A CGM-EAEEfiQR @‘F FRQZER, '2‘1'!ZJ'AEma mHQMDUmu oaonmmnne .N mafiumsHm>m :H Hommms uoz [mo ESEHGHE mafinmflanmumm GOHDSHHQ .d Hmfluo .ucmE .umnuocm Hm>o posoonm Imoam>mo Mom modao oamaommm mco mo mocmummoum mo mono uoonuHB GoaumsHm>m mmono not no ucwfimmmmmm mamfiflm lllll mosmummmum .msofiszomu mcfl .Momso Iamouom mmoum m MHHHMEHHm HmESmGOU CH Mucuommmaumm IIIII mocmummooé .mmmosn mcflcflmup .pcmfim>oum maflmonm Ho>mHm .m .mmmomnsm mEom How oamaommm IEH mmmooum .usmamon> HmausmumMMHo oaucmfimm .N maucmHUHMMSm on uoa mm: loo uosooum MOM 0>Huommmm Uflaoomm .H m>HumHHUmmo .mmocmHmMMHo uooooum .Euom Macmmmo CH muwo MmmE MHHMHDHMQ MME Huhumflum> mcflungmm mo .oumoamum mmocmummwflo .mmmosfl ou momma umwwo ou mammm .m m mm mocmuommu mo mHQMDDQHHuum soaumaum> .N .uooooum mm HHQB ucflom n.0mooh Hmsofl> .oum mm memosh mo mOADmH {Home comm maso nuflz .N IUGMDm omanHQmumm Eoum :umuomumso msflpmumsmu .mHmEMm mmcmno memosfl ma mmma use now manna mm owns mosmummmu no Hosp Imsflnmmfi on >88 muaomwm .H on mmE homaaoupcoo .a Isoo £ua3 conflummfioo .d mcfluoom .wEHu m um ooumoflmsoo on :mo SOHHGUHHU mso NHGO .m . .ucwfimosn uumwmm .NDHHHQmummUUm mmE mmHmEMm mo Hmnfisz .N Hmmwcmm m>flumem .N .muasmmu muummwm .oflumflumpomnmso mcflHmEMm mo moamoomm .a musomxm on mamfiflm UHMHUmmm mo hpflwsmusH .d Hmono Mcmm .ummu mumsuo .d .mslzoaaom How mo wmomusm co mocmm onEMmIHuasz .m coaumfiuomsfl UHMHUmmm mauufla loo momsomom “masomxm mHmCMHHB .N mm>flm mm.umm COHumonHucmoH Op mHmEHm mam>flumamm HHSEHumIUmHHmm .a mommHmMMAo mGOHumuHEHA mommusm>o¢ mGOAUMHHm> mama .mooom mCHmmmmmm Mom mummy mnomsmm .w magma 33 more effective group, while further screening would undoubt- edly result in further efficiency. Panel size (Amerine gt 1., 1965) The number of panelists evaluating a product varies among experiments. The panel should be large enough to counteract unusual variations which might affect day to day comparisons. Small, highly sensitive panels usually give more reliable results than large, less sensitive groups. Recommendations for panel size for various types of sensory methods range from 3-10, 8-25, and 80+ for trained, semi- trained, or untrained panel members, respectively. Factors affecting panel sensitivity (Amerine g£_§l., 1965) Health, age, sex, and smoking habits of taste panel members has been the subject of many investigations. It ap- pears that these are not critical factors in the selection of a panel, however, for improved accuracy among judges it is usually recommended that they do not smoke for one-half hour prior to testing. Emotional factors such as extreme happiness or upsets seem to affect the ability of panel members to concentrate and thus reduces their accuracy. Important factors in the successful judging of foods include interest, motivation, knowledge and comparison of results, adjustment to the test situation, and memory. It is generally agreed that panel _'_1-;_. —-.-v- 4‘1 4 - _. #14;— a-—_—._. 34 members should be given as much information as possible on the purpose of the investigation, however, information which might influence the subject's responses must be with- held. Discriminatory ability has been illustrated to be 1 significantly greater when the immediate knowledge of notice- able differences was reported. Lighting, seats, air conditioning, serving procedure, sample size, appearance and utensils, and coding are factors which may affect food evaluations. These factors should be standardized and used throughout the testing period. Sensory evaluations are extremely complex and are af- fected by many factors. They are usually desirable, not as an entity in itself for the evaluation of food acceptability, but rather as a basis for correlation with objective measure- ments (Boggs and Hanson, 1949). Analysis of sensory tests Statistical procedures may be used for the interpreta- tion of sensory data. The great variability displayed by the panelists reduces the use of elaborate highly refined techniques, the results of which can be no more valid than the information on which they were based (Amerine §£_al,, 1965). Analysis of variance does provide a method for de— termining the important interaction between panel members and treatments. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE The experimental design for this investigation was divided into two series. The first sequence consisted of the preparation of baked custards; the second sequence in— volved the preparation of a similar formula omitting sugar. Design of Experiment To determine the effects of foam-spray-drying, freeze- drying, and spray—drying on the color, gel strength, and palatability of baked custards and to investigate the effect of sugar on the coagulating ability of the similarly men- tioned egg processes, six replications of a standard custard formula were prepared and baked for each egg process. Custards prepared with frozen eggs served as a control. All eggs used in this investigation were processed similarly to those used in the investigations reported by Endres (1965) and Zabik and Figa (1967). The custard mixture used in this study was baked to two end-point temperature ranges of 81-83OC and 85-87OC. These two end-point temperature ranges were arbitrarily selected to include satisfactory gelation temperatures for all egg pro- cesses. A two degree range was used because not all custard samples baked in the same water bath reached the specific temperature simultaneously. 35 36 Quality characteristics of the custards were evaluated by both objective and subjective evaluations. All data were subjected to the appropriate statistical analysis. To determine the effect of sugar on the coagulating properties of the processed eggs, six replications of the basic custard formula were prepared omitting sugar. The pro- cedure varied from that of the baked custards in the follow- ing manner: (1) sugar was omitted from the original formula, thus reducing the total solids content; (2) the slurries were baked to one end-point temperature range of 85-87OC; and (3) the baked slurries were evaluated entirely by Ob— jective methods. Procurement of Ingredients To eliminate any possible variation in ingredients, the whole eggs, milk powder, and sugar were obtained from a com- mon lot. The whole eggs were acquired through a commercial food company1 whereas the sugar and dried milk were purchased from a local distributor. Processing of whole eggs (Gorman, 1965) Shell eggs, varying in age from 1 to 2 weeks and grades from A to C, were machine broken, strained, and churned to produce a homogeneous mixture. Corn sirup solids and salt lSemour Foods Company, Topeka, Kansas. 37 were added to the blend of whole eggs on the dry weight basis of 31.5.1 0.5 per cent carbohydrates and 1.5.: 0.25 per cent salt. The mixture was pasteurized at 600C for 3 1/2-4 minutes. Following pasteurization the eggs were frozen in 30-pound metal containers and held at -300C until further processing and/or shipment. This frozen mixture was used for the frozen, foam-spray-dried, freeze-dried, and spray-dried whole eggs used in this investigation. Foam—sprayrdrying (Dawson, 1965). The portion of eggs to be used for the foam-spray-drying was packed in dry ice, shipped to the appropriate processor,2 and held at -23.3OC for 2 months before processing. Prior to processing the eggs were partially thawed at 15.6OC, held at 10C until they were heated with constant stirring to 540C, and placed in a 600C water bath. Foam-spray-drying was carried out using a modification of the foam-spray-drying procedure described by Blakely and Stine (1964). The eggs were foam-spray-dried using a co- current horizontal inverted teardrop dryer equipped with two number 62 nozzles with number 20 spinners. Automation pressure was 850 pounds per square inch and nitrogen gas pressure was between 900-1000 pounds. Inlet temperature ranged from 124- 1270C and exit air ranged from 79-820C. Freeze—drying (Amato, 1965). The frozen eggs for the freeze— 3 drying process were shipped to the appropriate processor and 2Food Science Department, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 3Armour Grocery Products Company, Bellwood, Illinois. 38 held at -400C until the final processing. Prior to freeze- drying, the eggs were tempered for 48 hours at 14.4OC. The thawed product was then mixed and 10 pounds of the mixture were placed into each dryer pan of a Vacudyne sublimator. The eggs were frozen under a pressure of 100 microns to —29.9OC. This process was followed by drying, during which the temperature of the product did not exceed 500C. Upon com- I pletion of the 15 1/2 hour drying cycle, the chamber vacuum 1 l was broken with air. The egg was removed, allowed to reach packaging. 250C., and then sealed into five gallon tins until final 1 l 1 I Spray-drying (Gorman, 1965). The portion of whole eggs used 1 to prepare the spray-dried product was thawed, blended, and spray-dried,4 using a pilot plant spray—dryer under an atom- izing pressure of approximately 2000 pounds. Intake tempera- ture ranged from 149-163OC and exhaust temperature ranged from 66-71OC. Upon completion of drying, the whole egg mixture 0 was screened through 16 mesh USBS screens and cooled to 29 C. The dried eggs were packed in polyethylene lined fiber drums and held at 20.6OC until packaged. Packaging, shipment, and storage. The frozen eggs were shipped to Michigan State University in 30-pound containers which were packed in dry ice. Upon arrival, the mixture was held at 4Semour Foods Company, pp, cit. 39 -23OC until the investigation was initiated. At this time the frozen eggs were thawed for 24 hours under running water, subdivided into appropriate amounts and placed in plastic pouches which were contained inside round plastic-lined, quart size cardboard containers. The eggs were then frozen at -230C for the 1-9 week period prior to use. The freeze—dried and spray-dried eggs were similarly packaged in one—pound laminated-foil pouches, whereas the foam-spray-dried eggs were similarly packaged in 6-ounce pouches.5 The pouches consisted of the following materials: polyethylene terephthalate (.005 in. thickness), foil aluminum (.001 in. thickness), and polyethylene(.002 in. thickness). The packaging process involved drawing 27 inches of vacuum, plunging the eggs with nitrogen twice, and sealing on the third vacuum. The eggs were held at 20.60C after the packag- ing process. Following shipment to Michigan State University the dried egg packages were frozen and held at -230C for the 8—month period prior to use. At the beginning of this in- vestigation, the dried eggs were Opened and dry blended in the 12—quart bowl of the Hobart Mixer, Model A—200, for 5 minutes. The eggs were then portioned into appropriate amounts, heat sealed in heat sealable polyester pouches and held at —230C until used. Bacterial analysis (Mallmann, 1966). Bacterial analyses were run on the foam-spray-dried, freeze—dried, and frozen eggs. The 5Jianas Brothers, Kansas City 8, Missouri. 40 method for the bacterial analyses are included in the appen- dix. Milk source Dried whole milk in nitrogen packed number 10 cans was used in this investigation.6 The milk powder was combined in the 12 quart bowl of the Hobart Mixer, Model A-200 and dry- blended for 5 minutes. Appropriate weights of milk powder for each replication were weighed to the nearest 0.1 gram on the Triple beam balance (1.6 kg. capacity), heat sealed into heat sealable pouches, and held at 4.50C until used. Sugar source A commercial brand of pure cane granulated sugar was used in this investigation.7 All the sugar was placed in the 12- quart bowl of the Hobart Mixer, Model A-200, and dry blended for 5 minutes. Appropriate weights of sugar for each repli- cation were weighed to the nearest 0.1 gram on the Triple beam balance (1.6 kg. capacity), and were stored in closed polyethylene pouches at room temperature. Basic Formula The formula selected for this study based on Lowe's (1955) recommendation of the use of 244 grams milk, 48 grams 6Snow Flake, Webster Van Winkle Corporation, Summit, New Jersey. 7Domino Pure Cane Sugar, American Sugar Company, New York. ~...—4 .._— . _.. ..-._.'—v—. -____..-y— urn-r A _+-._-—7 ..—-. .. __—- 1-—'T‘. :— -::I-,-: -=-—._-'_ 41 egg. and 25 grams sugar for a standard custard formula. Vanilla and salt were omitted to avoid any effect that they might have on flavor and color. Custards were prepared according to the formula listed in Table 5. Table 5. Formula used in the preparation of baked custards. Frozen Egg Dried Egg Custard Mix Ingredients Custard Foam-spray- Freeze- Spray- Mix dried Egg dried Egg dried Egg 9 g 9 g Frozen eggs 396.0 - - - Foam-spray-dried — 140.4 - - eggs Freeze-dried eggs — - 138.8 — Spray-dried eggs — — ~ 140.0 Sugar 187.0 187.0 187.0 187.0 Dried Milk Powder 195.6 195.6 195.6 195.6 Distilled water for: Dried Milk 1635.0 1635.0 1635.0 1635.0 reconstitution Dried egg - 255.6 257.2 256.0 reconstitution The formula for the baked slurries contained the same percentage of egg (16.41%) as the baked custards. Sugar was omitted in the baked slurry formula reducing the total solid content by 7 per cent. A smaller quantity of the formula was prepared because the sensory evaluations were omitted in this 42 series. The formula for the baked whole egg and milk slur- ries is included in Table 6. Table 6. Formula used in the preparation of baked slurries. Frozen Egg Dried Egg Slurry Mix Ingredients Slurry Foam-spray- Freeze- Spray— Mix dried Egg dried Egg dried Egg 9 9 9 9 Frozen eggs 179.7 - _ - Foam-spray-dried - 63.2 — - eggs Freeze-dried eggs - - 63.0 - Spray-dried eggs - - - 63.0 Dried milk powder 97.8 97.8 97.8 97.8 Distilled water for: Dried milk 817.5 817.5 817.5 817.5 reconstitution Dried egg - 116.4 116.6 116.6 reconstitution The proportion of egg contained in each formula was based on dextrin and moisture content of the various types of pro- cessed eggs. The amount of egg used in the formula was in- creased by ten per cent because of the fact that the liquid eggs contained ten per cent dextrins in the form of corn sirup solids. The exact amount of whole egg solid and the quantity of water equal to that of frozen eggs (69.5 per cent) was determined for each type of egg process from moisture data 43 obtained by using the AOAC vacuum oven method (1955). The actual weight of all dehydrated eggs were corrected for variance in moisture content of the egg powder. The amount of egg powder in the formula increased and the water de- creased as the percentage moisture of the egg powders in— creased. Preparation of Mix Preparation for