Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2007 with funding from

IVIicrosoft Corporation

http://www.archive.org/details/chemicalstudiesoOOIeclrich

il

Issued April 24, 1909.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY— BULLETIN No. 124.

H. W. WILEY. Chief of Bureau,

(ilEMICAL STUDIES OF AMERICAN
BARLEYS AjND MALTS.

I'.V

J. A. LE CLERC,

l-HYSIuHKiltAl. niEMi.sr,

ROBERT WAUL,

HPKI'IAL AUENT.

WASHINGTON :

GOTERNMEXT PRINTING OFFIC^K
1909.

Bul. 124, Bureau of Chemistry, U. S. Dept. of Agrici^tuie.

C C .,€.€.,,,... , , c * €

cc « c

- '*%''** t «.e

Frontispiece.

« « « «• * ,*

Typical Barleys.

1. Two-row barley. 2. Ordinary six-row barley (Manchurian type). 3. True six-row barley.
(Photograph obtained from H. B. Derr, Office of Grain Investigations, Bureau of Plant Industry.

Issued April 24, 1000.

U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,

BUREAU OF CHEMISTRY BULLETIN No. 124.

H. \V. WILEY, Chief of Hureau.

CHEMICAL STUDIES OF AMERICAN
BARLEYS AND MALTS.

BT

J. A. LE CLERC,

PHY810LOGICAL CHBMIttT,
AND

ROBERT WAUL,

8PBCIAL AGENT.

WASHINGTON:

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE.
1909.

4 /

^^,

MakKUb.

•A J

LKTTHR OF TRAXSMIHAL.

U. S. Departmkxt ok Agriculture,

Bureau or Chemistry,
WatfhiiKjton^ P. C, January If!, 1909.
Sir: I have the honor to submit for your inspection and approval
a manuscript containing the preliminary results of investigations
specifically authorize<l by Congress in the agricultural appropriation
bill for the fiscal yeai*s ll)0;i-ll)07, to study the barleys grown in dif-
ferent sections of the United States, with a view to improving their
quality.

This study is es|)ecially valuable at this time, because of the legifj-
lation regarding denatured alcohol, for the production of which a
certain amount of malt is generally use<l. The study was made by
J. A. I^» Clerc, in charge of the vegetable physiological investigations
of the Bureau, and Robert Wahl, si)ecial agent, with the collaboration
of J. S. Chaml)erlain, T. C. Trescot, A. Given, C. (loodrich, W. J.
Young, A. Nilson, X. II. Claussen, and O. Roewade.

I recommend that this report be published as Bulletin No. 124 of
the Bureau of Chemistr3\

Respectfully, H. W. Wiley,

Chief of Bureau,
Hon. James Wilson,

Secretary of Agriculture,

8

277606

CONTENTS

Page.

Introduction : 7

Review of the literature 8

KindH of barley 17

Barley valuation 19

The Berlin and Vienna syHtenis 19

Objective factors 22

Subjective fatrtors 22

Action of the Berlin CongreBB, 1908 26

Tentative Byatem for valuing American barleys 27

Standard barley 27

Calculating the percentages 27

Te0t8 or exatninations required 28

Plan of the investigation 29

Samples and determinations made thereon 29

Chemical methotls of analjrsis 30

Mechanical and biological methodH of anal>*Mts 33

Discussion of results 'M

Protein content of barley - 35

Relation of protein to starch anil extract 36

Relation of protein content to weight per 1,000 grains 37

Relation of the protein content to the character of the endosperm 38

Relation of protein and hull content 40

Coni|)arative composition of large and small grains 41

Other constituents of l)arley • 42

Relation of total to Moluble protein 44

I.«c:ithin in its relation to protein and phosphoric acid 46

Coefficient of mealiness 47

Summary of results 47

Ordinary 6-row barleys 47

Two-row barleys 50

Six-row western Ijarleys 50

Comparison of malts 61

Changes in comix)Hition during malting 54

Conclusions 60

ILLUSTRATION.

Typical barleys _ Frontispiece

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

INTRODUCTION.

During the past decade many investigations have been undertaken
regarding the improvement of the quality of barley for both brew-
ing and feeding purposes. The publication of many of these inves-
tigations took the form of discussions as to the relative value of a
high-protein and low-protein barley for malting, and thereby addi-
tional valuable information has been added to our knowledge of
the subject.

Moreover, the still more recent legislation regarding denatured
alcohol has givon additional impetus to the study of barley and
malts. It is well known that for the production of alcohol a certain
amount of malt is generally used. This malt is added to convert the
starch into sugar, which then can 1h» further converted into alcohol
l)y nieans of yeast through the ordinary process of fermentation.
Ilie amount of malt thus used varies from 5 to 15 per cent of the
total amotmt of raw material employed. The efficiency of the malt
depends upon the power of converting starch which it |X)ssesses; in
other words, a nuilt is more or le&s valuable for the production of
industrial alcohol according to its diastatic power. AMicn it is
rememlKM-ed that for the pnxluction of even 100,000,000 gallons of
alcohol (that is, 1 gallon |)er capita) alx>ut 10,000,000 bushels of malt
will lx» ivquired, and, further, that malts vary greatly in diastatic
power or the power of converting starch into fermentable sugar,
then one easily realizes the full importance of a thorough study of
American barleys and malts.

It is generally recognized that the chemist and botanist must work
together in order to solve the various agricultural problems, and
much work has been done regarding the influence of soil, fertilizers,
selection of seed, etc., on the quality of the barley produced; the
variety, species, or race of barley to be selected for seed ; and the effect
of climatic conditions on the properties of the crop. As far as pos-
sible these data are presented in such a way as to aid the barley grower
and at the same time acquaint the consumer with the properties of
barleys grown under different conditions. The results of this work
are compared with those of other investigators in order to solve some
of the questions which relate to the physical and chemical character-

7

8 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

istics of barley. The iriTestigations herein recorded are purely pre-
]imina;ry; It was thought, however, that the results thus far obtained
Avould be of sufficient interest to warrant their publication without
waiting for the completion of the work.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.

The view point from which the various investigations on this sub-
ject have been conducted and the conclusions drawn will appear from
the following survey of the literature.

Protein and its cleavage products are attracting more and more
the attention of those who are investigating barley and malt and their
products. On the one hand, preference is given to low-protein bar-
ley, rejecting as unsuitable for brewing all barleys containing over 11
per cent of protein. Such barley would be best suited for the produc-
tion of distillers' malt. Other investigators believe that such a line of
demarcation is purely arbitrary and is apt during certain seasons to
cause the rejection of barle^^s which may produce good malts and
good beer. As a matter of fact, Prior" has shown that many Aus-
trian barleys with a protein content of 11 or 12 per cent have fur-
nished superior malts, even for brewing purposes, yielding a high
percentage of extract.

The fact that the same variety of barley will vary widely in pro-
tein content from year to year, even when gi*own in the same locality,
due to the jDreponderating influence of environment, would indicate
the impracticability of insisting on any such arbitrary standard as
the consideration of the protein content alone in accepting or reject-
ing barley for brewing j^urposes. Haase, who in 1902 proposed that
a good brewing barley should not contain more than 10 per cent of
protein, based his conclusions on the fact that Silesian barleys during
several years did not average much above 10 per cent. However, in
1905 more than 75 per cent of the barleys examined by Haase con-
tained over 11 per cent of protein. This caused him to adopt 1 1 per cent
as the basis of his system of valuation. This standard refers to the
2-row barley, Hanna and Chevalier, etc., grown in Europe; it does
not apply to the ordinary 6-row barleys — the Manchurian or Oder-
brucker — grown generally in the Middle Western States, for example,
Wisconsin, Miimesota, Iowa, etc., as Wahl has shown.^ The average
protein content of the 6-row barleys grown in this country is nearer
12 than 11 per cent, and only rarely is a sample with less than 11.5
per cent of protein produced. Such a standard may easily be ac-
cepted in so far as concerns the 2-row barleys or the thick-skin 6-row
barleys — that is, the Bay Brewing barleys, grown principally in Cali-

"Wochenschr. Brau., 1905, 22: 52.

* Address at the ^'ieuua lutemational Agricultural Congress. 1907.

REVIEW OF THE LTTERATURE. 9

fornia — and the thin-skin 6-row Utah Winter barley, for all of these
varieties contain on an average about 10.5 per cent of protein.

The literature on barley and malt investigations teems with sug-
gestions relating to the kind of barley best adapted for brewing pur-
poses, the influence of various fertilizers on the composition of bar-
ley, the changes it undergoes in the process of malting, the role which
the extract, or the nitrogen, etc., plays in brewing, and the influence
of the various constituents on the quality of the finished protluct.
Comparatively little, however, has been written from the standpoint
of the production of industrial alcohol.

Attention should be called to the recent fundamental work of H. T.
Brown « and his coworkers on the chemistry of barley and malt in
tlieir attempt to establish definite relations l>etween the outward char-
acteristics of barley and the chemictil and physiok)gical differences
as sliown by analysis. They likewise studied the metluxls of esti-
mating tlie various nitrogenous constituents of both barley and malt,
and the migration of these constituents from the endosi>enn to the
embryo during the prcx^ess of malting. Their results show that after
nine days malting 35 per cent of the nitrogenous constituents of the
endospenn become sohible and diffusible and are transported to the
embryo. These soluble pnUeins are presc»nt in malt and aix? found
in wort in small amounts. They are supposed by some investigators
to exert a relatively large influence on the character of the finished
product. Brown has divided those soluble and noncoagulable nitrog-
enous compounds into six classes: Albumoses, i)eptones, amidamin,
ammonia, organic bases, and I'esidual or undetermined protein. On
the other hand, Osborne* divides the proteins of the whole barley
grain, amounting to 10.75 per cent, as follows, with the respective
I>eix'entage comi>osition given: I^ucosin (albumin), 0.3 per cent,
equals iJ.79 jKjr cent of the total protein: proteose and edestin (globu-
lin), 1.95 per cent, equals 18.14 per cent; hordein, 4 per cent, equals
37.21 per cent ; and insoluble protein, 4.5 per cent, equals 41.86 per
cent of total protein.

According to Jalowetz " the basal end of the barley contains more
protein than the distal end, the least amount being found in the mid-
dle of the beriy. In the ear of the plant the right and left longi-
tudinal halves have the same percentage of protein, whereas the
grains on the upper half of the heads are richer in nitrogen than
those on the lower half, but the amount of nitrogen per individual
beriy is constant in all sections of the head; the small berries grown
on the less perfectly matured heads of the secondary stalks are richer

0 Trans. Guinness Res. Lab., 1903, 1 (1) : 96-127.
*Amer. Chem. J., 1895, 17: 539.

•^Zts. gesam. Brauw., 1906, 29: 172; througli Biedermauu's Centrbl., 1906,
86: 229.

10 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

in nitrogen^ than are the well-matured grains found on the main
stalks, thus showing that a sample of barley even though coming
from a single field and representing one variety may vary much in
percentage of protein in individual kernels.

Schjerning ° has studied the growing barley plant with special ref-
erence to the nitrogenous compounds, analyzing the plants at three
different stages of their development, namely, at green, yellow, and
full ripeness. Beginning with the formation of the grain, at green
ripeness, he analyzed the berries up to the full-ripe stage and con-
cluded that " barley has acquired its full maturity when the con-
version of the soluble into insoluble carbohydrates and soluble into
insoluble proteins has reached its maximum," and that the ripening
of barley is a process tending toward a state of equilibrium in respect
to its nitrogenous constituents ; when properly ripened barley is har-
vested very little loss due to respiration takes place during storage.
Over ripeness is characterized as a loss of substance. He found that
on ripening the percentage of soluble nitrogen in the total nitrogen
decreased from 45 to 18 and that the amidamin nitrogen decreased
from 28 to 5 per cent. Only traces of proteoses and small amounts
of peptones were found. He showed that early harvested barley is
poorer in protein than the fully matured grain, and that the chemical
composition is not influenced by species, variety, or type of barley,
but is affected by the character of the soil and climatic conditions.
The length of the growing period, cultivation, and climatic conditions
influence the nitrogen content also, and therefore the quality of
barley can not be determined from the amount of this constituent
alone.

This agrees with the researches of Kukla,^ Jalowetz,*' Prior j^' Wahl,^
and others. These investigators have shown that high protein bar-
lej^s often give a better malt, which produces a better beer than a
malt made from a barley of lower nitrogen content. Kukla also
concludes that it is not so much the total protein of barley which in-
fluences the quality of the beer as it is the character of the nitrogenous
compounds. In his important contribution on the chemistry of
barley and malt. Prior f has shown that the consideration of the
amount of hordein (alcohol-soluble protein) and of the insoluble
protein constituents of the endosperm is more important than that
of the total protein, which should only be considered when above 13
per cent. The hordein he finds located principally near the embryo,

«Compt. rend, travaux lab., Carlsberg, 1906, 6: 229.
»Zts. gesam. Brauw., 1900, 23: 418.
<^Ibid., 1906, 29: 172.
<* Wochenschr. Brau., 1905, 22: 52.
«Amer. Brew. Rev., 1907, 21: 274.

^Allgem. Zts. Bierbrau. Malzfabr., 1905, 33: .^1, 412; through J. Inst. Brew.,
1906, 12: 159.

BEVTEW OF THE LITERATURE. 11

extending to about the middle of the kernel; whereas the insohible
protein is found near the periphery of the endosperm. The best
barleys for brewing purposes are those containing a medium amount
of protein, namely, from 10.5 to 12 per cent. He finds that the
hordein and the insoluble proteins rise in general with the total
protein.

The increase of protein is always followed by a decrease of one
or more of the other constituents of barley. The opposite is also
true. The protein substances, from the standpoint of the brewer and
maltster, are now being considered as of the utmost importance, and
a relation between them and the starch was one of the first to be
noted. Haase showed that an increase of protein was followed by
a corresi)onding decrease of starch. This law was baseil on results
obtained, during several years, from Silesian barleys, and appeared
to hold good for this variety. As the relation was not found to be
true in regard to other barleys, it has been the subject of much
controversy.

It is well known that barleys present differences in physical ap-
pearance. Some grains show a mealy or floury endos|)erm, while the
endosperm of others is flinty and translucent. The reasons for these
differences and the influence which they exert on malting and brew-
ing and the relation lK»tween the character of the grain and the
protein content have likewise been the subjects of much study. Brown
has observed that steely grains can often \ye converted into the mealy
kind; that is, made mellow, through artificial maturation by st€H*ping
or even by weathering after harvest. Johannsen" long ago showed
that the difference between a mealy and a steely or glassy barley
was due to the gi*eater nmnber of air spaces in the endasperm of the
former, and that in the original condition barleys show no relation
l^tween the degree of glassiness and the percentage of nitrogen. In
18<)H Jacobsen wrote, in correspondence, that in England it was the
general opinion that glassiness and the protein content of barley
were related. In 1879 Groenlund wrote an essay in which he showed
that early harvested barley can be just as mellow as later harvested
barley, and that glassy barley may become mealy by steeping and
subsequent drying. He examined 47 different barleys,^ and con-
cluded that glassy barleys did not always contain more protein than
mealy ones, but that very often the opposite is true. Schultze <^ like-
wise found no relation between glassy kernels and the nitrogen con-
tent, but noted that mealy kernels may contain more nitrogen than
steely ones. In 1870 Nowacki <* showed that the difference between a

"Compt. rend, travaiix lab., Carlsberg, 1884, 2: 60.

ftZts. gesam. Brauw., 1886, 9: 288.

'•Ibid., 1881, 4: 62.

' Untersuchungen (iber das Reifen des Getreides, Halle, 1S70.

12 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

mealy and ja glassy wheat was due to the Hmall air spaces imprisoned
between the starch granules of the mealy grains and that the specific
gravity of the mealy grains was less than that of the flinty. Munro
and Beaven « likewise showed that the specific gravity of mealy ker-
nels is less, due to the larger amount of interstitial air, and that
the nitrogen content of such grains is lower, in consequence of which
they modify better than do the steely grains. Groenlund ^ called
attention to the fact that when glassy kernels are steeped and then
dried some of the grains become mellow while others remain un-
changed. This procedure distinguishes between apparent and real
glassiness, and upon this fact Prior ^ bases his method for the determi-
nation of the degree of dissolution of barley, which consists of the
sum of the mealy grains originally present and the percentage of
steely gi'ains which become mealy on steeping. This factor shows
that the higher the protein content the lower, as a rule, is the degree
of dissolution. A later contribution by Prior <^ called attention for
the first time to the role played by the variety of barley on this
determination; that what was true of one variety was not neces-
sarily so of another; that is, in some varieties the steely grains are
more easily modified than in others. H. T. Brown ^ likewise devel-
oped a method for the estimation of the coefficient of mealiness, results
of which give indication to a certain extent of the value of a barley
for brewing or feeding purposes, as he finds that a high coefficient
of mealiness is generally accompanied by a low protein content, or
vice versa.

Jalowetz ^ investigated the relation between the protein content
and the character of the endosperm and agreed with other authors
that mealy grains are lower in protein than flinty ones. Instead of
soaking or steeping the grains for several days at 45° C. and subse-
quently drying slowly (Brow^n's method), he suggests that the grain
be treated with 40 per cent formalin at the temperature of a boiling
water bath for from twenty to thirty minutes. After washing the
grains free from formalin and drying them between filters, the charac-
ter of the endosperm may be immediately examined. This method is
claimed by its author to give a good indication of the value of barley.
Beaven '^ shows that the amount of nitrogen and the quality are closely
related, and that high nitrogen barley, accompanied by a steely
character of the endosperm, has a higher specific gravity, and that
twice as much alcohol-soluble protein is found in such barley as in
mealy grains. He also intimates that the nitrogen determination
is only useful as an index of quality, other things being equal, and

« Brown, Trans. Guinness Res. Lab., 1903, 1 (1) : 96-127.

*Loc. cit.

c Wochenschr. Bran., 1905, 22: 412.

«*J. Fed. Inst. Brew., 1902, 8: 542.

REVIEW or THE LTTERATUBE. 13

that the size of the prain affects the quantity of extract, the large
grains giving more extract than small grains of the same protein
content. Beaven considers that the specific giavity of barley may
afford a fair index as to quality, and that generally the specific
gravity decreases as maturation increases.

Somewhat later Harz '* declared that glassiness of barley is not due
to the larger pmtein content, but to certain kinds of protein sub-

tances and to the mechanical combination with the rest of the sub-
stances forming the cell. Prior'' separated the different kinds of
proteins and determined their relation to one another and their in-
fluence on the mellowness of the barley. He found that the causes
f)f the apparent glassiness are the water-soluble nitrogen-free and
nitrogen-containing constituents of the endosperm, constituents which
are colloidal in character and which cement the starch-containing cells
firndy together. When these apparently steely barleys are steei)ed the
cementing constituents dissolve. The real glassiness is due to the ce-
menting of the starch-containing cells by means of the hordein and
the insoluble protein. In collalK)ration with Hernumn, Prior'' found
that when a 100 |)er cent steely barley was steei)e<l first in 50 per cent
alcohol and then in 75 p(»r cent alcohol at 45° to 50*^ C., and subse-
<|uently dried, the steely barleys l)ecame altogether mealy. Previous

teeping in water was not necessary. Baker and Hulton'* have re-
cently corrol)orated Prior's work regarding the fact that permanently
or temporarily glassy graiiLs depend u{K)n the presence of nitrogenous
or nonnitrogi»nous colloids.

Until rewntly mast investigators, esj)ecially in Europe, have ob-
jected to the use of high-protein barley for brewing purposes on the
groimds that such barleys give less e.xtract and that this quality is
more or less intimately correlate<l with the flinty character of the
♦ iidosj^erm. The latter characteristic is generally held to l)e an unde-
sirable quality i*endering the dissolution of the barley kernels more
difficult and i*esulting in glassy malt. Haase has taken an extreme
view of the situation and condemned all barleys containing over 10
]yev cent of protein. This investigator has, however, gradually re-
ceded from his original position, because so many authors have shown
that good malts (which produce good beer) could be made from
barleys containing much over 10 p)er cent protein, and furthermore,
iluring 1905, 75 {^er cent of the Silesian barleys on which he based
his argument for low-protein barley contained over 11 per cent of
protein.

oZts. gesam. Brauw., 1904, 27: 558.

*Allgem. Zts. Blerbrau. Malzfabr., 1906, 84: 513.

c Ibid., 1908, 36 : 102.

««J. Inst. Brew., 1907, IS: 328.

14 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

Regarding the relation between extract yield and the percentage
of nitrogen, Xeumann » substantiates Haase's law that an increase of
protein is regularly followed by a decrease in extract. His conclu-
sions are that a good brewing barley should not only contain a low
percentage of protein but should give a high extract yield. Further-
more, in high-protein barleys the carbohydrates are more ener-
getically consumed in respiration. On the other hand, a good,
distiller's barley may be high in protein, but its most essential quality
is its high diastatic power.

Wahl, in his previous writings, has shown that moderately high-
protein barleys, when properly malted and brewed, may give even
better results than low-protein barleys, as the former are possessed
of high vital energy and develop strong enzymatic power during
malting, so that the resulting malts are especially rich in both diastase
and peptase. The malts from such barleys are not only able to prop-
erly saccharify more starch than they themselves contain, but during
malting and mashing a comparatively large quantity of protein is
rendered soluble by the peptase, the beers produced from such malts
being richer in nitrogenous compounds than beers produced from
low-protein barley malts.^

In his work on malt and beer, Evans ^ shows that though the nitro-
gen question is of importance, it is secondary to the study of the
starch conversion products produced during malting and mashing.
He intimates, however, that much of the color, flavor, and foam of
beer is due to the presence of the nitrogenous constituents. Another
investigation of importance which should be mentioned is that of
Bleisch and Regensburger,'^ which showed that the amount of husks
increased with the nitrogen, and the loss during malting also grew
larger. They advocate the direct determination of the extract as a
factor furnishing more reliable data as to the brewing value of bar-
ley and malt than does the determination of nitrogen.

