'^CVflll*..

i - :-^ ^

,•>

"*••■

f *- <T

4 ♦

•^.^

<■ tS^jp*T '

v^. <

. ■■- W j

ft'^f^^

P^Ni .

■rtm

'*»f

tJI^'.w*^

J.V-

^: !^' ^v

x6 .UVl>Z

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY— BULLETIN NO. 78.

B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau.

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

BY

T. L. LYON,

Agriculturist and Associate Director of the Agricultural

Experiment Station of Nebraska, and

Collaborator of the Bureau of Plant Industry,

VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS,

IN COOPERATION WITH THE

AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION OF NEBRASKA.

Issued October 24, 1905.

m.

WASHINGTON:
government printing office.
1905.

BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY.

B. T. GALLOWAY,

Pathologist and Physiologist, and Chief of Bureau.

VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

Albert F. Woods, Pathologist and Physiologist in Charge, Acting Chief of Bureau in Absence of Chief.

BOTANICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS.

Frederick V. Coville, Botanist in Charge.

GRASS AND FORAGE PLANT INVESTIGATIONS.
W. J. Spillman, Agriculturist in Charge.

POMOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS.
G. B. Brackett, Pomologist in Charge.

SEED AND PLANT INTRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION.
A. J. PiETERS, Botanist in Charge.

ARLINGTON EXPERIMENTAL FARM.
L. C. CORBETT, Horticulturist in Charge.

EXPERIMENTAL GARDENS AND GROUNDS.
E. M. Byrnes, Superintendent.

J. E. Rockwell, Editor.
James E. Jones, Chief Clerk.

VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

SCIENTIFIC STAFF.

Albert F. Woods, Pathologist and Physiologist in Charge.

Erwin F. Smith, Pathologist in Charge of Laboratory of Plant Pathology.

Herbert J. Webber, Physiologist in Charge of Laboratory of Plant Breeding.

Walter T. Swingle, Physiologist in Charge of Laboratory of Plant Life History.

Newton B. Pierce, Pathologist in Charge of Pacific Coa.s-< Laboratory.

M. B. Waite, Pathologist in Charge of Investigations of Diseases of Orchard Fruits.

Mark Alfred Carleton, Ccrealist in Charge of Cereal Investigations.

Hermann von Schrenk, in Charge of Mississippi Valley Laboratory.

P. H. Rolfs, Pathologist in Charge of Subtropical Laboratory.

C. O. TowNSEND; Pathologist in Charge of Sugar Beet Investigations.

P. H. DORSETT," Pa^/ioto^w^.

T. H, Kearney, Physiologi.st, Plant Breeding.

Cornelius L. Shear, Pathologist.

William A. Orton, Pathologist.

W. M. Scott, Pathologist.

Joseph S CHAMBERhAiisi, b Physiological Chemi.st, Cereal Investigations.

Ernst A. Bessey, Pathologist.

Flora W. Patterson, Mycologist.

Charles P. Hartley, Assistant in Physiology, Plant Breeding.

Karl F. KEi.hERiiA's, Assi.stant in Phy.nology.

Deane B. Sv<'i}iGLE, Assistant in Pathology.

Jesse B. Norton, As.nstant in Phy.siology. Plant Breeding.

James B. 'Rorer, Assistant in Pathology .

Lloyd S. Tenny, As.nstant in Pathology.

George G. 'Ret)GCO(:'k., Assistant in Pathology.

Perley Spaulding, Scientific Assistant.

P. J. O'Gara, Scientific Assistant, Plant Pathology.

A. D. Shamel, Scientific Assistant, Plant Breeding.

T. Ralph HoniNSoy;, Assistant in Physiology.

Florence Hedges, Scientific Assistant, Bacteriology.

Charles J. Brand, Assistant in Physiology, Plant Life History.

Henry A. 1\\.i\aje.r. Scientific Assistant, Cereal Investigations.

Ernest B. Bro'K-s, Scientific Assistant, Plant Breeding.

Leslie A. Firz, Scientific Assistant, Cereal Investigations.

Leonard L. Harter, Scientific Assistant, Plant Breeding.

John O. Merwis, Scientific Assistant.

W. W. Cobey, Tobacco Expert.

John van Leenhoff, Jr. , Expert.

J. Arthur Le Cler';-,'- Physiological Chemist, Cereal Investigations.

T. D. Beckwith, Expert, Plant Physiology.

a Detailed to Seed and Plant Introduction and Distribution.
b Detailed to Bureau of Chemistry.
c Detailed from Bureau of Chemistry,

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL.

U. S. Department of Agriculture,

Bureau of Plant Industry,

Office of the Chief,
Washington, D. C, April 15, 1905.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith the manuscript of a
lechnical paper entitled "Improving the Quahty of Wheat," pre-
pared by Dr. T. L. Lyon, Agriculturist of the Agricultural Experi-
ment Station of Nebraska, who, as a collaborator of this Bureau, is in
charge of the cooperatiye breeding experiments conducted by the
Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station and the Department of
Agriculture, and I recommend its publication as Bulletin No. 78 of
the series of this Bureau.

Respectfully, B. T. Galloway,

Cli ief of Bureau .
Hon. James Wilson,

Secretary of Agriculture.

3

PREPACK.

The following' technical paper on "Improving the Quality of
Wheat," })y Dr. T. L. Lyon, of the Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion of Nebraska, embodies the results of extended investigations on
the application of chemical methods to the selection and improve-
ment of wheat. The investigations were carried on mainly at the
Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station in connection with the
cooperative work of that institution and the Plant-Breeding Labora-
tory of this Office.

Li the breeding of wheat more extended data are greatly desired
so that more intelligent methods of selection may be devised. The
investigations of Doctor Lyon, it is believed, have established
methods which wdll be of great value to wheat breeders and mate-
rially facilitate the work in their field.

This paper was originalh' presented as a thesis to the faculty of
Cornell University for the degree of doctor of philosoph3\ The
author wishes to express his api)reciation of the guidance of Prof.
L P. Roberts, Prof. G. C. Caldwell, and Prof. Thos. F. Hunt, who
constituted the committee having his work in charge, also of the
assistance of Prof. L. H. Bailey and Mr. G. N. Lauman, with whom
he frequent!}^ sought counsel. For the analytical work, extending
tlu'ough a ]:)eriod of seven years and involving several thousand
chemical determinations, he is indeljted to Prof. S. Aver}', Mr. R. S.
Ililtner, Prof. R. W. Thatcher, Mr. Y. Nikaido, ISIiss Rachael Corr,
]\Ir. II. B. Slade, and Mr. G. II. Walker. I\Ir. Alvin Keyser has
kept the records of wheat-breeding plats and Mr. E. G. Montgomery
has assisted in keeping other records.

A. F. Woods,
Pathologist and Physiologist.

Office of Vegetable Pathological

AND Physiological Investigations,

Washington, D. C, March 31, 1905.

5

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT.

Wliile the art of plant breeding has been practiced for nearty a
century, the last decade has witnessed a marvelous awakening of
interest in the subject, both from a scientific and practical stand-
point. The keen competition in crop production and the resulting
cheaper prices, the great and varying demands of modern trade con-
ditions, etc., render it necessary that the modern plant breeder have
the most thorough knowledge possible of the plant which he is striv-
ing to improve. Not only must we secure varieties and races differ-
ing in external characters and yielding more heavily under a certam
set of conditions, but we must also examine the chemical constit-
uents of the product and strive to change and improve them in order
that they may better fit our purpose.

The great achievements of plant breeding in the past have been
mainly in physical characters, requu'ing only superficial knowledge
and gross examination for recognition. Many of the improvements
now demanded, however, require the most careful chemical exami-
nation of the product and the devising of careful means and methods
of selection based on the knowledge thus obtained.

The first and still the most noteworthy achievement of this nature
is the increase of the sugar content in the sugar beet. When the
work on this subject was first started by Louis Vilmorin, the mother
beets, which were supposed to contain the most sugar, were separated
by their greater density, this being determined by throwing the beets
into a solution of brine of such density that the greater number of them
would float. The few heavier ones which were found to sink were
retained as mothers and planted to raise seed. Later the methods
were improved, and finally the percentage of sugar content in the
different individual beets was determined by actual chemical analy-
sis. This careful method of selection has been in operation for more
than forty j^ears, and has resulted in greatly increasing the sugar
content in the beets, and has rendered their cultivation profitable
w^here otherwise the industry would have failed.

The second most noteworthy case of increasing certain chemical
constituents in a plant b}- careful breeding is that furnished by the
investigations of the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station in
increasing the nitrogen, oil, and starch content in corn. These note-
worthy experiments carried out by Doctor Hopkins and his assist-
ants have greatly stimulated breeding work of this nature, and have
paved the way for further research of a similar kind.

In wheat it is particularly necessary that a thorough knowledge
be obtained of the variations in the chemical constituents and their
relation to the other characters of the plant, such as yield, size of

8 INTRODUCTORY STATIMEN^T.

kernel, size of head, season of maturity, etc. Doctor Lyon's exten-
sive researches will thus be found very valuable in enabling us to
understand more clearlj^ these complex relations and in pointing out
the main factors to be considered in breeding wheats to increase the
gliadin and glutenin content, and still obtain increased yield and
better bread-making qualities.

The gross selection of wheat seed heretofore has largel3" been based
on the separation of large and heavy kernels. Doctor Lyon's re-
searches have demonstrated that the smaller and lighter kernels
contain the largest percentage of nitrogen, and that while the yield
from kernels of this kind at first gives a smaller yield of grain, the
total yield per acre of nitrogen is nevertheless greater. By con-
tinuous selection of the smaller and lighter kernels for several gen-
erations he shows that the grain 3'ield gradually increases and finally
approaches or equals the 3'ield derived from the select large and
heavy kernels. This gives us a new view of the process of wheat"
selection necessar}^ to increase the nitrogen yield per acre.

The very numerous chemical anal3"ses made by Doctor L^^on give
an indication of the great variation of the percentage of proteid
nitrogen present in different plants. In the analyses of samples in
1902 the plants varied from 2.02 per cent to 4 per cent, while in the
analj'ses of the next jesir a variation from 1.20 per cent to 5.85 per
cent was found. The existence of this wide variation affords abund-
ant opportunity for improvement hj selection.

Evidence is also given which shows conclusivel}^ that the average
composition of a spike of wheat may be judged from the analyses
of a row of its spikelets. A satisfactory method of conducting selec-
tions has thus been devised.

The results also show. that early-maturing plants give much the
largest average yield, which is a most important point in guiding
selection to increase the j-^ield. The percentage of proteid nitrogen
is rather less in the early plants, but the total nitrogen per plant is
probably greater.

The quality of the gluten largely determines the bread-making
value of a variety of wheat, and it is thus important to keep the
ratio of the two elements constituting the gluten — the gliadin and
glutenin — the same. Doctor Lyon has shown that as the gluten
content is increased b^^ selection the ratio of gliadin to glutenin
remains about the same, so that the value of the wheat for bread-
making purposes is not impaired.

The extensive data presented in this bulletin bearing on important
matters relating to the improvement of wheat b^^ breeding will
enable wheat breeders to plan and conduct their operations with a
degree of certainty which would otherwise not be possible.

Herbert J. Webber,
Physiologist in Charge of Lahoratory of Plant Breeding.

Washington, D. C, MarcJi 30, 1905.

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 vield 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 72

Method for selection to increase the quantity of proteids in the kernel 76

A basis for selection to increase the cjuantity of proteids in the endosperm of

the kernel 84

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 118

9

TABLES OF EXPERIMENTS.

Pago.
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. Sunnnary 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 1803 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 EXPERIMENTS.

Page.
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. Relationof 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,
Rud}^, 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 toward effect-
ing an increase in the yield rather than in the quality 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 dift'erent 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 cpiahty is transmitted to the offspring; Avith 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^:rt I.

HISTORICAL

15

SOME CONDITIONS AFFFXTING 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 climate.

(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 gravity 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

« 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 j^ubhshed nothing
further. The 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 gliadin
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 inconstancy 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 by 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 cai*bohydrates. The results
obtained by Heinrich appear as follows when tabulated:

stage of growth.

Starch.

14 days after bloom
Beginning to ripen.

Ripe

Overripe

Percentage
in 100

parts of
dry matter

of kernel.

61.44
74.17
75.66
76.38

Grams in

2,600
kernels.

Protein.

Ash.

Percentage
in 100

parts of
dry matter

of kernel.

22.0
58.5
67.0
70.0

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,(;oo
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 Zusanimensetzung u. Verdauliolikeit der Futtermittel, 1, p. 419.
f Handbuch des Getreidebaues, Berlin, 1884,.2, pp. 474-476.
<'Landw. 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
})roteid nitrogen in the 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
as follows :

His figures are

Date.

July 13..
July 18..
July 24..
July 29..
August 3
August 9

Weight

of
kernel

Percentage of—

Dry

Total

Proteid

Aspara-

(mg.).

matter.

nitrogen.

nitrogen.

gin
nitrogen.

9.17

30.14

2.87

1.90

0.29

15.80

37.23

2.55

1.94

.20

30.79

45. 18

2.65

2.33

.19

37.99

38.37

2.46

2.08

.16

46.39

51.. 52

2.32

1.98

.13

45.46

49.83

2.37

2.13

.11

Amid
nitrogen.

0.68
.41
.13
.22
.21
.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, owing 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 wlfeat plant at which the
greatest absorption of nitrogen occurs, some experiments may be
quoted.

Lawes and Gilbert " say :

In ISSJr we took samples of a growing wheat crop at different stages of its progress,
commencing on June 21, and determind the dry matter, ash, and nitrogen in them. Calcu-
lation of the results showed that, while during little more than fiye weeks from June 21
there was comparatiyely 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 b}^ 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 early 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.
f> Minnesota Experiment Station Bulletin 29, pp. 152-160.

'"Abstract, E.xperiment Station Eecord, 14, p. 436, from Jour. Landw., 50 (1902),
pp. 193-230.

20 IMPEOVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

up at that time is, he says, used kiter 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 will result in a smaller jaeld of wheat than
if fully ripe seed be used.

INFLUENCE OF <*LIMATE 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 reaffu'm 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. The}^ found almost invariably that a season that
favored a long and continuous growth of tlie plant after heading,
resulting in a large jaeld 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, 1S57.

<' 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 cUmate of Great Britain, in Germany, and in the continental
climate of Russia (steppes) . The results were as follows :

Locality.

Great Britain. . .

Germany

Soutliem Russia

Number
of exper-
iments.

Weight (in grams)
of—

Percentage of —

37
18
19

100
plants.

600
500
365

Kernels
from 100
plants.

227
204
160

Grain.

37.8
40.8
44.0

Straw.

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 dr}",
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 wheat kernel, rich in gluten and of especially heavy weight.

Deherain and Dupont ^ report some interesting observations as to
the effect 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
diy 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-
])er of plants. The next day the stems were harvested, as were also
an equal number of entire plants. The stems w^ithout 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 ela})orates 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 carboh3'drates, 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 starch
and the length of the growing season. The shorter the period of growth and the cooler the
chmate 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 gi-owing period, especialh' 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 analj^ses 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 these 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, particularly' that por-
tion of it during which the kernel is developing. A moderately cool
season, wi*h 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 wliich 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, dr}- 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.

f Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 13, p. 4.51, from Zhur. Opuitn. Agron., 1 (1900),
pp. 256-267.

'^Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 12, pt. 2, pp. 1403-1424.

INFLUENCE OF SOIL LTPON 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 w^heat 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 w^heat kernel were conducted b}^ Law^es and Gilbert for a
period of years extending fro in 1845 to 1854." Plots of land in
Avhich wheat was grow n continually were treated annually as follows :
Unmanured, manured with ammoniacal fertilizer alone, and manured
Avith 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 :

Percentage of—

Weight
of grain

per

bushel

(pounds).

Percent-
age of
good

kernels.

Yield per

acre
(povmds).

Band of fertilizer, if any.

Nitrogen

in dry

matter.

Ash in

dry
matter.

2.13
2.26

2. 22

2.07
1.85
1.96

.58. 51

58.9

60.2

90.6
90. .3
92.8

1,045

Animoniiim salts

1,668

Minerals and ammonium salts

1,969

There w^as 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) w^ere left

« 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.

unmanured. There were three plots of each. The following is a
tabulated statement of their results :

Kind of fertilizer, if any.

Unfertilized

Superphosphate

Nitrate

Superphosphate and nitrate

Weight of

52 c. c. of

kernels

(grams) .

Yield of
grain on

plot
(kilos).

Percentage
of nitrogen

in dry
.matter.

1,306
1,339
1,413
1,451

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
w^heat, says :

In the presence of a sufBcient amount of phosphoric acid and alkali the effect of manuring
with an easily soluble nitrogen compound is an improvement in the grain both in quantity
and quality [meaning plumper kernels]. The kernels decrease in percentage of nitrogen,
l)ut 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.

Yon Gohren^ 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 jaeld of each constituent on each plot.

The following table shows the jdeld 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 reducing the
others to the corresponding figure :

Yield and percentage.

Yield of grain

Yield of large kernels.
Yield of small kernels.

Yield of proteids

Yiel 1 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

1.011

.146

. 9.53

.999

1.009

14.25

62.56

Oil cake.

1.071

1.928

.704

.915

1.081

12.70

63. 25

Bat
guano.

1.143
2.552

.538
.936
1.174
11. SI
64.41

on cake

and
ashes.

215
226

781
070
264
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 with the application of complete manures.

« Die naturgesetzlichen Grundlagen des Ackerbauer, Leipzig, 1856, p. 774.
6Landw. Vers. Stat., 6 (1864), pp. 15-19.

INFLUENCE 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 da.j. 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 j^ears 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 . j 62. .5

Grain per acre (pounds) I 2, .342.

Straw per acre (pounds) ; 6,089.0

Percentage of nitrogen in dry

matter ' 1. 7.3

Percentage of ash in dry mat- I

ter i 1.98

Nitrogen per bushel (pounds) 1. 083

Un-
manured.

60.5

67.4
1,156.0
2, 872.

1.84

1.96
1. 11,3

Ammo-
nium salts
alone.

Barnyard
manure.

60.4

66.2

1,967.0

4, 774.

2.09

1.74
1.262

57.4

54.5

1,967.0

5, 574.

1.96

2.06
1.125

Un-
manured.

54.3

51.1

823.

,4.33.0

1.98

2.08
1.075

Ammo-
nium salts
alone.

r-,3. 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 barnyard
manure, and that these kernels contained the lowest percentage of.
nitrogen. The crops on unmanured soil stood next in these respects,
except in jaeld. 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 hght 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 difi'erent 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 duug

Horse dung

Goat dung

Sheep dung

Dried night soil. . .

Dried ox blood

Dried human urine

starch.

Produce.

66. 7 Threefold.

65.94

62.3

63.2

61.64

42.4

42.8

41.44

41. 43

39.3

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 Conturier^" tested the effect of phosphate fertihzer
alone upon the nitrogen content of the grain of two varieties of wheat.
On Plot 1 they 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 1.54

1.98 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.
cCompt. 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.

Guthrie'" 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:

Kind of fertilizer, if any.

None

Ammonium sulphate

Superphosphate

Potassium sulphate

Ammonium sulphate, superphosphate,
potassium sulphate

Experiments in 1901 —

At Wagga.

Yield
per acre
(bush-
els).

7.7

8.7

13.3

13.0

10.0

Percent-
age of
gluten.

At Bathurst.

Experiments in
1902, at Wagga.

11.90
10.43
12.0ti
12.02

11.70

Yield
per acre
(bush-
els).

13
16

13.. 5
13.0

13.7

Percent-
age of
gluten.

Yield
per acre
(hush-
els).

11.80
11.21
12.01
11.29

12.05

17.6
17.6
22.6
19.2

20.3

Percent-
age of
gluten.

9.8

8.7

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
the}" 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), Xo. 6, p. 664; and Xo. 7, p. 728.

28 IMPKOYING 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 unmanm-ed
soils. Any conditions that would prevent the normal ripening of the
crop on both soils woidd therefore leave a liigher percentage of nitro-
gen in the plants upon the unmanured soil. On the other hand,
imder conditions wliich 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 unmanm-ed soils that are seriously' depleted of
plant food. Such depletion may interfere with complete matiu-ation
of the crop while the crop on the manured soil ^vill mature fully. In
consequence the grain on the unmanured soil will contain a highef
percentage of nitrogen but a smaller yield per acre. The use of a
nitrogenous manure alone on exhausted soils mav hkewise 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 chmatic conditions will have
approximately the same percentage of nitrogen if allowed to mature
fully, but 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 fertihzers alone than on exhausted soils, and greater on soils
receiving complete manures than on exhausted soils receiving only
nitrogenous fertihzers, 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 gro^m 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 v.ere practicaUy the same. It would not appear, therefore,
that the wheat on the plot receiving the nitrogenous fertilizer was less
well matured than that on the unmanured plot. In this case there
appears to be a shght increase in the percentage of nitrogen, due
entirely to the use of nitrogenous fertilizers. Comparing the giain 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 wliich weigh l^ss per bushel than the grain on the completely
fertilized plot.

Yon Goliren's results show plainly that the kernels on the manured
land developed better than on the unmanured. and with this 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 wheat 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 liigher 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 MOISTUTJE UPON COMPOSITION AND YIELD.

Experiments were conducted by 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 uTigation 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.

„ Mois- Crude Ether ^^\^^^f^' Crude

'-'■"P- ture. protein, extract. exWaet. *''^'""

free ^J?'^^ Ash.

Per ct. Per ct. Per ct. Per ct.

Irrigated wheat 7.87 8.81 1.93 76.99

Vnirrigated wheat 7.65 14.41 2.23 -1.33

Per ct.
2.60
2.65

Perct.
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 wMcli is characteristic of wheat raised without sufficient
moisture.

"Abstract, Experiment Station Record. 13, p. 631, from Zhur. Opiiitn. 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 by 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
8.5
19.7
21.1
25.9
22.8
25.8
21.3
25.3
26.4
35.8
23.8

6.75
7.05
15.74
19.72
20.24
21.44
20.30
21.50
23.64
24.33
66.20
21.92

The results show that with an increase in the water used for irriga-
tion up to 30 inches there were in general an increase in the jdeld 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 yield 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-WHEAT KERNEL UPON

THE CROP YIELD.

Sanborn ^ reports experiments to ascertain the effect of separating
seed w^heat 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 j^ears. 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 Elxperiment 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
pounds).

Average
for 4
years.

1890.

1891.

1892. 1893.

Bushels
per acre.

Larsfe

S8.5

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

Smnll

94.0
84.0

18.72

16.42

Shrivpled

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 chaff}^ 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) heavy 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 were 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.
& 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 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

for several j^ears and small seed from a crop grown from small seed
for several j^ears. Five varieties of wheat were used. The average
results for three years were a difference of 1,067 to 1,828 kilograms
of grain ])er 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.

Middleton ^' reports the yields obtained from large wheat kernels
to be almost doulile those obtained from small seed kernels.

Bolle}^'' 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:

Kind of seed.

Yield per acre (in
busliels) .

Spring
wheat.

Winter
wheat.

Larerp tjIuitii)

21.7
18.0
16.7

42.4

34.8

Shninkpn

33.7

Deherain and Dupont*^^ report that the yields from small and large
kernels of a number of varieties of wheat were in all cases in favor of
the large kernels, but a large difference 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 grow^n 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. 654.

« Tennessee Experiment Station Bulletin, vol. 16, No. 4,. p. 77.

INFLUENCE OF SIZE OE WEIGHT OF SEED KERNEL.

33

The average difference in 3'ieid at tlie end of three years between large grains (607 per
ounce), commercial sample (689 per ounce.), and small grains (882 per ounce), with Med-
iterranean wheat, was 2.06 bushels 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
between the large grains and the commercial sample chiefly occurred the first year; but it
is possible, though hardly 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
years, and the difference in yield is now only 0.32 Ijushel per acre in favor of the large grains.

Cobb" reports tests of various grades of wheat kernels with respect
to size, and conckides 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.

Grenfell'^ 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
ro\vs 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 wedel Plump

Do Shriveled.

Purple Straw do

Do Plump

Do Shriveled .

Do Plump

Do Shriveled .

Plump-kernel averages

Shriveled-kern( 1 averages

''oTptnTs'^N^^'^^'-
tha?g,w.i°fhe'^d-

96.0
89.3
89.3
90.0

7fi.O
92.0
98.0

92.7

88.5

Average
Tillering >'i|ld per

Po^^-e'-- (bush-
els).

179
174

153
200
140
161
155

180
155

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
7.5

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 Alartin 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 Riinker
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.
c 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. Most
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 3'ear.
It is only those experiments in which selection of the same kind of
seed has been continued for several generations that ma}^ be relied
upon to indicate the value of continuous selection of large kernels
for seed.

Such experiments have been conducted by Sanborn, by Desprez,
and by Soule and Vanatter. The work of Desprez indicates that the
size of the kernel is a hereditary qualit} . 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 parth^ of
seed that is small hj 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 ver}^ 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 uniformit}', or that some other
errors had influenced the results. To offset this the tests cover a
period of four ^^ears, which should help to rectify mistakes, and in
consequence the good showing made by 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 j^ear contain a much
larger proportion of immature kernels than it would in subsequent
years, and hence yield more poorly 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 majorit^^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 life, 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 any
constant relation between the nitrogen content and the kernel weight,
l)ut 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 wheat 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 weight
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 anah^sis that the large kernels con-
tained 12.. 52 per cent protein and the small kernels 13.55 per cent
protein.

Woods and ^^lerrilP made analj'ses of a number of wheats grown
in Minnesota and of the same varieties grown in Maine. The wheats
uniforml}^ 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. Chera., 1893, p. 616, from Ann. Agron., 1892, p. 486.
c Abstract in Centrlb. f. Agi'. 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,
187.5. p. 362.

( Maine Experiment Station Bulletin 97.

86 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

decrease in the nitrogen content. The analyses, reduced to a water-
free basis, are as follows :

■\^■here grown.

Weight of

100 kernels
(grams).

Minnesota 2. 239

Maine 3. 109

Percentage
of 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 obtained
by Marek, Wollny, Miircker, 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 sa3^s 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 hy the larger surface possessed by the smaller kernels.

Snyder'^ has divided small kernels into two classes — those which
are small because shrunken and those which are small although well
filled. He finds that as between small kernels of the first class and
large, well-filled kernels, the former contain a higher percentage of
nitrogen, but 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 area of the United vStates. 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 witli five varieties of wheat,
find that as a general rule the percentage of nitrogen is increased
with increasing grain weight, but that there are many exceptions
to the 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 Landw. Jahrbiicher, 2.3
(1894), p. 83.5.

'' Minnesota Experiment Station Bulletin 8.5.

<■ Abstract, Experiment Station Record, 12, p. 327, from Tidsskr. Landbr. Planteavl., 5
(1899), pp. 91-100.

«/ Agricultural Gazette of New Soutli Wales, 5 (1894), Xo. 4, pp. 239-2.50.

INFLUENCE OF SPECIFIC GRAVITY OF SEED KERNEL.

37

Kornicko and Werner" quote the experiments of Reiset to show
that shriveled kernels have a higher nitrogen content than plump
ones. With different varieties of wheat he found the following :

Variety.

Kind.

Percent-
age cf

nitrogen
in dry

matter.

Shriveled

2.48

Do -

Plump

2.33

Vi.'»toria *-

Shriveled

Plump

2.44

Do

2.08

Shriveled

2.59

Do .

Plump

2.35

Cai'leton'' 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
!2.31
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 filled, 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 from
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, E.xperiment Station Record, 5, p. .58, from Utah Experiment Station Report,
1892, pp. 133-135.

38

IMPRtn"ING THE QrALITY OF WHKAT.

of a brino solution into two nearly equal parts. The seed thus sepa-
rated was planted on separate plots. The experiment was con-
tinued three years. The heavy seed yielded lO.S 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 chlorid havmg specific gravities of 1.247.
1.293, and 1.31. The seed was first treated with a solution of mer-
curic clilorid 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 generaTly produced the largest number
of fruiting plants.

(5) The seed wheat that sank in water, but floated in a solution
havmg the densitv 1.247. was of verv low value, vielding on an
average oidy 34.4 pounds of dressed grain for every 100 ^'ielded by
the densest seed.

Ilaberlandt/' 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. Tliis was the case with wheat, rve,
barlev. and oats. The results with Avheat were as follows:

Number of pounds.

Weight of kernels.

Light. Medium. | Heavy.

1,000 seed kernels.
1,000 crop kernels.

Grams. ' Grams, i Grams.
29.5 31.2 33.0
34.3 35.5 i 36.3

Wollny" objects to the results of the experiments by F. Haberlandt,
CIuutIi, Trommer, HelMegel, and Ph. Dietrich with various cereals,
in wliich almost without exception the kernels of liigli specific gravity*
produced the best yields, because no distinction was made between
absolute weight and specific gravity 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.

''Jahresh. Agr. Chom.. 1S60-67, p. 298. . -

•Abstract in Cent rib. f. Agr. Cheni., 1SS7, p. 169, from Forsclumgen a.d. Gebiete Agri-
kulturphvsik, 9 (1886), pp. 207-216.

SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND NITROGEN CONTENT, 39

In the light of the experiments that have been conducted with
seed wheat of liigh 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 mmeral matter and
is probably not normal in other respects. There would not appear,
however, to be any marked difference in the productive capacity of
kernels of medium specific gravit}' and kernels of great specific
gravity.

RELATION OF SPECIFIC GKAVITY OF KERNEL TO NITROGEN CONTENT.

Marek" found that with an increase in the specific gravity of the
kei'nel 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.

WoUn}"'' took kernels of horm' structure and kernels of mealy
structure. He says it is generally recognized that the hard, horny
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 meah' kernels
must really have a higher specific gravity than the horn}' 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 weighmg a certain
volume mass is influenced b}' the au- 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 variet}'
did show a definite and constant relation. The volume weight
increased with an increase in the weight of 1,000 kernels.

« Abstract in Centrlh. f. Agr. Cheni., 1876, p. 46, from Landw. 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., 45 (1897), p. 61.

40

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

There has long been a desire manifested b}^ 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 all 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 by
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 by 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 :

Seasons.

Good crop seasons.
Poor crop seasons.

Average
yield of

grain per
acre

(pounds).

1,833

1,740

Weight
per liushel

Yield of
nitrogen
per acre

- IN Ut'l ill 1 C

(pounds), (j^ounds)

60.2
57.1

28.0
29.8

It will be 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 PRODUCTION OF NITROGEN.

41

content in the grain also conduce to a large accumulation of nitrogen
by 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 observations 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 per
hectare
(kilos).

Starch per

Gluten.

Starch.

hectare
(kilos).

1S8S

3,44.5
2,922

12.6
15.3

77.2
61.9

434
447

2,6.59

1889

1,808

From tliis it will be seen that for the year in which the Aaeld of
grain was less per acre the production of gluten per acre was greater.
Apparent!}' 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 wheat raised at the Nebraska Experiment Station.

Variety.

Year.

Yield of

grain
per acre
(pounds).

Percent-
age of
proteid
nitrogen.

Proteid
nitrogen
per acre
(pounds).

Date of
ripen-
ing.

Turkish Red

1900
1901
1902
1903
1900
1901
1903
1902
1903
1902
1903

1,980
2.370
1,800
1,864
1,320
1,794
f 962
1,60.5
1,891
1,475
1,830

3.02
2.00
2.86
2.40
3.01
2.18
2. .54
3.16
2.10
2.92
2.16

52.73
43.04
51.48
44.74
34.58
36.08
24.43
46.32
39.71
43.10
39.53

June 27

Do

June 24

Do

June 23

Do

July 9

July 2

Do

July 1

Do

July 14

Weissenburs'

June 24

Do

July 10

Pester Boden

June 24

Do

July 10

Averaf'e

1,717

41.43

II Yield decreased Ijy 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.

« Ann. Agron., 28 (1902), p. 522.

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 d&js at a time. The temperatures during the day
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
da3"s 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 liigh
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 and scant moisture during early growth would,
therefore, seem to favor the accumulation of nitrogen by the wheat
plant.

It may also be noted that these are the conditions favorable to
the process of nitrification and to the accumulation of nitrates near
the surface of the soil.

Comparing the wheat crops grown at Rothamsted for a period of
twenty years, the yields and nitrogen production of which have just
been stated, with the averages for the Nebraska-grown wheats con-
tained in the last table, it will be seen that the yields of grain were
larger at Rothamsted, but that the production of nitrogen per acre
was considerably greater in Nebraska. ''

station.

Yield (in pounds)
per acre of —

Grain.

Nitrogen.

Rothamsted station

1,786
1,717

28.9

Npbra ska station

41.4

The maximum production of nitrogen per acre at Rothamsted
during the twenty years was 38.1 pounds, while at Nebraska it was
52.7 pounds.

There can be little doubt as to whether this difference was due
in greater measure to soil fertility or to climate. Nowhere is better

« The yield of nitrogen at Rothamsted is calculated from total organic nitrogen, while
at the Nebraska Station it is from proteid nitrogen. ■

CONDITIONS AFFECTING PRODUCTION OF NITROGEN. 43

tillage given or are crops more scientifically provided with food
than at Rothamsted. It is true that of the ten plots of land on
which these wheats were raised one received no manure and three
were not sufficiently manured. In order to make the comparison
more favorable to the English environment, the five plots completely
manured and producing the largest yields may be taken. The jdeld
of nitrogen per acre was 36.4 pounds for the years 1852-1861 and
34.6 pounds for 1862-1871. Even with the best manurmg the yields
of nitrogen fall very much short of those in Nebraska.

In Nebraska no commercial fertilizers had ever been used on the
land on which the wheats were grown, but farm manure had been
applied. The soil was a heavy one, well adapted to wheat growing,
and had been well tilled. It had been well manured for corn in a
rotation of corn, oats, and wheat. The varieties, with the exception
of Turkish Red, had just been introduced from Europe and had not
fully adapted themselves to the new environment. The average
nitrogen production for the only acclimated variety, Turkish Red,
was 48 pounds per acre. It would seem, therefore, that a cKmate
affording high temperatures, dry air, and a moderately dry soil is
favorable to the accumulation of a large amount of nitrogen by the
wheat plant, provided there is a large supply of nitrogen in the soil.

The heat and scant soil moisture are doubtless instrumental in
making available the nitrogen of the humus, and the bright sunshine
and dry, hot air stimulate growth and increase transpiration.

It has just been said that hot, dry weather in the early growing
season contributes to a large nitrogen accumulation by the wheat
plant. The same conditions cut short the growing period of the
plant and prevent the large accumulation of starch that takes place
in the kernel of wheat raised in a cool or moist region. It thus
happens that such wheats are high in nitrogen and low in starch.

The properties of the wheat kernel characteristic of a continental
chmate and rich soil are probably due to rapid nitrification and
liighly stimulated growth causing a large accumulation of nitrogen
by the crop, and to incomplete maturation, caused either by heat,
or frost, or lack of moisture, resulting in high nitrogen.

It would be interesting to know what relation the production of
nitrogen per acre bears to the production of mineral matter, but
the necessary figures are not at hand.

The wheat kernel produced in a continental climate is not usually
plump as compared with the kernel produced in an insular or coastal
one. The yield of grain per acre is also usually less. That this is
due to incomplete maturation is shown by the fact that winter
varieties of wheat that make their growth early in the season always
yield better than spring varieties. The latter, on the other hand,
have a higher, percentage of nitrogen, but usually not so large a

44 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

nitrogen production. Their disadvantage lies in the fact that their
roots are not sufficiently developed to absorb a large quantity of
nitrogenous matter at the time most favorable for its accumulation.
As a maximum nitrogen accumulation is the chief desideratum,
spring wheats are not desirable where winter ones can be grown.

This does not mean that a variety of wheat which has been grown,
for instance, in England will show all the qualities of an inland
wheat when first grown in Kansas or Nebraska. Such a wheat will
undergo modifications that will give it some of these qualities, such,
for instance, as less well-filled kernels, and less weight per bushel.
On the other hand, the Turkish Red wheat, when raised in a cool,
moist climate, becomes later maturing, and the kernel becomes
plumper, more starchy, and softer. It is betw^een varieties adapted
each to its peculiar climate, and raised there for years, that these
distinctions are most marked, but the fact that a modification of
an}^ variety begins at once when transferred from one climate to
another shows that such qualities as those mentioned are influenced
by the climate.

It must be quite apparent, although it has not often been remarked,
that the ordinary selection of seed wheat to increase the yield has
resulted in producing a grain of lower nitrogen content.

This has been noticed by Girard and Lindet " and by Biff en, ^' and
incidentally by Balland,'' who, in commenting on the decrease iii
the nitrogen content of wheat in northern France and the increased
yields, attributes the former to a deficiency of nitrogen in the fer-
tilizers used, and states that the gluten in the wheat of that region
in 1848 ranged from 10.23 to 13.02 per cent, while fifty years later
it ranged from 8.96 to 10.62 per cent. In the same time the aver-
age yield increased from 14 to 17.5 hectoliters per hectare. In the
light of the results of experiments to ascertain the effect of nitroge-
nous fertilizers upon the composition of wheat, it can not be supposed
that tliis decrease in nitrogen content can be due primarily to lack
of nitrogen. It would seem more likely that the increased yield
was largely due to the deposition of starch in the grain, and that
consequently the percentage of gluten was smaller.

Has the improvement in the yield of wheat been accompanied by
a greater yield of nitrogen per acre? It is evident that the increase
in the grain and that in the nitrogen are not proportional, but it is

« Le Froment et sa Monture, Paris, 1903.
& Nature (London), 69 (1903), No. 1778, pp. 92, 93.

c Abstract in Centrlb. f. Agr. Chem., 1897, p. 785, from Corapt. Rend., 124 (1897),
p. 158.

CONDITIONS AFFECTING PRODUCTION OF NITROGEN.

45

desirable to know whether there has been any increase in nitrogen
per acre. Returning to the figures given by Balland it will be seen
that the wheat of 1848 produced on an average 163 kilos per hec-
tare, while that of fifty years later produced 171 kilos, an increase
of about 5 per cent in gluten per hectare, with an increase of 25 per
cent in jdeld. These figures can not, of course, be taken as strictly
accurate, as they are based merely on what M. Balland refers to as
the range of nitrogen content.

Some data on this subject are available in the published records
of wheat improvement at the ^Minnesota Experiment Station. «
Yields and gluten content of improved varieties and of the original
variety from which the improved strains have been developed by
selection are given. The figures cover the same seasons for all
varieties, and the averages of six trials are reported for each, as
follows :

Variety.

Minnesota No. 149, produced from Power's Fife. . :

Power's Fife, unmodified by selection

Minnesota No. li 9, produced from Hayne's Blue Stem
Havne's Blue Stem, unmodified by selection

Yield per

acre
(bushels) .

25.6
23.fi

28.5
24.6

Percent-
age of
dry glu-
ten.

13.5
14.0
12.5
13.4

Gluten Nitrogen
per acre per acre
(pounds), (pounds).

207.4
198.2
213.7
198.8

36.4
34.8
37.5
34.7

In each case the new variety yielded more grain per acre, possessed
a lower gluten content, and produced more nitrogen per acre in the
grain. It should be explained that determinations of gluten and
baking tests were made of strains of wheat produced by the selection
of individual plants, and that the cpiantity and quality of the gluten
in these strains were considered in deciding which strain was to be
perpetuated. For that reason the gluten content of the improved
wheat is doubtless greater than it would have been if no attention
had been paid to those ciuahties. Incidentall}^ it may be stated
that the cjuality of the gluten in these new vaiieties of wheat origi-
nated by Professor IIa3's is much better than that in the original
varieties. The difference between selection for gluten carried on in
this wa}^ and selection for gluten applied to the individual plant is
that the latter must increase many times the opportunity for devel-
oping a strain of desirable gluten content.

Returning to the nitrogen production per acre, it is apparent that
it is slightly greater in the improved wheats, or at least is not less
than in the original varieties. This is encouraging, as it indicates
the possibility of increasing the production of gluten per acre.

« Minnesota Experiment Station Bulletin 63.

46 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Gluten is the valuable constituent of wheat. The wheat growing
of the future may be looked upon as a gluten-producing industry.
The pro})lem is to secure the highest possible quantity and quality
of gluten per acre. If this can be done by sacrificing starch produc-
tion, it will be economical. Starch can be more cheaply produced
in other crops and, if necessary, added to the flour of wheat.

It may be argued that this is not to the interest of the farmer.
But it is clearly to the interest of mankind and any step toward
its accomplishment must in the end redound to the advantage of
the farmer.

:r^^i?,t II

EXPERIMENTAL

SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL.

If a number of wheat kernels of the same variety and raised under
simiLir conditions are separated into approximately equal parts with
regard to their specific gravity, the kernels of low specific gravity
will be found to contain a higher percentage of both total and proteid
nitrogen than the kernels having a high specific gravity.

A number of samples of wheat grown in different years and repre-
senting different varieties were separated into approximately equal
parts by throwing the kernels into a solution of calcium chlorid bav-
ins such a densitv that about half the kernels would float and the
other half sink. The specific gravity of the solution in which each
sample was separated is given in Table 1 and the signs < and > 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 Tcernels of high and of low specific gravity.

Serial number.

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

>1.264

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.Hf)

2.01

.65

3.30

2.41

.89

3.06

2.29

. II

Name of variety and year of
growth.

>IIickman, grown in 1895.

Turkish Red, grown in 1897.

\Spring wheat, Marvel, growTi
) in 1897.

jSpring wheat, Velvet Chaff
/ grown in 1897.

JTurkish Red, grown in 1898.

a Proteid nitrogen in this paper = 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 by directing upward a current
of air, the velocity of which can be regulated. Into tliis current the
grain is directed. The result is that the heavy kernels and the large

27889— No. 78—05-

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
(grams).

Light seed
(grams).

Ratio.

Heavy.

Light.

Small

8.72

9.62

11.96

11.28

10.78

8.04

1
1
1

1.29

1.12

Larsre

.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 Tcernels 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
2.04
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

ISpring wheat, Marvel, grown
1 in 1896.

10

Heavy

Light

.57

[currell, grown in 1898.

58

Heavy

Light

65

[spring wheat, grown in 1898.

66

Heavy

Light

80

[Big Frame, grown in 1899.

81

Heavv

Light

383 . .

[Turkish Red, grown in 1900.
[Big Frame, grown in 1900.

384

385 . .

Heavv

Light

386

Heavy

Light

602

[Big Frame, gro^^^l 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 innnature 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 always 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 two 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 was 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 THE 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.

Weight (ir

grams)

Percent-

Proteid

nitrogen

Number
of ker-

of-

-

Volume
of aver-

Specific
gravity

age of

(gram) in —

Record

nels on

row of

spikelets.

number.

Kernels.

Average
kernel.

age ker-
nel.

of ker-
nels.

nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

Kernels.

Average
kernel.

183

188

17
16

4772

0.0280

2.06

0.00983

0.000577

.4425

.0276

2.37

.01049

. 000654

W3

14

.3724

.0266

2.41

.00897

.000642

205

15

.4824

.0321

0.0241

1.3323

2.41

.01548

.000774

291

18

. 5221 1

.0290

.0209

1.3850

2.23

.01616

.000647

304

21

.5336

.0254

.0189

1.3424

2.24

.01195

.000569

318

22

.6708

.0304

.0220

1.3853

2.02

.01354

.000614

347

15

.4549

.0303

.0216

1.4031

2.44

.OHIO

. 000739

357

15

.4063

.0270

.0192

1.4074

2.36

.00959

. 000637

3.58 i

21

.6689

.0318

.0235

1.3544

2.33

.01559

.CX)0742

380

14

.4336

.0309

.0225

1.3735

2.35

.01019

.000726

396

19

.4787

.0251

.0183

1.3680

2.28

.01091

.000572

402

17

.4594

.0258

.0188

1.3718

2.33

.01070

.000601

406

21

.5878

.0279

.0200

1.3915

2.44

.01434

.000681

415

13

. 2771 1

.0213

2.44 '

.00676

.000520

440 1

444 •

445 :

Average...

Yj

4566

0268

2.36

.01078

.000632

16
16

.4110
.4318

.0256
.0269

2.38
2.37

.00978
.01023

.000609
.000638

17

.4759

.0266

.0209

1.374

2.323

.01141

1

.000643 1

2.5 TO 3

PER CE>

TT PROT

EID NITROGEN.

181

182

19
17

0.4482
.4299

0.0235
.0252

1

2.66
2.76

0.01192
.01187

0.000625
.000696

1

185

19

..5041

.0265

1

2.71

.01366

.000718

187

15

.3945

.0263

2.99

.01180

. 000786

189

18

.4871

.0270

1

2.64

. 01286

.000713

196

17

.4995

.0293

2.71

.01354

. t)00794

197

20

.5683

.0284

2.85

.01620

. 000809

199

17

.4589

.0269

2.99

.01372

. 000804

207

15

.4.584

.0305

0.0230

1.3248

2.73

.01709

.000833

210

14

.3955

.0282

.0288

1.2363

2.95

.01167

.000832

211

17

.5211

.0306

.0228

1.3416

2.90

.01511

.000887

212

15

.4298

.0286

.0211

1.3537

2.97

.01277

.000849

217

18

.6299

.0349

.0259

1.3461

2.86

.01802

. 000998

218

18

.5130

.0285

.0214

1.3303

2.. 58

.01324

.fK30735

219

19

.3862

.0203

.0157

1.2950

2.71

.01047

.000.550

222

19

.4611

.0242

.0182

1.333i

2.93

.01351

.000709

227

19

. 5.581

.0293

.0214

1.3704

2.71

.01624

.000794

229 . ..

17

.4849

.0285

.0206

1.3856

2.96

.01387

.000844

''SO

15

.4867

.0324

.0234

1.3815

2.54

.01236

.000823

238

17

.5166

.0303

.0220

1.3794

2.70

.01395

.00U818

239

17

.3910

.0230

. 01649

1.3941

2.60

.01017

.000598

241

18

.4230

.0235

.0178

1.3196

2.76

.01168

.000o49

242

18

.4562

.0253

.0184

1.3753

2.96

.013.50

.000749

252

19

14

.4898
.3792

.02578
.0270

.0186
.0203

1.3875

1.3286

2.55

2.86

.01249
.01085

.000o55
.000772

277

288

17

.49.56

.0291

.0217

1.3428

2.82

.01398

.000821

289

19

..5042

.0265

.0187

1.4155

2.53

.01276

.000670

293

17

.4858

.0285

.0206

1.3835

2.64

.01283

.000752

294

19

.4173

.0219

.0159

1.3813

2.56

.01068

.000561

302

22
19

. .5569
.4922

.0253
.0258

.0190
.0185

1.3312
1.3996

2.68
2.51

.01437
.01235

.000678
.0006.50

306

308

15

.4951

.0330

.0237

1.392

2.85

.01411

.000941

315

16

.4994

.0312

.0224

1.3916

2.75

.01373

.0008.58

319

17

.4644

.0273

.0203

1.3447

2.86

.01328

.000781

320

18

.5668

.0314

.0229

1.3710

2.98

.01689

.000938

322

16

.5107

.0219

.0236

1.352

2.55

.01302

.000813

329

12

.3903

.0325

.0234

1.3911

2.88

.01241

.000936

330

17

.3431

.0201

.0161

1.2498

2.62

.00899

. 000527

332

16
18

.4847
.5399

.0302
.0299

.0218
.0215

1.3879
1.3922

2.58
2.62

.01251
.01415

. 000779

334

.000783

335

18

.6474

.03.59

.0258

1.3928

2.82

.01826

.001012

337

15

.4497

.0299

.0215

1.3877

2.89

.01345

. 000864

340

20

.4155

.0207

.0153

1.3.5.50

2.74

.01138

.000.567

341

15

,5058

.0337

.0243

1.3890

2.97

.01.502

.001001

342

14

.4486

.0320

.0228

1.4037

2.60

.01166

. aX)832

343

13

.4112

.0316

.0224

1.4107

2.. 50

.01028

. 000791

344

16

.4004

.025D

.0184

1.3611

2.93

.01173

. 000733

345

18
19

..5422
.6393

.0301
.0336

.0216
.0242

1.3919
1.3913

2. .56
2.55

.01388
.01630

.000771

346

.0008.57

348

18

.6328

.0351

.0262

1.3415

2.88

.01822

1 .001010

SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL.

58

Table 4. — Analyses of sjyikes of wheat, arranqed accordinq to nitrogen content of kernels.

Crop of 1902— Conthmed. '

2.5 TO 3 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued.

1

Weight (in grams)

[

Percent-

Proteid

1
nitrogen 1

Record

Number
of ker-
nels on
row of

spikelets.

of-

Volume
of aver-

Specific
gravity

age of
proteid

(gram) in—

number.

Kemels.

Average
kernel.

age ker-
nel.

of ker-
nels.

nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

Kernels.

Average
kernel.

