UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS. 
 
 COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE. 
 
 AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 THE SELECTION OF SEED- WHEAT 
 
 By G. W. SHAW. 
 
 BULLETIN No. 181. 
 
 (Berkeley, Cal., October, 1906.) 
 
 SACRAMENTO: 
 w. w. shannon, : : : SUPERINTENDENT of state printing. 
 
 1906. 
 
BENJAMIN IDE WHEELER, Ph.D., 1,1,. D., President of the University. 
 
 EXPERIMENT STATION STAFF. 
 
 E. J. WICKSON, M.A., Acting Director and Horticulturist. 
 
 E. W. HILGARD, Ph.D., LL.D., Chemist. 
 
 W. A. SETCHELL, Ph.D., Botanist. 
 
 ELWOOD MEAD, M.S., C.E-, Irrigation Engineer. 
 
 C. W. WOODWORTH, M.S., Entomologist. [ on leave.) 
 
 R. H. LOUGHRIDGE, Ph.D., Agricultural Geologist and Soil Physicist. {Soils and Alkali.) (Absent 
 
 M. E. JAFFA, M.S., Chemist. (Foods, Nutrition.) 
 
 G. W. SHAW, M.A., Ph.D., Chemist. (Cereals, Oils, Beet-Sugar.) 
 
 GEORGE E. COLBY, M.S., Chemist. {Fruits, Waters, Insecticides.) 
 
 RALPH E. SMITH, B.S., Plant Pathologist. 
 
 A. R. WARD, B.S.A., D.V.M., Veterinarian and Bacteriologist. 
 
 E. W. MAJOR, B.Agr., Animal Industry. 
 
 F. T. BIOLETTI, M.S., Viticulturist. (Grapes, IVine, and Zymology.) 
 H. M. HALL, M.S., Assistant Botanist. 
 
 H. J. QUAYLE, Assistant Entomologist. 
 
 JOHN S. BURD, B.S., Chemist, in charge of Fertilizer Control. 
 
 C. M. HARING, D.V. M., Assistant Veterinarian and Bacteriologist. 
 ALBERT M. WEST, B.S., Assistant Plant Pathologist. 
 
 E. H. SMITH, M.S., Assistant Plant Pathologist. 
 
 G. R. STEWART, Student Assistant in Station Laboratory. 
 , Assistant in Soil Laboratory. 
 
 RALPH BENTON, B. S., Assistant in Entomology. 
 
 LUDWIG ROSENSTEIN, Laboratory Assistant in Fertilizer Control. 
 
 ALFRED TOURNIER, Assistant in Viticulture. 
 
 ( 
 
 HANS HOLM, Student Assistant in Zymology. 
 A. J. GAUMITZ, Assistant in Cereal Laboratory. 
 J. C. BRADLEY, A.B., Assistant in Entomology. 
 
 D. L. BUNNELL, Clerk to the Director. 
 
 R. E. MANSELL, Foreman of Central Station Grounds. 
 
 JOHN TUOHY, Patron, ) 
 
 r Tulare Substation, Tulare. 
 J. T. BEARSS, Foreman, ) 
 
 J. W. MILLS, Pomona, in charge Cooperative Experiments in Southern California. 
 
 J. W. ROPER, Patron, ) 
 
 V University Forestry Station, Chico. 
 
 E- C. MILLER, In charge, 
 
 ROY JONES, Patron, 
 
 N. D. INGHAM, Foreman, 
 
 VINCENT J. HUNTLEY, Foreman of Calif ornia Poultry Experiment Station, Petaluma. 
 
 ROY JONES, Patron, ) 
 
 > University Forestry Station, Santa Monica. 
 N. D. INGHAM, Foreman, ) 
 
 The Station publications (Reports and Bulletins), so long as avail- 
 able, will be sent to any citizen of the State on application. 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED-WHEAL 
 
 By G. W. SHAW. 
 
 There would seem to be little necessity of discussing the importance 
 of good seed, yet the inquiries made of the Station as to the quantity 
 of inferior seed which should be used to make up for its admitted 
 deficiencies is evidence that there still exist many advocates of the use 
 of such seed. And again, that comparatively little attention is given 
 to this matter of seed selection is certainly indicated by the samples 
 of seed-wheat which have been collected by the University. Further, 
 it is highly prejudicial to the highest results that there are numerous 
 erroneous ideas, held very tenaciously, as to several points concern- 
 ing seed- wheat. There is little doubt that much of the present condi- 
 tion of low yield is due to the lack of attention to the rational selection 
 of first-class seed— the best of seed is always the cheapest. If we are 
 to grade up our wheat we must follow the same practice in cereal 
 culture as is followed by the stock-breeder in building up his stock, 
 using only the best types for purposes of reproduction. 
 
 It is certain that one of the greatest factors which has tended to 
 reduce the yield of wheat in California is the egregious blunder of 
 constantly selecting the smallest and shrunken grains for seed. If 
 there is one thing that has been conclusively demonstrated by the 
 most carefully conducted experiments, it has been the superiority of 
 product, in both quantity and quality, obtained from the selection 
 of large and vigorous grains for seed. Numerous experiments, con- 
 ducted both in this country and in Australia, not only with wheat, 
 but also with corn and other grains, have so conclusively demonstrated 
 this point as to render it beyond question. 
 
 No well-informed breeder to-day would deliberately follow the 
 practice of selecting as his parent stock the poorest animals to be 
 found. The merest tyro knows something of the value of quality in 
 both dam and sire in the production of racing stock, yet, notwith- 
 standing our plants are subject to essentially the same laws of repro- 
 duction and development, we find growers continually selecting the 
 poorest of parental seed, thus gaining a constantly degenerating 
 product, both as to quantity and quality. The sole idea seems to be 
 to get the largest number of plants upon an acre of ground, irrespec- 
 tive of the fact that quality of grain as well as quantity makes for 
 profit. 
 
 This matter of the selection of high-quality seed is so important 
 that I am constrained to believe that the lack of proper attention to 
 it has had more than any other one thing to do with the decreasing 
 
PLATE I. Typical Heads of Common California Wheats. 
 
 Nb.l. California Gem. No. 2. White Australian. No. 3. Washington Bluesterri. 
 
 No. 4. Little Club. No. 5. Sonora. 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED-WHEAT. 
 
 151 
 
 iiiti * * » « 
 
 ***** s » * * * * * 
 
 wheat production, excepting only the encroachment of other crops. 
 The wonderful increase in the yields of corn in Illinois and Iowa has 
 been largely due to the vigorous campaign on the part of the Stations 
 of those states with reference to the selection of high-class seed, and 
 I am inclined to believe that a similar campaign with reference to 
 the selection of seed-wheat in California would yield similar results 
 with reference to this crop, and would do more than any other one 
 thing toward improving the yield per annum. 
 
 Preliminary to other investigations along the line of cereal improve- 
 ment, this bulletin aims 
 merely to present certain 
 ascertained facts with ref- 
 erence to the condition of 
 the seed-wheat commonly 
 used by California farm- 
 ers, and to compare the 
 results with those repre- 
 senting really first-class 
 seed of the respective types. 
 The common method of 
 grading of wheat for selec- 
 tion of seed is by separa- 
 tion of the grains according 
 to size. This is most con- 
 veniently done by means 
 of sieves. The grains in a 
 given sample vary in size: If the sample fee passed through a sieve 
 having a mesh sufficiently large to retain only the very largest grains, 
 and then successively through sieves with smaller and smaller meshes, 
 until no more grains will pass through, the sample will have been 
 graded— that is, each lot or pile of wheat will consist of grains of a 
 given size. 
 
 There is no recognized standard to represent the different sizes of 
 grain, but certain other investigators, especially Dr. N. A. Cobb, of 
 New South Wales, after considerable study of the range of variation 
 in the grains of wheat, adopted the following meshes, which will be 
 retained in these investigations, inasmuch as it will then permit of 
 certain desirable comparisons : 
 
 lIlIlIiillllllillllililHIilillUIIIlll 
 liii iffff M i 11 1 II ft II 1 III 
 
 kill : I I I I I I I: I 1 fl J f ill 
 
 S # 1 M ■ . ' i ? 1 I I I I I i -1 1 I S 
 
 U i 1 I 1 1 I I 1 1 1 ■ 
 
 ■ j lliilllll! 
 
 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 
 
 J .. ( - .. > I i ■ I I I I I I I I I .8 I 
 
 PLATE II. Showing the character of sieves employed m 
 making separations of wheat. 
 
 Size. 
 Me^h diam, 
 
 3.25 mm. 3.00 mm. 
 
 3 4 5 
 
 2.75 mm. 2.50 mm. 2.25 mm. 
 
 2.00 mm, 
 
 7 
 Trash. 
 
 The character of the mesh has much to do with a proper grading 
 by this method. The shape of the wheat-grain is such that a slit is 
 required for the openings in the sieves in order to allow the passage 
 of the grain. An examination of the wheat-grains will show that 
 
152 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 the two transverse diameters are not of the same size, and this must 
 be regarded as having reference to the shortest diameter in each case. 
 This difference in transverse diameter of grains is easily observed in 
 Plate III, which is primarily intended to represent the actual size of the 
 grains separated by each sieve. Unfortunately it is impossible to show in 
 
 3.25 mm. 
 
 3.00 mm. 
 
 2.75 mm. 
 
 2.50 mm. 
 
 2.25 mm. 
 
 2.00 mm. 
 
 No.l. No. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. No. 6. 
 
 PLATE III. Showing actual size of grain separated by each sieve. The diameter of grain in each 
 size is shown in millimeters by the figures at the top. 
 
 this picture the real character of certain of the samples, because many 
 contained a large proportion of shriveled ("pinched") grains. Such 
 pinched grains have an outline which is large in proportion to the 
 actual weight of the grain, consequently such grains appear of undue 
 size in the illustration. This undue proportion of size to weight will 
 perhaps be the more clearly understood by referring to Plate IV. 
 
 i. 
 
 PLATE IV. 
 
 2. <3. 4. 
 
 Showing four conditions of wheat grain. 1. Plump. 2. Slightly pinched. 
 3. Pinched. 4. Badly pinched. Enlarged three diameters. 
 