Luff's ^ work, however, showed no relation between the amount of
husks and the percentage of protein. He determined the percentage
of husk by treating 150 kernels of barley with 10 cc of 5 per cent
ammonium hydroxid in a closed flask, heated in a water bath at 80° C.
for one hour. On transferring the kernels from the flask, the husks
may easily be separated from the grains. Haase and Bauer f have
shown that a winter barley contains more husks than one with a
shorter period of growth and a late ripening variety more than an

aWochenschr. Brau., 1905, 22: 98.

6 Wahl, Amer. Brew. Rev., 1904, 18: 485.

<^J. Inst. Brew., 1906, 12: 209.

<*Zts. gesam. Brauw., 1905, 28: 628.

^Ibid., 1898, 21: 603.

^Wochenschr. Brau., 1907, 24: 535.

BEVIBW OF THE LITERATURE. 15

early ripening one. The amount of husks is greater in the starch-
poor grains than in full, plump grains, and there is a tendency toward
an increase of husks as the weight per 1,000 grains decreases. The
husk content does not seem to be influenced by the soil, fertilizers, or
width of drills. It is more a varietal characteristic and depends much
upon the length of the growing period.

In their paper on conditions affecting the quality of barley Munro
and Beaven « found that the amount of nitrogen in the grain depends
more on the character of the season than upon soil conditions, and
that the applic-ation of phosphates as a fertilizer improves the quality
of barley to a greater extent than does the use of potash, soda, or
magnesia, while barnyard manure increases the yield, but lowers the
general quality. They also found that the lack of color in a barley,
which is often due to bad weather conditions, can be remedied by
artificial drying. Schneidewind " showed that with the same condi-
tions of manuring, crops which were high in yield were generally low
in protein content. Wein's* e.\periments pointed out that nitrogen
and phosphates promoted protein formation and that potash in-
fluenced the yield and the i)ercentage of starch, thus improving the
quality of the crop. He also showed that the barley plant required a
large amount of plant ffK)d at the early stagi's of growth.

Voelcher •* showed that the application of nitrogenous fertilizers
alone gives a barley of low weight per bushel and of low valuation
for brewing purposes, but of high quality from a distiller's stand-
point, lie quotes Hall as saying that the variety of the barley,
rather than the manure used, exerts the chief influence on the nitro-
gen content. Manuring exerts no influence on the thickness of
husks. In this connection Eckenbrecher *" has conclusively shown
that climatic conditions and soil exert a far greater influence on the
amount of nitrogen, the weight per 1,000, and the weight per bushel
than does variety or s|)ecies. This author grew 0 different varieties
of barley in 12 different Im-alities and found that every variety
grown in any one locality had ver\' nearly the same percentage of
nitrogen, weight per 1,000, and weight per bushel, but that any one
variety when grown in the 12 localities showed a marked differ-
ence in composition, in size, and in weight of berry; in fact, whereas
in one loi'ality a certain type of barley contained 9 per cent of pro-
tein, in another locality the protein content was over 14 per cent.
Tedin ' also has shown that the protein content is not a race char-
acteristic, and Kiessling^ has demonstrated that the nitrogen con-
tent of barley is more dependent on the weather conditions and

•J. Roy. Agr. Soc., 1900, 11: 185. «^ Wochensclir. Bran., 1907, 24: 491.

*Wochen8chr. Brau., 1905, 22: 29. ^ Bot. Centrbl., 1907. 104: 383.

^ Zts. gesam. Brauw., 1906, 29 : 141. o zts. gesam. Brauw., 1908, 81 : 84.

<»J. Inst. Brew., 1906, 12: 408.
72246— Bull. 124—09 2

16 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

the nature-of the soil than upon variety. -^The size of grain, however,
he considers generally a racial characteristic. In his experiments
with barley Reitmair found that phosphorus did not affect the
protein content, that there was no relation between the nitrogen of
the seed and that of the crop, and that the extract yield and protein
content are not transmittable qualities." According to Hubert,'' the
yield and protein content are dependent on the weather conditions
between the flowering and ripening periods, and the application of
fertilizers can not overcome the climatic conditions. The same
author emphasizes the necessity of having pure barley races, which
can be obtained only with the assistance of the botanist. He shows
further that pure races will grow more evenly and will give more
uniform results on the malting floor.

Regarding experiments on the changes in composition which take
place during malting, Windisch and Vogelsang^ showed that in
germination and mashing the organic phosphorus of barley and malt
is hydrolyzed into the inorganic form. They corroborated the
results of Hart and Andrews,*^ who showed that there was practically
no inorganic phosphorus in barley. Schulze and Castoro ^ likewise
found that in malting part of the organic phosphorus compounds
were converted into the inorganic form soluble in water; that in
mashing nearly all of the phosphorus compounds were thus trans-
formed, and that the phosphates found in beer wort were inorganic.

In studying the changes which the proteins undergo during malt-
ing and mashing, Weis f found that the amount of soluble protein
increased while the salt-soluble and alcohol-soluble nitrogen com-
pounds, globulin and hordein, respectively, decreased, new com-
pounds with other characteristics being formed in their stead.

Several recent contributions discuss the botanical and physiological
characters of the barley plant in more or less detail. Barnstein^
discusses not only the chemistry of barley, its digestibility and use as
a food, but also its anatomical characteristics. He shows that the
aleuron layer may be two or four cells in thickness, a fact which may
have important bearing when high-protein barley is being considered
for brewing purposes, for it has been shown that this layer remains
practically unchanged during the processes of malting and mashing.
Beaven * brings out the morphological differences between the

«Vaiiha, Kyas, Biikovansky, Chem. Centrbl., 1905, 76: 695.

&Aim. brass, dist., 1907, 10: 347.

c Wochenschr. Brau., 1906, 23: 556.

<^New York Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 238.

^Zts. physiol. Chem., 1904, 41: 477.

^Zts. gesam. Braiiw.. 1904. 27: 38.5. 405, 420, 440.

^Landw. Vers.-Stat., 1905, 63: 275.

''Loc. cit.

KINDS OF BARLEY. 17

varieties, giving a classification based on the varying structure. He
has shown that the amount of husks or pala* is greater in 6-row
barleys and that they act as a protection against mold. Barleys have
also lx»en studied from the physical and botanical view points by
Lloyd," Bn>ili,'' Atterberg and Tedin,*' and in this country by Nilson.''
TIh' hist iiH'ntioned has shown that the coininon Oderbrucker or
Manchurian barleys are made up of two distinct types, one with
short and the other with long haired basal bristles, the former pre-
dominating to the extent of al)out 80 per cent. Besides this difference,
it has been noted that the first pair of veins on the husk on the dorsal
side of certain barleys are dentated like a saw, while in other grains
the veins are smooth. Thest* and other similar morphological dif-
ferences are used in distinguishing the varieties of barley, but Broili
has shown that there are many other varietal differences, for example,
the hairiness of the lodicules, all of which must be considered in de-
termining whether a race is pure.

An important study has been made by Wilfarth, Romer, and
Winuner ' (»n the amount of plant focnl assimilated l)y barley <luring
the |)eriod of its development in the field. These authors analyzed
the growing barley at four different stages of gi-owth for the usual
plant constituents and found that at the heading period more potash,
soda, and nitn)gen are pw»st»nt in the plants per acre than at any
subsequent period. The explanation given is that the roots of the
growing plant e.xcrete these plant-f<K)d elements. More recent in-
vestigations by I^ Clerc and Breazeale ' showed that the assumption
(»f such an excretion through the roots of growing barley or other
plants is erroneous. These authors found that the great loss of plant -
focxl elements noted in barley during the growing period is caused
by rain and other atmospheric agencies.

KINDS OF BABLET.

Barley has been grown for thousands of years. According to
Doctor Lauth ^ it was grown in China some two thousand years ago,
and in Egypt even as far back as six thousand yeai*s, as is shown by
the pictures of sheaves and ears of Ilordium hed'anti(hnn on ancient
coins. It thrives in widely different climates, from Algeria to Xor-

«Auier. Brew. Rev., 1906, 20: 79.

* Dissert. Jena, 11MM5: also J. Umdw.. 1JK)8, 5«: 121.

*• W(K-henschr. Bran., 1907, 24: 172.

*Amer. Brew. Rev., 1904. 18: 413: 19(Ki. 20: 475.

••Landw. Vers.-Stat., 190.-.. 68: 1.

'U. S. Dept. Agr.. Yearbook, 1908.

*Ainer. Brew. Rev., 1906, 20: 258.

18 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

way and Iceland, and will even grow at ifn elevation of over 10,000
feet.

The greater portion of the barley grown in this country is 6-rowed,
most of which is of the Manchurian type, commonly called " 4-rowed
barley." This barley is grown principally in the North Central and
Middle Weston States and the States of the Great Plains. The
original source of this barley was Manchuria. From there it was
introduced into Germany about 1859, and in 1861 was introduced into
Wisconsin, where, on account of its prolific character,* it rapidly
spread. The barleys discussed in this bulletin may be classified as
follows :

The G-row barleys of the Manchurian and similar types have a
relatively high protein content, generally above 11 per cent, the
berries being rather small (from 25 to 32 grams per 1,000), with
medium thickness of husks. They germinate on the floor in about
five days, the malts having rather high enzymic power. Hayduck"
established the fact that a high protein malt has a correspondingly
high diastatic power. Such barley is, according to Wahl, especially
adapted for the preparation of chill-proof beers and for pasteurized
bottled beers. The extract from fine grist- may be as high as 75 per
cent. The Oderbrucker is similar to the Manchurian in all particu-
lars and was introduced into this country about eight years ago by
the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station. Although the malt
produced from this barley is quite generally used in brewing in this
country, it is especially adapted on account of its high enzymic powers
for the production of alcohol.

In the Pacific coast States a similar form, known as " Bay Brew-
ing," is being quite extensively gi'own. In Utah, and a few local
points in other States, there is grown a type of barley locally known
as ""Utah Winter" (sometimes called *' AYliite Club"), with 6 sym-
metrically arranged rows, which is adapted to brewing purposes.
Both of these barleys have a rather low protein content, generally
below 10.5 per cent, a high weight per 1,000 (30 to 40 grams), require
a longer time for germination, and develop less enzymic power. The
fine grist yield of extract from Bay Brewing barley malt is about 68 to
70 per cent, and from Utah Winter, 71 to 74 per cent. The Bay Brewing
variety has a thick husk, while the Utah Winter has a relatively thin
husk. The 2-row barleys are grown in Montana, Idaho. Colorado,
and California. They contain less than 11 per cent of protein on an
average, weigh about from 35 to 40 grams per 1,000, have thin husks,
require a longer time to germinate than does the 6-row variety of the
Manchurian type, and develop less enzymic power. The fine grist
yield of extract from malts of Hanna or Chevalier type is from 75 to
80 per cent.

"Delbruck, J. Inst. Brew., 1906, 12: 643.

BARLEY VALTTATTON. 19

Each kind of barley, whether 2-row or 0-row, varies in the num-
ber of ghissy kernels and in its physical and chemical character-
istics according to the conditions under which it gi'ew, the climate
|)laying a prominent part in the production of a low or high protein
barley and, in fact, in the production of a fii*st-class barley or one
of undesirable quality.

BARLEY VALUATION.
THK BERLIN AND VIENNA SYSTKMS.

To value a barley for malting or brewing is to ascertain the phys-
ical, chemical, and physiological pro|)erties which it possesses. The
maltster, the agricultural distiller, and the brewer are offered all
grades of barley. They nnist know how to judge each, bt» able to
distinguish the favorable or unfavorable factors, and to calculate
the value of the product therefrom; and for this purpose various
systems of valuation have been evolved. These should not only Ik*
< xact, but also Ix^ .simple enough to allow the various factors to be
'jisily and (piickly determined. For brewing purpo.ses, malt forms the
raw material fnmi which the protluct is made; from the. distiller's
view point, malt is but the means to an end. Thus barley is more
or le.ss valuable according to the class of malt it will yield and the
use to which this malt is put.

The two methods most frequently ii.sed for the valuation of brew-
ing barley were the IWrlin and the Vienna systems. The fonner is
somewhat older than the latter and deiK?nds mainly upon subjective
tests — that is, data obtained from outward observation or perception —
whereas the Vienna system relies more on objective tests; that is, on
(lata determined in the lalx^ratory by scientific methods. Although
these systems ai*e prinuirily used in valuating barley for brewing pur-
poses, they may be applied to distillers' barley when properly inter-
preted. Since the systems were first introduced, they have undergone
a number of modifications. The Berlin system, as modified in 1908,
according to Cluss,* involves the following factors: (1) Protein in
Iry substance, (2) color, (3) uniformity, (4) weight of 1,000 grains,
(5) fineness of husks, (0) mealiness, and (7) purity of sample.
From the sum of these factors are deducted from 1 to 24 points for
injured grains, germinated grains, and bad odor.

Each determination is valued on a basis of 9 points, and, in addi-
tion, the most important factors, Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5, are valued on a
double basis (2X1-9 points). Neumann^ also multiplies the factor
" purity " by 2, and Cluss '' gives a double value to " mealiness."
It is thus possible for a perfect barley to be rated at 100 points, in

« Monatsh. Landw.. 1908, No. 1. *" Loc. cit.

* Wochenst-hr. Brau.. UK)7. 24:421.

20

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

which case it is designated as " very fine." When a barley has been
given less than 18 points, it is considered baa.

Quality of barley as reckoned hy points.
18-30 Poor. 67-78 Good to fine.

31-42 Fair.

43-54 Medium.

55-66 Good.

79-90 Fine.

91-100 Fine to very fine.

Over 100 Very fine.

Valuation of barley according to protein content.
(Modified Berlin system.)

Protein
content.

"«'^«<-- J^S

Percent.

Over 14
13. 1-14
12. 1-13
11.6-12
11.1-11.5
10. 6-11

Bad 1X2=2

Poor 2X2=4

Fair 3X2=6

Medium 4X2=8

Good 5X2=10

Good to fine 6X2—12

10.1-10.5
9 -10
Under 9

Fine 7X2=14

Fine to very fine 8X2=16

Very fine ,. . 9X2—18

The protein content together with the weight per 1,000 grains
form the two principal factors, and more than any others indicate
the extract yield of the malt. Neumann « considers that they are a
better guide in this respect than the determination of extract in
bar lev.

Total number of points obtainable for barley rated according to protein content.

Protein ^a^mum
«>°t«nt. valuation.

Protein I'^^^S""
content. ^.^^.^n.

Points.
2
4
6

8

Points.
16
26
37

48

Points.
10
12
14
16

Points.
59
70
81
92

The value of having uniform grains is that the barley takes up
moisture more evenly on steeping and grows at the same rate on the
floor, the dissolution of the endosperm being thus more uniformly
effected. The purity of the grain is obtained by shaking 100 grams
of barley in a set of sieves, graded at 2.2, 2.5, and 2.8 mm, at the
rate of from 210 to 220 revolutions per minute for three minutes.
In this way the uniformity factor is also obtained. The greater the
proportion of the barley found on any two adjacent sieves the higher
is the uniformity factor, or inversely; when less than 50 per cent of
the barley is found in sieves Nos. I and II, or Xos. II and III, the

«Loc. cit.

BARLEY VALUATION.

21

rating is 1X2, or 2 points. The more evenly the sample is divided
among the three sieves the less uniform it is.

Rating af hnrJry &// pruportUm found on adjacent sieves,
i MuditU'd lierlin system. )

Barlev
found.

Points M
rat«d.

gss

Points as
rsted.

Percent.
50-«0
«0-70
70-75
75-80

2X2 or 4
3x2 or 6
4x2 or 8
5X2 or 10

Percait.
80-86
86-60
90-66

Ov«r96

6X2 or 12
7X2 or 14
8X2 or 16
9X2 or 18

The weight per 1,000 grains is also doubly valued. The valuation
as based on the dry weight of 1,000 grains is shown in the following

tahli

Valuation of barley ax ealeulated from tceight of a thousand grains.
(ModlflMl Berlin ajstem.)

Wright of
1.000 KnUns.

iMlnU as
nit«d.

Welicht of
I.OOD|n«iiui-

I'olnts as

vfSSM.

Und(«rao.
VKS4.0...
85^.9...

a8-4a9...

41-42.9...

lX3or 2
2X2 or 4
3X2 or 6
4X2 or 8
5X3 or 10

43-44.9...
4S^9...
47-48.9...
Over 49..

6X3 or 13
7X2 or 14
8X2or Ifi
9X2 or 18

The principal change as compared with the former Berlin system
is that of giving double value to the protein, uniformity, weight of
grain, fineness of husks, and sometimes to purity and mealine.ss, and
making the whole iuiml)er of |>oints obtainable dejjend on the pro-
tein content. The first Herlin .system was restricted to the follow-
ing tests: Color, weight, uniformity, fineness of husks, mealiness,
and purity of samples, togi'ther with the negative points, namely,
odor, damaged grains, and started grains. In 1897 the protein and
weight per hectoliter were added to these subjective tests. Since
1003, under the influence of Haa.se, the nitrogen factor has become
predominant in the Berlin system, this and the size of the grain, or
weight |)er 1,000, constituting the two chief factors of this system.

The j)re.sent modified and improved Vienna system is based on the
following objective factors:" (1) Weight per hectoliter; (2) weight
per 1,000; (3) screenings (assortment); (4) impurity; (5) real
steeliness; (6) protein: and on the following subjective factors:
(1) Color; (2) uniformity; (3) shape of grain; (4) fineness of
husks: (5) general impression, deducting for odor and injured
grains.

•Vorschrlft fflr die Vorbereltung u. Durchftihrung der Bonitierung der Ger-
stenprobe, WIen, 1907.

22

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

OBJECTIVE FACTORS.

The weight per hectoliter is obtained by actual weighing of the
sample. The points given for this factor are as follows :

Valuation of barley according to weight.

Weight of barley.

Rating.

Per hectoliter.

Per bushel.

Per thousand.

Kilograms.

Over 70

67-70

66-67

Under 66

Pounds.

54

52-54

51.3-52

51.3

Grams.

Over 38. 5

36.5-38.4

35-36.4

Under 35

Points.
3
2
1
0

The ASSORTMENT FACTOR is obtained from the percentage of the
sample which passes through a 2.2 mm sieve, and the sample is rated
on this point as follows:

Per cent,

0-1 _.

1.1-2 __

2.1-3 __

Points.

- 4

-_ 3
__ 2

Per cent.
3.1^ __
4.1-5 __

Points.
__ 1
-_ 0

Impurity means the amount of weeds, chaff, dirt, etc., which a
sample may contain, and is rated as follows :

Points.
1
0

Per cent. Points. Per cent.

0-0.2 4 1.1-1.5

0.3-0.5 3 Over 1.5

0.6-1 . 2

Real steeliness or permanent steely grains are given the follow-
ing points:

Per cent.
0-10 __
10-20 __
20^0 __
30-40 __

Points.
-, 6
-_ 5
__ 4
__ 3

Per cent,
40-50 —
50-60 __.
Over 60.

Points.

_, 2
1
0

Protein (on dry basis) is rated as follows, all barleys containing
more than 14 per cent being rejected :

Per cent. Points,

Under 10 6

10-10.4 5

10.5^10.9 4

11-11.4 3

Per cent.

11.5-11.9_—

12-12.9

13 and over deduct

Points.

subjective: factors.

Color is graded as follows : Very good, 3 ; good, 2 ; medium, 1 ;
bad, 0.

The uniformity and shape of the kernels is graded : Excellent, 4 ;
very good, 3 ; good, 2 ; medium, 1 ; bad, 0.

BARLEY VALUATION. 23

The shape for brewing purposes is preferably plump and well
closed. Too thin kernels, or even too plump kernels, are of less value.

The fineness of the husks indicated by the wrinkles and folds is
given the following values: Especially fine, 6; very fine, 5; fine, 4;
less fine, 3 ; rather coarse, 2 ; coarse, 1 ; thick skin, 0.

The factors odor and injured grains are negative; that is, 1 point
is deducted for bad odor and 2 points for injured grains. General
impression is graded as follows: Excellent, 3; very good, 2; good, 1;
bad, 0.

It is seen that the Vienna system relies more on the laboratory and
scientific method than does the Berlin system, and is an improvement
not only in this respect, but also in that it values the different factors
according to their importance and attaches less weight to the protein
content of the barley.

According to the Berlin system the principal factors « in barley
valuation are protein content, mealiness, the percentage of husks,
and the fineness of husks. Next in importance come the siftings and
uniformity of grain, and of least importance are weight per bushel,
weight per 1,000, and color. Cluss considers the protein content as
the most significant factor, and that the weight per bushel, weight
per 1,000 grains, and amount of husks indicate the amount of val-
uable constituents in barley. He also finds objections to taking the
j)ercentage of husks into consideration on the grounds that a properly
thrashed barley would contain more husks, and therefore be preju-
diced in comparison to short and possibly injured grains.

Haase^ claims that the husks and the shape of the grain afford a
certain indication as to quality, but are of secondary importance,
stating that, as a rule, the finer the husks the greater the number of
damaged kernels.

According to Prior,*' the subjective tests should be considered only
in connection with the chemical and physical tests. He believes that
the color may indicate the presence of unripe grains or those slightly
damaged and browned by bad weather conditions, and the shape may
give indication as to variety and fitness for brewing, the plump grains
being ordinarily better than the long, thin grains because they contain
more starch as well as more nitrogen. The weight per bushel, in
connection with the weight j>er 1,000 grains, is important in showing
whether or not a sample consists of light barley and therefore con-
tains less starch and produces less extract. Very heavy grains, how-
ever, malt rather stubbornly, and on that account medium-size barley
is prefeiTed. Prior would not consider the protein content as of
much importance except when above 13 per cent. When below 13

"Cluss, AUgem. Zts. Bierbr. Malzfabr.. 1906, vol. 34, No. 8.

*Wochensohr. Bran., 1906, 29: ^Tk

^'Allgem. Zts. Bierbr. Malzfabr., 1907, vol. 35, January.

24 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

per cent the nature of the protein constituents should be considered.
Both Regensburger " and Kukla ^ agree witl^ Prior that the quality of
the nitrogenous constituents rather than the total nitrogen must be
considered in valuing the barley.

