram of proteid nitrogen. It is difficult to trace any relation between the grams of proteid nitrogen in thy aveiage kernel and tiie number of kernels on the plant, or the weight of the kernels on the plant. The weight of tlie average kernel increases directly with the grams of proteid nitrogen in the kernel. The percentage of proteid nitrogen increases regularly with an increase in the grams of proteid nitrogen in the average kernel. The grams of proteid nitrogen in all the kernels on the plant show no definite relation to the grams of proteid nitrogen in the average kernel. It becomes evident from these results that selection of large, heavy kernels for seed would result in discarding the immature and unsound kernels, but that there would also be discarded many sound kernels, which, although small and of low specific gravii}^, would contain a high percentage of proteids. 72 IMPROVIiSTG THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Another effect of such selection, as indicated by the foregoing results, would be to increase the yield of grain from each plant when grown under the conditions that obtained in these experi- ments. What the effect would be upon the yield under ordinary field conditions these experiments do not indicate. On the other hand, selection based upon percentage of proteid nitrogen alone would not result in securing plants of greatest yield when raised under these conditions. It w^ould, moreover, not result in obtaining plants producing the greatest amount of proteid nitro- gen, nor even of kernels containing the largest quantity of proteid nitrogen. Table 12. — Summa}'y of analyses of plants, arranged according to grains of proteid nitrogen in average kernel. Crop of 1903. Range of proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram). Below 0.00030... 0.00030 to 00040 0.0004(1 to (1(1(1.50 0.f«K).".() to (I (IIKlBO O.OOoco to (I (10070 0.0(1(17(1 to (I (1(1080 (KKINO to (1 (111090 0,00000 to 0,00100 0.00100 and over. Num- Proteid nitrogen ^ ^ m average "^J' kernel : '^"^^^ (gram). ^'^^^ 0. 0002509 14 .0003602 42 . 0004537 80 . 0005406 116 . 0006409 59 . 0007430 24 . 0008538 9 . 0009588 1 .0011578 11 Number Weight ( of in grams) Percent- age of of ker- proteid nels on plant. Kernels on plant. Average kernel. nitrogen in ker- nels. 257.9 3.9190 0.01364 1.96 266.7 4. 6742 .01628 2.31 409.2 7. .5309 .01811 2.54 341.5 6. 7159 .01908 2.86 310.3 6. 7257 .02137 3.07 204.9 4. 5158 .02110 3.66 189.1 4.2480 .02334 3.79 591.0 14. 6802 .02484 3.86 244.9 6. 6082 .02875 4.62 Proteid nitrogen in ker- nels on plant (gram). 0. 06531 .09644 .18644 . 18440 . 19805 .15318 . 15944 . 56666 It will be shown later that the determination of gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen is a safer guide to the bread-making value of wheat than is a determination of proteid nitrogen, but whether selection should be based upon the percentage of nitrogen or the total production of nitrogen by the plant, or upon the amount contained in the average kernel, is a question that can not be solved except by trial under field conditions. Some results of exj^eriments with light and with heavy seed con- ducted on large field plots for several j^ears may throw some light on this subject, and are given herewith. YIELD OF NITROGEN PER ACRE. It is important to know whether the absolute amount of nitro- gen per acre of grain raised is greater in light or in heavy wheat. If the absolute amount of nitrogen per acre is less in light than in heavy wheat the supposition would be justifiable that the kernels were immature or had been prematurely checked in their develop- ment. On the other hand, if the amount of nitrogen per acre is greater in the light wheat it would be reasonable to suppose that, as both had been raised under the same conditions, the light wheat had, in part at least, come from plants that possessed greater ability to acquire and elaborate nitrogenous material. YIELD OF NITROGEN PER ACRE. 73 To afford information on this point anah^ses were made of crops grown from light and from heavy seed. Records of the yields of the jilots were kept in each case so that the actual amount of proteid nitrogen contained in an acre of each kind of wheat can he calculated. The number of grams of proteid nitrogen in 1 ,000 kernels of each seed and crop sample is also stated. The fii'st samples separated, Nos. 78 and 79 of the Turkish Red variety and 80 and 81 of the Big Frame variety, were taken from seed that had never before been treated in this way. When planted they produced the crops indicated in Table 13 by 78b, 79b, 80b, and 81b, respectively. Each of these crops w^as then separated into tw^o portions, of which the light portion of the light wheat was re tamed for analyzing and planting, and the heavy portion of the heavy wheat likewise retained. Thus No. 383 is the light portion of No. 78b, and No. 384 is the heavy portion of No. 79b. The accuracy of the records of relative yields of light and heavy seed harvested in 1902 l)eing open to suspicion, samples of the same seed were sown again in the autumn of 1902 and harvested in 1903. The results from this test are stated at the bottom of the table under the heading ''Check experiment." These experiments are to be understood as duplicating those of 1902, which, as regards the relative yield of light and heavy wheat, should be accurate, although tried in 1903. The difference between this check experiment and the regular one of 1903 is that in the check experiment the seed of the crop of 1901 was used, while in the regular experiment in 1903 the seed of the crop of 1902 was used. Table 13. — Crops grown fvoin light and from heavy seed, for four years. SEED. Farm num- ber. Variety. Percentage ol - Weight of 1,000 ker- nels, (grams). Proteid nitrogen in 1,000 kernels (gram). Total Proteid nitrogen. ' nitrogen. Non- proteid nitrogen. Relative weight. 78 Turkish Red 17.24 30.63 15.57 28.56 27.11 28.47 27.11 28.09 Light. Heavy. Light. Heavy. Light. Heavy. Light. Heavy. Light. Heavy. Light. Heavy. Light. Heavy. Light 79 .do ! i --1 80 81 383 Big Frame do Turkish Red 2.45 2.00 2.20 1.96 3. 12 3. 10 3. 02 2. 93 3.13 2.82 2.95 2.65 0.45 .24 .02 .09 .31 .30 0. 3120 .5606 .8401 .8350 .7642 .7446 384 385 do Big Frame 386 .do . Turkish Red do Big Frame . ' ! do -- 957 Turkish Red 3. 33 2. 87 .46 .20 .25 956 do Big Frame do 3.06 2.88 2.86 2.63 952 953 Heavy. Light CHECK EXPERIMENT. Turkish Red do Heavy. Light. do Heavy. 1 1 74: IMPROVING THE QUALITA' OF WHEAT. Table 13. — Crops grown from light and from heavy seed for four years — Continued. CROP. c Variety. SI'S .Q'm KB -P o ^ p. Percentage of— Proteid nitrogen per acre (pounds). Weight of 1,000 kernels (grams). si Ph OS o o S .2 a o •a 2i 2 13 'S . O 05 !h bij 1^2 S-a Ed 3 O =:& 03 78 Turkish Red do Big Frame do Turkish Red do 23.0 29.5 20.5 25.1 26.7 29.3 21.2 27.7 19.7 18.0 Lost,. Lost. 25.6 21.3 25.8 20.8 30.9 31.8 23.9 24.2 'm.h' 61.5 58.0 60.5 57.0 58.0 3.20 3.08 3.13 2.81 2.35 2.11 3.30 2.46 2.15 1.98 3.54 2.44 3.09 2.94 3.06 2.59 2.13 1.94 3.06 2.24 2.14 1.87 3.32 2. 21 3. 51 2.18 2.14 1.98 1.95 1.64 1.79 1.62 0.11 .14 .07 .22 .22 .17 .24 .22 .01 .11 .22 .23 45.54 52.04 37.63 39.01 34.12 34.11 38.92 37.22 25.29 20.20 53.91 27.86 33. 13 24.71 36.34 31.29 25.67 23.52 1900 1900 1900 1900 1901 1901 1901 1901 1902 1902 1902 1902 1903 1903 1903 1903 190i 190:! 1903 1903 78b 79 80 25.16 0. 7379 79b 80b 81 383 384 24.84 26. 19 27.04 23.89 28.82 .6423 . 5581 . 5238 .7409 .6451 81b 612 613 385 602 386 do 603 Turkish Red do Big Frame 621 614 19.56 26.41 22.12 23.13 19.82 23.26 .6494 .5837 .7764 .5042 • .4241 . 4605 604 do Turkish Red do Big Frame do CHECK EXPERISIENT. Turkish Red do 611 957 1240 956 1239 952 1248 953 12^9 1245 1243 12.'': do 12.-4 Comparing the analyses of the Hght and heavy seed in this table with those in the preceding tables, it will be noticed that the total and proteid nitrogen are both uniformly higher in the light seed. The nonproteid nitrogen is not so uniform as in the previous analyses, but the general tendency is the same. In the crop the high total and proteid nitrogen of the light seed is uniformly transmitted. There is no uniformity in the nonproteid nitrogen. As was to be expected, the heavy seed produced in the first two years the largest yields per acre. The quality of light or heavy weight as indicated in the resulting crop b}^ weight of grain per bushel gave some indication of being transmitted. In 1900 there was an absence of data on the subject, but in 1901 the heavy seed in each case produced grain having a greater weight per bushel than did the light seed. Turning to the column showing the absolute amount of prot'.'id nitrogen produced per acre, it is verv apparent that the heavy seed produced in 1900 considerably larger amounts of proteid nitrogen per acre than did the light seed, but in 1901 the difference was very slightl}^ in favor of the light wheat, which advantage continued with the light wheat during the remaining years. YIELD OF NITROUEN PER ACRE. 75 It would seem from these results that the quality of lightness, with its correlated qualities of high total and proteid nitrogen, is hereditary. The question then arises, Why should the light wheat accumulate more nitrogen per acre than the heavy wheat after the fu'st generation ? A possible explanation for this is t^'at the light seed from the first generation contained kernels whos? lightness was due in some cases to immaturit}^, and in other cases to the individual peculiarity of the plant on which they grew. The latter class transmitted this pecul- iarity in the crop, while the former became less conspicuous with each generation, on account of the lesser vitality and productiveness of the immature seed. A peculiar feature of these results is found in the fact that the yield of grain from the light seed approaches each succeeding year more nearly in quantity to that obtained from the heavy seed until, in 1903, it becomes greater. These two qualities of seed were raised on plots side by side, and every precaution was taken to obtain an accurate estimate of the yield of each. While it is probable that the results for 1903 are misleading, it is certainly significant that so little difference in yield exists after three years' selection in this way. Instead of the difference between the light and heav}'^ seed becoming greater each year it is without doubt becoming less. In considering the relative yields of the light and lieav}^ wheat, it must be borne in mind that the seeding was done with a drill set to deliver Ih busliels per acre of ordinary seed wheat. The result would be to deposit a larger number of kernels of light seed per acre than of heav}' seed. In a season like that of 1903, when the rainfall was large and the weather moderately cool until harvest, there might be an advantage resulting fi-om the thicker seeding, which ma}" account for the greater yield from the light seed in that year. It is possible that the same cause may have operated in other years to increase the jdelds from the light seed, but it is not likely that it produced a very marked effect, because the seeding was a large one for Nebraska, and, the wheat being sown in the early fall, tliere was abundant opportunity for it to stool, and thus equalize the stand. It has never been observed that there was any difference between the plots in this respect. Taking, together, the results of 1902, which show a decrease in the weight of the kernels on a single head as the content of proteid nitrogen increases, the results of 1903, which show a slight decrease in the weight of the kernels from the plant, accompanying an increase in the percentage of proteid nitrogen, and the yields of the light and heavy seed for the four years beginning with 1900, there would appear to be a slight decrease in yield of grain, accompanying an increase in the percentage of proteid nitrogen. This loss in ^^eld is 76 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. not sufficient to counteract tlie increase in nitrogen, and the result is to increase the production of proteids per acre. Viewed in the hght of these various experiments, the selection of large, heavy wheat kernels for seed does not appear to be altogether unobjectionable, as in this case it resulted in a decreased production of proteids per acre, without a compensating increase in the yield of grain, when continued for a numbei of 3'ears. On the other hand, the selec- tion of the small, light seed is hardly to be recommended. In fact, selection based upon kernel size or weight is not a satisfactor}^ method for permanently improving wheat, The individual plant should be taken as the basis for selection, and very large numbers should be handled. The figures in Table 8 show what great opportunity there is for securing not only kernels of high nitrogen content, but also plants giving at the same time an increased yield of grain and abun- dant production of proteids. If the average nitrogen content and yield of grain by plants be observed in this table, it will be seen that numerous plants may be selected that have not only a nitrogen content above the average, but also a greater yield of grain. While, therefore, it is probable that improvement in yield of grain can not be effected so rapidly where it is combined with improvement in nitrogen content as if the latter were neglected, yet present yields of wheat in Nebraska can be increased at the same time that the production of proteids is augmented. METHOD FOR SELECTION TO INCREASE THE QUANTITY OF PROTEIDS IN THE KERNEL. The following tables show the results of analyses of a total of forty-eight spikes of wheat. In the case of each spike one row of spikelets, for instance, row No. 1, was analyzed, and the other row of spikelets, which would then be row No. 2, was analj^zed sepa- rately. In the case of the set of spikes forming Table 14 the total organic nitrogen was determined in both lots, and in the set com- prised by Table 15 the proteid nitrogen was determined. The last column shows the difference between the nitrogen content of the two rows of kernels. SELECTION TO INCREASE PROTEIDS IN KERNEL. 77 Table 14. — Analyses of twenty-Jive spikes of wheat, shoiviny their total organic nitrogen. Numl;er of spike. Percentage of total organic nitrogen. Number of .spike. Percentage of total organic nitrogen. 1 Row 1. Row 2. Differ- ence. Row 1. Row 2. Differ- ence. 1 3.14 3.32 2.97 I 3.15 0.18 .18 .10 .22 .07 .01 .26 .02 .07 .04 .06 .19 .13 .22 18 2.83 2.78 2.79 2.76 0.04 2 22 .02 3 2.89 2.99 2.89 2.82 2.. 50 3.13 3.11 2.76 2.85 3.26 2.94 3.45 2.99 3.21 2.82 2.81 2.76 3.11 3.18 2.80 2.79 3.07 3.07 3.67 23 24 44 2.94 1 3.03 2.98 ; 2.89 3.00 3.08 2.84 2.(17 3.03 1 2.90 2.(15 1 2.79 2.62 2.&i • 3.02 3.18 3.02 2.80 .09 .09 8 .OS 9 45 46 .17 10 .13 11 47 48 49 .14 12 . 90 13 .16 14 50 .22 Average 16 .12 17 Table 15. — Analyses of twenty-three sjnkes of xcheat, showing tJieir percentage of proteid nitrogen. Numlier of spike. Percentage of proteid nitrogen. Number of spike. i •Percentage of proteid nitrogen. Row 1. j Row 2. Differ- ence. Row 1. Row 2. Differ- ence. 4 1 2.90 3.12 0.22 .11 .11 .22 .11 .08 .10 .36 .03 .05 .17 .12 .04 34 2.86 2.33 2.88 2.43 3.02 2.52 2.85 2.45 3.14 3.34 2.59 2.68 3.61 2.57 0.16 5 20 21... 2.97 2.68 2.54 2.42 2.42 3.01 2.35 2.72 2.49 2.92 2.60 3.41 2.86 2.79 2.76 2.53 2.50 2.91 2.71 2.75 2.44 3.09 2.48 3.37 1 35 36 37 . . . .19 .03 .02 25 38 3.15 39 3.46 40 2.45 41 2.73 42 3.42 43 2.47 .01 26 . .12 27 28 29 .14 .05 .19 .30 .07 31 32 .- 2.77 2.82 .11 33 It will readily be seen that the analyses of the rows agree very closely, the extreme difference being 0.22 per cent, and the average dift'erence being 0.12 per cent, in the total nitrogen. If, therefore, one row of spikelets were to be used for seed and the other were analyzed, it is quite evident that a very accurate estimate of the nitrogen content of the kernels used for seed would be obtained. In the determination of proteid nitrogen there is an extreme difference of 0.36 per cent in one case, but in the main the differences are small. As will be shown later, the variation in the proteid nitrogen content of individual plants is so great that even this maximum difference would cause no confusion when selecting plants for reproduction. It is very desirable to have for anah^sis a larger sample than can be obtained from one spike. It has therefore been attempted to ascertain whether a sample consisting of one-half the whole number of spikes on a plant would afford a fair estimate of the composition of the other kernels on the remainder of the spikes. The plants whose spikes were analyzed were grown in hills 5 inches apart 78 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT, each way, with one seed in each hill. Each plant was harvested separatel}^ and the spikes from each placed in a separate envelope. The following table gives the results, lot 1 in each case being com- posed of the kei-nels from one-half the number of spikes on a plant, and lot 2 of kernels from the remaining spikes. Table 16. — Analy.'ies of twenty-one plants, showim/ total mtrogen and proteid nitrogen. Number of plant. Percentage of total nitrogen. Percentage of proteid nitrogen. Lot 1. Lot 2. ^^ Lot 1. . _. „ Difler- 1 2.65 3.01 3.01 2.82 3.06 2.94 2.84 3.21 2.98 2.59 2.81 3.47 2.61 2.54 2.71 2.85 2.99 2.78 . 2.78 2.79 2.91 3.02 2.83 3.10 2.97 2.56 3.03 3.05 2.87 2.66 2.62 3.62 2.54 2.46 2.87 3.01 3.13 2.77 2.80 2.71 0.26 .0] .24 .28 .09 .38 .19 .16 .11 .07 .19 .15 .07 .08 .16 .16 .14 .01 .02 .08 2.51 2.77 2.69 2.63 2.92 2.51 2.66 2.83 2.59 2.34 2.59 3.04 2.44 2.25 2.25 2.73 2.85 2.61 2.60 2.51 2. 69 ' 0. 18 2 3 4 5 2.76 2.57 2.83 2.70 2.42 2.86 2.84 2.70 2. .57 2.52 .01 .12 .20 .22 .09 .20 .01 .11 .23 .07 6 7 .... 9 10 11 12 13 3.35 ! .31 2.42 1 .02 2.29 1 .04 2.71 1 .46 2.75 .02 2.91 .06 2.33 .28 2.57 .03 2.48 .03 14 15 .... 16 17 18 19 20 21 i .14 .13 1 The above table shows a maximum difference of 0.38 per cent in the content of total nitrogen of the two lots of spikes from one plant, and of 0.46 per cent in the content of proteid nitrogen. The aver- age dift'erence is only 0.14 per cent and 0.13 per cent, respectively. These tables give unmistakable evidences that the average com- position of a spike of wheat may be judged from the analysis of a row of its spikelets, and that the average composition of all of the spikes of a wheat plant is shown by an analysis of one-half the num- ber. In practice it is better to take as the sample for analysis one row of spikelets from each spike, and the remaining row of spikelets from each spike for planting. In order to ascertain what variation occurs between the several spikes on a single wheat plant, anal3"ses were made of each spike from a number of plants. On some plants there were more spikes than on others, but every spike on each plant was analyzed. In the following tabulation of these analyses the percentage of proteid nitrogen is stated. SELECTION TO INCREASE PROTEIDS IN KERNEL. 79 Table 17. — Analyses of sjnkes of wheat, shoiving difference in proteid nitrogen. Spike. Percentage oi proteid nitrogen. Plant 23. Plant 24. Plant 25. Plant 26. Plant 27. Plant 29. 1. 2. 3. 4. 2.33 2. (i9 2.37 2.36 2.15 2.31 2.09 2.71 2.32 2.37 2.46 2.73 2.35 2.11 2.19 2.21 2.. 53 2.31 2.36 2.47 2.59 2.35 2.39 2.39 2.60 2. 54 2.83 2.73 3.02 2.80 2.60 2.53 2.37 2.72 2.37 2.61 2.45 3.22 3.24 3.02 3.31 2.38 2.60 3.03 3.00 2.34 2.71 2.21 ti. 7. 8. 9. 10. 2. CO 2.30 Maximum Average Minimum Greatest dif- ference 2.69 2.37 2.09 .60 2.73 2.37 2.11 . 