USE or sex! PROTEEN {swam
YEAST mum AND; mom m
svmmc ICE CREAM AND HE MILK

:lmsis forthe Degree of M. S.
itfiiCfiiGAfl STA‘E'E BNEVERSETY
KERK. E. OTTO

1975 .

« JIIHWWIWHWWWW ;

3 1293 01071 9916

JHEASIS

 

 

 

 

 

 

31‘ (2?);
£§1619?i"0

Lap #9 1”,: Q! "j :'
MAN 13— ms
SEP 1 9 20m

 

 

a-

Y?!

\lxe

Fist

”:5-

hOt

ABSTRACT

USE OF SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE AND YEAST PROTEIN AND GLYCAN IN

SYNTHETIC ICE CREAM AND ICE MILK
by Kirk F. Otto

Utilization of soy protein isolate, yeast protein and
yeast cell wall polysaccharide (glycan) in synthetic ice
creams and ice milks was studied. All ice cream and ice milk
containing these ingredients was processed and frozen by
standard, accepted procedures. Soy or yeast protein had no
effect on freezing time, draw temperature or overrun at the
maximum level incorporated (80% replacement of milk protein).
Viscosity of the mix, in general, increased directly with the
amount of protein incorporated; at 40% replacement of milk
protein, yeast protein caused a decrease in viscosity.
Viscosity of mixes containing yeast protein was higher than
mixes with corresponding concentrations of soy protein. Both
proteins increased meltdown time, particularly at high con-
centrations. Sensory evaluation indicated that acceptability
varied inversely with the amount of yeast or soy protein in-
corporated. Products flavored with cocoa had better accept-
ability than vanilla ice creams or ice milks containing these

proteins. Neither pasteurization or homogenization of the

Kirk F. Otto
mixes caused significant changes in properties of the mixes
or frozen products.

The color of the mixes darkened with increasing levels
of yeast or soy protein, and to a lesser extent, with yeast
glycan. The glycan increased mixed viscosity, lowered over-
run (in a batch freezer) and had no effect on freezing time
or draw temperature. The flavor of the glycan was bland and
the optimum level for improved boxy and texture properties
varied with the fat content of the system studied. A com-
pletely non-dairy synthetic ice cream containing whey, soy

and yeast protein was formulated and processed.

I
I

' ESE CF SOY

 

ir

Dep,

USE OF SOY PROTEIN ISOLATE AND YEAST PROTEIN AND GLYCAN IN
SYNTHETIC ICE CREAM AND ICE MILK

By
Kirk F. Otto

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

1975

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to
Dr. C.M. Stine for his guidance throughout the course of this
program.

Appreciation and thanks are extended to members of
the guidance committee, Dr. R.C. Nicholas, Department of Food
Science and Human Nutrition and Dr. H.A. Lillevik, Department
of Biochemistry for their advice and effort in reading this
manuscript.

Financial support provided by the Department of Food
Science and Human Nutrition and Dairy Research Incorporated
is gratefully acknowledged.

The author is especially grateful to his wife, Janice,

for her understanding and encouragement.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES
LIST OF FIGURES
INTRODUCTION .
LITERATURE REVIEW

Filled and Imitation Dairy Products
Ice Cream Constituents and Properties

Effect of Constituents on Ice Cream Quality.

and Properties

Milkfat

Serum Solids
Carbohydrate
Stabilizer .
Emulsifier
Water and Air

Properties of the Ice Cream Mix

Viscosity . . . .
Whipping Ability .

Effect of Processing Variables
Pasteurization .
Homogenization .

Freezing .

Other Food Additives of Microbial Origin .

Protein from Single Cells (Yeast)
Glycan from Yeast . . . .

Soybean Derivatives.
Soybean Composition and Soy Isolate

Production

iii

Page

\003 (n \hq~qoumtn km ado n: rd <
H.

ea hHAhJ r4
to FHDCD <3

hud
bk)

H
U1

H
\J'l

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued . . . .)

Taste Panel Usage and Statistical Analysis

Taste Panel Uses and Limitations
Analysis of Variance .

Duncan Multiple Range Test

Rank Scoring . . . .

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES
Manufacture of Ice Cream .

Pasteurization and Homogenization
Vanilla Addition and Mix Viscosity .
Freezing and Hardening .

Taste Panel Evaluation .

YP and Soy Substitution of Milk Protein
YG Substitution and Nondairy Ice Cream .

ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

Kjeldahl

Babcock . .

TeSa Fat Test
Vacuum Oven . . .
Solubility Index .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .

Effect of Protein Replacement Upon Mix Para-
meters and Taste Panel Scores

Effect of Homogenization and Pasteurization
on Mix Parameters and Taste

Color . . .

Yeast Glycan . . .

Nondairy Ice Cream .

SUFDQARY AND CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX .
BIBL IOGRAPHY .

iv

33

. 43

43
52
54
56
57

Table

10.

LIST OF TABLES

The Production of Soy Protein Isolate from
Whole Soybeans

Control Vanilla Ice Cream Mix Formulation for
Yeast Protein Substitution .

Control Chocolate Ice Cream Mix Formulation for
Yeast Protein Substitution .

Control Vanilla Ice Cream Mix Formulation for
Yeast Glycan Substitution

Control Chocolate Ice Cream Mix Formulation
for Yeast Glycan Substitution

Synthetic Vanilla Ice Cream Mix Formulation

Taste Panel Evaluation Form for Ice Cream
Containing Yeast Protein and Soy Protein .

Taste Panel Evaluation Form for Ice Cream
Prepared with Glycan and for Synthetic Ice
Cream . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mean Flavor Score for Vanilla and Chocolate

Ice Cream as Related to Percent Protein
Replacement

The Effect of a Nondairy Ice Cream Formulation
on Mix Parameters and Taste Panel Evaluation .

Page

16

22

22

23

23
25

27

30

4O

53

Figure

LIST OF FIGURES

The Effect of Protein Replacement on Draw
Temperature, Freezing Time and Overrun .

The Effect of Protein Replacement on Mix
Viscosity .

Effect of Replacement of Milk Proteins by
Various Percentages of Yeast or Soy Proteins
on Meltdown of Ice Cream (percentages of
total protein) . . . . .

Mean Flavor Score for Chocolate Ice Cream as
a Function of Protein Replacement

Effect of Homogenization Pressure on Mix
Viscosity .

Effect of Glycan Addition on Mix Viscosity .
Effect of Glycan Addition on Overrun .

Effect of Added Yeast Glycan on Meltdown of
Ice Cream (percentage of original mix)

Effect of Added Yeast Glycan on Ranking of
Ice Cream Samples . . . . . .

vi

Page

34

35

38

41

. 42

46
47

50

51

INTRODUCTION

The quality of ice cream is markedly determined by
ingredients, composition, and processing conditions. There
are many possible ingredients which may be used to supply the
protein, fat, carbohydrate, minerals, vitamins, stabilizer
and emulsifier in the mix. Likewise there are variations
possible in the processing of the mix with respect to time and
temperature of pasteurization and pressure of homogenization.
Control of these variables is important in production of a
high quality mix.

The effects of substitution of different ice cream
constituents on properties of the finished ice cream have been
widely studied and for some products, are well known. How-

ever isolates of protein and glycan from S. cerevisiae are

 

new products and thus their effects have not been evaluated
in dairy products.

The main purpose of this investigation was to study
the effects of protein and fat substitution upon various
properties of ice cream. Parameters such as mix viscosity,
overrun, homogenization pressure, meltdown, pasteurization
temperature and freezing time were used to evaluate the ice
cream.produced by the incorporation of soya or yeast

derivatives in the mix prior to processing.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Filled and Imitation Dairy Products

A great variety of filled and imitation dairy products
have been made to date. These include products made in
semblance of ice cream, milk, sherbet, whipped topping,
coffee cream and cheese (Moses 1969, Lambert 1970). A
number of these, such as coffee whitener, margarine, filled
ice cream (Mellorine) and whipped t0ppings have gained wide
acceptance with the consumer. Longer shelf life, lower cost
and possible dietetic advantage are the major reasons, as
claimed by Hetrick (1969), for consumer use of these products.

Filled products are a combination of nonfat milk or
nonfat milk solids with a fat other than milkfat. The fat is
usually a partially or fully hydrogenated vegetable fat and
coconut oil is often used because of its stability and mild
flavor. The Federal Filled Milk Act of 1923 banned inter-
state commerce in filled milk products, thereby restricting
sale to the state in which it is manufactured (Hedrick 1969).
Imitation dairy products may not contain any dairy product
ingredients. They usually include fat, protein, carbohydrate,
emulsifier, various flavoring compounds and stabilizer.
Sodium caseinate, lactose, and whey solids are not considered
milk products but rather by products with the definition of

chemicals approved for food use and thus may be utilized in

2

3
imitation dairy products. Imitation milk may enter inter-
state commerce although the manufacture of this product in
some states has been declared illegal (Anon. 1968).

The nutritive value of many synthetic dairy products
has been a major obstacle to their acceptance by consumers
and nutrition oriented groups. Filled milks usually use
coconut fat which is highly saturated, contains no essential
fatty acids and has no cholesterol (Brink 1968). Problems
‘with excessive viscosity has also limited the protein and
calcium contents of such products to the detriment of nutri-
tive value. Great difficulty has thus far been encountered
in producing an imitation product of the high nutritive value
and flavor quality of bovine milk. To date, if a product of
acceptable flavor has been produced it has also been low in
protein content while products with protein content equivalent
to cows milk have exhibited an objectionable flavor (Kosikowski
1968). Even a product containing high quality soy protein
isolate may have a characteristically "beany" flavor which
many Americans find objectionable. The fat used in many
imitation dairy products is coconut although soybean, corn or
any other edible oil certainly may be used. Problems in-
herent in the choice of any oil include susceptibility to
oxidation, rancidity and other off-flavors due to degradation
of the fat (Norris 1964). Many proteins derived from plants
are available as sources of protein for imitation products as

well as milk derivatives such as caseinates and whey proteins

 

~E

E

in

4
(Nielsen 1963, Anon. 1959). Many conventional carbohydrates
in the form of sucrose, glucose, lactose and low and high DE
corn sweeteners are available (Trempel 1964). Carboxy-
methylcellulose and the exudate gums are among the widely used
stabilizers available today and mono and diglycerides and
other polyoxyethylenic surface active agents comprise the
emulsifiers useful in formulation of imitation dairy pro-
ducts (Moss 1955). From this limited resume of ingredients
it can be seen that the composition and thus the quality of
imitation dairy products may, and does, vary widely. Spilman
(1963) and others, have shown that the processing of either
filled or imitation dairy products can be accomplished with
regular dairy processing equipment with only minor adjustments

in processing.

Ice Cream Constituents and Properties

 

Ice cream is normally composed of water, milkfat,
serum solids, sugar, stabilizer, emulsifier and flavor.
Sources of each of these components can be quite varied. The
milkfat may be derived from any combination of sweet cream,
unsalted butter, anhydrous milkfat, sweetened condensed milk,
and concentrated or dehydrated whole milk. Sommer (1946)
believed that ice cream made from fresh cream was superior to
that formulated from other concentrated fat products. Similar
conclusions have been reached by other researchers but these
observations are somewhat dated today because of the techno-

logical advances which have been made in food processing.

5
Serum solids are usually added in the form of non fat dry milk
or concentrated skim in addition to that derived from fresh
fluid products (Arbuckle 1948). The sweetness of ice cream
can be provided by sucrose, dextrose, invert sugar, corn syrup
(many types), honey, molasses, lactose, fructose, or any other
approved sweetener. Numerous stabilizers have been suggested
for improving the body and texture of the ice cream. Among
these are agar-agar, alginates, the exudate gums, carageenan,
carboxymethylcellulose, gelatin and others (Ludwig and Gakenheimer
1967). The choice of primary emulsifiers is more limited and
usually mono- and diglycerides, microcrystallinecellulose, and
synthetic esters of fatty acids and polyoxyethylenesorbitan
are used. Normally a single stabilizer or emulsifier is not
used in modern day ice cream technology. Rather, a proprietary
blend of stabilizer, emulsifier and solubilizing agents are

used to achieve maximal effects (Moss 1955).

Effect of Constituents on Ice Cream Quality and Properties

Milkfat
Milkfat level not only determines whether an ice

cream is legal but the fat also imparts good tactual qualities,
adds a subtle flavor quality and acts as a flavor carrier for
other flavor components (Doan and Keeney 1965). The milkfat
gives the ice cream a smooth and creamy mouthfeel (Arbuckle
1954). The fat globules cluster on the surface of the air

cells and tend to retard the rate of whipping (Keeney 1958).