this investigation was divided into two series. The first series consisted of preparing custard mix; the second series was composed of preparing whole egg-milk slurries. Custard mix Forty—eight batches of custards were prepared in a ran- domized order, 3 batches on each of 16 days. The method of preparation for the custards prepared with frozen, foam—spray- dried, freeze-dried, and spray-dried eggs was carried out under similarly controlled conditions. All eggs for the investigation were utilized at room temperature. Frozen eggs were thawed at 4-50C for 20-24 hours and were allowed to remain at room temperature for 30-45 minutes so that they were 24-250C when used in the custards. The dried eggs were removed from the freezer 15-20 minutes before preparation to allow the eggs to reach 24-250C. The exact amount of egg used in the formula was weighed to the 44 nearest 0.1 g on the Triple beam balance (1.6 kg. capacity) on the day of preparation. The custards were prepared by a method similar to that described by Endres (1965). The egg powder, milk powder, and sugar were placed in a 12-quart bowl of the Hobart Mixer, Model A—200, and dry blended for 60 seconds at speed 2 (86 rpm) using the whip attachment. The bowl was scraped thoroughly after each beating period. The distilled water used for the reconstitution of the dried mixture was warmed to 40-500C upon recommendation by the milk manufacturer, and was added in three allotments. To make a smooth paste for improved dispersibility, 300 ml of distilled water was blended with the dry mixture for 10 seconds at speed 1 (48 rpm) and 50 seconds at speed 3 (140 rpm) using the paddle attachment. The remaining water was added in two equal por— tions; the first of which was followed by mixing for 30 seconds at speed 2 (86 rpm), whereas the final water portion was mixed an additional 60 seconds at speed 1 (48 rpm). The mixture was removed from the mixer and strained through a fine wire household strainer (25 wires per in.) into three 1-quart pitchers. The control custards made with frozen eggs were combined similarly; however, the frozen eggs were not added until the first water addition. The pH of a 100 ml sample of custard mix was recorded using a Beckman Zeromatic pH meter. 45 Slurry mix Twenty-four batches of slurry mix were prepared, six batches on each of four days. The four types of processed eggs utilized and the order of preparation were randomized. The preparation described for the baked custards was modified to prepare the baked slurries. The sugar was not added with the egg and milk powder; and the first water ad- dition was reduced to 150 ml. Baking Procedure The custards and slurries were baked in sequence. The custards were baked to the two end-point temperature ranges o . . of 81-83OC and 85-87 C; while the slurries were baked to the end-point temperature range of 85-87OC. Baked custards The custard mix for objective and subjective evaluations was baked in appropriate containers. Custards for gel strength determination on the Allo-Kramer shear press were baked in 5 in. x 3 1/2 in. x 2 1/2 in. aluminum loaf pans. Each pan contained 350 ml of mix, which filled the pan to a depth of 4.1 cm. Duplicate samples of the custard mix for each variable were baked simultaneously. A perforated stain- less steel frame was used to support the individual loaf pans in a large aluminum baking pan (18 5/8 in. x 3 3/4 in. x 3 1/2 in). Custard mix for color, percentage drainage, and 46 sensory evaluations were baked in conventional Pyrex 5-ounce baking cups. Each cup contained 110 ml of mix which filled the cup to a depth of 3.8 cm. Fourteen cups were baked at one time in two (15 1/2 in. x 8 1/2 in. x 2 1/2 in.) pans. Baking positions of the pans and cups were rotated so that each variable had comparable oven positions for the sub- 1 l i jective and objective tests. Oven positions for the custards ! evaluated by the taste panel were rotated; however, samples for any one taste panel member for any one day were baked in the same oven position. Prior to placing the custard mix in the oven, thermo- couples were secured in place and tap water at 20-23OC was placed in the aluminum pans to a level equal to that of the mix. Thermocouple supports were clamped to each individual pan to insure that the thermocouple remained securely posi- tioned in the center of the mix at a depth of 2.1 cm. The perforated stainless steel frames holding the cups were used to support the thermocouples in the center of the gel at a depth of 1.9 cm. To eliminate any possible destruction of i the gel, thermocouples were not placed in those custards to , be used for sensory evaluation. The apparatus used for baking i the custard mix were illustrated and described by Endres (1965). i The custard mix was baked in two General Electric 30- inch compact ovens, Model CN 16, with the damper half-way closed and the grids set on high. Oven temperature was pre- heated and maintained at 177.: 100C with Minneapolis Honeywell 47 Versatronik Controllers. Removal of the center racks of the ovens allowed sufficient room for the baking apparatus. The same end-point temperature range was used for all variables prepared the same day. Oven and internal gel temperature were recorded every 3 minutes with a Brown Elec— tronic Potentiometer equipped with a 12—point high speed multiple point recorder. When the custards reached the appro- priate end-point temperature range of 81-83OC or 85-87OC, the rack supporting the custards was removed and the gels were allowed to cool at room temperature for 1 hour. Custards used for taste panel evaluations were stored uncovered and the remainder of the custards were covered with Saran. All custards were held at refrigerator temperature (4-5OC) for 18-24 hours before they were evaluated. Baked slurries The baking procedure explained for custards was altered slightly for the baking of the slurries. Three variables were baked simultaneously with duplicate samples for each ob- jective evaluation. As only six cups were baked at one time, only one baking pan was utilized. The oven was preheated . . o and the temperature was maintained at 177.: 7 C. Evaluation of Custards and Slurries The baked custards were evaluated with both objective and subjective methods. The baked whole egg and milk slurries were evaluated solely by objective methods. “’41—. ‘m-‘-fl‘b—u. .. 48 Objective evaluations Objective evaluations were performed to determine the pH percentage drainage, gel strength, and color of the cus- tards prepared with the four types of processed eggs baked to the two end-point temperature ranges of 81-83OC and 85-87OC. Objective evaluations were utilized to determine pH, gel strength, and color of the baked slurries. All samples were tested at 4-9OC on the day following preparation. pH of the baked custards. The pH determinations were made with a Beckman Zeromatic pH meter equipped with calomel and glass electrodes which was standardized with a 7.0 buffer. A 10-gram sample of the custard was blended for 1 minute with 20 ml of water, placed in a 50 ml beaker and pH recorded. The pH values recorded are the averages of two samples. Percentage drainage. Percentage drainage of the baked cus— tards was determined by the method described by Miller §t_§l, (1959a). The gel was carefully removed from the custard cup and inverted, crust down, on a weighed wire screen (18 wires per inch) which was located over a weighed petri dish. The dish, screen, and inverted sample were weighed to the nearest 0.1 g on the Triple beam balance (1.6 kg. capacity), covered with a large glass bowl to prevent evaporation, and allowed to stand for 1 hour. At the end of this period, the gel was removed from the wire screen and the weight of the drainage was calculated to the nearest 0.1 g from the difference in 49 weights of the petri dish and screen before and after the drainage period. Percentage drainage was derived by divid— ing the weight of drainage by the weight of the custard before drainage and multiplying by 100. Averages of two values were reported for each replication. Gel strength determination. The upper assembly of the fixed blade cell of the Allo_Kramer shear press, Model SP 12, was used to determine the gel strength of the custards. The method used was described and illustrated by Endres (1965). A 100 pound proving ring, 10 pound range, 25 pound pressure, and 30 second downstroke was used in this operation. Each custard sample was removed from the refrigerator and positioned directly on the cell block under the upper assembly. The fixed blade cell was lowered into the custard to a depth of 3.8 cm while readings were recorded on the Electronic Recorder, Model E-2EZ. The cell blade was rinsed with warm water before each evaluation was performed. Gel strength of the baked custards was determined by computing the force required to shear through the gel follow- ing the method described by Endres (1965). Three peaks were determined from the graphs drawn by the electronic recorder. The force was computed for each of the three peaks by multi- plying the peak value by the range/ring proportion. The values are referred to as Peak I, Peak II, and Peak III respectively. Le. AV- 50 Gel strength derived by computing the area-under-the- curve was determined by utilizing the method described by Brown (1964). Each graph drawn by the electronic recorder was carefully cut out and weighed on a Mettler Balance, Model H15. The weight was computed to area by multiplying the weight of the graph by 174.2. The conversion factor of 174.2 was determined by weighing multiple squares of varying known area from random locations on chart paper. Averages of two samples were recorded for each replication. Color measurement. Color of the baked custards was measured by a Hunter color-difference meter, model D-25. The instru- ment was standardized with a yellow tile covered with an optical lens (L, 82.8; a ~3.5; bL +26.2) in preparation for L determination of L (lightness), a - (greenness), and bL+ L (yellowness) values of the custard samples. The following procedure was used for the color analysis of all variables. The gel was removed from the custard cup and inverted, crust down, on a clear flat piece of high qual- ity plate glass (5 in. x 5 in. x 1/8 in.). Approximately 1/2 inch was removed from the original bottom of the custards with a 2 1/2 in. x 4 in. metal spatula. The freshly cut flat sur- face was covered with a special optical lens (3 in. x 4 in. x 1/8 in.). The glass, custard, and optical lens were placed under the viewing area of the Hunter color—difference meter, and two sets of values were derived from different gel posi- tions by moving the glass supporting the gel one quarter turn. 51 Each value reported represents an average of four readings, two readings for each of two custards. Subjective evaluation Subjective evaluation was utilized to determine the acceptability of the crust tenderness, inside color, firmness, syneresis, smoothness, and flavor of baked custards prepared with the various types of processed eggs. An eight membered taste panel evaluated the previously mentioned custard quali- ties using a 7-point rating scale. Baked custards for sensory evaluation were prepared as follows: (1) the custard was carefully loosened from the sides of the custard cup; (2) the cup, with the custard still intact, was placed on a white plate coded with pre-determined random numbers; and (3) the plate containing the custard was placed on a tray containing the judge's name and was stored in the refrigerator. The panel members were directed to remove their samples from the refrigerator and to proceed to their assigned seat in the taste panel room. The taste panel room was equipped with necessary silver, lukewarm water, and crackers. All evaluations were carried out under 15—watt cool fluorescent lighting. The procedure for evaluating the custards was demon- strated for the judges. First, the crust was carefully re» moved and evaluated for tenderness. Second, the custard was inverted and carefully removed from the cup. Third, the cus- tard was evaluated for color, gel strength, syneresis, smoothness 52 and flavor; in that order. Judges were requested to partake of the crackers and water provided to eliminate any possible carry-over of flavor among samples. Taste panel directions and a sample score sheet used for the sensory evaluations are included in the Appendix. Analysis of Data The data obtained from both the objective and subjective evaluations were summarized and analyzed by the use of three computer programs on the CDC-3600 Computer at Michigan State University. The Rand Routine (Option 3) was used to calculate the analyses of variance, the BaStat Routine was employed to ascertain simple correlations, and the MdStat Routine was utilized to determine standard deviations of the means. Significant differences among types of egg, individual treat— ment combinations, mean sensory evaluation scores, and judges were evaluated through the use of the Studentized range test (Duncan, 1957). ‘—"V'v-Iv-— .-a-- _._...-—' RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The primary purpose of this investigation was to deter- mine the effects of foam-spray-, freeze-, and spray-drying of eggs on the color, gel strength, and palatability of baked custards. Determining the effect of sugar on the protein czoagulation of the processed eggs was of secondary importance in this inquiry. Gels prepared with frozen eggs served as the control. This investigation was divided into two series: (1) standard custards containing sugar which consisted of eight treatments combining each egg process and two end-point temperature ranges, and (2) egg-milk slurries omitting sugar which consisted of four types of processed eggs baked to one end-point temperature range. Standard procedures were uti- lized in the preparation and evaluation of the gels. Addi- tional information on time-temperature relationships during baking, length of baking time, and pH before and after baking were collected. Time-temperature Relationships of Gels The time—temperature relationships for custards prepared with frozen, freeze-dried, foam-spray-dried, and spray-dried eggs are illustrated in Figure 1. A rapid increase in temp- erature during the early part of the baking period which was 53 A Spray'driod Egg Cunard (Pans) . fl'l/ up" .0 Q . ‘0 in ‘3‘ K E 7 Front! in Cunard- mm \‘\.