 Different varieties of wheat will grade differently ; hence, in making 
 a comparison as to the quality of seed, as measured by the grad- 
 ing, it is necessary to compare the samples of a given variety with a 
 standard of the same variety only. This will be apparent by com- 
 paring grades obtained from typical samples of the common California 
 wheats. (See Plate V.) The actual size of the grains represented in 
 these piles may be seen in Plate III. 
 
 Table Showing Grading of Good Samples of Common California Wheats. 
 
 Grades. 
 
 3.25 mm. 
 
 3.00 mm. 
 
 2.75 mm. 
 
 2.50mm. 
 
 5 
 2.25 mm 
 
 2.00mm, 
 
 7 
 Trash. 
 
 Weight 
 
 Per 
 Bushel. 
 
 Australian, No. 420 
 
 Club, No. 130 
 
 Sonora, No. 167 
 
 Bluestem, No. 64... 
 
 Per cent. 
 28.61 
 3.90 
 21.64 
 43.66 
 
 Per cent. 
 18.49 
 13.00 
 14.22 
 22.29 
 
 Per cent. 
 28.74 
 24.20 
 16.80 
 20.95 
 
 Per cent. 
 19.62 
 50.80 
 38.54 
 10.71 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1.83 
 
 4.10 
 
 3.32 
 
 .91 
 
 Per cent 
 
 1.93 
 
 1.00 
 
 4.42 
 
 .62 
 
 Per 
 
 Cf7lt 
 
 .75 
 2.60 
 1.06 
 
 .83 
 
 lbs. 
 60.5 
 60.0 
 
 61.0 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED-WHEAT. 
 
 153 
 
 These figures are the re- 
 sults obtained by separating 
 the several sizes of grains by 
 means of the set of sieves 
 described in this bulletin, the 
 samples used having been 
 very carefully selected as 
 representing a very perfect 
 typical lot of the variety in- 
 dicated in each case. The 
 figures show that a really 
 good White Australian wheat 
 gives a grading much differ- 
 ent from one of Salt Lake 
 Club on the one hand, and 
 from Sonora on the other. In 
 the former variety we should 
 expect from 70 to 75 per cent 
 of the berries to fall within 
 the first three sizes, while in 
 the Club not more than from 
 40 to 50 per cent would be in- 
 cluded within these sizes, the 
 bulk of the grain normally 
 falling within the intermedi- 
 ate grades. This tells us 
 nothing, however, as to the 
 real shape of the kernels, but 
 only refers to the relative 
 length of the minor transverse 
 axis. 
 
 The greater distribution of 
 the sizes seems to be at least 
 partly dependent upon the 
 compactness of the head ; that 
 is, other things being equal, 
 the shorter and more compact 
 the head the greater will be 
 the number of grains which 
 will fall within one size. For 
 instance, it will be seen that 
 in even the standard Club by 
 far the larger number of 
 
 o 
 (3 
 
 c 
 
 02 
 
 X 
 
 < 
 
 s-2 
 s ■ = - 
 o o 
 
 ° £ 
 
 fa s 
 o S 
 
 6- 
 
 S « 
 
 > * 
 
 X 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 Q C 
 
 £ O 
 
 < +* 
 
 be 
 
 fa c 
 
 « fl 
 
 2 o 
 & & 
 
 05 
 
 o 
 fa 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 02 S 
 >'l 
 
 3U *» 
 
 o 
 55 
 
154 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 grains are in the 2.50 mm. grade, while in White Australian the bulk of 
 the grains is quite well distributed over three' sizes, and this can be 
 said of Bluestem as well. Contrasting the two types of head it will 
 be seen that the Salt Lake (Little) Club is a much shorter and more 
 compact head, and the grading shows also that the grains are more 
 nearly of the same size. (See Plate I.) 
 
 It is not alone in the matter of seed that this matter of the relative 
 number of large and small grains in the varieties is important, but it 
 also has a bearing upon the milling value, other things being equal. 
 For instance, of two wheats otherwise of equal value for milling, the 
 one whose grains are the larger will give the larger yield of flour. 
 Millers pretty generally recognize this by screening out the smallest 
 grains. This may also be shown by certain results obtained with the 
 mill at this laboratory. Further, we might expect this a priori, 
 because there is bound to be a larger percentage of bran upon the 
 smaller grains. 
 
 The samples collected for examination were obtained over a wide 
 area in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys, the two great wheat- 
 growing sections of the State, and probably fairly represent the 
 general character of the seed being used by the farmers of the State. 
 The separations made are set forth below in tabular form, and when 
 examined show a number of things of interest bearing upon the matter 
 of the character of seed-wheat being used by the farmers of the State. 
 
 Grading of White Australian Seed- Wheat. (Collected 1904.) 
 
 No. 
 
 Locality 
 
 3.25 rum 
 
 3.00 mm 
 
 2.75 mm 
 
 2.50 mm 
 
 2.25 mm 
 
 6 
 2.00 mm. I Trash. 
 
 Weight 
 
 per 
 Bushel. 
 
 22 
 
 23 
 
 26 
 
 28 
 
 66 
 
 67 
 
 68 
 
 62 
 
 69 
 
 73 
 
 78 
 
 77 
 
 127 
 
 129 
 
 134 
 
 138 
 
 141 
 
 Stanislaus ____ 
 
 do .---..: 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 Sonoma. / 
 
 Fresno 
 
 do ...;: 
 
 San Joaquin 
 
 Fresno 
 
 do ..... 
 
 Merced 
 
 do 
 
 Stanislaus ... 
 
 Merced 
 
 Kern . ... 
 
 Fresno-.... ..... 
 
 Yuba 
 
 Average 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1.17 
 
 4.85 
 
 4.30 
 
 6.80 
 
 21.67 
 
 21.10 
 
 6.85 
 
 3.20 
 
 .50 
 
 10.30 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 5.70 
 
 1.80 
 
 .70 
 
 .60 
 
 3.60 
 
 5.48 
 
 Per rent. 
 
 6.96 
 
 12.00 
 
 19.20 
 
 11.55 
 
 15.83 
 
 9,80 
 
 10. 6Q 
 
 7.40 
 
 3.55 
 
 13.40 
 
 1.50 
 
 1.50 
 
 16.30 
 
 5.20 
 
 2.10 
 
 6.20 
 
 10.90 
 
 Per cent, 
 29.92 
 31.45 
 41.20 
 23.30 
 
 ■ 26.49 
 15.50 
 26.90 
 22.20 
 12.30 
 19.40 
 9.10 
 10.20 
 40.20 
 26.00 
 19.00 
 21.10 
 62.30 
 
 Percent 
 39.10 
 42.35 
 31.90 
 48.40 
 30.26 
 27.65 
 48.45 
 60.00 
 66.40 
 38.20 
 64.00 
 60.50 
 32.00 
 60.40 
 63.30 
 55.60 
 16.10 
 
 9.05 ' 25.68 46.15 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 13.18 
 3.15 
 1.30 
 6.55 
 2.63 
 3.60 
 3.70 
 5.20 
 
 13.90 
 3.70 
 
 13.40 
 
 21.90 
 1.50 
 3.40 
 8.60 
 
 12.30 
 2.70 
 
 Per cent. 
 5.43 
 1.30 
 
 .80 
 1.80 
 
 .53 
 2.45 
 1.20 
 
 .50 
 1 
 1 
 1 
 
 80 
 70 
 70 
 .40 
 1.30 
 1.00 
 2.20 
 1.20 
 1.40 
 
 Percent. 
 
 4.24 
 
 4.20 
 
 .50 
 
 1.60 
 
 2.60 
 
 19.95 
 
 2.45 
 
 1.50 
 
 1.55 
 
 13.20 
 
 10.20 
 
 2.30 
 
 3.00 
 
 2.30 
 
 4.00 
 
 3.10 
 
 3.60 
 
 lbs. 
 58.5 
 59.0 
 60.0 
 58.5 
 58.0 
 56.0 
 58.5 
 56.5 
 58.0 
 58.0 
 52.5 
 56.0 
 61.8 
 63.5 
 61.5 
 
 7.10 
 
 1.52 
 
 4.70 
 
 58.4 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED- WHEAT. 
 
 155 
 
 
 Grading of 
 
 White Australian Seed-Wheat. (Collected 
 
 1905.) 
 
 
 No. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 l ' 
 3.25 mm. 
 
 2 
 3.00 mm. 
 
 3 
 2.75 mm. 
 
 4 
 
 2.50 mm. 
 
 5 
 2.25 mm. 
 
 6 
 2.oo mm 
 
 7 
 Trash. 
 
 Weight 
 
 per 
 Bushel. 
 
 359 
 366 
 
 Merced 
 
 Fresno 
 
 Percent. 
 
 .00 
 
 .41 
 
 10.83 
 
 2.30 
 
 7.06 
 
 4.22 
 
 .00 
 
 4.02 
 
 27.17 
 
 5.80 
 
 28.61 
 
 8.22 
 
 Percent. 
 .00 
 2.04 
 
 14.92 
 2.04 
 5.57 
 6.27 
 1.48 
 5.07 
 
 16.37 
 5.32 
 
 18.49 
 
 7.05 
 
 Percent. 
 .90 
 
 3.85 
 32.36 
 
 6.07 
 21.06 
 19.73 
 
 6.64 
 19.71 
 26.34 
 18.67 
 28.74 
 
 Per cent. 
 49.12 
 45.67 
 38.14 
 51.41 
 54.83 
 57.98 
 66.26 
 6330 
 29.27 
 61.49 
 19.62 
 
 Percent 
 
 40.22 
 
 36.24 
 
 2.31 
 
 25.11 
 
 7.55 
 
 7.69 
 
 20. 1 7 
 
 6.21 
 
 .48 
 
 5.24 
 
 1.83 
 
 Percent. 
 
 6.02 
 
 9.15 
 
 1.01 
 
 8.68 
 
 1.38 
 
 1.77 
 
 3.56 
 
 .HI 
 
 .04 
 
 .12 
 
 1.93 
 
 3.14 
 
 /'' /• cent. 
 3.79 
 2.66 
 
 .51 
 4.39 
 2.54 
 2.33 
 
 .51 
 1.80 
 
 .60 
 3.38 
 
 .75 
 
 lbs. 
 
