Copyright
Joseph Arthur Le Clerc.

Graham flour: a study of the physical and chemical differences between graham flour and imitation graham flours online

. (page 6 of 7)
Online LibraryJoseph Arthur Le ClercGraham flour: a study of the physical and chemical differences between graham flour and imitation graham flours → online text (page 6 of 7)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


fiber and pentosans in the original sample are in accordance with the
percentage of ash and indicate the removal of most of the bran in the
preparation of the flours.

No. 9097 is made from soft winter wheat on a 4-set stand of corru-
gated rolls. The bran is scalped off after each grinding, removing
about 25 per cent altogether. Some of the middlings are also
removed. This imitation Graham flour is really made from the
unreduced product that makes up a cut-straight. The analysis shows
only 2.3 per cent of bran. The small amounts of ash, fiber, and
pentosans indicate that only a small part of the bran had been
allowed to remain in the sample. The gliadin ratios of the shorts
and coarse and fine middlings are very high. This is due to the fact
that so much of the coarser particles which tend to give low gliadin
ratios had been removed. It has been shown in an early discussion
that the more bran particles that are present in these products the
lower is the gliadin ratio, and vice versa.

No. 9109 is made by mixing 83 parts of an 8 per cent clear flour and
17 parts of bran, the dealer claiming that this imitation Graham is
thus made in order to compete with the commercial that is, imitation
Grahams on the market. For the purpose of making this imitation
Graham both the bran and the clear flour are bought separately. The
separation shows 16.6 per cent of combined bran and shorts, only 1.1
per cent of combined middlings, the rest, or over 82 per cent, passing
through the 109 sieve. The analysis practically corroborates there-
fore the method of preparation, as stated by the dealer. Several
peculiarities are apparent in examining the result of analysis of this
sample. First, there is a high percentage of ash in the sample and
also in that part passing through the 109 sieve, showing that the
latter is due to the low-grade quality of the flour used. Another
peculiarity is that the percentage of nitrogen in the flour passing
through the 109 sieve is far higher than that of the bran and shorts.
In such case, where the bran and the clear flour are bought separately,
it may very easily happen that the bran may have been obtained by
the milling of one kind of wheat and a clear flour by the milling of
another kind. This sample may therefore be said to be characteristic
of an imitation Graham flour as made by the jobber. The gliadin
ratio of the coarse middlings is very low, and an examination of this
product shows it to contain a large proportion of branny particles.

No. 9139 is made from soft winter wheat ground on steel rolls, some
of the bran being scalped. Both the separation and the analysis of
the sample indicate that only a small amount of the bran could have
been removed in the process of preparing this product, for we find
14.5 per cent of bran, 17.7 per cent of shorts, and the ash content is



46 GKAHAM FLOUK.

1.74 per cent, all of which indicate a normal sample. The gliadin
ratio of the bran is high, indicating that a considerable proportion of
the endosperm was still adhering to the bran particles.

No. 9151 is supposed to have been made by mixing 59 parts of
coarse bran, remaining on a 12-mesh sieve, 38 parts of coarse mid-
dlings free from flour or shorts, 3 parts of white middlings free from
red dog, and 50 parts of straight flour, the last being made from soft
winter wheat. The analysis shows an entire absence of bran, and
only 9.8 per cent of middlings, there being 68.6 per cent of material
passing through the 109 sieve. The low gliadin ratio of the coarse
middlings and of the fine middlings are explained by the presence of a
relatively large amount of bran particles therein. The entire absence
of bran disproves the miller's claim that he added coarse bran to the
sample.

No. 9169 is reputed by the miller to have been made from a mix-
ture of a 21 per cent clear flour obtained from two-fifths of winter
wheat and three-fifths of spring-wheat flour. To each 196 pounds of
this clear flour 70 pounds of bran are added. The mechanical sepa-
ration shows 14.2 per cent of bran and shorts and 85.4 per cent of flour
passing through the 109 sieve, but an entire lack of middlings.