Prinz ^ suggests that the points in the valuation of barley should
be, first, maturity of the grain, which he considers of greatest im-
portance; second, the protein content: then the uniformity, odor,
husks, shape, and damaged, grain, in the order named. Uniformity,
mellowness, and soundness are more important than color. Further-
more, in all commercial transactions both barley and malt should be
bought and sold on the basis of hundredweight rather than per
bushel. Hoffmann ^ advocates buying barley and malt on the dry
basis, as only dry grain is stable, it being less liable to damage and to
attack by mold, besides costing less for transportation. This is cer-
tainly a most reasonable proposition, just equally to buyer and seller.
It is no unusual occurrence for a grain to lose several per cent of
moisture in being transported from one locality to another as, for
example, from a humid to a dry climate.

Regarding other criticisms of these European systems, Eckhardt ^
considers the assortment factor obtained by means of the 2.2, 2.5, and
2.8 mm sieves as of the greatest importance, after the degree of meali-
ness and the amount of protein, as it shows how uniform the grain is.
Bleisch f suggests that the only criterion in the valuation of barley
is a malting experiment on a small scale. Biffen ^ regards a barley
of good quality if it is mature, mealy, free from broken and discol-
ored grains, germinates freely and uniformly, and has a good color
and a finely wrinkled surface. Heron * and Salamon * consider the
diastatic power of malt as an exceedingly useful determination.
Besides this. Heron generally estimates the percentage of extract, the
specific rotatory power, tintometer value, and moisture, all of which
give valuable information concerning malt. Hunicke ^ looks on the
physical character of the endosperm as the most important factor,
giving greatest weight to the extract content, while Wallerstein
considers the loss during malting as the most important determina-
tion. As regards the proteins, Wallerstein considers those formed
in malting and found in mashing as of greater significance than the
total protein. Kreichgauer^ suggests that the weight per bushel in
connection with the biting test will give a good starting point con-

«Zts. gesaui. Brauw., 1905, voL 28, f Zts. gesam. Brauw., 1899, 22: 327.

•Nos. 35 and 36. ^ J. Inst. Brew., 1906, 12: 345.

ft Ibid., 1900, 23: 418. "J. Fred Inst. Brew., 1902, 8: 666.

*- Amer. Brew. Rev., 1907, 21 : 589. ' Ibid., p. 2.

d Woohenschr. Brau., 1906, 23: 534. J .1. Amer. Chem. Soc, 1901, 26: 1211.

''Zts. gesam. Brauw., 1906, 29; 523. ^ Wocliensc-hr. Bran., 190.5, 24: 171.

BARLEY VALUATION. 25

cerning the value of the barley. In a later communication Jalowetz "
recoiiunends that the protein content of the individual gi*ains be taken
into consideration instead of the piTcentage of protein.

A good barley should be sound, have a high germinating power,
be rich in starch, iind, according to the European systeui of valua-
tion, low in protein. Tliat the first requisite for gtM)d barley is life,
liigh germinating power, and uniform germination needs no dis-
cussion, and these may l)est be obtained by the production of pure
races. To l>otli systems there are more or U»ss valid objections made,
even by European investigators; though, on the whole, they apply
very well to Euro|H»an barleys and ctuiditions. Neither system could,
however, be applied in valuing American O-row l)arleys, since the con-
tlitions both in respect to the type of barley and to the requirements
of the brewers are so different in the United States from thosi* pre-
vailing in Europe that the valuation must be made on another basis.

Besides all these factors, a knowledge of the locality of produc-
tion, the weather conditions prevailing during the growing period
and at harvest, the fertilizers useil, and (he rotation of crops prac-
ticed, etc., may aid in estinniting the value of barley. For example,
it is well known that a late rain discolors the grain antl makes it less
valuable, and a heavy application of nitrogenous fertilizers tends
to increase the protein content, while, on the other hand, much sun-
shine prevailing during the growing season tends to a.ssure a better
grade of barley.

Although all the factors enumerated in l)oth systems are im-
p)ortant to a givater or less extent, from a brewer's view jx)int, yet,
for the proiluction of alcohol in the agi'icidtural and industrial dis-
tillery, some of them may well be given a secondar\' position. Such
factors as fineness of husks, mealiness of endosperm, shape of grain,
impurity, and color are of less importance in alcohol pnKluction than
in the brewing industry, though even these factors are of help in
valuing a distiller's barley. Recently harvested barleys have a
low germinating power, therefore they should not 1h» malted until
at least three months old. Tlie diastatic power of malt is the chief
factor when used for alcohol prmluction. This factor is more or
less influenced by the characteristics of the grain; namely, unifonnity
as regards race and age of barley, weight per 1,000 grains, and pro-
tein content, A good distillers l>arley should have the following
chanicteristics: High germinating power, high i)rotein, uniformity,
good color and odor, and cleanness. The malt produced therefrom
should jH)ssess a high diastatic power, have a pleasant odor, a sweet
and agreeable taste, and l>e free from dirt. As a barley rich in nitro-
gen is generally one which will yield a malt of high enzymic power —

a Amer. Brew. Rev., 1907, 21 : 590.

26 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

in other words, be rich in diastase and.^peptase — a high nitrogen
content of barley is more essential for distillery purposes than for
brewing.

ACTION OF THE BERLIN CONGRESS, 1908.

In 1907 the question of barley valuation was considered by the
International Agricultural Congress at Vienna, and it was deter-
mined to submit it to a special international commission to meet in
Berlin in October, 1908. This commission agreed on a general system
of barley valuation which, however, was not to be applied to 4 or 6
rew barleys. The principles underlying the new international valua-
tion system are:

1. To establish a general system of valuation not considering varieties.

2. To create three grades of value — a highest, a medium, and a lowest.

3. To adopt eleven points for valuation, classified as follows :

Highest class :

1. Protein content (penalties for excessive protein being omitted).

2. Bad odor.
Second class:

3. I'niformity (as to size).

4. Weight (1.0(X) kernels).

5. Fineness of husk.

6. Damaged grains.
Lowest class :

7. Color.

8. Purity of sample (foreign seed).

9. Sprouters.

10. Purity as to variety.

11. Shape of berry.

The following points were omitted from the systems previously
described herein:

1. The mellowness of com, either of the original barley or after steeping.

2. Hectoliter weight.

3. Impression as a whole.

4. Water content of the barley.

Tlie germinating energ}^ was recognized as a valuable point for
judging barley, and it was recommended for use at competitive ex-
hibits, but it was considered impracticable for ordinary expositions.
This system of barley valuation, as well as the Berlin and Vienna
systems which are modified by it, were established for the purpose of
serving as guides to jurors of award in judging exhibit barleys, and
consequently under circumstances necessitating the judging of large
numbers of specimens or samples with dispatch. AAliile in the main
the same test points should naturalh^ form the basic features for
valuing barley for commercial purposes also, such important points as
germinating capacity, the examination for which requires much time,
can not well be undertaken for exhibit barleys ; besides, exhibits have

BARLEY VALUATION. 27

usually taken place soon after harvesting, when germinating capacity
does not compare favorably with results after proper storage of bar-
ley, the higher moisture content alone detrimentally influencing the
property of germinating capacity to a decided degree. For this
reason and l)ecause at the usual exhibit periods moisture content
is considerably higher than after storage, it was not included in
the.se systems of valuation. In a commercial system of valuation,
however, germinating capacity and moisture content become the main
points in the consideration of value, and in the tentative system for
American barleys which follows germination capacity forms the basic
factor of valuation, to which the importance of all other points or
proi)erties is made relative.

TENTATIVK SYSTEM FOR. V.VLl IN«i AMKKICAN BARLEY.

The American barleys are to be classified in at least four gi'oups —
one comprising the ea.stem 6-rowed Manchuria barley, cultivated
particularly east of the Rocky Mountains; a second, the western
()-rowed barley, the Bay Brewing and Blue barley ; a third, the O-rowed
Utah Winter barley; and a fourth, the 2-rowed barleys, the Chevalier,
Ilanna, Goldthorjie, etc. The western barleys, 2 an<l O-rowod, from
west of the Rocky Mountains or from the Rocky Mountain territory
conform more nearly to the European standard than do the eastern.

For each of these four groups of American barleys a model barley
valued at 100 {X)ints is used for comparison and more or less points
deducted according to the results of each test. A deduction of more
than r» points in any test or division would place a barley below
stnndanl.

STANDARD BASLKY.

Standard barley ranges from 04 to 100 points. A barley is Wow
standard wiien it receives less than 94 points in any one of the exam-
i tuitions of properties described later. For commercial valuation
<li visions 1 to 8 should be included. For exhibit purposes all tests
should Ije included that are feasible, omitting moisture and germina-
ting capacity for the reasons already given.

The total average of points is found by dividing the sum of the
points of each test or division by the number of divisions determined.
In this way all divisions need not be included in the test; for in-
stance, moisture, protein, and husk may be omitted by those not hav-
ing the facilities for making these examinations, and the relative
value of the barley nevertheless stands for the remainder of the
tests.

CALCX7LATIN0 THE PERCENTAGES.

The value for each division as stated in points is established by
the relative importance of a defection from 100 points, indicat-
ing thereby the percentage of inferiority to ihe assumed model

28 STUDIES OF AMEEICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

barley. A„ barley, for instance, of whicU 3 per cent do not grow,
is rated as 97 for that test or division, a deduction of 1 point being
made for each dead berry or germ. The imgerminated barley
berries are, however, of greater value than an equal number of
grains of wheat or oats, these being too large and heavy to be re-
moved by screening, blowing, or steeping. As wheat or oats may
cause protein turbidity in the product, not more than 2 per cent
of such grains should be permissible in a standard barley and 3
points should be deducted for every per cent of unremovable foreign
matter. For all offal that is removed by screening, blowing, and
steeping, only 1 point is deducted for every per cent, because it is
not directly harmful. This offal, together with the unremovable
foreign matter and the sprouters, should not exceed 6 per cent in a
standard barley. This means that a standard barley, after cleaning
and skimming, and after deduction has been made for unremovable
foreign matter, should yield at least 94 per cent of malting barley.

"\ATien valuing barleys from the point of view of the maltster or
brewer the deductions for offal should not be included in the final
average, which should refer to the cleaned barley. Only for exhibi-
tion purposes should the deductions for offal be included in the final
average. A barley containing as much as 15 per cent of screenings
and skimmings, etc., would only yield 85 per cent of malting barley
and could not be considered a standard barley. The 85 per cent of
malting barley may, however, be of good or even excellent quality,
although probably of low^ 1,000-berry weight. Its quality is to be
determined by the maltster's test (divisions 1 to 12) or the brewer's
test (divisions 2 to 14), division 6, offal, being in both cases omitted
from the final average. The number of points deducted in one divi-
sion should be of equal value or importance as indicating inferiority
of quality as those in another division. Thus a Manchuria barley
with 9 per cent of protein would lose, on account of having 2 per cent
less protein than normal, 6 points, and its rate of inferiority would
be considered equivalent to that of a barley with 6 per cent of berries
not germinated, or with 3 per cent of moisture above normal, or 6
per cent of offal, or 2 per cent of unremovable foreign seeds, or a
1,000-kernel weight of 3 grams below^ or above the normal. Likewise
a barley with 14 per cent of protein, or 2 per cent above normal,
would be rated as to inferiority 2X3 points.

This system is equally applicable to all four groups of American
barley, but the normal conditions and the requirements to be met by
the model barley are somewhat different for each group.

TESTS OR EXAMINATIONS REQUIRED.

For commercial valuation: (a) Merchants' or graders' tests, 1 to 8; (b)
maltsters' tests, 1 to 12; brewers' and seed barley tests, 2 to 4.
For exhibit valuation : Tests 2 to 14, excepting 11 and 12.

PLAN OF THE INVESTIGATION. 29

By subjective examination.

1. Variety aud admixtures (Manchuria, Bay Brewing, Utah Winter, Chevalier,

etc.) : Deduct 1 to 6 |X)int8.

2. Color and brightness: Deduct 1 to 0 i)oint8.

3. Odor : I>etluct 1 to « iwlnts.

4. Thickness of husk : Deduct 1 to « fioints.

5. General Impression; uniformity of form and size of berries (plump or

elongattHl); thrashing (t<M) rlos«' or liisntti«i»Mit) ; maturity: Deduct 1 to
6 points.

6. Offal :

By scre«»n: Upiwr screen: gravel, imnis, ctini, etc. I^wer screen: barley,

oats, rye, rai>e, mustard, etc.
By water: Skimmings, excluding sprouters.
By blowers: Stniw, barley, oats, etc.
By cockle nuichine: Broken kernels, cockle, etc.

(In each case deduct 1 point for every per cent.)

7. Sprouters: Deduct 0 iiolnts for every |H»r cent.

8. Kemalnlng foreign matter (wheat, ontM, etc.): Deduct 3 polDtH for every

I)er cent.
I). l,l)(K>-lH»rry weight: Deduct 2 {lolntM for every gram a!)ove or below
optimum.
10. rniformlty as to sixe (the sum of adJactMit si-ntMis li.s nnn4-2.r» mm, or
2.5 mm4-2.2 mm, or 2.2 mm +2.0 mm, giving the highest tigure) :
100 to 80 |)er cent deduct o point.
80 to 74 per cent detluct 1 i»olnt.
74 to «1) i>er cent dinluct 2 |N)ints.
(30 to <yi |ier cent detluct 3 iNtlnts.
(J5 to (12 per cent detluct 4 iM>lnts.
t»2 to fiO per cent de<luct 5 iiolnts.
(JO to 58 per cent detluct t; iM>lnts.
It. (terminating ca|taclty: Deduct 1 point for every i)er cent below 100.

12. Moisture: Deduct 2 iwlnts for every per cent above 11 iier cent.

13. Protein (NX(i.25): Deduct 2 points for every iier cent alnne or below

optimum.

14. I'nlformlty as to variety (by botanical examination) : Deduct 2 i^olnts for

every per cent of foreign barley or different groups (mixtures of 2, 4, or
t» rowetl Imrleys).

15. Husk (not determined unless considered below standard in subjective

examination: Deduct 3 i>oints for every i)er cent above optimum.
Bushel weight and mealiness are not considered. If barley is Infested by
weevils or other insects or stained or discolored by fungous growths, such as
smut, mold, etc., it is absolutely condemned.

FLAN OF THE INVESTIGATION.

SAMPLES AND DETERMINATIONS MADE THEREON.

The investigation undertaken by this Bureau, of which this is the
first report, was authorized by act of Congress, the object being to
study barleys grown in different parts of the United States in regard
to their use for brewing purposes.

30 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

The barleys analyzed comprise 84 saroples of the 6-row varieties
of Oderbrucker and Manchuria, 18 samples of 2-row varieties, 18
samples of thick-skin, so-called " Bay Brewing " barleys, and 9 sam-
ples of the thin-skin Utah Winter. From many of these samples
malts, which were likewise subjected to critical analyses, were pre-
pared in malting plants on a commercial scale. Realizing that chem-
ical and physical methods must both be used in the attempt to solve
such questions as are involved in the improvement of American bar-
le^^s, it has been found advisable to make the following determinations
on all the barley samples: Water, total nitrogen, soluble nitrogen,
coagulable nitrogen, extract, fat, fiber, pentosans, starch, sugars, ash,
phosphoric acid, sulphur, lecithins, weight per 1,000 grains, weight
per bushel, character of the endosperm before and after steeping,
degree of solubility, germinating energj^ and capacity, amount of
husks, bran, endosperm, and embryo. The chemical work, however,
is given special prominence in this study, for purely physical analyses
alone are not enough to determine the value of barley.

The malt samples were subjected to the following analyses : Water,
total nitrogen, soluble nitrogen, coagulable nitrogen, extract (fine
and coarse grist), fat, fiber, pentosans, starch, sugars, ash, phosphoric
acid, sulphur, lecithins, weight per 1,000 grains, weight per bushel,
character of the endosperm, the growth and overgrowth of acrospire,
the amount of husk, bran, embryo, and endosperm. It was hoped,
from all these determinations, that a better insight as to the changes
going on during the process of malting would be gained, and that a
guide for future work might be obtained.

CHEMICAL METHODS OF ANALYSIS.

The chemical methods of analysis employed in the Bureau of
Chemistry were, unless otherwise described, the official methods
adopted by the Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. The
exceptions were as follows :

Total sulphur was determined according to the sodium peroxid
method."

The lecithin determination was made by extracting 10 grams of
ground barley or malt with ether, and then extracting the residue re-
peatedly with absolute alcohol. The ether and alcohol extracts were
united, all volatile substances evaporated, and the residue burned with
caustic soda to an ash. The ash was then treated in the usual way for
phosphoric acid. The amount of phosphoric acid multiplied by 11.37
gives the lecithin content. It is well known that alcohol will extract
other phosphorous bodies besides lecithin proper — for example,
kephalin; these figures, therefore, include all the lecithin-like bodies
soluble in alcohol and ether.

« Le Clerc and Dubois, J. Amer. Chem. Soc., 1906, 28 : 1108.

PLAN OF THE INVESTIGATION. 31

The soluble proteins were determiiUHl l)y the following method,
(lescri!)e(l by J. S. Chamberlain :

Au amount of jiir-tlrltMl barley or malt equivalent to 20 grams of dry material
was extracted with water of such a volume that the total resulting mixture
amounted to exactly 100 cc. In order to know the volume of liquid in such
an extraction it was neceswirj* to determine the volume m-cupled by the residue
from 20 grams of the dry barley Jifter extraction, which was found to be
10.77 cc. In calculating this volume, the figure obtained by II. T. Hrown "
tor the specific gravity of the dry resUlue of extracteil barley was usetl, namely.
l.r>7. Subtrat'ting the volume occuplwl by the dry residue of extracttnl barley
from the 100 cc gives the volume of liquid actually pres<Mit. An aliquot of this
volume was taken after tlltration and the nitrogen determhuHl therein. In
practice, however, an amount of Iwrley was taken such that in the proixirtion
of 20 graniH of dry substance to 100 cc of the resulting extraction mixture
there will be present, after allowing for the volume «»ccupied by the extracte<l
barley, exactly 100 cc of liquid. In this way allquots of 10 cc, 25 cc, or
r»0 c<' could be easily obtalntHl; that Is, 22.41 grams of dry barley In the
proiK)rtion of 2O:100 will re«|ulre a volume of extraction liquid (Hpiallng
112.0ri cc, and 22.41 grams of dry Iwrley will leave after extraction a dry
reshlue (Miuallng 12.00 cc. Therefore the volume of liquid present Hiuals
112.0'.— 12.0«J=1M).01» cc.

The amount of alr-<lry barley to Ite used was theu easily calculated In each
I as«» from the percentage «>f moisture In the sample, and tills weight of air-dry
material was adde«l and extractiHl under the c«»ndltlons Just des<Tlbe<l. For
the €»xtnictlon, distilled water at riMim tenqH»rature was use<l, aiul the bottles
in which the extraction t<M»k place were shaken in a n»volvlng shaker for six
hours. The mixture was then flltere<l as rapidly as |N>sslble through folded
filter |Mi|M>rs, the first |M>rtlon of filtrate, when chnidy. b«»lng iM>ured back uinm
the filter |Mii»er until a clwir flltnite was ubtaint^d. In an albpiot of this clwir
nitrate the amount of nitrogen was determlntHl. which, multiplicil by G.2r>, gave
the protein, representing the solul)le protein.

The soluble nonc(mgulad)le protein was detennliml by boiling 20 cc of the
.ibove flltnite over a small flame until the volume was reducfnl to about 10 cc.
After diluting to the original volume, the liquid was filtertMl, washiMl. and the
noncoagulal)le nitrogen detennlnt»d liy using the whole of 4he filtrate.

The stiluble coagulable proteins were determined b.v subtracting the soluble
noneoagulabie protein from the total protein.

The determinations made by Wahh which require special mention,
were as follows:

For the soluble protein determination .V) grams of finely ground barley were
txtracttHl with '2'A) grams of water for six hours at IS" C\ ±1°, stirring well
every flfte<»n minutes. The loss on evaporation (approximately 0.1 gram) was
made up by adding water until the total weight equaled 300 grams. The extract
was filtered clear, maintaining approximately the same temperature. The total
soluble nitrogen was determined In an aliquot of the filtrate according to Kjel-
dahl's method.

The coagulable nitrogen was determined by boiling KX) cc of the above fil-
trate for thirty minutes. keei>ing the volume constant, filtering, and estimating
the nitrogen In the precipitate. The factor 0.2r> was used In all determinations
in changing the i)ercentage of nitrogen Into iii-otein.

•Lpc. cit

72246— Bull 124—09 3 .'

32 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

For the determination of the extract in barley the following method
was used by Wahl:

Twenty-five grains of finely ground barley were luaceratetl with 200 cc
of distilled water at 65° C. and 25 cc of diastase solution added. The whole
was immediately placed in a boiling water bath and kept at that temperature
for one hour. The mash was then removed from the bath, boiled briskly for
five minutes over a direct flame, stirring continuously, cooled to 60° C, and 75
cc of the diastase solution added, the temperature being kept at 60° to 75° C.
for thirty minutes, then raised to 70° C, and held there for another thirty min-
utes. After inversion, the mash was cooled to from 10° to 15° C. the weight
made up to 3.50 grams with water, and then filtered. The specific gravity of the
filtrate was determined by means of the pycnometer. One hundred cubic
centimeters of diastase solution were then treated in the same way as was the
barley mash, and after cooling were made up to 100 cc, and the si)ecific gravity
determined as before. The i^ercentage of extract is calculated as follows :

(^^^'^-0

(e-ed) 100

=E,

100-B ~"' N

in which —

W= weight of water used in the mash.

M=i»ercentage of water in the barley.

N= weight of barley used.
wd= weight of water in the diastase solution used.

B=i)ercentage of extract in mash filtrate according to Balling.

e = extract in 25 grams of barley and 100 cc of diastase solution.

E=i>ercentage of extract in barley.

ed=extract in diastase solution used.
The diastase solution was made by digesting 500 grams of finely ground malt
with 2 liters of water for one hour at 15° C.