6
The fat content has no effect upon the freezing point of the
mix.

Serum Solids

 

The serum solids, usually added as nonfat dry milk,
have subtle effects upon the flavor and also enhance palat-
ability by imparting desirable body characteristics to the
product. The serum solids increase viscosity and melting
resistance while lowering the freezing point and slightly
reducing whippability (Arbuckle 1969). The improved body
and increased viscosity is due mainly to the protein of the
nonfat dry milk. The protein rehydrates and acts as a
stabilizer. Too high a serum solids content will cause a
cooked flavor, a salty flavor due to the mineral salts, or a
sandy flavor defect due to the elevated lactose level (Dahle,
1931).

Carbohydrate

 

Carbohydrates add sweetness to the mix and enhance the
creamy flavor of the ice cream. Carbohydrates also improve
the body and texture of the ice cream and are important con-
tributors to the total solids and viscosity of the mix
(Dusendahl 1963). The freezing point of the mix is lowered
by carbohydrates and this effect is of course directly
influenced by the molecular weight of the sweeteners used
(Wolfmeyer 1963, Reid gt a; 1942). Sugar, at one time was the
easiest and cheapest way to increase the total solids of the

Inix.but the inflated price of sucrose, sugar syrups and corn

7

sweeteners has reduced the cost spread between sweetener and
other solids in the mix.

Stabilizer

 

Stabilizer is used to prevent the formation of large,
objectionable ice crystals caused by cabinet temperature
fluctuations during storage. Stabilizers have a high water
binding capacity which imparts a smoother texture and better
body to the finished product (Bassett 1969). They tend to
increase mix viscosity and limit mix whippability but have
virtually no effect upon the freezing point because of their
high molecular weights. Stabilizers contribute to a uniform
product and improve handling but excessive amounts may give
undesirable metldown characteristics (Arbuckle 1972).

Emulsifier

 

Emulsifiers are used to improve and provide uniform
whipping quality. They tend to reduce whipping time and give
smaller, more uniform air cell distribution (Rothwell 1965).
Emulsifiers help to give a drier ice cream with smoother body
and texture (Redfern 1949). Excessive amounts result in
defects in texture and meltdown (Josephson 1943).

water and Air

 

Two major components of ice cream which are often
overlooked are water and air. Water comprises between 50 and
60 percent of ice cream.mix and provides the continuous phase
of ice cream. Arbuckle (1972) states that the water in ice

cream is "a partially frozen emulsion with ice crystals and

8
solidified fat globules embedded in a layer of unfrozen
material." This supports the findings of Sommer (1946) who
made the observation that the "fat-serum interface is
covered by a layer of fat-emulsifying agent and the solidified
fat may be dispersed in the unfrozen serum." According to
Berger (1972), it is desirable to have uniform air distri-
bution as this affects the quality of the ice cream. The
amount of air incorporated influences product weight (the
minimum weight being specified by law) and profit. Ice cream
must weigh at least 4.5 pounds per gallon to be a legal,
saleable product in most states. Overrun is the volume of
ice cream obtained in excess of the volume of mix expressed
as a percent. The increased volume is composed mainly of
air incorporated during the freezing process. The higher the
overrun the higher the profit. To a point, higher overrun
increases quality but beyond that point quality begins to
decrease due to formation of an excessively "fluffy" or

light body.

Properties of the Ice Cream Mix

 

Viscosity

 

The viscosity of the ice cream mix has been the focus
of research for a number of decades. To date no conclusive,
definitive work has been published relating mix viscosity to
quality. There are, however, some basic points to be con-
sidered relative to the viscosity of a mix. Viscosity is

inversely related to temperature up to the point of temperature

9
induced denaturation and aggregation. The composition of the
mix naturally influences the viscosity. Chocolate ice cream
mix usually has a higher viscosity due to the cocoa solids
and higher levels of sweetener used in such mixes. Aging
the mix may increase the viscosity due to more extensive
hydration of the protein and stabilizer and the adsorption of
material onto the surface of the fat globule. Aging of the
mix for 2 to 4 hours was at one time recommended although
modern stabilizer blends and continuous freezers have made
the relationship of aging to freezing properties of relatively
little consequence.

Whippinngbility

 

The whipping ability of an ice cream is the ease and
speed at which a desired final overrun can be reached. It
was originally thought to be controlled by viscosity but the
later theory postulated by Leighton g; a; (1927) suggested
that tensile strength and the strength of the lamellae around
the air cells accounted for whippability. Turnbow (1928)
demonstrated that high processing temperatures, proper homo-
genization and aging increase the whipping ability. Accord-
ing to Leighton (1934), mix with good whipping ability may
have high viscosity, contrary to previous beliefs. If the
ice cream mix is homogenized with a two stage homogenizer
the formation of clusters of fat globules is minimized and

good air incorporation and retention is achieved.

10

Effects of Processing Variables

 

Pasteurization

 

The main purpose of pasteurization is to destroy
pathogenic organisms. Most states require pasteurization at
time-temperature combinations recommended by the United States
Public Health Service. In addition to being a legal require—
ment, pasteurization destroys much of the bacterial load thus
greatly extending the storage stability of the mix. Pasteur-
ization also aids in the solubilization and blending of mix
ingredients, and improvements in flavor may also result from
heat treatment (Arbuckle 1951).

Homogenization

 

Homogenization results in the reduction of fat globule
size to an average of two microns or less in diameter.
According to Trout (1950) this is accomplished by any or all
of the following as the mix flows from the high pressure
lregion to low pressure: shearing, impingement and cavitation.
The net result of homogenization, according to information in
Jenness and Patton's text (1959) is a four to six fold
increase in surface area of the fat globule surface and a
reduction in size to an average diameter of 1-2 microns. Homo-
genization causes an increase in viscosity which may be due
to an altering of the proteins and the adsorption of casein
onto the surface of the fat globules. Homogenization causes
milk to become whiter in color which is caused by the in-

creased reflection of white light from the surface of more globules.

11

Pasteurization and homogenization should be accom-
plished as a continuous operation or an inferior product may
result due to action of lipase on unpasteurized, homogenized
mix. Pasteurization is most often performed just prior to
homogenization because the latter process is best accomplished
at pasteurization temperature and because this heat treatment
also inactivates lipase enzymes. Immediately following
homogenization and pasteurization the mix should be quickly
cooled to below 40°F to inhibit bacterial growth and
facilitate subsequent freezing.
Freezing

Freezing is one of the most important operations in
ice cream manufacture because initial and subsequent texture
and smoothness depend on the amount of water frozen under con-
tinuous agitation and the size and number of ice crystals
formed during freezing. The mix is pumped into the freezer
barrel and is agitated by a rapidly revolving beater bar to
incorporate air. The barrel is refrigerated, causing the mix
to freeze on the inside of the barrel. Attached to the
beater bar is a blade which scrapes the semi frozen mix from
the barrel wall surface. When the contents of the barrel
reach a desired temperature and overrun the frozen mix is
drawn off into cartons and placed in a hardening cabinet. The
ice cream is then‘rapidly cooled to -150 or colder. The more
rapid the temperature dr0p the smaller will be the ice

crystals formed. It is then desirable to hold the product at

12
this temperature as fluctuations in the temperature cause a
coarsening of texture due to the formation of larger ice

crystals during melting and refreezing of ice and water.

Other Food Additives of Microbial Origin

 

Protein from Single Cells (Yeast)

 

Yeast has been used by man for many centuries and is
considered one of his oldest foods according to McCormick
(1973). Dried yeast has been used for years as a source of
the vitamin B complex. Yeast has also been used to leaven
bread, brew beer and ferment fruit juices (Baird 1963).

More recently yeast has been produced by a number of companies
(Peppler 1967) and various fractions taken from it. Accord-
ing to Rose and Harrison (1970) the annual production of
dried yeast exceeds 180,000 metric tons of which only one
percent of this is currently used as food for man. Recently
techniques have been published for the fractionation and
production of protein and cell wall polysaccharides from
edible yeast cells (Sucher 1973). Protein is extracted from
yeast cells following mechanical rupture of the whole cell.
The protein is then extracted, washed, heat treated and
recovered by centrifugation. The extracted protein may then
be spray dried to a free-flowing, cream colored powder
(Sidoti 1973a). The proximate composition of yeast protein
prepared in this fashion is 75% protein, 12% carbohydrate,
10% lipid, 2% ash, <l% nucleic acids, <l% crude fiber, and

4% moisture (Sidoti 1973a).

l3

Yeast protein has a PER of 2.2 as compared to 2.5
for casein (Robbins 1973). With the addition of .l% and .2%
d1 Methionine the PER may be increased to 2.9 and 3.2,
respectively. Robbins (1973) has shown the essential amino
acid distribution of yeast proteins to be very similar to
that of the proteins in milk. Because all of the protein
thus isolated is metabolizable, there is no caloric reduction
if used in substitution of other proteins in food formulations.
According to Sidoti (1973) the level of usage of yeast pro-
tein in certain foods is not limited due to flavor but its
effect upon texture. This of course is dependent on flavor
blandness, just as is the case with any protein isolate. The
dried yeast protein may be readily dispersed (Sidoti 1973a)
but due to the method of isolation it is very insoluble and
not a suitable replacement protein if high solubility is a
requirement as in some beverage applications. Yeast protein
has been used in the preparation of some food prototypes,
according to Sidoti, 1973a.

Proteins for incorporation into imitation dairy pro-
ducts may be derived from a number of sources. Enebo (1970)
and others regard microorganisms as a logical protein source,
due to their ability to reproduce rapidly on simple media
and their high protein content. Molds, yeast, and bacteria
are the source of the proteins described as "single cell
proteins" (SCP). Tannenbaum (1971) concluded that single

cell protein is the only major source which can fill the

14
protein shortage in the world. According to a report by
Anderson (1958b), microbial proteins vary in amino acid
content dependent upon the propagation medium although yeast
protein appears to be fairly consistent in regard to the
proportions of 10 essential amino acids. .Recently, both
yeast protein and polysaccharide glycan have been approved
by the Federal Food and Drug Administration for use as food
additives in certain foods.

Glycan from Yeast

 

Another product which has been isolated from the
yeast cell is called a glycan. The glycan is separated from
the ruptured cells by centrifugation and is then washed to
reduce flavors, pasteurized and spray dried to a light colored
powder (Sucher 1973). Cook (1958) has shown that the yeast
cell wall consists mainly of straight chain polymers made up
of the simple sugars 8- glucan and a- mannan in a 3:2 ratio.
The actual structure of the glycan has yet to be elucidated.
The glycan contains approximately 57% of the carbohydrate
present in the intact cell. The proximate composition of the
food grade glycan is 87% carbohydrate, 11% crude protein,
<1% ash, <1% fat, <1% nucleic acids, and 6.2% moisture
(Sidoti 1973b). The glycan is claimed to have a unique
thickening and fat sparing effect upon food systems. The
suggestion has been made (Sidoti 1973b) that yeast glycan may
be able to replace all or part of the fat in certain foods.
The caloric content of a food containing glycan as a replace-

ment for fat, protein, or carbohydrate would be reduced,

15
since only about 40% of the glycan is bioavailable. Because
the glycan has a definite thickening effect upon liquid food
systems it may be capable of replacing stabilizers, although
there are no data available to substantiate such a poss-
ibility. Yeast glycan has been found to be compatible with
both the natural hydrocolloids and synthetic gums. The
glycan will disperse readily in a cool liquid system and at
levels over 4.5% will hydrate extensively, causing high in-
creases in viscosity or even gelling. Glycan absorbs about
six times its own weight in water (Sidoti 1973b).

Prototypes of foods containing glycan such as salad
dressing, have a smooth texture and a creamy mouthfeel.
These properties are, of course, highly desirable in ice
cream. According to Jeanes (1973) the new food grade hydro-
colloids, of which yeast glycan is an example, will become

more prevalent in food applications in the future.

Soybean Derivatives

 

Soybean Composition and Soy Isolate Production

 

Soybeans normally contain 40% protein, 18% fat, 24%
carbohydrate, 8% moisture, 5% crude fiber and 5% ash (Peng
1970). Conditioned, flaked soybeans are defatted by solvent
extraction. A schematic for the production of soy protein
isolate is presented in Table 1.

The finished dehydrated soy protein isolate has a
composition of 92% protein, 4% moisture, 4% ash and a trace of

crude fiber (Anon 3, Anon 4 1973). Wolf (1972) has found that

16

TABLE 1. The Production of Soy Protein Isolate from Whole
Soybeans.