No. 9187 is claimed by the miller to have been made from a soft
winter wheat ground twice on rolls, scalping at the first grinding over
a 24-mesh sieve and regrinding on a second set of rolls and scalping
the material on a 10-mesh* sieve, removing in this way about 5 per
cent of the total wheat in the form of the coarser bran. The ash
content of this product is 1.46 per cent, indicating that some bran
had been removed in the process of milling; otherwise the sample is
normal and indicates a good product throughout.

No. 9241 was forwarded to the laboratory as an imitation Graham,
without, however, giving a description of the method of preparation.
There is nothing in the results of the mechanical separation to indi-
cate that it might not be Graham flour. The percentage of ash in
the sample is likewise normal, so are the percentages of fiber and
pentosans. The gliadin ratios of the bran, shorts, and coarse mid-
dlings would seem to indicate that these products contain more or
less of the higher class products adhering to them. The percentage
of nitrogen in the fine, middlings is appreciably higher than the per-
centage of nitrogen in the bran, shorts, and coarse middlings, show-
ing possibly that tailings from middlings were here used. The per-
centage of ash in the flour passing through the 109 sieve is very high,
which, taken in connection with the high amount of nitrogen in that
product, and also in the fine middlings, would indicate that the fine
middlings and flour were more or less of the nature of a low-grade



EXAMINATION OF GRAHAM FLOUB. 47

product. The chemical analysis of the products of separation would
therefore quite properly place the sample among the imitation
Graham flours.

Regarding No. 9247 no information is at hand. From the mechan-
ical separation alone this sample might also be a Graham flour. A
very high nitrogen content of the bran and of the shorts and the
correspondingly low gliadin ratios of these products would seem to
indicate that this sample contained a certain amount of added germ.
The low gliadin ratio of the coarse middlings leads to the same
conclusion.

The samples of imitation Graham flour found in stock, but whose
method of manufacture was not observed, show greater differences
than have been noted in either the Graham flours or even in the
imitation Graham flours collected under observation. The bran
varied from to 14.5, the shorts from 6.6 to 37.2, the coarse middlings
from 0.0 to 24.0, the fine middlings from to 27.2, and the flour
from 22.9 to 83.4 per cent, the combined bran and shorts from
10 to 39.9, the combined middlings from 0.0 to 39.5 per cent. These
samples also show a greater irregularity in chemical composition
tha do even the imitation Graham samples collected under observa-
tion. The nitrogen content of the original sample varies from 2.22
to 4.13, the high percentage being due to the presence of germ in the
bran. This accounts for the varying and low gliadin ratio found in
these samples. The same applies to the shorts. The ash content of the
product passing through the 109 sieve likewise varies greatly namely,
from 0.39 to 1.95 per cent, the use of low-grade flour tending to give
a high ash content. Where a high ash was found in this product it
was thought that it might be due to the fact that the wheat was
milled on burrstones and that a part of the ash was in reality insolu-
ble silica due to the wearing away of the stones, but analyses of the
ash of these samples for insoluble material or silica showed that only
a trace (0.03 to 0.07 per cent) of this substance was present. Thus
the only explanation left is that these particular alleged Graham
flours having a high ash content in that portion passing through the
109 sieve were made by the use of very poor flour material, a grade
even lower than a clear being sometimes used. This is especially
true of No. 9109 and may be also true of No. 9241.



48



GKAHAM FLOUK.



TABLE 22. Minimum, maximum, and average composition of Graham, alleged Graham,
and imitation Graham flours.





Graham (observation).


Alleged Graham.*


Imitation Graham.


8'


Maximum.


1

<1


Number of
samples.


Minimum.


Maximum.


1

<


Number of
samples.


Minimum.


Maximum.


<5


Number of
samples.


Bran


Per

cent.
4.0
11.5

5.7
10.9
18.4
19.2
1.52
1.87
6.18
1.60
36.2
2.15
22.6
2.05
20.0

1.57

23.4
1.59

43.3
1.58

38.0
1.34
47.3

.47


Per

cent.
16.3
32.7
29.6
24.6
48.4
62.7
1.94
3.42
7.64
2.34
43.1
2.66
28.5
2.66
S2.9

2.48

47.4
2.22

52.1
2.21

49.2
2.43
56.8
.91


Per

cent.
7.5
18.9
15.8
16.0
31.8
41.4
1.74
2.32
6.77
1.88
40.6
2.41
25.5
2.34
24.4

2.00

36.2
1.80

48.4
1.90

42.3
1.65
52.4
.62


13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13

13

13
13

13
13

13
13
13
12


Per
cent.
0.4
4.9
5.0
11.1
20.5
23.7
1.54
1.73
6.35
1.69
35.3
2.04
18.4
2.07
19.0

