“ h“!
o .. ’.
.‘l6. 9:...

-

..'.;‘;:::.»;.j,

.uxeuuummmmumwm

 

 

 
    
  

 

' . d: .4 ’. a ' 'Opl .J‘ 0.
5.44 . s. _ a . , ,1 t 34; . ‘ wka‘
-? I f, 91"., g; . 'fi. - .3. -53- 4.3193, .f fiiflfihiygy‘sa ‘f ‘u.
. I k .‘U‘ 1.} to. ' «LL, 9" 0 -
— M. . - Myc ~¢=Aw~-‘.;-u-
. l‘k.‘ . ‘_ _ 'v _ ‘ ‘

3.FL:PI dd‘ns'g; ‘ ‘l' .. . _. _.. - l . .. ‘\ .u. .n. ..'.
K‘ . k 1" ‘61-‘18“ 4“ W‘.‘ "i "‘3' ‘3 73.3}. ”fa?" ‘3 "FN'A‘E'J? ‘
. ' I ‘
.3 4: *‘39w‘ss-

 
    

‘x

              

 
    
 

  

')
v-rt..." . ' " hfl- .. - ‘x
A; ._ . ,... -.?| I,‘ ‘ 2' .li. .. L ._4‘.| ;:' ' ‘3‘ '1é;‘¥...§ Ci‘.
3 , ~.' ‘— 7- ‘_ '. '5‘ ' " Ch’J-r-.s:t "£7215": ‘. 55:96’ 5' *v‘N'N
1'."‘ . uh . ‘- .! .'. . q . if!“ . .~. ) -{J . 'th .4 . __ .9_
~ '. . w. usmv‘ 2L... .. .~;,;.:-.---~yy .
~ .‘ g ._9 .. .:_ a.
.1 5"

    
   
       
 
  

  
   
  

.' _ ‘4
t' “1.1-1 .. . ‘ ”3"”
x _ n_ ;."‘.\' ftjv". ‘74'3'i“¢_‘
a; k (-9 fiéfii‘ MM“: 1933!? . fl

4‘. ) '33:-dy-illd‘fln“,¢.t¢£fifl. ‘lfif‘ ‘.:!-.

.u ‘- ' ‘ -
- 1-. ‘0'.

Q

  
 
  
  

    

     
 

   

O ... . I. ‘ O. n .‘
.2: 9‘? i?. k‘ {30“} . Lv .‘ l - |.. .2‘) 5 " ‘ ‘1’: g j
"in ..J‘.-.~'.y :, ' “a -% in u --.’»;’ . (“fl - ‘. .“. lint-7.. :5" .
3,”. H: . fl ,5. «‘3: . ; ..:. .- ,. ‘1.“ s 3.5"”! (1- .§._-:'\-.; '. 'v. ,. 1‘ .- (3*..- . "v, '9 1 , A, .
5‘: ‘ w . ..'-. 5.2.11 - - m an. . 3" "a ' “31"“ "at ‘ ‘ ' '3’. ' 4’ L5“ 93”” '5? "
'. Tu . 0‘ 9'4" ."4" . . ,L. ‘A . ,. t in, :_.‘§.lv .’ ..a .‘ Ma“ Q.- - . ‘4 n... .‘o‘ . A
. u ‘ . .\' i .‘|. . y... :’ l‘. o. .' r?.1‘\9.ofl. . 3‘30.‘ ‘f';:“£' JI‘.‘ fi ( | f._ur
w “15-154,. 9' . NJ :--.- . ’5' ‘:.-x. r.- .. W
' v o 6 . . *r, - . . ‘ . .l U: . o ’ n .
o. ' ' ' ' - lazily .0 u'gavohi". d, “l" 2‘Effl‘l‘ -" "tk‘ : . "*.,.r-
o, . , . 1 W». u is ‘-~;‘- 'c z... ~.'.‘f

   
 

Juli?"

-_ “3“? ‘;€_' t #5:. ~ I

   

   

      
  
 

 
 

_ H ". ' U ' o
' {a y 3. 'tsf°f';:§1' *\?\u§:;afl {iii
«A ' v ‘ - . .. “ - '- J~ I.
H a {3.}, .1. '1 v9.1 w 3;, Jlgnw 5.5“ a fiuJ X .,._ .
fxt ‘uf‘,. . i. . "3?. A.“ . ‘.. gr , la -_
‘ ‘ " 0‘ .. ' 3"“ :8"? v‘ "I ‘U‘ C -%$“'.‘ '4 . .0 "Q
. . 'u . - <nl|l\%’-'\ 'V‘C‘" “ .' —' W‘r ‘ “0- _
I. I. o t " ""-I>“..“J:O ‘ or", I' - L I“ '
v‘. «5'. v 4‘ n a ‘ . .‘ r _'I . -m‘flnf." "- . -1 "
u I ‘ ' 4 '31:. ; ‘z§ ‘wb‘y'bfl 5’"..R . ' ‘ ‘. -
' c

   

       
   

     
 

 
 
  

 

     
 
 
   

    

C- .‘t
_y\ . k 0 0'.- I .‘f .
f'o‘o‘ (J 9 ‘ ' 43' ‘ - ' ' .
H. '5'.” ' . {00;} .tf‘: .“ .A’ '0.“ .3 \rltlv ..‘ 1...! . ‘;."O~ ' s
. an, ‘4 Q.‘: ‘ n ' . " . fl ‘ "’__".':‘.'o' C ,‘og'mli
-_ 0. ' ' ‘1. C "V 1.1
" ‘ -.‘ .. 3. ‘ l
Jiho—‘A f. 7 0 V 'S
n A . . v ' .1 . lt ‘
-‘ I. '. ‘ i C -1 ‘$O.-c ’71~_ ‘14.. \p' Q",:','.:2£' . '3‘ ‘k'
a: .Iuflr “5...? ‘ ‘ _.. .p.'.1.u":'*53w3" .}\'.
. ' ‘m ’ 9. ' . ”ti?!" :.-d."k~- N ' ‘ I. " 'oup ..l~ ‘ ‘.' ‘ ‘ ".* " ‘h.h-'
.. ,. 5-3.1. ‘«,_‘_f-..'-1" 4L,“ n. , a X{ Mpg,“ ".fi “n. 1,.) ~:.'
' - ~--- ' «- - WWW" t ‘43} w ‘ 83.. 2":
. - - ‘I - ' . :_

 

  

‘1.- ‘
o. u

 

. id .
- ~ .1. ,
.. .ififi- .' J - .'.‘4 I t
' ' .‘J' 9. c-'. '-'3 '5‘
q ' ' ‘

I '.‘.
«"3. .-
I" ~ 0.

O

  
  

5%.
" m
~%
I
3:
in
a.
*i
?
i

'9?
. a-
£0

t!
1,5.
gm

\
{a
‘N
.5»
a.
v?
.5

K

i

 

 
 
 

   
 
 
       
  
 
  

' .
'u‘ ' 3R ' J : '- '. '_ u ‘ _ .
v.’ .'I'-’.'r'!""-'uet¢-‘° 357‘- "“1"? 3.55%.:- -’!R q“ ‘7" '-"- ..'-‘-a ,
... ' _ f .,-‘ :3— 41""..‘g ~;.JI_‘> "r '5 ‘1". ""‘.":f .0..'.“"‘ ""43: ‘ 'J'
”“9. T.‘ "u o" x." ' or: U. q‘, ,5; _‘ o 3,, -. , \l. o - g‘ f; g: : ~ ‘ ‘ 1. ‘.'.r‘-‘ v’d"
~'.. '1 : ' ‘- - 1 {iv‘ «'74 I! , -".‘. -.r’ "“4 '14,” 9:".r'o'o. . -‘
4:0 ' ' 0 .gj“. ,‘r a. 0'1, “4'14” ‘I N'- ":5" :4; 3* u - v’o ‘nflgb";r 1:52.!
\- .w' ' - . ;;" ‘uw ‘- - -‘. '.. '-.~'_ :0' 'v ‘, .5
. '6‘f'}.9‘.. 24¢ ;‘--'g“- y‘- ”b "U L’-!‘; ’9‘. .' {..{ L'i" lkfi‘dk‘.\.‘"a"'
no ".ng n.’ - ', 9 3 9- .,,a ., ~.. In. 5”? ~§ '. {. he! o -.- r ‘ ‘ .'
' 5!: ‘44.,” . ..‘u‘, , \l" "(3 v r..'t 'f‘" ‘1‘ .,_- ‘ ,.rf'$rr'T-,‘! pf} .1"
um : ' 3:41.- -. ..-’.*..-'-~.*-4v-rw NJ, . "2.1- H. p... - -'-
-._ . 9:_ ' _ '. 'I.l ., v. ".I1-,.' v.0 P Ltd ‘I‘fi’. ..‘.. ‘ ' .i ‘QI‘K ' l
. 9' " J‘ -’ 5 ”a" ' . '1. r": 183‘;- ‘t‘."" : '44.?‘3"

C

0
‘4
Q
n

   

l
-v\'n ' ‘0" -
"l' Dr.v‘ff' uz-o‘rrt' a,
I.~o‘. ,.., . .
‘ .

   

  
  

 
   
 
 

 
  

 

  
    

'I‘
".'. 1“... V"! Ir
- ( 0:1.n ". .-.
-- ~ - .- . .- . ’97: ’ t:'“~.-.
I’:-. l' ' ‘0. .!'v.’ ""0-"...‘Io‘v’o'v‘ .’ '.. .." .1.‘ '1 ‘::O.- .aflp'i" 4.; c
-- .o 'n' N!’ > , .J. -.. 9- J ' ‘ '1': '.,__ .' .‘-....
.. '. .,v- ,no_.. . “.4 ‘9. lo . ' 1"-3‘..3 , .- ___ . '.‘f‘..
1 . - a- ‘m .u - gt“ (coo-or -..~. . n ‘l _ z‘ ' . "..—5- t,‘,. ,
. t - ‘3,_..’.‘o- ‘..‘t , .4.-1' 'k'fl""
. .! ‘7 3’0 - ° ';“W ‘
'4 E0 - -‘¢v‘0 r
_"'. 5,“? ~‘I’.Da.

   
     
 
    
    
 
    
   
    
    
 

.. Q . r
. _ » . .0 ‘0 " . - ‘
. .to - dgl 'I" _ _ . ." ‘ ,. . V.‘ " '.' , I
L - 0' , - L. a... ‘:;"-.‘ .. "f“ ,.<. .. :-. o '3.- “' 0‘ .. h ‘2’: L_ _
- 0 Cor ‘_ m l" " .’ " , , . J. v o 5. 0" 'v.". ’ ' - ..'.. u - g . . .l ‘ r J’ "0'" " rod—"'4‘." . I
' '. . . . o. L . . r- ' u . . , ._. ...=. . rt ""1? 'i . ~ 7,. so u) o 0' '- " " “ ‘ - . -—-‘\.-
I ’.‘ . ‘0' .I.’ ' to'.-*I.- "" """" " " —< ~~~O"‘ _,...".......’ .3 " r““".
' " . 'f‘ ' - . .Q - on I\| ' -." -’.“- ' ~ - II C-v-o- ; ‘" "‘~’“" - . v
rt 5... r «'3 ' -v'J r" . ._ l-.....oo. - ' nI-. [ugh _" “.V'. . .c ‘r ‘
-. _ ‘ ..' ' _ _. _‘ _ ,.- . “I." ‘ '0'. a ._..~. up. .a-
r- - - I . . , - rh 0,...‘... .‘..-.....-...-- - - .-
. *Nf‘. ' '0 '.. . . 9 I. H . I D a O- ' "“.‘ ' W- .’ v or -¢‘ 0 ‘ ' . -. t" . l '
l’ .. 3'. - 'r . ' v "‘ '. “2-0;" '° .. .°.-.! .: ...-;'-.— ~0-ov’Jrlfi‘W'“ ”’
.' ‘ ' 9' fl . ' .. '|'¢-: . o-n you'd!“ ' .‘k. ":-. .Q."- 'h ‘ "‘ "fir . .
-. ..'u.¢-o-v ' ' ' . ‘ " .1 -.—-‘--"'v""'°‘..¢ .
y - o ' fl; . V - . ., r. O o ‘
. .0 , ' ° ' ’ - , I 0 0° - ' ' v ‘
-o- " ' ‘ ' ‘ .0- 9c '
o. .
,r- . 4 ’ ‘ - . - ’- : « a 94W
’. ‘ . a... 0' “ '-D .‘ ‘ "JO'.. .1" c~- ' '0 «NO. .ll'o.“’l f"- ' oi... ._ 'nol-l -ooao- a
"' 4 " A .c. .v- '0’- ’ .| v-n -" M'J".l ‘
.l_ '1, _ . a — - ‘ O , .-oo‘ ' J . ‘ ,— ‘-o.- o", d ' " r‘. ...,. . .-0.-oo - '1‘“ d’ 'I
"I " ‘ "V ' N _ 0 —’ "' "'f" ’ ". - .u 4 r ; -o 4 v- 0‘0 ”.4 V "" ' ‘1‘, . .2 -.’~‘-I o» vu‘ 1". ‘
'. . . . , .- ’ . 0—. o . >0 u"'" ' I ' "' '. . 0'. .. . if. "on I- ‘0’.. - _ .-M‘ b...‘,
O I. . ' l ' P a- . ‘0’; :Q J. “.' . ...o"“. c .‘9 r ' ‘ " . -_" , . - .o ‘0 "N ‘ “'
"'—‘ .—H’- 70:OI}(.’° ‘ ’ ' -u" ’ - ...'r0 anon-"W’I
‘ . ~4' A- u o ,
.’ . ,._ ‘ .- .¢{ .: d' ~drp - ~ I ‘. -. ]""" Mar. . .
-v .’o ,-. - '~0 '0 " ‘L'qf, .4...” ..- r. a u - ”W94 ‘ “" “"'"
o *c - 'fi'."°' _ q.,._.-'.'1~r-r\;‘1 '1'”..- ‘ '
p. _ v."_ _.~".‘0-:I‘ a fl'p"
vb..-

   
  
     
      

    
 

 
   
  
   
  
    

   

   
   
 
 
 
  

 

 
 

    

 
 
 
 
   
 
 
  

‘
.
d-vfi- ’—"°- :r;.-I _...~~. 0,. F .37 2"
c"’-"“_ ' .... 4, ...- ~:~-vr':‘,- , Hunt. - . ..
- ‘ ""2" -5'v.,r.'.'.*..,.Lurk-—----"':-;r:.::.:=.:’;x'?‘='~ : . ,1.“ - «w- . _ -.,. ..,.,.,.;,.. . - ....’
.. .147 mu. .4 . 0- "NF-'0 "' 'C. '2'}: ".w “9; ‘ " " " ."'.""':.° . .-,- '~.- vv-Mo 'r’f’ ‘ .4y-v "(V ’1'“'9‘ .
\ . '.-'-..-° —-" ‘4‘""" ‘ "'" -‘3..-. -.—ngr"'-*"r""’°" ....,....-a-~> _- .. <~ ow. -o‘ 14-‘0-‘0”
.; f... , “1 . 5 .v o‘ «- PO‘YO .3 ..:.."..' -,'.._g.- .--l .".;"‘ . -' --.+ wr-D-G “Who-0"" *dwop p.49». '-
‘ ’" _ O¢anllii y. --r "" ' .' ‘“I,_ . .,o'.'.~0‘ ' 'fll W"? V. ‘ - 4'. -;w v.1... , 4 ’0’. .' in...‘ wM~4.~.hw“-*‘
. ":o'; 0"“ f" "flflw’-’ a! ‘4’f.:5’o."b.o." ." *'-_ -:. h:;fi.. opf‘h’ivw ~' ’ “ ' uh.--o "'°“0" W."
' -.- C . , --. . -
.. ".f.‘ ' ' 7" ~. ~ - ”‘r‘w‘w' w :3: “7!. J."- «-«:"':°".'.'.IH." '9- -. ~ ”:W‘W'
'° . HS ’ o ”3"! to "
'r'"-:.r’u"~.u . -.-a 5“".‘1' "fig. “. t '0 3 r d ‘ " ' '3 "r ‘ I -- “fir-n. v
'0’“ ' a y. o l‘ - f.- » v
... A -rw~- 0 b"' " 3"."T -_:::yug .r u.)~-"'""""t,’: ',,::‘:'. .V.‘P> r .1. u ‘W'1 -' ... ,' .,,. WI ‘. v
..'.-..-.4_ , . .';, .. Ole-at, . ..".I ':..-“..-'-o - “L ...,.I 0" ", ‘m.fi_(.' a. On. ‘ . “~"“m'¢. -. _ s
' . .4...‘.."' I 0‘ 0“ '0 '. :melF- ,, " aw . "' ,-..¢.‘ "9' '..‘.‘ , M. - Srfi '{U‘W ‘ ”0:. . ' d M¢WJO ~1. #.r.~..‘t‘7~'.‘..—
. . ‘ . _.-_- u...' . ol -Qvo:. o»; ,-,-.r..‘ at «a. “a ¢v-.- r - .w: ‘ -' . .,~ "‘1 'I’ r< Nr'" not: ‘5' 3-._‘_W’,-JNJ¢’.WI¢*O c g-”
‘ .?;:. .-"1..'. .r'“ - . . "p :- .o-r ~‘LVV". l.. .-.- ,w.- .-‘I. ;‘O“t.’.l..; .'.. " . *.—- 9.. fl ~*".MW"'"' y'CCo-la" _-.-*.<'\--OQ
. . "v,o-. ’. ... w’ 3‘? I..o.- .1: If; u . "l .'.J‘.‘. oven-y.‘-;(z;-PJ; ’-...~. '.".:"J‘ ‘fk‘ ’H-am;.;f'ottr-..‘::';‘F?" I to ”w.~q ' ’I‘.‘m'2...‘“w’-o
" - .... ' "If. . , .- ’»l v u‘ '1 _. r. .- as. otfi‘)v-Q._‘ ‘f'.’ .' Q .r' I.‘ ....‘. '0 «(£- .. .. v . . “'”‘~ 1"” ”ova-Mm- '__"':.. .': "'_‘ ' .. ,
- "“r o 0. ~t‘)“0'.' ’ l“' .d . “3" I d' ‘7 " J. . "wag". J' _ 74 _,.....apv.--n'~- V‘. ".‘u':
.1 a... ”-0.... . .00} ’0. M . . 4,. Op ”0‘ . . a _‘ ’.,,_ . rvm-v o 9 . 1"” 3' Y... .. , -d o ”~NV",,~ -,..¢.q c..- m .
. , . , g , fi ’ up" - I k - '0’” I “~ ”" ; . " * 'WQI". I H" . ' 1" -d...‘ ,. an -' '0 “ "‘,'_ ..o.-}_ - ' .3, -“w... D. .M’xw I 9". .. “may“... .5"
V," ' ' H" 'I L ' . 'f' , . .. - -v‘v I". ' '. " _‘ I.-. n04 I .»..- I! r0 flaw" ’r’r‘ '.. .9, - Jv'v“m‘ o ‘m’p’ '“"~w' . .- o.w---'- [vap'm "w
. L .'.-~ 0.3-1 ' "2313 : ...'_r$ .Stlt-c-‘u ~3_~°_._"”...¢ ':~'¢”r: :11 ‘rflff-‘~'o ,..4- ,go.u_ V'fl-C-rlet'x‘ X. vw~ «a» : :17: 'Prvmm
. - 0- ' - " , .'. 0' “" ' ' ' V'" - nkvo‘o o'cloc- ' '“. g n‘ '0‘
"O. 0" u . ‘?I..; '.’7.’.‘Tufr-‘- "‘" ’ ' ’. _...- .3: 1'12. .2". o~v-§"‘"'“""~. ..'...It.p ’00:.yov- on. « --.—o..~. our-:0 ‘EQQW .mv.:ooroil ‘l' M- 9“
—"O .'.'._I " h. o J! .‘_ .. ' . '(r. '.._"\.O V“ ' -.' 00'1" F‘ .\-',..,_ r, o 04.,“ - «iz'... .n’ . a col-cyanc‘uri' ‘0‘ ". "0“ V“"'"" ...4— q;
‘.. 0; ~ It .‘. ,.., ,,.. a «gun-O uv ‘Tlfir. w. .%."u'on1.' .. ., .. . . ..-....~.. firs-1.5.: -" ”J”. ’v, ,. «Jo fu~ufi «WW 0"..."" ..,,-—1...5 wovf",31""' .7...
V. ’ " .._ -. . 9 o .'.-5o¢v‘ .n.’.' '- ‘U _ ' ..;p..-'—-vv-cwo D’_'!' 3 .‘ “.J'd' '.' U." ‘6’ ' '.’ .. M1. r.” .“.“
v. .' 'f"' ,.' -. . -_ v- _ .49- - - ¢ . -'. :b:;*a.' "”-'o" ‘1. " ."” .- '33." no. ‘poc‘v-h 'vdt’.‘_,.~.op.oc "’p.'”7"wfi;- 09- WHO"..""'._ ‘sg..yv~“
_ “‘1... .‘, ,V r. . an»; .. «Irv ' "_ ' M“ “.300.V"'Iod ans . p - l .. , .wv... poo-OH-.. - . fl, "wxvmwv . . .
’ '-_‘. ..yuq .50 p b. .ov-‘ot O’V" "' "..'..w‘".o’~v..va M- ; “.- . Ir .‘-.. (“av-m-“ "'3'. _,.¢..de Iv“ _ q-poan' RV “'
q H . J Ico- -' -" ,. .od's- Cuol- 0' ‘v' "I" I". .. ac... ~01 IV.-"'" ' ..l..|“..,“‘~sw.‘w «*1. ,erl‘i % fin.”~.MOVI<Q$—'"” CI... ’-
- :3 ..J ooo' o “.0. - -.. ‘.~. 0“ ".'..u'-‘-:~‘ 3.1:. 1-7 ." V"::"~"'“:'Y 0-W'“ ”m"- -' 'l I M >;.:WC?‘_~3. “n""d ' I .I ! ' "".,...“‘.".Q,. \‘l .1.
’ ‘ . _ . h .w ‘ ' . . an. .‘ V ,0 0‘. a. ' . --O.'-”- '3 _ . . -‘
' “""""'., L ' ,.. -:'--‘o- " 0'0 _ ’ “‘3. 3...."a ‘ -”-"' “ “_’.."“..::,1.¢: 0.“... ’V""'""“.':“.ou.,oax-.‘ "No“-.. 'l ”0“ ,~, v..Mw...a-.p~a w-VICW'Y ‘l
.-.-- o ._ ..- ‘3". ... J. - -- o—a- - 3r ' . .,..,_--. .o a- can ”vi“ - ”My“, , .,,... ro~--M"f:"“”_, ‘. . ~‘M‘M’d‘"' “”W".~_'€:u ”vwnH...» -. --w
I... :0. - .‘u u" . I 0 -<> '“0‘. .v-“ “w. 5‘ 2““ '.:.'.-.-D “""0"“"" ’.“ r:;::’.. .. V“"‘ ”-91" U 0-... v ' ”.0, II MQIA'TWOOO‘” . .f.
.-. .- 5~-11,0. "N'h . .__ -o-O" --- ' .__, . "u .- r‘l'r-fl" M’ . .nw .
9 4-: 1". ‘._h 7-. - ”'0‘ ““00“" 5—moo. :- .Ufi:g0'::_” .35.“...m' .- «"fi' ‘n..fi‘m":.. .“W. ..
' '.° . ' '~ 0. ' "‘ " ’ " ”i V , -,.. 00“.! who." W';':;‘mh:-«n-‘: ".mmh "3’: mM ‘0. "QM-upmmwvh '1:m. ’0': ”—
_ a- .4‘ '- _ ‘ .‘. ‘ ‘ g” V
.. c. .. 5 -.'.O:...'."'.'..... _ - .- ,. . . r. “3:3; ‘1, . .-‘.?;.1.‘..+-“ 'vw'vw» 35:11:33.3“... W”.+.... -. :"“"“""‘"‘..:Ii'.'”.n=-W.o—-3” “7,-3.7 n.,.:'.':",.m “‘5.— :3."
. . - °' " . ~ ' ‘ "V ‘ 0 .grer ~0- - M” *0 “Vet" ‘ mold. " - ‘-
“ “"" ‘ "‘ ". J". '. - ~ ' aw‘ ’ V 1". ‘1'“v .3...-IT’¢Q'*‘M"’ ”' ‘i— -nO-g. 'm‘mfl‘w W 0". ‘.“"' "-
‘J- ' -I',_U... a. . .'1‘o.ob - ' “‘1-7“ ' .°'..’;'.°:.~’ —.. ’: .“m 0;"..‘I-fifram? ;.‘.'.~‘ nu.” W 0'...“ ‘N.’ 9-..."nhM-4
' ‘ ' . ~ "~0 0 .‘V" 0.”,- ‘ '"~ ' ' g. .‘owo’
.. . c .1 ~ .'*.3.1 0: .'.fl:‘. 1 -- .1- . . .I‘J.‘ ‘ '. .— . '“n-h....~:-'-O.O.:.,.:: W“ q-‘ ”'.:::n~.fim¢o?-"‘«1 .22.“ '3'. “"79”" 1-.
> ._ ..._ --.— - . .u.._»o>o-‘°." . . on. “4-0:”
o- .u. mu ' "\ _ M ~-".—l‘v.-J..‘ O‘n‘ .«. .F'vns-H ' O‘"‘“ a
- ‘ ' ” ’ ' ' 1-“. ' "I". '4' < *wn'r-ar'b'w"""" M—W.’
_ .0 ' "’ 'L " I 0-..- .- “5' w 7" ""‘ ""I - ”w- 0-~-N ' ""
-.1 g .. —- . - . - . «3:... ,-£..:......ma---w ,(..-£:::::::.....:..- MW «-
' ‘ ' .‘ -v‘ "0' "::.‘ . a .- OM ., w- b'~\"-"',' ‘2‘“..w'ow 0’.‘ erw Mrdm.
_ '— — - 9-0 _ . - - > J» M' .
“'“V” "m " . ‘~ 5... n ' ' ‘ ' . O..-w‘\fl.'J ".OCPI-V-'-'..’. 'I. :m..~.~r
_ ‘.. _ . . . . a: v_ - . “’“w. _ . *’ _. .Q-.« 57"";~="'W,.- ,m
° ’1' ° J -..- o." ' u "'r ‘~‘ .voo; "' " 3, 4"“: . «0 9'0“"
-9 -'-pu. . "'00'0. 'J -1 . _ ’ . p Afinqawg rzg."':-‘;£M’ M" .u—-»-.OQ~
'r‘" ' - '. ,.., .‘.. ‘QQQ- 0 *~_ -“V ..
. . ~ - ; o . . .
' t';.,.‘.,= .-.. - ; ~ wt " -.—"73g; ""4"" .trqfiflvum'fl?" v9!
.v,-o-&,. .- L" 7"“ w‘; .-‘. O. D ”‘f..p'!3v.'::nvo *0
" ‘oovfa'fifl- ( "' II ,o ”-9
‘ by ' .w.