WahFs method for the determination of the extract yield " of the
malt was as follows:

Fifty gi-ams of the malt plus 3 kernels are finely ground into the mashing
beaker and are macerated with 250 cc of water at 45° C, immediately raised to
45° C, and kept at this temi)erature for thirty minutes. The temperature is then
raised 5° each five minutes until the thermometer shows 70° C. The mash is held
at this temperature for thirty minutes. The iodin test is made when the mash
reaches 70° C, and is repeated every five minutes until inversion has taken place.
The mash is then cooled to about 15° C, and its net weight is made up to 450
grams by the addition of water. The mash is thoroughly mixetl, and a quan-
tity of clear wort, sutficient for the saccharometer determination, is filtered
through a coarse filter. The liquid is brought to a temperature of 15° C. Its
saccharometrical indication is determined by a si^ecial Balling instrument
standardized at 15° C. and divided into 0.05 per cent. The yield is calculated
by the following formula, in which " S " is the saccharometer indication, " H "
the i)ercentage of water in the malt (both expressed in i)ercentage of the malt),
and " E " the yield of extract :

SX(800+H)

E=

100— S

o Report of the Analysis Committee, U. S. Brewers' Association, 1902.

PLAN OF THE INVESTIGATION. 33

The yield of extract on the dry basis E' is computed from *• K " by the fol-
lowing formula :

,_EX 100

E'

100 — H

Wludisch's extract tables should be employetl. The saccharify Inj; or dla-
static iH>wer of the malt is repirdtnl as very phhI. if the i(Hlln test shows the
absence of starch in the mash, when the temiH»rature has reachetl TO" C. : as
good. If inversion takes place within tlve minutes, and as fair, if inversion
takes place after ten mhiutes.

To cleterniine the protein <liss<jlvcil In iiia>hin«x, -•> cc of mash
Hhnite weri' evajKH-attHl ahnost to dryness and nitrogen determined
according to KjeklahPs method, the coagidable protein being deter-
mined in the same maimer as in barley.

The growth is the ratio of the length of the acrospire tt> that of
the kernel. The deterniinution was made in duplicate by sorting
50 kernels. t

The color of the wort was tested by Lovibond's tintometer and
the run of the wort by ix;i*sonal judgment. The other determina-
tions were conducted in the same manner as for barley.

MECHANICAL AND BIOUM21CAL METIICHM OF ANALYSIS.

The weight per 1,000 grains was determined in the Bureau of
I liemistry by means of Kickelluiyn's apparatus.

The hulls, bran, embryo, and endos|>erm were all determined in
the Microchemical I^Utratory by mechanical dissection of the grain.
The method of procedure is describtnl by W. J. Voimg as follows:

From (• to s good, averagi' grains were selected, and after weighing they
were soaked until the hulls could be removetl readily, lieing then subjected to
further soaking until the cnd<»s|»erm was completely softened. The grains
were Hnally split lengthwi.»M», and the eiidos|K?rm remove*] under water. The
hulls, bran, and embryos were plactnl by themselves in watch glasst»s, and
(Iriwl at 100° C until loss of weight cease*!. The water containing the endo-
siH'rni was allowed to stand in a beaker until the starch settled, when the
water was decanted and the setllment drie*! with gentle heat until moisture
was no longer apparent, when the drjing was itaupleted at 100** C. More or
less loss was observed as a result of this method of drying the endosi>erm,
and this loss was so great in the case of the malts that in these the endosi)erm
was determintHl by difference.

In the later work on barleys the endosperm was determined by dif-
ference in order to obtain results comparable with those obtained
from the analysis of the malts.

The physical tests as made by Wahl are as follows: The character
of the endosperm was determined by using the Kickelhayn grain cut-
ter. This apparatus cuts 50 beiTies in two lengthwise at one time.
The halves are then easily divided into three groups, namely, those

34 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

with a steely endosperm, those that are mealy, and those that are
partly steely and partly mealy, or intermediate.

The character of the endosperm after steeping was determined as
follows :

Fifty grams of barley were steeped in water at from 15° to 20° C. for twenty-
four hours. The water was then poured off and the excess removed from the
grains by means of blotting pai)er. The barley was dried in a drying oven at
30° C. with low draft until the weight approximated slightly less than the orig-
inal amount taken, about 49 grams. The cutting was done in the same manner
as described above.

The germinating energy is represented by the i^ercentage of grains germinated
within three days at ordinary temperatures. The germinating capacity is
expressed as the percentage of grains which germinated in five days. These
tests were made by the ordinary methods for testing germination. The weight
per bushel was found by weigfiing a miniature bushel.

The degree of dissolution was determined by Prior's method :

Steep the barley in distilled water for twenty-four hours at 15° C, drain off
the water, removing the excess of moisture by means of filter paper, and dry at
40° C. in an air bath for about two days; then determine the mellowness by
means of Kickelhayn's apparatus. Prior considers the mealy grains which are
originally present better than the modified steely grains, and therefore he adds
them to the percentage of steely grains modified.

(Ma — M) 100
-^~ 100 — M '^^'

in which

A = degree of dissolution.

M = per cent of mealy kernels in original barley.
Ml = per cent of mealy kernels in barley after steeping and drying.

The coefficient of mealiness in steeped and unsteeped barley was
calculated according to H. T. Brown's « formula: Mealy grains are
given a value of 100, half mealy 50, and steely 1. The number of
grains of each type multiplied by its special value and the sum
divided by 100 will give the coefficient of mealiness.

The 1,000 kernel weight is found by counting 500 kernels at ran-
dom and weighing them on a technical balance. The average of four
w^eighings was taken, unless the difference between the highest and
lowest Aveight of 500 kernels exceeded 0.5 gram, when five or six
weighings were taken.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.

In discussing the results obtained attention will first be called to
the composition of the ordinary 6-row barleys (Table I), the Man-
churian and Oderbrucker, calculated to a water-free basis, and then
to the change in composition which barleys undergo on being con-
verted into malts. Of the S-t samples of 6-row barleys, the avera.Qfe

« Loc. cit.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.

35

percentage of protein was ll.SO, with a variation of from 10.13 to
14.04 per cent: i>2 of theses samples contained over 11.5 per cent, while
only V2 had less than 11 per cent of protein. The sample containing
tlie lowest percentage (10.13) was from Wisconsin, whereas the sample
with the highest percentage (14.94) was grown in Montana. The
following is a comparative average of the nitrogen results obtained
1)V the Bureau of Chemistry and bv Wahl:

Arcnifjr prrrrntaffC rcHulta on thv nitrogen nrntent uf three kinds of hnrlvn

it ml malt.

AtuUyst.

HARLCY.

BnnMiu of Chemistry

MALT*.

Bureau of Chemistry

R. Wahl

Ordinary

640W.

W-tjm ,rw<.row.

I.M

i.n

1.90

l.« 1.70
1.60 1.80

l.flB l.flS

1.80 i.es

•RcrrKIN rONTKNT OK B.\RI.KV.

The following tal)le shows tlie average amount of protein found
in the barleys from s»»v«mji1 Stnti'N. I>«>(riniiing with tin* lowest pcrront-
age of pmtein :

l*vrwntngv protein eontent of barleyn arranged by States.

1

state.

Protato
oootant.

Btiitn.

Piotflin
ooBtnt

Btot«.

ProteUi
content.

Illinois

Michigan

11.44
11.51
11. SO
11.04
11.00

Canada.

1L83
ILOO
1L04

MootM«

South DakoU

Kaniwn

12.63
13.80
13.44
14.19

Iowa

sSiSr^

Wisconsin

Cdondo

10. m

New York

Ohio

1 1

It is thus seen that the North Central States or States of the
upper Mi.ssissippi Valley produce barleys whose protein content is
on an average less than 12 per cent. If it be a.ssumed, as is done in
Kurope, that a low-nitrogen barley is best for brewing, then these
States produce a better quality of barley for this purpose than those
grown in Kansas, New York, or South Dakota. On the other hand,
the latter States should produce a more nutritious and therefore
a l)etter feeding barley and one better suited for the production of
denatured alcohol. Clifford Richard.son," in 1886, found that the
Dakota barley was the richest in protein. The average of his results
t»n (>0 samples of this cereal is 12.1 per cent, very little higher than
the average of 11.86 per cent here reported.

• U. S. Dein. Agr., Division of l'heuii»try, Bill. 9.

36 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

^ RELATION OF PROTEIN TO STARCJl A XI) EXTRACT.

It is generally assumed that a high protein grain means a low
starch grain, and vice versa. This is true, as a rule, and especialW
SO in the case of wheat. When barleys are considered, however, there
are many exceptions, notably the barleys from Ohio. Minnesota,
Iowa, and Illinois, which have a comparatively low protein content,
and also a rather low starch figure, while those few samples from
Kansas and Montana, which contain more than the average amount
of protein, likewise show more than the average content of starch.
The samples of Indiana, Canada, Michigan, and Wisconsin barleys
have a somewhat low protein content, while those from New York,
Colorado, and South Dakota have a high protein content. Both of
these two groups follow the general expectation, for while the former
is high in starch, the latter is low. Thus 33 out of 84 samples of
barleys are exceptions to the rule that high protein means low starch,
and vice versa. As has been noted, in the case of wheat, protein and
starch are generally complementary. With barlej^s, however, the
presence of hulls, varying in amount from 10.2 to 15.4 per cent, makes
this point less decisive, though an average of barleys grown under
similar conditions shows with a high protein content a lower starch
figure. The results indicate that on the whole low-protein 6-row
barleys do contain more starch. Fifty-three samples, with an average
of 12.2 per cent protein, contained on an average 70.6 per cent of
extract, while 31 samples, with 11.1 per cent protein, contained 71.8
per cent of extract. The averages from each individual State do not
always show this fact, namely, that there is more extract in low-
protein barleys, but if instead of averaging all the samples they be
separated into high-protein and low-protein barleys, not taking into
account those samples whose protein content is close to the average,
then the figures will show that high-protein barleys are low in extract,
and vice versa. Twenty-four barleys, with an average protein con-
tent of 13 per cent (that is, all barleys over 12.25 per cent), compared
with 23 barleys whose average protein content is 10.8 (all samples
imder 11.25), show G9.94 per cent extract in the former and 72 per
cent in the latter. In order, therefore, to bring out the different
relations it is often best to take the extreme cases and not regard
those which are so near the average that they might be included in
one class or the other, according to variations within the limits of
error. If, however, only the samples from Michigan, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Iowa, and South Dakota (the States where this type of
barley has been found especially well suited to the conditions and
where it is therefore extensively grown) be arranged in groups ac-

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 37

cording to their protein coixtent," a very pronounced tendency in the
direction of the theoretical reaction between protein and extract is
seen.

Hiiiii'tftt from Statvx of the northern MiMxisHiitpi Valley showing the relation
between protein, extraet eontent, and ireight per 1.000 grains.

Ntnnber

Weight

ofsftin-

I'rotfiii.

Kxtract.

per 1,000

ples.

gnihs.

I'er eeni.

PnetfU.

anm».

U). 0-10. 5

72.08

28.01

y

10.6-11.0

72.12

27.20

19

11.0^11.6

71.63

26.97

1.1

11 .^ 12.0

71.15

26.39

<t

\2.i

70.70

26.07

• 1

; 0

70.19

25.66

4

:.{ 5

7a 16

26.14

4

i.i vn.o

70.71

26.14

Only the la.st group, (containing from 18.5 to 14 per cent of protein,
forni.s an exception to the general rule that the |)ercentage of extract
decrea.ses with an increasing protein content. The table further indi-
cates that there is a greater decrease in extract for barley containing
from 10 to 12 per cent of protein than in that containing from V2 to
14 per cent.

From the.se result.s it is very evident that high-protein barleys of
the G-row tyi>e give low extract yields, a fact which has been ol)served
by many othcis. r-iH'<i;illv in regard to 2 row barleys.

RKi.ArH).N OK i'K<nKiN toNTENT 'n» WKHiin I'KR 1,(X)0 <;r.\ins.

Neumann '^ .showe<l that low-protein -i-row barleys wore generally
of higher weight and that they produced more extract. The results
here shown indicate also that low-protein barleys of the 6-row type
weigh somewhat, though very little, more per 1,000 grains, thus
again corroborating Neumann's work. This is shown by the last
column of the preceding table, which gives the average weight of
1,000 grains within the different groups. While it would appear from
the table as if the weight of 1,()<X) grains varies more or le.ss irregu-
larly, especially for barleys containing from 1*2 to 14 per cent of
protein, there is an obvious tendency for the weight of 1,000 grains
to decrease as the protein content of the barley increases from 10 to 12
I)er cent, though there are many individual exception.s.

If one considers those samples of approximately the same percentage
of protein, it will be found that invariably the heavier contain the

" Three samples have been left out which either contained more than 14 per
<iMit of protein or had al)norumIly large berries, toj;ether with much i)rotein,
owing to spetial cultivation and breeding.

*• Wcxheuschr. Brau., 1905, 22 : 98.

38

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

most extract, a fact already established- 1^ Neumann « and Kimz.^
This is well illustrated in the following table:

Relation between tveight and extract content for barleys of the name protein

content.

Protein.

Number | Weight

of per 1,000 Extract,
samples, grains, i

Number
Protein. of

; samples.

Weight

per 1.000 1 Extract,
grains.

Per cent.
10-10.8

i \

5
4
4
3
5
4
4
\ 4

Grams.
28.0
27.5
27.8
26.7
28.0
26.1
27.7
24.5
27.8
25.0
27.3
25.5

Percent.
72.6
72.4
72.5
71.5
72.4
71.1
71.9
69.8
71.8
70.6 j
72.1
70.6

Per cent.
12 0-12 4 j

5

3
3

I 4

Grams. \ Per cent.
27.5! 71.8

10.8-11

12 4-12 8 '-1

25.2 , 70.2
26.9 i 70.9

1
11-11.2 '

' 12 8-13 2 \

25.0
27.8
25.9
26.8
26.3
28.2
26.4

69.5
71.0

11.2-11.6...

13.2-13.8 ;

Over 13.9 l

69.8
70.9

11.6-11.8

11.8-12.0 !

1

69.1
70.3
66.0

The figures show that a high-protein barley may give a high
extract, provided the weight per 1,000 grains is large, and vice versa.
The size of the grain affects, therefore, the quantity of extract, other
factors being equal. This table also gives the relation between the
protein and extract content, showing the natural tendency for high-
protein barley to give less extract. There are, however, many indi-
vidual exceptions to this rule, as Avas found by Prior ^ in his work
on 2-row barlev.

RELATION OF THE PROTEIN CONTENT TO THE CHARACTER OF THE

ENDOSPERM.

Not onlj'- do the low-protein barleys weigh more per 1,000 grains
and contain more extract, but they are much more mealy after steep-
ing. For example, 31 samples of barley with an average protein con-
tent of 11.1 per cent have a coefficient of mealiness of 84, while 53 sam-
ples whose average protein content is 12.2 per cent have a coefficient
of mealiness of only 80. This difference is accentuated if only those
samples which contain over 12.2 per cent of protein are compared to
those containing less than 11.25 per cent. In this case the former
have a coefficient of mealiness of only 77 as compared with 87 for
the latter.

Yet the actual number of flinty grains in the samples, before steep-
ing, is about the same in each class, the high-protein samples contain-
ing 16 mealy and 43 steely grains per 100 and the low-protein barleys
containing 15 per cent mealy and 44 per cent steely. The behavior

"Address at the meeting of Versnclis- imd Lehranstalt fiir Braiierei, October,
1906.

«» Wochenschr. Brau., 1906, 23: 530.
'^Loc. cit.

DISCUSSION OP RESULTS.

39

of these two classes of barley on steeping is, however, quite different.
The steely and half-steely grains of the low-protein barleys are
changed during this pnwess to a givater degret* than are those of high
protein content. This fact is more definitely brought out by compar-
ing the samples of high and low protein content after steeping. For
example, 24 sjimples with more than 12.25 per cent of protein gave
;i coefficient of mealiness of 73.8, while 15 samples with less than 11
p(»r cent of pnitein gave a mealiness coefficient of 87.8.

The same .samples l)efore .steeping contained 17 per cent steely and
40 per cent mealy, with a coefficient of mealiness of 01.7, and 14 per
cent steely, and 42 j^er cent mealy, with 04.1 c(K»fficient of mealiness,
resjjectively. These rt»sults show that |)ermanent steely grains are
richer in protein, and if not carefully malted they furni.sh steely malt
and sinkers." The high-protein barley underwent a 24 per cent modi-
fication on steeping, while the low protein barleys were modified to
tiie e.vtent of 35 |K»r cent. The estimation of the coefficient of meali-
ness is important <mly when made after sti»eping. As the high-protein
barleys contain a larg»*r jHTcentage of steely grains and have a hiwer
coefficient of mealiness than the low-protein barleys, it follows that
steely grains contain less e.xtract than do mealy ones. This is shown
in the following table:

Dnlinniy ti-rmc barUyn cinnparvd an to the character uf the etnlosiwnn.
LK88 THAN 75 PKtt C£NT OF MBALY ORAIN8 AFTKlt STKEIMNO.

Sute.

Extract.

Welch!
per 1.000
gralm.

1

ordS»-
liatioa.

CoeflW
dent of
meali-

MM.

I^rolein.

Fat.

!

starch.

Canada

3

i
1
2
I
2

11
3
1

19

Percent.
71.7
69.2
71.9
70.1
09.0
71.6
7a 7
68.8
7a9
71.8

Ormnu.
26.9
24.0
24.3
24.9
^7.8
26.5
2&0
23.8
27.9
27.2

ML5
71.5
09.2
51.3
4M.4
til.O
72-7
67.9
64.9
74.3

74.5
75.5

sai

64.7
66.1
75.0
78.2
76.6
73.1
78.0

Per cent.
12.0
13.3
12.1
12.6
12.5
11.4
12.2
12.6
14.3
12.0

Per cent.

l.«o
1.72
2.00
2.05
1.85
1.97
2.02
2.20
1.99
2.03

Per cent.
59.2

South Dakota

58.2

Indiana

»12. 0

Iowa

57.1

Kansas

02.2

Michigan

59.1

Minnesota

58.9

Montana

(iO. 1

New York

56.4

Wlaoonsin

58.8

.\venM;e

(47)

7a7

2&6

71.0

76.6

12.2

2.00

58.8

MORE Tl

A.\ T-i PER CE

NT OF M

EALY ORAINS A

FTER 8T

EEPING

Colorado

1 72.1
1 09.5
1 72.0
5 7a7
4 1 71.1

28.8

24.1

28.2

24.7

25.9

26.7 1

28.7

26.2

80.3
95.2

82.1
103.6
83.8 ,
89.1
95.2 ,
89.1 1

83.0
92.0
89.0
91.3
88.9
89.0
89.0
88.0

11.7
12.4
12.0
11.4
11.6
12.1
11.4
11.9

2.07
1.76
2.05
2.00
2.03
2.03
1.98
1.92

56.8

South Dakou

62.4

Illinois

58.6

Iowa

59.0

Michigan

60.6

Minnesota...

9

69.2

57.8

Wisconsi n

15

1

72.1
71.1

59.8

Ohio

57.0

Average

(37) 71.0

27.1 1

92.4

..

11.6

1.99

59.2

a J. Brand, Zts. gesam. Brauw.. 1906, 29 : 661.

40

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

The san^e relation of protein content t^ permanent and transitory
steeliness is plainly shown by the following table, in which all sam-
ples examined are arranged in groups according to their protein
content :

Effect of steeping on mealiness considered from the view point of protein content.

CoeflBcient of mealiness

Number
of sam-
ples.

Protein.

Degree
of dis-
solution

(Brown).

(Prior).

Before

After

Differ-

steeping.

steeping.

ence.

Per cent.

"""

2

7.0-7.5

107.7

31.00

98.75

67.75

1

8.0- 8.5

100.9

11.80

99.50

87.70

5

9.0- 9.5

108.4

36.65

96.31

59.66

6

9. ^10. 0

92.8

11.66

94.26

82.60

6

10.0-10.5

90.7

22.47

90.69

68.22

13

10. 5-11. 0

87.3

31.61

87.39

55.78

20

11.0-11.5

82.4

33.55

83.51

49.96

20

11. 5-12. 0

84.3

34.26

84.44

50.18

13

12. 0-12. 5

73.6

34.35

78.82

44.47

13

12. 5-13. 0

66.7

31.15

75.12

43.97

6

13. 0-13. 5

60.6

32.09

70.71

38.62

7

13.5-14.0

67.9

33.23

74.47

41.24

1

14. 0-14. 5

64.9

29.59

73.19

43.60

3

14. 5-15. 0

62.9

47.12

71. 14

24.02

1

15.0-16.0

54.3

44.85

69.58

24.73

The last column, which gives the difference between the coefficients
of mealiness before and after steeping, indicates that as a general
rule the more kernels are transformed into the mealy state by steeping,
the less protein the barley contains. Both the degree of dissolution
(Prior) and the coefficient of mealiness after steeping (Brown) in-
crease with decreasing protein content : that is. the lower the protein
content of a barley the more mealy in general its structure. If the
figures for degree of dissolution be compared with those indicating
the coefficient of mealiness (after steeping) it is seen that they are
nearly identical for such barleys as are ordinarily used for malting
purposes — that is, those containing from 10 to 13 per cent of protein —
whereas beyond these limits the degree of dissolution rises or falls
more rapidly than the coefficient of mealiness.

RELATION OF PROTEIN AND HULL CONTENT.

Prior" has also indicated that no connection exists between the
protein and the hull content of barley. This may be true of 2-row
barley, but when the 84 samples of 6-row barleys are examined one
easily sees that with an increase in protein content there is also a cor-
responding increase in the percentage of hulls. Twenty- four samples
of high-protein barleys (average, 13 per cent of protein) contain
12.9 per cent of hulls and 11.8 per cent of bran, while 23 samples of
low-protein barleys (average, 10.9 per cent of protein) contain 12.4
per cent of hulls and 11.6 per cent of bran.

"Through Pure Products. 1907. 3: 92.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 41

This may be due to the fact that the smaller grains contain rela-
tively nioro protein than tlio larpM* ones, and of course the small
grains contain relatively more hulls. Beaven" showed that small
berries gave, less extract, because they had a relatively larger amount
of hulls.