1.73

20.1
1.66

40.2
1.70

30.8
1.43
43.4
.44


Per
cent.
18.8
24.0
19.7
20.8
63.6
57.9
1.78
2.52
7.09
2.47
42.9
3.03
29.8
2.93
30.3

2.65

44.6
2.25

53.2
2.50

48.8
2.46
58.1
.89


Per
cent.
10.5
10.2
14.6
16.6
40.0
40.4
1.68
2.05
6.74
1.98
40.5
2.45
25.4
2.46
23.7

2.05

35.5
1.92

45.7
2.0

39.0

1.75
51.0
.61


28
28
10
10
28
28
8
8
8
28
28
28
28
28
28

10

10
10

10

28

28
28
28
10


Per
cent.

3.3



22.9
.74
.69
3.96
1.71
30.7
2.13
15.3
1.95
18.5

1.70

13.8
1.67

21.5
1.7

16.9
1.4
37.8
.39


Per

cent.
16.2
37.2
24.0
30.0
42.9
86.3
2.76
2.47
6.85
2.83
47.6
4.13
33.4
3.17
38.4

2.95

53.4

2.72

55.0
2.98

54.5
2.70
57.7
1.52


Per

cent.
6.7
11.7
7.5
10.9
16.4
64.6
1.56
1.60
5.66
2.19
40.7
2.62
22.2
2.56
22.9

2.31

30.8
2.08

42.5
2.34

32.4

2.06
50.2
.71


39
39
26
. 26
39
39
25
9
11
39
39
36
36
39
39

25

25
24

24

38

38
39
39
26


Shorts


Coarse middlings


Fine middlings
Coarse and fine middlings . .
Flour


Ash


Fiber


Pentosans




Gliadin ratio


Nitrogen of bran


Gliadin ratio of bran


Nitrogen of shorts


Gliadin ratio of shorts
Nitrogen of coarse mid-
dlings


Gliadin ratio of coarse mid-
dlings


Nitrogen of fine middlings . .
Gliadin ratio of fine mid-
dlings


Nitrogen of coarse and fine
middlings


Gliadin ratio of coarse and
fine middlings


Nitrogen of flour


Gliadin ratio of flour


Ash of flour.. ..





i Samples 9157, 9163, 9211, not included.
GENERAL AVERAGE RESULTS.

A recapitulation of these tables is found in Table 22, which gives
the minimum, maximum, and average composition of the Grahams,
alleged Grahams, and imitation Grahams. For the purpose of these
averages three samples Nos. 9157, 9163, and 9211 were omitted,
it being evident from the separations on the sieves and the amounts
of ash, fiber, and pentosans contained in them that they were more of
the nature of a " bolted wheat meal" than of a Graham flour. This
table shows that the Graham flour contains much more combined
bran and shorts, middlings, and much less flour than the imitation
samples. The ash, fiber, and pentosans are also appreciably higher
in the Graham flour than in imitation Graham. There are no
marked differences in the gliadin ratio of the products of separa-
tion (bran, shorts, and flour) between the Graham and the imita-
tion Grahams. Still it is seen that the tendency for the Graham
is to give higher results in these respects. The gliadin ratios of the
coarse and fine middlings of Graham flour are, however, appreciably
higher than those of the same products from imitation Graham.