I '5
~ . ..
""‘ Jodo—' n'kfi"

- .‘ -5 5 ‘ U o ‘ '0 0". ' P. 9 - g ' ,"poor C." ‘.“ I- ’
“‘" ._'-- not' ' . . H g a V .,.-~-‘"‘ ' 10.0“. y..'-nvO-..' '1q
l.. .0..- . a...‘-“" ‘ . ' ' ‘ ‘ A ‘ . "0..-. ‘1' ”#‘0. F. " '9 0’
-.. ‘.-.v,n- ~:l.”a‘ A- - ' . ‘- n 'l ' | ‘
. - 0111 - - ‘_‘_ JJ_mL_.Mbm—s 'W
' 0' " ' J! m - _ I

u- '
.4 . - a r. . - O
:4912 g ’ "’" . I».|" A "7;”,

N13 3 0 “I 75
mumwmu.1111111111me Illlllullul

3 1293 00590 752 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

This is to certify that the

t .csi entitled

RhEOLOf‘ aICAL PROPERTIES AND ADHESIOII OF
FLOUR—BASED BATTER TO CHICKEN NUGGETS

presented by

Hsien—Yu Hsia

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M. 30 degree in 1989

g“ ':

Major professor

Date 10/20/1989

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

‘—-—‘_-4 Q ‘m--

_'_"_.fir—_-"n¥'mwwfl .— ——-‘.w “~VM-

 

 

 

I?‘ ""

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES roturn on or baton duo duo.

ll WEDUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

__—_l_____l.—_—__l

 

 

 

 

 

MSU to An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES AND ADHESION OF
FLOUR-BASED BATTER T0 CHICKEN NUGGETS

By

Hsien-Yu Hsia

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition

1989

b03bolg

ABSTRACT

RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES AND ADHESION 0F
FLOUR-BASED BATTER T0 CHICKEN NUGGETS

By

Hsien-Yu Hsia

Rheological characteristics of chicken batters, containing three
hydrocolloids (guar, xanthan, and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)) at three
concentrations (0.25, 0.5, 1.0%) and two solids contents (30%, 40%),
were determined using mixer viscometry techniques. Time-dependence,
apparent viscosity, shear-thinning behavior and batter recovery were
determined. Most batters exhibited thixotropy. Apparent viscosity of the
30% solids batters decreased.with hydrocolloid type: xanthan, guar, CMC,
and. the control,respectively. ,Apparent 'viscosity’ of the 40% solids
batters was slightly different and decreased.in the order: guar, xanthan,
CMC, and. the control, respectively; ,Apparent 'viscosity' and. adhesion
increased with an increase in hydrocolloid concentration and batter solids
content in the batter. Apparent viscosity was highly correlated to batter
adhesion characteristics such as percent coating pickup, percent overall
yield, and percent cooking yield. Mixer viscometry techniques can be used
to follow changes in batter rheological properties caused by mixing speed

and time and to predict the adhesion of batter to chicken nuggets.

I sincerely dedicate this thesis to my parents
Mr. Si-Long Hsia and Mrs. Chang-Hui Chen Hsia

for their invigoration and love

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I express my deepest appreciation to my major professor, Dr. D.
Smith, for her earnest instruction and support in finishing this
research project.

I also appreciate the assistance of the committee members guiding
this study, Dr. J. F. Steffe, Dr. P. Markakis, and Dr. C. J. Flegal for
their advice and inspiration.

Thanks are expressed to Dr. C. M. Stine, Dr. J. F. Price, Dr. M. A.
Uebersax, and T. T. Forton for their supplying some of the experimental
instruments, materials, and space.

Special acknowledge is extended to F. A. Osorio, M. E. Castell-
Perez, M. S. Yeh, T. C. Wang, S. M. Lai, and T. J. Herald for their
expertise and assistance.

Appreciation is also extended to Newly Weds Foods Incorporated,
Miles Laboratories Incorporated, and TIC Gums Incorporated for
supplying some of the experimental materials.

Finally, I present my most cordial thanks to my parents for their
financial support and invigoration during my master study. I sincerely

dedicate this thesis to them.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................
NOMENCLATURE ....................................................

INTRODUCTION ....................................................

C. RHEOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS AND TECHNIQUES .................
l. RHEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FLUID FOODS ..........
2. RHEOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR OF FOODSTUFFS ..................
3. MODELS IN TIME«INDEPENDENT PSEUDOPLASTIC (SHEAR-

THINNING) FLUIDS ....................................
4. MODELS FOR TIME-DEPENDENT, THIXOTROPIC FLUIDS .......
5. RHEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BATTER MIXES .........
6. RHEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HYDROCOLLOIDS ........
(l) Guar Gum ......................................
(2) Xanthan Gum ...................................
(3) Sodium Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) ...........
7. VISCOMETRIC TECHNIQUES FOR FOODSTUFFS ..............
8. MIXER VISCOMETERY TECHNIQUES FOR FOODSTUFFS .........
D. ADHESION MEASUREMENTS AND TECHNIQUES ...................
1. THEORY FOR THE ADHESION OF BATTER TO POULTRY SKIN ...
2. METHODS T0 MEASURE THE ADHESION OF COATING ..........
3. EFFECT OF POULTRY PROCESSING ON ADHESION OF
COATING .............................................
4. EFFECT OF PREDIPS, COATING COMPOSITION, AND COATING
PREPARATION METHODS ON ADHESION OF COATING ..........
5. EFFECT OF COATING TEMPERATURE ON ADHESION OF
COATING .............................................
6. EFFECT OF FRYING MEDIUM, FRYER TEMPERATURE AND
HOLDING ON ADHESION OF COATING ......................
7. EFFECT OF COOKING METHOD ON ADHESION OF COATING .....

D.
E.

RESULTS

A.
B.

D.

E

, RHEOLOCICAL MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

1. RHEOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT .............................
2. RHEOLOGICAL CALCULATIONS ............................
(I) Time-Dependency ...............................

(2) Apparent Viscosity and Shear-Thinning
Behavior ......................................
(3) Determination of Recovery .....................
ADHESION MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION METHODS ............
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS ....................................

TIME-INDEPENDENT APPARENT VISCOSITY OF BATTERS AT
EQUILIBRIUM .............................................
1. TORQUE (M ) vs ANGULAR VELOCITY (O ) ...............
. FLOW EEHANIOR INDEX (n ) OF BATTERS .................
. CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT (K ) OF BATTERS .............
. APPARENT VISCOSITY (p ) OFXBATTERS ..................
. RECOVERY OF CHICKEN BATTERS .........................
HESION CHARACTERISTICS OF BATTERS .....................
. ADHESION CHARACTERISTICS OF 30% SOLIDS CHICKEN
BATTERS .............................................
2. ADHESION CHARACTERISTICS OF 40% SOLIDS CHICKEN
mums .............................................
3. COMPARISON OF ADHESION CHARACTERISTICS OF 30% AND 40%
SOLIDS BATTERS ......................................
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RHEOLOCICAL PROPERTIES AND ADHESION
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHICKEN BATTERS ......................
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

2
3
a
5
AD
1

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .........................................

FUTURE RESEARCH .................................................

REFERENCES ......................................................

APPENDIX ........................................................

vi

51
51
5h
56
59
66
70

70
77
85
85
89
90
92

93

100

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

10

11

12

13

LIST OF TABLES

The market for fresh and processed poultry in the
United States for selected years (in millions of
dollars) (U.S. Department of Commerce; Business Trade
Analysts) .............................................

Fresh and processed poultry expressed as a percentage
of manufacturers' sales (U.S. Department of Commerce;
Business Trade Analysts) ..............................
Data of 1.5% guar gum standard used to evaluate batter
consistency coefficients from the MV paddle data
(Steffe and Ford, 1985) ...............................

Time-dependency data of 30% solids batters containing
various hydrocolloids .................................

Time-dependency data of 40% solids batters containing
various hydrocolloids .................................

Angular velocity (0 ) vs torque (M ) of 30% solids
x x
batters ...............................................

Angular velocity (0 ) vs torque (Mx) of 40% solids
batters containing I% hydrocolloid ....................

Power law model parameters of 30% solids control batter
and batters containing different concentrations of three
hydrocolloids .........................................

Power law model parameters of 40% solids control batter
and batters containing 1% of three hydrocolloids ......

Consistency coefficients of 30% solids batters ........
Consistency coefficients of 40% solids batters ........

Recovery of 30% solids control batter and batters
containing different hydrocolloids ....................

Recovery of 40% solids control batter and batters
containing different hydrocolloids ....................

vii

Page

35

49

SO

52

53

55

55
57

58

68

69

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Tabel

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

Correlation coefficient of apparent viscosity vs
adhesion characteristics of 30% solids chicken
batters ...............................................

Correlation coefficient of apparent viscosity vs
adhesion characteristics of 40% solids chicken

batters ...............................................

Torque vs time of 30% solids batters measured at
70 rpm, 100 C ..........................................

Torque vs time of 40% solids batters measured at
70 rpm, 100 C ..........................................

Apparent viscosity, pa, of 30% solids chicken batters .
Apparent viscosity, pa, of 40% solids chicken batters .
Percent crumb loss, percent cooking loss, percent
coating pickup, percent overall yield, and percent
cooking yield of 30% solids chicken batters ...........
Percent crumb loss, percent cooking loss, percent

coating pickup, percent overall yield, and percent
cooking yield of 40% solids chicken batters ...........

viii

Page

100

103

104

105

106

107

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

10

11

LIST OF FIGURES

Transverse section of poultry skin showing the

(A) stratum corneum, (B) stratum germinatirum,

(C) epidermis, (D) dermis, (E) muscle fibers, and

(F) adipose cells. (From Suderman and Cunningham,
1980) ................................................

MV paddle sensor (Steffe and Ford, 1985) .............

Representative plot of torque vs time data collected
using Haake RV—12 viscometer .........................

Torque of 30% solids batters with and without guar
gum measured at 70 rpm, 100 C .........................

Torque of 30% solids batters with and without xanthan
gum measured at 70 rpm, 100 C ........................

Torque of 30% solids batters with and without sodium
carboxymethylcellulose(CMC) measured at70 rpm, 100 C .

Torque of 40% solids batters with and without 1%
hydrocolloid (guar gum, xanthan gum, sodium
carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)) measured at 70 rpm,
100 C ................................................

Torque of 30% and 40% solids batters with 1%
hydrocolloid (guar gum, xanthan gum, sodium
carboxymethylcellulose(CMC)) measured at 70 rpm, 100 C

Apparent viscosity vs average shear rate of 30% solids
batter containing guar gum ..........................

Apparent viscosity vs average shear rate of 30% solids
batter containing xanthan gum ........................

Apparent viscosity vs average shear rate of 30% solids
batter containing sodium carboxymethylcellulose(CMC)

Apparent viscosity vs average shear rate of 40% solids

batter containing 1% hydrocolloid (guar gum, xanthan
gum, sodium carboxymethylcellulose(CMC)) .............

ix

Page

19

30

32

44

45

46

47

48

61

62

63

64

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

Apparent viscosity vs average shear rate of 30% and

40% solids batter containing 1% hydrocolloid (guar gum,

xanthan gum, sodium carboxymethylcellulose(CMC)) .....
Percent crumb loss of chicken nuggets prepared with
30% solids batters containing different hydrocolloid .

Percent cooking loss of chicken nuggets prepared with
30% solids batters containing different hydrocolloid .

Percent coating pickup of chicken nuggets prepared
with 30% solids batters containing different
hydrocolloid .........................................

Percent overall yield of chicken nuggets prepared
with 30% solids batters containing different
hydrocolloid .........................................

Percent cooking yield of chicken nuggets prepared
with 30% solids batters containing different
hydrocolloid .........................................

Percent crumb loss of chicken nuggets propared with
40% solids batters containing different hydrocolloid

Percent cooking loss of chicken nuggets prepared with
40% solids batters containing different hydrocolloid

Percent coating pickup of chicken nuggets prepared
with 40% solids batters containing different
hydrocolloid ........................................
Percent overall yield of chicken nuggets prepared
with 40% solids batters containing different
hydrocolloid ........................................
Percent cooking yield of chicken nuggets prepared
with 40% solids batters containing different
hydrocolloid .........................................

Page

65

72

73

74

75

76

80

81

82

83

84

CMC

kl

NOMENCLATURE

intercept of torque vs time, N m
slope of torque vs time
coefficient, N m sn
sodium carboxymethylcellulose

mixer viscometer constant, l/rad

consistency coefficient, dimensionless
consistency coefficient of tested fluid, Pa 5
torque, N m

mechanically deboned chicken

flow behavior index, dimensionless

time, min

tripolyphosphate

test fluid

standard fluid

shear rate, l/s
average shear rate, 1/s
shear stress, Pa
apparent viscosity, Pa 5

angular velocity, rad/s

xi

INTRODUCTION

The market for poultry products has increased rapidly in the United
States. The use of fresh and processed poultry meat has increased in
franchise stores, fastfood and other foodservice establishments, and in
the home. The market for fresh and processed poultry has increased in
the past 10 years and this increase is expected to continue (USDA,1987)
(Table 1). Moreover, the sales of further-processed poultry are
increasing as a percentage of the total market (Table 2).

The total poundage of frozen products using breading increased from
400 million in 1962 to 1960 million in 1980. The total poundage of
batter and breading used on frozen products increased from 120 million
in 1962 to 580 million in 1980 (Quick Frozen Foods, Nov. 1981).
Therefore, the manufacture of batter and breading is a billion-dollar a
year industry in the United States.

The benefits of batter and breading to poultry products include
providing processers with their greateat value-added assessment by
increasing yield to reduce the cost, improving sensory and texture
characteristics of the food and improving product color for consumer
acceptability.

Consumers and food processers want batters and breadings that
adhere well. Breeding losses which result from less than ideal adhesion

are a common problem. Adhesion is the chemical and physical binding of a

1

2
coating with itself and the food product it coats. There are many
factors affecting the adhesion of batters and breadings. The addition of
various hydrocolloids continues to be an area of investigation. New
chicken batters are expected to be developed due to the better adhesive
properties of hydrocolloid containing batters.

The ideal batter mix should have minimizing time-dependency, since
the batter was expected to have stable properties over the time of
mixing. For engineering, batter with appropriate recovery was also
expected. Recovery was related to the increase of apparent viscosity of
batter over the time of mixing, energy cost to restart the machine, and
batter texture maintenance.

The advantages of using mixer viscometry techniques for measuring
batter rheological properties can be categorized as:

l. Minimizing loading shear degradation of the material.

2. Eliminating errors due to wall slip effects.

3. Preventing settling of particles in batter suspensions.

4. Minimizing the effect of particles in suspensions, to reduce the
experiment error caused by the suspended particles

The overall objective of this research was to determine and compare
the relationship between adhesion characteristics of batters to chicken
nuggets and theologically measured properties of batters of different
solids content containing various hydrocolloid types and concentrations.
Therefore, the specific objectives of this research were :

(1) To evaluate the effect of hydrocolloid type, hydrocolloid
concentration and batter solids content on the rheological

properties of a batter mix.

(2) To evaluate the effect of hydrocolloid type, hydrocolloid

concentration and batter solids content on the adhesion of batter
mix to chicken nuggets.
(3) To determine the relationship between rheological properties and

adhesion characteristics of batter mixes.

4

Table 1 The market for fresh and processed poultry in the United
States for selected years (in millions of dollars)

 

 

Fresh poultry Processed poultry
1973 —- 491.5
1977 11,741 6 ——
1980 - 1,125.8
1986 - 2,766.3
1987* 21,073.2 2,996.7
1996** -— 8,718.8

 

* Estimate
** Projection; percentage increased based on

Source : U. S. Department of Commerce; Business Trade Analysts

Table 2 Fresh and processed poultry expressed as a percentage of

manufacturers'

sales

 

 

Year Unprepared poultry Further-processed poultry
1972 89.6 % 10.4 %

1980 87.0 13.0

1986 77.5 22.5

1987* 77.1 22.9

1996** 72.4 28.6

 

* Estimate

** Projection

Source : U. S. Department of Commerce; Business Trade Analysts

LITERATURE REVIEW

A. BATTER COMPOSITION

Batter may be prepared with a wide variety of ingredients. A dry
batter mix is primarily composed of starch and flour (Donahoo,1970).
Seasonings, salt, and monosodium glutamate (MSG) are also common
ingredients. Batter formulas for food products are mentioned by Hale and
Goodwin (1968), Funk et a1. (1971), Heath et a1. (1971),
Strommer and Valentas (1976), Schnell (1976), and Kaufman (1977).
Ingredients used in batter formulations were categorized into two groups:
(1) those such as flour, eggs, and milk, which are widely used and make
up the bulk of most formulas, and (2) those such as gums, spices,
leavening, salt, and sugar added in relatively small amounts for specific
effects (Davis, 1983).

