THE EFFECT OF WEIGHT AND GRADE ON THE TRIMMED, COOKED AND COOKED EDIBLE PORTION OF RETAIL BEEF CUTS Thesis for the Degroo of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Roy Wayne Porter 1960 LIBRARY Michigan Staw University THE W (F WEIGHT AND (mm: ON THE TRDMED, 000m) AND COOKED EDIBLE PORTION OF RETAIL BEM‘ CUTS By Roy Wayne Porter AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture end Applied Science in partial fulfinjent of the requirements: for the degree of MASTER w SCIENCE Department of Animal Husbandry 1960 mm 0/ 9. W Roy Wayne Porter ABSTRACT The right sides of 27 beef carcasses representing 3 weight groups within each of the grades of standard, good and choice were used in this study. Twenty—five retail cuts were taken from each of these sides ac- cording to a standardized procedure, thus, a total of 675 cuts were involved. After removal from the carcass, the cuts were trimmed to 3/8 inch external fat, cooked by one of four methods, immediately after which they were separated into the following components: external fat, inter- muscular fat, bone, and lean. Wei{hts of the cuts were taken immediately before and after trimming as well as immediately before and after cooking. Weights were also taken on the cut trimmings and each of the components of the cooked cuts. The yield of the trimmed retail cut as a percentage of the untrimmed retail cut, cooking yield as a percentage of the trimmed retail cut, and yield of cooked edible portion as a percentage of the trimmed retail cut was calculated for each cut studied. In calculating the yields of cooked edible portion, only the cooked lean of each cut was considered edible. Analysis of variance was carried out on each of these yields for certain of the more important cuts in the carcass to determine whether carcass weight and grade had a significant effect on these yields and to deter- mine the significant differences between these yields from the various cuts included in the statistical analysis. The results indicated that carcass grade had a highly significant effect on the yields of the trimmed retail cuts as a percentage of the untrimmed retail cuts. An increase in carcass grade was accompanied by Roy Wayne Porter a decrease in this yield for the cuts analyzed statistically. The cuts from standard grade carcasses yielded significantly higher than those from good grade carcasses, which in turn had significantly higher yields than those from choice grade carcasses. Carcass weight had no consistent effect from grade to grade on the yields of the trimmed retail cuts from the untrimmed retail cuts. Differences in cooking yields attributable to grade were restricted mainly to the cuts which were either broiled or roasted. In both cases, the cuts from choice grade carcasses had the lowest cooking yields. The influence of carcass weight on cooking yield was apparent only in the case of the braised chuck roasts from standard and good grade carcasses, in which case the cuts from the heavier carcasses had higher cooking yields than those from the lighter carcasses. The results of this study seemed to indicate that the main factors affecting cooking losses were cooking method and degree of doneness, and the composition of the trimmed retail cut. Carcass weight had no significant effect on the yield of cooked edible portion from any of the cuts analyzed statistically. Carcass grade had a significant effect on this yield only in the instance of the broiled cuts, in which case the cuts from choice grade carcasses had Significantly lower yields than those from either standard or good grade carcasses. Again, as in the case of the cooking yields, the factors mainly responsible for differences in yields of cooked edible portion seemed to be cooking method and degree of doneness and the composition of the trimmed retail cut. Roy Wayne Porter - 3 - Considerable differences between cut was found for each of the yields studied. A nomogram is presented as an aid in calculating the cost/lb. of cooked edible portion of any retail cut from the cost/1b. of the trimmed retail cut and the yield of cooked edible portion expected from the particular cut under consideration. THE EFFET (F WEIGHT AND GRADE ON THE Tm, COOKED AND COOKED EDIBLE PORTION OF RETAIL BEEF CUTS Roy Wayne Porter A THBIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirenents for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Animal Husbandry 1960 THE WT (F HEIGHT AND GRADE ON 111E THREE), COOKED AND COOIED EDIBLE PORTION OF RETAIL BEEF CUTS Roy Wayne Porter A THfiIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTROFSCIENCI Depart-eat of Aninal Husbandry 1960 d\ ACKNOWHM The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation to L. J. Bratzler, Professor of Aninal Husbandry, for his assistance and thought- ful guidance throughout the course of this study. He is extremely grateful to Dr. H. 1'. Hagee, Associate Professor of Aninl Husbandry, and to G. Harrington, Agricultural Research Council Statistics Group, School of Agriculture, Cambridge, England, for their advice on the statistical treatment of the data. He, also, expresses his sincere thanks to Dr. Evelyn H. Jones, Associate Professor of Foods and Nutrition for providing the excellent facilities for obtaining the cooking data and assistance in this phase of the study. The author wishes to thank Hrs. Dora Spooner for her aid in pre- cessing the data and to Mrs. Beatrice Eichelberger for typing the Innu- script. ‘ro his wife, Cynthia, the author is especially grateful for her sacrifices, understanding, help and encouragmnt throughout “35-8 Study. TABIE (F CONTENTS WD UC TION . O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O mwumm..00000000000000000.... hula-yo...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO Porkeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee. Lamb.o........o................o BedO...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO WA]; PROCEDURE e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e I. source or carcass“ e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 0 II. Cutting procedure e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e III.cockingeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeo ms AND DISCU$ION . C O O C O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O . Yield of trimmed retail cut (expressed as % of the untrined out) . O C O O O O C O O O O 0 O O C O C O O C O C . C . Cooking yield (expressed as % of the trimmed retail cut) . . Yield of cooked edible portion (expressed as % of the trimmed retail cut) e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e WY “‘1’ cmcwsms . O . . . . O O O 0 O C C . O C . O . . . ummcmeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee WHOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO £39. “Q0030, 14 14 14 17 68 75 LIST OF wuss Lass Table I - Distribution of Carcasses by Grade and Height . . . . . . 14 Table II - Cochin Methods Used for the Various Cuts . . . . . . . 19 Table III - Means of the 27 Carcasses for the Following Yields of the Retail Cuts Studied: Yield of Trimed Retail Cut, Cooking Yield, and Yield of Cooked Edible Portion . . . 22 Table IV - Distribution of the Retail Cuts Within the Groups Utilized in Considering the Yield of the Trimmed Retail cut eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee23 Table V - Grade Means of the Yield of Trimmed Retail Cuts Included inGl'bupl eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee0024 Table VI - Combined Analysis of Variance of the Yield of Trimmed Retail Cuts for the Cuts in Group B from Carcasses of DifferentfleightsandGrades... . . . .. .. . .. .28 Table VII - Means of the Yield of Trimmed Retail Cuts for the Cuts Included in Group B from the Different Carcass Weight Groups Within Each Grade, Together With Their Standard Errors and Indications of Significant Differences BettieentheMeans...................29 Table VIII - Analysis of Variance of the Yield of Trimmed Retail Cuts from Different Height Carcasses Within Each Grade fortheCutsIncludedinGroupB...........30 Table ll - Grade and Carcass Height Group Means of the Yield of Trimmed Round Steak, Together with their Standard Errors and Indications of Significant Differences Between the He“..0.0.0.0.000000000000000032 Table I - Analysis of Variance of the Yield of Trimed Round Steak from Different Heights and Grades of Carcasses . . . . ~. 33 Table II - Analyses of Variance of the Yield of Trimmed Round Steak fron Different Weight Carcasses Mithin Each Grade . . . 34 Table III - Distribution of the Retail Cuts Anong the Various Groups Used in Considering the Cooking Yields . . . . . . . . 36 Table 1111 - Grade Means of the Cooking Yield of Each of the 12 Cuts Included in Group A (expressed as 7% of the trim-ed retailcut).....................37 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Page Table IIV - Conbined Analysis of Variance of the Cooking Yields of the 7th and 8th, 10th and 11th Standing Rib Roaat8(GrOuPB)eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 40 Table IV - Conbined Analysis of Variance of the Cooking Yields of thelroiledCuts Included inGroupC . . . . . . . . . 43 Table XVI - Separate Analyses of Variance for each Grade of the Cooking Yields of the Broiled Cuts Included in Group C 44 Table XVII - Conbined Analysis of Variance of the Cooking Yields of the Braised Cuts Included in Group D . . . . . . 47 Table XVIII - Means of the Cooking Yields of the Braised Cuts Included in Group D from each Carcass Weight Group Within each Grade, Together with their Standard Errors and Indications of Significant Differences BetweentheMeana......o.......... 49 Table III - Separate Analyses of Variance for each Grade of the Cooking Yields of the Braised Cuts Included in Group D 50 Table II - Grade Means of the Cooking Yield of the Round Steak (Group E), Together with their Standard krors and Indications Of Significant Differences e e e e e e e e 51 Table III - Analysis of Variance of the Cooking Yield of the RoundSteak(GroupE)................ 51 Table XIII - Distribution of the Retail Cuts Anong the Various Groups Used in Considering the Cooked Edible Portion Yieldaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeseeseeee 54 Table n11: - Grade Means of the Yield of Cooked Edible Portion of the Cuts Included in Group A (expressed as % of the h‘i‘fldl‘fit‘ilCI-It).eeeeeeeeeeeeee. 55 Table XXIV - Conbined Analysis of Variance of the Yields of Cooked Edible Portion of the 7th and 8th, 10th and 11th Standing Rib Roasts (Group B) e e e e e e e e e e O 57 Table nv - Conbined Analysis of Variance of the Yields of Cooked Edible Portion of the Broiled Cuts Included in Group C 60 Table XXVI «- Combined Analysis of Variance of the Yields of Cooked Edible Portion of the Braised Cuts Included in Group D 63 LIST OF TABLE (continued) Pge Table IIVII - Grade Means of the Yield of Cooked Edible Portion of Round Steak (Group E), Together with their summaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeso 6‘ Table IIVIII - Analysis of Variance of the Yield of Cooked Edible Portion of the Round Steak (Group E).. . . . . . . 64 Appendix - Sumary of data LIST OF FIGURE see Figure I - Grade and cut neans of the yields of trimmed retail cuts (expressed as f of the untrinmed retail cut) for the cuts included in group B, together with their standard errors and significant differences between the cut neans 27 Figure II - Grade and cut neans of the cooking yields of the roasted cuts included in group B, together with their standard errors and indications of significant differ- OECOO between the cuts . e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 39 Figure III - Grade and cut neans of the cooking yields of the broiled cuts included in group C, together with their standard errors and indications of significant differ- encesbetweenthecuts............... 42 Figure IV - Grade and cut leans of the cooking yields of the braised cuts included in group D, together with their standard errors and indications of significant differ- ences between the cuts e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 46 Figure V - Grade and cut means of the yields of cooked edible portion of the roasted cuts included in group B, together with their standard errors and indications of significant differences between cuts e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 56 Figure VI - Grade and cut means of the yields of cooked edible portion of the broiled cuts included in group C, to- gether with their standard errors and indications of significant differences between the cuts . . . . . . 59 Figure VII - Grade and cut means of the yields of cooked edible portion of the braised cuts included in group D, to- gether with their standard errors and indications of significant differences between the cuts . . . . . . 62 Figure VIII - Guide for calculating the cooked edible portion cost or any retail cut e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e 67 INTRODUCTION Meat is the most expensive item in the food budget of many families, and the kind, quality and cut of meat purchased by the consumer is dependent upon his preferences and his economic position. Thus, it is evident that the comparative yield of the cooked edible portion from various retail cuts is of considerable importance. Jull and Maw (1923) reported the percentage of raw edible por- tion of various kinds of domestic fowl. Since that time considerable work has been reported on both raw and cooked edible portion of parts and of whole domestic fowl. Bull (1947) observed that as the grade of beef increased, the percentage of lean in various retail cuts decreased. Wilford and Garrigus (1952) and Kemp gt a}... (1953) noted the same relationship in the wholesale cuts of lamb. Kropf and Graf (1959) stated that as the carcass grade increased the yield of boneless beef decreased. Callow (1949) indicated that as the cattle carcass increased in weight and hence fatness, the percentage of muscle tissue decreased and this decrease in percentage of lean became progressively less as the carcass weight increased. The consumer is interested in the amount of cooked edible por- tion which can be expected from a given retail meat cut. This was the basis for the present study in which the trimmed retail cuts from three weight groups within the grades of choice, good and stan- dard cattle were evaluated for yield of cooked edible lean portion. This value was reported as the cooked lean percent of the raw trimmed retail cut. It was attempted further to determine if a difference existed in the yield of cooked edible portion of the various retail cuts from different weights and grades of beef car- casses. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Pbultgy There is considerable infermation available concerning the yield of edible meat from various kinds of domestic fowl. Jull and Maw (1923) reported the yield of raw edible portion as a percentage of the dressed weight of various kinds of domestic birds. The kinds of bird and their respective yields were: unfattened broilers, 54.21%; fattened broilers, 60.73%; unfattened roasters, 56.86%; fattened roasters, 63.07%; fattened capons, 67.46%; fattened hens, 64.22%; squab guineas, 60.25%; squab pigeons, 73.94%; ducks, 60.12%; geese, 65.07%; turkeys, 66.53%. Broadbent and Bean (1952) observed the yield of raw edible meat as % of eviscerated weight to be 70.4%, 74.2% and 74.2% for chickens, ducklings and turkeys, respectively. Maw (1939), in a study of the factors influencing market quality in poultry, observed that as the carcass grade of chicken increased, the yield of edible portion increased. In the same study, he reported that the yield of raw edible portion (meat, fat, skin and giblets, excluding neck) as the percentage of chilled dressed weight in the case of cockerels increased as the carcass weight increased, ranging from 51% to 63% for 2 pound to 6 pound carcasses, respectively. Hal noted a sex and class difference in this yield as shown by these average percentages: pullets, 69.5%; capons, 68.8%; and cockerels, 66.3%. Hathaway _e_t_ a_1.. (1953) also observed that, in general, females yielded a higher percentage of raw edible meat than did males. Harshaw (1943) reported the proportion of the parts of chicken as a percentage of the dressed weight to be: breast 18.04%; drum, sticks 12.57%; thighs 13.85%; neck 4.41%; wings 8.47%; back 16.26%; organs (heart, liver, empty gizzard and abdominal fatty tissue) 5.71%. In the same study Harshaw found that the raw edible portion (excluding skin and bones) was 71.71% for the breasts and 74.90% for the drumsticks and thighs. Brown and Bean (1952), in a study of different market classes of chickens, reported the average raw edible yield (skin, fat and lean) from.five market classes of chickens to be 70.3% of the clean dressed weight. Headley (1948) observed that the amount of edible meat on dressed or drawn turkeys varied directly with weight. Various information is available on the cooked yield of edible portion in poultry. Maw (1939) observed that the cooked edible yield (meat, skin and fat) of medium sized roasters was 58% of the drawn carcass weight. In a study of eight breeds of chickens, Morrison ‘gi‘gl. (1954) cooked the chickens at fifteen pounds pressure for twenty minutes, after which the bones were removed. The remainder was considered edible, the yield according to this method ranged between 67.2% and 69.3%. In a summary of cooked edible portion.yields of poultry and various meats, Alexander and Schopmeyer (1949) included data on various classes of chicken and various cooking methods. They indi- cated that roasting chickens gave larger yields of cooked muscle than stewing hens in proportion to their ready to cook weight, bone- in. Harshaw‘gt‘gl. (1941) observed that higher raw weight chickens had higher cooking losses during roasting. Stotts and Darrow (1953) indicated an influence of treeds on the yield of cooked edible portion. From a study involving four hundred broilers, they concluded that Cornish crossbreds gave conp sistently higher cooked edible yields