 58.0 
 .54.5 
 
 368 
 369 
 
 San Joaquin 
 
 do 
 
 63.2 
 53.0 
 
 370 
 
 do 
 
 56.5 
 
 373 
 375 
 398 
 416 
 417 
 420 
 
 Butte 
 
 do ._.. 
 
 Stanislaus 
 
 Sacramento 
 
 do 
 
 Butte 
 
 Average.. 
 
 58.5 
 54.5 
 57.2 
 58.5 
 57.5 
 60.5 
 
 
 16.73 
 
 48.83 
 
 13.91 
 
 1.12 
 
 56.9 
 
 Grading of Salt Lake Club Seed-Wheat. (Collected 1904.) 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 Weight 
 
 No. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 per 
 
 
 
 3.25 mm. 
 
 3.00 mm. 
 
 2.75 mm. 
 
 2.50 mm. 
 
 2.2omm. 
 
 2.00 mm. 
 
 Trash. 
 
 Bushel. 
 
 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Per cent 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 lbs. 
 
 12 
 
 Yuba. - . 
 
 5.30 
 
 7.75 
 
 20.10 
 
 57.35 
 
 6.20 
 
 1.65 
 
 1.65 
 
 58.5 
 
 18 
 
 Stanislaus.. ... 
 
 4.50 
 
 7.05 
 
 18.80 
 
 50.90 
 
 12.25 
 
 2.25 
 
 3.90 
 
 57.5 
 
 27 
 
 do 
 
 1.45 
 
 2.10 
 
 11.95 
 
 70.40 
 
 11.20 
 
 2.20 
 
 .60 
 
 58.0 
 
 34 
 
 Madera . 
 
 .00 
 .15 
 
 1.65 
 1.30 
 
 12.70 
 12.90 
 
 67.80 
 
 69.80 
 
 11.55 
 10.35 
 
 3.40 
 2.30 
 
 1.10 
 3.30 
 
 5S.5 
 
 37 
 
 do 
 
 56.0 
 
 39 
 
 do . . . . 
 
 .00 
 
 .25 
 
 2.45 
 
 56.55 
 
 27.20 
 
 4.75 
 
 8.70 
 
 53.5 
 
 49 
 
 Glenn - 
 
 .30 
 
 2.90 
 
 9.20 
 
 59.20 
 
 13.70 
 
 3.70 
 
 10.90 
 
 54.0 
 
 50 
 
 do 
 
 ' 2.90 
 
 3.00 
 
 11.10 
 
 60.80 
 
 10.80 
 
 3.80 
 
 7.90 
 
 58.5 
 
 51 
 
 do 
 
 3.55 
 
 8.40 
 
 19.05 
 
 59.20 
 
 5.55 
 
 1.30 
 
 3.45 
 
 58.5 
 
 52 
 
 do 
 
 .20 
 
 1.90 
 
 4.75 
 
 40.25 
 
 27.20 
 
 7.90 
 
 12.80 
 
 57.0 
 
 53 
 
 do 
 
 1.45 
 
 3.30 
 
 15.10 
 
 67.30 
 
 •7.55 
 
 1,30 
 
 4.10 
 
 58.0 
 
 54 
 
 do 
 
 .90 
 
 2.20 
 
 14.80 
 
 56.80 
 
 14.00 
 
 3.36 
 
 11.40 
 
 59.0 
 
 55 
 
 do 
 
 1.31 
 
 4.45 
 
 14.38 
 
 52.42 
 
 15.00 
 
 3.64 
 
 8.91 
 
 56.5 
 
 56 
 
 do 
 
 .15 
 
 1.20 
 
 6.65 
 
 66.30 
 
 18.15 
 
 2.90 
 
 4.70 
 
 57.0 
 
 57 
 
 do 
 
 .00 
 
 .65 
 
 6.85 
 
 61.60 
 
 10.45 
 
 2.60 
 
 17.45 
 
 55.0 
 
 58 
 
 do 
 
 .25 
 
 2.30 
 
 10.25 
 
 6.67 
 
 8.45 
 
 3.05 
 
 7.80 
 
 55.5 
 
 59 
 
 do 
 
 .50 
 
 3.90 
 
 17.10 
 
 55.80 
 
 7.60 
 
 4.60 
 
 10.20 
 
 57.0 
 
 60 
 
 do 
 
 .40 
 
 1.30 
 
 8.10 
 
 55.40 
 
 19.80 
 
 4.20 
 
 10.60 
 
 56.0 
 
 128 
 
 Stanislaus 
 
 2.60 
 
 8.00 
 
 19.10 
 
 56.50 
 
 7.30 
 
 1.40 
 
 4.30 
 
 62.0 
 
 124 
 
 do 
 
 1.20 
 
 11.40 
 
 31.40 
 
 49.20 
 
 4.30 
 
 .70 
 
 1.60 
 
 62.0 
 
 131 
 
 Merced 
 
 .00 
 
 4.30 
 
 7.30 
 
 57.80 
 
 14.80 
 
 4.60 
 
 4.50 
 
 62.0 
 
 138 
 
 do 
 
 .00 
 
 1.50 
 
 11.00 
 
 57.90 
 
 19.40 
 
 3.30 
 
 0.40 
 
 60.5 
 
 136 
 
 
 .00 
 
 3.40 
 
 8.10 
 
 60.(50 
 
 19.40 
 
 4.20 
 
 4.10 
 
 63.5 
 
 139 
 
 Colusa -. .- 
 
 .50 
 
 4.05 
 
 20.30 
 
 66.00 
 
 6.60. 
 
 .85 
 
 2.10 
 
 
 143 
 
 Yolo 
 
 3.80 
 
 8.80 
 
 28.90 
 
 45.10 
 
 6.60 
 
 2.80 
 
 3.90 
 
 
 144 
 
 do 
 
 2.88 
 
 8.00 
 
 19.60 
 
 59.20 
 
 5.80 
 
 1.40 
 
 3.00 
 
 60.0 
 
 155 
 
 Stanislaus ... .. 
 
 3.60 
 
 6.98 
 
 18.48 
 
 54.16 
 
 11.38 
 
 2.78 
 
 2.62 
 
 60.0 
 
 158 
 
 do - 
 
 4.96 
 
 6.20 
 
 14.68 
 
 55.90 
 
 11.86 
 
 3.78 
 
 2.62 
 
 59.0 
 
 160 
 
 do 
 
 3.14 
 
 4.88 
 
 15.76 
 
 61.36 
 
 11.24 j 
 
 2.40 
 
 1.22 
 
 60'.0 
 
 161 
 
 do 
 
 7.80 
 .00 
 
 10.28 
 
 .50 j 
 
 19.12 
 5.30 
 
 47.48 
 70.40 
 
 9.28 
 19.50 ; 
 
 3.46 ! 
 1.90 
 
 2.58 
 2.50 
 
 62.0 
 
 130 
 
 Merced .. . 
 
 60.0 
 
 130 
 
 do 
 
 Average 
 
 3.90 
 
 13.00 
 
 24.20 
 
 50.80 
 
 4.10 
 
 1.00 
 
 1 
 
 2.60 
 
 60.0 
 
 
 1.85 
 
 4.59 
 
 14.36 
 
 56.43 
 
 12.11 
 
 2.93 
 
 5.42 
 
 58.3 
 
156 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 Grading of Salt Lake Club Seed-Wheat. (Collected 1905.) 
 
 No. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 l 
 3.25mm. 
 
 2 
 3.00 mm. 
 
 3 
 2.75 mm. 
 
 4 
 2.50 mm. 
 
 5 
 2.25 mm. 
 
 6 
 2.00mm. 
 
 7 
 Trash. 
 
 Weight 
 
 per 
 Bushel. 
 
 360 
 363 
 
 Merced - 
 
 Fresno 
 
 Per cent. 
 .00 
 .00 
 .00 
 
 4.20 
 .00 
 .00 
 .00 
 .00 
 
 3.74 
 .00 
 
 Per cent. 
 .00 
 
 4.96 
 .00 
 
 6.94 
 .46 
 .00 
 .00 
 .42 
 
 4.96 
 .00 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 2.51 
 
 3.20 
 
 .85 
 
 18.29 
 
 1.55 
 
 2.53 
 
 .49 
 
 1.02 
 
 16.52 
 
 1.62 
 
 Per cent. 
 24.24 
 36.74 
 11.34 
 58.18 
 34.56 
 44.59 
 18.12 
 15.30 
 58.77 
 40.32 
 
 Per cent. 
 39.10 
 34.57 
 33.50 
 8.66 
 45.43 
 38.05 
 43.06 
 36.23 
 11.10 
 41.53 
 
 Per cent. 
 23.22 
 14.25 
 32.13 
 
 1.42 
 13.71 
 10.94 
 23.81 
 31.43 
 
 1.96 
 11.74 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 11.02 
 6.48 
 
 22.16 
 2.33 
 5.69 
 3.77 
 
 14.53 
 
 15.97 
 2.91 
 4.76 
 
 lbs. 
 45.5 
 51.0 
 
 367 
 
 do 
 
 44.5 
 
 372 
 374 
 
 San Joaquin 
 
 Butte 
 
 61.0 
 59.0 
 
 376 
 
 do 
 
 56.0 
 
 377 
 
 do _- 
 
 48.0 
 
 380 
 
 Merced 
 
 48.0 
 
 418 
 4?1 
 
 Sacramento 
 
 Butte 
 
 55.5 
 56.0 
 
 
 Average. 
 
 
 
 .79 
 
 1.77 
 
 4.86 
 
 34.22 
 
 33.13 
 
 16.50 
 
 8.96 
 
 52.5 
 
 Grading of Bluestem Seed-Wheat. (Collected 1904 and 1905.) 
 
 No. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 l 
 3.25 mm. 
 
 2 
 3.00 mm. 
 
 3 
 2.75 mm. 
 
 4 
 2.50 mm. 
 
 5 
 2.25 mm. 
 
 6 
 2.00 mm. 
 
 7 
 Trash. 
 
 Weight 
 
 per 
 Bushel. 
 