\ Y3)! nsxowq Q) cbwmwb 993 (ens (DEGREES CENT/GRADE) TE MPE RA TURE 54 95 - 85 - 75 - 65 I- 55 t- 45 - 35 *- I 25 .1. L L 1 L L 1 L J J O 9 I8 27 36 45 54 63 72 TIME (MINUTES) Figure I. Mean time temperature relationships during baking of custards prepared with four types of processed eggs. 55 followed by the formation of a plateau was evident for gels prepared with all types of processed eggs. The similarity among the time-temperature relationships for gels prepared with frozen, freeze-dried, and spray-dried eggs is in agree- ment with the results of Endres (1965). The time-temperature relationships for the slurries pre— pared without sugar are depicted in Figure 2. Sugar increa- ed the rate of heat penetration for systems prepared with all types of processed eggs. Gels prepared without sugar leveled off at a lower temperature than did gels containing sugar, however, after leveling off the internal temperature again increased. According to Longree gt _l. (1961) this would indicate that the gels containing sugar were coagulat- ing at a higher temperature than those gels without sugar. This finding is verified by Solsberg gt_ 1. (1948), Lowe (1955), and Seideman §£_al. (1963). Baking Times of Gels The average baking time for custards baked to 81-83OC and 85-87OC was 51 and 63 minutes respectively. Analyses of variance for length of baking time (Table 7) showed the difference in length of baking time to be highly significant as expected; however, there was not a significant difference in the baking time among gels prepared with various types of processed eggs. D Spray-dried Egg SIurrias (Pam) Iano‘Ihothe 993 behb-vmae D A Foacn' sproy'driul £99 sIurrias (Pans) .o . D. ( m n a n 0 .u m .c. s O a. 9 ...... 9 t. . E _ ..... . .. .. u c . ‘ .0 a. ._. .. i» r. .\ O -.B .d n O . v . u . 3 o. o n r F i“ O . O .. is s... a... K .o C 3‘ , -. "v Q 1., . . - livl .v" :1" -. _--.. Y3K (anpq) asinuIe ppB norm? I 56 957 m s: an 3: ‘0." on a: w I I T I I TEMPERATURE (DEGREES CENT/GRADE) u on I l _l 1 1 J l l l 9 I8 27 36 45 54 fi 63 72 TIME (MINUTES) Figure 2. Mean time temperature relationships during baking of slurries (sugar omitted) prepared with four types of processed eggs. 57 Table 7. Analyses of variance for determining the effect of egg process and end temperature range on baking time of cus- tards used for objective evaluation. Source of Degrees Mean Squares for Custard Used for: Variance of Gel strength Color Percentage Freedom Tests Tests Drainage Tests Total 47 Replication 5 27.67 49.76 63.33** Egg Process 3 52.02 20.69 12.45 End Temperature 1 1507.52*** 1419.19***1338.80*** EP X ET 3 18.08 41.24 30.24 Error 35 21.57 13.86 14.36 **Significant at the 1 per cent level of probability. ***Significant at the 0.1 per cent level of probability. Table 8. Analyses of variance for determining the effect of sugar on the baking time of gels. Source of Degrees Mean Squares for Gels Baked in: Variance of Pans Cups Freedom Total 47 Replication 5 33.97* 10.55 Egg Process 3 14.19 35.17 Sugar 1 221.02*** 75.00 EP X Sugar 3 21.18 33.17 Error 35 11.28 18.75 *Significant at the 5 per cent level of probability. ***Significant at the 0.1 per cent level of probability. 58 In the second series of gels studied, the end-point temperature range of 85-87OC was selected and the percentage of egg was held constant. The four types of processed egg gels were prepared without sugar to determine the effect of sugar on the resulting gels. Sugar was found to increase the baking times of the gels prepared with all types of pro- cessed eggs. The mean increase in baking time was 3 and 4 minutes for the cups and pans respectively. The analySes of variance (Table 8) showed that sugar was responsible for a significant increase in the baking time of the pans only. The lengthened baking time resulting with the addition of sugar was in agreement with Solsberg e; l. (1948), Lowe _—— (1955), and Seideman gt a1. (1963). Since there was no sig- nificant difference in baking times for custards contained in cups, this study did not dispute the work of Longree §£.§l- (1961) who reported that sugar had no significant effect on the baking time of gels baked in custard cups. This study indicated that a significant increase in baking time was de- pendent not only on the presence of sugar, but type of con- tainer and/or amount of mix in the container. End—point Temperature The analysis of variance for the end temperatures of the baked custards are included in Table 9. There were no sig- nificant differences attributed to egg process. However, all gels did not reach the same range simultaneously. The custards 59 Table 9. Analyses of variance for determining differences among end—point temperatures of custards used for objective evaluation. Source of Degrees of Mean Squares for Gels Used for Variance Freedom Gel Strength Color Percentage Tests Tests Drainage Tests Total 47 Replications 5 0.51 0.85 0.93 Egg Process 3 0.07 0.23 0.14 End Temperature 1 227.51*** 240.76***194.01*** EP X ET 3 0.38 0.10 0.34 Error 35 0.27 0.53 0.45 ***Significant at the 0.1 per cent level of probability. were therefore removed from the oven when the majority of the gels fell within the designated range. Difficulty in achiev- ing the desired range may have been the result of variation in oven cycling and/or oven drafts caused by the large number of thermocouple leads which were extended from the oven. pH of Gels Before and After Baking The pH values for the custards baked to both end—point temperature ranges and the slurries (sugar omitted) appear in the Appendix. Analyses of variance showed no significant differences among the pH of the gels which could be attributed to egg process. The results indicated that the pH of the mix ranged from 6.7-7.1 regardless of type of egg, end temper- ature, or sugar. The pH of the mix did not always increase during baking. This finding is in agreement with Longree 60 §£__l, (1961) but differs from those findings reported by Lowe (1955), Miller et al. (1959a) and Endres (1965). Subjective Evaluation of Baked Custards The crust tenderness, inside color, gel strength, syn— eresis, smoothness, and flavor of baked custards were evalu- ated by an eight membered taste panel using a 7-point rating scale. Data were analyzed for variance, significant differ- ences were determined, and simple correlation coefficients were derived. Analysis of custard attributes Replicate averages for egg processes, egg process means for a particular end-point temperature range, egg process conglomerate averages, as well as standard deviations for the subjective evaluation of custard attributes are included in the Appendix. The mean scores were subjected to a three—way analysis of variance. Significant data were persued further using the Studentized Multiple Range Test (Duncan, 1957) to determine significant differences which could be attributed to egg process or a combination of egg process and end temper- ature . Crust tenderness. Analysis of variance for the sensory evalu- ation of crust tenderness (Table 10) indicated a highly sig- nificant difference among custards prepared with frozen, freeze-, spray-, and foam-sprayudried eggs. Comparisons of 61 .SDHHHQMQOHQ mo Ho>ma ucmo umm H.o mnu um HGMUHMHGmHm*** .Muflaflnmnoum mo Ha>ma undo mom a any we DGMUHMHCmHm** .SDHHHQMQOHQ mo Ha>oa undo Ham m asp um unmoHMHcmHm* mm.o mfi.o mo.o mm.o aa.o mm.o mm uouum mm.o mm.o do.o am.o No.0 ma.o m Em x mm *mm.a am.o ***ma.o ***ao.maa oo.o oa.o a ousumuoosaa 8cm sm.o ***mo.m *mfi.o wo.a esmm.o stemm.m m mmmooum mom mo.o om.o **mfi.o om.fi ed.o om.o m COHumoflammm we Hopoe Ho>mHm mmoQSUOOEm mflmmuashm mmmCEuflm HOHOO unsuo Eooaaum doomeum> mmumnom and: mo mmmnmao mo mousom .mouonfluuum Unmumso mo COHumsam>m m>flpommflom on“ do women annumummaau usaomiosm one mmmooum mom mo poomma mzu msflcflfiumumo Mom mUGMHum> mo memhamcd .Ofi wanes 62 the egg processes (Table 11) revealed that at the 0.1 per cent level of probability the crusts of custards prepared with foam-sprayadried eggs were preferred over the crusts of custards prepared with freeze-dried eggs. At the 1 per cent level of probability the foam—spray-dried, spray-dried, and frozen egg custard crusts were not significantly different, however, they were all considered more tender than the crusts of the custards prepared with freeze—dried eggs. When egg processes and end temperature were considered independently (Table 12), the crusts of the foam-spray-dried egg custards baked to the low temperature range were more tender (at the 5 per cent level of probability) than gels prepared with freeze—dried eggs baked to the low temperature range. The crusts of the custards prepared with foam-spray-dried, frozen, and spray—dried eggs baked to the high temperature range were more tender than gels prepared with freeze-dried eggs baked to the same temperature range (0.1 per cent level of prob- ability). Additional differences among the crusts of the custards at the lower levels of probability are illustrated in Table 12. End point temperature did not have a significant effect on any of the values. Inside color. Analysis of color data (Table 10) showed highly significant differences which could be attributed directly to the type of egg used. Analysis of the conglomerate egg pro- cesses and end temperature means (Table 11), indicated that the color of frozen egg custards was preferred over the color .moumumso mom omfluoimmummifimom mauocmo me .moumumoo mom omfluoihmumm mmuocmo Om .moumumoo moo omfluolmummum monosoo om .moumumoo mom canoum mauosmo Noum Q .Abmma .cmocoov mocmumm Iwflo DCMOHMHcmHm on monocmo OQHCHHHoUCD .BOHHOM pogo amonu soap umummum mauQMUHMHcmHmm 63 oommlaonohmlmm ocoz mcoz muoumquEoH mcoz msoz msoz mmmooum mom Ho>mHm msoz mcoz mGOZ whoumumafime 0mm am om Nonm Qmm om om Noam 0mm Om om Noum mmmooum mom mmmceuooEm oommifionokmumm oommnHonokmnmm oommnaonOAmumm ausumumosoe 0mm om mm om ocoz mqoz mwaooum mom mammumchm oommiaonokmimm OCOZ oommleonokmlmm wsoz oommuemmookmimm acoz mnoumumafioa mmmooum mom rumcouum Hoe mcoz Qmm om Qm Noum msoz th Om Om NOHm msoz 0mm Om Om Noum eunumquEmB mmmooum mom HOHOO oonGH mcoz Om NOHm Om Qmm Ho>®HIRm mcoz asoz Om NOHm Qm 0mm Hm>ms es Om NOHm Om 90mm Hm>ms eu.o M mocmquMHo DQMUHwflcmHm auoumuamEaB mmmooum mom oozeaum> mo mouoom mmasuaocme Dunno “Mom moumomso mo coaumsHm>m o>auomm .mocmu eunuouomfimu ocm mmmooum mom wo mommum>m mumuoEOHmcoo How we“: oumumso mo coflumsam>a whomcmm Op msflumaau muouomm How mmocoumwmao uGMOamacmam i/Bg QHHD . . pm HH. manHmrH. A: 6 .moumumso mmm omfluolhmumm mmuoamo Qm .mououmso mom omfluolmmnmmIEmOM monocao Qmm .moumumso mom omduolauamum mmuocmo om .moumumoo mom sonoum mauosmo Noun 9 .musumummfimu Use m5mum> mmmooum wo mCOHuMGHQEOU Mom mmpdflauuum pneumoo mo ma mu0mswm ou mafiumaou mHODUMM Mow moosoummwflo DCMUHMHcmHm pom mammE usmEumauB .Ammma .smocoov manomoflMHanm Hammao no: new mafia moo kn omcflofl wommoooum .BOHHOM umnu mmoeu can“ umummum maucmoflmecmflmm om omm om Noum acoz ocoz o.m a.m >.m >.m wmlmm mmoszuoofim oonm omANoum on GM 9mm Noum o.m m.m m.w m.m mmifim Dmm om QmANOHm ocoz anoz «.m m.® m.m m.w wmlmw Hoaoo aonCH acoz msoz msoz m.m ¢.m w.m m.w mmifim Nouonm ocoz as none om omm o.m o.m m.m m.a kwumm mmoauooaae uwouo om om Noum 0mm ocoz ocoz >.w o.m N.¢ m.¢ mmlam Ho>aa Ha>aH em am Re um Ho>aa ea.o as am own as nuoum moov HMCOHuaoom HMCOHDHUU¢ . Ema MmoocmHoMMHo DCMUAMHGmHm magma quEumouB pom Houomm oaua .. .3 Wfinflmvrfi 65 of custards prepared with spray-dried, freeze—dried, and foam- spray-dried eggs (0.1 per cent level of probability). There were no significant differences among the color of custards prepared with dehydrated eggs. Analysis of the color of the gels prepared with the processed eggs baked to the two temperature ranges (Table 12) indicated that the only signif- icant difference detected by the panel members was between the frozen and dehydrated egg custards baked to the high temperature range (5 per cent level of probability). This e; l. (1959) who finding seems to be in agreement with Kline reported that the color of spray—dried eggs was altered because of glucose-protein interactions and oxidative de- struction of the carotenoid pigment. The results of the sensory evaluations for inside color of the custards is also in agreement with Miller §£_al. (1959a) who reported that spray-dried egg custards were significantly different from frozen egg custards: however, the color of the spray-dried egg custards used in this investigation were not objection- able as were those reported by Miller gt El: (1959a). All custards received mean color scores of 6.3 or over. The findings are also in disagreement with Mastic (1959) who re— ported no significant difference between the color of spray- dried and frozen egg custards. Eflgl strength. Analysis of variance for gel strength (Table :10) revealed a significant difference in gel strength which CCNdld be attributed to end—point temperature range. Gels 66 baked to the internal temperature of 85-87OC were signifi- cantly firmer (at the 0.1 per cent level of probability) than custards baked to the temperature of 81-83OC. Egg process was not found to produce a significant difference in the gel strength of the custards. This finding is in agreement with Ary and Jordan (1945), Dawson_e£_al. (1945), and Schlosser gt El. (1961). It is in disagreement with the work of Miller .EE.él° (1959a) who found that spray—dried egg custards baked o . . to 86-88 C were objectionably softer than those custards pre- pared with frozen eggs. Syneresis. Analysis of variance for syneresis (Table 10) in- dicated that there were significant differences which could be attributed to replications, egg processes, and end temper- ature ranges (1, 5, and 0.1 per cent level of probability respectively). When conglomerate averages for egg process and end temperature were considered (Table 11), foam-spray- dried eggs produced a less stable gel structure (5 per cent level of probability) than gels prepared with the other types of processed eggs. There were no significant differences among egg processes when the custards were examined at each temperature range. Gels baked to the end temperature range of 81-83OC produced significantly greater amounts of syneresis than gels baked to the temperature range of 85—87OC. This finding is contrary to the accepted phenomenon regarding the Eiffect of end temperature on syneresis. It was evident from tile evaluations that some judges were referring to syneresis IWhen there was in fact only a partial gel formed. 