The evening herald. (Klamath Falls, Or.) 1906-1942, 1908-09-05
"ALiSkA WHEAT" CANNEn.

IdanO experiment slaNloH SuHNl'u
severe shock when II was discovered
that the much-discusscd Alaska
wheat is no, of the high qualify in
dicated by the report OF l.. : Jones,
chemist at the Idaho station, who
tested sample. The disclosure that
been either careless or mercenary did
the experiment station authorities had
not injure the reputation OF the sta
ton more. however. than has the cf.
sibility for its part in misleading
farmers who might be induced to
pay fancy prices for seed of the new
variety Instead OF admitting that
they had been dupcd or had been
careless. the Idaho experiment sta
ton officials endeayor To create the
impression that the report Of the che
mist did not read as IL was reported
In the press. but the explanations are
plainly insufficient for the purpose.
Two bulletins have just been is
sued by the station. one by Director
II. 7. French. and the other by Chem
list l.. 5. Jones. In his bulletin. Mr..
French says the chemist stated that.
Judging from the chemical and ply
steal condition OF this sample,it would
rank with the best grade OF bluestem
for fiour-making purposes" and then
Mr. French proceeds to say that this
statement might be misleading unless
taken in connection with eXplana.
tions OF the analysis made TO Mr.. Ad-
ans at that time. which were TO the
effect that the milling qualities OF
any wheat could be definitely settled
only from results OF milling test.
But the letter from MIR. Jones To Mr.
Adams. as printed In the press dis
patches. does not make this limita-
tion clear. Mr.. Jones said he should
like to make milling test, but the
letter does not say that the milling
qualities could be determined only In
that way. The letter to Mr.. Adams
says that the sample OF Alaska"
wheat Is the equal II not superior of
our bluestem for four-making pur-
poses. A mere expression OF wish
to make a mill test would not be un-
derstood as questioning the quality
Of the grain for manufacturing pur-
poses, after the strong Tecommenda-
tion already expressed. II Mr.. Jones
wished to convey the idea that mill
ing test was the only one that would
definitely show the quality. he should
have said so plainly In his letter. Mr.
French also says In his bulletin that
The yields were made up from small
areas. which fact was given by Mr.
Adams, the producer. but not con
tained In the letter Of the chemist
who made the test and reported.
The bulletin which has been issued
By Mr. Jones discbses several dis
crcpancies. The bulletin says that
the chemical analysis was made In
the summer OF 1907, while his letter
TO Mr.. Adams. as published In the
press. Is dated May 4. 1908. This
discrepancy In dates may be typo
graphical, but II not IL would be
worth while to know why an analy-
sis made In 1907 was not reported
upon until 1908. Mr.. Jones says
that the owner was advised not to
rely exclusively upon such lchemicaD
tests. but to bring In a quantity suf-
ficlent for milling and then perfectly
reliable information could be given
him." But, like Director French, the
chemist puts the matter much strong
or than he did In the letter signed by
him and used by Mr.. Adams to ad-
vertise his wheat. These differences
between Mr.. Jones original report
and his present bulletin are not mere
ly trivial matters. Both the newspa-
psrs and the agricultural publica-
tions took Mr.. Jones report as prac.
lically conclusive as to the quality OF
the wheat for Touring purposes, as
he then expressed IL. II there Is
any difference between four-making
purposes and milling purposes. the
ordinary citizen Ia not aware Of the
distinction.
One OF the purposes of the chemi-
cal department OF an experimental
station Ii to guard farmers against
fraud and misrepresentation with re-
gard to seeds. fertilizers, spray mix
lures. etc. II this duty Is to be per
formed effectively. care must be tax
en- not only In making tests. but In
making reports thereon. The most