 15 
 16 
 
 Sutter 
 
 do 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 17.80 
 
 15.95 
 8.25 
 1.25 
 2.12 
 7.20 
 3.40 
 
 43.66 
 3.40 
 
 15.40 
 .00 
 
 Percent. 
 
 12.75 
 
 15.10 
 
 17.10 
 
 2.85 
 
 1.32 
 
 23.00 
 
 12.05 
 
 22.29 
 
 6.60 
 
 14.80 
 
 .00 
 
 Per cent. 
 26.05 
 24.00 
 45.10 
 10.65 
 11.30 
 44.85 
 38.30 
 20.95 
 19.00 
 23.20 
 3.20 
 
 Per cent 
 36.45 
 38.40 
 24.50 
 53.60 
 54.94 
 20.00 
 43.30 
 10.71 
 53.40 
 36.90 
 65.60 
 
 Percent. 
 
 3.00 
 
 2.70 
 
 1.35 
 
 22.40 
 
 22.58 
 
 1.50 
 
 1.10 
 
 .91 
 
 9.80 
 
 4.70 
 
 24.80 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1.75 
 
 1.55 
 
 1.45 
 
 4.20 
 
 5.38 
 
 .30 
 
 .80 
 
 .62 
 
 4.30 \ 
 
 1.50 
 
 3.00 
 
 Per cent 
 3.00 
 1.90 
 1.75 
 3.00 
 2.38 
 2.00 
 .70 
 .83 
 3.70 
 3.30 
 2.40 
 
 lbs. 
 59.5 
 60.0 
 
 17 
 19 
 
 Stanislaus 
 
 do 
 
 58.0 
 58.0 
 
 21 
 
 do 
 
 59.0 
 
 24 
 25 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 59.0 
 60.0 
 
 64 
 
 Sonoma. 
 
 61.0 
 
 65 
 121 
 132 
 
 do 
 
 San Joaquin 
 
 Merced. 
 
 6~2~6 
 
 60.0 
 
 
 Average ..- 
 
 
 
 10.76 
 
 11.62 
 
 24.24 
 
 39.80 
 
 8.62 
 
 2.26 
 
 2.26 
 
 59.6 
 
 
 
 
 Grading of Sonora Seed- Wheat — 1904 and 1905. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 3.25 mm. 
 
 3.00 mm. 
 
 2.75 mm. 
 
 2.50mm. 
 
 2.25 mm. 
 
 2.00mm. 
 
 Trash. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 Percent. 
 
 .50 
 
 1.60 
 
 7.25 
 
 62.00 
 
 14.25 
 
 2.30 
 
 11.99 
 
 .00 
 
 .10 
 
 4.58 
 
 78.92 
 
 11.92 
 
 1.68 
 
 1.80 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 13.00 
 
 57.20 
 
 25.40 
 
 2.90 
 
 2.40 
 
 .00 
 
 1.90 
 
 11.30 
 
 77.00 
 
 8.40 
 
 .40 
 
 .50 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .10 
 
 57.30 
 
 32.90 
 
 5.20 
 
 4.30 
 
 .00 
 
 1.10 
 
 9.30 
 
 77.30 
 
 11.30 
 
 1.70 
 
 .50 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .50 
 
 40.30 
 
 43.80 
 
 5.60 
 
 .61 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 37.70 
 
 54.50 
 
 3.80 
 
 4.00 
 
 13.65 
 
 9.29 
 
 22.21 
 
 47.32 
 
 3.42 
 
 3.38 
 
 .73 
 
 5.00 
 
 6.25 
 
 52.76 
 
 5-'.04 
 
 9.08 
 
 3.28 
 
 2.04 
 
 1.92 
 
 2.01 
 
 12.10 
 
 58.71 
 
 21.50 
 
 3.02 
 
 2.89 
 
 Weight 
 
 per 
 Bushel. 
 
 Madera 
 
 do 
 
 San Joaquin 
 Fresno 
 
 do ._:.... 
 
 do 
 
 Tulare 
 
 do 
 
 Kings . 
 
 Fresno 
 
 Average. . 
 
 lbs. 
 58.5 
 64.0 
 64.0 
 65.0 
 62.0 
 73.0 
 63.0 
 61.5 
 
 6L5 
 
 63.9 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED-WHEAT. 
 
 157 
 
 Grading of Miscellaneous Seed-Wheat Samples — 1905-1906. 
 
 No. 
 
 Locality. 
 
 l 
 
 3.25mm. 
 
 2 
 
 3.00 mm. 
 
 3 
 2.75mm. 
 
 4 
 2.50 mm. 
 
 5 
 2.25 mm. 
 
 6 
 2.00 mm. 
 
 7 
 Trash. 
 
 Weight 
 
 per 
 Bushel. 
 
 361 
 
 Merced 
 
 Percent. 
 
 .72 
 
 .00 
 
 16.32 
 
 7.15 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 7.54 
 
 .00 
 
 16.96 
 
 2.71 
 
 5.49 
 
 .78 
 
 1.28 
 
 7.57 
 
 12.04 
 
 .00 
 
 18.72 
 
 8.83 
 
 24.03 
 
 .00 
 
 22.29 
 
 .00 
 
 3.87 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 8.86 
 
 Percent. 
 
 1.42 
 
 .86 
 
 14.85 
 
 14.20 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 8.13 
 
 .76 
 
 15.63 
 
 5.22 
 
 6.27 
 
 2.22 
 
 1.44 
 
 13.37 
 
 14.70 
 
 3.98 
 
 10.97 
 
 6.50 
 
 16.77 
 
 .89 
 
 13.13 
 
 .00 
 
 7.27 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 10.86 
 
 Percent. 
 
 4.55 
 
 1.71 
 
 26.77 
 
 25.26 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 20.31 
 
 4.38 
 26.24 
 16.56 
 19.63 
 10.12 
 11*05 
 29.02 
 32.13 
 
 2.41 
 11.94 
 13.64 
 25.52 
 
 6.79 
 21.82 
 
 1.16 
 26.11 
 
 1.70 
 
 1.15 
 23.54 
 
 Per cent. 
 40.51 
 40.80 
 40.48 
 47.56 
 39.84 
 45.97 
 54.34 
 49.73 
 29.78 
 60.21 
 56.77 
 73.53 
 67.39 
 44.95 
 38.32 
 72.11 
 37.21 
 47.90 
 31.03 
 57.90 
 37.38 
 52.05 
 55.50 
 53.75 
 38.43 
 49.42 
 
 Per cent. 
 29.26 
 38.27 
 
 1.46 
 
 3.01 
 51.45 
 45.95 
 
 6.44 
 29.42 
 
 7.02 
 10.74 
 
 5.63 
 10.82 
 13.78 
 
 3.91 
 
 1.74 
 18.43 
 14.16 
 17.83 
 
 1.11 
 24.46 
 
 4.37 
 36.77 
 
 5.38 
 34.79 
 40.31 
 
 4.58 
 
 Per cent. 
 13.41 
 14.18 
 
 .00 
 
 .31 
 6.72 
 5.56 
 1.06 
 
 .05 
 3.22 
 2.18 
 
 .22 
 1.35 
 2.58 
 
 .79 
 
 .40 
 2.11 
 3.22 
 2.91 
 
 .23 
 6.50 
 
 .77 
 7.09 
 
 .91 
 
 6.97 
 
 10.25 
 
 1.42 
 
 Percent. 
 10.26 
 4.14 
 
 .19 
 2.51 
 1.98 
 2.55 
 2.28 
 15.70 
 1.18 
 2.38 
 6.01 
 1.07 
 2.49 
 
 .46 
 
 .71 
 1.08 
 3.81 
 2.46 
 1.28 
 3.48 
 
 .25 
 2.99 
 
 .92 
 1.75 
 9.86 
 1.41 
 
 lbs. 
 47.5 
 
 362 
 419 
 414 
 
 do 
 
 Sacramento 
 
 do 
 
 52.2 
 57.5 
 60.5 
 
 364 
 365 
 415 
 397 
 
 Fresno _ 
 
 do 
 
 Sacramento 
 
 Tehama. 
 
 49.3 
 50.0 
 59.5 
 52.5 
 
 396 
 395 
 
 do 
 
 do -. 
 
 58.0 
 58.0 
 
 394 
 
 do 
 
 56.5 
 
 393 
 392 
 353 
 
 do 
 
 San Joaquin 
 
 do 
 
 58.5 
 56.0 
 
 353 
 
 do 
 
 63.5 
 
 351 
 
 do .--. 
 
 57.0 
 
 350 
 
 do . 
 
 58.5 
 
 349 
 
 do . 
 
 58.5 
 
 348 
 
 do 
 
 64.0 
 
 374 
 
 do 
 
 62.0 
 
 378 
 358 
 357 
 
 Butte 
 
 do 
 
 do 
 
 57.0 
 57.0 
 60.5 
 
 354 
 
 356 
 
 do 
 
 do - 
 
 56.5 
 53.0 
 
 355 
 
 do 
 
 56.0 
 
 
 Average — 
 
 
 
 6.35 
 
 6.51 
 
 13.90 
 
 48.50 
 
 17.70 
 
 3.63 
 
 3.20 
 
 56.7 
 
 Collecting, for the sake of comparison, the averages for the two 
 seasons and arranging them against the standard and the poorest 
 sample of the respective types, we will have a striking representation 
 of the general physical character of the seed- wheat, as based upon its 
 grading, which our farmers are using. 
 
 Table Showing Comparative Grading of Standard, Average and Poorest Samples 
 
 of Wheat Used for Seed-Wheat — 1904-1906. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 ■ 3 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 7 
 
 3.25 mm. 
 
 3.00 mm. 
 
 2.75 mm. 
 
 2.50 mm. 
 
 2.25 mm. 
 
 2.00 mm. 
 