67 Smoothness. Analysis of variance for smoothness (Table 10) of custards indicated that egg process was responsible for a highly significant difference. The analysis of conglomerate averages for egg process and end temperature (Table 11) re- vealed that frozen and freeze—dried egg custards were con- sidered smoother than Spray—dried egg custards (0.1 and 5 per cent level of probability respectively). When smoothness of custards was considered for combinations of the egg processes at the low temperature range (Table 12), the consistency of frozen egg custards was preferred over the consistency of freeze- and spray-dried egg custards (0.1 per cent level of probability). Frozen egg custards were smoother than spray- dried egg custards and spray-dried egg custards were smoother than freeze—dried egg custards (1 and 5 per cent level of probability respectively). At the high temperature range frozen and freeze-dried egg custards were not considered sig- nificantly different in smoothness (Table 12), however, they were considered smoother than custards prepared with foam— spray- and spray-dried eggs (5 per cent level of probability). Flavor, No significant difference in flavor was attributed to egg process (Table 10). However, at the 5 per cent level of probability, custards baked to the high temperature range were judged superior to the flavor of those custards baked to the low range. Custards baked to the low temperature range ‘were often reported as being sweeter than those custards baked to the high temperature range. Carr and Trout (1942) reported 68 similar comments and postulated that the custards tasted sweeter because the sugar was concentrated in the liquid phase. Custards were often described as having a foreign un— pleasant flavor which left somewhat of an aftertaste in the mouth. Increased flavor scores with increased internal temp- erature would indicate that a browning reaction was not re- sponsible for this flavor. All eggs contained added dextrins in the form of corn sirup solids and it may have been this substance that was responsible for the objectionable flavor. Flavorings were omitted in the formula and may have been in part responsible for the objectionable flavor. The equality among the flavors of spray-dried and frozen egg custards is in agreement with Jordan and Sisson (1943) and Dawson §£_al. (1945). The flavor scores are in disagreement with Bennion t al, (1959a) who reported the .-—.— .§£._l- (1942) and Miller flavor of spray—dried egg custards to be more objectionable than the flavor of frozen egg custards; and Kelly__ttal. (1962) who found that the flavor of spray-dried egg custards was superior to the flavor of frozen egg custards. Correlations between custard attributes Significant correlation coefficients between custard attributes are included in Table 13. A highly significant positive correlation existed between syneresis and gel strength evaluations (1 per cent level of probability). This indicated ‘that syneresis scores increased as the sensory evaluation of 69 .wuflaflflmnoum mo Hm>ma Demo Ham a.o mSp um useoamacmflme** .mufiaflnmfloum mo Hm>ma Demo Ham H any on pomoHMHcmHmst .wnHHHanoum wo Hm>oa pomu Ham 0 men an ucmoamecmflme ***em.o Ho>mHm sswm.o exwm.01 mmacnuoofim *ewm.o *mN.OI mflmmumcmm ...am.o ..km.o sumzmuum Haw **mm.o HOHOU oonCH **mm.OI *mm.OI mmmoumocme umouo Lumowuum HOHOU mmmouwocme uo>mHm mmmGSDOOEm mammuoohm Haw aonsH umouo mmquHHuud pneumoo an "IIII .coflumoam>m w>auomnflom omumoam>o mononfluuum oumomoo How mpomaoflmmmoo coaumamuuoo pomoflmflomflm .MH GHQME 70 gel strength increased. Although this is contrary to litera— ture, it seems to substantiate the fact that the judges were not all defining syneresis correctly. A positive correlation existed between gel strength and flavor and between color and smoothness, whereas a negative correlation existed be- tween crust tenderness and smoothness (0.1, 1, and 1 per cent level of probability respectively). Flavor scores increased as gel strength values increased. Similarly color scores in- creased as smoothness scores increased. It is hard to de- termine whether these correlations resulted because of actual differences or whether they more accurately illustrate a "halo effect.” The correlation between crust tenderness and smoothness is logical since smoothness scores increased with increased temperatures whereas the crust tenderness would very likely become tougher with increased baking time. Analysis of taste panel member data To determine variations among the scoring of judges, sensory data for custard attributes were subjected to four- way analyses of variance (Table 14). These analyses indicat- ed highly significant differences which could be attributed to egg process, temperature, and judges, as well as an inter- action between these factors. The same general trends held true for egg process and end temperature as those described for the three-way analyses of variance. The conglomerate averages for the custard attributes as evaluated by the .spflseomnoua mo Hm>ma ucmo has a.o ago an acmoauflcmflm*** .mUHHHQMQOHm mo Hm>ma homo Ham H an“ no DCMUHMHcmHm** .muHHHQonum mo Hm>oa uomo Ham m we» um pomoflmeamflm* 71 om.a mo.fi mm.o mm.a mm.o mm.a mam uouum om.m am.a Hm.o om.a mm.o mk.o am omega x em x mm mm.m mm.a Hm.m *eaa.oa aa.a om.m a amese N am oa.a om.o md.a Om.m mm.o am.a am amaze x mm ***om.ks **.ko.ma **.mm.k mk.m **.mm.ae .mm.m k amuse mm.a om.m oa.km ***mm-ma ma.o mm.a a em x mm oo.m *.ao.ma **.ao.mm ...mm.mmm No.0 em.m a musumumosme ecu km.m *..mm.ma *.Ind.mm *..mm.ma .*mo.a **Imo.mm m mmmooum mmm ko.m mm.o *mk.m *am.e mfi.a aa.a m coflumoflaoom mmm Hence Ho>mHm mmosnuooEm mamaumohm mmmoEHHm Hoaoo pmouo Eoommum manoeum> mammoom owoz mo maaumoo mo mouoom .mamoom macaw manomquMHo ucmoflwflcmfim moHoHEHmuoo How moomanm> wo momhamcfi .ma manna 72 various judges are included in Table 15. The results of this table indicated that there was not any one judge evaluating at the extreme ranges for all characteristics, however, vari- ations among judges existed for all factors. A significant interaction between judges and end temperature as well as a significant difference among replications seemed to indicate that some judges preferred firmer gel structures than others, however, not consistently. These results would invalidate the significant differences among the gel strengths of the custards which were attributed to egg process in the four-way analysis of variance. Significant differences among repli- cations as well as for judges in the four-way analysis of variance seemed to further substantiate that the syneresis scores were unreliable. The lack of significant differences among replications and interactions for crust tenderness, inside color, smoothness, and flavor attributes seemed to justify the results of the three-way analyses of variance for these factors. Even though a judge might lower a mean score, for example, taste panel member 1 who rated the flavor of the custards significantly more objectionable than all other members (0.1 per cent level of probability), significant dif- ferences among processes would not be affected. The analyses of variance incorporating replicate averages for each taste panel member has not been reported in literature, however, it seems to have potential for giving insight into the reliability of the judges, and thus the validity of the sensory data ob— tained. 73 .momomn auoumuamaau uceomlosa OBu any on omxmn moumumoo mom oommaooum mo mmmxp Hsom map How momma mumuoEOHmcoo .aoooh mEmm any ou moeuuowon mmmsao umuuaa HmHooHyumm m Imam umwmeo Doc oHo mafia moo ha omoflon memo: .mnmuumH >9 omflweucmofi mum maooob .Aemmfi .omocoov mausmoflmec .3oaaom page amoeu smog Haummum MHuCMUAMHGonm U Q m.m m.e m.¢ o.m d.m H.m w.m m.m cmaz a o m m o o m m muflazaeH ameze .>UHHAQMQOHQ mo Hm>aa uooo Mom «.0 one we uo>mfiw mo coeumsam>o m>HuomflQSm m.w m.¢ H.m N.m ¢.m m.m m.m m.m one: o m o o m a m m suezzaeH amoze .huHHHQmQOHm mo Ho>ma Demo Ham «.0 one um mmoonuoofim mo coeumsHm>m m>euomnflom m.m m 0 d D U h m m.a zaaz m maeazaeH ameze m0 soeuosam>o m>epoaflflsm .hpflaegmnoum mo Hm>ma Demo mom a one um numcmnpm Ham m.m gmmz m saazzaeH amaze mo goeuooao>a m>euoaflnsm w.m m.m m.m m.w m.© m.w 0.5 o.m smaz m m m o o a m o mufluzaeH amoze .muflaflflmnoum mo Hm>mH ucmo Ham a.o one we MOHOU mo coeumsam>o m>euomh95m H.¢ w.e m.e m.¢ e.¢ m.e m.e o.m oomaz ¢ o m U m m o m QhueuomoH moose .wuHHHQmQOHm wo Ho>oH unmu Ham m one we mmocumocou umouo mo ooeumoam>a m>flpomhflom oumumoo ooflumsfim>a memosh mcoEm w moooauowwao pomonecmam one momma oumuoEOHmooo .mousflauuum .ma mHQMB 74 Objective Evaluation of Gel Strength Objective evaluation of the gel strength of custards was determined by the Allo-Kramer shear press and by computing the percentage drainage. The gel strength of baked slurries (sugar omitted) was ascertained solely by the shear press. Data were analyzed for variance, significant differences were derived, and correlation coefficients were calculated. Objective evaluation of gel strength for baked custards Replicate averages for egg processes, egg process means for a particular end-point temperature range, egg process con— glomerate averages, as well as standard deviations for the objective evaluation of gel strength are included in the Appendix. The mean scores were subjected to a three-way analysis of variance and significant differences which could be attributed to egg process were determined by the Student- ized Multiple Range Test (Duncan, 1957). Shear press measurements of gel strength for baked custards. The shear press was used to determine both the number of pounds required to shear through the gel and area-under-the- curve (cma). A typical shear press graph illustrated in Figure 3 depicts the three defined peaks which are referred to as Peak I, II, and III respectively. Endres (1965) postu- lated that peak I was the force needed to shear through the crust; peak II represented the force required to shear through 75 the gel structure; peak III represented the force created by the increase in surface area exposed as the fixed blades penetrated the gel; whereas area-under-the-curve was a composite representation of gel strength. “III Figure 5. Typical shear press graph illustrating the three defined peaks. Analyses of variance for gel strength measured by maxi- mum force (peak I, II, III) and area-under-the-curve are in- cluded in Table 16. Highly significant differences were determined for both egg process and end-point temperature range. Comparison of the egg process means for gel strength (Table 17) revealed complete agreement among all measurements. Freeze—dried egg gels were significantly firmer than frozen egg gels (0.1 per cent level of probability) which in turn were firmer than foam-spray—dried egg gels (1 per cent level of probability). Foam-spray- and spray-dried egg custards were not significantly different in gel strength. In addition significantly firmer gels were produced at the high tempera- ture range over those formed at the low temperature range. The gels prepared with the four types of processed eggs were 76 Table 16. Analyses of variance for determining the effect of egg process and end—point temperature range on the shear press evaluation of gel strength. Source of Degrees Mean Squares Variance of Freedom Peak I Peak II Peak III Area Total 47 Replication 5 0.18 0.05 0.28 1.24 Egg Process 5 5.92*** 1.29*** 5.79*** 22.87*** Temperature 1 21.61*** 7.18*** 25.58*** 11S.65*** EP X ET 5 0.15 0.05 0.46 0.56 Error 35 0.11 0.04 0.31 0.80 ***Significant at the 0.1 per cent level of probability. divided into the independent end-point temperature ranges and were again analyzed for significant differences (Table 18). Endres (1965) postulated that it was the peak II value that was the measure of gel strength per se and area—under-the— curve which was a composite representation of gel strength. Therefore, further discussion of gel strength will be limited to these two factors, although differences in the Peak I and PeAk III values may be obtained from Table 18. The shear press peak II values indicated the following significant differences among custards prepared with the four types of processed eggs baked to the two end—point tempera- ture ranges of 81-850C and 85-87OC. Freeze—dried egg cus- tards baked to the high temperature range were significantly v -1e 77 .mpnmumso mmm Umeuplhmumm wmuocmo Om .mouMDmso mmm UmflnplhmummIEmOM mmuocmp 0mm .mpumumso mmm cmNoum mmuocmp Noum .mpumumzo mmm Umfluplmwmmuw mwuocmp Om Q .Ammma .cmocsov BOHHOM umzu mmonu can» Hmumoum hauGMUAMHCmHmm mmIHmAnmlmw mmnfimAbmlmm mmlamAmmlmm omuommANouonm anQmmANOHmAQm QmHQmmANOHMAQm ouswmnmmEmH mmmoonm mom ®>H30 umculumpcssmmud mmmum Hmmzm mmlfimAmwlmm QmHQmMANOHmAQm mmldmAnmlmm QmHQmmANOHmAQm mwiamAwmlmm QmHQmmHNOHMAQm mmsumquEmB mmmooum mom memos HHH xmmm mmmum Hmmzm mmndmAnmlmw QmHQmMANOHmAQh meHmAnmlmm QmHQmMANOHmAQm mwlfimAwmlmm omnommuuouonm musumummEmB mmooosm mom @UHOW HH Mmmm mmmum Hmmfim mmldmAhmlmm QmHQmmANOHmAQm mmlfimAmmlmm QmHQmMANOHmAQm mmIHmAwmlmm QmHQmmHNOHhAQQm OHDUMHOQEmB mmmooum mom mouom H Moon mmmum Hmmnm Hm>ma ucmo Hmm m Hm>ma ucmo mom a Hm>ma ucmo mom H.O moocoumMMHQ MGMUHchmfim mUGMHum> mo mousom UQQEGHDWMTZ m>euumfino .moumumso Umxmfl sow mmcmu mudpmummamp pom mmoooum moo mo mommum>m mumumEoncoo How Lumcmuum Hmm mo coeumsHm>m momma ummcm mzu 0p mcaumHmu muouomm Mow mmocmquMHp ucmoHMHcmHm .ma magma 78 N.fi m.fi m.fi O.N O.N N.N m.N >.N .muflaflnmfloum mo Hm>ma ucmo mom m mgu pm numcmupm Hmm mo coaumsam>m HH xmmm mmmum Hmmzm N.H m.d m.H O.N O.N N.N m.m >.N .mufiaflnmnoum mo Hm>mH ucoo mom a msu pm Sumcmuum Hmm mo COHumsam>m HH xmmm mmmsm ummflm m.fi m.a m.a O.N o.m N.m m.m >.m .huflaflnmnoum mo Hm>ma ucmo Mom «.0 mzu um Lumcmupm Hmm mo coaumzam>o HH xmmm mmmum smogm N.fi ¢.fi ®.H m.m m.N ©.N N.m m.m .wuHHHQMQonm mo Hm>ma ucmo mom m mnu um numcmupm Hmm mo COHDMSHm>m H xmmm mmwum ummsm l0 N.fi ¢.H m.d m.m m.N ®.N N.m m. .mpflaflflmfloum mo Hm>ma pcoo mom a ong um npmcmuum Hmm mo coflumsam>m H xmmm mmmum Hmmgm N.H ¢.H m.d m.m m.N m.N N.m m.m .hueaflnmflonm mo Hm>ma ucmo Mom «.0 m£p um Lumcmuum Hmm wo COHum5am>m H Mmmm mmmum Hmmnm Om Qmm NOHm Gm Om Qmm Noum Om commuem . UORmumm .musumuomfiou paw cam wmmooum mom on popsnaupum mfl fiasco EUAQS Qumcmuum H00 mo mammEmusmmmE mmmum utwnm on mCHumHmu mMODUMM How mmmocmummmep ucmoawflcmflm pcm mcmoE ucmEummuE .ma oaQMB 79 .mpumwwso mmm Umfluplhmumm mwuoamo Om .mpumumso mom Umfluo hmummIEmom mmuocmp 0mm .mpumumso 00m cmmoum mmuocmp Noum .mpumwmso mom Umfluolmmmmum Umuocmo Om Q .Ammmd .cmocsov ucoanMflU maucmoHMHcmflm Doc mum mafia mEMm mnp >9 pmuoomumpc: mammzm 0.¢ m.¢ n.m 5.0 0.> m.> 0.0 $.0a .sueeenmpoue mo Hm>ma ucmo son m map um zumcmuum Hmm mo ucmEmnomme m>uzoimLUIHmUCSImwud mmmum ummzm 0.4 m.w v.0 >.0 0.> m.