and had significantly higher cooked meat-to-bone ratio than purebreds and nonPCornish crossbreds. The cooked edible portion was considered to be the cooked weight with the bone removed. Tadle 31.21. (1955) found no difference in the yield of cooked edible meat between different meat-type broiler crosses or between sexes. The birds were cooked in an autoclave for 20 minutes at 15 pound pressure, the cooked edible meat included the skin and giblets but not the neck, tendons, or cartilage. The average yield of cooked edible meat from the broilers studied was 51.3% of their ready to cook weight. They reported that the yields of cooked edi- ble meat for the various parts of the broilers were as follows: heart 67.2%, liver 66.8%, breast 63.4%, gizzard 58.6%. legs and thighs 53.3%, wings 50.0% and back 41.7%. Snyder and Orr (1953), in a study to determine the market possibilities and yields of goslings dressed at various ages, con. cluded that the highest yield of cooked edible meat was 51.2%, attained at 12 weeks of age. In a study of cooked turkey, Alexander 35 3;. (1948) reported the yield of edible portion (muscle, skin plus adhering fat, giblets) was 53% of the New York dressed weight for Beltsville small white females. In comparing the cooked yields of different weight turkeys, Sweet 21 El. (1954) found that toms weighing over 20 pounds had the highest cooked meat yield. Alexander 33 21. (1951) observed that age and sex in turkeys influenced the yield of cooked edible portion. .An increase in age beyond 28-30 weeks in females was accompanied by a decrease in yield of cooked edible meat. [£225 Hankins and Ellis (1943) presented estimates of the values for the amount of edible meat in the whole carcass, ham, loin, full shoulder, bacon, and backfat from 175, 200, 225 and 250 pound hogs. The estimated values for edible meat represented both muscle and fat,from.trimmed cuts. Bull (1951) reported the average percentage of fat, lean, skin and bone in the various cuts from 161 pork car- casses of approximately 225 pounds live weight. The cuts represented were: fatback, clear plate, ham, picnic, Boston butt, loin (roasts and chops), bacon, spareribs, and neck bones. Alexander and Schopmeyer (1949) found that loin and rib chaps cut 3/4 inch thick yielded 39.47. cooked muscle when fried and 35.5% cooked muscle when braised with no water added. These results were based on one sample of 3 loin and 3 rib chops cooked by each of the two methods indicated. In the same experiment, one sample of pork liver was cooked by each of the two methods, yielding 74.5% when fried and 76.2% when braised with no water added. These yields were based on ready to cook weights, and in the case of the chops the ready to cook weight included bone. In a study of cooked edible portion of smoked hams, Alexander and Hankins (1952) found that dry cured hams cooked to 76°C internal temperature averaged 50% edible portion (muscle and intermuscular fat) of the weight of the baked ham, and 43% cooked edible portion of the weight before cooking. They indicated that in both dry and commercially cured hams cooking losses varied directly with moisture content. Leverton and Odell (1958) evaluated the percentage of cooked lean, marble, fat and waste portions of 9 cuts from 3 different sides of pork. The lean was divided into two portions; extremely lean, with no visible fat and the lean marbled with fat portion. lamb Hankins and Foster (1940) determined the percentage of fat, lean, edible portion (fat and lean), bone and ligament in the pri- mary cuts of 51 lamb carcasses representing 6 different market grades. The percentage of edible portion and fat increased and the percentage of lean decreased with an increase in grade. Hankins (1947) reported the average percentage of fat, lean and bone in 64 dressed lamb carcasses to be 25.25%, 53.00%, and 21.75%, respectively. Average percentages of these components were reported for the breast, leg, loin, neck, rib, and Shoulder cuts from.the carcasses. Bull (1951) reported the percentage of fat, lean and bone in the cuts from 27 prime, 44 choice and 22 good lambs. As grade in- creased, the percentage of fat increased and the percentage of lean decreased in the cuts. Wilford and Garrigus (1952) noted the same relationship, indi- cating a tendency for good carcasses to contain more lean and choice carcasses a larger percentage of fat. Kemp 31 31. (1953) reported similar results, also noting an increase in leg, shoulder, neck, and foreleg and a decrease in loin, rack, kidney fat, breast and flank as a percentage of the carcass with a decrease in grade. The effect of cooking temperature and carcass grade on losses during roasting of lamb and mutton legs was studied by Alexander and Clark (1943). They observed that lower cooking temperatures caused smaller cooking losses and that higher grade lamb and mutton had.higher cooking losses. Leverton and Odell (1958) reported the percentage of cooked lean, marble, fat and waste portions of various cuts from 4 different lamb carcasses. B23: Hankins and Foster (1940) determined the average content of separable fat, lean, edible meat and bone of the carcasses and each of 11 primary cuts from the choice, good, commercial, and utility grades of dressed steers. Data from 71 cattle were represented, and showed an increase in percentage fat and edible portion and a decrease in percentage lean in the carcass and each of the cuts as carcass grade increased. Rankine and Howe (1946) reported the average percentage fat, lean and bone in 84 steer carcasses to be 23.7T%, 58.27% and 17.98%, respectively. In the same experiment, average percentage of fat, lean and bone in 36 heifer carcasses was deter- mined to be 29.16%, 55.75% and 15.10%, respectively, indicating a larger percentage of fat and a smaller percentage of lean in heifer than in steer carcasses. Bull (1947) indicated that as the grade of beef increased the percentage of loan in the retail cuts decreased. Physical composi- tion of the various retail cuts was determined for 15 prime, 12 choice, 16 good, 15 commercial and 8 utility carcasses. Callow (1949) stated that as the cattle carcass increased in weight and hence, fatness, the percentage of muscle decreased, this decrease became progressively less as the carcass weight increased. Pierce (1957) reported a portion of a study to determine the relationship of certain carcass characteristics of beef to the yields of wholesale and retail cuts. He observed higher wholesale yields of short loin, rib, flank, brisket, plate and hindquarter and lower yields of round, sirloin, chuck and foreshank as finish grade and fat depth increased. Higher conformation grade indicated a higher yield of round, short loin, rib, brisket and foreshank but lower yields of sirloin, chuck, flank, plate and hindquarter. Heavier carcasses had more chuck, rib, flank, brisket and plate than lighter carcasses, but lower yields of other cuts. Kropf and Graf (1959) indicated that the yield of boneless beef and percentage of fat increased as carcass grade increased when commercial, good and choice carcasses were compared. Steer, cow and heifer carcasses in that order showed decreasing boneless beef yield and an increase in percentage of fat. Bull 23 31. (1930) found heifer ribs to be fatter than steer ribs and when they were cooked, the total cooking losses were greater for the fatter ribs. Paul and McLean (1946) in their studies on veal, observed that cooking losses and cooking time both increased as the internal temperature of the cut increased. They also ob- served large variations in cooking losses among the different muscles tested and a slight increase in cooking loss as the size of the animal increased. In an earlier experiment with beef roasts, Satorius and Child (1938) observed variations in.cooking losses from.different muscles. They found no difference between total cooking losses between grades but found greater total cooking losses in cows than in steers. Alexander and Clark (1939), in a series of experiments involving 595 rib roasts, found less shrinkage due to evaporation and larger drip losses in rib roasts from the higher grades of beef. Standing rib roasts shrank less and cooked more rapidly than boned rolled roasts, and of the factors studied, cooking temperature had the greatest influence on shrinkage and cooking time. These results were confirmed by Chappell (1954) who also observed an increase in cooking losses with increased cooking temperature and increased cooking time. Clark and Van Duyne (1949), in a comparison of cooking methods, found that roasts cooked in a pressure saucepan had signi- ficantly greater losses in drip and total cooking losses than those roasted in an.oven. Alexander and Schopmeyer (1949), using paired cuts from.both sides of a choice steer, found that third and fifth chuck ribs yielded 36.9% cooked muscle when braised with water added and 35.1% cooked muscle when braised without added water based on.ready to cook weight. The same paired cuts from another carcass yielded 35.5% and 37.1% cooked muscle when braised with and without water, respectively, based on their ready to cook weight. They found that calf liver yielded 67.0% when fried and 66.8% when braised without water and beef liver yielded 67.9% when fried and 61.0% when braised without water. They concluded that as a group, yields of cooked muscle of stewing hens, beef chuck, and pork chops were similar, ranging from 33% to 39% of their ready to cook weight, bone-in. Also, liver yielded an average of 69% of its weight before cooking, based on calf, beef, and pork liver. .Paul £3 31. (1950) studied the effect of boning on cooking losses in cattle from commercial, good, and choice grades and found no significant differences in cooking losses. When cooked to an internal temperature of 58’C they found the cooking losses expressed as percentage of bone-in.raw weight of the following cuts to be: club steak 14.8%, porterhouse steak 14.1%, sirloin steak 14.7%, rib roast 18.1%, chuck arm roast 36.4%, chuck rib roast 31.5%, rump roast 28.0% and short ribs 26. so Lowe.gt.al. (1952) observed boneless roasts to have larger cooking losses than bone-in roasts, which agreed with the findings of Alexander and Clark (1939). In the case of pot roasts, Lowe 33 El. (1952) found that the greatest cooking losses had occurred by the time the internal temperature reached 90'C and that continued cooking beyond this point only slightly increased the cooking losses. They also found the cooking losses in the case of broiled steaks and chops to vary with oven temperature which was in agreement with Chappell (1954) and Alexander and Clark (1939). Day (1953) compared the cooking losses of the Longissimus‘ggrgi muscle and the cost of both raw and cooked edible meat represented by this muscle from utility, commercial, and good grades of beef carcasses. No difference attributable to grade was found in the average total cooking weight losses, volatile, or drip losses. Based on this one muscle, cost of a given edible portion increased with grade on both raw and cooked basis. Aldrich and Lowe.(1954), in comparing different grades of beef rounds, observed no difference in cooking losses between choice and good grades. However, they found highly significant differences in cooking losses of different muscles in the round. Total cooking losses for all cuts and grades cooked to 90‘C internal temperature averaged 34.5%. Toepfer st 21. (1955), in a study of boneless beef, found that plate waste was 38% more in the case of serving untrimmed cuts as against serving trimmed cuts. In each instance the cooked yield of homeless beef averaged about 65% of its raw weight. -13- Leverton and Odell (1958) reported the percentage of cooked lean, marble, fat and waste portions in the retail cuts from three different veal and three different beef carcasses. A summary of cooked edible yields of the various kinds and classes of meats has been reported by Pecot and Watt (1956). The results of considerable unpublished as well as published information were compiled in this report. -14- ‘EXPERIMENTAL.PROCEDURE I Source of Carcasses The right sides from 27 beef carcasses were used in this study. Three grades; standard, good and choice were represented as well as 3 weight groups within each grade (table I). The carcasses were selected to be near the middle of their weight groups and to repre- sent the average of their respective grades. The carcasses were all federally graded and were purchased from local packers. Steer car- casses were selected in all cases except in the standard 300/400 pound group, where only heifer carcasses were available. Table I Distribution of Carcasses By Grade and Weight Grade Weight Group Number USDA Choice 500/600 600/700 700/800 USDA Good 400/500 500/600 600/700 USDA Standard 300/400. 400/500 500/600 «aw mum wmw If M iCroup consistEd oflhéifer carcasses. II Cutting_Procedure The sides were cut into wholesale cuts according to the procedure outlined by Wellington (1955) except for some slight modifications. After removing the rib and shortplate, the brisket and f0reshank were separated from the chuck by cutting on a line just above the bony rise (lateral condyle of the humerus) and parallel to the top of the chuck, thus a square cut chuck was obtained. The round was removed ‘by cutting just behind and parallel to the aitch bone (canner style). Weights were obtained on the quarters and wholesale cuts on a dial pan scale to the nearest .1 pound. ,The retail cuts were cut from their respective wholesale cuts, weighed, trimmed to 3/8 inch external fat thickness where necessary and in certain indicated instances, had bone and lean removed. The trimmed retail cuts were then weighed and the fat trim, bone trim and in certain cases, the lean was reweighed for each cut, all weights being taken to the nearest .05 pound on a dial pan scale. Short ribs were removed from the wholesale rib by cutting from a point on the 12th rib 6 inches from the split vertebra body and parallel with the vertebra column. From the rib, a 7th and 8th rib standing rib roast, a 1% inch 9th rib steak and a 10th and 11th rib standing rib roast were removed and weighed separately. The external fat was trimmed to 3/8 inch thickness and the fat trim weighed separately fer each cut. The ver- tebra body was removed and weighed for each cut and in the case of the standing rib roasts, the ribs were sawed through close to the rib- vertebra junction before the cuts were reweighed. From the shortplate, 3 inch shortribs were cut from the 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th ribs. The brisket was boned and an 8 inch piece cut from the anterior end. A 2 inch crosscut shank slice was cut from the center of the foreshank. -16- A 3 rib English corner was removed from the chuck by cutting 2/5 of the distance from the vertebra body to the end of the 5th rib and perpendicular to the top of the chuck, the other out being made as close to the 3rd rib as possible. The 3rd rib was removed from the English corner and the remaining 4th and 5th rib English corner was used. Parallel to the cut made in removing the foreshank and brisket, two 2 inch chuck arm roasts were cut adjacent to each other. Each roast was separated at the heavy fat seam just above the cross-cut ribs, and this exposed fat as well as the external fat covering was then trimmed to 3/8 inch thickness. The fat and lean adhering to the removed cross-cut ribs was then separated. After squaring the blade face of the chuck, three 2 inch blade roasts were removed. The 3rd and 5th rib blade roasts were then cut across the rib, perpendicular to and even with the end of the blade bone and the vertebra body removed. From the neck, 2 pounds of 1 inch cubes were cut for stew. The anterior face of the shortloin was first squared, then a 112-— inch club steak removed and the vertebra.body sawed off. .After squaring the other end of the shortloin, two 1% inch porterhouse Steaks were removed, the first one including the 5th lumbar vertebra. In the second porterhouse steak, the Longissimus 9252i muscle was boned out as a strip steak. The tenderloin was also removed from.the second porterhouse steak. Three 1% inch steaks were taken from the sirloing‘wedgebone, doublebone, and pinbone sirloin steaks. After both Baces of the -17.. sirloin was squared, a 1% inch wedgebone steak was removed first, then a 1% inch pinbone steak from the opposite end followed by the removal of a 1 inch steak and then a 1% inch doublebone steak. After removing the flank steak from the flank, the silver skin was removed and the steak weighed. The sirloin tip, or knuckle, was removed from the canner style round and a 1 inch sirloin tip steak removed from the anterior face. A 3/4 inch full round steak (minus tip) was then cut from the re- maining round. A heel of round roast was removed from the round by cutting parallel with the face of the round at the largest part of the stifle joint and parallel to this cut at a point approximately 6 inches below it toward the hock. The remaining round was then separated into top and bottom round, a 3/4 inch top round steak and a 1 inch bottom round steak were then removed from the anterior face. The cutting was done by one individual in the MSU meats labora- tory. Each side was cut and the cooking data obtained before pre- ceeding to the next side. The cuts were stored at 3.3'C for approxi- mately 10 hours before transfer to the Foods and Nutrition Laboratory for cooking. 