62 2.83 2.48 2.31 .52 3.02 2.62 2.37 .65 3.31 3.20 3.02 .29 3.03 2.57 2.21 .82 These results show that there may be large differences between the proteid nitrogen content of spikes on the same plant. They do not, however, indicate that the determination of the average com- position of the kernels on a plant is not a safe guide for selecting breeding stock. If the plant is the unit in reproduction, whether the plant reproduces itself from one seed or another does not affect its hereditary qualities in ver}^ marked degree. It is evident, from a comparison of the variations that occur in the composition of the spikes from a single plant, and of the kernels on a single spike, that it is impossible to do more than obtain a reasonably close estimate of the composition of the kernels either on a part or on the whole of a plant. It therefore becomes desirable to obtain as closely as possible the average composition of the unit of reproduction. If the plant as a whole, and not any particular part, is this unit, the average composition of all of the kernels on the plant is a much safer guide as a basis for selection than is the average composition of the kernels of any part of it. One row of spikelets from each spike should therefore give the best sample for analysis. In Table 18 is given a statement of the percentage of proteid nitrogen in the dry matter of the kernels on a row of spikelets of 800 spikes of wheat of the Turkish Red variety. These spikes were taken from a field of wheat, and were selected with reference to length of head, plumpness of kernel, uprightness of straw, freedom from rust, etc. They are therefore not spikes in which high nitrogen content is likely to be due to immaturity or arrested development." Variations in the nitrogen content of different plants may in some degree be due to a larger or smaller supply of available nitrogen, although all were taken from the same field. Variations due to climate are, of course, precluded, as all grew during the same season. « In practice undeveloped kernels are discarded. 80 IMPKOVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 18. — Variations in content of proteids. Percentage of — Proteid nitrogen in water- free material Proteids (proteid N.X5.7). 2.25 3.04 2.45 3.14 2.86 2.83 3.67 3.42 2.36 2.28 2.98 3.51 3.63 2.48 2.30 3.48 3.55 3.31 2.30 2.52 2.93 3.25 2.84 2.73 3.55 2.33 2.65 2.82 2.70 1.84 3.10 2.86 2.16 2.58 3.22 3.49 2.76 2.96 2.86 3.50 3.05 2.88 2.75 2.61 2.50 3.10 3.17 2.86 2.80 3.65 2.88 3.21 2.96 3.84 3.38 3.11 3.21 3.06 3.02 1.78 2.67 3.39 2.49 2. .58 2.12 2.64 2.46 2.35 2.93 2.32 2.20 2. .58 2. .58 3.22 12.82 17.33 13.96 17.90 16.30 16.13 20.92 19.49 13.45 13.00 16.99 20.01 20.69 14.14 13.11 19.84 20.23 18.87 13.11 14.36 16.70 18.52 Record number. 16.19 15.56 20.23 13.28 15.11 16.07 15.39 10.49 17.67 16.30 12.31 14.71 18.35 19.89 15.73 16.87 16.30 19.95 17.38 16.42 15.67 14.88 14. 25 17.67 18.07 16.30 15. 96 20.80 16.42 18.30 16.87 21.89 19.27 17.73 18.30 17.44 17.21 10.13 15.22 19.32 14.19 14.71 12.08 15.05 14.02 13.39 16.70 13. 22 12.54 14.71 14.71 15. 35 Percentage of — Proteid nitrogen in water- free material. Proteids (proteid N. X 5.7). 78 3.40 3.33 3.79 3.63 2.68 19.38 18.98 21.60 20.69 15.28 79 80 81 82 83 ' 84 2.46 2.62 2.87 2.89 2.44 3. 56 3.76 14.02 14. 93 16.49 16.86 13.91 20.29 21.43 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 3.41 2.30 19.44 13.11 93 94 95 96 2.75 4.07 3.28 3.24 2.15 3.12 3.00 2.87 3.58 2.61 2.01 2.68 3.10 2.58 2.76 4.30 2.89 2.59 2.68 1.71 2. .59 3.31 15.67 23.20 18.70 18.47 12.25 17.78 17.10 16.36 20.41 14.88 11.46 15.28 17.67 14.71 15.73 24.51 16.47 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 . ... 14.67 114 15.28 115 . ... 9.75 116 14.75 117 18.87 118 119 2.17 2.88 12.37 120 16.42 121 122 1.33 2.54 3.20 2.04 2.34 2.89 2.98 2.85 2.99 3.18 7.58 123 14.48 124 18.24 125 11.63 126 13.34 127 16.47 128 16.99 129 16.24 130 - . 17.04 131 18.13 132 . . 133 134 . - 135 136 137 2.13 3.08 1.37 12.14 138 17.56 139 7.81 140 141 142 2. .57 2.75 3.03 3.17 2.09 2.75 2.42 2.68 2.25 2.61 1..51 1.64 2.93 ! 2.85 14.65 15.67 143 17.27 144 18.07 145 11.91 146 147 15.67 13.79 148 15.28 149 . . 12.82 150 151 152 14.88 8.61 9.35 1.53 16.70 154 16.24 Record number. 155... 156... 157... 158... 159... 160... 161... 162... 163... 164... 165... 166... 167... 168... 169... 170... 171... 172... 173... 174... 175... 176... 177... 178... 179... 180... 181... 182... 183... 184... 185... 186... 187... 189.. 190.. 191.. 192.. 193.. 194.. 195.. 196.. 197.. 198.. 199.. 200., 201. 202. 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 209. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. 216. 217. 218. 219. 220 221. 222. 223. 224. 225. 226. 227. 228. 229. 230. 231. Percentage of — Proteid nitrogen in water- free material. 1.99 3.03 2.07 2.75 2.82 3.06 2.54 3.33 2.73 2.47 3.22 2.80 Proteids (proteid N. x5.7). 3.59 2.52 2.72 3.28 2.74 3.07 3.75 3.46 3.09 3.56 3.85 3. .57 2.66 2.76 2.05 3.. 77 2.70 3.97 2.98 2.36 2.63 3.24 3.24 3.12 2.40 3.43 3.33 2.71 2.85 3.18 2.98 3.23 3.12 3.07 3.90 2.41 3.44 2.73 3.20 3.81 2.94 2.89 2.96 3. .30 3.09 3.79 3.33 2.86 2.58 2.71 3.19 3.98 2.93 3.30 3.65 3.54 3.11 2.71 3.39 2.96 2. 54 3.11 SELECTION TO INCREASE PROTEIDS IN KERNEL. 81 Table 18. — Variations in content of proteids — Continued. Percentage of— Record number. Percentage of— Record number. Percentage of— Record number. Proteid nitrogen in water- free material. Proteids (proteid N.x 5.7). 17.73 18.92 18. 43 20.82 18.17 27.79 15.38 14.77 20.12 15.75 16.89 19.78 18.83 20.77 21.39 19.95 20.78 18.32 17.76 19.73 14.52 20.71 17.' 26 18.88 Proteid nitrogen in water- free material. Proteids (proteid N.x 5.7). Proteid nitrogen in water- free material. Proteids (proteid N..X 5.7). 232 3.11 3.31 3.23 3.65 3.18 4.87 2.69 2. 59 3. 52 2.76 2.96 3.47 3.30 3.64 3.75 3.50 3.64 3.21 3.11 3.46 2.54 3.63 3.' 62' 3.31 309 3.74 3.15 2.99 3.48 3.52 3.16 2.75 3.35 3.42 2.01 2.86 2.98 3.42 2.54 3.42 3.18 3.45 21.36 1 18.01 ■ 17.07 19.88 20.11 18.03 15.68 19.13 19.54 i 11.50 ! 16.33 17.00 19.54 14.53 19.54 18.16 19.70 386..- 387 388 2.52 2.73 3.05 2.95 3.22 3.26 2.93 2.70 2.77 2.98 2.28 15.07 233 310 15. 59 234 311 17.41 235 312 389 16.87 236 313 390 391 392 393 394 395 18. 36 237 314.. 18.60 238 315 16.74 239 316. 15.41 240 317 15.81 241 318 16.99 242 319. . 396 397 13. 02 243 320 244 321. 398. 245 322 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 3.09 3. .-5 3.36 2.32 3.03 3.30 3.75 2.43 3.79 3.63 3.59 3.26 3.15 17 65 246. 323 19.12 247 324 19.20 248. 325 13.26 249 326 17.31 250 .327 3.44 3.60 2.87 2.61 19.64 20. 55 16.39 14.93 18.83 251 328. . . . 21. 43 252 329 406 407 408 409 13. 90 253 330. . 21 63 254 331 20.74 255 332 2.57 3.25 2.61 2.81 3.35 2.88 4.95 3. S3 2.73 2.97 2.60 2.50 2.93 2.55 2.55 2.44 2.87 2.65 2.63 3.31 3.04 3.10 2.72 2.83 2.91 2.36 2.33 2.97 2.88 2.94 3.03 3.49 2.91 3.49 3.16 3.37 3.06 3.33 3.09 2.98 3.30 2.86 3.15 3.40 2.59 3.46 2.74 3.09 2.35 3.45 3.22 2.96 3.55 3.79 14.68 18.56 14.92 15.70 19.11 16.45 28.23 19.01 15.61 16.94 14.82 14.27 16.71 14.57 14. 55 13.92 16.39 15. 18 15.03 18.90 17.38 17.72 15. 53 16.18 16.61 13.47 13.60 16.95 16.45 16.77 17.28 19.89 16.62 19.94 18. 04 19. 23 17.47 19.02 17.64 17.04 18.84 16. 33 17.97 19.89 14.76 19.76 15.65 17.64 13. 42 19.67 18.40 16.88 20. 26 21.62 20 47 256 257 333 334 410 411 412 413 414 415 18. 63 1 7. 95 258 3.37 3.84 1.93 3.49 3.19 3.24 3.36 3.29 3.10 3.18 4.10 3.20 3.36 3.39 3.13 3.39 3.56 3.32 3.15 2.85 3.11 3.78 ■ 3.70 3.26 3.01 3. 85 3.71 3.87 3.55 3.86 2.82 2.52 4.00 2.23 4.15 2.63 2. ,56 3.05 3.93 1.99 3."67" 3.06 3.08 2.68 2.' 23' 3.07 2.50 3.19 2.84 19.24 21.89 11.03 19.92 18.21 18.48 19.20 18.80 17.70 18.18 23.39 18.29 19.19 19.34 17.88 19.78 20.34 18. 96 17.95 16.26 17.77 21.60 21.10 18.60 17.19 22.00 21.20 22.07 20.26 22.04 16.09 14.40 22.81 12.73 23.68 15. 04 14.60 17.41 22.44 11.35 26." 96 17.49 17.61 15.28 i2.'74 17.52 14.30 18.20 16.22 335 3 63 1 20 70 259 336 3.77 1 21.51 260 337 3.13 2.44 3.23 3.79 17.89 261 338 13.93 262 339 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 42^ 424 425 18.44 263 340. . 91 fi.5 264 341 3.05 I 17.39 265... 342 2.85 '' 16.28 266 343 3 73 1 21 27 267 344 2.53 ! 14.45 268 345 3.53 20.12 269 1 346 3.14 17.90 270. ! 347 2.61 ; 14.93 271 348 . . 3 29 IS 81 272 349 426 427 428 429 4.-0 431 432 433 434 435 436 437.. 3.08 3.06 2.59 3.03 2.81 3.20 3.00 3.12 2.85 3.53 2.88 3.12 2.66 2.98 2.35 2.93 3.22 2.50 2.37 2.37 3.75 2.86 3.13 2.76 3.61 2.92 3.17 3.15 3.14 2.62 2.71 3.14 3.18 2.60 3.91 17.60 273... 350 17.46 274 351. . . 14. ?0 275. 352 17.31 276 353 16.06 277 354 18. 25 278 355 17.11 279. 356 17. f-0 280... . 357 16.28 281 358. 20.14 282. 359 16.44 283 360 17.82 284. 361. . 438 439 15. 20 285 362 16.99 286 363 440. 13. 44 287 364 441 16.72 288 365 442. 17.98 289. 366. 443 14 30 290 367 444 13.56 291. 368 445 13 51 292 i 369. . 446 21. 37 293. 370 447 448 449 16 33 294 371 16.67 295 372 15 76 296 373 450 451 452 453 20.62 297 '374.. 16 68 298 i 375 18.07 299 1 376. 17 96 300 j 377 454 455 17.92 301 378 14 95 302 379 456 457 45'^ 459 15. 47 303 304 305 380 381 382 17.92 18.20 14 84 306. 383 460... 461 22 29 307 384 385 308 462 2.39 is. 64 27889— Xo. 78—05- 82 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 18. — Variations in content of proteids — Continued. Percentage of— Record number. Percentage of— Record number. Percentage of— Record number. Proteid nitrogen in water- free material. Proteids (proteid N.x 5,7). Proteid nitrogen in water- free material. Proteids (proteid N.x 5.7). Proteid nitrogen in water- free material. Proteids (proteid N.>: 5.7). 463 2.49 1.98 3. 32 2.98 2.89 2.95 2.74 2.80 2.24 2.49 2.76 2.80 2.95 2.52 2.95 3.15 2.27 2.72 3.04 3.15 2.60 3.45 2.59 2.68 3.01 2.41 3.45 2.46 2.87 2.06 3.18 2.45 2.36 2. .52 2.84 2.82 2.97 .3.06 2.64 2.72 2.31 3.06 2.71 2.49 3.13 2.89 3.20 2.93 3.61 2.71 2.86 2.41 2.27 3.28 2.36 3.64 2.81 2.54 2.68 3.12 2.99 1.93 2.51 1.71 3.15 2.35 2.88 2.64 2.97 2.75 3.22 2.95 3. 03 2.57 2.88 2.64 3.76 14. 24 11.29 18.97 17.01 16.48 16.82 15.62 15.97 12.79 14.22 15.78 15.97 16.83 14.39 16.85 18.00 12.96 15.53 17. .38 17.97 14.86 19.71 14.81 15.31 17.18 13.77 19.70 14.02 16.40 11.78 18.16 13. 97 13.45 14.38 16.21 16.08 16.95 17.48 15.09 15.56 13. 19 17.48 15.46 14.24 17.85 16.51 18.29 16.71 20.59 15.45 16. 33 13.79 12.98 18.75 13. 49 20. 75 16. 03 14.48 15.28 17.79 17.05 11.04 14.35 9.79 17.99 13. 42 16.44 15.06 16.94 15. 73 18.37 16. 82 17.29 14.66 16.47 1.5.09 21.46 540 3.17 3.09 3.33 3.50 1.29 2.10 2.54 2.73 3.01 2.50 2.84 2.99 2.30 3.21 2.91 3.16 3.02 3.30 3.25 2.94 3.32 3.00 1.12 2.36 3.83 18.12 17.66 19.01 19.96 ' 7.37 11.98 1 14. 49 i 15. 59 17.21 14.30 16.20 17.08 13.11 18.35 16.59 18.06 17.26 18.86 18.58 16.78 18.93 17. 13 6.40 13.49 21.84 1 617. 3.12 2.67 3.59 2.68 2.24 3.19 3.52 2.67 2.68 2.69 2.88 3.68 3.47 2.48 3.39 3.22 1.64 2.10 3.42 3.08 2.77 3.54 3.15 2.82 3. .37 2.57 3.35 3.41 2.44 3.77 2.82 2.53 2.56 2.59 17.83 464 541 618 15.27 465 542 619 20.49 466 543 620 15.30 467 544 621 12.79 468 545 622. ... 18.23 469 546 623 20.09 470 547 624 15.27 471 548 625 15.30 472 . 549 626 15.38 473 550 627 16.44 474 551 628 21.01 475 552 629 19.82 476 553 630 14.16 477 554 631 19.35 478 555 632 18.41 479 556 633 9.38 480 557 634 11.99 481 558 635 19.52 482. 559 6.36 17.61 483 560 637 15.79 484 561 638 29.21 485 562 639 18.00 486 563 640 16.10 487 564 641 19.26 488 565 642 14.68 489 566 3.49 3.08 2.17 3.03 3.20 2. .52 3.12 2.52 3.25 3.17 2.52 3.09 2.73 3. 35 19.49 17.57 12.39 17.29 18.27 14.37 17.82 14.41 18.53 18.10 14.40 17.61 15.60 19.10 643 19.14 490 567 644 19.47 491 568 645 13. 91 492 569 646 21.54 493 570 647 16.08 494 571 648 14.47 495 572 649 14.63 496 .. . 573 650.- 651 14.82 497 574 498 575. 652 653 654 2, 83 2.50 2.59 3,21 2,56 2.55 16.19 499 576 14.31 500 577 14.81 501 578 655 18.30 502 579 580 656 14.61 503 657 14. 57 504 581 582 583 3.79 2.59 3.13 3.49 3.05 3.27 2.56 2.83 2.84 2.86 3.06 3.20 2.88 3. 32 3.18 3.09 3.32 2.34 3.12 2.97 2.08 3.64 2.56 2.53 2.56 3. 13 3.01 3.05 2.75 3.51 3.00 3.26 3.84 2.77 2.72 3.72 21. ei 14.77 17.86 19. 91 17.40 18.65 14.60 16.17 16,20 16. 31 17.44 18.29 16.47 18.93 18.17 17.66 18.93 13.39 17.81 16.97 11.91 20.77 14.62 14.45 14.60 17.85 17.20 17.41 15.72 20.05 17.15 18.62 21. 92 15.79 15.52 21.22 658 505 659 2.92 3.26 2.55 2.50 2,82 2,80 3. ,33 2.35 2.31 2.50 4.36 6.33 2.32 4.82 3.39 3.24 3.41 3.11 2.51 3.09 2.48 2.30 3.36 2.49 2.70 3.59 4.04 2.79 2.83 2.65 2.68 3.38 3.04 2.81 2.35 16.70 .506 660 18.60 507 584 661 14.56 508 585 662 14.26 509 586 663 16.11 510 587 664 15.98 511 588 665 19.01 512 589. 666 13. 40 513 590 591 667 13.20 514 668 669 670 14.30 515 592 24.86 516 593. 36.12 517 594 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 13.23 518. 595 28.15 519 596 19. 35 520 .597 18.48 521 598 ! 599 19.44 522 17.73 523 1 600 14. .36 524 601 602 : 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 17.65 525. 14.17 526 603 13. 13 527 604 19.17 528 ': 605 14.20 529 606 1.5. 41 530 607 20.51 531 608 23.06 532 . 609 686 15.90 533 610 687 688 16.13 534. 611 15.12 535 612 689 690 601 692 693 15. 28 536. 613 19.26 537... 614 17.33 538 615 16.04 539 616 13.76 SELECTION TO INCREASE PROTEIDS IN KERNEL. 83 Table^IS. — Variations in content of proteids — Continued. Percentage of— Record 1 number. Percentage of— Record number. Percentage of— Record numoer. Proteid nitrogen in water- free material. Proteids (proteid N. X5.7). Proteid nitrogen in water- free material . Proteids (proteid N. x5.7). Proteid nitrogen in water- free material. Proteids (proteid N. x5.7). 094 2.15 2.92 12.29 16.69 7."0 I 731 1 732 2.09 3.18 2.41 2.06 2.76 2.09 2.29 1.61 2.01 2.85 1.87 1.75 .3.57 2.63 1.97 2.98 1.77 2.79 1.83 2.29 2.22 3.48 3.48 1.33 3.55 2.43 2. .30 2.14 1.67 2.14 3.72 2.47 2.93 2.02 2.18 2.20 11.92 18.18 13.78 11.77 15. 73 11.96 13. 09 9.20 11.44 16.26 10.71 9.99 20. 36 15.02 11.23 16.99 10.10 15. 95 10.44 13.06 12.66 19.85 19.87 7. 53 20.29 13. 90 13. 15 12.24 9.54 12.25 21.21 14.12 16.72 11. 56 12.47 12.57 766 2.87 2.22 2.45 2.37 1.37 1.62 2.00 1.73 2.32 1.88 2.28 2.80 1.98 2.35 2.85 2.79 2.64 2.81 1.92 2.25 3.29 2.95 2.13 2.20 2.86 3.02 2.16 2.32 2.82 2.48 2.45 2.20 2.95 2.18 2. 02 16 41 ()95 767. 12 69 006 768 769 . . 13 98 097 2.11 3.03 2.64 4.10 2.51 2.27 2.33 2.43 2.48 1.87 3.07 2. 12 L87 2.10 2.08 2.61 2.20 2.16 3.23 2.77 2.38 3.14 2.16 1.80 2.14 2.16 2.18 2.04 2.32 2.19 1.79 2.49 2.92 12.07 17.29 15. 09 23. 42 14.33 12.96 13. 34 13.94 14.18 10.69 17.52 12.09 10.67 12.00 11.87 14.88 12.58 12.32 18.44 15.81 13. 61 17.91 12. 35 1 10. 29 ■ 12. 22 ; 12. 36 1 12. 43 11.67 13. 26 12. 52 10.23 14.22 16. 46 733 734 13 51 09,-i 770 771 7 86 699 . 7.35 ' 7.36 7.37 9 27 700 701 772 77.3 11.42 9 87 702 703 738 739 774 775 776 13.26 10 76 704 705. 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 7.55 13. 03 16 02 706 778 779 780 781. . . 11 33 707 708 709 13. 40 16.29 15.94 710 782 15.09 711 783 16 02 712 784 10.96 713 785.. .. 12 88 714 786 18.75 715 787. 16 82 716 788 12. 17 717 789. 12 57 718 790... . 16. 32 719 791 792. 17 2'' 720 756 12. 36 721 757 7.58 793 13 24 722 794 795 796 797 798 16 11 723 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 14. 15 724 725 14.00 r' 56 726. 16 !^2 797 799 12 48 72': 729 800 11.57 It will be noticed that there is a veiy large range of variation in the proteid nitrogen content of these wheats, running from 1.12 to 4.95 per cent. By referring to Table 8, it will be seen that an equally large variation occurred between the plants when the whole plant was sampled. In the 351 analyses the nitrogen ranges from 1.20 to 5. 85 per cent. This is due in the main to the ability of the plant to gather nitrogen from the soil. In no one of the experiments to ascertain the effect of nitrogenous manures on the composition of wheat has there been an increase of more than a few tenths of 1 per cent, even when the nitrogenous fertilizer was added to an exhausted soil. It is, therefore, not likely that such large variation in nitrogen content could be due to irregularities in the supply of soil nitrogen. If this ability of the plant to store up a large amount of nitrogen in the kernel is hereditary, as results given later indicate, there is ample opportunity to develop by selection a strain of wheat of high nitrogen content. 8-4 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. A BASIS FOR SELECTION TO INCREASE THE QUANTITY OF PROTEIDS IN THE ENDOSPERM OF THE KERNEL. White bread Hour, which constitutes the iiiajor portion of the wheat flour consumed in this country, is derived entirely from the endosperm of the wheat kerneL The portions of the kernel not entering into the flour are the germ and the seed coat, attached to each of which discarded constituents are portions of the endosperm. The lai'ger part of the aleurone la3^er either adheres to the hull and constitutes the "bran ' of commerce, or appears in the product known as "shorts," and sometimes in low-grade flour. As it is the flour in which it is desired to increase the nitrogen, and as the flour consists entirely of the endosperm, it becomes desir- able to have some way to determine the nitrogen content of the endosperm alone and to select for reproduction plants possessing a large amount of nitrogen in this portion of the kernel. It is a question how this can best be done. A determination of gluten by the ordinary method of washing, to carry off the starch and fiber while the gluten is being worked in the hand, is not well adapted for use with the small quantities of wheat obtainable from a single plant. This also has the disadvantage that it gives no indication as to the quality of the gluten. Determinations of gliadin and glutenin promise to be of some help in aft"ording a basis for selection from individual plants. It has been shown b}^ Osborne and Voorhees " that the gluten of wheat is composed of gliadin and glutenin. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the sum of these two substances is a measure of the gluten content of the sample analyzed. Osborne and Campbell'^ have stated that the embryo of the wheat kernel does not contain either gliadin or glutenin. This being the case, the sum of the gliadin and glutenin would represent these proteids in the endosperm, with, perhaps, a small amount in the hull. A recent investigation by Nasmith '' leads him to conclude that gliadin exists in ail portions of the endosperm, including the aleu- rone layer, but that glutenin is contained onl}^ in the starch-bearing portion of the endosperm. A determination of glutenin ma}^, there- fore, give an indication of the gluten content of the wheat. Table 19 shows the percentage of proteid nitrogen, the sum of the gliadin and glutenin nitrogen, the amounts in grams of proteid and of gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen in the average kernel, and the grams of proteid and of gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen in all of the kernels on each plant. The plants are grouped into those having «Amencan Cheni. Jour., 1893, pp. 392-471. '^ Connecticut Experiment Station Report, 1899, p. 305. 'Trans. Cauad. Inst., 7 (1S03), Univ. Toronto Studies, Physiol. Ser. (1903), No. 4. SELECTION TO INCREASE PROTEIDS IN ENDOSPERM, 85 from 1 to 2 per cent proteid nitrogen, those having 2 to 2.5 per cent proteid nitrogen, etc. Table 20 gives the averages for each of the groups in Table 10. Table 19. — Relation ofgUadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen to proteid nitrogen. 1 TO 2 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. Record number. Percentage of— Num- ber of ker- nels. Weight (in grams) of— Pro- teid nitro- gen. Glia- din- plus- glu- tenin nitro- gen. Ker- nels. Gliadin- Proteid plus- Average j nitro- ghitenin kernel, gen in , nitro- kemels. gen in ' kernels. t Proteid nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel. Gliadin- plus-glu- tenin ni- trogen in average kernel. 55307 80305 1.89 1.81 1.98 1.56 342 1.77 729 5. 6864 15. 7835 0.01663 j 0.10747 0.08871 .02165 .28569 .27937 0.0003142 . 0003919 . 0004170 0.0002594 . 0003832 . 0004128 81705 1.96 465 1 9.7922 .02106 1 .19388 .19193 Average . . 1.89 1.76 512 ; 10.4207 .01978 1 .19568 .18667 .0003744 . 0003518 2 TO 2.