Batters are applied to food products for the following functions:
appearance (Elston, 1975), taste Characteristics, crispy texture
(Zwiercan, 1974; Elston, 1975), color (Libby, 1963; Elston, 1975),
nutritional value (Elston, 1975), moisture holding (Dawson et a1., 1962;
Libby, 1963; Sison, 1972; Love and Doodwin, 1974), and tenderization

(Baker et a1., 1972).

B. HYDROCOLLOID COMPOSITION

7

Food hydrocolloids have been developed as stabilizers, emulsifiers,
thickeners, suspending agents, bodying agents, or foam enhancers in
foods.

Guar gum is derived from the seed of the guar plant, Cyamopsis
tetragonolobus. It is structurally composed of a straight backbone chain
of D-mannopyranose units with a side-branching unit of D-galactopyranose
on every other unit. The molecular weight is in the range of 200,000-
300,000. Guar gum is stable over a wide pH range and is compatible with
salts over a wide range of electrolyte concentrations, that is, it
maintains its viscosity over a wide range of salt concentrations
(Goldstein et a1., 1973).

Xanthan gum is a biosynthetic heteropolysaccharide produced by
bacterial fermentation using Xagthomonas species. The polymer contains
D-glucose, D—mannose, and D-glucuronic acid in 3 : 3 : 1 ratio. It also
contains about 4.7 % D-acetyl groups and 3.0-3.5 % pyruvic acid. The
molecular weight is about 24,000,000. Xanthan gum is stable at pH's
between 6 and 9. It is also compatible with many salts (Goldstein
et a1., 1973).

Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) is manufactured by reacting sodium
monochloroacetate with alkalicellulose. Solutions of CMC maintain
viscosity over a wide pH range. CMC is compatible with most water-
soluble gums over a wide range of concentrations. Viscosities of CMC

solutions decrease with increasing temperature (Batdorf et a1., 1973).

C. RHEOLDGICAL MEASUREMENTS AND TECHNIQUES

l. RHEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FLUID FOODS

Fluid foods exhibit a wide range of rheological behavior due to
variations in composition and structure. A Newtonian fluid is a liquid
for which a graph of shear stress against shear rate is linear .
However, many fluid foods follow non-Newtonian models for which no linear
relationship between shear stress and shear rate is found when the
rheological properties are characterized. Non-Newtonian fluids may be
classified into three groups :

(1) Time—independent fluids - the shear rate of the fluid was
a function of the shear stress only.

(2) Time-dependent fluids —— the shear rate was a function of both the
magnitude and the duration of the shear stress.

(3) Viscoelastic fluids - an elastic recovery was observed when the
shear stress was removed from the material.

Time-independent fluids are classified into two groups :

(1) Pseudoplastic (shear-thinning) fluids - shear stress (a) decreased
with increasing shear rate (Q) in a power law model :
a - K Q“ [1]

where, a - shear stress, Pa 5

1 - shear rate, 1/s
K - consistency index, Pa 3n
n - flow behavior index, dimensionless

Equation [1] may be expressed as:
log 1 - log K + n log (y) [2]
where, 0 < n < 1 for shear-thinning fluids.
(2) Dilatant (shear-thickening) fluids -— shear stress (1) increased

with increasing shear rate (1) in a power law model 1 - K 7“. If

9
for a logarithm power law model logr - log K + n log (7), the slope
l < n < w.

Time-dependent fluids were classified as '

(1) Thixotropic fluids -— shear stress (1) decreased as time increased
at a fixed shear rate.

(2) Rheopectic fluids —— shear stress (1) increased as time increased
at a fixed shear rate.

The percent recovery reflects the time-dependent behavior of the
samples. When percent recovery equals 100, there is no time-dependency
or complete recovery in the sample. While percent recovery does not
equal 100, the sample has irreversible structural breakdown.

Yield stress (00) is another important rheological property of some

foods. 0 means fluid requires a minimum force to cause flow.A food

0
exhibiting a yield stress retains its shape under gravity. If subjected

to a force greater than gravity, the food will flow almost like a liquid.
When the force is removed the food retains its shape and ceases to flow.

Dynamic measurement refers to an experiment in which either the
stress or the strain (and usually both) vary harmonically with time.
It is assumed that a shear stress,

a - 00 cos wt [3]
produced a strain,

1 - 10 cos (wt - 6) [4]
The phase lag 6 and the amplitude ratio 70/00 depend on the material
and, under linear conditions, can be regarded as material properties.
However, both 8 and 10/00 will vary with frequency w. Rheological
properties measured dynamically are often expressed by the storage

modulus,

10
G' - (00 cos 6) /7O [5]
and the loss modulus,
I I - ' { 1
G (00 Sln 6) / 70 ,6]

(Whorlow, 1979).

2. RHEOLOGICAL BEHAVIOR OF FOODSTUFFS

Several researchers have studied the rheological properties of
foodstuffs. Foods exhibiting Newtonian behavior include tea, coffee,
beer, wine, soda pop, milk, sucrose, corn syrup, honey, and molasses
(Matz, 1962, Rao, 1977).

Most foods express non-Newtonian behavior, such as pseudoplasticity
and thixotropy. Pseudoplasticity has been observed for mayonnaise (Tiu
and Boger, 1974), soups and sauces (Wood, 1968), tomato puree (Harper,
1961; Charm, 1962, 1963), and xanthan gum (Rao and Kenny, 1975).
Dilatancy has been reported for honey from Eucalyptus ficifolia,
Eggglyptgg eugenioides, Eucalyptus orymbosa, and Opuatia eugelmanni
(Pryce-Jones, 1953). Thixotropy has been observed for egg white (Tung et
a1., 1970), mayonnaise (Tiu and Boger, 1974), and sweetened condensed
milk (Higgs and Norrington, 1971). Rheopexy has not been reported in
foods.

Viscoelastic foods include ice cream (Sherman, 1975), cream
(Prentice, 1968, 1972), butter, canned frosting, ketchup, and whipped
cream cheese (Bistany and Kokini, 1983). Foods exhibiting a yield stress
include chocolate products (Chevalley, 1975; Rostagno, 1974) and

hydrocolloids (Balmaceda et a1., 1973).

11

3. MODELS FOR TIME-INDEPENDENT PSEUDOPLASTIC (SHEAR-THINNING) FLUIDS

The power law model is widely used for describing time-independent
characteristics of pseudoplastic food products (Holdsworth, 1971). It is
often extended to include a yield stress term (00) and expressed as a
Herschel Bulkley model, as :

a - Kyn + 00 [7]

Apparent viscosity is defined by :

g-r/T m]
Therefore, the apparent viscosity (pa) of a pseudoplastic material,
derived from Equation [3], is :

u, - Kén'l [91

Since the power law does not always fit the experimental data with
great accuracy, a few workers have used alternative models, including
the Herschel-Bulkley Model (Herschel and Bulkley, 1926), Sisko Model
(Sisko, 1958), Casson Model (Casson, 1959), Charm Model (Charm, 1963),
Generalized Model (Bird, 1965), Molecular Model (Bird, 1965), Spriggs
Truncated Power Law (Bird, 1965), and Sutterby Model (Bird, 1965), and
Ofoli model (Ofoli et a1., 1987).

The Ofoli model, proposed by Ofoli, Morgan, and Steffe (1987),
incorporated many of the above models:

rnl - ronl + ”$2 [10]

and,

n - [ (r0 / é)“1 + u, %“2'“1 1 1”“1 [111
The advantage of this model is its ability to predict flow behavior over
many decades of shear. This is used in those processes where wide shear

rate ranges are encountered.

12

4. MODELS FOR TIME-DEPENDENT, THIXOTROPIC FLUIDS

Time-dependent thixotropy is common in rheological behavior of
many foodstuffs. There are several factors affecting the application of
time-dependent models, such as temperature, molecular structure changes,
time, product formulation, and shear rate.

Temperature has important effects on the rheological expression of
materials. The Arrhenius equation suggested an equation for correcting
the change in viscosity with temperature, as:
p _ C e Ea/RT [12]
where, C - constant, Pa 5

Ea - activation energy, Kcal/mol
R - ideal gas constant, Kca1.mol/°K
T - absolute temperature, 0K

The molecular characteristics of materials change under high shear
rates. The Herschel-Bulkley model erroneously predicts a viscosity
decrease to zero at high shear rates if n < 1. Dekee et a1. (1980)
suggested an exponential model in which containing parameters may be
related to the molecular structure of time-dependent materials.

A structural theory originated by Cheng and Evans (1965) and
extended by Petrellis and Fulmerfelt (1973) described the time-dependent
behavior of shear degradable crude oils. Tiu and Boger (1974) designed a
kinetic and rheological model for mayonnaise which included a structural
parameter accounting for time-dependent effects.

Figoni et a1. (1981) reviewed the characteristics of structure

breakdown of foods based on changes in flow properties. Time-dependence

was discussed in terms of viscoelasticity and structural changes. The

13
stress decay varied with product formulation and experimental
conditions, such as temperature and shear rate.

Steffe and Ford (1985) quantified irreversible thixotropy in
starch-thickened, strained apricots. A linear regression analysis was
employed to determine the slope and intercept of the torque—time
equation. Speers and Tung (1986) studied the effect of temperature on
the flow behavior of xanthan gum dispersions. The Arrhenius equation was
used to examine the effect of temperature on the variation of apparent

viscosity.

5. RHEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BATTER MIXES

Cunningham and Tiede (1981) studied the influence of batter
viscosity on breading of chicken products. They reported that as batter
viscosity increased, the amount of breading pickup increased, the cooking
loss decreased, and the adhesion of the breading improved. Our experiment
expanded Cunningham and Tiede's work. We try to determine the time factor
on the influence of batter apparent viscosity, whether adhesion
characteristics were correlated to batter apparent viscosity, and the
effect of hydrocolloid to the rheological properties and adhesion
characteristics of the batter mix. Lane and Abdel-Ghany (1986) examined
the relationship between viscosity and pickup (percent coating weight) of
a fish and chip batter. They indicated that a statistically significant
correlation existed between viscosity, wheat flour protein content,

percent pickup, and batter temperature.

6. RHEOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HYDROCOLLOIDS

14

(l) Guar Gum

Guar gum forms a viscous colloidal dispersion when hydrated in cold
water and exhibits a pseudoplastic rheological system. Aqueous systems
containing guar gum at very low concentrations have very high
Viscosities. Maximum viscosity is achieved at temperatures of 25-400C
(Goldstein et a1., 1973).

There are numerous studies describing the rheological
characteristics of guar gum. Schutz (1970) used the Cross model to

characterize different concentrations of guar gum in solutions, as:

flo‘flm

 

u-pw+( .) [13]

l + ay2/3
where, p - apparent viscosity,Pa s

”o : viscosity at Q - 0, Pa 3

pa : viscosity at Q - m, Pa 3

a : constant

Q : shear rate, rad/s

Balmaceda et a1. (1973) found that at low shear rate, the Herschel

Bulkley model was satisfactory with guar gum solutions. They also
reported that at 21 0C, a 0.7 % guar gum solution exhibited dilatancy,
but a 1.0 % solution exhibited pseudoplasticity. Doublier and Launay
(1974) used the Cross Model to describe guar gum solutions over a wide
range of shear rates, concentrations, and temperatures. The power law
model was satisfactory only for a 0.19 % guar gum solution. Krumel and

Sarkar (1975) reported apparent Viscosities as a function of shear rate

in guar gum solutions. Rao and Kenny (1975) found that the power law

15
model was satisfactory at all concentrations of guar gum below 2 %. Rao
et al. (1981) reported that prolonged heat treatment of l % guar gum

solutions resulted in a permanent loss of viscosity.

(2) Xanthan Gum

Xanthan gum dissolves in hot or cold water to form viscous,
pseudoplastic solutions (Goldstein et a1., 1973). Collins and Dincer
(1973) reported that 50 % xanthan gum resulted in thickening of syrups.
Rao and Kenny (1975) used the power law model to describe xanthan gum
solutions. Whitecomb and Macosko (1978) found that at sufficient
dilution and low shear rates, xanthan solutions showed Newtonian
viscosity, but more concentrated solutions appeared to have a yield
stress. Zatz and Knapp (1984) investigated the effect of salts on
xanthan gum solutions. They found that at low shear rates, all exhibited
pseudoplasticity. Speers and Tung (1986) studied the effects of
temperature and concentration on xanthan gum solutions. All showed

pseudoplasticity and were described by a power law model.

(3) Sodium Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)

CMC has typical non-Newtonian, pseudoplastic properties in solution
(Batdorf et a1., 1973). Balmaceda et a1. (1973) found that at low shear
rate, the Herschel Bulkley model described CMC solutions. Krumel and
Sarker (1975) reported apparent viscosities as a function of shear rate
for solutions of CMC. Rao et a1. (1981) found that prolonged heat

treatment of 1 % CMC solutions resulted in a permanent loss of

l6

viscosity.

7. VISCOMETRIC TECHNIQUES FOR FOODSTUFFS

Rao (1977) reviewed the use of viscometers for studying the
rheological behavior of foods. For Newtonian foods, instruments
operating at a single shear rate are suitable. Examples include a glass
capillary viscometer operated under the force of gravity and a rolling
ball viscometer, such as the Hoeppler viscometer (Van Wazer et a1.,
1963). For non-Newtonian fluids, Brookfield, capillary, couette, tube,
concentric cylinder, cone and plate, and mixer viscometers have been

widely used.

8. MIXER VISCOMETER TECHNIQUE FOR FOODSTUFFS RHEOLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS

Many foods are suspensions with large particles and may change from
a liquid to a semi-solid during processing. Therefore, Voisey and deMan
(1970) and Tanaka et al. (1973) employed the mixer viscometer to study
the rheological behavior of foods. The major reason to use mixer
viscometer technique to mix suspension foods is to avoid the problem of
particle settling. Other viscometer, like Brookfield, if it has proper
impeller, also could be used to mix suspension foods.

Rao (1975) used a mixer viscometer to study the flow properties of
selected food suspensions. Using the method developed by Rieger and
Novak (1973), a mixer viscometer for power law fluids when an average
shear rate is used to estimate viscosity had the relationship of

parameters below:

l7

1 d3) - log A - (log k') (l-n) [14]

log (P / K nn+
where, P = power, N m/s

K - consistency index of fluid, dimensionless

O - rotational speed, rad/s

n - flow behavior index, dimensionless

d - diameter of the impeller, m

A - constant depending on system geometry, dimensionless

k' - mixer viscometer constant, 1/rad

For a power law model 7 a M, and y a Q, where M is torque and O

is angular velocity; therefore,
M - GK 0“ [15]

and, log M - log (CK) + n log 0 [16]
where, n is the slope of log M vs log 0.

By considering the power law model for the test substance, x, and a
fluid of known flow properties, y, the shear stress (1) and the shear
rate (Q) are directly proportional to the torque (M) and the rotational

speed (N), respectively and the only unknown, Kx, can be determined :

 

 

Mx 7x Kx Nnx knx
- ——-—————— - n n [17]
M r K N R
Y Y y y y

Steffe and Ford (1985) evaluated the shelf-stability of starch-
thickened, strained apricots with mixer viscometry techniques. The
rheological properties were in compliance with the investigation by Rao
(1975) and his efforts based on the earlier work of Metzmer and Otto
(1957). Ford and Steffe (1986) used mixer viscometry techniques to
quantify thixotropy in starch-thickened, strained apricots. The rate of

breakdown and equilibrium structure of the product was determined.

18

D. ADHESION MEASUREMENTS AND TECHNIQUES

1. THEORY FOR THE ADHESION OF BATTER TO POULTRY SKIN

The structure of poultry skin is important in coating of batters

and breadings. Lucas and Stettenheim (1972) described the structure of

poultry skin. Skin consists of two layers, the epidermis and the dermis

(Figure 1).

19

 

“.‘."

Figure 1 Transverse section of poultry skin showing the (A)
Stratum corneum, (B) Stratum germinatirum,
(C) epidermis, (D) dermis, (E) muscle fibers, and
(F) adipose cells.
From Suderman and Cunningham (1980)

20

The cohesion forces between the cuticle (stratum corneum) and the
cuticle-stratum germinatirum interface and between cells within the
epidermis and dermis play important roles in batter and breading
adhesion. The cohesive forces within the epidermis may be a combination
of physical, chemical, and electrostatic interactions (Montagna and
Lobitz, 1964). The cohesive forces at the epidermal-dermal
interface may be physical in nature due to projections of papillae from
the dermis into the epidermis (Pinkus and Mehregan, 1969).

Poultry skin without the cuticle may have a greater potential for
improved batter and breading adhesion, as coating particles may lodge
between skin protrusions extending up from the rough surface of stratum
germinativum. If the cuticle were interlocked into this surface, the
coating would only adhere to the smooth cuticle surface (Suderman and
Cunningham, 1980). In addition, the cuticle-stratum germinativum bond
is the weakest bond interface within the skin (Montagna and Lobitz,
1964). This could indicate greater potential for coating removal if a
stronger bond developed between the coating and cuticle. Secondary
binding forces, such as physical, chemical, and electrostatic, also
contribute to the total adhesion of coatings to skin (Suderman and

Cunningham, 1980).

2. METHODS TO MEASURE THE ADHESION OF COATING

A method to measure the adhesion of a coating to a food product was
first reported by May et a1. (1969). Breaded and cooked products were
weighed, placed in a container with water, agitated with compressed air

for about 15 min to remove breadings, then blotted 2 min to remove

21
excess moisture and reweighed to determine the percentage breading.
Suderman and Cunningham (1979) developed a quick and accurate
method to measure percent breading loss using a standard wire sieve in a
portable sieve shaker. This method has been widely used by researchers
to study the coating of food products (Suderman and Cunningham, 1981;

Proctor and Cunningham, 1983; Corey et a1., 1987).

3. EFFECT OF POULTRY PROCESSING ON ADHESION OF COATING

The age of the bird may affect the skin surface, especially the
cuticle. Suderman and Cunningham (1980) found that age did not affect
poultry ultrastructure noticeably, although there was some decline in
the observable cuticle as the birds got older. The influence of skin
thickness, which increases with age, was not shown in their research.

Proctor and Cunningham (1983) investigated the effect of drumstick
weight on the adhesion of coating to poultry products. There was no
significant correlation between % coating pickup and original drumstick
weight. There were significant relationships between % cooking loss, %
crumb loss, % overall yield and drumstick weight.

Hale and Mayfield (1976) studied the effects of chilling processed
fowl. Suderman and Cunningham (1980) also studied the effects of
chilling on poultry skin ultrastructure. They showed that ice slush
chilling gave no noticeable differences in coating adhesion to
nonchilling.

Graf and Stewart (1953) studied the effect of temperature on
removal of the epidermis of poultry skin. The birds had a glossy

appearance and were slightly sticky after the epidermis was removed by

22
the subscald. Similar research was also reported by Zeigler and
Stadelman (1955). Suderman and Cunningham (1980) used scanning electron
micrographs to show that less cuticle remained in poultry skin as scald
water temperatrue was increased from 54.40 to 65.500.

The effect of freezing poultry parts before applying batter and
breading has been examined by Suderman and Cunningham (1981). They
concluded that freezing poultry parts before breading application may
slightly improve coating adhesion. Corey et a1. (1987) reported that
freeze-thaw cycles resulted in moisture loss from the breading, but did
not influence coating loss.

Proctor and Cunningham (1984) found that broiler drumsticks without
skin had significantly increased coating pickup and decreased crumb loss
over those with the skin intact. Cooking losses were significantly lower
for drumsticks coated with the skin on, but the % overall yields were

not significantly different.

4. EFFECT OF PREDIPS, COATING COMPOSITION, AND COATING PREPARATION

METHODS ON ADHESION OF COATING

Suderman and Cunningham (1981) evaluated the effect of predips on
batter adhesion. The results showed that the type of predip
significantly affected the amount of breading adhering to drumsticks.
Seeley (1981) compared various chemical predips and their effects on
batter adhesion. The results indicated that CruaforR tripolyphosphate,
sodium tripolyphosphate and sodium hexametaphosphate blend, and KenaR
all showed significantly less crumb loss as the concentrations of these

additives in the solution increased. Citric acid did not significantly

23
affect crumb loss.

Hanson and Fletcher (1965) studied the influence of thickening
agents, egg content, and solid-water ratio on batter adhesion. They
found that increasing the proportion of thickening agent to water
increased thickness of the coating. Egg COntent of the batter had little
effect on adhesion or appearance of the coating. Increasing amounts of
fat in the batter caused greater uptake of the frying fat. Baker et a1.
(1972) evaluated the effect of predust materials on adhesion of coating
to poultry products. High protein materials produced crusts with better
adhesion than starches, and hydrocolloids. Toloday (1975) reported that
adhesion of batter and breading to shrimp increased when a vegetable gum
premix was substituted for guar gum. Suderman et a1. (1981) determined
the effects of protein and gum type and amount on the adhesion of
breadings to poultry skin. Among the proteins, gelatin and egg albumen
most effectively improved adhesion. Only CMC was significantly better at
improving adhesion than guar, tragacanth, and xanthan gum. Increased
levels of gums and proteins in the breading did not significantly affect
adhesion. The results from our experiment showed that either guar or
xanthan gum had better adhesion than CMC. The major reason seemed because
they added hydrocolloids to breading, but we added them to batter.