221 Cooking Four cooking methods were utilized: braising, broiling, roasting and simmering, for the various cuts studied. The cuts were kept in a 3.3‘C cooler while waiting to be cooked. Before cooking, the weight of the cut was obtained, as well as the combined weight of the cooking utensil and rack for each cut. .18- All braising was done according to the method suggested by Paul and Bean (1956), except that 100 ml. of water was added to each cut after browning. Heavy cast iron skillets and dutch ovens were used with tight fitting cast iron or glass covers. Browning of the cuts was accomplished on top of an electric range and the cooking was done in large gas heated ovens. In the broiling procedure, the cut was first weighed, then placed on a rack in a shallow pan which was previously weighed. A cooking thermometer was then placed as near as possible to the center of the largest muscle. The broiling was done in an electric oven at 177’C with the door slightly open to vent the oven and the cut was 8 inches from the heat source. When the internal temperature of the cut reached 35-40‘0, the cut was turned over and broiled until the internal temperature reached 58‘C. Roasting was done by placing the weighed cut fat side up on a rack in a shallow pan which was previously weighed. A meat thermo- meter was then inserted into the center of the largest muscle after which the cut was placed in a gas oven preheated to 163'0. The internal temperature of the roasted cuts was allowed to reach 76’C. Simmering was accomplished by weighing the cut and then browning in a previously weighed cast iron skillet. Browning of the cross-cut shank was done the same as for the braised cuts. However, the 1 inch neck cubes were turned until they were completely browned. After bwowning, 200 ml. of water was added, a tight glass lid applied and the cuts were cooked for 2% hours at 82'C on top of an electric range. A total of 25 cuts from the right side of each carcass studied was cooked by 4 different methods (table II). Table II Cooking Methods Used For The Various Cuts Cut 3rd rib chuck blade roast Cooking method braise 5th rib chuck blade roast braise 1st chuck arm roast braise 2nd chuck arm roast braise 2 rib English Corner braise sirloin tip steak braise flank steak braise full cut round steak minus tip braise top round steak braise bottom round steak braise heel of round roast braise 9th, 10th, llth, 12th short ribs from plate braise boneless brisket roast braise 9th rib steak broil club steak broil porterhouse steak broil tenderloin steak broil boneless strip steak broil pinbone sirloin steak ) broil double bone sirloin steak )minus tip broil wedgebone sirloin steak ) broil 7th and 8th standing rib roast roast 10th and llth standing rib roast roast cross-cut foreshank Simmer 1 in. cubes from neck simmer After reaching the desired degree of doneness each cut was weighed as soon as possible and the weight of the pan, rack, and drippings obtained. All external fat was removed and weighed, the intermuscular fat and bone were removed and weighed separately. The remaining cooked lean.was weighed as cooked edible portion. .All weights were obtained to the nearest .01 pound. Analysis of variance was carried out in accordance with Snedecor (1956) on certain of the retail cuts for: yield of trimmed retail cut from the untrimmed retail cut, cooking yield of the trimmed retail cut, and yield of cooked edible portion from the raw trimmed retail cut. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table III contains the means based on 27 carcasses of the following 3 yields for the 25 cuts studied: yield of trimmed retail cut (expressed as % of the untrimmed retail cut), cooking yield (expressed as % of the trimmed retail cut), yield of cooked edible portion (expressed as % of the trimmed retail cut). The trimmed retail cuts in this study resembled as closely as possible those offered to the consumer in retail markets in the midwest area. The cooked edible portion of each cut represents the cooked lean only, thus serving as a standard basis for the portion of each cooked cut to be termed "edible" and to satisfy the most discriminative consumer. Therefore, the cooking yield and yield of cooked edible portion found in this study are quite comparable to those which a consumer could expect from a cut purchased in a retail market. Yield of trimmed retail cut (expressed as % of the untrimmed out) The yields of the trimmed retail cuts indicates the relative amount of trimming required for the various retail cuts from carcasses of differ- ent weights and grades. Table IV indicates the manner in.which the cuts were grouped to facilitate consideration of this yield. The yields of the cuts in group A were not statistically analyzed because either they required little or no trimming, or they represented the retail cuts of lesser importance in the beef carcass. The yields of the cuts included in group B were combined in an analysis of variance, and the yield of round steak (group C) was considered separately in an analysis of vari- ance because it yielded considerably higher than the cuts included in group B o Table III Means of the 27 carcasses for the following yields of the retail cuts studied: yield of trimmed retail cut, cooking yield, and yield of cooked edible_portion Yield of Yield of , trimmed Cooking cooked Cut retail cut #yield ediblegportion_ (73 (535 73 Round steak 98.5 62.1 48.1 Wedge bone sirloin steak 95.7 81.7 59.7 Double bone sirloin steak 94.5 80.5 52.1 Pin bone sirloin steak 90.5 81.5 51.0 Porterhouse steak 87.7 77.3 55.0 9th rib steak 91.2 78.9 50.5 Club steak 85.4 77.1 49.6 7th and 8th rib roast 94.1 72.4 42.8 10th and llth rib roast 91.4 71.5 44.1 lst arm chuck roast 84.9 64.4 47.4 2nd arm chuck roast 77.0 64.2 45.6 3rd rib chuck roast 93.4 68.2 42.4 5th rib chuck roast 93.8 68.8 40.9 2 rib English Corner 99.6 71.1 37.4 Strip steak 89.4 74.4 64.9 Tenderloin steak 100.0 79.9 79.9 Sirloin tip steak 95.6 59.6 46.5 Flank steak 98.4 61.1 58.9 Top round steak 97.1 53-3 53-3 Bottom round steak 98.7 60.1 53.6 Heel of round pot roast 99.7 55.4 53.8 Boneless brisket 91.0 67.8 43.8 filortribs 96.3 77.0 34.2 1 inch neck cubes 100.0 63.6 63.6 Cross-cut foreshank 100.0 72.3 44.8 * -23- Table IV Distribution of the retail cuts within the groups utilized in considering the_gield_of the trimmed retail cut GROUP A — GROUP B GROUP C tenderloin steak boneless strip steak top round steak bottom round steak flank steak sirloin tip steak 2 rib English corner heel of round roast boneless brisket roast 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th short- ribs from plate 1 in. cubes from neck cross cut foreshank pinbone sirloin steak round steak wedge bone sirloin steak double bone sirloin steak 7th and 8th standing rib roast 10th and llth standing rib roast 3rd rib chuck blade roast 5th rib chuck blade roast lst chuck arm roast 2nd diuck am roast 9th rib steak club steak porterhouse steak The grade means of this yield for each of the cuts included in.Group A are oresented in table V. Aside from those cute which required no trimming, there was generally more trimming necessary for the cuts from higher grade carcasses. Table V Grade means of the yield of trimmed retail cut for the cuts included in Group A Cut Standard Good Choice (75) 6%) 6’0 * Tenderloin steak 100.0 100.0 100.0 Boneless strip steak 93.7 91.7 82.9 Top round steak 97.7 97.9 95.8 Bottom round steak 100.0 98.4 97.8 Flank steak 99.3 98.9 96.9 Sirloin tip steak 97.7 93.8 95.2 2 rib English corner 100.0 99.7 99.3 Heel of round pot roast 100.0 99.4 99.7 Boneless brisket 93.9 90-1 83.9 Short ribs 99.4 96.4 93.2 1 inch neck cubes 100.0 100.0 100.0 Cross-cut feroshank 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘- Grade and cut means of this yield, together with their standard errors for the cuts included in group B are presented in Figure I. Ekam- ination of the relative yields of the various cuts in group B, as indicated .by the cut means (Figure I) revealed a tendency that as the region of the loin in the carcass was approached from either end, an increasing amount Of trimming was required for the retail cuts. This is evidenced by the decreasing yield of trimmed retail cut obtained as one proceeds anteri- orly from.the wedge bone sirloin steak (95.7%) to the double bone sirloin steak (94.59am further to the pin bone sirloin steak (90.55) and the porterhouse steak (87.7%). In addition, a decrease in the yield of the trimmed retail cut was noted as one proceeds posteriorly from the 7th and 8th rib roast (94.1%) to the 10th and llth rib roast (91.4%), and also froa the 9th rib steak (91.2%) to the club steak (85.4%). An examination of the relative yields of the 4 chuck roasts included in group B indi- cated that much more trining was required for the arm chuck roasts than for the blade chuck roasts. However, it must be realized that the an chuck roasts had some lean removed from then during trimming. The 2nd are chuck roast yielded considerably less than the let an chuck roast which can be attributed to a larger amount of internuccular (seam) fat in the 2nd arm chuck roast than in the lst am, chuck roast which was ob- served thnoughout the study. 0n comparison of the standard errors of the means of the cut yields, it was noted that the mean yields of the cuts which required the met trimming, generally had the higher standard errors. ll'heso cuts (group B) were combined into a single overall analysis of variance of this yield (table VI) which indicated a highly signifi. cant difference betwwn the mean yields of the various cuts. As indi- cated in Figure I, no significant difference was found between the mean yield of the wedge bone sirloin steak (95.7%), double bone sirloin steak (94.5%), 7th and 8th rib roast (94.1%), 5th rib chuck roast (93.8%), and 3rd rib chuck roast (93.4%). 01‘ these cuts, all except the 3rd rib chunk roast had significantly higher mean yields than that of the 10th and 11th rib roast (91.4%), which itself was not significantly higher than that of the 9th rib steak (91.2%), or of the pin bone sirloin steak (90.5%). However, the mean yield of the 3rd rib chuck roast was significantly higher than that of the pin bone sirloin steak. All of the aforementioned cuts had a significantly higher mean yield than that of the porterhouse steak (87.1%) which was significantly higher than that of the club steak (85.4%), which itself was not significantly higher than that from the let arm chuck roast (84.9%). The mean yield of the 2nd arm chuck roast (77.0%) was significantly less than that of all of the other cuts in- cluded in group B. From.the combined analySis of variance of the yield of these cuts (tablem, a highly significant difference was noted between the grade means of this yield for the cuts in group B. The mean yield of these cuts from standard grade carcasses (92.4%) was significantly higher than that from.good grade carcasses (90.4%), which itself was significantly higher than that from choice grade carcasses (87.£%). Here, as in the cuts in group A, more trimming was necessary for the cuts from higher grade carcasses. However, this is what one would expect since a larger amount of external fat is generally associated with carcasses of the higher grades. No significant interaction was found between cuts and carcass weights within grades, suggesting that the ranking of the cuts according to this yield was the same in each carcass weight group studied. Similarly, no significant interaction was found between cuts and grades, so the ranking of the cuts according to this yield was the same in the 3 grades studied. However, a significant difference was indicated between the yield of these cuts from different weight carcasses within the grades (table VI). Yield (fi) -27- IHMMEI Grade and cut means of the yields of trimmed retail cuts (expressed as % of the untrimmed retail cut) for the cuts included in group B, together with their standard errors and SlfnifiCJDT differences between the cut means. Mean Stand; Sign. Grade Yield Trror Bet- ------~---—-~ * . - (7;) (4;) __ _ ween. L___£§E- E C? Cut Cut 97 r 95.7 0.47 Hedge bone sirloin / Sii‘i-‘J’. \\\\ 04.5 g0.TG Double bone sirloin k/,//”/ i steak l 93 t 94.1, 0.36 7th and 8th rih roast ‘___. 93.8 0.46 5th rib chuck roast 89 . \\ ;:\\\‘ 93.4 0.48 3rd rib chuck roast 91.4 0.59 10th and 11th rib roast 85 > 91.2 0.40 9th rib steak K\\\\ 90.5 1.15 Pin bone sirloin steak 81) ‘\\ 87.7 1.47 Pbrterhouse steak I b\ r i 85.4 0.82 Club steak ; ‘ § 77 L 84.9 0.90 lst arm chuck roast ' 77.0 1.05 2nd arm chuck roast j k//// ? 73 h J L‘ - A I - .~._.«...... _ 92.4 90.4 87.1 Grade Mean (fl) 0.88 0.39 0.46 Standard Error (5) Table VI Combined analysis of variance of the yield of trimmed retail cuts for the cuts in group B from carcasses of different weights and grades. lie-gree 8 Sum of Mean Source of Variance of Freedom Squares ngare F Between grades 2 1545.41 772.70 14.01%» Between.weights (within grade) 6 330.12 55.02 3.42%» Between.cuts 11 8634.63 784.97 48.62ss Cuts x grades 22 358.26 16.28 N.S. Cuts X weights (within grade) 66 683.73 10.36 N.S. Error 216 3864.83 17.89 Pooled error 304 4906.82 16.14 Total 323 15417.10 I7Testedagainst between.weights (within grade) mean square. /Tested against pooled error mean square formed from the Error, Cuts X weights (within grades) and Cuts X Grades. 4*significant at p - .01 level. Means of the yields of the cuts included in group B from different carcass weight groups within each grade, together with their standard errors and indications of significant differences between the means where they occur, are presented in table VII. Separate analyses of variance for each grade indicated a significant difference in the mean yield of these cuts from different weight carcasses within the grades of good and Choice, but not within the grade of standard. These analyses appear in table 1111. Within the good grade the mean yield of these cuts from 400/500 1b, carcasses (91.7%) was significantly higher than that from 600/700 lb. carcasses (89.0%), but the yield from 500/600 lb. carcasses (90.6%) was not significantly different from that of the other 2 weights. In the choice grade the mean yield of these cuts from 700/800 1b. car- casses (88.2%) was not significantly different than that from 500/600 1b. carcasses (87.&%), however, both were significantly higher than that from BOO/700 lb. carcasses (85.4%). Within the standard grade no signi- ficant difference was found between the mean yield of these cuts from 300/400 15. carcasses (92.8%), 500/600 1b. carcasses (92.7%), and 400/ 500 lb. carcasses (91.7%). There was, therefore, no consistent relation- ship indicated from grade to grade in the mean yield of these cuts from different weight carcasses. From the pooled error in the analyses of the yield of these cuts from each grade, it was noted that the variability in the yield of a particular cut from carcasses of the same weight was of the same order of magnitude in each grade (table VIIIL Table VII Means of the yield of trimmed retail cuts for the cuts included in group B from the different carcass weight groups within each grade, together with their standard errors and indications of significant differences between the means. .__7 Standard_ Good “__7 __. Choice Carcass Mean Carcass Mean Carcass Mean wt. yield Sign. wt. yield Sign. wt. yield Sign. _grgup 4% Diff. group % Diff. _group {% Diff. 300/400 92.8 400/500 91.7 700/800 88.2 500/600 92.7 500/600 90.6 500/600 87.8 400/500 91.7 600/700 89.0 600/700 85.4 Standard .error of ya (2) 0,59 0.65 0.76 -30.. CHOPOH HO. I a 8..“ .Hobo .Ho>o.n mo. 0 VOHOOQ #0..» Md U0 00 Ill VNombhv {Eamon K 3: can a --- 3.58m fives omomvmfl VOomH ”mu-adv." 8.3 8.36 . l a on ma seat." 8.: 8.83 as .mCZ m”.2 C O O 0 348 .m z «e 3 8.3a .m z 8 s 3.63 «a .23.. f K 350 than." 0min 8.2L.» 3.133 :63 Edam» 1.1.: 3..an 3.33 .3 33 8.3.5 1%.. 3.3 8.5." .1... 3.5 832 ”6.2 3.2 3.5 a .33... 5.30: M 0.353 3.353 h Page 3.85.» a chase. mousse» ‘ locooum can; use: E Idox mo HM laoF E Ho 3950: Ho 00.58 J 003.6 gown «53551 .m 95.5 5.. vegan: 3.8 05. so.“ scam :30 55%: 333.80 «:32. «4.8823 s8.“ 33 .33.: eon-5.3 mo 30.?» 05 no 005?...» no 32315 HE Quads Grade and carcass weight group means of the yield of trimmed round steak, together with their standard errors and indications of significant differences between the means where they occur, are presented in table II. ‘No significant difference‘was indicated between the mean.yield of round steak from different grades when the grades were combined into a single analysis of variance of the yield of this cut (table X). Thus, the mean.yields of round steak from standard grade carcasses (99.3%), good grade carcasses (99.2%), and choice grade carcasses (96.9%) were not significantly different (table IX). Hewever, the analysis of variance showed a highly significant difference between the mean yield of round steak from different weight carcasses within the grades. Separate ana- lyses of variance for each grade indicated that this was due to a signi- ficant difference between the mean yield of round steak from different weight carcasses within the choice grade (table XI). Within this grade (table IX) the mean yield of round steak from 500/000 1b. carcasses (98.6%) was significantly higher than that from 700/800 1b. carcasses (97.0%), which itself was significantly higher than that from 600/700 1b. carcasses (95.2%). It was the author's observation that, in general, the carcasses from the 700/800 lb. weight group in the choice grade were well muscled, Ind only a lack of finish kept them from being placed in the prime grade. This may account for the relatively high yield of trimmed retail cuts in- eluding the round steak from the carcasses of this weight group in the choice grade. There'were no significant differences in the mean.yield of round steak from different weight carcasses within the grades of standard and good (tables Ix, II). Here, as for the cuts in group B, the variabi- lity in the yield of round steak was of the same order of magnitude within each grade as noted from the error terms of the analyses presented in table II. g1 (luff flweo omeo Nmoo Gov flame 06.95% mmdohfio MO MOQ “.3th o e e . il a ma N am m we ARV aces renew meccaso ‘1‘ wanes ecsuw «cheese sharpen .mmdc .emam El - e e s . .7 M“ «m6 me o mm 0 AS sees csonm “Ewwo: mo ache shutdown . ll: 41! an.“a oce\ooc s.ea ooe\ooc «.ma oom\ooe o.ea oom\oos o.ooa ooc\oom m.aa occ\oom wea ooc\oom o.ooH o0m\ooe o.ooa coe\oom ans- s .. -- , w aha s as... .amwm each» .