COMPAKISON OF SAMPLES. 49

The analytical figures obtained for the alleged Graham flour are
generally a mean between those obtained for the Graham and the
imitation Graham. Of the 44 samples of Graham or alleged Graham
flour only 4 yielded 60 per cent or over of material passing the 109
sieve, the average of all being 40.8. Two of these 4 were, however,
shown to be so-called whole- wheat flours and not Grahams. The
other 2 samples (Nos. 9103 and 9145) were obtained under observa-
tion, but were ground as finely as possible on burrs tones. Of the
39 samples of imitation Grahams, 27 gave 60 per cent or over of
material fine enough to pass through a 109 sieve, the variation being
61.7 to 86.3, while the average of all the 39 samples was 64.6 per
cent. Only 1 out of the 44 samples of Graham gave as low a per-
centage of middlings as 20, this being No. 9145, which has already
been referred to as having been ground very fine and as being
high in material passing the 109 sieve. Of the 39 samples of imita-
tion Graham, 25 gave less than 20 per cent middlings. It is almost
conclusive proof that the sample is an imitation Graham when it
contains only a small amount of middlings. Of the 13 samples of
Graham collected under observation, 4 contained less than 20 per
cent combined bran and shorts, while 25 out of the 39 samples of
imitation Graham showed less than 20 per cent of these materials.

NITROGEN CONTENT AND GLIADIN NUMBER.

Tables 14 to 21 give the ratio percentage between the nitrogen
content and gliadin number, respectively, of the Graham flour and
those of the products of separation and also between those of the
products of separation as compared with one another. Discussion
of similar figures in Tables 10 to 12 has already been given, and in the
main the points brought out in Tables 14 to 21 agree with those given
in the former tables.

COMPARISON OF SAMPLES FROM THE SAME MILLERS AT DIF-
FERENT TIMES.

Nos. 9047 and 9048 are samples of wheat and Graham flour, respec-
tively, the latter supposed to have been made from the former.
Both were obtained from a jobber. The wheat is of a hard spring
variety. The flour was so finely ground that it seemed .improbable
that it could have been produced from such wheat by grinding it on
rolls and without separation of the products. The following samples
of Graham flour, milled from the same hard spring wheat under
observation, were all obtained from a miller who supplied the jobber
with the Graham -flour No. 9048:

No. 9049 was ground as for the ordinary trade.

No. 9055 was ground as per orders from the jobber just mentioned.



50



GRAHAM FLOUR.



No. 9103 was ground as fine as possible without injuring the
product at the request of the representative of the bureau in order
to determine whether it was possible that the miller could have
furnished the above jobber with his finely ground Graham flour.
The separations on the various sieves follow:

Separation of samples specially milled from hard spring wheat.



Product of separation.


Sieve.


No. 9049.


No. 9055.


No. 9103.




On 20 mesh


Per cent.
9.4


Per cent.
7.3


Per cent.
5


Shorts


On 40 mesh


16.1


13.4


12.5


Coarse middlings


On 70 mesh


19.1


12.0


7.2




On 109 mesh


16.6


17.4


14.7


Flour


Through 109 mesh


38.0


49.9


60.6













The following table gives the analysis of the wheat and Graham
flour and also of the three samples of Graham flour:

Analysis of samples from one miller at different times.



No.


Sample.


Nitrogen.


Alcohol-
soluble
nitrogen.


Gliadin
ratio.


Ash.


Fiber.


9047


Wheat


Per cent.
.95


Per cent.
0.730


37.3


Per cent.
1.95


Per cent.
2 54


9048


Graham flour


.95


.814


41.7


1.68


2.05


9049


do


.74


.716


41.2






9055


do


.70


.688


40.5


1.74


2.36


9103


do


72


709


41 2





















The above analyses clearly show that Graham flour No. 9048 could
not have been produced from wheat No. 9047 unless a portion of
the bran had been bolted. This is evident from the difference in both
the percentage of ash and of fiber of the wheat and the flour and the
same might be indicated from the difference in the gliadin number.
Again, it is manifestly impossible to have made Graham flours Nos.
9049, 055, and 9103 from wheat No. 9047. The percentages of
nitrogen and ash clearly lead one to this conclusion. Inasmuch as
these three samples were milled under observation there is no doubt
about the impossibility of wheat No. 9047 serving for the three
flours. This incident is related here simply to show that the jobber
was not getting from the miller the kind of flour he thought he was.
It is quite probable that No. 9047 may have been used for the pro-
duction of No. 9048. In this case No. 9048 was more of the nature of
a wheat meal than of a Graham flour, as much of the bran must have
been removed in milling.

The following sets of two samples each are from three different
millers, the first sample of each series having been collected by the
representative of the bureau at one time, while the second sample in
each set was collected about six months later.