Effect of coating preparation methods on yields of chicken coating
were studied. Yang and Chen (1979) found that fried chicken prepared
with a flour predust-batter-flour method had higher yields than that
prepared with the batter-breading method. Nakai and Chen (1986) found
the final product yields prepared using the flour predust-batter-flour
or batter-breading methods, were higher than those using the breading

method or the noncoated controls.

24
5. EFFECT OF COATING TEMPERATURE ON ADHESION OF COATING

The effect of poultry part temperature prior to batter and breading
on adhesion has been studied by Hale and Goodwin (1968). They reported
that cooling poultry parts to 2°C before coating improved the texture of
the coating, but did not affect yield. Proctor and Cunningham (1984)
found that % coating pickup decreased with temperature in the following
order : 23°C > 4°C > 110°C or -15.5°C. Poultry parts coated at -15.50 C
had the highest cooking loss. Parts coated at 110°C had the lowest %
crumb loss. The % overall yield of drumsticks coated at 23°C and 4°C was

higher than at the other temperature.

6. EFFECT OF FRYING MEDIUM, FRYER TEMPERATURE AND HOLDING ON ADHESION OF

COATING

Yang and Chen (1979) reported that a slightly higher yield was
observed for broiler parts fried in solid shortening than for those
fried in liquid shortening.

Yang and Chen (1979) found that the cooking yields of fried chicken
decreased with an increase in frying temperature. Lane et a1. (1982)
found that less moisture loss occurred when breaded chicken thighs were
fried at 163°C than at two higher frying temperatures of 177 and 191°C.
However, percent yield of breaded chicken thighs did not vary with
frying temperature.

Yang and Chen (1979) reported that under the same holding

temperature, the weight loss of fried chicken parts held under heat

25
lamps, was greater than those held in an electric oven. Seeley (1981)
observed that coating adhesion improved and less crumb loss was found as

the temperature of drumsticks decreased.

7. EFFECT OF COOKING METHOD ON ADHESION OF COATING

Mickelberry and Stadelman (1962) listed 5 cooking procedures for
poultry products : (1) microwave, (2) deep-fat fryer, (3) deep-fat fryer
and microwave, (4) rotary-reel oven, and (5) steam and deep-fat fryer.

Baker et a1. (1972) evaluated eight cooking methods. These methods
included precooking by : steaming, simmering, boiling, all followed by
breading, battering and breading then frying to brown; and breading,
battering and breading followed by deep fat frying to doneness. Also
included were four methods involving steaming after breading and/or
battering and breading. They found that simmering was slightly the best
of the precooked method. The most desirable product was made by
breading, battering,and breading, frying 20 seconds, steaming until
done, than refrying 20 seconds.

Seeley (1981) tested 5 methods of cooking : (1) microwave oven, (2)
microwave plus browning element, (3) low pressure deep-fat fry, (4)
oven-broil, (5) oven bake. Proctor and Cunningham (1983) reported that
cooking methods affected cooking losses of chicken products as follows :
baked < broiled < microwave heated < panfried < pressurized deepfat
fried. Baker et a1. (1986) also studied 4 cooking methods for phosphate
dipped broiler breasts, thighs, drums, and wings which were dusted,
battered, and breaded, then cooked. Treatments included: (1) full frying

(FF), (2) short, deep fat frying, steaming followed by short, deep fat

26
frying (FSF), (3) short, deep fat frying followed by oven-cooking (FOC),
and (4) the parts were cooked in water followed by dusting, battering,
breading, and short, deep fat frying (WC). Final average yield
(final weight / raw weight) for combined parts was highest for pieces

cooked by FSF, followed by FOC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A. BATTER PREPARATION

The control batter formulation was composed of three equal amounts
of modified starch (Fri-BindTM 411, A. E. Staley Manufacturing Company,
Decatur, IL), wheat flour (North Dakota Mill, Grand Fords, ND), and
yellow corn flour (Lauhoff Grain Company, Danvill, IN). The formula uSed
in this study was similar to commercial products.

Control batter was prepared using three different hydrocolloids
(guar gum, xanthan gum, and sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)) at
three different concentrations (0.25 %, 0.5 %, and 1.0 %). Guar gum was
provided by TIC gums Incorporated, New York. Xanthan gum was
manufactured by Jungbunzlauer Xanthan Gesellschaff M. B. H., Austria,
and was distributed by Miles Laboratories Incorporated, Elkhart, IN. CMC
was produced by Walocel and was distributed by Miles Laboratories
Incorporated, Elkhart, In.

Batters containing 30 % and 40 % solids were prepared. Thirty
percent solids batters were prepared using all ten batter treatments.
Batters containing 40 % solids included the control batter and 1.0 %
hydrocolloid treatments.

Batter/water mixture was placed into a mixer (Model K5-4,

KICChenaid division, Hobart Corporation, Troy, Ohio) and mixed with the

27

28

paddle attachment at the temperature and speed controlled for the time
needed. For rheological measurements, batter mixes with a 30% or 40%
solid concentration were mixed at speed 2 for 5 min. Batter/water mixes
were put in an ice bath to rapidly lower the temperature. For adhesion
measurements, batter were mixed for 3 min at speed 1 to reach the same
torque condition as in the Haake at 70 rpm after 60 min rotation.
During mixing, the batter temperature was kept under 10°C by putting
ice on the bottom of the bowl.

Moisture was determined in quadruplicate by drying samples in a

130°C forced air oven for 1 hr (AOAC, 1984).
B. PREPARATION OF CHICKEN NUGGETS

Stewing fowls and mechanically deboned chicken (MDB) packed by
Nottwa Gardens Corporation (Athens, MI) were purchased from MSU Food
Store. White and dark meat were separated from the bone. Salt was from
GarGill Incorporated, Minneapolis, MN. Sodium tripolyphosphate (TPP) was
produced by Stauffer Chemical Company, Westport, CT (CURAFOS Formula
11-2).

The weight ratio of white meat : dark meat : MDB : salt : water :
sodium tripolyphosphate was 45 : 30 : 19 : 0.5 : 5 : 0.5. Both white
meat and dark meat were ground through an 0.635 cm plate of a meat
grinder (Model KS-A, Kitchenaid Division, Hobart Corporation, Troy,
Ohio). Sodium tripolyphosphate was thoroughly mixed with water prior to
the addition of salt to the same solution. Ground meat, MDB, salt-TPP-
water solution was put into a mixing bowl (Model H-600, Kitchenaid

Division, Hobart Corporation, Troy, Ohio) and mixed at speed 1 for 4 min

29
with the paddle attachment. The raw mixture was stuffed into 8.9 cm
fibrous casings (Union Carbide Corporation, Chicago, IL) and frozen at -
24°C for 4 hr. The frozen patties were sliced on a meat slicer (Model
512, Hobart Corporation, Troy, Ohio) to prepare nuggets 1.5 cm thick.

. - o .
Before use, chicken nuggets were tempered at 4 C in a refrigerator.

C. RHEOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION

l. RHEOLOGICAL MEASUREMENT

A Haake RV-12 (calibrated by dead weight testing) viscometer with
a Haake PG 142 rotational speed controller interfaced to a Hewlett-
Packard 85 computer (Hewlett-Parkard Company, Corvallis, OR) was used
to measure the rheological properties of the batter. The reason to use
mixer viscometry primary is to avoid the settling problem. A Haake F-3C
water circulator was used to keep samples at a constant temperature
(10°C). Ethylene glycol and water (ratio 1 : l) were used in the water
circulator to help control the temperature. Samples were loaded into an
MV cup (0.021 m radius) to reach the lower mark on the cup and allowed
to stand for several minutes until the thermocouple indicated a
constant temperature. The cup was attached to an MV paddle sensor
(Fig. 2) which was connected to the viscometer drive head. In 30 %
solids batter measurement, an M-150 head was used, whereas, in 40 %
solids batter measurement, an M-500 head was used for higher driving
power. Torque (N m) versus time (min) data were collected to
characterize the rheological properties of batters under conditions of

controlled rotational speed at 10°C.

 

0.127"!

 

V

 

 

O

 

 

f

 

I O

"I‘
z
0

/ .01"! d!)

; ......

15' patch but

0.02892!!!

1
L

 

%4— 0.00143!!! —-)'

 

Figure 2 MV paddle sensor (Steffe and Ford, 1985)

31

A 70 rpm (revolution per minute) rotational speed was applied for
60 min to measure the time-dependency of the batters since 70 rpm was
commonly used in commercial mixer.. Next, the rotational speed was
adjusted stepwise to 10 rpm, 30 rpm, 50 rpm, 70 rpm, and 90 rpm for 2.5
min individually to measurethe apparent viscosity of the batters. After
this, 70 rpm was applied for 5 min to equilibrate the batter. The
batters were then allowed to rest for 30 min. After that, torque versus
time data was collected at 70 rpm for 10 min. The recovery of batters was
evaluated by comparing the initial torque and the torque after the rest
period. All of the batters were tested in triplicate. The testing

procedure is briefly illustrated in Figure 3.

Torque (N m)

s4
t-

 

0.015

0.012-

0.009-1

0.006-

0.003-

0.000

m
~11

 

 

 

 

C
I I

 

 

I
0 1'0 2'0 3'0 4'0 5'0 60 70 30 9'0100110120
Time (minute)

Figure 3 Representative plot of torque vs. time data collected

A-B :
B-C :

C-D :

D-E :
E-F :

A,F :

using Haake RV-12 viscometer
Data for evaluating time-dependent thixotropy
Changing rotational speed

Data for evaluating power law parameter and time-independent
apparent viscosity

Equilibration at 70 rpm prior to rest period
Rest period

Data to evaluate recovery

33

2. RHEOLOGICAL CALCULATIONS

(1) Time Dependency

The batter was mixed for 60 min at 70 rpm (A-B, Fig.3) to evaluate
the time-dependency of the materials. After averaging the triplicate
torque data, linear regression analysis of torque versus time was
calculated as :

M - A - B In (t) [18]

where, M - torque, N m

A intercept, N m

B - slope, N m

H’
I

time, min

(2) Apparent Viscosity and Shear Thinning Behavior

It was assumed that the time dependency factor was removed by
mechanical agitation at 70 rpm for 60 min. Time independency and
apparent viscosity were determined from data collected at 10 rpm,

30 rpm, 50 rpm, 70 rpm and 90 rpm for 2.5 min(C-D, Fig.3). Torque at
each speed was averaged across the 2.5 min analysis time.

In apparent viscosity calculations, power law parameters were
determined from a linear regression analysis of the torque versus
angular velocity data (Equation [16]) as described by Steffe and Ford
(1985).

The consistency coefficient was determined from Equation [17]:

34

, n
MX (k 0x) y

Kx - n K [19}
M (k'O ) x y
y X

 

Where, x and y were subscripted referring to the batter and a
standard solution, respectively. Guar gum (1.5 %) (Table 3) was used
as the standard in the calculations and the mixer viscometer constant
(k') was 4.46 (Steffe and Ford, 1985). All consistency coefficient

values werecalculated using 60 rpm data for the guar gum.

35

Table 3. Data of 1.5 % guar gum standard used to evaluate batter
consistency coefficients from the MV paddle data

 

K (Pa 5“) n M (N m)
y (aty60 rpm)

 

 

30.98 0.158 0.0052
31.65 0.159 0.0054
27.39 0.169 0.0050
Average 30.01 0.162 0.0052

 

The constants were applied in our experiment to calculate the
batter consistency coefficients (Kx) under variable rotational speeds.
Therefore, referring to each 0x, we had an Mx’ and there was a Kx for

each sample.

36

Using the power law, the apparent viscosity was expressed as

' n-l

#a - K (7) 20]

r—fl

where, “a - apparent viscosity, Pa 5
K = consistency coefficient, Pa sn
7 - shear rate, l/s
n - flow behavior index, dimensionless
However, for mixer viscometry techniques, the equation was expressed
as
p - K (k'0)nx'1 [22]
a x x
where, ”a - apparent viscosity of test fluid, Pa 3
k'flx - 1a - average shear rate, 1/s
Rotational speeds (rpm) were converted to angular velocity (0x).
Therefore, referring to each 0x, a ”a for each sample was calculated.

Triplicate tests of each treatment were averaged to determine apparent

viscosity under variable angular velocities.
(3) Determination of Recovery

The torque after the 30 min rest period divided by the initial
torque was defined as the % recovery of the batter. Referring to Fig. 3,
the calculation of recovery was expressed as

F
% recovery - —- x 100 [23]
A
where, A - initial torque

F - torque after 30 minutes rest, N m

Results were the average of triplicate tests.

37

D. ADHESION MEASUREMENT AND CALCULATION METHODS

Each batter treatment was tested in triplicate. Six chicken nuggets
(8.9 cm diameter, 1.5 cm thickness) were used in each replicate.

Nuggets tempered to 4°C were weighed, then individually immersed in
batter for 15 sec, drained for 15 sec, and immersed in a container with
commercial breading mix (No. 5042, Newly Weds Foods, Inc., Chicago, IL)
for 15 sec. The breading mix contained bleached wheat flour, salt, corn
flour, natural flavor, spices, monosodium glutamate, dextrose, and
oleoresin paprika. After breading, the nuggets were weighed again to
determine the coated weight. The nuggets were fried for 90 sec in 193°C
oil in a Hotpoint fryer (Model HK3, General Electric, Chicago, IL) until
an internal temperature of 76°C was reached. The frying oil was liquid
frying shortening produced by Kraft, Inc., Glenview, IL. The ingredients
in the oil included partially hydrogenated soybean oil, TBHQ, and
methylsilicone. After cooling for 20 min, the nuggets were reweighed to
determine the cooked weight, and shaken for 1 min (30 sec on each side)
on a sieve shaker (No. 15421, RO-TAP Testing Sieve Shaker, The W. S.
Tyler Company, Cleveland, Ohio) on a 1/4 inch grid sieve (Fidher

Scientific Company), than weighed again to determine the shaken weight.

38

Results were calculated as

cooked wt. of - shaken wt. of
breaded nugget cooked nugget

 

% crumb loss -
initial wt. of raw
unbreaded nugget

coated wt. of raw - cooked wt. of
breaded nugget breaded nugget

 

% cooking loss -
initial wt. of raw
unbreaded nugget

coated wt. of - initial wt. of
raw breaded raw unbreaded
nugget nugget

 

% coating pickup -
initial wt. of raw
unbreaded nugget

shaken wt. of cooked nugget

 

% overall yield -
initial wt. of raw
unbreaded nugget

cooked wt. of breaded nugget

 

% cooking yield -
initial wt. of raw
unbreaded nugget

x 100

x 100

x 100

x 100

x 100

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

39

E. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

PLOTIT was used for linear regression analysis on the experimental
variables. Variables were natural logarithm of time and torque during
the calculation of time dependence, and angular velocity and torque
during the calculation of apparent viscosity.

The complete randomized design using 2 factor factorial (adhesion
characteristics and apparent viscosity) for each treatment was used to
determine the correlation between the factors in the experiment. Tukey's
test was used to evaluate the significant difference between the means

at the 0.01 level of probability.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This research showed that a relationship existed between apparent
viscosity and the adhesion charcteristics of batter samples. Gum
containing batters had higher apparent viscosity and greater adhesion
than those of non-gum containing batters. The adhesion of coatings to

chicken nuggets can be predicted based on batter rheological properties.

A. TIME-DEPENDENT EVALUATION OF CHICKEN BATTERS

Table 16 and 17 list the data of torque (Mx) vs time of 30% and
40% solids batters, respectively.

Figure 4 illustrates the torque vs time of the 30% solids control
batter and batter containing 0.25, 0.5, and 1.0% guar gum. The control
batter had the lowest torque curve. The effect of mixing time on the
torque of 30% solids batter containing 0.25, 0.5, and 1% xanthan gum is
shown in Figure 5. One percent xanthan gum batter had the highest torque
curve, followed in decreasing order by 0.5%, 0.25% xanthan batters and
the control batter. Torque vs time curves of CMC containing batter and
control batter are illustrated in Figure 6. The torque curve increased
with increasing hydrocolloid concentration. Very little difference was
observed between 0.25% CMC batter and the control batter. CMC containing

batters also showed the lowest torque curves compared to the other two

40

41

hydrocolloid containing batters on an equal hydrocolloid concentration
basis.

Torque curves of all 40% solids batter treatments are illustrated
in Figure 7. Guar gum batter had the highest torque curve, followed by
xanthan gum batter. Torque curves of the 40% solids CMC containing batter
and control batter were similar. However, control batter still showed the
lowest curve. The 40% solids batter exhibited higher torque curves than
30% solids batters at the same hydrocolloid concentration (Figure 8).

In 30% solids batters, initial torque (MO) increased with
increasing hydrocolloid concentration (Table 4). M0 of batters decreased
in the following order: xanthan > guar > CMC > control batter at the same
hydrocolloid concentration. The highest MO was observed in the 1.0%
xanthan batter and the lowest was the control batter. Batter with
increasing hydrocolloid concentration had increasing final torque (M60).

M60 of batters decreased with 0.5 & 1.0% hydrocolloid concentration in

the following order: xanthan >guar > CMC > control. The highest M was

60
exhibited in the 1.0% xanthan batter and the lowest was in the
0.25% CMC batter. The change of initial apparent viscosity p0 and

intercept (A) was the same as M . The change of final apparent viscosity

0

p60 was the same as M60.

The slope increased as hydrocolloid concentration in the batter was
increased (Table 4). The slope decreased in the following order: guar >
xanthan > CMC > control batter at 0.25% and 1% hydrocolloid concentration,
but xanthan > guar > CMC > control batter at 0.5% hydrocolloid
concentration.

In 40% solids batters containing 1.0% hydrocolloid (Table 5), MO

decreased in the order of guar > xanthan > CMC > control batter. The

42
change in order of M60, #0, #60’ and A was the same as MO. The order of B
was xanthan > guar > CMC > control batter.

The 30% solids control batter exhibited increasing torque with time
compared to the 40% solids control. All hydrocolloid containing batters
showed decreasing torque with time of mixing. The 30% control batter and
30% batter containing 0.25% CMC had slopes (Table 4) close to zero which
is characteristic of Newtonian fluids. The batters were stable over the
time of mixing. All other batters had positive slopes (Table 4 & Table 5),
indicating thixotropic properties, which meant shear stress decreased as
time increased at a fixed rotational speed. Therefore, batters were
unstable (with decreased apparent viscosity) over the time of mixing.
Higher absolute slope meant higher degree of time-dependency, and less
stable properties over time of mixing. One percent guar gum batter
containing 30% solids and 1% xanthan gum batter containing 40% solids
had the largest absolute slopes, which indicated the largest degree of
time-dependency and the least stable properties among the 30% and 40%
solids batters, respectively. Batters containing 0.25% CMC and control
batters had the least degree of time-dependency and the most stable
properties among the 30% and 40% solids basis batters, respectively, as
indicated by their lowest absolute B.

Comparing the slope of chicken batter in 30% and 40% solids content
at the same hydrocolloid concentration, we found that control and 1.0%
xanthan batters had an increased slope, but 1.0% guar and 1.0% CMC batters
had a decreased slope when the batter solids content increased from 30%
to 40%. It meant that control and 1.0% xanthan batter had a higher
degree of time-dependency and less stable properties, but 1.0% guar and

1.0% CMC batters had a lower degree of time-dependency and more stable

43
properties when the batter solids content increased.

Therefore, hydrocolloids, especially guar or xanthan gum,
contributed to a higher torque, apparent viscosity, and degree of
time-dependency but less stable properties than control and CMC in
chicken batter. Increasing the hydrocolloid concentration increased the
torque, apparent viscosity and degree of time-dependency, but decreased
the stable properties of chicken batter. As batter solids content
increased, guar and CMC had increased apparent viscosity and more stable
properties than control and xanthan. At low concentrations of CMC, the
difference between the CMC containing batter and control batter was not
evident. In this experiment, we did not find a hydrocolloid which give
the batter both higher apparent viscosity and more stable properties.
Therefore, future work should be directed toward finding a hydrocolloid,
independent of concentration or batter solids content, which produces a

high apparent viscosity and more stable properties in the batter.

I

oooH .EAD ca
00 caczmccs Esw umzw usozufiB 0:0 £DH3 mumuumn mUHHom 00m no 030008 0 Omzwwm

AEEV 08:.
o o 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 Mn 0.0 mm om m: on m o

 

 

 

.. .. 1 08.0
I? .
IiIIlITlll1TllIlOlllILTllllOIllIiTIllLIlllliTlllllllllITlll‘Tllll.Cl.FAUAV nv

1000.0
1000.0
1llllilllllrllllillllfili1 I. .

4 I; .
1000 0
1000.0
830 .530 N04 114 1000.0

:50 .000 R00 Ill .
F50 .630 Road Ole 1500 0

.9550 xix

 

 

 

000.0

(LU N) aanoi

u ooH .eau oh Om
ce._:n_.e 5:0 :.;E:cx Basses: 0:0 £043 mumuumn mnaaomo 00m «0 0:0u08 m muswam

AEEV 0:5.
00 on 00 9v 0v on on 0N ON m.. or w 0
b b b _ _ — — b p _ _ Aunvfiv.mv

I F
PP Db Db vb Db Db (I t
1' i I: 1 1:1 { 1 1 ‘4

 

 

100.0

J
J
h
J.