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 21212 27205 2.16 2.41 2.36 2.12 2.35 2. .39 2.11 2.38 2.02 2.48 2.42 2.30 2.42 2. .34 2.21 2.41 2.28 2.09 2. .30 2.34 2.41 0.19 1.70 1.46 1.65 2.12 1.92 1.84 1.80 1..50 1.97 1.96 1.66 1.95 1.83 2.05 1.68 1.81 1.95 2.05 .64 1.64 84 891 777 539 318 .301 1,031 608 314 167 562 .302 509 462 380 544 373 583 464 786 287 1. 7216 16. 4061 19. 1854 12. 0399 6. 1026 7. 0,596 21.5399 11.66.55 6. 4302 2. 5160 12. 2210 9. 2120 9. 3093 10.9073 12. 0728 9.8298 7.0051 11.7066 9. 6451 18.3614 7.3993 0. 02049 . 01841 . 02469 .02183 .01919 . 02345 .02089 .01919 . 02048 .01507 .02175 . 03050 . 01829 .02361 .03177 .01807 .01878 . 0200S .02079 . 02336 .02578 0.03718 .39539 . 45276 . 24942 . 14341 . 16872 . 45435 .27765 . 12989 .06240 . 29575 .21187 .22529 . 25522 . 26680 . 23690 . 15971 . 24468 .22184 . 42965 . 17833 0.00327 .27890 . 28010 . 19S66 . 12643 . 13554 .39635 . 20997 . 09645 . 04957 . 23953 . 15292 . 18153 . 19960 . 24750 . 16514 . 12680 . 22828 . 19772 .11750 . 12135 0. 0004427 . 0004437 . 000.5827 . 0004627 .0004510 . 0005605 . 0004407 .0004,567 . 0004137 .000,3736 . 0005262 . 0007016 .0004426 . 0005524 . 0007021 . 0004355 . 0004282 . 0004197 . 0004781 . 0005466 . 0006213 0.0000389 . 0003130 . 0003605 . 0003602 . 0004163 . 0004502 . 0003844 . 0003454 . 0003072 . 0002969 . 0004263 . 0005063 . tKX)3566 . 0004321 . 0006513 . 0003036 .0003399 . 0003916 . 0004262 .0001495 . 0004228 27206 27.505 33107 33605 39205 48106 48409 55309 55908 55909 56206 56207 57508 6.5306 6.5307 6.5.308 74606 81707 81708 Average.. 2. .30 1.68 489.6 10. 5874 .02173 . 24272 . 17872 . 0004991 . 0003652 2.5 TO 3 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 20706 2.78 2.77 2.83 2.05 1.85 2.00 163 444 867 3. 3138 9. 9070 17.1115 0. 02033 . 02282 . 01974 0. 09212 . 27443 . 4S42S 0. 06793 . 18328 . 34222 0. 0005652 . 0006181 . 0005,586 0. 0004168 . 0004222 . 0003948 20707 20710 21207 2.96 .17 118 2. 3066 . 01955 . 06804 .00392 . 0005766 .13000332 21305 2.67 2.90 •1.97 .97 313 226 6. 2514 4. 1516 . 02004 .018.37 . 16691 .12039 . 12315 .04027 . 0005353 . 0005327 . 0003948 .0001782 21306 21805 2.69 .23 1,232 20. 9290 .016:» . 56299 . 04704 . 0004569 .0000391 21807 2.73 2.11 377 9. 4172 . 02498 . 25709 . 19870 . 0006664 . 0005271 21808 2. ,57 1.96 1, 1,56 19. 7446 .01708 .50744 . 38700 . 0004389 . 0003348 21809 2.73 2.64 2.18 2.18 418 791 8. 0214 14.3111 .01919 .01809 .21898 .37781 . 17487 .31198 . 0005238 . 0004777 . 0004183 . 0003944 21905 22205 2.81 1.97 283 2. 6965 . 00953 .07577 .05312 . 0002677 . 0001.S77 22207 2.77 1.82 169 3. 2787 . 01940 .09082 .05967 . 0005374 .0003531 26905 2.76 2.71 2.09 1.82 ,326 228 6.4102 4. 2376 . 01966 . 01859 . 17692 .11484 . 13398 .07712 . 0005427 . 0005037 .0004109 . 0003383 26906 26908 2.96 2.16 192 3.9797 .02073 . 11780 .08,596 .00061.35 . 0004478 26909 2.80 1.88 180 2. 9999 .01667 . 08400 . 05640 . 0004667 . 0003134 27005 2.63 1.90 866 16. 4120 .01895 . 43164 .31182 . 0004984 . 0003600 27207 2.92 1.95 166 3. 3266 .02004 .09712 .06487 . 000,5850 . 0003908 27305 2.58 2,53 1.73 .82 267 167 5. 5666 3.0850 . 02085 .01847 . 14362 . 07805 . 09630 . 02,530 . 0005379 . 0004674 . 0003607 .0001515 27,307 27506 2.70 1.98 444 10. 0005 . 02252 .27003 . 19800 . 0006082 . 0004459 27508 2.64 2 .32 251 5. 5^24 .02287 .14608 . 12835 . 0006037 . 0005306 27509 2.90 1.09 243 5.3615 .02206 .15549 .05844 . 0006399 . 0002405 86 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 19. — Relation of gliadin-plu.s-glutenin nitrogen to proteid nitrogen — Continued. 2.5 TO 3 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued. Record number. Percentage of— Num- ber of ker- nels. \\ eight (in grams) of— Pro- Glia- din- plus- glu- tenin nitro- gen. 1.55 3.50 2.29 1.26 Proteid Gliadin- plus- 1 Proteid nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel. 3.0007.309 .0005644 .000.5SN1 . 0005:327 GUadin- plus-ghi- teid Ker- Average nitro- glutenin tenin ni- nitro- gen. nels. kernel. gen HI kernels. nitro- gen in trogen in average 87' 1.32 309 461 kernels. kernel. 0. 0003894 . 0006787 . 0004550 .(1(102485 28805 2.91 2.91 2.96 2.64 2. 1851 2. 5601 6. 1394 8.0905 0. 02512 .01939 .01987 .01972 0.06359 . 07450 . 18173 . 23998 0.03.387 .03960 . 14060 . 10194 ^ 33105 37305 .37705 37707 2.93 2.10 193 3. 3004 .01710 . 09670 . 06931 .000.501(1 .(1(103,591 38005 2.84 2.63 1.23 1.39 139 401 2. 51.34 8. 4605 . 01808 . 02110 . 07138 .22251 . 03091 . 11760 .000.5i:'.:i ■.00O5."iHi .(10(12224 . (1(1(129,33 38606 3860S 2.82 1.73 158 3. 0228 .01913 . 0S522 .05229 ) .00()."i;!il .(l(l(r3.309 .38609 2.74 1.34 293 6. 7665 .02309 . 18540 .09067 . 000r,47.-, .(l(l();094 39405 2.88 1.44 447 9. 3541 .02093 . 21399 .13470 .000(1(1-'. .(lil((i014 39506 2.93 2.06 67 1.9218 .02869 .05631 .03959 .000S-i(l4 .(1(10.5910 40505 2.82 2 19 170 4. 1.546 . 02444 .11716 .09099 .0006892 , . 0005352 43405 2.92 1.18 124 2. 8000 . 02258 . 08176 .03304 , .0006594 ' . 0002664 44505 2.94 .70 340 5.9990 .01764 . 17637 . 04199 .0005187 . 0001235 44606 2.90 1.29 124 2. 5235 . 02035 . 07318 . 03255 . 0005902 . 0002625 46107 2.54 2.08 478 8.3935 .017.56 .21319 . 17458 . 0004460 . 0003652 48305 2.87 1.77 473 12. 0278 . 02543 . 34524 . 21289 . 0007299 . 0004501 48806 2.70 .75 547 9.8346 .01798 . 26553 . 07376 . 0004877 . aw 1348 .5.5008 2.60 1.58 944 17. 4226 .01846 . 45299 . 27528 . 0004799 . 0002917 ,5.5206 2.56 1.87 578 U. 3592 . 01965 .29079 .21241 .000,5031 . 0«)3675 .55308 2.54 .65 397 9. 5078 . 02.395 .24150 . 06180 . 0006225 . 0001557 .5.5.506 2.80 2.20 866 17. 8506 . 02062 .43995 . 39272 . 000.5773 . 0004536 55.507 2.63 2.07 504 9. 8228 . 01949 . 25834 . 20333 .0005126 . 0004034 55605 2.64 1.96 500 10. 9180 .02184 . 28823 .21400 . 000o7tl.-. .(1(1(14281 55606 2.58 1.49 593 11. 0930 .02205 . 28580 . 16529 .000.5(1', 1(1 .(1(1(12609 55905 2.67 1.75 \331 M99 5. 7948 .01751 . 15470 . 10141 .0004(174 .(1(10 3064 55906 2.81 1.47 7.9968 .01603 . 22471 .11755 . 0004503 . 0002356 55907 2.59 1.61 749 19. 3966 . 02590 . 50238 . 31229 .0006:07 .0004170 56105 2.73 2.57 2.12 2.09 336 644 5. 7431 12.0161 .01709 . 01866 . 15679 . 30881 .12175 . 25174 .0004667 . 0004795 . 000,3622 . 0003900 56106 56107 2.96 2.51 2.61 2.59 2.65 2.75 2.62 2.61 2.80 2.85 2.23 1.85 1.95 2.21 2.09 2.13 1.86 1.64 2. .34 1.55 872 333 563 950 88 1.35 762 596 ISO 14. 45.56 6. 5232 13. 5720 15. 80S6 1.5364 2. 4923 14.9992 12. 2004 2. 7616 6. 9861 . 01658 . 019,59 .02,3,56 . 01664 .01746 . 01846 . 01968 . 02047 .01534 . 01946 . 42790 . 16373 ..34616 . 40945 .04164 . 06854 . .39297 .31842 . 07733 . 19905 . 32236 . 12068 . 26465 . 34937 .03211 . 05309 . 27898 .20008 . 06462 . 10828 . 0004907 .0004917 .0006149 .0004310 . 0004731 . 0005077 .0005157 . 0005343 .0004296 . 0005545 . 0003697 .0003624 . 0004.594 . 0003677 . 0003649 . 0003932 . 0003660 . 0003557 . 0003590 . 0003016 56205 56208 56209 57007 . . 57406 .57407 57408 57506 57507 .57805 2.87 2.74 2.79 2.63 2.94 2.71 2.68 2.11 2.20 2.18 2.65 2.03 270 1,153 165 370 146 722 4. S988 23. 1471 3. .3006 7. 6690 2. 8.^27 15. 3928 .01814 . 01999 . 02001 . 02073 . 01940 .021S2 . 14060 ' . 63422 . 0920S .02017 : . 0S328 .41715 . 13126 . 48839 . 07261 . 16714 . 07507 . 31248 . 0005207 . 0005464 . 0005581 . 0005451 . 0005704 . 0005778 . 0004861 . 0004218 . 0004402 . 0004519 . 0005141 . 0004328 58805 63106 66005 81505 81706 Average . . 2.74 1.79 419.3 8. 2271 .01991 . 22222 . 14658 . 0005468 . 0003557 3 TO 3.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 20709.. 20805.. 21205.. 21208. . 21307.. 21006.. 21907.. 22206.. 22208.. 22210.. 22211.. 26808. . 28206.. 28806.. 33305.. 33607.. 48306.. 48506. . 3.05 2.31 258 5. 3229 3.32 2.26 697 14. 6942 3.16 .22 123 2. 3642 3.24 2.15 287 5. 1594 3.04 .46 143 2. 5691 3.18 2.10 408 10. 4800 3.35 2.15 158 2.9248 3.22 2.11 146 2.5712 3.18 2.14 118 1.9090 3.17 1.55 233 6.0173 1 3.17 1.69 561 11.5675 1 3.09 2.28 222 3.8811 3.07 2.42 219 4.3698 1 3.02 1.86 685 14. 46,30 3.41 2.41 150 3. 1346 3.22 2.45 1.36 2.8903 3.29 2.13 157 2. 6571 3.20 2.17 556 9. 4585 0.02063 .02157 .01922 . 01798 .01796 . 02563 . 01851 .01720 .01619 . 02019 . 02002 .0r48 . 01996 .02111 . 02o:io .02125 .01602 .01701 0. 16235 0. 12296 . 48784 . .33208 . 07471 .00520 . 16712 . 11093 . 07810 .01182 . .33402 .22008 . 03798 .06288 . 08086 .05425 1 . 06071 '.04084 1 . 19075 . 09327 . ,36671 . 19548 .11992 . 08849 .13415 . 10575 . 43679 . 26901 . 10689 .07.5.54 . 09307 .07081 . 08742 . 05660 . 30267 . 20525 0. 0006292 . 0006999 . 0006074 . 0005824 . 000,5461 . 0008168 . 0(X)6201 . 0005538 . 0005144 .0006401 . 0006537 . 0005402 . 0006126 . 0006376 . 0007126 . (X)06S43 . 0005568 . 0005444 0. 0004766 . 0004875 . 0000423 . 0003866 . 0000826 . 0005382 . 0003980 . 0003629 . 0003465 . 0003129 . 0003485 . 0003985 . 0004830 . 0003926 . 0005037 . 0005206 . 0003604 . 0003691 SELECTION TO INCREASE PROTEIDS IN ENDOSPERM. 87 Table 19. — Relation of (jliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen to proteid nitro(/en — Continued. 3 TO 3.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued. Record number. Percentage of— Weight (in grams) of— Pro- teid nitro- gen. Glia- din- plua- gln- tenin nitro- gen. Num- ber of ker- nels. Ker- nels. Average kernel. Proteid nitro- gen in kernels. Gliadin- plus- glutenin nitro- gen in kernels. Proteid nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel. Gliadin- plus-glu- tenin ni- trogen in average kernel. i 48705 .3.13 .3.00 3.05 3.16 3.11 3.18 3.09 3.01 1.56 .71 1.99 1.75 1.96 2.92 2.49 2.47 264 379 393 451 216 221 307 235' 4. 3615 6. 1983 7. 9684 7. 18.52 3. 7407 2. 4731 4. 2207 2. 5436 0. 01652 .01635 . 02028 . 01593 . 01732 .01118 . 01375 . 01082 0. 13652 . 18596 . 24303 . 22705 . 11636 . 07859 . 13042 . 07656 0.06S04 .04401 . 15857 . 12574 . 07XV2 0.0005171 . 0004906 . 0006185 . 000.5034 . 0005386 ii(i(i;."v';fi 0. 0002577 .0001161 . 0004036 . 0002788 . 0003395 . 000.3264 . 0003424 . 0002673 48706 55005 55006 5.5508 57905 58207 . III,"! Ill . IIOIIJ248 .06280 1 .00032.58 5S705 Average . . 3.16 1.95 299.5 5. .5S17 .01817 . 17602 . 10889 .0005741 . 0003516 3.5 TO 4 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 17.506 3.52 3.81 3.75 3.82 3.92 3.61 3.63 3.58 3.66 3.54 2.23 1,54 2.16 1.88 1.35 1.77 2.73 1.36 1.76 1.38 93 103 567 173 144 563 94 235 1.37 366 2. 2881 1. 4864 11.9114 3. 5574 2. 0390 12. 1088 1.8494 3. 234J 1.9154 6.0090 0. 02460 . 01443 . 02101 . 02056 .01416 .02252 . 01967 .01376 . 01398 .01642 0. 0S044 . 05663 . 44666 . 13589 . 07993 . 43713 . 06713 .11575 . 07010 .21272 0. 05102 .03315 . 25728 . 06688 . 02753 . 21432 . 05049 . 04398 .03371 . 08292 0. 0008660 . 0005498 . 0007877 . 0007855 .0005551 . 0007764 .0007142 . 0004927 .0005117 . 0005'<12 0. 0005486 . 0003218 . 0004538 . 0003955 .0001912 . (X)03986 . 0005370 .0001871 . 0002460 .0002266 18905 21S11 2190S 26107 38,505 42205 4.5005 48.505 66006 Average . . 3.68 1.82 247. 5 4. 6399 .01811 . 17024 . 08613 . 0006620 .0003506 t 4 TO 4,5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 21,S12 21813 4.26 4.04 4.43 4.33 4.21 4.45 2.02 2.14 1.98 2.44 2.21 2.03 983 216 525 207 118 447 14.81.37 4.0258 12. 1819 4. 1281 2. 1571 5.4411 0.01507 .01877 .02317 . 01994 . 01828 .01217 0.63107 . 16377 . 53889 . 17875 . 09082 . 24213 0. 29934 . 08615 . 29846 . 10073 . 04767 .11046 0. 0006420 .0007582 . 0010265 . 0008635 . 0007696 . 0005417 0. 0003044 .0004017 . 0005677 . 0004865 .0004040 . 0002471 21909 34405 55007 76206 Average . . 4.29 2.14 416 7. 1230 .01790 . 30757 . 1.5714 . 0007669 . 0004019 MORE THAN 4.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 21206 5.23 5.03 4.69 4.87 5.82 5.59 4.93 0.22 1.34 3.07 2.25 1.94 2.51 4.06 149 237 194 249 110 188 347 2. 8564 3. 9143 3. 6302 3. 2964 2. 4420 3. 4442 6.0091 0.01917 . 01577 . 01871 .01324 . 02220 .01832 .01732 0. 149.39 . 19689 . 17026 . 16053 . 14213 . 19253 . 29625 0. 00628 . 05245 . 11145 . 08168 . 04738 . 08645 . 24397 0. 0010026 . 0007934 . 0008776 . 0006447 .0012921 . 0010241 . 0008539 0. 0000422 .0002113 .000.5744 . 0002979 . 0004307 . 0004598 . 0007032 21210 40205 48406 69,805 72607 92.306 Average . . 5.16 2.198 210.6 3. 6561 . 01782 . 18685 . 08995 . 0009269 . 0003885 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 20. — Suminaryof analyses, showing relation of gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen to proteid nitrogen. Num- ber of analy- ses. Percentage of— Num- ber of ker- nels. Weight (in grams) of— Range of per- centage of proteid nitro- gen. Pro- teid nitro- gen. GUa- din- plus- glu- tenin nitro- gen. Kernels. Proteid Average nitrogen kernel. ! in ker- nels. GUadin- p.„tpiH nitrogen ^^„\gg kernels, ^ ^^'^^'^l- GUadin- plus-glu- tenin ni- trogen in average kernel. 1 to2 . 3 21 70 26 10 6 7 1.89 2.30 2.74 3.16 3.68 4.29 5.16 1.76 1.68 1.73 1.95 1.82 2.22 2.20 512.0 489.6 419.3 299.5 247.5 416.0 210.6 10.4207 10. 5874 8. 2271 5.5817 4. 6399 7. 1230 3. 6561 0.01978 0.19568 .02173 .24272 .01991 [ .22222 .01817 .17602 .01811 .17024 .01790 .307,57 .01782 .18685 0.18667 0.0003744 0.000.3518 2 to 2.5 .17872 1 .0004991 : .00036.52 2 5 to 3 .13948 .0005468 1 .0003442 3to3.5 .10889 .0005741 ! .000.3516 3 5 to 4 . . . .08613 .0006620 , .(XI03.506 4to4.5 .15714 .0007669 .0004019 4.5 and over.. .. . 08995 . 0009269 .0003886 The figures in Table 20 show that while gliadin-phis-glutenin nitro- gen increases with proteid nitrogen it does not do so in the same ratio, the increase in proteid nitrogen being due in large measure to an increase in other proteids. The same anah^ses are tabulated in Table 21 according to the increase in gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen, and the averages for each group are stated in Table 22. In the latter table the increase in proteid nitrogen does not keep pace with the increase in gliadin-plus- glutenin nitrogen, there being 1.74 per cent other proteid nitrogen in the first group and 1.25 per cent in the last. It thus becomes evident that a determination of proteid nitrogen in the kernel is not an accurate guide to the content of gliadin plus glutenin, and that a direct determination of these substances is necessary. It is, furthermore, apparent that a determination of gliadin-plus- glutenin nitrogen will permit of the selection of kernels having a large percentage of these substances. Table 21. — Relation of proteid nitrogen to gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen. GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 1 TO 1.5 PER CENT. Percentage of — Num- ber of ker- nels. Weight (in grams) of— Record num- ber. GUadin- plus- glute- nin ni- trogen. Proteid nitro- gen. Kernels. Average kernel. GHadin plus-glu- tenin ni- trogen in kernels. Proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. GUadin- plus-glute- nin nitro- gen in aver- age kernel. Proteid nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel. 21210 26107 27201 27509 1.34 1.35 1.46 1.09 1.26 1.23 1.39 1.34 1.44 1.18 1.29 1.36 1.49 1.47 1.38 5.03 3.92 2.36 2.90 2.64 2.84 2.63 2.74 2.88 2.92 2.90 3.58 2.58 2.81 3.54 237 144 777 243 461 139 401 293 447 124 124 235 505 499 366 3.9143 2.0390 19. 1854 5.3615 8.0905 2.5134 8.4605 6.7665 9.3.541 2.8000 2.5235 3. 2340 11.0930 7.9968 6.0090 0.01575 .01416 .02469 .02206 .01972 .01808 .02110 .02309 .02093 .02258 .02035 .01376 .02205 .01603 .01642 0.05245 .027.53 . 28010 .05844 . 10194 .03091 .11760 .09067 . 13470 .03304 .03255 .04398 . 16529 .11755 . 08292 0.19689 .07993 .45276 . 15549 .23998 .07138 .22251 . 18540 .21399 .08176 .07318 .11575 . 28580 .22471 . 21272 0.0002113 .0001912 .0003605 . 0002405 .0002485 .0002224 .0002933 .0003094 .0003014 .0002664 .0002625 .0001871 .0002609 .0002356 .0002266 0.0007934 .0005551 .0005827 . 0006399 37705 . 00053''7 38005 .0005135 38606 . 0005549 38609 . 00(t('479 39405 .0001027 4340b . 00011.594 44606 . 0005902 45005 . 0004927 55606 . 0005690 55906 . 0004.503 66006 .0005812 Average . . . 1.34 3.08 333 6.6228 .01939 .09198 . 18748 .0002545 .0005843 SELECTION TO INCKEASE PROTEIDS IN ENDOSPERM. 89 Table 21. — Relation of proteid nitrogen to gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen — Continued. GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 1.5 TO 2 PER CENT. Percentage of— Num- ber of ker- nels. Weight (in grams) of - Record num- ber. Gliadin- plus- glute- nin ni- trogen. Proteid nitro- gen. Kernels. Average kernel. Gliadin- plus-glu- tenin ni- trogen in kernels. Proteid ' nitrogen in ker- nels. Gliadin- plus-glute- nin nitro- gen in aver- age kernel. Proteid nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel. 18905 1.54 1.85 1.97 1.96 1.88 1.98 1.97 1.82 1.55 1.69 1.82 1.88 1.90 1.70 1.95 1.73 1.65 1.98 1..55 1.86 1.92 1.77 1.73 1.84 1.80 1.77 1..50 1.76 1.56 1.99 1.75 1.58 1.87 1.97 1..56 1.96 1.96 1.75 1.61 1.96 1.66 1.8.5 1.95 1.83 1.95 1.86 1.64 1.55 1.68 1.81 1.95 1.94 1.76 1.96 1.64 3.81 2.77 2.67 2.57 3.82 4.43 2.81 2.77 3.17 3.17 2.71 2.80 2.63 2.41 2.92 2.58 2.12 2.70 2.91 3.02 2.39 3.61 2.82 2.11 2.38 2.87 2.02 3.66 3.13 3.05 3.16 2.60 2.57 2.48 1.89 3.11 2.64 2.67 2.59 2.42 2.30 2.51 2.42 2.34 2.61 2.62 2.61 2.85 2.41 2.28 2.09 5.82 1.81 1.98 2.41 103 444 312 1,156 173 525 283 169 298 561 228 180 866 891 166 267 539 444 87 685 301 563 158 1,031 608 473 314 137 264 393 451 944 578 167 342 216 500 331 749 562 302 333 509 462 563 762 596 359 544 373 583 110 729 465 287 1.4864 9.9070 6. 2514 19. 7446 3. 5574 12. 1819 2. 6965 3.2787 6.0173 11.5675 4.2376 2.9999 16.4120 16. 4061 3. 3266 5.5666 12. 0399 10.0005 2.1851 14. 4630 7. 0596 12. 1088 3.0228 21.5399 11.6655 12.0278 6. 4302 1.9154 4. 3615 7.9884 7. 1852 17.4226 11.3592 2.5160 5. 6864 3.7407 10.9180 5. 7948 19.3966 12.2210 9. 2120 6.5232 9.3093 10.9073 13.5720 14.9992 12.2004 6.9861 9.8298 7.0051 11.7066 2.4420 15. 7835 9.7922 7.3993 0.01443 .02282 .02004 .01708 .02056 . 02317 .00953 .01940 .02019 .02062 .01859 .01667 .01895 .01841 .02004 .02085 .02183 .02252 .02572 .02111 .02345 .022.52 .01913 . 02089 .01919 .02.543 .02048 .01398 .01652 .02028 .01593 .01846 .01965 .01507 .01663 .01732 .02184 .01751 .02590 . 02175 .03050 .01959 .01829 .03361 .02356 .01968 .02047 .01946 .01807 .01878 .02008 .02220 .02165 .02106 . 02578 0.03315 . 18328 . 12315 .38700 .06688 .29846 .05312 .05967 .09327 .19548 .07712 .05640 .31182 .27890 .06487 .09630 . 19866 .19800 .03887 . 26901 . 13554 .21432 .05229 .39635 .20997 . 21289 .09645 .03371 .06804 . 15857 . 12574 .27528 .21241 .04957 .08871 .07332 .21400 .10141 .31229 .23953 . 15292 . 12068 . 18153 . 19960 .26465 .27898 .20008 . 10828 . 16514 . 12680 .22828 .04738 . 27937 . 19193 . 12135 0.05663 . 27443 . 16691 .50744 . 13589 .53889 . 07577 .09082 . 19075 .36671 . 11484 .08400 .43164 .39.539 .09712 . 14362 .24942 .27003 .06359 . 43679 . 16872 .43713 .08522 .45435 .27765 .34,524 . 12989 .07010 . 13652 .24303 . 22705 .45299 .29079 .06240 . 10747 .11636 .28823 . 15470 . 50238 .29575 .21187 . 16373 .22529 .25522 .34616 .39297 .31842 . 19905 .23690 . 15971 .24468 . 14213 .28569 . 19388 . 17833 0.0003218 .0004222 . 0(X)394S .0003348 . 0003955 . 0005677 .0001877 .0003,531 .0003129 .0003485 .0003383 .0003134 .0003600 .0003130 . 0003908 .0003607 .0003602 .00044.59 . 0003894 .0003926 .0001502 .0003986 .0003309 .0003844 .0003454 .0004501 .0003072 .0002460 .0002577 .0004036 .0002788 .0002917 . 0003675 . 00029H9 . 0002.599 . 0003305 . 00042S1 . 0003064 .0004170 . 0004263 .000,50i;3 .0003(;24 . 0003566 .0004321 .0004.594 .0003660 .0003357 .0003016 .0003036 .0003399 .0003916 . 0004307 .0003832 .0004128 .0004228 0.0005498 20707 . 0006181 21305 .000.5350 21808 . 0004389 21908 . 0007855 21909 22205 22207 22210 .0010265 . 0002677 . 000.5376 .0006401 22211 . 0006537 26906 .0005037 26909 27005 .0004667 .0004984 27205 .0004437 27207 . 0005850 27305 27505 .0005379 .0004627 27506 .0006082 28805 . 0007309 28806 .0006376 33605 . . .0005605 38505 38608 .0007764 .0005394 39205 . . . 0004407 48106 .0004567 48305 . 0007299 48409 4S505 .0004137 .0005117 48705 .0005171 55005 .0006185 55006 .0005034 55008 55206 .0004799 .0005031 55305 55307 .0003736 .0003142 55508 . 