COMPABISON OF SAMPLES.

Analysis of samples from three millers at different times.



51





t




c5
.2


1


8
6


Graham
flour.


Bran.


Shorts.


Middlings.


Flour.




i


QQ


1


I














t




.














Miller and




6


r>


bo




i




I




s




g




a


sample No.


%


fe


1


o.w


.


.




a


.


e .


.


rt


.


d





1




1


1


a"


1


I 1


f


t


c


f


I


1


|


I 1




CO


CQ


CO


CO


^


o


g


s


sj


3


2


3


8


3




P.ct.


P.cf.


P.ct.


p.rt.


P.cf.




P.ct.




P.ct.




P.cf.




P.rt.




A /6954


12.5


6.0


39.5


42.0


2.01


41.2


2.63


28.6


2.41


24.4


2.01


27.8


1.81


49.7


A \7795


13.6


10.1


30.3


45.5


2.30


37.8


3.03


28.3


2.98


23.1


2.25


40.6


2.02


47.9


T, (6955


13.4


5.5


32.0


46.0


1.90


39.9


2.44


27.1


2.47


20.2


1.88


38.5


1.70


53.5


** \7830


11.8


14.4


32.1


41.4


2.08


37.8


2.61


26.6


2.43


24.2


2.03


40.2


1.81


47.7


n /6956i...


10.7


7.5


12.5


69.2


2.02


41.7


2.36


24.1


2.27


28.4


2.25


32.8


1.90


49.5


u \7824


9.0


8.4


3.0


78.7


1.80


40.6


2.39


19.5


2.40


20.8


1.90


30.9


1.62


50.2





1 Based on sample of only 80 grams.

The results are given to show whether the separation and composi-
tion of the samples made by the same miller at different times may
be expected to be uniform. Nos. 6954 and 7795 from miller A, and
Nos. 6955 and 7830 from B, are Graham flour and show no greater
differences respectively than might be expected when one considers
that Nos. 7795 and 7830 were obtained six months later than Nos.
6954 and 6955 and therefore may have been produced from a different
lot of wheat. Nos. 6956 and 7824, from miller C, show the same
small differences but are plainly imitation Graham flours.

An interesting incident is connected with sample No. 6956. When
the representative first obtained a sample of this flour one member
of the firm described it as being "made by grinding whole wheat,
removing nothing but about 3 per cent of low grade," intending to
indicate thus that it was .a Graham flour. The analysis of this first
sample led to the suspicion that it was an imitation Graham flour
made from very good stock. Another sample was ordered collected,
with the request to inquire again how the product was being made.
This time another member of the firm stated: "We make the flour
by mixing about one-fifth of pure bran and four-fifths of good first-
class flour." This incident shows that placing absolute reliance on
the statement of the people interested may lead to erroneous inter-
pretations and conclusions. The sample in question was made in
the manner indicated by the second member of the firm, namely,
one-fifth bran, four-fifths flour, the flour being, however, of very
good quality. The fact that the sample previously collected con-
tained but 69.2 per cent of flour passing through the 109 sieve while
the second sample contained over 78 per cent would simply indicate
that no definite means are taken to measure or weigh the amount of
material thus mixed.

The analysis of three samples from the same miller is given in
the following table:



52



GRAHAM FLOUR.
Analysis of three samples from the same miller.



Sample No.


On No.
JO si eve,
bran.


On No.
K) sieve,
shorts.


On No.
70 sieve,
coarse
mid-
dlings.


On No.
109
sieve,
fine
mid-
dlings.


Through
No. 109
sieve,
flour.


Graham flour as per sample.


Nitro-
gen.


Ash.


Fiber.


Pento-
sans.


Gliadin
ratio.


9169


Per ct.
7.6
2.3
6.5


Perct.
6.6
6.5
12.5


Per ct.
00
8.6
8.0


Per ct.
00
10.6
13.5


Per ct.
85.4
71.7
59.0


Per ct.
2.32
2.47
1.84


Per ct.
1.51
.95
1.69


Per ct.


Per ct.


47.6
47.4
43.1


9163


1.11
2.15


5.20
6.47


9205




Sample No.