«s .smam cache .s: .awam cases .ss . use: neeohp neon $3.26 new? 3380 .11 comer—o voow vumcnspm .2802 on» smegma moccoaommv «scanning.» mo mdomweofivaw nae Quote uneven: .323 5a: horsemen. .xsoue canon confine» mo 33% 2:. mo edema anew ”Ewan: essence use 03.5 NH 0.388 -33- Table X Anakysis of variance of the yield of trimmed round steak from different weights and grades of carcasses Source of variance D.F. Sum.of squares Mean square F hemeen grades 2 31.36 15.68 N. 5.1 between weights (within grade) 6 31.32 5.25 4.8%” Error 18 19.77 1.10 Total 26 82.45 fi“l I7Tested against between.weights‘?Vithih grade? fiéén square. N.S. ' non-significant at p = .05 level. ** significant at p ' .01 level. #33 no. u a «a «5.33:»? a oHQEH mo. I a pa Wgogmwna do: .- omon mm 23 mm .wH or. o." w Haven. .86 34. «m4 3.... Sta 8;. w .85 3.8 36 3.5 6.2 and ”93 5.2 93 2...." a ”£33.. «833 h 0.8mm» none—ado .m 0.526» 3.8%» .m 0.353 00.353 .md 033.3.» sex mo “MM 5% he 5%: new: no EMM Mo 00.50% «398 1 38 Recast... 63.5 :30 55.“: 333.80 «swash «598.30 loam “13» 3:8 “.83.“: mo 335.05 90 3:3? mo 30:34. HM Danae '35- Cooking_yie1d (expressed as;% of the trimmed retail cutl The distribution of the retail cuts among the various groups used in considering the cooking yields is presented in table 111. The yields of the cuts in group A were not analyzed statistically because either they represented the retail cuts of lesser importance in the beef carcass or similar cuts were included in the statistical analysis. The remainp ing cuts were grouped in the fellowing manner: roasted cuts in group B, broiled cuts in group C, braised cuts (except round steak) in group D, and the round steak in group E. The round steak was not included in group D with the other braised cuts because it was not as thick as the chuck roasts included in group D, and was not comparable to the cuts in group D with respect to cooking yields. Separate analyses of variance were carried out on the yields of each group of cuts in table XII except group A. The grade means of the cooking yield for the cuts included in group A are presented in table XIII. Except for short ribs and cross-cut foreshank, the cuts in group A (which were braised or simmered) yielded considerably less than those which were broiled. The cooking yields 0f the broiled cuts in group A tended to be lower for the cuts from the higher grade carcasses. The relatively high c00kin8 yields 0f th° 2 rib English corner and short ribs among the braised cuts and the cross-cut foreshank among the cuts simmered in group A can be attributed to a considerable amount of bone in those cuts. No consistent relationship frOngrade to grade was indicated among the cooking yields of the braised or simmered cuts in group A. fiflafifi asses onsosaovaom 4333.3 0.3: 9.3km 9.23. 3" ow:o\m 060.2580 chat macaw mans». a.“ uv~5\N .voweeos use: macaw emnu em ewmmkm unannohom asoummouo sense use: .nw H Shae ease up? is.» name .guaa .epoa .eea voxnwhn assesses «uses «ca cases me use: seduce :eHstu,a«s a flflafiafifihu mucus has sum punch 303:0 and can Meow» madam seeps «neon mouse and «ma sfioHsfie esoeaofinsoe scope unsou_soavop «wees usevu «odes has wqa Meow» eases gov guano ocean as» can cheeses anon-=ea needs» need can secs xeeae mauve eeoaeaen pesos meow» «uses has known eases Hesse eeeao age can aweauwe each sweet mawensve ham use :9» mean» qwoauoesov flu game no .535 no .598 am .338 « game .ueaeah maqxooo one mawueeuesoo a“ we»: museum msowam> one macaw ease deepen ecu mo_aofivsnwuuewn HHN OHnms -37- Table XIII Grade means of the cooking yield of each of the 12 cuts included in Group A (expressed as % of the trimmed retail cut) Method of .._ Grade Cut CookigL Standard Good Choice Tenderloin steak Broil 81.2 80.6 78.0 Boneless strip steak Broil 76.9 75.3 71.1 Top round steak Braise 57.8 57.9 59.3 Bottoa round steak Braise 59.4 59.9 60.9 Flank steak Braise 60.6 61.1 61.6 Sirloin tip steak Braise 58.7 60.6 59.6 2 rib English corner Braise 72.7 70.8 69.8 Heel of round pot roast Braise 65.3 65.1 65.8 Boneless brisket Braise 65.8 70.7 67.0 Short ribs Braise 76.3 76.4 78.2 1 inch neck cubes Simmer 64.4 62.5 64.0 Cross-cut foreshank Simmer 71.6 72.6 72.6 Grade and cut scene of the cooking yields of the 2 roasted cuts in- cluded in group B, together with their standard errors and indications of significant differences between the leans, are presented in Figure II. huination of the lean yield of each cut from grade to grade showed that the 7th and 8th standing rib roast had a higher cooking yield than the 10th and 11th rib roast in each of the 3 grades. Both the 7th and 8th standing rib roast and the 10th and 11th standing rib roast from the 800d grade carcasses had higher mean cooking yields than those from standard grade carcasses, which yielded higher than those from choice -38.. grade carcasses. When the 2 cuts were combined in an analysis of vari- ance of this yield (table XIV), no significant difference was found between the mean cooking yields of the 2 roasts or between the mean yields of these roasts from different weight carcasses within the grades. However, a highly significant difference was found between the mean cooking yields of these cuts from different grades. The mean cooking yield of the 7th and 8th standing rib roast (72.4%) was not significantly higher than that of the 10th and llth standing rib roast (71.5%). The mean cooking yield of these 2 roasts from good grade carcasses (73.8%) was significantly higher than that from choice grade carcasses (69.7%). However, the mean cooking yield of these 2 roasts from standard grade carcasses (72.3%) was not significantly lower than that from good grade carcasses (73.873). nor significantly higher than that from choice grade carcasses. No significant interaction was found between cuts and carcass weight groups within grade, which suggests that the ranking of these 2 outs according to this yield was the same in each carcass weight group. Similarly, no significant interaction was found between cuts and grades, indicating that the ranking of these cuts was the same in each grade. As evidenced by the relative cooking yields of these rib roasts from different grades, no definite relationship was indicated between the cooking yield of the rib roasts and carcass grade. For the broiled cuts included in group 0, grade and out means of the cooking yields with their standard errors and indications of significant differences between the means are presented in Figure III. The cooking yields of the cuts in group C were combined into an analysis of variance (table XV), which showed a significant difference between the mean cooking Yield 0‘) 76 75' 74 73 72 71 7O 69 -39- FIGURE II and indications of significant differences between the cuts. _ —- --—--- Grade and cut means of the cooking yields of the roasted cuts included in group B, together with their standard errors Mean Stand. Sign. Grade Yield Error Bet- c (5) (1) Cut ween 72.4 1.01 7th and 8th standing rib roast 71.5 0.57 10th and 11th standing rib roast 7333 697/ 1.36 0.83 0.69 Grade Means Standard Error Ci) (1) Table XIV Combined analysis of variance of the cooking yields of the 7th and 8th, 10th and 11th standing rib roasts (group B) Source of Variance D.F. Sum of Square Mean Square F between grades 2 156.39 78.20 4.8141- between‘weights (within grade) 6 218.09 36.35 N.S. between cuts 1 10.36 10.36 N.S. cuts x grades 2 0.58 0.29 N.S. cuts x weights (within.grade) 6 70.99 11.83 N.S. Error 36 651.71 18.10 Pooled Error 44 723.28 16.44 Total 53 1108.12 I7Tested against pooled error mean square formed from cuts 1 grades, cuts x‘weights (within grade) and Error. N.S. ' non-significant at p ' .05 level. esignificant at p - .05 level. yields of these cuts from different grade carcasses. The mean cooking yield of these cuts from standard grade carcasses (80.8%) was not signi- ficantly higher than that from good grade carcasses (80.3%). however, both were significantly higher than that from choice grade carcasses (77.5%). This indicated that in general, the cooking yields of the broiled cuts included in group C were higher for these cuts from.lewer grade carcasses, although significant differences were not found until the grade increased fromtgood to choice. This may be due to a smaller difference in.fatness between these cuts from standard and good grade carcasses than between those from.standard or good grade carcasses " and those from.choice grade carcasses. The analysis of variance showed a.highky significant difference between the cooking yields of the various broiled cuts included in group C (table XV). The mean cooking yield of the wedge bone sirloin steak (81.7%) was not significantly higher than that of the pin bone sirloin steak, which itself was not significantly higher than that of the double bone sirloin steak (80.5%). or these, all but the double bone sirloin steak had a significantly higher mean cooking yield than that of the 9th rib steak (78.9%). 0f the aforemenp tioned cuts, all except the 9th rib steak had a significantly higher mean cooking yield than did the porterhouse steak (77.4%), which itself was not significantly higher than that of the club steak (77.1%). Examination of the relative cooking yields of the broiled cuts in group C as indicated by their means in figure III indicated that the sirloin steaks yielded higher than the other 3 cuts in this group. From the analysis of variance, it was shown that no significant interaction existed between cuts and carcass weight groups within the grades, suggesting that the ranking of the broiled cuts in group C accor- ding to their cooking yield was the same in each carcass weight group within the grades. Similarly, no significant interaction was found between cuts and grades, which indicated that the ranking of these cuts according to this yield was the same in each grade. However, the analysis showed a Significant difference in the mean cooking yields of these cuts from different weight carcasses within the grades (Table XV). Separate analyses 0f variance of each grade showed that this effect was not large enough to be significant in any of the 3 grades (Table XVI). Ekamination of the pooled error term in each of the analyses of variance (Table XVI) indicated Yield (fl) Grade and cut means of the cooking yields of the broiled cuts -42- FIGURE III included in group C, together with their standard errors and in- dications of significant differences between the cuts. J»... sand: Sign“ Grade, Yield Error‘ Bet- (% (%) ..______..Cut .__-_ een 5? E 0}; Cuts 83- 81.7 0.62 Wedge bone sirloin steak 82v 81.5 0.66 Pin bone sirloin steak 81L 80.5 0.57 Double bone sirloin steak 30. 78.9 0.56 9th rib steak 79? / 77.4 0.81 Pbrtcrhouse steak 73F 77.1 0.70 Club steak 77* 76* 75} 74} 73L sofa 8013 77f5 0.42 0.46 0.51 Grade “can Standard Error (5) -43- that the variability in the cooking yield of a particular cut in group C from every carcass weight group was of the same order of magnitude in each grade. Table XV Combined analysis of variance of the cooking yields of the broiled cuts included in group C. Source of Variance D.F. Sum of Squarefl Mean Square F between grades 2 335.68 167.84 6.42% between weights (within grade) 6 156.58 26.10 2.21% between cuts 5 552.61 110.52 9.21%. cuts x grades 10 196.37 19.64 N.S. cuts x weights (within grade) 30 326.14 10.87 N.S. Error 108 1264.23 11.70 Pooled Error 148 1786.74 12.08 Total 161 2831.68 :7Tested against poaled error mean square formed from cuts x grades, _‘" cuts x weights (within grade) and Error. Tested against between weights (within grade) mean square. N.S. ' nonpsignificant at p ' .05 level. *significant at p - .05 level. fissignificant at p - .01 level. The means of the grades and cuts for the cooking yields of the braised cuts included in group D with their standard errors and indications of the significant differences between the cuts are presented in figure IV. Naturally, no significant difference was found between the mean cooking yields of these cuts from.the different grades as indicated in .Ho>oH Ho. I a as «unnameaMfinst .Ho>oH mo. I a we vndoamwnwwn a .Ho>oa mo. I a «a vasofimaqunucon I .m.z .uonum was .nva x made we as some sheave uses nouns coaooa ancesms covnoamm eu.mmoa Hfl.dne mo.awo mm fleece oe.~a H>.mbm hm.HH mw.omm «H.0H ew.mmv we henna coaocm mH.¢H mp.oam mm.aa mm.ao¢ em.m Hm.m¢m mm henna .m.z om.o mm.mm .m.z wo.va mm.cva .m.z mm.md mm.mma OH .e«:.x nwso eaflb.o a~.mm mv.wav H.m.z ab.mm mm.mma aao.v Nb.o¢ om.moa m @950 escapes H.m.z mm.wm mc.mb H.m.z so.mm wm.Hb H.w.z mo.w wH.~H N .nuz.noosaon h sheave schema» m oassvm woodman m sheave meadows .h.n consansw no use: we saw use: we Sam use: me new oowsom oomono coou onsccsym. o asoam a“ cousaoqw muse ooafioan one we awash» mcexooo one mo mosum some new eonsfias> mo momzflecs opensaom H>x sands .45.. the combined analysis of variance of the cooking yields of these cuts in table XVII, since the mean cooking yields of these cuts was identical for each of the 3 grades (66.4%). The analysis of variance did indicate a highly significant difference between the mean cooking yields of the vari- ous cuts (Table XVII). The:mean cooking yield of the 5th rib blade chuck roast (68.8%) was not significantly higher than that of the 3rd rib blade chuck roast, however, both were significantly higher than that of the lst arm.chuck roast (64.4%), which itself was not significantly higher than that of the 2nd arm chuck roast (64.2%). Thus, among the chuck roasts the blade chuck roasts had higher cooking yields than the arm.chuck roasts. This was likely due to a larger amount of bone and fat in the blade chuck roasts than in the arm chuck roasts. It was observed throughout the study that during braising the fatter cuts had lower cooking losses than the lean cuts. From the combined analysis of variance (Table XVII), it was shown that no significant interaction existed between cuts and carcass weight groups within grades, suggesting that the ranking of the cuts in group D according to their cooking yield was the same from each carcass weight group within the grades. Similarly, the combined analysis of variance showed no significant interaction between cuts and grades, which indicated that the ranking of these cuts according to this yield was the same in each grade. However, a significant difference was found between the mean cooking yield of these cuts from different weight carcasses within the grades (Table XVII). Means of the cooking yields of the braised cuts from each carcass weight group within the grades, together with their standard errors and significant differences between the means are presented in table XVIII. Yield (fl) Mean tandlv Sign. Grade Yield ror Bet- ST G H (5) (fl) Cut Effie“ f _$ _5 -- .1.-.) -. ts 4 70 . 68.8 0.38 5th rib blade chuck / roast 69 i //////A\\\\\‘ 68.2 0.39 3rd rib blade chuck k//// roast 68 F 67 t 66 r I 64.4 0.46 lst arm chuck roast ‘ 65 ,. V i 64 f ‘ \ 64.2 0.39 2nd arm chuck roast 63 L i A L L 1 FIGURE IV Grade and cut means of the cooking yields of the braised cuts included in group 0, together with their standard errors ant in- dications of significant differences between the cuts. 66.4 66.3 66.4 0.32 0.36 0.31 Grade Mean (f) Standard Error (fl) -47.. Table XVII Combined analysis of variance of the cooking yields of the braised cuts included in group D. Source of variance D.F. Sum of Squares Mean Square F between grades 2 0.09 0.05 N.s.1 between weights (within grade) 6 123.45 20.58 6.01** betwaen cuts 3 484.89 161.68 47.11“ cuts x grades 6 18.10 3.02 N.S. cuts x weights (within grade) 18 29.15 1.62 N.S. Error 72 282.27 3.92 Pooled Error 96 329.52 3.43 Total 107 939.00 I7Tgsted against pooled error mean square formed from cuts x grades, cuts x weights (within grade) and Error. N.S. ' non-significant at p - .05 level. **significant at p ' .01 level. Separate analyses of variance of the cooking yields of these cuts for each grade (Table XIX) indicated a significant difference between the mean yields of these cuts from different weight carcasses in the standard and good grades but not in the choice grade. Within the standard grade the mean cooking yields of these cuts from 300/400 lb. carcasses (68.1%) was significantly higher than that from 400/500 lb. carcasses (66.0%), which itself was not significantly higher than that from.500/600 lb. car. casses (65.1%). In the good grade, the mean xyield of these cuts from 400/500 lb. carcasses (68.1%) was significantly higher than that from 500/600 1b. carcasses (66.1%), which in turn was significantly higher -48- than that from.600/700 lb. carcasses (64.9%). In the choice grade the lean.yield of these cuts from.600/700 lb. carcasses (66.7%) was not sig- nificantly higher than that from 700/800 lb. carcasses (66. 75), which itself was significantly higher than that from 500/600 1b. carcasses (66.3%). Examination of the relative mean cooking yields of the cuts included in group D from carcasses of different weights within the grades (Table XVIII) revealed a decrease in the cooking yield of these cuts as the weight of the carcasses decreased within both the standard and good grades but not within the choice grade. This is probably due to the larger proportion of bone in these cuts from the lighter carcasses in the standard and good grades. As evidenced by the pooled error terms in the separate analyses of variance for each grade (Table XIX), the varia- bility in the cooking yield of a particular cut in group D from every carcass weight group was of the same order of magnitude in each grade. Table XX contains the grade means of the cooking yield of the round steak, together with their standard errors. Analysis of variance (Table XII) showed a significant difference between the mean cooking yields of round steak from.different grade carcasses but not from different weight carcasses. The mean cooking yield of round steak from choice grade car- casses (63.3%) was not significantly higher than that from good grade carcasses (62.4%), however, both were significantly higher than that from standard grade carcasses (60.6%). Thus, an increase in cooking yield of the round steak was observed as carcass grade increased. This could be due to a larger amount of fat in the round steaks from the higher grade carcasses, because during braising there was a tendency for the fatter cuts to have lower cooking losses than the leaner cuts. Hm.o mm.o om.o Aev ease Mo nouns . assessed 0. .6 I. m an ooe\oon a.ee ooe\ooa H.me ooa\oom . e.en oon\ooe H.me ooe\oon o.ee oom\ooe s.me ooe\ooo ”.me oom\ooe a.na ooe\oom . ARV macaw Axv \msohm & macaw ease ease» sense: .aeae needs sense: .acee neon» sense: O‘HWHm 111 502 mmdogo Gamma Gd”; mmfloofiflu “WNWMM gwufi mmdogo cowoxn coco wuewanem .mseoe on» escapee moo:onomm«u vasoamflcmem mo naowvsoflnaw and unease cascades Mecca sue: noswemoa .ounum nose canvas macaw vswwor massage nose Scum a macaw aw vocsaocw nwso confides one we neaofih mnaxooo one we ease: HHH>x manna .Ho>oH do. I a as vasofimwameoss .Ho>oa mo. I a we pdsoHMfiamemIac: I .m.z .aonum can mvnmmoz.x maze scam coasom cannon cams house deacon on» vanesws vevnoemm oa.eem me.mme we.me~ mm Hence ma.m oe.mm ea.» me.maa om.m Ho.am om cease eeaoom em.» me.ow an.e ma.oaa om.m me.na ea sauna .m.z vH.