1N00.0
1000.0

r0000

:50 cocacox No; «In 1000 0

:50 cozucox N00 010

£30 cocacox Nmmd 010 1500.0
.9550 xlx

 

 

 

000.0

(111 N) aanO]

46

ooofl .50» 05 an nonsense onov ouo~3~H00hH£uoehxonuco

azaeou usonuaz can sue: uuouuan Henson son no oaaeoe o assw.a

AEEV 05:.

00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.N 0.N 0.F 0.P 0 0

 

1.111.111.1111
111111111111

020 N0; ole
020 N00 1
020 NON.0 I

33:00 I

 

0000.0

10000.0

1050.0

1030.0

10N00.0

 

 

0N00.0

(Du N) aanO]

47

0 0g .eeu on an censuses
Afiozov anodsaaooahzuoEAxonuuo 2:000: 0630 cuzucsx .530 wcswv

we.ofisouotoaz as 02050.3 new gun: «Couuun meadow woe no macros a amswaa
AEEV 0E0.

o m mm om m... 0... mm 0..” mm ow m. 0.. m o .
1 - - - - 1 1 - - 0000
1000.0
1000.0
1000.0
TNrod
1.05.0
10.0.0
1.00.0
1000.0
1h00.0
1000.0
1000.0
1000.0
000.0

 

 

 

020 R0;
E30 55:8. R0;

£30 .630 R0...
.9550

1111

 

 

 

(111 N) 91010]

48

00 0.0 0.0 0...V 0..v 0.0 0.0 0.N 0.N 0.. 0... 0 0

0 0a .30» 05 us 00030005
“Auzuv 0moH3H~0lo£uoemxonumo Esauom 0:30 cozucwx .530 neswv
mnnoaaooounm: «H nuns mumuuen moaaom '00 0:0 eon we osquH 0 ouswqm

AEEV 0E...

 

 

1

E30 cozacox R0; 5.3 tofion 00:3 R3.

5% 55:2 No; 5.3 .903 8:8 won.

000.0
1000.0
1000.0

I .4 Jan J4 In! J3

I11 4*

11. 1

 

.fi ill"

Iii/11000.0
lwrod

10—.O.O
Elm—.06

. - . . - 1.8.0

‘ I
‘ ’

11111.48...

0.238.. 5.; .203 8:8 x9. ..Rod

0.10

0.10
E30 .630 X0; 5.3 ..ofion.a.u..om x00 I 1000.0
020 R0; 5.3 .832. 02.00 R00 019 1000.0

I

I

{1

E30 .530 K0; 5.3 3.32. 02.00 K00 1000.0

 

 

000.0

(0.1 N) eanOi

49

Table 4 Time dependency data of 30% solids batters containing various

 

 

 

 

hydrocolloids
Torqug(N m) Apparent viscosity
x10 (Pa 5)
Treatment intercept3A slopE,B
(N m)x10 10

0 min 60 min 0 min 60 min

(M0) (M60) (#0) (#60)
control 0.37 0.42 0.11 0.13 0.35 -0.14
0.25%guar 0.82 0.69 0.25 0.22 0.91 0.51
0.5% guar 1.51 1.25 0.47 0.39 1.67 0.99
1.0% guar 3.83 3.37 1.19 1.05 4.14 1.82
0.25%xanthan 1.29 1.15 0.39 0.36 1.35 0.48
0.5% xanthan 2.68 2.34 0.83 0.73 2.84 1.16
1.0% xanthan 4.96 4.83 1.54 1.50 5.22 1.25
0.25%CMC 0.42 0.37 1.13 0.12 0.43 0.13
0.5% CMC 0.80 0.64 0.25 0.20 0.86 0.51

1.0% CMC 1.67 1.28 0.52 0.40 1.80 1.22

 

50

Table 5 Time dependency data of 40% solids batters containing various

hydrocolloids

 

Torqug(N m)

 

Apparent viscosity

 

 

x10 (Pa 5)
Treatment interceptzA slop§,B
(N m)x10 x10

0 min 60 min 0 min 60 min

(M0) (M60) (#0) (#60)
control 1.14 0.70 3.53 2.17 1.18 1.10
1.0% guar 2.44 1.76 7.57 5.47 2.61 1.35
1.0% xanthan 1.85 1.47 5.74 4.56 2.04 1.42
1.0% CMC 1.22 0.78 3.80 2.42 1.30 1.14

 

51

B. TIME-INDENPENT APPARENT VISCOSITY OF BATTERS AT EQUILIBRIUM

l. TORQUE (Mx) VS ANGULAR VELOCITY (0X) OF BATTERS

We assumed that time-dependency was removed by 60 min mixing at
70 rpm. Time-independent apparent viscosities (pa) of the samples were
determined by increasing the rotational speed (Nx) of the viscometer
from 10 to 90 rpm in intervals of 20 rpm. Table 6 shows the torque vs
angular velocity of 30% solids batters and Table 7 illustrates those
of 40% solids batters.

Batters containing the same hydrocolloid showed an increase in
torque as hydrocolloid concentration increased at each rotational
speed. Torque decreased in batters containing the same hydrocolloid
concentration, at each rotational speed, except 10 rpm, in the following
order: xanthan guar > CMC > control. At 10 rpm and 0.25% hydrocolloid
concentration, torque decreased in the following order: xanthan >
CMC > control > guar. Torque increased when rotational speed of the
viscometer increased at the same hydrocolloid concentration.

Torque vs angular velocities of 40% batter solids content are
shown in Table 7. Only control batter and 1.0% hydrocolloid
concentration batters were measured. Guar batter had the highest torque,
followed by xanthan, CMC and control batter at each rotational speed
except at 10 rpm, where xanthan batter had the highest torque. Torque
increased with increased rotational speed at the same hydrocolloid

concentration.

52

Table 6 Angular veloctiy (0x) vs torque (Mx) of 30% solids batters

 

Torque (N m)x103

 

Hydrocolloid Concentration(%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(26m) (275) control 0.25 0.5 1.0
Guar
10 1.047 0.15 0.13 0.31 0.97
30 3 142 0.25 0.32 0.66 1.95
50 5.236 0.35 0.50 0.96 2.65
70 7.330 4.42 0.66 1.24 3.30
90 9.425 5.36 0.82 1.50 3.72
Xanthan
10 1.047 0.15 0.34 0.99 2.41
30 3.142 0.25 0.64 1.58 3.47
50 5.236 0.35 0.88 2.02 4.13
70 7.330 4.42 1.12 2.41 4.68
90 9.425 5.36 1.34 2.75 5.18
CMC
10 1.047 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.33
30 3.142 0.25 0.28 0.41 0.78
50 5.236 0.35 0.37 0.52 1.16
70 7.330 4.42 0.48 0.74 1.52
90 9.425 5.36 0.58 0.88 1.84

 

53

Table 7 Angular velocity (0 ) vs torque (M ) of 40% solids batters
C O x O x
containing 1% hydrocolloid

 

 

 

Torque (N m)x102

N 0

x x
(rpm) (l/s) control 1.0%guar 1.0%xanthan 1.0%CMC
10 1.047 0.10 0.66 0.66 0.16
30 3.142 0.29 1.19 0.96 0.37
50 5.236 0.48 1.57 1.19 0.56
70 7.330 0.68 1.88 1.40 0.74

90 9.425 0.86 2.13 1.58 0.91

 

54

2. FLOW BEHAVIOR INDEX (nx) OF BATTERS

The flow behavior index (calculated from Eq. [16]) varied among
the different hydrocolloid containing batters and control batter.
However, the flow behavior index decreased with increasing hydrocolloid
concentration in guar and xanthan batters, but increased with increasing
concentrations of CMC (Table 8). Xanthan containing batter had the lowest
and control batter had the highest flow behavior index in 40% solids
batters (Table 9).

A11 batters had a flow behavior index less than 1, indicating that
the batters were shear-thinning or pseudoplastic materials under
time-independent measurement. The batters became thinner when the
rotational speed increased. The use of higher speeds to mix the batters
will require less energy, since materials have less resistance. Other
authors also have reported that hydrocolloids exhibit pseudoplastic

properties (Goldstein et a1., 1973; Batdorf et a1., 1973).

55

Table 8 Power law model parameters of 30% solids control batter and
batters containing different concentration of three hydrocolloids

 

 

Treatment Flow behavior index,n Correlation
(dimensionless) x coefficient
control 0.587 0.995
0.25% guar 0.829 1.000
0.5% guar 0.710 1.000
1.0% guar 0.619 1.000
0.25% xanthan 0.615 0.998
0.5% xanthan 0.462 0.999
1.0% xanthan 0.345 0.999
0.25% CMC 0.528 0.990
0.5% CMC 0.697 0.996
1.0% one 0.786 ' 1.000

 

Table 9 Power law model parameters of 40% solids control batter and
batters containing 1% of three hydrocolloids

 

 

Treatment Flow behavior index,n Correlation
. . x .
(dimenSionless) coeffic1ent
control 0.977 1.000
1.0% guar 0.535 1.000
1.0% xanthan 0.349 0.997

1.0% CMC 0.789 1.000

 

56

3. CONSISTENCY COEFFICIENT (Kx) OF BATTERS:

Consistency coefficients under different average shear rates (k’Qx)
and the average of consistency coefficients under different average
shear rates were measured on 30% solids (Table 10) and 40% solids
batters (Table 11).

xx increased when hydrocolloid concentration in 30% solids batter
was increased under the same average shear rate, except in CMC
containing batter. The xx of the CMC batter containing 0.5% hydrocolloid
was lower than that of the batters containing 0.25% CMC. Kx increased in
0.5% and 1.0% hydrocolloid containing batters in the following order:
xanthan > guar > CMC > control. However, in 0.25% hydrocolloid batters,
the order was xanthan > CMC > control > guar under each average shear
rate. The Kx always increased when the average shear rate increased at
the same hydrocolloid concentration. The average Kx increased in 0.5%
and 1.0% hydrocolloid containing batters was also in the order of
xanthan > guar > CMC > control. In 0.25% hydrocolloid batters, the order
of average Kx was also xanthan > CMC > control > guar.

Kx and the average Xx of 40% solids batters were always xanthan >
guar > CMC > control. Also, Rx increased as the average shear rate
increased at the same hydrocolloid concentration.

As hydrocolloid concentration increased, average Kx increase. Thirty
percent basis control and 0.25% CMC batters had the least average Kx
compared to the others. Forty percent batters had higher average Kx than
30% batters at the same hydrocolloid concentration. Xanthan and guar
batter had higher average Kx than CMC and control batters on both a 30%

and 40% solids basis containing 1% hydrocolloid concentration.

57

Table 10 Consistency coefficients of 30% solids batters

 

Consistency Coefficient, Kx (Pa sn)

 

Hydrocolloid Concentration (%)

 

Rotational Average Shear

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Speed Rate, k'fl control 0.25 0.5 1.0
(rpm) (l/S)
Guar

10 4.67 0.44 0.27 0.78 2.76

30 14.01 0.47 0.32 0.90 3.37

50 23.35 0.53 0.35 0.99 3.83

70 32.69 0.58 0.37 1.06 3.87

90 42.04 0.63 0.39 1.11 3.89

Average 50 23.35 0.53 0.34 0.97 3.54

Xanthan

10 4.67 0.44 0.99 3.62 10.50

30 14.01 0.47 1.11 4.12 12.35

50 23.35 0.53 1.22 4.54 13.38

70 32.69 0.58 1.33 4.89 14.27

90 42.04 0.63 1.42 5.18 15.08

Average 50 23.35 0.53 1.21 4.47 13.12

CMC

10 4.67 0.44 0.59 0.47 0.72

30 14.01 0.47 0.61 0.58 0.87

50 23.35 0.53 0.68 0.56 0.94

70 32.69 0.58 0.77 0.67 0.99

90 42.04 0.63 0.85 0.69 1.03

Average 50 23.35 0.53 0.70 0.59 0.91

 

58

Table 11 Consistency coefficient of 40% solids batters

 

Consistency Coefficient,Kx (Pa 5“)

 

Rotational Average Shear

 

Speed Rate, k'Ox

(rpm) (l/s) control 1.0%guar 1.0%xanthan 1.0%CMC
10 4.67 1.67 21.45 26.72 3.53
30 14.01 1.93 25.71 29.99 4.13
50 23.35 2.15 28.01 33.19 4.53
70 32.69 2.29 29.54 36.04 4.79
90 42.04 2.37 30.50 38.27 5.07

 

Average 50 23.35 2.08 27.04 32.84 4.41

 

59

4. APPARENT VISCOSITY (pa) OF BATTERS

Batter apparent viscosity results are tabulated in Table 18 for the
30% solids batters, and Table 19 for the 40% solids batters.

The effect of shear rate on apparent viscosity of 30% solids batters
containing guar, xanthan and CMC are illustrated in Figures 9, 10 and 11,
respectively. When batter contained the same percentage hydrocolloid,
xanthan batter always showed the highest apparent viscosity, followed by
guar batter, CMC batter, and control batter at each rotational speed. The
average apparent viscosity was in the same decreased order. At 10 rpm and
0.25% hydrocolloid content, the apparent viscosity decreased with
hydrocolloid type in the following order: xanthan > CMC > control > guar.
Generally, increasing the rotational speed decreased the apparent viscosity
in each hydrocolloid batter, except in 0.25% guar batter and 1.0% CMC
batter, where the apparent viscosity varied irregularly with increasing
rotational speed. The degradation of apparent viscosity with increasing
rotational speed was probably due to the destruction of the binding forces
in the batter, for example, between hydrogen bonds of the carbohydrates.

Apparent viscosity under each rotational speed and the average
apparent viscosity of 40% solids batters were decreased in the order of
1.0% guar > 1.0% xanthan > 1.0% CMC > control, except at 10 rpm, the order
was 1.0% xanthan > 1.0% guar > 1.0% CMC > control (Figure 12). The batters
exhibited decreased apparent viscosity when the rotational speed increased,
except the control batter which had increased apparent viscosity with
increased rotational speed.

The apparent viscosity vs average shear rate of 1.0% gum containing

60

batters of 30% and 40% solids content is illustrated in Figure 13. Forty
percent solids batter had higher apparent viscosities than thirty percent
solids batters.

Therefore, results indicated that control and 0.25% CMC batters
had the lowest average apparent viscosity. Xanthan and guar batters had
higher apparent viscosity than CMC batter at the same hydrocolloid
concentration. When hydrocolloid concentration or batter solids content

increased, the average apparent viscosity increased.

i3 1

saw uwfiw wSHckucoo
gonna: mowaom men mo oumu umonm owmpo>m m> %uamooma> uCoumma< o ep:2_;

Am\C 30m toosm mooto><

me 2. mm on mm ow 9 2 m o
t _ _ _ _ 4. _ ._ 0.0
“W11 hull .1mul .hhflflflflflflllllllllJ'

I ilL-t lhfll
Ilavlllllllllllllll. Ilmw.nv

 

 

 

Eau .630 No; I IO.N
Eau roam Rmd III
:50 San Rand I
3.5.30 XIX

(s Dd) Kigsoosm iueJoddv

 

 

 

m.N

62

23w cwzucmx wCaCAmucoo
umuumn monaom men mo mums uwogm omauo>u w> huauooaa> acouaaa< ea ousmum

Am\C 30m .695 omoto><
mm... 9.. mm on ma ow mp o— m o
_ _ _ t _ J. _ _

 

 

77"
J.
7

 

Eau coficox No.9 I
:50 55:3 “and ale ...o.m
:50 cop—«cox Kmud Ole
33:00 I

(s Dd) Kigsoosm iueJoddv

 

 

 

0.0

63

AUZUV omoflsdaooaxzuoshxonuco endpon measuuucoo
swabs: mpwfiom wen we been ucozm owwuo>w m> %uwmoomu> aeouoaa< #4 ouswuu

Am\5 301 .695 600.624.
m... 0.... mm om mm o.~ m. on m o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ 0.0
a m! V
r ..md w
.. 1.1 o
J
3
U
‘I‘I
Lao A
a J... n! p 9..
i4! + o
J. m
..md M...
\\II
mg
020 NO; I 10.0
0.20 and 1 xx
026 «mu... .1.
.9550 I

 

 

64

Aaozuv omoHSAHouahnuoEAxonuco
ssdpom .Ezw cscuzcx .an ucswv flquHooouchfi 0H mfldcquucou
assoc: mow—on woe mo ouau sauna owouo>o a> xuamooau> ucouoaa< NH cuswwm

Am\5 30m .605... mooto><
m... cu. m». o.n mm om mu 0., m o

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 0.0
GHHHHHH [Imv. .tw IN» .w I:AU.Mu ”WV
.0
d
T F -3. o
l. J
- a
T u
.1187]! .lAUomv fill
an
..o.w o
0
new:
10.0? (M.
Am
020 No; elm :0 up o
:50 55:9. No... olo . lav
:50 .630 No; I ...o a;
.2230 I

 

 

 

0.0—

65

Aaozov omoasaaooaxsuoemxonuoo eawpom
.Esw aczucmx .Esw umswv cdoaaoooupms ca magnaaucoo wouuon
mc::om woe was wen no open wanna omnuo>w m> huamoomd> aeouwaa< m: ouswflm

Am\:v Box toocm 000.624

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

n... 3 mm on mm cu m: c: m o
— h — b L P b — 0.0
An AV. an in nu
«”1 WM.“ law T 4
I lflH 16 1.... 1.0.N
or; - 10.8
10.0
nod
10.0:
020 .80.: £3 8:8 8:8 «9. Ta
£8 85:8 no; 53 .538 8:8 No... To IQN:
£8 .68 no; 5:; 8:8 8:8 «8 I
020 «3.: 5:; 8:8 8:8 Non cl... .
£8 85:8 no; 5:; 8:88 8:8 Non Ta 10 .1
£8 88 so; 5:; .388 8:8 «on I

 

 

 

(s Dd) Kusoosm iueJoddv

66

5. RECOVERY OF CHICKEN BATTERS:

All batters had recoveries less than 100%, except 30% control
batter(Table 12 and Table 13). Thirty percent control batter had 127%
recovery. The hydration of starch granules caused the increase of
apparent viscosity and over 100% recovery. The other batters had
hydrocolloid surrounding the starch granules which prevented the
hydration of starch granules. Therefore, they had recoveries less than
100% and decreased apparent viscosity over time of mixing. When batter
solids content increased, there were more starch granules in the
batter and less starch hydration. Therefore, the recoveries of 40%
solids batters were less than those of 30% solids batters at the same
hydrocolloid concentration.

The percent recovery reflects the properties of time-dependent
behavior of the samples, while time-dependency reflects the change of
batter viscosity with time. When percent recovery equals 100, there is
no time-dependent behavior or complete recovery in the sample. If
recovery does not equal to 100, there is irreversible structural breakdown
in the sample. The far the percent recovery from 100, the stronger the
time-dependency properties. If the percent recovery is over 100, more
energy will be needed to mix the sample. Similarly, less energy is needed
when percent recovery is less than 100. The quality is also different in

these two situations.

67

Recovery can be used as an index to indicate how much energy is needed

to restart the machine and how much batter quality is changed on standing.

68

Table 12 Recovery of 30% solids control batter and batters containing
different hydrocolloids

 

 

Treatment Recovery (%)
control 1278
0.25% guar 73C’d
0.5% guar 71c,d
1.0% guar 77C
0.25% xanthan 81b’C
0.5% xanthan aeb'c
1.0% xanthan 92b
0.25% cuc 93b
0.5% cuc 66d
1.0% CMC 86b'c

 

Any two means with the same 1etter(s) were not significantly different

from each other by Tukey's Test at a - 0.01.

69

Table 13 Recovery of 40% solids control batter and batters containing
different hydrocolloids

 

 

Treatments Recovery (%)
control 60C

1.0% guar 691”C
1.0% xanthan 81a

1.0% CMC 56°

 

Any two means with the same 1etter(s) were not significantly different

from each other by Tukey's Test at a - 0.01.

70

C. ADHESION CHARACTERISTICS OF BATTERS

l. ADHESION CHARACTERISTICS OF 30% SOLIDS CHICKEN BATTERS

Adhesion characteristics of batter to chicken nuggets were
evaluated by determining percent crumb loss, percent cooking loss,
percentcoating pickup, percent overall yield, and percent cooking yield.
Results are tabulated in Table 20.

No significant difference was observed in percent crumb loss
(Figure 14) or percent cooking loss (Figure 15) of the ten 30% solids
batter treatments. Type and concentration of hydrocolloid did not influence
the percent crumb loss or percent cooking loss of batters. The standard
deviation and experimental error may have been caused by manipulation
error, fryer temperature control error or frying time error.

Batter composition had a large influence on the amount of coating
picked up by the chicken nuggets (Figure 16). Percent coating pickup
increased as hydrocolloid concentration increased in the batter. Percent
coating pickup of the batters increased significantly by 140% compared to
the control at guar gum concentration of 1.0%. The largest increase in
coating pickup with hydrocolloid concentration was observed in the xanthan
gum containing batters. A 135% and 296% increase in coating pickup was
observed over the control when 0.5 and 1.0% xanthan gum was added to the
batters. At the same hydrocolloid concentration, xanthan gum containing
batters exhibited the highest coating pickup followed by guar gum
containing batters. Coating pickup in CMC containing batters did not
differ significantly from the control.