Bran.


Shorts.


Coarse mid-
dlings.


Fine mid-
dlings.


Flour.


Nitro-
gen.


Glia-
din
ratio.


Nitro-
gen.


Glia-
din
ratio.


Nitro-
gen.


Glia-
din
ratio.


Nitro-
gen.


Glia-
din
ratio.


Nitro-
gen.


Glia-
din
ratio.


Ash.


9169...


Per ct.
2.26
2.53
2.39


20.2
22.5
22.9


Per ct.
2.37
2.54
2.42


19.2
22.1
20.2


Per ct.




Perct.




Per ct.
2.27
2.51
1.67


55.9
53.0
51.7


Per ct.
0.73
.76
.67


9163


2.19
2.16


40.0
30.2


2.23
1.85


46.9

46.7


9205





No. 9169 is an imitation Graham made by adding 70 pounds of
bran to 196 pounds of 21 per cent clear flour made from two parts
winter wheat and three parts spring wheat.

No. 9163 is a sample supposed to be a Graham and supposed to be
made from spring wheat.

No. 9205 was obtained under observation and is made from soft
winter wheat ground on French burrs.

There is a notable difference between the three samples. If
No. 9169 were really composed of 70 pounds of bran per 196 pounds
of flour, the percentage of bran would be over 25, whereas the bran
and shorts together amount to 14.2 per cent only. This is clearly not
made as indicated by the miller, although it is composed of bran (and
shorts) and flour only. The ash content of the flour is what might
be expected from such a mixture. No. 9163 was collected from
stock on hand and claimed by the miller to be Graham flour. It
is, however, materially different from No. 9205, which is also Graham
flour. This last sample was collected by the representative who ob-
served the process used in its making. The analyses have already
been discussed (see p. 36), but the three samples are placed here to-
gether to show that the sample collected by the representative and
milled under his observation shows all the qualities of a Graham,
while the one whose milling was not thus observed but which the
miller claims was Graham flour shows in several respects that it is
not what the miller claimed it to be. No. 9163 is high in flour and so
low in bran, shorts, ash, fiber, and pentosans that these factors are
sufficient to show it to be a " bolted wheat meal" and not Graham
flour.



GENERAL DISCUSSION. 53

COMPARISON OF SAMPLES OF IMITATION GRAHAM FLOURS.

Analysis of samples of imitation Graham flours .



Sample No.


On No.
20 sieve,
bran.


On No.
to sieve,
shorts.


On No.
70 sieve,
coarse
mid-
dlings.


On No.
109
sieve,
fine
mid-
dlings.


Through
No. 109
sieve,
flour.


Graham flour as per sample.


Nitro-
gen.


Ash.


Fiber.


Pento-
sans.


Gliadin
ratio.


8017


Per ct.
9.0
6.2
4.6
5.7
6.2


Perct.
14.2
26.7
11.8
16.4
20.8


Perct.
11.6
11.8
6.6
0.2
7.0


Perct.
8.0
9.5
40.0
0.5
3.8


Perct.
57.0
45.0
37.6
76.0
62.0


Perct.


Per ct.


Per ct.


Per ct.




9458


2.25
2.25
1.91
2.15


2.08






37.1
47.1
44.1
39.9


970Q1






9705


1.59






9780














Sample No.


Bran.


Shorts.


Coarse mid-
dlings.


Fine mid-
dlings.


Flour.


Nitro-
gen.


Glia-
din
ratio.


Nitro-
gen.


Glia-
din
ratio.


Nitro-
gen.


Glia-
din
ratio.


Nitro-
gen.


Glia-
din
ratio.


Nitro-
gen.


Glia-
din
ratio.


Ash.


8017


Perct.




Per ct.




Per ct.




Perct.




Per ct.




Perct.


9458


2.41


20.9


2.36


32.1


2.21


40.3


2.26
1.95
1.99


36.6
54.9


2.15
1.96
1.80
1.96


41.7
54.6
53.0
49.4


1.36


9700 !


1 2 3 4 6

Online LibraryJoseph Arthur Le ClercGraham flour: a study of the physical and chemical differences between graham flour and imitation graham flours → online text (page 6 of 7)