 Trash. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 3.90 
 
 13.00 
 
 24.20 
 
 50.80 
 
 4.10 
 
 1.00 
 
 2.60 
 
 1.66 
 
 3.92 
 
 12.09 
 
 51.17 
 
 17.14 
 
 6.13 
 
 6.26 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .85 
 
 11.34 
 
 33.50 
 
 32.13 
 
 22.16 
 
 28.61 
 
 18.49 
 
 28.74 
 
 19.62 
 
 1.83 
 
 1.93 
 
 .75 
 
 6.56 
 
 8.23 
 
 22.16 
 
 47.20 
 
 9.74 
 
 2.19 
 
 3.84 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .90 
 
 49.12 
 
 40.22 
 
 6.02 
 
 3.79 
 
 43.66 
 
 22.29 
 
 20.95 
 
 10.71 
 
 .91 
 
 .62 
 
 .83 
 
 9.45 
 
 10.19 
 
 21.82 
 
 38.71 
 
 7.93 
 
 2.01 
 
 1.99 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 .00 
 
 7.15 
 
 59.21 
 
 22.98 
 
 10.70 
 
 Weight 
 
 per 
 Bushe . 
 
 Salt Lake Club. 
 
 Standard (130) ..... 
 
 Average (2 years) 
 
 Poorest (367) 
 
 White Australian. 
 
 Standard (420) 
 
 Average (2 years) 
 
 Poorest (359) 
 
 Bluestem,. 
 
 Standard (64) 
 
 Average (2 years) 
 
 Poorest (379) 
 
 lbs. 
 60.0 
 57.0 
 44.5 
 
 60.5 
 
 57.7 
 53.0 
 
 61.0 
 
 58.5 
 46.2 
 
158 
 
 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 H 
 
 o 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 s3 
 
 
 co 
 
 
 cp 
 
 
 A 
 
 
 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 
 '"/^ 
 
 a 
 
 cp 
 
 o 
 
 be 
 
 o 
 
 o3 
 
 cn 
 
 Fh 
 
 
 cp 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 oS 
 
 
 aj 
 CP 
 
 & 
 aj 
 c/j 
 
 a; 
 
 CP 
 
 be 
 aj 
 
 a3 
 
 T3 
 cp 
 
 Tl 
 
 
 Tr 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 S-. 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 P< 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 z 
 
 
 o 
 
 
 a! 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 
 y — v 
 
 CO 
 
 ~- 
 
 H 
 
 iO 
 
 ." 
 
 eo 
 
 £ 
 
 ^■^ 
 
 !-. 
 
 rr 
 
 bf. 
 
 53 
 
 «*H 
 
 53 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 0) 
 
 MH 
 
 X 
 
 0) 
 
 
 
 CO 
 
 & 
 
 ~ 
 
 5 
 
 "~* 
 
 03 
 
 co 
 
 CO 
 
 73 
 
 
 ai 
 
 cp 
 
 '<-* 
 
 SH 
 
 tlj 
 
 O 
 
 ^-^ 
 
 o 
 
 ~ 
 
 A 
 
 ~i 
 
 
 -p 
 
 cp 
 
 » — / 
 
 £ 
 
 +3 
 
 4J 
 
 Bj 
 
 93 
 
 ■d 
 
 
 53 
 
 & 
 
 ci 
 
 H 
 
 DO 
 
 
 (H 
 
 5 
 
 S3 
 
 
 
 m 
 
 
 ■u 
 
 
 CO 
 
 
 53 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 0) 
 
 
 +i 
 
 
 H 
 
 
 > 
 
 
 'ft 
 
 k ; fe 
 
 aj t - 
 
 fcJ CO 
 
 be w 
 «-> 73 
 
 o c 
 cp 53 
 
 N O 
 CO fj 
 
 be uj 
 
 ^. ^c 
 rt< o 
 
 tO O 
 
 d <p 
 
 a> ^3 
 
 .a *» 
 
 * -a 
 
 a § 
 
 CP 
 
 pq 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 w 
 
 be 
 
 d 
 
 OJ 
 
 CP 
 
 5» 
 
 O 
 
 
 o 
 
 CP 
 
 P. 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 be 
 
 c 
 be 
 
 O 
 
 CO 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 
 -d 
 o 
 
 c 
 be 
 
 o 
 
 r] 
 be 
 
 o 
 
 CO 
 
 
 > 
 
 a. 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED-WHEAT. 
 
 159 
 
 From the standpoint of practical work it may be argued that it is 
 impossible to secure as high a grade as here represented by the 
 standard, but it is certainly fair to assume that all can easily secure 
 a seed which will grade as high as the average used by 25 per cent 
 of the growers here represented. If we again select White Australian for 
 our consideration and take the grade represented by the best 25 per 
 cent of the samples, we have as follows : 
 
 i 
 
 8.25 mm. 
 
 2 
 3.00 mm 
 
 3 
 2.75 mm, 
 
 4 
 2.50 mm 
 
 2.25 mm. 
 
 6 
 2.00 mm. 
 
 7 
 Trash. 
 
 Weight 
 
 per 
 Bushel. 
 
 Average of 25' 
 
 samples 
 
 Average 
 
 of best 
 
 Per cent. 
 17.58 
 6.56 
 
 Per cent.lPer cent 
 14.24 30.31 
 8.23 22.16 
 
 Per cent, 
 28.46 
 47.20 
 
 Per cent. 
 2.46 
 9.74 
 
 Per cent. 
 1.29 
 2.19 
 
 Per cent. 
 5.89 
 3.84 
 
 lbs. 
 58 2 
 57.7 
 
 From this it may be seen that there is room for much improvement 
 in the grade of our wheat, even though no higher standard be taken 
 than that used by one fourth of the growers here represented ; and if 
 we should exclude from the average the best one fourth the difference 
 would be still more striking, although this falls far short of the 
 standard of a typical sample of this same variety, as may be seen 
 below : 
 
 
 l 
 3.25 mm. 
 
 2 
 3.00 mm. 
 
 3 
 2.75mm. 
 
 4 
 2.50 mm. 
 
 5 
 2.25 mm. 
 
 6 
 2.00 mm. 
 
 7 
 Trash. 
 
 Weight 
 
 per 
 Bushel. 
 
 Standard 
 
 Average of 25% of best 
 samples 
 
 Per cent. 
 28.61 
 
 17.58 
 
 Per cent. 
 18.49 
 
 14.24 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 28.74 
 
 30.31 
 
 Per cent. 
 19.62 
 
 28.46 
 
 Per cent. 
 1.83 
 
 2.46 
 
 Per cent. 
 1.93 
 
 1.29 
 
 Per cent. 
 .75 
 
 5.89 
 
 lbs. 
 60.5 
 
 58.2 
 
 Special attention is called to the contrast between the grading of 
 the 25 per cent of the best samples and the average for the variety, 
 because it is a standard entirely possible for the wheat-growers to 
 reach, and there is little doubt that the wheat crops would be much 
 improved by such seed, and it is a plan that could be put into immediate 
 operation. It is the worst kind of folly to continue to plant small, light 
 seed when it is so easy to secure seed of good, if not of the very best, 
 quality. No grower, however, should be satisfied with anything short 
 of the best for seed, and by so much as he lowers his standard in this 
 respect does he multiply his chances of failure. This is the more 
 important since the climatic conditions which obtain in the wheat- 
 growing sections of the State are decidedly fickle, particularly as to 
 moisture and those conditions which lead to rust attacks. We should 
 take every precaution to secure the best of seed— large, plump, and 
 vigorous— but should remember that by far the better results can 
 
160 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 CM 
 
 w, 
 
 
 us 
 
 ■ 
 
 ■• " 
 
 3 
 
 be 
 03 
 s- 
 0/ 
 > 
 o3 
 
 73 
 0/ 
 
 03 
 
 
 to o> 
 
 N 03 
 
 .-. CO 
 
 .3 <« 
 
 co o 
 
 be £ 
 
 .a 
 
 53 
 
 O 
 
 P. 
 
 S 
 
 03 
 
 CO 
 
 •O 
 O 
 O 
 
 CJD 
 
 O 
 
 bo 
 
 O 
 
 w 
 
 Oh 
 
 be obtained if we are also certain 
 that the seed has come by selection 
 from strong and vigorous plants. 
 In connection herewith it 
 should be stated that the highest 
 results can only be obtained when 
 the seed is selected from pro- 
 ductive individual plants, and 
 that under favorable conditions 
 even small perfect seeds from 
 productive plants may be better 
 than large seeds from unproduc- 
 tive plants. The main influence 
 of large grains selected by simple 
 sieve grading will be in giving the 
 plants a more vigorous start in 
 life, which of itself is of extreme 
 importance. Other things being 
 equal, it is entirely fair to pre- 
 sume that the crops which are 
 placed under the most favorable 
 environment are going to give the 
 best returns. It has been shown 
 that, in general, the more vigor- 
 ous plants (that is, those having 
 the largest spikelets) contain the 
 larger grains, so that even in 
 selecting the grains by simple 
 sieve separation the bulk of the 
 larger grains would come from 
 the more vigorous plants, and 
 thus there would be, in a measure 
 at least, a selection from vigorous 
 plants. 
 
 A brief summary of the work 
 done at various experiment sta- 
 tions touching upon this matter 
 of influence of size of seed upon 
 crop yield may be stated as fol- 
 lows: The Indiana Experiment 
 Station found an average gain in 
 three years of two and a half 
 bushels in favor of lame seed. 1 
 
 Indiana. 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED-WHEAT. 
 
 161 
 
 c3 
 
 H 
 
 S 
 © 
 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 o 
 
 
 in 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 w 
 
 w 
 
 
 i 
 
 $ 
 
 0) 
 
 Si 
 
 CO 
 
 be 
 03 
 SH 
 
 > 
 
 o3 
 
 CO 
 
 O 
 
 o 
 
 C4 
 
 ,Q 
 
 co 
 Si 
 
 o 
 
 OJO 
 
 & 
 
 tt 
 
 co 
 be 
 o3 
 <-. 
 