349

17

0. 4573

0.0269

0.0195

1.3822

2.66

0.01216

0.000716

350

16

.4437

.0277

.0199

1.3891

2.64

.01171

.0(H)731

354

21

.6386

.0304

.0217

1.4002

2.73

.01743

.000830

355

16

.5008

.0313

.0223

1.4022

2.84

.01422

.0()0S,S9

356

19

..5304

.0279

.0200

1.390

2.91

.01543

.(10II,H12

359

15

. 3882

.0259

.0186

1.3915

2.97

.011.53

.000769

360

24

. 6375

.0265

.0191

1.3840

2.89

.01842

.I.10076f)

361

14

.3297

.0235

.0170

1.3819

2.94

.00969

.OdOtiOl

364

18

.4724

.0262

.0191

1.3729

2.92

.01379

.000765

371

18

..5695

.0316

.0227

1.3906

2.99

.01703

.0(10945

373

18

..5861

.0325

.0235

1.3838

2.87

.01682

.0(K)933

376

12

. 2677

.0223

.0162

1.3747

2.60

.00696

.(KKI.'iSO

378

14

.4099

.0292

.0212

1.3761

2.75

.01127

.00(1803

383

12

.3416

.0284

.0206

1.3771

2.96

.01011

.000841

386

16

. 4921

.0307

.0223

1.3741

2.52

. 01240

. 000774

387

19

.5177

.0272

.0198

1.3758

2.73

.01413

.000743

389

21
16
15

.5830
.3547
.3494

.0277
.0221
.0232

.0204
.0171
.0165

1.3.569
1.2947
1.4070

2.96
2.94
2.70

.01726
.01043
.00943

.000820
. 000(1.50
. 0(K)626

392

393

394

16

.3897

.0243

.0180

1.3508

2.77

.01079

. 000673

395

17

.4805

.0282

.0206

1.3693

2.98

.01432

. 000840

419

14
15

.3448
.3097

.0246
.0206

2.86
2. .53

.00986
.00784

.000704
.000.521

421

424

18

.4991

.0277

2.62

.01308

. a)0726

428

430

17
18

.4635

.5714

.0272
.0317

2.60
2.82

.01205
.01611

. 000707
. 000894

434

436

438

16
22
23
18
19
13

.4624
.6138
.6997
.5600
.5327
.4131

.0289
.0279
.0304
.0311
.0280
.0317

2.86 .

2.88

2.67

2.98

2.93

2.51

.01322
.01768
.01868
.01669
.01561
.01037

. 000827
. 000834
.000812
.000927
.000820
.000796

439

441

443

Average...

17.07

.4791

j .0279

.0207

1.3680

2.76

.01332

.000776

3 TO 3.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

173

175

17R

190

191

192

194

195

198

.200

202

20
21
.20
18
17
17
13
19
18
18
14
16

0..5913
. 5773
.5804
.4673
.4279
.4126
.3218
.4924
.4683
.5764
.3824
.5251

0.0295
.0274
.0290
.0259
.0251
.0242
.0247
.02.59
.0260
.0320
.0273
.0328

3.08
3.46
3.10
3.25
3.25
3.12
3.43
3.. 33
3.18
■ 3.24
3.13
3.07

0.01821
. 01997
.01799
.01519
.01091
.01287
.01104
.01640
.01489
.01868
.01197
.01612

0.000909
.000948
.000899
.000842
.000816
.000755
.000847
.000862
.000827
.001040
.000854
.001007

0.0200
.0241

1.3615
1.3614

203

206

17

.3392

.0199

.01.57

1.2709

3.44

.01166

.0006^5

208

19

.4939

.0259

.0192

1.3494

3.21

.01585

.000831

213

15

.4116

.0274

.0204

1.3415

3.31

.01362

.000907

214

16

.4371

.0273

.0208

1.3082

3.09

.01351

.000844

216

15

.3122

.0208

.0165

1.2588

3.33

.01040

. 000693

220

17

.5040

.0296

.0222

1.33.50

3.20

.01613

. 0(X)947

223

17

.4795

. 0282

.0204

1.3970

3.31

.01587

.000933

226

21

.5380

.02.56

.0170

1.4951

3.11

.01673

. 000796

228

14

.4143

.0295

.0211

1 . 3945

3.40

.01409

.(K)1(X)3

231

18

.5888

.0.327

.0242

1.3514

3.11

.01831

.001017

232

13
17

.3825
.5331

.0294
.0313

.0221
.0231

1.3280
1.3,5.58

3.11
3.32

.01190
.01663

.000914
.001039

233

234

16

.5201

.0325

.0243

1.3363

3.23

.01680

.(MlK^iO

236

25

.7451

.0298

.0220

1 . 3504

3.19

.02377

.1X10951

243

24

.6349

.0264

.0196

1.3487

3.47

.02203

.(XKWUi

244

• 19

.5839

.0307

.0214

1.4305

3.30

.01927

.001013

249

16

.4415

.0275

.0199

1.38.50

3.21

.01417

.000883

250

15

.4514

.0300

.0213

1.4100

3.12

.01408

.000936

251

22

.6190

.0281

.0203

1.3823

3.46

.02142

.000972

255

18

.5948

.0330

.0233

1.4146

3.03

.01802

.001000

256

21

.5277

.0251

.0184

1.3629

3.31

.01747

.OOORK

258

17

.4703

.0276

.0211

1.3065

3.38

.01590

. 000933

54

mrKovixcj THK Qr Ai.rrv <n' wuv.X'v

Taule 4. — Analiisfs of apikftt of wheat, ana iKjal accoiirnui to nitrogen content of Irrnels.

' Crop of I90:J -Vin\t\\mi\\.

:i TO ;{."> I'KK I'KN r I'HorKin NrrKin;KN— Continued.

nimihor

2tl2..
2tW..
2t)4 . .

aw..

aw..
2<>i>..

270..
271..
•2?>..
273..
275..
27(> . .
278..
281 . .
2S2

•iv.".!

3(X>..
Wl..
305..
307.-
310..
312..
314..
316..
317..
321..
323..
;«4..
325..
327..
XW..
S3t>..
331)..
351..
352..
3Xi..
3(52..
3(56..
;U»7 . .
3(>S..
3(i9..
370..
3?>..
374..
375 . .
377..
37V»..
oSl..
3S2..

;?8s..

3SX)..

a»i . .
;w . .

4(X1..

401 . .

4t«..

4(M..

410..

411..

414.

41(i..

41S.

4-2;?.

425.
42(>.
427 .
4-29.
431.
432.
433.
437.
442.

WoiiTht (ill jrrains"*

Xuil\l>lM' ' of

of kor-

iiols oil

row of

spikolots

,- ,, , .Vveragt?

.\v»M"aw .

IS

IS

IS

IS

10

17

20

14

15

IS

IS

15

15

21

IS

19

19

Iti

13

20

IS

15

15

17

17

IS

17

17

17

1(>

Iti

13

Iti

15

15

1(1

19

17

20

19

19

17

17

17

IS

14

18

13

19

19

19

IS

12

20

16

17

18

20

14

19

15

21

IS

IC

IS

19

20

IS

21

20

16

17

17.4

0.4fiW
. •.(Viti
.■113S
.44'29
.5010
.4531
. 51S3
.3275
.3858
.4559
.48(52
.3973
.4715
.6938
.4973
.5205
.4994
.5492
.3452
.4122
. 4Sti7
. 4;?24
.4122
.4157
.4412
.5484
. 4075
. 4230
.5110
.41W9
.4610
. 3tv^7
.;^8lX5
.3843
.4497
. 4726
. 52.VS
.4214
.5;«1
.;5S77
. 55(iO
.4-W
.4811
. 5249
.5147
.3173
.5271
.3506
.5057
.5799
.47(i4
.4474
.3058
.5720
.34)96
.5000
.4286
.5368
.3479
.5044
.4-2(«
.4995
.4845
.4801
.5166
.5433
.471H
.4119
.6;?06
.5206
.4336

.4724

0.0255
.OJSO
. 022*,)
.0246
.0263
.0266
.0259
.023;{
.0257
.0253
.0270
.0264
.0314
.0330
.0276
.(K73
.I.V2(i2

.am

.(V2(>5

.02tW

.0270

.02S8

.0274

.IV244

.0259

.(WW

.0239

.IV248

.0300

.0252

.IV2S8

. 027*)

.0237

.0256

.(V29i)

.lV2iV5

.0276

.0247

.0267

.IV204

.025)2

.ir247

.0283

.(Xi(VS

.0285

.0-226

.IV292

.0269

.(V26t>

.(K»5

.0250

.0248

.0254

.0286

.0249

.IV25U

.0238

.0268

.0248

.0265

.0284

.0237

.0269

.03lX)

.0287

.0285

.0235

.0228

.031X)

.0260

.0271

.0228

.0270

VoUiuu> ' Spivific
of aver- ' jiravity
age ker- of ker-
nel. I nels.

Tereent- I'roteiii nitrogen
iige of 1 (grain) in—
^irotoiil

iutn\s;on |

0.0193
.0197
.0169
.0189
.0187
.0205)
.0191
.0177
.0190
.0178
.0197
.0191
.(V226
.IV241
.02(X)
.(V201
.Ol.SS
.0249
.0197
.0140
.OUVS
.IV210
.0-201
.0178
.0193
.0-207
.0177
.0180
.0-2-20
.0191
.(V.W
.019S
.0171
.01S6
.IV217
.0-211

.irjoi

.0185
.0197
.0151
.0214
.OlSO
.OJOii
.0218
.O-JlXi
.0174
.0213
.OIW
.OUH
.0221
.OlSl
.01S2
.01S8
.0-2(Xi

.ois;?

.(V211
.OlA)

1.3-216
1.4-J(Xi
1.3544

l.o(X).".
1.40<X)
1.-2748

i.;»4i

1.3143

i.;v">(>4

1.4-2-28
1.3711
1.3815
1.3tXX<
1.3693
1.3795
1 . 3ti(VS
1.3945
1.37S7
l.34;52
1.4727
1.3(>S1
1.3718
1.3657
1 . 37'.53
1.34-24
1.4lit;0
1.3487
1.3740
l.SlvxS
1.3-2-25
1. ;»,">»>
1.4102
i.;vS-28
i.;58i2
i.;i8-n)

1.3iVS8
1.3-01
1.33,"i()
1 . 3."vVi
1.3497
1.3t>21
1 . 37;v>
1.3714
1.4142
1.401S
l.;?013
1.37lVi
l.;i544
1.37-28
1 . 3773

i.ssix;
i.;?i>2S

1 . 3837
1 . 3575
l.;«)-27
1.3221

in ker- Kernels,
nels.

jVverace
kernel.

.OIW

1.3666

3.20
3.-24
3.37
3. 30
3.11
3.21
3. 37
3.;«)
3.14
3. ;«)
3.;«

3. 15
3.12
3.-26
3. 02
3. (Hi
3.07
3.0>»
3.07
3. 19
3, Hi
3. 49

3. 16
3. 3ti
3. 43
3. 43
3.4;?
3. 19
3. 46
3. 4.5
3.-2ti
3.3ti
3. IV
3. 32
3.05
3.11
3. (V?
3.17
3.37
3.(X>
3.34
3.(X)
3.31
3. 15
3.41
3.47
3. IX)
3.45
3.-23
3.O.".
3.22
3. 2ti
3. 10
3. 35
3. 37
3.(Vt

3.;w

3.27
3.15
3.14
3.-24
3.lVi
3.14
3.;»
3. IX)
3.(Xi
3.04
3. -20
3.(X)

3. 12

3. 13
3.23

3.23

0.01473 '

0.000816

.oii-.;5;!

.(XXXX)7

.01395

. tXX)772

.01462

.(XX)S12

.01.V.8

.IXXVSIS

.01454

.^xx)8,^4

.01747

. IXXVS73

.01110

. (XX)790

.01212

.(XXVS07

.01546 '

. (XH1858

.01619

.(XXXSiX)

.01-251

.(XXVS;V2

.01471

.IXXX)S0

. 0-2-2(>2

.(X)1076

.01. -.02

.(XX)8;{4

.oi:.<w

. ixxxs;c.

.Ol'w

.lXX\s^)4

.01ii97

.lX>UXiO

.010^0

.(XXVS14

.01315

.IXXH=57

.Ol.VW

.(XXXS53

.01. MX)

.IX)KX).5

.013(K?

. (XX\St-)»i

.01397

.(XXVS-20

.01513

.IXX)S88

.01S81

.(X)1043

.oims

.(XX)8-20

.01349

.(XX)791

.OlTivS

.IX)1038

.01393

.(XX)8t^9

.Ol.VV?

.IXXX)39

.01-2-J2

.IXXX>37

.0r2ii6

.IKX)789

.01-J76

.(XX)851

.01372

.IXX)914

.01470

.00(X)17

.01593

.0(xvs;w

.0U»6

.ixx)7s;?

.01803

.IXXXXK)

.01186

.(XXX.24

.01S57

.0(XX)75

.01-298

.(XX)763

.01."i5)3

.IXX)937

.01ti.V<

.01X)970

.017,^5

.IXX)975

.01101

.IXX)784

.Olti-2*)

.(XXXX)2

.01-210

.IXXXVJS

.01633

.(XX)855)

.017ti9

.IXXX)30

.Ol.vW

.IXX)S05

.014,">9

.OOOSOS

.(XXMS

.01X)7S7

.01916

.000958

.0i;U7

.000839

.01,V20

.000894

.01414

.000785

.01755

.IXX)780

.01096

.IXX)7S1

.01584

.IXX)S;?2

.OKVs;?

.1X109-20

.015-23

.01X)?23

.01521

.000815

.Ol.x^

.0005)90

.Ol55Xi

.000887

.016«i2

.0lX)S72

.01^30

.(.XX)714

.0131S

.000732

.0181)2

.000900

.01624

.1X10811

.01357

.000848

.01236

.000736

.01520

.IXXVS74

SOME IMIOPEKTIKS OF THE WHEAT KERNEL.

55

Table 4. — Amilyses of sjnkes of v^lieaf, arramifd arroifJint/ lo nilror/en content of kernels.

'(Jioiiof l'.l()'2~VonUunc(\.

■iJ, T(J 4 I'KK VV.S'V I'liOTKIl) MTItOGEN.

Number
of ker-

Weight (in gnims;

I'ercent-

Protflfl

nitrogen

Recorfl

of

Volume
of nvcr-

Specific
gravity

age of
proteid

Cgram; in

nels on

row of

spikclets.

18
19
19
17
20
21
1.5

number.

174

177

179

\W

1H4

IWi

2()4

Kernels.

0. 402.5
.4073
. 4972
. .5202
..5.512
..5414
.401.5

Average
kernel.

0.0223
.0214
.0201

.o;«)9

.0275
.02.57
.0207

age ker-
nel.

of ker-
nels.

nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

3.70
3. .57
3.85
3.. 58
3. 78
3.97
3.90

Kemelo

0.01513
.014.54
.01914
.01884
. 02084
.02149
.01.506

Average
kemeT.

0.(K)0838
.(KX)704
.(KmK)5
.(Kill 10
.(X)IOIO
.(X)1020
.(K)10t3

0.0198

1 . 3460

2fW

17

. 3.58S

.0211

.0104

1 . 2828

3. 82

.01.371

.(KX)8<)0

21.-)

12

.3318

.0270

.0205

1 . 3493

3. 79

.012.58

.(K)1040

224

17

.4891

.0287

. 0220

1..3039

3. 05

.0178.5

.001048

225

19

. 4970

.0201

.0193

1 . 3.507

3. .5.5

.01760

.(KK)927

23r,

18

.4.5.5.5

.02.53

.0192

1.3104

3.65

.01063

. (KK)923

240

10

..3984

.0249

.0177

1 . 4(e5

3. .53

.01406

. (XK)879

24.^

1.5

.:«71

.0204

.02(Kt

1 . 3230

3.04

.01445

.mm]

24ti

18

.4.502

.02.53

.0194

1 . 30.58

3. 75

.01711

. (XXK)49

247

18

.4937

.0274

. 0202

1.. 3.501

3. .50

.01728

. (HX)9.59

248

17

.4017

.0271

.0193

1 . 4095

3.05

.01085

.(KXK)91

2.03

21

. .5900

.028.3

. 0203

1.3917

3. 03

.02163

.<K) 1.327

2.59 . .

19
17

.4932
..519.5

.02.59
.0.305

.0193
. 0229

1 . 34(X)
1 . 3333

3.M
3. .50

.01894
.01818

. (XXKK)5
.(X)1008

201

274

15

. 3347

.0223

.0108

1 . 33(K)

3.. 57

.01195

.(XXJ790

279

10

. 4304

.0269

.02(K)

1.3441

3.79

.01631

.{X)1020

280

10

. 4.30.5

.0209

.0198

1 . 3000

3.70

.01.593

.(XX)995

283

17

.4974

.0292

.0210

1.3911

3.8*1

.01920

.(X)1127

284

14

.3723

.0205

.0189

1 . 40.5f)

3.72

.01.38.5

.(KK)986

28.-,

18

..5709

.0320

.0233

1..3715

3.87

.022:«

.(XI 1238

28»i

17

.4140

.0243

.0178

1 . 3000

3..5<)

.01474

. 0(X)H(;5

287

10

.4740

.0290

. 0223

1 . 3270

3.87

.018.35

.(KllUO

■><M)

10

..39.5.5

.0247

.0177

1..3921

4.(K)

.01.582

.(XX)f)S8

29»1

17

. .5037

.0290

.0214

1.3832

3.94

.0198.5

.(X)llOO

2(i9

17
18

. 4.5.53
.47.53

.0207
.02.39

.0195
. 02.39

1..3715
. 1.1051

3. 08
3. 75

.01070
.01782

. (XX)98.3
.fXX)9fX)

■■m

313

17

.4798

.0282

. 0202

1..3971

3. .52

.01089

. (XX»993

328

20
17

..5795
.3795

.0289
.0223

.0215
.01*5

1..3406
1..34tW

3.01
3. .50

.02092
.01328

.(X)I043
.fXX)781

3H3

30.5

10

. :i409

.0210

.01 CO

1 . 2787

3..y)

.01214

. (Xl075<i

3W

14

.4012

.0286

.0212

1 . 34W)

3.. 50

.01428

.(X)I020

38.5

1.5

.4102

.0277

. (r203

1.3070

3. 79

.01.578

.(X)l ().-/)

40.5

18

.4940

.0274

. fr203

1 . 3.508

3. 70

.018.57

.fX»l(l30

mi

20

. 4707

.02.35

.0171

1..37fX)

3. 79

.01784

.fXX)>s91

408

im

412

413

417

420

422

4.3.5

19
17
10
17
19
17
23
20
17

. 44fi2
.4329
.3390
.4.393
.4.5.30
.41.50
. .5.395
.4310
.4425

.02.34
.02.54
.0211
.02.58

.()2U
.0234
.0215
.0260

3. 04
3. .59
3.63
3.77
3.80
3.73
.3.-53
.3. .53
.3.75

.01024
.01.5.54
.01231
.016.56
.01721
.015.50
.01904
.01.521
.01659

. (XK)S.-_'
.(XX»9I2
. (XX)700
. (XXK»73
.(KKKI04
.(KKl^llO
. (XX)820
.0007.59
.000975

1"

1

440

Average . .

17.3

.4517

.02.57

.01987

1..3494

3.70

.01672

.000982

Table 5 shows at a glance the averages for each of the clas.ses of
spikes just tabulated, and permits of a comparison of the average
figures for each class/'

"The determinations of .specific gravity were made by the following method, devised by
Prof. S. Averj-: A light ba.sket of wire gauze was suspended by aliair from the hook tliat
supported one of the pan hangers of the balance. The ba.sket was allowed to hang in a
beaker of benzol supported by a shelf above the pan. By using a counterpoi.se the balance
was now brought to the zero point. The balance was kept at zero by the occasional adjust-
ment of a rider on the left aim of the beam. The wheat was weighed on the pan of the
balance, then transferred to the basket and weighed in benzol, and the temperature of the
latter carefully noted. The specific gravity was calculated from the well-known formula:

Wt. in air X -sp. gr. in benzol at T^._ g
\Vt. in air wt. in benzol

56 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table .5. — Summary of analyses of spikes of icheat, arr'anged according to nitrogen content

of l-ernels. Crop of 1902.

Range cf

Per-
centage
of pro-
teid
nitro-
gen in
kernels.

Number of —

Weight (in grams)
of—

Volume
of aver-
age ker-
nel.

Specific
gravity.

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in —

percentage cf

proteid

nitrogen.

Analy-
ses.

Kernels
on row
of spike-
lets.

Kernels.

Average
kernel.

Kernels.

Average
kernel.

2 to 2.5

2.5to3

3 to 3.5

3.5to4

2.32
2.76
3.23
3.70

18

82

107

49

17
17.1
17.4
17.3

0. 4759
.4791
.4724
.4715

0.0266
.0279
.0270
.0257

0.0209
.0207
. 0199
.0199

1.374
1..368
1.367
1.349

0.01141
.01332
.01520
.01672

0. 000643
.000776
. 000874
.000982

From this table it will be seen tliat with an increase in the percent-
age of proteid nitrogen the number of kernels on a row of spikelets
remains about constant; that in general there were a decrease in the
weight of the kernels on a row of spikelets and a slight decrease in the
w^eight of the average kernel; and that the volume of the average
kernel decreased, as did the specific gravity.

It may safely be stated that a high percentage of proteid nitrogen
was in these spikes associated with a kernel of low' specific gravity,
light weight, and small relative volume, and, as the spikes were
selected for their ripeness and healthy appearance, this relation can
not be attributed to immaturity or disease.

The table last referred to show^s a decrease in the weight of the
kernels on the spike as the percentage of proteid nitrogen increases;
but it also shows that in spite of the decrease in the weight of the
kernels there is an increase in the actual amount of proteid nitrogen
they contain, and that the same is true of the average kernel.

Table 6 gives a summary of the same analyses, arranged according
to the specific gravities of the kernels. All spikes whose kernels had
a specific gravity below" 1.30 are grouped in one class, those having a
specific gravity of 1.30 to 1.33 in another class, and so on until finally
all spikes having a specific gravity of more than 1.42 form the last
class.

Table 6. — Summary of analyses of spikes of wheat, arranged according to specific gravities

of kernels. Crop of 1902.

Range of specific
gra\nty.

Specific
gravity
of ker-
nels.

*

Number cf—

Weight

Percent-
age of
proteid
nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

Weight
of aver-

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in—

Analy-
ses..

Kernels.

of kernels
(gram).

age
kernel
(gram).

Kernels.

Average
kernel.

Below 1 30

1.255
1.315
1.347
1.375
1.399
1.463

8
17
50
71
40

8

16.7
16.5
17.3
17.2
16.7
19.1

0.3887
.4315
.4008
.4794

.4848
.5287

3.29
3.35
2.91
3.06
3.03
3.07

0.02331 , 0.01280
.02617 ! .01446
.02366 1 .01508
.02786 .01462

0. 0007662

1.30 to 1.33

1 33 to 1 36

. 0008762
. 0008756

1 .36 to 1 .39

. 0008.559

1 39 to 1 42

. 02899
. 02773

.01459
.01605

.0008729

1.42 and over

.0008371

SOME PKOPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL,

57

This table shows no constant relation between the specific gravity
and the number of kernels on the spike. With an increase in the
specific gravity there is an increase in the weight of the kernels on the
spike, and with some exceptions an increase in the weight of the
average kernel. As the specific gravity increases, the percentage of
proteid nitrogen decreases, which agrees with the previous table.
The grams of proteid nitrogen in the kernels on the spikes and in the
average kernel increase with the specific gravity.

Table 7 shows the summary of the same analyses, arranged accord-
ing to the weight of the average kernel. Spikes whose Jvernels have
an average weight of less than 0.024 gram form the first class, and
each succeeding class increases by 0.002 gram.

Table 7. — Summary of analyses of spiJces of wheat, arranged according to weight of average

Icernel. Crop of 1902.

Range of weight of

average kernel

(gram).

Below 0.024

0.024 to 0.02fi

0.026 to 0.02S

0.028 to 0.030

0.030 to 0.032

0.032 and over. . .

Weight
of aver-
age ker-
nel
(gram).

Number of —

0. 02214
.02528
. 02705
.02896
.03089
.03324

^^- Kernels.

27
38
48
40
26
19

16.9
17.5
17.0
17.0
17.0
16.8

Percent-

Weight

SpeeUie

age of

of ker-

gravity

proteid

nels

of ker-

nitrogen

(gram).

nels.

m ker-

nels.

0.3812

1.341

3.197

.4425

1.361

3.28

.4609

1.360

3.22

.4916

1.372

3.11

..5274

1.388

2.86

.5588

1.373

2.88

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in —

Average
kernel.

Kernels .

0.0007184
.0008294
.0008711
.0009090
.0008787
.0009594

0.01215
.014.38
.01475
.01546
.01506
.01617

There seems to be no relation between the weight of the average
kernel and the number of kernels on the spike. The weight of all
the kernels on the spike naturally increases with the weight of the
average kernel. The specific gravity of the kernels increases with
the weight of the average kernel. The percentage of proteid nitrogen
decreases with an increase in the weight of the average kernel, in
which respect it agrees with the two previous tables. The grams of
proteid nitrogen in the average kernel and the total proteid nitrogen
in the spike increase with the weight of the average kernel.

Samples from each of the spikes of wheat from which these data
were derived were planted, together with samples from other spikes,
all of which have been analyzed, aggregating 800 in all. Each kernel
was planted separately at a distance of 6 inches each way from every
other kernel. The kernels from each spike were marked by a stake
bearing the record number of the spike.

During the winter a considerable number of plants were killed, so
that the stand was irregular in the spring. In some cases all of the
plants resulting from a spike of the previous year were killed, and in
other cases only a portion of such plants. The result was a some-
what uneven stand, which doubtless gave certain plants an advantage
over others in growth and yield.

58 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

When the crop was ripe in 1903 each plant was harvested sepa-
rately, and all of those resulting from spikes which the previous year
had shown a proteid nitrogen content of more than 4 per cent or less
than 2 per cent were analyzed, as were also a certain number resulting
from spikes of intermediate values.

The good kernels on each plant were counted and weighed, thus
giving a record of the yield of each plant. From these data the
average weight of the kernels per plant was calculated. The specific
gravity was not determined and consequently the average volume of
the kernels on. each plant was not calculated, as was done the previous
year.

In Table 8 the plants harvested in 1903 are arranged in classes of
1 to 2 per cent proteid nitrogen, 2 to 2.5 per cent, 2.5 to 3 per cent,
3 to 3.5 per cent, 3.5 to 4 per cent, 4 to 4.5 per cent, and over 4.5 per
cent. The number and weight of the kernels on each plant are stated,
as is also the average weight of each kernel. The number of grams
of proteid nitrogen in all the kernels of the plant is shown, and also
the number of grams of proteid nitrogen in the average kernel on each
plant. Table 9 shows the average for each class.

These results, so far as they cover the same ground as those of the
previous year, have the same significance. They show a quite uniform
although slight decrease in the weight of the average kernel accom-
panying an increase in the percentage of proteid nitrogen, and a very
marked increase in the number of grams of proteid nitrogen in the
average kernel. Especially marked is the increase in the amount of
proteid nitrogen in the average kernel, amounting to 28 per cent of
the weight of the kernel for every 1 per cent increase in the content
of proteid nitrogen.

One column of this table, not contained in that compiled from
results of the previous year, shows the number of grams of proteid
nitrogen contained in all of the kernels on the plant; or, in other
words, the proteid nitrogen production of the plant. This appears,
on the whole, to increase with the percentage of proteid nitrogen,
although the results are not sufficiently consistent to permit of an
unqualified statement to that effect. The uneven stand of the plants,
before referred to, doubtless accounts for these inconsistent results.

Two other columns contain data not obtained in 1902. The first
of these shows the number of kernels per plant, which apparently
decreases slightly as the percentage of proteid nitrogen increases, but
this can not be stated unqualifiedly. The next column shows the
weight of kernels per plant, or the yield per plant, which likewise
seems to decrease slightly with an increase in the percentage of pro-
teid nitrogen. .

SOME PEOPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL.

59

Table 8. — Analyses of plants, arranged accordinq to percentage of proteid nitrogen. Crop of

1903.

1 TO 2 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

Percent-

Number

Weight (in

grams) of—

Total pro-

Proteid

age of

teid nitro-

nitrogen in

Record num-
ber.

proteid
nitrogen
in kernels.

of ker-
nels per
plant.

Kernels
per plant.

Average
kernel.

gen in all
kernels
(gram).

average ker-
nel
(gram).

.32206

1.81

507

10.4036

0. 02052

0.18831

0.0003714

32605

1.20

225

5.2268

. 02323

.01)272

. 0002788

.33407

1.62

305

7.0889

.02271

.11223

. 0003679

33408

1.39

77

1.1132

.01446

. 01.547

.0002009

33905

1.61

508

11.1476

.02194

. 17948

.0003.533

42206

1.46

25

.3161

. 01264

.00462

.0001846

4.5606

1.91

220

4.0358

.01834

. 07708

.0003.504

45S05

1.84

124

1.5298

.01234

.02815

.0002700

48407

1.50

718

11.2890

.01572

. 16933

.0002358

51005

1.34

862

15. 5935

. 01804

.20881

. 0002422

55307

1.89

342

5.6864

. 01663

. 10747

.0003142

57.308

1.69

577

9. 8378

. 01705

. 16626

. 0002S81

57405

1.98

41

.8328

.02031

.01649

.0004022

57607

1.73

736

16.4433

.02234

.24847

.0003865

.58806

1.88

95

1.9469

. 02049

.03660

.0003853

60605

1.87

35

.5952

.01701

.01113

.0003180

63505

1.90

208

4.0230

.01934

.07644

.0003674

69806

1.66

5.58

12.0136

.02153

. 19943

.0003574

72606

1.89

543

9.3629

.01724

.18538

.0003414

74305

1.98

216

4.4222

. 02047

.087.56

.00040.54

80305

1.81

729

15.7835

. 02165

. 28569

.0003919

SI 705

1.98
1.92

465
396

9.7922
9.1411

.02106
.02308

.19388
. 17550

.0004170
.0004432

S1710

92407

1.66

53

.8983

.01695

.01491

.0002814

94205

1.65

64

1.2117

.01893

.01999

.0003124

94605

1.95

56

.7319

.01307

.01427

.0002549

94908

1.96

125

2.3678

.01894

.04641

.0003713

95510

Average . .

1.81

159

2.83.56

. 01783

.05132

.0003228

1.749

320.3

6.23823

.01871

. 10655

.00032914

2 TO 2 5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

17405

2.13

738

15. 6996

0. 02127

0. .33441

0.0004531

17408

2.18

497

9.2038

.018.52

.20065

. 0004037

18805

2.02
2.16

137

84

2. 1462
1.7216

.01.567
. 02050

. 04335
.03718

. 0003164
.0004427

21212

21705

2.45
2.19

.58
582

1.5420
12. .3685

. 02659
.02125

.03778
. 27086

.0006514
.0004654

21707

21708

2.33

.390

9. 2850

. 02381

.216.34

. 0005547

21709 . ...

2.47
2.31
2.41
2. .36

361
510
891

777

7. 7296

9. 7236

16. 4061

19. 1854

. 02141
. 01907
.01841
. 02469

. 19092
. 22461
. 39539
. 4,5276

.0005289
. 0004404
. 0004437
. 0005827

21912

27205

27206

27306

2.47

684

13.3011

.01945

.328.53

.0004803

27.505

2.12

539

12.0399

. 02183

.24942

.0004627

33107

2.35

318

6. 1026

.01919

.14341

.0004510

33405

2.03

421

8. 1268

. 01930

. 16498

.0003919

33605

2.39

301

7.0596

.02.345

. 16872

. 0005605

3.3606

2.21

382

8. 1890

.02144

. 18098

.00047.38

.34208

2.13

1.56

2. 9886

.01916

. 06366

. 0004081

37706 . ...

2.34

56

1.2069

.02155

. 02824

. 000.5053

37906

2.44

19

.2063

.01086

. 00.503

. 0002649

.39205

2.11

1,031

21.5399

.02089

. 45435

. 0004407

39606

2.37

346

4. 6383

.01341

. 10967

.0003177

44607

2.44

101

1.8246

. 01806

.04452

.0004408

48106

2.38

608

11.6655

.01919

.27765

. 0004567

48409

2.02

2.48

314
167

6. 4302
2. 3160

.02048
.01507

. 12989
.06240

.0004137
. 0003736

.5.5305

5.5.306

2.18

214

4. 1323

.01931

.09008

.0004210

5.5608

2.31

837

22. .5848

.02699

. 52194

.0006236

5.5908

2.42

.562

12. 2210

.02175

. 29575

.0005262

.55909

2.30

302

9.2120

.0.3050

.21187

. 0007016

,56206

2.42

509

9. 3093

.01829

.22529

. 0004426

.56207

2.34

462

10. 9073

. 02361

.25522

.0005524

,57307

2.43

261

4.7117

.01801

.11445

. 0004387

.57.508

2.21

380

12.0728

.03177

.26680

. 0007021

58905

2.43

170

2. 3031

.01355

. 0.5.596

. 000:^292

.59605

2.12
2.16

382
567

7. 1828
9. 7084

.01880
.01712

. 1.5228
. 20970

. 0003986
. 0003698

59606

63107

2.43

417

9.3120

. 02233

. 22628

.0005426

60

IMPROVING THE QLTALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 8.— Analyses of plants, arranqed according to -percentage of proteid nitrogen. Crop

of J90.i— Continued.

2 TO 2.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued.

Percent-

Number
of ker-
nels per
plant.

Weight (in

grams) of—

Total pro-

Proteid

Record num-
ber.

age of
proteid
nitrogen

in kernels.!

i

1
Kernels
per plant.

Average
kernel.

teid nitro-
gen in all
kernels
(gram) .

nitrogen in
average ker-
nel
(gram).

63506

2.44

153

2. 3986

.01568

0.05853

0.0003825

6.5306

2.41

544

9. 8298

.01807

.23690

.0004355

65307

2.28

373

7.0051

.01878

. 15971

. 0004282

65308

2.09

583

11.7066

.02008

. 24468

.0004197

69505

2.29

225

4.7116

.01847

. 10790

. 0004231

71905

"2.47

1,260 i

28.2136

. 02239

.69688

. 0005531

72705

2.13

372

9. 1522

.02191

. 19936

. 0004668

72708

2.27

398

9. 0386

. 02270

. 20518

. f)0051;)4

72905

2.48

167

2. 6462

.01585

. 06563

. 0003930

73306

2.45

414

8. 5373

. 02062

. 20918

. 000.50,52

73307

2.39

25

.5572

.02229

. 01332

. 0005327

74606

2.30

464

9. 6451

. 02079

.22184

. 0004781

76205

2.35

498

8.4407

.01695

.19836

. 000.3983

81707

2.34

786

18.3614

. 02336

. 42965

. 0005466

81708

2.41

287

7. 3993

.02.578

.17833

.0006213

81709

2.28

757

16. 4692

.02175

.37548

.0004960

84405

2.48

428

8. 7448

. 02043

.21687

. 000.5067

84905

2.32

37

.7130

.01927

.01654

. 0004471

88608

2.47

74

1.. 53.55

. 02075

. 03793

. nOO.5125

88609

2.42

470

9. 8719

.02100

.23890

. (;mjo.50S2

92409

2.30

315

5.7131

.01814

.13140

.0004171

94209

2.49

190

3.6006

.01895

. 0S965

.0004719

94406

2.47

549

10. 5556

.01923

.26073

. 0004749

94407

2.07

419

6.7664

.01615

. 14007

. CKH)3343

94905

2.. 35

286

4.4423

.01.553

. 10439

. 0(K)36.50

9.5.509

2.48

138

2.9475

.02136

.07310

. 0U0.5297

9.5707

2.47

52

.7577

.014.57

.01872

.000.3599

Average

2.319

396.8

8.2502

.020113

. 190316

.0004660

2.5 TO 3 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

17409...,

17410....

20706...

20707...

20708...

20710...

21207...

21305...

21306. . .

21710...

21711...

21805...

21806. . .

21807...

21808...

21809. . .

21810...

21905. . .

22205...

22207...

2.5205...

2.5206...

26106...

26S05...

26806. . .

26807...

26905...

26906...

26907...

26908...

26909...

27005. . .

27207...

27,305. . .

27307...

27.506...

27,508...

27.709...

28S05. . .

32606...

2.78
2.77
2.58
2.83
2.96
2.67
2.90
2. .59
2.71
2.69
2.71
2.73

2.73
2.69
2.64
2.81
2.77
2.71
2.76
2.63
2.81
2.60

2.76
2.71
2.61
2.96
2.80
2.63
2.92
2^58

2. ,53
2.70
2.64
2.90
2.91
2.88

802
744
163
444
122
867
118
312
226
59
873

1,232
599
377

1,156
418
52
791
283
169
522
205
90
220
1.52
721
326
228
102
192
180
866
166
267
167
444
251
243
87
94

14. 8957

16. 9987
3.3138
9.9070
2.4690

17.1115

2.3066

6.2514

4.1516

.8478

17. 1820

20. 9290

14.24.50
9.4172

19. 7446
8.0214
1.0304

14.3111
2.6965
3. 2787

10. 7836
4. 6754
2.0737
4.9456
2. 7255

17. 2324
6.4102
4. 2376
1.8276
3. 9797
2. 9999

16.4120
3. 3266
5. 5666
3.08,50

10.0005
5. 5324
5.3615
2. 1851
2.0162

0.01857
. 02285
. 02033
. 02282
. 02024
.01974
.01955
.02004
.01837
.01437
. 01968
.01699
. 02378
. 02498
.01708
.01919
.01982
.01809
. 00953
.01940
. 02066
. 02281
. 02304
. 02248
.01793
. 02390
.01066
.018.59
.01702
. 02073
.01667
.01X95
.0211(14
. 02085
.01847
. 022.52
. 02287
. 02206
.02512
.02145

0. 40964
. 48957
.09212
.27443
.06399
. 48428
.06804
. 16691
. 12039
.02196
. 46563
. ,56299
. 38604
. 25709
.,50744
.21898
. 02772
. 37781
. 07577
.09082
. 28560
.12904
.0.5454
. 13897
. 07086
. 48250
.17692
.11484
.04995
.11780
. 08400
. 43164
.09712
. 14362
.07805
.27003
. 14608
. 15549
. 063,59
.05807

0.0005108
. 0006580
. 000.5652
.00061S1
.0005221
. 0005586
. 0005766
. 00053.50
. 0005327
.0003722
. 0005334
. 0004569
. 0006444
. 0006664
.0004389
. 0005238
. 0005330
. 0004777
.0002677
. 0005374
. 0005,599
. 0006295
. 0006060
.(X106317
.0004662
. 0006692
. 0(X)5427
0005037
. 0004677
. 0006135
. 0004667
.0004984
.000,58,50
. 0005379
. (KX)4674
. 0(X)6082
. 0(X)C037
. 0006,399
. 0007309
.0006177

SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL.

61

Table S.-^Anahjses of plants, arranged accordim/ to percentage of proteid nitrogen. Crop

of 1903— Cont'nmed.

2.5 TO 3 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued.

Percent-

Number

Weight (in

grams) of —

1
Total pro-

Proteid

age of

proteid

nitrogen

in kernels.

teid nitro-
gen in all

nitrogen in
average ker-
nel

Record num-
ber.

of ker-
nels per

Kernels

Average

plant.

per plant.

kernel.

(gram).

(pram).

33105

2.91

132

2.5601

0. 01939

0.07450

0. 000.5644

33106

2.94

18

.3089

.01716

.00908 j

. 000.5045

33406

2.87

283

4.6045

.01627

. 13215

.0004670

33906

2.81

119

2.2862

.01921

.06424

.000.5399

34205

2.73

464

9. 1498

.01972

. 24979 :

.0005383

34207

2.84

611

13.5556

.02219

.38505

.0006273

37305

2.96
2.64
2.94

309
461
193

6. 1394
8.0905
3.3004

.01987
.01972
.01710

.18173
. 23998
.09670

.000.5881
.000.5327
.000.5010

37705

37707

37905

2.53

37

.9452

.025.55

.02391

.0006463

38(X)5

2.84

139

2.5134

.01808

.07138

.0005135

38506

2.89

85

1.6799

.01975

.04855

.0005712

38606

2.63

401

8. 4605

.02110

. 22251

.0(X).5.549

38608

2.82

158

3.0228

.01913

.08.522

.000.5394

38609

2.74

293

6. 7665

. 02309

. 18540

. 0006475

38706

2.59

365

7.2545

.01988

.18789

.0005148

39405

2.88

447

9.3541

.02093

.21399

. 0006027

39506 ...

2.93

67

1.9218

. 02869

.0.5631

.0008404

40505

2.82

170

4.1546

.02444

.11716

. 0006892

43405

2.92

124

2.8000

.022.58

.08176

.0006594

44505 ....

2.94

340

5.9990

.01764

.17637

.0005187

44605

2.86

.55

1.1271

.02049

. 03223

. 0005861

44606

2.90

124

2.5235

.02035

.07318

.0005902

45605.. . .

2.82

61

.7081

.01161

.01997

.0003273

46106

2.54

82

1.6103

.01964

.04090

.0004988

46107

2.54

478

8. 3935

.017.56

.21319

. 0004460

48305

2.87

473

12.0278

.02543

.34524

.0007299

48408

2.81

27

.34&5

.01291

.00979

.0003627

4&507

2.64

70

1.6036

.02296

.04233

.0008062

48508

2.76

603

11.2008

.01858

.30986

.0005127

48806

2.70

2.80

547
35

9. 8346
.4701

.01798
.01343

. 26.553
.01316

. 0004877
.0003761

50706

55008

2.60

944

17.4226

.01846

.4.5299

. 0004799

55206

2.56

578

11.3.592

.01965

. 29079

.0005031

55308

2.54

397

9. .5078

.02395

.241.50

.0006225

55506

2.80

866

17.8506

.02062

.49995

. 0005773

55507

2.63

504

9.8228

.01949

. 25834

.0005126

55605

2.64

500

10.9180

.02184

.28823

.0005765

55606

2.58

503

11.0930

.02205

.28580

. 0005690

55607

2.69

138

2.3931

.01734

. 06437

. 0004665

55905

2.67
2.81

331

499

5.7948
7.9968

.01751
.01603

• .15170
.22471

. 0tK)4674
. 0004.503

55906

55907 ....

2.59

749

19. S966

. 02590

.50238

. 0006707

56105

2.73

336

5. 7431

.01709

. 15679

. 0004667

56106

2.57

644

12.0161

. 01866

. 30881

.0004795

56107

2.96

872

14.45.56

.01658

.42790

.0004907

56205

2.51

333

6. .5232

.019.59

. 16373

.0004917

56208

2.61

563

13. .5720

. 02356

. 34616

.0006149

56209

2. .59

9.50

15.8086

.01664

. 40945

.0004310

57005

2.71

88

1..5364

.01746

.04164

.0004731

57006

2.76

701

10. 1836

.01453

. 28107

.0(X)4010

57007

2.65

168

3.3176

.01975

.08792

.000.5233

57105

2.76

407

3. 7263

.00916

. 10285

.0002.527

57306

2.86

434

7.9772

. 01838

.22815

.0005257

57406

2.75

135

2.4923

.01846

.068.54

. 0005077

57407

2.62

762

14.9992

.01968

.39297

.00051.57

57408

2.61

596

12. 2004

.02047

.31842

.0005343

57506

2.80

180

2. 7616

.01.534

. 07733

. 0004296

57507

2.85

359

6.9861

.01946

. 19905

. 0005545

57509

2.54

611

10. 6261

.01739

. 26990

.(K)04417

57606

2.74

132

3.0790

.02333

. 08436

.0006391

57608

2.64

438

8.6189

.01968

. 22756

.0005195

57805

2.87

270

4.8988

.01814

. 14060

.0005207

58206

2.67

148

1.3961

.00943

.03728

.0002519

58505

2. 95

273

7.4516

.02730

. 21982

.0008052

58805

2.74

1,1.58

23. 1471

.01999

. 63422

. 0005464

63106

2.79

165

3. 3006

.02001

. 09208

. (XK)5581

66005

2.63
1 2. 50

370

I 663

7.6690
13. .5696

: . 02073
. 02047

.20170
.33923

. 0005451
.(K)05117

69.506

69705

2.50
2.95

244
430

3. 7810
8. 2929

.015.50
.01929

.094.53
. 24464

. 0003874
. {K105689

72406

73308

2.92

624

14.2986

.02291

.417.52

. 0006.539

74506

2.73

23

.4096

.01781

.01118

. (M)04862

74508

2.60

57

.8172

.01434

.02125

. (H103728

74605

2.60

399

7.1181

.017&4

.18507

.0004638

62

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 8. — Analyses of plants, arranged according to percentage of proteid nitrogen. Crop of

^90.3— Continued.

2.5 TO 3 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued.

Percent-

Number
of ker-
nels per
plant.

Weight (in

grams) of—

Total pro-

Proteid

Record num-
ber.

age of

proteid

nitrogen

in kernels.

teid nitro-
gen in all
kernels
(gram) .

nitrogen in
average ker-
nel
(gram).

Kernels
per plant.

Average
kernel

74607

2. .56

491

S, 3406

0.01699

0. 21352

0.0004349

81405

2.62
2.94

240
146

4.. 5737
2. 8327

.01862
.01940

.11710
.08328

. 0004879
. (XX)5704

81505

81706

2.71

722

15.3928

.02132

.41715

.000.5778

85205

2.60

214

3.4766

.01625

.09039

. 0004224

85206

2.66

376

4.9315

.01312

.13118

.0003332

86105

2.56
2.63

203

436

3.0282
7.6241

.01495
.01749

.07964
.20052

.0003923
.0004.")(H)

86106

88605

2.80

69

1.6362

.02731

.04581

.0ai76J0

88606

2.53

481

9.9456

.02068

.25162

.0005231

88607

2.61

234

5.1584

. 02205

. 13463

. 0005754

88905

2.83

293

5.3069

.01811

. 1.5019

.0005126

88906

2.65

546

9.9034

.01814

. 26245

.0004807

91906

2.81

200

3. .5486

.01774

.09972

.0004986

92205

2.74

345

5. 2616

.01525

. 14417

.0004170

92206

2.67

46

1.1074

.02407

.02957

.O00'i428

92207

2.55

209

3.6926

.01767

.09416

. 0004.505

92208

2.72

3.53

6. 6206

.01876

.18008

.0005102

92305

2.93

160

2.3859

.01491

.06991

.0004369

92408

2.97

207

3.7820

.01827

. 11233

.000.5426

92507

2. .58

505

9.6779

.01916

. 24969

.0004944

94206

2.78

402

7.5006

.01866

. 20851

.0005187

94207

2.86

718

13. 70.57

.01909

.39190

.000.5460

94907

2.94

626

12. 1918

.01948

. 35844

.0005726

95505

2.81

37

.3146

.00850

.00884

.0002.389

95506

2.74

597

11.0548

.018.52

.30291

. 0005074

9.5507

2.59

571

12. 1592

.02030

. 31492

. 000.5515

95508

2.56

740

14.4617

.019.54

. 37023

.0005003

9.5705

2.54

636

10.3426

.01626

. 26270

.0004131

95706

Average

2.73

267

5.1629

.01934

.14095

.000.5279

2.731

370.36

7. 1755

.019354

. 194423

.00052706

3 TO 3.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

17305

3.03
3.09

183
243

3. 6302
3. 9968

0.01984
.01645

0.10999
. 123.50

0.0006010
.0005082

17306

17307

3.46

138

3. 14.54

. 02280

. 10883

.0007886

17308

3.25

61

1.2275

.02012

.03994

.0006540

17406

3.29

124

2.0907

.0168)

.06878

. 0005547

18906

3.48

65

.9229

.01420

.03212

.0004941

20705

3.09

109

1.8517

.01698

.05722

. 0005249

20709

3.05

258

5.3229

.02063

.16235

. 0006292

20805

3.32

697

14.6942

.02157

.48784

. 0006999

21205

3.16

123

2.3642

.01922

.07471

. 0006074

21208

3.24

287

5. 1.594

.01798

. 16712

. 0005824

21211

3.15

10

.2806

.02806

.00884

. 0008839

21307

3.04

143

2.. 5691

. 01796

. 0-810

.000.5461

21308

3.45

354

5.8080

.01641

.20038

. 0005660

21906

3.18

408

10. 4800

.02.563

. 33403

.0008168

21907

3.35

158

2.9248

. 01851

. 09-98

. 0006201

21913

3.01

492

10. 1925

.02072

.30680

. 0006235

22206

3.22

146

2. .5712

.01720

.08086

.000.5.538

22208

3.18

118

1 . 9090

.01619

.06071

.0005144

22210

3.17

298

6.0173

.02019

. 19075

.0006401

22211

3.17

561

11.. 56^5

.02062

.36671

.0006537

26105

3.02

131

1.8242

.01393

.05508

.0003662

26808

3.09

222

3.8811

.01748

.11992

.000.5402

27507

3.08

75

1.3746

.01833

.04234

.0005646

28206

3.07

219

4. 3698

.01996

.13415

.0006126

2SS06

3.02

6&5

14.4630

.02111

.43679

. 0006376

32207

3.48

69

1.2,5"3

.01822

.04375

.0006341

33305

3.41

150

3. 13-16

.02090

. 10689

.0007126

33607

3.22

136

2. 8903

.02125

.09307

. 0006843

34606

3.12

280

6. 1962

.02213

. 19332

. 0006<K)4

39.507

3.02

HI

1.8862

.01699

.0.5696

.0005132

40305

3.11

179

3.6003

.02011

.11197

. 0006255

40405

3.17

46

.6316

.01373

.02002

. 00043.52

42405

3.07
3.17

66
67

1.4892
1.2499

.02251
.01866

.04572
.0.36.50

. 0006927
.01X)5447

42905

46105

3.00
3.29

260
157

4.6146
2. 6571

.01775
.01692

. 13843
.08742

. 0005324
. 0005568

48306

SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL.