COMPARATIVE COMPOSITION OF I^RGE AND SMALL GRAINS.

One expects to find a rather close i*elation lx»tween the size of the
grain and the amount of starch present. The ditference, however,
is really very slight, especially wlK»n the e.xtreme cases are compared.
For example, 20 samples the weight of which per 1,00() grains was
over 28.5 grams have 58.6 |)er cent of starch, while M samples under
27 grams per 1,000 grains contain 58.8 per cent of starch. Johann-
sen's '' results, showing that the big grains contain relatively less
nitrogen than the small grains of the same variety, is also corrolx)-
rated.

The iH*rcentage of embryo and bran in snuill an<l large grains
varies little, but the results s«HMn to show that small grains contain
a lower iK»rcentage of eiulosiK»rm than do the larger ones. Twenty
samples with an average weight of W.'^ grams |H»r 1,000 grains con-
tain 72.5 pi»r cent of endos|)erm, whereas :U samples of smaller grains
(average weight |)er 1,000 grains, 25.(> grams) contain 71 |>er cent.

There is also a relation In^tween the size of the grain and the
amount of hulls, the larger grains containing somewhat less hulls.
This has also Ijeen found to \h* true by Wallerstein *■ and Heaven.'-

Large grains contain more extnict, starch, and endosperm than do
the snudl ones. In 20 samples of (»-row barley, with a l,0(K)-grain
weight above 28.5 grams, the percentage of bran is 11.8; hulls,
12.2; embryo, 2.5; endosjx'rm, 72.5; extract, 71.7; starch, 58.0; and
the weight |)er bushel is 49.5 i)ounds; while 31 samples of smaller
grains of the same variety — that is, those weighing less than 27 grams
per 1,000 grains — contain about 11.0 per cent of bran, 13 per
cent of hulls, 2.53 |>er cent of embryo, 71 per cent of endosperm,
70.7 per cent of extract, 58.9 per cent of starch, and have a bushel
weight of 46.0 i)ounds. The larger gi-ains contain also less fiber,
pentosans, and ash, but have a higher c(H»fficient of mealiness. There
is no appreciable diiference in the fat, sulphur, or lecithin content
in large and snuill grains. The weight per 1.000 gi-ains varied from
19.9 to 33.5 grams. The weight per bushel varied from 42.5 to 51.5
pounds. The light grains are less plump, contain more nitrogen, and
produce less extract. On the other hand, extra heavy grains are

. "J. Fed. Inst. Brew.. 1002, 8: .'V42.

^Compt, rend, travaux Carlsberg, ISO!), 4: 122.

** Couinuin lea t ions from I^iboratory and Scientific Station for Brewing, S*?c.
Ann. Uep.. 10O4.

•'Loc. cit

42 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

richer in extract material, but, according, to Prior, they malt less
easily. The weight per bushel is not so important as is this weight
taken in connection with the weight per 1,000 grains.

As has already been stated, the weight per bushel varies from 42.5
to 51.5 pounds, with an average of 46.7, the sample of lowest weight
per bushel being from Montana and having also the lowest weight
per 1,000 grains and a high percentage of nitrogen. This relation
of high protein content to low bushel weight has been observed by
many investigators, and almost invariably occurs when the sample
has, for some reason, failed to develop normally and fully. It is a
well-known physiological fact that the protein of cereals develops
to a very large extent comparatively early in the life of the plant,
whereas assimilation and the formation of carbohydrates may pro-
ceed as long as the leaves or stem contain any green coloring matter.
If for any cause the plant fails to develop a plump grain it will nat-
urally show not a larger amount of nitrogen but a relatively higher
percentage. The barleys from Ohio and Illinois, which contain the
lowest percentage of nitrogen, are characterized by being the heaviest.
The weight per 1,000 grains likewise shows a very wide variation,
19.9 grams to 33.5 grams, with an average of 26.9 grams, the smaller
grain showing a somewhat higher i^ercentage of nitrogen.

OTHER CONSTITUENTS OF BARLEY.

The percentage of pentosans shows a variation from 8.31 per cent
in Ohio-grown barley to 11.51 in the sample from South Dakota.
These results indicate that a high content of hulls is accompanied
by a high percentage of fiber and of pentosans, as would be expected,
since grains with a high content of fiber generally yield the most
pentosans, because of a rather close connection, not necessarily ge-
netic, between fiber and pentosans." High-j^rotein barleys contain the
most pentosans, on an average.

The percentage of fiber varies from 4.34 to 6.68, with an average
of 5.76 for all samples. The average found by Clifford Richardson
was only 4.08. These variations from one 3^ear to another are
probably due to weather conditions. It may be interesting also to
note that the sample grown in New York contained the least amount
of hulls (only 10.17 per cent), while the one from Montana contained
the largest amount (15.36 per cent). The high-protein barleys are
somewhat richer in fiber than are the low-protein barleys, thus cor-
roborating the researches of Bleisch and Regensburger.'*

The percentage of fat in the barlevs grown in the different States
varied from 1.67 to 2.46, with an average of 2.02 per cent for all

" Calabresi, Staz. sperim. agrar. ital., 1906, 39:C9.
»Zt8. gesam. Brauw., 1905, 28: 628.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 43

-auiples. Richardson" states that the average of 10 samples was 2.87
per cent, considerably higher than that found in any of the present
samples.

Konig* showed that the fat content of barley varied from 1.35
per cent, obtained in barleys grown in Wurtteml)erg, to '2.07, the latter
representing the average of KJ Russian-grown barleys. There is no
appreciable difference in fat content between high and low protein
barleys. This corrolxirates Neumann's *' i-esults on 2-row barley.

The sugar results obtained in this investigation, though interesting,
:iic unsatisfactory, owing to the fact that it was impossible to de-
termine the sugar in the barleys until the samples were considerably
over a year old. The barleys were harvested in the fall of IIHU, and
sent to the Bureau of Chemistry in the sunmier of 190r>, soon after
which most of the other determinations were made. In the fall and
winter of 100.*) the sugar determinations were begun. The results
obtained were normal: that is, the invert .sugar content varied fw)m 0.8
|>er cent to 2.03 ix?r cent, while the cane .sugar varied from 1.0*2 per
cent to ."i.Ol) per cent. In February, IJKWJ, while these results were being
obtained, work had to he suspended tem|>orarily and was not resumed
until the following May, during which interim it was found that all
of the invert sugar and most of the cane sugar had disappeared.
This was true of both the ground and the unground barley. The
cause of this phenomenon remains unknown, though it may l)e closely
coimected with the loss of dia.stase which takes place when seed has
lost its giM'ininating jwwer.*

The percent agi> of ash in these 84 samples of barlfv averages 2.08
and varies from 2.5 to 3.5 per cent, a rather large variation, the Ten-
nes.see, Ohio, Illinois, and New York barleys containing less than those
from the other States. On the other hand, Montana and Kansas bar-
leys are vei-y high in ash. No relation exists between the ash content
and the j^ercentage of protein. Delbriick * found that high and low
j)rotein barleys gave practically the same percentage of ash, fat, and
hulls. The average ash content found in 70 samples of American
barley, as quoted by Kiinig, is 3.10 j^er cent, a figure quite close to
tliat obtained on the samples reported here.

The percentage of phosphoric acid varies from 0.8 to 1.25, increas-
ing and decreasing as a rule with the amount 6f ash, in which the per-
centage of phosphoric acid varies from 27.4 to 42.1, the largest amount
l)eing found in Ohio. AYhen extreme cases are taken into considera-
tion there seems to be also a rather close relation between the amounts
of phosphoric acid, protein, and starch present ; the higher the per-

" V. S. Dopt. Aipr., Division of Clieiiiistry, Bui. 0.

^ T'ntersuehunp landwirtschnftlicli uiul j;ewerblich wiclitiger StofFe. \). 486.

'•J. Iiist. Brew., 1007, 18: 87.

•^Vllm, throuKb .1. Inst. Bivw.. 11K)S, 14: 405.

•"Through Trans. Amer. Brew. Inst., 1905. 8: 10,

44

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

ceiitage of phosphoric acid the less protein and the more starch. This
was true in over two-thirds of the samples examined. In this con-
nection Kichardson ° found that phosphoric acid fertilizers increased
the number of mealy grains, the effect being just the opposite to that
of nitrogen fertilizers, which increase the flinty characteristics. It
may thus be quite possible to decrease the protein content of barley
by the liberal use of phosphate fertilizers; in other words, since it is
fairly definitely known that nitrate fertilizers increase the protein
content of grains, phosphates may be used to increase the starch con-
tent, thus producing a low protein barley. Kunz,^ however, could
find no relation between the amount of phosphoric acid and the ex-
tract 3^ield.

The amount of sulphur varies in the 84 samples of barley from
0.15 per cent to 0.256 per cent, with an average for all of the samples
of 0.182 per cent, following the protein content closely. As sulphur
is a natural constituent of protein, it might be expected that a high-
protein barley would contain more sulphur than one with low pro-
tein, and that this is the case was shown in over 80 per cent of the
samples.

RELATION OF TOTAL TO SOLUBLE PROTEIN.

Regarding the soluble protein, the results indicate that the greater
the total content of protein the smaller the percentage which is solu-
ble; in other words, a larger proportion of the total protein is soluble
in low-protein barleys than in high-protein barleys. The following
table will show how general this relation is when the barleys are
divided into groups according to their j^rotein content :

Relatwn between the total ami the .soluble imttcin eontent of barley.

State.

Number
of sam-
ples.

Protein content
(below 11.49).

Number
of sam-
ples.

Protein content
(11.50-11.99).

i

Total.

Proportion
soluble.

Canada

1

Per cent, i Per cent.

3

1
1

Per cent. \ Per cent.
11 8 i Ifi fi

South Dakota

11 9 ' 19 0

4

1

11.1 19.2
11. 4 18. 4

11. 6 1 19. 6

Illmois

Indiana

1
2
4

1
1
5

11.9 1 18.0
11 8 1 17 3

3

5

1

11.1 18.0
10.9 17.6
11.4 19.2

Minnesota

11 9 18 5

Montana

11.6 17 0

Ohio

11 7 : 19 4

Wisconsin

is

11.0 17.6

11 6 17 7

32

11.0 17.9

9

11 8 17 **

« U. S. Dept Agr., Division of Chemistry, Bill. 9.
&Wochenschr. Brau., 1906, 23: 530.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS. 45

Relation between the total and the xoluble itrotrht vimtrnt of harUy — Coiifd.

State.

Number
of sam-
ples.

Protein content
(12-12.49).

1

1 Number

ofsam-

pteB.

1

Protein content
(over 12.a)).

Toui. ^^stssr

Total.

Proportion
soluble.

\v York

Pn cent. Per cent.

Percent.
14.2

Prr emt.

17 1

(. uloredo

1

12.5 1 i5 7

South Dakota

•>

I
1

12.3 17.8

13.7 1 i«.:i

Iowa

MkhiRan

12. 1 la 7

12. 2 17. S

I

11 1 la 0

Kansus

•

13. 4 ! 13. 1

MinnnM)ia
Montana

*♦

12.3 l&O

12.9 1&5
14.9 Ifi.8

Wisconsin

5

ti'a ! NL7

1S.8 , 17. S

Averagi*.

17

U.2 , 17.0 ; 16

13.4 I 17.1

In general, the 2-row barleys and the western barleys al.si) show
that i\ somewhat lar^r proportion of the protein is soluble in low
than in high protein barleys (m'c p. \i)). Tlu' same ivlsition is iruv
with re-sfwct to the malts also.

In the following table the .sainpit's of lia' Manchurian-OderbnuUer
type are arrangi*d in groups aecording to protein content and the
averages of soluble and of soluble-c^oagulable protein given for each
group. There is a small but distinct decrea.sc of the percentage of
soluble protein with incnnising total protein, but there are many
individual e.xceptions to this rule, especially in the case of the maxi-
mum and minimum figures obtained.

Relation beticeen the soluttlv, tlir MolittjIe-rtHit/iilattlr, and the total protein of
Homv Manrhurian-iiilritu tirhrr Imrh ns.

i .Soluble protein (in teni
«, . . 1 protein).

Total prv ' '

tain In
barter.

Peread.

10-11
11-12
12-13
13-14
14-15

Per^

Maximum.

1«.8
1H.7

ins

16.0
15.4

Ptrttmi.

17.8
19.1
19.6

lae

15l7

IIS of •.

Minimum.

1
- .lul.U'-
L.'iilal.le
iri.fpin (in
terms of
soluble
protein i .

Percent.

15.4
14 6
14.0
14.8
15.1

Percent.

27.9
29.7
28.7
29.1
31.7

As ha.s already l)een noted, the amount of solubl(^ nitrogen de-
crea.ses with the increa.se of the total nitrogen; Wallerstein showed,
however, that high protein and high soluble protein go together.
This is not nece.s.sarily a contradiction, for in this study the per-
centage of soluble nitrogen was compared with the total nitrogen,
while Wallerstein has only compared the percentage of total .soluble
niti-ogen of high and low protein barleys.

Of the proteins in barley, therefore, from 81 to 85 per cent are in-
soluble. Of the soluble proteih, alx)ut 30 per cent are coagulable. On

46 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

the other hand. Evans" finds that with 2-row barleys about 50 per
cent of the soluble protein is coagulable, which is a much larger
amount than that obtained in the work here reported on ordinary
6-row barleys.

LECrrHIN IN ITS RELATION TO PROTEIN AND PHOSPHORIC ACID.

The amount of lecithin, or rather of alcohol-and-ether soluble
bodies, varies from 0.39 to 0.69 per cent, with an average of 0.53 per
cent, in accordance with the protein content. Stoklasa ^ found that
seed containing the most protein likewise held a higher percentage
of lecithin. This is substantiated by these data w^ith but few excep-
tions; the amounts are, however, too small to make it possible to
draw* many conclusions.

There is no apparent connection between the amount of phosphoric
acid in barley and the lecithin content, probably due to the fact that
barley, like wheat, contains a larger proportion of a water-soluble
organic phosphorus compound, similar to, if not, phytin, and that
the amount of phosphorus found in barley is more nearly related to
this more abundantly occurring body than to lecithin, the latter
phosphorus compound being present in only relativeh^ small quan-
tities.

From the results given in Tables I and II it is seen that fully 35
per cent of the ash is composed of phosphoric acid compounds of
Avhich less than 5 per cent is in the form of lecithin phosphoric
acid. The bulk of the phosphorus is present in the barley as a
calcium-magnesium-potassium salt of oxymethylene diphosphoric
acid, as was shown by Hart and Andrews,^ who also shoAved that
practically no inorganic phosphorus compounds existed in grains.
The latter statement was afterwards corroborated by Schulze and
Castoro,*^ and more recently Windisch and Vogelsang^ established
the same fact in regard to barlej^ There are several organic com-
pounds of phosphorus existing in plants, chief among which, besides
the previouslv mentioned compound, phytin, are the lecithin-like
bodies, which have a glycerin radicle, and the nucleins, which are pro-
tein compounds containing phosphorus. Phytin occurs in quite large
amounts, while the two latter compounds are present in smaller
quantities.

Calcium, magnesium, and potassium, the more important ash con-
stituents besides phosphorus, form on an average about 2.7 per cent,
7.3 per cent, and 23 per cent, respectively, of the total ash. There
appears to be no appreciable difference in the amount of these con-
stituents in the ash of low-protein barleys and high-protein barleys.

"J. lust. Brew., 1906. 12: 209. '"New York Agr. Exp. Sta., Bui. 238.

6Ber. deut. chem. Ges., 1896, <* Zts. physiol. Chem., 1904, 41: 477.

29: 2761. ^Wochenschr. Brau., 1906, 23: 516.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 47

COEFFICIENT OF MEALINESS.

There is also a very noticeable differeiu-e in the degree of disso-
lution and in the coefficient of mealiness in these samples of barley.
The former varies from 37 to over 117, while the latter shows a varia-
tion of from 55 to 98. Prior's method of determining the dejn'ee of
dissolution very often gives values over 100. The coefficient of meali-
ness as determined by Brown gives somewhat lower results on low-
protein barU'Vs and higher results on high-protein barleys than
Prior's degree of dissolution. The two methods are fairly indicative
of the (|uality of barley. If tlie samples l)e arranged according to the
percentage of mealy grains found after sU»eping, si»paratiiig them
into two classes, those with more than 75 per cent of mealy grains
and thos<» with less, it is seen (p. 39) that the lower protein con-
tent and tlie higher mimber of mealy grains go together. There is
no ditference in the fat content, but there is somewhat more starch in
thosi» samples c<mtaining the high percentage of mealy grains. The
weight per 1,(KX) grains and the amount of extract are also greater
in high than in low percentage mealy grains.

SUMXABT OF BESULTS.

ORDINARY 8LX-ROW BARLEYS.

High-protein 6-i-ow barleys contain a larger percentage of fiber,
pentosans, hulls, bran, and embryo, but a smaller |>ercentage of starch,
extract, and soluble protein. The |K?rcentage of soluble protein
that is coagulable is somewhat gi*eater in high-protein than in low-
protein barleys, but in the case of 2-row and Hay Brewing barleys
there is no appi*eciable ditference in this respect. The high-protein
barleys weigh less per 1,000 grains and iH?r bushel, besides having a
lower degree of dissolution and coefficient of mealiness. This applies
to all varieties of barley analyzed. Xo appreciable difference can be
noted l)etween high and low protein barleys in their content of fat,
ash, sulphur, and lecithin, as is shown in the following tables, which
also show no difference in the percentage of steely gi-ains before
steeping between barleys of more than and less than 11.5 per cent
protein, when these are averaged. However, if the extreme cases —
that is, those sjimples containing more than 12.25 per cent protein —
are compared with barleys of less than 11 per cent protein, we find
that the former contain 10 per cent steely and 63 per cent mealy
grains after steeping, while the latter have only 4 per cent steely and
77 per cent mealy, thus clearly showing that the barleys with over
12 per cent protein are not so easily altered by the process of steep-
ing as are low-protein barleys.
72240— Bull. 124—09 1

48

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

ts C

n

it

•ma^ojd
eiqnios

•Aea^S

•iClB9K

^•c5^coeoc5eo<MS«e<5fOc<5S

• !0cCi000ioO'-ii»00»-Ht~«O05

•ssaui
•[caui JO ^uaiogjaoo

:coeOrt Ot^O

^SSSStoSSot^tSSSSoo

noil

-niOSSip JO 99lS9(J I

lOCsir-HC^O'a'oootCOsiro— <»-i
tOt>-od«Ot^'vSt^?DcD**OC

■inn

•^OTJipca

000

•srrrejS
I sad %i

^^a\^JA.

•uuadsopua

j^®i— TtteoMi^oooeocoooooo
^eO»0«oS50>OoSi050cO®50

•g«COOOi01«OC^«0»Os>^t^'

• « t^t-t^ t^

g00OC^C»S(M0C»C<M-*'05C0t^C^

• r^t^t^t>.r-t>.t-t>-tot^t~t^t—

. >fl to to ■^ t^ ■* t^ io CO r^ CO <c «o
•oXjqraa I ^<N<Ncipqe^c>i(N(N(N(NCsi(Nc4

a%

•uBja

.»cO5Oseo5O00t^o»eo'V*»O'"
f

<-T-<r-<C0r-lr-4^O.-li-<.-ie0»-'»

•siinH

icO-^iCfOOCiCCDiCNOOCOO

•mq;!09T

•pixo innisse^Od:

•pnco ranisauSBK

•ppco ranioiBO

^S^SSSSp:?2R:?!Se

•jjSSS^SSScS^S^??

•piOB oijoqdsoiij

) CO 00 00 00 .-I t^ b-

) O) o d^ o o

i^85s;

•jtiqdins

100-^05 00 05

00 o CO lo 1^ r^

ft.o

•qsv

•qoiC^S

:§§S8§S;fe

• CO (N (N CO CO c<i (N

c»3 u-j u-3 05 ic OQ

o ■<»< r- 1- 05 r-
CO CO c^ (N e^ <N

i odcc cdo6t>^

: lO >C lO lO »0 iC

' CO t^ CO »C iC t^ O l^

05 (M O CO CO
05 05 O 05 00

•laqiJE

IM

•said
JO jaqnmjfii

. UJ CON 00 lOCO"*!
; CO .-I 5o CO d -^ M

• lO CO «c «d CO CO irj

05 * coco CcS

It; iC lO 'C iC »C

'• a

i^4'^

c<e<3'-<-«t<

05

o

^

24.7

28.6
27.7
27.1
29.2

«5O(NQ0r-

5Dt>^t>^o6cO

05

co'

?§s^s?§

•^

5H^«00t>;

U3

91.4
83.2
77.7
77.1
85.4

00

100.9
74.3
80.8
66.7
87.0

•*

s

60.3
60.2
61.4
62.3
61.6

O (N CO CO CO

00

NCO ■*■«»< 05

o

t^oscoooco

c4 -H (N -^ <N

(N (N <N <N (N

11.8

11.5
12.0
11.7
11.6

CO

ooor^(Nco

CO
<N

^toSSn;

•O

g8S{2g

^

S5g^8^?1

^

§

2Sg§

§

8§fe2fe

8

t^oot^ooo

00

005 05COO

cowevJcoeo

ir4

59.1
59.0
58.9
62.5
59.9

CO

1.-5 lO t^ 00 -"T

doJoo6o5

oi

iQ >4 lo ic i«

to

1.89
2.02

2.10
2.00

8

eo«o<©i-icD

S

>-

ill

1

SUMMARY OF RESULTS.

49

The following table likewise shows the difference in coefficient of
mealiness, degree of dis.solntion, percentage of extract, etc., between
high and low protein barleys:

Cmnparison of high and low protein barleys.

TWO-ROW.

Bt«t«. ■

berof
sam-
plM.

disso-
lution.

CoeA-
dentof
meali-
ness.

Pro.
t«in.

Weight
sand.

Weight

per
bushel.

K.X-
tract.

Solu-
ble

Coagu-
lable
pro-
tein in
water-
soluble

ovn \\A m cxNT or

PROTEIN.