 > 
 
 o3 
 
 bo 
 
 o3 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 
 H 
 Pi 
 
 The Kansas Station 
 has found, from four 
 years of experimental 
 work, that a higher 
 yield is obtained from 
 wheat with high weight 
 per bushel. 1 The Ohio 
 Station, in a summary 
 of nine years' work, 
 comes to the conclusion 
 that the crop would 
 not vary with the seed 
 used. 2 The Ontario 
 Agricultural College, 
 in dealing with wheat, 
 oats, and barley from 
 a five- to eight-year 
 experimental period, 
 found that the average 
 yield of grain and 
 straw and the weight 
 per measured bushel 
 were in favor of large, 
 plump seed as against 
 either medium size or 
 small seed. 3 The North 
 Dakota Station, from 
 a four years' test, con- 
 cludes that perfect 
 grains of large size 
 and high weight pro- 
 duce better plants than 
 those of smaller size 
 and weight, even though 
 the grains come from 
 the same spike. 4 In 
 Tennessee the experi- 
 ment showed that in 
 general the yield was 
 in favor of a larger 
 seed, although it was 
 not uniformly so. 5 
 Nearly double the yield 
 
 
 :M 
 
 >» 
 
 CO 
 
 u 
 
 03 
 > 
 
 a 
 
 o3 
 si 
 
 CO 
 
 Si 
 
 CO 
 
 a 
 o 
 
 El 
 
 bo 
 
 a 
 
 • i-H 
 
 T) 
 o3 
 u 
 bo 
 
 CO 
 
 be 
 
 o3 
 
 S-i 
 CO 
 
 > 
 
 oS 
 CO 
 
 a, 
 
 a 
 
 c3 
 si 
 
 Xi 
 
 S-i 
 
 cu 
 
 CO 
 
 CO 
 
 Si 
 
 CO 
 
 si 
 
 o 
 be 
 
 T3 
 o3 
 
 t-i 
 
 be 
 
 l» 
 
 be 
 o3 
 
 t- 
 
 > 
 o3 
 CO 
 
 si 
 
 be 
 
 C 
 
 C-i 
 
 03 
 
 O. 
 
 a 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 X 
 
 S3 
 
 H 
 
 0H 
 
 1 Indiana. 
 
 Ohio Bui. 29, p. 30. 3 R ep t. Ont. Agr. Farm, 1901, pp. 82-111. 
 
162 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 of wheat was obtained at the University College of Wales from large 
 seed as over small seed. 1 Desprez, in France, experimenting with 
 several varieties for a number of years, draws the conclusion that 
 the results are in favor of large seed.- Deherian reports similar 
 results. 3 Cobb, of New South Wales, in investigations of twenty-four 
 varieties of wheat separated into large, medium, and small grains, 
 concludes that the superior yield from large, plump grains is sufficient 
 to justify the cost of first-class cleaning machinery. 4 
 
 C. R. Gies, an experimenter, .reports that the increased yield 
 obtained by him by using large, plump seed, rather than small, plump 
 seed, was such that with average crops on a farm of 100 acres the 
 increased value of the crop due to seed selection amounted to $217 
 per year. 5 
 
 LARGE AND PLUMP VS. SMALL AND SHRIVELED SEED. 
 
 One of the conditions indicated most to be deplored is the great 
 tendency of growers to use small, pinched seed. The question is con- 
 stantly being brought to the Station authorities as to the value of 
 pinched grain for seed purposes. 
 
 It is not easy to give an accurate definition as to what is meant by 
 shriveled seed, but the illustration on page 163 will serve to show the 
 contrast between plump and shriveled seed as here discussed. Doubt- 
 less the entire discussion is due to the fact that extremely inferior- 
 looking seed will actually germinate and to a certain extent grow and 
 bear a crorj, and under favorable conditions may even produce a good 
 yield. This fact has unfortunately given rise to much carelessness in 
 the selection of seed-wheat, which must be overcome if we are to 
 secure the highest results in grain culture. 
 
 That this tendency to use such light-weight grain is great can not 
 be so clearly shown as can the relative size of the grain ; but in general 
 this is indicated by the relative weights per bushel as shown in the 
 tables, and in all cases where the grain falls considerably below 60 
 pounds per bushel it may be said that it was pinched. An examination 
 of the tables reveals the fact that of the samples of Salt Lake Club wheat 
 there were but thirteen out of thirty-nine that could be considered of 
 normal weight; and of the Australian samples only seven out of 
 twenty-six; of the Bluestem the approach to normal condition was 
 much better, since most of these samples had been especially secured 
 as seed, from out of the State, although one fifth of these samples 
 
 i Rept. University College of Wales, 1899, pp. 68-70. 
 
 2 Jour. Agr. Pract. 2 (1897), No. 37, pp. 416-420. 
 
 3 E. S. R. XII, 233. 
 
 4 Seed Wheat, pp. 1-60 : Sidney, 1903. 
 s Farming World, XVIII, No. 3. 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED-WHEAT. 
 
 163 
 
 were really lighter than desirable. In numerous cases the samples 
 fell below 50 pounds per bushel in weight. 
 
 The remark made as to the desirability of selecting- large, well- 
 formed grains for seed purposes has even greater force here, for in 
 the case of pinched wheat we have a defective seed, in that it is the 
 product of a plant debilitated from some cause. We must not, how- 
 ever, look upon these grains as likely to produce shriveled grains as 
 a product, unless the conditions for such production favor it, and 
 then only from the fact 
 that the parent of the 
 pinched grain has evi- 
 dently been easily af- 
 fected by similar con- 
 ditions, thus indicating 
 its susceptibility to such 
 result. The main reason 
 for the tendency of 
 large, plump grains to 
 produce superior plants 
 and a higher yield is 
 due rather to the greater 
 reserve food supply 
 which the young plant 
 can draw upon, than to ; 
 a matter of heredity, 
 unless a constitutional 
 weakness of the plant 
 has been introduced by 
 the continued selection 
 of pinched wheat from 
 successive crops. The 
 young plant from the 
 plump seed has a more 
 vigorous start and is enabled to withstand any unfavorable conditions 
 of soil or climate better than the weaker plantlet from pinched seed. 
 
 The main reason for the difference is physiological, and lies in the 
 larger reserve food supply in the larger seed. It has been shown that 
 heavier seeds possess more of the important plant foods (phosphoric 
 acid, nitrogen, and potash) . 1 These materials are the first nourishment 
 which the plantlet gets; there is abundant material immediately avail- 
 able to the plantlet, and the young plant is soon in a position to take 
 a vigorous hold upon the soil. 
 
 PLATE XI. 
 
 Fig. 1. A type of seed much shrunken ; natural size. 
 
 Too frequently selected for seed. 
 Fig. 2. A good type of seed-wheat. 
 
 1 Minnesota Bulletin No. 29. 
 
164 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 One of the most painstaking investigations along this line has been 
 concluded by Dr. N. A. Cobb, of New South Wales, and in this con- 
 nection will prove suggestive. These experiments covered five varie- 
 
 >_ £ 
 
 
 
 M W » #1 f\J 
 
 
 i.-^ 
 
 i£ 
 
 
 -, i ft 
 
 ' < *<&, 
 
 
 
 V V/ I - 
 
 
 PLATE XII. Showing the difference in the vigor of germination between plump 
 
 and pinched seed- wheat. 
 
 ties, which gave the following average results, they being uniformly 
 in favor of the plump seed : 
 
 From plump seed 20.18 bushels. 
 
 From shrunken seed 18.52 bushels. 
 
 That the germination of such pinched seed is fair is indicated by a test 
 made by the writer of this circular, which showed 92 per cent of the 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED-WHEAT. 165 
 
 grain actually germinated, but the plantlets were very weak, and 
 undoubtedly their vitality would always remain low. 
 
 These results are in entire harmony with what we know as to the 
 necessity of securing vigorous, plump seed in the case of alfalfa and 
 other crops. The same fact is recognized by the farmer with reference 
 to the parentage of his animals, but unfortunately the idea holds that 
 the case is different with wheat. 
 
 WEEDS. 
 
 That no farmer can afford to sow weeds upon his land would seem 
 to be so self-evident a proposition as to need no argument, yet the 
 condition of the samples collected as to weediness clearly shows that 
 our farmers are not really alive to this simple fact, for in the column 
 marked "Trash" much of this consisted of weeds, or at least other 
 seeds than wheat. It is true that in most cases these foreign seeds 
 were either cultivated barley or oats ; but inasmuch as the prime 
 object of the grower was to secure a crop of wheat, even these must be 
 looked upon as weeds. "A weed is a plant out of place. ' : If we look 
 at the average of the poorest of the samples secured it will be noted 
 that more than one fifth of it falls under the head of "trash," and 
 even that selected as standard in the case of Salt Lake Club carried 
 as high as 2.5 per cent. Were it only for the cleaning out of the 
 weeds, not to mention the advantage of grading, it would pay to use the 
 fanning mill and screens freely. While the combined harvester is doubt- 
 less one of the main causes for the distribution of weed seed, yet what 
 shall we say of the farmer who deliberately uses foul seed % 
 
 EFFECT OF CHANGE OF SEED. 
 
 There is a very widespread belief among grain-growers that there 
 is a necessity for frequent change of seed because of actual deteriora- 
 tion due to continued culture under the same soil conditions. This 
 idea is held to such an extent as to be well nigh universal. Yet, the 
 most carefully conducted investigations, without a single exception, 
 go to show that not only is there no benefit to be derived from the 
 mere change of seed, but that actual loss occurs, except only when 
 there is a change to a better type of wheat, or to a more vigorous 
 grain of the same type. But this is not the main object usually in the 
 mind of the grower. Farmers are continually changing seed; the one 
 having a stiff soil must have seed from a sandy soil, and he with a 
 sandy soil must buy seed from a heavy soil. Then again, seed is 
 frequently brought long distances and often from regions of very 
 
166 UNIVERSITY OP CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 different climatic conditions, with the hope that some immediate 
 increase will be obtained in the yield. 
 
 Such indiscriminate change of seed is a most potent factor against 
 proper seed improvement, and there will be little hope of improve- 
 ment if one must give np a desirable strain every few years for one 
 grown on some one else's land. 
 
 The North Dakota Experiment Station 1 conducted some extensive 
 experiments to thoroughly test this idea, "embracing thirty-nine dif- 
 ferent samples of wheat of known history representing the varied 
 soils of the State.' These samples were grown at the Station under 
 conditions which "make such comparative test of great certainty as 
 to equality of condition. * * * Wheat grown for a number of 
 years on widely varying types of soils were then planted in direct 
 and similar soil association. ' : It was found that standard types of 
 wheat of the same variety brought from different soils and grown 
 side by side at the Station, no matter how marked was the difference 
 in the appearance of the original seed, all gave approximately the 
 same results. "In those in which slight variation did occur it was 
 found that other elements constituted the matter of cause. That is 
 to say, seed grain from a special type of soil has not been found to 
 vary in the product because of the fact that it came from a peculiar 
 soil." 
 