63

Table 8. — Analyses of plants, arranqed according to percentage of proteid nitrogen. Crop of

i90.i— Continued.

3 TO 3.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued.

Record num-
ber.

Percent-
age of

proteid
nitrogen
in kernels.

48405

48506

48705...'.....

48706

49505

50905

55005

55006

55205

55508

57305

57905

58207

58705

62805

63105

72405

72707

72806

74.507

81406

84906

91305

91905

92405

92406

92.505

94208

94906

Average

3.31
3.20
3.13
3.00
3.24
3.30
3.05
3.16
3.10
3.11
3.19
3.18
3.09
3.01
3.25
3.24
3. .36
3.49
3.01
3.02
3.31
3.43
3.21
3.36
3.10
3.11
3.00
3.10
3.41

Number
of ker-
nels per
plant.

Weight (in grams) of—

Kernels
per plant.

76
556
264
379

67
221
393
451

40
216
501
221
307
235
111

90
213
225
110
493

72
382
138
198
214
380
156
322
6&5

0.9701
9.4585
4.3615
6. 1986
1.2716
2.3982
7.9684
7.1852
.6893
3. 7407
8.5777
2.4731
4.2207
2.5436
1.3451
1.5452
8.4415
4.5806.
2.0970
9. 2130
1.2391
7.5438
3.0940
3.4436
3.4356
8.2366
2. 6615
3.7828
12.3862

Average
kernel.

0.01276
.01701
. 01652
.01635
.01898
.0108.5
.02028
.01593
.01723
.01732
.01666
.01118
.01375
.01082
.01212
.01717
.03963
.02036
.01906
.01869
.01721
.01975
.02242
.01739
.01605
.02168
.01706
.01175
.01808

3.184

235.5

4.38558

. 018366

Total pro-
teid nitro-
gen in all
kernels
(gram).

0.03211
. 30267
. 13652
. 18.596
.04120
.07914
.24304
. 22705
.02137
. 11636
.29188
.07859
. 13042
. 07656
.04272
.05007
.28363
. 15986
.06312
.27823
.04101
.25873
.09932
.11.570
. 10650
.25616
.079^5
.11727
.42236

Proteid
nitrogen in
average ker-
nel

(gram).

0. 0004225
. 000.5444
.0005171
.0004906
.0(X)6149
. 0003581
.0006185
.0005034
.0005342
.(KX)5386
. 0005326
. 0003.556
. 000.1248
.0003256
.0003938
. 000.5563
.0013316
.0007105
. 0005738
. 0005644
.0005697
. 0006773
.0007197
.000.5844
.0004977
.0006741
.0005118
.0003642
.0006166

. 139656

.000.581.56

3.5 TO 4 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

17506

3.52

93

2.2881

0.02460

0.08044

0.0008660

17507

3.80

43

.7220

. 01795

.02933

. 0006S22

18905

3.81

103

1.4864

.01443

.05663

.000.5498

21209

3.61

89

1.4484

.01627

.05228

. 000.5875

21811

3.75

567

11.9114

.02101

.44666

. 0007877

21908

3.82

173

3. 5574

. 02056

. 13589

. 0007855

22209

3.84

31

.4336

.01399

.01665

. 0005371

26107

3.92

' 144

2.0390

.01416

.07993

.000.5,551

32608

3.78

55

1.0183

.01851

.03849

. 0006998

34206

3.73

81

1.5940

.01968

.05946

.0007340

36905

3.88

267

5.0200

.01880

. 19478

.0007295

38505

3.61

563

12. 1088

.02252

.43713

.0007764

42^05

3.63
3.58

94
23.5

1.8494
3.2340

.01967
.01376

.06713
.11.575

.0007142
.0004927

4.5005

4&505

3.66

137

1.91.54

.01398

.07010

.0005117

49905

3.62
3. .54

23
30

.6760
.59.58

.02939
.01986

.02436
.02109

.0010640
.00070.32

50705

50906

3. .57

114

1.7280

.01516

.06169

.000.5411

66006

3.54

366

6.0090

.01642

.21272

. 0005812

66008

3. .59

174

3. 1.555

.01814

.11328

.0006510

72706

3.86

591

14.6802

.02484

..56666

.0009.588

94909

Average

3.60

218

3.6977

. 01696

. 13312

.(H)06106

3.69

190.5

3.68947

.018666

. 13698

.00068723

(54

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 8. — Analyses of plants, arranged according to percentage of proteid nitrogen. Crop

of i90J— Continued.

4 TO 4.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

Record num-
ber.

Percent-
age of

proteid
nitrogen
in kernels.

Number
of ker-
nels per
plant.

Weight (in grams) of—

Total pro- Proteid
teid nitre- nitrogen in
gen in all average ker-
kernels nel
(gram). (gram).

Kernels
per plant.

Average
kernel.

21812

21813

21909

27308

34405

4.26
4.04
4.43
4.15
4.33
4.13
4.18
4.21
4.42
4.45
4.39

983
216
525
254
207

14.8139
4.0258

12. 1819
4.5123
d 19S1

0.01507 ' 0.63107 0.0OOH42O
.01877 i .16377 .(X)07o82
.02317 ! .53889 .0010265
.01777 1 .18726 > .0007373
. 01994 1 7S7.T _ mnsfi.'i.T

43505

45705

55007

69305

76206

92506

Average

93 ' 1.4464
44 1 . 7532
118 2. 1571
103 2.0430
447 5.4411
229 3. 8709

.015.55
.01712
.01828
.01984
.01217
.01690

. 05974 . 0006423
.03148 .0007155
.09082 : .0007696
.09030 : .0008767
.24213 ; .000.^417
.16993 : .0007421

4.27

292.6 j 5.03397

.017689

.21674 .00075594

MORE THAN 4.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN

17505

4.70

29

0.3885

0. 01340

0.01826

0.0006296

21206

5.23

149

2. 8564

.01917

. 14939

.0010026

21210

5.03

237

3.9143

.01578

. 19689

.0007934

21706

4.71

807

19.3318

. 02390

.91052

.0011283

21911

5.48

383

8.4593

.02209

.46356

.0012103

38605..^

5.85

61

1.2124

. 01988

.07093

.0011627

38607

4.55

19

.3037

.01598

.01382

.0007273

40205

4.69

194

3. 6302

.01871

. 17026

.0008776

48406

4.87

249

3.2964

.01324

. 16053

.0006447

65305

4.92

78

1.8018

.02310

.08865

.0011365

69805

5.82

110

2.4420

.02220

. 14213

.0012921

72605

4.65

65

1. 1166

.01718

.05192

.0007988

72607

5.59

188

3.4442

.01832

. 19253

.0010241

92306

Average

4.93

347

6.0091

. 01732

.2962.5

.0008539

5.07

208. 28

4. 15727

. 01859

.208974

.0009487

Table 9. — Summary of analyses of plants, arranged according to percentage of proteid

nitrogen. Crop of 1903.

Range of per-
centage of proteid
nitrogen.

Percent-
age of
proteid

nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

Number of—

Weight (in grams)
of—

Proteid nitrogen
(in grams) in —

Analy-
ses.

Ker-
nels.

Kernels.

Average
kernel.

All ker-
nels.

Average
kernel.

1 to2

1.749

2.32

2.73

3.18

3.69

4.27

5.07

28
65
145
66
22
11
14

320.3

396

370

235

190

292

208

6.2382
8.2502
7. 1755
4.38.56
3. 6895
5.0340
4. 1573

0.01S71
.02011
.01935
.01837
.01867
.01769
.01859

0. 106.55
. 19032
. 19442
. 13966
. 13698
. 21674
.20897

0. 0003291
. (K)04660
. 0005271
.0005816
. 000^872
. 0007559
.0009487

2 to 2.5 ...

2.5 to 3

3 to 3.5

3.5 to 4

4 to 4 5

4.5 and over

Table 10 shows the analyses of the crop of 1903 arranged on the
basis of weight of average kernel. Determinations of gliadin and
glutenin were made in these analyses and the sums of these are
inserted in this table/' All plants having an average kernel weight

o Determinations of gliadin and o:lutenin were made by methods practically the same as
those described by Prof. Harry Snyder in Bulletin No. 63 of the Minnesota Experiment
Station, except that smaller quantities were used.

SOME PROPEKTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL.

65

of less than 0.010 gram form the first class and each succeeding class
increases by 0.002 gram. Table 11 is a summary of these analyses.

Table 10. — Analyses of plants, arranged according to weigTit of average Tcemel. Crop of 1903.
AVEIGHT OF AVER.YGE KERNEL, 0.000 TO 0.010 GRAM.

Record
number.

\yeight Xum- ^y i i^t
of aver- bei of ^ ^ ? ,

ke^'el "^X'' on plant
(S. .plant. ,^S'-''^^^^

22205. .
57105. .
58206. .
95505. .

0.00953
.00916
.00943
. 00850

283

407

148

37

2.6965

3. 7263

1.3961

.3146

Average . .00915

219

2.0334

Per-
centage
of pro-
teid ni-
trogen
in ker-
nels.

2.81
2.76
2.67
2.81

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in —

Average
kernel.

0.0002677
.0002527
. 0002519
.0002389

Kernels
on plant.

0.07577
. 10285
.03728
.00884

Percent-
age of
gliadin-
plus-glu-
tenin ni-
trogen in
kernels.

1.97

Gliadin-plus-glu-
tenin nitrogen
(gram) in —

Average
kernel.

Kernels
on plant.

0.0001877

0.05312

.0002.528

.05618

1.97

.0001877

.05312

WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.010 TO 0.012 GRAM.

37906

45605

50905.....

57905

58705

94208

Average .

0.01086
.01161
.01085
.01118
.01082
.01175

1

19

61
221
221 I
235 j
322 I

0. 2063
. 7081
2.3982
2.4731
2.5436
3.7828

2.44
2.82
3.30
3.18
3.01
3.10

0. 0002649
.0003273
.0003581
.0003556
. 0003258
. 0003642

0.00503
.01997
. .07914
. 07859
.07656
. 11727

2.92
2.47

6. 6663264
.0002673

0.07221
.06283

.01118

179

1

2.0187

2.98

.0003326

. 06276

2.69

■

.0002968

.06752

WEIGHT OF .WERAGE KERNEL, 0.012 TO 0.014 GRAM.

17505

22209

25105

39606....".
40405.....

42206

4.5005

45805

48405

48406

48408

48505

50706

,58207....

58905

62805. . . .

76206

8.5206

94605....

Average

0.01340
.01399
.01393
.01341
.01373
.01264
.01376
.01234
.01276
.01324
.01291
. 01398
.01343
.01375
.013.55
.01212
.01217
.01312
.01307

29

31
131
346

46

25
235
124

76
249

27
137

35
307
170
111
447
,■',76

56

0. 3885

.4336
1.8242
4.6383

.6316

.3161
3. 2340
1.5298

.9701
3. 2964

. 34&5
1.91.54

.4701
4. 2207
2.3031
1.3451
5.4411
4.9315

.7319

. 01323

1.55. 7

2.0.510

4.70
3.84
3.02
2.37
3.17
1.46
3.58
1.84
3.31
4.87
2.81
3.66
2.80
3.09
2.43
3.25
4.45
2.66
1.95

3.12

0. 0006296
.000.5371
. 0003662
.0003177
.0004352
.0001846
.0004927
. 0002700
. 0(K)4225
. 0001i447
. 0ffl)3627
.0005117
.0003761
.0004248
. 0003292
. 0003938
.000.5417
. 0003332
.0002549

0.01826
. 01665
.05,508
.10967
.02002
.00462
.11575
.02815
.03211
. 160.53
.00979
.07010
.01316
. 13042
. 05.596
.04272
. 24213
.13118
.01427

.0004120

.06687

1.36

2.25

'i.76

2.49

"'i.'os

1.98

0.0001871 0.04398

.0002979

. 0002460
.'6663424'

.0002471

.0002641

.08168
.63371'

. 10510
.'11646'

.07499

WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.014 TO 0.016 GRAM.

18805

0.01567

137

18905

.01443

103

18906

.01420

65

21210

.01577

237

21710

.01437

59

21812

.01507

983

26107

.01416

144

33408

.01446

77

38607

.01598

19

43.505

.01.5.55

93

48407

.01572

718

.50906

.01516

114

55006

.01593

451

.5.5305

.01507

167

57006

.01453

701

2. 1462

2.02

1.4864

3.81

.9229

3.48

3.9143

5.03

.8478

2.59

14.8139

4.26

2.0390

3.92

1.1132

1.39

.3037

4.55

1.4464

4.13

11.2890

1.50

1.7280

3.57

7.1852

3.16

2.5160

2.48

10. 1836

2.76

0.0003164
.0005498
.0004941
.0007934
.0003722
.0006420
.000.5.551
. 0002(X)9
. 0007273
.000o423
.0002358
.0005411
.0005034
.0003736
.0004010

0. 04335
.05663
.03212
. 19689
.02196

'.63107
. 07993
. 01.547
.01382
. 0.5974
. 16933
.06169
.22705
.06240
.28107

1.54

1.34

2.02
1.35

0.0003218

.0002113

.0003044
.0001912

0.03315

1.75
1.97

.05245

. 29934
.02753

.0002788 .12.574
.0002969 .04957

27889— No. 78—05-

66

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Taele 10. — Analyses of plants, arranged according to weight of average Jcernel. Crop of

1903— Continued.

WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 014 TO 0.016 GRAM— Continued.

Record
number.

Weight
of aver-

Num-
ber of

Weight
of kernels

Per-
centage
of pro-
teid ni-
trogen
in ker-
nels.

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in-

Percent-
age of
{.'liadin-
plus-glu-
tenin ni-
trogen in
kernels,

Gliadin-plu?-glu-
tenin nitrogen
(gram) in-

age
kernel
(gram).

k«™^'^ on plant
plant. (^'•^^^)-

Average Kernels
kernel. on plant.

1

Average
kernel.

1
Kernels
on plant.

57506

63506

69705

72905

74508

86105

92205

92305

92905

92906

94905

95707

Average .

0.01534
.01568
.01550
.01585
.01434
.01495
.01525
.01491
.01534
. 01,592
.015.53
.01457

i

180 I 2.7616
1.53 i 2.3986
244 i 3.7810
167 i 2.6462

.57 , .8172
203 3.0282
345 ' 5.2616
160 ' 2.3859
176 , 2.7000

181 ; 2.8816
286 ; 4.4423

52 1 .7577

2.80
2.44
2.50
2.48
2.60
2.56
2.74
2.93
3. .50
2.99
2.35
2.47

0.0004296
. 0003825

0.077.33
. 05853

2.34 ' 0.0003590

0.0r;4r2

.0003874 , .09453
.0003930 ! .06563
.0003728 .02125

.0003923
.0004179
. 0004369

. 07964
. 14417
.06991

.0005369 ! .094.50

.0004760
.0003650
.0003599

. OS.; 16
. 10439
.01872

.01516 232

3.5480

3.00

.0004555

. 10619

1.76 .0002805 .09320.

WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.016 TO O.OIS GRAM.

17306

0.01645

243

17406

.01686

124

17507

.01795

43

20705

. 01698

109

21208

.01798

287

21209

.01627

89

21307

.01796

143

21308

. 01641

354

21805

.01699

1,232

21808

.01708

1,1.56

22206

.01720

146

22208

.01619

lis

26806

.01793

1.52

26808

.01748

222

26907

.01792

102

26909

.01667

180

27308

.017^7

254

33106

.01716

18

33406

.01627

283

37707

.01710

193

39507

.01699

111

44.505

.01764

340

4.5705

.01712

44

46105

.01775

260

46107

.01756

478

48306

.01692

157

48506

.01701

5,56

48705

. 016.52

264

48706

,01635

379

48806

.01798

547

55205

.01723

40

55307

.01663

342

55508

. 01732

216

55607

.01734

1.38

.55905

.01751

331

55906

.01603

499

56105

.01709

336

56107

.01658

872

56209

.01664

9.50

57005

.01746

,88

57305

.01666

501

57,308

.01705

577

57509

1 .01739

611

59606

! .01712

567

60605

.01701

35

63105

.01717

90

66006

.01642

366

3.9968

2.0907

.7720

1.8517

5. 1.594

1.4484

2. 5691

5. 8080

20.9290

19.7446

2. ,571 2

1.9090

2. 72.55

3.8811

1.8276

2.9999

4.5123

.3089

4. (i045

3. 3004

1.8862

5.9990

.7532

4.6146

8. 3935

2. 6571

9.4585

4.3615

6. 1986

9. 8346

.6893

5.6864

3. 7407

2. 3931

5. 7948

7.9968

5. 7431

14. 4,5,56

15. 8086

1.5364

8. 5777

9. 8378

10. 6261

9.7084

.5952

1.5452

6.0090

3.09
3.29
3.80
3.09
3.24
3.61
3.04
3.45
2.69
2.57
3.22
3.18
2.60
3.09
2.61
2.80
4.15
2.94
2.87
2.93
3.02
2.94
4.18
3.00
2.54
3.29
3.20
3.13
3.00
2.70
3.10
1.89
3.11
2.69
2.67
2.81
2.73
2.96
2.59
2.71
3.19
1.69
2.54
2.16
1.87
3.24
3.54

0.0005082
. 0005547
. 0006822
. 0005249
. 0005824
.0005875
. 0005461
.0005660
.0004569
.0004389
. 0005.538
. 0005144
. 0004662
. 0005402
. 0004677
. 0004667
.0007373
.0005045
.0004670
.0005010
.0005132
.0005187
.0007155'
. 000.5324
.00044(0
.0005568
.0005444
.0005171
. 0004906
. 0004877
.0005342
.0003142
.0005386'
. 0001665
. 0004674
. 0004503
.0004667
.0004907
.0004310
. 0004731
. 0005826
.0002881
.0004417
. 0003ti98
.0003180
. 0005563
.0005812

0. 12350
.06878
.02934
.05722
. 16712
. 05228
.07810
.20038
. 56299
. 50744
. 08086
.06071
.07086
.11992
. 04995
.08400
. 18726
.00908
.13215
. 09670
. 05696
. 17637
.03148
.13843
.21319
. 08742
.30267
. 136,52
. 18.596
. 265,53
.02137
. 10747
. 1 16.36
.06437
.1.5470
.22471
. 15679
. 42790
. 40945
.04164
.29188
. 16626
. 2n990
.20970
.01113
. 0.5007
.21272

2.15

1.9:1
2.11
2.14

2.28

'i.'ss'

2.10

2.08
2.13
2.17
1..56

O.C0033 6 11093

1.56
1.96

1.75
1.47
2. 12
2^23
2.21
2.09

1.38

. 0003348
.00036-;9
.0003465

.OOOSOGa
.'6603i34

.0003.591

.00036.52
. 0003' 04
.0003(91
. 0002577

.0002.594
.0003395

.0003064
. 0002356
. 0003622
.0003697
.0003677
.0003649

. 38700
. 05425
. 040S4

.08849
. 6.564Q

.0.931

. 17458
.05660
. 20525
.0*^804

.08871
.07332

. 10141
.117.55
. 12175
.32236
. 34937
.03211

.0002266 .08292

SOME PEOPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL.

67

T^BLE 10. — Analyses cf plan s, arranjed according to xveight of average Icernel. Crop of

J903—Vonthmod.

WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.016 TO 0.018 GRAM— Continued.

Rrcord

Weight
of aver-

Num-
l;er of

Weight
of kernels

Per-
centage
of pi-o-
teid ni-
trogen
in ker-
nels.

Proteid nitrogen

(gram) in-

Percent-
age of
gliadin-
plus-glu-
tenin ni-
trogen in
kernels.

Gliadin-plus-gUi-
tenin nitrogen
(gi-am) in-

nuni.er. | ^;^^^^^y
(gram).

plant. |(g'-ams).

1
1

Average
kernel.

Kernels
on plant.

Average
kernel.

Kernels
on plant.

72MI'.. -. 0.01 718

65 1.1166

543 9. 3629

23 .4096

4.65

1.89

2.73

2.60

2.56

2.35

3.31

2 60

2.63

3.36

2.81

2.55

4.93

3.10

1.66

3.00

4.39'

2.32

2.07

3.60

1.81

0.0007988
.0003414
. 0004862
. 0004638
. 0004349
. 0003983
.0005697

0. 05192
. 18.538
.01118
. 18.507
.213.52
. 19836
.04101

7450O

74605

74607

76205

81405

8.5205

8610ii

91905

9190.i

92207

92306

92405

92407

92505

92.506

92908

.01781
.01784
.01699
.01695
.01721
.01625
.01749
.01739
.01774
.01767
.01732
. 01605
.01695
.01706
.01690

399
491
498
72
214
436

7.1181
8.3406
8. 4407
1.2391
3.4766
7.6241

0004 ''24

0')(I39

.0(W4599
. 0005844
. 0004986
. 0004.505
.0008.539
. 0004977
.0002814
.mOolIS
.0007421
.0004018
.0003343
. OOOaiOH
. (V)032'5S

.200.52
.11570
.09972
.09416

198

3.4436

200 3.. 5486

209

347

214

53

156
229
187
419
218

3.6926
6.0091
3.43.56
.8983
2.6615
3. 8709
3.2388
6. 7664
3.6977

.29625
. 10n.50
.01491
.07985

4.06

0. 0007032

0.24397

. 16993
-.07514
. 14007
.13312
.05132

94407 i .01615

94909 ' 01696

95510 , .01783 ; 1.59 | 2.83.56

95705 nifi'W 6.36 i 10.. 3426

1

2.54 ' .0004131

. 26270

1

!

Average .

.01709

305.9 5.2055

2.93 1 .0005020 1 .14618

2.07 .aH)3519 .13.548

I 1

WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.018 TO 0.020 GRAM.

17305...

17408. . .

17409...

20710...

2120"^ . .

212m;...

21207...

21306...

21711...

21809...

21SU1...

21813...

21905...

21907...

21912...

22207...

26905...

2690")...

270t)5...

27205...

27306...

27307...

27.507...

28206...

32207. . .

32608. . .

33105. . .

33107...

33405...

33906. . .

34205. . .

34203...

34208. .

34405. . ,

36905..

37305..

37705..

38005..

38,506..

38605. .

38608. .

38706..

40205..

.019^

183

.01852

497

.01857

802

.01974

867

. 01922

123

.01917

149

.019.55

118

.018.37

226

. 01968

873

.01919

418

.01982

52

.01877

216

.01809

791 i

.01851

1.58 1

.01907

510

. 01940

169

.01966

326

.018.59

228

.01895

866

.01841

891

.01945

684

.01847

167

.01833

75

.01996

219

.01822

69

.01851

55

.019.39

132

.01919

318

.01930

421

.01921

119

.01972

464

.01968

81

.01916

1.56

.01994

207

.01880

267

.01987

309

.01972

461

.01808

139

.01975

85

.01987

61

.01913

1.58

.01988

365

.01871

194

3.6302
9. 2038
14.89.57
17.1115
2.3642
2.8564
2. 3066
4. 1516
17. 1820
8.0214
1.0304
4.0258
14.3111
2.9248
9.7236
3. 2787
6.4102
4. 2376
16.4120
16.4061
13.3011
3. 08.50
1.3746
4.3698
1.2573
1.0183
2.. 5601
6. 1026
8. 1268
2.2862
9. 1498
1.5940
2.9886
4. 1281
5.0200
6. 1394
8. 0905
2.5134
1.6799
1.2124
3.0228
7. 2545
3.6302

3.03
2.18
2.75
2.83
3.16
5.23
2.96
2.90
2.71
2.73
2. 69
4.04
2.64
3.35
2.31
2.77
2.76
2.71
2.63
2.41
2.47
2. .53
3.08
3.07
3.48
3.78
2.91
2.35
2.03
2.81
2.73
3.73
2.13
4.33
3.88
2.96
2.64
2.84
2.89
5.85
2.82
2.59
4.69

0.0006010
.0004037
.0005108
. 0005586
.0006074
.0010026
. 0005766
.0(X)5327
. 0005334
. 0005238
. 0005330
. 00075S2
. 0004777
.0006201
. 0004404
. 000.5374
.000.5427
. 0005037
.00()49S1
.00O443'7
. 0004803
. 0004674
. 0005646
.0006126
.000;i341
. 0006998
.000.5611
.0004510
.0003919
.0005399
. 0005383
.0007340
.0004081
. 0008635
. 0(.K)7295
. fK)05881
. 0005327
.0005135
.000.5712
.0011627
. 0005394

.oor)5T5rs

.0008776

0.10999 !
.20065 I
.4()9ii4
.48428 !
.07471 i
.14939 ;
.06804 I
.12039
.465(13
.21898 j
.02772 '
. 16377
.37781
.09798 i
.22461
.09082 i
.17692 I
.11484 i
.43164
. 39539
. 32S.53
. 07805
.04234
. 13415
.04375
.03849
. 074.50
. 14341
. 16498
. 06424
.24979
. 0.5946
. 06366
. 17875
. 19478
. 18173
. 23998
.07138
. 04855
.07093
.08.522
.18789
. 17026

2.00

2.18

2.14
2.18
2.15

1.82
2.09
1.82
1.90
1.70

0. 0003948

.0004183

.0004017
. 0003944
. 0003980

.(XX)3531
.0004109
.0003.383
. (HX)3fi00
.0003130

0. 34222

2.42

3.50
1.92

2.44

2.29
1.26
1.23

1.73
'3.07'

.0004830

.0006787

. ooSTieS

.0004865

.0004550
. 000248.5
.0002224

.0003309
.'6065744'

. 17487

.08615
.31198
.06288

. 05967
. 13398
.07712
.31182
. 27890

. 10.575

. 07450
. 12643

. 1(M173

. 14060
.10194
.03091

. 05229
."iii45'

68

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 10. — Analyses of plants, arranged according to ireight of average Icernel. Crop of

i90<?— Continued.

WEIGHT OP AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.018 TO 0.020 GRAM— Continued.

Record
number.

42205

42905

44607

45606

46106

48106

48508

49505

50705

51005

55007

55008

55206

55306

.55507

•56106

56205

56206

57007

57306

57307

57403

57407

57507

57608

57805

58805

59605

63505

65306

65307

66008

69305

69505

72406

72607

72806

74.507

81405

81505

S4905

84906

88905

88906

92208

92408

92409

92507

92909

94205

94206

94207

94209

94406

94906

94907

94908

95506

95oOS

95706

Average .

Weight
of aver-
age
liernel
(gram).

0.01967
.01866
.01806
.01834
.01964
.01919
.01858
.01898
.01986
.01804
.01828
.01846
.01965
.01931
.01949
.01866
. 01959
.01829
.01975
.01838
.01801
.01846
.01968
. 01946
.01968
.01814
.01999
.01880
.01934
.01807
.01878
.01814
.01984
.01847
.01929
.01832
.01906
. 018fi9
.01862
. 01940
.01927
.01975
.01811
.01814 i
.01876
.01827
.01814 I
.01916 j
.01916 :
.01893
.01866
.01909
.01895
.01923
.01808
.01948 '
.01894
.018.52
.01954
.01934

fe^'i Weight

kerne s°^ l^"™'^
nn on plant

plant. (S'-^«i«)

.01901

94

67
101
220

82
608
603

67

30
862
lis
944
578
214
504
644
333
509
168
434
261
135
762
359
438
270
1,158
382
208
.544
373
174
103
255
430
188
110
493
240
146

37
382
293
546
353
207
315
505
529

64
402
718
190
549
685
626
125
597
740
267

349.6

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. 898.8

23. 1471

7. 1828

4.0230

9. 8298

7. 0051

3. 1.555

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. 7057

3. 6006

10. 5556

12. 3862

12. 1918

2.3678

11.0548

14.4617

5.1629

Per-
centage
of pro-
teid ni-
trogen
in Icer-

nels.

6.6327

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

62
2.85
2. 64
2.87
2.74
2.12
1.90
2.41
2.28
3.. 59
4.42

2.
2.
5.
3.
3.
2.
2.
2.
3.
2.

2.
2.
2.97
2.30
2.58
2.70
1.65
2.78
2.86
2.49
2.47
41
94
96
74
56
73

2.88

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in —

Average
kernel.

0.0007142
.000.5447
.0004408
.0003504
.0004988
.0004567
.0005127
.0006149
.0007032
. 0002422
. 0007696
. 0004799
.0005031
.0004210
.0005126
.0004795
.0004917
.0004426
.000.5233
. 0005257
.0004387
.000.5077
.0005157
. 0005545
.0005195
.0005207
. 0005464
. 0003986
. 0003674
. 0004282
. 0004355
. 0006510
. 0008767
. 0004231
.0005689
.0010241
.0005738
.0005644
. 0004879
.0005704
.0004471
.0006773
. 0005126
.0004807
.0005102
. 0005426
.0004171
. 0004944
.0005173
.0003124
.0005187
. 000.5460
.0004719
. 0004749
.0006166
. 0005726
.0003-13
. 000.5074
.000.5003
.0005279

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
.0i:8.J4
. 39297
. 19905
. 22756
. 14060
. 63422
. 1.5228
.07644
. 23t,90
. 1,5971
.11328
.09030
. 10790
.24464
. 19253
.06312
. 27823
.11710
. 08328
.01654
. 25873
. 1.5019
. 26245
.18008
. 11233
. 13140
. 24969
. 27367
. 01999
.20851
.39199
. 08965
. 26073
. 42236
..3.5844
.04641
.30-291
. 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.

2.73 . 0.0005370 0.0.5049

1.80 I .0003454 .20997

2.21 I .0004040 .04767
1.58 I .0002917 i .27528
1.87 I .0003675 .21241

2.07
2.09
1.85
1.95

.0004034
.0003900
.0003624
.0003566

2.13
1.86
1.55

2.68
2.11

. 0003932
. (.X)03660
. 0003016

.0004861
. 0004218

1.68
1.81

. 0003036
.0003399

2.51

.0004598

2.65 .0005141

. 20333
.25114
. 12068
. 18153

.0.5309

. 27898
. 10828

. 13126 •
. 48839

. 16514
. 12680

i

.08645

. 07507

.0005476

.18039

2.08 1 .0003979

.15541

WEEGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.020 TO 0.022 GRAM.

17308

17405

20706

20708

20709

20S05

0.02012
. 02127
.02033
.02024
. 02093
.02157

61
738
163
122
258
f97

1.2275
15. 6996
3.3138
2.4690
5.3229
14. 6942

3.25
2.13
2.78
2. .58
3.05
3.32

0. 0006540
.0004531
. 0005652-
.000.5221
. 000.-292
.00i),999

0. 03994
.33441

- .09212
.08399
.16235
.48784

1

1

2.05

0.0004168

0. 06793

2.31
2.26

.0004766
.0004875

. 12296
. 33208

SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL.

G9

TiBLE 10. — Analyses of plants, arranged according to weight of average Tcernel. Crop of

iJ>'(95— Continued.

WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.020 TO 0.022 GRAM— Continued.

Record

num.^er.

Weight
of aver-
age
kernel
(gram).

Num-
ber of
kerne's

on
plant.

21212...
21305. . .
21707...
21709...
21S11...
21908. . .
21913...
22210. . .
22211...
25205. . .
26908. . .
27207. . .
27305..-
27505...
28806...
3220a...
32fOS...
33305...
33608...

33607

33905

37705

38606

39205

39405

40305

44605

44606

48409

5.5005

55506

55605

5.5908

57405

57408

58806

63106

65308

66005

69506

69806

72705

72707

73306

74305

74606

80305

81705

81706

81709

84405

88606

88608

aS609

92406

92907

95507

95509

Average .

0.02049
.02004
.02125
.02141
.02101
.0205«
.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

.02085

84
312
582
361
567
173
492
298
561
522
192
166
267
539
685
507

94
150
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

386.6

Per-

,vei„nr ^f pro-
of kernels -^ ^^_

on plant tj-oeen
(grams). [^.^I^;!

nels.

1.7216

6.2514

12. 3685

7.7296

11.9114

3. 5574

10. 1925

6.0173

11.5675

10. 7836

3.9797

3.3266

5. 56li6

12.0399

14. 4630

10. 4036

2.0162

3. 1346

8. 1890

2. 8903

11.1476

1.2069

8. 4605

21.. 5399

9.3541

3.6(X)3

1.1271

2. 5235

6.4302

7.9684

17.8506

10.9180

12.2210

. 8328

12. 2004

1.94K9

3.3006

11.7066

7. 6fi90

13.5696

12.0136

9. 1522

4.5806

8. 5373

4. 4222

9.6451

15.7835

9. 7922

15. 3928

16. 4692

8.7448

9.9456

1 . 5355

9.8719

8. 2366

4. 4673

12. 1592

2.9475

8. 1267

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

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in—

2.60

Average
kernel.

0.0004427
.0005350
. 0004654
.000.5289-
.0007877
.0007855
. 0006235
. 000c)401
. 0006537
. 0005,599
.0008135
.000.58.50
.0005379
. (K)04627
. O0OH376
.0003714
.0006177
.0007126
.0004738
.0006843
.0003533
.0005053
.0005549
. 0004407
.0006027
. 0006255
.000,5861
.000.5902
.0004137
.0006185
.0005773
.0005765
.(X)05262
. 0004022
. 000,5343
.0003853
.000.5.581
.0004197
.0005451
.0005117
.0003574
.00046(58
.0007105
.00050,52
.0004054
. 0004781
. 0003919
.0004170
. 000.5778
.0004960
.(X)05067
.000.5231
.0005125
.0005082
.000.,741
.0005220
.000.5515
.0005297

.000.5422

Kernels
on plant.

0.03718
. 16691
. 27086
. 19092
. 44666
. 13589
.30680
. 19075
.36671
. 28560
. 11780
.09712
. 14362
. 24942
. 43679
. 18831
.05807
. 10S89
. 18098
.09307
. 17948
.02824
. 22251
. 45435
. 21399
.11197
.03223
.07318
. 12989
. 24.303
. 4995
. 28823
.29575
.01649
.31842
. 03660
.09208
. 24468
. 20170
.3.3923
. 19943
. 19936
.1.5986
.20918
.08756
. 22184
.28569
. 19388
.41715
. 37548
. 21687
.25162
.03793
. 23890
.25616
.11436
.31492
.07310

Percent-
age of
gliadin-
plus-glu-
t.enin ni-
trogen in
kernels.

. 20510

1.97

Gliadin-plus-glu-
tenin nitrogen
(gram) in —

Average
kernel.

0. 0003948 0. 12315

Kernels
on plant.

2.16
1.88

1..55
1.69

2. 16
1.95
1.73
l.(:5
1.86

2.41
2.' 4,5"

1.39
1.84
1.44

1.29
1.50
1.99
2.20
1.96
1.96

1.92

. 0004538
. 0003955

.0003129
.0003485

.0004478
. 0003908
. 0003607
. 0003602
.0003926

.0005037
.066526(3"

.0002933
. 0003844
.0003014

.0002625
.0003072
. 0004036
. 0004536
. 0004281
.0004263

. 0003999

WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.0:2 TO 0.024 GRAM.

17307,
17410.
20707
21706
21708
21806
21909
21911

0.02279
.02285
.02282
.02.390
.02381
.02378
.02317
.02209

138
744
444
807
390
599
525
383

3. 14.54
16.9987

9.9070
19.3318

9. 2850
14. 2450
12.1819

8.4593

3.46
2.88
2.77
4.71
2.33
2.71
4.43
5.48

0. 0007886
.0001)580
.0008181
.0011283
.000.5.547
.0006444
.0010265
.0012103

. 25728
. 06688

.09327
. 19548

.08596
.06487
. 09630
. 19866
. 26901

.07554
.'67081'

.11760
. 39635
. 13470

.03255
.09(,45
. 1.5857
.39272
.21400
. 23953

1.64 I .0003357 1 .20008

2.20 .0004402 .072('l
1.95 1 .0003916 .22828
2.18 ' .00045;9 . 16714

2.05 ■ .0004262 .19772

1.77 i .0003832 .27937

1.96 .0004128 : .19193

2.03 '• .0004328 i .31248

. 17351

70

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table \0.— Analyses of jdants, arranged according to weight of average 'kernel. Crop of

i90.i— Continued.

WKIGHT OF AVERAGK KERNEL, J.022 TO 0.024 GRAM-Coutinued.

llccord
iuiui.:er.

Weight
of aver-
age
kernel
(gram).

25206

2ol0i>

26805

26807

27506

27508

27509

32f0o

33407

33605

34207

34(06

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

. 02285

Weight

Ver-

centage

of pro-

Nuin-

l:erof ,,fkcniels ^'.P™:

k«™«l« on plant !^"1 "^

(grams) .

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in—

on
plant

in icer-
iiels.

Average
kernel.

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

25
624
786
396
234
138

388.1

4.6754

2.0737

4.9456

17. 2324

10.0005

5. 5324

5.3615

5. 2268

7.0889

7.0596

13.5556

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

18.3614

9.1411

5. 1584

3.0940

8.8879

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

0.0006295
.0006060
.0006317
. 0006692
.0006082
.0006037
.0006399
.0002788
.0003679
.0005605
. 0006273
. 0006904
. 0007764
.0006475
.0006927
.0006594
.0006062
.0006225
. 0005690
. 0005524
.0006149
.(I(H1H391
. 0003865
.0005426
.0011365
.0012921
.000.5.531
.00051.54
. 0005327
.0006539
. 0005466
.0(X)*432
. 0005754
. 0007197

Kernels
on plant.

Percent-
age of
pliadin-
pluF-glu-
tenin ni-
trogen in
kernels.

Oliadin-piu.-'-glu-
tenin ni.^rogen
(gram; in —

Average
kernel.

Kei'nrjs
on plant.

0. 12904
.0.5454
. 13897
. 48250

!

.27003
. 14608
. 1.5,549
. 06272

i . 98 6. 66644.59 6. i9866

2.32 .000.5306 .12835
1.09 .0002405 .0.-844

.11223

. 16872

.38.505

19332

i.'92" "."6064.562'

. i3554

.43713
. 18540
. 04572
.08176
.04233
.241.50
. 28580
. 25522
..34616
.0843.)
.248'i7
. 22628
.088i.5
.14''13
. 69fi88
.20-18
.01332
.41 ",52

1.77 .0003986
1.34 .0003094

.21432
.09067

1.18 .6662664

.03304

1

i.49 .6662669
1.83 1 .0004321
1.95 .0004594

. 16529
. 199t0
. 26465

1.94 1 .0004.307

. 04738

.4291:5
. 1~.5.50

. 13-163

.09932

I

2.90

.0006624

. 25166

.747

.0004011

. 15515

WKIGHT UE AVERAGE 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

. 02543

473

.02590

749 ;

.02484

591 1

.02578

287

.02407

46

.02543

2?

2.2881

9.4172

10.4800

19. 1854

2.1851

.9452

4. 1546

12.0278

19.3966

14. 6802

7.3993

1.1074

.5,595

.02511 316.7

7.9866

3.52

2

73

3

18

2.36

2

91

2.53

2

82

2

87

2

59

3

86

2

41

2

67

2

67

2

86

0.0008660
.0006664
.0008168
.000.5827
.0007309
. fX)06463
. 0()0(iS92
. 0007299
. 0006707
. 0009588
.0006213
. 0006^128
. 0006790

0.08044
. 25709
. 33403

.45276
. 063.59
.02391
.11716
. 34524
. 50'^38
. 56666
. 17833
. 02957
.01494

2.23 I 0.0005486 0.05102

2.11
2.10
1.46
1.55

. 0005271
. 0005382
.0003(05
.0003894

, 19870
. 22008
.280 10
.0.3387

2.19
1.77
1.61

.000.53.52
. 0004.501
.0004170

.09099
.2r2i-9
.31229

1.64

. 0004228

,1213.-

.0007154

. 22816

1.85

. 0004654 . 16903

WEIGHT OF AVERAGE KERNEL, 0.026 GRAM AND OVER.

21211 1 0.02806

21705 1 .02659

39,506 ; .02869

49905 ! .029,39

55608 02699

55909 03050

.57.508 • .03177

58505 ' .02730

724(l-> 03963

10

0.2,806

3. 15

58

1.5420

2.45

67

1.9218

2.93

23

. 6760

3.62

837

22.. 5848

2.31

302

9.2120

2. 30

380

12.0728

2.21

273

7.4516

2. 95

213

8.4415

3.36

0. 000S839
.0006514
.0008^04
.0010(UO
. 0006236
.(KHrOHi
.0007021
. 0(K)8052
.0013316

0. 00884
.03778
.0.5631
. 02-136
.,52194
.21187
. 26680
.219,S2
. 28363

Average .

.02988 240.3

7.2425

2.81 .0008449

, 18126

!

2.66 6.666.5915 6.03959

i

: l.(i6 ! .000.-)0(!3
' 2.05 1 .000(^513

1

.1,5292
. 24750

1

1.92 .0(X),5.S29

. 14667

SOME PROPERTIES OF THE WHEAT KERNEL.

71

Table 11. — Sunnnary of analyses of plants, arranged according to weight of average 'kernel.

Crop of 1903.

Per-
cent-

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in —

Per
cent-
age of

glia-

Glia din-pl u s-
glutenin nitro-
gen (gram)tn —

Weight
of aver-
age ker-
• nel
(gram).

Range of
weights of

Num-
ber of

Num-
ber of
kernels.

Weight
of ker-

age of
pro-

din-
plus-

average kernel
(gram).

analy-
ses.

nels
(grams).

teid ni-
trogen

Average

Ker-

glu-
tenin

Average

Ker-

in ker-

kernel.

nels.

nitro-

kernel.

nels.

■

nels.

gen m
ker-
nels.

000 to 010....

4

0. 00915

219

2. 0334

2.76

0.0002528

0.05618

1.97

0. 0001877

0.05312

0.010 to 0.012....

6

.01118

179

2.0187

2.98

. 0003326

.06276

2.69

. 0002968

. 067.52

0.012 to 0.014....

19

.01323

155. 7

2.0510

3.12

. 0004120

. 06687

1.98

. 0002641

. 07499

014 to 0.016....

27

.01516

232

3. 5480

3.00

. 0004555

. 10619

1.76

. 0002805

. 09320

016 to 018....

69

.01709

305.9

5. 2055

2.93

.0005020

. 14618

2.07

.0003519

. 13548

018 to 020....

103

.01901

349. 6

6. 6327

2.88

. 0005476

.18039

2.08

.000.3979

. 15541

020 to 0.022....

64

.02085

386. 6

8. 1257

2.60

.0005422

. 20510

1.92

.0003999

. 17351

022 toO 024....

42

. 02285

388. 1

8. 8879

2.90

.0006624

. 25166

1.74

.0004011

. 15515

0.024 to 0.026 ...

13

.02511

316.7

7.9866

2.86

.00071.54

.22816

1.85

.0004654

. 16903

0.026 and over..

9

. 02988

240. 3

7. 2425

2.81

.0008449

.18126

1.92

. 000.5829

. 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 beyond 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 w^eight of the
a^^erage kernel, while 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 analyses of the crop of 1903,
arranged according to the grams of proteid nitrogen in the average
kernel. All plants having less than 0.0003 gram of proteid nitro-
gen form the first class, and the following classes increase wdth each
0.0001 gram of proteid nitrogen.

It is difficult to trace any relation betw^een the grams of proteid
nitrogen in tho aveiage kerne] and the number of kernels on the plant,
or the weight of the kernels on the plant. The weight of the 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 gra^•ity,
would contain a high percentage of proteids.

72

improvijStg 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 would, 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.-

-Summary of analyses of plants, arranged according to grams of proteid nitrogen
in average kernel. Crop of 1903.

Range of proteid nitrogen in
average kernel (gram).

Below 00030 .. .
0.00030 to 0.00040
0.00040 to 00050
0.00050 too 00060
0.00060 to 0(X)70
0.00070 to 0.(K)080
0.00080 to 0.00090
0.00090 to 0.00100
0.00100 and over.

Proteid

nitrogen

in average

kernel

(gram).

Num-
ber of
analy-
ses.

Number
of ker-
nels on
plant.

Weight (in grams)
of—

0. 0002.509
. 0003602
. 0004537
. 0005406
. 0006409
. 0007430
. 0008538
. 0009588
.0011578

14

42

80

116

59

24

9

1

11

257.9
266.7
409.2
341.5
310. 3
204.9
189.1
591.0
244.9

Kernels
on plant.

3. 9190
4. 6742
7. 5309
6. 7159
6. 7257
4.5158
4.2480
14. 6802
6. 6082

Average
kernel.

0.01.364
.01628
.01811
.01908
.02137
.02110
.02334
. 02484
.02875

Percent-
age of
I)roteid
nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

1.96
2.31
2.54
2.86
3.07
3.66
3.79
3.86
4.62

Proteid
rutrogeri
in ker-'
nels on
plant
(gram).

0. 06531
. 09644
.18644
.18440
. 19805
. 15318
.15944
. 56666
. 27980

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 bB
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.

wSome results of experiments with light and with heavy seed con-
ducted on large field plots for several years 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 NITKOGEN PER ACRE.

73

To afford information on this point analyses were made of crops
grown from light and from heavy seed. Records of the yields of the
plots were kept in each case so that the actual amount of proteid
nitrogen contained in an acre of each kind of wheat can be calculated.
The number of grams of proteid nitrogen in 1,000 kernels of each seed
and crop sample is also stated. The first 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 wa3^ When planted they produced the crops indicated in-
Table 13 by 78b, 79b, 80b, and 81b, respectiveh^. Each of these
crops was then separated into two portions, of which the light portion
of the light wheat was retained for analyzmg and planting, and the
heavy portion of the heavj' wheat likewise retained. Thus No. 383
is the light portion of No. 78b, and No. 384 is the hea^n,^ portion of
No. 79b.

The accuracy of the records of relative yields of light and heavy
seed harvested in 1902 being 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 peld of light and heavj* wheat,
should be accurate, although tried ill 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 m 1903 the seed of the crop of 1902 was used.

Table 13. — Crops grown from light and from heavy seed for four years.

SEED.

Farm
num-
ber.

Variety.

Percentage of—

Weight of Proteid

Total Proteid
nitrogen, nitrogen.

Non-
proteid
nitrogen.

Relative
weight.

78

Turkish Red

17.24 '...

Light.
Heavy

79

do . . .

30.63

80

81

383

Big Frame

do

Turkish Red

2.45
2.20
3.12
3.02
3.13
2.95

2.00 0.45
1.96 . .24
3.10 .02

15.57 0.3120
28..56 .5606
27.11 : .8401
28.47 .8350
27.11 1 .7642
28.09 .7446

Light. '

Heavy.

Light,

Heavy.

Light.

Heavy.

Light.

384
385

do

Big Frame

2.93
2.82
2.65

.09
.31
.30

386

do

Turkish Red

do

Big Frame

Light.
Heavy

do

957

Turkish Red

3.33
3.06

2.88

2.87 , .46
2.86 ' .20
2.63 ! .25

Light.
Heavy

956

do

Big Frame

do

952

Light".
Heavy.

Light.
Heavy.

953

CHECK EXPERIMENT.

Turkish Red

do

1

Big Frame

Light.

do

Heavy.

\

74

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 13. — Crops grown from light and from heavy seed for four years — Continued.

CROP.

o

Variety.

Yield per acre
(bushels).

Weight per bushel
(pounds).

Percentage

3f—

Proleid nitrogen
per acre (pounds).

SX

c3

<w be
^^

- iS

Proteid nitrogen
in 1,000 kernels
(gram).

d

c

■s^

Fann number
seed.

1

+^

g

•iH

s

■a

c'S

E

d

78
79

Turkish Red

.do

23.0

29.5

20.5

25.1

26.7

29.3

21.2

27.7

19.7

18.0

Losi.

Lost.

25.6
21.3
25.8
20.8

30.9
31.8
23.9
24.2

"60." .5'
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

!oi
.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
4902

1903
1903

1903
1903

1903
1903
1903
1903

78b

25.10

'24.'84"
26.19
27.04
23.89
28.82

0. 7379

".'6423"
. 5581
.5238
.7409
.6451

79b

80

Big Frame

80b

81

. .do

Sib

383
384

Turkish Red

. .do

612
613

385

Big Frame . . .'.