~ mm.~H .m.z He.a me.m .m.z Hm.a on.» o .enna63.x ease .eam.ea aw.on ee.~ma .aam.oa em.mn Ho.ee~ aaHe.oa ee.em ~m.mofl m aeae escapee H.m.z mm.o we.o eaao.w mm.am mm.mo .eHo.m Ne.m~ we.mm a enemas: aaaoeee amazes: a chosen noussvm a season mounmmw m oussmw mousswn .h.n consens> mo oousom use: mo 35m II: can: mo sum and: mo 5mm 1!: oomoso 11. coco vameasvm [In .n macaw a“ wounded“ maze uneven: one mo endow» wnwxooo one mo onsum some hem eodswan> mo nomhflsdd ewshsaom MHx OHQaH - 51 . Table XX Grade means of the cooking yield of the round steak (group E), together with their standard errors and indications of significant differences. Mean Standard Sign. Grade gyieldggz) error C%) diff. ___ choice 63.3 0.54 good 62.4 0.59 standard 60.6 0.63 Table XXI Analysis of variance of the cooking yield of the round steak (group E). Degrees Source of variance of Sum of Mean F __. freedom squares square between grades 2 34.90 17.45 5.6a between weight groups (within grade) 6 21.05 3.51 N.S. Error 18 55.95 3.11 . Total 26 111.90 asignifiCant at p 3 .05 level. The results of this study seemed to indicate that the main.factors affecting cooking losses were cooking methods!!! degree of doneness and the composition of the cut. A decrease in cooking yield was found to accompany an increase in degree of doneness as indicated by the cooking yield of the broiled cuts being higher than that of the roasted cuts, Which in turn was higher than that of the braised cuts. This is in agree. ment with the results observed from veal studies by Paul and McLean (1946) -53.- Yield of cooked edible portion (expressed as % of the trimmed retail out) It has been shown in this and previous studies (Paul and McLean (1946), Chappell (1954)) that as the degree of doneness as measured by the internal temperature of a cut is increased the cooking losses also increased. Therefore, since the different cooking methods employed in this study involved cooking cuts to different degrees of doneness, it is evident that cooking method would affect the yield of cooked edible por- tion. For this reason the cuts were grouped in the very same manner for the consideration of their yields of cooked edible portion as they were previously for consideration of their cooking yields. The distribution of the retail cuts among the various groups used in considering the cooked edible portion yields is preSented in table XXII. The yields of the cuts included in group A were not analyzed statis- tically, however, the yields of the cuts in the remaining groups were statistically analyzed. The cuts in group B were roasted, those in group C were broiled, and the cuts in groups D and B were braised. Again, as in the previous discussions of other yields, the round steak was consi- dered separately with regards to its yield of cooked edible portion. It must be kept in mind that in this study the yield of cooked edible portion represents the cooked lean portion of the cut only. Grade means of the yield of cooked edible portion of the cuts in- cluded in group A, together with the cooking method employed for each of these cuts are presented in table XXIII. Examination of the relative yields of cooked edible portion from grade to grade of the various cuts included in group A revealed no consistent relationship. However, consi- derable difference was noted between the yields of the different cuts in - 54 - goose nsflo xsopm omsonhovuom xeoum nus gym «mock xosno sue tam xooym pesos xosno sud va afloaufim econ canyon wmoou x0530 ocean nee tum xmoem afloau«m econ Gem vmsou xdowo xmewm udsou xosso ocean nfiu gym afloauflm each wave: .nonfleun who: msohw was» aw mu:p\m .uoaeopp who: msoum menu a“ mpso\m .newmsOA who: macaw was» cw mpzomw vouch pmu wcuecasm :eHH and ;»OH ymoou pus mustangs new use has xcosmeuom vsonmmouo moose xoo: .qfl H oweaa scum mnwu vhosm some .asaa .seoa .nvm voxwwun mmoaocon peace «on vczou mo Hoes season :mflawnm pea N geese as» guesses xeowm xcdam xoowm muses sowpon xdopm EEO." mow xsovm mauve mmoaocon xmowm awoahoccov mm magma mm macaw mo macaw III am .336 4 memo .mcaowh dowwuoa eacfico moxooo one mcfiuocwmcoo cw wows mezouw msowum> exp moose maze weave» ocw we :owvsnflhumam Hwa oHpoE -55- group A. The cuts in group A notably high in bone and/or fat content yielded less than those containing smaller amounts of these constituents when cooked by the same method. Table XXIII Grade means of the yield of cooked edible portion of the cuts included in group A (expressed as S of the trimmed retail cut) Method Grade of Standard Good Choice __ Cut Cooking % % ,% tenderloin steak Broil 81.2 80.6 78.0 boneless strip steak Broil 65.3 56.5 62.9 top round steak Braise 52.6 53.8 53.5 bottom round steak Braise 55.0 54.0 51.7 flank steak Braise 59.3 59.4 58.1 sirloin tip steak Braise 47.2 45.5 46.8 2 rib English corner Braise 39.5 37.0 35.8 heel of round pot roast Braise 54.9 54.3 52.4 boneless brisket Braise 44.7 45.0 41.7 short ribs Braise 35.8 34.1 32.6 1 in. neck cubes Simmer 64.4 62.5 64.0 cross-cut foreshank Simmer 44.2 44.2 46.0 Grade and cut means of the yields of cooked edible portion of the 7th and 8th standing rib roast and the 10th and llth standing rib roast (group B), together with their standard errors are presented in.Figure V. A combined analysis of variance of the yields of these cuts (table XXIV) indicated no significant difference between the mean yield of the 10th 45 A («O A N Yield (fl) A H 40 - 56 - 51cm: v Grade and cut means of the yields of cooked edible portion of the roasted cuts included in proup B, together with their standard errors and indications of sirnificant differences hot- veen the cuts. ‘theanIStandj ‘m— TgighIW Grade Yieldifirror‘ fPet- (7%) : «a W ween L... ““83 E C}! _ 1CutS. 44.1 0.89 10th and 11th standing rib roast‘ 42.8 0.40 7th and 8th standing rib roast " ——fi"‘" "‘ lt V’ 43.7 44.2 42.4 0.37 0.83 0.59 Grade Mean (fl) Standard Error (fl) -57- and 11th standing rib roast (44.1%) and that of the 7th and 8th standing rib roast (42.8%). Also, no significant difference was indicated between the mean yield of these cuts from standard grade carcasses (43.7%), good grade carcasses (44.2%), and choice grade carcasses (42.4%). The analy- sis indicated that no significant difference existed between the mean yield of these cuts from different weight carcasses within the grades. Further, the combined analysis of variance of the yields of these cuts showed no significant interaction between cuts and grades, suggesting that the ranking of these standing rib roasts according to this yield was the same in each of the 3 grades studied. Similarly, no significant inter- action was shown between cuts and carcass weights (within grade), indicating that within each grade, these cuts ranked the same in each carcass weight according to this yield. Table XXIV Combined analysis of variance of the yields of cooked edible portion of the 7th and 8th, 10th and llth standing rib roasts (group B) Source of Variance D.F. Sum of Squares Mean Square F between grades 2 30.84 15.42 N.s.1 between.weights (within grade) 6 45.93 7.66 N.S. bemeen cuts 1 22.76 22.76 N.s.1 cuts x grades 2 10.72 5.36 N.S. cuts x weights (within grade) 6 43.68 7.28 N.S. .__ Error 36 462.43 12.84 Pooled error 44 516.83 11.75 Total 53 616.33 nyestedagainst pooled error mean square formed from cuts x grades, cuts X‘Weights (within grade) and Error. N.S. . non-significant at p 3 .05 level. -58- Grade and cut means of the yields of cooked edible portion of the broiled cuts included in group C, together with their standard errors are presented in Figure VI. The yields of these cuts were combined into a single overall analysis of variance which is presented in table XXV. This analysis showed a highly significant difference between the mean yields of these cuts from different grade carcasses. The mean yield of these cuts from standard grade carcasses (54.5%) was not significantly higher than that from good grade carcasses (53.7%), however, both.were significantly higher than that from choice grade carcasses (50.7%). This can be attributed to a larger amount of fat present in the cuts from choice grade carcasses than in the cuts from either the standard or good grade carcasses. The analysis showed no significant difference between the mean yields of these cuts from different weight carcasses within the grades, but, a highly significant difference was indicated between the mean yields of the various cuts (table XXV). The mean yield of the wedge- bone sirloin steak (59.7%) was significantly higher than that of the porterhouse steak (55.0%), which itself was significantly higher than the mean yields of the remaining cuts in this group. The mean yield of the double-bone sirloin steak (52.15) was not significantly higher than that from either the pin-bone sirloin steak (51.0%) or the 9th rib steak (50.5%), and the mean yields of the latter 2 cuts were not significantly different. of the aforementioned cuts in this group, all except the pin-bone sirloin steak and the 9th rib steak had significantly higher mean yields that that of club steak (49.6%). Examination of the relative yields of the broiled cuts in group C as indicated by their yield means (Figure VI) revealed a tendency for the cuts containing a smaller amount of bone to have higher FIGURE VI Grade and cut means of the yields of cooked edible portion of the broiled cuts included in group C, together with their standard errors and indications of significant differences hot- veen the cuts. Yield (fl) Sign. Grade Bet- ween q; EL Qfl ‘_ Cuts 62 r 60 r \ 58 L e———- 59.7 0.82 Hedge bone sirloin g steak 56 r 54 ) 52 “ 55.0 0.70 Perterhouse steak 50 r \“ 52.1 0.57 Double bone sirloin j ' steak] :::::‘ 51.0 0.75 Pin bone sirloin steak! ‘8 ’ \ 50.5 0.60 9th rib steak 49.6 0.72 Club steak T 54.5 53.7 5007 0.50 0.43 0.54 Grade Mean 0‘) Standard Error (fl) yields of cooked edible portion than those cuts containing a larger amount of bone. No significant interaction was found between cuts and grades (table XXV) indicating that the ranking of these cuts according to this yield was the same in each grade. Likewise, no significant interaction was found between cuts and carcass weights (within grade), indicating that according to this yield these cuts ranked the same in each carcass weight group within each of the 3 grades studied. Table XXV Combined analysis of variance of the yields of cooked edible portion of the broiled cuts included in group C. Source of Variance D.F. Sum of SQuares Mean Square F___ between grades 2 427.09 213.54 16.71%* between weights (within grade) 6 58.78 9.80 N.S. _ between cuts 5 1953.09 390.62 30.61-th cuts x grades 10 137.92 13.79 N.S. cuts x weights (within grade) 30 337.16 11.24 N.S. __ Error 108 1416.56 13.12 *_ Pooled error 148 1891.64 12.78 Total 161 4330.61 17Tested against pooled error mean square formed fron‘cuts x grades, cuts x weights (within grade) and Error. N.S. ' non-significant at p = .05 level **Significant at p ' .01 level, Figure VII presents the grade and cut means of the yields of cooked edible portion of the cuts included in group D together with their standard errors. The yields of these cuts were combined into an analysis of variance - 61 - which is presented in table XXVI. This analysis showed no significant difference between the mean yield of these cuts from different grade carcasses. Therefore, no significance was found between the mean yield of these cuts from standard (44.4%), good (43.9%), or choice (44.0%) grade carcasses. Neither was there any significant difference indicated between the mean yield of these cuts from different weight carcasses within th grades studied. A highly significant difference was indicated between the mean yields of the various cuts. The mean yield of the lst arm chuck roast (47.4%) was significantly higher than that of the 2nd arm chuck roast (45.6%) which was significantly higher than that of the 3rd rib blade chuck roast (42.4%), itself being significantly higher than that of the 5th rib blade chuck roast. Observation of the relative yields of these cuts as indicated by their yield means (Figure VII) showed that the arm chuck roasts had higher yields of cooked edible por- tion than the blade chuck roasts. This is undoubtedly due to a greater amount of bone present in the blade chuck roasts than in the arm chuck roasts. The combined analysis of variance of the yield of these cuts (table XXVI) showed no significant interaction between cuts and grades, suggest- ing that the ranking of these cuts according to this yield was the same in each grade. Similarly, no significant interaction was feund between cuts and carcass weights (within grade) indicating that the ranking of these cuts according to this yield was the same in each carcass weight group for each of the 3 grades studied. c 62 - FIGURE VII Grade and cut means of the yields of cooked edible unrtjon of the braised cuts included in group H, torother with t sir standard errors and indications of significant diffrmcuc: :, between the cuts. Weanihtand. fii$j”:h Grade Yield VITO!" P ""14 "‘ n : ( 7 (‘t “'85:.‘r' ;)3 CAL CL—fl ( ) . ) - _' JJt —— C(JtS 4? ~ \\\\\\\’/////4é———d 47,4 0.35 lst arm Chuck roast 47 h i 46 > ,(__.a 4S,Gi 0.4? 2nd arm chuck roast 1 l 45 - j C? L i“ L 1344 H G) 'H >4 1 5 43 t ' : +,_l‘. 42.4 0.40 3rd rib blade Chuck ' L roast 42 1 Alr 4o _ €——-— 40.9; 0.45 5th rib blade chuck ‘ a roast I A A l J 44.4 43.9 44.0 Crade Mean (fl) 0'37 0.34 0.20 Standard Nrror (fl) -63- Tahle XXVI Combined analysis of variance of the yields of cooked edible portion of the braised cuts included in group D. Source of Variance D.F. Sum of Squares Mean Square F between grades 2 5.51 2.75 N.S.1 between weights (within grade) 6 18.22 3.04 N.S. between cuts 3 698.08 232.69 62.21%* cuts x grades 6 12.14 2.02 N.S. cuts x weights (within grade) 18 50.38 2.80 N.S. Error 72 296.49 4.12 Pooled error 96 359.01 3.74 Total 107 1080.80 E7Tested against pooled error mean square formed from cuts x grades, cuts x weights (within grade) and Error. N.S. - non-significant at p ' .05 level. **significant at p ' .01 level. The grade means of the yield of cooked edible portion of the round steak (group E), together with their standard errors are presented in table XXVII. Analysis of variance of the yields of round steak from different weights and grades of carcasses (table XXVIII) showed no signi- ficant difference between the mean yield of round steak from different weight carcasses within the grades nor between the mean yield of round steak from carcasses of different grades. Actually, the mean yield of round steak was essentially the same for each grade, the means were 48.0%, 43.1%, and 48.1% for standard, good, and choice grade carcasses, reSpect- fully, Thus, it is apparent that carcass grade and weight had no effect on the yield of cooked edible portion of the round steak. Table XXVII Grade means of the yield of cooked edible portion of round steak (group E), together with their standard errors. Grade Standard Good Choice Standard error (9) 1.32 0.45 0.45 Table XXVIII Analysis of variance of the yield of cooked edible portion of the round steak (group E) Source of Variance D.F. Sum of Squares Mean Square F between grades 2 0.08 0.04 N.S. between weights (within grade) 6 8.03 1.34 N.S. Error 18 116.65 6.48 Total 26 124.76 N.S. . non-significant at p a .05 level. Carcass weight had no significant effect on the yield of cooked edi- ble portion obtained from any of the cuts statistically analyzed. Carcass grade had a significant effect on this yield only in the instance of the broiled cuts in group C, where those cuts from choice grade carcasses yielded significantly less than these cuts from either standard or good grade carcasses. It is conceivable that this could be due to the fact that of the groups of cuts statistically analyzed, the cuts in this one (group C) would be expected to have the most external fat and the effect - 65 . of grade on the cooked edible portion yields of this group of cuts would be more pronounced than for any of the other groups analyzed statistically. Considerable difference was noted between the yields of the various cuts, and since only the cooked lean was considered edible, cuts consisting of a smaller proportion of fat and/or bone tended to have higher yields of cooked edible portion than those made up of a larger proportion of these constituents when subjected to the same method of cooking. Cooking method seemed to have an effect on the yield of cooked edible portion, with these cuts cooked to lower degrees of doneness having higher yields of cooked edible portion. Generally, the broiled cuts had higher yields of cooked edible portion than those cooked by the other methods. However, this is not a true comparison since the different cooking methods were applied to different cuts. Two factors enter into the economy of a retail cut when one is con- cerned with the cost per serving or edible portion cost, these factors being; the cost of the retail cut and the yield of cooked edible portion which can be expected from this retail cut. Figure VIII is presented as an aid in calculating the cost/lb. of cooked edible portion when the cost/ lb. of the retail cut and yield of cooked edible portion expected from this retail out are known. In Figure VIII, A represents the % yield of cooked edible portion (lean) of the trimmed retail cut, B represents the cost of the trimmed retail cut (¢/1b.), and C represents the effective cost of cooked edible portion (lean) from the retail cut (¢/1b.). To ob- tain the cost of cooked edible portion from a given cut, one simply locates the % yield of cooked edible portion of the particular cut on.A, then can- nects this point by means of a straight line with the cost of the trimmed -66- retail cut (¢/lb.) on B and extends this straight line to C and the point on C where the line intersects represents the cost of the cooked edible portion (¢/1b.). An example is given.using porterhouse steak which yields 55% cooked edible portion and in this case the retail cut costs $1.00/lb., therefore, the cost of cooked edible portion is $1.82/lb. as indicated in Figure VIII. - 67 - 3731 d VIII“ Guide for calculating the cooked edible portion cost of any retail cut. A " Yield of Cooked 5 C 7dihle Portion Cost of Trimmed Cost of Cooked (7:35“) from the Retail Gilt lidllkle Portion mT'l"‘:"(f"Z iltfthil Cut 2]“. (Lefirfl E/lh‘ -'200 0 TV} ///X» 153 {p130 //// “ C0 . 