California . .

I
ft

1
1
1

82.0
48.7
77.8
50.0
77.1

n.6

64.3
83.5

68.1
79.1

Ptr

Mm.

12.9
13.2
12.6
11.6
17.4

OrvRM.
32.6
41.6
31.3
28.3
34.7

Pmntd».
52.7
51.0
50.2
48.5
47.2

Per
cent.
74.0
71.4
72.7
69.4
69.4

Per
etiU.
14.3
15.8
16.5
17.7
15.4

Per

cent.
32.4

32.8

New York

31.8

South Dakota 1...

21.8

Kansas

34.9

Average

9

06.7

64.4

13.4

37.3

50.4

n.4

16.0

31.6

UNDER 11.5 PER CEMT Of

PROTr.rN.

CaUfomia

Oennany

Canada.

1

}

1

ft

116.0

ioa8

77.2
8ft.O
116.4

97.5

».o

87.0
91.0
97.6

9.3
9.5

ia8

11.0
10.0

36.0
47.6
38.1
37. ft
38.9

49.5
ft5.7
50.5
52.5
55.0

73.9
79.1
74.2
73.7
76.4

15.8
15.2
18.4
15.4
19.0

28.8
30.3
31.3

Idaho

31.8

Montana

32.3

AT«n«i

•

96.7

96.7

lai

39.5

53. 7

"••

17.6

31.5

BAY BRBWINO BARLBY (

6.R0M;

).

OVER 11.5 PER CKirr or

PROTBOr.

''ftWhml* . ...............

3

1

1
3

39.4
54.3
79.6
56.4

61.0
69.6
81.1
66.3

13.2;
15.8 1
13.6
12.2

32.0
38.0
29.7
28.5

40.3
39.2
40.0
45.7

68.3
62.9
68.4
71.4

13.5
20.3
14.9
15.5

25.4

f^M«h<nna

33.7

vi^m

25.8

TeniMSMe....

31.3

6

88.9

67.6

13.4 1

29.8

41.9

68.5

15.5

28.8

UNDER 11.5 PER CENT OT
PROTEIN,

CaUfomia

Idaho

Washington

6
3
3

100.7
96.2
97.6

96.2
96.8
97.5

9.1
10.1
10.0

36.4
40.0
40.8

46.5
46.7
47.2

71.8
72.2
72.3

15.4
16.3
16.2

27.7
29.9
20.4

Average

12

96.8

96.6

'•'!

38.4

46.7

72.0

15.8

28.7

The great variations in the composition of these 84 samples of
()-row barleys, which belong practically to the same variety — that is,
Manchurian — and which have been grown in widely separated locali-
ties differing from one another in soil and general climatic conditions,
again demonstrate how great is the influence of environment on the
composition of plants. There is a greater difference in the compo-
sition and in the physical characteri.stics of the barleys of the same
type grown in different localities than there is between different
varieties grown in the same environment. This is well illustrated in
Tables T and IT, which give the average composition of the four
varieties of barley. There seems to be a greater influence exerted by
• limate than by seed, variety, or difference in soil characteristics. Ac-

50 STUDIES or AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

cording to Jvonig,« a barley grown in a s^ndy soil, a clay soil, and a
soil rich in lime diflFered in i^rotein content as follows: 11.1, 13.4, 12.7.
Much larger differences than these are obtained by growing the
same varieties in different localities. Eckenbrecher ^ likewise has
recently shown that there is a greater difference in composition and
physical characteristics of barley of the same type grown in different
localities than of different varieties grown in the same locality. The
same has been shown by Kiessling ^ and others.

TWO-ROW BARLEYS.

No attempt will be made to draw conclusions of this character
from the data here presented on 2-row, Utah Winter, or Bay
Brewing barleys, because of the fact that comparatively feAv samples
of each variety were analyzed. In general, however (Table II), it
is readily seen that the percentage of protein is very slightly lower
in the 2-row barleys than in the 6-row barleys (Table I) of the Man-
churian type, the average in the former case being about 11.6 per
cent. The five samples from Montana average less than 10 per cent.
Although the 2-row barleys do not contain much less protein than do
the G-row, there appears to be somewhat less fiber, pentosans, ash,
sulphur, hulls, embryo, and steely grains, but more starch, extract,
soluble albumen, bran, and endosperm, a higher coefficient of meali-
ness and degree of dissolution, and a greater weight per 1,000 grains
and per bushel in the 2-row than in the 6-row barleys. The other
constituents show no great variation between the two tj^pes of
barley. A striking difference between 2-row and 6-row barleys
is found in the fact that the former contain a larger proportion of
bran than of hulls, while in the latter the percentage of hulls is
greater than the j^ercentage of bran. The western 6-row barleys are
in this respect similar to the ordinary 6-row barleys.

SIX-ROAV WESTERN BARLEYS.

Twenty-seven samples of 6-row western barleys were analyzed.
They are usually called Bay Brewing barley or .Utah Winter, the
former being characterized by their thick skin and the latter by
their somewhat thinner hulls. Both varieties are large. Compared
with the ordinary 6-row barleys, they show a closer resemblance to
them in chemical composition than do the 2-row barleys. They are,
however, much larger, weigh more per bushel, and contain less
protein (somewhat less than the 2-row barleys). They contain a
slightly larger percentage of hulls, but less total sulphur and soluble
protein than do other 6-row barleys. The average weight per 1,000
grains of 6-row barley is less than 27 grams, compared with 36 grams

° Untersnchung landwirtschaftlicb gewerblich wichtiger Stoffe, i>. 517.
^Wochenschr. Brau., 1907, 24: 491,
'^ Loc. cit.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS.

51

us the weight per 1,000 <rrrtins of western barleys. There is a very
(•Ios<» afj^r^^^nient Ix^tweeii the two varieties in tlie content of ash, fat,
fiU'r. bran, jH»ntosiins, .starch, and ash constituents.

COMPARISON OF MALTS.

Thirty malts were prepared from the ordinary (>-row barleys, 8
from the we.stern barleys (Bay Brewing; and Utah Winter), and 5
from *2-row barleys.

In comparing the composition of malts made from these three
different varieties of barley. TabU' III shows that O-row malts con-
tain a larger {percentage of the following ccmstituents: Sulphur,
lecithin, total protein, soluble protein, soluble noncoagulable protein,
and embryo; a smaller percentage of starch, of extract in fine and
coai-s<» grist, and of bran; a smaller weight per bushel and per 1,000
grains, and a smaller coefficient of mealiness. Two-row malts, on
(he other hand, are higher in endas|H»rm, weight j^er bushel, ex-
tract in fine and coai-se gri.st, and coefficient of mealiness, and lower
in filler, pentosans, hulls, and embryo. The large western malts — the
Hay Brewing and Utah Winter — are higher in hulls and lower in
vtdphur, protein, .soluble protein, and .soluble noncoagulable and
oagulable protein. There is very little difference lH'twt»en the
varieties in the iM»rcentage of a.sh, phosphoric acid, and fat. The
western malts res(*mble those of the ortlinary (5-row barleys in the
amoimt of fiber, pentosans, hulls, bran, embryo, endosperm, and
starch which they contain. They are somewhat like the 2-row malts
in weight per bushel, weight pt»r 1,0<V) grains, and in the per cent
of total protein.

The following table shows how high and low protein malts compare
in weight |>er 1,000 grain.s, j)erc*ent of extract in fine grist, weight per
hectoliter, per cent .soluble protein and per cent coagulable protein,
tiie per cent mealines.s, and coefficient of mealiness. On an average,
the high-protein malts are much less mealy in the case of all three
classes of malt. The coefficient of mealiness is also less, as are also
the weight per 1,000 grains, the per cent of extract, and the per cent
of soluble profein.

CompariMtm of high and low protein malts.

SUt0.

Num.

berof
sam-
ples.

Pro-
tein.

M«aly.

^JSSl Weight I Ex- Weight
*^* per tract per
^„ 1,000 of One hecto-
*j;^'" grains, grist. Uter.

Soluble

pro-
tein in
total
protein.

pro-
tein.

OVER 11.5 Rft CENT OF mo-

TEIK(6.ROW).

South Dakota

Peret.

las

12.1

lao

12.6
12.3
11.5
12.6
1L6

Peret.
71
95
76
76
76

60

Oranu. Peret.

8a 0 21. 0 71. 7

46.7

Peret.
38.0
36.8
37.6
33.4
3a7
41.3
36.3
29.4

Peret.
a 7

Illinois

1

97.0 249, 72.6; 45.4
79.7 22.7 1 72.1 45.8

85.1 21.4 71.5 48.0
844 245 7a 5! 48.2

846 2a3 72.9

9a 4 24 7 73. 4 1 44 3
76. 1 2& 3 7a 2 I 51. 3

48

Iowa

Michijtan...
Minnesota..

Ohio

Wisconsin. .
Colorftdo

.\verai.'e

a 2
a 5

40

a 4
a 4

5.9

18

12.5 1 80

86.6 240 7a 1' 47.0

3a4! as

52

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

Comparison of high and low protein malts — Continued.

'%

state.

Num-
ber of
sam-
ples.

Pro-
tein.

Mealy.

Ckwffi-

cient

of

meali-
ness.

Weight
.grains.

Ex-
tract
of fine
grist.

Weight

per
hecto-'
liter.

Soluble

pro-
tein in
total
protein.

Coagu-
lable
pro-
tein.

UNDER 11.5 PER CENT OF PRO-
TEIN (6-ROW).

Michigan

2
4
7

Perct.
11.2
11.1
11.3

Per ct.
91
78
94

95.0
86.0
96.4

Grams.
25.9
23.7

* 25. 0

Perct.
75.7
72.0
73.9

Kilos.

48.7
47.0
46.7

Perct.
37.0
37.6
37.8

Per ct.
40

Minnesota

5 2

Wisconsin

46

Average

13

11.2

89

93.0

24 7

73.6

47.1

37.6

47

OVER 11.5 PER CENT OF PRO-
TEIN (2-ROW).

New York

1

13.8

60

73.6

22.7

72.9

48.7

35.6

45

UNDER 11. 5 PER CENT OF PRO-
TEIN (2-ROW).

Montana

4

9.6

96

97.7

33.5

7&7

53.1

38.0

43

OVER 11.5 PER CENT OF PRO-
TEIN (BAY BREWING AND
UTAH WINTER) .

Washington

1

12.3

68

81.6

35.1

71.8

50.0

32.2

3.6

UNDER 11.5 PER CENT OF PRO-
TEIN (BAY BREWING AND
UTAH WINTER).

California

2
2
1

1

1

8.2
10.1
10.9
&3
9.5

90
91
65
93
86

93.0
95.0
77.6
97.5
91.5

34.0
32.9
32.8
34.5
32.3

72.0
72.6

7a 9

77.2
75.3

45.4
46.3
48.7
48.7
45.4

38.3
32.3
32.3
35.6
36.3

3.6

Idaho . .

3.3

Utah.

40

Washington

3.5

Montana

3.9

Average

7

9.3

87

91.8

33.4

73.6

46.6

35.1

3.5

The hulls of 6-row malt form a much larger percentage of the grain
than do the hulls of 2-row malts, and yet the protein content of the
6-row barley is 1.5 per cent higher than that of the 2-row variety.
These two factors only emphasize how much smaller the percentage
of carbohydrates must be in G-row than in 2-row barley malts.

Malts are sometimes rejected by brewers because of a high bushel
weight. The following table will show that this factor is absolutely
useless when considered alone, for very often those malts having a
high bushel weight will give a larger yield of extract in the coarse
grist than malts of lower w^eight per bushel.

Comparison of weight per bushel and yield of extract.

Kind of malt.

^pi«s- bSi.

Extract.

Niunber

of
samples.

Low
weight

per
bushel.

Extract.

1

1 Pounds.
4 41.25
4 38.25
15 37. 7

Percent.
7a 7
70.1
70.5

2
4
12

Pounds.
36.5
35.6
35.6

Per cent.
70.6

6-row Bav Brewing malt

69.9

6-row Manchurian malt

69.9

As Wallerstein « has shown, a high bushel weight of malt is no
more an indication of inferiority than is the low weight per bushel a

« Communications from Laboratory and "Scientific Station for Brewing, Sec.
Ann. Rep., 1904.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS.

53

proof of it.s superiority. This clearly shows tlmt one factor alone, and
especially the bushel weight, is not enough to (.leterniine the value of a
malt. Again, many times, even when this factor is considered iu
connection with the weight per 1,000 grains, there are not sufficient
data at hand to warrant a rejection of the malt, for the following
table will illu.strate how it is possible to have malts whose bushel
weights are high, but whose weights j)er 1,000 grains are low, and yet
the extract yield is higher than the average. On the other hand,
>ome malts with a high weight |K?r 1,000 grains and a high bushel
weight give a yield of extract lower than the average. The average
weight ix?r 1,000 grains of malts of high bushel weight and of high
yiehl of extract is very little higher than in the ca.se of low bushel
weight.

Compariaon of S-rotc maltif having a high and a lotc weight pvr bunhel.

High wdcht per biaheL

Low wd|{ht p«r bushel.

"'S&r

Wdghtpw
1,000 gnlm.

Extnot

*iS£r

1,000 gnK.

Kxtract.

Omwu,

PnamL

r,„„j,

GrraM.

Per em.

38.75

26.9

74.1

36.95

31.0

68.8

3S.75

26.0

7a8

35.25

34.9

71.5

37.35

21.4

6&5

35.50

22.7

67.5

36.50

217

63.6

34.25

22.1

69.8

38.50

24.8

71.6

36.00

95.3

06.2

40.50

34.6

Tao

35.75

916

70.7

37.50

23.0

69.3

16.00

913

71.8

37.50

23.3

71.0

36.75

25.1

73.0

38.00

25.0

7a8

36.00

25.0

09.1

37.00

25.1

71.9

35.95

25.5

70.6

37.00

35.0

72.5

M.95

310

66.0

37.75

34.8

70.0

S4.75

23.7

71.9

36.50

25.4

68.3

38.00

27.3

70.9

37.50

23.4

7a8

37.7

24.6

70.5

35.6

23.9

09.9

As a general rule, however, a malt with a high weight per bushel
will give more extract and will weigh more \wv 1,000 grains than a
malt \vith low weight j^er bushel. The following figures selected
from the preceding table plainly .show this:

.4 comiKirison of the Cittremea of weight per bunhel with yield of extraet.

Over 37.7 pounds per

Leas than 35.6 pounds
per bushel.

Weight per
1,000 grains.

Extract.

Weight per
1,000 gralJas.

Extract.

Onmt.
25.9
24.8
24.6
25.0
218
27.3

Percent.
711

n.6

T0.O
70.8
T0.O

Granu.
24.9
22.7
22.1
25.5
22.7

Percent.
71.5
67.5
69.8
70.6
71.9

25.4

71.2

23.6

70.2

64 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

But it is not always enough to know the weight per bushel and the
weight per 1,000 grains in order to properly select malt. One should
also determine other factors, such as mellowness, percentage of ger-
mination, water, protein, and extract, the color, odor, impurity, and
the diastatic power, etc., basing the decision on all of these results.

From the entire study it is very evident that the variation in cli-
matic conditions throughout the country, the difference in soil, the
different methods of cultivation and rotation practiced — all have
their bearing on the characteristics of barley, and from the great
variation in composition it is safe to assume that the United States
can produce barley of the first rank, whether 6-row or 2-row varieties
be grown. As the climate varies greatly from one locality to another,
and such conditions exert the greatest influence on the quality of the
crop, care should be taken to select the seed and locality according to
the tj^pe of barley desired. For example, moist climates and localities
where plants have long periods of growth, especially between the
stage of flowering and maturity, generally produce a low-protein
barley. In such localities it would generally be impossible to grow^
barleys rich in protein.

CHANGES IN COMPOSITION DURING MALTING.

One of the most interesting and instructive series of results ob-
tained in this work relates to the changes which each constituent of
the barleys underwent during malting. This is shown in Table IV.
These figures were obtained b}^ analyzing the malts, and then calcu-
lating the malt analyses to the basis of the corresponding barleys b}^
multiplying the results of the malt analyses by the factor obtained
by dividing the weight of 1,000 grains of malt by that of 1,000 grains
of barley. This factor averages about 89, but as a rule the fac-
tor found by actually weighing the barley and the amount of malt
obtained therefrom on a laboratory scale was used. In several cases,
however, the factor 89 Avas used in the conversion of the malt figures
to the basis of the barley. This Avas the case Avherever the results
showed that an apparent error had been made, or where a sample
of either the malt or barley had been lost before the Aveight per 1,000
grains was obtained. The loss in malting a barley is due to the loss
of soluble constituents and respiration of carbonic acid and to the
formation of the radicles. On the other hand, there is a slight gain
in Aveight due to the fixation of Avater during the conversion of starch
to sugar, and possibly also to the hydrolysis of the proteins." The
losses on malting Avere then calculated by diA^iding the difference be-
tween the percentage of each constituent in the barley and in the
malt (calculated to the barley basis) by the percentage of that con-
stituent in the barle\^ itself.

«Long, J. Amer. riiem. Soc. 1907, 29: 20n.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 55

111 this way the following changes due to malting were estimated,
the figures given IxMiig the average of the results obtained from the
analyses of 43 samples of barley and of their corresponding malts:

l.oxs ami gain in the various constituenia of barley due to tnnlting.

ron«tUuent. «gi»'

1

1 Constituent.

Gain or
loss.

Per cent.

Fat - 7.7

Filler 8.4

Pentosans. . . 1. G

Starch 2K0

ReducinK sugars as Invert sugar . «- 4na 0

Cane sugar ^ 71.0

Ash .ni7

Sulphur. .
Lei>lthias
1 Hulls...

Bran

Embrj-o

Kn<lo(5i)em». . '
Total protfin

Per cent.
+ 9.0
+ 34.3

^8.5

- ;<7.o

f 78.7

- 10.2

- 12.0
+ 72.5

Calcium oxid 22. o

Magnesium oxlil 17 0

Total phosphoric arid . . 1 2. 7

Solul»l«vnonto«ig«lal»l« prot«in i

SoltiMiMtmtriilaMe protein

+ 104.0
+ 13.0

Although it should not Im* a.ssumed that thes4» I'esults represent exact
amounts, yet they indicate fairly well the changes going on during
inahing. From these* averages it is seen that when barleys are mahcd
they lost* appreciably in fat, lime, magnesia, phosphoric acid, hulls,
protein, filx'r, and endosp<»rm. There is a greater loss, however, in
starch, ash, bran, and potash. Xo appreciable loss is noted in pento-
san.s, while on the other hand th^re is a considerable gain in the amount
of lecithin and soluble coagulable protein, and a very large increase in
sugai's, embryo, soluble protein, and soluble noncoagulable protein.

The loss of the different constituents is, of course, due to the gi'owth
of the acrospire and rootlets or malt sprout.s, to the amount of respir-
atory pi-oducts prwluced during this gi'owth, and to the various
physiological changes; for example, the conversion of starch into
maltose, etc. Thus, much of the starch (over 20 per cent) has l)een
lost during malting, but most of this loss is made up by the corre-
sponding gain In sugars. A part of the sugars produced from this
starch and some of the fat were given off as carbon dioxid produced
by respiration during the malting. Another part of the starch con-
version products was transferred to the malt sprouts, the insoluble
and therefore the immovable starch having first been converted by
the dia.stase into .soluble and transferable sugars, which then migrated
to the sprouts. These sprouts are likewi.se rich in phosphoric acid
and other salts containing over 1.5 per cent of phosphoric acid alone,
l)esides over 8 |)er cent of pota.sh and an appreciable amount of
lime and magnesia. This partly accounts for the large loss of ash,
phosphoric acid, and other constituents, and also of the bran of
barley during malting. As one can readily see, the loss of phosphoric
acid, of ash, and of bran are closely related, being, respectively, 12.7
per cent, 20.7 per cent, and 37 per cent. The a.sh not only lost phos-
phoric acid but also some of all of the other constituents, namely,

56 STn)TES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

48 per cent of potash, 22 per cent of lime, and 17 per cent of magnesia.
This explains why the loss of ash is greater than that of phosphoric
acid. According to Konig," barley bran contains about 7 per cent
of ash, of which 50 per cent is phosphoric acid. That fact explains
why such a loss in bran takes place during the process of malting
barley. A large portion of the ash lost, consisting of phosphoric
acid and other salts, would naturally come from the bran, which con-
stituent of barley is richest both in ash and in phosphoric acid. The
protein lost during malting is, of course, to be found chiefly in
the malt sprouts. In order to be thus transported from the barley
grain to the malt sprout, the insoluble protein had to be made soluble
by the proteolytic enzymes which are always present in grains and
only await propitious conditions in order to become active. The in-
soluble protein, having been converted into soluble and movable
protein, and possibly also having been changed into the amid form,
migrates to the growing plantlet and rootlet and again becomes
insoluble and fixed, just as the starch first becomes soluble before it
can migrate, and through physiological processes again becomes
insoluble in forming cellulose for the cell walls, etc. It should be
noted that high-protein barleys lost on an average over 16 per cent
of the total nitrogen, while the low-protein barleys lost about 11 per
cent on malting, the former losing considerably more starch also
during this process.

Analysis of the sprouts or rootlets obtained from malted barley
showed that they contained about 5 per cent of the total phosphoric
acid, 20 per cent of the potash, and from 2 to 3 per cent of the lime
and magnesia found in the malt. The difference between the total
loss observed in malting and the above figures shows the amount of
these constituents actually lost on steeping.