602

386

do

603

Turkish Red

do

Big Frame

621

614

19.56
26.41

12.12
23.13
19.82
23.26

.6494
.5837

.7764
.5042
.4241
. 4605

604

do

Turkish Red

do

Big Frame

do

CHECK EXPERIMENT.

Turkish Red

do

Big Frame

do

611

957

1340

956

1239

952

1248

953

12-19

124.5

1243

12.-2

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 tot'al
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 heaA^y 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 by 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 proteid
nitrogen produced per acre, it is very 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
slightly in favor of the light whea't, which advantage continued
with the light wheat during the remaining years.

YIELD OF NITROCIEN 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
first generation ?

A possible explanation for this is that the light seed from the fii'st
preneration contained kernels whose lightness was due in some cases
to immaturity, 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 certainty significant that so
little difference in yield exists after three years' selection in this way.
Instead of the difference between the light and heavy seed becoming
greater each year it is without doubt becoming less.

In considering the relative yields of the light and heavy wheat, it
must be borne in mind that the seeding was done with a drill set to
deliver 1^ bushels per acre of ordinary seed wheat. The result
would be to deposit a larger number of kernels of light seed per acre
than of heavy 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 from the thicker seeding, which
may account for the greater yield from the light seed in that year.

It is possible that the same cause ma}' have operated in other
years to increase the yields 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 ear\j fall, there
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
heav}^ seed for the four years beginning with 1900, there would
appear to be a plight decrease in yield of grain, accompanying an
increase in the percentage of proteid nitrogen. This loss in yield is

76 IMPEOVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

not siifRcient to counteract the 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 contmued for a numbei of years. 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 satisfactory 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 b}" plants be observed in this table, it will be seen
that numerous plants may be selected that have not onty 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 PEOTEIDS IN KERNEL.

77

Table 14. — Analyses of twenty-jive spikes of wheat, showing their total organic nitrogen.

Numl^er of spike.

1.
2

z'.

7.

8.

9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
1.5.
Itj.
17.

Percentage of total organic
nitrogen.

Kow 1. I Row 2.

3.14
2.97
2.89
2.99
2.89

2.85
3.26
2.94
3.45

I Difler-

3.32
3.15
2.99
3.21
2.82
2.81
2.76
3.11
3.18
2.80
2.79
3.07
3.07
3.67

ence.

0.18
.18
.10
.22
.07
.01
.26
.02
.07
.04
.06
.19
.13
.22

Number of spike.

18.

99

23.
24.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.

Average .

Percentage of total organic
nitrogen.

Row 1. Row 2.

2.83
2.78
2.94
2.98
3.00
2.84
3.03
2.65
2.62
3.02
3.02

2.79
2.76
3.03
2.89
3.08
2.67
2.90
2.79
2.84
3.18
2.80

Differ-
ence.

0.04
.02
.09
.09
.08
.17
.13
.14
.22
.16

99

.12

Table 15. — Analyses of twenty-three spikes of wheat, showing their percentage of proteid

nitrogen.

Percentage of proteid

Percentage of proteid

nitrogen.

Number of spike.

nitrogen.

Number of spike.

Row 1.

Row 2.

Differ-
ence.

Row 1.

Row 2.

Difier-
ence.

4

2.90

3.12

0.22

,34

2.86

3.02

0.16

5 - -

2.97

2.86

.11

! 35

2.33

2.52

.19

20

2.68

2.79

.11

36

2.88

2.85

.03

21

2.54

2.76

.22

37

2.43

2.45

.02

25

2.42

2.53

.11

38

3.15

3.14

.01

26

2.42

2.50

.08

39

3.46

■ 3.34

.12

27

3.01

2.91

.10

'40

2.45

2.59

.14

28

2.35

2.71

.36

' 41

2.73

2.68

.05

29

2.72

2.75

.03

42

3.42

3.61

.19

30

2.49

2.44
3.09

.05

.17

43

2.47

2.57

.07

31

2.92

32

2.60

2.48

.12

Average

2.77

2.82

.11

33

3.41

3.37

.04

1

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
diiference 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 analysis 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

IMPKOVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

each way, with one seed in each hill. Each plant was harvested
separately 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 kernels from one-half the number of spikes on a plant,
and lot 2 of kernels from the remaining spikes.

Table 16. — Analyties of twenty-one plants, slwvnng total nitrogen and proteid nitrogen.

1

Number of plant.

Percentage of total nitrogen.

Percentage of proteid
nitrogen.

Lotl.

Lot 2. ^:

Lot 1.

Lot 2.

Differ-
ence.

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

0.26
.01
.24
.28
.09
.38
.19
.16
.11
.07
.19
.15
.07
.08
.16
.16
.14
.01
.02

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
2.76
2. .57
2.83
2.70
2.42
2.86
2.84
2.70
2.57
2.52
3.35
2.42
2.29
2.71
2.75
2.91
2.33
2. .57

0.18
.01
.12
.20
.22
.09
.20
.01
.11
.23
.07
.31
.02
.04
.46
.02
.06
.28
.03

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12 ■

13 .

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2.71 1 .08

2.48 .03

1 .14

!

1

.13

1

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 difference 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 anal3-sis 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, analyses 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 spikes of wheat, showing difference in froteid nitrogen.

Spike.

Percentage oi proteid nitrogen.

Plant 23.

Plant 24.

Plant 25.

Plant 26.

Plant 27.

Plant 29.

1.
2.
3.
4.

2.33
2.69
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

6.
7.
8.
q

2.60
2.30

10.

Maximum

Average

Minimum

Greatest dif-
ference

2.69
2.37
2.09

.60

2.73
2.37
2.11

.62

2.83
2.4S
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 very 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 ofproteids.

Percentage of—

Record
number.

Percentage of —

Record
number.

Percentage of —

Record
number.

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).

1

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

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

78

3.40
3.33
3.79
3.63

2.68

19.38
18.98
21.60
20.69
15.28

155

1.99
3.03
2.07
2.75
2.82
3.06
2. .54
3.33
2.73
2.47
3.22
2.80

11 .37

2

79

156

17 20

3

80

157

11 87

4

81

158

■ 15 64

5

82

159

16 07

6

83

160

17 44

7

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

161

14 48

8

85

162

18 98

9 '.

86

163

15 56

10

87

164. . .

14 08

11 . .

88

165

18.35
15 96

12

89

166...

167

13

90

91 . .

14

168

169

170.

3.59
2.52
2.72
3.28
2.74
3.07
3.75
3.46
3.09
3.56

20 46

15 . .

92

93

94

3.41
2.30

19.44
13.11

13.72
15 .50

16

17

1 171

18 70

18

95

172.

15 62

19

96

97.

98

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
14.67
15.28
9.75
14.75
18.87

173

17 54

20

174 . .

21 43

21

175

176

177

178

19 74

22

99..

17 67

23

100

20 34

24

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'

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
18. .35

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

25

26

27 .

179

180

1 181

182

183

184

3.85
3. .57
2.66
2. 76
2.05
3.77
2.70
3.97
2.98

21.95

20.38
15 18

28

15 74

29

30

11.73
21.. 53

31

185

1") 43

32

186

2'' 63

33

1.87

188

189

190

191

192

1 193

' 194.

17 m

34 . .

Ill . .

2 36 i ^^^ 4S

35

112

2.63
3.24
3.24
3.12
2.40
3.43
3. .33
2.71
2.85
3.18
2.98
3.23

15 03

36

113

18 52

37

38

114

115

18. .52
17 80

39 ...

116

13 72

40

117

19 .58

41

118

195

IS. 99

42

119

120

121

2.i7

2.88

12.37
16.42

196. . .

15 46

43

44 . .

197

198

199

16.27
18 13

45

122

1.33
2.54
3.20
2.04
2.34
2.89
2.98
2.85
2.99
3.18

7.58
14.48
18.24
11.63
13.34
16.47
16.99
16.24
17.04
18.13

17.03

46

123 .. .

200

201

18 46

47

124

125

48

202

203

204

1 205

206

207

208

209

210

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

17 83

49

126

127

17. 51

50

22.24

51 ... .

128 . .

13.74

52

129

130

131

132

19.62

53

54

15. .58
18.30

55

21.76

56

133...

16.79

57 :...

134

211

212

213

214

: 215

; 216

i 217

! 218

219

i 220

221

i 222

223

224

225

16. .52

58

135 ...

16.91

59

136

18.86

60

137

2.13
3.08
1.37

12.14

17.56

7.81

17.62

61

138

21.63

62

139 .

18.99

63

140

16.. 30

64

141

142

143 . . .

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
17.27
18.07
11.91
1.5.67
13.79
15.28
12. 82
14.88
8.61
.9.35
16. 70
16. 24

14.72

65

15. 45

66

'S. 22

67

68

144

145 .

22.70
16 71

69

146

18.86

70

147

20.82

71

148

20 23

72

149

1 226

227

: 228

229

230

, 231

17. 73

73

74

75

1.50

151

1.52

153

15.46
19. 36
16 88

76..

14 46

77

154

17.73

SELECTIOlSr TO INCREASE PROTEIDS IN KERNEL.
Table 18. — Variations in content of proteids — Continued.

81

Percentage of—

Record
number.

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

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

233

234

235

236 !

237

238

239

240

241

242 i

243

244

245

246

247 i

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

3.02
3.31

i7.26

18.88

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

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

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
1^.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

266

267

268.........

269. . . .

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279.

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

2S7

288.

289

290.

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

3.67
3.06
3.08
2.68

20.96
17.49
17.61
15.28

300

301

302...

303

304

305

2.23
3.07

2.50
3.19
2.84

' i2:74

17. 52
14.30
18.20
16.22-

306

307

308

Record
number.

27889— No. 78—05-

309..

310..

311..

312..

313..

314..

315..

316..

317..

318..

319..

320..

321..

322..

323..

324..

325..

326..

.327..

328..

329..

330..

331..

332..

333..

334..

33S..

336..

337..

338..

339.,

340..

341.

342.

343.

344.

345.

346.

347.

348.

349.

350.

351.

352.

353.

354.

355.

356.

357.

358.

359.

360.

361.

362.

363.

364.

365.

366.

367.

368.

369.

370.

371.

372.

373.

374.

375.

376.

377.

378.

379.

380.

381.

382.

383.

384.

385.

-0

Percentage of-

Proteid
nitrogen
in water-
free
material.

Proteids
(proteid

N.X5.7).

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

3.44
3.60
2.87
2.61

2.57
3.25
2.61
2.81
3.35
2.88
4.95
3.33
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

21.36
18.01
17.07
19.88
20.11
18.03
15.68
19.13
19.54
11.50
16.33
17.00
19.54
14.53
19.54
18.16
19.70

19.64
20.55
16.39
14.93

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

Record
number.

Percentage of-

Proteid
nitrogen
in water-
free
material.

2.52
2.73
3.05
2.95
3.22
3.26
2.93
2.70
2.77
2.98
2.28

3.09

3.35

3.36

2.32

3.03

3.30

3.75

2.43

3.79

3.63

3.59

3.26

3.15

3.63

3.77

3.13

2.44

3.23

3.79

3.05

2.85

3.73

2.53

3.53

3.14

2.61

3.29

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

Proteids
(proteid
N. X 5.7).

2.39

15.07
15. .59
17.41
16.87
18.36
18.60
16.74
15.41
15. 81
16.99
13.02

17.65
19.12
19.20
13.26
17.31
18.83
21.43
13.90
21.63
20.74
20.47
18.63
17.95
20.70
21.51
17.89
13.93
18.44
21.65
17. .39
16.28
21.27
14.45
20.12
17.90
14. 93
18. 81
17.60
17. 46
14.80
17.31
16.06
18.25
17.11
17. 80
16.28
20.14
16.44
17. 82
15.20
16.99
13.44
16.72
17.98
14.30
13. 56
13. 51
21.37
16.33

16. 67
15.76
20. 62

16. 68
18.07
17. S6
17.92
14.95
15.47
17.92
1,'^.20
14.84
22. 29

13.64

82

IMPKOVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 18.— Variations in content of proteids — Continued.

Percentage of-

Record
number.

463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477,
478
479
480
481,
482,
483,
484,
485,
486,
487,
488,
489
490
491
492,
493,
494,
495
496
497
498,
499,
500,
501,
502
503
504
505
506
507,
508,
509,
510,
511,
512.
513.
514,
515,
616,
517.
518,
519,
520,
521.
522
523,
524
525
526
527
528,
529
530
531
532
533
534
535,
536
537
538
539

Proteid
I nitrogen

in water-
free
f material

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

Proteids
(proteid
N. X 5.7).

Record
number.

Percentage of-

Proteid
nitrogen
in water-
free
material.

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

3.49
3.08
2.17
3.03
3.20
2.5i
3.12
2. ,52
3.25
3.17
2.52
3.09
2.73
3.35

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
,'i.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

Proteids
(proteid

N. X 5.7).

21.61
14.77
17.86
19.91
17.40
IS. 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
18.02
2i: 92
15.79
15.52
21.22

Record
number.

18.12
17.66
19.01
19.96

7.37
11.98
14.49
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

19.49
17.57
12.39
17.29
18.27
14.37
17.82
14.41
IS. 53
18.10
14.40
17.61
15.60
19.10

617.
618.
619.
620.
621.
622.
623.
624.
625.
626.
627.
628.
629.
630.
631.
632.
633.
634.
635.
686.
637.
638.
639.
640.
641.
642.
643.
644.
645.
646.
647.
648.
649.
650.
651.
6.52.
653.
654.
655.
656.
657.
658.
659.
660.
661.
662.
663.
664.
665.
666.
667.
668.
609.
670.
671.
672.
673.
674.
675.
676.
677.
678.
679.
680.
681.
6S2.
683.
684.
685.
686.
687.
688.
689.
690.
691.
692.
693.

Percentage of-

Proteid
nitrogen
in water-
free
material.

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

2.83
2.50
2.59
3.21
2.56
2.55

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

Proteids
(proteid
N. X 5.7).

SELECTION TO INrREA.SE PROTEIDS IN KERNEL.

83

Table 18. — Variafion-^i iti content of proteids — Contimicd.

Percentage of— '

Record
number.

Percentage of— 1

Record
number.

Percent

Proteid
nitrogen
in water-
free
material.

age of—

Record
nuniuer.

Proteid
nitrogen
in water-
free
material.

2.15
2.92

Proteids
(proteid
N. x5.7>.

Proteid
nitrogen
in water-

f ee
material.

Proteids
(proteid '

N. X 5.7).

Proteids
(proteid
N. X5.7).

■'4

12.23
16. 69 1
(

7-0

731

7 2

733

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. 00
13. 15
12. -24

9.54
12. 25

21. 21
14.12 I

16. 72 ;
11.. 56
12.47
12. .57

766

76,

768

760

2.87
2.22
2.45
2.37
1..37
1.02
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

12.69

13.98

2.11
.3. o:i
2.64
4.10
2.51
2.27
2. .3.3
2.43
2.48
1.87
.3. 07
2.12
1.87
2.10
2. OS
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
1.70
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

10.29

12.22

12. 36

12.43

11.67

13.26

12. .52

10. 23

14.22

16.46

13.51

00'

on?

:o )

701

702

70 '

7 '4

7.>5

7-6

737

738

770

771

772

773

774

7.86
9. 27

11.42
9.87

13 26

739

10.76

704

70 i

740

74!

742

74i

744

745

;76

13.03
16.02

700

70-

70^

70 •

778

779

1 780

781

7'2

783

784

7,'5

7S6

787...

788

789

11.33
13. 40
16.29
15.94

710

711

712

7i:*

746

747

748

740

7.50

751

7.52

7.5-!

7.54

7o/>

15.09
16.02
10.96

12.88

714

71.")

18. 75
16. 82

71fi

717

12. 17
12. 57

71S

7)0

790

791

792

793

794

795

790

797

798

799

io.;-2
17. 22

720

721

756

12.36
13. 24

;22

75S

10. 11

72!

724

72.">

7.50

760 ■

761

762

76"

764

765

14. 15
14.00
12 56

720

16. .'■2
12.48

720

800

11.57

It will he noticed that there is a very 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 anah'ses 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 lils;ely 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 hereditar}^, as results given later indicate, there is ample
onportunity to develop by selection a strain of wheat of high nitrogen
content.

84 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

A BASIS FOR SELECTION TO INCREASE THE aUANTITY OF
PROTEIDS IN THE ENDOSPERM OF THE KERNEL,

White bread flour, which constitutes the major portion of the
wheat flour consumed in this country, is derived entirely from the
endosperm of the Avheat 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 larger part of the aleurone layer 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 cpiantities 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 affording a basis for selection from individual plants. It has
been shown by Osborne and Yoorhees " 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,j
with, perhaps, a small amount in tlie hull.

A recent investigation byNasmith' leads him to conclude that
ghadin exists in afl portions of the endosperm, including the aleu-
rone layer, but that glutenin is contained only in the starch-bearing^,
portion of the endosperm. A determination of glutenin may, 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 proteic
and of gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen in the average kernel, and thej
grams of proteid and of gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen in all of the
kernels on each plant. The plants are grouped into those having

"American Chein. Jour., 1893, pp. 392-471.

'Connecticut Experiment Station Report, 1899, p. 305.

<Trans. Canad. 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 19.

Table 19. — Relation ofgliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen to proteid nitrogen.
1 TO 2 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

Record luimber.

Percentage
of-

Num-
ber of
ker-
nels.

\^

'eight (in grams) of—

Pro-
toi.l
nitro-
gen.

Glia-
(lin-

plUE-
gUl-

tenin
nitro-
gen.

Ker-
nels.

Average
kernel.

Gliadinr
Proteid plus-
nitro- gluteniii
gen in nitro-
kernels. gen in
kernels.

Proteid « tg^:
nitrogen V^f^_

ageker:; * -gen in
nel • average
^^^- 1 kernel.

5.5.307

80305

' 81705

1.S9

1.81
1.98

1.56
1.77
1.96

342
729
465

5. 6864

15. 7835

9. 7922

0.01663
. 02165
.02106

0. 10747 0. 08871
. 2S.569 . 27937
. 19388 . 19193

0.0003142 0.0002.504
.(W03919 .(X)03.S:V2
.0004170 , .01X14128

Average . .

1.89

1.76 1 512.10.4207 1 .01978 .19.568 . 18f;fi7

. 0003744 . 0003518

2 TO 2.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

21212

''7205

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. 0596
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
.02008
. 02079
. 02336
. 02578

0. 03718
.39.539
. 45276
. 24942
. 14341
. 16872

. 454:;.-.
.27(65
. 12989
. 06240
. 29575
.21187
. 22529
. 25.522

. 2ri(;sn

.L'.iliCO
. 1.5971
. 2446S
.221S4
. 429115
.178^3

0.00327
.27890
. 28010

. 19S6ti
. 12(i43
. 13554
. 39():;5
. 20997
. 09645
.04957
. 23953
. 15292
. 181.53
. 19960
. 247.50
. I(i514
. 12680
. 22828
. 19772
.11750
. 121.35

0. 0004427
. 0004437
.0005827
. 0004627
.0004510
. ()005t)05
.()()044117
. 0004567
.0004137
. 0003736
. 0005262
. 0007016
. 0004426
. 0005524
.01)07021
. 0004355
.0004282
.0004197
. 0(X)4781
.0005466
. 0006213

0. 0000389
. 0003130
.0003605
. 0003602
. 0004163
. 0004502
.()( 10.3844
. 0003454
. 0003072
. 0002969
. 0004263
. 0(X),5063
. 0003566
. 0004321
. 00()()513
.(l()(i:>036
.0011.3399
. 0003916
. 0004262
.0001495
. 0004228

27206

27.505

.33107

33605

39205

48106

48409

55:309

55908

55909

56206

56207

57508,

65306..

65307

65308

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. 03212
. 27443

. 48428

0. 06793

. 18328
. 34222

0. 0005652

.(K1061S1
.0005.586

0.0004168
. 0004222
. 0003948

20707

20710

21207

2.96

.17

118

2. 3066

.019.55

. 06804

. 00392

. 1KK)5766

. tX)00332

21.305

2.67

1.97

313

6.2514

. 02004

. 16691

. 12315

. 0005353

. 0003948

21306

2.90

.97

226

4. 1516

. 01837

. 12039

.04027

. 0005327

.0001782

21805

2.69
2.73

.23
2.11

1,2.32
377

20.9290
9. 4172

.01699
. 02498

.56299
. 25709

. 04704
. 19870

. 0004569
. 0006664

.0000391
. 000.5271

21807

21808

2.57

1.96

1,156

19. 7446

.01708

. 50744

.38700

. 0004389

. 0003348

21809

2.73

2.18

418

8.0214

.01919

. 21898

. 17487

. 0005238

.0004183

21905

2.64

2.18

791

14.3111

.01809

. 37781

.31198

. 0004777

. 0003944

22205 :.

2.81

1.97

283

2.6965

. .00953

. 07577

.05312

. 0002677

. (X)01.877

22207

2.77

1.82

169

3. 2787

. 01940

.09082

. 05967

. 0005 174

. 000"531

26905

2.76
2.71

2.09

1.82

326

228

6. 4102
4.2376

. 01966
. 01859

. 17692
.11484

. 13398
.07712

. 0005427
. 000.5037

.0004109
.0003:;8.3

26906

26908

2.96
2.80

2.16

1.88

192
180

3. 9797
2.9999

.02073
.01667

. 11780
. 08400

. 0S596
.05640

.0(K)6135
. 0004667

. 0(X)4478
.00031.34

26909

27005

2.63

1.90

866

16.4120

. 01895

. 43164

.31182

. 000 1984

. 01X)3600

27207

2.92

1.95

166

3. 3266

. ()20(M

. 09712

. 06487

. 000.5850

. (X)039()S

27.305

2.58

1.73

267

5. 5666

. 020.^5

. 14362

. 09630

.000.5379

. 0(«).i607

27307

2. .53

.82

167

3. 0850

.()1,''47

. 07805

.02.530

. (M)04674

.0001515

27506

2.70
2.64

1.98
2 32

444
251

10. 0005
5. .5 '24

. 02252
.02287

. 27003
. 14608

. 19800
.128.35

. 000G082
. 0006037

. 0(X)4459
. (KX15:;66

27.508

27509

2.90

1.09

243

5.3615

. 02206

.15549

. 05844

. 0006399

. 0002405

86

IMPEUVING^ THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 19.— Relation of (iliadin-plus-c/lutenm nitvo(jen to proteid nitrogen— Cont'nmed.
2.5 -TO 3 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued.

Weight (in grams) of-

Ker-
nels.

2. 1851
2. 5601
6. 1394
8. 0905
3. 3004
2. 5134

8. 4605
3. 0228
6. 7665
9. 3541
1.9218
4. 1546
2.8000
5. 9990
2. 5235
8. 3935

12. 0278

9. 8346
17. 4226
11.3592

9. .5078
17. 8506

9. 8228
10. 9180
11. 0930

5. 7948

7. 9968
19. 3966

5. 7431
12.0161

14. 4556

6. 5232
13. 5720

15. 8086
1.5364
2. 4923

14.9992

12. 2004
2. 7616
6.9861
4. 8988

23. 1471
3. 3006
7. 6690
2. 8327

15. 3928

Average
kernel.

0. 02512
.01939
.01987
. 01972
.01710
. 01808
.02110
.01913
. 02309
. 02093
. 02869
. 02444
. 02258
.01764
. 02035
. 017.56
. 02543
. 01798
. 01846
. 01965
. 02.395
. 02062
. 01949
. 02184
. 02205
. 01751
. 01603
. 02590
. 01709
. 01866
. 01658
. 01959
.02356
. 01664
.01746
. 01846
. 01968
. 02047
. 01.534
. 01946
.01814
. 01999
. 02001
. 02073
.01940
. 02132

Proteid
nitro-
gen in

kernels.

0.03 '59
.07450
. 18173
. 23998
. 09670
. 07138
. 22251
. 08522
. 18540
. 21399
. 05631
.11716
.08176
. 17637
. 07318
. 21319
. 34524
. 26553
. 45299
. 29079
. 24150
. 43995
. 25834
. 28823
. 28580
. 15470
. 22471
. 50238
. 15679
. 30881
. 42790
. 16373
. 34616
. 40945
. 04164
. 06854
. 39297
. 31842
. 07733
. 19905
. 14060
• . 63422
. 09208
.02017
. 0S32S
.41715

Gliadin-
plus-

glutenin
nitre- ,
gen in

l.ernels.l

Proteid
nitrogen
in f ver-
age 1- er-
nel.

0.

03387
. 03960
.14060
. 10194
. 06931
.03091
. 11760
. 05229
. 09067
. 13470
. 03959
. 09099
. 03304
. 04199
. 03255
. 17458
. 21289
. 07376
. 27528
.21241
. 06180
. 39272
. 20333
.21400
. 16529
.10141
.11755
. 31229
. 12175
. 25174
. 32236
. 12068
. 26465
. 34937
.03211
. 05309
. 27898
. 20008
. 06462
. 10828
. 13126
. 488.39
.07261
.16714
. 07507
. 31248

.0007.309
. 0005644
.0005881
.0005327
.0005010
. 0005135
. 0005549
. 0005394
. 0006475
. 0006027
. OOOS404
. 0006892
. 0006594
. 0005187
. 0005002
. 0004460
. 0007299
. 0004877
. 0004799
. 000.5031
. 0006225
.0005773
.0005126
. 0005765
. 0005690
. 0004674
.0004.505
.0006707
. 0(X)4667
. 0004795
. 0004907
. 0004917
.0006149
. 0004310
. 0004731
. 0005077
. 0005157
. 0005343
. 0004296
. 0005545
. 0005207
. 0005464
. 0005581
. 0005451
. 0005704
. 0005778

Gliadin-
plus-glu-
tenin ni-
trogen in
average
kernel.

0. 0003894
. 0006787
. 0004550
. 0002485
. 0003591
. 0002224
. 0002933
. 0003309
. 0003094
.0003014
. 0005910
. 0005352
.0002664
. 0001235
. 0002625
. 0003652
. 0004501
. 0001348
.0002917
. 0003675
. 0001557
. 0004536
. 0004034
. 0004281
. 0002609
. 0003064
. 0002356

• .0004170
. 0003622
. 0003900
. 0003697
. 0003624
. C004594
. 0003677
. 0003649-
. 0003932
. 0003660
. 0003557
. 0003590
.000.3016
. 0004861
. 0004218
. 0004402
.0004519
.0005141
. 0004328

419. 3 8. 2271

.01991

. 22222

. 14658

. 0005468

. 0003557

■ 3 TO 3.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

20709

1
3.05
3.32
3.16
3.24
3.04
3.18
3.35
3.22
3.18
3.17
3.17
3.09
3.07
3.02
3.41
3.22
3.29
3.20

2.31
2.26

.22
2.15

.46
2.10
2.15
2.11
2.14
1..55
1.69
2. 28
2.42
1.86
2.41
2.45
2.13
2.17

258
697
123
287
143
408
158
146
118
233
561
. 222
219
685
150
136
157
556

5. 3229

14. 6942
2. 3642
5. 1594
2. .5691

10. 4800
2. 9248
2. 5712
1.9090
6. 0173

11.5675
3.8811
4.3698

14. 4630
3. 1346
2.8903
2.6571
9. 4585

1
0. 02063
.02157
. 01922
.01798
. 01796
.02563
.01851
.01720
.01619
. 02019
. 02062
.0F48
.01996
.02111
. 020nQ
.02125
.01692
.01701

0. 16235
. 48784
.07471
. 16712
.07810
. 33402
. 09798
. 08086
.06071
. 19075
. .36671
.11992
.13415
. 43679
. 106S9
.'09307
. 08742
. 30267

0. 12296
. 33208
.00520
.11093
.01182
.22008
.06288
.05425
. 04084
.09.327
. 19548
.08849
. 10.575
. 26901
. 07554
.07081
. 05660
. 20525

0. 0006292
. 0006999
. 0006074
. 0005824
. 0005461
.000X168
. 0006201
. 0005538
. 0005144
. 0006401
.0006.537
. 0005402
.0006126
. 0006376
. 0007126
. (NX)6843
. 0005568
. 0005444

0. 0004766
. 0004875
. 0000423
. 0(X)3866
. 0000826
.0005382
. 0003980
.000362?)
. 0003465
.0003129
. 0003485
. 0003985
. 0004830
. 0003926
. 0005037
. 0005206
. 0003604
. 0003691

20805

21205

21208

21307

21906

21907

22206

22208

22210

22211

26808

28206

28806

33305

33607

48306

48506

SELECTION TO INCREASE PROTEIDS IN ENDOSPERM.

87

Table 19. — Relation of gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen to proteid nitrogen — Continued.
3 TO 3.5 "per cent PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued.

Record number.

4S70.^.
48700.
5.5005.
55006.
5.550S.
57905.
58207.
5*^705.

-Vverage

Percentage
of—

Pro-
teid
nitro-
gen.

3.16

Glia-
din-
plus-
glu-
tenin
nitro-
gen.

Num-
I'er of
ker-
nels.

3. 13

1. .56

3.00

.71

.3.05

1.99

.3.16

1.75

3.11

1.96

3.18

2.92

3.03

2.49

3.01

2.47 (

37<
.393
451
216
221
.307
235

Ker-
nels.

264 I 4. .3615

6. 1983
7. 9684
7. 18.52
3. 7407
2. 4731
4. 2207
2. 5436

1.95 ; 239.5 i 5.5817

Weight (in grams) of—

Average
kernel.

0.016.52
. 01635
. 02028
. 01593
. 01732
.01118
. 01375
. 01082

.01817

Proteid
nitro-
gen in

kernels.

Ghadm- p^.-j^j Gliadm-

glutenin ,„ ^.f,." tenin ni-

°'"?" age ker- ^'■'^g"^ i^

genm *^„pi , average

Iiernels. kernel.

0.1.36.52 0.06S04 0.0005171 ! 0.0002.577

.0004906 .0001161

.0006185 .0004036

. 0005034 . 0002788

. 0005386 . 0003395

. 000.3556 . 0003264

. 0004248 . 0003424

. 0003258 . 0002673

. 18.596

.04401

. 24303

. 1.5857

. 22705

. 12574 1

.11636

. 07332

. 07859

. 07221

. 1.3042

. 10510

.07656

.06283 1

.17602

.10889

.000.5741

. 0003516

3.5 TO 4 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

17.506.
18905.
21811.
2190S.
26107.
.38.505.
42205.
45005.
4.8.505.
66006.

Average .

3.52

2.23

3.81

1.54

3.75

2.16

3.82

1.88

3.92

1.35

1 3.61

1.77

3.63

2.73

' 3.58

1.36

3.66

1.76

3.54

1..38

3.68

1.82

93
103
567
173
144
563

94
235
1.37
366

2.2881
1.4864

11.9114
3. 5.574
2.0590

12. 10-iS
] . 8434
3. 2 34 J
1.91.54
6. 0030

0. 02460
.01443
. 02101
. 02056
.01416
. 02252
. 01967
.01376
. 01.398
.. 01642

247.5 : 4.6399

.01811

0. 0S044
. 05663
. 44666
. 13589
. 07933
. 43713
.06713
. 1 1 575
. 07010
. 21272

0. 05102
.03315
. 25728
.06688
. 02753
. 21432
. 0.5049
. 04398
. 03371
. 0S292

0. 0008660
.0005498
. 0007877
. 0007855
. 000.5551
. 0007764
.0007142
. 0004!"'27
.0005117
. 0005^12

. 17024

.08613 .0006620

0. 0005486
. 0003218
. 0004538
. 00039.55
.0001912
. G003986
. (X)05370
. 0001871
. 0002460
. 0002266

. 0003506

4 TO 4.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

21812

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

lis

447

14.8137
4.0258

12. 1819
4. 1281
2. 1571
5.4411

0. 01507
. 01877

0.63107 0.29934 0.0006420
16377 08615 0007582

I
0. 0003044

fll 1114(11 T

21909

34405

.02317
01994

.53889 .29346 .0010265 ; .000.5677

5.5007

76206

Average ..

.01828 .09082 .04767 .0007696 !6()64040
.01217 1 .24213 .11046 .0005417 .0002471

4.29

2.14

416

7.1230 .01790

. 30757 . 15714 , . 0007669

.0004019

MORE THAN 4.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

21206

21210

40205

48406

69805

72607

92306

Average . .

5.23

0.22

149

2. 8564

5.03

1.34

237

3. 9143

4.69

3.07

194

3. 6.302

4.87

2.25

249

3. 2964

5.82

1.94

110

2. 4420

5.59

2.51

188

3. 4442

4.93

4.06

347

6.0091

5.16

2.198

210.6

3. 6561

0.01917
.01.577
.01871
. 01324
. 02220
. 018.32
. 01732

0. 149.39
. 19639
.17026
. 16053
. 14213
. 19253
. 29625

.01782 ' .18685

0.00628 10.0010026
.0.5245 ' .0007934

.11145
. 08168
. 047.38
. 08645
. 24397

. 0008776
. 0006447
. 0012921
. 0010241
. 0008.539

0. 0000422
.0002113
. 0005744
. 0002979
. 0004307
. 0004598
. 0007032

.08995 .0009269 I .000.3885

88

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 20— Summary of analyses, showing relation ofyliadin-plus-glutenin nitrogen to proteid

nitrogen.

Percentage
of-

Range of per-
centage of
proteid nitro-
gen.

lto2

2 to 2 5

2.0 to 3

3 to 3.5

3..5to4

4to4..5

4. 5 and over

Num-
ber of
analy-
ses.

Pro-
teid
nitro-
gen.

GUa-
din-
plus-
glu-
tenin
nitro-
I gen.

Num-
ber of
ker-
nels.

I

3
21
70
26
10

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

Weight (in grams) of-

Kemels.

10.4207'
10. 5874
8. 2271
5. 5817
4. 6399
7. 1230
3. 6561

< Gliadin-

Proteid plus-glu-
Average nitrogen tenin
kernel, in ker- nitrogen

0.01978
.02173
.01991
.01817
.01811
.01790
.01782

nels.

0. 19568
. 24272
. 22222
. 17602
. 17024
. 30757
. 18685

in
kernels.

Proteid
nitrogen

in
average
kernel.

0. 18667
. 17872
. 13948
. 10889
.08613
. 15714
.08995

0.0003744
.0004991
.0005468
.0005741
.0006620
.0007669
. 0009269

GUadin-
plus-gli:-
tenin ni-
trogen in
average
kernel.

0.0003518
.0003652
.0003442
.000.3516
. 0003.506
.0004019
. 0003886

The figures in Table 20 sliow that while gliadin-pliis-gliitenin 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 anal.yses are tabulated in Table 21 according to the
increase in ghadin-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-
ghitenin 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—

Weight (in grams) of—

Record num-
ber.

Gliadin-
plus-
glute-
nin ni-
trogen.

21210..
2H107..

2720.i..

27509..

37705. .

38005. .

38606..

38609..

39405..

43405. .

44606.,

45005.

55606.

55906.

66006.

Proteid
nitro-
gen.

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

Num-
ber of '
ker-
nels.

Kernels.

Average
kernel.

Average . .

1.34

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
S.0905
2.5134
8. 4605
6.7665
9.3541
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

Gliadin
plus-glu-
tenin ni-
trogen in

kernels.

3.08

333

6.6228

.01939

0.05245
.02753
. 28010
. 05844
. 10194
.03091
.117(10
.09067
. 13470
.03304
.03255
.04398
. 16529

. .11755
. 08292

.09198

Proteid
nitrogen
m ker-
nels.

Gliadin-
plus-glute-
nin nitro-
gen in aver-
age kernel.

Proteid
nitrogen
in aver-
age ker-
nel.

0. 19689
.07993
.45276
. 1.5549
. 23998
.07138
. 22251
. 18540
. 21399
.08176
.07318
.11.575
. 28580
.22471
. 21272

. 18748

0.0002113
.0001912
.0003605
.0002405
. 0(J024S5
.0002224
. 0002933
.0003094
.0003014
.0002664
.0002625
.0001871
. 0002r.09
. 0002356
.0002266

0. 0007934
.0005551
. fX)05827
. 000ti399
. 0005327
.0(.)05135
. (KKK")549
. 000i;479
.O00(;027
. OOOti.594
. 0005902
. 0004927
. 000.5li90
. 00()4.")03
.000.5812

.0002545 .0005843

SELECTION TO INCREASE 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 kei-

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

i;96

1.96

1.75

1.61

1.96

1.66

1.85

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
68.5
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
3.59
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

7.9684

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
.0ia59
.01667
.01895
.01841
.02004
.02085
.02183
.02252
.02572
.02111
.02345
.02252
.01913
.02089
.01919
.02.543
.02048
.01398
.01652
.02028
.01593
.01846
.01965
.01507
.01663
.01732
.02184
.01751
.02590
.02175
.030.50
.019.59
.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
.39539
.09712
. 14362
. 24942
.27003
.063.59
.43679
. 16872
.43713
.08522
.45435
. 27765
.34.524
. 12989
.07010
. 13652
.24.303
.22705
. 45299
.29079
.06240
. 10747
. 11636
.28823
.15470
.50238
. 29575
.21187
. 16373
.22529
.25522
.34616
.39297
.31842
. 19905
. 23690
. 1,5971
.24468
. 14213
.28569
. 19388
. 17833

0.0003218
.0004222
.0003948 .
.0003348
. 0003955
. 0005677
.0001877
.000.3531
.0003129
. 0003485
. 000.3383
.0003134
. n003e'00
.O(K)3130
. 0003908
. 0003607
.0003602
. 00044,59
.0003894
. 0003926
.0001,502
.0003986
.0003309
.0003844
. 0003454
.0004.501
.000.3072
. 00024^0
. 0002577
.0004036
. 0002788
.0002917
. 0003675
.00029(^9
.0002.599
. 0003395
.0004281
. 0003064
.0004170
. 00042h3
. 000.50r3
. 0003624
.0003566
. 0004321
.0004.594
.0003660
.0003357
.0003016
.0003036
.0003399
.0003916
.0004307
.0003832
.0004128
. 0004228

0.0005498

20707

.0006181

21305

. 0005350

21808

.0004389

21908

. 0007855

21909

.0010265

22205

. 0002677

22207

.000.5376

22'10 . ...

. 0006401

22211

. 0<i06.537

26906

. 0005037

26909

. 0004667

27005

. 0004984

27205

. 0004437

27207

. 0005850

27305

.000.5379

27505

. 0004627

27506

. 0006082

28805 ....

. (XX)7309

2.8S06

. 0006376

33605

. 0005605

38505

. 0007764

3S(:08

. 000.5394

39205 . .

. 0004407

48106

48305

. 0004.567
. 0007299

48409

.0004137

48.505

48705

.0005117
.0005171

5.5005

5.5006

5.5008

.0006185
.0005034
. 0004799

55206

5.5305

55307

55508....^^

55605 . .

.0005031
.0003736
.0003142
.0005386
. 0005765

5.5905

. 0004674

55907

5.5908

55909

.56205

56206

.000;.707
.C(X),52(.2
.0007016
.0004917
.0004426

56207. _

56208

57407

. 0005524
.0006149
.00051.57

57408

.000.5343

57.507

65306

6.5307

65308

69805

80305

81705

81708

. 000,5,545
. 0004355
. 0004282
.0004197
.0002921
.0003919
.0004170
.0006213

Average. .

1.80

2.76

442.5

9.0243

.02016

. 16392

.23801

.0003653

.000.5538

GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2 TO 2 5 PER CENT.

17506.
20706,
20709
20710
20805
21208
21807
21809
21811
21812
21SI3
21905

2.23

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

9,8.3

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, 02,58

14.3111

0.

02460
02033
02063
01974
02157
01798
02498
01919
02101
01.507
01877
01809

. 05102
. 06793
.12296
. 34222
. 33208
. 11093
. 19870
.17487
.25728
.29934
.08615
.31198

0. 0S044
.09212
. 16235
. 48428
. 4S7S4
. 16712
.25709
. 21898
. 44666
. 63107
. 16377
.37781

0. 00054S6
.0004168
. 0004766
. 0003948
. 0004875
.00038<6
.0005271
. 000418:3
. 0004538
.0003044
.0004017
. 0003944

0. 0008660
. 00056.52
.(KK)62r2
. U0055r6
. 0006999
. 000,5824
. 0006664
. 0005238
. 0007.877
.0006420
. 0007.5.S2
.0004^77

90

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 21. — Relation of proteid nitrogen to gliadin-plus-glutenin nitrorien — Continued.
GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2 TO 2.5 PER CENT— Continued.

Record num-
ber.

21906..
21907..
22206. .
22208. .
2680S..
26905..
26908..
27.508..
28206. .
33107..
33305: .
33607..
34405. .
37305. .
37707..
39.506..
40.505..
46107..
4S.306..
48406..
48506..
5.5007..
55,506..
.5.5507..
56105..
.56106..
.56107..
.56209.-
57007..
57406..
57506. .
5750S. .
58207..
58705..
58805..
63106..
66005..
74606..
76206..
81706. .

Percentage of —

Gliadin-
plus-
glute-
nin ni-
trogen.

2.10

2.15

2.11

2.14

2.28

2.09

2.16

2.32

2.42

2.12

2.41

2.45

44

29

10

00

19

2.08

2.13

2.25

2.17

2.21

2.20

2.07

2.12

09

23

21

09

13

34

05

40

47

11

20

IS

05

05

Proteid
nitro-
gen.

3.18
3. 35
3.22
3.10
3.09
2.76
2.96
2.64
3.07
2.35
3.41
3.22
i 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

2.03

Average .

2.18

59
65
75
80
21
09

3. 01

74
79
63
•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
1,1.5S
165
370
464
447
722

Weight (in grams) of—

Kernels.

3.08 ; 380.1

10. 4800
2. 9248
2. 5712
1.9090
3. 8811

6. 4102
3. 9797
5. 5324
4. 3698
6. 1026
3. 1.346
2. 8902
4.1281
6. 1394
3. 3004
1.9218
4.1546
8. 3935
2. 6571
3. 2964
9. 4585
2. 1571

17. 850G
9. 8228
5. 7431
12.0161
14. 4556
15. 80S6

1. .5364

2. 4923
2. 7616

12.0728
4. 2207

2. 5436
23. 1471

3. .3006

7. 6690
9. 6451
5.4411

15. 3928

Average
kernel.

Gliadin-
plus-ghi-

tenin 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
. 02S69
02444
.017.56
.01692
. 01324
.01701
. 01828
. 02062
. 01949
.01709
.01866
.016.58
.01604
.01746
.01846 i
. 01534
.03177
.01.375
.01082
. 01999
. 02001
. 02073
. 02079
.01217
.021.32

0. 22008
. 06288
. 05425
. 04084
. 08849
. 1.3398
. 08596
. 12S35
. 10575
. 12643
. 07554
. 07081
. 10073
. 14060
.06931
. 03959
. 09099
. 17458
. 05660
.08168
. 20525
. 04767
. 39272
. 20333
. 03.503
. 05~6S
. 10553
. 34937
.03211
. 05309
. 06462
. 247.50
. 10510
. 06283
. 48839
.07261
.16714
. 10772
.11046
. 31248

0. 33403
. 09798
. 08086
. 06071
.11992
. 17692
.11780
. 14608
. 13415
. 14.341
. 10689
. 09307
. 17875
. 18173
. 09670
.0.5631
.11716
. 21319
.08742
. 16053
. 30267
. 09082
. 49995
. 25834
. 1.5679
. 30881
. 42792
. 40945
.04164
. 06854
. 077.33
.26680
. 13042
. 07656
. 63422
. 09208
.20170
.22184
. 24213
.41715

Gliadin- |
pluE-glute-
nin nitro-
gen in aver-
age kernel, j

0.0005382 '
. 0003980
. 000362?)
. 0003465
. 0003085
. 0004109
. 0004478
. 0005306
. 0004830
. 0004163
. 0005037
. 0005206
. 0004865
. 0004.5.50
. 0003591
.000.5910
.00053.52
. 0003652
. 0003604
. 0002979
. 0003691
. 0004040
.00045.36
. 0(X>4034
. 0001042
. 0000896
.0001210
. 0003677
. 0003649
. 0003932
. 0f)03590
. 0006513
. 0003424
. 0002673
.0004218
. 0004402
. 0004519
. 0004262
. 0002471
. 0004328

Proteid
nitrogen
in aver-
age ker-
nel.

O.OOOMOS
.OOOii-.'liI
.oo(i:..">:;n

.0(lll."il44
. 000."i-!02
.0005427
.0006135
. 0006037
.0006126
. 0004510
.0007126
. 0006843
. 0008635
. 000.5881
.000.5010
. 0008404
. 0006892
. 0004460
. 0005568
. 0006447
. 0005444
. 0007696
. 0005773
. 0005126
. 0004667
. 0004795
. 0004907
. 0004310
. 0004731
. 0005077
. 000-1296
. 0007021
. 0004248
. 0003258
. 0005464
. 0005581
. 0005451
. 0004781
. 0005417
. 0005778

7. 2520

. 01935

. 14641

. 215.35

. 0004063

. 000587

GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2.5 TO 3 PER CENT.

42205

2.73

3.63

94

1. 8494

0. 01967

0.0.50049

0. 06713

0. 0005370

0. 000-

"142

57805

2.68

2.87

270

4. 8988

.01814

.13126

.14060

. 0004861

.0011.

.207

57905

2.92

.3.18

221

2. 4731

.01118

.07221

. 07859

. (H)0'264

.000

551)

72607

2. 51

5. .59

188

3. 4442

. 018'2

. 03645

. 19253

. 000 .'508

.00: 0241

81505

2.65

2.94

146

2. 8327

.01940

.7507

.0S328

.0005141

.000.

)704

Average . . .

2.698

3.64

183.8

3. 0696

. 01734

. 08310

. 11243

. 0C04647

. 0006370

GLIADIN-PLU.S-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 3 PER CENT AND OVER.

40205

02306

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 :

.23.325

i

.0006388

.0008657

IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY OF GLUTEN.

91

Table 22. — Sinnman/ of analyses, shoicing relation cf proteid nitrogen to gliadin-phs-

ghitenin nitrogen.

Percentage Number
of— of—

Range of
percentage of
gliadin-plus-
glutenin ni-
trogen.

Glia-
din-
plus-
glii-
tenin
nitro-
gen.

^'^°- An-
teid A^,.

nitro- *'^

gen.

ses.

Itol.o 1.34

1.5 to2 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

Ker-
nels.

15 i 333

55

52

5

2

442.5
3S0. 1
183.8
270.5

■Weight (in grams) of-

Kernels.

6. 6228
9. 0243
7. 2520
3.0696
4. 8196

Average
kernel.

Gliadtn-
J plus-glu-
tenin ni-
trogen
in ker-
nels.

I

0. 019.39
.02016
. 01935
.01734
. 01801

0. 09198
. 16392
. 14641
. 08310
. 17771

Gliadin-

Proteid

plus-glute-

nitrogen

nin nitro-

in ker-

gen m

nels.

average

kernel.

0. 1S74S

0. 0002545

. 23S01

. 00036.53

.21.535

. 0004063

1 . 11243

. 0004647

.23325

.0006388

Proteid
nitrogen
in aver-
age ker-
nel.

0. 0005S43
. 00)5538
.00()5S72
. 0006370
. 0O0S657

IMPROVEMENT IN THE aUALITY OF THE GLUTEN.

It is well known that large differences exist in the bread-making
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 c^uahty of the
gluten.

W. Farrar" points out the difference in the bread-making qualities
of two wheats due to the cjuality 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 ffour, 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 was not the amount but the quahty of the gluten that
determined the greater excellence of the Saxon Fife wheat.

It has further been stated by 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 wiU
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 difffculty in effecting 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, ^ind each succeeding
group increases by 0.25 per cent. It is foUowed by Table 24, which
is a summary of Table 23.

« Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 9 (1898), pp. 241-2.50.

''Conipt. Rend., 1897, p. 876.

'"Minnesota Experiment Station Bulletins ,54 and 63.

<^ Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 9 (1898), pp. 363-374.

92

IMPROVING 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.

1 Percentage of—

Proportion of—

Percentage of—

Record number. pUis-
glutenin
nitrogen.

Gliadin
nitrogen.

Glutenin
nitrogen.

Gliadin.

Glutenin.

Protdd Oth|r
nitrogen. J?;«^^|^<i^_

21205 0.216

21206 218

21207 .170

21212 1 .192

21306 975

21307 461

21805 ■ 230

0.114
.142
.099
.109
.505
.2.55
.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
.553
.452
.018
.976
.040
.628

3.16
5.23
2.96
2.16
2.90
3.04
2.69
2.. 53
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

27307 .821

48806 748

55308 .655

81707 j .636

Average..! .484

.276

.208

..562

.438

2.93

2.448

GI.IADIN-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
1.387
1.336
1.439
1.287
1.361
1.493
1.470

0.108
.815
.715
.725
.586
.818
1.057
1.240
.899
.443

1.244
. 650
.550
.662
.7.50
.621
.230
.121
..594

1.027

0.080
.556
..565
.522
.439
..568 .
.821
.911
.602
..301

0.920
.444
.435
.478
.561

, .432
.179
.089
.398
.699

3.92
2.36
2.64
2.63
2.74
2.88
2.90
3.58
2. .58
2.81

2.568
.895
1.375
1.243
1.404
1.441
1.613
2.219
1.087
1.340

27206 . . .