120 a 150 d ' t 140 «$60 ‘ it“) a O ‘r 113!) 19/ at 1’3() r: 1’ lb 6 ‘* L30 804» r- x”/+'ow n 110 7 J, t? 80 . 9/ 70Jr (9&0 if 70 ‘L 100 (c ) GSA, €d§£/// 0 60 Q 60 b 1 / ,L 50 ssi/// " 80 “t 41') l 35 SOT ” 7O ##30 45+ 1*L5 0 60 40+ » 20 351i "” 50 4 15 :3(? " > 40 J. 10 250 m __ L .- J 30 a van Vboffiis f1o377 - 68 - SILDLATX AI‘TD CONCLUSIONS In general, for the cuts included in the statistical analysis, carcass grade had a significant effect on the yields of the trimmed retail cuts as a percentage of the untrimmed retail cut. The cuts from standard grade carcasses generally yielded higher than those from good grade car- casses, which in turn yielded higher than those from choice grade carcasses, indicating that more trimming was necessary for the cuts from carcasses of the higher {radcs. Carcass weight had no consistent effect from grade to grade on the yields of the trimned retail cuts from.the untrimmed re- tail cuts. There was a tendency for an increased amount of trimming required for the retail cuts as the loin region of the beef carcass was approached from either end. Differences in cooking yields attributable to grade were restricted mainly to the cuts which were either broiled or roasted. In the case of the broiled cuts, there was no significant difference between the cooking yields of these cuts from standard and good grade carcasses, but the cuts from both of these grades had significantly higher cooking yields than those from the choice grade. The roasted cuts from good grade carcasses had significantly higher cooking yields than those from choice grade car- . I. '\‘ , ‘ k." casses, however, no Significant difference was found between the coo 1no yields of these cuts from standard and good grade carcasses or between those from standard and choice grade carcasses. In both instances, the lowest cooking yields were found in the cuts from choice grade carcasses. Carcass weight influenced cooking yields only in the case of the braised chuck roasts from standard and good grade carcasses. 'Within these grades, the braised chuck roasts from the heavier carcasses had higher cooking yields than those from lighter carcasses. The results of this study seemed to indicate that the main factors affecting cooking losses were cooking method and degree of doneness, and the composition of the trimmed retail cut. A decrease in cooking yield found to accompany an increase in degree of doneness. The effect of composition of the cuts on cooking yield was shown.by wide differ- ences in cooking yields of various cuts cooked by the same method. Gen. erally, the cuts containing the largest amounts of bone had the highest cooking yields within any group of cuts cooked by the same method. For the dry heat methods of cooking, the fatter cuts tended to have lower cooking yields. However, when braised, the cuts containing the larger amounts of fat had higher cooking yields than those containing smaller amounts of fat. Carcass weight had no significant effect on the yield of cooked edible portion from any of the cuts statistically analyzed. Carcass grade had a significant effect on this yield only in the instance of the broiled cuts, in which case the cuts from choice grade carcasses had sig- nificantly lower yields of cooked edible portion than those cuts from either standard or good grade carcasses. Considerable difference was found between the yields of cooked edible portion from the various cuts studied. This appeared to be mainly due to the same factors as those found to be primarily responsible for differences in cooking yields, namely; method of cooking and composition of the trimmed retail cut. Those cuts cooked to lower degrees of doneness generally had higher yields of cooked edible portion, hence, the broiled cuts had higher values for this yield than the cuts cooked by the other methods. Since only the cooked lean was considered as edible, the cuts consisting of a smaller propor- tion of fat and/or bone tended to have higher yields of cooked edible portion than those made up of a larger proportion of these constituents. A chart is presented as a guide in calculating the cost/lb. of cooked edible (lean) portion for any retail cut when the cost/lb. of the trimmed retail cut and the yield of cooked edible (lean) portion expected from.this trimmed retail out are known. LITERATURE CITED Aldrich, P. J. and Lowe, B. 1954. Comparison of grades of beef rounds. Effect of cooking times on palatability and cost. Amer. Dietet. Assoc. Jour. 30:39-43. Alexander, L. M. and Clark, N. G. 1934. Shrinkage and heat pene- tration during the roasting of lamb and mutton as influenced by carcass grade, ripening period, and cooking method. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 440:27 pp. Alexander, L. M. and Clark, N. G. 1939. Shrinkage and cooking time of rib roasts of beef of different grades as influenced by style of cutting and method of roasting. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 676: 36 PP. Alexander, L. H. and Rankine, 0. G. 1952. Yield and quality of cooked edible portion of smoked hams. Amer. Dietet. Assoc. Jour. 283636-6390 Alexander, I. M. and Schopmeyer, G.'EL 1949. Yield of edible portion of chicken and various meats cooked by different home methods. Food Tech. 3:263-268. Alexander, L. M., Schopmeyer, G. E., Lamb, J. C. and Marsden, S. J. 1951. Yield of cooked edible portion of turkey according to sex, age, fatness and breast type. Poultry Sci. 30:187-195. Alexander, I“ M., Schopmeyer, G. E. and Marsden, S. J. 1948. Yield of cooked edible portion of young roasted turkey. Poultry Sci. 27:579-587. Brown, P. B. and Bean, H. W. 1952. The yield of edible meat from different market classes of chickens. Poultry Sci. 31:232-234. Bull, Sleeter. 1947. The economy of retail cuts of different grades Of bCEfo Consumers' Research Bull. 20, (3): 22 pp. Bull, Sleeter. 1951. Meat Egg The Table. McCray-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. Bull, 8., Olson, F. C. and Longwell, J. H. 1930. Effects of sex, length of feeding period, and a ration of ear-corn silage on thO quality Of baby beef. 111. Agr. EXPt. Sta. Bull. 355: 233 PP. Callow, E. H. 1949. Comparative studies of meat. III. Rates of fattening in relation to the percentage of muscular and fatty tissue in a carcass. J. Agr. Sci. 39: 347-358. -72- Chappell, G. M. 1954. Food waste and loss of weight in.cooking. Brit. Jour. Nutr. 8: 325-340. Clark, R. K. and van Duyne, F. 0. 1949. Cooking losses, tenderness, palatability, and thiamine and riboflavin content of beef as affected by roasting, pressure saucepan cooking, and broiling. Food Res. 14: 221-230. Day, J. C. 1953. Longissimus dorsi of three grades of beef: Com- parison of cooking weight losses, palatability and edible portion. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State Univ. Hankins, 0. G. 1947. Estimation.of the composition of lamb carcasses and cuts. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 944: 16 pp. Hankins, O. G. and Ellis, N. R. 1943. The chemical composition and nutritive value of the dressed carcasses and cuts in relation to live weight of the hog of intermediate type. U.S.D.A. Himeo. Hankins, O. G. and Foster, H. T. 1940. Approximate physical compo- sition of the primary cuts from lamb carcasses of different market grades. UoSoDvo }Iim800 Hankins, 0. G. and Foster, M. T. 1940. Approximate physical compo- sition of the primary cuts from steer carcasses of different market grades. U.S.D.A. Himeo. Hankins, 0. G. and Hews, P. E. 1946. Estimation of the composition of beef carcasses and cuts. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 926: 20 pp. Harshav, H. H. 1943. Heights of parts and percent edible meat ob- tained from cut-up chickens. U.S. Egg and Poultry Mag. 49: 405-407, 432. Harshaw, H. H., Hale, W. 5., Swanson, T. L., Alexander, L. M. and Slocum, R. R. 1941. Quality of frozen poultry as affected by storage and other conditions. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 768: 20 pp. Hathaway, H. E., Champagne, G. B., Watts, A. B. and Upp, C. H. 1953. Heat yield of broilers of different breeds, strains and crosses. ‘Pbultry Sci. 32: 968-976. Headley, F. B. 1948. Relation.of size of turkeys to (1) economy of production, (2) edible meat in carcass, (3) weights of parts of carcass. Nev. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 180: 14 pp. Jull, M. A. and Mar, H. A. 1923. Determinations of the dressed, drawn and edible percentages of various kinds of domestic birds. Sci. Agr. 3: 329-338. Kemp, J. D., Bull, S. and Bean, H. W. 1953. The economy and nutri- tive value of different cuts of lamb of different grades. J. An. Sci. 12: 338-346. Kropf, D. H. and Graf, R. L. 1959. The effect of carcass grade, weight and classification upon boneless beef yield. J. An. Sci. 'Leverton, R. M. and Odell, G. V. 1958. The nutritive value of cooked meats. Okla. Agr. mt. Sta. M180. Publg, Nip-49: 90 pp. lows, B., Crain, E., Amick, G., et a1. 1952. Defrosting and cooking frozen meat. The effect of-EetTlod of defrosting and of the manner and temperature of cooking upon weight loss and palata~ bility. Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Bull. 385: 516-630. Maw, W. A. 1939. Factors influencing market quality and consumer value in poultry meat stock. U.S. Egg and Poultry Mag. 45: 204-206, 244. Morrison, M. A., Sauter, E. A., McLaren, B. A. and Stadelman,'H. J. 1954. Some factors affecting yield and acceptability of chicken broilers. Poultry Sci. 33: 1122-1125. Paul, P. and Bean, M. 1956. Method for braising beef round steaks. Paul,.P., Mbrr, M. L., Bratzler, L. and Ohlson, M. A. 1950. Effect of boning on cooking losses and palatability of beef. Food Tech. 4: 348-349. Pal-11’ P. and MCLean’ B. B. 1946. Studies on veal. I. Effect of different internal temperatures on veal roasts from calves of three different weights. Food Res. 11: 107-115. Paul, P. and McLean, B. B. 1946. Studies on veal. II. Variations between some muscles of the hindquarters. Food Res. 11: 116-120. Pecot, R. K. and Watt, B. K. 1956. Food yields summarized by dif- ferent stages of preparation. U.S.D.A. Agr. Handbook No. 102: 93 PP. Pierce, J. C. Jr. 1957. The influence of conformation, finish, and carcass weight on the percentage yield of wholesale and retail cuts of beef. U.S.D.A. Himeo. 1938. Effect of cut, grade and class upon palatability and composition of beef roasts. Minn. Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bull. 131: 16 pp. Snedecor, G. H. 1956. Statistical Methods. 5th Ed. The Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa.. Snyder, E. S. and Orr, H. L. 1953. Market possibilities and yields of goslings dressed at various ages. Poultry Sci. 32: 181-182. -74- Stotts, C. E. and Darrow, M. I. 1953. Yields of edible meat from Cornish crossbreds, non-Cornish crossbreds, and purebred broilers. Poultry Sci. 32: 145-150. Sweet, H. C., Davis, L. L. and Coe, M. E. 1954. Heat yields of tur- keys are compared. Poultry Processing and Market. 60 (3): l3, Tadle, J., Lewis, M. N., Winter, A. R. and Jaap, R. G. 1955. Cooked edible meat in parts of chicken. Amer. Dietet. Assoc. Jour. 31: 597-600. Toepfer, E. N., Pritchett, C. S. and Hewston, E. M. 1955. Boneless beef: raw, cooked and served. U.S.D... Tech. Bull. 1137: 33 pp. van Voorhis, H. G. 1937. fig! To Make Alignment Charts. lst Ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company,'Inc., New York. pp. 12—13. Wellington, G. H. 1953. Recommended procedure for cutting beef. Proc. Sixth Annual Recip. Meat Conf. pp. 73-78. Wilford, E. J. and Garrigus, H. P. 1952. Carcass characteristics of Kentucky spring lambs and of western fed lambs. Ky. Agr. VUHufi Comm movm mowm woke-H GOV” 00mm mOQOH O - mH e.H~ v. m . .. . w mH «.mH o.oeH .. . o.m e.e~ m.mm “.mm mnmm “.mm ”.mm M.~m e.mH H.eH m.omH m.mmw “.mwm mm wmmwmmw wwmmao H.va H.>H ~.me o.mm . .ma >.mH m.eH o.mma v.mmH . . no a mH s.mm m.e~ . . O can e oom\ooe ooHoe ~.m «.mH m.oe -.oc e as s eH o.HH v.mmH m.~mH a. . o WON. O o o o o QHM ”H 8 mum m.H~ o.om -.mm o.om “.mm ”.mm m.om a.eH e «H H.omH m.meH e.m«m a oowmmww wwmmmw mom m-VH b.am o.wv wood momm vomm m.mm vomH Nnm woemfl bombfi m.wNm N 00b\oow oowoco a.» a.~H m.mm m.mm m.wH e.m~ e.e~ m.om m.HH e.m H.omH m.eeH e.eeu «a ooo\oom oowono H mm e.~H m.mm o.He H.oa m.o~ s.m~ -. e.w. s.m m.mmH e.eeH m.eem OH ooe\oom .omogo H. mm e OH N OH m.mmH o.amH m.-Hm m ooe\oom cowoao w m.>H H.wv a.oo . . . o.mH e.mH «.mv m.o v.mH m.m~ o.e~ m.em o.m ~.oH s.omH H.emH w.eHm mH ooe oo oo 0 O O O WH m @N m ”N 00mm WOWH O a. O \ m U Q N e o Hm m.me m.sm . . . o eH m mmH m eeH H.m~m oH ooe\ooo oo 0 O . m WH N. VN w MUN bOhm VON o O O U Q m o m ma b.H¢ N.vm . . . H m m o mwa o wma oomom H cab\oom meow O O. \ w mH m ”N w ON momh. ”Ow O O J I 0 e e a eH m.sm e.mm «.mH w.o~ m.mm N.m . m.m m.me m oeH - men pH ooo\oom econ m.~H H.eH m.He a.em «.mH ~.e~ H.o~ . e ~.HH w.oH w omH «.mmH o.oem HH oom\oom coco m.m H.~H m.mm 0.». . . .. c me 0 NH m HH o.HeH e.eeH e.mw~ o oom\oom coco . . o NH m on m eH m.me m.» m. . .- . . m m m eH o.mm o.mm m.eH H.o~ H.>H . . .m o.eHH o eNH o man an oom\ooe eooe m.m no.~H m.wm «.m- H.~H m.mH ,. H.5e s.» m a m mmH m.emH m.eem em oom\coe eooe m mH m mm H e m.m m.eOH ~.>HH m.mmm NH oom\ooe coca . -.m -.mH m.mm o.mm «.mH -.o~ m. m .. . . m.oH m.mH m.wm v.0m e.mH -.m .d m.me m.m m HH w.mmH e.mmH «.mem m oom\oom eceeeeem a.m m.mH «.em m.mm o.mH m.om w.oH o.me e.m m.~H w.emH v.oeH «.mem mH oom\OOm ecaeeeem w.» o.~H m.mm v.0. «.mH m. - w.o~ v.ee o.m ~.HH o.HmH m.mmH m.mem Hm oow\oom eaeeaeem ~.m m.mH eyem o.ee m.HH .mH H.5H m.me m.m m.w o.eHH H.mHH H.mm~ on oom\oo- eceeeepm v.m w.eH m.mm m.mv m.HH m.o~ m.mH m.mm m e w.m H.HHH e.omH w.Hmm mH oom\ooe eceeeeem m.w v.m m.sm e.mm . m.fim e.wH m.«e -.m m.w m.wCH H.o~H m.mm~ m oom\ooe eaaeeupm -.w m.m m.mm 2.0m -.m m.mH m.mH N we ~.w m.m -.mm o.Hm v.eeH cm ooe\oom eneeeeam o.e o.HH «.mm m.Hm H.w m.mH m.mH o.Hm «.0 m.c m.mm e.mm «.mmH mm oov\oom eneeeeem m e m vH a mH o.me o.e o.m w.om -.Hm o.msH w ooe\com eceeeecm A..;HVA.mnH ..a so . . ., (I. poem aeswA anmemv A wmwv A mpHv A vaHv A.mpH~ A.m;HV A..ch A.mnHVA.mpHV A.mnHv ~.mnHv .oz macaw Haemsv ammgfivw GHQ. I”. .. Mm XCQHM QM“ OPdHD x0250 PQXmfihm ufififlr—m .35 oh? our: OHVFMU. ¥£Mun0t~ Ofiwhw . H .peso -Haoem nocom eeHz Hagen oeHm museums .meommw eavveo nose we seem anMHa one gene mezo maemeaons use och «ewes was me anmflez H oHnee xHeqoaa< .mawxcoo enemas haowefiuossfi vnwfloss Gama mm” om” mm” «H.e mm.e mm.m me. mm. mm. mm.e mm wfi.m pm. we we mo.m mo.e os.e mm. mH. we. om.m «H mm.m mm. ..H mm. so.m mw.e oa.e oe. oe. om. om.m s em.~ Hm. pH mm. «H.m Hm.e om.e we. om. ow. mm.m mH me a em mo. em. mH.m eH.m o~.m ow. om. e. om.w m mo.~ mm. OH. mm. mm.~ om.- oe.e as. om. on. cm.» a we.m mm. mm. mm. om.m eH.m mH.m mm. mH. mm. no.0 em OH.N cm. mm. mm. wo.m mm.e oe.e OH. OH. me. om.m oH em.« em. mH. He. cH.m ww.e oa.e om. on. H. om.m m mm.~ mm. as. eH. om.m ae.m cm.m mm. on. mm. om.o mH wm.~ mm. HH. mm. om.m NH.m mH.m we. cm. a. om.m oH am.m om. om. mm. em.m mw.m mm.m om. om. mH. cw.m H eH.N mm. om. eH. om.~ mm.e mm.e mm. om. mm. m~.m eH oH.~ mm. NH. em. mm.” mm.e mm.w mm. om. mm. om.m HH ow.H «N. no. em. me.m mm.m om.m mm. ow. mH. oo.e e sm.m mm. mm. on. mo.m wo.e oe.e OH. OH. on. ow.m mm mm.H om. Hm. mm. ms.m «H.e 0H.e mm. on. ex. mm.e em mm.H om. mm. eH. ee.~ em.m ma.m cm. mH. mH. mw.e NH o~.~ Hm. mH. wH. mm.~ me.v oe.e oH. mH. mo. oo.m m em.H mm. .o. mH. He.m om.m ow.m om. om. mm. mw.e mH NH.N em. mm. mH. mm.~ me.v om.e mm. om. mm. om.m Hm ow.H em. HH. mH. em.~ so.m mm.m om. om. oe. mm.e om HweH MN. mHe OH. WMeN mwem Chem O¢e om. mm. CFO? mH ae.H em. wH. mo. oe.~ Hm.m ow.m mH. om. OH. mo.e m- Hm.H mm. mm. NH. mH.m aH.m o~.m mH. om. mH. monm e. we.H mm. Hm. mH. mm.m we.m me.m mH. mo. OH. me.m mm av.H om. pH. mm. mo.~ cm.m om.» mH. om. mo. as m w . . .oz @8ch 98m pea “.2 was wconoo Hso amt. 5.3 3.3. «so defiance aeHsomze Heshoexm cosmeam oaomon «so uoEEHae «eh seem smog message chueo erHem uhoeeH UoESMHHs is: wcfixooo Howme wefixooo caches All ~.nav mefixooo edema use oaommn owanos mo Humeesm venom 8&4 umH HH «Home xHensaee In! I... Inky-x KIT II. .\£ clllrl < .wewxoeo seamen hHowmmvoesm aanozs NmeN Fm. EN. 0 cm 34 m. . o e e . MM.M mm” «H He. Oe.m mm.m ww.m WW.” mm” mm” OO.e mm -" . O O . . O O mm.m mm. mm. WW. mw.m Om.- Om.e Om. Om. OW. mm.” mH oe.m ow. OH. .. mm m oe.m mm.H mH. . . e 0 NT bfiom H e 0 mm Cm b «H mo N mm. III e m m mm m CHoH mHe we 0 . S 3am Om. . 8 . Hm.H em. m . .. me e me.- Om.H mH. . . N Om OmeN e 0 0m mo m VN bo.m mm. as: . . CO e co v mH.H ON. om. . mm tum He... . . 