Brown and Morris ^ show that in malting there is an increase of over
300 per cent of cane sugar in the embryo and a still larger increase in
the endosperm, besides which a large amount of maltose is found in
the malt endosperm, having been produced from the starch of the
barley endosperm. Similar results were obtained by O'Sullivan ^ long
before in his masterly researches on sugars. Delbriick '^ quotes Griiss
and Schonfeld's work showing that despite the fact that enzyms are
breaking down the starch into sugar during malting, a considerable
reconversion of starch from the sugar takes place, especially during
the drying of the malt. Hoffmann and others (see Delbriick) showed
that the drying of malt likewise changed amids into protein. This
has led to a comparison of the physiological process taking place

° rntersuchung landwirtschaftlich imd gewerblich wicbtiger Stoffe, p. 771.
* Text-book of Science of Brewing, p. 74.
cj. Chem. Soc, 1886, 49: 58.
'^J. lust. Brew., 1906, 12: 644.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS. 57

(luring the drying of the mah with that occurring during the ripening
of grains. Some work carried on in the Bureau of Chemistry on the
changes in sugar and sohible nitrogenous constituents during malting
and during the drying of the malt have failed to fully corroborate
the ahoye conclusions relating to the conversion of sugar into starch.
Tlie results show, on the dry basis, the following amounts of sugar
( calculated as dextrose) : Barley soakeil two days preparatory to
malting, 1.10 per cent; green malt, 0.14 and 7.25 j)er cent; and malt
(dried one day at ^^5° C.), B.ii aiul 11.47 per cent. An increase ratlier
than a decrease in sugar has evidently taken place during the first
day's drying, due probably to the fact that the slow drying at I^.'i'^ C.
with the large initial amoinit of moisture in the green malt was really
.1 continuation of the malting process which continuetl until the
moisture content lx»canie too low, due to evaporation, to carry this
pix)cess any further. A slight decrease of sugar, however, is noteil at
the end of a month, 10.01 |>er cent being present in the sample which
on the first day's drying contained 11.47 i)er cent. This work is
iH'ing repeat e<l.

Our results further show that practically no change has taken place
in the {MMitosans during nuilting. Tollens and (Jlaubitz" showed
that the pentosan content of l)oth barley and nuilt was the same, no
change having taken place during the nudting pr(K*ess. It is quite
probable, however, that the carbohydrates necessary for the growth
of the sprouts and for respiration during seed gi'owth are furnished
entirely or mostly by the more assimilable constituents, namely, the
sugars normally present and those prmluced by the action of the
(liastasi* on the stairh and also by the fat.

The sulphur content increased i>erceptibly, according to these re-
sults. This simply means, however, that sonje malts had been
bleached by the use of sulphur^ or else had absorbed some sulpluii'
omi)ounds from the products of combustion during the kilning
process. In any case there has not l)een and there could not have
l)een any real increase in the amount of sulphur unless the malts had
absorbed it in some such manner.

It is quite different, however, with the increase of lecithin, or rather
alcohol and ether-soluble phosphorus compounds. Here we are deal-
ing with a body, or several phosphorus-containing bodies, which are
soluble in both alcohol and ether or in one of these reagents. The
active physiological changes going on in the barley during malting
have ali-eady been noted in so far as the losses in ash, phosphoric
acid, and bran are concerned, and it is quite probable that some of
the phosphorus compounds of barley, which are insoluble in alcohol
and ether, go through some of these changes and become soluble in

"J. I^udw., 1897, 45: 106, through Principles and Practice of Brewing, Sykes
aud Ling.

58

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

these reagents. That such is the case the^resuhs here reported would
seem to indicate. AVindisch" has ah-eady' shown that the phosphoric
acid compounds of barley undergo a very great change in malting,
the organic phosphorus being to a large extent hydrolyzed and con-
verted to the inorganic condition. It is quite probable that some
of this same organic phosphorus of barley, which is soluble in w^ater,
also changes into another form of organic phosphorus which is soluble
in alcohol and ether.

The great increase in sugar is easily explained from the effect of
the diastatic action on starch.

The growth of the embryo during germination is a natural one.
At the full malt period it has increased nearly 100 per cent, the va-
riation being from 38 to 209 per cent. This variation is because of
the fact that some grains begin to germinate and then stop, the length
of the acrospire being less than one-fourth of that of the grain itself,
whereas in a good malt its growth should be from three-fourths
to one.

That a most active proteolytic action took place in the barley dur-
ing malting is clearly indicated by the increased amount of soluble
protein. Whereas the total protein suffered a loss averaging 12 per
cent, the amount of soluble protein increased over 70 per cent, thus
showing that even as a very active diastatic action was noted by
the conversion of the starch into sugar, so an almost equally active
physiological change due to the proteolytic enzym was being brought
about in regard to the protein of barley. Similar results have been
obtained by Brown'' and Evans.^

The results given in the following table show the relative amounts
of water-soluble proteins in high and low protein malts, and likewise
the amount of protein rendered soluble on mashing and found in the
wort :

Comparison of soluble protein and proteins dissolved by mashing.
HIGH-PROTEIN MALTS (6-ROW).

Protein dissolved on

Soluble protein based

Labora-

Protein in
malt on

mashing.

on total protein.

tory No.

barley
basis.

Based on

Based on

: In malt

total

total

In barlev.

on barlev

substance.

protein.

basis.

Per cent.

Per cerU.

Percent.

Percent.

Percent. \

102

n.o

5.08

46.2

16.1

35.3

91

11.4

4.89

42.8

18.0

36.0

58

11.3

4.21

37.2

17.3

31.0

111

11.3

4.41

39.0

18.4

36.0 ,

50

10.7

4.67

43.6

18.4

40.0

51

10.3

4.44

43.1

17.4

36.7

71

11.1

5.30

47.7

17.9

35.1

73

10.5

4.91

46.7

17.4

41.3 i

84

10.7

4.35

40.6

18.2

37.4

12
Average

11.3

5.65

50.0

17.1

30.2 j

11.0

4.79

43.7

17.6 1 35.9 j

J 1

JjOC. cit.

J. Inst. Brew., tliroiigh tlie Wahl-Heniiis " Hanclybook," pp. 426-43.3.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS.

59

(Comparison of soluble protein and proteins dissolved by nuishiny — Continued,
L0W-PR0TP:IN malts (6-ROW).

Protein dUsoIved on

Soluble pr

otein iMsed

Labora-

I'rutcin in
inalt on

mMhlng.

on total protein.

tory No.

barle>'
Uuris.

BMedon Based on

In malt

totel total

In barley.

1 on barl«>y

sotetanoe.; protein.

basis.

Peretnt.

PtruiU.

P€rttnl.

Peretnt.

Percent.

IS

10.2

9.40

33.3

15.7

30.0

«

9.5

4. 15

43.7

17.6

35.9

53

9.6

4.12

42.9

18.0

39.0

104

9.8

3.96

40.5

19.1

35.5

115

9.5

3.89

40.9

18.0

' 35.8

37

9.6

3.52 36.8

18.1

42.1

3

8.0

4.19 ' 52.2

17.9

35.0

35

9.8

4.«S 45.4

17.5

37.9

32
Armngt

9.8
9.5

4.30

Tor

43.6

16.9

35.5

*.

17.7

36.8

Tho fi^ires show a somewliat higher j^ercentage of protein dis-
olved on mashing in high-protein niahs, as Wallerstein* has already
shown, also that somewhat mon» protein ( 10 to 15 jx»r cent) is rendered
soluble on mashing than by simple ti*eatment with cold water.

Kunz ^ showed that from 25 to 41 per cent of the protein was
found in the extract, a s<miewhat largi»r amount of the nitrogen being
rendered soluble in the high-protein malt, or small-grain malt, <lue
to the greater activity of the enzyms present.

The loss of total protein during malting has averaged alM)ut 12
ner cent when all of the samples, 2-row, (>-row Bay Brewing, and
idinary ft-row Mancluirian are taken together. By separating the
malts which were made from high-protein barley from those obtained
from the low-protein barley it is shown that the first -named barleys suf-
fer a greater loss of protein on malting than do the latter; for example,
10 samples of barley with high-protein content underwent an average
loss of total protein in malting of Ki per cent, whereas the correspond-
ing loss from 19 samples of low-protein barleys was 12 per cent.

The work done on the comparative composition of barley and malt
-hows that about one-fifth of the ash constituents of the bran is lost.
1 leinzelmann is quoted as saying that 20 per cent of the phosphoric
acid originally prestMit is dissolved <luring steeping, soft waters remov-
ing considerably more ash than hard waters. That a large proportion
of this loss occurs during steeping admits of no doubt, as can Ix? read-
ily proven by merely soaking whole barley in water for several hours
and then testing the solution for pota.sh, phosphoric acid, etc.

From the fact that such losses in mineral constituents occur during
steeping and considering also some results obtained in this labora-
tory on the amount of salts removed from the straw and grain of

«Loe. cit.

•Through Pure Products, 1906, 2: 330.

60 STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

barley on soaking, it seems quite safe to -assume that the results on
the loss of these materials obtained by Wilfarth, Romer, and Wimmer "
were not caused, as they conclude, by the excretion of plant food
from the roots of plants, but by the action of rainfall, which may
wash oflF the plant food that has exuded on the surface of the plant.

The loss on germination is of great importance from an economic
view point. The extent of this loss, which is due to the growth of the
germ, to respiration, and to the fact that some of the constituents
of the barley are dissolved during the process of steeping, varies con-
siderably in the various barleys. However, the variation in loss in
barleys of the same variety is greater than the difference in loss be-
tween barleys of different varieties. This is due chiefly to the differ-
ent methods of malting employed. The loss on germination as esti-
mated from the 1,000-grain weight in the 30 samples of 6-row bar-
ley was over 20 per cent in some cases, especially in the sample from
New York, 2 samples from Minnesota, and 1 from Wisconsin. On an
average, however, the G-row Manchurian or Oderbrucker barleys
experienced a smaller loss during malting than those just cited, as
did likewise the 6-row Bay Brewing barley and the 2-row barleys, as
may be seen from the following table :

Compariifon of the loss on muUiiKj iliffcrcnt kinds of harlvy.

Number

of
samples.

Kind of barley.

1
Loss on j
malting.

8

5

.30

2-row

6-row Bay Brewing . . .
6-row Manchurian

Percent.
12.7
13.0
11.4

These results agree quite well with those of Kunz," Avho found from
9 to 13 per cent to be the average loss during malting. Among the
samples of 6-row barleys which were malted it is seen that on an
average the loss of protein during this process has been greater in
the high-protein than in the low-protein barleys; that is, IG and 12
per cent, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS.

This study of the composition of American-grown barleys and
malts has been made in an attempt to show the relative value for
alcohol production and for brewing of the ordinar}^ G-row and
2-row varieties produced in different portions of the United States.
The determination and comparison of the composition of these bar-
leys and the corresponding malts have afforded an opportunity^ to
study chemically and physically the changes taking place during the
malting of the barley. The tabulated data give these comparative

<»Loc. cit

CONCLUSIONS. 61

results in detail as well as the changes in composition. According
to these figures the 2-row barleys are somewhat richer in starch, ex-
tract, bran, and endosperm, have a higher bushel and 1,000-grain
weight, and a higher coefficient of mealiness and degi'ee of dissolution
than the 6-row varieties. On the other hand, the *2-row variety con-
tains less protein, fiber, pentosans, hulls, sulphur, embryo, and steely
grains than the 6-row. The Bay Brewing barleys have a higher bushel
and 1,000-gi-ain weight than the ordinary r)-row barley, but less pro-
tein. The Utah Winter barleys have the most endospt»rm and contain
the most starch, yield the most extract, have the highest coefficient of
mealiness and degree of dissolution, and contain the least protein.

The 6-row barley malts contain the highest percentage of protein,
lecithin, soluble protein, and embryo, but are lowest in starch, ex-
tract (in coarse grist), bran, weight per bushel, and weight per 1,000
<_M-ains.

The 2-row barley malts are highest in weight jxt bushel, extract, and
coefficient of mealiness, but lowest in fiber, jHMitosans, hulls, and embryo.

The Bay Brewing and Utah Winter barley malts are highest in
starch, hulls, and weight per 1,000 grains, and lowest in protein,
soluble pmtein, endosperm, extract (fine grist), and coefficient of
mealiness.

It has been shown that large kernels yield a higher percentage of
extract than small kernels of the same protein content. The former
contain more starch, weigh moix» per bushel, and give a higher co-
efficient of mealiness. The heavier kernels average less in protein
content and contain moit? starch. The snuill grains of the same vari-
ety contain more bran, hulls, fil)er, |)entosans, and ash than do the
larger grains. When barleys are divided into two groups — those
of high and low protein content — the former an* richer in fil)er, pen-
tosans, hulls, bran, and embryo; the latter weigh more per bushel
and per 1,000 grains, and have more mealy gi'ains after steeping,
besides containing more extract, starch, and soluble protein.

Mealy grains are generally lower in protein content. The per-
manently steely grains are richer in protein. A high phosphoric
acid content is generally accompanied by high starch and low protein.
A larger proportion of the protein of low-protein barley is soluI)lc
than of the high-protein barley. The average jjercentage of protein
in (>-row barley is about 12; of 2-row barley, 11.5; of Bay Brewing
barley, less than 11, and of Utah Winter barley, less than 10 per cent.

The most interesting changes occurring during the process of malt-
ing are the increase in sugars, lecithin, soluble protein, and embryo,
and the decrease in starch, ash, phosphoric acid, potash, magnesia,
lime, bran, hulls, endosperm, fiber, fat, and total protein. The pento-
sans undergo very little, if any, change.

62

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

1

1«-

•BtsenSBK

^

§&28g8SS&SSfeS

s

«""! 1

s

•qsKjoj

^

•su!Bj3ooo'I Jad ^qSwAV

1 |t5^?^^^?5^^?:i5^^S^8^

g
^

8

a

1

1

C
t-i

-uuadsopua

•o^iquia

5

c4

•oBja

?i?58^ssg§{55;^?ss

§

HCO-Hrt—lCO^^'-H-^^rt^

•snnn

8

111

-OJd iB^<n ui

«5

•iiaiJBq UI

(^°

s

3 4 ^'°J^
^^ . i -OJd TBaoa UT

M

11^

o

•Xaijeq uj

^^:?Jc8S^S^^SS:?^

T

^^^, ^^^^^^^^^^

^

S -uia?

^5

5»S2^S58'o2i::8^?

-<

II

s

-aid iB^<n ui

,iqt-:t>^o>o6o6r-^cccoi^05t-^

w

,^^^ "^

pq

•X3|iBq UI

•(52-9XN)nWOJ<Ji«;oj,

5S2gg5Ss3^SSSS

^

<C^-*(M^rH-H,H«t-l(N-H,-l

u

O, „ „ ." " " -

•uimioai SB suBq^ioe^

SSS?^SC?S?S8gS

^

H

n

o

s

CO

W

•anqdins |biox

^2

§g|gS^5||Sg|

2

•p!OB ojjoqdsoqd i«)oj.

8

•qsv

.^s
t^'-

S{2ggsggfegs;;S§

M(NC^WC^eCC^(N(NeoC»C^

<i

•qare^S

SB

'SUBSO^Udd

jj^oioadooJoioiodoJoiodoi

•JaqiJ

i5

■?«J

c4

•ja^BAi

jj-ocoioooooooioJxooocooocao

00

i

c

0

; ;

;

CO

c

1

iii

iHlll

<

'89idni8S JO jaqxunM i <^ '

CONCLUSIONS.

63

5 grco'i —■•-■-•-'" -■•- en

-ssaaM0||3ui
«. , u| asBauu]

«a^ JO ajuaaaxiiu

s 8 a

5=- :

au)d80}sejoj9{i

.W|«A a| 9|qn|08 ni9}OJd

-iJliauauu»o

uo|)ii|CMS>||> JO aajia(i

S S 3 3 5 T- r^ 3 X * n-' * ^3 j eo
•5 « 35 -^ Q -^ 3iJ -- X 55 s; ^" -" ^

A. _

■ 74 r« >« '-0 o 'jo u^tc s r« X a o
^ -^ >n tii ^ t^ -^ t-^ ■■£ >Q -^ '-6 ti fi

^si^^a!

'XlwitilvH

ft.

— 55-.-. --S"

ft;

:^L^

jfl^gge^e.ogTracffOg'

I *•*■*•• IS 2 2 2'

i|»l»JI»H

^8««s5S!5rssr5«T

3^3;Sftr!gS&$99}s'

al

-<ud»|qtl|0»>m«M

OOO'I

Id-

000'

•(sr9Xx)ai»wwd

«oc?s — Oi^eor^t^^Oocwj

T2*J4I'»— Hull. 124— no

64

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BAKLEYS AND MALTS.

In water-free substance.

f

•e}S3u3BW

■gciSMes

S8

-<

§s

ss

S I

^^

00

^

SS;^

•aran

P.d.
0.07
.09
.07
.10
.07
.08

gS2g gl

SSS8=^S8

•qsB;oj

g

SS!oS

S

Sl2j;^^f3S

•SUIBJ3 000' I Jad ^qSpAi

35.82
28.04
41.20
30.56
40.76
29.90

<o

37.98
37.36
38.93
37.40

?5

35.28
38.29
48.06
41.33
32.73
28.35
36.81

•uuadsopna

P.ct.
69.91
70.66
70.05
71.00
69.01
72.62

g
g

72.74
71.69
73.49
72.20

72.02
75.63
73.01
72.33
77.64
71.04
69.28

•o^qiua

•g ■'J' t^ CO Oi CO Ol

Q- (N c>J <?i e>i c>i ci

5

(N

2.00
1.98
1.84
1.82

^

ei oi c4 es oi e>i N

•uBja

P.ct.
11.37
10.73
10.75
10.79
10.86
11.09

s

10.89
10.60
11.78
11.31

So
o

12.71
10.56
11.56
12.22
10.20
13.39
14.49

•snuH

P.ct.
14.46
1.5.87
14.48
15.00
13.91
13.56

?8

13.16
12.88
12.10
13.24

2

.-H c5 o oJ OS N c3

III

o« ft

^558:^85^8

2

4.73
4.84
1.03
4.67

1?

4.12
6.03
4.16
4.89
5.05
.1. 89
4.77

•iaijcq UI

^

^^^l^

'T

^SiSSS.-:=

3i|

III

•maj
-ojdm<nui

p.ct.
11.70
10.62
11.31
11.10
12.00
10.30

^

12.46
14.06
16.13
14.81

^

10.64
12.74
13.80
12.82
12.33
11.03
11.32

•i^ajiBq UI

^

1.18
1.48
1.25
1.49

1.12
1.33
1.26

17.70j 1.98
17.3K 1.61
I6.92I 1.33
16.09 1.21

11

11

•ma?
-ojdi^jojui

p.ct.
15.51
15.22
1.5.82
16.00
16.44
14.68

S

^

17.18
18.90
17.16
19.48

18.39

^E^8

•iCaiJBq UI

P.ct.
1.52
2.35
1.64
2.19
1.66
1.78

»

1.63
1.99
1.33
1.96

8

OS

1.55
1.96
1.64
2.32
2.27
2.04
1.72

•(ss-t

►XN) mojojj

■ 35 >-o o CO o ei

o

9.53
10.56

7.76
10.06

8^22888

•uni4pai

SB sucq^paq

^?

S?S^?

s?

^aSIoS?!:?^?

•JTiqdins

p.ct.

0.143
.206
.152
.188
.146
.168

S

S|g§

s

ssggsss

•pia

n ouoqdsoqj

P.ct.
1.00
.81

8

1 ^^^^

^

.90
.99
1.03
1.13
1.10
.86
1.02

•qsv

j^coe^oJcoccN

—

2.90
2.90
2.72
2.73

So

N c* c4 e>i ci c>i CO

•qare^s

P.ct.
58.23
58.14
57.82
59.66
58.33
68.82

s

S

59.97
69.95
68.68
60.37

g
g

60.38
62.54
64.72
58. 59
60.22
60.03
61.21

•snBS<nua«i

Q-aooJooJaB

s

«

9.72
8.89
8.41
8.39

8

00

8S5i?§8i^

oo'odoo'ooodosoo-

•J3<1]J

„-!Ooca5t>:cd«o

to

'5.88
6.66
6.26
7.40

«3

SgSS?§2g

«0 ■* «0 "C •<«< o ■<»<

•?BJ

^828gSS

Ij- (N <N <N ?< M* -h'

2.19
1.81
2.00
2.41

§

2.16
2.27
2.04
2.00
1.83
1.75
2.00

•ja^BAV

P.ct.
8.23
9.14
7.70

10.32
8.36
8.78

00

8.74
8.48
8.20
8.06

00

00 OS (» oej 00 00 OS

»

h

e

C

o
1

1

c

li

i

<

UTAH WINTER
(()-ROW).

Idaho

TTtfth

C •
o ;
tea

II

<

O

f 1

^ o

>

e

C

1

>
&
1

0 ;
X 0

II

-saidmt

88 JO jaqumx

"

-^

CO

«e^

2

1 NU5

^^

»

w

-

m

-.-,

CONCLUSIONS.

65

S?!

11

2

3S

^

^

sr

K

— IT'

Sf:

s-

9

^fi

2?

8

S2

28

8'

PR

R

R

§5

S

$

e4c«

ci

9«

Ss"

7i

a

=£}

a

^

WS-

X

=^

s

I 1

SW

-6

~n .

«tO

^ 1

f^

s

' =5'i

'^

!

fr

"3"

9

•2

a

:i

^«r

3

i

je"

-.-.