37705

38606

38609 . ...

39405

44606

45005

55606

55906

Average . .

1.385

...

.645

.536

.463

2.90

1.518

GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 1.50 TO 1.75 PER CENT.

189D5

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

.958

.962

.690

.057

.687

.908

.632

.810

1.177

1.141

.965

1.221

1.394
.754
.690

.627
.660
.619
.597
.769
.814
1.506
.894
.653
.976
.848
.462
.405
.718
.420

0.093
.515
.592
.631
.619
.625
.616
.5.56
.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

27.505

28805

38608

48409

48705

55008

5.5307

55907

55909

57408

57507

65306

81708

Average . .

• 1.619

.852

.767

..523

.477

2.65

1.037

[MPROVEMENT IN QUALITY OF GLUTEN.

93

Table 23. — Ratio ofgliadin to glutenin as the content of their sum increases — Continued.
GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 1.75 TO 2 PER CENT.

Record nuniljer.

Percentage of—

Gliadin-

plus-
glutenin
nitrogen.

20707.
20710.
2130.i.
21808.
21908.
21909.
2220.5.
26906.
26909.
27005.
27207.
27506.

33605.
38505.
39205.
48106.
48305.
48505.
55005.
55006.
55206.
5.5305.
55508.
55605.
55905.
55908.
.56205.
56206.
56207.
56208.
57407.
65307.
65308.
69805.
80305.
81705.

1.855
1.996
1.969
1.963
1 . 87()
1.976
1 . 969
1.819
1.879
1.904
1.946
1.977
1.864
1.919
1 . 766
1.845
1.805
1.766
1.757
1.987
1.7.54
1.866
1.974
1.959
1.959
1.7.50
1.957
1.850
1.949
1.827
1.946
1.858
1.815
1.946
1.937
1.770
1.956

Gliadin Glutenin
nitrogen, nitrogen.

1.046
1. 125
1.049
1.046
1.015
1.367
1. 185

.988

.996
1.066
1.278
1.147

.902
1. 124

. 862
1.117
1.035

.996

.965
1. 102
1.099

.840
1.042
1.037
1.044

.575
1.075

.883
1.089

.987
1.127

.935
1.052
1.090
1.142
1.159
1.048

0.809
.871
.920
.917
.861
.609
.784
.831
.883
.838
.668
.830
.962
.795
.904
.728
.770
.770
.792
.885
.655

1.026
.932
.922
.915

1. 175
.882
.967
.860
.840
.819
.923
.763
.856
.795
.611
.908

Proportion of — Percentage of —

0.564
.564
..533
.533
.541
.697
.602
.543
.531
.'559
.652
.580
.484
.585
.488
.605
.573
..564
.549
.5.55
.626
.450
.528
.529
.533
.328
..549
.477
.559
.540
.579
.503
.579
.560
.589
.661
.535

Protpid Other
Gliadin. Glutenin. I ^'°^"'J proteid
mnogen. nitrogen.

Average.. 1.889

1.044

.845 !

.552

0.436
.436
.467
.467
.459
.303
.398
.457
.469
.441
.348
.420
.51(1
.415
.512
.395
.427
.436
.451
.445
.374
.5.50
.472
.471
.467
. 672
.451
.523
.441
.460
.421
.497
.421
.440
.411
.339
.465

2.77
2.83
2.67
2.57
3.82

43

81

71

80

63

92

70

3.02

2.39

3.61

2.11

2.38

2.87

.448

.66
.05
.16
.56
.48
.11
2.64
2.67
2.42
2.51
2.42
2.34
2.61
2.62
2.28
2.09
5.82
1.81
1.98

2.82

0.915

.834

.701

.607

1.944

2.4.54

.841

.891

.921

.726

.974

.723

1.156

.471

1.844

.265

.575

1.104

1.903

1.063

1.406

.694

..506

1.151

.681

.920

.463

.660

.471

.513

.664

.762

.465

.144

3.883

.040

.024

.929

GLIADIN-PLU.S-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2 TO 2.25 PER CENT.

17506
20706
21208
21807
21809
21811
21812
21813
21905
21906
21907
22206
22208
26905
26908
33107
37707
39506
40505
46107
48306
48406
48,506
5.5007
55.506
55507
56105
56106
.56107
5(209

2.226
2.053
2.146
2.110
2.178
2.156
2.023
2.141
2.181
2.096
2.146
2.113
2.142
2.087
2.158
2.123
2.097
2.065
2.189
2.076
2. 135
2.249
2.171
2.211
2. 197
2.070
2.118
2.091
2.234
2.208

1.458
1.089
1.154
1.174
1.183
1.144
1.139
1.045
1.344
1.208
1.187
1.271
1.309
1.197
1.250
1.283
1.044
1.281
1.143
1.164
1.130
1.290
1.104
1.248
1.136
1.079
1.277
1.091
1.033
1.161

0.768
.964
.992
.936
.995

1.012
.884

1.096
.837
.888
.959
.842
.833
.890
.908
.840

1.0.53
.784

1.046
.912

1.005
. 9.59

1.067
.963

1.061
.991
.^1

1.000

1.201

1.047-

0.655
.530
..537
.556
.543
.531
. .563
.488
.616
.576
. 553
.601
.611
.573
..579
.604
.498
.620
..522
.561
.529
.574
..508
.564
.517
.521
.603
. .522
.462
.526

0.345
.470
.463
.444
.457
.469
.437
.512
.384
.424
.447
.399
.389
.427
.421
.396
.502
.380
.478
.439
.471
.426
.492
.436
.483
.479
.397
.478
.538
.474

3.52

2.78

24
73
73
75
26

4.04
2.64
3.18

.35
.22
.18
.76
.96
2.35
2.93
2.93
2.82
2.54
3.29
4.87
3.20
4.21
2.80
2.63
2.73
2.57
2.96
2.59

1.294

.727

1.094

.620

.552

1.594

2.237

1.899

.459

1.084

1.204

1.107

1.038

.673

.802

.227

.833

.865

.631

.464

1. 155

2.621

1.029

1.999

.603

.560

.612

.479

.726

.382

94

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 23. — Ratio of gliadin to gl'itenin as the cintent of their sum increases — C'ontinued,
GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2 TO 2.25 PER CENT— Continued.

Record number.

Percentage of—

Proportion of—

Percentage of—

Gliadin-

plus-
ghitenin
nitrogen.

Gliadin
nitrogen.

Glutenin
nitrogen.

Gliadin.

Glutenin.

Proteid
nitrogen.

Other

proteid

nitrogen.

57007

2.093

1.159

0.934

0.553

0.447

2.65

0.557

57406

2. 134

1.080

1.054

.506

.494

2.75

.616 -

57508

2.053

1.124

.929

.547

.453

2.21

.157

58805

2.112

1.060

1.0.52

.501

.499

2.74

.628

63106

2.199

1.186

1.013

.539

.461

2.79

.591

66005

2.181

1.142

1.039

..528

.472

2.63

.449

74e06

2.046

1.016

1.030

.496

.504

2.30

.254

76206

2.029

1.223

.806

.602

.398

4.45

2.421

81706

Average . .

2.034

1.701

.333

.816

.184

2.71

.676

2.130

1.187

.943

.557

.443

3.05

.921

GLIADIN-PLU.S-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2.25 TO 2.50 PER CENT.

20709

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
1.230
1.208
1.203
1.313
1.195

1.006
1.044
.904
1.077
1.0.58
1.225
1.0.55
1.213
1.085
1.141
1.179
1.272

0.565
.538
.604
.537
.563
.461
.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

20805

25808

27508

28206

33305

33607

34405 . .

37305

,57.506

58207

58705

Average . .

2.374

1.268

1. 105

.535

.465

3.16

.791

GLIADIN-PLUS-GLUTENIN NITROGEN, 2.50 PER CENT AND OVER.

40205

3.089
2.728
2.684
2.918
2.515
2.6.52
4.033

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

o.eo3

.542
.485
.539
.579
.401
..587

0.397
.458
.515
.461
.421
.599
.413

4.69
3.63
2.87
3.18
5.59
2.94
4.93

1.621
.902
.186
. 2o2

3.075
.288
.867

42205

57805

57905

72607

81505

92306

Average . .

2.947

1.588

1.3.58

.,534

.466

3.98

1.029

Table 24. — Summary of analyses, shoiring the ratio of gliadin to glutenin as the content of

their sum increases.

Percent-
age of

gliadin-
plus-

glutenin

nitrogen.

Number

of
analyses.

Percentage of—

Proport

ion of —

Percentage of—

Range of percentage

of gliac in-plus-
glutenin nitrogen.

Gliadin Glutenin
nitrogen, nitrogen.

Gliadin.

Glutenin.

Proteid
nitrogen.

Other

proteid

nitrogen.

Below 1

1 to 1.25

1 25 to 1..50

1..50 to 1.75

1.75 to 2

0.484
1.166
1..385
1.619
1.889
2. 1.30
2.374
2.947

U
3
10
18
37
39
12
7

0.276

.914

.741

.852

1.044

1. 187

1.268

1.588

0.208
.252
.645
.767
.845

1. 105
1.358

0.562
.793
..536
. ,523
.552
. 557
. 535
.534

0.438
.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
1.721
1.518
1.0H7
.929

2 to 2 25

.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
carrv with it a corresponding improvement in its value for bread
making, although there might be fluctuations from year to year in
quahty 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 anj^ means agree upon the
proper ratio. Should this be ascertamed there would be ample oppor-
tunity 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 Ciuality 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 an^^ 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
quality, and a certain definite proportion of each may produce an
ideal gluten.

In the light of the present knowledge on the subject, a mechanical
determmation 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 cjuality.

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 verj apparent that a high percentage of
nitrogen and the qualities that go with 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 weiglit
of proteid nitrogen in kernels. On the same line are the plant
numbers 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

IMPKOYING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 25. — Analyses showing transmission o-f nitrogen from one generation to another. c
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).

Weight of

average

kernel

(gram).

Record num-
ber.

Percent-
age of
proteid

nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

Proteid

nitrogen

in average

kernel

(gram).

AV 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. . .

63.50.5-6

6950.5-6

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
. 0024.540
. 0006790
. 0022132
. 0008092
.0016125
. 0025361
.0026,506

0. 03874

32601

. 07560

6.3.501

. 03.502

69.501

03894

69701 . ...

. 01550

73301

73.306-8

91905-6

92405-9

92905-9

94105

9420.5-9

94406-7

94605-6

94905-9

. 06582

91901

.03513

92401

.09109

92901

.08814

94101

. 02543

94201

. 08738

94401

. 03,538

94601

. 08851

94901

. 08899

95501

95505-10

Average .

.10605

Average. .

1.658

2.587

.0004960

. 019907

1

a 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] .

i 34205-8

57305-8

2.646

2.857
2.54

0. 002,5803
.002.3077
.0018351

0. 09807

34201

. 08075

57.301

0. 000601

0. 02585

. 07010

Average .

Average. .

2.353

. 000601

.02585

2.68

.00051716

.019146

2.5 TO 3 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

21701

2.50
2.73

21705-11

3,3405-8

Average .

2.78
1.977

0.0042,343
.0014277

0. 15101

33401

.07274

Average. .

2.615

2.487

.0005147

. 02032

3 TO 3.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

17.301

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

17305-8

1750.5-7

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

2.636

2.48

3. 25

2. ,59

2. 88

4.69

3.11

0.0025519
.0021778
. 0010439
.0034181
.0006999
.0021798
.0054513
.0060008
. 0025943
.0004984
.0016114
. 0022229
. 0013685
.0015199
. 0007126
.0017186
. 00OS635
. 0006904
. 0007295
. 000.5881
. 001,5390
.0009112
.0013476
. 0005148
. 0006027
. 0008776
. 0006255

0.07920

17.501

. 05595

1.S901

18905-6

20705-10

20805

2130,5-8

21805-13

. 02863

20701

. 12074

20801

.02157

21301

. 07278

21801

. 17668

21901

2190[5-9i [11-13]
2690,5-9

.16783

26901

. 09357

27001

27005

.01895

27201

2720,5-7

27305-8

.06314

27301

. 076.54

2§801

28805-6

33105-7

.04623

33101

. 05574

33301

1

33305

3360,5-7

34405

. 02090

3,3601

.06014

34401

0. 000909
. 000948
. 000827
. 000854
. 000085
. 000S31
. 000844
.000693
. 000933
.001017
.000914

0.029.56
. 02749
.02602
.02731
. 01995
.02.599
.027,32
.02081
.02820
.0.3271
.02942

. 01994

34601

34606

. 02213

36901

36905

.01880

37.301

.37305

37705-7

.01987

37701

.05837

37901

3790.5-6

.03641

38,501

3850.5-6,.. =

38706

. 04227

38701

. 01988

39401

,39405

. 02093

40'^01

40205

.01871

40301

40.305

.02011

BREEDING TO INCREASE PROTEID NITROGEN.

97

Table 25. — Analyses shoioing transmission of nitrogen from one generation io another —

Continued.

3 TO 3.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued.

190

2

1903

Record num-
ber.

Percent-
age of
proteid
nitrogen
in ker-
nel.

Proteid

nitrogen

in average

kernel

(gram).

Weight 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).

AC\XC\\

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. 0.5
3.22
3.2fi
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
. 000853
.001005
.000866
.000820
.000888
. 000791
.000937
. 000789
. 000902
. 000928
. 0008.59
. 0009.30
. 000805
. 000808
.000787
. 000958
.000894
. 000785
.000781
. 0008.32
.000920
. 000723
.000900

0.03136
. 03250
.02813
.02766
. 02800
.02299
.02701 1
.02701
.02882
.02748
. 02445
. 02595
. 02488
. 02797
.02377
. 02928
. 02697
.02661
.03052
. 02507
.0-2185
.02.548
. 02S60
.02941
.02381
. 02485
.02665
.02846
.02379 1
.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

3.155

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. 0004352
. 0006892
.0008988
. 0005447
. 0006.594
. 0006423
. 0016171
. 0004567
.0012867
. 0021750
.0010077
. 0004877
. 0006149
. 0010793
. 0002422
. 0023714
. 0010373
.0017313
. 0028162
.0014.369
. 0025326
. 001.3974
. 0002527
.0019.599
.0021279
. 0006767
. 0008052
. 0003258
. 0003292
. 0007684
.00039.38
.0024199
. 0017773
. 0008767
. 0016495
.000.5.531
.0019005
.0021643
. 0026515
. 0005738
. 0003930
.00040.54
.00142.34
. 0013768
. 0009400
. 0003919
. 0010.576
. 0005704
. 000.5067
.0011244
. 00075.56
.0008522
. 0026^32
. 0009933
. 0020214
.0012908
. 0013009

0.01373

40501

40.505

4220.5-6

42905

4.3405

43.505

44605-7

.02444

42201

.03231

42901

.01866

43401

. 02258

43.501

.01.555

44601

48101

. 05890

48106

4830.5-6

48.505-8

4870.5-6

.01919

48301

.01235

48.i01

. 07253

48701

.0.3287

48S01

49501

50701

48806

49505

50705-6

.01798
.01898
. 03329

51001

55001

55201

55.301

55901

56101

56201

57001

51005

.01804

55005-8

. 07295

55205-6

.5.5.30.5-8

.5.590.5-9

56105-7

,5620.5-9

57005-7

.57105

.03688
.07496
.11169
. 05233
. 10169
.05174

57101

57401

. 00916

57405-8

. 07892

.57501 -■...

58201

58501

58701

57506-9

5S206-7

. 08396
.02318

58505

. 02730

.58705

58905

5960.5-6

.01082

589ei

59601

62801

65301

. 01355
.03592

62805

.01212

6530.5-8

.08003

. ...

6600.5-6,8

69305

69805-6

. 05529

69301

.01984

69801

. 04373

71901

71905

7240.5-6

.022.39

. 05892

7''601

7260.5-7

. 05274

72701

7270.5-8

.08981

7'>S01

72806

.01906

7''901

72905

! 74.305

.01.585

74301

. 02047

74.501

74.506-8

. 05084

74601

74605-7

.05562

76''01

7620.5-6

.02912

80301

80305

.02165

81401

8140.5-6

.03,583

81501

81.505

84405

. 01940

84401

. 02043

84901

84905-6

. 03902

8.5201

8.520.5-6

8610.5-6

.02937

86101

. 03244

88601

8860.5-9

.11179

88901

8890.5-6

92205-8

. 03625

92201

. 07575

92301

92305-6

. 03223

95701

95705-7

.0.5017

Average .

3.239

.000875

[

. 02700

Average .

2.932

.00056037

. 019189

3.5 TO 4 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

ISSOI
212(J1
22201
25201
26101
27501

.3.55 1 18805....

3. 50 i 2120.5-12.

3.65 II 2220.5-11.

3.63 I I '■ 2.520.5-6..

3. 76 ' 2610.5-7. .

3.58 1 27,505-9..

2.02
3.567
3. 165
2. 735
3.19
2.688

0. 0003164
. 0054768
. 0037042
.0011.894
. 0015273
.0028791

0.01.567
.1.5672
.11711
. 04347
.05113
. 10761

27889— No. 78—0.5-

98 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 25.— Analyses showing transmission of nitrogen from one generation to another —

Continued.

3.5 TO 4 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN— Continued.

i9oa

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.

Percent-
age of
proteid
nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

Proteid

nitrogen

in average

kernel

(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

2.21

2.84

3. 718

2.11

2.975

2.37

.3.07

2.94

.3.58

2. .365
4.18
I..S4
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

0.00089.32
. 0005135
.0016318
. 0004407
.001.3536
.0003177
. 0006927
.0005187
. 0004927
. 0<X)6777
.00071.55
. 0002700
. 0020794
.0010640
.0016285
.0022356
.001.5451
. 0005207
. 0003556
.0009317
.0003180
.0016570
.0031019
.0007197
.0017483

0.04115

38001

0. 0(KJS06
.001046
.0010.39
.001048
. 000927
.001.327
. 000796
.001020
.0012.38
. 000865
.001146
. 000993
. 001043
.001020
.001050
. 001030
.000891
. 000852
. 000904
. 000759

6.62116
.02765 !
.02616
.02877 '
.02619
.02838
.02.531
. 02690
. 03205
. 02435
.02963
.02822
.02898
. 02866
.02775
.02750
.02353
.02348
.02.3,84 I
.02155

38005.

. 01808

38601

38605-9

. 09917

39201

.39205

.39506-7

. 02089

39.501

. 04.568

39601 . ..

.39606

42405

. 01341

42401

. 02251

44-501

44.505

4.5005.

.01764

4.5001

.01376

4.5601

45605-6

. 02995

45701

45705.

.01712

45S01

45805

48405-9

.012.34

48401

.07511

49901

49905

55.506-8

. 029.39

55.501

. 05743

55601

.5.560.5-8

57606-8

. 08822

57601

. 06535

57801

.57805

57905

.01814

57901

.01118

58S01

60601

.5880.5-6

60605

.04048
. 01701

63101

6310.5-7

8170.5-10

91305

92505-7

. 05951

81701

1

. 13635

91.301

.02242

92501

.05312

Average .

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

26805-8

2.825

0. 0023073

0.08179

28201

28206

.3.07
2.69

.0006126
.0014772

. 01996

46101

0.000988

0. 02472

4610.5-7

.05465

Average .

Average .

4. 123

.000988

.02472

2.806

.000.5496

. 019588

MORE THAN 4.5 PER CENT PROTEID NITROGEN.

50901

4.95

0. 001074

0.02171

50905-6

Average .

3.435

0.0008992

0. 02001

1

3. 435

.0004496

. 010005

Table 26. — -Summary of analyses, showing transmission of nitrogen from one generation to

another.

1903

1903

Range of percentage of
proteid nitrogen.

Percent-
age of
proteid

nitrogen
in ker-
nes.

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
analj'-
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
.0005508
.000.5496
. 0004496

0.01991

2 to 2.5

0. 000601

0. 02585

.01915

2 5 to 3 ...

. 02032

3 to 3.5

. 000875
. 000990
. 000988
.001074

.02700
. 026,50
.02472
.02171

.01919

3. 5 to 4

. 01920

4 to 4.5

. 01959

4. 5 and over

.01000

BREEDING TO INCREASE 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
lend to reproduce their own qualities, those plants varying widely
from the average produce, in general, oft'spring 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 1 903 , 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).

O.OOflfiOn to 0.000700

o.(xk:)7(k) to o.(H)osoo

O.fKXNK) to 0.(H)0900

O.(K1O90O toO.OOIOOO

0.001000 and over

0. 000659
. 000776
.000850
. 000938
.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
. 000544
. 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 ofl'spring 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.

100

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 28. — Analyses showing transmission of kernel weight.

Range of weight of aver-
age kernel (gram) .

Below 0.024...
0.024 to 0.026..
0.026 to 0.028..
0.02.S to 0.030..
0.030 and over,

190^

Weight
of aver-
age ker-
nel

(gram) .

0. 02253
. 02.515
. 02709
.02878
.03152

Num-
ber of
anal-
yses.

Percent-
age of
proteid
nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

12
12
18
16
6

3.61
3.28
3.43
3.41
3.31

Proteid
nitrogen
in. aver-
age ker-
nel
(gram).

1903

0. 00081 1
. 000813
. 000927
.000993
.001044

Weight
of aver-
age ker-
nel
(gram).

Num-
ber of
anal-
yses.

0.01684
.01740
.01947
. 01875
.01869

19
28
38
31
12

Percent-
age of
proteid
nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

2.69
2.88
2.91
2.98
2.96

Proteid
nitrogen
in aver-
age ker-
nel
(gram).

0. 0004.50
. 000.503
.000.562
. 000573
. 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 than 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 parth' 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 safel}^ assumed that
certain plants will have greater power to transmit these qualities than
will the average plant. Such plants will 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 grouped together. In the next class are all
plants of which from 20 to 30 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 3'ield 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 by the freezing of a large proportion of the famil}-, 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-

Proteid

Proteid

Record number

p ants
in 1903

of ker-
nels on

Num-
ber of

of aver-
age

nitrogen
in ker-

nitrogen
in average

for 1902.

surviv-

plant

kernels.

kernel

nels

kernel

ing from

(gram) .

(gram).

(gram).

(gram).

1902.

18801

11.1
10.0
18.2
16.7
16.7
14.3
16.7

2. 1462
14.6942
7.7295
2.9905
6. 1394
2.5134
21.5399

137
697
363
156
309
139
1,031

0.01567
. 02157
.02173
.01858
.01987
.01808
.02089

2.02
3.32
2.73
2.73

2.96
2.84
2.11

0.04335

.48784
. 20732
. 07566
.18173
.07138
. 45435

0.0003164
.0006999
. 0005947
.000.5066
.000,1881
.0005135
. 0004407

20801

25201

33301

37301

38001

39201

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

U 16.7
16.7

1.2499
2.8000

67
124

.01866
.02258

3.17
2.92

. 036.50
.08176

.000.5447
. 0006594

43401

44501

16.7

5.9990

340

.01764

2.94

. 17637

.0005187

45001

16.7

3. 2340

235

.01376

3.58

.11575

.0004927

4.5701

14.3

. 7532

44

.01712

4.18

.03148

.0007155

45801

16.7

1.5298

124

.01234

1.84

.II2S15

.0002700

49501

14.3
14.3
16.7
16.7
16.7

1.2716

.6760

15. 5835

3. 7263

7.4516

67

23

862

407

273

.01898
.02939
.01804
.00916
.02730

3.24
3.62
1.34

2.76
2.95

.(11120
.(12436
.JdSSl
. 1(12S5
.219S2

.(KK1(U49
.(K)10640
.0(H)2422
, (HK)2527
.(1(K)S052

49901

51001

57101 . .

58501

58701

16.7

2.5436

235

.01082

3.01

. 07ti56

. 0003258

5S901

16.7

2.3031

170

.01355

2.43

. 05596

. (K)03292

fiOHOl

16.7

.5952

35

.01701

1.87

.01113

.0(M)3180

fi2801

16.7

1.3451

111

.01212

3. 25

. 04272

. 0003938

69301

16.7

2. 0430

103

.01984

4.42

. 09030

. (KK)87()7

74301

16.7

4.4222

216

.02047

1.98

. 0875ti

.(H)040.54

84401

lfi.7

8. 7448

428

.02043

2.48

.21687

. (KK),5067

91301

14.3
14.3

3.0940
.5595

1S8

22

.02242
.02543

3.21

2.67

.09932
.01194

.(K)07197
.(MMHi790

94101

Average . .

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 killed in each family — Cont'd.

20 TO 30 PER CENT.

Record number
for 1902.

Percent-
age of
plants
in 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).

18901

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

1.2046
16.4120
6. 1962
5.0200
4. 6383
3.6003
4. 1.546
1.0827
1.4892
1.4464
5.2800
9.8346
4.8988
2.4731
12.5470
28. 2136
1.5.7835
2.8327
3.4961
6.2877

84

866

280

267

346

179

170

59

66

93

321

547

270

221

626

1,260

729

146

199

106

0.01431
.01895
.02213
.01880
.01341
.02011
.02444
.01615
.02251
.01555
.01643
.01798
.01814
.01118
.02024
.02239
.02165
.01940
. 01756
.04425

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

0. 04437

.43164
. 19332
. 19478
. 10967
.11197
.11716
.03.587
. 04572
.05974
. 16124
. 26553
. 14060
.07859
.335-41
. 69688
. 28569
. 08328
. 10771
.11373

0.0005219 -
.0004984
. 0006904
.0007295
.0003177
.0006255
.0006892
. 0004494
. 0006927
. 0006423
. 0005038
. 0004877
.0005207
. 0003556
. 0004658
.0005531
.0003919
. 0005704
.0005415
.0008062

27001

34601

36901

39601

40301

40501 ■..

42201

42401

43501

48701

48801

57801

57901

58801

71901

80301

81.501

91901

94601

Average . .

23.5

6. 84457

341.75

.019779

2.88

.18065

. 0005527

30 TO 40 PER CENT.

26101 . . .

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

1.9790
4.3698
8.3240
6. 7169
.5757
5.03306
7.2545
7.3424
2.0631
8. 4456
3. 7810
7.6051
4. 1975

122
219
386
313
28
252
365
315
167
474
244
419
253

0.01704
.01996
.02311
.02057
.01820
.01814
.01988
.02117
.01000
.01796
.01550
.01812
.01611

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

0.06318
. 13415
. 2.5019
. 12186
. . 01447
. 24284
. 18789
.21633
.07041
. 18099
. 09453
. 20632
. 18308

0.0005091
.0006126
. 0006842
. 0004466
. 0004556
. ( 006738
. 0005148
. 0006433
.0004496
.0003842
. 0003874
. 00049K6
. 0006454

28201

28801

33901. . . .

37901

38501

38701

48301

50901

.59601

69701

88901

92301

Average . .

33.6

5. 2065

273. 6

.01813

2.89

. 15125

.0005310

40 TO 50 PER CENT.

17501

21301

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
259
156
93
32
321
110
167
472
156
314
238
297
484

D. 01865
.01819
.018.58
.01963
. 01664
. 02946
.01906
. 01585
.01456
.01791
.01622
.01894
.01771
. 01769

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
. 07.566
. 04998
.01712
• .26913
.06312
. 06563
. 22024
.07905
. 14008
.11199
. 16649
.20040

0. 0007259
.000.5449
. 0005066
.0005390
. 00O5396
.0009502
.0005738
. 0003930
.0004700
.0005288
. 0004261
.000.50.53
. 0005828
.0004046

33101

44601

50701 ...

72401

72801

72901

76201

81401

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
in 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
54.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
57.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
50.0
57.1
50.0
50.0
50.0
57.1

3.0000
11.7777
6. 6626
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
.02181)
.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
.300.51
. 1.S906
.31.509
. 10621
. 147,59
. 18949
. 12164
. 05663
.048.52
. 13084
. 15608
.18680
. 12281
.17078
.11078
. 14178

0.0006380
.0005161
. C00.5( 97
.000.5371
0003569
. 0(X)5729
. 0005769
.0005130
. 0006768
.0003388
. 0004924
.0005186
.00051,50
.0005.523
. 0008247
. 0(X)3778
.0005366

17401

20701

27201

33401

33H01

34201

37701

39501

45601

46101

55201

57e01

63101

69801

85201

88601

Average

51.5

6.0616

302.9

.01974

2.73

. 15237

.0005361

60 TO 70 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
2.60
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
. 17590
. 14328
. 28276
.21.3.34
.20681
. 13763
. 12877
. 14079

0.0006846
.0005027
.0006177
.0004567
.0005437
.000,5928
.0004328
.0005428
.0004658
. 0004588
. 0004900
.0005320
.0003749
.000,5924
.0007214
. 0006629
.000.5639
.0004589
. 0005622
.0004908
.0004336

32201

32601

48101

48501

55001

55301

55501 . . .

57001

57301

57401

57501

63501

66001

72601

72701

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.
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

3.9,532

4.4668

10. 27^5

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
277
435
489
617
563
227
394
191
569
234
■ 339
388
374

0.02157
.01963
.02114
.01674
.02045
.01871
.01913
.02152
.01983
.01502
.02211
.02234
.01744
.02034
.011,59
.02001
.01695
. 0227'2
.01822
.01748
.01780
.01767

2.78
3.13
3. .53
3.16
2.82
2.77
2.93
2.69
3.72
2.90
2.. 55
2.56
2.75
2.49
2.88
2.92
2.78
2.27
2.63
2.58
2. ,S5
2. ,50

0. 30200
. 35575
. 30995
. 12604
. 20306
. 10870
. 18438
. 17267
.11,5.58
. l(K133
. 2900S
. 277SS
. 297N3
. 27997
. 08385
. 18248
.103,55
. 29,500
. 12426
. 16,548
.21294
. 18689

0. 00OP049
. 0006057
.0007501
.0005292
. {KK)5768
.0(X)5189
. 0(K),5447
. 0005758
. 0007264
.IKln41,59
.0110.55,89
.ll(K).5(i32
.()(«! 1790
.(KK),5065
(X)03383
. tX)0(i0.50
. 0004745
.aK)5170
. (K)04,S26
. 0OO442()
.0(K).5072
.0(X)4418

21801

21901 . ..

22201

26801

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.

10 to 20

20 to 30

30 to 40

40 to 50

50 to 60

eo to 70

70 and over

Num-
ber of

analy-
ses.

30
20
13
14
17
21
22

Percent-
age of
plants in
1903 sur-
viving
from 1902.

15.8
23.5
33.6
41.7
51.5
64.6
82.4

Weight
of ker-
nels on
plant
(grams) .

4. 7098
6.8446
5.2065
4. 1223
6. 0616
6.5092
7.3275

Num-
ber of
kernels

per
plant.

251
342
274
225
303
340
371

Weight
of aver-
age ker-
nel
(gram)

0.01856
. 01978
.01813
.01843
.01974
. 01896
.01902

Percent-
age of
proteid
nitrogen
in ker-
nels.

2.91
2.88
2.89
2.96
2.73
2.80
2.83

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in—

Kernels.

0. 12294
. 18065
.15125
.11736
. 15237
' .17280
.20357

Average
kernel.

0.0005437
.0005527
. 0005310
.000.5493
.0005361
.0005.S24
.0005348

YIELD AND NITROGEN CONTENT OF GRAIN AS AFFECTED BY
LENGTH OF GROWING PERIOD.

Early-maturing varieties of wheat 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 wheat 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 between the 7th and 11th of July, 1903,
form the first class, those ripening between July 11 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 was 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 between 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 well 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 earl3?'-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 excessively hot or dry w^eather might
naturally be thought to increase the yield and increase the percentage
of carbohydrates in the grain.

The season of 1904 w^as 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 numlier.

Date
ripe.

Yield :

(grams) . :

Percent-
age of
proteid

Weight
of aver-
age ker-
nel
(gram).

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in —

.\verage
kernel.

i

nitrogen.

Kernels.

2180.5

Juh- 10
— do.. .

20. 9290

14.2450

2.69
2.71

0.01699
.02378

0.56299
.38604

0.0004569
. 0006444

2180fi

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

21S11

....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

July 8

19. 3966

2. .59

. 02590

.50238

. 0006707

55908

....do...

12. 1221

9.2120

12.0161

14.4556

2.42
2.30
2.57
2.96

.02175
.03050
.01866
.01658

.29575
.21187
.30881
.42790

. 00052t)2
. 0007016
. 0004795
. 0(X)4907

5.5909

July 9
July 8
Julv 7

56106

56107

56206

July 8

9.3093

2.42

.01829

.2252<)

. 0004426

56207

....do...

10.9073

2.34

.02361

. 2.5522

. 0005524

56208

....do...

13.5720

2.61

.02356

.34616

.(X)06I40

56209

....do...

15. 8086

2. .59

. 01664

. 40945

.(X)04310

81505

July 10

2. 8327

2.94

.01940

.08328

. (KM)5704

81706

Julv 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

. 0001)213

81709

....do...

16.4692

2.28

.02175

. 37548

.0004960

106

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 31. — Yield ami nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to length of growing

period— -Continued .

DATES RIPl-:: JULY 7 TO 11, 1903— Continued.

Record numlier.

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...

....do...

9.1411

1.6362

9.9456

5. 1584

1.53.55

9.8719

12. 1918

2. 3678

3.6977

.3146

11.0548

12.1.592

14.4617

2. 9475

2. 8356

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
. 021.36
.01783
. 01626
.01934
.01457

0. 17550
. 04581
.25162
. 13463
. 03793
. 23890
.35844
.04641
. 13312
.00884
.30291
. 31492
.37023
.07310
. 051.32
. 26270
. 14095
. 01872

0. 0004432
. 0007640
.OOO.VJSl
. 00t)5754

. .0005125
.0005082
.0005726
.0003713
.0006106
. 0002389
. 0(X1.5074
.(X)05515
. 000.5003
. 0005297
. 0003228
.0004131
.0005279
. 0003599

88605

88606

88607

88608

88609

....do...
....do...

94907

94908

94909

....do...
....do...
July 9
....do...
....do...

95505

95506

95507

95.508

....do...
....do.. .

95509

95510

....do...
....do...

95705

July 10
do ...

95706

95707

....do...

Average . . .

July 8. 9

9.9067

2.69

.02024

. 26475

. 0005356

DATES RIPE: JULY 11 TO 15, 1903.

21905 1

July 13

14. .3111

2.64

0.01809

0. 37781

0. 0004777

21906

....do...l

10. 4800

3.18

. 02563

..33403

.(H)0S168

21907

....do...!

2. 9248

3. .35

. 01851

. 09798

.0006201

2190S

....do...

3. 5574

3.82

.02056

. 13589

. 0O07S55

21909

....do...

12. 1819

4.43

. 02317

. 53889

. 0010265

21911

....do...

8. 4593

5.48

.02209

. 46356

.0012103

21912

....do...

9. 7236

2.31

.01907

.22461

. 0004404

21913

do

10. 1925
2. 6965

3.01
2.81

.02072
.00953

. 306«0
. 07577

. 0006235
. 0002677

22205

....do...

22210

....do...

6.0173

3.17

. 02019

. 19075

. 0006401

22211

....do...

11.5675

3.17

. 02062

. 36671

. Oa)6537

27005

....do...

16.4120

2.63

.01895

. 43164

. 0004984

27205

....do...

16. 4061

19. 18.54

3. 3266

5. 5666

2.41
2.36
2.92
2.58

.01841
. 02469
.02004
.020S5

. 39539
. 45276
.09712
. 14362

. 0004437
. 0005827
.0005850
. 0005379

27206

....do...

27207

....do...

27305

....do...

27306

....do...

13. .3011

.3.47

.01945

. 32853

. O0n4SO3

27.307

do...

3. 0850
4 5123

2. .53
4.15

.01847
.01777

.07805
. 18726

. 0004674
. 0007373

27.308

....do...

27505 . ..

....do...

12. 0399

10.0005

5. 5S24

3. 2964

2.12
2.70
2.64

4.87

.02183
. 02252

.02287
.01324

.24942
.27003
. 14608
. 16053

. (X)04627
. 0(X)60S2
. 0000037
. 0006447

27506

....do...

27508

....do...

48406

....do...

48407

....do...

11.2890

1.50

.01.572

. 16933

. nO02-'58

48408

do...

. 3485
6. 4302
9. 4585
1.6036
11.2008
9.8346
7.9684

2.81
2.02
.3.20
2.64
2.76
2.70
3.05

.01291
. 02048
.01701
.02296
.01858
.01798
.02028

.00979
. 12989
. 30267
. 04233
. 30986
. 26553
.24303

. 0003627
.0004137
. 0005444
. (K)06062
.0005127
. 0W)4S77
.000(1 1.>-5

48409

....do...

48.506

do...

48507

....do...

48.508

....do...

48806

....do...

55005

....do...

5.5006

....do...

7. 1852

3.16

.01593

.22705

. 000.5034

5.5305

....do...

2.5160

2.48

. 01507

. 06240

. 0003736

55306

....do...

4. 1323

2.18

.01931

. 09008

. 0004210

5.5307

....do...

5.6864

1.89

.01663

. 10747

.(X)03142

55308

....do...

9. 5078
5. 7431

2.54
2.73

. 02395
. 01709

.24150
. 15679

. 0006225
. 0004667

56105

....do..;

56205

....do...

6. 5232

2.51

. 01959

. 16373

.0004917

57005

.. do...

1. 5364
10. ia36

2.71
2.76

.01746
. 01453

.04164
. 28107

. aK)4731
.0004010

57006

....do...

57007

....do...

3. 3176
3. 7263
8. 5777
7. 9772

2.65
2.76
3.19
2.86

. 01975
.00916
. 01666

. 018.38

. 08792
. 10285
. 20188
. 22815

.0005233
. 0002527
. 0005S26
. ai05257

57105

....do...

57305

....do...

57.306

....do...

.57.307

....do...

4.7117

2.43

.01801

.11445

. 00O43S7

57.308

do...

9. a378
. 8328

1.69
1.98

. 01705
.02031

. 16626
.01640

. 0002881
. 0004022

57405

....do...

57406 ...

... do . . .

2. 4923
14.9992

2.75
2.62

-.01846
.01968

. 06854
.39297

. 0005077
.0005157

57407

....do...

YIELD, ETC., AS AFFECTED BY GROWING PERIOD.

107

Table 31.^Yield and 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
nitrogen.

Weight
of aver-
age ker-
nel
(gram).

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in—

Kernels.

Average
kernel.

57408

July 13
....do...

12. 2004
2. 7616

2.61
2.80

0. 02047
. 01534

0. 31842
. 077.33

0. 0005343
.0004296

57506

57.507

....do...

6. 9861

2.85

. 01946

. 19905

. 0005545

57508

....do...

12. 0728

2.21

.03177

.26680

. 0007021

57.509

....do...

10. 6261

2.54

. 01739

.26990

.0004417

57606

....do...

3. 0790

2.74

.02333

. 08436

. 0006391

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

6.5.305

....do...

1. 8018

4.92

.02310

.08865

.0011365

65306

....do...

9. 8298

2.41

. 01807

.23690

. 0004355

65307

....do...

7. 0051

2.28

.01878

. 15971

. 0OO42N2

65308

....do...

11. 7006

2.09

.02008

.24468

.0004197

94905

July 11

4. 4423

2.35

. 01553

. 104.39

. 0003050

94906

Average. .

....do...
July 13

12.3862

3.41

.01808

. 42236

.0a)6166

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
9.9034
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. 7057
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
. 01393
.01627
.01968
.01916
.01086
. 01376
.01161
. 01276
. 01398
.01804
.01717
.02001
.01642
.01718
.01906
.01784
.02106
.01811
.01814
. 01739
.01774
.01525
. 02407
. 01767
. 01876
. 01491
.01732
. 02168
.01695
. 01827
.01814
.01690
.01916
.01534
. 01592
.02040
.01732
.01916
.02543
.01893
. 01866
.01909
.01175
. 01923
.01615
. 01307
.07.544

0.03212
.91052
.27086
.05508
. 13215
.05946
.06366
.00503
. 11575
.01997
.03211
.07010
.20881
.05007
.09208
.21272
.05192
.06312
. 18507
.19388
. 1.5019
. 26245
. 11.570
.09972
.14417
.02957
.09416
. 18008
.06991
.29625
.2.5616
.01491
.112.33
. 13140
. 16993
.24969
.09450
. 0S616
. 11436
.07514
.27367
.01494
.01999
.20851
.39199
.11727
.26073
.14007
.01427
.21319

0. 0004941
.0011283
.0004654
.0003662
.0004670
. 0007340
. 0004081
. 0002649
.0004927
.0003273
.0004225
.0005117
.0002422
. 0005563
.000.5.581
.000.5812
.0007988
.00057.38
. 0004638
.0004170
.0005126
. 0004807
. 0005844
. 0004986
.0004179
. 0006428
. 0004505
.0005102
.0004369
. 0008539
.0006741
. 0tX)2814
. 000.5426
.0004171
.0007421
. 0004944
. 0005369
. 0004760
.000.5220
.0004018
.0005173
. 0006790
.0003124
.0005187
. aj05460
. 0003642
. 0004749
. 0003343
. 0002549
.0013.576

21706

21707

....do...

26105

....do...

3.3406

July 18
. . do . . .

34206

34208

....do...

37906 .

July 15
.. .do...

45005

45605

48405

....do...
do

48505

....do...

51005

....do...

63105

July 18
do. . .

63106

66006

72605

....do...
do...

72806

....do...

74605

do

81705

.. do...

88905

July 16
do...

88906

91905

91906

92205

....do...

....do...

. .do...

92206

....do...

92207

92208

....do...
....do...

92305

92306

92406

....do...
....do...
....do...

92407

do

92408

92409 '..

....do...
....do...

92506

.do..

92.507

....do...

92905

do

92906

....do...

92907

92908

....do...
...do...

92909

....do...

94105

July 15
July 16

....do...

....do...

....do...

....do...

....do...

....do...

....do...

94205

94206

94207

94208

94406

94407

94605

94606

Average. .

July 16.2

5. 1354

2.87

.01869

. 14452

.0005222

108

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 31. — Yield and nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to length of growing

period — Continued.

DATES RIPE: JULY 19 TO 23, 1903.

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.

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

17.2.324
3.8811
4. 2376
1.8276
2. 9999
2.0162
2. .5601

11.1476

2. 2862

8. 4605

.30.37

3.0228

6. 7665

7. 2545

.6316

.3161

1.8246

11.665.5

12. 0278
2.6571
6. 1989
2.1571

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
2.80
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
.01567
.02282
.02024
. 02806
.01837
.01641
.01437
.01968
.01399
.01793
.02390
.01748
.018.59
.01792
.01667
. 02145
.01939
. 02194
.01921
.02110
. 01.598
.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
.01.382
.08522
. 18540
. 18789
. 02002
.00462
.044.52
. 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

0.0005108
. 0006296
.0003164
.0006181
.0005221
. 0008839
. 000.5327
.000.5660
. 0003722
. 0005334
.000.5371
. 0004662
. 0006692
. 0005402
. 000.5037
. 0004677
. 0004667
.0006177
. 000.5644
. 0003533
. 000.5399
. 0005549
.0007273
.0006394
.0006475
.0005148
. 0004352
. 00O1S46
. 0004408
.0004567
. 0007299
. 00055t)8
.0004906
. 0007696
.0004799
.000.5031
. 0005464
. 0003698
.0005426
. 0003674
.0006510
. 0008767
.000.5.531
.0003414
.0010241
. 0004(i68
.0009588
.0007105
.0005154
. 0005644
. 0005417
. 0004471
. 0006773
. 0003332
. 0004977
.0004719

17.505

18805

20707

20708

July 20
July 21
July 20
....do...
July 21

21211

21306

21.308

21710

21711

22209

26806

26807

....do...
July 20
do...

26808

....do...

26906 . . .

July 22
July 20

26907

26909

32606

July 22
July 21
do. . .

33105

33905 . .

33906

....do...

38606

38607

38608

38609

....do...

....do...

....do...

. .do.. .

38706

40405

42206

July 20

July 21

.. .do. . .

44607

July 20
July 21
July 20
do. . .

48106

48305

48306

48706

55007

....do...
....do...

5.5008

July 21
....do...
July 20
do.. .

55206

58805

59606

63107

6.3505

....do...
July 21
July 20

....do...

....do...

66008

69305

71905

72606

72607

....do...
....do...

72705

do . .

72706

....do...

72707

July 21
July 20
July 21
July 20
....do...

72708

74507

76206

84905

84906

85206

....do...

July 21

do

92405

94209 .

do...

Averas^e. .

July 20.1

6.5399

2.93

.01886

. 18064

.0005482

DATES RIPE: JULY 23 TO 27, 1903.

17305

July 23
do.. .

3. 6302

3. 9968

1.2275

2.0907

9. 2038

16.9987

1.8517

3.3138

17.1115

14. 6942

3.03
3.09
3.25
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
. 0.3994
. 06878
.20065
. 48957
. 05722
.09212
.48428
.48784

0. 0006010
. 0005082
. 0006540
. 0005547
.0004037
. 0006580
.0005249
. 0005652
.0005586
.0006999

17306.

17308

17406

....do...
....do...

17408

....do...

17410

....do...

20705

....do...

20706 . .

. .do...

20710

....do...

20805. . . .

...do...

YIELD, ETC., AS AFFECTED BY GROWING PERIOD.

109

Table 31. — Yield and nitrogen content of grain, tahulated according to length of growing

period — Continued.

DATES RIPE: JULY 23 TO 27, 1903— Continued.

Record number.

Date
ripe.

Yield
(grams).

Percent-
age of
protein
nitrogen.

Weight
of aver-
age ker-
nel
(gram).

Protein nitrogen
(gram) in —

Kernels.

Average
kernel.

21307

July 24

2.5691

3.04

0.01796

0.07810

0. 0005461

21705

July 23

1.5420

2.45

.02C.59

.03778

.0006514

21708

....do...

9.2850

2.33

.02381

.21634

. 0005547

21709

do>. .

7.7296

2.47

.02141

. 19092

. 0005289

22206

....do...

2.5712

3.22

.01720

.08086

. 0005538

22208

....do...

1.9090

3.18

.01619

. 06071

.0(J05144

26905

July 24

6. 4102

2.76

. 01966

.17692

. 0005427

26908

....do...

3.9797

2.96

. 02073

.11780

.0006135

27507

July 23

1.3746

3.08

.018.33

.04234

. 000.5646

27509

....do...

5. 3615

2.90

.02206

. 15549

. 0006399

2NS(I5

....do...

2.1851

2.91

.02512

.043.59

. 0007.309

2SS06

....do...

14. 4630

3.02

.02111

. 43679

. 0006376

33106

....do...

.3089

2.94

.01716

.00908

. 000.5045

33107

....do...

6. 1026

2.35

.01919

. 14341

.0004510

33405

do

8. 1268
9. 1498

2.03
2.73

.01930
.01972

. 16498
.24979

.0003919
.0005383

34205

....do...

34207

....do...

13. 5556

2.84

.02219

. 38505

. 0006273

38506

July 24

1.6799

2.89

.01975

.04855

.000.5712

3SI105

July 23

1.2124

5.85

.01987

. 07093

.0011627

■1112(1."!

....do...

3. 6302

4.69

.01871

.17026

.0008776

40305

....do...

3.6003

3.11

.02011

.11197

. 0006255

42905

....do...

1.2499

3.17

.01866

. 03650

. 000.5447

44.505

do

5.9990
2.5235

2.94
2.90

.01764
.02035

. 17637
.07318

.0(K)5187
. 0005902

44606

....do...

45606

....do...

4.0358

1.91

.01834

.07708

.0003.504

45705

....do...

.7532
1.5298

4.18
1.84

.01712
.01234

.03148
. 02815

.00071,55
. 0002700

45805

....do...

46107

....do...

8.3935

2. .54

.01756

.21319

.0004460

50705

....do...

.5958

3.54

.01986

. 02109

. 0007032

50706

.. do . .

.4701

2.3982

.6893

4. 8988

2.4731

2.80
3.30
3.10

2.87
3.18

.01343
.01085
.01723
.01814
.01118

.01316
.07914
.02137
. 14060
. 07859

.0003761
.0003581
. 0005342
. 0005207
.00035.56

50905

....do...

55205

July 24
do

57805

57905

....do...

58505

July 23
do

7.4516
2. 5436
..5952
1..3451
9. 6451
8. 3406
3.0940
2.6615

2.95
3.01
1.87
3.25
2.30
2. .56
3.21
3.00

.02730
.01082
.01701
.01212
. 02079
.01699
.02242
.01706

.21982
. 07656
.01113
.04272
.22184
. 21352
. 09932
.07985

.00080.52
. 0003258
.0003180
. 0003938
.(l(K)4781
.0004349
.0007197
.0005118

58705

60605

....do...

62805

....do...

74606

. do. .

74607

....do...

91305

JiUy 24

92505

Average..