> 0.0 «.0a .sp.ewemeora mo Hm>ma ucmo won a onp um Sumswuum Hmm mo usmEmHSmmmE o>uso mLDIHmUQSImmu¢ mmmnm ummzm 0.w m.w >.m 5.0 0.5 N.> 0.0 $.0fi .mueeenmeoue mo Hm>mH usmo mom d.0 or» um numcmuum Hmm Mo ucmEmHSmmmE o>usolm£uruooc:!mmnm mmmum umem 0.N N.N >.m N.m N.m ¢.m N.¢ H.m .thHHQMQOHm wo Hw>ma ucmu mom m map um zumcmuum Hmm mo coeumsam>m HHH xmmm mmmum ummzm 0.N m.m >.N m.m m.m ¢.m m.¢ a.m .muflHHQMQoum mo Hw>ma Dame mom a mg“ um numcmuuw Hmm mo coaumsam>m HHH xmmm mmmum ummsm o.m m.m e.m m.m N.m «4m m.e e.m .>UHAHQMQOHQ MO H®>®H #Cmu Hmm d-o OLD um £pmcmuuw Hmm MO Coflumsam>m HHH Mmmm mmmum Mmmgm 80 firmer than all other custards (1 per cent level of probabil- ity). Frozen, foam-spray-dried, and spray-dried egg custards baked to the high temperature range were considered equal in firmness,whereas spray-dried egg custards baked to the high temperature range and freezendried and frozen egg custards baked to the low temperature range were significantly firmer than foam-spray- and spray-dried egg custards baked to the low temperature range (0.1 per cent level of probability). Significant differences determined by the area-under-the— curve were similar to those found by the force required to shear through the gel. Freeze-dried egg custards baked to the high temperature range were significantly firmer than frozen egg custards baked to the same temperature range (1 per cent level of probability). Freeze-dried egg custards at the high temperature range and frozen egg custards at the same range were significantly firmer than all other custards (0.1 and 1 per cent level of probability respectively). Foam- spray- and spray-dried egg custards baked to the high temper— ature range were considered equal in firmness to freezendried and frozen egg custards baked to the low temperature range. Freeze-dried and frozen egg custards at the low temperature range were not significantly different, however, they were significantly firmer than custards prepared with foam-spray- and spray-dried eggs (0.1 and 5 per cent level of probability respectively). 81 The weaker gel structures produced by spray-dried eggs as well as the equality in gel structures between spray- dried egg custards baked to the high temperature range and frozen egg custards, baked to the low temperature range sub- stantiates the work of Miller_et_al. (1959a). However, the results are in sharp disagreement with the work of Ary and Jordan (1945), Dawson _t__l. (1945), and Schlossler E£.§l° (1961). Zabik and Figa (1967) found that frozen egg slurries (sugar omitted) were firmest with the rest of the processes in decreasing order as follows: freeze-dried, spray-dried, and foam-spray-dried. Therefore, to determine the effect of sugar on the coagulating properties of the processed eggs, six replications of a custard formula was prepared omitting sugar. Percentage drainage of baked custards. Analysis of variance for percentage drainage (Table 19) revealed a highly signifi— cant difference (0.1 per cent level of probability) which could be attributed to end-point temperature range. Custards baked to 81-850C had a higher percentage drainage than cus- tards baked to 85-87OC. The reason for this finding which is contradictory to that reported in the literature is that when no gel or only a partial gel was formed, the liquid passed through the wire screen. Thus at the low temperature range syneresis determination was actually a measure of gel formation rather than the separation of the two phases of a previously formed gel. Miller gt al, (1959a), Garlick (1964), 82 Table 19. Analysis of variance for determining the effect of egg process and end temperature on percentage drainage. Source of Degrees of Mean Squares Variance Freedom Total 47 Replication 5 276.51 Egg Process 5 125.48 End Temperature 1 4687.07*** EP X ET 3 80.05 Error 55 237.86 ***Significant at the 0.1 per cent level of probability. and Endres (1965) experienced similar difficulties with this method, thus concluding that it was not a true measure of syneresis. Correlations between objective and subjective evaluations for gel strength of baked custards Significant correlation coefficients among the shear press values and sensory evaluation of gel strength are in— cluded in Table 20. Highly significant positive correlations existed among all shear press measurements as well as with the sensory evaluation of gel strength (0.1 per cent level of probability). These results indicate that all shear press values are excellent determinants of the gel strength of baked custards. Endres (1965) reported similarly high correlations 85 .sueaenmeoue mo Hm>me ucmo “we e.o map um “cavemecmem*** .sueaenmnoue mo Hm>mH “emu ewe H may um ucmoflmflamem** .muHHHanoum Ho Hm>mH ugmu mom m map um ugmoflchmHm* mHmmumcwm **O>m.l *OmN.I **m¢m.l *Nmm.! **dmm.i ***mhm.! lummu NHHomcmm mmmCEHHH *.oHM.- ***mme. .**mmm. ***mme. *.*eee. lemme seomcmm pmsuo *Omm. ***Nm¢.l ***mmw.l ***¢hm.l ***fiw¢.l lumwu whomcmm . mmu< **mwm.l ***mm®. ***mmd.l ***me. ***mmm. ***>mm. mmmum HMOSm HHH xmmm *Nnm.l ***©mm. ***mm¢.l ***O¢m. ***mmm. ***mmm. mmmum Hmmfim HH xmmm **¢mm.l ***Nm©. ***¢wm.l ***mmm. ***mmm. ***mmm. mmwhm Hmmflm H xmmm ***m>m.l ***HH>. ***d¢d.l ***>®m. ***mmm. ***mmm. mmmum Hmmflm mHmmumc%m mmmcEHHm umsuo mmufi HHH xmmm HH xmmm H xmmm umme lummB lumma mwmum mmmsm mmmum mmmum huomcmm muowsmm whomgmm Hmmsm ummzm Hmmnm Hmmnm musmEmusmmoE hnomcmm 0cm mucmEmHSmmmE mmmum Hmozw mcosm .numcmuum Hmm Ho mCOHumsz>m mucmfloflwmmoo coauMHmunou ucmoHHHgmHm .0m mHQMB 84 among all shear press measurements for the evaluation of egg— milk slurries. The negative correlations among the shear press values and the sensory evaluation of syneresis further substantiates the fact that the judges were not defining syneresis correctly. There were high negative correlations (0.1 per cent level of probability) among all shear press values and crust tenderness. This indicated that crust ten- derness scores decreased as the shear press values increased. Endres (1965) postulated that Peak I was the force required to shear the crust. This investigation revealed that the character of the crust also affected the peak III values. The increased force required to penetrate through the tougher crusts seemed to push the gel out of the pan with very little of the gel going between the blades, whereas with the more tender crusts the blades more easily penetrated the crust and the blades penetrated the gel. Shear press evaluation of gels containing and omitting sugar Replicate averages for egg processes, egg process means for gels baked to 85-87OC containing and omitting sugar, egg process conglomerate averages, as well as standard deviations for the objective evaluation of gel strength are included in the Appendix. The mean scores were subjected to three-way analyses of variance and significant differences which could be attributed to egg process or an interaction between egg process and sugar were determined by the Studentized Multiple Range Test (Duncan, 1957). 85 Analyses of variance for gel strength measured by maximum force (peak I, II, III) and area-under-the-curve are included in Table 21. All measurements revealed highly significant differences among egg processes as well as an interaction between egg processes and sugar. Sugar was found to have a significant (0.1 per cent level of probability) effect on peak II and peak III values only. The gels prepared with the four types of processed eggs were analyzed for significant differences for conglomerate averages of egg processes with and without sugar (Table 22). Table 21. Analysis of variance to determine the effect of sugar on the shear press evaluation of gel strength. Source of Degrees Mean Squares Variance of Freedom Peak I Peak II Peak III Area Total 47 Replications 5 0.12 0.02 0.26 1.05 Egg Process 5 5.44*** 0.74*** 4.24*** 16.68*** Sugar 1 0.15 0.24*** 5.64*** 0.12 EP X Sugar 5 0.55** 0.15*** 1.11** 2.57** Error 55 0.08 0.02 0.25 0.45 **Significant at the 1 per cent level of probability. ***Significant at the 0.1 per cent level of probability. The shear press peak II values for the processed egg gels containing and omitting sugar are included in Table 25. 86 lumHHHU unmoHHHGmHm on mmuocmo mGHgHHHmUQD .mpumumso 00m Umfluplhmumm monocmp Om .mUHmymso 00m Umflup mammmIEmom mmpocmp 0mm .mUHmumso 00m :mNOHH mmuocmp Noum .mpumumso mmm pmfluplmummum mmuogmp 0m .Abmmd Q .Gmocnov mogm .BOHHOH umsu mmosu cmnp Hmummum hHugmoHHHcmHmm mcoz QmAQmMANOHmAQm GCOZ QmHQmmANOHmADm ogoz QmHQmmANOHmAQm Hmmsm mmmoonm 00m ®>H§U umLUIHmUCSImoH¢ mmmum Hmmnm ummsm OZAHmmsm Qm Qmm NOHm Om ummdm OZAHmmom Om Qmm NOHm Qm Hmmsm OZAHmmSm Om Qmm NOHm Om Hmmzm mmmooum mom QUHOW HHH Mmmm mmmnm Hmmnm Hmmsm OZAHmmdm QmAQmmANOHmAQm ummsm OZAHmmsm QmHQmmANOHmHQm Hmmsm OZAummSm QmHthANOHmHQm nmmsm mmmooum 00m MUHOM HH Mmmm mmmhm meflm mgoz QmHQmmANOHmHQm mcoz QmHQmmANOHmHQm maoz QmHQmmANOHmHQQm Hmmsm mmmooum 00m @UHOW H M009 mmmum ummnm Hm>mH ucmo mom m Hm>mH ucmo mom H Hm>mH ucmo Hmm H.0 mmocmumHHHQ ucmoflmflcgflm mUGMHHm> Ho mousom #CQEGHSWNGE m>guomflno .Hmmsm unosuHS mam LUHS mmmooum 00w Ho mm0mum>m mumnmEOHmcoo HOH zumcmuum Hmm Ho COHumsHm>m mmmum ummgm on» on mCHumHoH muonomw How mmocmHmHHHU ucmoHHHcmHm .NN mHQMB 87 .mpumumso mmm Umfluplmmumm mmuocmp Om .mpumumso mmm vmflup mmnmmlEmom mmuocmp 9mm .mpumumso mmm cmuoum mmuogmp Noam .mpumumso mmm UmHHUImNmmuH mmuocmp aha .Ammma .gmocsav ugmummmflp mHucmonHcmHm uog mum mGHH mEmm mnu m9 Umuoomumpgs mammZM m.H H.N H.N N.N m.m m.N ¢.N >.N .muHHHanoum Ho Ho>wH Damn mom m oz“ um numcmuum Hmm Ho COHumsHm>w HH xmmm mmmum Hmmnm m.d H.N H.N N.N m.N m.N $.N >.N .mpHHHanoum Ho Hm>mH ucmo mom H may um numcmnum Hmm Ho QOHuMSHm>m HH xmmm mmmum ummnm m.H H.N H.N N.N m.m m.N ¢.N >.N .%UHHHQonnm Ho Hm>mH ucou mom H.0 on» um Lumcmuum H00 Ho COHumsHm>m HH xmmm mmmum Hmmnm Hmmsm oz ummsm ummsm oz ummsm Hmmsm Hmmsm oz Hmmsm oz Hmmsm Gm Om Qmm 0mm NOHm Oh NOHm Dam .ummgm no mmmooum 00m ou Umusnfluuum on UHzoo QUHQB numcmuvm Hmm Ho DQoEmHSmmmE HH xmmm mmmum Hmmgm How Mmoocmummmflp ucmoHHHcmHm Ugm mammE ucmEummne .mm mHQma 88 Freeze-dried egg custards containing sugar were found to be significantly firmer than those slurries omitting sugar (5 per cent level of probability). The gels prepared with all other types of processed eggs were not significantly affected by the percentage of sugar used in this formula. This finding is in extreme opposition with the reports that sugar decreases the gel strength of custards (Meyer, 1957, Lowe, 1955, and Griswold, 1962). Meyer (1957) was the first investigator reporting the objective evaluation of the gel strength of egg-milk systems. Meyer (1957) found that when 10 per cent sugar was added to a custard formula (2 table- spoon per cup of milk and 1 egg) the gel strength was reduced by half. Lowe (1955) demonstrated similar findings by hold- ing the egg and milk constant and varying the proportion of sugar. It is conceivable from these investigations that the reduced gel structure could have existed from a protein dilu- tion effect. Perhaps sugar acts as a dehydrating agent in egg gels in a manner similar to the way it behaves in starch pastes. Further work in this area is definitely needed to substantiate or disprove the current concepts on the effect of sugar on egg-milk gels. Objective Evaluation of Color Differences in the color of all custards prepared with and without sugar were determined through the use of the Hunter color difference meter. L (lightness), aL (greenness), 89 and bL (yellowness) values were determined and analyzed for variance among processes and end temperature as well as among the egg processes containing and omitting sugar. Replicate averages for egg processes, egg process means for a particular end-point temperature range, egg process con- glomerate averages, as well as standard deviations for all objective evaluation of inside color are included in the Appendix. Color differences among baked custards Analyses of variance for inside color differences measured by the L, a and bL values (Table 24) revealed LI highly significant differences which could be attributed to the processing of eggs as well as to the end temperature. Table 24. Analyses of variance for determining the effect of egg process and end-temperature on the Hunter color difference meter measurements of baked custards. Source of Degrees of Mean Squares Variance Freedom L Values aL Values bL Values Total 47 Replication 5 0.10 0.09 0.15 Egg process 5 5.18*** 0.92*** 4.69*** End temperature 1 2.09*** 0.16 1.01** EP X ET 5 0.56 0.22 0.90 Error 55 0.14 0.10 0.15 **Significant at the 1 per cent level of probability. ***Significant at the 0.1 per cent level of probability. 