 These results were further corroborated by similar tests of injured 
 wheats, the only apparent difference in these samples being that the 
 product from weak seed was very inferior in quantity. 
 
 To further test the idea of gain from a change of soil, seed was 
 sent from the Station to various types of land in other portions of 
 the State. 
 
 The result of these and other experiments indicates that varieties 
 of wheat do not degenerate per se, at least within any reasonable 
 length of time, by being grown continually upon any one soil. In 
 other words, that a given type of soil seems to produce certain well- 
 defined characteristics in the kernel of whatever variety may be 
 grown upon it. 
 
 That Darwin, that great observer of nature's laws, did not share in 
 the idea of degeneracy is indicated from his statement: "I never 
 have seen grain which has either been improved or degenerated by 
 cultivation so as to convey the change to the succeeding crop." 2 He 
 also cites Dalbert as having cultivated 160 kinds for a period of thirty 
 years, all of which kept true. 3 
 
 Results obtained at the Ohio Experiment Station further confirm 
 
 1 Bulletin No. 17, North Dakota Experiment Station : H. L. Bolty. 
 
 2 Animals and Plants under Domestication. Vol. I, p. 33. 
 
 3 Citation from Loisleur : Des Longchamps, Considerations sur les Cereals, pp. 45-70. 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED- WHEAT. 167 
 
 this idea. Velvet Chaff and Silver Chaff have been grown continu- 
 ously without change of seed for twelve years ; no loss of quantity or 
 capacity to yield is noted. 1 
 
 2 At the Indiana Station, Fultz, Michigan Amber, and Velvet Chaff 
 have been grown eleven consecutive years. The average yield for 
 the first ten years was 27.3, 29.4, and 29.8 bushels, respectively. The 
 eleventh year (1894) the yields were 39.67, 35.66, and 27 bushels, from 
 which Professor Latta says : " It is high time that the farmer everywhere 
 should abandon the notion that wheat will 'run out'." 
 
 3 The North Dakota Station, in discussing the same matter, cites 
 results with six varieties of wheat the exact history of which was 
 known, as follows: 
 
 Bushels. 
 Average yield of wheat from seed home grown continuously (7 years). 22.67 
 Average yield of wheat from seed which had taken a vacation for three 
 
 years: Minnesota first and second crop 18.55 
 
 Difference in favor of the old seed 4.12 
 
 Average yield of wheat from Minnesota seed grown in North Dakota 
 
 one year .. _. :.-... 21.88 
 
 Average yield of wheat from seed direct from Minnesota ... 20.64 
 
 Difference in favor of the older seed .. 1.24 
 
 Average yield of wheat from Minnesota seed grown in North Dakota 
 
 two years ._ 36.59 
 
 Average yield of wheat from Minnesota seed grown in North Dakota 
 
 one year 31.00 
 
 Difference in favor of the older seed... 5.59 
 
 Here is shown a case in which a change of seed was the only factor, 
 the selection of the seed and its manner of growing having been the 
 same. 
 
 4 Prof. T. L. Lyon, of the Nebraska Experiment Station, in experi- 
 ments continued from 1899 to 1904, comes to the following conclusion : 
 'That a variety brought from a more humid to a drier climate will 
 not do as well for a number of years as the same variety which has 
 been grown in the dry climate continuously." 
 
 In the light of these carefully conducted experiments we may safely 
 lay down the principle that unless the change be for the purpose of 
 obtaining a better variety or a stronger seed there can be no advan- 
 tage resulting from a change of seed-wheat, and in case seed be 
 purchased from a portion of the country where climatic conditions 
 are quite unlike those of California the seed is not likely to be at its 
 best for several years. 
 
 i Bulletin No. 42, p. 88, Ohio Experiment Station. 
 2 Bulletin No. 51, Indiana Experiment Station, 
 s Bulletin, North Dakota Experiment Station, p. 422. 
 4 Bulletin No. 89, Nebraska Experiment Station. 
 
168 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 If seed shows signs of running-out it simply means that proper care 
 has not been taken in the selection of the seed to remove small, shriv- 
 eled, and light-weight kernels, and to use only plump kernels. With 
 proper care in the selection of seed, wheat does not deteriorate from 
 any change within itself. But to maintain the standard of yield care 
 must he taken in the selection of the best seed and to practice rational 
 methods of rotation, manuring, and tillage to maintain the fertility 
 of the soil. 
 
 The farmer can do much toward the improvement of his own seed 
 by attempting to bring it to a high standard of perfection and purity 
 of variety by proper methods of selection and culture, which is far 
 preferable to the constant and indiscriminate change of seed practiced 
 by so many. It has long been the practice of farmers to make a sort 
 of selection of seed corn, and to some extent of seed potatoes, but 
 the fact that seed grain is as capable of improvement by such selec- 
 tion seems to have been well-nigh overlooked. The practice of indis- 
 criminate seed exchange precludes the possibility of any permanent 
 crop improvement by careful culture and seed selection. While the 
 farmer can not follow out the details of plant breeding, yet it is 
 entirely feasible for him to practice with his own crops straight selec- 
 tion of seed. Mr. M. A. Carleton has so aptly described such a 
 practice that we quote here the suggestion : 
 
 'Begin practicing the constant use of a wheat-breeding plat of 
 one acre or more from which to select seed each year. Locate this 
 plat at different parts of the farm every two or three years, preferably 
 in alternation with clover or other leguminous crops, and give it the 
 best of care. Just before harvest go through a field of a good, hardy, 
 standard variety that has given the best results in the locality and 
 mark plants that exhibit to the highest degree the special quality 
 which it is desired to increase, such as freedom from rust, fertilitv of 
 
 7 7 * 
 
 head, or otherwise, and which are at the same time at least as good 
 as the average in other respects. At harvest time cut with a sickle 
 enough of these marked plants for sowing the plat, and, after thresh- 
 ing them, select the largest and most vigorous seed for this purpose 
 by means of a screen or even by hand picking. Sow the plat early, 
 drilling it at the average rate of about ±14 bushels per acre. Next 
 season use none of the field crop for this breeding plat for reseeding 
 the plat, and Use all the remainder for sowing the general crop. In 
 the following season and each succeeding season practice exactly the 
 same method. In this way seed is never taken from the general crop, 
 which can not be given the same care as the small plat, and there is 
 a constant selection of seed, which is more and more rigid every year. 
 Moreover, there is no extra labor involved, except the small amount 
 required for seed selection each year. Of course, the breeding plat 
 
THE SELECTION OP SEED-WHEAT. 169 
 
 ishould be kept constantly free from rye or other foreign heads and 
 weeds. " 
 
 DAMAGE FROM SMUT. 
 
 The grain smuts in California cause an annual loss in the crops 
 of the State that may be conservatively estimated at 10 per cent. Not 
 only does this direct loss occur, but there is a further loss through a 
 lowering of the commercial grades, which is occasioned by the pres- 
 ence of even a small quantity of smut on the grain. Farmers, doubt- 
 less, do not realize the large loss which occurs annually from this 
 trouble. The widespread occurrence of this trouble is the more to be 
 deplored since the preventive methods which can be employed are both 
 easy of application and extremely effective. While it is not the province 
 of this bulletin to deal in detail with the grain smuts, yet the great 
 prevalence of the disease and the resulting heavy loss to farmers make 
 it pertinent to introduce a brief discussion of them here. 
 
 The smuts of grain are caused by the growth of minute parasitic 
 plants that live within the tissues of the grain plants and are nour- 
 ished by the juices of the growing grain. 
 
 These fungi, or smuts, reproduce their kind by the production of 
 spores, which are bodies corresponding to the seeds produced by 
 ordinary plants, and are capable, under proper conditions, of germi- 
 nating and growing. Owing to the fact that the fungous growth 
 giving rise to the diseased condition is very closely connected with 
 the tissue of the affected plants, and because the fungi themselves 
 are very tenacious of life, any treatment with power enough to destroy 
 it will at the same time injure the growing plant. Hence the remedy 
 must be one of prevention, rather than of cure. While there are 
 certain minor ways in which the disease may infect a field, yet the 
 major amount of the disease in every case enters by way of the seed; 
 therefore, the greatest care should be taken to so select, care for, and 
 treat the seed as to prevent sowing living smut spores with the seed 
 grain. 
 
 There are two quite distinct classes of the so-called smuts, one 
 known as loose, or black smut, and the other stinking smut, or bunt 
 of wheat, both of which affect grain crops. The former is character- 
 ized by an accumulation of loose, black, smutty matter upon the 
 infected plant, consisting of the spores produced from the parasite 
 whose filaments penetrate the growing grain. 
 
 The stinking smut, or bunt of wheat, is wholly confined to the wheat 
 plant, and is the cause of much greater loss than the loose smut. On 
 account of the fact that the spores may remain entirely inclosed in 
 the wheat grain, and of the very disagreeable odor, it not only is 
 
170 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 capable of seriously reducing- the yield, but also damages the quality 
 of the associated sound grain when milled, by imparting a disagreeable 
 odor to the flour. 
 
 While in the case of loose smut the black accumulation of smut 
 spores are always evident, in the case of bunt spores they form and 
 often remain within the wheat kernel, and the latter remains in its 
 normal position in the head, so that it is only by close observation 
 that one will detect it in the growing grains. When the grains are 
 removed from the head, however, they present an enlarged appear- 
 ance, and are somewhat shorter than healthy grains, and when 
 crushed they are found filled with the black smutty mass of spores, 
 which emit a fetid odor. 
 
 Since the major source of infection is through the medium of the 
 seed, it is necessary that all seed sown be treated by such a process 
 as will kill the smut spores adhering to the grain without injury to 
 the latter. There are three methods which can be recommended as 
 well nigh positive in result, when the seed has been properly treated. 
 These methods are set forth below in the order in which they are 
 recommended. 
 
