The Beaver herald. [volume] (Beaver, O.T. [Okla.]) 1895-1923, 1911-10-26
WHEAT ON DRY FARM
Influence OF Combined Harvester
on Value Of Crop.
Results Obtained by Utah Experiment
Station Indicate That Machine
Does Not Affect Quality OF
Flour Produced.
BY Or ROBERT STEWART. Chemical

BY DIR. ROBERT STEWART. Chemical |
Laboratory, Utah Experiment station.
This question has recently been
studied by the chemical department of |
the Utah experiment. station. The in |
PRODUCTION of the combined harvester |
into the dry farming operation of the |
inter.mountain west has resulted In a |
reduction OF the cost OF operation on
the larger dry farms. The claim was |
soon made by the millers OF certain
sections of the state that wheat cut
with the harvester could not be CON
verted into -four OF good quality.
In studying this question, samples
of Turkey and Kofod wheat cut with
the harvester in 1909 and 19l0 to-
gether with samples OF the same
wheat cut with the binder and stacked,
were obtained The wheat was milled
In our experimental -four mill and the
yield of bran, shorts and -four re-
corded The bran, shorts and -four
were submitted to chemical analysis
and the -four was made into bread un.
der standard conditions. The results
obtained are reported in bulletin No.
lib of the Utah experiment station
and indicate clearly that the combined
harvester does not have influence.
either unfavorable or favorable. upon
the milling, chemical or baking quail
! ties OF the -four produced
The yield OF flour obtained from the
Turkey variety cut with the harvester
In 1910 was 1895 per cent. OF the
| Va uuh he ,sg.l -
! tanned from the wheat cut with the
binder and stacked was 72.77 per cent
! The yield of -four obtained from the
Kofod wheat cut with the harvester In
/ 1910 was 72.17 per cent, while the
| yield of -four produced from the wheat
cut with the binder stacked was 7212
per cent. II is thus readily seen that
with respect to the yield of the -four
the method OF harvesting has no in
fiuence whatever. II is interesting to
note, however, that greater per cent.
of nigh grade -four may be obtained
from the Turkey variety OF wheat.
About eighty per cent. of the -four pro-
duced from the Turkey wheat would
be classed as high grade -four, while
only about forty per cent. of the -four
produced from the Kofod would be
classed as high grade
In case Of the chemical composition
of the -four obtained. no conclusion
can be safely drawn regarding the in
fluence of the harvester In case of
the Turkey variety of wheat. the -four
produced from the wheat which had
been stacked is slightly higher than
that of the -four produced from wheat
cut with harvester, In case of the
Kofod variety of wheat however. this
is not true. The Kofod wheat cut
with the harvester In 1910 has slight.
ly lower protein content than the
same wheat cut the same year with
the binder and stacked. However, the
wheat cut with the harvester in 1909
has a higher protein content than that
cut with the binder and stacked. The
chemical composition of the bran and
shorts indicate only that these mill
products are rich in protein and would
probably be good cattle feed.
The volume OF the loaf produced
from the Turkey variety cut with the
harvester was 1866 &C. and 1853 &C
In 1909 and 1910. respectively, while
the volume Of loaf OF the bread made
from the -four produced from the Tur
key which has been cut with the
binder and stacked was 1867 &C. In
case OF the Kofod variety, these mum
bers become 1876 &C. and 1,450 &C.
respectively, for 1909 and 1910, and
1894 &C. for the wheat which had
| on
ed under uniform standard conditions
and 1t is thus seen that II any iniu
ence can be ascribed to the harvester
|, at all It must be a favorable influence
While the investigation did moi
show any influence of the harvester
on the bread-making value OF the floul
produced, II did demonstrate the valu,
Of Turkey Red wheat for -four produc
tion. The Turkey Red wheat produces
uniform -four of high grade which
has the strength to produce loaf o
bread of good volume. The -four pro
duced from new Turkey Red whea
seemed to make as good bread al
, flour produced from old Turkey Rec
wheat. while the -four produced from
new Kofod wheat produced a loaf o
, bread very much inferior in qualit!
, and yet the year-old Kofod whea
produced good -four. Actual photo
, graphs of the bread made are given II
, the original publication.
. The millers OF the inter-mountaiI
. west still insist that the harvester hal
, n detrimental influence on the valu,
, OF the wheat This claim may be justi
? fed when the wheat is stored II
a larger quantities as was done with thu
4 wheat cut with the header or binde
! ana stacked. II is quite probable tina
? wheat cut with the harvester must re
! ceive different storage treatment
q may be that wheat cut with the har
q vester and stored in lots OF 40,00
hnshels will not produce good flour