0005386 55605 . . 0005765 55905 . 0004674 55907 . 000ii707 55908 . 0005262 55909 .0007016 56205 .0004917 56206 .0004426 56207 .0005524 56208. . 0006149 57407 .0005157 57408 . 000.5343 . 0005545 65306 .0004355 65307 . 0004282 65308 .0004197 69805 . 0002921 80305 .0003919 81705 .0004170 81708. . . 0006213 Average . . . 1.80 2.76 442.5 9.0243 .02016 . 16392 .23801 .0003653 . 0005538 GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2 TO 2 5 PER CENT. 17506 20706 20709 20710 20805 21208 21807 21809 21811 2IS12 21813 21905 9 9:i 3.52 93 2.05 2.78 163 2.31 3.05 258 2.00 2.83 867 2.26 3. .32 697 2.15 3.24 287 2.11 2.73 377 2.18 2.73 418 2.16 3.75 567 2.02 4.26 983 2.14 4.04 216 2.18 2.64 791 2. 2881 3. 31.38 5. 3229 17.1115 14.6942 5. 1594 9. 4172 8. 0214 11.9114 14.8139 4. 0258 14.3111 0. 02430 . 02033 . 02063 . 01974 . 021.57 .01798 . 02498 .01919 .02101 . 01507 . 01877 .01809 0.05102 . 06793 .12296 . 34222 . 33208 . 11093 . 19870 . 17487 . 25728 . 29934 .08615 .31198 0. 0<'044 . 09212 . 16235 . 48428 . 48784 . 16712 . 25709 . 21898 . 44666 . 63107 . 16377 . 37781 0. 0005486 . 0004168 .0004766 . 0003948 . 0004875 . 00038f,6 .0005271 . 0004183 . 0004538 . 000.3044 .0004017 . 0003944 0. 00086P0 . 0005652 . 00062f 2 . 00055^6 .0006999 . 0005S24 . 0006664 . 0005238 . 0007877 . 0006420 . 0007582 . 0004777 90 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 21. — Relation of proteid nitrogen to gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen — Continued. GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2 TO 2.5 PER CENT— Continued. Record num- ber. 2190fi. 21907. 22206. 22208. 26808. 26905. 2690S. 27508. 28206. 33107. 33305. .33607. 34405. 37305. .37707. 39506. 40505. 46107. 4S306. 4S406. 48506. .55007. .5.5.506. 5.5507. .56105. 56106. .56107. .56209. 57007. 57406. 57506. 5750S. 58207. 58705. 58805. 63106. 66005. 74606. 76206. 81706. Percentage of- Gliadin-; plus- (Proteid glute- I nitre nin ni- gen. trogen. Average . 3.18 3.35 3.22 3.10 3.09 2.76 2.96 2.64 3.07 2.35 3.41 3.22 4.33 2.96 2.93 2.93 ■1 82 2.54 3.29 4.87 3.20 4.21 2.80 2.63 2.73 2.57 2.96 2.59 2.65 2.75 2.80 2.21 3.09 3.01 2.74 2.79 2.63 2.30 4.45 2.71 Num- ber of ker- nels. 408 158 146 118 222 326 192 251 219 318 150 136 207 309 193 67 170 478 157 249 556 118 866 504 336 644 872 950 168 135 180 380 307 235 1,158 165 370 464 447 722 Weight (in grams) of — Kernels. 10. 4800 2. 9248 2. 5712 1.9090 3.8811 6. 4102 3. 9797 5. 5324 4. 3698 6. 1026 3. 1346 2. 8902 4. 1281 6. 1394 3. .3004 1.9218 4.1546 8. 3935 2. 6.571 3. 2964 9. 4585 2. 1571 17. 8506 9. 8228 5. 7431 12.0161 14. 4556 15. 8086 1. 5364 2. 4923 2. 7616 12. 0728 4. 2207 2. 5436 23. 1471 3. .3006 7. 6690 9. 6451 5.4411 15.3928 Gliadin- \vera2e Pl"?-g'u- kernd tenm ni- '^*^'"^'- trogen in kernels. Proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. 0. 02563 .01851 .01720 .01619 . 01748 .01966 . 02073 . 02287 . 01996 .01919 . 02090 .02125 . 01994 . 01987 .01710 . 02869 02444 . 01756 .01692 . 01.324 .01701 . 01828 . 02062 . 01949 .01709 . 01866 . 01658 . 01664 .01746 . 01846 .01534 . 03177 . 01375 . 010S2 . 01999 .02001 . 02073 . 02079 .01217 . 02132 0. 22008 . 06288 . 05425 .04084 . 13398 . 08596 . 12835 . 10575 . 12643 . 07554 . 07081 . 10073 . 14060 . 06931 . 03959 . 09099 . 1745S .05660 .08168 . 20525 . 04767 . .39272 .20333 . 03503 . 05'68 . 10553 . 34937 .03211 . 05309 . 06462 . 24750 . 10510 . 06283 . 48839 .07261 .16714 . 19772 .11046 . 31248 0. .33403 . 09798 . 08086 . 06071 . 11992 . 17692 .11780 . 14608 . 13415 . r4341 . 10689 . 09307 . 17875 . 18173 . 09670 . 0.5631 .11716 .21319 . 08742 .16053 . 30267 . 09082 . 49995 . 25834 . 15679 . 30881 . 42792 . 40945 .04164 . 06854 . 07733 . 26680 . 13042 . 07656 . 63422 . 09208 .20170 . 22184 . 24213 . 41715 Gliadin- plus-glute- nin nitro- gen in aver- age kernel. 0. 0005382 ! . 00039SO . 0003629 . 000i4i;5 . 0003985 .0004109 . 0004478 . 0005306 . 0004830 .0004163 . 0005037 . 0005206 . 0004865 . 0004550 . 0003591 . 0005910 . 0005352 . 0003652 . 000^604 . 0002979 . 0003691 . 0004040 . 0004536 . 0004034 .0001042 .0000896 .0001210 . 0003677 . 0003649 . 0003932 . 0003590 . 0006513 . 0003424 . 0002673 . 0004218 . 0004402 . 0004519 . 0004202 . 0002471 . 0004328 Proteid nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel. 0.0008168 .0006201 . 0(X)5538 .0(K15144 . 0005402 . 0(105427 . 0006135 . 0006037 .0006126 . 0004510 .0007126 . 0006843 . 0008635 . 0005881 . 0005010 . 0008404 . 0006892 . 0004460 . 0005568 . 0006447 . 0005444 . 0007696 . 0(H)5773 . 0005126 . 0004667 . 0004795 . 0004907 . 0004310 . 0004731 . 0005077 . 000*296 . 0007021 . 0(X)4248 . 0003258 . 0005464 . 0005581 . 0005451 . 0004781 . 0005417 . 0005778 7.2520 j .01935 . 14641 . 21535 . 0004003 . 0005872 GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2.5 TO 3 PER CENT. 42205 57805 57905 72607 81505 2.73 2.68 2.92 2.51 2.65 3.63 2.87 3.18 5.59 2.94 94 270 221 188 146 1. 8494 4. 8988 2. 4731 3.4442 1 2.8327 : 0. 01967 .01814 .01118 . 018.-2 . 01940 0. 050049 .13126 . 07221 . 03645 . 7.507 0. 06713 .14060 . 07859 . 19253 . 08328 0. 000.5370 . 0004861 . 000'264 .000^598 .0005141 0. 0007142 . 0005207 . 000-'556 .0010241 . 0005704 Average . . . 2.698 3.64 183.8 3.0696 .01734 . 08310 . 11243 . 0004647 .0006.370 GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 3 PER CENT AND OVER. 40205 92"06 3.07 4.06 4.69 4.93 194 347 3.6302 6.0091 ' 0.01871 .01732 0.11145 . 24397 0. 17026 .29625 0. 0005744 . 0007032 0. 0008776 . 0008539 Average . . . 3.56 4.81 270.5 4.8196 . 01801 . 17771 .23325 1 . 0006388 .0008657 IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY OV GLUTEN. 91 Table 22. — Summary of analyses, showing relation vf proteid nitrogen to gliadin-plus- * glutenin nitrogen. ] Percentage ' Number I of— j- nf— Range of percentage o trlinHin-nliiR. Range of ! p,. percentage of ^J' gliadin-plus- 7^- gluteninni- P^','Jf. liadin-plus- 7f- I Pro- Cluteninni- P'^f" ' ■■ luus- . ■, i An- g'".- nitro-'^ly- luitro- ^™- I gen- Ker- nels. Weight (in grams) of— Kernels. Gliadin- l)lus-glu- Average , tenin ni- kemel 1 trogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Gliadin- plus-glute- nin nitro- gen in average kernel. Proteid nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel. 1 to l.o ' 1.34 1.5 to 2 i 1.80 2 to 2.5 2.18 2.5 to3 [ 2.70 ■3 and over 3.56 3.08 2.76 3.08 3.64 4.81 333 442.5 380. 1 183.8 270.5 6. 6228 9. 0243 7. 2520 3. 0696 4. 8196 0. 019.39 .02016 . 01935 . 01734 . 018Q1 0. 09198 . 16392 . 14641 . 08310 . 17771 0. 18748 . 23801 .21535 .11243 . 23325 0. 0002545 . 0003653 . 0004063 . 0004647 . 0006388 0. 0005843 . 00055.'^8 .000.5872 . 0006370 . 0008657 IMPROVEMENT IN THE QUALITY OF THE GLUTEN. It is well known that large differences exist in the bread-nif^ing values of different varieties of wheats even when they have approxi- mately the same gluten content and are raised in the same locality. This fact is generally attributed to differences in the quality of the gluten. W. Farrar" points out the dift'erence in the bread-making qualities of two wheats due to the quality of the gluten. He compares Saxon Fife wheat, which had a gluten content of 9.92 per cent, and which produced 309 pounds of bread from 200 pounds of flour, with Purple Straw Tuscan wheat, which had a gluten content of 9.94 per cent, and which produced only 278 pounds of bread from the same quantity of flour. In this case it w^as not the amount but the quality of the gluten that determined the greater excellence of the Saxon Fife wdieat. It has further been stated b}^ Girard/' Snyder,' and Guthrie'' that the ratio in which gliadin and glutenin exist in the gluten determines its value for bread making. It was considered desirable to ascertain whether the proportions of these two constituents remain about the same in wheats of high and of low content. If the quality of the gluten remains constant as the quantity increases, the value of the wheat for bread making will improve in about the same ratio. If, on the other hand, there is a tendency for the quality to deteriorate as the quantity increases, there would be greater difficulty in eft'ecting improvement. In Table 23, analyses of the crop of 1903 are arranged in groups according to their content of gliadin plus glutenin. The first group comprises all plants having less than 1 per cent, and each succeeding group increases by 0.25 per cent. It is followed by Table 24, which is a summary of Table 23. « Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 9 (1898), pp. 241-250. &Compt. Rend., 1897, p. 876. '■;^^innesota Experiment Station Bulletins 54 and 63. c? Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 9 (1898), pp. 363-374. 92 IMPKOVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 23. — Ratio of gliadin to glutenin as the content of their sum increases. GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, BELOW 1 PER CENT. Percentage of— Proportion of — Percentage of— Record number. ; ^{^f^^in- 1 glutenin nitrogen. Gliadin nitrogen. Glutenin nitrogen. Gliadin. Glutenin. Slfn'P^'e^ nitrogen.^ nitrogen. 21205 0.216 21206 218 21207 .170 21212 .192 21306 1 .975 21307 j .461 21805 1 .230 27307 821 48806 748 55308 655 81707 .636 0.114 .142 .099 .109 .505 .255 .126 .806 .018 .629 .237 0.102 .076 .071 .083 .470 .206 .104 .015 .730 .026 ..399 0.528 .651 .582 .567 .518 .447 .548 .982 .024 .960 .372 0.472 .349 .418 .433 .482 .5.53 .452 .018 .976 .040 .628 3.16 5.23 2.96 2.16 2.90 3.04 2.69 2..'-)3 2.70 2.54 • 2.34 2.944 5.012 2.790 1.968 1.925 2.579 2.460 1.709 1.952 1.885 1.704 Average .. .484 .276 .208 .562 .438 2.93 2.448 GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 1 TO 1.25 PER CENT. 27509 1.087 1.227 1.184 1.072 .593 1.078 0.015 .634 .106 0.986 .483 .910 0.014 .517 .090 2.90 2.84 2.92 1.813 1.613 1.736 38005 43405 Average . . 1.166 .914 .2.52 .793 .207 2.89 1.721 GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 1.25 TO 1.50 PER CENT. 26107 . 1.352 1.465 1.265 0.108 .815 .715 1.244 .650 .550 0.080 .5.56 .565 0.920 .444 .435 3.92 2.36 2.64 2.568 .895 1.375 27206 37705 38606 1.387 .725 .662 ..522 .478 2.63 1.243 38609 1.336 ..586 .7.50 .439 .561 2.74 1.404 39405 1.439 .818 .621 .568 .432 2.88 1.441 44606 1.287 1.0.57 .230 .821 .179 2.90 1.613 45005 1.361 1.240 .121 .911 .089 3.58 2.219 55606 1.493 .899 ..594 .602 .398 2.58 1.087 55906 Average . . 1.470 .443 1.027 .301 .699 2.81 1.340 1.385 .741 .645 ..536 .463 2.90 1.518 GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 1.50 TO 1.75 PER CENT. 18905 1.537 1.555 1.692 1.700 1.735 1.651 1.555 1.731 1.504 1.563 1..581 1.561 1.608 1.658 1.639 1.546 1.683 1.641 0.143 .801 1.002 1.073 1.075 1.032 .9.58 .962 .690 .057 .687 .908 .632 .810 1.177 1.141 .965 1.221 1.394 .7.54 .690 .627 .660 .619 .597 .769 .814 1.506 .894 .6.53 .976 .848 .462 .405 .718 .420 0.093 .515 .592 .631 .619 .625 .616 .556 .459 .036 .435 .582 .393 .488 .717 .738 .573 .744 0.907 .485 .408 .369 .381 .375 .384 .444 .541 .964 .565 .418 .607 .512 .283 .262 .427 .256 3.81 3.17 3.17 2.41 2. .58 2.12 2.91 2.82 2.02 3.13 2.60 1.89 2.59 2.30 2.61 2.85 2.41 2.41 2.273 1.615 1.478 .710 .845 .469 1.355 1.089 .516 1..567 1.019 .329 .982 .642 .971 1.304 .727 .769 22210 22211 27205 27305 27505 28805 38608 48409 48705.. .55008 55307 55907. .55909 ... 57408 57507 65306 . 81708 Average . . 1.619 .852 .767 ..523 .477 2. 65 1.037 IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY OF GLUTEN. 93 Table 23. — Ratio of gliadin to glidenin as the content of their sum increases — Continued. GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 1.75 TO 2 PER CENT. Record number. Percentage of— Proportion of— Percentage of— Gliadin- plus- glutenin nitrogen. Gliadin Glutenin nitrogen.! nitrogen. Gliadin. Glutenin. Proteid nitrogen. Other proteid nitrogen. 20707 1.855 1.046 0.809 0.564 0.436 2.77 0.915 20710 1.996 1.125 .871 .564 .436 2.83 .834 21305 1.969 1.9f!3 1.049 1.046 .920 .917 .533 .533 .467 .467 2.67 2.57 .701 .607 21808 21908 1.876 1.015 .861 .541 .459 3.82 1.944 21909 1.976 1.969 1.367 1.185 .609 .784 .697 .602 .303 .398 4.43 2.81 2.4.54 .841 22205 26906 1.819 .988 .831 .543 .457 2.71 .891 26909 1.879 .996 .883 ..531 .469 2.80 .921 27005 1.904 1.946 1.066 1.278 .838 .668 .559 .652 .441 .348 2.63 2.92 .726 .974 27207 27506 1.977 1.147 .830 .580 .420 2.70 .723 28806 1.864 .902 .962 .484 .516 3.02 1.156 33605 1.919 1.124 .795 .585 .415 2.39 .471 38505 1.766 1. 845 1.805 1.766 .862 1.117 1.035 .996 .904 .728 .770 .770 .488 .605 .573 .564 .512 .395 .427 .436 3.61 2.11 2.38 2.87 1.844 .265 ..575 1.104 39205 48106 48305 48505 1.757 .965 .792 .549 .451 3.66 1.903 5.5005 1.987 1.7.54 1.102 1.099 .885 .655 .555 .626 .445 .374 3.05 3.16 1.063 1.406 55006 55206 1.866 .840 1.026 .4.50 .550 2.56 .694 55305 1.974 1.042 .932 .528 • .472 2.48 . .506 55508 1.959 1.037 .922 .529 .471 3.11 1.151 55605 1.959 1.044 .915 .533 .467 2.64 .681 55905 1.7.50 1.957 .575 1.075 1.175 .882 .328 .549 .672 .451 2.67 2.42 .920 .463 55908 56205 1.850 .883 .967 .477 .523 2.51 .660 56206 1.949 1.089 .860 .559 .441 2.42 .471 56207 1.827 .987 .840 .540 .460 2.34 .513 56208 1.946 1.127 .819 .579 .421 2.61 .664 57407 1.858 .935 .923 .503 .497 2.62 .762 65307 1.815 1.052 .763 .579 .421 2.28 .465 65308 1.946 1.090 .8.56 .560 .440 2.09 .144 69805 1-.937 1.142 .795 .589 .411 5.82 3.883 80305 1.770 1.1.59 .611 .661 .339 1.81 .040 81705 Average . . 1.956 1.048 .908 .535 .465 1.98 .024 1.889 1.044 .845 .552 .448 2.82 .929 GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTEXIX NITROGEN. 2 TO 2.25 PER CENT. 17506 2.226 1.468 0.768 0.655 0.345 3.52 1.294 20706 2.053 1.089 .964 .530 .470 2.78 .727 21208 . . . 2.146 2.110 1.154 1.174 .992 .936 .537 ..5.56 .463 .444 3.24 2.73 1.094 .620 21807 21809 2.178 1.183 .995 .543 .457 2.73 .5,52 21811 2. 1.56 1.144 1.012 .531 .469 3.75 1..594 21812 2.023 1.139 .884 .563 .437 4.26 2.237 21813 2.141 1.045 1.096 .488 .512 4.04 1.899 21905 2.181 2.096 1.344 1.208 .837 .888 .616 .576 .384 ,.424 2.64 3.18 .459 1.084 21906 21907 2.146 1.187 .9.59 .553 .447 3.35 1.204 22206 2.113 1.271 .842 .601 .399 3.22 1.107 22208 2.142 1.309 .833 .611 .389 3.18 1.038 26905 2.087 1.197 .890 .573 .427 2.76 .673 26908 2. 1.58 1.2.50 .908 .579 .421 2.96 .802 33107 2.123 1.283 .840 .604 .396 2.35 .227 37707 2.097 2.065 1.044 1.281 1.053 .784 .498 .620 .502 .380 2.93 2.93 .833 .865 39506 40505 2.189 1.143 1.046 ..522 .478 2.82 .631 46107 2.076 1.164 .912 ..561 .439 2.54 .464 48306 2.135 1.130 1.005 .529 .471 3.29 1.155 48406 2.249 1.290 .9.59 .574 .426 4.87 2.621 48506 2.171 1.104 1.067 .508 .492 3.20 1.029 55007 2.211 1.248 .963 .564 .436 4.21 1.999 55506 2.197 1.136 1.061 .517 .483 2.80 .603 55507 2.070 1.079 .991 .521 .479 2.63 .560 56105 2.118 1.277 .841 .603 .397 2.73 .612 56106. 2.091 1.091 1.000 .522 .478 2.57 .479 56107 2.234 1.033 1.201 .462 .538 2.96 .72e 56209 2.208 1.161 1.047 .526 .474 2. .59 .382 94 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OP WHEAT. Table 23. — Ratio of (jltadin to glxtenin ns the content of their sum increases — Continued. GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2 TO 2.25 PER CENT— Continued. Record number. Percentage of— Proportion of— Percentage of— Gliadin- plus- glutenin nitrogen. Gliadin nitrogen. Glutenin nitrogen. Gliadin. Glutenin. Proteid nitrogen. Other proteid nitrogen. 57007. 2.093 2.134 2.053 2.112 2.199 2.181 2.046 2.029 2.034 1.159 1.080 1.124 1.060 1.186 1.142 1.016 1.223 1.701 0.934 1.054 .929 1.0.52 1.013 1.039 1.030 .806 .333 0.553 .506 .547 .501 .539 .528 .496 .602 .816 0.447 .494 .453 .499 .461 .472 ..504 .398 .184. 2.65 2.75 2.21 2.74 2.79 2.63 2.30 4.45 2.71 0.557 .616 .157 .628 ..591 .449 .254 2.421 .676 57406 57508 58805 63106 66005 74606 76206 81706 Average . . 2.130 1.187 .943 ..557 .443 3.05 .921 GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2.25 TO 2.50 PER CENT. Ill 2.313 2.259 2.281 2.324 2.424 2.407 2.446 2.443 2.293 2.344 2.492 2.467 1.307 1.215 1.377 1.247 1.366 1.182 1.391 1.006 1.044 .904 1.077 1.058 1.225 1 . 055 0.565 .538 .604 .537 .563 .491 .569 .503 ..527 ■ .511 ..526 .484 0.435 .462 .396 .463 .437 .509 .431 .497 .473 .489 .474 .516 3.05 3.32 3.09 2.64 3.07 3.41 3.22 4.33 2.96 2.80 3.09 3.01 0.737 1.061 .809 .316 .646 1.003 .774 1.887 .667 .456 ..598 .543 27.508 ... 28206 33305 . 33607 34405 1.230 1.213 37305 1.208 1.203 1.313 1.195 1.085 1.141 1.179 1.272 57506 58207 . . 58705 Average . . 2.374 1.268 1.105 .535 .465 i 3.16 j .791 GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2.50 PER CENT AND OVER. 40205 3.089 2.728 2.684 2.918 2.515 2.652 4.063 1.850 1.480 1.303 1..573 1.459 1.066 2.388 1.219 1.248 1.381 1.345 1.056 1.586 1.675 0.603 .542 .485 .539 .,579 .401 .587 0.397 .458 .516 .461 .421 .599 .413 4.69 3.63 2.87 3.18 5.59 2.94 4.93 1.621 .902 .186 .282 3.075 .288 .867 42205 57805 57905 72607 81.505 92306 Average . . 2.947 1..588 1.358 ..534 .466 3.98 1.029 Table 24. -Summary of analyses, showing the ratio of gliadin to glutenin as the content of their sum increases. Percent- age of gliadin- plus- ghitenin nitrogen. 1 Percentage of— Proportion of— Percentage of— Range of percentage of gliadin-plus- gliitenin nitrogen. Number i anah'se-! G^adin ■ Glutenin aiidi>be>. iiitrogeji nitrogen. ! Gliadin. Glutenin. Proteid nitrogen. Other proteid nitrogen. Below 1 0.484 1.166 1..385 1.619 1.889 2. 130 2.374 2.947 11 1 0.276 3 .914 10 . 741 IS [ .852 37 1 1.044 .39 i 1.187 12 1 1.268 7 1.588 0.208 .252 .645 .767 .845 .043 1.105 1.358 0.562 .793 .536 .523 ..552 . 557 .535 .534 0. 4.38 .207 .463 .477 .448 .443 .465 .466 2.93 2.89 2.90 2.65 2.82 3.05 3.16 3.98 2.448 1 to 1.25... 1.721 1 25 to 1.50 1.518 l.,50to 1.75 1.75 to 2 2 to 2.25 1.0'*7 .920 .921 2.25 to 2.50 .791 2.50 and over 1.029 It will be seen from Table 24 that the ratio of gliadin to glutenin remains practically the same as the percentage of their sum increases. It would therefore be safe to assume that an ii. crease in the gluten BREEDING TO INCREASE PROTEID NITROGEN. 95 content of a given variety of wheat raised in the same region would carry with it a corresponding improvement in its vahie for bread making, although there might be fluctuations from year to year in quality of gluten, as there is in the quantity. If the quality of gluten is determined by the ratio of gliadin and glutenin of which it is composed, it is likely that there is some certain proportion that is most desirable. Unfortunately, the investigators who have taken up this subject do not by any means agree upon the proper ratio. Should this be ascertained there would be ample oppor- tunit}^ for the selection of individual plants in which the proportion of gliadin and glutenin would approximate the ideal. There would thus be possible a much more rapid improvement in the quality of wheat than can be accomplished by confining selection to an increase in the gluten. An obstacle to the usefulness of these determinations in the whole wheat appears in the announcement by Nasmith, already cited, that while gliadin occurs in all portions of the endosperm, glutenin does not appear in the aleurone cells. That being the case, it is difficult to believe that any given ratio between these constituents in the whole wheat could be taken as the one most desirable. The ratio in the gluten alone may, however, have an important influence on its qualit}^ and a certain definite proportion of each may produce an ideal gluten. In the light of the present knowledge on the subject, a mechanical determination of gluten would seem to be most useful, if it can be made with such small quantities of wheat as are obtained from single plants, while determinations of gliadin and glutenin in the gluten would afford a means of judging of its quality. SOME RESULTS OF BREEDING TO INCREASE THE CONTENT OF PROTEID NITROGEN. Selected plants have been grown on a large scale for two years. From these results it is very apparent that a high percentage of nitrogen and the qualities that go Math it are transmissible from one generation to another. In Table 25 are analyses of the plants of the crop of 1902, grouped according to their proteid nitrogen content into classes of from 1 to 2 per cent, 2 to 2.5 per cent, and increasing by 0.5 per cent up to 4.5 per cent and above. Opposite the plant number of each plant of the crop of 1902 are stated its percentage of proteid nitrogen and weight of proteid nitrogen in kernels. On the same line are the plant numl^ers for the entire progeny in 1903, and following these are the percentage of proteid nitrogen, weight of proteid nitrogen per average kernel, and average weight of kernel for all of these progeny. The averages for each group are given in Table 26. 