 Formaldehyd Method. — Use one pound of formaldehyd (40 per 
 cent strength, known as formalin) to 50 gallons of water. The solu- 
 tion may be placed in barrels or tanks until used. The wheat may be 
 dipped into the solution in loosely woven bags or wire baskets, allowed 
 to remain for ten minutes, and then drained to save all the liquid 
 possible, and dried, when it is ready to sow. 
 
 If it is preferred, the seed may be spread on a clean canvas or board 
 floor and the formaldehyd solution applied with a sprinkler, or hose 
 and nozzle, constantly stirring and mixing the grain with a rake or 
 shovel until all the kernels are thoroughly wetted, when it is allowed 
 to dry. 
 
 Be sure to get 40 per cent formalin. Dealers sometimes give a 25 
 or 30 per cent formalin for a 40 per cent. 
 
 The formalin should be weighed in order to make sure that a full 
 pound to each 50 gallons of water be used. The cans in which the 
 formalin comes often contain only three fourths of a pound, hence 
 the necessity of this precaution. 
 
 This treatment has an advantage over some others, in that it is not 
 poisonous to persons handling the material. 
 
 Bluestone, or Copper Sulfate, Method. — This is the method practiced 
 almost exclusively in California. Its lack of effectiveness in many 
 cases may generally be traced to a lack of thoroughness in the work. 
 The details of the treatment are the same as in the formalin method. 
 
THE SELECTION OF SEED- WHEAT. 171 
 
 A solution is made by dissolving 1 pound of blue vitriol in 4 
 gallons of cold water, and dipping the wheat in the solution, as above, 
 until the grain has become thoroughly wetted, after which it is imme- 
 diately dried. Or the wheat may be piled upon a floor or canvas, and 
 thoroughly sprinkled or sprayed with the solution while the grain is 
 being constantly shoveled over so that every grain becomes wet over 
 the entire surface. Care should be taken tbat the solution is of 
 uniform density by thoroughly agitating just previous to use. 
 
 Hot Water Method. — When the proper care is taken this method 
 has proven very effective. 
 
 The following utensils are required : 1st, a boiler or large kettle 
 in which to boil water; 2d, a vessel for cold water; 3d, a vessel for 
 water at 120°-132° F. ; 4th, a vessel, barrel, or tank containing water 
 kept constantly between 132° and 135° F. ; 5th, a drying place where 
 the grain is dried so it will pass through the drill or seeder ; and 6th, 
 an accurate thermometer to keep the temperature of the water within 
 the above limits. 
 
 The vessels having been arranged and filled with water at the 
 proper temperature, some convenient bulk of well-cleaned seed-wheat 
 is taken in a loosely- woven bag and immersed in the first vessel con- 
 taining water at 120° -132° F., keeping the wheat in constant agitation 
 by moving the bag in the water, or by stirring the wheat. In about 
 five minutes, when the seed will be well warmed and thoroughly wet. 
 it is raised out and most of the water allowed to drain out, then 
 immersed in the second vessel containing water at 132°-135° F., 
 moving or stirring as before, and keeping close watch that the tem- 
 perature does not fall below 132°. After twelve minutes it may be 
 taken out and spread out to dry at some place where it will not be 
 contaminated with fresh spores. When it is dry it may be sown. 
 Some advise dipping in cold water at last, but that retards the drying, 
 and should be omitted. 
 
 It is very necessary that the following precautions be taken : 
 
 1. Keep the water in the first vessel well up to 132° in temperature, 
 as the cold wheat will lower it rapidly. 
 
 2. Keep the temperature within the limits stated for the second 
 vessel (which should be a large one), or the method will not give 
 the desired results. 
 
 3. Be sure the thermometer registers correctly. 
 
 4. The seed-wheat will swell somewhat, and one third to one half 
 more bulk of seed must be sown to remedy this result. 
 
172 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA— EXPERIMENT STATION. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 1. There is much room for improvement in yield of wheat per acre 
 in California. 
 
 2. One of the most important factors contributing to high yield is 
 the use of only first-class seed. 
 
 3. Empirical grading (according to size of grains) of a large number 
 of samples of seed-wheat collected from farmers in this State shows 
 that the quality of seed being used by most farmers is far below what 
 might reasonably be expected in relation to so important a factor in 
 crop production (a) as to purity of seed, (&) as to perfection of 
 development, (c) as to weight per bushel, (d) as to freedom from 
 weeds, (e) as to freedom from bunt (or stinking smut). 
 
 4. The experience of practically all investigators is that the highest 
 yield and quality can only be obtained from the use of large, plump 
 seed of high weight per bushel. 
 
 5. The superiority of large, plump seed lies in the greater reserve 
 food supply for the plantlet, thus giving it a more vigorous start and 
 early growth. This applies with even greater force in the case of 
 plump vs. pinched seed. 
 
 6. No permanent benefit can come from the frequent exchange of 
 seed, except such change be to secure a better type of wheat, or a 
 more vigorous grain of the same type. 
 
 7. In California there is sown much seed-wheat that is contaminated 
 with smut, which probably reduces the general yield at least one 
 tenth. This should be prevented by the invariable use of either for- 
 maldehyd or bluestone. 
 
 8. Farmers can unquestionably increase their yield per acre by 
 proper attention to seed selection. The most important points to be 
 considered in seed selection are (a) seed from plants known to have 
 given a heavy yield, (5) a plump grain, (c) a heavy grain, (d) a 
 clean wheat, (e) a pure variety. 
 
STATION PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION. 
 
 REPORTS. 
 
 1896. 
 
 1897. 
 
 1898. 
 
 1900. 
 1902. 
 1903. 
 1904. 
 
 Reprint. 
 No. 128. 
 
 131. 
 133. 
 138. 
 139. 
 140. 
 141. 
 142. 
 143. 
 144. 
 145. 
 146. 
 147. 
 148. 
 149. 
 150. 
 151. 
 152. 
 153. 
 154. 
 155. 
 156. 
 158. 
 159. 
 160. 
 161. 
 162. 
 163. 
 164. 
 165. 
 166. 
 167. 
 168. 
 169. 
 170. 
 171. 
 172. 
 173. 
 174. 
 175. 
 176. 
 177. 
 178. 
 179. 
 ISO. 
 
 Report of the Viticultural Work during the seasons 1887-93, with data 
 
 regarding the Vintages of 1894-95. 
 Resistant Vines, their Selection, Adaptation, and Grafting. Appendix to 
 
 Viticultural Report for 1896. 
 Partial Report of Work of Agricultural Experiment Station for the years 
 
 1895-96 and 1896-97. 
 Rpport of the Agricultural Experiment Station for the year 1897-98. 
 Report of the Agricultural Experiment Station for 1898-1901. 
 Report of the Agricultural Experiment Station for 1901-1903. 
 Twenty-second Report of the Agricultural Experiment Station for 1903-1904. 
 
 BULLETINS. 
 
 Endurance of Drought in Soils of the Arid Region. 
 
 Nature, Value and Utilization of Alkali Lands, and Tolerance of Alkali. 
 
 (Revised and Reprint, 1905.) 
 The Phylloxera of the Vine. 
 Tolerance of Alkali by Various Cultures. 
 Citrus Fruit Culture. 
 Orange and Lemon Rot. 
 
 Lands of the Colorado Delta in Salton Basin, and Supplement. 
 Deciduous Fruits at Paso Robles. 
 Grasshoppers in California. 
 California Peach-Tree Borer. 
 The Peach-W T orm. 
 The Red Spider of Citrus Trees. 
 New Methods of Grafting and Budding Vines. 
 Culture Work of the Substations. 
 Resistant Vines and their Hybrids. 
 California Sugar Industry. 
 The Value of Oak Leaves for Forage. 
 Arsenical Insecticides. 
 Fumigation Dosage. 
 Spraying with Distillates. 
 Sulfur Sprays for Red Spider. 
 Directions for Spraying for the Codling-Moth. 
 Fowl Cholera. 
 
 California Olive Oil; its Manufacture. 
 Contribution to the Study of Fermentation. 
 The Hop Aphis. 
 
 Tuberculosis in Fowls. (Reprint.) 
 Commercial Fertilizers. (Dec. 1, 1904.) 
 Pear Scab. 
 
 Poultry Feeding and Proprietary Foods. (Reprint.) 
 Asparagus and Asparagus Rust in California. 
 Spraying for Scale Insects. 
 Manufacture of Dry Wines in Hot Countries. 
 Observations on Some Vine Diseases in Sonoma County. 
 Tolerance of the Sugar Beet for Alkali. 
 Studies in Grasshopper Control. 
 Commercial Fertilizers. (June 30, 1905.) 
 Further Experience in Asparagus Rust Control. 
 Commercial Fertilizers. (December, 1905.) 
 A New Wine-Cooling Machine, 
 Tomato Diseases in California. 
 Sugar Beets in the San Joaquin Valley. 
 A New Method of Making Dry Red Wine. 
 Mosquito Control. 
 
 Commercial Fertilizers. (June, 1906.) 
 Resistant Vineyards. 
 
 CIRCULARS. 
 
 No. 1. Texas Fever. 
 
 2. Blackleg. 
 
 3. Hog Cholera. 
 
 4. Anthrax. 
 
 5. Contagious Abortion in Cows. 
 7. Remedies for Insects. 
 9. Asparagus Rust. 
 
 10. Reading Course in Economic 
 
 Entomology. (Revision.) 
 
 11. Fumigation Practice. 
 
 12. Silk Culture. 
 
 13. The Culture of the Sugar Beet. 
 15. Recent Problems in Agriculture. 
 
 What a University Farm is For. 
 Copies may he had on application to Director of Experiment Station. Berkeley, Cal. 
 
 No. 16. Notes on Seed- Wheat. 
 
 17. Why Agriculture Should be 
 
 Taught in the Public Schools. 
 
 18. Caterpillars on Oaks. 
 
 19. Disinfection of Stables. 
 
 20. Reading Course in Irrigation. 
 
 21. The Advancement of Agri- 
 
 cultural Education. 
 
 22. Defecation of Must for White 
 
 Wine. 
 
 23. Pure Yeast in Wineries.