July 23.2

4.9015

2.93

.01878

. 13654

.0005544

DATES RIPE: JULY 27, 1903, OR LATER.

17307

July 27
do...

3. 14.54

15. 6996

2. 2881

.7720

3.46
2.13
3. .52
3.80

0. 02279
.02127
. 02460
. 01795

0. 10883
. .33441
. 0'044
.02934

0. 0007886
. 0004531
. (HK)S660
.0006822

17405

17506

....do...

17.507

....do...

18905

....do...

1.4864

3.81

.01443

. 0.5663

.IKHr)49S

20709

....do...

5. 3229

3. 05

.02063

. 162.35

.1)006292

21205

do...

2. 3642
2. 8564

3.16
5. 23

.01922
. 01917

. 07471
.14939

. 0I.HJ6074
.0010026

21206

....do...

21207

....do...

2. .3066

2.96

. 019.55

. 06804

. 0005766

21208

....do...

5. 1594

3. 24

.01798

.16712

. 000.5824

21209

....do...

1. 4484

3.61

. 01627

. 05228

. 0005875

21210

....do...

3.9143

5. 03

. 01,577

. 19689

. 0007934

21212

....do...

1. 7216

2.16

. 02049

.0.3718

. (H)04427

21305

....do...

6. 2514

2.67

. 020037

. 16691

. 0005350

22207

....do...

3. 2787

2.77

. 01940

. 09082

. (X)0.>?74

25205

....do...

10. 7836

2.71

. 02066

. 28560

. (MK15.590

25200

....do...

4. 6754
2. 0737

2.76
2.63

.02281
. 02304

. 12904
. 05454

.l)(M)ti295
. 0006060

26106

....do...

26107

....do...

2. 0390

• 3. 92

.01416

. 07993

. 0005551

26805

....do...

4. 9456

2.81

. 02248

. 1.3897

.0006317

28206

....do...

4. 3698

3. 07

. 01996

. 13415

.000()126

32206

,....do...

10. 4036

1.81

. 02052

.18831

.0003714

.32207

l....do...

1. 2573

3.48

. 01.S22

. 04375

. (KK16341

32605

....do...

5. 2268

1.20

. 02.323

. 06272

. (KK)2788

no

IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

Table 31. — Yield and nitrogen content of grain, tabulated according to lengtli of growing

period — Continued.

DATES RIPE: JULY 27, 1903, OR LATER— Continued.

Record nunil:ier.

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

3.78
3.41

0.01851
.02090

0.03849
. 10689

0. 0006998
.(XH)7126

33305

33407

....do...

7. 0889

1.62

.02271

.11223

.(KH)3679

33408

....do...

1.1132

1.39

.01446

.01.547

.(10(12009

33605

....do...

7. 0.596

2. .39

. 02345

. 16872

.(M)(l5(i05

33606

....do...

8. 1890

2.21

. 02144

. 18098

. 0004738

33607

....do...

2. 8903

3.22

.02125

.09307

. 0006843

34405

....do...

4. 1281

4. .33

. 01994

. 17875

. 00OS<i35

34606

....do...

6. 1962

3.12

. 02213

. 19.332

. 0006904

36905

....do...

5. 0200

6. 1.394

3. 88
2.96

. 01880
. 01987

. 19478
. 18173

. 0007295

. no()5.sNi

37305

....do...

37705

....do...

8. 0905
1.2069

2.64
2. .34

.01972
. 021.55

. 23998
. 02824

, (K:Kl5.-i27
.(KM).5(I.)3

37706

....do...

37707

....do...

3. 3004

2.93

.01710

. 09670

. 000.5010

37905

Aug. 4

. 9452

2. .53

. 02555

.02391

. 0006433

38005

July 27

2. 5134

2.84

.01808

. 071.38

. 0005135

38505

....do...

12. 1088

3.61

. 02252

. 43713

. 0007764

39205

....do...

21. .5.399

2.11

. 02089

. 45435

. 0004407

39405

....do...

9. 3541

2.88

. 02093

. 21.399

. 0006027

39506

Aug. 4

1.9218

2.93

.02869

. 05631

. 0(X)S404

39507

Julv 27

1.8862

3.02

.01699

. 05696

. 0005132

39606

do...

4. 6383
4. 1.546
1.8494

2. .37
2.82
3.63

. 01341
.02444
. 01967

. 10967
.11716
.06713

. 0003177
. 0(XI6892
.0007142

40505

....do...

42205

do...

42405

....do...

1. 4892

3.07

. 02251

. 04572

. 0006927

43405

....do...

2. 80(K)
1. 4464
1.1271
4.6146

2.92
4.13
2.86
3.00

. 02258
. 01.5.55
. 02049
. 01775

.08176
. 0.5974
.0322?
. 13843

. 0006594
. 0006423
. 0(X).5861
. 0(W)5.S24

43505

Aug. 4
July 27

44605 '.

46105

46106

!!!!do!!!

1.6103

2.54

.01964

. 04090

.0004988

4S705

....do...

4. .3615

3. 13

. 01652

. 13652

.0(K)5171

49505

....do...

1.2716

3.24

. 01898

. 04120

.0006149

49905

....do...

.6760

3.62

. 02939

. 02436

.0010640

50906

....do...

1. 7280

.3.57

.01516

. 06169

.0005411

55508

....do...

3. 7407

.3.11

.01732

.11636

. 0005386

58806

....do...

1. 9469

1.88

. 02049

. 0'i660

. 0003853

58905

....do...

2. 3031

2.43

.01355

. 05596

. 0003292

59605

....do...

7. 1828

2.12

.01880

. 15228

. 000.3986

63506

....do...

2. 3986

2.44

.01.568

. 05853

. 0003825

66005

....do...

7. mm

2. 63

. 02073

. 20170

. 0005451

69506

....do...

13. .5696
2. 4420

2. ,50
5.82

. 02047
.02220

. 33923
. 14213

.0005117
.0012921

69805

....do...

69806

....do...

12. 01.36

1.66

. 02153

. 19943

. 0003574

72405

do

8. 4415
8.2929

3. .36
2.95

. 03963
.01929

. 28363
. 24464

. 0013316
. 0005689

72406!.;!!;;;!!!

....do...

72905

....do...

2. 6462

2.48

.01.585

.06563

. 0(^.-1930

73307

....do...

. .5572

2. .39

. 02229

. 01332

. 0005327

73308

....do...

14. 2986

2.92

. 02291

. 41752

. 0006,539

74305

....do...

4. 4222

1.98

. 02047

. 08756

. 0004054

74506.'

....do...

.4096

2.73

.01781

.01118

. 0004862

74508

....do...

.8172

2.60

.01434

. 02125

. 0O0.372S

76205

do

8. 4407
15. 7835

2. 35
1.81

. 01695
. 02165

. 19836
. 28569

. 00039,v2
.0(Ki:.919

80305!.!!..!!!!!

....do...

81405

....do...

4. 5737

2.62

. 01862

.11710

. 0004879

81406

....do...

1.2.391

3.31

.01721

.04101

. 000.5697

84405

....do...

8. 7448

2.48

. 02043

.21687

. 000.5067

85205

....do...

3. 4766

2.60

. 01625

. 09039

. 0004224

86105

....do...

3. 0282

2.56

.01495

. 07964

. (X)0.:923

86106

Average. .

....do...

7. 6241

2.63

. 91749

.200.52

. 0004599

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.

Julv 7 to 11

Julv 11 to 15...
Julv 15 to 19 . . .
Julv 19 to 23...
July 23 to 27 . . .
July 27, or later

Num-
ber of
anal-
yses.

49
65
50
56
52
83

Average
date ripe.

July 8. 9..
July 13...
July 16. 2.
July 20. 1.
July 23. 2.
July 27. 2.

Yield

(grams).

9.9067
7.6611
5. 1354
6.5399
4.9015
4.6636

Percent-
age of
proteid
nitrogen.

2.69

2.81
2.87
2.93
2.93
2.94

Weight
of aver-
age
kernel
(gram).

0. 02024
. 01887
.01869
.01886
.01878
.01992

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in —

Kernels.

0. 26475
. 20820
. 14452
. 18064
. 136.54
. 12854

Average
kernel.

0. 0005356
.0005290
.000.5222
.000.5482
. 0005544
.0005800

Table 33. — Summary of nitrogen content, etc., tabulated according to yield per plant.

Plants grouped according to
yield (in grams).

Below 1

1 to 2.5

2.5 to 5

5 to 10

10 to 15

15 to 20

More than 20

Num-
ber of
anal-
yses.

31
67
88
94
52
20
4

Average
date ripe.

July 20. 2.
July 21. 9.
Julv 20...
Julv 18.3.
July 15. 1.
July 15. 1.
July 14.5.

Yield
(grams).

0.6049

1.7673

3. 5683

7. 6706

12. 2.573

17. 1908

23.7186

Percent-
age of
proteid

nitrogen.

Weight
of aver-
age
kernel

(gram).

Proteid nitrogen
. (gram) in —

Kernels.

2.91 0.01683 0.01731

3.09
3.03

2.68
2.71
2.54
2.55

.01852
.01796
.01997
. 021.68
.02103
.021.59

.0.5456
. 10794
. 20270
. 33433
.43921
. 60401

Average
kernel.

0.0004916
.0005730
. 0005445
.0005351
.0005774
.0005382
.000.54.50

Table 3-4. — Summary of yield, etc., tabulated according to nitrogen content.

Plants grouped according to
percentage of nitrogen.

Below 1.5. . .
1.5 to 2

2 to 2.25

2.25 to 2.5...
2.5 to 2.75...
2.75 to 3

3 to 3.25

3.25 to 3.5...

3.5 to 4

More than 4

Num-
ber of
anal-
yses.

18
47
82
67
47
20
23
25

Average
date ripe.

4 Julv
2.5 Julv

Julv
Julv
July
Julv
July
July
Julv
July

22.5.

18.5.
19.8.

17.3
16.3
19.6
21.2
20.7
21.5
19.5

Yield

(grams).

5.8099
2. 7423
8. 9.542
7.3389
8.0817
5.9093
4.4497
4.67.56
3. 6486
4.. 5431

Percent-

Weight

age of
proteid

of aver-
age

nitrogen.

(gram).

1.35

0.01709

1.80

. 02124

2.12

.02030

2.39

. 02000

2.63

.01938

2. 85

.01910

3.11

.01824

3.37

.01.870

3.68

.01852

4.72

.01819

Proteid nitrogen
(gram) in—

Kernels.

0.07290

.11620
. 19070
.18478
. 21280
. 16609
. 13847
. 15189
. 13513
.21239

Average
kernel.

0. 0002266
.0003867
.0004325
. 0004773
.0005102
.0005454
. 0005667
.0006213
. 0006807
.0008639

RELATION OF SIZE OF HEAD TO YIELD, HEIGHT, AND

TILLERING OF PLANT.

The size of the head has always been considered to be closely con-
nected with the productiveness of wheat. The well-know^n 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 be 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 were grown 6 inches apart each way, and were therefore not
under the conditions that would obtain in a thickly drilled or broad-
casted field, where lack of ability to tiller would be compensated for
by the larger number of plants. However, the variety of wheat
j'ielding 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 varietv.

Table 35. — Relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant.
SIZE OF HEAD, BELOW 16 KERNELS.

I

Record num-
ber.

Si/e of
head.

Yield per

plant
(grams).

Yield per
head

(grams).

Weight of '

average

kernel

(grams).

Height
(cm).

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
10.0

2. 4690
.2806

.2743
.2806

.02024
.02S06

60
45

11
2

21211

22209

15.5

15.7

.4336
4.9456

.2168
.3533

.01399
.02248

70

68

6
26

26805

32207

13.8

1.2573

.2515

.01822

47

5

37905

12.3

.9452

.3151

.025.55

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

Average . .

11.0

. 5595

.2797

.02543

51

1

13.3

1.3169

.2654

.02059

55.2

6.9

SIZE OF HEAD, 16 TO 20 KERNELS.

17410
21205
21305
21,307
21705
21710

19.1

16.9987

0.4358

0.02285

84

46

17.6

2. 3642

.3378

.01922

55

10

16.4

6.2514

.3290

.02004

65

21

17.9

2.5691

.3211

.01796

53

10

19.3

1.5420

.5140

. .-02659

73

3

19.7

.8478

.2826

.01437

59

5

RELATION OF SIZE OF HEAD TO YIELD, ETC. 113

Table 35. — Relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant — Continued.
SIZE OP HEAD, 16 TO 20 KERNELS— Continued.

Record num-
l.er.

Size of
head.

Yield per

plant
(grams) .

Yield per

head
(grams) .

Weight of
a\erage Height
kernel (cm. ) .
(grams).

1

Tillering.

21807

22207

22208

26906

18.8
18.8
16.8
19.0

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
.3643
.2727
.3531
.3000
.3972
.3089
.4023
.2063
.3591
. 3037
.3359
.4511
.1699
. 3757
. 3605
.2425
. 23.50
.3219
. 3076
.3023
.4195
.2945
.2701
.2724
.4933
.3839
.3357
.2957
.3544

0.02498
.01940
.01619
.01859
.01667
.01996
.01716
.021.55
. 01086
.01808
. 01598
.01913
. 02309
.01967
.02049.
.02035
• .01276
.01343
.01751
. 01603
.01709
. 02361
.01801
.01550
.01434
.02578
.02075
.01767
.01706
.01783

77
65
57
70
50
80
43
42
50
53
56
60
65
68
53
52
55
38
75
85
70
84
67
88
50
86
69
73
68
70

25
16

8
16
10
26

2

4

2

7

2

11

6

6

3

8

5

2

34

40

35

42

17

28

4

20

4

15

12

8

26909

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

28206

33106

37706

37906

38005

38607

38608

38609

42205

44605

44606

48405

50706

55905

55906

56105

56207

57307

69705

74.508

8170S

8S60S

92207

92.505

95510

Average . .

18.4

3. 7758

.3383

. 01862 64. 1

1

13.7

17305.
17408.
17.507.
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.
4.5705.
48106.
48305.
48406.
48.507.

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. 2038
.7720
1.8517
3.3138
9. 9070
5.3229
2. 3066
1.7216
4.1516

12.3685
9. 2850
S. 0214

11.9114

14.8139
2.9248
2. 6965
2.0737
2. 7255

17. 2324
3.3266
3. 0850

12. 0399

2. 1851

2. 5601

8. 1268

7.0889

2. 2862

8.4605

7.2.545

.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
.02.543
.01324
.02296

61
73
78
55
61
75
67
60
50
60
90
85
84
87
90
82
80
60
56
76
75
80
84
65
65
68
67
67
71
75
54
45
55
58
79
81
68
63

12

24

4

6

7

22

13

6

5

11

24

26

25

29

54

8

54

9

12

40

9

10

38

6

12

20

18

9

24

30

3

3

6

6

39

28

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— Contmued.
SIZE or HEAD, 20 TO 24 KERNELS— Continued.

Record num-
ber.

Size of
head.

Yield per

plant
(grams).

Yield per

head
(grams).

Weight of

average

kernel

(grams).

Height
(cm.).

Tillering.

48806

21.0

9.8346

0.3782

0.01798

78

12

5.5205

20.0

.6893

.3446

.01723

56

6

55606

22.9

11.0930

.5042

.02205

92

24

55907

21.4

19.3966

.5542

.02590

95

42

55908

23.4

12.2210

.5092

.02175

95

40

55909

21.5

9.2120

.6580

.03050

85

31

56205

23.8

6. 5232

.4659

.01959

82

29

56206

20.4

9.3093

.3724

.01829

86

42

56208

22.5

13. 5720

.5429

.02356

88

51

56209

21.1

15. 8086

.3513

.01664

90

67

67005

22.0

1.5364

.3841

.01746

73

7

57105

23.9

3. 7263

.2192

.00916

85

40

57305

22.8

8.5777

.3899

.01666

78

30

57306

21.7

7.9772

.3989

.01838

80

23

57308

21.4

9.8378

.3644

.01705

80

40

57506

22.5
23.9

2. 7616
6.9861

.3452
.4657

.01534
.01946

72

78

18
26

57507

57508

22.3

12.0728

.7102

. 03177

85

22

63105

22.5

1.5452

.3883

.01717

68

8

63106

23.6

3.3006

.4715

.02001

77

9

63107

21.9

9.3120

.4901

.02233

80

25

72605

21.7

1.1166

.3722

.01718

52

3

72705

21.9

9. 1522

.5384

.02191

68

20

74305

21.6

4.4222

.4422

.02047

60

11

74507

20.5

9.2130

.3839

.01869

70

27

74605

21.0

7. 1181

.3746

.01784

69

27

74606

23.2

9. 6451

.4822

.02079

75

24

76205

21.7

8.4407

.3670

.01695

70

26

81405

21.8

4.5737

.4158

.01862

70

11

81705

21.1

9. 7922

.4451

.02106

82

27

81706

21.2

15. 3928

.4527

.02132

90

40

81707

23.8

18. 3614

. 5564

.02336

96

53

81709

20.5

16.4692

.4451

.02175

90

45

84405

23.8

8.7448

.4858

.02043

75

19

88607

23.4

5. 1.584

.5158

. 02205

73

lo

91905

22.0

3.4436

.3826

.01739

72

12

91906

22.2

3.5486

.3943

. 01774

74

11

92206

' 23.0

1.1074

.5537

.02407

66

3

92305

22.9

2.3859

.3408

.01491

65

11

92306

23.1

6. 0091

.4006

.01732

75

19

92506

22.9

3.8709

.3871

. 01690

II

16

92507

Average.

22.0

9.6779

.4208

.01916

82

29

22.2

6.8466

.4355

.01953

73.8

21.4

SIZE OF HEAD, 24 TO 28 KERNELS.

17306

24.3

3.9968

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

21806

24.9

14.2450

.5935

.02378

91

32

21808

25.7

19. 7446

.4388

.01708

96

57

21810

26.0

1.0304

. 51.52

.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

26905

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
27.5

5. .5324
1.0183

.6137
.5091

.02287
.01851

78
50

19
2

32608

33107

24.5

6. 1026

.4694

.01919

73

29

33305

25.0

3. 1346

.5224

.02090*

53

7

.33406

25.7

4.6045

.4186

.01627

72

16

33408

25.7

1.1132

.3711

• .01446

56

4

RELATION OF SIZE OF HEAD TO YIELD, ETC.

115

Table 35. — Relation of size of head to yield, height, and tillering of plant — Continued.
SIZE OF HEAD, 24 TO 28 KERNELS— Continued.

Record num-
ber.

33605.
33606.
33607 .
33905 .
34207.
37705.
39.507 .
45606 .
48306.
48407 .
48409.
48505.
48508.
55506.
56107 .
57509 .
57606.
57607.
57608 .
58206.
63506 .

65305 .

65306 .
6530S.
66008.
69505.
69805.
69806 .
72606 .
72607.
72905.
74607 .
80305.
81406 .
81710.
84906.
85205 .
86105.
86106.
88606.
88609 .
88905 .
92205.
92405.
92407 . ,
92907 . .
94206 . ,
94208..
94407 . .
94907..
94908..
94909..
95506..
95507..
95508..
95705 . .
95707..

Average .

Size of
head.

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!

24.2
25.9
26.0
25.5
26.5
26.0

25.9

Yield per

plant
(grams).

7.0596

8. 1890

2. 8903

11. 1476

13.. 5556

8. 0905

1.8862

4.0358

2. 6571

11.2890

6.4302

1.9154

11.2008

17. 8.506

14.4556

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

9.94.56

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. 1.592

14.4617

10. 3426

.7577

Yield per

head
(grams).

7. 5207

0.6418
.5489
.5781
.5867
.5894
.4495
.4715
.4484
.4428
.4181
.5358
.3831
..5091
. 5578
.3023
.4830
. G158
.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

.4848

Weight of

average

kernel

(grams).

0. 02345
.02144
.02125
.02194
.02219
.01972
.01699
. 01834
.01692
.01572
.02048
.01398
.01858
. 02062
.01658
.01739
. 02333
. 02234
.01968
.00943
. 01568
.02310
.01807
.02008
.01814
.01847
. 02220
.021.53
.01724
.01832
.01585
.01699
.02165
.01721
. 02308
. 01975
. 01625
.01495
.01749
.02068
.02100
.01811
.01525
.01605
.01695
.02040
.01866
.01175
.01615
.01948
.01894
. 01696
. 01852
.02029
.01954
.01626
.01457

Height
(cm.).

. 01874

65
72
58
77
77
60
59
59
58
82
74
70
80
95
90
84
78
87
83
75
64
65
75
77
76
66
62
75
82
74
59
76
70
55
90
65
65
68
76
85
74
82
72
78
68
84
76
71
82
85
73
72
86
90
97
80
67

73.8

SIZE OF HEAD, 28 TO 32 KERNELS.

Tillering.

14
17

6
23
22
22

4
13

7
53
19

7
36
58
49
37

8
48
38
29

7
10
28
35

8
13

7
28
26

8

5
31
33

3
24
16
11

4
25
23
26
17
IS
10

2

10

19

19

23

23

9

9

25

22

31

31

4

21.2

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
.5159
.4828
.4893
.4983
.5111
.8062
. 5929
.7166
.6597

0.01340
. 02460
.02157
.01798
. 01627
.01577
.01699
.01809
.02563
. 02056
.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 head 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.
45805 .
46107.

50905 .

50906 .
55005.
55006.
55007.
55206 .
55306 .
55307.
55507 .
56106.
57006.
57407.
58207.
58505 .
58806.
59606 .
63505.
65307 .
66005 .
69506 .
71905.
72406.
72706.
72707.
76206.
88906 .
92408.
92908.
94205.
94207.
94209 .
94406.
94605.
94606 .
94905.
94906.
95706.

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

Average.

30,

29,

31

31

29,

31,

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. 18.54

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

8. 3935

2.3982

1.7280

7.9684

7. 1852

2. 1,571

11.3592

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

.5542'

.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

. 62.50

.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
.020.52
. 02323
.02145
.01972
.01916
.01987
. 02252
.01975
.01987
. 02093
.01341
.02011
.01764
.01376
.01234
.017.56
. 01085
.01516
. 02028
.01.593
. 01828
.01965
.01931
.01663
.01949
.01866
.014.53
.01968
.01375
. 02730
.02049
.01712
.01934
.01878
. 02073
. 02047
. 02239
.01929
. 02484
. 02036
.01217
.01814
. 01827
.01732
.01893
.01909
. 01895
. 01923
.01307
.07544
.01.553
.01808
. 01934

. 01958

Height
(cm.).

70

88

67

77

90

88

88

73

71

71

69

78

66

58

70

54

55

74

64

62

69

66

48

79

68

58

75

80

65

82

77

80

95

90

88

92

75

80

65

80

66

74

75

73

80

70

80

72

73

80

81

76

55

83

75

82

68

84

75

91

82

74.5

Tillering.

9
59

6
40
49
48
11

9
26

9

3
19

5
12
21

3

2
18
18

6
25

9

4
27
10

5
19
19

7
27
17
19
28
33
41
41
18
18

7
37

8
17
22
24
46
15
27

8
30
21

7

7

6
31

7
22

7

23

11

24

9

19.4

RELATION" OF SIZE OF HEAD TO YIELD, ETC.

117

Table 35. — Relation of size of head to yield, height, and tiHering of plant — Continued.

SIZE OF HEAD, 32 TO 36 KERNELS.

(

Record num-
ber. .

Size of
head.

Yield per

plant
(grams).

Yield per

heat,
(grams).

Weight of

average

kernel

(grams) .

Height
(cm.).

Tillering.

17307

34.5

3. 1454 ■

0. 7863

. 0.02279
.01443

70

8

18905

34.3

1.4864

. 49.^5

50

4

26105

32.7

1.8242

.i'M)

.01393

69

13

26907

" 34.0

1.S276

. (:092

.01792

55

8

28806

34.2

14.4630

.7232

.02111

75

30

34405

34.5

4. 1281

.(;88i

.01994

62

8

34606

35.0

6. 1962

. 7745

. 02213

61

13

36905

33.4

5.0200

.6275

.01880

58

7

39205

32.2

21.. 5399

. 6731

.02089

82

40

42405

33.0

1.4S92

. 7446

.02251

60

2

42905

33.5

1.2499

.6249

.01866

68

4

48506

32.7

9.4585

. 5564

.01701

82

30

49505

33.5

1.2716

. 6358

.01898

60

3

51005

34.5

15. .5835

.6233

.01804

75

32

55008

33.7

17.4226

. 6222

.01846

82

30

55305

33.4

2.5160

.50.32

.01507

75

12

55308

33.1

9. .5078

. 7923

.02395

79

28

.55605

33.3

10.9180

. 7279

.02184

89

23

55607

34.5

2.3931

..59.83

.01734

77

/

5560S

33.5
33.6

22. 5848
3.3176

.9034
. 6635

.02699
.01975

95
90

31
9

57007

57406

33.7

2.4923

.6231

.01846

92

14

57408

35.0

12.2004

.7177

.02047

90

26

58805

35.1

23. 1471

.7014

.01999

78

51

60605

35.0

.,5952

. .5952

.01701

57

4

69305

34.3

2.0430

. 6810

.01984

70

7

72405

35.5

8.4415

1.4069

.03963

67

6

72708

.33.2

9.0386

. 7532

.02270

78

12

73308

34.7

14. 2986

.7944

.02291

74

23

85206

34.2

4.9315

.4483

.01312

69

13

88605

34.5

1.6362

.8181

.02731

70

3

91305

34.5

3.0940

. 7735

.02242

76

6

92208

.35.3

6. 6206

.6621

.01876

. 78

17

92406

34.5

8. 2366

.7488

. 02168

81

17

92409

35.0

5.7131

.6348

.01814

81

13

92905

35.2

2. 7000

.5400

.01534

75

6

92909

33.1

10. 1363

. 6335

.01916

86

21

95509

Average.

34.5

2.9475

.7369

.02136

74

4

34.1

7.2530

.6868

.02023

73.9

15.4

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

40.505

42.5

4. 1.546

1.0386

.02444

60

4

43405

41.3

2.SO0O

.93.33

. 02258

64

3

46105

37.1

4. 6146

.6592

.01775

73

S

48705

44.0

4.3615

.7269

. 01652

80

.7
t

48706

47.4

6. 1986

.7748

.01635

78

12

.5.5508

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.. 5436

.6359

.01082

68

11

58905

42.5

2. 3031

.5758

.013,55

66

13

59605

38.2

7. 1828

.7183

.01880

77

30

62805

.37.0

1.3451

.4484

.01212

70

14

66006

52.3

6. 0090

.8.584

.01642

73

12

72806

36.7

2.0970

.(i990

.01906

62

5

73306

37.6

8. .5373

.7761

.020(i2

78

20

81505

48.7

2. 8327

.9442

.01940

78

7

84905

37.0

.7130

.7130

. 01927

47

4

92906

36.2

2. 8816

. 5763

. 01.592

75

(

95505

Average.

37.0

.3146

.3146

.008.50

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.

Below 16

16 to 20

20 to 24

24 to 28

28 to 32

32 to 36

More than 36

Average

Number number

of plants, of kernels

on spike.

18

13.3

36

18.4

80

22.2

84

25.9

73

30.1

38

34.1

25

42.1

Yield per

plant
(grams).

Yield per

head
(gram).

Weight of

average

kernel

(gram)

Height

(cm.).

1.3169

0. 26.54

0. 02059

55.2

3. 7758

.3383

.01862

64.1

6. 8466

. 4355

. 01953

73.8

7. 5207

.4848

.01874

73.8

7. 4992

. 5.598

.01958

74.5

7. 2530

.6868

. 02023

73.9

3.3723

.7148

.01710

71.0

Tillering.

6.9

13.7
21.4
21.2
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 I Number
grams. of plants.

Below 1

1 to 2.5

2,5 to 5

5tol0

10 to 15

15 to 20

More than 20

31
67
87
93
51
20
5

Yield per

plant
(grams).

0. 6050

1.7673

3. 5526

7. 6485

12. 2862

17.1908

23. 2829

Height

(cm.).

Tillering.

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

Yield per

head
■ (gram).

0. 3553
.■4740
.4917
. 5320
. 5592
. 5310
.6865

Table 38. — Relation of yield per head to yield, height, and tillering of plant, and to weight of

average Tcernel.

Classification according to yield
per head, in grams.

Number
of plants.

Yield per

head
(gram).

Yield per

plant
(grams).

Height

(em.).

Tillering.

Weight 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. 7.326
9. 5646
7.6214
4.4.523
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

. ()] 737

400 to 500

.1)1847

500 to 600

. 02073

600 to 700

.(r2(l."i6

700 to 800

.021,9

More than 800

.02151

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.

As between wheat kernels of the same variety 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 quahty 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.

SUMMARY 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 o-reatest weight of kernels. The same is true of plants producing
the greatest weight of proteid matter and gluten.

Heavy seed wheat drilled at the rate of IJ 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 affords 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 vary 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 same 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 year in the quality
of the gluten.

120 IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF WHEAT.

The content of protcid nitrogen, the kernel weight, and the total
proteid nitrogen production b}-^ the wheat plant are hereditary quali-
ties.

There is a tendency for ])lants possessing any of these qualities in
an extreme degree to produce progeny in which the same qualities
ap})roach 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 sevei^e winter was decreased in
proportion to the suscepti])ility 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 tiie
early-maturing plants.

Plants with heads of slightly more than medium size produced
the largest yields of grain, and were taller than plants wi.h either
larger or smaller heads. Plants with heads of medium size, or slightly
less, tillered most extensivel}^

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.

U

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY— BULLETIN NO. 79.

B. T. GALLOWAY, CMef'oJ Bureau.

THE VARIABILITY OF WHEAT VARIETIES IN
RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

BY

L. L. HARTER,

Scientific Assistant, Laboratory of Plant Breeding.

VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS.

Issued July 27, 1905.

WASHINGTON:

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

1 9 5 .

BULLETINS OF THE BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY.

The Bureau of riant Industry, which was organized July 1, 1901, includes
Vegetable Pathological and Physiological Investigations, Potanical Investiga-
tions and Exi)crinients, Grass and Forage Plant Investigations, Pomological
Investigations, and Experimental Gardens and Grounds, all of which were for-
merly separate Divisions, and also Seed and Plant Introduction and Distribution,
the Arlington Experimental Farm, tea Culture Investigations, and Domesti<-
J?ugar Inv<>stigationR.

P.eginning with the date of organization of the Bureau, the several series o'f
Bulletins of the various Divisions were discontinued, and all are now published
as one series of the Bureau. -A list of the Bulletins issued in the present series
follows.

Attention is directed to the fact that " the serial, scientific, and technical i)nb-
lications of the United States Department of Agriculture are not for general dis-
(rilintion. All copies not required for otticial use are by law turned over to the
Sui)erintendent of Documents, who is empowered to sell them at cost." All
applications for such publications should therefore be made to the Superintend-
ent of Documents, Governnjent I'rinting OtRce, Washington, D. C.

No. 1. The Ptelation of Lime and Magnesia to Plant Growth. 1901. Price, 10
cents.

2. Spermatogenesis and Fecundation of Zamia. 1901. Price, 20 cents.

3. Macaroni Wheats. 1901. I'rice, 20 cents.

4. Range Improvement in Arizona. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

5. Seeds and Plants Imported. Inventory No. 9. 1902. Price, 10 cents.
G. A List of American Varieties of Peppers. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

7. The Algerian Durum AA'heats. 1902. Price, 1.5 cents.

8. A Collection of Fungi Prepared for Distribution. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

9. The North American Species of Spartina. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

10. Records of Seed Distribution and Cooperative Experiments with Grasses

and Forage Plants. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

11. Johnson Grass. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

12. Stock Ranges of Northwestern California. 1902. Price, 15 cents.

13. Range Improvement in Central Texas. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

14. The^Decay of Timber and Methods of Preventing It. 1902. Price, 55

cents.

15. Forage Conditions on the Northern Border of the Great Basin. 1902.

Price, 15 cents.

16. A Preliminary Study of the Germination of the Spores of Agaricus Cam-

pestris and Other Basidiomycetous Fungi. 1902. Price, 10 cents.
■ 17. Some Diseases of the Cowpea. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

18. Observation's on the Mosaic Disease of Tobacco. 1902. Price, 15 cents.

19. Kentucky Bluegrass Seed. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

20. Manufacture of Semolina and Macaroni. 1902. Price, 15 cents.

21. List of American Varieties of Vegetabtes. 1903. Price, 35 cents.

22. Injurious Effects of Premature Pollination. 1902. Price, 10 cents.
2.'>. Borseem. 1902. Price, 15 cents.

24. Unfermented Grai)e Must. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

25. Miscellaneous Papers: I. The Seeds of Rescue Grass and Chess. II.

Saragolla Wheat. III. Plant Introduction Notes from South Africa.
IV. Congressional Seed and Plant Distribution Circulars. 1903.
Price, 15 cents.
20. Spanish Almonds. 1902, Price, 15 cents.

27. Letters on Agriculture in the West Indies, Spain, and the Orient. 1902.

Price, 15 cents.

28. The Mango in Porto Rico. 190.3. Price, 15 cents.

29. The ICffect of Blade Rot on Turnips. 1903. Price, 15 cents.

30. Budding the I'ecan. 1902. I'rice, 10 cents.

31. Cultivated Forage Crops of the Northwestern States. 1902. Price 10

cents,

[Continued on ijagc 3 of cover.]

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY— BULLETIN NO. 79.

B. T. GALLOWAY, ChiiJ of Bureau.

THE VARIABILITY OF WHEAT VARIETIES IN
RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

BY

L. L. HAKTER.
Scientific Assistant, Laboratory of Plant Breeding.

\'EGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL
INVESTIGATIONS.

Issued July 27, 1905.

WASHINGTON:
government tkinting office.

19 5.

BLREAl OF PLANT INDUSTRY.

B. T. (JALLOWAY,

Putholoijist and J'liysiologist, and Chief of Jiincau.

VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVEST! 3ATIONS.

\LnEKT F Woons, Palhohn/ist and I-hysioln;,ist in Charfjc, Actini, Chief of Bureau in

Absence of Chuf.

BOTANICAL INVESTIGATIONS AND ENPERIMENTS.

PUEDERICK V. CoviLLE, Botunisl in Charge.

GRASS AND FORAGE PLANT INVESTIGATIONS.

W. J. Spillman, Agrostologist in Charge.

POMOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

(;. B. Bu.vcKETT, Pomologist in Charge.

SEED AND PLANT INTRODUCTION AND DISTRIBTTION.

A. J. PiETERS, Botanist in Charge.

ARLINGTON EXPERIMENTAL FARM.

L. C. COUBETT, Horticulturist in Charge.

EXPERIMENTAL GARDENS AND GROUNDS.

E. M. Byrn'es, Superintendent.

\

J. E. Rockwell, Editor.
.T.\MES E. .Toxes, Chief Clerk.

VEGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

SCIENTIFIC STAFF.

Albert F. Woous, Pathologist and Physiologist in Charge.

Krwix F Smith, Pathologist in Charge of Laboratory of Plant Pathology.

Georce f. Moore. Physiologist in Charge of Laboratory of Plant Physiology.

Hekbert J. Webber, Physiologist in Charge of Laboratory of Plant Breeding.

Walter T. Swingle, Physiologist in Charge of Laboratory of Plant Life History.

Newtox B. Pierce, Pathologist in Charge of Pacific Coast Laboratory.

M. B. Waite. Pathologist in Charge of Inrestigations of Diseases of Orchard Fruits.

Mark Alfred Carletox, Cerealist in Charge of Cereal Inrestigations.

IIer.maxx vox ScHitEXK, in Charge of Mississi])pi Valley Laboratory.

P. H. Rolfs, Patholngi.yt in Cliarge of f!uhtropie<il Laboratory.

('. «». Towxsexd, Pathologist in Charge of i^iigar Beet Inrestigations.

r. H. Dorsett," Pathejlogist.

T. 11. Keakxey, Physiologist, Plant Breeding.

CoiiXELUs L. Shear. Palhologist.

William A. Ortox, Palhologist.

W. M. Scott. Pathologist.

.losEPii S. CiiA.MBERLAix,'' Physiological Chemist, Cereal Inresti(/ations.

I\i:xsT A. B::.ssey. Pathologist.

Flora W. Pattersox, Mycologist.

Charles P. Hartley, Assistant in Physiology, Plant Breeding.

Karl F. Kell!;r.max, Assistant in PhysioU.gy.

Deaxe B. Swingle, Assistant in Pathology.

.IrssE P.. Norton, Assistant in Physiology, Plant Breeding.

.Tames B. Rorer, Assistant in Pathology.

Lloyd S. Texny, Assistant in Pathology.

George <;. Hedgcock, .\ssistant in Pathology.

I'EiiLEY Si'AiLDiNG, Scientific .Issistant.

P. .T. O'Gara, Scientific Assistant, Ph.i:t Pathology.

.\. D. SiiAMEL, Scientific Assistant, Plant Breeding.

T. R>.lpii Ror.iNSOx. Assistant in Physiology.

Florexce Hedges, Scientific Assistant, Bacteriology.

CiiARLE.; .T. Brand, .issistant in Physiology, Plant Life History.

IIi:xi;v A. Miller, Scientific Assistant, Cereal Inrestigations.

Erxe'-'T B. Buowx, Sci<ntific Assistant, Plant Breeding.

I.r.sLiE A. Fit/., Scientific .\ssiKiant . Cereal Inrestigations.

LEiiXAltD L. Hartek. Scientific .[ssistant. Plant Breeding.

•Ii'iix (». MEitwix. Scientific .\ssistant. Plant Physiology.

W. W. C'oiiEV, Tobacco E.rpert .

.loHN VAX Leex.hoff, .Tr.. E.rpert.

^. .\RTHi"U Le Clerc,<" Physiological Chemist. Cereal- Inrestigations.

T. I). Beck with, Expert, Plant Physiology.

" Iteliiilod to Seed and Plant Introduction and Disti-ibuliou.
''Detailed to Biii-eau of Cii'm'strv.
■■ l)etailed from Bureau of Cl;emistry.

I.ETn^R OF TRAXSMITTAL.

U. S. Departimext of Agriculture,

Bureau of Plant Industry,

Office of the Chief,
Wasliiiif/fon, D. T., Man ^« ^^05.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a technical paper
entitled "' The Variability of Wheat Varieties in Resistance to Toxic
Salts,'' and to recommend that it be published as Bulletin Xo. TO of
the series of this Bureau.

This paper was prepared by Mr. L. L. Harter, Scientific Assistant
in the Laboratory of Plant Breeding, Vegetable Pathological and
Physiological Investigations, and was submitted b_v the Pathologist
and Physiologist with a view to publication. The subject-matter of
the !>ulletin will be of interest to experimenters who are working on
tlie problems of securing alkali-resistant strains of agricultural crops.
Respectfully,

B. T. (talloway.
Chief of Bureau.
Hon. James Wilson,

Secretary of Agriculture.

i

i

PREFACE.

The main object of the accompanyino- paper is to prove that differ-
ent varieties of a single species behave differently in the presence
of the harmful salts that are present in the so-called alkali soils of
the western United States. The work has been done with varieties
of wheat on account of the great importance of that crop in the
region indicated and because, being grown under a great diversity
of conditions as regards climate and soil, wheat varieties would be
exjoected to differ much among themselves in their power to with-
stand the effect of excessive amounts of salts in the soil, just as they
differ widely in their capability of withstanding drought, cold, and
parasites.

The experiments were made with young seedlings, their roots being
exposed for periods of twenty-four hours to the action of pure solu-
tions of the salts used, the greatest strength of solution in which
the root tips could survive being taken as representing the limit of
endurance of each variety to each salt. The salts used were the car-
l)onate, bicarbonate, sulphate, and ehlorid of sodium, and the sul-
phate and ehlorid of magnesium. These are salts that are generally
present in the largest quantity in alkali soils. Nine varieties of
wheat, both from the Old AVorld and the Xcav, representing widely
different climates and soils, were compared.

It was found that the varieties differed greatly in their ability to
withstand the poisonous action of the salts used. This was more
strikinfflv broui»"ht out in the case of some salts than of others. To
magnesium sulphate, for example, some varieties are three times
as resistant as are others. Tables are given in the following paper
showino- the limit of concentration of each of the nine varieties foi
each of the six salts. It was also clearly demonstrated that the dif-
ferent individuals of each variety differ much in resistance, and the
limits of the varieties as established are only the means of the limits
for all the individuals tested. Analyses of the ash of each lot of seed
used were obtained from the Bureau of Chemistry, but no correla-
tion could be shown between ash composition and resistance to action
of toxic salts. On the other hand, it was clearlv demonstrated that

C PREFACE.

with few exceptions tlie varieties that have orig'inated in arid regions,
Avhere the soils are usually more saline than in humid regions, are
those that are most resistant to pure solutions of sodium and magne-
sium salts. Three varieties of southeastern Eussia, with one excep-
tion, were found to be the most resistant of all those tested.
' It is believed that the laboratory work upon which this paper is
based has a direct practical bearing, as it gives us an indication of
what A'arieties are most likely to succeed in arid regions where the
soils are more or less salty. Furthermore, as some one salt — e. g.,
sodium chlorid — sometimes strongly predominates in the soils of a
particular region, and as these experiments show clearly that, while
one variety may be more resistant than another to sodium chlorid.
the second is often more resistant than the first to sodium carbonate
or to magnesium sulphate, we can thus obtain information as to
which of the many varieties of a great crop can be sown with the
best chance of success upon a given type of alkali soil. In other
words, a few weeks of simi)le lal)oratory experiment may save years
of costly trial in the field, although, of course, the water-culture exper-
iments can not be considered as giving more than an indication of
what we can expect each variety to do. and the final test must be the
growing of the crop upon a practical scale.

The great individual variability in resistance brought oiit in these
experiments shows that not merely have we found a guide as to which
of existing varieties are best adapted to diiferent types of saline
soils, but that there is an excellent opportunity for increasing their
resistance by selecting seed from the most resistant individuals.
The present investigation alfords further evidence that it is practi-
cable to apply plant-breeding methods to the " alkali problem "' and
adapt crops bj^^ selection to the unfavorable conditions presented by
soils that contain excessive amounts of soluble salts.

A. F. AVooDS,
Patholof/ist and Physiologist.

OFriCE OF Vegetable Pathological

AMD PlIYSIOLO<;i(AL INVESTIGATIONS,

Washington, D. 6'., April 26, 1005.

C X r 1: \ T S

Page.

Introduction 9

Salts used 11

A'arieties selected . : 11

Preston 12

Turkey 13

Zimmerman ..- 13

Kharkof 14

Padui -. 14

Chul . 14

Budapest . . 1 o

Kubanka . 15

Maraouani . 16

Methods of experiments ... 16

Method of establishing the toxic limits _ 21

Results of experiments 23

With magnesium sulphate 23

With magnesium chlorid 25

With sodium carbonate 27

With sodium bicarbonate 28

With sodiiim snl])hate _ 30

With sodium chlorid- . .. 32

Summary of tables 34

Comparison of results with different species _ . . 35

Ash analyses . . _ • _ 37-

Individual variability 37

Neutralizing effect of the salts employed upon other toxic substances 39

Dilute solutions as stimulants 42

Practical value of results 44

Summary _ . 45

Bibliography 47

X

i

B. r. I.— 159.

V. p. r. T. — in4.

THE VARIABILITY OF WHEAT VARIETIES IN
RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

INTRODUCTION.

It has been shown quite conchisively in recent years that different
species and genera differ very much in their ability to resist the influ-
ence of toxic salt solutions. Numerous investigations of the action
of acids and salts upon plants have been made, especially during the
last four or five years. In\'estigations of this nature are not only of
great scientific interest, l)ut promise in some cases to be of consider-
able practical importance. One phase of this subject which is espe-
cially interesting from this latter point of view is that of the relation
of plants, particularly cultivated plants, to the components of the
saline or alkaline soils that are so common in the arid part of the
United States and of many other parts of the world.

A preliminary investigation of this phase of the subject was made
by Messrs. Kearney and Cameron," Avho showed by a large number of
experiments on LupiuK^ albus and Medtcago satioa that the death
limit of the root tips was very different for different salts. For
instance, the limit for Liipinus alhiis in sodium chlorid was found to
V)e 0.02 of a normal solution, and in magnesium sulphate 0.00125.
For Medicago sativa, in mixed solutions containing an excess of two
calcium salts, the limit was 0.35 in magnesium sulphate and 0.20 in
sodium chloi'id.''

Much work has been done in comparing different botanical species
as to their resistance to the effect of salt solutions,'' but the compara-

a Report No. 71, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture (1902).

^ Messrs. KalilenlKH-g and True, who have done considoraI)le work along this
lino, particailarly with salts and acids, give some very interesting results. They
loiuid (On the Toxic Action of Dissolved Salts and Their Electrolytic Dissocia-
tion. Bot. Gaz., 22:81, 180(5) that Liiphius alhus would just survive in -^^1^^^
gram mol. per liter of copper salts. They found the same limits with ferrous
suli)hate (FeS04). nickel sulphate (NiSOJ, and cohalt sulphate (CoSOJ, but
for mercuric chlorid (HgCU) y^loo, '"^^l mercuric cyanid (HgCn„) only

'■The experiments of Heald (On the Toxic Effect of Dilute Solutions of Acids
and Salts upon Plants, Bot. (Jaz., 22: 12."). 1S'.)(>), and later those of Moore and
Kellerman, are among the most interesting in this connection.

Ileald, in a series of experiments resembling those of Kahlenberg and True,
obtained some valuable results with CuviirhUa pcpo, Zca nicu/s; and Pisuin •sail-
30012— No. 7U— 05 m 2 9

10 WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

tive resistance of tliit'ereiit varieties, or races, of a single species has
received little attention.'^

During the autumn of lOO)), and again in 1004, the writer had occa-
sion to re})eat. at tlie Departiucnt of Agriculture. AVashington, I). C.
the experiments previously conducted b}^ Kearne}^ and Cameron wiOi

nnii. lie foiuid tlie limit of /'ixiiiii .■^ulinnii to be -^jIq-q gram mol. per liter for
copper suli»li!ite (CuSOJ as the strengtli wbit-h will barely ]H'riuit the roots to
Hve, and that for Zca viuiix to be osooo- I^*^' ohtained results with various
salts, but this will sulHce to show the variability between plnuts widely sep-
arated in relationshi]).

Moore and Kellermun (A ]\Iethod of Destroying or Preventing the Growth of
Algte and Certain Pathogenic P>acteria in "Water Sup])lies, lUil. VA. P>ureau of
Plant Industry, U. S. Department of Agriculture, T.Xi-t) say:

In dealing with alga- the toxic concentration varies greatly for different gen-
era, even for different species of the same genus. Niigeli demonstrated the
extreme sensitiveness of iiplroiiijia iiitida and >S. dubiu to the presence of copper
coins ill the water. Oscillatorhi. Chidopliora, (Edogoiinun, and the diatoms
succumb in six hours to a copper-sulphate solution of 1 to 20,000 and in two
days to 1 to 50,000 according to I'okorny. * * ■■' According to Ono, weak
solutions of the salts of most of the metals encourage the growth of alga^ and
fungi. Mercury and copper, however, at O.OOdO.") jier cent and O.OOCOl jier cent,
respectively, distinctly inhibit growth. This was the <-ase with !<li<ir(jcl(iniiiiii,
Chroococciis, and Protorovvn^.

Moore and Kellerman have obtained results with a.lga' which serve very well
to illustrate the variability of these organisms in the presence of the toxic cop-
per sulphate. They found that with tliis salt 1 to 25,000, 1 to 75,000, and 1 to
100,000 were sutHcient to kill RapJiiditim pulj/iiioi-pliKiii in four days. DesjuidinDi
{iirartzii in three days, and Xaricnla sp. in live days, respectively. One part
of salt to .'500,000 of water and 1 to l.OOO.OOO were f.atal to Coiifcrni hoiiihi/ciiium
in three days and »V//;/»r(/ itvcUa in a few minutes. Clostcriinn iiioiiilifo-iini was
killed in four days in a 1 to .500,000 solution, and Aiiulxniu /loK-atjiiir in a 1 to
0,000,000 solution in seventy-two hours. The most sensitive of all was i ioi/Iciki
(unericaiia, practically all of which were killed in a 1 to 10,000,000 solution in
sixteen hours.

o J. F. Breazeale informs the writer that in water-cultui'e ex])erinients in
the laboratory of the I>ure;ui of Soils. United States Department of Agriculture,
he has found a very wide variation in the development of seedlings of different
varieties of wheat when grown in the same artificial nutrient solutions and also
aqueous extracts of soil, and W. II. Ileileman. in the same laboratory, has shown
very similar results to those i)resented in this investigation when using different
varieties of wheat in i)ot cultures of natural and artificial alkali soils. It has
also been shown that the vig(n' and rate of gernunation of seeds of different
varieties are very different when previously soaked in any given solution of an
electrolyte.