96 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 25. — Aimlyses showing transmission o^ nitrogen from one generation to another.^ 1 TO 2 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 1902 [ 1903 Record num- ber. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram). 1 Weight of average kernel (gram). • Record num- ber. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram). ^y eight of average kernel (gram). 32201 1.51 1.99 1.98 1.94 1.97 1.12 1.83 1.33 1.67 1.38 1.63 1.73 1.89 1.99 1.92 32206-7 32605-6 and 8. . . 63505-6 69505-6.. 69705 2.64 2.62 2.17 2.39 2.50 2.586 ■ 3.09 2.628 2.814 2.67 2.576 2.27 1.87 2.85 2.498 0.0010055 .0015963 . 0007499 .0009348 .0003874 .0016918 . 0010830 . 0024129 . 0024540 .0006790 . 0022132 . 0008092 .0016125 .002.5361 . 0026506 0.03874 52601 . .. .07560 6.3501 .03502 69501 .... .03894 69701 . 01550 73301 73306-8 .06582 91901 91905-6 92405-9 . 03513 92401 .09109 92901 92905-9 . 08814 94101 94105 94205-9 .02543 94201 . 08738 94401 94406-7 91605-6 94905-9 . 03538 94601 .08851 94901 . 08899 95501 95505-10 Average . .10605 Average. . 1.658 2.587 .0004960 . 019907 n In this table the average percentage of proteid nitrogen for all plants raised in 1903, resulting from plants of 1 to 2 per cent, 2 to 2.5 per cent, etc., in 1902 is determined by adding together analyses of all plants in that group and dividing by the total number, irrespective of families. 2 TO 2.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 17401 2.45 . 2.28 2.33 1740[5-6] [8-10] . 34205-8 2.646 2.857 2.54- 0. 0025803 .0023077 . 0018351 0.09807 34201 . 08075 57301 0.000601 0.02585 57305-8 .07010 Average. . Average . 2.353 .000601 . 02585 2.68 . 00051716 .019146 2.5 TO 3 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 21701 2. 50 ' 21705-11 33405-8 Average . 2.78 1.977 0. 0042343 .0014277 0. 15101 33401 2. 73 .07274 Average. . 2 615 2.487 ■ ■ .0005147 .02032 I ' 3 TO 3.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 17301 3.04 3.14 3.31 3.22 3.49 3.05 3.10 3.17 3.28 3.24 3.12 3.00 3.31 3.06 3.33 3.22 3.08 3.46 3.18 3.13 3.44 3.21 3.09 3.33 3.31 3.11 3.11 j 17305-8 3.207 4.006 3.64 2.86 3.32 .3.015 3. 13 3. 527 2.768 2.63 2.56 2.93 2.96 2.73 3.41 2.606 4.33 3.12 3.88 2.96 2. 6.36 2.48 3.25 2. .59 2.88 4.69 3.11 0.0025519 .002x778 . 0010439 . 0034181 .0006999 . 0021798 .0054513 .0060008 . 00259*3 . 0004984 .0016114 . 0022229 . 091.3685 .0015199 . 0007126 .0017186 . 0008635 .0006904 .0007295 . 0005881 . 0015390 .0009112 . 0013476 .0005148 . 0006027 .0008776 . 00062.55 0.07920 17501 17505-7 18905-6 . 05595 18901 . 02863 20701 20705-10 20805 21305-8 21805-13 2190[5-9j [11-13] 26905-9 . 12074 20801 .02157 21.301 .07278 21801 . 17668 21901 . 16783 26901 .09357 27001 27005 .01895 27201 27205-7 .06314 27301 27305-8 .07654 28801 28805-6 .04623 33101 33105-7 . 05574 33301 33305 . 02090 33601 33605-7 . 06614 34401 0.000909 .000948 .000827 .000854 .000685 .000831 .000844 .000693 . 000933 .001017 .000914 0.02956 . 02749 .02602 .02731 .01995 . 02599 .02732 . 02081 .02820 1 .03271 .02942 34405 . 01994 34601 36901 34606. .02213 36905 .01880 37301 37305 .01987 37701 3770.5-7 3790.5-6 38505-6 .38706 .05&37 37901 .03641 38501 38701 .01227 .01988 39401 40201 39405 40205 40305 . 02093 .01871 40301 .02011 BREEDING TO INCREASE PROTEID NITROGEN. 97 Table 25. — Analyses showing transmission of nitrogen from one generation to another — Continued. 3 TO 3.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued. 190 1 1903 Record num- lier. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nel. Proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram). Weiglit of average kernel (gram). Record num- ber. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram). Weight of average kernel (gram). 40401 3. 32 3. 23 3.46 3.37 3.24 3.37 3. 33 3.16 3.49 3.16 3.36 3. 43 3. 19 3.36 3. .33 3.09 3.45 3.25 3.05 3. 22 3^26 3.10 3. .35 3.31 3.30 3.15 3.14 3.23 3. 05 3. .30 3.14 3.15 3.46 .3.12 3.16 3.02 3.22 3.17 3.03 3.31 3.26 .3. 13 3.25 3.17 3.06 3.23 3.36 3.42 3.39 .3.10 3. .36 3.38 3.24 3.14 3.48 3.49 3.29 0.001039 .001050 . 000972 . 000933 . 000907 .000772 . 000899 . 0008.53 .001005 . 000866 .000820 . 000888 . 000791 . 000937 . 000789 . 000902 . 000928 .0008.59 .000930 . 000805 .000808 .000787 .000958 .000894 . 000785 . 000781 .000832 .000920 . 000723 •.000990 0.03136 .032.50 .02813 . 02766 .02800 . 02299 . 02701 .02704 . 02882 . 02748 . 02445 . 02595 . 02488 . 02797 . 02377 .02928 . 02697 .02661 ^ . 03052 . 02507 .02485 .02548 . 02860 . 02941 . 02381 . 02485 . 02665 . 02846 .02.379 . 03000 40405 3.17 2.82 2.54 3.17 2.92 4.13 2.73 2.38 3.08 3.065 3.06 2.70 3.24 3.17 1.34 3.255 2.83 2.27 2. .558 2.75 2.495 2. 706 2.76 2.49 2.60 2.88 2.95 3.01 2.43 2.14 3.25 2.925 3.25 4.42 3.74 2.47 3. 1.55 4.04 2. 937 3.01 2.48 1.98 2.78 2.486 3.40 1.81 2. 965 2.94 2.48 2.875 2.63 2. 595 2.566 2.74 2.67 3.93 2. .58 0.00043.52 . 0006892 . 0008988 . 000.5447 .0006.594 . 0006423 .0016171 . 0004567 . 0012867 .0021750 . 0010077 . 0004877 . 0006149 . 0010793 . 0002422 . 0023714 . 0010373 .0017313 . 0028162 .0014369 . 0025326 . 0013974 . 0002527 . 0019599 . 0021279 . 0006767 . 0008052 . 0003258 . 0003292 . 0007684 . 0003938 . 0024199 .0017773 . 0008767 .0016495 .000.5.531 . 0019005 .0021643 .0026515 . 0005738 . 00039.30 . 0004054 .0014234 . 0013768 .0009400 .0003919 . 0010576 .0005704 . 0005067 .0011244 . 0007556 . 0008522 .00268.32 . 00099.33 . 0020214 .0012908 . 0013009 0.01373 40501 42201 40505 . 02444 42205-6 42905 .03231 42901 43401 43.501 . 01866 43405 43505 . 02258 .01.5.55 41601 48101 48301 4850 1 44605-7 . 05890 48106 .01919 4830.5-6 48.505-8 .01235 .072.53 48701 4870.5-6 48806 49505 .50705-6 51005 .03287 4S801 49.501 . . .01798 .01898 50701 51001 5.5001 55201 55.301 55901 . 03329 .01804 .5.500.5-8 .55205-6 . 07295 . 03688 55305-8 .07496 55905-9 .11169 56101 56105-7 . 05233 56'^01 56205-9 . 10169 57001 5700-5-7 .05174 57101 57401 57105 . 00916 57405-8 . 07892 57501 57506-9 . 08396 58201 58.501 .58701 58206-7 .02318 58505 . 02730 58705 .01082 58901 59601 58S05 .01355 59605-6 . 03.592 62801 62805 _.. 65305-8 .01212 65301 .08003 66001 , 6600.5-6,8 69305 . 05529 69301 .01984 69801 69805-6 .04.373 71901 71905 .02239 72401 72405-6 .05892 72601 72605-7 . 05274 79701 72705-8 . 08981 72801 72806 .01906 72901 72905 .01.585 74.301 74.305 . 02047 74501 74506-8 . 05084 74601 74605-7 . 05562 76201 76205-6 . 02912 80301 80305 .02165 81401 8140.5-6 . 03583 81501 81505 . 01940 84401 84405 . 02043 84901 84905-6 . 03902 85201 85205-6 .029.37 86101 86105-6 . 03244 88601 88605-9 .11179 88901 88905-6 . 03625 92201 9220.5-8 . 07575 9'^301 92.305-6 . ... . 03223 95701 ... 9570.5-7 .0.5017 Average . Average . 3.239 .000875 .02700 2.932 . 00056037 . 019189 3.5 TO 4 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 18801 3.55 3.50 3. 65 3.63 .3.76 3.58 18S05 2120.5-12 22205-11 2520.5-6 2610.5-7 2.02 3..567 3.165 2. 735 3.19 2.688 0. 0003164 . 0054768 . 0037042 .0011894 . 0015273 .0028791 O.OIE 21201 .1.56 22201 .117 2.5201 .04C 26101 .05 27501... . 27505-9 .107 27889— No. 78—05- 98 Table 2.5. IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. -Analyses showing transmission of nitrogen from one generation to another- Continued. 3.5 TO 4 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued. 1903 1903 Record num- ber. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram). Weight of average kernel (gram). Record num- ber. 1 Percent- age of proteid nitrogen \ in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen in average keniel (gram). Weight of average kernel (gram). 3.3901 3.59 3.82 3.79 3.98 3.65 3.55 3.63 3.57 3.79 3.87 3.55 3.87 3.53 3.61 3.55 3.79 3.76 3.80 .3.64 3.80 3.53 3.91 3.78 3.57 3.56 33905-6 38005 2. 21 .[ 2.84 .\ 3.718 .[ 2.11 .! .2.975 . 1 2. 37 3. 07 2.94 3.58 2. 365 .1 4.18 .1 1.84 . 1 2. 90 3. 62 .! 2.846 .' 2. .555 .! 2. .37 2.87 ' 3.18 2.31 1.87 2.82 2.27 3.21 3.32 0. 0008932 .00051.35 .0036318 . 0004407 . 0013536 .0003177 . 0006927 .0005187 .0004927 .0006777 .0007155 .0002700 . 0020794 .0010640 .0016285 .0022.356 .001.5451 .0005207 . 0003556 .0009.317 .0003180 .0016570 .0031019 .0007197 .0017483 0.04115 38001 0. 000806 .001046 .001039 .001048 .000927 .001.327 . 000796 .001020 .001238 .000865 .001146 . 000993 .001043 .001020 .001050 .0010.30 .000891 . 000852 .000904 . 000759 0.02110 . 02765 .02616 .02877 . 02619 .02838 .02531 .02690 .0.3205 .02435 .02963 . 02822 .02898 . 02866 .02775 .02750 .02.353 .02348 .02384 .02155 . 01808 38601 38605-9 39205 39506-7 . 09917 39201 . . . 02089 39501 . 04.568 39601 .39606 42405 44.505 4.5005 4.5605-6 .01341 42401 . 02251 44501 .01764 45001 . 01376 45601 . 02995 45701 45705. .01712 45801 4.5S05 4840.5-9 49905 55506-8 .5.5605-8 .01234 48401 .07511 49901 . 029.39 55501 . 05743 5.5601 . 08822 57601 57606-8 .06535 57801 .57805 .01814 57901 57905 .5880.5-6 60605 .01118 58801 . 04048 60601 . 01701 63101 63105-7 81705-10 91.305 92.50.5-7 Average . 05951 81701 . ... 1 . 13635 91.301 . 02242 92501 . 05312 Average . 3.68 . 000990 .026.50 2. 906 . 0005508 . 019204 4 TO 4.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 26801 4.07 4. .30 4.00 2680.5-8 2.825 0.0023073 0. 08179 28201 28206 .3.07 .0006126 2.69 .0014772 . 01996 46101 0. 000988 0.02472 4610.5-7 . 05495 Average . Average . 4.123 .000988 .02472 2.806 .0005496 1 . 019588 MORE THAN 4.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN. 50901 4.95 0. 001074 0.02171 50905-6 3.435 0.0008992 0. 02001 Average . 3. 435 .0004496 1 . 010005 Table 26. — Summary of analyses, shoioing transmission of nitrogen from one generation to another. 1903 1903 Range of percentage of proteid nitrogen. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Num- ber of analy- ses. Proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram) . Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram) . Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Num- ber of analy- ses. Proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram) . Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram). 1 to 2 1.66 2.35 2.61 3.24 3.68 4.12 4.95 15 3 2 84 31 3 1 2.59 2.68 2.49 2.93 2.91 2.81 3.43 46 13 11 199 79 8 2 0.0004960 . 0005172 .0005147 . 0005604 . 0005.508 . 0005496 .0004496 0.01991 2 to 2.5 6. oooeoi 0. 02585 .01915 2. 5 to 3 . 02032 3 to 3. 5 .000875 .000990 .000988 . 001074 . 02700 .02650 . 02472 .02171 .01919 3. 5 to 4 .01920 4 to 4. 5 .01959 4. 5 and over .01000 BEEEDING TO TIsrCREASE PROTEID NITROGEN. 99 In Table 26 the averages for each group are stated. This table is designed to show whether there has been a tendency for plants of a certain class to reproduce the qualities pertaining to that class, or whether these are lost in the offspring. It is unfortunate that there are not a greater number of analyses of plants of medium and of low nitrogen content. The plants selected for reproduction in 1903 were largely those of high nitrogen content, and, consequently, comparatively few analyses of the low nitrogen and medium nitrogen plants of 1903 are at hand. Table 25 shows that in the main there is a tendency for each class of plants to reproduce in the same relation to the other classes, but that there is less difference between the extreme classes in the off- spring than in the parent plants. In other words, while all plants tend to reproduce their own qualities, those plants varying widely from the average produce, in general, offspring varying from the average less widely than did the parents. Although this is a rule, its application to the individual is not universal. Certain plants may be found whose tendency to variation extends through both generations. There is also wide variation between certain plants of the same parent. For instance, the plants numbered from 21205 to 21212, all of which come from the same parent, vary from 2.16 to 5.23 per cent in proteid nitrogen content, while plants 69805 and 69806 vary from 5.82 to 1.66 per cent in this constituent.^' It would seem, therefore, entirely reasonable to believe that a very considerable increase in the proteid nitrogen content of wheat may bo effected by careful and continuous reproduction from plants of high proteid nitrogen content. Table 27 contains the analyses of plants raised in 1902 and their progeny raised in 1903, arranged according to the number of grams of proteid nitrogen contained in the average kernel of the former. Table 27. — Analyses showing transmission of proteid nitrogen in average kernel. 1903 1903 Range of proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram). Proteid nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel (gram). Num- ber of anal- yses. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram) . Proteid nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel (gram) . Num- ber of anal- yses. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram). 0.000600 to 0.000700 0.000700 to 0.000800 O.OOOSOO to 0.000900 0.000900 to 0.001000 0.001000 and over . . 0. 000659 .000776 .000850 .0009,38 . 001077 3 9 18 18 15 3.03 3.29 3.33 3.37 3.71 0. 02220 . 02405 .02576 . 02796 .02880 0. 000496 .000444 .000.544 1 .000514 .000593 8 15 38 35 28 2.59 2.68 2.91 2.89 3.06 0.01895 .01673 .01875 .01784 . 01905 « Table 25 represents the properties of each plant grown in 1903 arranged according to immediate families. For instance, plants numbered 17305-17308 are all the offspring of the same plant grown in 1902. The parent bears the number 17301. This is the system of records devised by Prof. W. M. Hays, formerly of the University of Minnesota. tore lUO IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 28. — Analyses showing transmission of kernel weight. 1903 1903 Range of weight of aver- age kernel (gram). Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram). Num- ber of anal- yses. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Proteid | nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel (gram). Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram). • Num- ber of anal- yses. Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen in aver- age ker- nel (gram). Below 024 0.02253 . 02515 .02709 . 02878 .03152 12 12 18 16 6 3.61 3.28 3.43 3.41 3.31 0.000811 .000813 .000927 .000993 .001044 0.01684 .01740 .01947 . 01875 . 01869 19 28 3.S 31 12 2.69 0. 000450 0.024 to 0.026 2.88 ! .000503 026 to 0.028 2.91 1 .000.562 0.02S to 0.0.30 0.0.30 and over 2.98 ; .000573 2.96 .000548 Table 28 shows the analyses of plants raised in 1902 and their prog- eny raised in 1903, arranged according to weight of average kernel. There is more variation in this table tlian in the preceding one, but the tendency toward transmission of proteid nitrogen in the average kernel may be noted. The averages for 1902 are much higher than for 1903, owing partly to the higher percentage and partly to greater kernel weight. The weight of the average kernel shows some tendency toward transmission, although there are some variations. It will be noticed that the kernels average much heavier in 1902 than in 1903, and that in spite of this the percentage of proteid nitrogen is higher in 1902. The relation of light kernel and high percentage of nitrogen does not therefore appear to hold as between crops of different years. All of the qualities of which determinations have been made in both years appear to be transmitted. It may be safely assumed that certain plants will have greater power to transmit these qualities than will the average plant. Such plants w411 assert themselves in the course of three or four generations. From these plants individuals may be selected that have a combination of the desired qualities. YIELD OF GRAIN AS AFFECTED BY SUSCEPTIBILITY TO COLD. As has already been stated, a large number of plants on the breed- ing plots were killed during the winter of 1902-3. This afforded an opportunity to ascertain the effect of the severe weather upon the surviving plants. The question arose whether the surviving plants of a family of which a large percentage of members were killed yielded less per plant than the plants of a family of which but a small per- centage had succumbed. As each spike of the crop of 1902 was represented by a number of plants, and as records of each plant were available, there were very extensive data at hand from which to secure information on the subject. In Table 29 the surviving plants of each immediate family, or, in other words, the surviving plants descended from the same plant of the previous year, are classified according to the percentage of plants that survived the winter. Thus all plants of which only from 10 to 20 YIELD AS AFFECTED BY SUSCEPTIBILITY TO COLD. 101 per cent survived are orrouped together. In the next class are all plants of which from 20 to 80 per cent survived. The other classes increase by 10 per cent surviving plants until 70 per cent is reached. All plants of which more than 70 per cent survived form the last class. Table 30 gives a summary of Table 29, the averages for each class being shown. From this table it will be seen that with an increase in the proportion of surviving plants there is an increase in the weight of grain per plant and in the number of kernels per plant. It is therefore to be concluded that decrease in yield from winter- killing is due not only to the loss of plants that are destroyed, but also to a decreased yield from most of the surviving plants. Table 30 also shows that the weight of the average kernel is not affected b}^ the freezing of a large proportion of the family, the decreased yield being due, it may be assumed, to the decreased number of kernels, owing to a decreased ability to tiller. , With an increase in the proportion of surviving plants there is, perhaps, a slight decrease in the percentage of proteid nitrogen in the kernels and in the number of grams of proteid nitrogen in the average kernel, although this is so slight and so irregular that it would not be safe to draw any conclusions from it. The total pro- duction of proteid nitrogen per plant naturally increases. Table 29. — Yields of plants, arranged according to percentage killed in each family. 10 TO 20 PER CENT. Percent- age of Weight Weight Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Proteid Proteid Record number for 1902. plants In 1903 of ker- nels on Num- ber of of aver- age nitrogen in kei'- nitrogen in average surviv- plant kernels. kernel nels kernel ing from 1902. (gram). (gram). (gram). (gram). 18801 11.1 2. 1462 137 0. 01567 2.02 0.04335 0.0003164 20801 10. 14.6942 697 .021.57 3.32 .48784 .0006999 2.5201 18.2 7.7295 363 .02173 2.73 . 20732 .0005947 33301 16.7 2.9905 156 .01858 2.73 . 07566 .0005066 37301 16.7 14.3 6. 1394 2.5134 309 139 .01987 .01808 2.96 2.84 . 18173 .07138 . OOO088I .0005135 38001 39201 16.7 21.. 5399 1,031 .02089 2.11 . 45435 .0004407 39401 16.7 9. 3541 447 .02093 2.88 .21399 . 0006027 40201 14.3 3. 6302 194 .01871 4.69 . 17026 .0008776 40401 16.7 .6316 46 .01373 3.17 .02002 .0004352 42901 16.7 1.2499 67 .01866 3.17 .036.50 .0005447 43401 16.7 2.8000 124 .022.58 2.92 .08176 .0006594 44501 16.7 5.9990 340 .01764 2.94 . 17637 .0005187 45001 16.7 3.2340 235 .01376 3.58 . 11575 .0004927 45701 14.3 . 