 

Whole Soybeans (40% protein)

Pressing and Solvent Extraction

Undenatured, defatted Soybean meal (50% protein)

1

Insoluble residue

Whey fraction

Extraction and Centrifugation

 

Settling and Washing
raj

1
Supernatant (60%protein)
Acid Precipitation
Centrifugation or Settling

Redispersion (70% protein) Whey fraction

 

Washing

Centrifugation or Settling

l

1
Protein Slurry (80% protein)

Neutralization

Drying

Protein Isolate (90% protein)

17

the protein of soy protein is only partially soluble, with
solubility varying from one commercial product to another.
Johnson and Circle (1959) observed that soy isolates have
functional properties such as water binding, thickening, gell-
ing and stabilizing ability. Similar conclusions have been
reached by Catsimpoolas and Meyer (1970) in regards to the
viscosity and gelation properties of soy isolate. They have
shown that protein-protein interaction is responsible for

the increase in gelation and viscosity. In addition, soya
isolates are described by Smith and Wolf (1960) as being
bland in taste and nearly devoid of carbohydrates, fats and
fiber. Nutritional analysis of soy isolates has shown the
PER to be 1.75. Supplementation with methionine may raise
the PER to 2.5 (Robbins 1973). The cost of soy protein is
much lower than other similar quality protein sources such as
dairy, beef, cheese or egg protein (Williams 1972, Johnson
1959).

The uses of soy protein isolate are limited only by
the ingenuity of the processor. It has been used to prepare
prototypes of dairy products, bakery goods, beverages, meat
products and confections. Much research has been directed to
the study of the functional properties of soy protein.
Considerable effort has been expended to show how soy protein
can be used in foods (Maga 1970, Wolf and Cowan 1971). Very
recently great attention has been focused on soy protein
because of the low cost of this protein compared to protein

from animal sources.

l8
Taste Panel Usage and Statistical Analysis

Taste Panel Uses and Limitations

 

Man has many and varied feelings toward food. The
factors which affect man's food preferences are also ex—
tremely diverse. Food likes and dislikes are affected by
cultural background, race, economic or social status or the
fad of the day. Some are deeply rooted, others only super-
ficial. New food products resulting from food product
research and development efforts are ultimately evaluated by
taste panels. Panels can be used to determine like or dislike,
intensity of a flavor characteristic or degree of difference
from a standard. Foods are submitted to taste panel evalu-
ation to provide information which can lead to further product
improvement, quality maintenance, new product development,
or to determine consumer reaction. The accuracy of the
results of these panels can be very good if the tests and
their results are handled correctly.

Scoring tests are best used in comparisons of a con-
trol sample with several experimental samples. Hedonic scales
are used when the judge is asked to express his degree of
like or dislike by marking a point on a scale ranging from
extreme like to extreme dislike. These scales are usually a
5 to 9 point balanced scale. The two evaluation methods are
applicable to both trained and untrained panels. There are
many other panel evaluation methods which are applicable to
food evaluation. These include the triangle, duo-trio, and

single sample tests. Amerine 2E El (1965) lists numerous

19
considerations which should influence the selection of a taste
panel. These include the two major requirements of a panelist
which are sensitivity to flavor and consistancy of response.
Other considerations in relation to panel size, environment,
training and number of samples are used to determine the type
of tests to be used. Although it is usually desirable to
optimize all the panel conditions in order to get the most
accurate, reliable results, this is unfortunately not always
possible.

Once a taste panel has been run it is highly desir-
able to be able to obtain some kind of qualitative or
quantative results from it. The Analysis of Variance Method
and Duncan Multiple Range Method are two ways of obtaining
useable data and results.

Analysis of Variance

 

The analysis of variance is a least squares method for
detecting significant differences between samples and can be
used to assign sources of variance. The analysis of variance
is applicable to the solution of problems of varying complex-
ity, including those with multiple variables and sample inter-
actions. The procedure involved in computation of analysis
of variance is explained in Kramer and Twigg (1962) and
Amerine st 31 (1965). When a value has been determined it is
compared to that of statistical F-distribution tables to see
if they exceed the book values. If they do, it is assumed

that there is a significant difference between samples.

20

Duncan Multiple Range Test

 

At this point it is still not possible to tell which
individual treatment means are statistically significantly
different. To do this we use a procedure presented by Duncan
(1955). In this method the treatment means are listed in
increasing order, the standard deviation is determined, and
then multiplied by the appropriate value from a 5% confidence,
Multiple Range Test factor table. The value found is the gap
which must be exceeded between samples for a significant
difference at the 5% level. From these data, interactions
may be determined in relation to treatments, replicates and
sample types. Further explanation of the Duncan Multiple
Range Method can be found in the original paper by Duncan (1955).

Rank Scoring

 

Another useful method of analyzing taste panel data
is the Rank Total method. In this procedure the judges rank
the samples according to specific attributes. The samples may
be ranked on as many as three or four different criteria, as
long as they are ranked individually (Amerine 23.21 1965).
All judges must use the same criteria in judging the samples.
This is often accomplished through the use of expert panelists
such as expert dairy judges (Bliss 1943). Results are summed
for each treatment and compared to Rank Total Tables to

determine if there is a significant difference among samples

(Anderson 1958a).

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Manufacture of Ice Cream

Ice cream was made according to the method and pro—
cedure as outlined by Arbuckle (1972) using pilot plant equip-
ment. The vanilla ice cream mix for the Yeast Protein (YP)
substitution was made to the specifications shown in Table!!.
The composition of the chocolate mix is shown in TableIB.
The protein of the mix was replaced by YP at levels of 20
and 40 percent in the vanilla mixes and at 20, 40, and 80
percent in the chocolate mixes. Because the amount of YP
powder necessary to replace the protein of the mix is less
than that of non fat dry milk, lactose was used to maintain
an equivalent solids level. Lactose normally makes up about
52 percent of non fat dry milk so the addition of lactose
along with YP was not likely to change the resultant ice
cream. The composition of the vanilla mix used in experiments
involving the glycan from yeast (YG) is shown in Tableli.
The composition of the chocolate mix used in YG formulations
is shown in Table 51 For the YG runs the level of milkfat
used were 0, 1, 3, 5, and 10 percent. For each fat content
four levels of Y0 were evaluated: 0, l, 3, and 5, percent.
The last set of runs involved the production of a synthetic
or nondairy ice cream. The formula for this product is shown
in Table (1 Three runs of the synthetic ice cream were made.

21

22

TABLE 2. Control Vanilla Ice Cream Mix Formulation for Yeast
Protein Substitution

 

10.0%
12.0%
15.0%

0.1%
37.1%

Milkfat

Serum Solids

Sucrose
Stabilizer-Emulsifier

Total Solids

 

TABLE 3. Control Chocolate Ice Cream Mix Formulation for
Yeast Protein Substitution

 

8.0%
12.0%
16.0%

2.0%

0.1%
38.1%

Milkfat

Serum Solids

Sucrose

Cocoa
Stabilizer-Emulsifier

Total Solids

 

23

TABLE 4. Control Vanilla Ice Cream Mix Formulation for Yeast
Glycan Substitution

 

0, l, 3, 5, or 10% Milkfat
10.0% Serum Solids
12.0% Sucrose
4.0% Corn Syrup Solids
0, l, 3, 5.0% Yeast Glycan
0.1% Stabilizer-Emulsifier

26.1 -4l.1% Total Solids

 

TABLE 5. Control Chocolate Ice Cream Mix Formulation for
Yeast Glycan Substitution

 

3.0% Milkfat
11.0% Serum Solids
13.0% Sucrose
6.0% Corn Syrup Solids
2.0% Cocoa
O, l, 2, 3.0% Yeast Glycan
0.1% Stabilizer-Emulsifier

35.1- 38.1% Total Solids

 

24
One run was made with whey as the only source of protein; a
second employed whey plus two percent YP; the third utilized
whey plus two percent soy protein. In all of the above ice
cream mixes the dry ingredients were sifted together to aid
in their solubulization and then the appropriate amount of
water and cream was added. The mix was then thoroughly
stirred with a Lightnin Mixer (Model 10X) and pasteurized.

Pasteurization and Homogenization

 

Pasteurization of the YP and soy protein ice cream
mixes was accomplished at either 1550F for 30 min or at 175°F
for 10 min. Pasteurization of the YG and nondairy mixes in-
volved only 155°F for 30 min. All pasteurization was done in
a steam.heated water bath. Immediately after pasteurization
the mix was cooled to 15OOF and homogenized in a Manton-Gaulin
(Model M-3) homogenizer. The YP and soy mixes were homo-
genized at 2000 psi on the first stage and 500 psi on the
second or at 4000 psi on the first stage and 500 psi on the
second stage. The Y0 and nondairy ice cream mixes were
homogenized only at the lower pressure. Immediately there-
after the mix was cooled to 33°F and held in a cooler over-
night prior to freezing and hardening.

Vanilla Addition and Mix Viscosity

Just prior to freezing and/or measurement of viscosity,
vanilla was added according to recommendations of the
manufacturer. In all cases the vanilla was 100 percent pure
vanilla with no vanillin fortification. The vanilla was

thoroughly stirred into the mix. Viscosity measurements

25

TABLE 6. Synthetic Vanilla Ice Cream Mix Formulation

 

10.0% Vegetable Fat (Coconut Oil)
8.0% Electro—Dialized Whey

12.0% Sucrose

6.0% Corn Syrup Solids

0.2% Stabilizer-Emulsifier
0 or 2.0% Soy Protein (Promine F)
O or 2.0% Yeast Protein

36.2 - 38.2% Total Solids

 

were made immediately with the mix at 33°F using a Brookfield
Synchro—Lectric Viscometer (Model RVT-7).

Freezing_and Hardening

 

Freezing of the ice cream mix was accomplished on a
Glacier (Model F) ice cream freezer. In all cases 800 ml of
mix was added to the machine and the control knob set to
position 4. Calculation of the freezing time was made from
the time the compressor was activated until it shut off at
the end of the freezing cycle. Draw temperature measurements
were made with a mercury thermometer (0 to 3000F). Overrun
was measured on a Pelouze (Model Z-32) overrun scale. Ice
cream was drawn out of the freezer (at an average temperature
of 21°F) into cyclindrical pint Sealright containers and

placed in a freezer set at -150F for hardening.

26

Taste Panel Evaluation

 

Yeast Protein and Soy Protein Substitution of Milk Protein

 

Hedonic scoring was used to obtain the expressed
degree of like or dislike of the panel members. The scale
used has a 7 point range with 7 being the most desirable, 4
being neither like nor dislike, and 1 being least desirable
(Table 7). The evaluation covered both flavor and body and‘
texture. The Hedonic ratings were converted to the numerical
scores and then treated by Analysis of Variance and the Duncan
Multiple Range Test. The panelists were untrained in ice
cream evaluation but had been given the necessary information
to do the prOper taste testing. Panels were run in a taste
panel room under normal fluorescent lights. The same panel
members were used throughout each flavor variation or ice
cream type. The panels were all held at the same time of day
and panel size was kept constant. Sample sizes were kept
as uniform as possible as was their appearance. Samples
were placed and numbered at random.

Yeast Glycan Substitution and Nondairy Ice Cream

 

The taste panel form used to evaluate these products
is shown in Table 8. The panelists involved in this taste
evaluation were all expert dairy judges. Results of their
evaluation were analyzed by Rank Total analysis. In this
evaluation only four experts were available which accounts

for the small panel size.

27

TABLE 7. Taste Panel Evaluation Form for Ice Cream Containing
Yeast Protein and Soya Protein

 

Name Date

 

Evaluate these samples on their flavor and body and texture.
Please mark the space which best corresponds to your evaluation.

SAMPLE NO.
1 2 . 3 , 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

Like very much 7
Like moderately 6
Like slightly 5

 

Neither like nor
dislike 4

Dislike slightly

 

FLAVOR

U)

 

Dislike moderately 2

 

Dislike very much 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SAMPLE NO.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

 

 

 

Like very much 7
Like moderately 6
Like slightly 5

 

Neither like nor
dislike 4

Dislike slightly

 

w

 

BODY AND TEXTURE

Dislike moderately 2

 

Dislike very much 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H
'liTr
Jul-nu

These
1: :

{n'E/

be\

‘1'.
EELOW

13‘ LA VCj Ii

15¢;1)Y AN!)

'J'IC X'l'l I 121'}

28
TABLE 7 (Continued . . . .)

 

These terms are used by judges to describe defects in flavor
or body and texture of ice cream samples. Please pick the
term(s) which best describe the sample if you chose to rate it
below 4.

 

After taste

 

01d ingredient

 

Soy taste

 

FLAVOR

Unnatural

 

 

Coarse

 

Crumbly

 

Gritty

BODY AND
TEXTURE

 

Gummy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

29
ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

Kjeldahl

The protein content of the YP powder and various ice
cream mixes was determined to check mix calculations and
formulation. Total nitrogen was determined using the official

Kjeldahl method (AOAC 1970).

Babcock
The Official Babcock Cream Test was used to determine

the fat content of the cream used to produce the ice cream

(AOAC 1970).

TeSa Fat Test

 

The TeSa fat test (Anderson 1959) was used to deter-
mine the fat content of the homogenized mixes. A 9 g sample
was weighed into the test bottle and 9 ml of water added.
Next, 20 ml of fat test reagent (Appendix) was added to the
bottle, mixed, and placed in a boiling water bath for 15 min,
swirling often. Hot water was added to collect the fat at
the base of the neck of the bottle. The sample was centri-
fuged for 4-5 min and 50 percent methanol (Appendix) added to
float the fat column into the graduated portion of the neck.
The bottle was centrifuged 30 sec and placed in a tempering
bath for 5 min. A pair of calipers were used to measure the

fat column.