Overall yield of the chicken nuggets was significantly influenced

71

by the type and concentration of hydrocolloid in the batter mix. At the
same hydrocolloid concentration, the percent overall yield decreased in
the following order: xanthan > guar > CMC > control (Figure 17). Compared
to the control, a 16% increase of overall yield was observed at 1% guar
gum. For the xanthan gum batter, an increase of 37% over the control was
observed at 1.0% xanthan concentration in the batter. The % overall yield
of CMC containing batters did not differ significantly from the control.

The concentration of xanthan gum also significantly influenced the %
cooking yield of the batters (Figure 18). The percent cooking yield had
the same decreased order as the percent overall yield had when the same
hydrocolloid concentration was in the batter. The highest cooking yield
was observed in xanthan gum containing batter. At xanthan concentrations
of 0.5 and 1.0%, cooking yield increased significantly by 16% and 38%
compared to the control. Guar gum and CMC in the batters did not increase
cooking yield compared to the control.

Therefore, we found that 1% xanthan batter had the significantly
highest coating pickup, overall yield, and cooking yield among the samples.
However, control and 0.25% CMC batters had the significant lowest coating
pickup, overall yield, and cooking yield among the samples. As hydrocolloid
concentration increased, coating pickup, overall yield, and cooking yield

also increased.

Acoauua>ov nuavcaun one than uouuuv
wowoaaooouvhn aeouomuav unusuwucoo uuouuaa
mnwaou con cud: wouqaoua auommac coxuuso no one” guano ucoouom ed ousmum

22600.6»: 38.51

0.: nd mad 0% 0.0 add 0.: nd and o

0.0
Nd
To
m6
md
O...
N."
.v.:
m...
mé
ON
N10.
¢.N
©.N

   

  

A028 ow03=oo$£mE>x0€oo Enzuom nHU
E30 coficox m
Eam Loam Nu

.288 NH

 

 

 

 

(z) ssoq qwmg

:.;; «ceauu:>ov pudendum own one
D Houuov
«0:0 ooou A
"8::ou son su:3 uuuaaoua H: u n ucouauuav madcauunoo auouuun

auowmsc coxoqso uo anon mauxooo uncouom n: ouamam

2020096»: :cootod

0.: 0.0 06.0 0.: 0.0 08.0 0.: n6 mad 0

04V

0.0

A028 omo_3=oo_>£oE>xoncoo Eioom nu .
Ena co£cox m o *N

:50 .630 I

.8300 U QwN

 

O.N:

(z) 5501 bumooo

74

A:0.0 I e no one» n.50338 hp Honuo node Baum ucouomuwv
xHucmo:m:cm:u uoc one: onuouuoa «Eon ogu £903 «came 03» %cnv
Aco:uu:>ov vumvcuua one: undo nouuov

unwedaooouvhs ucuuouuav flawedducoo uuouuna

mvuaon wen sou: uouaaoua nuowwsc coxouso mo aaxown acquaou uaouuom

22.0083: :cmoton.

 

w: ousmwm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

0.: nd and o; ....o and 6.. ad and o
lb p b L p L p. - h b b» - p . fiU.fiv
WWW ..
m mm“ C
v... ““8 ..
WM \\|.. d .
o o H “n“. -o. ..o cm
0.3 H m . T
m 3. nu u n rodn
a .- H. .
m a o 0.:
WM nodm
HT no.00
8.200 omo_3=oo_xfioE>xo€oo 5353 “U fluodh
E30 coficox m .
E30 .530 NM 10.00
33:00 U a

 

 

(z) dnxogd bugioog

75

Ago.o I 3 us one» u.hoxsa ha wonuo nude Bonn ucouommuv
%Hucao:u:cm:m uoc ouo3 Aavuouuoa can. as» 50:3 manna 03» many
Acoauu:>ov vuaccuun one: anon wouro

opaoaaououvhs utopouuuv wcuaqoucoo ououuun

m0::om pen Lu:3 venomoun uuowmsc coxuaso mo odoah anduo>o ucoouom ha ouswum

20.609631 30950

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.: nd and 0.: 0.0 3.3 . 0.: ad and o
11“. VIAVIA E WWW

...... 0L3. m . W00:
flu . mx - fig. 0 mac:
05 05 0.:: m 05 Ho:
WM . 0.0 mum:

mod 0 a a now:

VA fimm:

:M 000:

VM 000:

0 00¢:

..r mm:

328 omo_3=oo_>£oE>xo€oo 8358 “u ”.00:

E30 coficox m U00 :.

E30 .530 NM v.00:

35:00 U Tmm:

 

 

 

0%:

(z) PlelA ”01er

::o.o I a 00 0000 a 30x39 an 00:00 5000 son
. M 06000
5:0000000cmH0 00: 0003 Anvuouuoa 0500 0:0 #0:: 0:006 030 MWMW
Aco:ua:>00 vuavcauu one: and; uouuov

.mcaoHHooouuxn ucowouuuv 03:0:00600 muouuan

000:00 eon £003 00000000 «00003: coxousu uo vaouh mauxooo ucouumm 0: 033000

20:000..an Emotod

0.: 0.0 and 0.: 0.0 0N0 0.: 0.0 00.0 0

00
00
00:
00:
0: :
m: :
0N:
0N:
on:
00:
00:
00:
A0200 omo_3__0o_>£0E>xoa..oo E2000 “u 00:
E30 conucox m on:
E30 .630 NM 00:
30:00 “U 00:
0A.:

 

O

(34) plan Bumooo

77

2. ADHESION CHARACTERISTICS OF 40% SOLIDS CHICKEN BATTERS

There were statistically significant differences among the treatments
in all of the measured adhesion characteristics. Table 21 shows the
results of adhesion characteristics of 40% solids chicken batters.

Gum containing batters had higher percent crumb loss than non-gum
containing batters (Figure 19). One percent xanthan gum gave the batter
the highest loss of crumb among the others. Crumb loss of the batters
increased by 167% and 100% at 1% xanthan and 1% CMC as compared to the
control. Crumb loss of 1% guar containing batter did not differ
signficantly from the control. The higher crumb-loss batter had higher
standard deviation than the lower crumb-loss batter. The reason seemed
the same as the previous description, such as the manipulation error, fryer
temperature control error or frying time error.

Guar gum containing batter had the highest and the control batter
had the lowest cooking loss among the samples (Figure 20). Percent cooking
loss decreased in the order of guar > CMC > xanthan > control. An increase
of 50% of cooking loss as 1% guar was added to the control. The percent
cooking loss of xanthan and CMC containing batter did not differ
significantly from the control.

Guar gum batter had the highest coating pickup among the samples
containing 1% hydrocolloid, followed by xanthan gum. Guar and xanthan
gum (1%) increased coating pickup by of 121% and 98% over the control,
respectively (Figure 21). CMC in batters did not increase coating pickup
significantly compared to the control. The lowest value was given by the

control.

78

Xanthan and guar batters had almost the same high overall yield
(Figure 22) The control exhibited the lowest overall yield. Overall yield
of the batters increased by 20% when 1% xanthan or 1% guar was added to
the batter. CMC in the batters did not increase overall yield
significantly compared to the control.

Percent cooking yield of the samples was similar to those of the
percent overall yield (Figure 23). An increase of approximately 20% in
cooking yield was observed when 1% xanthan and 1% guar were added to the
batter. The percent cooking yield of 1% CMC containing batter did not
differ significantly from the control.

Therefore, we found that coating pickup, overall yield, and cooking
yield were high in xanthan and guar batters, but low in control and CMC
batters. Results also indicated that batters with higher crumb loss also
had higher coating pickup, overall yield, and cooking yield. Cunningham
and Tiede's (1981) also found that, as the viscosity of the batters
increased, the amount of breading pickup and crumb-loss increased.

In general, gum containing batters had higher adhesion than non-gum
containing batters. It was concluded that gums were helpful in
increasing the yield of battered and breaded products. Our conclusion
agreed with a similar report by Suderman et a1. (1981), that gum source
significantly affected adhesion of breading to poultry drum-sticks.
However, they found that there was no effect of gum level or level-source
interaction. In their report, CMC was significantly better than guar, and
guar was significantly better than xanthan in crumb loss. In our
research, we could not find significant differences in crumb loss among
our different batter treatments. Also, coating pickup, overall yield,

and cooking yield of treatments were significantly different. Xanthan gum

79
gave the best coating pickup, overall yield, and cooking yield among the
tested hydrocolloids. CMC contributed the least to adhesion of batter to
chicken batters. The difference in results between our experiment and
Suderman et a1. (1981) may be caused by formulation differences. We added
hydrocolloids to the batter mix while Suderman added the gum to the
breading. In Suderman's research, hydrocolloids interfaced to breading
and chicken drumsticks. While in our research, hydrocolloid interfaced
to water, batter, chicken nuggets, and breading. Xanthan gum exhibited
the highest crumb loss in both studies, but also gave the highest coating
pickup, overall yield, and cooking yield in our study. CMC gave the
lowest crumb loss in both studies, but also gave the lowest coating pickup,

overall yield, and cooking yield in our study.

 

[:23 control
:2 guar gum

' [2: sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)

a xanthan gum

. EIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#3316101: 9 o o {91¢{61919191010101910191010}
§\\“\\\\\\\\\\\\‘

 

 

 

 

 

2.8

 

I I l 1 l I
s. o «a as no ‘t 0.
N N v- v- 0 O O

(z) ss0‘l qwmg

1.0

1.0

1.0

Percent Hydro

In
'0 >~.
«4 H
H u
o r:
to co
0
an ..4
0 ‘HA
q adv-l
.. 0°
.0 do
..4 m
3 l
'0 d
o
u u
d 0
0m
0'0 U
a: m
CLO 0
.4 AU
vac-4
UOAVfl
out: -
DOOO >5
sou-.400
00000
fihdo:
13*! E4
c >
auooh
3:031:
00 d
«H'Uau
".COH 0
ONGOI-
«4'05“
«43500
O
9.6.6
wanna-:0
at: ~41!
o-u-aozo
HCH
3:335‘
an on
60044
HOS-n5
0 I U
no:
un 30
SSSSS
“"sz
new
onion-v4
vvvvv

 

 

 

’6 -°

2 O

o ‘ _ 7 _ ,
v

- HPrHlHllllHllllllllE

 

W
Mn

m1.310101.)on

 

 

 

W

 

 

 

 

36

28" :21 sodium corboxymethylcelluloSo

(z) 530‘] Bumooo

E
3
£05
-35
8 :
...:L-H
CDC
“3,: ...
'l‘ I. l :1111I I l I
N V” O (O N m ‘3' O
n N N ‘— v—

1.0

1.0

1.0

Percent Hydrocolloid

>5
H
u
c
m
u
H
‘HA
trio-4
so
00.
~40
U)
I
U
U
u
on
a
'0 u
H a
o o
:4 AU
0H m
mmmmm
m06u~
:oooh
u o
vuux
52:2:
.3 >
ouom>~
r: .0
o
u u
o a
mm .c
ooooo
cut 0
3‘ .c
on 0
H6 II
«.4 o
no:
I'S-u-IOIE
«asco
flu an
or: ON
00 8
o u
oz:
u. 30
uuuuu
«no u
an
an
anon—a
vvvvv
o
N
o
n
a

 

 

wmmni
‘° 'iiiiiiiiiiiiii'iiii

o 1‘“

 

 

I | I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

80-: (1:: sodium oorboxymethylcellquss (CMC)

iii , i

(z) dmpld bunooo

1.0

'. 1.0

1.0

Percent Hydrocolloid

m
‘0
v4
H
0
U! >5
H
up u
0 C'.
q an
o
,c ..4
u HA
v4 adv-4
3 co
m.
‘0 HO
0 in
u I
0 u
0. 00
o c
u u
0- 00
u u
no 00
u-a 3m
00 o
00H Au
no.4 I
SOAVU)
coca.
000%
CLO-H o
uuuuu
xaao:
HHHHH
Eu>o>s
0:: EA
0 0
can an
00 0
outdo}:
(MN .69
5.4690
son
0 “£4:
«mono
0-6 v00
c.4030
not:
:uona
«0360
UU 0H
dance-a
00:43
000 U
.006
u. 30
HHHHH
000 o
uh“
was:
0000-4
vvvvv
.4
N
0
H
5
so
a
In

Aao.o I o as uuou a.xoxsa an uoSuo £060 Eouu acououuao
haucuuauacmHu uo: one: Auvuouuoa can» on» £ua3 manna 03u acuv
Accuuua>ov vulva-u. on.) anon uoHuOV
sodoHAououohz ucououuuv mc«c«nucou uuouuup

modaon woe no“: venomous auomwac coxuusu uo odouh Hanuo>o unmouom «a ouawqm

U_o__ooo.__u>I “cocoon.

o
F
9
F

0.. o

 

83

 

 

 

1%

%- lillllllll

«my» iliiiii
W P
E:

ii
i

 

 

iii

O

828 om03=oo$£oE>xoo€oo Egoom “Hu ”.9;
Eam co£cox m tom?
E30 .530 NM ..

.obcoo NU

 

 

(z) Plalk ”01er

Ago.o I o um uuou a.xoxsa as nosuo sous aoum ucououuuv
mHuCaOHuucwau no: one: Auvuouuoa «Eda osu god: asses osu many
Acoduaa>oo ouuocnuu one: anon uouuov
mvaoaaououvas ucououuqo madcaoucou nuouuup

moaaom woo no“: oouoaoua uuomwsc coXo«£o no vaowh w:«XOoo ucoouom nu ouamah .

Eo=oooLU>I acmouod

o.w

O

.— o; o

r . . . _ . . . . , ..oS
. m _ _ no?
_ H wow?

 

 

 

W;

i

HHHH -
Ii

 

 

 

iii
\\\\\\\\\\\

 

 

Mil-M n In:
"Land .
iii... wows
so "ml“... .
"WNW 1mm,
m mo?
nu nu fiumwmuw

 

f T0¢~

820v omo_:=oo_>£oE>xo€ou Eamvom “U 19;
Sam cocucox m Iomw

Eam Loam ! ..
Imnw

.2300 ”H
Um F

 

 

 

(z) PIBIA Bumooo

85

3. COMPARISON OF ADHESION CHARACTERISTICS OF 30% AND 40% SOLIDS BATTERS

We compared the adhesion characteristics of batters containing 1%
hydrocolloid and found that, except control batter, percent crumb loss of
40% solids batters was higher than that of 30% solids batters. Thirty
percent solids control batter had higher percent crumb loss than that of
40% solids control batter. Percent cooking loss of 40% solids batters
were higher than those of 30% solids batters. Forty percent solids
batters had higher percent coating pickup, percent overall yield, and
percent cooking yield than those of 30% solids batters, with the
exception of xanthan containing batter. Thirty percent xanthan containing
batter had higher percent coating pickup, percent overall yield, and

percent cooking yield than those of 40% xanthan containing batter.

D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES AND ADHESION

CHARACTERISTICS OF CHICKEN BATTERS

Average apparent viscosity (C-D, Figure 3) was correlated to the
adhesion characteristics of chicken batters. A high correlation
coefficient meant a high relationship between rheological properties
and adhesion characteristics of the chicken batters.

High correlation coefficients were observed between apparent
viscosity and percent coating pickup, percent overall yield, and
percent cooking yield of 30% solids batters (Table 14). The correlation
coefficients were up to 0.98. Low correlation coefficients were observed

between apparent viscosity and percent crumb loss and percent cooking loss.

86
Apparent viscosity of batters cannot be used to predict the percent crumb
loss or percent cooking loss of the nuggets. A high correlation coefficient
of 0.98 was observed between apparent viscosity and percent coating pickup.
When the apparent viscosity of the sample increased, the percent coating
pickup increased also. Correlation of apparent viscosity and percent overall
yield had a coefficient of 0.98. The correlation of apparent viscosity with
percent cooking yield exhibited a high coefficient of 0.98, also.

Table 15 showed the correlation coefficient of apparent viscosity
vs adhesion characteristics of the 40% solids batters. Percent coating
pickup, percent overall yield, and percent cooking yield showed a high
correlation coefficient with apparent viscosity. Due to the low correlation
coefficient, apparent viscosity could not be used to predict the percent
crumb loss or percent cooking loss of the batter on chicken nuggets.

The results indicated a relationship between batter apparent viscosity
and adhesion characteristics such as coating pickup, overall yield and
cooking yield. However, we did not find a relationsip between apparent
viscosity and crumb loss or cooking loss due to the low correlation.
Coating pickup, overall yield and cooking yield will be the parameters
to measure if food processers hope to compare the influence of
hydrocolloid source and concentration for improving adhesion
characteristics.

When comparing the relationship between adhesion and time-dependency
of the samples, control and 0.25% CMC have the lowest adhesion and lowest
degree of time-dependency, but the highest stable properties among the
samples. Xanthan and guar gum batters have higher adhesion and degree
of time-dependency but lower stability than CMC did. When hydrocolloid

concentration or batter solids content increase, the adhesion and degree

87
of time-dependency increase, but the stability of the sample decreases.

The 30% solids control had the lowest adhesion but over 100%
recovery, which showed the batter had increased apparent voscosity
over time of mixing. When batter contained hydrocolloid or
increased solids content, batters have increased adhesion but less than
100% recovery and indicating the batters have decreased apparent viscosity
over the time of mixing.

In our experiment, we did not find a hydrocolloid that contributed
all of the following characteristics to the batter: higher adhesion and
apparent viscosity, higher time-dependency or more stable properties over
the time of mixing, and reasonable recovery for quality maintenance over

the time of mixing.

88

Table 14 Correlation coefficient of apparent viscosity vs adhesion
characteristics of 30% solids chicken batters

 

Comparison

Correlation coefficient

 

Apparent
Apparent
Apparent
Apparent

Apparent

Viscosity vs
Viscosity vs
Viscosity vs
Viscosity vs

Viscosity vs

% Crumb Loss

% Cooking Loss

% Coating Pickup
% Overall Yield

% Cooking Yield

0.69

0.32

0.98

0.98

0.98

 

 

 

Table 15 Correlation coefficient of apparent viscosity vs adhesion
characteristics of 40% solids chicken batters
Comparison Correlation coefficient
Apparent Viscosity vs % Crumb Loss 0.51
Apparent Viscosity vs % Cooking Loss 0.51
Apparent Viscosity vs % Coating Pickup 0.96
Apparent Viscosity vs % Overall Yield 0.96
Apparent Viscosity vs % Cooking Yield 0.95

 

89

E. PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

The results of this research can be applied as follows:

1. Hydrocolloids can be applied to the batter industry to increase
the adhesion and apparent viscosity of batter mixes.

2. Since time factors, hydrocolloid type and concentration, and batter
solids content influenced the stability of batters during mixing, it
is desirable to find a batter with the lowest time-dependency and the
most stable properties. This kind of batter also needs to have high
adhesion and apparent viscosity.

3. Strain history which is calculated by the multiplication of
time and shear rate can be used to quantify the influence of
time-dependency during the mixing and pumping of batters. We could

design equipment to maintain optimum batter properties and adhesion.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUS ION

The objectives of this research were accomplished by the study. The
effect of hydrocolloid type and concentration, and batter solids content on
the rheological and adhesion characteristics of a batter mix to chicken
nuggets was determined. A relationahip was found between the rheological
properties and adhesion characteristics of batter mixes.

Batter rheological properties changed with time of mixing. The 30%
solids control and 0.25% CMC batters showed Newtonian behavior and had
more stable properties during the time of mixing. All other batters
exhibited thixotropy. All batter treatments displayed pseudoplasticity
(shear-thinning). Generally, increasing rotational speed decreased apparent
viscosity. Higher hydrocolloid concentration and higher batter solids
content caused a higher apparent viscosity and degree of time-dependency
but less stability. Thirty percent solids control and 0.25% CMC batters
had the lowest degree of time-dependency and apparent viscosity but the
most stable properties among the treatments. Xanthan and guar gums
exhibited greater time-dependency and apparent viscosity but less
stable properties than CMC at the same concentration. Batters with
greater time-dependency or less recovery need less energy during mixing.

Hydrocolloid composition of the batter had a large influence on
adhesion to chicken nuggets. Higher hydrocolloid concentration and higher

batter solids content gave higher adhesion, as measured by coating pickup,

90

91
overall yield, and cooking yield. In 40% solids batters, increased
coating pickup led to increased crumb loss. However, there was no
evidence for the same correlation in 30% solids batters. Xanthan and
guar gums showed better adhesion than CMC at the same concentration.
Control batter had lower adhesion than hydrocolloid batters.

A positive correlation was made between apparent viscosity and
adhesion characteristics, such as percent coating pickup, percent
overall yield, and percent cooking yield. No predictability could be
made between apparent viscosity and percent crumb loss or percent
cooking loss. Batters with higher apparent viscosity usually have

higher adhesion properties.

FUTURE RESEARCH

Several ideas for further research and quality improvement are

suggested as follows:

1.

The effect of other type, concentration, or the combinations of
hydrocolloids on the rheological and adhesion properties of the
batter.

. The effect of batter-mix composition on the rheological and adhesion

properties of the batter.

. Studies of stirring time in the mixer to achieve better adhesion and

higher apparent viscosity of the batter.

. Investigation of the oil absorption ability of hydrocolloid

containing batters during frying to determine influence of oil
absorption on adhesion.

. Studies of other viscometers (e.g. Brookfield with proper impellers)

for measuring the apparent viscosity of batter mixes.

. Evaluation of sensory acceptance of hydrocolloid containing batters.

92

REFERENCES

93

LIST OF REFERENCES

Anonymous. 1981. Total poundage of frozen products using breading for
alternate years 1962 to 1980. Quick Frozen Foods Novzll3.

Anonymous. 1981. Total poundage of breading used on frozen products for
alternate years 1962 to 1980. Quick Frozen Foods Novzll3.