7532 44 .01712 4.18 .03148 .0007155 45801 16.7 1.5298 124 .01234 1.84 .02815 .00027(10 49501 14.3 1.2716 67 .01898 3.24 .04120 .0006149 49901 14.3 .6760 23 . 02939 3.62 .02436 .0010640 51001 16.7 15.5835 862 .01804 1.34 .20881 .0002422 57101 16.7 3. 7263 407 .00916 2.76 .10285 .0002527 58.501 16.7 7.4516 273 .02730 2.95 .21982 .0008052 .58701 16.7 16.7 2. 5436 2.3031 235 170 .01082 .013.55 3.01 2.43 .076,56 .05.596 .0003258 .0003292 58901 60601 16.7 .5952 35 .01701 1.87 .01113 .0003180 62801 16.7 1.3451 HI .01212 3.25 . 04272 . 0003938 69301 16.7 2.0430 103 .01984 4.42 . 09030 .0008767 74301 16.7 4.4222 216 .02047 1.98 .087.56 .0004054 84401 16.7 8. 7448 428 .02043 2.48 . 21687 .0005067 91301 14.3 3.0940 138 .02242 3.21 .09932 .0007197 94101 Average . . 14.3 .5.595 22 .02543 2.67 .01494 .0006790 15.78 4. 7098 251.4 .01856 2.91 . 12294 .00051366 102 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 29. — Yields of plants , arranged according to percentage Mlled in each family — Cont'd. 20 TO 30 PER CENT. Record number for 1902. 18901 27001 34601 36901 , 39601 40301 40501 42201 42401 43.501 48701 48801 57801 57901 58801 71901 80301 81501 91901 94601 Average . Percent- age of plants in 1903 surviv- ing from 1902. 20.0 20.0 28.6 20.0 28.6 25.0 20.0 25.0 20.0 25.0 28.6 25.0 20.0 25.0 28.6 20.0 20.0 20.0 22.2 28.6 23.5 Weight of ker- nels on plant (gram) . 1.2046 16.4120 6. 1962 5.0200 4.6383 3. 6003 4. 1546 1.0827 1.4892 1.4464 5.2800 9.8346 4. 8988 2.4731 12.5470 28. 2136 1.^1. 7835 2. 8327 3.4961 6. 2877 6. 84457 Num- t)er of kernels. 84 866 280 267 346 179 170 59 66 93 321 547 270 221 626 1,260 729 146 199 106 Weight of a ver- age kernel (gram). 0.01431 .01895 .02213 . 01880 .01341 .02011 .02444 .01615 .02251 .01,555 . 01643 .01798 .01814 .01118 . 02024 . 02239 . 02165 . 01940 .017.56 . 04425 341.75 .019779 Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. 3.64 2.63 3.12 3.88 2.37 3.11 •2.82 2.54 3.07 4.13 3.06 2.70 2.87 3.18 2.31 2.47 1.81 2.94 3.09 1.87 Proteid nitrogen in ker- nels (gram). 0. 04437 . 43164 . 19332 . 19478 .10967 .11197 .11716 . 03587 .04572 .05974 . 16124 .26553 . 14060 .07859 .33.541 . 69688 . 28569 .08328 . 10771 .11373 . 18065 Proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram). 0. 0005219 . 0004984 . 0006904 . 0007295 . 0003177 . 0006255 . 0006892 . 0004494 .0006927 .0006423 .0005038 . 0004877 . 0005207 . 0003556 . 0004658 .0005531 .0003919 . 0005704 .000.5415 .0008062 .0005527 30 TO 40 PER CENT. 26101 28201 28801 33901 37901 38501 38701 18301 .50901 ,59601 , 69701. , 88901 92301 Average . 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 37.5 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.6 1.9790 122 4.3698 219 8. 3240 386 6.7169 313 .5757 28 5.03306 252 7.2545 365 7.3424 315 2.0631 167 8. 44.56 474 3. 7810 244 7. 6051 419 4. 1975 253 5. 2065 273.6 0. 01704 . 01996 .02311 . 02057 .01820 .01814 . 01988 .02117 .01000 .01796 . 01.550 .01812 .01611 .01813 3.19 3.07 2.96 2.21 2.48 3.25 2.59 3.08 3.43 2.14 2. .50 2.74 3.93 2.! 0. 06318 . 13415 . 2.5019 . 12186 . 01447 .24284 . 18789 .21633 .07041 . 18099 .094.53 . 20632 . 18308 , 15125 0. 0005091 .0006126 .000(i,S42 .0004466 . 00045.56 .C0l)673S .000514S . 000ti433 . 0004496 . 0003842 . 0003,S74 .00049116 . 0006454 .0005310 40 TO 50 PER CENT. 17501 42.9 44.4 42.9 42.9 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 44.4 42.9 42.9 1.1495 4. 6950 2.9905 1. 8251 .5329 8. 3672 2.0970 2. 6462 6. 9409 2. 9064 5. 3261 4. 1705 5. 4034 8.6610 55 n.nis65 4.01 3.01 2.73 2.73 3.17 3.15 3.01 2.48 3.40 2.96 2.59 2.67 3.32 2.27 0.04268 . 14144 .07566 . 04998 .01712 .26913 . 06312 .06.563 . 22024 .07905 . 14008 .11199 . 16649 .20040 0. 0007259 . 000.3449 . 0005066 . 0005390 . 00O.5396 .0009502 . 0005738 .0003930 . 0004700 . 00052SS . 0004261 . 000,50.53 .000.5828 .0004046 21301 ...■•. 2,59 1 .01819 156 ' .01858 93 .01963 32 : .01664 321 .02946 110 .01906 167 : .01,585 472 - 01 4.=lfi 33101 44601 .... 50701 72401 . . 72801 72901 76201 81401 . 156 314 238 297 484 .01791 . 01622 .01894 .01771 .01769 86101 92201 . . 92501 94401 Average 41.7 4. 1223 225.3 .01843 2.96 .11736 . 0005493 YIELD AS AFFECTED BY SUSCEPTIBILITY TO COLD. 103 Table 29. — Yields of plants, arranged according to percentage killed in each family — Cont'd. 50 TO 60 PER CENT. Record number for 1902. Percent- age of plants m 1903 surviv- ing from 1902. Weight of ker- nels on plant (gram). Num- ber of kernels. Weight of aver- age kernel (gram). Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen in ker- nels (gram). Proteid nitrogen in average kernel (gram). 17301 50.0 .54.5 50.0 50.0 50.0 .50.0 ,57. 1 .50.0 .50. 50.0 .50.0 .50.0 ,57. 1 50.0 .50.0 50.0 57.1 3.0000 11.7777 6. ()626 12.9727 5. 2333 6. 0463 6. 8220 4. 1993 1.9040 2. 3719 4.8728 6.0242 9. 3804 4.7193 7.2278 4. 2040 5.6295 156 581 327 611 271 273 328 237 89 140 273 309 435 224 334 295 266 0.01980 .01961 .02012 .02105 .01818 -.02205 . 02019 .01946 .02284 .01497 .01832 .01844 .02178 .01984 .02186 .01468 .02236 3.21 2.65 2.85 2.56 1.98 2.61 2.86 2.64 2.97 2.36 2.69 2.83 2.37 2.82 3.74 2.63 2.57 0. 09556 .30061 . 18906 .31.509 . 10621 . 14759 . 18949 .12164 .05663 .048.52 .13084 . 15608 .18680 . 12281 .17078 . 11078 .14178 0. 0006380 .0(K)516l . (X)05f97 .000.5371 0003569 .0005729 . 0005769 .0005130 .0006768 .0003388 .0004924 .00051,S6 .00051.50 .0005.523 . 0008247 .0003778 .0005366 17401 20701 27201 33401 33601 34201 37701 39501 4.j(i01 4611)1 55201 57601 63101 69801 85201 88G01 Average 51.5 6.0616 302.9 .01974 2.73 . 15237 .0005361 60 TO 7 PER CENT. 21201 66.7 60.0 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 66.7 60.0 66.7 66.7 66. 7 60.0 66.7 60.0 66. 7 66.7 60.0 66.7 62.5 60.0 2. 5064 5.8304 2.9653 11.6655 6.0446 8.6833 5. 4606 10.4714 5.0125 7. 7761 7.6312 8.1116 4. 1723 5.9586 4.6412 9.3629 7. 7977 8.3679 4.1284 • 4.6848 5.4211 137 288 166 608 341 476 280 529 319 443 383 382 229 309 265 396 354 451 209 258 318 0.01956 .01937 .01890 .01919 .01813 .01824 .01874 .01914 .01725 .01752 .01973 .02099 .01791 .01919 .01758 .02245 .02194 .01854 .01951 .01763 .01672 3.57 2.64 2.62 2.38 3.06 3.25 2.27 2.85 2.71 2. .54 2.49 2.m 2.17 3.25 4.04 2.94 2. .59 2.49 2.87 2.81 2.58 0.09431 .11603 .05309 .27765 . 18124 .25347 . 12536 .29155 . 13688 .20018 . 19910 .20327 .06748 .17.590 . 14328 .28276 .21334 .20681 . 13763 . 12877 .14079 0. 0006846 .000.5027 .0006177 .0004.567 .0005437 .0005928 .0004328 .0005428 .0004658 .0004588 .0004900 .0005320 .0003749 .0005924 .0007214 .0006629 .0005639 .0004589 .0005622 .0004908 .0004336 32201 32601 48101 . ... 48501 55001 5.5301 55501 57001 57301 57401 57501 63501 60001 72601 79701 73301 74601 84901 92901 95701 Average 64.6 6.5092 340 .01896 2.80 .17280 .0005324 70 PER CENT AND OVER. 21701 87.5 80.0 88.9 87.5 80.0 71.4 80.0 71.4 71.4 83.3 83.3 83.3 75.0 83.3 75.0 83.3 100.0 100.0 71.4 83.3 75.0 100.0 9. 75524 11., 5721 8. 3406 4.0677 7. 1981 3. 8910 6. 6162 6.8618 3.9532 4. 4668 10. 2785 10. 9242 10. 7383 11.2241 2.8084 7.5858 3.4799 12. 7593 4.4131 5.9603 7.0172 7.2956 447 622 398 229 329 206 343 310 186 1 277 435 489 617 563 227 394 191 569 234 339 388 374 0. 02157 .01963 .02114 .01674 .02045 .01871 .01913 .02152 .01983 .01.502 .02211 .02234 .01744 . 02034 .01159 .02001 .01695 .02272 .01822 .01748 .D1780 .01767 2.78 3.13 3. .53 3.16 2.82 2.77 2.93 2.69 ! 3.72 1 2.90 2.55 2.56 2.75 2.49 2.88 2.92 2.78 1 2.27 2.63 2.58 2.85 2. ,50 0.30200 .3.5575 .30995 .12604 .20306 . 10870 .18438 . 17267 . 11558 . 100.33 .29008 .27788 .29783 .27997 .08385 . 18248 . 103.55 .29500 . 12426 . 16548 .21294 . 18689 0. 0006049 . 0006057 .0007501 . 0005292 .0005768 . 0005189 .000.5447 . 0005758 .0007264 .00041.59 . 000,5589 .0005632 . 0004790 .000.5065 0003383 . 0006050 .0004745 .0005170 .0004826 .0(X)4426 . 0Ot).5O72 .0004418 21801 21901 22201 26.801 26901 27301 27.501 38601 48401 55601 55901 56101 56201 58201 65301 74501 81701 92401 94201 94901 95501 Average 82.4 7.3275 371.2 . 01902 2.83 .20357 .0005348 104 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 30. — Summary of yields of plants, arranged according to percentage killed in each family. Percentage of plants grouped according to survivors of 1903 from 1902. Num- ber of analy- ses. Percent- age of plants in 1903 sur- viving from 1902. Weight of ker- nels on plant (grams). Num- ber of kernels per plant. Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram) Percent- age of proteid nitrogen in ker- nels. Proteid nitrogen (gram) in— Kernels. Average kernel. 10 to 20 30 20 13 14 17 21 22 15.8 23.5 33. fi 41.7 51.5 64.6 82.4 4.7098 6.8446 5. 2065 4.1223 6.0616 6.5092 7.3275 251 342 274 225 303 340 371 0.01856 . 01978 .01813 .01843 .01974 .01896 .01902 2.91 2.88 2.89 2.96 , 2.73 2.80 2.83 0. 12294 . 18065 . 15125 .11736 . 15237 .17280 . 20357 0. 0005437 20 to 30 . 0005527 30 to 40 .0005310 40 to 50 . 0005493 50 to 60 .0005361 60 to 70 . 0005324 . 0005348 YIELD AND NITROGEN CONTENT OF GRAIN AS AFFECTED BY LENGTH OF GROWING PERIOD. Early-maturing varieties of w^ieat are, in general, better yielding sorts in Nebraska than are later maturing ones. There are some exceptions to this rule, however, Turkish Red yielding better than any earlier maturing variety. The advantages from early maturity have usually been ascribed to the cooler weather and greater supply of moisture that obtain in the early summer. The hot, dry weather common in July is thought to prevent the filling out of the kernel and to cause light yield and light volume weight. Each w^heat plant on the breeding plots was harvested separately in 1903, and a record was kept of the date of harvesting of each of these plants. These data have been tabulated for the purpose of showing the relation betw^een the length of the growing season and the yield of grain from individual plants of the same variety. Table 31 contains these data, tabulated according to the date of ripening. Plants ripening betw^een the 7th and 11th of July, 1903, form the first class, those ripening between July 1 1 and 15 the second class, and the succeeding classes increase by four days until July 27, all ripening after that date constituting the last class. The dates of ripening thus extend over a period of three weeks. The season of 1903 w-as a very wet and cool one. The effect of this upon the wheat crop is shown by the fact that the crop in the field was not ready to harvest until July 10, while usually it is har- vested betw^een the 20th and 30th of June. Even at the close of the ripening period the weather did not become dry or hot as compared with the normal season. It will therefore be seen that the ordinary advantages from early maturity did not obtain, or at least not in the customary w^ay. It may also be said that some of the later maturing wheats yielded as w^ell in 1904 as did the Turkish Red. Table 32 is a summary of Table 31, with a statement of the average for each class. Table 33 is a summary of the same plants, tabulated according to the yield of grain per plant. YIELD, ETC. , AS AFFECTED BY GROWING PERIOD. 105 Table 34 is a summary of the same plants, tabulated according to the percentage of proteid nitrogen. It is very evident from these tables that the early-maturing plants are the most prolific. The weight of the average kernel remains very uniform, so that the later maturing plants do not appear to have pro- duced shrunken kernels. Evidently the plants ripening during the first four days produced the largest amounts of grain, and their ker- nels were as heavy as those produced later. The smaller productive- ness of the later maturing plants in the season of 1903 does not appear to have been due to a shrunken or light kernel. The percentage of proteid nitrogen appears to be somewhat less in the grain of the early-maturing plants. The number of grams of proteid nitrogen in the average kernel is likewise less in these early- maturing plants. The relation of length of growing season to both yield and compo- sition of grain is contrary to what might have been supposed. A long growing period without excessivel}^ hot or dry weather might naturally be thought to increase the yield and increase the percentage of carbohydrates in the grain. The season of 1904 was very similar to that of 1903 up to time of wheat harvest. The data for 1904, when tabulated, will serve as a check on the results obtained in 1903. Table .31 . — Yield and nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to length of growing period. DATES RIPE: JULY 7 TO 11, 1903. Record number. Date ripe. Yield (grams) . Percent- age of proteid nitrogen. Weight of aver- age Icer- nel (gram). Proteid nitrogen (gram) in— Kernels. Average kernel. 21805 Juh- 10 20. 9290 2.69 0.01699 0. 56299 0. 0004569 2180fi ....do... 14.2450 2.71 .02378 . 38604 .0006444 21807 ....do... 9.4172 2.73 . 02498 . 25709 . 0006664 21808 ....do... 19. 7446 2.57 .01708 . 50744 . 0004389 21809 ....do... 8.0214 2.73 .01919 . 21898 .0005238 21810 ....do... 1.0304 2.69 . 019816 .02772 . 0005330 21811 ....do... 11.9114 3.75 .021007 .44666 . 0007877 21812 ....do... 14.8139 4.26 .01507 .63107 . 0006420 21813 ....do... 4. 0258 4.04 .01877 . 16377 . 0007582 55506 Julv 8 17.8506 2.80 .02062 .49995 .0005773 55507 ....do... 9. 8228 2.63 . 01949 . 25834 .0005126 55605 ....do... 10. 9180 2.64 .02184 .28823 . 0005765 55606 ....do... 11.0930 2.58 . 02205 . 28580 . 0005690 55607 ....do... 2.3931 2.69 .01734 .06437 . 0004665 55608 ....do... 22. 5848 2.31 .02699 .52194 .0006236 55905 ....do... 5. 7948 2.67 .01751 . 15470 . 0004674 55906 July 7 7.9968 2.81 .01603 .22471 . 0004503 55907 Julv 8 19. 3966 2.59 .02590 .50238 . 0006707 55908 ....do... 12. 1221 2.42 .02175 .29575 . 0005262 .55909 July 9 9. 2120 2.30 .03050 .21187 .0007016 56106 July 8 12.0161 2.57 .01866 .30881 . 0004795 56107.. July 7 July 8 14.4556 9. 3093 2.96 2.42 .01658 .01829 .42790 .22529 . 0004907 . 0004426 56206 56207 ....do... 10. 9073 13.5720 2.34 2.61 .02361 . 02356 .25.522 .34616 . 0005524 . aX)6149 56208 ....do... 56209 ....do... 15. 8086 2.59 . 01664 .40945 . 0004310 81505 July 10 2.8327 2.94 . 01940 .08328 . 0005704 81706 July 8 15. 3928 2.71 . 02132 .41715 . 0005778 81707 ....do... 18.3614 2.34 .02336 . 42965 . 0005466 81708 ....do... 7.3993 2.41 .02578 . 17833 . 0006213 81709 ....do... 16.4692 2.28 .02175 . 37548 .0004960 106 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 31. — Yield and nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to length of growing period— Continued . DATES RIPE: JULY 7 TO 11, 1903— Continued. Record number. Date ripe. Yield (grams). Percent- age of proteid nitrogen. Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram). Proteid nitrogen (gram) in— Kernels. Average kernel. 81710 July 8 July 10 do.. . 9.1411 1.6362 9. 9456 5. 1584 1.5355 9.8719 12.1918 2.3678 3. 6977 .3146 11.0548 12. 1592 14.4617 2.9475 2. &356 10. 3426 5.1629 .7577 1.92 2.80 2.53 2.61 2.47 2.42 2.94 1.96 3.60 2.81 2.74 2.59 2.56 2.48 1.81 2.54 2.73 2.47 0.02308 . 02731 . 02068 . 02205 .02075 .02100 .01948 .01894 .01696 .00850 .01852 .02029 .01954 .02136 -.01783 . 01626 . 01934 .01457 0. 17550 . 04581 .25162 . 13463 .03793 .23890 .35844 .04641 . 13312 .00884 .30291 .31492 .37023 .07310 . 05132 . 26270 .14095 .01872 0.0004432 .0007640 . 0005231 . 0005754 .0005125 .0005082 .0005726 .0003713 .0006106 .0002389 .0005074 .0005515 . 0005003 . 0005297 .0003228 .0004131 . 0005279 . 0003599 88605 88606 88607 88608 ....do... ....do... 88609 ....do... 94907 ....do... 94908 ....do... 94909 July 9 do... ....do... 95505 95506 95507 9.5.508 95509 ....do... ....do... ....do... 95510 ....do... 95705 July 10 do ... 95706 95707 do ... Average . . . July 8. 9 9.9067 2.69 .02024 .26475 .0005.356 DATES RIPE: JULY 11 TO 15, 1903. 21905 July 13 ....do... 14.3111 10. 4800 2.9248 3. 5574 12. 1819 8. 4593 9. 72.36 10. 1925 2. 6965 6.0173 11. 5675 16. 4120 16. 4061 19. 1854 3. 3266 5. 5666 13. .3011 3. 0850 4.5123 12.0399 10.0005 5. 5S24 3. 2964 11.2890 . .3485 6. 4302 9. 4585 1. 6036 11.2008 9.8346 7.9684 7. 1852 2. 5160 4. 1323 5.6864 9. 5078 5.7431 6. 5232 1. 5364 10. 1836 3. 3176 3. 7263 8. 5777 7. 9772 4.7117 9.8378 .8328 2. 4923 14.9992 2.64 3.18 3.35 3.82 4.43 5.48 2.31 3.01 2.81 3.17 3.17 2.63 2.41 2.36 2.92 2.58 3.47 2.53 4.15 2.12 2.70 2.64 4.87 1.50 2.81 2.02 .3.20 2.64 2.76 2.70 3.05 3.16 2.48' 2.18 1.89 2.54 2.73 2.51 2.71 2.76 2.65 2.76 3.19 2.86 2.43 1.69 1.98 2.75 2.62 0.01809 . 02563 . 01851 .02056 . 02317 .02209 . 01807 .02072 .00953 .02019 .02062 . 01895 .01841 . 02469 .02004 '.02085 . 01945 . 01847 ■ .01777 .02183 .02252 .02287 .01324 .01572 .01291 .02048 . 01701 .02296 . 01858 .01798 . 02028 .01593 . 01507 .01931 . 01663 . 02395 .01709 . 01959 . 01746 .014.53 . 01975 .00916 . 01666 . 018.38 . 01801 . 01705 . 02031 . 01846 .01968 0. 37781 .3.3403 . 09798 . 13589 .53889 . 46356 . 22461 . 30680 . 07577 . 19075 . 36671 . 43164 . 39539 . 45276 .09712 . 14362 .32853 . 07805 . 18726 .24942 .27003 . 14608 . 16053 . 16933 .00979 .12989 . 30267 . 04233 . 30986 . 26.553 . 24303 . 22705 .06240 . 09008 . 10747 ■ .24150 . 15679 . 16373 . 04164 . 28107 . 08792 .10285 . 29188 . 22815 . 11445 .16626 .01649 . 06854 . 39297 0. 0004777 .0008168 .0006201 .00078.55 .0010265 . 0012103 . 0004404 . 0006235 .0002677 . 0006401 .0006537 .0004984 . 0004437 .0005827 . 0005850 .0005379 . 0004803 .0004674 . 0007373 .0004627 .0006082 . 0006037 . 0006447 .0002358 . 0003627 .0004137 . 0005444 .(X)06062 . 0005127 .0004877 .0006185 . 0005034 . 0003736 . 0004210 .0003142 .0006225 . 0004667 .0004917 . 0004731 .0004010 .000.5233 . 0002.527 . (XX)5S26 . 0005257 . 0004387 .0002881 .0004022 . 0005077 . 0005157 21906 21907 ....do... 21908 ....do... 21909 21911 ....do... ....do... 21912 ....do... 21913 22205 22210 ....do... ....do... ....do... 22211 27005 27205 ....do... ....do... ....do... 27206 27207 ....do... ....do... 27305 27306 27307 ....do... ....do... ....do... 27308 ....do... 27505 ....do... 27506 ....do... 27508 ....do... 48406 ....do... 48407 48408 ....do... ....do... 48409 ....do... 48506 ....do... 48507 ....do... 48508 ....do... 48806 ....do... 55005 55006 55305 ....do... ....do... ....do... 55306 55307 ....do... ....do... 55308 ....do... 56105 56205 57005 ....do... ....do... ....do... 57006 ....do... 57007 ....do... 57105 57305 57306 57307 ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... 57308 ....do..-. 57405 57406 57407 ....do... ....do... ....do... YIELD, ETC., AS AFFECTED BY GROWING PERIOD. 107 Table 31. — Yield ami nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to length of growing period — Continued. DATES RIPE: JULY 11 TO 15, 1903— Continued. Record number. Date ripe. Yield (grams). Percent- age of proteid Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram). Proteid nitrogen (gram) in — Average kerBel., nitrogen. Kernels. 57408 July 13 12. 2004 2.61 0. 02047 0. 31842 0.0005343 57506 ....do... 2. 7616 2.80 .01.534 .07733 .0004296 57.507 ....do... 6. 9861 2.85 . 01946 . 19905 . 0005545 57508 ....do... 12. 0728 2.21 .03177 . 26680 . 0007021 57509 ....do... 10. 6261 2.54 .01739 . 26990 .0004417 57606 ....do... 3. 0790 2.74 . 02333 . 0S436 . (X)06391 57607 ....do... 16. 4433 1.73 . 02234 . 24847 . 0003865 57608 ....do... 8. 6189 2.64 .01968 . 22756 . 0005195 58206 ....do... 1..3961 2.67 .00943 . 03728 . 0002519 58207 ....do... 4. 2207 3.09 . 01375 . 13042 . 0004248 65305 ....do... 1. 8018 4.92 . 02310 . 08865 .0011365 65306 ....do... 9. 8298 2.41 .01807 .23690 . 0004355 65.307 ....do... 7.0051 2.28 .01878 . 15971 . 0004282 65308 ....do... 11.7006 2.09 .02008 . 24468 . 0004197 94905 July 11 4. 4423 2.35 .01553 . 10439 . 0003650 94906 Average. . ....do... 12. 3862 3.41 .01808 . 42236 . 0006166 July 13 7.6611 2.81 . 01887 .20820 . 0005290 DATES RIPE: JULY 15 TO 19, 1903. 18906 July 15 do. . . 0. 9229 19. 3318 12.3685 1.8242 4.6045 1.5940 2.9886 .2062 3. 2340 .7081 .9701 1.9154 15. 5835 1.5452 3. 3006 6.0090 1.1166 2.0970 7.1181 9. 7922 5. 3069 9.90,34 3. 4436 3.5486 5.2616 1. 1074 3.6926 6. 6206 2.38.59 6. 0091 8. 2366 .8983 3. 