8 m OH em m Om e mm H mH. mH. Om.m m . Hm. nu: ,. . em Hm.m . . . Om.m mm OH. me. mH.m Om.m Om.m mm. mm. mm. mm.O OH wm.m om. me. mm. J. bmov co m omoa ma. m. om.w 0H mH.N mm. nu: . mm m cm m om.m mo.a on. .H. . CO. e vm mmeN FVOV Omev o o W 0 Om @ H N 5N em. mm. mm.m . . on 0N we om.m ha mm.H Om. . .. Hm m Om e OH.H mH. Om. . mH mm mm.m . . mm O HH OO.H mm. mH. Om. . Hm.m om m Ob. mH. mm. mH.m O mm.H mm. mH. mm. He.m Om e mm.e Om. Om. .. me.m mm mEH mm. vH. mm. Om.m mH.e OH.e Om. om. oe. Om.m mm Hm m em.m mm.m Om. mH. mm. mm.e mH mOeN mm. VN. o mO.m em. mo. WM. mmum mmue mm.e mH. OH. mO. mH.m m HO.m mm. H.H. mm. mm.m mm m Om.e mm. mH. om. O¢.m mH OO.H Om. OH. Hm. ee.m me.e mm.e mm. mm. om. mm.m Hm me.H mm. nu- Hm. mm.m mm.m mm.m om. OH. Om. mO.e Om mO.H mm. Om. mm. mm.m Om.m Om.m mm. OH. mm. mm.m OH mv.H mm. mH. mm. me.m mmum Ob.m mH. mH. mo. mO.e m mO.H mm. mH. em. eH.m em m mm.m om. mH. mm. mH.e om NH..H Om. eH. mm. mm.m ee.m me.m mm. mo. mH. Om.¢ mm Hm m O¢.m oe.m OO. mo. mO. OH.v v memofl .oco QOthow m an emu yam #30 mnflxooo «so EHav Emmy away 930 .02 o. Hmomsa Hesaevxm cochan oho o :0 o . . o a yr HOHOm -cmHeH . . a a a O echH «mm oeom emoH eoechm Hm» O E: 000 .H ROEEwhEe. lab .x of? mnmxooo 0.3.33 l: Nunav wwmxoco momma new caches mwnmmos mo huduesm Huge Em Bm HHH oHOma xHeeoOO< - 78 - .wcmxooo oaomon hampmmcoaew.wnWMczs OO.m mm. Om. mm. OO.O OO.O OO.O nu: Om. nun om.O Om OH.m mm. mm. mm. mm.m Om.O om.O mm. mm. nun OG.O OH OO.H mO. OO. mm. OO.m OO.m OO.m OO. Om. nu. OH.< m OO.H OO. OH. Om. Om.m OO.O OO.O Om. .O.. .u: OH.O OH OO.H OO. HH. mm. Om.m Om.m om.e OO. Om. gun Om.e O Om.m Hm. un- OO. eO.m mm.O Om.O OO. OH. -nn OO.O m OO.H mm. OH. mH. OO.m Ov.e OO.H OH. Om. -uu OO.m Om OO.H OO. Om. m. He.m O0.0 OO.O CO. CO. nun OO.H OH HO.H OO. OH. OH. OO.m eO.m Oe.m mm. mm. -u- om.e O OO.H mm. mm. Om. O0.0 Om.e OO.e nun Om. nu: O0.0 OH OO.m OO. mH. OH. mm.m em.e Om.m OO. OH. :a: OO.e OH OO.m OO. nu- OH. mH.m OO.O OO.O Om. OH. nu- O0.0 H mO.m Om. OH. Om. Hm.m OO.O. OO.O .1. OH. nun OO.O mH OO.H mm. mH. OH. HO.m mm.m Ob.m sun OH. I.. OO.m HH OO.H OO. OO. eH. HO.m OO.m Om.m OH. Om. us- OH.O O OO.H Om. OH. OH. OO.m Om.- Om.e sun OH. can O0.0 Om mO.m OO. HH. OH. em.m Om.e O¢.e nun Om. nu- OO.O em OO.H OO. OH. OH. Om.m Hv.m Oe.m OH. OH. sun Oe.m mH HO.H OO. OH. OH. Om.m Om.e Om.m Om. OO. -uu OO.e O OO.m OO. OO. OH. OH.m HO.O OO.e :n- Om. nu- O0.0 OH OO.H OO. OO. mH. OO.m OO.m OO.O nu- om. -u- OO.e Hm OO.H OO. mo. Hm. «O.m OO.m O0.0 nu- OH. sun OO.e Om OO.H mO. OO. OH. mm.m me.m Om.m --- OH. -uu OO.m OH OO.H OO. mm. mm. OO.m OO.v OO.e OH. OH. us- OO.e m OO.H mO. OO. Om. Hm.m Oe.m Oe.m :u- OH. 3.: OO.m Om OO.H me. OO. mm. mm.m OH.m OH.m nu- Om. nun Om.m Om OO.H OO. OH. em. em.m Om.m Om.m us. OH. --u Oe.m v flMOHv 0Com twh. vat“ «do ME .34000 #50 8TB. STE. Sunk? #50 .62 defivha Mafia—0mg.— Hfifihwwunm “55mg ohowmfi v50 cog—Hake. Harm 0Gom flamd 83b 0.2.“..ng OHOHOO -cOOaH OmeeHnem .eO msmxooo Hogan wdmxooo seamen A.9Hv\wwaooo aowmm new seamen Owrwmoz mo aumsssm annex oumHm xosno cam .tam >H canes Rapeseed It ‘79- Om.m OO.H em. em. OO.O OO.e , Oe.m HO. OO. Om. OO.O OO.O OO.O mO.m OO. «O. HO. OO.O . O0.0 OH. OO. o o o e on b 8.x. m an m Om. Om OH co; OO.O . om. 3m. mm OO.m HO. mO. mm. OO.O mm.O OO.O OO. OH.O OH OH.m OO. OO.H Om. om.O HO.» OO.O Om. OO.O O Om.m OO. OO. mm. OO.O . OO O OO. OO.O OH wv m 0*... . m Om.m HO. OO. Om. OO.O OO.O OO.O at: OO O m OO.m OO. OO. OH. O0.0 OO.O OO.w mm” wwuw Om e e .e o e Owem OH HO.m «O. OO. OH. OO.O mm.O Om.O OO Om. OO.m em. OO. mH. OO.O OH.O OH.O nun OO.N OH OO.m Os. mm. OH. mO.O O0.0 OO.O OO. OO.O OH Hm.m OO. OO. mm. Om.O Om.O OO.O mm. O0.0 H OO.m HO. HO. mm. HO.O OO.O OO.O . OO.O mH mH.m HO. HO. OH. O0.0 OH.O OO.O mm- . OO.O OH OH.m OOH Om. Hm. OO.O OO.O OO.O 1.. mm. Omum Om Om.m OO Ow. Om. OO.O . . . . nun OH O Om O OO O OO Om as: O0.0 mm OO.m me. Om. OH. O0.0 OO.O OO.O nu- Om. au: 1.. ew.m OO. Om. OH. OO.O OH.O Om.O -a- mm. .a: OO.O O om.m OO. Om. HH. He.m OH.O Om.O -u. Om. -u- mw.m OH HO.m OO. OO. OH. O0.0 O0.0 OO.O nu- Om. nun OO.w MM «Tm mm. OO. 3. HO.m OO.H. OO.H. s...- O. . I... OO.O OH OO.H OO. OO. OH. Om.O O0.0 OO.O OO. OH. In: OO.O m mO.H OO. Om. mm. OO.m HO.e O0.0 nun Om. nun Om.O Om mO.H OO. HO. OH. O0.0 OO.O OO.O nu- Om. nun Om.O Om HO.H OO. OO. OH. Om.m O0.0 O0.0 nun OH. nu: OO.O O INcmoHv seem 9mm Hmw1t use wpmxooo #50 Emma Emav Emma #50 .oz seaweed amasomsa Hecaowxm Ooswmam washes pso noesmae «mm been used vesama» oawveo OHQme IHOHGH OmaeHaes us: mcmxcoo AOHHO 11. wonooc oaomon we use onemon Ovswmos mo hamsesm NOLHV wefixooo new «Omom OHO OOHOOOOO OHO One as» O OHOOH xHOOOOOH OO.H OO. Om. OO.H . 1. Om. m . um.H Wm. mm. mm. Om.m mN.v o . no OO.H , . . mm. OH. mO.e m e In: ,1IIIIrxmxmmwwmmwwIIIIIIIMIII a .0 o O 'I- O .lnllu g Hum-H moo Mm. VH9 om.N mmom Wm.m ON. mm. III ovtv OO.H me. .O. OH. mO.m HO.m .O OO. OO Ian OO.O Om ON c O mnfi. mu m a 0 ON. l ONO. v CNOH Pm. m.. H mmoN ¢ ONoV TH mm. II M H HHOH Em. A flNo ONON fimom .0 CV. . 0 III mmem h. Hm. . . HH. OO O . OH an: OO.O OH OOHH. OO. om. 5.. Om.m Mm. Om. I... OO.O m Hm .P mm. mHO OH. OVON an.” ONO Isl-l omom VN Non we. mv. . Hm.N . ov.m QN.m 0H 30H ”v. WHO WHO NH.” Vhtm mPOm all-l- on—HO I... w EN. .0 mHe 0 EN. V 0 III mHe Om. H mm mm. ma N J O 8 v C "' m , OH.H OO. Om. OH. Om.m OH.O OH.m MH Om. Is. OO.O OH OO.H OO. . OH. OO.m OH.m OH.m an OH. In. OH.O OH 80H Fm. mH. NH. .IQMQN mo m 000m WC mHe III. OM00 H HN.H wv. OH. OH. me.m Om.m Om.m OH. OH. III Om.m OH OH OH. OO.m Om.m Om.m 1.: OH. nu. Om.m HH mmeN .. III. ONO mfiom 0 bon me. . meow . III mm o NH 0H. 0 m0 OH. I. mmom mmOH vm. HP. omON m" WW.” I... NH . mlh. . NymOm Q a I mo. "' mm“ H 0 b0 GHON mm m. l-..- O OO OO. . Om.m . OH. I: OO O OH.H . OH OO.m OH O In- I O.. O Hm NH. O Nflom . ON. III m. m OO.H . OH OO.H OH.O II: OO.O OH Ev cm. 0 NmON - 0 DH. ‘l HN OH.H . OH Om.m OO m sun . Om.m ow ma. . bw.m . OH III .. 0N OH.H . OH OO.H OO O OH. . OO m Om OH. Hm.m . OH III . OH 0 o cHe o On. N II... 0 mm m mm mHe mOeN OQOIN MVON Ill OH. III OweN ¢N Os»: 28m H. . Om.m OO. OH. I. MOHm Om GOfiPhOQ .HMHSUWHHE HmCWflM HH.—O Mfidxooo Pa O m V I 0 . . 5H,." OHQMB IhwwHHH #xm UGGHMS Ohafimn 8.50 Uwéfl: ”mum.“ ”MM“. ”he. v.50 e 02 memxoooscowmm 1OeeeHcHO m ea OOEEHHH OHHHOO mstooo oaomen Isa One oaomon mvanoa we massesm Ill «.9HV ucwxooo Homes HOmoO OOOHO HOOOO OHO OHO H> eHnma KHcsoaam - 81.- HO.H OO. III ON mO.H Om. III . Ow. OO.H ON. III mm. mo.M mm.m OO.H OO. III HO. Ov.m mO.m . Om.O OH.H OO. III Hm. OH.I OO.m Om.m won 0%. III N.N. mmom wmom CGIN Hm.H OO. III HO. OH.m OO.O OOHO 0m. .VNO III. mum. @POH Fm 0N CK. N OO. Om. OO. . Om.m Om.m III Om. MO.H OH.O OO.O mw.H mm. II m H OH.m mH.m OO.H .m. II“ OH. OH.O OO.O o a . .o . O.. as OO.H OM. III OH. Wm.H O0.0 OOHO . I III c:. H mm. Ob m . @N H UN. III 0 HFQH N m;. m0 III. 0.0I OO.H Om. OO. ... HH.O O O OO. I III O m m . III OI. OO H Om.I OH.m I.. II III OO.O OH O H mm. III P OO.H .I a OO.O OO III OO.m H O.. -I OH. a<.m cm. III - O co. III --. mO.H I . OO.O ,:. III III OH.m OH 2 ...... a... 2.. I. 2.... a OH.H mm. III Ho H OO.H OH“ III III OO.O O .3 o... a. s... . O -... O... mm Nv.H mm. ¢H. mI. NH m o . mH.N b6 0 --- J. N; H mHON N N 3. II N.” mo H V“. 'I' 0 am OH O ONON I O -0: Iran. Om.H Om. III OH. OO.H Om m Om.m M%. III III mMHO O OOHH OO. II- OH” OO.H mm.w‘ OO.H OO. ”nu III OO.M OH mm. mH. III N.H. Nb.H mmII om.m we. III III OOIN Hm 0H H om. III MM wmoH w..n ow.m Om. III III mNIN CN mm. wHo II NH. mm. m. H mmoH 0 III C .0 GH - O H GCCN ON .lll. I." O N m I! VH OMOH Fm 0H no 0N WHO II... III mPoH ©N AcflmHv vmom «mg mm.H mH. III I ONIN mN nomvhom Ham 950 I III OO.H 0 .HdHH—UWSE HdGhQ bfiunxcoo V HOHOO. I... a 3 8395 98 a ta 5.: 5.... m: a H m a 9:0 $253.5 «OO.H 9.8 EC”? «:0 .02 mxcco Hovmm nOEEHua* m cum: wwasfihv OHHHOO M«c.3300 who w lab cw whomoc mwzwfios Mo hudaesmm a II. A.2HV wcwxoco umpmw v Nmmvm cm30£hmvhom HH> oHcma vacmam< - 82 - who Em. cm. Om.m NNom o ~o.~ a». mm. mm. ¢¢.v Wm.b cm.» 2% 8; mm. 9.. $4 aim 86 mo.m um. mm. mm. mm.m o.m om.m Waco.” mm. mm. mH. .c om ¢ cmov o .0 9 m0 N NMov o mm N mm mm Om. hm.m VH. om v m.. mm. Om.m o~.m kw. mm. mm. om.m .c ma.m om. . sun co.m ma m. ...H N‘. O O - O HO .v 00... 8 I." W O v mm b mmom o a. CH. 4m. @005; mm.~ a». J . J . ma v oa.¢ u --- ,. a .UV Fm MVOV . o ow. OW. mm. w W“ @ CNOC , . III a VN ‘ o o o Om.O CW. loll OH.m CH mo.m op. um ma. Hm.m b¢.v . oo b m bv.~ mp mm. «v. cc.¢ uv.m mw.v mo. mm. --- . o¢.H pa. ow. Hm. mo.m mm.¢ om.m me. o«. --- mm.m ma cm N am. mm. mm. mv.m o¢.v 0% v cw. om. In: mm.m ma mm.H ow. mm. a. . .. o¢.v ca. . om m a 0 WC Tc m. DOD...q J 0 mm -.. EOV mm .p mm. wm. ON. Om.m o r0 v me. win. II... . 0 NH we.a «v. .. .. . mm v om.v om. .. mm ¢ H« CH mm. ¢¢ON m o - Or. I.-- O o ¢o.m ma. ma. . . p m cw.m nu: .-. u H m m u a on mm m mm.v . we I: mm.m «v.a mm. «N. am. . . on « --- mm. --- . mm hm m mm m mm.m mow mm. nun mm.¢ hm vo.~ mm. mm. mm. 5H.m mm.w .mm. . m NH mH.H um. ma. om. om.m ov.v .¢ mo ma. III mv.v m om.H mm. . . a, ov v --- om. --- . ¢N ”H OOON matm 0 OF v WH D®OH NW0 NH. WNO ¢wON I . 8 ¢ I‘l- 8. I.-- 80¢ AFN we.” 0 0 mm" m. mm.” In" ON. I." $5.0m mm NH mm. Hmom wN.v . 0N OH.m . O I- O . 0 mm ¢ I." ON. I.' ”‘0‘ mm on Pm «N m . . . . ma bN.H mm. «H. bm. NH.N mwow Wm.M ma om. III oaov m 0 m -.. O --- O . MNoH Hv HH. mHo n«AV-N mboN who III ON. III mH-m ¢N FHOH mv. mH. J O O O N ON ma N may“ mH 00 N ow N mmcm III OH. III mmoN v GMMMWWW mccm «am yam «:0 waxocu vzu sflhv afihw Efihv #20 .oz 0. a gwwsomss Hmahwwxm umaflmhm 0pcmon “no caEEwue «mm ween mama nmsaquv mflvvmo wmmxooo ouomon .kl A.nHV mewxcoo hmwmm cam muommn mwxwflok mo hhxaesm pmaom nfim mcwz:Mpm npfia tau neofl HHH> magma xficceum< wrmxooo umw%x {.1 Ill. 3 uII| - 83 - C mfiwxooo ”MUN mw. @0- MWO ”H. 90. NOON NV. MN. 80 omom NboN mm. ON. OH. cmom Hmod CHON NM. MN. 20 mo.” «00¢ o O m 0N Vmo aVo ado «mom mm. m v on am... a. 8. 8. 8.” 3.» m3 8. E H N¢o Nmo mo. whom bmov moon mm. II pa 6 ma. ca. cm.~ Ha.m oN.v on. II II a w om.N mv. to. mv.N mmom Om.m ma. II II omov 0:! mmoN m 0 am. am. m mflom on. II II 00.0 km. ¢ H meom mm. ow. II II mm. «N N o bN. o o m m v #w. 5m H ov.N ca. ma. II II mm. a N om. mo. HH. mNom m II II owov b Mvnnfi mm 0 .8 O mfiO mVOm vaO WVON 8.“ -- .' ”b.” ”a" p H . v . . S. .m .... .... .m a cw. rm H NH N mm m mm. on m ”MOM mNO WHO FOO GNU” mm.” 80” ”No all 00.” MN 84 R. 5. mo. 8% 8...” 8...” fl. .... I. min 3 pm. mu. mo. WM.N mw.N oa.m av. II oN m C O O '. 'II 0 bflofi V” O O OW. Om 0M WONG ON. ON WHO I. I... mHoW NDON 0 mm. m N CH.” 0 II II Om. CH eN. av. ho H mm.» mm.N II II w .v ma ON mm. mH. NH. ”V. cm. OH. I. C V .H mm H av. NH. mo. bo.N N m¢.m ca. II II whom 6H MMoN om. HH. #0. flmom bwoN N mo. II II “Mum HH >m.n NN. mo. a0. mwoN mm.m mm.m OH. Om.m NN mmIM Hm. ma. HH. Nm.N mo.m mm.m mN. II II mm mN. mN. mo. HN.N mo.m mo.m II ”H II oo.N Acne can mH. Ncgm NmoN Odom we. II II ouov m nowauww oaom mo. mm.N ¢¢.N om.N oN. II II moon an r a «fiasco: 9“.“ km 0 N mu. 0N II II II 809 ON NH Iuoan Hdahoaxa «:0 ,mm. mm.N ”a” II II mmum Md mZHwooo mmam< vmafidun oho «goon aeaw H II ”H om.“ QN mon «50 #50 ad mm. mN 1|. 1wmaad v . .u« a N ha # #9 Map v 90% o zany can “so anon d QZHXOCQ mm voeaflhv 0 02 95 In: H38 .nHv ms nu . 3000 km a c 383 3am wot mo Nudes: m a ND.H GH. NH. PO. . HouH .Hu QH. «a. mm.w oa.m Om.m 30H NNO NH. QHQ DQOH @Nom mm.” 1 mm H on mo. nH. . eH.m oH. I Om.m oH.H oH. II . mo N pH.» m II . . . ”H GMOH . Oflom I. mm m m.” H ”H m0. NH. 80H NN N ONIN I... Oflum mH.H mH. no. mo. mv. mm.~ ov.~ II av.» moIH «H. mH. on. u .H va.~ mm.~ II omIN mo.H mH. mo. QH. ow.H mm.~ o..~ II om.~ M H ¢«.~ oa.~ II ov.~ In MN.H . VN. a. mo. . ...... ”VON CH CQ.H DH. ‘0. . g H 8.N 8. 8." w p~.H mH. II mo. mm.H pH.” om." II HNIH «H. oH. wH. mmHH H>.~ owIm II can” mH mH.H «H. . mo mm H ...a a on m . QH.H fiN. HH. OH. @moH QV.N MVON H COON HH HcIH . 3. NH. $.H Hm. 8.~ I min pH . OH. V0 5.0. OM?" .N OWON 8.“ HI" 80H NN $0. I. Nmfn ¢OON mHoN I... BON O aH H «H. oH. 9H. m¢.H HH." mH.~ II mH.« an ha. . mN N om.N “H mHnN 5N mH.H mm. In HH. m~.H HNIN an a «H 0 mo NIH. co; 0 8." i I am In NH. mo. QC. 0 8 N meow ll mNoN m «o.H co. . mm H co.” co.» II mmIN mH No. . no mo. ¢~.H .H. . II II ooIm .H OH. *0. OH. WNOH V .N WHON ”O. I... II SON INN 80H DH QC. OH. MOO." CON 8 N no. I O.. we.“ ON 8 . «H. 3. II mH.H mm N BIN II II II 8.« NH N.” ”H. no. 0°. a0." NONI" 80H I- I.‘ i 8..” a [NH—no.0 oaom use a 3. H II II I vaH v “aflaifla 30 03' quw ”a EMMMH #3000 #50 at” “H." h a.“ h 93 0 . 02" IImHnmum Iuawqu . a ouumwmuuso ooaaHga «an Icon uuoH uoaaHuu .Haauo m _ ma. In: Mam—coo .HoJIlamd $3000 0.3.35 t. AfiHvlwdeooo .53.? and 93.33 3:32, mo gm QHH used: ado: E38 #30 HHHHh H .Hnaa xHuuoan< .wnmnooo nnmmnmnnaonmmnonnw nnmnona nm.~ no.H pa. no. «c.v no.» oo.n on. nu nu on.» an nm.~ on. on. nu. «c.n na.v oo.m on. nn nu on.m «a nm.a up. mm. na. mo.m na.m on.m on. nn nu on.¢ b mm.“ vs. um. ma. mn.m np.v ow.v mm. nu nn no.n «a ms.a up. nu. ma. Ho.m Hn.m on.” ma. nu nu ma.¢ a an.~ an. pa. ma. am.m on.v on.q mm. nu nu mn.n n mo.m pm. pm. om. mm.m na.v ma.¢ on. nu nu m~.¢ «a an.” no. va. NH. os.~ mm.m om.m mm. nn nn mn.m ca an.” an. mg. no. ma.~ >n.~ mn.~ no. nn nn or.“ m ma.~ ma. vs. ma. an.m v~.« o~.¢ mm. nn nn mv.¢ nu mu.m an. on. ca. an.» rm.n mm.v ma. nu nu on.¢ na un.a mm. on. no. mn.~ pm.» oH.¢ mp. nn nu mm.¢ a u«.~ an. no. ma. an.» na.e wa.n om. nu nu mm.v pa «v.H «n. ma. ca. av.~ no.m no.» no. nn nu ca.» Ha mn.H om. mm. on. on." Am.m om.m ma. nn nu mm.» o ma.~ nv. Haw pa. m~.m pn.m mm.m on. nn nu mo.n on am.n kn. mm. HH. oH.m mn.m mn.m no. nu nu on.» pm am.H on. no. «a. mu.~ mn.~ Om.m on. nu nu op.~ «a pm.H an. no. new m~.~ mn.u on.~ mm. nu nu ma.m n nm.~ um. um. wa. mv.m vm.v mm.¢ on. nu nu no.q ma nv.~ «n. vm. ma. pn.m on.¢ oe.v me. nn nu m«.v «a oo.~ on. no. no. He.m on.m on.m ma. nu nu an.” on «>.H an. an. an. nm.~ pa.m mH.m ma. nu nn om.m ad on.” an. no. an. mn.~ >m.m ov.m om. nu nu on.n m pv.a an. ma. on. Hm.~ no.» oa.m ma. nu nu ma.» an an.” an. «a. HH. oo.m on.m on.» nn nu nu an.m nu bv.a n». pH. to. ¢~.~ mm.~ mm.~ on. nu nu nn.~ v Nauoav oqom «um won #50 mwaxoou «no Hana flak» :au« #50 .oz nannnon nunnomnu Hunnnnxm nannnnn cannon «:0 uneanna «an anon anon nonannn canvas nuummmmm unanan nommmnsn . nap mmwwooo Amp Rana wxooo “may: van ouamwn awnwfio: monuudaasm nan nsnfia sauna nannnnn onon cannon H» ounce ngunonn< mwmwwoo oummwn Illnlrn’ ' F1'E : " "lull‘li-‘I ‘ .l. u. A I l .r n60 ll. 8 I 3‘ In... cud 0 1n‘ n ll. It 1 .u | n In, I n 1.4 I I . nu I‘ I (L ul| \ I. v‘ I 0 II ' .u :1! .mafixooo chemo: mmovuavoeaw anmwara co.” ch. mo. mo. mo.~ om.m mm.m on. I: II mo.m ma N¢.H mo.a «H. on. m¢.m NH.v mfi.¢ mm. uu uI om.v va 8." S. 3. 3. 8;" 85 85 cm. nu nn 8:. p oo.m mm. ma. ma. mu.m NH.¢ oa.v mm. It uu mo.v ma HH.~ mm. mo. van cm.” Om.m om.m ow. nu uu o~.v m mm.H ab. ma. NH. mo.~ vanm oo.w om.e uu uu Om.m a bm.H vm. om. vH. at." Hm.m Om.m mm. In uu mm.m um wm.~ mm. so. on. mH.N mu.» mm.m ow. uu uu mm.m OH om.H mm. mo. pa. an.“ vw.m ow.~ on. uu uu oo.m w mm.a mm. ma. ma. mm.~ Hm.m om.m mm. uu uu mb.m ma om.H be. uuu ca. mm.~ mv.m mv.m on. uu uu mo.m ma ab.a vb. ma. mo. be.m wv.m m¢.m mc.H uu uu om.v H 8.; mm . mo. 3. $4.. mo.m 35 3. nu .... 8;. 5 $4 5. «c. S. $.m £3 mm.m ms. nu nu OH.m d— uvoa or. ca. an. Hm.~ «mnm oa.~ ov. uI uu cm.m o bvna mm. ho. HH. am.~ oc.m oc.m mm. uu uu mm.m an 9.4 pm. . no. no. mo.m Om.m. Om.m om. nn nn 86 3 ma; mm . no. 3. on.” muzn. mmé ma. nn nn aim «a mmna mm. «a. mo. Hmnm Om.m ow.m om. uu uu ea.» m mu.~ ow. vo. ca. mm.m Om.m om.m OH. uu uu ocov ma avoa Hm. HH. ma. po.m mm.m Om.m uuu uu uu Om.m an mm.H am. no. mo. mm.~ mm.~ mw.m ma. uu uu oo.m cu am.H aw. ma. NH. mm.m om.m mm.m ma. uu uI oo.~ ad mm.H mv. va. «a. vmnu Ho.m ocnm ow. uu nu ov.m m mH.d He. no. ha. HH.N mm.~ Om.m mm. uu uu mans on ab.fi mm. mo. ma. H>.m ma.m QH.m ma. uu uu mm.m mu mH.H aw. no. mo. aw.a w~.~ Om.m an. uu uu mm.~ v IqudoHV onom Ham pam «50 rlmwwxooo #50 Eng» Saga afluv v50 .92 nowuuom unasomna” Huaumvxm vmqasuq ouomma «so vosawue «am econ mama voaawuu unawao OHmHmm Inseam—V GOEMMW la Ilmmwxooo hovmm rtmmwxoou wuomon brl. “.3Hv‘wnwxooo pagan can oucmwn manmfims mo hwmsssm may asafla asap» amoahwm uncanflm HHN oanaa Hacaommd .w m m“ nmxooo who wn mwnmvoeam anwaosl MMHH II no. N II hm. mm.N II No. vm. vaN bN.v . meoN VN. CO. on v bv. om fi mm. II '- C H HwOm m Om.m .' C mm.~ I vm bu. No.m an. uu mm c ' O .H op. cm. 0 i O ”N vo.a II mm. mm. m .m m¢.m m¢.m ow II II cm 0 «H mm; nn mm 5. a.» 26 .n 8..“ nn nn 9.6 n. Nb.H II no. am. Gm.N No.v OH.m OH. II II om.o mH owQH II NH. hm. mm N oo.v mo v mN.H II ON.m a co. m . Hm.N cm. 060% On. II Om.m N H m . m m . II II . N cm.H II a u mm.v m.m mm. II II on v «a 0H.N II NH. Ob. .- on V 80 II II ONOV OH 34 nn 8. «n. 8.... E.» . 2... n am.H II hm. om. oN.m bw.v mo.m on. II wa.H II mm. aw. Ho.m rm.v om.¢ o0. II II mm.» wH HmOH I. OH. 0 CM N m . ow V 30H .....- II @000 0 wk. @ o m m 0 . II @H m¢.H II we or. o.m Hm.v w.m av. II II m>.m H H¢.H II no. mv. wm m mm.~ om.¢ om. uI oo.v 5H mm.H II we. aw. ¢G.N «H.» cm N on. II II ow.¢ HH OH. mm. mN.N ON.” OH.m MH. II II ON.m vm.H Iu mH.N mo.m mama om. II II mm.» mm ”OOH II OO. VG. 0 DO m ON. ...-I H” DOOM PN v¢.H II as. nm. ab.n ow.~ . mm.» «a HNOH I... $00 0‘0 QMON gum 80W mNO 'I mm.H II no. o¢. mm H Ho.m m¢ m mm. II II no.» a HH. mo. . m>.H . oo.m . II or. H II . Hr m . mm a . 0H II II n mH bHoH II 00 mm. VoN Hmom mmoN we. I II Odom .HN «H.H In no. mm. or.a mm.~ om m mm. II I ob.u on bu. II HH. mv. mm H Om.m QbIN OH. II I mm.m 9H NNO mNO VFHH NQON O®HN ONO II II 80N M “aflpha afl 9‘.“ Pd.“ om N “H. .. .II DQON 8 omnmum «Hanna! «km cowao 1mmwxoou 5 Edna m¢.N w Hahn chomon «no news“ Ewhu away 35 n as. a. nun 28m 5.3.. Bflmfl .02 Ian Ovado Ihovdw whooo “mama v mawxooo hovma can oucmmn ovnmuoz monmmmmmmmmmwm «anon «oxuwu a uaoHo: HHHN OHQda NHvumaQH . n. nnHo Ho: mo Hnna naunnnn< .quxooo ouoman hHoHuHumeaH «:wHott oo.H II on. HH. «v.H Hm.” oo.H no. nu nu oo.H on HH.H nn nnn oH. oo.H Ho.H oo.H oH. nu nn oo.H HH oo.H nn oH. oH. oH.H oo.H oH.H om. nu nu oo.H o oo. nn no. oH. oH.H oo.H oo.H oH. nn nu oo.H «H Ho.H nn oH. no. oH.H oH.H oo.H om. nu nu oo.H o oo.H nn nnn to. oo.H Ho.» no.” nnn nn nn mo.o « Ho. nn «H. oo. oo.H oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H no oo.H In on. oH. oH.H oo.H oo.H no. nn nu oo.H oH oo. nn no. mH. oo.H Ho.H oo.H on. nu nu oH.H o no. nn «H. «H. oH.H .o.~ oo.H oH. nu nu oH.H oH no. nn no. no. oH.H oo.H oo.H nH. nu nn oH.H oH oo. nu nnn oH. oo.H oo.H oo.H mo. nu nn oo.H H on. nn no. NH. oo.H Ho.H oo.H oH. nn nn oo.H pH on. nu on. oH. oo.H oo.