Anonymous. 1988. Tracking down trends. Poultry Processing April/May230.

Astarita, G., Manucci, G., and Wicolais, L. 1980. "Rheology," vol.3:
Application, Plenum Press, New York.

Balmaceda, E., Rha, C-K., and Huang, F. 1973. Rheological properties of
hydrocolloids. J. Food Sci. 38:1169.

Baker, R.C., Darfler, J.M., and Vadehra, D.V. 1972. Prebrowned fried
chicken: 1. Evaluation of cooking methods. Poultry Sci. 51:1215.

Baker, R.C, Scott-Kline, D., Hutchison, J., Goodman, A., and Charvat, J.
1986. A pilot plant study of the effect of four cooking methods on
acceptability and yields of prebrowned battered and breaded broiler
parts. Poultry Sci. 65:1322.

Batdorf, J.B. and Rossman, J.M. 1973. Sodium carboxy—methylcellulose.
Quoted in Whistler, R.C. (Ed.), (1973), I'Industrial Gums," p.695,
Academic Press, Inc., New York.

Bird, R.B. 1965. Mathematical model building in rheology. Quoted in
(1965), "Application of Mathematical Models in Chemical Engineering
Research Design and Production,” A.I.Ch.E.-I.Chem.E. Joint Meeting,
London.

Bistany, K.L. and Kokini, J.L. 1983. Dynamic Viscoelastic properties of
foods in texture control. J. Rheology 27(6):605.

Casson, N. 1959. A flow equation for pigment-oil suspensions of the
printing ink type. Quoted in Mill, C.C. (Ed.) (1959), "Rheology of
Disperse Systems," p.82, Pergamon Press, New York.

Charm, S.E. 1962. The nature and role of fluid consistency in food
engineering applications. Adv. Food Res. 11:356.

Charm, S.E. 1963. Effect of yield stress on the power law constants of
fluid food materials determined in low shear rate viscometers. Ind.
Eng. Chem. Proc. Des. Development 2:62.

94

Cheng, D.C.H. and Evans, F. 1965. Phenomenological characterization of
the rheological behavior of inelastic reversible thixotropic and
antithixotropic fluids. Brit. J. Appl. Phys. 16:1599.

Chevalley, J. 1975. Rheology of chocolate. J. Texture Stud. 6:177.

Collins, J.L. and Dincer, B. 1973. Rheological properties of syrups
containing gums. J. Food Sci. 38:489.

Corey, M.L., Gerdes, D.L., and Grodner, R.M. 1987. Influence of frozen
storage and phosphate predips on coating adhesion in breaded fish
portions. J. Food Sci. 52(2):297.

Cunningham, F.E., and Tiede, L.M. 1981. A research note: Influence of
batter viscosity on breading of chicken drumsticks. J. Food Sci.
46:1950.

Dawson, L.E., Zabik, M., and Sobel, N. 1962. An edible coating for
poultry meat preservation. Poultry Sci. 41:1640.

Davis, A. 1983. Batter and breading ingredients. Quoted in Suderman, D.R.
and Cunningham, F.E. (1983), "Batter and Breading Technology," AVI
Publishing Company, Westport, CT.

Dekee, D., Turcotte, G., and Code, R.K. 1980. Rheological
characterization of time-dependent foodstuffs. Quoted in Astarita,
G., Marrucci, G., and Nicolais, L. (1980), "Rheology, vol.3," p.609,
Plenum Press, New York.

Donahoo, P. 1970. Choosing the right batter and breading. Proceedings of
the Seventh Annual Poultry and Egg Further Processing Conference,
p.18.

Doublier, J. L. and Launay, B. 1974. Proprietes rheologiques des
solutions de gomme guar. Quoted in Dechema Monographien, "
Lebensmittel-Einfuss der Rheologie, band 77,” P.197, Dechema,
Frankfurt.

Elston, E. 1975. Why fish fingers top the market. Fishing News
International 14:30.

Figoni, P.I. and Shoemaker, C.F. 1981. Characterization of structure
behavior of foods from their flow properties. J. Texture Stud.
12:287.

Ford, E.W. and Steffe, J.F. 1986. Quantifying thixotrop in starch-
thickened, strained apricots using mixer viscometry techniques. J.
Texture Stud. 17:71.

95

Funk, K., Yadrick, M.K. and Conklin, M.A. 1971. Chicken skillet-fried or
roasted with and without an edible coating. Poultry Sci. 50:634.

Glicksman, M. 1969. "Gum Technology in the Food Industry," Academic
Press, New York.

Coldstein, A.M., Alter, E.N., and Seaman, J.K. 1973. Guar gum. Quoted in
Whistler, R.C. (ed.) (1973), "Industrial Gums," p.303, Academic
Press, Inc., New York.

Graf, R.L. and Stewart, C.F. 1953. Slack vs. subscald for broilers.
Poultry Proc. & Mktg. 59:12.

Hale, K.K. Jr. and Goodwin, T.L. 1968. Breaded fried chicken: effects of
precooking, batter composition, and temperature of parts before
breading. Poultry Sci. 47:739.

Hale, K.K. Jr. and Mayfield, T.L. 1976. The effects of chilling and
nonchilling on further processed fowl. Poultry Sci. 55:1798.

Hanson, H.L. and Fletcher, L.R. 1965. Preparation of pre—cooked frozen
poultry products. U.S. patent 3,169,069, February 9.

Harper, J.C. 1960. Viscometric behavior in relation to evaporation of
fruit purees. Food Technol. 14:557.

Harris, N.E. and Lee, F.H. 1974. Coating composition for foods and method
of improving texture of cooked foods. U.S. patent 3,794,742, February
26.

Heath, J.L., Teekell, R.A., and Watts, A.B. 1971. Fatty acid composition
of batter coated chicken parts. Poultry Sci. 50:219.

Herschel, W.H. and Bulkley, R. 1926. The ostwald viscometer as a
consistometer. Proc. Am. Soc. Testing Materials 26:621.

Higgs. S.L. and Norrington, R.J. 1971. Rheological properties of selected
foodstuffs. Proc. Biochem. 6(5):52.

Holdsworth, S.D. 1971. Applicability of rheological models to the
interpretation of flow and processing behaviour of fluid food
products. J. Texture Stud. 2:393.

Kaufman, H.R. 1977. Process for deep frying of chicken. U.S. patent
4,054,673, October 18.

Krumel, K.L. and Sarkar, N. 1975. Flow properties of gums used to the
food industry. Food Technol. 29(4):36.

Lane, R.H., Nguyen, H., Jones, S.W., and Midkiff, V.C. 1982. The effect
of fryer temperature and raw weight on yield and composition of
deep-fat fried chicken thighs. Poultry Sci. 61:294.

96

Lane, R.H. and Abdel-Ghany, M. 1986. Viscosity and pickup of a fish and
chip batter: Determinants of variation. J. Food Qual. 9:107.

Libby, L.L. 1963. Prepared frozen food for cooking and method of
preparing the same. U.S. patent 3,078,172, February 19.

Love, B.E. and Goodwin, T.L. 1974. Effects of cooking methods and
browning temperatures on yields of poultry parts. Poultry Sci.
5321391.

Lucas, A.M. and Stettenheim, P.R. 1972. "Avian anatomy. Integument,"
Part 2. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

Matz, S.A. 1962. "Food Texture," Avi Publishing Co., Westport, Conn.

May, K.N., Farr, A.J., and Hudspeth, J.P. 1969. Estimating breading
content of battered and breaded poultry products. Food Technol.
23:1087.

Metzner, A.B. and Otto, R.B. 1957. Agitation of non-Newtonian fluids. Am.
Inst. Chem. Engr. J. 3:3.

Mickelberry, W.C. and Stadelmen, W.J. 1962. Effect of cooking method on
shear-press values and weight changes of frozen chicken meat. Food
Technology 16:94.

Montagna, W. and Lobitz, W.C. Jr. 1964. "The Epidermis," Academic Press,
New York.

Nakai, Y. and Chen, T.C. 1986. Effects of coating preparation methods on
yields and compositions of deep-fat fried chicken parts. Poultry
Sci. 65:307.

Ofoli, R.Y., Morgan, R.G., and Steffe, J.F. 1987. A generalized rheological
model for inelastic fluid foods. J. Texture Stud. 18:213.

Petrellis, N.C. and Flummerfelt, R.W. 1973. Rheological behavior of shear
degradable oils: kinetic and equilibrium properties. Canadian J.
Chem. Egr. 51:291.

Pinkus, H. and Mehregan, A.H. 1969. "A Guide to Dermatohistopathology,"
Appleton Century Crofts, New York.

Prentice, J. H. 1968. Measurement of some flow properties of market
cream. Quoted in SCI monograph No.27 (1968), "Rheology and Texture
of Foodstuffs,9 p.265, Society of Chemical Industry, London.

Prentice, J.H. 1972. Rheology and texture of dairy products. J. Texture
Stud. 3:415.

97

Proctor, V.A. and Cunningham, F.E. 1983. Composition of broiler meat as
influenced by cooking methods and coating. J. Food Sci. 4821696.

Proctor, V.A. and Cunningham, F.E. 1984. Effect of weight, temperature
and skinning of broiler drumsticks on batter and breading adhesion.
J. Food Qual. 6:315.

Pryce-Jones, J. 1953. The rheology of honey. Quoted in Scott Blair, G.W.
(Ed.) (1953), "Foodstuffs: Their Plasticity, Fluidity and
Consistency," p.148, North Holland, Amsterdam.

Rao, M.A. 1975. Measurement of flow properties of food suspension with a
mixer. J. Texture Stud. 6:533.

Rao, M.A. 1977. Rheology of liquid foods-a review. J. Texture Stud.
8:135.

Rao, M.A. and Kenny, J.F. 1975. Flow properties of selected food gums.
Can. Inst. Food Sci. Technol. J. 8:142.

Rao, M.A., Walter, R.H., and Cooley, H.J. 1981. Effect of heat treatment
on the flow properties of aqueous guar gum and sodium
carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) solutions. J. Food Sci. 46:896.

Rieger, F. and Novak, V. 1973. Power consumption of agitators in highly
viscous non-Newtonian liquids. Trans. Instn. Chem. Engrs. 51:105.

Rock, J.K. 1971. Xanthan gum. Food Technol. 25:476.

Rostagno, W. 1974. Rheological properties of chocolate. Quoted in Dechema
Monographien, Band 77. (1974), "Lebensmittel-Einfluss der
Rheologie,” p.283, Dechema, Frankfurt.

Schnell, P.G. 1976. Method to improve the physical, organoleptical and
functional properties of flour-based products through the use of
yeast and product of said method. U.S. patent 3,997,683, December
14.

Schutz, R. A. 1970. De la rheologie des systemes aquenx a base de gommes.
Die starke 22:116.

Seeley, F.L. 1981. Adhesion of coating broiler drumsticks. M.S. thesis,
Kansas State Univ., Manhattan.

Sherman, P. 1975. Factors influencing the instrumental and sensory
evaluation of food emulsions. Quoted in Rha, C-K.D. (1975), "Theory,
Determination and Control of Physical Properties of Food Materials,"
p.251, Reidel Publishing Co., Boston, MA.

98

Sisko, A.W. 1958. The flow of lubricating greases. Ind. Eng. Chem.
50:1789.

Sison, E.C. 1972. Centralized processing of frozen pre-cooked chicken.
Dissertation Abstracts International Section B. The Sciences and
Engineering 32:7101.

Speers, R.A. and Tung, M.A. 1986. Concentration and temperature
dependence of flow behavior of xanthan gum dispersions. J. Food Sci.
51(1):96.

Steffe, J.F. and Ford, E.W. 1985. Rheological techniques to evaluate the
shelf-stability of starch-thickened, strained apricots. J. Texture
Stud. 16:179.

Strommer, P.K. and Valentas, R.J. 1976. Method for preparing breading.
U.S. patent 3,997,673, December 14.

Suderman, D.R. and Cunningham, F.E. 1979. New portable sieve shaker tags
breading adhesion. Broiler Industry 42:66.

Suderman, D.R. and Cunningham, F.E. 1980. Factors affecting adhesion of
coating to poultry skin. Effect of age, method of chilling, and
scald temperature on poultry skin ultrastructure. J. Food Sci.
45:444.

Suderman, D.R. and Cunningham, F.E. 1981. Factors affecting adhesion of
coating to poultry skin: effects of various protein and gum sources
in the coating composition. J. Food Sci. 46:1010.

Suderman, D.R. and Cunningham, F.E. 1981. Effect of freezing broiler
drumsticks on breading adhesion. 46:1953.

Suderman, D.R. and Cunningham, F.E. (ed.) 1983. "Batter and Breeding
Technology," AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, Connecticut.

Tanaka, M., deMan, J.M., and Voisey, R.W. 1973. Some rheological
properties of whipped toppings. Chem. Microbiol. Lebensm. 2:1.

Tiu, C. and Boger, D.V. 1974. Complete rheological characterization of
time-dependent food products. J. Texture Stud. 5:329.

Toloday, D. 1975. Vegetable gum mix improves shrimp breading. Food
Proc. 36:32.

Tung, M.A., Richards, J.F., Morrison, B.S., and Watson, E.L. 1970.
Rheology of fresh, aged and gramma-irradiated egg white. J. Food
Sci. 35:872.

99

USDA. 1986. Purchase of frozen fried batter/breaded nugget shaped chicken
patties for distribution to eligible outlets. Announcement PY-118.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.

Van Wazer, J.R., Lyons, J.W., Kim, K.Y., and Colwell, R.B. 1963.
"Viscosity and Flow Measurement," Interscience, New York.

Voisey, P.W. and deMan, J.M. 1970. An electronic recording viscometer for
food products. Can. Inst. Food Tech. J. 3:130.

Whistler, R.L. and BeMiller, J.N. (Ed.) 1973. "Industrial Gums,
Polysactharides and Their Derivatives," Academic Press, New York.

Whitcomb, P.J. and Macosko, G.W. 1978. Rheology of xanthan gum. J. Rheol.
22(5):493.

Whorlow, R. W. 1979. " Rheological Techniques," Halsted Press, New York.

Wood, F.W. 1968. Psychophysical studies on the consistency of liquid
foods. Quoted in SCI Monograph No.27 (1968), "Rheology and Texture of
Foodstuffs," The Society of Chemical Industry, London.

Yang, C.S. and Chen, T.C. 1979. Yields of deep-fat fried chicken parts as
affected by perparation, frying conditions, and shortening. J. Food
Sci. 44:1074.

Zatz, J.L. and Knapp, S. 1984. Viscosity of xanthan gum solutions at low
shear rates. J. Pharm. Sci. 73(4):468.

Ziegler, F. and Stadelman, W.J. 1955. The effect of different scald water
temperature on the shelf-life of fresh, nonfrozen fryers. Poultry
Sci. 34:237.

Zwiercan, G.A. 1974. Case of the weeping pies (and others). Food
Engineering 46:79.

APPENDIX

. 1
Torque vs time

100

 

 

 

Table 16 of 30 % solids batters measured at 70 rpm,
100C
Torque (N m) x 103
Time(min) control 0.25% guar guar 1.0% guar
0.9482 0.37 0.82 .52 3.83
5.5990 0.36 0.83 .53 3.84
10.250 0.42 0.83 .50 3.81
14.890 0.38 0.82 .48 3.83
19.540 0.38 0.80 .46 3.78
24.190 0.39 0.79 .43 3.72
28.840 0.39 0.78 .39 3.64
33.480 0.40 0.77 .39 3.64
38.130 0.41 0.75 .36 3.60
42.780 0.41 0.73 .34 3.55
47.420 0.41 0.72 .32 3.52
52.070 0.42 0.72 .29 3.44
56.710 0.41 0.71 .27 3.41

 

Data were averaged by triplicated tests.

BB was basic batter.

101

Table 16 (cont'd)

 

Torque (N m) x 103

 

 

Time(min) 0.25% xanthan 0.5% xanthan 1.0% xanthan
0.9482 1.29 2.68 4.96
5.5990 1.26 2.66 5.06
10.250 1.25 2.64 5.05
14.890 1.25 2.59 5.01
19.540 1.23 2.57 4.97
24.190 1.22 2.53 4.94
28.840 1.22 2.50 4.90
33.480 1.20 2.48 4.88
38.130 1.19 2.46 4.85
42.780 1.18 2.45 4.81
47.420 1.17 2.40 4.76
52.070 1.17 2.39 4.75

56.710 1.15 2.36 4.71

 

102

Table 16 (cont'd)

 

Torque (N m) x 103

 

 

Time(min) 0.25% CMC 0.5% CMC 1.0% CMC
0.9482 0.42 0.80 1.67
5.5990 0.40 0.78. 1.16
10.250 0.40 0.76 1.58
14.890 0.40 0.76 1.54
19.540 0.39 0.75 1.50
24.190 0.39 0.73 1.47
28.840 0.39 0.71 1.45
33.480 0.39 0.70 1.42
38.130 0.39 0.69 1.39
42.780 0.38 0.68 1.37
47.420 0.38 0.66 1.35
52.070 0.38 0.66 1.32

56.710 0.38 0.65 1.30

 

103

Table 17 Torque vs time1 of 40 % solids batters measured at 70 rpm,

 

 

 

100C
Torque (N m) x 102
Time(min) control 1.0% guar 1.0% xanthan 1.0% CMC
0.8460 1.14 2.44 1.85 1.22
4.9900 1.04 2.47 1.81 1.18
9.1340 0.97 2.39 1.75 1.10
13.280 0.92 2.35 1.70 1.05
17.420 0.89 2.30 1.65 1.01
21.560 0.86 2.26 1.62 0.98
25.700 0.83 2.22 1.62 0.95
29.840 0.81 2.18 1.59 0.92
33.980 0.79 2.15 1.57 0.90
38.130 0.77 2.11 1.55 0.87
42.270 0.76 2.08 1.52 0.86
46.410 0.74 2.05 1.50 0.83
50.550 0.73 2.02 1.49 0.82
54.690 0.71 1.98 1.49 0.80
58.830 0.70 1.95 1.47 0.79

 

1’2 The same definition as Appendix A.

104

Table 18 Apparent viscosity, pa, of 30% solids chicken batters

 

Apparent Viscosity (Pa 5)

 

Hydrocolloid Concentration (%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nx 0 7
x a control 0.25 0.5 1.0
Guar
10 1.047 4.67 0.23 0.21 0.50 1.53
30 3.142 14.01 0.16 0.20 0.42 1.23
50 5.236 23.35 0.14 0.20 0.40 1.15
70 7.330 32.69 0.14 0.21 0.39 1.02
90 9.425 42.04 0.13 0.21 0.38 0.94
Average 50 5.236 23.35 0.16 0.21 0.42 1.17
Xanthan
10 1.047 4.67 0.23 0.54 1.58 3.83
30 3.142 14.01 0.16 0.40 1.00 2.19
50 5.236 23.35 0.14 0.36 0.83 1.70
70 7.330 32.69 0.14 0.35 0.75 1.45
90 9.425 42.04 0.13 0.34 0.69 1.30
Average 50 5.236 23.35 0.16 0.40 0.97 2.09
CMC
10 1.047 4.67 0.23 0.28 0.30 0.52
30 3.142 14.01 0.16 0.18 0.26 0.49
50 5.236 23.35 0.14 0.15 0.21 0.48
70 7.330 32.69 0.14 0.15 0.23 0.47
90 9.425 42.04 0.13 0.15 0.22 0.46
Average 50 5.236 23.35 0.16 0.18 0.24 0.48

 

105

Table 19 Apparent Viscosity, pa, of 40% solids chicken batters

 

Apparent Viscosity (Pa 5)

 

 

NX 0x ya control 1.0% guar 1.0% xanthan 1.0% CMC
10 1.047 4.67 1.61 10.47 10.50 2.55
30 3.142 14.01 1.82 7.53 6.06 2.36
50 5.236 23.35 1.99 6.47 4.92 2.33
70 7.330 32.69 2.11 5.83 4.35 2.29
90 9.425 42.04 2.17 5.36 3.97 2.30

 

Average 50 5.236 23.35 1.94 7.13 5.96 2.37

 

106

Table 20 Percent crumb loss, percent cooking 1055, percent coating pickup,
percent overall yield, and percent cooking yield of 30% solids
chicken batters

 

Adhesion Characteristics

 

 

%crumb %cooking %coating %overall %cooking
Batter loss loss pickup yield yield
control 0.78 12.61 13.35C 100.30C 100.74C
0.25%guar 0.66 15.42 17.14c 101.06b'C 101.68C
0.5% guar 0.96 16.29 23.19b'c 105.93b'C 106.90b’C
1.0% guar 0.86 16.04 32.10b 115.20b 116.03b'C
0.25%xanthan 1.01 12.92 24.331”C 110.40b'c 111.46b'C
0.5% xanthan 1.17 14.20 31.34b 112.65b’c 116.87b
1.0% xanthan 1.33 14.21 52.82a 137.27a 138.60a
0.25%CMC 1.02 12.39 14.65c 101.25b'° 102.25c
0.5% one 0.94 12.14 16.36c 103.23b'c 104.22b'c
1.0% cuc 1.05 14.36 20.92b'c 105.60b'C 106.65b’c

 

Any two means in the same column with the same 1etter(s) were not
significantly different from each other by Tukey's Test at a - 0.01.

