Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T10:16:13.181Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The relation of protein content to variety types in American wheat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Herbert F. Roberts
Herbert F. Roberts
Affiliation:
(University of Manitoba.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Protein in wheat is the most important constituent, and therefore the chief constituent to breed for. No wheat variety possesses at once combined the desired characteristics of high protein, high yield, maximum flour production, and maximum bushel weight.

2. So far as climatic factors are concerned, a short, comparatively dry growing season, especially in the spring, in the case of winter wheat, favours the development of grain rich in gluten, and hence high in protein.

3. The most important ground factor in determining the starchprotein ratio is the water supply. The protein content has been found to vary from 11·63 per cent, under 22–24 inches of rainfall to 14·93 per cent, under 12–13 inches (Minnesota); and from 12·63 per cent, under 25 inches of irrigation to 13·62 per cent, under no irrigation (Utah).

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 10 , Issue 2 , April 1920 , pp. 121 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1920

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1)Bailey, C. H. “Minnesota Wheat Investigations, Series I. Milling, baking and chemical tests (crop of 1911).” MinnesotaEx. Sta. Bull. 131 (04., 1913).Google Scholar
(2)Harper, J. N. and Peters, A. M. “Studies on the relation between certain physical characters of the wheat kernel, and its chemical composition, and a proposed method for improving wheat by the selection of seed.” KentuckyEx. Sta. Bull. 113 (02., 1904).Google Scholar
(3)Le Clerc, J. A. “The effect of climatic conditions on the composition of durum wheats.” United States Department of Agriculture, Yearbook 1906, pp. 198–212.Google Scholar
(4)Le Clerc, J. A. and Leavitt, Sherman. “Tri-local experiments on the influence of environment on the composition of wheat.” United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry Bull., 128 (04. 20, 1910).Google Scholar
(5)Roberts, H. F. and Freeman, Geo F. “The yellow-berry problem in Kansas hard winter wheats.” KansasEx. Sta. Bull. 156 (10., 1908).Google Scholar
(6)Shaw, G. W. and Gaumnitz, A. J. “California White wheats.” CaliforniaEx. Sta. Bull. 212 (04, 1911).Google Scholar
(7)Stewart, Robert and Greaves, Joseph E. “The milling qualities of wheat.” UtahEx. Sta. Bull. 103 (04., 1908).Google Scholar
(8)Stewart, Robert and Hirst, C. T. “The chemical, milling, and baking qualities of Utah wheats.” UtahEx. Sta. Bull. 125 (08., 1913).Google Scholar
(9)Thatcher, R. W. “Wheat and flour investigations (crop of 1905).” WashingtonEx. Sta. Bull. 84 (1907).Google Scholar
(10)Thatcher, R. W., Olson, Geo. A. and Handlock, W. L. “Wheat and flour investigations. Parts I, II and III.” WashingtonEx. Sta. Bull. 100 (1911).Google Scholar
(11)Willard, J. T. and Swanson, C. O. “Milling tests of wheat, and baking tests of flour.” KansasEx. Sta. Bull. 177 (08., 1911).Google Scholar
(12)Woods, Chas. D. and Merrill, L. H. “Notes and experiments upon the wheats and flours of Aroostook Country.” MaineEx. Sta. Bull. 97 (11., 1903).Google Scholar