Vacuum Oven

 

A l g sample was weighed accurately into a total

30

TABLE 8. Taste Panel Evaluation Form for Ice Cream prepared
with Glycan and for Synthetic Ice Cream

 

Name Date

 

 

Independently rank each sample on each of the four character-
istics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Richness Smoothness Body Flavor
A
B
Sample C
D
E
F
Comments:

 

solids dish and placed in a vacuum oven at 100°C, 5 mm Hg for

5 hours.

Solubility Index

 

The Solubility Index of the non fat dry milk was
determined according to the procedure of the American Dry
Milk Institute (1965). A 10 g sample of NFDM was added to a
special mixing jar along with 100 m1 of distilled water at
75°F and 3 drops of Diglycol Laurate S. The jar was placed
in the mixer, mixed for exactly 90 sec and allowed to stand
for 15 min. The solution was mixed and poured into a conical

centrifuge tube to the 50 ml mark. The tube was centrifuged

31
for 5 min at 848 rpm (on a 16 inch diameter head). The super-
natant was then siphoned off to within 5 m1 of the sediment
and 50 m1 of 75°F water added. The sample was mixed and
centrifuged 5 min. The sediment was read from the tube and
compared to USDA standards (Solubility Index 1958). The
readings showed that the NFDM met the solubility index require-

ments for U.S. Extra Grade NFDM.

Results and Discussion

The Yeast Protein (YP) portion of this study was
undertaken for two major reasons. It was hoped to determine
whether YP had functional properties which were desirable and
compatible to allow its use in ice cream as a replacement for
nonfat dry milk. A second reason for the study hinged on the
rising prices of nonfat dry milk in relation to the estimated
price of YP. If the cost of nonfat dry milk rose to the
point of parity with YP then its substitution in ice cream
might be economically feasible. An understanding of the
properties of YP will facilitate its usage not only in ice
cream but in all food products.

In the initial taste panel studies involving YP, the
results obtained for body and texture evaluation were
abandoned due to a lack of reliability. It was found that
panelists were not sufficiently trained to separate evalu-
ations of flavor from body and texture. Evaluation scores
for body and texture ran parallel to the scores for flavor
when there was no significant differences in actual body and
texture. This conclusion is based upon evaluation of the ice
cream samples by trained judges. Flavor scores were presumed
to be reliable because they were found to closely parallel
replacement levels even though the taste panel members did not
know sample identity at the time of evaluation. Further

32

33
substantiation for the flavor scores come from the method of
rating samples: Panelists were asked to rate the samples on
how well they liked or disliked the ice cream and not on an
absolute scale.

Effect of Protein Replacement Upon Mix Parameters and Taste
PanelgScores

 

 

Evaluation of the effect of replacement of milk pro-
teins with yeast or soy protein was both objective and sub-
jective. The objective methods involved viscosity measure-
ments, duration of freezing, draw temperature and percent
overrun. Subjective analysis included taste panels and melt-
down quality.

It was found that the duration of freezing, that is
the time required for the mix to reach drawing condition was.
nearly constant. Most variations can be attributed to machine
function. Draw temperature remained constant at 21 to 22°F
throughout and thus was a function of machine operation
(Figure 1). Similar consistancy of results were obtained
'with percent overrun even though this is not necessarily a
functiOn.of the machine as shown in later sample runs. The
viscosity of the mix was the only parameter to vary directly
with replacement level (Figure 2). It can be seen that as
the percent replacement increased to about 40 percent the
viscosity also rose. After the 40 percent level the vis-
cosity dropped despite increased YP replacement. This can be
explained to be a function of protein solubility. Milk

proteins are quite soluble and thus significantly affect

34

      

 

E:
2.
.53 *
°“6
b
a:
r.
E
.2
. 20 4o 60 IOO
% Preteln Replacement
£35.. ,
,5:
=5
8.
U-E
i:
3
o 20 40 ea 80 IOO
% Protein Replacement
0
8o
5
:9
C,
5e
o 20 40 60 so .100

% Pra‘tein Replacement

FIG. 1. The effect of protein replacement on draw
temperature, freezing time and overrun.

35

:8 4500 psi
0 3° .
g F
a". 25 I55
3
20
z:
.. l
3 5 ”h,” I75
g '0 '7 5 'Illl,”"
> ..,
,5 5 “-.-'-l-.-I'-5l5-
2 "'
O
60 80

 

% Protein Replacement

--— Yeast
-Q-.. Soy
2 500 Pol

'6

Mix Viscosity Spaced)
3 o

 

o 20 4o 60 so lOO
% Protein Rep lac «mm

FIG. 2. The effect of protein replacement on mix
viscosity.

36
serum.viscosity. The YP is quite insoluble. At initial
levels of YP addition, due to increased absorption or hydra-
tion of the protein, the mix viscosity increased. This off-
set the viscosity drop caused by the removal of the milk
proteins. However, when a certain point was reached (around
40%) the low solubility of the YP caused the mix viscosity to
rise only a fraction. Though more YP was added it did not
make up for the milk proteins which were removed (Figure 2).
This might be an advantage if a high viscosity were not
desired in the final mix. Leighton and Williams (1927)
postulated that casien micelles, fat globules, and stabilizer
hydrocolloids form.a loose network and by individually or
collectively aggregating, form a structure. This would
account for the apparent viscosity of the mix. It is poss-
ible that the YP is not able to function in such a manner which
'might account for the viscosity drop. The initial viscosity
rise can be explained by the high water binding capacity of
the YP as it rehydrates. To a point this counteracted the
lowering of total milk protein.

It was also found in this study that for the same
level of replacement the viscosity of the YP mixes were higher
than that for soy protein. This is probably due to the type
of protein involved and the different water binding capacities
of the yeast and soy protein. Proteins, due to their water
binding abilities, restrict the amount of free water and thus

act as stabilizers in ice cream mix. They tend to thicken

37
the mix and suspend other solids (Doan and Keeney 1965). In
doing this they tend to restrict the migration of solids and
give the melting ice cream a creamier consistancy. The
effect of the level of yeast and soy protein substitution is
shown in Figure 3. It can be seen that the effect of pro-
tein substitution is to produce an ice cream which increasingly
resists melting as the percent substitution is increased.
The effect is more dramatic in the YP samples where the 80
percent substitution level will remain almost unchanged even
after two hours at ambient temperature. Though the photo-
graph does not show this clearly the liquid runoff from.the
20 percent sample is much more viscous and homogenous than
the control which is thin and partially separated. The pro-
gression shown in the photograph occurred for all four
homogenization-pasteurization combinations as well as vanilla
and chocolate. It appears in the 80 percent substitution
that even though the viscosity of the mix was dramatically
decreased, the resultant hardened ice cream showed the .
characteristic of overstabilization.

Taste panel evaluation showed that pasteurization and
‘homogenization had no effect upon the flavor of the ice cream.
This shown by the proximity of the points in Figure 4 and
Table 9. A major conclusion from taste panel evaluation of
the vanilla samples indicated that the degree of accept-
ability of the ice cream product varied inversely with the

percent protein replacement. The bland flavor of the vanilla

38

.AcHouonm HmDOH mo ammucoouoav Emouo ooH mo c30wuaoz so maflououm
how no ammo» mo mowmucoouom mDOHum> an moflououm xHHZ mo udoEmomamom mo uoommm .m .me

I]. ll

anymfls<nxu

 

I,

Pmdwr

 

z_UHG~—k

39
ice cream was not sufficiently intense to mask the flavor in-
herent in the yeast and soy powders. The YP powder flavor
was classified as "nutty" or "yeasty” while that of the say
was termed "beany". Both were considered atypical and some-
what undesirable in a vanilla ice cream product. With the
vanilla, the mean scores of both the yeast and soy substituted
samples were deemed equally undesirable (Figure 4). This is
in contrast to the chocolate samples (Figure 4) where the soy
was rated superior to samples containing equivalent con-
centrations of yeast products. This may be due in part to
the "newness” of the flavor of yeast protein as compared to
that of say which has been used in foods quite extensively.
It may also be due to some type of interaction or synergistic
effect between the flavoring compounds and the yeast protein.
Once again, the data indicate that homogenization and
pasteurization have little or no effect upon flavor of the
chocolate ice cream. The mean flavor score for the chocolate
samples was significantly higher than the vanilla especially
in the case of the chocolate soy products. This is to be
expected because of the flavor intensity and masking effects
of cocoa.

Subjective analysis of the body and texture indicated
that samples with 40% replacement of milk proteins had ex-
cessive body. This was intensified by 80% replacement. In
these samples the ice cream when consumed clung to the mouth,

giving a gummy or sticky sensation. These observations

4O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

N.m «.0 0.0 0.0 0.H o.m o.¢ 0.0 0.H m.m 0.0 o.~ 0.0 0.0 0000
mma

m.m 0.0 0.0 0.0 m.H o.m H.¢ 0.0 m.H H.¢ 0.0 q.H m.m «.0 oonm
mna

o.m 0.0 0.0 m.0 q.H m.N H.¢ m.0 m.H 0.0 0.0 m.H m.m 0.0 0000 mm

H

o.m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.H o.m 0.0 0.0 m.a o.¢ 0.0 0.H m.m 0.0 comm
00H
Amm 050m
mEoH.ummm
00 00 ON o cm 00 om o 00 om o 00 om o ucoaoomamom
:Hououm N

wow Hm<mw wow Hm<mw
MH<Aooomo <AAHZ¢>

 

 

0U UGUNHQM mm ENQHU 00H NUNHOUOSU fifim QHHHGQ> .HOM OHOOW HO>mHh Cwmz

uaaamomaaom cwououm unmouom

. m mafia”.

41

    
    

7
6 p
I
I
z ‘.
" I
° I
3 I
I
3.? 4 ‘,
‘ I
° I
7 ‘ sov
in 3 Y.
2 ’o Chocolate
-. e
a Q.
2 ’ YEAST
Vanilla
(Y EAST and SOY)
l
0.

 
   

   

. 2° ‘0 60 Le
(95 Protein Repla cement

FIG. 4. Mean Flavor Score for Chocolate Ice Cream
as a Function of Protein Replacement

Mix Viscosity

l0000 l5000 20 0 0 0

5000

42

YEAST
o
S OY .00
.0
e
e
o
e
e
o

o

e e e 2 0 0 3000 4000 5000

Homogenizatlon Pressure (psi)

FIG. 5.

Effect of Homogenization Pressure on Mix
Viscosity

43
correlate quite well with the melting resistance shown by the

samples.

Effect of Homogenization and Pasteurization on Mix Parameters
and Taste

 

Pasteurization appeared to have no effect upon mix
parameters, meltdown properties or taste panel evaluation.
Homogenization did not show any influence over meltdown
properties or taste panel evaluation but it did appear to
affect mix viscosity. Higher homogenization pressure resulted
in a higher mix viscosity (Figure 5). Similar results were
obtained by Whitnah (1956) and others regarding the near
linear increase in viscosity as homogenization pressure was
increased.
£213

The color of the yeast and soy powders is slightly
gray as compared to nonfat dry milk which is yellowish-white.
This produced a serious color defect in the samples of vanilla
ice cream. The samples were sufficiently different in color
to necessitate serving only one sample at a time in the taste
panels in the hope that with a single sample presentation,
the color differences could be bypassed. Masking lights
could have been used but it was felt that this might bias
Panel evaluation. It would be necessary, if yeast or soy
Protein were to be used in ice cream, to either reduce or
Change the color of the protein or to modify the color of the
mix through the use of a color additive such as egg yolks or

artificial color.

44

It appears that the flavor intensity of the yeast and
soy powders was too great to be masked by even the chocolate
flavor. It would thus be necessary to reduce the flavor level
of the yeast and soy powder in order to get a product which
could be used in a vanilla or even a chocolate ice cream mix,

if consumer preference demanded a bland ice cream.