107

Table 21 Percent crumb loss, percent cooking loss, percent coating pickup,
percent overall yield, and percent cooking yield of 40% solids

chicken batters

 

Adhesion Characteristics

 

 

%crumb %cooking %coating %overall %cooking
Batter loss loss pickup yield yield
control 0.58b 14.46b 24.30C 109.24b 109.83b
1.0% guar 1.028'b 21.73a 53.76a 130.99a 132.01a
1.0% xanthan 1.55a 14.92b 48.03""’b 131.578 133.113
1.0% CMC 1.16a 18.62a’b 35.44b'C 115.698'b 116.82a’b

 

Any two means in the same column with the same 1etter(s) were not
significantly different from each other by Tukey's Test at a - 0.01.

  
  
   
  
  
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
  
  
 
 
 

Wsw'lvmfiw ' .. - 0‘! p o. . ..
“1:3“- 433% ";:§p‘5"""5'"557* 1.93:3; . ’-" _ ° . ,

   

 

         
 
 

  

4” o 0'
. ‘- 39h. . l .99 . . ..., ,_ _ 1:: f
"if?“ 0'- . .. .
O “41“ ‘flé‘d"r .' o A , do ‘ I.- p .-.; I or. . ’ . -‘-‘ . . ,‘~ "
' . ' - s -
fi‘bfic‘ o -a.- u aifilfit'ivl I. a P r‘ 7*.7...’ ‘.'. . "a ' _:""9‘ "’1"
. 4' ““0 '. ’ ... on. Joni-‘0 v ‘. 5’1.“ .
Lw1:‘. Tour-$0.003 If)"- v '1‘ ('9‘- five. .9 W,’ 0"?""" _ , '1 “"‘3. ,.,.‘~ 1:. .
-fl 1405',sz f. k 3‘ ‘4 {ff ‘- J}. . - ( ‘ 2x..,. - ..k,. ; ." . ’er ' -"'.' :
. ’ V . . - "l ' 1' D O I - - no - o .
‘ "M ' ..‘ ~ -‘ “up! .7. O(J::: a. J. 9:-..nf‘c..‘oll.\’ '1'.” '4’ -. H.» ... .4:
v. 1. .v” of ... '. , ... .. .‘. ... .. ... . ... z.’o I: .o
o 1 , - a. < . - n v
:1:- '15.‘O 3.1.... .35! ‘ - on) You.“ ., .. . 5. ..g ”.' fi-‘I on on . c I .‘
' ‘J. a..." '..".....I o 40!“. . 09,0)Mu ..
' Q, ”to...

 

 

“é ‘_r'f hyf'qgfi'} .Y'" r .2; («do - ["2"
v r ,0 o.’ .‘ OJ r ' V ' 1'.“- ’ o ' -
‘1' $993, guf’fifih {£39,323 . {‘5 ..x.- k). l. ["5353 3:14:61.“ 7' u": "PF”. . .0- 1 o 3 r; O
' wt“ 1". 13;... v I u .1...“ 940-3.'I}.a _.j.. :4 ’~ ~ - I ' - "- I; 1'.‘ l v 7 v '
. n" "f... ... ' . .40 a . .
~ 0 .- No.1 1 4'
. f V - ‘

d 44' . V O o ' I
I

  

 

  

 

(av-5“- »‘ r p
”1'15“ a . m‘. . _
2')”: .Ifitzo’fl-SI ‘0. ~k‘lwho‘lp; 50’" -n l 0.4.0 .v‘h'c-u- “"0“ a. M., ..p". é’}.o,"{ (6:0; «$535.. 0
Lu an Wifg‘laf:;fnvfig1.??'xu‘-.'",£u-“".AA (liven 4| . no
2mg 3': Tar-ova} .... "t -"-'“"--"«‘1"“""'£’:"-‘.:3 V“ “r “P" r: ' 5‘."
41,-)"5 flu" 9y . My .0 a. 2" :0." y... . $374 .i. ~.I:- «'3; MW. ”-9:
0 q“ i I: . “’3' ° ‘ o‘".- "‘b c“ "‘ ' : ;’.§ . Pine 0 unit). on .a; . H—
%.szi i?..‘, .£ 3' ”t - v‘l'Qo 5." a" a“: 0:... -'-l a". "'1‘!
"ml: .11 .5551: new!" -O:-'"j-.u-( ’a- . ..'.. .ul .~,o~ '
N» r; -.'{J‘ :O;:" p... :4»! u». . 165::“1-091411 {OM r s 7’0.- p339}- :1: ’1.“ “J: Jo‘*"-':b.“‘ ‘. '4}
J KOO ~03“; f'Oua‘ '9. .° ...:‘I 1":‘:: 34“, V ...-0,”,- Q. .. 1..., I..’..’:’? '_ I! ‘5-
. 30 . ./u do .
. . .
C

I o -c 3: o
1‘ ... ...-L? .. j...‘ . I". .j::.. 0})IJ. PM ..., ,fl.
0 O 0‘

t”:‘_",“; s 21:.“ a.

    
   
 

 

   
  
  

     

‘ 355.0%}:440.

   
 
 
 
  
  

 

 

   

       
 

 

 

9
0 ti"
5 .I‘ ’3‘ ’6

0 Y
a. 7‘ . "pw‘ '-..'.I‘{:J.m ' ‘

' I . . . . " .

‘1‘ l \ : ,“73'5 ‘2‘ m“. of ' ‘0';- l" '9'" 4 5'1:A .‘J‘O‘ oi ' J' h" ‘1" ' ""' "‘
.‘-. ‘o‘ 'ID':’ ’ _ _ ‘J .4 ‘fi -( l- b u 0 . pp-. 0 o - i ' I . '0‘ ' ' ,: i... _ o
0 1.. 0 _§' 2. 'Q :0 ‘o .’ ... Q . . ,' . .9 - .4. d 4.0% ”.13.. 0.3,... o: u 'go .1 ...». . g” 0.1 . I. n v. .I.‘ ' ’J J ' ,o I 0‘ 0 'D‘ .
... " i ‘31:, 1.x? to, ”I". -. .g..' 5 ‘ ‘9 .J- , “4‘9: I - - ~ . o [fig-h" - - " ‘ 5 '1;{:“ P . -. ' ,uq‘t o. d\ ' ‘0 '1'. '.ON ' ‘ "3’ " -| ' ' g. ’, .a. p n
. ;.;k 3:?“ J’;;QI 9., ' ...: wfitfi 5.41“}... la..“7‘f 3.3: .9 .... “3,2,“? ,"r:r1 “a"... 'Lle {2‘4“ J. “Enema; ‘0 .- ...- ,...-_, ' ' .r '0 v. :3.’: 3...?! ‘31”) t .' .- ... -. a o ... r. .3“
‘ ,- -. no ‘ 0 .UV 0:. .I~_ - ' u- - I - ~ ' . . ' .- a. o no - o o , ’0 . r _ . .
I; :(..~:,';.$‘";,. o! 1...“. " ..f._..~., ' .dr .5. w shag-.4 ‘1 ... 49“. . .... I. “h, I" . o :OJgfy,‘ q. .“ .....Jp no ,"':"‘.'“" O. 'o. o.- ,_. y¢_ .‘L 9'!!! nor . o . - J‘-,- _dr..'\0 0 . . iv .. :-’ ‘1 u
1 '1’" P -' " 5- ‘ jig-‘4" J ' re ‘ _v, -} " I" 0' (a .1 ;’ -- 'c.0¢ol‘ JI- ' ..‘D .o'o I .. ‘ ° . 'l' ' ' "' i .l _ '1' ml J W ‘ ‘ r
.3..." .53. .09.. '3 “ ' "‘ ..“".'..“' °= ! €w-.‘"‘¢“.’-V. ‘ .1 '5 “’ ‘ ° ' ' ~' *3 ' i 1" ’ c
W‘ma‘afo.‘ " ‘ '1‘. _ ...
r V '2‘ ‘3}- ‘.v 3",“ c ‘0. 2.73: 6. 4. 0p.-o11¢t.-p.d.:§3’ 099‘ I
_.. .1. _ A “ ‘1 fl . ? e..'~&“’.uu ;<:i0 ft 0“, 1 .-p a
93 . . w» ~ 1.1 I ‘ ' C: 1 v 9
-' ‘0‘ Q ' 5 o 'f » I ~ ". ' ' . ‘ ltd»...,-p f. r ‘--l, ’
.-:. Evagxfiv'i‘: ., .a- , c . _- .u _ a ' '5. v- {-3963} 515757" 9’“ 3'" ’
.0 .k";‘: Q‘. . - 0. ‘_~ -_ ‘4' . .; 10 1:! ." ' “z,"rEU. “"t'C‘A'fl V .9 ,‘
‘ .a 'y I \' u ‘ “fii‘E. ‘0 v
*9 I‘.y:." '13P " "f. {We-“1:11: :7 'Jw- " ' - '-
2' er“ ~ 6.. .:'-‘ .
T J. ' "" -.
- - ”‘53-“ H’ 61.11:: 1 1
' .3.v‘|' 5:41. ‘ I. ..‘1 n 7 Y
' . I- ‘ ""0 .‘ 1‘ l‘ -
f. ‘.’&." .h‘g‘ 5.504.363, 4» ‘
‘5‘!‘\‘ 5“”, ‘5 ”‘95" o
"'33:- {31" " “' a «'3‘ -" r. . ‘ '
7' V;5-'b;~f\‘t ', i . -._ * I’PJO. a a , _ l. - 0 ‘1} . . u I
f’..“ h‘- ,a. -hu ' Iv og'ub n ¢¢nq not..." a. n. .o' 9 du-‘Ot- H} v r .. ' v - 3.9V,“ , .. ...
co.’0.s‘ ". ' g ’aiprolop.’ ' “.2 e .. .. § ‘ u. H) .....- L' ‘1’ -0- ‘m- -.4-_A. ‘ I ' .g . 0‘". '
7‘7“ ’ :7 “$0.?! 3'” ‘ nu" “Jelfl f‘. w. 1"0‘-U.1‘I:pc:-9 " 9 V . ‘ ‘ u ’ ‘ - , u ‘ ’ 1
5‘: 1" 'K 1-‘-. 'r a“ -.'. '11 I. 9 ’1”. "...-‘3‘ I . a J. ”:5”. 4|) .0 1.3.]; .‘u .’|~ . I . ....‘..’..'. 9
g... I." if". '4? ’ '-s 5': a I '4 o‘ '. 5w: 'II _- v-J- Quins-0"" " '> nvct’ I',‘ I i" ' ' '7 “Fag A}. U - u, 1;. n c p.0'l '- ' . . ,9
' ' ’ ' ‘.- .'¢ ‘ ' . ' a 0 v . t g _ O C .‘ - . . ..
" .Vi’tv‘ iv ' 1 :‘.¢. - 20.“ our' {yaw-”"3. :. .."- .. u. I ' ° ‘- . 0". 0 " ' '~° . ._ .p—u" 3 .
t“) ¢‘- ’-'¢ ' I ‘ J ' a "-3 t J a '0 I"! .9 9 ‘0 ‘V ‘ ' ' " .' 'd l"
42!.1': :- Y‘? ' .74 J ‘0 £ ._ I‘ ‘ :3‘.‘|"v ‘ ' I ' C ’. ¢ ' q'.‘ )1. ‘1‘. e. ' -'- 'I }: ‘ ‘ L l. 2. . I 'I a . I- 0.. 0:. on)!" - '
u . >4 ‘ . ' ' - ' . “ - . ' _ o . . u ' n .r- -c - o .' , " ‘ ' ~
._ o‘~/.°\ ,,' V " f o 's ...t : 1. I L‘ V .... ' I. | ..‘v_’.: ‘ . 1E;-.\.-. 1" .e. ‘. 'v: . JO (0 ' -‘n‘_.‘ 0’ ' " ‘
m» h" 11' . " - "0' ‘ ‘ '. ' A 3 ° ‘ “"L . -.i . ‘0 ' ‘ no'l’.)' " ' - "'1 ' i” ' " a - .
f-‘-:Z..‘- L. ' 1:; .1.- :._'+ o'.' - r - I o t‘ 331:! I“ 7. .' Iv . ..t. - ' . -: ' - |_a ..
: ." ;V‘ ..'.i ‘r‘ ... ' .' ‘ ’ \IQ- d v/ ‘. I; e 0' . O... ' I . b v. ‘.' II p- .0 o 0 -.: {'3‘ .5:- " 2'“;'. " ‘ " _. - 1'
. . .— . - . ‘ ‘ o _ , . a ‘7 . .. ._ . o . I . ..
r'a Z'jz'b-fi "~ '3, 3“ ' ,‘f ‘ ... \ .:’- -." - ‘z-.' s": .2'». 7v .' ‘4' 0 ' 0 ' .=. J. . a 3 f“ 7'" 0 x - , .' " 3'.- b
‘3 ' 1 . - n . .. ,_ o o - . a .
".: J‘v- - .3 ...X . c. 6’. _.. ... - :W a ‘ 3. 1. ‘ ' I. .\ “ .0 ”.10 . . “I. “ f . . . n I .' .. ' _. . :j ._ ' c
-‘ '.- .‘ o ‘ .‘,-. . ' '. . J, ‘ ' ‘6...... u o- , o-'.,. a o... ’ 9, I no ’. ’ O . O
3 :"" ’.“".‘ ' ' 'u' a' .3 .'«r o. ' L .- ”r w '1 ..c..' ' h. i . la" ‘ " " ' '
' «.... ..,._ ‘0' . . 1“.""’ I o J h -. _ . . .. ...; ... ... 0 . ~ - I ‘J..0 .
' ..a.. . - _ . _ g , . a - . o _
.‘L - .. °- Pc‘T‘ '9 - f4." ’ (.23..- ‘ . I ‘ ° 3 I 4 o A a = ' . ‘ “'1‘. -' .. Ia o «In '
. .4 .....t o. .. _. . . 4,. . ‘. ‘ .' ...: u - 1 9 ' . . g . 't' :0 ' . ’ . Q’:'
- \-~.!.b - . .'-\' .— f ',n; - 1 e . ; . ' P ' t. ‘ Q ' 6 ' .
' ‘3‘ - - I -I 'o 6 — j c .0 . I a - 7 .C I g .
’° "" ° "‘ ' '0’ 7 a '. ‘- ' 27’. ' ‘ ‘-° 3' " 9‘ 5' '0'
.- .u ..‘.-"’.‘L ._ — .0. ' ' . °' ‘ ..'-, 9" u ' ' ‘ __ , , ~'. 0.: I .'
.. .5 .... 5... . I '{ 1'." V- ' ’4‘” ..L1 ' ‘ a " a. . . ‘3" 'o ' on ‘ - 'r '5’ ' inn 0; '
T- -l l “3‘: £5.01 . . '- i ' ‘0 --,',,:" o '. d' I I' 1'. . . " l. {V g. b ' ' u on ‘ - PA :' . ‘ _":‘ ' i . ‘4 '
. . ': :'-- V ‘ -. L o . ... u“ '3'... to . a. _ . , - r , . ' . .‘o I 1' v . . .5
o v 9 -~.."‘O‘o-u‘.,_"t ..I'ns‘k. .. %t‘ ’ .‘r‘- "L . . .-I'. . 1‘ - “in c ° ‘ 3 ' ‘ ' . . :D I O J’ u.
Q... . ...“. . fl..-“ 4‘4. o..‘- ’u. 0‘. . .... _ J 'v. '. n u . '1 .191 I . 4 >0 0 o - o c I . ‘ . v ' I. . ‘ '
c...- '7-fif‘, n L. ' .‘o‘ #1. .--... '. ‘ ‘31... . . I. ‘0 ‘ 0., ‘ .. . ‘ ‘ .0 « . I. . I. ~ . a ‘ I . ‘ ' . - o a. . ' p.
as ~r—0 '4‘.. ,-° -~ ‘1. - -~\ 3.. - - --- .. - , - . 0- . . - -xu' . .2 1 . ,. . v
:1 u :0. ‘3‘. o .1:- ‘ L «.0. . : 2‘41: 9. 4 .7, o. --.( - J .p‘ .c .' u. 1., .. . : . , - . . . . cu . .I . , '1 v \\.
. 'h‘s‘ §\- \o'...¢‘—:.- .. .-y‘-.-..'_ l . 7. . A . .v. o ' .‘5 ' . 1- ' 2‘ L ‘5. ' . o- :. O . ' ’4' .
' s Qh\4‘ ‘ t o -.vn-\ p-” 0".“ \. - ‘o'n‘ ,. i .. 4 D ‘ so . - i) ‘90 . .. . , t 0 . ' r. '
....‘e. - \-: ‘ '. - . ‘ .. 10.0.- o - h - —o .l ‘0 .0 -‘- " - . oo- . .' o . ' - - i; L ' . m g ‘

. - U n o I .. n . . . n - I I u c a c . ‘ ' . _ 0 . - ‘.
.—o°.‘-“xf"’. u‘. .- ‘—'r.— P‘.l' ‘ H '0‘.« ....0-0 e' -I’ u .I 0 I4 ~ -~ 7. -I-o .£.I \IO ' I ' - ‘v .
,. -.- sto\.°. .ev.. .. ...- . .4 ... 0, o- c o-u - ‘0 o I H 10‘» - c , O ‘ - . . .

.‘ O "‘1 ‘7’. 0‘ .. -~0 . . .5 L ..IoL‘, .... .- I G ' - . I. . 4 a 1 ul ._ 4"
I -"rq I“‘ t o - ' . ' . - - ~‘ '1 o 9' h ~ , a ’,. . €.. ' I
‘--.D1.‘~.- "§“Oh‘- -““ o. \_ - v c . . ._\n o. . .o 4 3, . _. .~ ‘ . . u o _ I
" ‘s ‘0‘ "‘ "’*‘ " ‘r fl. C".-. Q o ‘ . ...‘ o p- .5 'u-. o . I ‘ ‘ . y A | a ._ ' ‘- . ‘ “9
v 3: --.‘ '50 "r‘ e-n~‘oG‘ --o oQ-uhvdu..e. u-... ... ‘4‘..~\~. -'. n ‘.--' 4- ‘ > '~ ' 2 t o ‘ ' ' . o' . ‘
"v, u- .‘L - O \o—- -.oo‘- 4 :.,-.r . 'v-, v- ¢~ -. . - \‘~_ 3"“ " ‘ . ‘ , . . - ~ ‘0 -'-Q. ’ ' ' , ._ .... ’ fl. . v
. . a .a g. ”Q '.. nc'_aLov<e-— ..- ‘.s_nl .o .I L a ' ‘ ?'.~ . - - . I,I - o o I ‘ _ I o .
1* . = A Q .5. - - M‘s— . ... . y - -.g‘; MK. - o . o] ‘. .0 ...”.a -040 - o .‘ . l . g c b. A... > . .. ... O . .
— .5 o ' .‘A u '-_u r. 0 :-.\~ -.;.:n:,. ... ...... ¢~» '1 - c. o c- I5 0 . -‘ .N - -. .u --. 'I 9 - ... D o L ,- Q ‘5
7- . and. .. "N _ . . _ - I 1 . _ 1' f
- _. -c-ut ‘
'u . . . I ' .
3‘. I . “a,
. . . d
a. ’ 0
u ...' t
.1 . 0 '
...o ..f I. _ '
' ' '. ' .. . - '_
1 . i o o
.v I P s _ '
. u. . .'
c 0 I -
C
. I .
' ‘ ... . o' .
. '- O
. . . o
- ' . ‘0' ’
u o 5' I. r
. ' C
I ‘I '. I; '. - . '1
I
, , ‘ ' ‘ . Z . 7
v’ . . .
. . . ’ . o , .
. | . ° ' t 7
1 ‘ ‘ o- . ... o
.' ‘ v ' u
.k .. —
5“ _... - . ‘ . a vi.
“*1- M’ to ' ' ‘ ' ' ' '9
""0 "“vao .‘~‘~xm . . - v
“...“- .01: u o "I ‘ ‘
-”'“9~\-§“~‘ ' ... . .. . o 0 ’ ‘
oo- - o ' ‘ . , _, . o ‘ 5 -
.- o. -- ': . ‘ ‘ ‘ ' . ‘ ‘ -. - ,‘O... .
- 0 o .. '_ .. .. , .. a o v _
. . . o v- o . O o . ~ I“:
. . ... ¢‘~ I ... '0' ‘ . . ._.. . ... ‘
”use. .u- ' ..-. 9. . '- 1 '0 . ... - . r:
2 ‘ - - I ' ..a‘ a C O . ' .' I
9.0.. ~.’. 0 ' '. fl'h ' ' . 7 7 1". COL-.4
... . - - ... ...: -3: l‘ . -'.'.
a-q... - 'oo- - ' 3 _ . - “-0
4. 0" . ‘ " .° . "’ :l .L . ' A 'X - u
. '.. ‘ . . . , _- - - u o .'a- . ‘ . .0} .
‘ s . q s - o ‘ l . -
"xx ",2. . {‘fi . .. .- - g , , . '.‘.- i
I. i“ .l' o . . t , u . ‘ . . .
1.. . J . . ‘. 0:: I. .1 I . .'. 1. ..'.l. . ' . ‘0 I
o. o . ' ’ ‘ ' _ . _ . 1.
‘Q‘.’ o 0 g . '0 . - Q " . . '_ .. ' 7 . 1. n u I.
‘.:‘.I.’-. . ... ' ' ‘ - - -. 0 L00“‘ ° 0" '27-? a '
J's‘wtOe \ ‘ o'.‘ "‘ ‘
‘. . . c O O .- a Q
...
l . ....o . -"--
. O . .9—
o o » - '0‘
. O ...
. ' 1‘.
. ...
' _ a v ..
u ’ T. "
. O
'J‘ . 0'4’. ‘
- a. "
'0.
- ' .
. . . -. o .
. .