7820 5.7131 3. 8709 9.6779 2. 7000 2.8816 4. 4673 3.2388 10. 1363 . 5595 1.2117 7. 5006 13. 70.57 3. 7828 10. 5556 6. 7664 .7319 11.8435 3.48 4.71 2.19 3.02 2.87 3.73 2.13 2.44 3.58 2.82 3.31 3.66 1.34 3.24 2.79 3.54 4.65 3.01 2.60 1.98 2.83 2. 65 3.36 2.81 2.74 2.67 2.55 2.72 2.93 4.93 3.11 1.66 2.97 2.30 4.39 2. .58 3. .50 2.99 2.56 2.32 2.70 2.67 1.65 2.78 2.86 3.10 2.47 2.07 1.95 1.80 0. 01420 .02390 .02125 .01.393 . 01627 . 01968 .01916 .01086 .01376 .01161 .01276 .01398 .01804 .01717 .02001 .01642 .01718 .01906 .01784 .02106 .01811 .01814 .017.39 .01774 .01.525 .02407 .01767 .01876 .01491 . 017.32 .02168 .01695 .01827 .01814 .01690 .01916 . 01534 .01592 . 02040 .01732 .01916 .02.543 .01893 .01866 . 01909 .01175 .01923 .01615 .01307 .07544 0. 03212 .91052 .27086 . 05.508 . 13215 .05946 . 06,366 . 00.503 .11.575 . 01997 .0.3211 . 07010 . 20881 .0.5007 . 09208 .21272 .05192 .06312 . 18507 . 19388 . 1.5019 . 26245 . 11.570 .09972 .14417 .02957 .09416 . 18008 .06991 .29625 .25616 .01491 .112.33 . 13140 . 16993 . 24969 .094.50 . 08616 .11436 .07514 .27.367 .01494 .01999 . 20851 . 39199 .11727 . 26073 .14007 .01427 .21319 0. 0004941 .0011283 .0004654 .000.3662 . 0004670 . 0007340 . 0004081 . 0002649 .0004927 . 0003273 . 0004225 .0005117 . 0002422 .0005563 . 0005581 .0005812 . 0007988 .00057.38 .0004638 .0004170 .0005126 .0004807 .000.5844 . 0004986 .0004179 .01X)642S .0004.505 .0005102 . 0004369 .0008539 .0006741 . 0002814 . 0005426 ■ . 0004171 . 0007421 .0004944 . 000.5369 . 0004760 . 000.5220 . 0004018 .0005173 .0006790 .0003124 . 0005187 . 0005460 . 000.3642 . 0004749 . 0003343 .0002549 . 0013576 21706 21707 do... 26105 33406 ....do... July IS . .do... 34206 34208 ....do... 37906 July 15 do. . . 45005 45605. .. . do . . . 48405 ....do... 48505 . . . : ....do... 51005 .do..-. 63105 July 18 do. . . 63106 66006 ....do... 72605 ....do... 72806 74605 ....do... do 81705 do 88905 July 16 do. . 88906 . 91905 91906 ....do... ....do... 92205 ..do... 92206 ....do... 92207 92208 ....do... ....do... 92305 . . . do . 92306 ....do... 92406 . do 92407 .do... 92408 92409 ....do... . do.. 92506 92.507... . ....do... do. 92905 92906 ....do... ....do... 92907 92908 ....do... ....do... 92909 94105 ....do... July 15 July 16 ....do... 94''05 94206 94207 94208 94406 94407 94605 ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... 94606 Average. . ....do... July 16.2 5. 13.54 2.87 .01869 . 14452 .0005222 108 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 31. — Yield ami nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to length of growing period — Continued. DATES RIPE: JULY 19 TO 23, 1903. Record numlier. Date ripe. Yield (grams). Percent- age of proteid nitrogen. Weiglit of aver- age ker- nel (gram). Proteid nitrogen (gram) in — Kernels Average kernel. 17409 July 21 July 20 July 21 do. . . 14.8957 .3885 2. 1462 9. 9070 2. 4690 .2806 4.1516 5.8080 .8478 17. 1820 .4336 2. 7255 17. 2324 3.8811 4. 2376 1.8276 2. 9999 2.0162 2. 5601 11.1476 2. 2862 8.'4605 .3037 3. 0228 6. 7665 7. 2545 .6316 .3161 1.8246 11.66.55 12.0278 2.6571 6. 1989 2. 1.571 17.4226 11.3.592 23. 1471 9. 7084 9.3120 4.0230 3. 1555 2. 0430 28. 2136 9. 3629 3.4442 9. 1522 14. 6802 4. .5806 9. 0386 9.2130 5.4411 .7130 7. 5438 4.9315 3. 4356 3.6006 2.75 4.70 2.02 2.77 2.58 3.15 2.90 3.45 2.59 2.71 3.84 2.60 2.80 3.09 2.71 2.61 2. SO 2.88 2.91 1.61 2.81 2.63 4. 55 2.82 2.74 2.59 3.17 1.46 2.44 2.38 2.87 3.29 3.00 4.21 2.60 2.56 2.74 2.16 2.43 1.90 3. .59 4.42 2.47 1.89 5.59 2.13 3.86 3.49 2.27 3.02 4.45 2.32 3.43 2.66 3.10 2.49 0.01857 . 01340 . 01.567 . 02282 .02024 . 02806 .01837 .01641 .01437 .01968 . 01399 .01793 . 02390 . 01748 .01859 .01792 .01667 .02145 .01939 .02194 .01921 .02110 . 01598 .01913 .02319 .01988 .01373 .01264 .01806 .01919 .02.543 . 01692 .01635 .01828 .01846 .01965 .01999 .01712 .02233 .01934 .01814 .01984 .02239 .01724 .01832 . 02191 .02484 . 02036 . 02270 .01869 .01217 .01927 .01975 .01312 .01605 . 01895 0. 40964 .01826 .04335 . 27443 .06399 .00884 • . 12039 . 20038 . 02196 . 46563 .01665 . 07086 . 48250 .11992 . 11484 .04995 .08400 .05807 .074,50 . 17948 .06424 . 22251 .01382 . 08522 . 18.540 . 18789 .02002 .00462 .04452 .27765 . 34,524 .08742 . 18596 .09082 .45299 .29079 . 63422 .20970 .22628 .07644 .11328 .09030 . 69688 . 18538 .19253 . 19936 . 56666 . 15986 .20518 .27823 .24213 .01654 . 25873 .13118 . 10650 . 08965 0.000510S . 0006296 .0003164 . 0006181 . 0005221 . 0008839 . 000.5327 . 0005660 . 0003722 . 0005334 . 000.5371 . 0004662 .0006692 . 0005402 . 000.5037 . 0004677 .0004667 .0006177 .0(10.5644 . 0003533 . 0005399 . 0005.549 .0007273 . 0005.394 . 0006475 .0005148 .00043.52 .0001846 .0004408 . 0004.567 . 0007299 .0005568 . 0004906 . 0007696 . 0004799 . 0005031 . 000.5464 .0003698 .0005426 . 0003674 .0006510 . 0008767 .0005531 .0003414 .0010241 . 0004668 . 0009588 . 0007105 . 0005154 . 0005644 .000.5417 .0004471 . 0006773 . 0003332 . 0004977 .0004719 17.505 18805 20707 20708 July 20 July 21 July 20 .. .do... 21211 21306 21308 21710 21711 July 21 22209 ....do... 26806 . . July 20 do. . . 26807 26808 ....do... 26906 July 22 July 20 . . .do. . . 26907 26909 32606 July 22 July 21 do 33105 33905 33906 ....do... 38606 do... 38607 ....do... 38608 do... 38609 38706 .... ....do... July 20 July 21 'July 26' July 21 July 20 ....do... ....do... 40405 42206 44607 48106 48305 48306 48706 55007 do . 5.5008 July 21 do.. . July 20 .55206 58805 59606 63107 . do . 63505 July 21 July 20 do... 66008 69305 71905 ....do... 72606 do.. . 72607 ....do... 72705 do . . 72706 ....do... 72707 July 21 July 20 July 21 July 20 . do 72708 74507 76206 84905 84906 ....do... 8.5206 July 21 do 92405 94209 ....do... Average. . July 20.1 6. 5399 2.93 .01886 . 18064 . 0005482 DATES RIPE: JULY 23 TO 27, 1903. 17305 July 23 3. 6302 3.9968 1.2275 2. 0907 9. 2038 16. 9987 1.8517 3. 3138 17.1115 14. 6942 3.03 3.09 3.2,5 3.29 2.18 2.88 3.09 2.78 2.83 3.32 0. 01984 .01645 .02012 .01686 .01852 .02285 . 01698 .02033 .01974 .02157 0.10999 . 12350 .03994 . 06878 .20065 . 48957 . 05722 .09212 .48428 .48784 0.0006010 . 0005082 . 0006540 .0005547 . 0004037 .0006580 . 0005249 .0005652 .0005586 .0006999 17306 17308 ....do... 17406 ....do... 17408 ....do... 17410 20705 20706 20710 20805 ....do... ....do... .-...do... ....do... ....do;.. YIELD, ETC., AS AFFECTED BY GKOWING TERIoD. 109 Table 31. — Yield and nitrogen content of grain, tabulated accordtng to hnijtli of groiring 'period — Cont inuod . DATES RIPP: JULY 23 TO 27, 1903— Continued. Record number. Date ripe. 21307 July 21705 July 21708 ' do 21709 '....do 22206 !....do 22208 i....do 26905 ! July 26908 ....do 27507 Julv 27509 do 28805 do 28806 do 33106 do 33107 do 33405 do 34205 do 34207 do 38506 Julv 38605 July 40205 do 40305 do 42905 do 44505 1.... do 44606 do 45606 do 45705 do 45805 do 46107 do 50705 do 50706 do 50905 do 55205 July 57805 do 57905 do 58505 July 58705 do 60605 do 62805 do 74606 do 74607 do 91305 Julv 92505 do Average.. July 23.2 Yield (grams). 2. 5691 1.5420 9. 2850 7.7296 2.5712 1.9090 6.4102 3. 9797 1.3746 5.3615 2.1851 14.4630 . 3089 6. 1026 8. 1268 9. 1498 13. 5556 1.6799 1.2124 3. 6302 3.6003 1.2499 5. 9990 2. 5235 4.0358 .7532 1.5298 8. 3935 .5958 .4701 2. 3982 .6893 4. 8988 2. 4731 7.4516 2. 5436 .5952 1.3451 9.6451 8. 3406 3.0940 2. 6615 Percent- age of protein nitrogen. 3.04 2.45 2.33 2.47 3.22 3.18 2.76 2.96 3.08 2.90 2.91 3.02 2.94 2.35 2.03 2.73 2.84 2.89 5.85 4.69 3.11 3.17 2.94 2.90 1.91 4.18 1.84 2.54 3.54 2.80 3.30 3.10 2.87 3.18 2.95 3.01 1.87 3.25 2.30 2.56 3.21 3.00 Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram). Protein nitrogen (gram) in— Kernels. 0.01796 .02f;59 . 02381 .02141 .01720 .01619 . 01966 .02073 .01833 .02206 .02512 .02111 .01716 .01919 .01930 .01972 . 02219 . 01975 . 01987 .01871 .02011 .01866 .01764 . 02035 . 01834 .01712 .01234 .01756 . 01986 . 01343 .01085 .01723 .01814 .01118 . 02730 .01082 .01701 .01212 .02079 . 01699 . 02242 .01706 0. 07810 . 03778 .21634 . 19092 . 08086 .06071 . 17692 .11780 .04234 . 15549 . 04o59 . 43679 . 00908 . 14341 . 16498 . 24979 . 38505 . 04855 . 07093 .17026 .11197 .03650 .17637 .07318 . 07708 .03148 .02815 .21319 .02109 .01316 .07914 .02137 . 14060 .07859 . 21982 . 07656 .01113 .04272 .22184 .21352 .09932 .07985 Average kernel. 0.0005461 .0006514 . 0005547 . 0005289 . 0005538 . 0005144 . 0005427 . 0006135 . 0005646 . 0006399 . 0007309 . 0006376 . 0005045 . 0004510 .0003919 .0005383 .0006273 .0005712 .0011627 . 0008776 . 0006255 . 0005447 . 0005187 . 0005902 . 0003504 . 0007155 . 0002700 . 0004460 . 0007032 . 0003761 . 0003581 . 0005342 . 0005207 . 0003556 . 00080.52 . 0003258 .0003180 . 0003938 . 0004781 . 0004349 . 0007197 .0005118 4.9015 2.93 .01878 .13654 ! .0005544 DATES RIPE: JULY 27. 1903, OR LATER. 17307 July 27 3. 1454 3.46 0. 02279 0. 10SS3 0. 0007886 17405 ....do... 15. 6996 2.13 .02127 . 33441 . 0004531 17506 ....do... 2. 2881 3. 52 . 02460 . 0^044 . 0008660 17507 ....do... .7720 3. 80 .01795 . 02934 . 0006822 18905 ....do... 1.4864 3. SI .01443 . 05663 . 0005498 20709 ....do... 5.3229 3.05 . 02063 . 16235 . 0006292 21205 ....do... 2. 3642 3.16 . 01922 .07471 . 0006074 21206 ....do... 2. 8564 5.23 .01917 .14939 . 0010026 21207 ....do... 2. 3066 2.96 . 01955 . 06S04 . 0005766 21208 ....do... 5. 1594 3.24 . 01798 .16712 . 0005824 21209 ....do... 1. 4484 3.61 . 01627 . 05228 . 0005875 21210 ....do... 3. 9143 5. 03 .01577 . 19689 . 0007934 21212 ....do... 1.7216 2.16 . 02049 .03718 . 0004427 21305 ....do... 6,2514 2.67 . 020037 . 16691 . 0005350 22207 ....do... 3. 2787 2. 77 . 01940 . 09082 . 0005374 25205 ....do... 10. 7836 2.71 .02066 . 28560 . 0005599 25206 ....do... 4. 6754 2.76 . 02281 . 12904 .0006295 26106 ....do... 2. 0737 2.63 . 02304 .05454 . 0006060 26107 ....do... 2, 0390 3.92 .01416 . 07993 . 0005551 26805 ....do... 4. 9456 2.81 . 02248 . 13897 . 0006317 28206 ....do... 4. 3698 3.07 .01996 . 13415 . 0006126 32206 ....do... 10. 4036 1.81 . 02052 . 18831 .0003714 32207 : ....do... 1. 2573 3.48 .01822 . 04375 . 0006341 32605 ....do... 5.2268 1.20 . 02323 .06272 . 0002788 110 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. T.\BLE 31. — Yield and nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to length of growing period — Continued. DATES RIPE: JULY 27, 1903, OR LATER— Continued. Record number. Date ripe. Yield (grams). Percent- age of proteid nitrogen. Weight of aver- age ker- nel (gram). Proteid nitrogen (gram) in— Kernels. Average kernel. 32608 July 27 do. . . 1.0183 3. 1346 7.0889 1. 11.32 7.0596 8. 1890 2. 8903 4. 1281 6. 1962 5.0200 6. 1394 8.0905 1. 2069 3. .3004 .9452 2.5134 12. 1088 21. 5399 9. 3541 1.9218 1.8862 4.6383 4. 1546 1. 8494 1. 4S92 2.8000 1. 4464 1.1271 4.6146 1.6103 4. .3615 1.2716 .6760 1.7280 3. 7407 1.9469 2. 3031 7. 1828 2. 3986 7.6690 13. 5696 2.4420 12. 01.36 8. 4415 8. 2929 2. 6462 .5572 14. 2986 4. 4222 .4096 .8172 8. 4407 15. 7835 4. 5737 1.2.391 8. 7448 3. 4766 3. 0282 7. 6241 3.78 .3.41 1.62 1..39 2.39 2.21 3.22 4. .33 3.12 3.88 2.96 2.64 2. .34 2.93 2.53 2.84 3.61 2.11 2.88 2.93 3.02 2. .37 2.82 3. 63 3.07 2.92 4.13 2. 86 .3.00 2.54 3. 13 3.24 3.62 3. ,57 3.11 1.88 2.43 2.12 2.44 2.63 2. .50 5.82 1.66 3. .36 2.95 2.48 2.39 2.92 1.98 2.73 2.60 2.35 1.81 2.62 ,3. 31 2.48 2.60 2.-56 2.63 0.01851 .02090 .02271 .01446 .02345 . 02144 .02125 . 01994 . 02213 . 01880 . 01987 . 01972 . 02155 .01710 . 02555 . 01808 .02252 . 02089 .02093 . 02869 .01699 . 01341 .02444 . 01967 . 02251 . 02258 . 015,55 . 02049 .01775 . 01964 . 01652 .01898 . 02939 .01516 .01732 .02049 . 01355 .01880 . 01568 .02073 . 02047 .02220 .02153 . 0.3963 . 01929 . 01,585 .02229 . 02291 . 02047 .01781 . 01434 . 01695 .02165 . 01862 .01721 . 02043 .01625 .01495 .01749 0. 03849 .10689 . 11223 . 01547 . 16872 . 18098 ■ .09307 . 17875 . 19.332 . 19478 . 18173 . 2.3998 .02824 . 09670 .02391 . 07138 .43713 . 45435 .21399 . 05631 .05696 . 10967 .11716 . 06713 . 04572 .08176 . 05974 . 03223 . 13843 .04090 . 13652 . 04120 . 02436 . 06169 .11636 . 03660 . 05596 . 15228 . 05853 .20170 . 33923 . 14213 . 19943 . 28363 . 24464 .06563 . 01332 . 417.52 . 08756 .01118 . 02125 . 19836 . 28569 .11710 .04101 .21687 . 09039 .07964 .20052 0.0006998 .0007126 . 00(13679 . 0002009 . a)05605 . 00047.38 .0006843 . 0008635 .0006904 .0007295 . 0005881 . 000.5327 . 0005053 . 0005010 . 0006433 . 0005135 . 0007764 . 0004407 . 0006027 . 0008404 . 0005132 .0003177 . 0006892 .0007142 . 0006927 . 0006594 . 0006423 .0005861 . 0005324 . 0004988 .0()0.')I71 .00(16149 .0010640 .000.5411 . 000.5386 . 0003853 .0003292 . 0003986 . 0003825 .0005451 .0005117 .0012921 . 0003574 . 0013316 . 0005689 . 0003930 . 0005327 . 0006539 . 0004054 . 0004S62 . 0003728 . 00039.S2 .0003910 .0004870 . 0aj56!l7 . 000.5067 . 0004224 . 0003923 . 0004.599 33305 3.3407 33408 ....do... ....do... .33605 33606 ....do... ....do... ,3.3607 34405 ....do... ....do... .34606 .36905 ....do... ....do... .37.305 37705 ....do... ....do... ,37706 ....do... 37707 ....do... .37905 Aug. 4 July 27 do. . . 38005.. 38505 39205 do.. 39405 ....do... 39506 Aug. 4 July 27 do. . . 39507 .39606 40505 . . do... 42205 42405 ....do... do 4.3405 43505 ....do... Aug. 4 July 27 44605 46105 46106. .. . . do . . . 48705 ....do... 49505 do... 49905 ' do .50906 1 55508 58806 ....do... ....do... ....do... 58905 59605 ....do... do 63506 66005.. 69506 69805 69806 72405 ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... .. do... 72406 72905 7.3307 73308 74305 74506 ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... 74508 76205 -..1 ....do... ....do... 80305 81405 81406 84405 85205 86105 86106 ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... ....do... do... Average. . July 27.2 4.6636 2.94 .01992 .12854 .0005800 RELATION OF SIZE OF HEAD TO YIELD, ETC. Ill Table 32. — Summary of yield and nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to length of growing period. Plants grouped according to date ripe. Num- ber of anal- yses. Average date ripe. Yield (grams). Percent- age of proteid nitrogen. Weight of aver- age kernel (gram). Proteid nitrogen (gram) in — Kernels. Average kernel. July 7 to 11 July 11 to 15... July 15 to 19... July 19 to 23... July 23 to 27... July 27, or later July 8. 9.. July 13. . . July 16.2. July 20. 1. July 23. 2. July 27. 2. 9.9067 7.6611 5. 1354 6. 5399 4.9015 4.6636 2.69 2.81 2.87 2.93 2.93 2.94 0.02024 .01887 .01869 .01886 .01878 .01992 0. 26475 . 20820 . 14452 .18064 . 13654 .12854 0. 0005356 . 0005290 .0005222 .000.5482 .000.5544 .0005800 Table 33. — Summary of nitrogen content, etc., tabulated according to yield per plant. Plants grouped according to Num- ber of Average date ripe. Yield (grams). Percent-' Weight age of age proteid 1 ^^«_°.i nitrogen.! ^^^^_ Proteid nitrogen (gram) in— yield (in grams). anal- yses. Kernels. Average kernel. Below 1 31 67 88 94 52 20 4 July 20. 2.. July 21. 9.. July 20.... July 18. 3.. July 15. 1.. July 15. 1.. July 14. 5.. 0. 6049 1.7673 3.5683 7. 6706 12.2,573 17. 1908 23. 7186 2.91 0.01683 3.09 ! .018.52 3.03 1 .01796 2.68 i .01997 2.71 1 .02168 2.54 1 .02103 2.55 I .02159 0.01731 .0.5456 . 10794 . 20270 .33433 . 43921 . 60401 0. 0004916 1 to 2 5 .0005730 2.5 to 5 . 0005445 5 to 10 .0005351 10 to 15 . 0005774 15 to 20 . 0005382 .000.5450 Table 34. — Summary of yield, etc., tabulated according to nitrogen content. Plants grouped according to Num- ber of anal- yses. Average date ripe. Yield (grams). Percent- age of proteid nitrogen. Weight of aver- age kernel (gram) . Proteid nitrogen (gram) in— percentage of nitrogen. Kernels. Average kernel. Below 1.5 4 25 18 47 82 67 47 20 23 25 Julv22.5.. July 18. 5.. July 19. 8.. July 17. 3.. July 16. 3.. July 19.6.. July 21. 2.. July 20. 7.. July 21. 5.. July 19. 5.. 5.8099 2. 7423 8.9542 7.3389 8.0817 5.9093 4.4497 4.6756 3. 6486 4.5431 1.35 1.80 2.12 2.39 2.63 2.85 3.11 3.37 3.68 4.72 0.01709 .02124 .02030 .02000 .01938 .01910 .01824 .01870 .01852 .01819 0.07290 .11620 . 19070 . 18478 . 21280 . 16609 .13847 . 15189 . 13513 . 21239 0. 0002266 1.5 to 2 ... . . 0003867 2 to 2.25 .0004325 2.25 to 2.5 .0004773 2 5 to 2 75 . 0005102 2.75 to 3 .000.5454 3 to 3.25 .0005667 3.25 to 3.5 .0006213 3.5 to 4 .0006807 More than 4 .0008639 RELATION OF SIZE OF HEAD TO YIELD, HEIGHT, AND TILLERING OF PLANT. The size of the head has alw^ays been considered to be closely con- nected with the productiveness of wheat. The well-known work of Hallet in increasing the yielding qualities of wheat is perhaps the best example of wheat improvement by the selection of plants having large heads. Whether large heads or a large number of medium- sized heads on a plant are more desirable is still a question. Table 35 gives the yields, etc., of between 300 and 400 plants, tab- ulated according to the number of kernels on the head. Table 36 is a summary of these, while Tables 37 and 38 consist of the same data tabulated according to the yield per plant and yield per head, respectively. 112 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. It will ])e seen from Table 36 that the heads of slightly more than medium size produced the largest yields of grain; that the weight of the average kernel did not increase with the size of the head, nor did it decrease except on the very largest heads; that the plants with somewhat more than average-sized heads were the tallest, and that the plants with medium-sized heads or slightly less tillered most largely. Table 37 shows that with an increased yield per plant there is a constant increase in the height and tillering of the plant. Table 38 indicates that the yield per head and yield per plant do not increase together, but that the largest yielding plants are those of medium yield per head. The same would seem to be true of the height and tillering of the plant. The weight of the average kernel increases quite uniformly with the yield per head. In considering these results it must be borne in mind that these plants w^ere grow^n 6 inches apart each way, and w^ere therefore not under the conditions that would obtain in a thickly drilled or broad- casted field, where lack of ability to tiller w^ould be compensated for b}^ the larger number of plants. How^ever, the variety of wheat yielding best in Nebraska is one having only a medium-sized or even small head, as compared with most wheats, but it is a strong- tillering variety. Table 35. — Relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant. SIZE OF HEAD, BELOW 16 KERNELS. Record num- ber. Size ol head. Yield per plant (grams). Yield per head (grams). Weight of average kernel (grams). Height (em.). Tillering. 17308 15.2 1. 2275 0.3069 0.02012 59 5 17406 15.5 2.0907 .2613 .01686 65 11 18805 15.2 2. 1462 .2385 .01567 65 18 20708 13.6 2.4690 .2743 . 02024 60 11 21211 :.. 10.0 .2806 .2806 .02806 45 2 22209 15.5 .4336 .2168 . 01399 70 6 26805 15.7 4.9456 .3533 . 02248 68 26 32207 13.8 1.2573 .2515 .01822 47 5 37905 12.3 .9452 .3151 .02555 52 3 39506 ;.. 11.2 1.9218 .3203 .02869 48 6 42206 12.5 .3161 .1580 .01264 63 5 44607 12.6 2.5235 .2281 .02035 52 12 48408 13.5 .3485 .1742 .01291 45 3 49905 11.5 .6760 .3380 .02939 49 2 50705 15.0 .5958 .2979 .01986 40 3 73307 12.5 .5572 .2786 .02229 46 4 74506 12.5 .4096 .2048 .01781 68 2 94105 11.0 .5595 .2797 .02543 51 1 Average . . 13.3 1.3169 .2654 .02059 55.2 6.9 SIZE OF HEAD, 16 TO 20 KERNELS 17410 19.1 16.9987 0. 4358 0. 02285 84 46 21205 17.6 2. 3642 .3378 . 01922 55 10 21305 16.4 6.2514 .3290 .02004 65 21 21307 17.9 2. 5691 .3211 .01796 53 10 21705 19.3 1.5420 .5140 . 02659 73 3 21710 19.7 .8478 .2826 .01437 59 5 KELATION OF SIZE OF HEAD TO YIELD, ETC. 113 Table 35. — Relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant — Continued. SIZE OF HEAD, 16 TO 20 KERNELS— Continued. Record num- l.er. Size of head. Yield per plant (grams) . v,„i/i „„_ Weight of (grams). (grams). 