90 Comparison of the conglomerate egg process means (Table 25) indicated that frozen egg custards were lighter than foam- spray- and spray—dried egg custards, which in turn were lighter than freeze-dried egg custards (0.1 per cent level of probability). Analysis of the aL values indicated that custards prepared with freeze—dried eggs were less green than custards prepared with all other types of eggs (0.1 per cent level of probability). Analysis of the bL values indicated that frozen egg custards were the most yellow with the re- mainder of the processes in decreasing order as follows: freeze-dried, foam-spray-dried, and spray-dried (0.1, 5, 5, and 5 per cent levels of probability respectively). Custards baked to the high temperature range were lighter than cus- tards baked to the low temperature range, whereas custards baked to the low temperature were more yellow than custards baked to the high temperature range. When the color differ- ences were determined among the egg processes for the particu— lar temperature ranges (Table 26), the L values indicated that frozen egg custards baked to the low temperature range were lighter than custards prepared with all other types of processed eggs and baked to the low temperature range (0.1 per cent level of probability). Custards prepared with foam- spray-dried eggs were lighter than custards prepared with freeze-dried eggs (0.1 per cent level of probability). At the high temperature range freeze-dried egg custards were grayer than custards prepared with all other types of 91 .moumumdo mmm omHHUImNmmnm mmuocmp om .moumDmso mmm UmHuolmmumm mmuoamo am .moumumzo mom pmHuplhmummlfimom mmuocwp Qmm .mpumumso mom :mNouH mmuosmp Noum Q .AnmmH .cmocsmv BOHHOH pmau mmozu swap Hmpmmum NHUCMUHHHcmHmm smummAmmuem emummAmmuem mcoz mesumumEEme mmsHm> an HOHGEHHOHOU oonmonmANoem omuommnomANoum omuommunmANoum mmmooum mmm nmuczm mcoz msoz msoz musumummEmB mdem> Hm . HmumEHHOHOU omANoumuomuamm omANoumnomnomm omANoumnomuomm mmmooum mom “muses mmuHmAemumm mmuHmAemumm mmunAsmimm musumnmmsme mmsam> A HmumEHHOHOU oonmuammANoum omAanommANoum oonmnommAauoum mmmooum mmm “mucus Hm>mH usmo mom m Hm>mH usmo mom H Hm>oH ugmo mom H.0 mUGMHHm> usmEmHSmmmz oocmuomHHQ unmoHHHsmHm Ho mousom m>HuomflQO M .mpumumso Umxmfl now mnsumummfimu paw was mmmoonm 00m HOH mommum>m mumnmEOHmcoo mCOEm HOHOU HO mungmHSmmmE umumEHuoHoo Houcsm ou mcHumHmH muouowm How mmogoumHHHU ucmonHsmHm .mN OHQMB 92 ImHm uos mum mCHH mEmm >9 UmcHom mommmooum .mpumamso mom UmHuplmmumw mmuocmp Gm .mpumumso mom UmHuU mmummnfimom mmuosmp 0mm .mpnmumso mom UmHuptmNmmHH mmuocmp Om .mGHMumso 00m smNOHH wmuocmp Noum Q .AemmH .cmocsov ucmummmflw sesamoHMH: .SOHHOH umnu mmosu swap Hmummum mHusmoHHHsmHmm omANoum mcoz om omm om Nous m.mm ©.mm o.mm >.mm smumm mmsHm> an oonmm omANoum om omm om Nous e.mm o.mm m.mm o.em mmnfim umuqsm mcoz mcoz msoz m.mn m.mn m.ml m.mn wmlmw mmSHm> Hm mcoz omAmoum om Nous om omm H.en m.en m.ma m.mu mmsHm umucsm mcoz meoz emAemm om Nome 0.0m m.mm m.mm m.om smumm mmsam> q mcoz mcoz as am ems Nous e.mm m.mm e.mm m.om mmuem ”mucus em u< ea u¢ RH.o u< mm omm om Noum Aoov Hmcngprd HmcoHqupa Q musumummfime mmocmuoHHHp ucmonHsmHm mammE usmfiummua 0cm nouomm M .mwumumso Umxmn CH ousumuwmfimu 0cm momum> mmmooum Ho mcoHumcHQEOU How mosmumHHHp uoHoo Ho mucmEmusmmmE HmumEHuoHoo umuczm on» on mCHuMHmH mucuomw Mow moosmumHHHp unmoHHHsmHm 0cm mamme usmEumouB .mm OHQMB 95 processed eggs (0.1 per cent level of probability). At the low temperature range foam-spray-dried, spray—dried, and frozen egg custards were greener than freeze-dried egg cus- tards (0.1, 1, and 1 per cent level of probability respec- tively). There were no significant differences in the aL values for the custards baked to the high temperature range. Analysis of the bL values at the low temperature range indi— cated that frozen egg custards were more yellow than custards prepared with all other types of eggs (1 per cent level of probability). Freeze—dried and foam-spray-dried egg custards were equally yellow, however, they were more yellow than spray-dried egg custards (0.1 and 5 per cent level of prob- ability respectively). At the high temperature range frozen egg custards were more yellow than freeze-, foam—spray-, and spray—dried egg custards (5, 0.1, and 0.1 per cent level of probability respectively). Correlations among the objective and subjective measure- ments of color Significant correlation coefficients among the Hunter color difference meter and the sensory evaluation of color appear in Table 27. Significant positive correlations existed between the Hunter L values (lightness), aL values (greenness), and bL values (yellowness). This suggests that the greenness and yellowness values increase as the lightness values increase. Endres (1965) reported similar correlations among the Gardner L, a and bL values for egg-milk slurries. The sensory Li 94 Table 27. Significant correlation coefficients among Hunter colorimeter measurements of color and sensory evaluation of color. Measurement Hunter Hunter Hunter Sensory L values aL values bL values test- color Hunter L values .290* .281* .288* Hunter aL values .290* Hunter bL values .281* .505*** Sensory test- color .288* .505*** *Significant at the 5 per cent level of probability. ***Significant at the 0.1 per cent level of probability. evaluation of color correlated with the Hunter L (lightness) and bL (yellowness) values (5 and 0.1 per cent level of prob— ability respectively). This implies that differences in the sensory evaluation of color was determined primarily by yellowness with a lesser consideration for lightness. This further supports the possibility that the carotenoid pigment of egg yolk is altered during the drying processes. Effect of sugar on the color of egg gels Analyses of variance among the Hunter L (lightness), aL (greenness), and bL (yellowness) values (Table 28) revealed highly significant differences which could be attributed to 95 Table 28. Analyses of variance for determining the effect of sugar on the Hunter colorimeter evaluation of color. Source of Degrees of Mean Squares Variance Freedom L Values aL Values bL Values Total 47 Replication 5 0.06 0.10 0.12 Egg process 5 5.44*** 1.01*** 4.05*** Sugar 1 55.18*** 2.72*** 5.55*** EP X ET 5 0.00 0.15 0.22* Error 55 0.52 0.11 0.07 *Significant at the 5 per cent level of probability. ***Significant at the 0.1 per cent level of probability. both egg process and sugar for all values. Comparison of the conglomerate averages for egg process means (Table 29) showed highly significant differences among the L and bL values for the custards. Frozen egg gels were lighter and yellower than gels prepared with all dehydrated eggs (0.1 per cent level of probability). Further differences among the egg processes for the conglomerate averages of the color of the gels at dif- ferent levels of probability can be derived from Table 28. Gels containing sugar were found to be grayer, greener, and more yellow than gels prepared without sugar. When color dif- ferences were determined for the gels prepared with the vari- ous types of processed eggs with and without sugar (Table 50), frozen egg custards containing sugar were the most yellow 96 .mpumumso 00o UmHuUamummuH kuosmp om .mpumumso 00m UmHupummummIEmom monocmp 0mm .mpumumoo mmm Umanlwmumm mmuocmp Om .mpumumsu 00m cmNouH mmuocmp Noum Q .AmmmH .cmocsov BOHHOH pony omonp swap Monmoum wHucmoHHHgmHmm m ummdm OZAummsm Hamsm OZAHmmsm ummsm OZAHmmSm ummsm mmus> HQ .IIIIII umumEHHoHoo om omm om Nous om omm om Nuom om ems om Nous mmmooum mom amazes Hmmsm OZAHmmDm Hmmsm OZAHmmsm Hmmsm OZAHmmsm .Hmmdm mdem> Hm umquHHOHoo Om Qmm Om Noum Om Qmm Om Noum Om Qmm Gm Noum mmmuoum 00m Hmuasm Hmmsm ozvummzm Hmmsm ozvummgm Hmmnm ozvnmmzw Hmmdm mmsHm> A HoumEHuoHoo om omm om Nous om omm om Nous om omm omewoum mmmuoum mmm umuqsm H®>mH Rm Hm>mH RH Hm>®H RH.0 moQMHHm> ungmHSmmmz mucoumHHHo ucmoHHHcmHm Ho monsom m>HuomwQO .mESHdmmou Umme pow Hawsm 0cm mmmooum 00m Ho mommum>m memumEOHmsou mcoEm HOHOU Ho mucmamsjmmmfi umumEHuoHoo umpcgm ou OCHsmHmH muouomm pom mmocmsmHHHU ucmoHHHcmHm .mm mHQMB 97 pos mum mCHH QEMm exp >Q UmsHom mommmooum .mUHmumSU 00m UmHuplmmumm mmuocmp Om .mpumumso 00m UmHuplmmummuEmom mmuocmp Qmm .mpnmumsu 00w UmHHUImNmmHH mmuocmp Om .mpumnmsu 00m smuoum mmuocmo Nonm Q .AmmmH .smossnv ucmanHHo mHugmoHHHcmHm .3OHHOH umzu mmonu cmsg umumoum hHucmoHHHcmHmm mcoz mgoz Om Om QmmANoum 0.NN N.NN 0.NN m.mm Hmmsm oz mmsHm> HQ omonm @202 am omm omANoum «.mm o.mm o.mm e.mm ummsm “means mcoz meoz oonm ems Noam e.mn m.mu e.mn m.mu ummsm oz mmsHm> gm QhAQm 0mm QMANOHM mcoz m.mn m.m| m.mn m.mu Hmmdm Hmucsm mcoz mcoz oonmm om Nous H.mm H.Nm o.Hm m.mm ummsm oz mmsem> q mcoz mcoz oonmonmANoum 0.0m m.mm m.mm m.om ummsm Magnum em um RH um RH.o he om omm om Noum Hmcoepfleee Hmcoflufle©< n mmocmummmHU usmoHHHsmHm momma ucmfiummuH I. Hmmdm Mopomm m .Hmmsm Ho mocmmmum mzu Ho uomwmm may momum> mmoooum Ho mCOHumgHQEoo Mow mocmumHHHp HoHoo Ho mucmeusmmofi ummeHHOHoo uwucsm ecu ou mchmHmu msouomH How mmocoumHHHU osmoHHHgmHm Ucm.msmmE ucmEummuB .Om OHQMH 98 with the rest of the processes in decreasing order as follows: spray-, foam-spray, and freeze—dried egg custards (0.1 per cent level of probability). When sugar was omitted from the formula the rank order of the custards prepared with the various types of eggs was the same, however, there was no sig- nificant difference in lightness values among custards pre- pared with frozen, spray—, and foam-spray dried eggs. They were all grayer than custards prepared with freeze-dried eggs (0.1 per cent level of probability). The bL values indicated that frozen egg custards containing sugar were more yellow than freeze—dried egg custards which in turn were more yellow than foam-spray-dried egg custards (0.1 and 5 per cent level of probability respectively). When sugar was omitted from the formula, frozen egg custards were considered more yellow thantfluadehydrated egg custards (0.1 per cent level of prob— ability). The results of color differences among custards prepared with various types of processed eggs is in disagree— ment with Mastic (1959) who reported no significant difference between the color of spray—dried and frozen egg custards. The effect of sugar on the color of egg_milk gels substantiated the work of Meyer (1957), who reported that sugar increased the translucency of custards. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The primary purpose of this investigation was to deter— mine the effect of foam—spray-, freeze—, and spray-drying of eggs on the color, gel strength, and palatability of baked custards. Of secondary importance was determining the effect of sugar on the coagulating properties of the processed eggs. The experiment was divided into two series: (1) standard custards containing sugar which consisted of eight treatments combining each egg process and the two end-point temperature ranges of 81-85OC and 85-87OC; and (2) egg-milk slurries (sugar omitted) which consisted of four types of processed eggs baked to the end-point temperature range of 85—87OC. All eggs used in this investigation came from a common lot; standardized procedures were utilized in the preparation, bak- ing, and testing of all gels; and all data reported are the average of six replications. Sugar affected the baking time and temperature of the custards. Time-temperature relationships revealed similar heating curves for custards baked with the four types of pro- cessed eggs. Custards prepared with sugar coagulated at a higher temperature and the presence of sugar prolonged the baking time by 5 to 4 minutes. 99 100 Sensory evaluation of the custard attributes were evalu- ated by an eight membered taste panel using a 7-point rating scale. The results of the sensory tests indicated that the crusts of freeze—dried egg custards baked to the low temper- ature range were tougher than the crusts of custards prepared with foam-spray-dried eggs baked to the same temperature range. When the custards were baked to the high temperature range, the crusts of freeze-dried egg custards were tougher than the crusts of custards prepared with all other types of eggs (0.1 per cent level of probability). Sensory evaluation of color revealed that the only significant difference occurred between frozen and the dehydrated egg custards baked to the high end-point temperature range (5 per cent level of prob- ability). There was no significant difference in the sub- jective evaluation of gel strength which could be attributed to egg process, however, gels baked to the internal temperature of 85—87OC were significantly firmer than those baked to 81-85OC (0.1 per cent level of probability). Subjective evalu- ation of syneresis revealed significant differences which could be attributed to replication, egg process, and tempera- ture differences (1, 5, and 0.1 per cent level of probability respectively). Because of the difference among replications and the fact that the custards baked to the high end-point temperature range revealed higher syneresis scores than those baked to the lower temperature range, the results were con- sidered invalid. Smoothness values at the low temperature 101 range indicated that frozen egg custards were smoother than freeze- and spray-dried egg custards (0.1 per cent level of probability). Frozen egg custards were smoother than spray— dried egg custards and spray—dried egg custards were smoother than freeze—dried egg custards (1 and 5 per cent level of probability respectively). At the high temperature range frozen and freeze-dried egg custards were not considered different, however, they were smoother than foam-spray— and spray—dried egg custards (5 per cent level of probability). Analysis of the flavor scores indicated no significant dif- ferences in the flavor of the custards which could be at- tributed to egg process, however, custards baked to 85-87OC were preferred over those custards baked to 81—85OC. Custards were often described as having an objectionable foreign flavor which left somewhat of an aftertaste in the mouth. The most probable explanation for this flavor was the dextrins which were present in all of the eggs. A four-way analysis of vari— ance was used to determine significant differences among the judges evaluating the custards. The results previously re— ported were substantiated by this analysis. The shear press was utilized to determine both the maxi— mum force required to shear the gel structures as well as the composite representation of gel strength. These tests re— vealed similar results for all values as well as extremely high positive correlations between sensory evaluation of gel strength. Freeze-dried egg custards containing sugar were 102 firmer than frozen egg custards which in turn were firmer than foam-spray— and spray-dried egg custards (0.1 per cent level of probability). To determine the effect of sugar on the coagulating properties of the processed eggs, gels con- taining sugar were compared with similar gels omitting sugar. The increase in gel strength of the freeze-dried egg custards containing sugar over the slurries omitting sugar was at— tributed to the presence of sugar. Freeze_dried egg custards were significantly firmer when sugar was contained in the formula “Sper cent level of probability). Sugar did not have a significant effect on the gel strength of the custards pre- pared with the other types of processed eggs. Percentage drainage was computed for all custards con- taining and omitting sugar. The weak gel structures produced at the low temperature range resulted in the mixture passing through the wire screen, invalidating the results. The Hunter color difference meter was utilized to de- termine differences in the color of gels. Analyses of the color data indicated that custards baked to the high tempera— ture range were lighter and less yellow than custards baked to the low range. Frozen egg custards baked to the low temperature range were lighter than custards prepared with all other types of processed eggs (0.1 per cent level of probability). Foam-spray-dried egg custards were also lighter than freeze-dried egg custards (0.1 per cent level of probability). At the high temperature range frozen, 105 foam-spray-dried and spray-dried egg custards baked to the low temperature range were greener than custards made with freeze-dried eggs. At the high temperature range there was no significant differences among the greenness values of the custards. Analysis of the yellowness values of custards re~ vealed that frozen egg custards baked to the low temperature range were more yellow than freeze-dried egg custards baked to the same temperature range (1 per cent level of probability). At the high temperature range frozen egg custards were more yellow than freeze-, foam—, and spray-dried egg custards (5, 0.1, and 0.1 per cent level of probability respectively). Correlation coefficients were determined between sensory evalu- ation of color and the Hunter values. Positive correlations were found between the sensory data and Hunter L and bL values (5 and 0.1 per cent level of probability respectively). The effect of sugar on the color of the custards prepared with the various types of processed eggs was determined by the Hunter colorimeter. When sugar was omitted from the formula the rank order of the slurries prepared with the processed eggs was the same, however, there were no significant differences in lightness and greenness values among the slurries prepared with frozen, spray-, and foam-spray-dried eggs. Slurries prepared with these three types of processed eggs were all grayer and greener than custards prepared with freeze-dried eggs (0.1 per cent level of probability). Frozen egg slurries were more yellow than slurries prepared with the dehydrated eggs (0.1 per cent level of probability). 