Yeast Glyean

 

The investigation of the possible use of Yeast Glycan
(YG) in ice cream had three major objectives: (1) to study
the prOperties of the glycan in relation to the ice cream sys-
tem to learn its effects upon the finished product; (2) to
determine if cost reduction were possible through its use;
and (3) to see if a reduction in caloric content could be
achieved. The cost of milkfat is approximately one dollar
per pound. If the milkfat content can be lowered through the
addition of glycan with no change in body and texture then
the cost can be lowered at a rate of ten cents per percent
fat removed. Concomitant with reduced fat content is a
lowered caloric load. The nature of the linkages of the
glycan polysaccharide structure is such that apparently very
little of the pure glycan is bioavailable. However the carry
through of whole yeast cells and adsorbed lipid and protein
gives a level of about 0.5 to 1.8 Real per gram of food
grade glycan. The exact caloric content will vary with the YG
powder composition. Thus removing fat, at a caloric level of

9 Kcal/g, and replacing it with glycan, at a caloric level of

45
1.8 Kcal/g, the caloric content of an ice cream may be sub-
stantially reduced. The color of the glycan is slightly
gray which gives a slight off-color to the prepared mix which
would need to be masked. The color did appear slightly
different between samples, which were presented simultaneously,
but the panelists were asked to ignore this in their
evaluation. Because the panelists used in this part of the
investigation were all expert dairy judges it is hoped that
the obvious color differences did not bias their evaluation.
Since most ice cream mixes prepared commercially contain
added yellow color to convey richness this color effect
noted with glycan might be masked. Additional research is
needed to verify or refute this. The flavor is very bland
and fits well into the vanilla ice cream system. The milkfat
of ice cream normally provides a rich flavor characteristic
and a smooth texture (Arbuckle 1954). It also tends to lower
the rate of whipping and increases the mix viscosity (Leighton
1927). It was found in making ice cream and ice milk that
the YG had much the same effect upon the mixes. As the level
of glycan was increased the mix viscosity increased (Figure 6)
and the level of overrun obtainable decreased (Figure 7).
It appears that in both cases the effect of the YG on vis-
cosity was much stronger than that for fat. It appears that
in the cases of the five and ten percent fat mixes (Figure 7)
the fat content had a moderating effect upon the glycan

induced inhibition of overrun. In regard to the viscosity

46

  

 

e
l0
‘1.
II?”
/ 5'6
5 3%
'3.
(J
V 4
>.l0
'3
3 3
QIO /'
> /
.5
5 2
l0
Vanilla
io'
“Chocolate
o
10 ‘
0 l 2 3 4 5

% Glycan Addition

FIG. 6. Effect of Glycan Addition on Mix Viscosity.

C;

3 =.

Z‘ a“

‘9 i:

:3 (D "Eé‘g:
\

"I he“

fin“:

\\\\\§\«\$ -
$\‘$\\$‘§‘\\\§\\§ !
$‘0\\‘\\ I i
t I l”
t - I
E ! I
2 dr’
: ’
a §
o‘
‘: \O‘
Q
\
z’
\
\ o
o \
‘9 ”" f'fflf¢" "b
O ianpmvyfl’“"
0

FIG. 7

“gr
UflJ‘a‘o

Eff
ect
of
GI
yea
n
Additi
0n
on
0v
err
un

lo

48

increase due to the glycan, it would appear that interaction
of the fat and glycan was fairly strong as shown in Figure 6,
specifically at the five and ten percent fat levels. The
viscosity rise in the 0, 1, and 3 percent fat mixes was much
lower at the 3 percent glycan level but rose to nearly the
same point as the 5, 10, and chocolate glycan mixes at the 5
percent glycan level.

Glycan did not affect the time required to freeze the
mix or the temperature of draw. The effect of the glycan
added was apparent in the rigidity of the freshly frozen pro-4
duct as it was discharged from the freezer barrel and in the
ease with which it discharged. At the highest glycan level
the ice cream was removed only with great difficulty, often
requiring manual extraction. This was especially true with
samples of higher fat content. When the mix hardened the
effect of the glycan was again apparent. The ice cream in
the cartons varied in resistance in scooping in direct
relation to the amount of glycan. The lower glycan levels
were easily scooped while the samples containing 5 percent
glycan were nearly impregnable. The cause of this phenomenon
may be due in part to the total solids resulting from addition
of glycan. This seems remote because ice cream of the same
solids level had been prepared previously, without glycan,
and no difficulty was encountered in drawing the semi-
frozen mix from the freezer. The greatly increased viscosity

as a result of high levels of glycan might well have

49

accentuated these characteristics.

The meltdown studies showed (Figure 8) that as the
percent glycan increased so did the resistance to melting.
It has been found (Turnbow 1928) that resistance to meltdown
increases directly with viscosity. A rise in viscosity and
overstabilization with resultant poor meltdown characteris-
tics was observed in the high level glycan products. This
is probably due to the water binding capacity of the glycan
(6:1). It appeared that as glycan level increased the amount
of separation of the melting ice cream was decreased. The
melted ice cream had a thicker, richer look. Sidoti (1973a)
also noted that heating (pasteurization) and shear (homo-
genization) tended to increase viscosity significantly. This
would probably account for part of the dramatic viscosity
rise in certain mixes.

Taste panel evaluation indicated that for each fat
level there was also an optimum level of glycan addition
(Figure 9). This optimum appeared to shift with the fat
Ilevel. At lower fat levels the optimum appeared to be between
13 and 5 percent glycan while at 10 percent fat the optimum
appeared to be at or below 1 percent glycan. At glycan
levels below the optimum, panelists criticized the ice cream
cnr.ice milk for weak body while at higher than optimum levels
the product was criticized as gummy or sticky. All panel-
ists used in the glycan evaluations were expert dairy judges

with adequate knowledge and training to rate samples purely

.AxHE
Hmcflmwuo mo ammucoouodv Emmnu -ooH mo c3owuaoz Go cmomao ummow voww< mo uoommm .w .UHm

 

51

 

|.I.I.I.I.|. EJE.~E-E...E4

_
526$

Effect of Added Yeast Glycan on Ranking of Ice Cream

Samples.

FIG. 9.

52

on body and.textural characteristics. YG might be used to
enhance the mouthfeel and texture of an ice cream or ice milk
without the necessity of a higher fat content, caloric level
or cost. The glycan might be used in place of other mix
components to simplify processing and/or reduce costs. It
might also be used for its functional properties to replace
additives which might not be considered natural by some con-
sumers.

A chocolate glycan mix was made with 3 percent milk-
fat. As a result of glycan addition, viscosity increased
and approximated the viscosity of either 5 or 10 percent fat
mixes (Figure 6). This increase may be due also to the
additional cocoa solids and slightly higher concentrations
of sucrose. The overrun followed the pattern set by the lower
19V61 fat mixes. Taste panel evaluation showed an optimum
leVEJ- of glycan addition which was higher than that for a 3

Percfinnt fat vanilla mix. The reasons for this are unknown.

NonDairy Ice Cream

Three nondairy ice cream products were made using

Whey}, soy protein, and yeast protein, which provided the pro-

tEirl to the mix along with part of the total solids. As

Wit}! previous mixes the freezing time and draw temperature

wer'Ei'unchanged (Table 10). In this set of mixes the overrun
also remained unchanged. The viscosity of the plain whey
mix was one-half of the soy-whey and one-third of the YP-

whey mixes. This is no doubt due to the water binding

53
capacities of the soy and yeast proteins.

Taste panel evaluation showed the plain whey to be
more acceptable than the mixes containing soya or yeast pro-
tein. This was especially true in regard to flavor (Table 10).
The soy mix was labeled as "beany" while the YP mix was
termed as having a severe off-flavor. The color of the mixes
were quite similar to a normal vanilla mix although slightly
more white. The meltdown showed the whey sample to be very
thin. The soy sample was much thicker and looked quite
creamy in texture. The YP separated upon melting giving an
undesirable appearance. The synthetic product containing YP
retained its structure longer than the other two samples but

not to the point of not melting down.

TABLE 10. The Effect of a Nondairy Ice Cream Formulation on
Mix Parameters and Taste Panel Evaluation

 

Whey Whey + 2% Soy Whey + 2% YP

 

Viscosity (op) 56 112 152
Overrun (%) 50 50 50
Average Ranking (B&T) 1.25 1.75 2.12
(Flavor)l.00 2.00 3.00
Freeze Time (min) 12 13 12

Draw Temp. (OF) 22 22 22

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

When milk proteins were replaced by soy protein

isolate or yeast protein in ice cream or ice milk the follow-

ing observations were made:

1.

Yeast protein (YP) and soy protein (SP) stabilized
the structure of the products and increased
resistance to meltdown.

Viscosity increased, in general, directly with
replacement levels with both proteins; however the
increases were greater with YP to a replacement

of 40%, after which viscosity decreased.

Neither pasteurization nor homogenization caused
serious changes in the samples containing YP or SP.
YP had no effect on freezing time, draw temperature
or overrun.

Excessive body and gumminess were reported in
samples containing 40% or more yeast or soy protein.
Pasteurization had no affect upon mix parameters,
meltdown properties or taste panel evaluation.
Homogenization did not influence meltdown properties
or taste panel evaluation but did affect mix
viscosity in that with a higher homogenization

pressure a higher viscosity resulted.

54

10.

11.

55
In general, flavor acceptability by consumer
taste panel varied inversely with replacement of
milk protein. Chocolate flavored samples had
greater acceptability than vanilla and samples
containing SP were more acceptable than those
with YP.
YP, SP and yeast glycan (YG) contributed color
(varying degrees of brownness) to the mixes.
YG caused mix viscosity to increase, increased
meltdown time, lowered overrun in a small batch
freezer and had no effect on freezing time or
draw temperature.
Samples containing YG showed a ”fat sparing"
effect up to a maximal level which varied with fat
content of the sample. Samples with optimal
levels of YG were significantly smoother and had
good mouthfeel prOperties. Beyond the optimal
level, YG contributed to excessive hardness and

crumbliness.

APPENDIX

TeSa

 

Fat Test Reagent

 

Reagent was prepared by grinding together 3 parts (by
weight) Urea, 3 parts Na2C03, 2 parts EDTA, and 1 part NazHPO4
until finely divided. Add 4 parts polyoxyethylene esters of
mixed fatty and resin acids and mix thoroughly. (Prepared
reagent is available from Technical Industries, 2711 S.W. Second
Ave., Fort Lauderdale, Fla. as TeSa Reagent Concentrate.)

Working reagent was prepared by dissolving 156 g
solid reagent in distilled water and diluting to one liter.

The reagent was allowed to stand at least 6 hours prior to use
and fresh reagent was prepared every 2 weeks.

50% Methanol

 

500 ml of absolute methanol was diluted in a 1 liter

volumetric flask to volume.

56

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AOAC. 1970. Association of Official Analytical Chemists,
Official Methods of Analysis. Washington, D.C.
11th edition.

American Dry Milk Inst. 1965. Determination of Solubility
Index, Chicago, 111., pp. 24-26.

Amerine, M.A., R.M. Pangborn and E.B. Roessler. 1965.
Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food. Academic
Press, N.Y., 583pp.

Anderson, E.B. 1958. Scoring and Ranking in Flavor Research
and Food Acceptance. Reinhold, N.Y., 391pp.

Anderson, R.F. and R4W. Jackson. 1958. Essential Amino Acids
in Microbial Proteins. Applied Micro. 9:279.

Anon. 1959. What Whey is All About. Ice Cream Field. ‘4z6l.

Anon. 1968. Legal Status of Imitation Milk Products. Am.
Dairy Rev. 30:42.

Arbuckle, W.S. 1948. Milk Solids not Pat in Ice Cream.
Southern Dairy Prods. J. 4:32.

Arbuckle, W.S. 1963. Handling Characteristics of Ice Cream.
I.C. World. 19:13.

Arbuckle, W.S. 1969a. Nonfat Dry Milk Solids in Ice Cream.
D. & I.C. Field. 12:48. -

Arbuckle, W.S. 1969b. Paravine. Am. Dairy Rev. 8:19.

Arbuckle, W.S. 1972. Ice Cream. AVI Publishing Co.,
Westport, CT. 474pp.

Arbuckle, W.S. and L.F.M. Cremers. 1954. Fat Smoothness
Research. Ice Cream Field. 9:98.

Arbuckle, W.S. and J.W. Nisonger. 1951. The Effect on Mix
of High Temperature Pasteurization. Ice Cream Field.
7:60.

Baird, F.D. 1963. The Food Value and Use of Dried Yeast.
Cerevisiae Yeast Institute. Chicago, Ill.

57

58

Bassett, H.J. 1969. Use of Proper Emulsifier and Stabilizer.
Am. Dairy Rev. 33 44.

Bayer, A.H. 1965. Stabilizer in Ice Cream. Ice Cream Trade J.
3:34.

Berger, K.G., B.K. Bullimore, G.W. White and W.B. Wright.
1972. The Structure of Ice Cream, I and II. Dairy
Ind. 31:419.

Bird, E.W., H.W. Sadler and C.A. Iverson. 1935. The
Preparation of a Non-desicated Sodium Caseinate 801

and its Use in Ice Cream. Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Res.
Bull. 187.

Bliss, C.I., E.O. Anderson and R.E. Marland. 1943. A Tech-
nique for Testing Consumer Preference with Special
Reference to the Constituents of Ice Cream. Conn.
Univ. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull., 250. pp. 1-20.

Brink, M.F. 1968. Comparing Nutritional Values of Filled
and Imitation Milk. Am. Dairy Rev. 39:32.