21807 22207 22208 26906 26909 28206 33106 37706 37906 38005 38607 38608 38609 42205 44605 44606 48405 50706 55905 55906 56105 56207 57307 69705 74508 81708 88608 92207 92505 95510 18.8 18.8 16.8 19.0 18.0 19.9 18.0 18.7 19.0 19.8 19.0 17.6 19.5 18.8 18.3 17.7 19.0 17.5 18.4 19.2 17.7 17.7 16.3 17.4 19.0 19.1 18.5 19.0 17.3 19.9 9.4172 3.2787 1.9090 4.2376 2.9999 4.3698 .3089 1.2069 .2063 2. 5134 .3037 3.0228 6. 7665 1.8494 1. 1271 2.5235 . 9701 . .4701 5. 7948 7.9968 5. 7431 10.9073 4.7117 3. 7810 .8172 7. 3993 1 . 5355 3.6926 2.6615 2.8356 0.4709 0.02498 77 25 .3643 .01940 65 16 .2727 1 .01619 .57 i 8 .3531 1 .01859 70 16 .3000 .01667 .50 : 10 .3972 : .01996 | 80 26 .3089 .01716 1 43 ' 2 .4023 .02155 42 4 .2063 .01086 50 2 .3591 .01808 .53 7 .3037 .01598 56 , 2 .3359 .01913 60 1 11 .4511 .02309 65 1 6 .1699 1 .01967 68 6 .3757 ' .02049 .53 3 .3605 .02035 52 8 .2425 .01276 i 55 5 .23.50 .01343 \ 38 2 .3219 .01751 75 34 .3076 .01603 85 1 40 .3023 .01709 70 35 .4195 .02361 ! 84 42 .2945 .01801 1 67 17 .2701 .01550 1 88 28 .2724 .01434 50 4 .4933 1 .02578 86 20 .38.39 .02075 69 4 .3357 .01767 73 15 .2957 .01706 68 12 .3544 .01783 70 8 Average . . 18.4 j 3.7758 .3383 i .01862 64.1 13.7 17305. 17408. 17507. 20705. 20706. 20707. 20709. 21207. 21212. 21306. 21707. 21708. 21809. 21811. 21812. 21907. 22205. 26106. 26806. 26807. 27207. 27307. 27505. 28805. 33105. 33405. 33407. 33906. 38606. 38706. 40405. 43505. 45605. 45705. 48106. 48305. 48406. 48507. SIZE OF HEAD, 20 TO 24 KERNELS. 22.9 23.7 21.5 21.8 23.3 21.1 23.5 23.6 21.0 22.6 23.3 20.5 20.9 21.0 22.9 22.6 23.6 22.5 21.7 21.8 20.7 23.8 21.6 21.7 22.0 23.4 21.8 23.8 22.3 21.5 23.0 23.2 20.3 22.0 21.0 23.6 22.6 23.3 3. 6302 9. 203S .7720 1.8517 3.3138 9.9070 5.3229 2. 3066 1.7216 4.1516 12.3685 9.2850 8. 0214 11.9114 14.8139 2.9248 2. 6965 2.0737 2. 7255 17. 2324 3. 3266 3.08,50 12.0399 2. 1851 2.5601 8.1268 7.0889 2.2862 8. 4605 7.2545 .6316 1.4464 .7081 .7532 11.6655 12.0278 3.2964 1.6036 0. 4538 .4383 .3860 . 3703 .4734 .4718 .4839 .4613 .4304 .4152 .4947 .4887 .4011 .4412 .3445 .4178 .2247 .5184 .3894 .5222 .4158 .4407 .4815 ..5463 . 4267 .4515 .5063 .4572 .4700 .4267 .3158 .3616 .2360 .3766 .4023 .6014 .2997 .5345 0. 01984 . 01852 .01795 . 01698 .02033 . 02282 . 02063 . 01955 . 02049 .01837 .02125 . 02381 .01919 . 02101 . 01507 .01851 .00953 .02304 .01793 .02390 .02004 .01847 .02183 . 02512 .01939 .01930 .02271 .01921 .02110 .01988 .01373 . 01555 .01161 .01712 .01919 .02543 .01324 .02296 75 22 67 13 60 6 .50 5 60 11 90 24 85 26 84 25 87 29 90 54 82 8 SO 54 60 9 56 12 76 40 75 9 SO 10 84 38 65 6 65 12 68 20 67 18 67 9 71 24 75 30 .54 3 45 3 .55 6 .58 6 79 39 81 28 68 13 27889— No. 78—05- 114 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 35. — Relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant — Continued. SIZE OF HEAD, 20 TO 24 KERNELS— Continued. Record num- ber. 48806. 5.5205. 5560fi. 55907. 55908. 5.5909. 56205. 56206. 56208. 56209. 57005. 57105. 57305. 57306. 57308. 57503. 57507. 57508. 63105. 63106. 63107. 72605. 72705. 74305. 74507. 74605. 74606. 76205. 81405. 81705. 81706. 81707. 81709. 84405. 88607. 91905. 9190o. 92206. 92305. 92306. 92506. 92507. Size of head. Average. 21.0 20.0 22.9 21.4 23.4 21.5 23.8 20.4 22.5 21.1 22.0 23.9 22.8 21.7 21.4 22.5 23.9 22.3 22.5 23.6 21.9 21.7 21.9 21.6 20.5 21.0 23.2 21.7 21.8 21.1 21.2 23.8 20.5 23.8 23.4 22.0 22.2 23.0 22.9 23.1 22.9 22.0 Yield per : Yield per plant liead (grams), j (grams). 9. 8346 .6893 11.0930 19. S966 12.2210 9.2120 fi. 5232 9.' 3093 13. 5720 15. 8080 1.5364 3. 7263 8.5777 7.9772 9. 8378 2.7616 6.9861 12.0728 1.5452 3.3006 9.3120 1.1166 9. 1522 4.4222 9. 2130 7.1181 9. 6451 8.4407 4. 5737 9. 7922 15.3928 18.3614 16.4692 8.7448 5.1584 3.4436 3. 5486 1. 1074 2. 3859 6.0091 3.8709 9. 6779 22.2 6.8466 0.3782 .3446 .5042 .5542 .5092 .6580 .4659 .3724 .5429 .3513 .3841 .2192 .3899 .3989 .3t44 .3452 .4657 .7102 .3883 .4715 .4901 .3722 .5384 .4422 .3839 .3746 .4822 .3670 .4158 .4451 .4527 .5564 .4451 .4858 .5158 .3826 .3943 .5537 .3408 .4006 .3871 Weight of average kernel (grams). 0.01798 .01723 . 02205 .02590 .02175 .03050 .01959 . 01829 . 02356 . 01664 . 01746 .00916 . 01666 .01838 .01705 .01534 .01946 .03177 .01717 .02001 .02233 .01718 .02191 ■.02047 . 01869 .01784 . 02079 .01695 .01862 .02106 .02132 .02336 . 02175 .02043 . 02205 .01739 .01774 . 02407 .01491 .01732 .01690 .01916 Height (cm.). . 4355 .01953 Tillering. SIZE OF HEAD, 24 TO 28 KERNELS. 1730^ 24.3 3.99^8 0. 3997 0. 01645 66 12 17405 25.1 15. 6996 .5414 .02127 72 34 17409 24.3 14. 8957 .4514 .01857 85 39 20710 25.5 17.1115 .5032 . 01974 77 39 21206 24.8 2. 8564 .4761 .01917 62 6 21308 25.3 5.8080 .4149 .01641 54 14 21706 26.9 19.3318 .6444 .02390 88 38 21709 25.8 7. 7296 ..5521 .02141 85 23 21711 24.2 17. 1820 .4773 .01968 85 51 21S06 24.9 14.2450 .5935 .02378 91 32 21808 25.7 19.7446 .4388 .01708 96 57 21810 26.0 1.0304 .5152 .01982 55 4 21913 27.3 10. 1925 .5662 . 02072 84 27 22210 27.1 6.0173 .5470 . 02019 78 31 26808 24.7 3.8811 .4312 .01748 64 11 20905 25.1 6.4102 .4931 .01966 66 15 26908 24.0 3.9797 .4974 .02073 62 9 27205 26.2 16.4061 .4825 .01841 87 57 27305 24.3 5. 5666 .5061 . 02085 80 22 27506 24.7 10.0005 .5556 . 02252 85 23 27507 25.0 1.3746 .4582 .01833 50 - 4 27508 27.9 5. .5324 .6137 .02287 78 19 32608 27.5 1.0183 .5091 .01851 50 2 33107 24.5 6. 1026 .4694 .01919 73 29 33305 25.0 3. 1346 .5224 .02090 53 / 33403 25.7 4.6045 .4186 . 01627 72 16 33408 25.7 1.1132 .3711 .01446 56 4 RELATION OF SIZE OK HEAD TO YIELD, ETC. 115 Table 35. — Relation of size of head to yield, heir/ht, and iilUrinff of jilant — Continued. SIZE OF HEAD, 24 TO 28 KERNELS— Continued. Record num- ber. 33605. 33606. 33607. 33905. 34207. 37705. 39507 . 45606 . 48306. 48407 . 4&109. 48505 . 48508. 55506 . 56107 . 57509 . 5760;i. 57607 . 57608. 58206. 63506. 65305. 65306. 65308. 66008. 69505. 69805 . 69806. 72606 . 72607. 72905. 74607. 80305. 81406. 81710. 84906. 85205. 86105. 86106 . 88606. 88609. 92205. 92405. 92407 . 92907. 94206 . 94208. 94407. 94907 . 9490S. 94909 . 95506 . 95507. 95508. 95705. 95707. Average . Size of head. Yield per plant (grams). Yield per head (grams). 27.4 27.3 27.2 26.7 26.6 25.6 27.8 24.4- 26.2 26.6 26.2 27.4 27.4 27.1 24.9 27.8 26.4 27.3 24.3 24.7 25.5 26.0 25.9 26.5 24.9 25.5 27.5 27.9 27.1 26.9 27.8 25.8 25.1 24.0 24.7 25.5 26.7 25.4 27.2 25.3 24.7 26.6 26.5 26.7 26.5 24.3 25.1 24.8 26.2 27.2 25.0 24.2 25.9 26.0 25.5 26.5 26.0 25.9 7. 0596 8. 1890 2. S903 11.1476 13. 5.556 8.0905 1.8862 4.0358 2.6571 11.2890 6. 4302 1.9154 11.2(X)8 17.S.506 14, 4:).5(; 10.6261 3.0790 16. 4433 8.6189 1.3961 2.3986 1.8018 9.8298 11.7066 3. 1555 4.7116 2.4420 12.0136 9.3629 3.4442 2. 6462 8.3406 15. 7835 1.2391 9.1411 7.5438 3.4766 3.0282 7.6241 9.9456 9. 8719 5.3069 5.2616 3.4356 .8983 4.4673 7.5006 3. 7828 6. 7664 12. 1918 2.3678 3. 6977 11.0548 12. 1592 14.4617 10.3426 .7577 Weight of average Icemel (grams). 0.6418 .5489 .5781 .5867 .5894 .4495 .4715 .4484 .4428 .4181 .5358 .3831 ..5091 . .5578 .3023 . 48:30 .6158 .6090 .4788 .2327 .3998 . 6006 . 4681 ..5321 . 4.505 .4712 .6105 .6007 .4681 .4920 .4410 .4390 .5442 .4130 ..5713 ..5029 .4386 .3785 .4765 .5234 .5196 .4824 .4047 .4294 .4491 .4964 .4688 .2909 .4229 .5301 .4736 .2631 .4806 .5527 .4987 .4309 .3788 0.02345 .02144 .02125 .02194 .02219 .01972 .01699 .01834 .01692 .01572 .02048 .01398 .018.58 . 02062 .01(58 .01739 . 02383 .02234 . 01968 -.00943 .01568 .02310 .01807 . U2(J0S .01814 .01847 .02220 .02153 .01724 .01832 .01585 .01699 .02165 .01721 .02308 .01975 .01625 .01495 .01749 .02068 .02100 .01811 .01525 .01605 .01695 .02040 .01866 .01175 .01615 .01948 . 01894 .01(,9o .01852 .02029 .01954 .01626 .01457 Height (cm.). Tillering 7.5207 .4848 .01874 73.8 SIZE OF HEAD, 28 TO 32 KERNELS. 17505 17506 20805 21208 21209 21210 21805 21905 21906 21908 21909 21911 29.0 31.0 31.7 28.7 29.7 29.6 29.3 28.2 31.4 28.8 30.9 29.5 0.3885 2.2881 14.6942 5. 1594 1.4484 3.9143 20.9290 14.3111 10.4800 3.5574 12.1819 8.4593 0.3885 .7627 .6679 .51.59 .4828 .4893 .4983 .5111 .8062 .5929 .7166 .6597 0.01340 .02460 . 02157 .01798 . 01627 .01.577 .01699 .01809 .02.563 .020.56 .02317 .02209 46 55 85 63 51 59 91 92 88 92 86 90 7 6 30 11 6 8 48 ■ 62 27 9 29 23 116 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 35. — Relation of size of Tiead to yield, height, and tillering of plant — Continued. SIZE OP HEAD, 28 TO 32 KERNELS— Continued. Record num- ber. 22206 22211 26107 27005 27206 27306 27308 27509 32206 32605 32606 34205 34208 37305 38505 38506 38605 39405 39606 40305 44505 45005 4.5805 46107 50905 50906 55005... 55006 55007 55206 55306 .55307 55507 56106 57006 57407 58207 58.505 58806 59606 63505 65307 66005 69506 71905 72406 72706 72707 76206 88906 924QS 92908 94205 94207 94209 94406 94605 94606 94905 94906 95706 Averasre. Size of head. 29.2 28.0 28.8 28.9 28.8 28.5 31.7 30.4 28.2 28.1 31.3 30.9 31.2 30.9 29.6 28.3 30.5 31.9 31.4 29.8 30.9 29.4 31.0 31.9 31.6 28.5 30.2 .30.1 29.5 30.4 30.6 31.1 31.5 28.0 .30.5 31.8 30.7 31.1 31.7 29.8 29.7 31.1 30.8 .30.1 29.3 30.7 29.5 28.1 29.8 30.3 29.6 31.2 31.3 29.9 31.7 28.9 28.0 29.9 31.8 29.8 29.7 30.1 Yield per plant (grams). 2. 5712 11.5675 2.0390 16. 4120 19. 1854 13.3011 4. 5123 5.3615 10. 4036 5. 2268 2.0162 9. 1498 2. 9886 6. 1394 12. 1088 1.6799 1.2124 9.3.541 4.6383 3. 6003 5.9990 3.2340 1.5298 S. 3935 2. 3982 1.7280 7.9684 7. 1852 2. 1571 11.3.592 4.1323 5.6864 9.8228 12.0161 10. 1836 14. 9992 4. 2207 7.4516 1.9469 9. 7084 4.0230 7.0051 7. 6690 13. 5696 28. 2136 8.2929 14. 6802 4.5806 5.4411 9.9034 3. 7820 3.2388 1.2117 13.7057 3.6006 10. 5556 .7319 11.8435 4. 4423 12. 3862 5. 1629 7.4992 Yield per head (grams) . 0.5142 .5784 .4078 .5471 .7106 .5^2 .5640 .6702 .5779 .6533 .6721 .6100 ..5977 .6139 .6373 .5600 .6062 . 6681 .4217 .6000 .5453 .4042 .3824 .5.595 .3426 .4320 .6129 .4790 .5393 .5978 .5903 .5169 .6139 .5224 .4427 .6250 .4221 .6210 .6489 .5109 .5747 .5838 .6391 .6168 . 6561 .5923 .7340 .5726 .3627 . 5502 .5403 . 5398 .4039 .5711 .6001 . 5556 .3659 . 5383 .4936 .5385 .5736 .5598 Weight of average kernel (grams). 0. 01720 . 02062 .01416 .01895 .02469 .01945 .01777 . 02206 . 02052 . 02323 . 02145 .01972 .01916 . 01987 . 02252 . 01975 . 01987 .02093 .01341 .02011 .01764 .01376 . 01234 .017,56 .01085 .01516 .02028 .01593 . 01828 . 01965 . 01931 .01663 .01949 .01866 . 01453 .01968 .01375 . 02730 .02049 .01712 .01934 . 01878 . 02073 . 02047 . 02239 .01929 . 024S4 . 02036 .01217 .01814 . 01827 . 01732 .01893 .01909 .01895 .01923 .01307 . 07544 . 01553 . 01808 . 01934 .01958 Height (em.). Tillering. EELATION OF SIZE OF HEAD TO YIELD, ETC. 117 Table 35. — Relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant — Continued. SIZE OF HEAD, 32 TO 36 KERNELS. Record num- ber. Size of head. Yield per plant (grams) . Yield per head (grams). Weight of average kernel (grams) . Height (cm.). Tillering. 17307 34.5 1890.5 34.3 2iU05 32.7 2n9(i7 34.0 2S806 34.2 34405 34.5 34606 35.0 36905 33.4 39205 32.2 42405 33.0 42905 33. 5 48506 32.7 49.505 33.5 51005 i 34.5 .55008 i 33.7 55305 1 33.4 55308 1 33.1 55605 ' 33.3 55607 ; 34.5 5.5608 33.5 57007 33.6 57406 33.7 57408 35.0 58805 : 35.1 60505 35. 69305 i 34.3 72405 35.5 72708 33.2 73308 34.7 85206 34.2 88605 34.5 91305 34.5 92208 3.5.3 92406 34.5 92409 35.0 92905 35.2 92909 33.1 95509 34.5 3.1454 1.4864 1.8242 1.8276 14. 4630 4. 1281 6. 1962 5.0200 21.. 5399 1.4S92 1.2499 9. 4585 1.2716 15. .5835 17.4226 2. 5160 9. 5078 10.9180 2. 3931 22. .5848 3.3176 2. 4923 12.2004 23. 1471 . ,59.52 2.0430 8.4415 9.0386 14. 2986 4.9315 1.6362 3.0940 6. 6206 8. 2366 5.7131 2.7000 10. 1363 2.9475 Average. 34. 1 7. 2530 0. 7863 .4955 .4560 .6092 .7232 .6881 .7745 .6275 .6731 .7446 .6249 .5.564 .6358 .6233 .6222 .5032 .7923 .7279 . ,5983 .9034 . 6635 . 6231 .7177 .7014 .5952 .6810 1.4069 .7532 .7944 .4483 .8181 .7735 .6621 .7488 .6348 .5400 .6335 .7369 0.02279 .01443 .01393 .01792 .02111 .01994 .02213 .02089 .02251 .01866 .01701 .01898 .01804 .01846 .01.507 .02395 .02184 .01734 .02699 . 01975 .01846 .02047 .01999 .01701 .01984 .03963 .02270 .02291 .01312 .02731 .02242 .01876 . 02168 . 01814 . 01534 .01916 .02136 .02023 73.9 SIZE OF HEAD, 36 KERNELS AND OVER. 18906 65.0 0.9229 0.9229 0. 01420 67 5 21813 43.2 4.0258 .8051 . 01877 80 21 34206 40.5 1.5940 .7970 .01968 74 5 37707 38.6 3.3004 .6601 .01710 64 5 40205 38.8 3. 6302 .7260 .01871 65 11 40505 42.5 4. 1.546 1.0386 .02444 60 "4 43405 41.3 2.8000 .9333 .02258 64 3 46105 37.1 4.6146 .6592 .01775 73 8 48705 44.0 4.3615 .7269 . 01652 80 7 48706 47.4 6. 1986 .7748 .01635 78 12 .55508 36.0 3. 7407 .6222 .01732 73 12 .57405 41.0 .8328 .8328 .02031 73 1 57805 38.6 4.8988 .6998 .01814 76 17 57905 36.8 2.4731 .4122 .01118 74 17 58705 58.7 2..M36 .6359 .01082 68 11 58905 42.5 38.2 2.3031 7. 1828 .5758 .7183 .01355 .01880 66 77 13 30 59605 62805 37.0 1.34.51 .4484 .01212 70 14 66006 52.3 6.0090 .8584 .01642 73 12 72806 36.7 37.6 2.0970 8. .5373 .6990 .7761 . 01906 . 02062 62 78 5 20 73306 81.505 48.7 2.8327 .9442 .01940 78 7 84905 37.0 .7130 .7130 .01927 47 4 9X106 36.2. 2.8816 ..5763 .01592 75 7 95505 Average. 37.0 .3146 .3146 .00850 79 3 42.1 3.3723 .7148 .01710 71.0 10.2 118 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. Table 36. — Summary of relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant. Classification according to number of kernels on head. Average Number ! number :of plants, of kernels on spike. Yield per plant (grams). Yield per head (gram). Weight of average kernel • (gram) Height (cm. ) . Tillering. Below 16 ! 18 ! 13.3 36 ; 18.4 80 1 22.2 84 ] 25.9 73 30. 1 38 34. 1 25 42. 1 1.3169 3. 7758 6. 8466 7. 5207 7.4992 7. 2530 3.3723 0. 2654 .3383 .4355 .4848 ..5598 .6868 .7148 0. 02059 .01862 .01953 .01874 . 01958 .02023 .01710 55.2 64.1 73.8 73.8 74.5 73.9 71.0 6.9 16 to 20 13.7 20 to 24 21.4 24 to 28 21.2 28 to 32 32 to 36 . 19.4 15.4 10.2 TabLe 37. — Relation of yield of plant to height and tillering, and to the yield per head. Classification according to yield per plant, in grams. Number of plants. Yield per plant (grams). Height (cm.). Tillering. Yield per head (gram). 31 67 87 93 51 20 5 0.6050 1.7673 3. 5526 7.6485 12. 2862 17. 1908 23. 2829 56.5 62.2 69.1 75.4 84.4 84.6 85.2 3.7 7.0 11.6 22.1 32.3 42.9 43.2 0. 3553 1 to 2 5 .4740 2 5 to 5 .4917 5 to 10 .5320 10 to 15 ..5592 15 to 20 .5310 More than 20 .6865 Table SS.-- -Relation of yield per head to yield, height, and tillering of plant, and to weight of average Icernel. Classification according to yield per head, in grams. Number of plants. ■ Yield per head (gram). Yield per plant (grams). Height (cm.). Tillering. AV eight of average kernel (gram). Below 300 30 62 98 78 50 25 12 0.2484 .3567 .4524 .5477 .6372 . 7456 .9229 1.6939 3. 7365 6. 7326 9. 5646 7. 6214 4. 4523 5. 7687 60.8 65.6 72.8 76.6 74.3 75.2 73.7 11.4 15.5 19.9 21.8 17.3 18.6 10.3 0. 01586 .300 to 400 .01737 400 to 500 .01847 .500 to 600 . 02073 0.600 to 0.700 700 to 800 . 020.56 .02179 More than 800 .02151 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS. As between wheat kernels of the same variet}^ raised under similar conditions, those kernels having a high percentage of proteid mate- rial have a lower specific gravity, weigh slightly less, and occupy a smaller volume than kernels having a smaller percentage of proteids. As between individual spikes and individual plants, the same rela- tions obtain. As between individual plants in different years, these relations do not hold. The quality of high proteid content and its correlated properties may be due to immaturity in the kernel, or they may belong to the normal and fully ripened kernel. As between kernels, spikes, and plants, those kernels of greater weight contain a larger weight of proteids — this in spite of the fact that they contain a lower percentage. SUMMAKY AND CONCLUSIONS. 119 Plants bearing the largest number of kernels have kernels of more than medium but not the greatest weight; as do also plants producing the greatest weight of kernels. The same is true of plants producing the greatest weight of proteid matter and gluten. Heav}' seed wheat drilled at the rate of H bushels per acre pro- duced a much larger crop of seed the first year of the separation than did light seed drilled at the same rate, but by continuing the separa- tion of the respective crops and selecting heav}" seed from the crop grown from heavy seed, and light seed from the crop grown from light seed, the difference in yield in three or four years was small. After the first year of separation the light seed produced a greater amount of proteids per acre than did the heavy seed. A determination of the total or of the proteid nitrogen content in the kernels on one row of spikelets of wheat aft'ords a fairly close esti- mate of the same constituents in the kernels on the other row of spikelets. A determination of the total or of the proteid nitrogen content in the kernels on one-half of the spikes on a wheat plant will give a very good estimate of the same constituents in the kernels on the other spikes, provided there are at least an average number of spikes on the plant. There may be quite a large variation in the proteid nitrogen con- tent of different spikes on the same wheat plant. Determinations of the proteid nitrogen content of 800 spikes of wheat of the same variety representing different plants showed a variation of from 1.12 to 4.95 per cent of proteid nitrogen, and 351 plants of the same variety the following year varied from 1.20 to 5.85 per cent. The proportion of gluten to proteids in kernels of different wheat plants may var^^ considerably. A determination of proteid nitrogen is therefore not always a guide to the gluten content of the wheat. Selection for improvement should be based on the determination of gluten. Wheat plants having kernels high in gluten contain a smaller pro- portion of other proteids than do plants of medium or low gluten content. In wheat of the same variety, raised in the saine field in the same year, the ratio of gliadin to glutenin was practically the same in plants of low, medium, and high proteid nitrogen content. It may therefore be assumed that an increase in the gluten con- tent of a given variety of wheat raised in the same region would carry with it a corresponding improvement in its value for bread making, although there might be fluctuations from year to y€i,ar in the quality of the gluten. 120 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT. The content of proteid nitrogen, the kernel weight, and the total proteid nitrogen production by the wheat plant are hereditary quali- ties. There is a tendency for plants possessing any of these qualities in an extreme degree to produce progeny in which the same qualities approach more closely to the average, but certain exceptional plants may transmit the same or more extreme qualities. The yield of grain per plant after a severe winter was decreased in proportion to the susceptibility of the plant to cold. The effect of the cold caused the plant to produce a less number of heads, or, in other words, to tiller less. The early-maturing plants yielded the most grain, and those ripen- ing later produced in each case less when grouped into ripening periods of four days, extending through more than three weeks' time. The early-maturing plants produced grain of slightly lower nitro- gen content than the later maturing plants, and the number of grams of proteid nitrogen in the average kernel was likewise less in the early-maturing plants . Plants with heads of slightly more than medium size produced the largest yields of grain, and were taller than plants with either larger or smaller heads. Plants with heads of medium size, or slightly less, tillered most extensively. The weight of the average kernel did not increase with the size of the head, nor did it decrease, except on the very largest heads. The largest yielding plants were the tallest and tillered most. o LB Ap '09 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT BY T. L LYON Thesis presented to the University Faculty of Gomel! University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 1904