Cameron and Breazeale (The Toxic Action of Acids and Salts on Seedlings,
Journal Phys. Chem.. vol. S. No. 1, p. 1, Jan., 1904) have shown ;i wide varia-
tion in the toxic action of different salts and acids on seedlings of plants widely
separated in relationship.

From certain ])oints of view, especially as bearing on current chemical theo-
ries, the paper of Dandeno (American Journal of Science, Vol. XVII, June,
1904) in this field is especially interesting, but a direct comparison of results
in toxic salt solutions can not be made, owing to the fact that seedlings of differ-
ent plants have been used.

VARIETIES SELECTED. 1 1

LupiiiiuH alhu.s. Although the order of toxicity of the various saUs
leninined the same in the three series of experinieuts, quite diill^'ereiit
limits of endurance Avere obtained, those in the first series made l)v
the Avriter being nuich higher than those obtained hy Kearney and
Cameron and by the writer in his second series. The idea Avas at
once suggested by these results that while possibly the second lot of
seed may have dilfered only in bein.g younger or otherwise more
vigorous it was also possible that different varieties or even merely
straius from different sources of the same species might differ con-
siderably in their power to resist toxic salt solutions. It Avas there-
fore -Avitli a vieAv of determining Avhether or not this Avas true that
the series of experiments Avhich forms the subject of this ]-)a]i(>r Avas
undertaken Avith difi'ereut varieties of AA'heat.

Attention should be directed at the outset to an important condi-
tion under which this AAork Avas carried on. Most of the Avork of
this kind has been conducted Avith comparatively few seedlings. But
indi\idual variation in resistance is Avell knoAvn to be exceedinsrlA'
great, and enough seedlings must be tested to eliminate all such differ-
ences. The a\'erage of the resistances of a large luimber of seedlings
nnist be ascertained. The Avriter has in every case used from 50 to
100 seedlings, and more in some cases, the number tested being con-
sidered sufficiently large to eliminate indiAndual variation and give
fairly consistent results. The total number of seeds cxi^erimented
Avith aggregated nearly 5,000.

The Avork, the results of Avhicli are shoAvn in this paper, Avas taken
up at the suggestion of ]Mr. Thomas H. Kearney^ Physiologist, of the
Laboratory of Plant Breeding of the Department of Agriculture.

SALTS USED.

It Avas decided to employ the same salts used by Kearney aud
Cameron in their Avork Avith Lupin.us alhus, i. e., sodium chlorid
(XaCl), sodium sulphate (Xa.SOj), sodium carbonate (Na.COo),
sodium bicarbonate (NallCOa), magnesium sulphate (MgSO^), and
magnesium chlorid (jNIgCL). A basis for direct conq^arison is thus
ol)tained. It Avas thought best to use these salts, also, because of their
counnou occurrence in saline soils, and their tendency, in a greater
or less degree, to inhibit A'egetable groAvth.

VARIETIES SELECTED.

The selection of the A'arieties of Avheat to l)e used in this Avork has
not beeri an easy matter, there being a number of details to consider
in making the choice. To prove Avhether there is a difference in the
])<)\ver of different varieties of the same species to resist the action
of toxic salt solutions it Avas decided to use A'arieties representing A'ery

12 WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

diti'erciit conditions of climate and soil, and selections Avere made,
Avith the aid of Mr. M. A. Carleton, Cerealist of the Bureau of Plant
Indnstrv, with this end in view. All conditions under which Avheat
is grown are not, of course, represented. AVheat is raised in nearly
every portion of the temperate zone and under as diverse conditions
of soil and climate as could well l)e imagined. An attempt has
been made, however, to obtain varieties representative of the regions
presenting the greatest contrast in these respects. Cerealists have
discovered that wheats well adapted to a humid region will not thrive
in an arid or semiarid region, nor will varieties that are best adapted
to the latter conditions thrive in a humid environment. Varieties
representing each of these different climatic types were used in the
experiments. Unquestionably the soils of the various regions from
Avhich the seeds were obtained differed chemically to a great extent,
but in most cases data as to soil composition were not obtainable.
The influence of climatic and soil factors is complicated by the fact
that seeds are often transferred from one region to another. For
example, a certain variety might have been grown for a nimiber of
years in strongh' saline soil to Avhich it has become thoroughly
adapted, and then transferred to a semiarid region and a soil con-
taining less salt. AVere the seed procured from the iicav region
soon after the transfer, while the variety was not yet adapted
to the new conditions, probably it would still show the high degree
of resistance acquired under the former conditions. In some cases
it was possible to learn the exact history, for several generations^ of
the seed used, but in others it Avas impossible to obtain such definite
information. To meet the conditions of the experiments it was
thought advisable to select varieties from regions widely separated
geographically. Therefore, one variety from Africa, two from
Euroi)e, one from Asia, and six from America were obtained. Two
of the varieties are durum wheats and consequently of a different
species ; the rest are soft grained.

The following descriptions of the individual varieties- will render
more intelligible the conditions under which they grew originall}':

PRESTON.

Tlie variety of wheat known as Preston (Tritieum indgarc) is a
hybrid, i:)roduced by Dr. AVilliam Saunders, of the agricultural ex-
periment station at Ottawa, Canada. In the spring of 18S8 Doctor
Saunders crossed the varieties Red Fife and Ladoga, obtaining a new
sort, which was called Preston. Red Fife was taken as the male and
Ladoga as the female jiarent. The progeny, he says, resembles some-
what both parents. The grain is very much like Red Fife. Both the
parent varieties are well established in that ^y^vi of Canada and were

VARIETIES SELECTED. 13

grown there with great success for many years previous to the origin
of this hybrid. Preston has proved to be a better variety than either
of its parents, both in yiekl and in range of adaptability- The region
in Avhich its parent varieties grow is very humid. Doctor Saunders
chiinis that Preston ripens its grain from three to four days earlier
than either of its parents. In view of this fact it is reasonable to con-
clude that it is better adapted to regions having diminished rainfall
during the latter part of the season, and experience has justified the
conclusion. Preston has given the best results of all the spring
wheats introduced into the Northwest. It is to-day grown success-
fully in the southern part of Canada and in a part of the United
States that includes North Dakota, eastern Montana, Minnesota,
South Dakota, and Wisconsin."

TURKEY.

Turkey Avheat {Triticiim vvlgare) is considered the hardiest vari-
ety grown at the present time in the United States. It is a bearded
sort, with white chaff, small head, and red grain. It is especially
Avell adapted to semiarid regions, as is readily seen from the region
in which it is grown. This variety was introduced into Kansas
about twenty-five years ago. For a while it was confined to a small
district of that State, but during the past twelve or fifteen years its
excellent (puility has become generally known, and consequently it
is grown on a much larger area. It came originally from Crimea
and other i)ortions of Taurida, in southern Russia. That country
does not differ greatlv from the section of the United States in which
the variety has given such good results. Though it is not a variety
giving unusually heavy yields, it is well adapted to resist droughts
and may be depended upon for a greater average yield than any other
variety grown in Kansas. It ripens rather early, and thus escapes
the excessive droughts which frequently prevail during the latter
part of the wheat season in that district. It is especially adapted
to the Great Plains region, including, roughly, Kansas, Okhthoma,
southern Nebraska, southern Iowa, northern Texas, and portions of
Missouri and Arkansas.''

ZIMMERMAN.

The variety known as Zimmerman {Triticum indgarc) is grown
to some extent in the same region as the one just described. How-
ever, it has a number of essential points of difference and some char-

n Dr. William Saunders, Cereals and Root Crops, Ottawa, Canada. 1902.

'' Carlcton. M. A.. Basis for the Tniiirovcnient of American Wheats. Bui. 24.
L)ivisi()n of Vegetahle Physiology and I'athology, U. S. Department of Agricul-
ture, 1900.

14 WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXTC SALTS.

acteristics that make it preferable for the experiments described here.
As a whole, it is inferior to the Turkey wheat, being less resistant to
drought, and it is grown principality in regions which have a greater
annual rainfall. Zimmerman wheat has two good qualities to rec-
ommend it — it is l)eardless and ripens from four days to a week ear-
lier than other varieties in the same locality. It is a fairly hardy
sort, and is as resistant as the average variety to the cold of severe
winters. It is best adapted for cultivation in southern Kansas,
Oklahoma, northern Texas, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkan-
sas, and farther southw-ard. This region has a much larger annual
rainfall than the one inhal)ited by the Turkey variety, with the
exception of the States in common— Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.

KHARKOr.

The seed used of the Kharkof variety of wheat {Triticvm rnlgare)
w\as obtained by the United States Department of Agriculture from
the Agricultural Society of Kharkof, Russia, in the Starobielsk
district. Kharkof is in the southern part of Russia, about oOO miles
north of the Black Sea and about 350 miles west of the Volga River.
The winters are very dry and at no season of the 3^ear is the rainfall
great. Kharkof is a red-bearded, hardy winter wheat. The seed
was obtained from the crop grown in Russia during the season of
1902.

PADUI.

Seed of the Padui variety {Trit'inim riiJf/are) was obtained from
Saratof, in eastern Russia. Saratof is located on the Volga River,
about 100 miles from its outlet into the Caspian Sea. Padui is a
soft or semihard winter wheat, and is adapted to all northern winter-
wheat States from Xew York to Kansas and southward to the thirty-
fifth parallel. The seed with which these tests have been made was
imported directly from Russia. Padui is very resistant to drought,
the rainfall in the region where it is grown falling as low as 12 to
15 inches per annmn. This variety is cultivated to some extent in
the same region as Kul)anka (descril^ed later), and, therefore, is sul)-
iected to the same climate and probably to the same soil conditions.

CHUL.

Dr. PI A. Bessey describes the conditions under which the Chul
variety {Tritieum vvlgare) is grown in Turkestan and in the south-
ern part of central Asia, about Samarkand. It is found more or
less in this whole steppe region, from which it derives its name,
Chul meaning steppes. It is a hard grain and grows without irri-
gation, vields two harvests, and can be sown as either winter or

VARIETIES SELECTED. 15

spniiii- wheat. The seed for these experiments was obtained by
Doctor liessey for the Department of Agriculture from its native
country, being taken from the crop of 1902.

BUDAPEST.

The variety Ivuown as Budapest {TriticKm imlgare) is one of the
hard winter wheats imported originally from Hungary. It is noAV
grown in Michigan and adjoining States with great success. Of
all the varieties imported from Hungary, Budapest has proved the
best. It is Avell suited for cultivation in the North Central States,
including ^Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, western Xew York,
Kentucky, and perhai)s farther south. It is a bearded wheat, with
white chaff and red, medium hard grain. It is a success only in
regions with a fairly large rainfall.

KUBANKA.

The two varieties of durum wheat {Tritlciim dufui/i), Kubanka
and Maraouani, were selected outside of the species vvlgare in order
to find types grown under extremely arid conditions. The seed of
Kubanka was obtained originally from Russia. The seed used was
of the fourth generation grown in the United States and should
show something of the effect of soil and climatic conditions here,
provided these differ essentiall}^ from those of the country where it
originated. Four years is doubtless sufficient time to acclimatize the
variety fairly well. Kubanka is grown in an extensive area of
eastern Europe and western Asia, especially along the Volga River.
The best Kubanka is found east of the Volga, on the border of the
Kirghiz Steppe. It is about the oi\\y variety found along the Sibe-
rian border, where it is impossible to grow any ordinary sort because
of drought, and is grown extensively by the Turgai and Kirghiz
people. The rainfall over this whole region often does not exceed 10
inches per annum. The Kubanka variety matures veiy quickl}^, an
absolute necessity in a region where the rainfall is very slight and
often confined to a small part of the year. Because it is drought-
resistant and matures early it is now being grown throughout the
Volga territory from Kazan to the Caspian Sea and east to the
Kirghiz Steppe and Turkestan. It is a macaroni wheat, and takes
its name from Kuban territory. In this country it is best adapted
for the northern plains region as far south as Kansas.

There is little doubt that the varieties Kubanka and Padui, in some
regions at least, grow on soil containing considerable salt. Both
varieties have become well adapted to the region just north of the
Caspian Sea along the Volga liiver. Here salt abounds in great
<iuantities. West of the Volga and about 100 miles from tlie Caspian

16 WHEAT KESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

Sea is a great salt marsh covering a considerable area. On the other
side of the river, for a couple of hundred miles along its course, there
are both salt marshes and lakes. The great Khaki salt marsh along
the borders of the Kirghiz Steppe covers several hundred square
miles. Northward and westward from this marsh there is a series
of small salt lakes, the largest of which is Elton Salt Lake. It
would naturally be expected that in a region with such extensive
salt marshes and lakes the arable soil would likewise contain a large
proportion of salt.

MARAOUANI.

The Maraouani variety of durum winter wheat {Tritkuni durmn)
has been grown in northern Africa probably for centuries. As far as
can be ascertained, it originated there and has long been one of the
most valuable sorts of that country. The seed used in these experi-
ments came directly from the Cheliff Valley, an arid region with
very little rainfall, in the western part of Algeria. The wheat land
there is cultivated for the most part Avithout irrigation. The soil is
largely a heavy clay loam, and probably contains in nearly all sec-
tions a more or less excessive amount of readily soluble salts. Mara-
ouani is very hardy, is resistant to rusts, and has the reputation of
being the best of the durum Avheats now grown in that region. In
the Department of Oran it is most successful when sown in Novem-
ber; it then matures about June. It is thought by expert cerealists
that this variety would succeed well in the spring-wheat regions of
the northern United States and as a winter wheat in the Southwest.

METHODS OF EXPERIMENTS.

Wheat seeds are small compared with lui)ines, beans, peas, etc.,
Avith Avhich most of the work of other experimenters has been done.
The rootlets of the Avheat seedlings are so small that at first it was
feared that some difficulty would be experienced in marking off the
rapidly growing zone with india ink, the readiest method for accu-
rate determination of the death point. In view of this difficulty the
work was begun Avithout marking. It required but a fcAV trials, hoAV-
ever, to proA^e that it Avould be practicallv impossible to obtain satis-
factory results in such a Avay. Wheat rootlets have a hard surface
and do not become flaccid in salt solutions unless these are of a con-
centration much beyond the toxic limit, in Avhich case the roots be-
come yelloAV and the cells somcAvhat broken doAvn. HoAvever, one
or two attempts at marking shoAved that Avith a little practice and
care this could be effected Avithout inflicting any injury. By ruptur-
ing the epidermis A^ery slightly a sufficiently conspicuous mark, Avhich
Avill last forty-eight to seventy-two hours, can be made Avithout injury
to the roots.

METHODS OF EXPERIMENTS. l7

The seeds were put in spliagiiiuu moss finely broken up and kept
sufficiently moist to preclude lateral branching or superfluous devel-
opment of root hairs. They germinate readily in about forty-eight
to seventy-two hours at an ordinary room temperature. The rootlets
and leaves make their appearance almost at the same time. The
number of roots varies Avitli the variety, but is usually from three to
seven. Three is the average number, five is rather connnon, and
seven not very rare. Only one root of each seedling was marked.
The initial or central one was always preferred when otherwise fit
for the purjjose. IIoAvever, it was found after a large number of
tests that the central one was most likely to become deformed Avhile
in the sphagnum moss, the tips becoming enlarged and blunt, in which
case the root soon ceases to grow. When this happened side roots
were preferred for marking. Rootlets which are smooth and uniform
in thickness, with a ratlier sharp point, are most vigorous and give
best results. Only experience in this work can teach one which of
several roots is preferable for marking. The seeds Avere taken from
the moss, nuirked, and transferred quickly to the solution. Care was
taken in every way possible to avoid change of conditions during the
process of. making. These details will be discussed more fully in
another part of this paper.

The solutions during the period of experiment were kept in the best
nonsoluble beakers that could be obtained, each being large enough
to hold about 300 c. c. After the solutions had been used once or
twice" the glassware was thoroughly rinsed in distilled water before
being used for the next test. Nearly every other day the beakers were
thoroughly sterilized l)y boiling in distilled water. The beaker
used is about ^ cm. wide at the mouth, and Avas closed by a tight-
fitting cork about 1 cm. in thickness. Each cork Avas perforated,
and into the holes Hxe small glass rods Avere inserted, bent at one
end, and draAvn to a sharp point. The rods Avere inserted with their
hooked points on the inner side of the cork, and upon each a single
seed Avas placed. The rods, as Avell as the corks, fit tightly and thus
prevent any important amount of evaporation from the solution.
They are free enough, hoAVCA^er, to permit of the rods being raised or
lowered in or out of the solution as occasion may demand. Tn no
case were the glass rods alloAved to come in contact Avith the solution.

Normal solutions, made Avith Merck's best chemically pure salts,
Avere prepared under the supervision of Dr. F. K. Cameron, of the
Bureau of Soils of the Department of Agriculture, From the nor-

o Careful titration showed no appreciable change in the concentration of the
solution after several seedlings had been kept in it for twenty-four hours, or
even when the same volume was used during a second period of twenty-four
hours.

30012— No. 79—05 M 3

18 WHEAT EESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

mal solutions stock solutions Avere made up by dilution, and Avere
kept for use as recpiired. T\w solutions actually used in the experi-
ments were made from the stock solutions by diluting Avith distilled
Avater, It might seem at first that two successive dilutions would
permit of an error. This, however, has been avoided in the case
of chlorids and carbonates by titrating each stock solution before
using. The concentration of the solutions of sulphates was fre-
quently verified by analysis in the Bureau of Soils. Sodium car-
bonate and sodium bicarbonate were both titrated against N/20
hydrogen potassium sulphate, using methyl orange as an indicator.
In the case of the bicarbonate solutions it Avas necessary to charge
them Avith an excess of carbon dioxid to preA^ent their becoming
alkaline. The nonalkalinity of the bicarbonate solutions Avas often
tested by the addition of a dro]) of alcoholic phenolphthalein, Avhich
Avould indicate the presence of alkalis by forming the Aveli-knoAvn red
color. Sodium chlorid and magnesium chlorid Avere titrated against
N/10 of sih^er nitrate. WheneA^er, upon titration, any stock solu-
tion Avas found to be either too dilute or too concentrated, it Avas cor-
rected by the addition of more of the normal solution or by further
dilution Avith distilled Avater. The Avater used in these exjDeriments
Avas distilled in the Laboratory of Plant Pathology, and near the
close of the Avork Avas found by analysis in the Bureau of Chemistry
to contain some slight amount of a toxic substance. That this Avas
for all practical purposes neutralized and played no part in the
toxic action of the solutions used is demonstrated in the fuller dis-
cussion of this point on page 39 of this paper.

All seeds for these experiments Avere germinated in sphagnum moss.
After being finely broken uj) the moss was placed in a bucket and
kept sufficiently moist for seed germination. It Avas found that the
seedlings Avere injured if kept too moist, the roots shoAving an en-
largement at the apex, developing into a very blunt tip, and Avhen
aifected in this Avay they usually stopped groAving and ncAv roots Avere
put forth. The initial radicle Avas more easily aifected in this Avay.
Only seedlings having healthy and vigorous rootlets Avere used in the
experiments. The seeds Avere first soaked in hydrant Avater from four
to six hours before being placed in the sphagnum moss. After about
three days in the temperature of an ordinary room they Avere ready
for use. They Avere most easily manipulated when the radicles Avere
from three to four centimeters long. The root itself might Avell be
longer, but the apical bud appears almost at the same time as the root,
and Avhen more than one or tAvo centimeters long interferes with easy
adjustment in the beakers. It was sometimes necessary to pinch off
the ends of the leaA^es, a practice which in ho Avay interfered with the
development of the rootlets. AMien the radicles had reached the
length mentioned aboA^e, the seedlings Avere taken out of the sphag-

METHODS OF EXPERIMENTS. 19

mini ;ind placed in Iseakers containing the solution, the tips of the
roots heiiiii- iinmersed in the liquid. One rootlet of each seedling was
marked with India ink 15 mm. from the apex, Avhich should include
])ractically all of the rapidly growing zone. The amount of elonga-
tion during a given period could thus be determined, and this is the
best means of knowing whether the root has been actually killed.
Unless the concentration of the solution be far above the toxic limit
the root does not become flaccid, as is the case with lupines and some
other seedlings. After the roots were marked with iiidia ink the seeds
were carefully hooked on to the glass rods prepared for that i:)uri)Ose.
As much of the root was immersed in the solution as was possible
Avithout allowing the seeds or rods to come in contact with the liquid.
In all cases the entire length of the marked zone was immersed. The
length of the portion of the root in the solution depended, of course,
upon the total length of the root. It might at first glance seem that a
variation in this respect could alfect the result of the experiment, some
roots having a larger surface exposed to the solution than others ; but
it is believed that the large number of seedlings used in each experi-
ment practically eliminated this source of error.

All cultures were left in the solution twenty-four hours, when they
were taken up and the amount of elongation of the marked portion of
the root was measured and recorded. They were then transferred to
a beaker containing hydrant water and allowed to remain there for
another twenty-four hours, when tlie^y were taken up and the elonga-
tion again measured. The radicles Avhich made an additional growth
the second twentv-four hours in the hvdrant Avater over the growth in
the first twenty-four hours in the salt solution were considered to have
survived in the solution and were thus recorded. Those making no
additional growth the second twenty-four hours were considered dead
and recorded in this way. Coupin and others have intimated that
twenty-four hours is not sufficient to kill the plant. This objection is
set aside by the consideration that only the death of the apex of th(5
root is regarded in these experiments and not the point at which the
whole plant succumbs. The object of this work is merely one of com-
parison of the effect of a solution of given concentration, during a
definite period of time, upon different varieties. Whether this effect
is expressed in the death of the whole plant or only that of a single
organ is immaterial.

Control experiments Avere carried on every day, one in hydrant
water and one in distilled water, both under conditions identical
with those in the salt solutions. The results in hydrant water have
been uniform from day to day and in only a few cases were they
proved unsatisfactory. In such cases the whole series was discarded,
the inference being that some unfavorable condition (of temperature,
for example) had interfered.

20 WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

A word as to the conditions of illumination and temperature during
the experiments will not he out of place at this point. When in
solutions the roots were exposed to the liaht (hu-inu- the day. When
in the salt solutions during the first 24 hours they were kept on a
shelf in the rear of a room with northern exposure only. When in
hydrant Avater during the second 24 hours they were kept on a table
at the window, under a moderately strong light. Preliminary experi-
ments were made when commencing the Avork Avith lupines, which
showed that the strength of the light, at least within the limits in-
voh^ed in these experiments, had no influence on the growth of the
roots. Of three series of cultures, all in a solution of the same salt
at the same concentration, one was placed in total darkness, another
in subdued light, and a third in bright light. Otherwise they were
under the same conditions. The elongation of the roots was meas-
ured at the end of 24 hours and there AAas no appreciable dilferen'ce
in the three sets of cultures.

It was impossible to keep a uniform temperature in the laboratory
during the Avinter months, though this factor did not vary enough
in either direction to cause any injury in germination or to the roots
in the solution. A thermograph Avas kept running in the room, and
a review of the records shoAvs no temperature below 18° or above
30° C. The average temperature during the experiments was about
23° C. When making the experiments Avith illumination referred to
above, similar ones Avere made to determine the influence of tempera-
ture upon the roots. The three different series of cultures (all in
the same salt solution, at the same concentration) Avere exposed for
24 hours to temperatures of 10°, 20°, and 30° C, respectively.
Results shoAved that the roots that had been exposed to a temperature
of 20° and 30° C. shoAved about the same elongation, Avhile the elonga-
tion in a temperature of 10° C. Avas somcAvhat less.

All solutions Avere made Avith water distilled from ordinary hydrant
Avater. The receiver of the still is a porcelain tub and has been used
for several years in the Laboratory of Plant Pathology of the Bureau
of Plant Industry. At times the distilled Avater may have contained
some slight traces of ammonia and doubtless some other imi)urities.
An analysis of the Avater Avas made in the Bureau of Chemistry, and it
was found to contain, in parts per million —

Zinc Ti'ace.

Free ammonia 0. V2o

Albuminoids • ^^^

Nitrates ^one-

Nitrites Faint traces.

Total solids (consisting of calcium, sodium, carbonates,, sul-
phates, and chlorids) '•'•4

A further discussion of the water used will be found on page 39.

ESTABLISHING THE TOXIC LIMITS. 21

METHOD OF ESTABLISHING THE TOXIC LIMITS.

Before going into details of the results obtained in the simple
solutions, the methods of determining- the limits of endurance of each
variety to each salt will be explained. At one time the writer had
thought of fixing the limit of endurance in toxic salt solutions at the
concentration in which none of the marked radicles would survive at
the end of twenty-four hours. A few experiments, however, showed
that this was not the proper method, for occasionally one of the root-
lets would be sound and healthy at the end of twenty-four hours in a
concentration far above that which would permit the roots of a
majority of the plants to survive. In other words, individual varia-
tion plays such an important part that the strength of a solution
which would permit no root tips to survive would be far above that
representing the limit of endurance for the variety as a whole.
Attention is thus once more directed to the fact that results obtained
from a few individuals are as a rule very inaccurate and unreliable.
The characters of a variety (and resistance to toxic effects is one of its
characters) are the mean of those of the whole number of individuals
composing it. Of course all the individuals of a variety can not be
examined, Init the number of seedlings experimented with should
be large enough to overcome the effect of marked individual varia-
tion. It was this consideration that urged the writer to make such
a large number of tests. On the other hand, a concentration Avhich
would just permit all root tips to survive would not represent the
general limit for the variety because of those few individuals Avhich
are far inferior to the average in their ability to resist toxic salt
solutions. The limit of endurance for the mean of the largest pos-
sible number of individuals is the end sought.

After consideration, it seemed that the most perfect idea of the
limit for each variety could be obtained by taking the concentration
in which about half the seeds survived and about half died. For
instance, if 60 seeds were tested in a 0.01 normal solution of magne-
sium sulphate and 30 survived and 30 died, the toxic limit would be
represented by that concentration. Of course it was seldom possible;
to secure such an equal division, but a slight excess one w^ay or the
other would not materialh' alter the results. In practice it was,
furthermore, often found expedient to take the mean of the concen-
trations actually tested as representing the toxic limit.

To illustrate: The roots were often found dead in a 0.01 normal
solution of magnesium chlorid, and alive in a 0.007;') normal. The
aj)proximate toxic limit was fixed at the concentration intermediate
between these two, although no solutions intei-mediate in concentra-
tiou between 0.01 and 0.0075 of a normal solution were actually
made up.

9,^ WTTEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

The writer does not claim that the limits thus fixed are absolute,
but lie believes that further experiments would change them very
little. To obtain absolutely exact results it would be necessary to
employ an indefinite number of solutions of intermediate concentra-
tion, and to make tests with a very large numl)er of seedlings. The
results recorded here, it is safe to assume, will answer all practical
purposes. The different sti'engths of solution of the same salt- dif-
fered from each other by 0.005 of a normal solution for sodium
chlorid, sodium sulphate, and sodium bicarbonate, and by 0.0025 of
a normal solution for sodium carbonate, magnesium sulphate, and
magnesium chlorid. That is to say, experiments were made with
solutions of a concentration of 0.015, 0.01. 0.005, etc., for sodijim
chlorid, sodium sulphate, and sodium bicarbonate, and of a concen-
tration of 0.01, 0.0075, 0.0025, etc., for magnesium chlorid, magne-
sium sulphate, and sodium carbonate, intermediate concentrations
being disregarded in practice.

As mentioned earlier in this paper, the death point was determined
largely by the elongation of the roots beyond the point 15 mm. from
the tip, marked off by india ink. If the roots showed no additional
elongation the second 24 hours in hydrant water, they were considered
dead. In some cases, however, it has been possible to determine this
point by other means.

In the case of the two magnesium salts a solution of a concentra-
tion considerably above the limit lilackens about 1 or 2 millimeters
of the root tip, and often causes the end of the root to bend in the
shape of a hook. An appearance of this kind is conclusive evidence
that the solution is much too concentrated. Both sodium carbonate
and sodium bicarbonate in very strong solution cause a yellowing
of the whole body of the root in the solution, and more or less loss
of turgor, due, doubtless, to plasmolysis. It is very seldom that
rootlets which show that condition at the end of twenty-four hours
in the solution will revive when placed in hydrant Avater.

To make the results herein contained exactly comparable with those
furnished by Kearney and Cameron from their studies on lupines,
the toxic limits are given in this paper both in fractions of a
normal solution and in parts of salt per 100,000 of solution. In
addition, the mean of the limits of all the varieties is given under
each salt, so that a glance will show how much above or below this
point any particular variety may be in regard to each salt used.

The salts have been found harmful in ])ure solutions in about the
order in which they follow each other in the succeeding jiart of this
report — that is. sodium sulphate is less harmful than sodium chlorid
when both aiv in equivalent concentration, and magnesium sulphate
is more harmful than sodium bicarbonate when in the same jiro-

RESULTS 01' EXPERIMEKTS.

23

portion. A concentration of 0.0075 normal magnesium sulphate
usually produces about the same effect as 0.025 sodium bicarbonate.
Therefore one would say that magnesium sulphate is three times as
injurious as sodium bicarbonate when in equivalent concentration.

RESTJLTS OF EXPERIMENTS.
RESULTS WITH MAGNESIUM SULPHATE.

The results obtained for the different varieties with pure solutions
of magnesium sulphate are shown by the following table:

Maximum limit of
endurance.

Name of wheat variety.

Parts per
100,00()uf
solution.

Zimmerman-

Kharkof

Padui -

Kubanka _

Turkey -.

Maraouani - _

Budapest

Preston ._

Chul

Average for all varieties. -

42
25
43
42
56
42
56
28

40

Fractional

part of a

normal

solution.

0.00V5
.00625
.0075
.0075
.01
.0075
.01
.005
.005

.00786

A glance at the aboA^e table is sufficient to show the considerable
difference between the varieties in their ability to resist the toxic
influence of magnesium sulphate. The least resistant of all the
varieties are Chul and Preston, of which about half the seedlings sur-
vived in a 0.005 normal solution. Contrasted to these are the two
most resistant ones, viz, Budapest and Turkey, surviving equally well
in a solution twice as concentrated.

A comparison of these results with wheat with those obtained by
Kearney and Cameron using Lupinus alhus with the same salt will
show the great diversity between these two plants. The toxic limit
for lupines in a })ure solution was found to be 0.00125 of a normal
solution. Accepting the results shown by these figures, magnesium
sulphate is four times as toxic to lupines as it is to the Chul and Pres-
ton wheats, and eight times as toxic as for the Budapest and Turkey
varieties. It may be said in this connection that irom experiments
made by Kearney" with maize there is reason to believe that the
Graminea^ as a family are much less sensitive to the effect of magne-
sium salts than the Leguminosa}. Magnesium sulphate has been
found in the course of these experiments with Avheat to be on an

n Science. X. S., IT : P.SG (100.3).

24 WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

average much the most toxic of the salts used. It was the most injuri-
ous in every case except in two instances, in one of which sodium
carbonate and in the other magnesium clik)rid proved more toxic.
It required a sohition of magnesium sulpliate twice as concentrated
as that of sodium carbonate to be equally toxic to the Budapest
variety, the limits in this case being 0.01 normal magnesium sulphate
and 0.005 normal sodium carbonate. The other instance referred to
is not so marked. Magnesium chlorid is found to be somewhat more
toxic than magnesium sulphate for one variety — Turkey — the limits
being for magnesium chlorid 0.0075 normal and for magnesium
sulpliate 0.01 iu)rmal.

Comparing the average toxic limit for each salt, as stated in the
tables that follow, magnesium sulphate is one and two-sevenths times
!js injurious as magnesium chlorid, one and tliree-sevenths times as
injurious as sodium carbonate, three and hve-sevenths times as inju-
rious as sodimn bicarbonate, little more than six times as toxic as
sodium sulphate, and seven and five-sevenths times as injurious as
sodium chlorid.

Magnesium sulphate in the soil is not considered injurious to am'
appreciable extent, but this is no doubt due to the neutralizing effect
of other salts with which it is associated. Kearney and Cameron,
in their experiments on Lnp/nns alhus nnd Medicago sativa, found
magnesium sulphat(> in pure solutions to be the most toxic of all the
salts. The writer found the same true for the lupines. But when
other salts are added to a solution of magnesium sulphate, toxicity,
both absolute and relative, is altered. Kearney and Cameron " say:

Addition of sodiiuii sulphate, wliifli itself is injurious in pure solution, raises
the limit of nia,i,'nesiuni sulphate three times, while the presence of calcium sul-
l)liate allows a small ])roi)ortion of the roots to barely survive during twenty-
four hours in a solution of magnesium sulphate 480 times as concentrated as
that wliifli in ]>nre solnlions represents the limits of endurance.

To lower classes of plant life magnesium sulphate is apparentW
much less toxic. Dr. B. M. Duggar '' has made some experiments
with marine'alga' to determine the nutrient value of the salts of some
of the alkalis and alkali earths when added to sea water. He found
that after the acids and some of the salts of the heavy metals the
potassium phosphates proved most toxic. The least toxic were the
salts of sodium and magnesium, while the sulphate of magnesium
was the least injurious of all the salts used. The less injurious effect

"Some Mutual Relations I'.ctween Alkali Soils and Vegetation. Ueiuirt No.
71, I'. S. l)ei»artm(M!t of Agriculture (1!!02).

''Tin* Toxic lOffccl of Some Xulrit>n( Salts on Certain .Marine Alga". Science,
N. S., IT: i",'.) (i;)03).

SBSULTS OF EXPERIMENTS.

25

of the magnesium salts is probably due to the presence of neutraliz-
ino- salts in the sea water to which he added the magnesium com-
IDOunds, although we are not yet in a position to say that magnesium
may not be far less toxic to the AlgtB than to the LeguminosiB or
Graminea^.

To show the relative toxic effect of magnesium sulphate to some
of the other salts, Loew " has made some interesting observations, and
-tates that Spirogyra died within four or five days in a 1-per-mille
solution of magnesium suli:>hate, but remained ali\'e for a long time
in corresponding solutions of the sulphates of sodium, potassium, and
calcium. Upon the roots of some higher plants the same investiga-
tor made similar observations, and says that Vicia and Pisum do not
start lateral roots when kept in a solution of 0.5 per cent of mag-
nesium sulphate or nitrate, and the root cap and ei)idermal cells die
after a few days. Seedlings of Phaseolus placed in a solution of 0.1
per cent magnesium sulphate with 0.1 per cent of monopotassium
phosphate showed injury to the roots after five days, and the entire
plant succumbed soon afterw^ards.

Coupin '' found during the course of some experiments with wheat
that magnesium chlorid was more toxic than magnesium sulphate.
He gives the limit for magnesium sulphate at 1 per cent and for mag-
uesium chlorid at O.S per cent.

RESULTS AVITTI jMAGNESIUM CHLORID.

The following table shows the results obtained for the different
varieties with pure solutions of magnesium chlorid :

Name of wheat variety.

Maximum limit of
endurance.

Parts per'Fractional
solution, goi^tion.

ZiTTimemian

72 0. 015
48 . 01
48 .01

Kharkof

Padiii

Tvubaiika

43
36
48
60

.00875
.0075
.01
.0125

Turkey

Maraoujini

Budapest

24 .005

24 .(1)5

Chul

AveruLTc fur all varieties. -

40 .00931

"The Pliysiological Role of Mineral Nutrients in IMants. r.ui. 4.",, llnieau of
n.iiit Industry, U. S. Depai-tniont of A.!?riculture (19U3).

'' Sni- la Toxicite (lu Chlorure de Sodium et de I'Eau de Mer a !'IvL,'ard des
Vegetaux. Uevue GenOrale de Butanique, lU : ISS (IS'JS).

^6 WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

Magnesium clilorid, like the sulphate, seldom occurs alone in nature
in sufficient quantity to be of very gi'eat consequence. It is iiearly,
if not always, associated in the soil with some other salts, such as
those of sodium and calcium, which tend to neutralize its effect upon
plants. In these experiments with wheat, as in those wdth lupines,
it was found to i-ank next to magnesium sulphate as a toxic agent
when in pure solutions.

The average limit of concentration of magnesium chlorid for
wheat seedlings is 0.00931 of a normal solution, as against O.OOTSG
for magnesium sulphate. Again, referring to Kearney and Camer-
on's results wdth the same salts for lupines, we find some variations.
As is easily seen wnth the writer's results with wheat, magnesium sul-
phate is only about one-third more toxic than magnesium chlorid,
while Kearney and Cameron's results show the suli3hate twice as
toxic as the chlorid. The investigators named found the roots of
lupines to barely survive in 0.0025 of a normal solution of mag-
nesium chlorid, while Kearney showed that Zea mays would live in
a solution a little more than thirty times as concentrated. Magne-
sium chlorid is twice as toxic to the wdiite lupine as to the least
resistant variety of wdieat tested, and six times as toxic to the lupine
as to the most resistant variety of wheat. It is a surprising fact that
some varieties of wheat are six times as resistant and that maize is
thirty times as resistant to this salt as Lupinus alhus:

It will be seen that the variation of the wheat varieties among
themselves is more pronounced in the chlorid than in the sulphate.
While the toxic limit for the least resistant of the varieties is the
same (0.005 of a normal solution) for the two salts, that of the most
resistant variety (0.015 normal) is much higher in magnesium chlorid
than in the sulphate. The ratio of variation between the two ex-
tremes of resistance with magnesium sulphate was 2 to 1, as against
3 to 1 with the chlorid.

RESULTS or EXPERIMENTS.

27

RESULTS WITH SODIUM CARBONATE.

The following table gives the results with pure solutions of sodium
carbonate :

Name of wheat variety.

Zimmerman

Kharkof

Padui -

Kubanka

Turkey _ _ -

Maraouani - _-

Budapest

Preston

Chul -_

Average for all varieties

Maximiim limit of
endurance.

Partsper!Ff^^^;°"f

solution.

m

78
52
39
78
41
26
65
65

normal
solution.

0.(1125
.015
.01
.0075
.015
.008
. (H k')
. 0125
.0125

.0109

The results shown by the above table are not materially different
from those with magnesium chlorid. Sodium carbonate in pure
solutions is slightly less harmful, as shown by the comparison of the
average of all the varieties, being in the case of magnesium chlorid
O.OOO:^ and for sodium carbonate 0.0109 of a normal solution. The
extremes in both cases are the same, though there are two varieties
with a resistance of 0.015 for sodium carbonate as against one for
maanesium chlorid. Five varieties in the case of sodium carbonate
have a resistance above the average as against four in the case of
magnesium chlorid. One variety alone, Budapest, has a resistance
of only 0.00.5 as against two for magnesium chlorid.

Of the three salts so far described, sodium carbonate is in the soil
generally the most harmful, (1) because in excessive quantity it is
more widely distributed, and (2) because it is less easily neutralized
by other salts with which it is usually associated.

The opinions of experimenters differ considerably as to the rela-
tive toxic effect of this salt. Kearney and Cameron showed that, in
the case of Lvphius alhus at least, sodium carbonate is but little
more injurious than sodium sulphate, the toxic limit in each case
being 0.005 and 0.0075 of a normal solution, respectively. It will be
seen that the limit for the lui)ine obtained by them with sodium car-
bonate is the same as the resistance for Budapest wheat, but only
one-third of that for the Turkey and Kharkof varieties. The limit
of concentration for the lupine, as shown by their report, is about
equivalent to one-half of the average for the several wheat varieties,
ill the same salt solution. Kearney found Zea mayfi to survive in
the same salt at a concentration three times as great as that repre-

'm

WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS,

Renting the limit for the hipine, and equal to that for the most resist-
ant varieties of wheat.

Coupin <* found the toxic limit of wheat in sodium carbonate to be
about 1.1 per cent. In view of the fact, however, that he noted the
death of the whole plant and not the root tips, the limit of concen-
tration as determined by him would necessarily be much higher.

RESULTS WITH SODIUM BICARBONATE.

The limits in })ure solutions of sodium bicarbonate are shown in
the following table :

Name of wheat variety.

Maximum limit of
endurance.

Partsper
UH),0(IO
of solu-
tion.

Fractional
parts of a
normal so-
lution.

Zimmerman

234

251

2:«

209
230
188
209
209
209

0. 028
.03
.0275
.025
.0:>75
. 0225
.025
.o;i5
.025

Kharkof .. -

Padui -

Kuhanka.

Turkey _

Maraouani _._ _

Budapest

Preston

Chul _..

Average for all varieties. .

219

.026

Of all the salts used sodium bicarlionate seems to bring out the least
variation in resistance so far as these experiments are concerned. The
least resistant variety was Maraouani and the most resistant Kharkof,
which were able to survive in a 0.0225 and 0.03 normal solution,
respectively. These results do not dili'er to an important extent from
those of Kearney and Cameron for Lupinus alhtis, the toxic limit of
which was slightly low^er (0.02) than that for Maraouani wheat.

The writer finds sodium carbonate to be about two and six-tenths
times as injurious to wheat when in equivalent concentration as
sodium bicarbonate. Kearney found the difference to be even greater
in the case of maize, the ratio being about -t to 1. Coupin '' reverses
the relative toxic order of these two salts. This difference in the

o Sur la Toxieite du Chlorure de Sodium et de TEau de Mer a I'Esard des
Vegetaux. Itevue Generale de Botanuiue, 10: 180 (1898).

6 Sur la Toxieitt' des Composes de Potassium et de rAnunonium a FEtxard des
Vegetaux Superieurs. Kevue Geuerale de Botaui.ciue, 12:180 (1900).

RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS. 29

criterion of toxic action, i. e., the death of the whole i)hint rather than
of the root tip alone, should not alfect the relative toxic influence of
the two salts. Coupin's results sho\ved that it required a 1.1 per cent
solution of sodium carbonate to kill wheat seedling-s, while only O.C)
per cent Avas necessary to produce the same effect when sodium bicar-
bonate Avas employed.

As to the relative toxic order of the carbonate and bicarbonate, the
results recorded agree quite Avell with those of Sigmund," who found
that Avlieat development Avas retarded and germinating seeds of vetch
and rape Avere killed in a 0.5 per cent solution of sodium carbonate,
while the same concentration of sodium bicarbonate Avas quite harm-
less.

Kearney and Cameron found sodium bicarbonate someAvhat less
toxic than sodium chlorid for the lupine, and, further, that a 0.02
normal solution of sodium bicarbonate permits plants to surviA^^ in
uuich better condition than in the corresponding concentration of the
chlorid. Kearney has also shoAvn by experiments that the bicar-
bonate is less toxic to maize than is sodium chlorid, the death point
for the bicarbonate being established at 0.05 and for the chlorid at
0.04 of a normal solution.

In A^eAV of all these differences it Avill be no easy matter to decide
the relative harmfulness of these sodium salts. Experiments Avill
haA^e to be performed on a large number of plants of Avidely different
relationship before any definite conclusions can be reached. There is
great probability that the order of their toxicity is not the same for
all species of plants. This is A^ery Avell demonstrated by a compari-
son of the Avriter's results Avith those of Kearney and Cameron, Avho
found sodium sulphate more toxic to Lupinus (ilhus than sodium
bicarbonate, Avhile the Avriter found the rcA'erse to be true for Avheat.
There is a tendency among physiological experimenters to draAV gen-
eral conclusions for the Avhole plant kingdom from the results ob-
tained for a fcAv varieties, species, or genera, Avhich is absolutely
unjustifiable. Too much emphasis can not be used in condemning
such inferences. The results here obtained, it is thought, Avill hold
good for these particular varieties of Avheat, but they are not indica-
tiA^e except Avithin rather Avide limits of what others shoAV.'' They

« Ueber die EiiiAvirkung Chemischer Agentien auf die Keimung, Laudw. A'ers.
Stat, 47: 2 (1896).

6 This point is brought out in a most marked wAy by the work of Cameron
find Breazeale upon the effect of acids on wheat, maize, and clover, respectively.
(The Toxic Action of Acids and Salts on Seedlings, Journal Phys. Chem., vol.
S, No. 1, p. 1, Jan., 1904.)

30

WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

will serve for iiiakiiio- comparisons, hut not J'or drawing conclusions
as to the behavior of plants in general.

RESULTS WITH SODIU^M SULPHATE.

The comparative effect of pure solutions of sodium sul2)hate upon
the difi'erent varieties is shown in the table which follows :

Name of wheat variety.

Zimmerman ..

Kharkof

Pacini -

Knbanka .

Tnrkey

Mai-aouani

Budapest

Preston

Chul

Average for all vai'ieties

Maxiranm limit of
endurance.

Parts per
1(X),(KK) of
solution.

Fractional
parts of a
normal so-
lution.

353

m)

818

'.m

300
336
2tj.j
242
283

305

fl. 0.5
.0425
.045
.05
.0425
.0475
.0375
.035
.04

.0433

In sodium suliihate, as in sodium bicarbonate, the toxic limits for
the dilferent varieties show less variation than in the case of other
salts used. The least resistant to this comparatively harmless salt,
as to most of the others used in these experiments, is the Preston
wheat. This variety has been grown for a number of years in a
semihumid region where alkali soils do not occur. In view of these
facts one would expect this variety to be somewhat less resistant
to these salts. Since there is no excess of soluble salts in the soils
of this region, Preston has had no opportunity to develop salt resist-
ance. The varieties most resistant to sodium sulphate are Zimmer-
man and Kubanka, both surviving as well in a 0.05 normal solution
as Preston in 0.035. As to the origin of these varieties, also, it is just
what would be exjjected from their resistance to salts. Both sorts
came from arid or semiarid regions, Avhere saline soils are abundant.
Kubanka is grown in regions containing numerous salt marshes and
lakes, and that it should have acquired ability to resist salts in the
soil is only natural. Zimmerman likewise was obtained from a
region having soils of more or less saline character, and to this
is probably due its power of resistance in salt solutions. It is not
unlikely that the soils from the regions from which the remaining
varieties were obtained contain a less amount of sodium sulphate

RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS, 31

prop(n^tionato to their smaller resistance to this salt as shown in
these water cultures. This can not definitely be known until experi-
ments have been made correlating- the amount of the ditlerent salts
in the soil upon Avhicli the dilt'erent varieties grew, Avith their resist-
ance in pure solutions.

Some interestino- diti'erences can 1)e noted here between the resist-
ance of wheat and of lupines to sodium sulphate. The Preston vari-
ety is -ij times as resistant, and Zimmerman and Kubanka Of times
as resistant, as Lupiims cdbus, the toxic limit of the latter having
been established by Kearney and Cameron at 0.0075. They found
sodium sulphate more toxic to Lupinus than sodium bicarbonate,
while for every variety of wheat in these experiments the reverse
is true. AVith maize Kearney showed that the seedling would sur-
vive equally w^ell in both salts, and established the limit at 0.05 of
a normal solution.

Hilgard states that few plants can bear as much as 0.1 per cent in
the soil of sodium carbonate, or about 3,500 pounds per acre to the
depth of 1 foot. For sodium chlorid the limit in the soil is about
0.25 per cent. In the case of sodium sulphate, most plants can grow
in the presence of 0.45 to 0.50 per cent in the soil. In view of this
fact sodium chlorid under soil conditions would seem to be more
toxic to most plants than the sulphate.

Stewart " has made a number of interesting tests on the power of
seeds to germinate in the presence of sodium carbonate, sodium sul-
phate, and sodium chlorid. He found the carbonate and the chlorid
to be more injurious than the sulphate. With one exception (rye
seeds in the presence of the chlorid), 0.50 per cent of either carbonate
or chlorid j^roved fatal to germination. Stewart showed that sodium
sulphate is far less injurious than either of the other salts. The
character of his experiments indicates, however, that they are not
directly comparable with such as are here described. His seeds were
l^laced for germination in sand on tin plates and watered, the nature
of the water used not being stated. Kearney and Cameron have
shown that these salts are decidedly different in the degree to which
their toxic effect can be neutralized by the addition of other salts,
such as the chlorid or sulphate of calcium. It is possible that the
sand ol- the water, or both, used by Stewart contained more or less
calcium salts. The results of Kearney and Cameron, above referred
to, show that the toxic effect of sodium carbonate, and next to it that
of sodium chlorid, are neutralized far less effectively by calcium sul-

" Effect of Alkali on Seed termination. Ninth Annual Report, Utah Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, p. 2(3 (1898).

32

WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

phate than is scKliuiii siil])hat('. They foiiiul dial tlio resistance of
sodium siilj)hate was raised (U) times by adding calcium sul])hate.
In the light of these facts it is easy to accept Stewart's residts. In
tact. Kearney and Cameron showed that when other saHs were added
the limit for Liiptmi.^ allnix in sodium sulphate could be raised to
().;^0 of a nornuil solution, and that for sodium chloi-id only to 0.>J(),
while in pure solutions the limit for sodium sulphate was a concentra-
tion of 0.0075 and for sodium cldorid 0.02. This also explains Hil-
gard's results as to the comparatixe harmlessness of sodium sulphate
in the soil where other salts are always present.

RESULTS WITH SODIIM CirLOKU).

The results obtained by the writer Avitli pure solutions of sodium
chlorid are shown in the folloAvinc table:

Maximum limit of
eudurance.

Name of wlieat variety.

Zimmerman

Kliarlcof

Padui _

Kubanka

Turkey

Maraouani _

Budapest _

Preston ,.