Catsimpoolas,N. and E.W. Meyer. 1970. Gelation Phenomena of
Soybean Globulins. Cereal Chem. 3:559.

Cayen, M.N. and B.E. Baker. 1963. Some Factors Affecting

the Flavor of Sodium Caseinate. J. Agr. and Food
Chem. 33512.

Cook, A.H. 1958. The Chemistry and Biology of Yeasts.
Academic Press, Inc., N.Y. 645pp.

Dahlberg, A.C. 1941. Corn Sweeteners. N.Y. State Agr.
Expt. Sta. Bull., 258.

Dahle, C.D., C.C. Watts and J.I. Keith. 1931. Dry Skim
Milk in Ice Cream. Penn. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull., 271.

Doan, F.J. and P.G. Keeney. 1965. Frozen Dairy Products, In
Fundamental of Dairy Chemistry. B.H. Webb and A.H.
Johnson (editors). AVI Publishing Co., Westport, CT.
796pp.

Duncan, D.B. 1955. Multiple Range and Multiple F Tests.
Biometrics 11. pp. 1-42.

Dusendahl, L.G. 1963. Trends in Corn Syrup Usage. Ice
Cream Field. 3:96.

59

Enebo, L. 1970. Single Cell Protein, In Evaluation of Novel
Protein Sources. A.E. Bender ep‘e3. Pergamon Press,
N.Y.

Hedrick, T.I. 1969. Imitation and Filled Milk Products in
the USA. Dairy Ind. 3:127.

Hetrick, J.H. 1969. Imitation Dairy Products: Past, Present,
Future. J.O.A.C.S. 43:58a.

Jeanes, A. 1973. Extracellular Microbial Polysaccharides.
Paper presented at 33rd Annual IFT. Miami.

 

F‘s:
Jenness, R. and S. Patton. 1959. Principles of Dairy Chemistry. J
J. Wiley and Sons, Inc., N.Y. ‘ ”“1
Johnson, D.W. and S.J. Circle. 1959. Multipurpose Quality
Protein. Food Proc. 33:71.
Josephson, D.V., C.D. Dahle and R.J. Patton. 1943. A Com- 9'
parison of some Ice Cream Stabilizers. Southern Dairy ’

Prods. J. 4:43.

Joslyn, M.A. 1970. Methods in Food Analysis. Academic Press,
845pp.

1958. Fat Stability Problems. Ice Cream Field.

N.Y.

Keeney, P.G.

1:20.

Kosikowski, F.V. 1968. The Problems of Milk and Imitation
Milk. J. of Milk and Food Tech. 33:174.

Kramer, A. and B.A. Twigg. 1962. Fundamentals of Quality
Control. AVI Publishing Co., Westport, CT. pp. 265-
278.

Lampert, L.M. 1970. Modern Dairy Products. Chemical Publish-
ing Co. Inc., N.Y. pp. 231-248, 397-408.

Lawton, W.C. 1969. Imitation and Filled Dairy Products:

Production and Processing Standards. J. of Milk and
Food Tech. 39:321.

Leighton, P. 1942. Carbohydrates in Ice Cream. Ice Cream
Trade J. 2:12.

Leighton, A. 1944. Use of Whey Solids in Ice Cream and
Sherbet. Ice Cream Rev. 31:18.

Leighton, A., A. Leviton and 0.E. Williams. 1934. The Apparent
Viscosity of Ice Cream. J. of Dairy Sci. 33639.

60

Leighton, A. and 0.E. Williams. 1927. _The Factors Affecting
the Viscosity of Ice Cream. J. Phys. Chem. 33596.

Leighton, A. and 0.E. Williams. 1927. Ice Cream Viscosity
Properties. J. Phys. Chem. 33:1663.

Ludwig, K.G. and W.S. Gakenheimer. 1967. Modern Emulsi-
fiers. Dairy Sci. Abs. 3:141.

Maga, J. 1970. The Role of Soy Proteins in Milk-like Pro-
ducts, Part II. Paper presented at 29th Annual Penn.
Dairy Lab. Assoc.

Mahdi, S.R. 1961. Dextrose in Ice Cream. J. Dairy Sci. 6:
931. —

McCormick, R.D. 1973. Baker's Yeast-Worlds Oldest Food
Source. Food Prod. Dev. 34:97.

Meyer, L.H. 1960. Food Chemistry. Reinhold Pub. Co., N.Y.
385pp.

Moede, H.H. 1970. Synthetics and Substitutes for Agricultural
Products. USDA Publication 1141.

Moses, W.R. 1969. Imitation Dairy Products, J. Dairy Sci.
52:741.

Moss, J.R. 1955. Stabilizers and Ice Cream Quality. Ice
Cream Trade J. 3:22.

Neilson, A.J. 1963. Dry Whey. Ice Cream Field. 4:43.
Nieman, C. 1960. Corn Sweetener Use. Mfg. Confectioner 3:2.

Peppler, N.J. 1967. Microbial Technology. Reinhold Pub.
Co., N.Y. pp. 145-157, 381-392.

Peng, A. 1970. Plant Proteins and their Utilization. Co-
operative Extension Service. Ohio State Univ.

Redfern, R.B. and W.S. Arbuckle. 1949. Stabilizers and
Emulsifiers: Their Use in the Production of Ice Cream.
Southern Dairy Prods. J. 43:32.

Reid, W.H.E. and K.R. Minert. 1942. Effect of Dextrose and
Sucrose upon the Properties of Ice Cream. Missouri
Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 339.

Reid, W.H.E. and G.R. Skinner. 1929. The Effect of Homogeni-
zation at Different Pressures on the Physical Proper-
ties of Ice Cream Mix and Resulting Ice Cream.
Missouri Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. 127.

61

Robbins, A.E., J.A. Newell and R.D. Seeley. 1973. Nutritive
Properties of Isolated Yeast Protein. Paper pre-
sented at 33rd Annual IFT. Miami.

Rose, A.H. and J.S. Harrison. 1970. The Yeasts. Academic
Press, N.Y. Vol. 3, 624pp.

Rothwell, J. and M.M. Palmer. 1965. Modern Trends in Ice
Cream Stabilizers. Dairy Ind. 3:107.

Sharp, P.F. 1928. A Study of the Apparent Viscosity of Milk.
J. Agr. Res. 33:647.

Sidoti, D.R., R.C. Harper, R.D. Seeley and B.A. Robbins.
1973a. Functional Properties and Food Applications of

Baker's Yeast Protein. Paper presented at 33rd
Annual IFT. Miami.

Sidoti, D.R., C.M. Landgraf and R.A. Khalifa. 1973b. Func-
tional Properties of Bakers Yeast Glycan. Paper pre-
sented at 33rd Annual IFT. Miami.

Smith, R.J. and S.M. Circle. 1972. Soybeans: Chemistry and
Technology. AVI Publishing Co., Westport, CT. 466pp.

Smith, H.H. and W.J. Wolf. 1961. Food Uses and Properties
of Soybean Protein. Food Tech. 33:4.

Solubility Index. 1958. USDA standards for Nonfat Dry Milk.

Sommer, H.H. 1946. The Theory and Practice of Ice Cream
Making. Olsen Pub. Co., Milwaukee, WI. 376pp.

Spilman, H.A. 1963. Imitation Products Technology. Ice
Cream Trade J. 33:34.

Sucher, R.W., B.A. Robbins, B.H. Schuldt, R.D. Seeley and
J.A. Newell. 1973. A Process for the Production of
Three New Food Ingredients from Baker's Yeast. Paper
presented at 33rd Annual IFT. Miami.

Tannenbaum, S.R. 1971. Single Cell Protein. Food Tech.
25:962.

Tharp, E.W. 1961. Use of Various Corn Sugars. Ice Cream
World. 3:25.

Tobias, J., O.W. Kaufman, and P.H. Tracy. 1955. Pasteuriza-
tion Equivalents of HTST Heating with Ice Cream Mix.
J. Dairy Sci. 3:959.

 

 

 

 

. Iv: 9.00.11
A 11.1.. I.I.IO'O'Cll‘za I'A..u.1..0_ ... o. A?!
11,014ro0. .1 I‘.I I .. o ’.C-,
I. I I . 1 CI, 0 I O-.. I. . 0. II I 00
3.1 O {O I I I
. ..I OV..VI‘¢. .
'8 ...Ic I
0 II
I ‘. II - I 7 . O
.W I 0 O. I
v .
A. . . .
v
.
Y I
_. I I I
f v
A. .
r .
' O -
h. 0 I o
w I I o
O O F
-I I o I I o |
v |
. _ . I I I A . I
- I 0 n 0
.v. I . I . .
I I 1 .
v. 00 I I O I
F ’ 0 O I I 0
. .
w I . .
O u A
Y . . . YI o I I
v a I .
. I .
. c . I
. , I I a I I I
n . . l 0
w I I I I . o .
A I 0 I I a I I I
v I I I O I I
... I . .
. I I I . I I
r . 0 I I 0
. . I. I I I.
A 0 o
I I 1 I o
_ u I.
r IO . I I 0 0 I
. w I A u 0 I . I40 II
I 09 .4 I
v v I . n I I
F A I 1. . I I . I I
M o I ' A 0 I ...
w I c I I I I I .
:I o I I o I I. I
I O O b O
w. . I .
o. I I I I .0 I .1 0 I
I I I I II I I 0 A .0 A I
A. - . I I I - . I I .
I I I I I 0
.v - I . . I A. I . . .0 I. . 1 I L.
V O I, I I .- u‘
_v . 0 O A a n 00 I0
I O I 00 1 O 0 . I 0 A
v I . II- . 1 II ... I .
w 0 I I I AI . . 4 I
II .O. I u I. I
v - . - . - . - . . . - I .
. A. a . .A o . c u r I I I I I .
— I I o I o A OI a 0 C I o «A “é o .
I 1 O 1 I 1 00 I
v A I .I OI.LI ‘0. . IA. I 0 0 10. a I I oII- O . .I . A4 I I I .
M I I I . I. ..- . I v I . I I I
u I O. A .I OI A 1 . I A 0 . I
I I v . I I .I I .. I I I .4 ...IA II I I . . . . I I I. I I
0 ‘ V . i A . . I O I
v 1 0 Io o l I I . 0 .. 0 I A \ 1 0
A . I I I . I 40 I 0 6| I 0
M I . . . I. A O 0 I I III. 1 . I . I A . .
I A . . . . 0 I I « ..
r I v. I. 0.0. .I Q. I 0\I O .0 1. I o . I
I O. 0| O I O . II. 10 u I I. I I v I A. o
r In .0 0O . l 0' ‘4 a. CI 0 1". O I ca. I I O c I
v I 1 I I .. l .. .1 o . I O. I A . u .. v I. I
V I 1 AI O O I A 7 .1 O 0. . O. O .O . A . 0 I u. as I 1 AI . a .0 1
.1 A I II I l A. .0 I .. ..I. I I . . I A . .
.v o I 0 I ' o 0 . .0 0!. ..110 '. o I. < 1 . D
'1 . . .... I i I ... . ‘ 1I 1 .I I. ... I ..v .
a .00 I .A‘ .I I0 , .. M 1 1010 y 00 1:0 .1 . 0 I . 9.0 I . I.
I . I 1 I I I I .7 1 O c. I _ A. \v. 0 1 q a .I I V a
A I .I- . IA 1. o 1. C I 1.. I I .... I I ..I.. . 1 0 c I . I I\ I
. l . I I . . . 1. I . . . I I I . I I
I . . ..- I . A . I . . I I . . . I. . . .
I 1 A I. 7.. 1 O . I . . I I 1 c I. I
I. IA II 1I. I I . . '1 I. 1 . r a I I
I o I II I I .. 1 I o I I . \
P I I .'. o v I ... 0.1 o - 0 I l . a Q . v
I. 1 I I0 0. I .a I I 0" ’ I A 1 A . O
u. . I I 1 01 I .r. I ...9I . 1 I a. . . I n I I .
v 0 . I . to .0. . I . A. O ‘. x a it 04.I.. A .. II V r c
U. . .I II II. I. I. .0 1 I n .oI . o . I. I A .
A A I 3 ...I. I I II n I I . . .o A ... . I 4 . r. o . o I I.
n I I . .. 1’ P 0. I d I 0 I I Q I o 1 .
V I 0| .I. . I - . cl I .. —. II I 1 . I 1 1 0. I. . I.I... .I I . I o . I I A
I 1 IA . v V O I I t A .. ..I 9 II . . 11' O .I‘ I I
w . I 0 o O I 1... I I A . r0 0 1 _ I I IV. D Q. I O o 0 . 0 I .I 1
I o I A. I .0. Q o I A .0 0!. I I . S .0 a . . 0 IV . .
v I . I. 0. o l . . q A . . I I O ' 60"0 A. o I IA. 0 I . o .0 l u . . o.
l r. I o o I . 1 0. 0 ~ I. 1 I o o I
“I ‘ 00 O \I . . I N ‘0. 0. 1 ‘ o O .. .. . 1 A o
O . A III '0 t t 0. A . 0‘ A. r .1 . ‘3 “A I A I 0.. .p . 0 V I. 0.- O Q. I
I .. 4 0I. I I . I I ... I... . I I I. (0 .‘ I .0. . I I .
I . . 1 a O I ,o A .1. o 0 . ... .I 1 1. IA 0 I 0.. I. .1 o. . .l I .. .o 1
V. II 1 o .5 I ..II a 4. I . 3 O .51 a II .. . . v 4 V o
. . I A. .1 9 . 1 I ’ 1 c I .I.. .. . I o A . 1 0 L.
V . I . I o q «p . I O n 0 . I A! O
. I . I 1 . _ .. . 4 . I I o QI. I I O . .
"o 0 II A H 1‘ cf. 0 I. t O O “I I o 1.. o I 9 O1 . Q r I o . 0 . 1
. I 0 .I II I . I o I . I
v I v.. .01.AO I..III 0 II o I I I ... o . .. . I o. . . 1 I
u. I .. 1.00 n . f . ‘0. . I ..l . 10 A1 0 I II . I . .
V I 0.. 101.10 ..1 Iron.” 11 .I II .I . .. A. I . I n . I. .OII. I (SI . to. u v. . I. JV . v. . .
A I O . , I00 ‘1'... O . . ‘A .. “. I 0.0.. 0 . 1. . 0 o I . . I.
w I .I I I‘. 1 . I.I]... .0 I ; o I of . . .I .19.... 0 1 .0 1 I 1 . . .- «rd 0 I 1
v o ‘1. I AIOI 9' I O I 05‘ A I .I..I .I . ‘ a 11 1 I I 0 . . 0 . A 1 . 0 I I
o. o -Deo I. I — .0 O. .. .0..I'o I c. O 0 A0. o. '. r00 0 . ‘ . I0 I 0 :IOJ. . 7 II
. r). I. It. IIII . Vs. .. I I... I . ... 1. 1.11 n 9.1. o. o (I: I7.
' 1 I . l . . ‘10. I o. ' 0 .4 fl 19« 0 ' It A . III I 1 O a A
w. I C I Q . .. 1.. ..O ‘ .... 0A .1 v on. 1 I I‘ A c A « u 0 o 1 0 . 1 1
. .I I. I. I 1. . ......10.» I.I...L I .... ..III .30.. 1- .I...II .1 . . I. I .... I I I .
v . I I0. . .- . I.» ... .0...A .1. 0.. 4. A I. 0 . . a Or. A 01 A . A. 1| I ID ... An. .
I . I I. I I I . o .1 o... a :1..- o . I 1 .010 I .. . I . o A o I. .I I0 I I. . . I
. r I II I A I. I O c. 03 .0 A I I... 5 O .I I . D I I
a . .IIII . .....u.vA. ...I. .9... n ..Y .... . o_ .. :I .... \.: .. 1 r :7. .... I I {1 I. I . . I . . . . . I.
I I II. '( 4v“ 1 01> I 1 f O . I 00 t A. I I . 0 . I
" IA... 1 1 r 1 o A. A I. ‘ 01.7'I ”I‘0 d . I II I ' I 1 .foir O I on . '1 I I 1 I I I I 4 I c
r ..«O . . .. A. I.I . v.1... 1a 1. In. I1 1 I. a. I a 11 ... v . I0 . . o . . o .
r 1 ... I .4 ...!1 .1I4W. I ..I..‘I.. 1370.4 _ IA 0 I .. I0 I.I 1 v. . . .o 1 A. . 1 1 A: 1. .9 A 1. I I I It I
I I . . a I .
“ 1 O v O .1. N. A00 .r‘.. «‘0 0 u. ‘4 .00 . O o .I .114 1 A. u 0 v .v o I . .1 c O I o p . .c O A: 0 1 0 .9 I
. ..I O. 9. I If ‘ . . i. o o .n > O .I 1'.1IIIII .0 . OI O. o .01 0. ... . 1
... ...I I.I o 311...... I I . solo} .. .. I .A»....3. .. I0 I I 1 . . I. I .4 1 .. .
"I ). I . .A0 I. o . r. ..1 .I ...M . . . .I c ‘ o I . O I O A O A o r I o 1 I .
.I o. I . . ... 0I.I . .... 1. 1 Al etc-I.I. ...; I 0 .. r 0 A 0.. A v I II I I a A 1 . u. . I .
0 .1411 a AAA I 0.. 1 .. ..1 r . Ilv. . A o I o I .I .I I u d I 0 I o. .I . .
v 1 .. a. 3.. 10.0.1 . II I I 1 I A 0 _.o o a I I. .1. n . . . on I 1 1' 0 I u .
. .. . f. I. :1 .0: ....o :I. I.) 6. I I. I .4 . I . I .. v » . . . I I ..-
v I? I. . ...: 0 OOI . V I I 0.... ... 1 o . I .o .. o I . . . I .