~ oH.H oH. nn nu oH.H HH no. nu oH. oH. oH.H oo.H oH.H on. nu nu oo.H n on. nn no. no. oo.H oo.H oo.H oH. nu nu oo.H on no. nn on. no. Ho.H oo.H oo.H oH. nn nn oo.H .ou no. nn on. no. NH.H oo.H oo.H oH. nu nu oo.H «H no. nn on. «H. oH.H oo.H oo.H mo. nn nn .oH.u m mouH nn «o. no. oH.H oo.H oo.H no. nu nu oo.H mH on. nn no” oo. Ho.H oo.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H HN ms. nu oo no. on. oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H on on. nn «H. oH. oH.H oo.H oo.H oH. nn nn oo.H oH on. nn oH. oo. oo.H oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H n no. nn oH“ oo. oo. Ho.H oo.H nnn nu nn oo.H on on. nn no no. Ho.H oo.H mo.H no. nn nn oo.H on on nn oo. oH. no. oo.H oH.H oH. nn nn oo.H v A983 33 t: «8 «3 93.8. «.6 5.3 5.3 5.3 «no .02 nnHton .3583 Haste 35.5 9.83 «.8 Hosanna to anon 83 H.858 .Htuo E n... SH 352. no umwxooo Hap rimmwaooo caches ~.nHv meaooo Hovha can cuckoo upswwoa.mo Nmnsasm anon. an nHOHnHm H>H .Hnaa xHonoon< - 91.- oH.H .wanooo nnnoon oHonnHooaaH «nonmw nnn oo. oo.H oo.H oo.H nnn nn nu oo.H on oH.H nn nnn oH. oo.H oH.H oo.H. om. nu nu oo.H «H «o. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H o oo. nn nnn oo. oo.H oo.H oo.H nnn In In oo.H oH oo. nu nnn nnn oo. HonH ooeH oH. nu un oo.H o oo. nn nnn nnn oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nn nu oo.H o oo. nu nnn nnn oo. oo.H oo.H nnI nn In oH.H on oo. nu nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H oH. nn nn oo.H oH oo. nu nnn oo. oo.H Ho.H oo.H oH. nn nn oo.H o oo.H nu nnn nnn oo.H oo.H oo.H nnu nu nu oo.H oH Ho. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H oH. nn nn oo.H oH oo. nn nun nuu oo. Ho.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H H no. nn nnn nnn no. oo.H oo.H oo. nu nn oo.H pH oo. nu nnn no. oo.n Ho.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H HH oo. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H o oo. nn nun nnn oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H on on. nu nnn nnn oo. oH.H oH.H nnn nn nn oH.H on on. nn nnn oo. oo. oH.H oo.H nnn nn nn oH.H «H oo. nn nnn oo. Ho. Ho.H oo.H nnn nn In oo.H o oo. nn nnn no. mo. oo.H oo.H oH. nn nu oo.H oH oo.H nu nnn nnn oo.H oo.H oo.H nnn nn nu oo.H Ha no. nu nnn nnn. no. Ho.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H on on. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nn nu oo.H oH no. nu nnn nun «o. oo. oo. nnn nn In oo. o «o. nn nnn nnn Ho. oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H no on. nn nnn III oo. oo. oo. nnu nu nu no. on on. nu nun oo. Ho. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nn oo.H v AnnoHo anon nao now «a. mmeono «no aHnn ann aHnn «no .oz QOHvuom udHaoual Huauavxm oquau: ouomon vac oosaHua Hum oqom naman voaaHuw OHHHdo E nnonnH E inmpln £9303 93mm ImalHMooo 0.3mm: H.3HV wdHaooo hoama and oucaon ovanoB mo «seam anon» nnuHo HH>H .Hnna xHonoooH -92- .mumxooo chamwn hHaanHvuaaH «nMH03t nn nnn oo. oo.H oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H oo oo. nn nnn HH. oo.H Ho.H oo.H no. nn nu oo.H .H oo. nu nnn oH. oH.H oo.H oo.H oo. nn nu oo.H o oo. .nn nnI oH. oo. oo.H oo.H no. nn nu oo.H oH oo. nn nnn oH. oo. oo.H oo.H nun In nn oo.H o oo. nn nnn oH. Ho. oo.H oo.H oH. nu nn oo.H a or. II nnn oH. no. oo.H oo.H nun nu nu oo.H «a on. nn nnn oH. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H oH on. nn nnn oH. on. Ho.H oo.H no. nu nu oo.H o or. II nnu oo. oo. Ho.H oo.H nnn II II oo.H oH oo. nu nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H oH no. nn nnn «H. no. oo.H oo.H oH. nu nu oo.H H H». nu nun oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nI oo.H pH oo. nn nnn HH. oo. oo.H oo.H oo. nu nu oo.H HH on. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H oo. nu nn oH.H o H». nu nnn nnn Ho. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nn oo.H on no. nn nnn nnn so. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nn oo.H no oo. nu nnn «H. on. oH.H oH.H nnn nn nu oo.H «H oo. nu nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H o oo. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H oH Ho. nn nun nnn Ho. oo.H oo.H nnn nn nn oo.H Ha on. nu nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nn oo.H on «o. nn nnn oo. oo. oH.H oH.H nnn nu nn oH.H oH oo. nu nun oH. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H o oo. nu nuu nnn oo. Ho.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H on on. nn nnn nnn oo. HH.H oH.H nnn nu nu oH.H no Gm. II III GOO Q¢O N00 0w. III II II 80 ¢ AddoHv odom «am «am 950 .Immwwooo «so aHuu _aHHH .aHHv vac .uoz aOHauom haHsooal Hangovum voGHman ouomon «no ouaaHua Ham oaom namH oaaaHuu 0Havao E unannH Eons. . nJonln mamxooo umwmw mmwxooo whomon A.nHv quHooo Hmwma can chemo: nu:MHoz mo Hmnaazm guano quack aovpom HHH>H oHauh xHonooo< -93- mm. .MQonoo chemo: hHavdmvmasH HnMHott oo. oo.H oo.H oo.H oH. nn nu oo.H oo oo. nn nnn HH. oo.H Ho.H oo.H oo.. nu nn oo.H HH oo. nn nun oo. oo.H oo.H oo.H oH. nu nn oo.H o no. nn nnn oH. oo. oo.H oo.H no. nn nn oo.H oH oo. nu nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H no. nu nn oo.H o oo. nu nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H oo. nn nu oo.H o no. nu nnn oo. oo. oH.H oo.H oo. nu nn oo.H «o oo. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H oo. nn nn oo.H oH oo. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H oH. nn nu oo.H o Ho. nu nnn oo. oo. Ho.H oo.H oo. nn nu oo.H oH oo. nn nnn oH. oo.H Ho.H oo.H nnn nu nn oo.H nH oo. nu nnn oo. oo. . oH.H oH.H oo. nn nu oo.H H no. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H oH. nn nn oo.H HH no. nn nnn oo. oo. Ho.H oo.H oo. nn nu oo.H HH oo. nn nun oo. Hp. oo.H oo.H. nnn nn nn oo.H n on. nu nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H no 3.. nn nnu nnn Sn. om .H oo.H Inn nu nu oo.H 5 no. nn nnn oo. oo. Ho.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H «H on. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H oo. nn nn oo.H o oo. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H nH no. nu nnn oH. oo. oo.H oo.H nun nn nu oo.H Hm no. nn nnn oo. oo. Ho.H oo.H oo. nu nn oo.H on oo. nu nnn oo. oo. oH.H oH.H no. nn nI oo.H oH oo. nn nnn oH. oo. oo.H oo.H oH. nn nn oo.H o oo. nn nnn nnn on. oH.H oH.H nnn nn nn oH.H on on. nn nnn no. no. oo.H oH.H nnn nu nu oo.H no ov. nn nnn oo. oo. oo.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H v AnnoHV anon «no «no «no oanooo «no .aHnn _aHnn naHnn «no .oz GOHHHom H1H:on:l. Hduhwvxa voaHdHn ouomon H50 vuaaHue Ham oaom quad voaaHhv oHvaao lunmmmm IuoHQH oogamwpt Ia: Immwuooo mwwmm. anmeuooo ouo on A.nHv wanooo nonHo on. onooon nnn Hop on known quack mos . HR .35 £8.84 -94.. .oanooo .nomon muonommoaam wmomon. «o.H II oH. mH. on.~ Hv.m o¢.m III II II oo.» mu oo.H II no. no. oH.». oo.o oo.. nnn II II oo.v «H oo.H II oH. mm. ov.~ oo.m ow.m III II II oo.m b oo.H nu oo. oo. oo.H oo.o oo.o nnn nn nn oo.o oH oo.H II oH. mH. ou.~ vm.m mm.m III II II mm.m o v~.m II om. oo. ov.¢ oo.o oo.o oH. II II oo.b a oo.H II NH. oH. oo.H oo.H oo.H III II II mm.~ «a oH.~ II mo. mo. oo.H bo.v mo.v mo. II II oH.H oH oo.H II oo. oH. Ho.H mm.m oo.H III II II oo.H o oo.H II oH. mm. _ mH.m pm.m mm.m III II. II mm.m oH oo.~ II om. HH. oH.m mo.v om.v III II II oo.v oH mm.m II oH. oH. mo.~ oo.v ow.v mm. II II wo.m H oo.H nu oH. om. mo.~ oo.m oo.o nnI II In mo.o oH oo.H II oH. mo. oo.H oo.H ob.N III II II ov.~ HH oH.H II oH. vH. oo.H om.m mm.~ III II II mm.“ o oo.H II NH. HH. vm.H vw.~ oo.H III II II om.“ mu oo.H II «a. mH. oo.H r¢.m mv.m III II II mv.m on HN.H II oH. oH. oo.H Ho.H om.m III II II om.~ NH bv.H II mH. oH. oo.H oo.H oo.H III II II mm.N m vo.H II om. HH. mm.~ om.m ov.m III II II ov.m nH Ho.H nn oo. HH. oH.H oo.o oo.H nnn nu un o¢.o Hm oo.H nn nun oH. oo.H oo.H oo.H nnn nu nn oo.H on oo.H II oH. HH. oo.H oo.H oo.H nnn nu nu oo.H oH Ho.H II mm. mm. m~.m H~.m m~.m III II II mu.» m oH.H nu oo. oo. Ho.H oo.H oo.H nnI nn In oo.H on oo.H II oo. oo. oo.H mm.~ oo.H III II II oo.~ mu oH.H II oH. oo. oo.H mH.~ oH.~ III II II oH.H v AquoHv «com pom Ham «:0 wdeooo «no aHup aHuv aHua «:0 .oz aoHuuoo udHaooau Huauovxm ooaHoun ouomon «no oosaHua . «am mean good oosawuw oprao .Hnmoa IuovaHn vwmmmuat Ian Mwmxooo umw mmwwooo oumuopI .aHv Gonou uupma odd ouomwn maano:_mo Nuusanm «ouch canon mo Huom HH .Hnoa xHonoooq -95- .oanooo .nommn_oHonnHooaaH nnmmoo. oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nn nn oo.H on oo.H nn nn nu oo.H Ho.H oo.H nn nn nn oo.~ «H oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nn II II oo.H o oo.H nn nn nn oo.H Ho.H oo.H nI II II oo.H oH oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nu nu oo.H o Ho.H nn nn nn Ho.H oo.H oo.H nu nn nu oo.H « oo.H nn nu nu oo.H oo.H oo.H nu nu nu oo.H no oH.H nn nn nn oo.H oH.H oH.H nn nu nn oH.H oH oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nnn nn oo.H o Ho.H nu nn nn Ho.H Ho.H oo.H nn nu nn oo.H oH oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oH oH.H nn nn nu oH.H oo.H oo.H nn nn nn oo.H H oo.H nn nu nu oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nu nu oo.H 5H oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nI nn oo.H HH oo.H nn nu nn oo.H oo.~ oo.H nn nn nu oo.« o Ho.H nn nn nn oo.H Ho.H oo.H nn nn nn oo.H on oo.H nn nu nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nn nI oo.“ on oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nn nn oo.H «H oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.o nn nu nu oo.~ o oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nu nn oo.H oH Ho.H nu nu nu Ho.H oo.H oo.H nn nn nI oo.H Ho oo.H II no nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nu nu oo.H on Ho.H nn nu nn Ho.H oo.H oo.H nn nn nu oo.H oH oo.H nn nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nI nn nn oo.« o oo.H nn nn nu oo.H oo.H oo.H nn nn nn oo.H no oo.H nn nu nn oo.H Ho.H oo.H nn nu nu oo.H no oo.H nu nn nn oo.H oo.H oo.H nu nn nn oo.H w IIHnnoHo noon «no noo nno moHnooo nno anon ann _aHna «no .oz uoHuuoo uaHnooaa Hangovxm oocHaun oHOMop «so oessHua «om oaom quad. ooeaHhv oHuwau Omnmvm Iuow uoEEHuet In: mmmmeWIumumo rimwmxooo ouomon .IIII A.aHV wwaooo hmpmu can shaman opsMHm:.mo snazzym Moan scum nonao .u« H HHN oHnus xHoqaoo< - 96 n O r O ”M. mm. mN. . ¢H. . Nb.H . om . mm . oH N 0 mm .u._ I . O E H O fiIN III N o . on H. .H on N . In oN. m N . o . mN N m . II mH. w o w .v .0 mm N o 0 II N om. H H . o H . 0* N ON. II om. mN oo. v No. on N ow. II I N NN. mm. H O N 8. II o 0 w." mv. mm. mm H ON. II II 0 N b m . o o H . H OH. ow. N oN. H Ho. mo N . II N NH Nm. mo. H oo.N oH N oo. II oo.N . hm. . -' g o Hm . H no N III . mm Nm.H wmofi o . II II or N N mN. oo. o N oo. II oo.N Hm. N ow. II NN mN. ON. N.o. mfi. N III II o¢.N oN. oN. H oo.H II oo.N oH . v». . oN. rm III H v . mm H III a oH. NH.H o H oo.H II II . oo. oo. oo. NH.H Ho.H 2.. III II II no H oH om. mm. Nv. om. oo.H .H ofi. II mb.H VNO NN. H m 0 0m H II II DH. OH cN. . hm. w H . II N H NN. mo. H . cm H o . II o . oN. oN. ow H . H II o H v mN. mo. H _ oo.H ow H oH. II oo.H H . Nm. . II II HH NH ow. H ¢ . mm H III oo. mm.H @ H om. II II H o NN. oo. H III oo.H ¢N. H Cb. II II 0N m . . H . . m . mo . mo II om H 0N. 0H I VN. 0? H oo.N II god 6N NN. oo. III oo.H mo. oo.N III NH . mo. mH.H H mb.H II II o ”N Q 0 finfi. 0 O QC." 0 III I 0° N . N III a . om H III II mt. m wN HN. NN. mN H . II H 8. O H 0 MN H II. I. 8. 3 oo. no no. mo H . II n H HN VN. III H N . oo H III I mN. oN. oH. o H . II I H 8 NN. vo. H . mo H oH. I oo. No. oN. on H . II II H o . H . mm H III . oH H we. on H . II mm H N Ono H mm. mm H II II mm. . uuHsom «no mm H III II oo.H oN nanm IHOHMME Hangman“ vowumua o Mdeoou #30 II mm.H WN umwxooo How homo: «no coasHuy aHHH aHHH EHAH mo mwaaHAea pom one «:0 .o m coon. omeaHhv 0H z mwmxoou anamon In: kuo AunHv wmw .xooo Howmd oHaHo a can macho 8o .an «noon nHNthHmw—Hw: on g HHHH .3: 53.24 53 .5o -97- 03380 0.8mmm Refuges—5" eFmHoxt Nm. II II II Nm. vv. mv. II II II mw. mN cc. II II II ow. NI. om. II II II on. «H HI. II II II HI. mm. om. II II II om. N «m. II II II Hm. «I. mv. II II II mHI mH mm. II II II mm. mv. om. II II II cm. a IN. II II II IN. um. ow. II II II av. N mN. II II II mm. mm. mm. II II II mm. IN Nm. II II II Nm. NH. mv. II II II mv. oH Hm. II II II Hm. mm. ow. II II II ow. m cm. II II , II mm. Hm. mm. II II II mm. mH mm. II II II mm. av. om. II II II om. cH 3. II II II vm. HH. 2.. II II II 3.. H mN. II II II mm. Hm. mm. II II II mm. NH mm. II II II mm. Hv. mv. II II II mv. HH cm. II II II om. mm. ow. II II II ow. o NN. II II II NN. mm. mm. II II II mm. mm me II II II mH. mm. mm. II II II mm. NN Hm. II II II Hm. mm. mm. II II II mm. NH «N. II II II «N. Hm. om. II II II om. m mm. II II II mm. NI. mv. II II II mv. mH «N. II II II «N. mm. mm. II II II mm. HN mN. II II II mm. mm. mm. II II II mm. oN mu. II II II mu. Nm. mm. II II II mm. «H om. II II II om. ow. ow. II. II II oI. m mH. II II II mH. Hm. mm. II II II mm. 8 NN. II II II. NN. mN. om. II II II om. mN oH. II II II oH. NH. ON. I II II ON. v A50H% oaom «am Ham «a... lag x08 «.8 EH8. EH3 :93. «:0 ~02 aoflka 53323 H.333 353.5 champ vac gangs «mm oncm smou— vmesHh. OHHHao OHWHWW IhquHF @088qu Ian» mflxooo .838 “Emacs oucmmn I NInHV wages .83.» HEN 93mg REM?) mo Ngld ado: 33.8289 HHHHH oHpua xHuuomm< II II Imamxooo ouwmwn 5H0 «Immnaam IanIII GNOH O OO.H MM. rm. O I OO.H ov. mp. IH vaN GNOIH 0 mm. 3. 80m Om...” o mm.H mm. mm. mo. Ho.m m... om m III II . Hm . pm. . Hm. ou.v III II hm H I m¢ at v II On. hm . N om. II N ONIH NNIH NO I Hr.» v OH. I NN w 0 ON. b . MH. NN N am. ONIM . II II Cb v VH o H NV. Mw o 0 HQ.” m 8.” DO I. OVOq NH. wk} In 0 mWom III II 0 h. H mm. m I vH. Ow N Ow. OOIm III II II mt m «H Om. m mm. NNIN vaN Om.m III II II Om.m N am.“ 3. be. QQIN NvIM SIN OH. I II Om.m N O Hv OH mm” vm . OH I vm O 6*.” 'I' i I W .m ‘N OH.H HN. mp. mm. NIIM NNIH II II ova OH OO.H Om. Nm. OH. O¢I Om.m mmIv III N O *o. H” 0‘. OH. O N mm .m 8 0” ..- I. " OO.H Om. mm. Om. ON N 8. OO.H. I II II ONIV OH ONIH NN. N I wv. mHIN vOIN Om.m mmI II II O¢IN oH a .H mv. ov. No. NHIN o IN mOIN I II II mo.v H c H Hm. m. «o. mm.H NIN om.N II II II on.» b we. mm oN. mN.N MNIN ov.N Hun II II mQIm HM Ho...”H cm. on. HNIN NMIM COIN III II II OO.N 0 mm. ON. «m. ON. H I mNIN mo. II II ONHN ON mm. «I. mm. IN. ow.~ mm.a II II ww.~ bu ”Q. NM. NM. NO. ON EON . m5.” III M NH NNQH fiN. bm. ho. NOIH OVIN mOIN III II II Om. NN. NO. OH. mm H NN. OmIN III II II m>IN m OO. NN. mm. HH. VNIH ONIN mNIN III II II mOIN OH mu. NH. mm. mo. HNIN NN.N OIIN II II II omIN HN NH. wN. co. HmIH OOIm om.m II” II II mNIN ON 0 #mIH R CO. I II 8cm Ana» «N N I N I m £0.“th anon Hum mm.H OM.M ONIN II II II Om.m ”H I omnwvm udHaumzl Ham : oo.N III II II OOHN ON I Hana. H 0 ma II II oN N umvmn me uoaHa onoo I mN umm, . NO one o «no OO N .3000 .3 m a «:0 5.5 v wma coaaHue aHuu u as: vnu one saga «:0 m ndoq VI. IIOZ mexooo o aaHuH OHNNao nomoa O A nHv msHuooo IIIMI on. Nmm nuance chamon uvanas .:.HHmuw pH. N No seam >HHH Hana uHuaoqaq rill. wNI Iwnmxoou chomon hHuvamcmSfiw~£maoxs co. mo. mo.H mm.H mm.H II II II mm.H as me. In. «o. oo. mo.H >¢.H cm.H II II II oo.H IH II. on. oH. III I». IH.H o~.H II II II OH.H p om. mu. ho. mo. «o.H H¢.H oI.H II II II o¢.H «H mm. NH. 0H. III pa. Hm.H mm.H II II II mm.H a an. Hm. III HH. mm. oH.H oH.H II II II oH.H u no. pH. vs. III om. HH.H OH.H II II II oH.H «a II. HN. co. mo. mm. mH.H mH.H II II II mH.H oH Iv. pH. III oo. mu. oo.H mo.H II II II mo.H a II. mm. we. as. no. mH.H mH.H II II II mH.H mH mm. mm. «H. III mm. Im.H mm.H II II II mm.H oH «I. mH. mH. III mu. oH.H oH.H II II II CH.H H «m. cm. III mo. mm. IH.H mH.H II II II mH.H pH av. aH. we. me. by. mo.H mo.H II II II mc.H HH II. pH. oo. III II. oo.H mo.H II II II mo.H I II. om. be. III nu. ma. mm. II II II ma. mu bv. mH. no. me. or. mo.H mo.H II II II mo.H um um. Hm. No. mo. mm. Hm. om. II II II om. NH «I. pH. no. no. mm. mm. mm. II II II ma. m mm. mH. mo. III mm. ea. mI. II II II mm. mH II. mm. to. Io. om. oo.H mo.H II II II mo.H Ha om. mH. mo. No. Io. mm. ow. II II II cm. on an. oH. be. no. we. mm. om. II II II om. aH mm. IH. «o. III mm. mm. mm. II II II mm. m ow. mH. mo. III um. I». om. II II II om. on an. mH. mo. III mm. mp. ow. II II II am. as Hm. mH. mo. III om. II. or. II II II or. I “IIIHV. Icon «um «am Is. mafia... Ia. sHII _IHI« .aHI» «:0 .Iz “Oahu-LOG IHQHHHO man H83 #33 coflflds OIHOMED #50 GOSH—GHQ. Huh 80m adv...— UOEEHHV Ofiflvdo IHnHE c3329.. Ian mexoou chemo; ummxooo haemaN .nHv wstooo uoamn can muomon m«:w«03_mo huaaaum Maasmouom usoIauOLQ >HH oHnIa chaaamq -100- Imamxooo macaw; haovumw mama «:mHIII II. II II no. mm. om. om. aH. II II oo.H mu «I. II II HH. mm. mo.H oH.H an. II II oo.H «H In” II II OH. mm. mm. ca. om. II II oH.H p cm. II II «o. oo. pm. mm. om. II II m~.H «H aw. II II he. mm. Hm. ow. mm. II II oo.H m Io. II II 0H. mu. mo.H OH.H II II II oH.H « mm. II II we. om. mm. om. nH. II II mm. In ow. II II oo. mm. H». mp. om. II II mo.H oH Hm II II we. pm. .m. cm. 0H. II II cm. I In“ II II «o. mm. mm. mm. 0H. II II ma. mH pm. II II mo. mo. Ia. ma. mo. II II oo.H cH mm. II II co. mm. Hm. oo.H mH. II II mH.H H II. II II mo. am. oa. om. mH. II II mo.H pH II. II II he. mm. Nb. my. oH. II II mm. HH mm. II II mo. om. be. 0». II II II or. I II. II II mo. mm. om. om. II II II om. mm mw. II II mo. «m. H». op. mo. II II mu. In «I II II 0H. am. we. we. oH. II II m». «H mm” II II mo. mm. mm. ow. mo. II II mm. m on. II II >0. mm. m». cm. mo. II II mm. mH «I. II II mo. Im. pm. mo. mo. II II or. H« av. II II mo. mm. Iv. mu. mo. II II cm. on mm. II II he. ow. Hm. om. mo. II II we. aH om. II II «o. no. we. op. mo. II II my. m «I. II II mo. II. mm. mm. mo. II II as. an av. II II mo. «m. I». ah. QH. II II mm. mm as II II oo. om. av. om. II II II on. I Nasch oaom pug Hum 950 Iwaonoo «no .aHuv ath he :0 I0 floflvhom hdHH—Umfifi Hdflhotnm gaundhn 080909. #30 gun. Ham OH.Hom ”M0.— Omwfifih Gvado E 3.8.3 IIIIUIEHIIHI lapII unmxooo hwwmm mumxcoo mnemon AIDHV wnwxooo howmm can oucmmn ovnmflo: mo.huu&a:m ”down away» mmoaonom H>Hx IHnIa chqIIIH ‘3an USE L ‘\U nan P gap? ‘ Jr” "Anti"- ' , Ir- “fl" _' . AIM-Mi - ._s_,' __. I. .r'M} M ,._ .‘ a. HI W .—41? L...-.«I .‘L—I— I N STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES [H III III! I H 77 9014 IHIIIIIII Ill 1293 03