104 The results of this investigation indicated that all eggs functioned adequately in the coagulation process, although research is needed in the following areas: (1) an investiga~ tion to determine the effect of dextrins on the flavor of protein containing foods; (2) an analysis to determine if the alterations in the carotenoid pigment is reducing the vitamin content of the eggs; (5) a study to determine if the color differences were due to the alteration of the carotenoid pig- ment; (4) a more accurate method for determining percentage drainage; (5) further statistical analyses to determine the effect of variation among judges on the evaluation of food products; (6) an investigation of psychological factors af- fecting the accuracy of judges evaluations; (7) a study to determine the effect of various proportions of sugar on the gel strength of custards prepared with a constant percentage of eggs; and (8) an investigation to determine the effect of percentage solids on the resulting egg-milk gels. LITERATURE CITED Aldrich, P. A. 1967. Information on Sensory Evaluations (Private communication). Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Amato, J. 1965. Information on processing of freeze-dried eggs (Private communication). Armour Grocery Products Company, Bellwood, Illinois. Amerine, M. A., R. M. Pangborn, and E. B. Roessler. 1965. "Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food." Academic Press, New York. Anderson, A. K. 1955. "Essentials of Physiological Chemis- try." John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. AOAC. 1955. "Official Methods of Analysis." 8th ed. Assoc. Offic. Agr. Chemists. Washington, D. C. Ary, J. E. and R. Jordan. 1945. Plain butter cakes and baked custards made from spray-dried whole egg powder. Food Research 19, 476-484. Bedford, C. L 1966. Information on Color Equipment (Private communications). Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Bennion, E. B., J. R. Hawthorne, and E. C. Bate-Smith. 1942. Beating and baking properties of dried egg. J. Soc. Chem. Ind., §_1, 51-56. Berquist, D. 1964. Eggs. In: ”Food Dehydration, Vol. II-- Products and Technology." W. B. VanArsdel and M. J. Copley, eds. The AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, Conn. 652-695. Billmeyer, F. W., Jr. 1965. The precision of spectrophotom- etry as practiced in industry. Color Eng. 5(4), 16-20. Billmeyer, F. W., Jr. 1966. The present and future of in- dustrial color measurement. Color Eng. 4(4), 14-18. Birren, F. 1965. Color and human appetite. Food Technol. .11, 45-57. 105 106 Bittner, B. A. 1954. The effect of various milks on the time-temperature relationships in baking custard, and on the quality of the product. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Blakely, L. and C. M. Stine. Information on foam-spray- drying (Private communication). Michigan State Univer- sity, East Lansing, Michigan. Boggs, M. M. and H. L. Hanson. 1949. Analysis of foods by sensory difference tests. Advances in Food Research, gr 219-258. Bourne, M. C., J. C. Moyer, and D. B. Hand. 1966. Measure- ment of food texture by a universal testing machine. Food Technol. 20, 522-526. Brown, S. J. 1964. Effect of heat treatments on the physical and functional properties of liquid and Spray-dried albumen. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Bunnell, R. H. and J. O. Bauernfeind. 1962. Chemistry, uses, and properties of carotenoids in foods. Food Technol. iér 36-45. Carlson, C. W. 1961. Do you want dark colored egg yolks? Poultry Proc. and Mktg. 61, 14, 55-54. Carr, R. E. and G. M. Trout. 1942. Some cooking qualities of homogenized milk, I. Baked and soft custard. Food Research. 1, 560—569. Chick, H. and C. J. Martin. 1910. On the "heat coagulation" of proteins. J. Physiolo. 49, 404-450. Chick, H. and C. J. Martin. 1912-15. On the "heat coagulation" of proteins. Part III. The influence of alkali upon reaction velocity. J. Physiol. 45, 61-69. Dawson, E. H., D. E. Shank, J. M. Lynn, and E. A. Wood. 1945. Effect of storage on flavor and cooking quality of spray—dried whole egg. U. S. Egg and Poult. Mag. 54, 154-161. Dawson, L. E. 1965. Information on the foam-spray-drying process (Personal communications). Michigan State Uni- versity, East Lansing, Michigan. 107 Deethardt, D. E., L. M. Burrill, and C. W. Carlson. 1965. Quality of sponge cakes made with egg yolk of varying color produced by different food additives. Food Technol. £1 75-77. Duncan, D. B. 1957. Multiple range test for correlations and heteroscedastic means. Biometrics. 45, 164-176. Endres, J. A. 1965. The effect of drying processes on the color and gel strength of baked whole egg and milk slurries. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Feeney, R. E. 1964. Egg Proteins. In: "Symposium on Foods: Proteins and Their Reactions." H. W. Schyltz and A. I. Anglemier, eds. The AVI Publishing Co., Inc., Westport, Conn. Feeney, R., and R. M. Hill. 1960. Protein chemistry and food research. Advances in Food Research. 49, 25-75. Forsythe, R. 1965. Chemical and physical properties of eggs and egg products. Cereal Science Today. _8 (9), 509-510, 512. 528. Garlick, M. E. 1964. Effect of color and flavor modification on the palatibility and gel structure of standard baked custard. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Gorman, J. M. 1965. Information on processing of spray- dried eggs (Private communication). Seymour Foods Com- pany, Topeka, Kansas. Griswold, R. M. 1962. The Experimental Study of Foods." Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. Hanrahan, F. P. and B. H. Webb. 1961. USDA develops foam- spray drying. Food Eng. §§_(8), 57-58. Huggart, R. L., R. W. Barron, and F. W. Wenzel. 1966. Evaluation of Hunter citrus colorimeter for measuring the color of orange joice. Food Technol. .29 (5), 109-111. Huggart, R. L. and F. W. Wenzel. 1955. Color difference of citrus juices and concentrates using the Hunter color difference meter. Food Technol. g, 27-29. Hunterlab Color and Color Difference Meter, Model D—25. (1964). Hunter Association Lab., Inc., Virginia. 108 Jevons, R. R. 1964. Protein carbohydrate complexes. In: "Symposium of Foods: Proteins and Their Reactions.“ H. W. Schultz and A. I. Anglemier, eds. The AVI Pub- lishing Co., Inc., Westport, Conn. 155-165. Jianas, G. G. 1964. Information on packaging of dried eggs (Private communication). Jianas Bros. Candy Company. Kansas City 8, Missouri. Jordan, R., B. N. Luginbill, L. E. Dawson, and C. J. Echterling. 1952. The effect of selected pretreatments upon the culinary qualities of eggs frozen and stored in a home-type freezer. I. Plain cakes and baked custards. Food Research 41, 1-7. Jordan, R. and M. S. Sisson. 1945. Use of spray-dried eggs in baked custards. U. S. Egg and Poult. Mag. 45, 266-269. Judd, D. B. and G. Wyszecki. 1965. "Color in Business Science, and Industry." 2nd ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Kelly, J., J. L. Newcomer, and F. Borsenik. 1962. Freeze- dried whole egg solids, other processed eggs, and fresh eggs. J. Am. Dietet. Assoc. .49, 51-54. Kline, L., J. E. Gregg, and T. T. Sonoda. 1951. Role of glucose in the storage deterioration of whole egg powder. II. A browning reaction involving glucose and cephalin in dried whole egg. Food Technol. 5, 181-187. Kramer, A. 1961. The shear press, a basic tool for the food technologist. The Food Scientist 5, 7-16. Kramer, A. and J. V. Hawbecker. 1966. Measuring and recording rheological properties of gels. Food Technol. 29, 209-215. Kramer, A., R. B. Guyer, and H. P. Rodgers, Jr. 1951. New shear press predicts quality of canned lima beans. Food Eng. 55, 112-115, 187. Kramer, A., E. F. Murphy, A. M. Briant, M. Wang, and M. E. Kirkpatrick. 1961. Studies in taste panel methodology. J. Agr. Food Chem. ‘5, 224. LaBelle, R. L. 1966. Characterization of foams for foam- mat drying. Food Technol. §Q_(8), 89-95. Longree, K., R. Jooste, and J. C. White. 1961. Time- temperature relationships of custards made with whole egg solids. J. Am. Dietet. Assoc. 55, 147-151. Lowe, B. 1952. "Experimental Cookery." lst ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 109 Lowe, B. 1955. "Experimental Cookery." 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. Lowe, F. and G. F. Stewart. 1947. Subjective and objective tests as food research tools. Food Technol. .4, 50-58. MacDougall, M. J. 1955. Cooking qualities of several con- centrations of various types of nonfat dried milk solids. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Mackinney, G. and C. O. Chichester. 1954. The color problem in foods. Advances in Food Research 5, 502-547. MacKinney, G. and A. Little. 1962. "Color in Foods." AVI Publishing Co., Westport, Conn. Macleod, A. L. and E. H. Nason. 1957. "Chemistry and Cookery.” 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. Mallmann,WfllL. 1966. Information on Bacterialanalysis (Personal Communication). Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Mastic, M. 1959. The effect of homogenization on gelation and palatability of baked custards prepared with dried whole egg solids. M. S. Thesis. Michigan State Univer- sity, East Lansing, Michigan. Meyer, B. H. 1956. The gelatinization of egg sols in the presence of electrolytes. M. S. Thesis. University of Illinois. Meyer, L. H. 1960. "Food Chemistry." Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York. Miller, C. and A. R. Winter. 1950. The functional properties and bacterial content of pasteurized and frozen whole eggs. Poultry Sci. 55, 88-97. Miller, G. A., E. M. Jones, and P. J. Aldrich. 1959a. A comparison of the gelation properties and palatability of shell eggs, frozen whole eggs, and whole egg solids in standard baked custard. Food Research g4, 584-594. Miller, G. A., E. M. Jones, and P. J. Aldrich. 1959b. Some factors affecting the dispersibility of whole egg solids in water. Food Research .54, 579-585. 110 Nason, E. H. 1959. "Introduction to Experimental Cookery." McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York. Robinson, W. B., T. Wishnetsky, J. R. Ransford, W. L. Clark, and D. B. Hand. 1952. A study of methods for the measurement of tomato juice color. Food Technol. 5, 269-275. Saltzman, M. and A. M. Keay. 1965. Variables in the Measure- ment of colored samples. Color Eng. 5, 14-19. Scheraga, H. A. 1961. "Protein Structure." Academic Press, New York. Schlosser, G. C., M. March, and E. Dawson. 1961. Flavor and cooking quality of stabilized dried whole egg solids. Poultry Proc. and Mktg. 51, 8-9, 52. Seideman, W. B., O. J. Cotterill, and E. M. Funk. 1965. Factors affecting heat coagulation of egg white. Poultry Sci. 45, 406-417. Slosberg, H. M., H, L. Hanson, G. F. Stewart, and B. Lowe. 1948. Factors influencing the effects of heat treatment on the leavening power of egg white. Poultry Sci. 21, 294-501. Szczesniah, A. S. 1966. Texture measurements. Food Technol. _2_9__ (10), 52, 55-58. Timasheff, S. N. 1964. The nature of interactions in pro- teins derived from milk. In: "Symposium on Foods: Proteins and their Reactions." H. W. Schultz and A. I. Anglemier, eds. The AVI Publishing Company, Inc., Westport, Conn. 179-208. Tinsley, I. J., A. P. Sidewell, and H. F. Cain. 1956. Methods of presenting raspberry and strawberry samples to the Hunter color and color-difference meter. Food Technol. 49, 559-544. Topp, E. B. and M. E. McDivitt. 1965. Effect of heat on curd tension of baked custards. J. A. Dietet. Assoc. 45, 298-501. Watson, J. D. 1965. "Molecular Biology of the Gene." W. A. Benjamin Inc., New York. Wolfe, J. 1966. The effect of various foam-spray-drying processes on the gel strength and color of baked whole egg and milk gels. Unpublished data. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. 111 Zabik, M. E. 1967. Comparison of foam-spray-dried, freeze- dried, frozen, and spray-dried eggs. III. Color and gel strength of baked egg albumen-whole milk and egg yolk-whole milk gels. Unpublished data. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Zabik, M. E. and J. E. Figa. 1967. Comparison of foam-spray— dried, freeze-dried, frozen, and spray-dried eggs. II. Color and gel strength of baked whole egg-milk gels. Unpublished data. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. APPENDIX 112 115 Method of Bacterial Analysis for Egg Samples (Mallmann, 1966) Procedure and materials Five replications of lauryl tryptose broth dilutions were utilized for the determination of the coliform index. After four hours at 550C the total counts were made in a Tryptose glucose agar. Salmonella detection Five grams of egg was added to 50 milliliters of sterile buffered water, 1-10 dilutions. One milliliter of this mix- ture was added to 10 milliliters of selenite brilliant green broth (SBG). This mixture was prepared in triplicate and was incubated for twenty-four hours at 550C. One milliliter of this solution was added to 10 milliliters of tetrathiolate broth (TT). This mixture was similarly allowed to incubate for twenty-four hours at 550C. The remainder of the above 1-10 dilution incubated for three hours at 550C and inocula- tions were made as above into the SBG and TT broths. Incubation smears of all tubes were made into brilliant green agar after forty-eight hours. These cultures were incubated for twenty—four hours at 550C. Suspect salmonella colonies from the above plates were then transferred to lactose broth. If no gas was produced in the lactose broth, inoculations were made into Kleigler's medium. Organisms containing salmonellae were inoculated into urea broth and the salmonella was serotyped for grouping. 