I .Io.v _ 0» I'. I. 10.39! .A 0. ...A .u. ... 9.... . I.A ..... .f QI .- o I...9 c. .. . . .
. v I I . 0.0..II 1 0 Y 0. . 0 IV. I I . .I . o I II I . .
u. .. .....w A .. a .1. of.‘ o. .031 1\ .I .0. o “O I ... . D... I I.I” I I a. I AI I . l . I
W. .0 I.I I0. I I. .— Mort-Av. 1 1.1 :1».1«.0 .3... O 1.0.. a) L. 1.. 1...... I ...I .9. I... re. 1 m I. . .0 . . I I II .I I 1 c I o .

. . 1D I 1 O . I - i . Q
11” ...... .... . 0.1:.I16“. *IO .- .IJ.O0. .- a :10” o”‘.l'..‘.'.l. .. . 1. .. I, 0.0..“ .O . o o 0 o I .0
oI. .4 .10.. N 4 .. 11...:.. I .I.I.. A o . . r. ..Ir .. I. I I I .I ..I
1. .. .1; .. 1. .. I11 J1..0.r.o o ..I. 1134.. “.11.. .30 1 ....I o ‘- .. . I I) II II I .0. . . . .
I 0.. I f. A. .19 . I. _I ..f. OICI .4. . A.-. .. A . . . . . .4 O
I AA C. 1.. 1‘40}! I cro . ‘ o ...0 .a 0 .....I..l§.- . .. u .1 I I. :1... I. o... ..r .I I0. .. I A I II . A I a
_ L .. ..0 7.. .Il . .I......1.I . ... r.. . .0: . . ..4 . . o. I . . r In . A. . I . _
”'01" ......J ...o. .1. .10.... 03.4. 1. O?0.. ..T1QI4‘O 0 v C0 .. c 1 I. ,0. I . A I I.I 1. I I I . .. I I .. .
.... . 3.1.290 94.). o. I 1! 1 I .0... 1 .1 ..nu . 1. I 1 . . I. « . . II . I .. I I . . . . .I . I a
I: ...v.’ . I... 0. o’.l‘ I . r .IO I ..F . I 0I . I or 0 . o 11.1.- .... 0.‘ 0 I Q. 0 o ..
.. . 7. . ....r: . 1‘ II. . II. [.0 0 I ... 01: i \ Q'vOI .AI.OOI.— 0.. '1 o I I .I .I 1. .
.0 9.... . ......0.0...¢.A...09 ... . 1. 03...? . ..I . .4 t .. .01.. I. I: . . 41 I I I I I
I .I .1. 9... 11... 51.1.. . .t’r .I . . II 2.1.... .0 - . Iv. . ..1. 1. .o 1. 7 O W . .I I .
II. 10. o ... I A 91. .. .001..0‘ . I . I ... t 3 .c. ._ 0.. 1 . 1.1 I. I I I 1.... 1 o I .r o I 1 A I .
r . or . .I 9” .‘LO O‘150. 01.-.! . o. o ”C. 0' o ‘0‘ O .. I J o o 1 .I If . 0P H I I I II I. .
‘ ...Dl' 4. ...94. .4400 A 0 I... 70 A. . . o I- . .IA; 0. I r1I1vo‘ I. 1.? 1. c. 1 1. . a. C III _ I 0 .00
r.‘ ...I I I... .. M.. . HI .. . 10 .. . 1 .10. . 1dr. . up". . o 1 h It. .- 1 I. . . I
A. 0.1.0.1.”: .31. .. 1.0.J0. I... .5... .II I I .. .0 4.... 9.6.. . . I 1 I ..
c.. .a.. .... I V...‘. I. .. 0.. 1 1 I I. . ...I.. ..r . f. 4M.. 1. 0. ... I r 1‘ I. .1. I I .
no... .C .I 21.3 ...-r11 t3...’ 4 I.I... ... . .. o. ....c . ... ... .0.. I 1 I. I I I
I _ 1. ......_o§ I. 0.. (II. I r70. 5. ..I 0'... .1 I .— I.I.OOI A I 1. _ 0 . J. .. I .0. 0 11. . . A I A . I
93.....- 0.163.311... 3r....1 I..- . .. ..J€.I.. . .... n. a . ... .I I . I . I ..
V... I~§hoo . «1" 05-...J’v 0A 1. 0). C I ~v51—‘O’I .... of. b (H 1"; . 0 III! . o. . 0 I 0 ‘1 .' . .
...-AP . \‘.. .....IA «0 I .. .3) 11ft... 4 1.. IF n. A. . ..~ I T. ... '.aI .. I . . .. .0 r 0.. o ..J I c . . . .a
0... KO {Ivy 11.20 .....Q...0.I I.....1....c..1r .IA.;. I. V. .. . I. 1. «II .o I . ..
0 r (10 0’. .9. 1. no .A...1..§O. .rLro? (33.8“. YI1II3 . 1'1. 9...... 1.: .1...1.0“0.0W “ I o.‘ .I. .I 0 IA 0 o . 0 1 1 . 1 I 0 AI
0 C. '1v. ..I ...-l. oAI‘ 1...... IA f..1<..1. .. .0 I .30 . I. o I. ..., A . . I. 1A
'.A,r3:,. .JN)..J.A.J1:0... ..Oow..OL.-.OQI1PAW0‘I0- ..?.0v..’...,\\.”o—.~..m.1.YIAIo.. .floIIS:.O)A-H. . I a... In... 0. A.“ I. .1 00 1 I I . 0.1 . I .
l. I o . v . I A u . I
... ......r .0._..... .. .1IIJ . u. . I. 1 1 ‘ . ..0I...3 .u... .1 A . w. M. I J1 to I ,. . A r. . I I. II I II .I. A o I . - o u I
.3 o . .. . Ion .. n .3 «I? :0... o .. .. . . ...? 00‘ .0. J. I A. . .. .. .1 . A I . ..0 . ...\ I0 .1 . ‘ I 0.. 1 I I I I .
1|.“a.l.o .. 1.... . «1.1%.; I.....1...O (do. . . .9 I...AI. .. .. I .... . 1 .I I r . . I
.O. M.. I . Po...‘ I I1.... .1‘0o1 . I «A. ..1. 1.14. . I . . .0 I . .
Lifm ... AJ..£..I...:. ... .... 0.26: .1... _. to . I. ... . 11.. .. . I... 1 III. . . o l .51- .0
1....1 a toll-19 I~Iloc .I2 .1141! . ...: ... . . I 0.1.. 1... .. .. 0 . .. . fi I I .
T M _ . . M .0 .u. .117....... O I 1 0.00 o . {($010 .. .0 1W.. I .O'..oAHO_1 .. I1 o.
. v... 3 . ... ..4 Q . . A. o . I.
.. .3313??? .35.... .. . _
.