"•

9S^
22

8

?S

id'

oi-:

ci

ig^

S

a

I^ai

=

^^

'W

§T

J

^

^

2S

sg

5

«ei

e4

Sir

1"

3

58

5

ft

«Qd

«>

ssTa

-j-* «j

•o

^|3"

!::

w-^ [ s4

ci

8« S

n

OW 00

oi

:i 1

sas. .
tana

Avi

^1 1

c c

* "" c

08 O

3

^S

1^

— •O

Is

\ -

66

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

f^ 5

-2^ o

^ 02

-5 2^

2^

8^
o

-|aui u{ 3seai3
-tn JO ajnajagiQ;

t^ -^ e<3 00 '^ "J

-^ <M 00 -"S" 00 "5

•Snrdaajs jajjv

•*iO OOO 00 CO

00»SoOC6 00

-9aida»)s aiojag

•pa}B|n3B00
u J 9^0 ad aiqnios-ja^BAV |

__. c>it^ aoc^ CO
, • <N e? c^ c^ § w

•uiajojd aiqnios-ia^BAV i

_^. 05 re C<5 C5 (N "C

•X^iOBdeo mjao

.ifloooct-oo
' » L-i o '^ » o

' Ci Oi d OOO^Oi

1SS8

(M t^ <c ri

OONt-O

(NCON'-i

(NcdocJ

CO (N CON

OOCJOOO

ciooaoj

L-i >fl Ol -<»• C<3 ^

ASjaua tnjao

-aoi^niossip jo aaiSaQ

•IIB9K

I ! I ^

,«cooot^o<

•^l«9W

£ L

•^laefjsjtBH

iN^lSecS^

•j£iaa?S

;8J§i

•jajBAY

. c; •v '-^ CO "5 i2

•g •^ TT o: O 00 CO

^- cj^oooicJc^

•uiajojd aiqnfos
-ja^jBJtt aiqBin3B03

. T-. OC C5 '^1 S <

•majojd
a I q n I o s-j ajB\\

~§^

^^^B

000' I J3d ?q3|aAV

»: -^ o '-< »c ■* o
O

•SUIBJ3

000' I Jad ^qSpAV

;ot>-*S

•^oex^xg

.1-': roc

- • .-: ci (

•(SZ'9Xn)^«K"cI

OCO OJ (N

•pqsnq jaj

S'S'ro

L~ O ul ic

•jajjio^^^^ -i^J

5^^?SCO!COO

[2 o S o S S «o

—Jr-JcOt-:

Cb 9 o ^

cs ooood
ooooo

oiooio

u5>Q^l

iMcoc

55!52§

^^•<^1^oco

t^C0CO<-l

go

:=:^-2 c 52 c

•^.-1 00 s: »OCO t^
Ci C5 O Ci Tl- 1>: C5

ic 00 1^ •^ uo >o r^

■^ -H O ^^ -^ ^ CO

iC o o cc >o -^ o

©Ot-iSJOOOC^

OO O --: 00 Ci C "^
(N CI ^ C-» ^ T-H

O CO CO 00 00 00 00

cj -J o c-i ^ »-; 1-j

CO CO CO CO CO C^ CO

L-i 00 irf t.o o t-^ to
Ci c» "5 c^ o r^ ■»

•^ Ol^00(N»0 to

Oi a 03 o) oi 0^ d

t-O (N OO l^ 00 O O

00 1- o -"T t~ ia 00

C5 O O t^ i-l o ic
t^t^Oi -V t^iO 00

i-HM eOMco^^

'-'CO'C-^OOO

) CO >-i O t^ O •-'
) CO .-< CO C-J M

a>T-iTj<t^eo oo

"5 05 CO t^ lO 00 t^

t~ 00 ac ic --^ -^ Tj<

.-1 i-H CO CO Ci CC'-'^

r-i ci »c o o c o

C3 M •* cs CO o "ir

•* CS CO u-5 "

■V ffl O LI •

> 00 «c cr. -vj o
i "-H i-l ci c-i c-j -J

' oc r- to r;
O •^ —I CI

CO eoe

i§S5§{i5^^

■^ 00 ^H OCCO'V t>.

O — I •-' -^ r- -v s>
CO* •'t o »-< '"i c: CO

t^ |-» l>- t^ t-- CO t-

cr^tt5.-H CO to o
1-5 o ci CO ci -J ^

>o O to O iCl

> t~i O (N to (N

) lO to »o to ■* to

OS «-> 0> 1-1 00 CO i^
cocot^tooSo

c c
SB

cS e3

•saidures jo jaquniN

CONCLUSIONS.

67

33 1

il

S !

•oS

4^

s

55

•o

5;

2S

-*
^

.

t

i

"do

Si

•J

d

r

n —

o !

■\W

r.jrrs'j

S

a

?:s

d

T

u

^

5S

.4

3

^

Si

2

?;

?3

15^

R

i 5

3S

1 '

5 i;

2^

k

68

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

. OO •<»• QO CO O 00 O <

> lo -^ i3 o oi t^ t^ c
• « 00 1>^ t^ t^ -^ r>i ■"

•JlBta UI

-ai9:}Ojd
mo% UI

•I^BUI UI

-n]9}0jd
wo; UI

•;1BUI UI

•(52-9X

^•QOOQoo^g'or^oo
<j300iOt^<>b>ooo-^

-•X.(NjOCC30— o»o

-•coe<5e<5rocccoecc4

oe>««occo0rtcoo5

.•«oc5-o»cooo6o5
BirO'j'roroeococoffq

•T-4cou:i~otsco^co

^jr^oooit^oosOM"

•UTO 1

■«owio;£oo-*oot^
ft^O

•jnqdins ib^ox

-ppco nm!S9uSBj^

t)COU5>-(-^i-it>.C<>00
. C>« (N M (N (N "H (N -H

ftio

^*2

•ppco xnnioiBO

ft; =5

•ppco uinjssTKjoj;

e;d

^ CQ CO ^ ^

opoqdsoqd le+oj,

050000^0-^00»

•qsy

I -*i IC ■>»< 30 1^ --I O 00
'C^(NMC>iMrO(No4

^S

•»j5 »d -.j! -^jS lO

§Sg3S!

•CO* ■<*<

CCCO

n--6

S8

S2§

58

• jeSns 9UB0

- jcSns ipaAUi

2Sg

SSS!

•qaiKis

• •o»oc6i--^o6t^od

c4«

co>o

gg

•suBSo^uej

q*0-hOOO^OO

•joqij

tO^OOiO'O^'OuS

•*8i

•jajBAV

« r-l r^ <N OS 00 00 & O

-T»< o i^ ;0 1^

CO coco CO CO

c^ CO CO CO CO

8"* ui'i'i^
c<c>«coco

odcJoooJ

§It?Sg2?5

iO^usSS

5^5

5SSS?

■«»< I-- r^ i-H
•oeocoirf

000003

SoSoow

1— I .— 1 1— O <-i

(MOOON-H

TflOOO r-

;.2feS

Sg

ss

35 a 2

si ^
11 -^

saiduiBS JO jactumN i

^_<^coao-H-

es c^ — M— <

CU.NCXLfclO^b.

69

$3

ffS

ts

a«

-5 35

d

3S

^S

5

SS

n^

s

g^S

sis

s

ss

:c3

s

e4^

ci-r

CO

2Sg

2a

9

¥??

S7

^

s?t?

8!?

S

<4>c

H>o

oj

i;a ssa

SI

a^ 0*^

^

91^ ^R

R

^S ^

s

^^h^

a

gs

^^

&

9$

• •

S9

^

{^sjlss

8

-

^. :^^i3 1

•r'^*

c4

S3

S8

r

<«le4U«4wj

^

ss

*j||53

s

=5$!i2^9

^

- '^^1

^ .- r Ti

at

II

9

^

88 S2

S:

-« -«

^

sslki?

S

..||..

•fl '

T.

H

■<

s,

a

j^

.'-UOW

tana.
York

mum
mum

= s = X

o %; .= cs 1

y, sa 1

-

•o 1

70

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

■p

G

.s

a

•+3

^

o

i

>^

1

K

if

H

^

OQ

^

(4

2»>

W

rO

0

'^

P^

&»

0

CJ

hJ

1^

<J

5$

W

«

09

P

"a

PQ

g

>^

>

»

0
H

Sr.

;z:

Q

-<

?:

^

«

i

0

y—t

OQ

t—t

5-

1— »

1-3

<

OQ

fr

<

000' I -lacl iq3i9M aqi jo 01 jb^

•SUIBJ3

000' I iad ?q2raAV '

: iM c^ c^ c^ <N c>i em

s

•SUIBJ^

000' I -lad iqSPAV

2oi05l^^^-ox•>*'^5

:C>»lMC>)<N(MtNC<IN

©c-S

nil

Xaiaeq feu

"cdodt-^t^t^-^t^'^

S®c-S
§2-5

2S|ft
03 '^ 3

-.CaiJBq iq

rj< ic o ic o r- lO ■*

-|3uo 0% pajBi

a,?5

— I X CC CO ® tC iC
M T (M i^ OS r- 1^

c^ ac 06 00 -^ o irj

CO (M C^ (N CO PI C^

•^aiiBq UI

£,;:

CO ■>) — OJ C^lCS .

a,.S|
o o— .

OQ ». S3

-iSuo 0} pajT?!
-hoiBO ;iBui UI j

. -^ -<ti — < o r^ o o

t- O cc a: 30 Ti< o

•iaiJBq UI

wo

a,"

eooot^h-r-cst-ic

-SI*

» 3 i

o OS-"

; -AaiJBq ibu

I -i3uo oj pajBi
i -hopo J^lBtn UI

•XaiiBq UI

o 2

OQ Q,

•AaiiBq IBU
-iSuo oj pa^Bi

-hoiBO ^|BUI UI

•XajiBq UI

ft^O

^SSFiggSSJg

0,0

a,coeoc6c4esc6eoei

tig!
a^<

•^9lJBq IBU !

-iSuo 0% pajBi

-hofBO IJIBUI UI

•^aXJBq UI

ti^co

.-1 O lO CO -^ t-

^ ^ CO CO CO 00 CO

»-<eooo(Noo3

M (N (N M M c^ r-;

^l

■XaiiBCl IBU

-iSuo o; P3;bi

-hoiBO IIBUI UI

•^aiJBq UI

a_^j^0-<00«»C3-. O

; 05 •* <c CO CO 05 CO «

TT O ;C tC i

•uuadsopua

•oXiquia

>e«»ooaco-<:5oo
w»Oi-ioG-^a5XOo

•uBia

i*a5

ttCO.-lO!N(NO

t^ 00 00 00 t^ Xi 00

•STIUH

?2g

■^OJ

omi

IN 00

-^loo

coon
C> CO

^

s^

§§8

00 CO

000

r-5(N

ooo
00-^

^ ^ iO (^ -t
t^ 000-1 -"J"

00 0& 00 000c

N-««<r-(00O

Ot^

M> ■* O 00-^

t^ -^ 00 !N Q
eO(NO»(NO

CO CO CO CO CO

O ^ ^T" OS 00

05 o t^ '^ ■*
^' cc oi h^ OJ

lO-^IN"

I "5 -*■»!< ■

ICO-*"

e«c><c<iN«

N N t^ t^ o>

00 o iM e>» CO

IcOt^OO

CO oi cce^ o
odoocioioo

.-HWOr-^O

c5oJc5oJc5

C -H -^ Cv| CO

t- 1^ t- 1^ t>

O "3 t^Ol 00

00 00 00 00 oi

no*-';
I coc4

»OU5 .— c CQCS II

C
K

>•§ o

S;^

^ 2

'7'°

s's I

" 2 «-= = o
= - b o c
o

02

sdiduiBS JO iaciumx

^ "O f^ > tei
(N (N -H I'J —

be 03

C C
•3 53

. H —

CONCLUSIONS.

71

■^

R

23

32

s

5

s

Hn

^g

SS

- r-J

»

gf2

ss

5

■,:;

1

s^?^

?3g

£^

>:

53

ss

S3

«*

^

^

stsi

'^t

i

:',Z

S

9S fSSi

s

-

>«»

«<d

>4^

«i

:^

-1

S3

s¥

8

--5

H

xitfi

xie

•4

3 ai

R8

K3

s~

:S

J5^

s^^ s;;^

s$

: ro

s

S» S3$3

s

-;^

«4

*iti e4*4

•«

•4M «ti*

•4

J

si

2>.||^

i~

^1^1

'4^ 1 ^5

9$

..t

3

8» »9

2

3i

r^

ilz 'S^

ot

•i«

< 3

T

35fS 5R

Q

sa

9

a

1 »

SS

9~

H

e>i

e4«4

r4f4

c4

' !-^

CO

M»

J8

•-^

3

.JU

-

c:5J?

9^

is"

S

oie<

c4

C4-<i

ei^

H

as

R

8

-J Pi

-^

d

.'3

p;

SS

?3

s

- 2

315

xSd

r^d

od

1

<M

•5

3

28

S8

s?

. _;

»

•2

»^

d

"•

M

^^

S^

25

^

3

t^

ri

S?5

^2$

^

ss

R

2fe

*-*

esc

S

«wi

-"^

(4^

•tf

^SS

f

as

SS

&

ada

:£

0.^

►^^

MS

lo

8

1 s&

$S;

o

-2

«:

d-:

»e><

d

"*

1 —

1 -

p»

« ;

H ;

-3 ;

M i

a : i I

1 -=1 ii I

~ cs

o e ^ fl

53a

S!e: ss

X

II '-

hi

72

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

t— ( PQ

/• '

, ;(itAvoja) ssau' ,

80.11
97.01
79.67

91.53
85.07
84.59
94.02
76.08

5?

93.04
95.50
77.60
89.03
91.53

g

s

g

"

•poiii. JO una

cs

to t^ eo OS .-H

-hX

oc

•pajBmSB
-oo uiajojd aiqniog

*^ CO -qS CO CO -^ CO >* iC

ox
woo

cs

tDC*OU5.0:

CIO

to
c6

-sip

SBur iiq paAios
uia^ojd pioj,

X

XX

53 ?§

to

t

laqsnq jaj

5

cTo"

5S

o
to

•jajlliyiyaq jaj

0^ t^ 'T 00 O U3

t>-co

^5

cow

-xa

ut aanaiagiQ

c

^CCt>^r-lCS

ci

9sa

■HSIJ3

BOO '^OBJlXa

II 8^Sg§S
1 g§Sfi?2

g{^

Sf2

g
t

•uAai3jaAo

.OCOO^-HCO--

n°2

cs

oooo^-

Oj-;

lajsro

ss

g

feS5S?

5)g

s

SiO 01 so

ft.*

-^g

u-

1 ^u^n°^

rs

s

m
o

•50o;sS0

.oo(Ntf»Meo(Ne

«s

es

CCC>J

X

"T-

ox

"eo"

•9Z0 oj 0

ot-

CO

w«

r-icr

ot^

(4

PQ

•^ITOW

a,'

2^

5

SSSoSS

ss

s

•Xl99»SJlBH

'^r?

cs

tOOSOtO^

Ǥ:;

S2

-«1 .

m
o

CO

AaaJS

.^,_t^eot^C5C^oo

ot>-

If

-«<OOeoc^

oo

^

•ainjsioK

• to «5 OC O I^ t-^ «5 X

to to CO to ■«

s?3 IS

PQ

iCq 1

•SuiqsBui
paAiossip
id aiqepiSBOO

§g

^

Ss^S!

si

§

■SniqsBni
Xq paAiossip ui9iojd[

C<5«5

eceorococ

2g

WW

CO

I

•SUIBJ3

OOO'l JQJ

oo -

"S

X

2S2gS^

^w

X

•sniBjS
OOO'l -laj

18??

^

^

OiOCOCOOC

CO CO CO CO c*"

32

??

">su3 euij 'joeajxa

S2

55

•uaSoj^iN

s

I ^^z2_f?

gSj

^

•(SZ-9 X N) uiajoij

^•?;2SSl2SgS

3S

o^

s

t2gS5S5S
oooodo-

00 cj

M

0

S fl

° li

0

5

c

i

x:
C

1

c

1

o
C

&
g
1

'1

.P i

o

1

t2

"So

ll

1

s

1

•SBTrf

„

re

o-

■*

r.

c^

CS

—

CS.-I

X

CO>;CLLblUi;S.

73

SSI

SS?

s
s

e4

to« II

fe5

9

m

99

SSIj

9

-4 1

OO 1

So8

s

8_

8J.

SP:

3

fife

8

Sts

-4

4.92
4.69

4.10
5.51

.153
.219

.117
.219

ss||S;s

1.18
.90

lo

1.19

2

33.48
25.69

25.69
33.84

8
«

78.68
72.93

79.74

3

P

J8

1 s

r

it

a gs ii >

74

STUDIES OF AMERICAN BARLEYS AND MALTS.

8iq«in3tB00 aiqnios

' I I • I I I I I I I I '^ I

I I

•aia^ojd
eiqtBpiSBOouou e^qniog

esioi-i»ocooooooooooccot>.or^t^oc<5'^»t^ooesioc<5oa!0-.ct^ooooo

-ina!^Qid aiqnios

i U5 O ITS -

!OOOi-'5r-.-*'rfc<50t^'^oc^ie5e>»'*<«rt'»i'CMOCs»-Hi-Hoco(

-aia^ojd iKjOiL

i777

I ,J< ^ O ■>»' ® l-H ^. <

i o lo o5 "* 00 CO 'i' '

iNeooa>o»ot^oocooccit^ONoe<5»oo
ico»Oi-5c4oc»o6csoJ'^'^«0'«j'ccr-4o6o6o6

I I I I I I I I I m7T7 777 1 77T i7

coc>i -^

T77

•uuadsopua

CO 00®
7 I 7

1 777

iCCOt^'^»OwOOOO>00»-l05i/5C<>05000t-»l^Ol^a5l^OMt^

««oo'oMcoc^r^;ct>^t;^j-j^'.-<eiMr-ipid-^c5Mt-;cirooJt>^

I I i7 I I I I i777 i77 m7 i77 i7 I ii

a a e a a a e_

t^ooeo
"oco

•oXiquia:

CO coo

oco-^»

S382c

ltcoocoI-loccow^cooo^-;cooc<^^-leooot>•OI-l■>!J^T^^

!^2{

•uBja

a>-*ooxoo>t^cs«io«3

t^cdt~^"3C500»ct--^co

eOT»<cocsicoi5cocococo

i I I I I i I I I i

•^»®"5coeoooi-i
I I I I i 1 I I

ooioiooc
MM

cot- CO

t.'j o ■«}'

I I I

o-^co

I I I

05COt>-CO>OOt->0

oc>i-i36ioce4«5

•^coiflw^^cooi
M M M M

•snnH

t~eooo^HC05C»coo>o

!777 I 77 M

ot^c^»ffl>or^oc<»OJes>oococsior>-t^O'^
iOii5U3to^c>i-Hcoo(5-^t>^'-'5roc^o6oct^«

I 1 I i7777 I i777+ 1 77 +

'*<N»fl00l^t'-OO

o6ooiiC'*C>Q«0

7+ m77 I

«ocooeocooeot^oo

*iinD!39I SB sireqtHoaq:

•^oooo'ocicooooo

eo"5-*

COI^ 00

00-HQO<©"5

t^OOOCM—l OCO "3

-HCO^

^~ I

•jnqdins ib^o j,

•ppco nmisaiiScn

OOOJt^.

I »-i r-( <r> oc o <

I 00 CO t^ CO CO o •

1.^000

i !N CO -3<

I I

NO— 100

CO

I I

co-hooo

77 I

ooooo

03 000-
c-icocJ-

I

■ t^ -* 00 OO CO o .

' -H ;d 00 CO 00 »-J .

1 I I

I i

1 cOiOi
ieo«0!

)»000'*

<<No6c5t^
MM

OQOO
COlOOJ

^— l^(N
f I. I

e4(

I I I

® o

I I

283
I I I

•pixo umioiBO

r-lCS|00

I i I

OCOCOOOO •TJ'O

i M I

I : I

•oo«

:§8I

i I I

•ptxo umissBiod

■^lOOt-t

40 ko lo ■•
MM

I I

>»oo«^

O lO ■<l< •>*< lO

M I M

^locor^

OOC0-*

MM

I I I

co-^o

TTT

I I I

•pfOB ouoqdsoqd iB^ox ^

OCONUS

'oo

•CCOOO OiQOOi
»-< "5 o4 CO CO o

I I I 1 7 1 7 M I

77 1 7

i-hooocc
--d c5 CO o

7777

;C rr— < 1.-3
(N— I CO rt

MM

0-<*<0i

oo^t^

o— ic^

O r)! i6

M M M

O3C0 •*<.-..

dococt>: !

C^J CO-^'

MM

-iC0t^>O

r77 1

•qsv

I M I

OJOOr^OOtOOC

M M I I

I I

O COt^t^

icoo'i-o

777 M I M I M

■ O5 00eot~

lOi CM CO CO

OO-ftN

oJ^eo

^2S
i I I

03 05 lOC^

do6e4d

— leOrH

Mil

o;Sr-ioo

II II

•jB3ns aireo

!00>OtOr-lOO

) oc ■^ op i-J — ; oi
1 25 00 ■* o t^ c><

•NN-< -(NOOO

' jeSns ^dAux

I O CJ CM lO Tj. ,

■OSt^Cl

00 -OOOO

mi

cooc^ooc

OCM 00 TT (
CO CO CO c^ ■

'— t -CM^COiC

! eo CO o oco^o^to loooo •ocm-*'1<o^03'*;

iCO-*<0

"*C^CS

o -ot^

•qare:^S

COCMC^ICM

MM

?3 CO CO CM CM CO

M M I I

CM CM CM

I I I

Sc5 ^COCM

M : I I

O i-H N CS

II II

CI coc^

I I I

i-Ot^^CMiC — — .COOOCMCM

CMOiCM(

CM e^lCM <

I I I

I CM eo »-o CN

MM

T7T7

•sxrest^aad

CO t^ •^ t^

I 1 77

Oi t^ t^ CM t^ »«

M*' OJ CM d d -d

CMOt^

0:0;CC<ICM(

d OJ i« T-H CM ■

■<l<;iOOroCMa>cO'<*<;OcO

I i I

I ill

>X-,C^-

I I

od««>^

II I II

•■laqij

t-^di>d.

7 m'

) ,-iiOuD ■* O

JcM^dcM-!

r-(Ot^

•^•dco

■*»OCMO-*;

CO ■^ »c CO "-o ,

fCOt^

t-^oo

Mill

I i II II II II I

CO CM ■* 00

i7 I

^coooo

I i7 i

aiduresjoaeqnmN gSSSfeSS^^SffiS^^SSSSSSg^Sg^^SSSff S255^S2g?Si§'^

CONCLUSIONS.

75

« 00 -.soot-

o
2

105.1
111.1
129.5
81.0
175.6

S

;: c e X « t-

to

f2

iT777 1

e4
7

o •« •* — 00 —

O

7

.r t - ~» O •« —

1

1 1 1

15

IL

Z . - i i O "O

I I I : I I

III : II

|77 l7 I

I

I

1 1 1 I I I I

I t

M I I I I

I 7 7 I

oomocooco

i7 i7 I

I i7777 I

a

SSStSi