Chul

Average for all varieties _.

Parts per Fractional

100,000
of solu-
tion.

part of a

noi'iiial

solution.

377
319
333
333
290
319
275
319
261

314

0.065
.055
. 0575
.0575
.05
. 055
. 0475
.055
.045

. 0542

That sodium chlorid is the least toxic to wheat of all the salts
used is evinced by the table above. Next to it, of course, is sodium
sulphate. Comparing the results with those obtained by Kearney
and Cameron for lupines, the ^varieties of Avlieat are two and one-half
to three times as resistant. Coupin " also found wheat more resist-
ant to sodium chlorid than the white lupines. He has experimented
Avith several species of plants and found the whole plant to be killed
in the following concentrations: Wheat, 1.8 per cent: peas, 1.'2 per

a Sur la Toxicite clu Clilorure Sodium et tie I'Eau de Mer a I'Egard Aei
Vegetaux. Revue Geuerale de Botanique, 10:178 (1898).

RESULTS OF EXPERIMENTS. 33

cent; vetch, 1.1 ]ier cent: maize, 1.4 per cent, and white hipine, 1.2
per cent."

"Guthrie, F. B., and Holmes, R. (Roy. Soe. New South Wales, Oct. 8, 19(t2),

conducted some experiments on wheats in two kinds of soils. To one of the

soils was added a fertilizer consisting of a mixture of 15 grams of sulphate

of amiuonia, G grams of superphosphate, 4 grams of sulphate of i>otash, and

varying quantities of other substances. The composition of the first soil was

as follows :

Per ceut.

Moisture 3. 83

Organie matter 13. 75

Nitrogen • -08

Soluble in hydrochloric acid :

Lime • 1<j5

Potash -. .005

Phosi)horic acid • 1"7

Magnesia 072

The soil was found to contain (».(tl(l iier cent of sodium chlorid in addition
to the substances ('numerated aliovc.

The composition of the second soil was as follows:

Per cent.

Moisture - 2.91

Organic matter 8. 33

Nitrogen • 070

Solui)le in hydrochloric acid :

Lime .440

Potash -077

Phosphoric acid = • HO

No fertilizer was added and the soil was originally free from chlorids. It
was found that in the first soil the seeds gernunated and grew well when enough
sodium chlorid was added to the soil to give it a content of O.OGG per cent of
that salt. Further, that in the second soil, to which no fertilizer was added, in
tlie presence of 0.05 per cent of sodium chlorid. germination was slightly
retarded, but the plants finally recovered and grew well. As to the re.sults,
these anthoi's say :

From 0.01 to 0.02 per cent of sodium chlorid is without effect on the wheat
])lant. tlie grain gei-niinating well and the plant growing vigorously. With 0.05
to 0.10 iier cent of sodium chlorid the gernnnation is somewhat retarded, the
]ilants are less vigorous, but recover and grow well. With 0.15 the germination
is still more affected and the ])lants would probably not recover under less fa-
vorable conditions than those of the experiment. Two-tenths per cent of sodium
chlorid in the soil is fatal to the growth of wheat.

An experiment performed by Messrs. E. CMiarabot and A. Hebert (Compt.
Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris, 134: 181, 1902), which shows the chemical influence of
sodium chlorid upon more mature plants, is a very interesting one. These inves-
tigators found that l)y adding sodium chlorid some chemical properties are
decreased.

The writer finds that a 2 per cent solution of sodium chlorid saturated with
calcium sulphate is sufficient to kill moss growing on the soil in two weeks'
time. .W the end of one week no change is noticeable, excei)t that growth is
retarded. One week longer, however, suffices to kill the moss completely and
turn it a brownish color. The solution was added to the pots on which the moss
grew in the laboratory every other day for about that length of time.

34

WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

SUMMARY OF TABLES.

In order to make more easily comparable the differences of resist-
ance of the several varieties to the various salts, the results as a whole
have been brought together in the following table. At the bottom of
the columns is given the average, for each salt, of the toxic limits of
all the varieties; so it requires only a glance to see which varieties
are aboxo or below the average in their resistance to the toxic effect
of each salt.

Name of Wheat variety.

Magne-
sium sul-
phate.

Magne-
sium
chlorid.

Sodium
carbon-
ate.

Sodium

liicar-

bonate.

Sodiiim

sul-
phate.

Sodium
chlorid.

0.0075
.00625
.0075
.0075
.01
.(X)75
.01
.005
.005

0.015
.01
.01

.00875

.1)075

.01

.0125

.005

.(J05

0.0125
.015
.01
.IKI75
.015
.(1(18
.005
.0125
.0125

0.028
.03
.0275
.025
.0275
.0225
. 025'
.025
.025

o.a5

.0425

.045

.05

.0425

.0475

.0375

.0:J5

.04

0.065

Kharkof

.055

Padui

.0575

Kubanka -

Turkey

Maraonani

Budapest

.0575

.a5

.055
.0475

Preston

.055

Cbul -

.045

Avei'age - --

.00736

.(H193

. 0109

. 026

.M-.a

.0542

A glance at the above table shows that the Zimmerman variety is
much the most resistant. This, however, does not necessarily mean that
it is most resistant to every salt. On the contrary, Zimmerman is
Jess resistant to magnesium sulphate than Budapest and Turkey, less
resistant to sodium carbonate than Turkey and Kharkof, and less
resistant to sodium bicarbonate than Kharkof. This same variety,
however, is very resistant to the influence of sodium chlorid, sodium
sulphate, and sodium carbonate, which brings uj) its average to a
considerable extent. The least resistant variety is Chul, which runs
low for all salts except sodium carbonate, in which its resistance is
slightly above the average of the varieties with which experiments
were made. The low resistance of this variety was unexpected, in
view^' of the character of the country from which it came.

A further consideration of this table show^s how nearly equal the
Padiii and Kubanka varieties are in their resistance. A comparison
of the two varieties for the same salts shows but a slight variation.
Taking into consideration the original habitat of the two varieties,
we would expect very little difference. Both are Russian varieties
and subjected to very similar climatic and soil conditions. Both
varieties are ver}^ resistant to salt solutions, and in view of the fact
that they both come from regions containing much saline soil their
similarity in this respect is not surprising.

Good examples for contrast to Padui and Kubanka are furnished
in Budapest and Preston, Budaf)est is a naturalized Michigan vari-

COMPARISON OF RESULTS.

35

ety and Preston a variety from Canada. The soil and climatic condi-
tions are very similar. Both regions are comparatively humid, Avith
little or no saline soil. Both of these varieties are low in resistance to
salt solutions, just as would be expected.

A comparison of the resistance Of the different varieties wi(h the
reo-ion from which thev came in resi:)ect to soil and climatic coudi-
tions shows that their resistance to saline solutions can probably be
correlated Avith the natural habitat of the varieties; that is, the
results herein obtained indicate that a variety grown in a locality
having little or no excess of salts in the soil has a comparatively low
resistance in saline water cultures. It further shows that varieties
«-rown in resfions havin"' more saline soils have a much greater resist-
ance in saline water cultures.

COMPARISON OF RESULTS WITH DIFFERENT SPECIES.

The results obtained for the lupines by Kearney and Cameron
and those for maize by Kearney have frefiuently been referred to in
the foregoing images. It has been possible to compare them to the
Avriter's results 'with Avheat only in a fragmentary way. Since there
are some very surprising differences in the toxicity of the same salts
to the three plants, the results have been brought together in one
table for comparison. Kearney and Cameron used but one variety
of the lupine and of maize, their results being shown in the follow-
ing table. The Avriter in his experiments on wheat has used nine
different varieties, but in the following table only the mean resistance
of all the varieties has l)een taken.

The limit of concentration of the salts which can be endured by
wheat, lupine, and maize is as follows, the results being stated both in
fractions of a normal solution and in parts of salt per 100,000 of
solution :

Salt.

Parts of
a normal
.soluti(_)n.

Magnesium sulphate
Magnesium chlorid . .
Sodium carbonate _..
S xlium biearb< mate .

Sodium sulphate

Sodium chlorid

Degree of concentration.

Wheat.

0.007
.009
.01
.026
.043
.054

Parts per
100,(X)0 of
solution.

Parts of
a normal
solution.

39
108

52
217
302
313

Lupine.

0.00125
.0025
.005
.02
. 0075
.02

Pai'ts per

KHMIOOof
sohition.

Parts of iPartsper
a normal! I ()(),{ KK) of
solution, solution.

12
2(5

167
53

116

Maize.

0.25
.08
.015
.05
.05
.04

1,400
384
78
417
353
232

It is remarkable that while magnesium sulphate is the most toxic
to the wheat and the lupine of all the salts used it is the least injuri-
ous to maize, being thirty-five times and two hundred times, respec-
tively, more toxic to wheat or lupine than to maize.

36 WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

Magnesium sulphate aud mao-uesiuni elilorid (litter l)ut little in the
concentration necessary to kill the root tips of wheat seedlings, while
a solution of the former only half as strong as the latter is sufficient
to kill the lupines in the same length of time. In contrast to this, a
solution of magnesium chlorid only about one-third as concentrated as
the critical solution of magnesium sulphate is the strongest that can
be endured by the root tips of maize, the order of toxicity of the two
salts being reversed. The root tips of the lupines have been killed
by every salt used, at a less concentration than that which can be
endured by wheat and maize, a solution of sodium carbonate one-half
and one-third as concentrated as that necessary to kill wheat and
maize, respectively, being fatal to the lupine. It will be noticed,
however, that the least amount of diversity is evinced by the three
plants in the presence of sodium carbonate and sodium bicarbonate.

Wheat and maize show very little ditference in resistance to sodium
sulphate, but a solution about one-sixth as concentrated as that neces-
sary to kill maize is toxic to the lupine.

It is a very surprising fact that the variation between the three
plants is so great. The salts of magnesium wdiich are the most toxic
to wheat and lupines are the least toxic to maize, the ditference being
as is 200 to 1. Maize is on the whole much more resistant to pure salt
solutions than is wheat or the white lupine, while the root tips of the
lupines are killed by each of the salts at a much less concentration
than that necessary to destroy the root tips of wheat seedlings.

Especially interesting results in this connection have been brought
out by Cameron and Breazeale " with some experiments concerning
the action of acids and salts upon maize, wheat, and clover. The
salts employed were not the same as those used by the writer, but the
results for both the acids and salts are sufficient to show the dilTci-ence
in resistance betAveen dilferent species and also the different action of
ditferent salts and acids on the same species.

Cameron and Breazeale found that N/850 and N/GOO solutions of
acetic and succinic acids, respectively, were the toxic limit for seed-
lings of maize, but wheat and clover in the same acids would endure
only N/20000. They found the variations in salt solutions to be
equally as great, but in some ways reversed. In potassium chlorid the
toxic limit for wdieat and clover is the same, each having a greater con-
centration than that necessary to kill seedlings of maize. In potassium
oxalate, wheat was found to endure a concentration six times as great
as that for clover. It is interesting to note here that the more toxic
the acids the more uniform are the results, while for the salt solutions
the reverse is true. The writer obtained similar results for the salts
used in the experiments described in this paper.

a The Toxic Action of Acids and Salts on Seedlings, Journal Phys. Chem., vol.
8, No. 1, p. 1 (January, 1904).

INDIVIDUAL VARIABILITY.

3T

ASH ANALYSES.

To determine -whether or not the amount or the composition of the
ash in the seed could be correhited with the resistance of the seedlings
to saline solutions, analyses of seeds of each variety used and of the
same origin as those used in the culture experiments were obtained
through the Bureau of Chemistry of the Department of Agriculture.
The results fail to show any correlation between the ash constituents
of the seeds and the resistance of the seedlings in water cultures. As
llie absence of such correlation is important, the table of analyses is
inserted. It is a surprising fact that some of the ash constituents
run very low for varieties such as Padui and Kharkof, in which one
would expect them to be high.

Table of analyses of the ash constituents of wheat seedlings.

Variety.

HoO.

Crude
ash.

COo.

MgO.

K2O.

NazO.

P2O5.

SO3.

CI.

7i i iTi TTifti'iiian

8.34
8.25
8.72
7.68
7.54
9.70
8.38
8.48
7.78

1.72
l.a5
1.40
1.93
1.73
1.66
1.91

i.a5

1.98

0.080
.066
.048
.064
.064
.038
.048
.040
.088

0.22
.18
.18
.23
.20
.15
.21
.23
.28

0.45
.41
.43
.53
.51
.51
.53
.47
.50

0.a50
.050
.053
.056
.046

.042
.045

0.85
.56
.57
.93
.78
.70
.94
.97
.78

0.037
.040
.040
.043
.041
.043
.040
.0.57
.042

0.054

Kharkof

.054

Padui --

.042

TCultanka

.054

Turkey - - -

.054
.054

Budaoest

.054

Preston

.054

Chul

.054

INDIVIDUAL. VARIABILITY.

Individual variation within the different varieties is a subject
deserving some attention in this connection. Some very striking
instances have been noted during the course of these experiments.
Since it has been demonstrated beyond dispute that the varieties
differ one from another in resistance to toxic salts, it is only natural
to suppose that the individuals of the same variety would show
diversity in this respect. It is the existence of this individual varia-
bility that has made it impossible to obtain reliable results without
testing a large number of seedlings. As soon as this factor was
eliminated it became comparatively easy to estal)lish the toxic limit.
In some instances it was more difficult than in others, and some varie-
ties were especially troublesome in this respect. The reasons for this
are difficult to determine.

No experiments have been conducted for the exclusive purpose of
demonstrating the range of individual variation, and only results
are here recorded which have been l)rought out incidentally during
the tests for varietal variation. The writer does not doubt that
experiments with this end in view would l)ring out instances of indi-
vidual variability much more striking than any so far obtained.
Nearly all varieties, however, have shown exceeding diversity in the

38 WHEAT EESTSTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

resistance of imlividiial plants, and it. will be interesting to mention
a few of tlieni. In the experiments to determine the toxic limits for
the different varieties the resnlts were based on averages, e. g., in a
solution of sodium carbonate of a concentration that was taken to
represent the toxic limit 23 seeds Avere alive in a 0.01 solution and 27
dead. It is not known how many of those seedlings which were alive
miirht have survived in a solution still more concentrated, ]xn-haps of
twice the strength, nor is it knoAvn how many of those that were
killed would have been killed in a solution only half as concentrated."

Instead of making tables to show the individual variation, as was
first suggested, only striking instances will be referred to under the
names of the dift'erent varieties. A series of tables would require
more space than can here be given to the subject.

P> It (la pest. — In connection with the experiments wdth the Budapest
variety two striking instances have been noted, one with sodium
bicarbonate and the other with magnesium sulphate. The toxic
limits for these two salts are 0.025 and 0.01 of a normal solution,
resi)ectively. In one experiment, out of a number of seedlings in
0.015 normal sodium bicarbonate two died. In the case of magne-
sium sulphate, in one experiment all the rootlets were dead in 0.015
normal except one, which survived. Here are Iavo instances with
remarkable extremes. In the former case the two seeds w^ere of
exceedingly low vitality, while in the latter instance one seed had
remarkably great vitality.

CJ,yl.—ko very marked individual variations presented them-
selves during the experiments with the Chul variety.

Turl-ey. — Few remarkable variations were observed with the Tur-
key variety. But one instance deserves special attention. The aver-
age toxic limit in magnesium sulphate is 0.01 normal, but in a num-
ber of tests a few seedlings were readily killed in a solution only
half as concentrated as the solution in wdiich one-half of the total
number of individuals exposed to it survived.

Preston. — The experiments with magnesium salts brought out two
interesting cases w'ith the Preston variety. The toxic limit for this

a Moore and Kellenuan (Bui. 64, Bureau of Plant Industry. IT. S. Dept. of
Agriculture) have given some excellent instances of individual variability with
respect to resistance to toxic agents. They have made numerous experiments
with copper sulphate upon different alg;e which are found in water supplies.
They found that 1 part of copper sulphate to 2,000 of water was sullicient to
kill one-half of the individuals of Clilaiiiydomoiias pirifonitis exposed to it in
two days, while the same concentration was sufficient to kill only one-tenth of
the same form in three following days, and in three other days only one-fourth.
With DesmuHum swartzii 1 pa t of copper to 100,000 was sufficient to destroy
one-liajf nnd three-fourths, respectively, of the individuals involved in two
different sets of experiments. Numerous other instances might he cited, but
tliese will suffice to show that individual variation in this resi)ect is not c<.n-
tined to wheat alone.

ISIEUTKALIZING EFFECT OE SALTS EMPLOYED. 31>

variety Avitli both the chlorid iukI the sulphate of inagiiesium is
O.OOa iiorinal. In both salts, however, rootlets of some of the plants
survived in solutions twice as concentrated. In the case of magne-
siuui chlorid, 8 out of 25 survived, while with the sulphate only 2
out of the same number survived.

Kharkof. — In solutions of sodium chloi-id and sodium sulphate of
a concentration of 0.045 and 0.085 normal, respectively, one seedling
of the Kharkof variety was dead in each, the limits fixed for these
two salts being 0.055 and 0.0425. The root tips of two seedlings were
killed in 0.02 normal of sodium bicarbonate, for which the average
toxic limit is 0.03.

Z'nnmeA^man. — The Zimmerman variety, while the most resistant of
all, shows some very marked individual variation. A striking in-
stance occurred with magnesium chlorid, the average toxic limit of
which is 0.015 normal. In a solution one-third as concentrated (0.005
normal) 2 seedlings out of 20 could not survive. The limit of con-
centration for this variety in sodium chlorid is 0.0(')5 normal, but the
rootlets of one seedling could not survive in 0.015. Similar to this
are the results with sodium sulphate, the toxic limit being 0.05, but
the root tips of two individuals did not survive in 0.035 normal
solution.

Padui. — No variation of any importance.

Afaraouaiii — The rootlets of two seedlings of the Maraouani vari-
ety Avere killed in 0.005 normal magnesium sulphate, while ?> out of 20
iudividuals survived in 0.015. The average toxic limit for this salt
is 0.0075 of a normal solution.

Knhanl-a. — No important variations.

NEUTRALIZING EFFECT OF THE SALTS EMPLOYED UPON OTHER

TOXIC SUBSTANCES.

Because of a discovery which was made when these experiments
were almost completed it is necessary, to add a few remarks upon the
neutralizing effect upon other toxic substances of the salts of sodium
and magnesium. During the whole course of the experiments the
writer was unable to get seedlings to grow or even to live for
twenty-four hours in the distilled water used. This seemed unac-
countable, as it quite disagreed with the results of other experi-
menters. Coupin found the roots of wheat seedlings to thrive
well in perfectly distilled water, and Deherain and Demonssy «
showed absolutely pure water to be perfectly harmless to root
growth. Numerous experiments have been made to determine this
point, with more or less varying results. Certain experimenters
have held that distilled Avater was not conducive to good growth.

" Sin- lii Germination dans I'Eau DistillO, Coiupt. Rend., Paris, 132 : 523
(1901).

40 WHEAT EESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

This is probal)ly an error so far as young seedlings are concerned.
The seed contains everything necessary for the early grovrth of
the plant, and the absence of all minerals or other nutrient com-
pounds in the surrounding solution should produce no bad effect
during the earliest stages of growth. Those who claim that dis-
tilled water is injurious will probably find, upon closer observa-
tion, that it is some injurious substance in the water which is really
toxic to the roots. In the case of many plants one of the most toxic
substances known is copper, and it is more than likely that it is
present in much of the water which experimenters have found to be
injurious. Coupin states that one part of copper to 700,000,000 of
-water is sufficient to retard the root growth of wheat seedlings. A
mere trace of copper is sufficient to retard growth in many cases.

As a result of an analysis made in the Bureau of Chemistr}^ of the
Department of Agriculture of the distilled water used in these
experiments, it Avas found to contain a considerable quantity of zinc,
but no trace of copper. The harmful effect probably should be
attril)uted to zinc alone. The water used in these experiments was
distilled but once, and was collected in a porcelain tub as a receiver.

It was thought while the work with wdieat seedlings was in prog-
ress that copper or zinc might be the cause of the injurious effects,
but the writer used the water from the same still for all experiments
with Lupinus albus, and no toxic effect of the distilled water was
noticeable. Control checks with lupines were carried in both dis-
tilled and hydrant Avater, and no difference was found in the rate of
growth. It was this observation which at the outset of the work with
wheat gave the writer confidence in the quality of the distilled Avater.
This is apparently another indication that different species of plants
vary greatly in their ability to resist the influence of toxic salts.
Wheats are apparently much more sensitive than lupines to pure
solutions of zinc salts, although nuich less sensitive to pure solutions
of sodium and magnesium salts.

At first thought one would conclude that since the distilled Avater
used contained harmful substances the experiments aboA'e described
are practically Avithout A'alue; but such is not the case, as aaIII be
seen before this discussion is completed. In order to compare closely
the Avater used during most of the experiments Avith absolutely pure
water, some exi^eriments Avere made. To secure absolute purity in
the water a ncAv still was made of the best nonsoluble glassware, hav-
ing no metal in any of its parts. The same AA'ater that had been
previously used Avas redistilled for the purpose. The Avheat seedlings
AA'ere treated in CA'ery AAay as before. A control Avas also carried in
Potomac Eiver Avater for comparison, and each lot of seed was taken
up each day and the elongation of the roots measured and recorded
for four consecutiA'e daA^s. In the tAvice-distilled Avatcr they grew

NEUTRALIZING EFFECT OF SALTS EMPLOYED.

41

about as well as in hydrant water. In order to show to what extent
the impurity of the water used Avould affect former experiments, salt
solutions of a dilution far below the toxic limits, as already estab-
lished, were made, using the water which was but once distilled. The
results showed that the toxic element in the water was effectively
neutralized by the addition of even minute quantities of any one of
the salts used in the experiments. For compai:ison equal numbers of
seeds were tested at the same time in the water distilled twice, in that
distilled but once (that used throughout the above-described experi-
ments), and in dilute salt solutions made up with the once-distilled
Avater.

The following table embodies the results obtained with very dilute
solutions of the salts, with distilled water, and with hydrant water :

Water or solution.

Water distilled once

Water distilled twice

Magnesium sulphate lO.dill normal I'l .
Magnesium chlorid {U.Wl normal )«._.

Sodium carbonate (0.001 normal)"

Sodium bicarbonate (0.0(C5normal)n .

Sodium sulphate (0.015 normal)"

Sodium chlorid (0.015 normal)"

Hydrant water

Elongation of roots at the end of a
given time.

First
day.

mm.

2.2
11.1
10.6
16.8
11.3
10.6

8.5

r.8

9.4

Second
day.

mm.
2.
26.
21.
30.
14.
£4
22
15
23.

Third
day.

mm.
2.
33.
27
37.
16.
31
31.
19
37.

Fourth
day.

2.2
36.3
27.6
38.2
17.8
32.4
34.8
22
46

« The mean toxic limit of all varieties of wheat tested in the presence of the salts here

employed is shown as follows :

Parts of nor-
mal solution.

Magnesium sulphate 0. (KI736

Magnesium chlorid • 00931

Sodium carbonate • 0109

Sodium bicarbonate . 026

Sodium sulphate .0432

Sodium chlorid . 0542

A comparison of these figures with the table above shows that from one-third to one-
tenth the concentrations of the solutions which represent the limit of endurance of the
wheat varieties is sufficient to neutralize the harmful efCect of the zinc present in the
distilled water.

The above table shows that after an elongation of '2.2 mm. during
the first day in 'the water distilled once no further growth toolv place.
A comparison of that with absolutely pure water (in this case redis-
tilled) shoMS that there was some element in the first water which
hindered growth and which was not found in the second. This, as
the chemical analysis above referred to showed, is probably zinc.

The results in the dilute salt solutions which were made up with the
injurious once-distilled water showed that there Avas no material dif-
ference in the elongation made in them and in the checks in redis-
tilled and hydrant water. It is not assumed that these dilute solu-

42 WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

tions were in the exact proportion that wouhl have permitted tlie
greatest ek)neation. The ol>iect Avas merely to show that at the con-
centrations used in these experiments the salts of magnesium and
of sodium effectively neutralize the injurious element present in the
once-distilled water. The only noticeable difference Avas in the case
of sodium carbonate and sodium chlorid. in which the elongation was
somewhat below the average in the pure-water check and in the solu-
tions of other salts. The use of a more dilute or a more concentrated
solution would doubtless have removed this difference. On the other
hand, a 0.001 normal magnesium chlorid was conducive to better
development than any of the others. Avitli the single exception of
hydrant water. It Avill be noticed that at the end of the third day
there was even a slight advantage in favor of magnesium chlorid
over river water.

The elongation the fourth day Avas but a slight increase over that
•a{ the end of the third. Avith the one exception of the seeds in the
hydrant Avater. This is just Avhat Avas to be expected. During these
four days the seeds Avere compelled to Hac on the nutriment stored up
in the endosperm. This had been jDractically all used up at the end
of the third day ; hence the cessation of grov.th. With hydrant Avater
the conditions Avere different. Certain nutritive substances are con-
tained in this Avater upon Avhich the roots can draAv Avhen those con-
tained in the endosperm have been exhausted.

InvicAv of the experiments, small quantities of these sodium and
magnesium salts, instead of being injurious Avhen present in the
soil, might be actually beneficial in case the soil contains very toxic
substances, e. g., zinc or copper. In fact, these salts are injurious
only Avhen present in excessiA^e quantities, as in the so-called " alkali
soils "" of the West.

DILUTE SOLUTIONS AS STIMULANTS.

Incidentally, throughout these experiments, eA'idences of stimula-
tion in dilute solutions Avere obtained. This has been shown to
occur by many iuA'estigators Avith other salts and Avith some acids."

Kearney and Cameron. Avho made similar observations Avhen ex-
perimenting Avith Lupinus alb us, say :

In the f-ase of certain salts, when plants are exposed to pure sol-itions wliich
are nuu-h too dilute to produce any toxic effect, there occurred .i decidedly

n Some fungi have heen known to he stimulated ))y the presence of small
quantities of poisons. Th^ germination of sjiores has likewise heen hastened
when in tlie presence of acids or salts. Townsend (Bot. Gaz.. 27 : J.lS—tOG, 1800)
found that the germination of various seeds and spores has heen stimvdated hy
the ])resence of traces of ether, and (Bot. Gaz.. .31: 241-2(!4, 1001) that the
presence <if hydrocyanic acid for a hrief period of time accelerates germination
and suhsequeut growth.

DILUTE SOLUTIOIS^S AS STIMULANTS. 43

sthnulating effect upon growth, as compared with that hi the rtistillecl
water control during a corresponding period. This was shown to be tlie case
for salts of calcium, both the chlorid and the sulphate acting as stimuli.

These investigators found decisive evidence of such stimuhitin<i-
action with both the carbonate and the bicarbonate of sodium.
Sodium sulphate and sodium chlorid gave purely negative results.
Verv marked results of this kind were observed by Cameron and
Breazeale when working with acids. Hydrochloric, sulphuric, and
nitric acids in concentrations but little beloAv the toxic limit produced
enormous stimulation, especially with Avheat.

Copeland" shows that zinc and copper in water cultures accelerate
<:-r(jwth when the solutions are not nnich more dilute than those that
are distinctly toxic. Similar observations have been made by many
earlier investigators.

In the experiments with wheat all the salts were found to stimu-
late growth except sodium chlorid and sodium carbonate, which were
indifferent at the lowest concentration used. It is not unlikely,
however, that if the proper dilution of the carbonate were employed
it would be found to act as a stimulus with wheats just as it did with
lupines. In fact, it was found that the same concentration of certain
salts which was decidedly toxic for some varieties of wheat will
act as a stimulant to another variety. Especially is this true of the
chlorid and sulphate of magnesium. In a 0.005 solution of each of
these salts the elongation of the roots of Turkey Avheat was equal to
that in the control of hydrant water during the period of twenty-
four hours. The toxic limits for this variety are 0.0075 normal for
the chlorid and 0.01 normal for the sulphate. As will be seen, two-
thirds and one-half the concentration of the toxic limit, respectively,
not only were not toxic but actually acted as a stimulating influence.
There is a possibility, in view of these results, that dilutions not very
much below the toxic limit are more likely to have a stimidating
effect than are much more dilute solutions. This, however, is not
a question to be settled at this time. l)ut will require to determine it
a series of special experiments.

A 0.015 normal solution of sodium sulphate caused an elongation
about one and one-half times as great as that in hydrant water. The
same dilution of sodium chlorid gave results somewhat less striking,
but the elongation was well above the average of that in the hydrant-
water checks.

As before stated, it would seem that instead of being injurious,
dilute solutions of these salts might be decidedly advantageous, yet
if they cause an unnatural growth their presence must be considered
as detrimental rather than beneficial. Copeland calls attention to

n Chemical Stimulation and the Evolution of Carbon- Dioxide. Bot. Gaz.,

35: 81 -as (UK):;).

44 WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS,

this fact, and is oi the opinion that substances acting as stinuihmts
are in the long run injurious.

It is of course an established fact that certain of these salts are
beneficial and even necessary in particular cases. It has been claimed
that chlorids are indispensable to buckAvheat. The i^lant thrives
Avell until it has passed the blooming stage, at a period Avhen potas-
sium chlorid seems necessary to complete the fruiting stage. This
fact has apparently been demonstrated by experiment. Loew '^
says that fungi grown in culture solutions containing only traces of
magnesia form no spores, but by increasing the amount of lethicin
and thus adding more magnesium to the culture solution spores will
be formed. ^lagnesium salts are as indispensable to fungi as to
high(>r plants, but an exceedingly small amount is sufficient when the
solution has an acid reaction.

Plants are often benefited by sodium salts.'' AVhile three of these
salts — the chlorid, bicarbonate, and carbonate — are not indispensable
to the plant, they accelerate ripening in some of the cereals.

Loew asserts that sodium, manganese, and silicon are often bene-
ficial but not indisj^ensable to phanerogams. Sodium salts are not
essential in the iDliysiological processes of plants, but are indispen-
sable to animals.

PRACTICAL VALUE OF RESTJLTS.

There is certainly a very practical lesson to be drawn from the
results described in this paper. It has of course long been known
that plants of difl'erent genera and species show very difterent

a The Physioloarical Role of Mineral Nutrients in Plants. Bui. 45, Bureau of
riant Industry. V. S. Dept. of Airriculfnro (10(t:^).

^ Chittenden and Waehsnian are of the opinion that the conversion of starch
into dextrin and sugar (diastase) is more vigorous in the presence of small
(quantities of sodium chlorid (0.24 per cent). Several investigators, prominent
among whom are Sprengel andT,iebig, have shown that various crops, and more
especially beans, are nmeh benefited by the application of small quantities of
common salt.

Pethybredge ( P.ot. ("entralbl.. No. :',?>, 1001) is authority for the statement
that the color of wheat leaves is intensified when sodium chlorid is applied.

S. .Suzuki (Bui. Coll. Agric. Tokyo, 5: No. 2. p. 10!)) showed that potassium
iodid, even in very high dilutions, exerted a stimulating action on the growth
of the ]>ea: and (ibid.. No. 4. p. 473) that dilute (piantities of potassium iodid
stimulated oats. In o]»[)osition to these stimulating effects the same investiga-
tor has found (ibid.. No. 4, p. 513) that vanadin sulphate, even in very dilute
quantities, produced little or no stinuilating action on barley, though he
states that a very weak stimulating action on the roots seemed to have taken
jlace in a 0.01 per mille of vanadin sulphate, lie. further shows (ibid.. No. 2)
that potassium ferrocyanid acts .-is a poison on jilants in water cultures even in
^ery high dilutions.

SUMMARY. 45

behaA'ior Avheii brought into relation with saline or alkaline soils.
But the species itself may include a great number of ditt'erent varie-
ties or races, as in the case of wheat. It is not enough to know that
wheat in general is better adapted to a certain region because of soil or
climatic conditions than is Indian corn or cotton, but in addition it is
necessary to know Avhioh of the many varieties of wheat is best suited
to that region. wSnch knowledge might save many years of constant
selection with a view to acclimatization.

Soils are often known to contain sodinm chlorid or magnesium
sulphate or some other salt in such quantity as to be fatal to some
varieties, while permitting others to flourish. Now, it has been pos-
sible by these experiments to determine that some varieties of wheat
are much more resistant to a particular salt than others, and they are
the ones which would be expected a priori to thrive best in a region
where that salt predominates, other conditions being equal. By some
of the experiments it was found that some varieties would thrive
equally well in three times the concentration of sodium carbonate as
others. A simple deduction from such results would be that for a
region containing large quantities of " black alkali '' the variety
shown to have the greatest resisting power should be selected.

A knowedge of the limits of individual variation within each
variety is likewise very essential. Often the most resistant varieties
are not always the most desirable in other respects and a sort which
is less resistant would be preferable. In case such a sort has a great
individual variation in resistance to salts it should be compara-
tively easy to introduce it by gradual selection of the most resistant
individuals, though a little more time would naturally be required
than in introducing a variety that is already more resistant, as a
smaller percentage of the plants would survive to furnish seed for the
next crop.

It is believed, therefore, that the results of these exiieriments afford
additional j)roof that the adaptation of useful cultivated plants to
saline or alkaline soil conditions is one of the most promising of
plant-breeding problems.

SUMMARY.

(1) The salts with which the experiments were made are injurious
to wheat seedlings in the following order: ^Slagnesium sulphate,
magnesium chlorid, sodium carl)onate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium
sulphate, and sodium chlorid. This is asserted as true only of wheat,
and a quite (liferent order might possibly be established for other
plants.

(•2) The results obtained from a few individual seedlings are inac-
curate and unreliable. A large number nuist be tested in order that

46 AVHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

individual variation may be eliminated. Usually about ten days
of experiment and from GO to 100 seedlings were employed to estab-
lish the toxic limit for each variety in each salt.

(3) Wheat is one and a half to six times as resistant as white
lupines, according to the salt used. In sodium bicarbonate the least
and in magnesium sulphate and sodium carbonate the greatest differ-
ence in resistance between these two plants is shown. •

(4) Different varieties, representing the two extremes, vary in the
ratio of 1 to o in their resistance to the toxic effect of different
salts. This is especially true for sodium carbonate and magnesium
chlorid. In magnesium sulphate they vary in the ratio of 1 to 2.

(5) The variety most resistant as a whole is not necessarily the most
resistant to every salt. The variety that averages least in resistance
may be twice as resistant to some one particular salt as that which
averages highest. In this fact may be found the secret of selecting a
variety for a locality where the soil contains an excess of some one
salt.

(G) The least resistant variety is not always the least resistant for
every salt used. It may be exceedingly resistant to one or more salts
and yet have a very low sum total resistance.

(7) It is not possible from the results with a few varieties to draw
general conclusions for all sorts of wheat. Each will have to l)e,
worked out for itself.

(8) Varieties which come from localities where saline salts abound
are the most resistant in water cultures to these toxic salts. Varie-
ties from humid regions are less resistant.

(9) In general, the more toxic the salt the greater is the ratio of
resistance of one variety to another. The less toxic the salt the
smaller is the ratio. For sodium carbonate and magnesium chlorid
the ratio of resistance is greatest, being as 1 to 3. For the remaining
salts it is smaller.

(TO) Individual variation is more prevalent and makes the estab-
lishment of the toxic limit much more difficult in some varieties than
in others.

(11) All the salts used act as stimulants in dilute solutions except
sodium carbonate and sodium chlorid. which were neutral even in
very dilute solutions. In some cases the elongation in dilute solutions
was nearly twice that occurring in the controls of hydrant water.

(12) Absolutely pure distilled water does not hinder development,
but traces of zinc are sufficient to kill the root tips in twenty-four

hours.

(13) The economic importance of these results is based upon the
fact that water-culture experiments may be a means for saving seA'eral
vears of selection bv indicatina- whether a certain variety is adapted
to soil conditions in a particular region.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

Camerox. F. K., and P.reazeale. J. F. The toxic action of acids and salts <;;i

seedlings. Journnl Phys. Cliem., vol. 8, No. 1, p. 1 (Jan.. 1004).
Carleton. M. a. Basis for the iniprovenient of American wheats. Bnl. -4,

Div. Vegetable Physiology and Pathology. U. S. Dept. of Agricnltnre (I'.MXt).
Charabot. F.. and Hehert. A. Contribution a I'etnde des modifications cheiu-

iqnes chez la plante sonnuse a rinHuence dn chlorure de sodium. Compt.

Rend.. Paris, 1S4: 181 (1902).
Copelam). K. V>. Chemical stiuuilation and the evolution of carbon dioxido.

Bot. (Jaz.. nr, : 81-98 (1903).
Coupi.N. IIenhi. Sur la sensihilite des vcgi'taux superieurs a des doses tr, '•.

faibles de substances tiixi(iues. Compt. Bend.. Paris. 132 : 64.5 (1901).
Sur la toxicite du chlorure de s :diuui et de I'eau de mer. a regard dt^s

vegetaux. Revue Generale de- Botanhiue. lo: 188 (1898).

Sur la toxicite des composes de sodium, de potassium, et de Tannno-

nium a I'egard des vegetaux superieurs. Revue Gencrale de Botanique,

12: ISO (1900).
Daxdexo, .J. P.. The relation of mass action and physical allinity to toxicity.

with incidental discussion as to how far electrolytic dissociatinn may be

involved. Amer. .Tournal of Science, vol. 17 (.Tune, 1904).
Deheraix and Demoussy. Sur la germination dans I'eau distillr. Cnm])!.

Rend., Paris, 1.32:523 (1900).
KroGAi!. B. M. The toxic effect of some nutrient salts on certain marine alga\

Science. 4.".9 (1903).
Fsche.xhagen. Ueber den einfluss von l()sungen verschiedener concentration

auf den wachstum der schimmelpilze. Stolp (1889).
CrxHRiE and Helms. Pot experiments to determine the limits of endurance of

different farm crops f(n- certain injurious substances. Roy. Soc, New South

Wales. 30: V.tl (1902).
IIeald. F. I>. On the toxic effect c.i dilute solutions of acids and salts up.on

plants. Bot. Gasz., 22:12.") (1890).
Kaiilexiuko and True. On the toxic action of dissolved salts and their elec-
trolytic-dissociation. Bot. Gaz., 22 : 81 (1890).
Kearney and Cameron. Some nuitual relations between alkali soils and vege-
tation. Hept. No. 71, r. S. Dei)t. of Agriculture (1902).
Loew. Oscar. The physiological role of mineral nutrients in plants. Bui. 4.'i.

Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture (1903).
'Moore and Kellerman. A method of destroying or preventing the growth of

alg;e and certain pathogenic bacteria in water supplies. Bui. 64, Bureau of

Plant Industry, V. S. Dept. of Agriculture (1904).
Pethyiiredoe. Beitriige zur kenntniss der einwirkung der anorganischen salze

auf die entwickelung und den ban der i)tianzen. Bot. Central!)., 87:2,3.5,

No. 33 (1901).

47

48

WHEAT RESISTANCE TO TOXIC SALTS.

Raulin. J. Etudes chimiques siir la vegetation. Ann. des Sci. Nat. Botanique,

5e Ser., 11 : 93.
Saunders, Wiixiam. Cereals and root eroi)S (1902).
SiGMUNU, W. Ueber die einwirknng cbeniiscber agentien auf keimung. Landw.

Vers. Stat.. 47:2 (189G).
Stewart. John. Etfect of alkali upon seed germination. Nintb Ann. Rei).,

Utab Agric. Exp. Sta. (ISOS).
Suzuki. S. On tbe action of bigbly diluted liotassium iodide on agi-irnltural

plants. Bui. Coll. Agric. Tokyo. 5: No. 2. p. 19!) (19(i2).

On tbe inlluence of potassium iodide on oats. Ibid. No. 4. p. 4T:J (1903 i,

_.^ On tbe action of vanadin compounds on plants. Ibid. No. 4. p. 513

(1903).
On tbe poisonous action of potassium ferrocyanide on plants. Ibid,

5: No. 2, p. 213 (1902).
TowNSEND, C. O. Tbe efftct of etber upon tbe germination of seeds and spores.

Bot. Gaz.. 27:458-460 (1899).
. Tbe effect of bydrocyanic acid gas upon grains and otber seeds. Bot.

Gaz., 31:241-2()4 (1901).

o

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY^BULLETIN NO. 80.

B. T. GALLOWAY, Ckkf of Bureau.

IGRICULTURIL EXPLORATIONS IN ILGERIA

BY

THOMAS H. KEARNEY,

I'hiislologist, Vegetable Pathological and Physiological Investigations,
Bureau of 'Plant Industry,

AND

THOMAS H. MEANS,

formerly uf the Bureau of Soils.

SEED AND PLANT INTRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION.

Issued August 19, 1905.

WASHINGTON :

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

1905.

BTTIiliETINS OF THE BUREATJ OF PLANT INDUSTRY.

The Bureau of Plant Industry, wliich was organized July 1, 1901, includes Vege-
table Pathological and Physiological Investigations, Botanical Investigations and
Experiments, Grass and Forage Plant Investigations, Pomological Investigations, and
Exi^erimental Gardens and Grounds, all of which were formerly separate Divisions,
and also Seed and Plant Introduction and Distribution, the Arlington Experimental
Farm, Tea Culture Investigations, and Domestic Sugar Investigations.

Beginning with the date of organization of the Bureau, the several series of Bulle-
tins of the various Divisions were discontinued, and all are now published as one
series of the Bureau. A list of the Bulletins issued in the present series follows.

Attention is directed to the fact that "the serial, scientific, and technical publica-
tions of the United States Department of Agriculture are not for general distribution;.
All copies not required for official use are by law turned over to the Superintendent
of Documents, who is empowered to sell them at cost." All applications for such
pul)lications should, therefore, be made to the Superintendent of Documents, (iov-
ernment I'rinting Office, Washington, D. C.

No. 1. The Relation of Lime and Magnesia to Plant Growth. 1901. Price, 10 cents*
2. Spermatogenesis and Fecundation of Zamia. 1901. Price, 20 cents,
o. Macaroni Wlieats. 1901. Price, 20 cents.

4. Range Improvement in Arizona. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

5. Seeds and Plants Imported. Inventory No. 9. 1902. Price, 10 cents,
ti. A List of American Varieties of Peppers. ]902. Price, 10 cents.

7. The Algerian Durum Wheats. 1902. Price, 15 cents.

8. A Collection of Fungi Prepared for Distribution. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

9. The North American Species of Spartina. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

10. Records of Seed Distribution and Cooperative Experiments with Grasses and

Forage Plants. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

11. Johnson Grass. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

12. Stock Ranges of Northwestern California. 1902. Price, 15 cents.

18. Experiments in RangelmprovementinCentral Texas. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

14. The Decay of Tind^er and Methods of Preventing It. 1902. Price, 55 cents.

15. Forage Conditions on the Northern Border of the Great Basin. 1902. Price,

15 cents.

16. A Preliminary Study of the Germination of the Spores of Agaricus Campes-

tris and Other Basidiomycetous Fungi. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

17. Some Diseases of the Cowpea. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

18. Observations on the Mosaic Disease of Tobacco. 1902. Price, 15 cents.

19. Kentucky Bluegrass Seed. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

20. Manufacture of Semolina and Macaroni. 1902. Price, 15 cents.

21. Listof American Varieties of Vegetables. 1903. Price, 35 cents.

22. Injurious Effects of Premature Pollination. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

23. Berseem. 1902. Price, 15 cents.

24. Unfermented Grape Must. 1902. Price, 10 cents.

25. Miscellaneous Papers: I. The Seeds of Rescue Grass and Chess. II. Saragolla

Wheat. III.. Plant Introduction Notes from South Africa. IV. Congres-
sional Seed and Plant Distribution Circulars, 1902-1903. 1903. Price, 15
cents. = ■

26. Spanish Almonds. 1902. Price, . 15 cents.

27. Letters on Agriculture in the West Indies, Spain, and 'the Orient. 1902.

Price, 15 cents.

28. The Mango in Porto Rico. 1903. Price, 15 cents.

29. The Effect of Black Rot on Turnips. 1903. Price, 15 cents.

[Continued on page 3 of cover.]

Bui. 80, Bureau of Plant Industry, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Plate I.

<

a.

<

Q

o

z

3:

o

r

CO

en

UJ

<

CO

CO
CO

<

O

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY— BULLETIN NO. 80.

B. T. GALLOWAY, Chief of Bureau.

AGRICULTURAL EXPLORATIONS IN ALGERIA.

BY

THOMAS H. KEARNEY,

Physiologist, Vegetable I'atlwlogical and PJii/siologicul Incestigatioiis,
Bureau of Plant Industry,

AND

THOMAS H. MEANS,

Formerly of the Bureau of Soils.

SEED AND PLANT INTRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION.

Issued August 19, 1905.

WASHINGTON :

GOVEENMENT PRINTING OFFICE.

19 5.

BUREAU OF PLANT INDUSTRY.

B. T. GALLOWAY,

Pathologist and Physiologist, and Chief of Bureau.

\^EGETABLE PATHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

Albert F. Woods, Pathologist and PJn/siologist in Charge,

Acting Chief of Bnreau in Absence of Chief.

BOTANICAL INVESTK^ATIONS AND EXPERIMENTS,

Frederick V. Coville, Botanist in Cltarge.

GRASS AND FORAGE PLANT INVESTIGATIONS.
W. J. Spillman, Agricidturist in Charge.

POMOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS.

G. B. Brackett, Pomologist in Charge.

SEED AND PLANT INTRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION.
A. J. PiETERS, Botanist i)t Charge.

ARLINGTON EXPERIMENTAL FARM.

L. C. CoRBETT, Horticulturist in Charge.

EXPERIMENTAL GARDENS AND GROUNDS.
E. M. Byrnes, Superintendent.

J. E. Rockwell, Editor.
James E. Jones, Chief Clerk.

SEED AND PLANT INTRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION.

SCIENTIFIC STAFF.

A. J. PiETERs, Botanist in Chargr.

W. W. Tracy, sr.. Superintendent of Testing Gardens.

S. A. Knapp, Special Agent.

David Fairchild, Agricultural E.vplorer.

John E. W. Tracy, Assistaid Superintendent of Testing Gardens.

George W. Oliver, Expert.

W. W. Tracy, jr., Assistant Botanist.

LETTHR OF TRANSMITTAL

U. S. Department of Agriculture,

Bureau of Plant Industry,

Office of the Chief,
WcushimjUm, D. C, April 3 J^, 1905.
Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith, and to recommend for
pul)lication a,s Bulletin No. 80 of the series of this Bureau, the accom-
panyino- manuscript entitled ''Agricultural Explorations in Algeria."
This paper was prepared hy Thomas II. Kearney, Physiologist, Vege-
table Pathological and Physiological Investigations, Bureau of Plant
Industry, and Thomas II. Means, at that time in charge of Soil Survey,
Bureau of Soils, and has been su])mitted by the Botanist in Charge
of Seed and Plant Introduction and Distril)ution, under whose direction
the explorations described were conducted, with a view to its publication.
The four half-tone plates are necessary to a complete understanding
of the text of this bulletin.

Respectfully, B. T. Galloway,

Ch ief of Bureau.
lion. James Wilson,

Secretary of Agriculture,

PREFACE

While the af^rieultural explorers sent out l\y this Office are, as a
rule, sent for the purpose of securing- some special seeds or plants
desired for introduction into the United States, they are also expected
to make themselves as familiar as possible with the agricultural prac-
tices of the countries they visit and with the crops that succeed under
the conditions described. That some of the practices observed may
be profitably followed in those parts of the United States having simi-
lar soil and climatic conditions is more than probable, and that certain
of these crops will prove useful has alreadj" been demonstrated.

The American farmer of to-da}' wants to know what is being done
elsewhere, and he is especially interested in hearing how other people
meet difficulties similar to those with which he has to contend. The
reports of our agricultural explorers, we believe, will therefore fill
a distinct place in agricultural literature. This report points out
clearl}^ the close similarity in climate existing between certain portions
of the Southwestern States and Algeria, making it plain that we must
look to that country for the introduction of many useful plants into
our arid and semiarid districts.

We have, indeed, already availed ourselves of the opportunities thus
offered. The date palms so far secured have come largely from Alge-
ria; certain grains from that country, now being tested, give promise
of unusual value; and the writers of this report brought back a quan-
tity of alfalfa seed from salt-resistant plants, which has already l)een
tested and gives promise of decided usefulness in Arizona and Cali-
fornia.

To throw as much light as possible upon the conditions under which
crops are grown in Algeria, chapters upon the topography, climate,
irrigation, and soils are included. These, together with the brief his-
torical and political sketch, have been prepared by Thomas H. Means.
The remainder of the report was written ))y Thomas II. Kearne3^

The writers wish to acknowledge the services cordially rendered
them b}' the following-named gentlemen in the prosecution of their
Avork: Mr. Henri Vignaud, of the United States embassy in Paris;
the Governor-Cjeneral of Algeria, and the French Resident tit Tunis;
Dr. L. Trabut, of the botanical service of the government of Algeria;

5

6 PREFACE.

the Commandant, of the Bureau des Affaires Indige