   

 

 

95.6 «2.... II. ..ImLI «rogunwixtfivyt

    

 

         

flhquEAn-vw. I. . .....Iahlomw'oflrav

I-‘ .\

                
 

  

   

     
                                                    

   

  

 

I.
Op} \
I III. I ‘I
- . I . . . I I.I..-III .IIII I. III III. ..IIuHJIIIIInIIIIHoIOnu-IJA. '.u0
I 0'. I 1 A II . I II o . III! I. I'll .III 1 o 3.1 1‘. I, O‘i.’ I'
I I 0.. I I. . 0.. O 70.0.00 ’ I I .. I. 1’ ' ‘01 4 ‘0‘-
In I I. I I I. IA I. III. II I‘AOO‘OC .OO
0 0 I .. 0 IO.‘ - I 0 I
I I I I II . .. I I I .0 ..u a
q . n I I O I." . I II010 II
. OIIV. I 1 IA. .1 GI. I
070 I. Q . . I! I I .I9 0 I‘
I .f .5 0 In ..III \HIII II
I o 1 I I 134.. :0...)
0 u v . Q. I v .IOOI 'l I I I
. I , .1. I . I DO.
1 . Z ‘I III I .‘ I'.. ..I I 0"
AoIIII O I ll WI“... I
I I In. I I .l|\I I.C.?
II. III .E ....‘l. A. II“.
o . I II. .0 .OIII’. 1 I... 11. ’
I. I Inc. . I I, 511.1.-.rl
. . II. II. A... II. ‘31..
I ' . I 10‘ 1. I.¢OOOI.OVI1' ‘1‘).0
..I . I . PO 0 OOII . .. o -0
I II ‘I « ‘IIII I I OII'OIII 0‘ ’0‘
I . . .III A. I} I0. OAIO o II II 4‘0.
I I O I .III I .IIL. .CO. I \ IIIA
I . OI .... IIv.\ It .10.-- f 0 OIQI
I 0 H AAO...’ . O .1 q oOlI ..‘IO\‘04. . I!“
o . I
I I I r.-. I 0 05.01. 10.I 0.- ’I. J...’
I I . I I «I. I. I I .0.
I II I I‘. A I I4. I Pa.” OH. I.
I I 0 I.I.O I On I 1‘ICUOI-OI-IIII .OLIH
I I I 4 .I. III;
I O I . A I I. IV. I... I. I J,
III I I III 'A I Olu. .. 01 I‘l0u9d‘
I . . - -...- 2 I _I.I...I...I._.
I I I I. I I I A. 14"- II A A I“
IO A III 0 I0 It ‘0 o I .‘I. O! ‘1
. I I I 1 ... OIIIO. III. IOIOI COO .-r. IOA-I. a
I . I 1 v. . —
. I I . . O‘. ...b I a _ Old-...... . ..A.‘ I.I-.0! .100...
0 I I IH‘I IO_A'I Ol'to A A.IkI III.‘
I I 0' A. 0 2.01- o A v
II-I a 4. I'I__. O .0 :1 I c ‘ _
A I I. . III I III ru.II H . Ida ..AIAMIAW 0123.“ .
I 1 I I 4 O0 up ‘I I '0‘ sub"! “Ithcn'ov.
O a 0 I I; $9.- 5' I r I. 0 o
O. I II III . I . I OC‘I
. . I 9 ...... .. H (C.AAnI .I'II III'I
I I II . I I I 0." «IA I.I-
Q .I I A IIIOOAOI 1000'.‘ 5L1, OI. .I IVA.I(
I I . 1 I It . 1! I I I 4 . II I.IAA 0' . II I. 1 CI «00 ’0
. . . .. . -I- . . . .. ...... .II...II.L ..IIIIII: I.I...
I 1 . I 4' IA 1 LIPII
I I v . . ....II .o.‘ .0 .QMII. .O-IIO I . I4.(0.IIA.40 I .....o......_
a 7 I I u . .10. I '5’ I.‘ *1
I o ...A. A II . I.I. o. .‘o‘IIuO. 1A...- 3
v I a I . . I114 ‘1. I
. . I I. - . . . I “LII 0-2.. . I135. 233%
. o . 0. .' 1I.OOO II ...! o
I I I. I I. 4. ...-I.I 01 0 III 1.4.... I... .4 V
.I O. O ‘. ...1..0A . v‘ ....“
. . v I . v I . 0 0 « .11 ‘O 001'”.- I 1 . A‘
L' . A. . . I C I. O.
I O I I .. .D' . . 7 LAIOIJ. ... .
I I or 0 I .0 IA 0 t I Q I F.
I . .. II .10 | A. 01.1 ovII. .ILII
I . O I IA .0 Or9 .IQI
. . 0v . I 1' 0", r. I
I 1“ . I . O I .0. I .O V I
I .10 a
o I ._
n u . 0 a
I \I .
I A I o e 0'01 a (O. ‘. . ...HOOI JLII ““10“”; I a .A 4
. . I ... . Ill I
I. I .v I I .. . I .... I I . OII .1... ”...-...... .I. ....g ...COMJQ.
I I ‘1 MIDI IA. I'III' Ilao' 010...
I . I .I 1 . I. .« .0. I..I o:
4 o I . 1 . I Oil . ‘1... \I.[
I l _ . . .. .IlI. f...I¢.oIlaI
I I . . I .. .. II . . I .IIDAH. 1.. I011?
. o I I 1 I . I 1.00 « 0.A Q1 IAOI a.“ ....Ilh.‘
I I I . v o. I. or . I . ... a II. i .....13
I v . . I I 1 .I' V . 0 J! ...k- 1.01..A
. I I a. . l O - C. I 1
. I . . . .I - ... I..I . It I ... ..I....I.....II....
I I O 0 l ‘- I
. .9 I9. I I n. I... III IIIIJAAHAuVA 0’0
. I O 1 0. I D 0 «.. . o ‘l‘ .. 4‘..L '0
I I It A I. A '00 “‘30.. . ~:IIA. lot-‘. I 70“
1I An... .I.... NIIIIIL'IT... AA). .DHMIIMPOI. ...Aviu.l
I . III I I. III... ... ......IIJISI .RJIW:
0 I I I . ... I . I.1_.¢AI1I40.oOJr
0.0 v 10.0 . 0.. .0. .10 .A A01 1A. VAL ”W»..HII[I....I1.|~VIOI
I .i v 1 I .. . . III...01v. 0 0 .‘ .41 ‘1' 0: .
I I .A . 0 o . ..« .03» A11... ....II. ..I o». I 1:"
A .0 I1. I... 0.. 0 010‘..00.10 1.0.10. 1H4‘_Q'I.H_D“'AO 1",0:
_ a I . ..I . A. . 0 ..9I . I .DIIA .14. I0. 0 .104?
. I . . 0 1. J ...v . . v. :3. v .0 1. . . QIHWII’.
I . . .. ... . ... ...
I. . I a I A o..A1.I 11.0 .ol.fl\.,A I. 'LIVI..«
I .- . . . .. .. 0II H... . . . . . .. \I I 0.001.“...
I . o . . I I .. . , ...I . .. . .. . .... ...“...‘ouh I...I.A IYAIYWA
( a I I
A . . o . .. I... 10“. .01 «..?“O C... ...- “J
. . .I I I.I .. 1...... I ..1.....I.I..II.... 14.1.31 AlIMn.
. . I. A I. .. I . . I .
.I. A I . 1.. . ..lo .0 A [1.0 r.....
I . . .. . _
. I. 0.. 0 1 ..I .0... i. 0......2
~A A 1 o a A .IAI. AMI . a! 0.0 “a
. . 1 v o A. I o A.
no I 0 AI . _. .1. (.14
O .0 M I I O. .. .IO 0.. IA 0 u 1
. I I . .. . . . .
. D 1 0. 0 1 I» 001. u. .c
. . I A I
I o 1..
. a I o a. . .0 I. 01. 0.. .... “Amos... .O
. .011 I J ...v
a . I1 1 . .0.— .. .IcoIA IM
0 .I I O I. 1..— I 1 . .I I. o.
.. . if.-. . Lu... . ......
I . . I I . I .
.I . o . o :00 ...I I}...
I. . . . .. . . I.I...o .
. 10. I O . .. v 0 . J‘s.‘
. . _. .... .. a. .. .. ......I... ..
. . I 0 .. i t 0. IJ_'-~A I
I. _ .. . . . . . t a
. I _ . . o. w.
.I... . .. ..2... 0.31:0... It.“ .II..E..
. I . .. . nu.“- .... ......I. .I&
. . . . .
I . o .o A O. . . .. IO’I 1| 0.. Do ..I I\ :— .1...o‘-‘M.a wfi-"VI‘I o C.
I. to. z . o 40.: .....O’ofi 4.1 ,u I
I . I . . o o . .. 5.1 . .l ..v
. I I I ._ o .. o o ... J. ...U..... A ”.....AO..._.1M.1I. .I... y. . OHIO.“ “I“ O
O I . .IA 0 . .o . n .. o 0'“. . 00¢. .l . ..H'q LLM... tin—1%

IO . . ... . ...1. 0. .r....1...I ~O.\.A« .) «40.1!
... . o s .0. _ . .h DI...JAu ‘\. F .Q . «\ I
. .. . . 1.. . . ... -... .. . ..IL— I!” IVA,

II I . 0 .0... . J ...... V
.I..\ o 1.. o o 0' 1‘ I 11 o .~5.I3...As a. ..OOVJ AJJ'I”
. I. 1 I. ....” .1...9..r1. v .. .....(3 . . ..t.
. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. 2...... -..I...... .
c 0‘ ... . I .. O ..\ .1 .
I I o I- u I Is A.... . t... I.I.NI ... ow... I.. . .rs . A” ..qur: .I..
I ... 0 no A . . .l .
. . v .00 A I o .u I “on ...” o. I .10». '.r...1_ . .O.....\. t. ‘0 Q
0 up . no..o!$‘ ..i..’1.‘ 4.. ’14.
I 1 I 1 AI... 90 I I ...s190..1. 1...: l‘. ...‘3rVI
. . ... . . . I.. . I . .
I .. .. I.I.A. IzYI. ... -.....Aos.IY.....Ia....: .... .30).... In...
.I4 I .... 1. .9 “...... o_(A..\....I1..mA.0...Mi.U10.o ...-H.WLSVLI. I
I. .. “I .. 0.. . .‘I.\ .~.o...o..._..I¢ wok... v r.
I 0 . . I . 1.1. A...- ...M I.IIAI- I
0 1 o . v nxs M (.16 IO A II. ...N
. . . I ... 0 «..? . j... ..A... 1.... I... V
N . ‘— o . 1...... .I“ 1.. 374 I l... .. a.
A. .... . . I. “90...; _'O 0.1. ....JO. .011... A30; .
o .. .. I I .' A 1.“; .1..~1.V—‘..I.I._ I...” ‘Khnfi‘ Q ..HAYW
‘ . I4
._ ..IL- .......I . “.11.... ...I.....:_ ......IIUL.II.
' I . . . ... I on... .. .1“. .71.. II . I... I. I
. I .0 134.4. 4 ‘.1 ...I. .~.r¢v._
I. . A O'ot . .. .... .- ”I'M—:1. 0‘” ..IIJ. I Mi? ‘
. w . . H . . . .-..10..A .1fi...1...o ~. 1 h... . A .. . q .. .M ..
I. 0 0.. . . o I . . l .. . . . .I HIM .
I s 1 u 1. . . . . J11 .. 1.: . . «...... I..I.A.. 01‘ . ..‘J1..l MCFA J.th..”.«C«.1... .. \.
a .A. I ... . I . ..
. h... ... . . . . . .95... ... . ...... .....w.u...w 3.34m}: ...I.u..II_.........I.
. . . .... 4.1.. .. 100...... LII...
. .. . 1. 1 .M M»: . .fn and z u. 12.10... .... 4.. Du ”Wi.l.h.flfkuilfl 3-.....”
I . .. . . .\. . _.
1A .1 A. I ~ .21. .... . £ .. . 31:... Luv-4.. .. ...‘I1Ps....1h.....1\.I.r.I.
1 ..u. 2': I .... r. .. . . .. .II ..0 .
I M I. I .A L. .I.... . .> .. ...1r. A. .fi 21.3.2.6... .
. _ I .. I .. ..ur.
M o .. A O . . v. . I.“ . . 1 O . . .. I . .
. . . .71.)...” . I . ...... .. .. 3...? ......I 2.1.3.1.... 24.... ...
C - J...l I. 0 b o 4.5 .000 .. .A1.A—I :— .- u ..
I A. .010 1|. 1... 9' . ...... .. ....I J.WO . 530’...“ «IMF..E.. kiwi“. I..?.100\.I.. POI .
1 . .a .. o I I .91.... .... ‘...MAM.1...;wIPo. ch....... ...)...I
I .I .. o . I . . . .. ...1 1.21.5 .13....4 .J.1I....A.I... ... .oc..
. . .. A I. If 0.. ....1‘...rl~0..0v._.3 3:44.. A .....M..I........(. M~1.«U.MII.
I . . s 0 I . «... :0... o 3. 1A1: _ «H.1I". I . If. : .... .. ..
. . O . .I 1 _ .l. .. . ...I . a o .3 ha ‘vafl .. ..... . p . rI. Q.
.Is . 0 . t a. .I. 4 ' {MFA o. J. . .I ’A .. a . . ._ f1". . M...
. . .. I. .. . .. v1 .JMo. 1. ..J . 1C .5. IQ. 1.3%.}. I . L. ....
. o I 1 Q.— .‘I 0 1.. .. I .... , 4, .. .. 4.3 . I ..
01' .. O o O . .. O . 0 .1 3 F 0’. L"... .t 0 0V. c 0 ‘MM._ '1‘ r AI \ . 0...
. .. D o
I . I. .... .I . . .... ..I 5%.“. whim... . . . F
. 4 I 1 I. c I. o .I.. . u. A...
. o a . I I I o 1 . . 1. . 3
.. 1. _ Md .0»! 0.14. rrJ r. . . 11.15;. noun” 1. A
. . .