114 You will be provided with a schedule of times and dates of taste panels. Your samples will be on trays bearing your name and will be kept in the refrigerator in Room 110. You will be assigned a desk to evaluate the samples and are asked to always use the same place. Please refrain from smoking, eating, or drinking for 1/2 hour prior to evaluation. Please do not give any facial or verbal expressions as you evaluate your products. The samples are coded with random numbers and are presented in a randomized fashion. Each sample is to be evaluated on a separate score sheet using a 7-point scale. A score of 7 being the highest to be given. Seven attributes are to be judged. Descriptive terms for the scores of 7, 4, and 1 are given to aid in your evaluation. Descriptive terms are also listed for each quality characteristic. Please check the reason if you give a sample a score of 4 or lower. Place a large X through the box with the score that best describes your evaluation. Please rinse your mouth between samples. Procedure for Rating Custards 1. Remove tray of samples from the refrigerator in Room 110 and go to assigned seat in taste panel room. 2. Evaluate custard in lower left corner of tray first, lower right second, and proceed to the upper row. Crackers and water are provided for eating between samples. 5. Check to make sure the random number on the score card is the same as for the sample. 4. For each sample: a. Evaluate crust first, being careful not to damage the gel structure below. Mark an X through the box for the appropriate score. b. Carefully invert the custard on a plate and evaluate the remaining characteristics in the order given on the score card. Make sure you make the score for 544_§_inside characteristics. c. Check descriptive term appropriate whenever a score of 4 or lower is given. PLEASE BE SURE YOU HAVE 6 XHSON EACH SCORE CARD BEFORE LEAVING TASTE PANEL ROOM. Figure 4. General directions for taste panel members. 115 .mUHmumso UmeQ Ho GOHumsHm>m MHOmcmm Mom ummSm muoom .m 0H50Hm mucmEEoo Hmumcmw mummuumum¢ meum HmuuHm Ho>mHm UHUsmm mHQm HHO hmsansm lumwoumsb u£0HHm UGMHm Ho>MHm umHscmuw mmHQQmm usos0soune uson0DOH£B mHQm mmHQQdm mmHQQsm HHmEm lummoomsa HHmEm msomsm0ofiom mmmanuoofim mcfluuso “mama COHumummmm 0cHuuso mHQm GOHumummmm GOHumummmm mHonm COHumummmm lummoumsb wumumwoz oz mHmmumGMm H00 02 xmwa 008 umom ooa mHQm Ho uso amsk 0H0Hm lummUUMCD UH0Hm OOB mmmnm mUHom mmmCEHHm Mano HOHOU HOHOU m0gmuo SmHBOHHmN mHQm HHO 30HHmN BOHHmN ansmwuw lummoomcb mHuQ0HHm u£0HH oUHmsH HOHOU mquQSm mHQm £0509 Hmvgme £0509 lummoomco mHu£0HHm mum> unsuo HQBOH Ho H Ho mmuoom H H h UHumHuwuomumno Mom commmm xomno muHHmso mpoo mHmEmm mumn ummsm muoom mes nomhoum mom omeemso omxmm mmesn Replicate averages for pH values before and after baking of egg milk systems containing and omitting sugar. Table 51. 85-87OC 81-85OC Sugar Omitted Before End Baking Temperature Sugar Before Sugar After After After Before pH Baking Baking Baking Baking Baking Baking Rep. Egg Process v4000300 [\P-NCOP-h 0CD[\000 b-wcob->r~ 000300303 0 o o o o [\(OLONQOLO 00030030 (\NCOFLON HNPOfi'LDLO Frozen 116 000003 P-NCOP-w 600003 NF‘D—NQD 003030303 [\LOLOLOLO 7.0 00000 NF~P~NF~ 000003 NP~P—NQO fiNMxflLD Freeze-dried 7.0 7.0 03003 (0510 0003 (‘00 000 I‘D-F 000 >r~b~ 00v! 0 [\P-F 03030 6 COQOI‘ HNN) Foam-spray- dried 000 NP-N 0300 ©r~m 030:4 ©b~> 03030 ((3105 000 FLOP- 03030 COLON 0500000 (DP-NF\P-P Hcommmo [\LOLOLOLON 01000003 [\P-Nr\P-© 003003030 [\(O[\.(0L01\ 00H000 O O FP‘D-FF‘P— HNPOVf‘LOLO Spray-dried mwmmmooum 000 How 117 HH.HH0.N H0.HH0.N 00.0H>.0 00.0H0.N GOHHMH>mQ vumvcmum\gmmz 0.m ¢.N 0.0 0.0 0 0.H H.0 H.H H.0 0 00.HHH.0 H.H 0.0 0.0 0.N H 0.H 0.H H.0 H.0 m 0.0 0.H H.0 0.H H 0.0 0.0 H.0 H.H H mmmsEHHm mmmmmooum 000 How «0.0H0.0 00.0H¢.0 00.0Hw.0 0N.0H0.0 COHUMH>mQ Unmvgmum\smmz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 v.0 0.0 0 00.0H¢.0 0.0 H.0 0.0 0.0 H 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 N HoHou H.0 H.0 0.0 0.0 H mvacH mmmmmuoum 000 now «0.0H0.0 H0.0HH.0 00.0HN.¢ H0.0H0.¢ COHDMH>0Q Uumwsmum\smmz H.H 5.0 H.0 H.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 00.0Mm.¢ 0.0 0.0 H.H H.H w 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.w m 0.0 H.H 0.0 0.0 m mmmcumwcme 0.4 0.0 m.m 0.4 H pmsuo loommuamv swans emflne emflue COHQMH>mQ . Immumm nwmummlfimom Iwummnm gmuoum mudQHHuum UHMUGMum\smmE COHpmummmnm pumumso CH UmuHHHuD m00m 00mmmuoum .mmm Unaumso .AmHmom usHomlmv mQDSQHHuum Unmumso Ho COHumgHm>m MHOmsmm sow mgoHUMH>mw pHMUCMUm 0cm .Uommle ou UthQ mUHMHmso mom msme mmmooum 00m .mmmmmooum 000 How mm0mum>m mumoHHmmm .mm mHQMH mmmmmooun 00m Mom 118 48.848.4 84.848.4 84.848.4 88.844.4 c04884>mn 8488c888\cmmz 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8 4.8 8.4 8.8 4.4 8 48.848.4 8.8 8.4 8.4 8.8 4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8 4.8 0.4 8.8 8.4 8 4.4 8.8 8.4 8.4 4 80>848 mmmmmooum 00m How 48.844.8 84.848.8 88.844.8 48.848.8 e04em4>me 8488cmum\cmmz 8.8 8.8 4.8 8.8 8 8.8 8.8 4.8 8.8 8 84.848.8 8.4 8.8 4.8 4.8 4 4.8 8.8 4.8 8.8 8 8.4 8.8 4.8 8.8 8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 4 mmmcauoosm mmmmmooum 000 How 48.844.8 48.848.8 88.848.8 48.848.8 c04um4>mn 8488emum\cmmz 4.8 8.8 8.8 4.8 8 8.8 4.8 8.8 4.8 8 88.844.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 4.8 4 4.8 8.8 4.8 8.8 8 o 8 4.8 4.8 4.8 8 4.8 4.8 4.8 8.8 4 m4mmeme88 119 mmmwmooum,00m How 84.848.8 88.848.8 88.844.8 84.848.8 804884>me 8488:888\cmmz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 H.0 H.0 0.0 0.0 0 00.04H.0 0.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 4 0.0 4.0 0.0 4.0 m H.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 N 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H mmmcEHHm mmmmmoona 000 How 44.848.8 84.848.8 84.848.8 48.848.8 804884>me 8488smum\emmz 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0 4.0 H.0 0.0 0.0 0 00.044.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 H.0 m 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 N 40400 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H mUHmcH mmmmmooua 000 How N0.04~.4 00.04H.0 44.440.0 0N.040.4 c04u84>oo tumtamum\cmmz 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 0 00.040.4 0.4 H.0 0.N 4.4 4 H.0 0.4 H.N 0.4 0 4.4 8.8 8.4 8.4 8 mmmeumeeme 8.8 8.4 8.4 8.4 4 “menu A0080I000 UmHHU UmHMU ©0440 GOHUMH>mQ Immumm Immnmmlfimom ImNmmHm :wNonm Unmwcmum\cmmz COHumummmHm Uumumdu CH UwNHHHuD m00m Ummmmooum .mmm wumumso .AmHmom “CHOQINV mmusQHHuum vumumso Ho coHumsHm>m muomsmm Mom mCOHu8H>®U Uumvsmum 0cm .0 80:00 on pmme mwuwumso 40H memes mmmooum 00m .mmmmwooum 000 How mm0mum>m mumoHHmmm .mmomHQme mmmmoooua 00m How 120 48.848.4 84.848.4 84.848.8 88.848.8 c04um4>me 8488cmum\emmz 4.4 8.4 4.8 8.8 8 0.4 0.4 0.0 4.0 0 N0.04m.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 4 0.4 4.0 0.4 4.0 0 8.4 8.4 8.8 8.4 8 4.8 4.4 8.8 8.8 4 uo>848 mmmmmooua 00m How 88.84o.8 48.848.4 88.844.8 88.844.8 c04884>me 8488cmum\emmz 8.8 4.4 8.8 4.8 8 H.0 0.4 0.0 4.0 0 88.848.8 8.4 8.4 8.8 4.8 4 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 8.4 8.4 8.8 8.4 8 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 H mmmcnuoofim mmmmmoona 00m HOH 00.04N.0 04.044.0 04.040.0 0N.04N.0 :04u84>wn Unmwcmum\nmmz 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0 4.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 0 0N.04N.0 H.0 0.0 4.0 5.0 4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 H.0 0.0 4.0 N 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H mHmmumcmm 121 mmmmmoonal00m 40H 0H.0HOH.H HN.0H0.H H4.040.N 0N.0H5.H COHu8H>mQ pumemum\mez 0.H N.H 0.N 0.H 0 N.H 5.H 0.N 5.H 0 00.040.H N.H 0.H 0.H 0.H 4 0.H 0.H 4.N 0.H 0 AmQHV 8.4 4.4 5.4 5.4 m 44 xmmm N.H 0.H 0.H 0.H H 88040 480:0 mmmmmooum.00m How 4H. +N. H 4N.0H4.H H0. 0+ 0. N 40.040.H COHu8H>mQ UHMUCmum\Cmm2 0. H 0.H 0.N N.N 0 H. H 0.H 4.N 0.H 0 00.045.H 0. H 4.H 0.N N.H 4 0. H 4.H 0.0 0.H 0 AmQHv 4. 4 8.4 8.4 4.8 m 4 xmme 8. 4 4.4 4.4 8.4 4 mmmne “88:8 Aoommlev UmHHU UmHCU UmHuU COHu8H>mQ Ihmumm Ihmummlfimom Imummnm CmNonm UHMUCmum\CmmZ COHumumamum Cumumsu CH UmNHHHuD mgom Ummmmooum .mmm Houomm .Cp0CmHum Hm0 Ho mquEmHCmme mmmum HmmCm Mom mCOHu8H>mU Uumvaum 0C8 .U 00|H0 on Umme mUCmumso Com mCmmE mmmooum 00m .mmmmmooum 000 How 880mum>m muonHmmm .4momHQme 122 mmmmmooua 000 How 00.040000.4 N0.0H0004.4 05.HH0000.0M#004HN05.0 COHu8H>mC UCMUC840\Cmmz 000H.4 00H0.0 00N0.0 0005.0 0 HN00.0 0000.0 H000.5 0004.0 0 8848.8 4844.4 8888.8 8888.4 4 44.448488.8 4888.4 8884.4 8448.8 4448.8 8 imsov m>uso 0000.4 0045.0 50N0.0 0N00.0 NmCuIHmUCCImmum 0000.4 0004.4 H005.0 44HH.0 H mmmum Hmmcm mwmmMUOHQ 5mm MOM 00.040.N N4.0HN.N 50.04N.0 00.045.N C0H48H>mn Unmemum\Cmm2 0.H 0.H N.0 0.0 0 8.4 8.8 8.8 4.8 8 88.848.8 8.4 8.8 8.8 4.8 4 8.8 4.8 8.4 4.8 8 imn40 8.8 8.4 8.8 8.8 m 444 x888 8.8 8.8 8.8 4.8 4 88848 488:8 mmmmmUOHm 00m 400 NH.0#0.N 0H.OHN.N 0H.OH5.N 0H.040.N COHumH>mQ ©480C850\Cmmz H.N N.N 5.N 4.N 0 4.8 8.8 4.8 8.4 8 00.040.N 0.H 0.N 0.N 4.N 4 H.N 0.N 5.N 0.N 0 AmQHV 8.8 8.8 4.8 4.8 8 44 4888 8.4 8.8 4.8 4.8 4 88848 48808 mmmmmoouak00m 40H w“ 84.8444.8 48.8448.8 88.8488.8 84.848.8 :O4pm4>me 8488:888\cmmz A; 0.N 0.N 0.0 0.0 0 0.N 0.N 0.4 0.0 0 50.040.0 0.N 0.N 4.4 N.0 4 8.8 8.8 4.4 8.8 8 48040 0.N N.N N.0 N.0 N H xmmm 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 4 88848 488:8 40050I00V UmH4© UmHCU UmHCU COHu8H>mQ Immumm .ummummlEmom ImNmmHm CmNoum UHMUC840\meE CoHpmummmum 0484050 CH UmNHHHuD 000m memmooum .000 404080 .Cu0Cmuum Hm0 Ho quEm45mmmE mmmnm HmmCm HOH mCOHu8H>m© UHMUCmum 0C8 .0050100 04 wmme 80485850 400 mCmmE mmmooum 00m .mmmmmooum 00m 400 mm0mum>m mumoHHmmm .00 mHQma 124 mmmmmUOHQ,00m HOH 88.848448.4 88.844884.4 88.444848.84 44.848884.8 884884>88 84888848\888z 8888.4 8884.8 4888.8 8488.8 8 4488.8 8884.4 4848.44 4884.8 8 44.448.8 8888.4 8884.4 8888.44 8488.8 4 8488.4 8884.8 8884.44 8848.8 8 48580 8>4so 4888.4 8888.8 4484.8 8844.8 8 -8guu488csu8848 8488.8 8848.8 4884.8 8448.8 4 88848 48888 mmmmmooua 00m 40H 84.844. 88.848. 48.844. 84.84 . 884884>88 84888848\888z 40.0H0.4 fiNMxflLOCO A8940 444 x888 mmmum 488nm 125 888880044 008 404 0H.OH0.H 5H.OHH.N 5H.040.N 4H.044.N C0H48H>8Q 0480C840\C882 0.0H 0.NN 0.4N 0.0N 0 0.0H 0.0H 0.0N 0.4N 0 0.0H 0.0N 0.4N 0.4N 4 4N.04N.N 0.0H 0.NN 0.0N 0.4N 0 AmQHv 8.44 8.88 8.88 8.48 8 44 0888 0.5H 0.0N 0.HN 0.HN H 88840 48800 888880040 008 404 4N.044.N 00.040.N NH.040.0 0N.04N.0 C0H48H>8Q 0480C840\C882 0.0N 0.0N 0.00 0.H0 0 0.HN 0.0N 0.00 0.40 0 0.0N 0.4N 0.40 0.40 4 04.040.N 0.0N 0.00 0.N0 0.00 0 AmQHv 0.0N 0.00 0.00 0.00 N H x880 8.88 8.88 4.88 8.48 4 88848 48808 400501000 08H40 08H40 08H40 C0H48H>8Q I084mm 1084mmlfi8om I8N884m C8804m 0480C840\C882 C0H4848®84m 0484850 CH 08NHHH4D 800m 088880048 .080 404080 .C40C8448 H80 40 84C8E845888E 88840 48838 404 8C0H48H>80 0480C848 0C8 .0050I00 04 08x8Q A0844HEO 480580 88H44548 404 8C88E 8880040 008 .88888004& 008 404 880848>8 8480HHm8m .00 8HQ8B 126 mmmmeOHQ UUQ HOW 84.844.4 88.848.8 48.848.8 48.848.8 084884>88 848808u8\088z 4848.8 8888.8 8888.8 8884.8 8 8848.8 8488.4 8848.8 8844.8 8 8884.4 8484.4 4884.8 8448.8 4 88.844.8 4448.4 8884.8 8488.8 8884.8 8 Amsov 8>4so 4888.4 8848.8 8884.8 4888.8 8 -808I488csu8848 8848.8 8888.4 8448.8 8888.4 4 88848 48808 88888004Q.008 404 48.844.4 88.848.4 44.848.4 84.844.4 084884>80 84880848\088z 8.84 8.84 8.88 8.84 8 8.88 8.84 8.84 8.48 8 8.88 8.84 8.84 8.84 4 84.848.4 8.44 8.44 8.44 8.84 8 08048 8.44 8.84 8.88 8.48 8 444 0888 8.88 8.84 8.48 8.88 4 88848 48808 127 888880040 008 404 0.0HH0.00 0.040.0H 5.0NH5.0H 5.H040.0H C0H48H>80 0480C840\C88z 5.00 4.H0 0.H0 0.5 0 0.00 0.4N 4.00 5.5 0 0.HN 0.0 0.5 0.N0 4 04.HNH04.HN H.0N 0.4H 4.N 0.N 0 8.88 8.88 4.8 8.8 8 88804848 8.8 8.8 8.4 8.8 4 8884088488 A0000AH0V 08H40 08H40 08H40 7 . - C0H48H>8Q 108400 I08408IE800 1888840 C8N040 0480C840\C882 C0H48480840 0484850 CH 08NHHH4D 8000 088880040 .080 404080 .885H8> 808CH840 8084C80480 404 8C0H48H>80 0480C848 0C8 .0000IH0 04 08x8Q 80484850 404 8C88E 8880040 008 .888880040 008 404 880848>8 8480HH08M .50 8HQ8B 128 8888800Hm 008 404 50.045.N mm.OHm.4 mm.04m.4 58.048.4 004484>8Q 0480084m\0882 5.N m.4 4.4 m.4 m 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 m m.m 0.N 0.0 0.N w mo.44mm.4 0.4 8.4 0.4 m.4 m 8.4 8.4 4.4 8.4 m 88844848 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.0 4 8884488488 4005mlmmv 08440 08440 08440 . . 504484>8Q I0840m I08408IE800 1888840 58N040 0480584m\5882 50448480840 0484850 04 08844443 800m 088880040 .080 404080 .88548> 80854840 8084580480 404 8504484>80 04805848 058 .0050100 04 08484 80484850 404 85888 8880040 008 .888880040 mm8 404 880848>8 848044080 .mm 8498B 129 888880040 008 404 85.048.88 88.040.88 84.048.88 88.040.88 004484>80 04800848\088z 8.48 0.88 8.88 8.88 8 0.88 5.88 8.88 8.88 8 0.88 0.88 8.88 8.88 8 85.048.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 5.88 m 8.88 8.88 4.88 8.88 8 A 88548> 8.88 5.88 4.88 4.88 4 0 484050 888880040 008 404 88.044.81 88.048.81 48.048.81 88,048.81 484484>8n 84888848\888z 8.81 8.81 4.81 8.81 8 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 m 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8 88.048.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 5.81 m 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 N 0 88548> 8.81 0.81 5.81 8.81 4 8 484858 8888800401808 404 58.044.88 48.048.88 80.045.88 88.048.08 004484>80 04800848\088z 4.88 8.88 8.88 8.08 8 8.88 4.88 8.88 8.88 8 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.08 8 85.048.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 5.08 m 8.88 5.88 8.88 0.48 8 88548> 8.88 4.08 0.88 8.08 4 A 484050 AUOM81480 08440 08440 08440 004484>8Q 1%8408 10840818800 1888840 088040 04800848\0882 00448480840 0484850 04 0884444D 8080 088880040 .080 404080 .40400 40 40888458888 48488440400 484050 404 8004484>80 04800848 008 .U @8148 04 08089 80484850 404 80888 8880040 008 0 .888880040 008 404 888848>8 848044080 .88 84989 150 888880040 008 404 88.048.88 88.048.88 88.040.88 48.045.88 004484>80 04800848\0882 8.88 8.88 8.88 5.88 8 4.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8 8.88 5.88 8.88 8.88 8 88.048.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8 8.88 8.88 0.88 8.88 8 A 88548> 5.88 8.88 0.88 8.88 4 0 484050 888880040 008 404 88.048.81 88.048.81 88.048.81 88.048.81 484484>8n 84884848\488z 4.81 8.81 5.81 4.81 8 4.81 8.81 8.81 5.81 8 8.81 4.81 8.81 8.81 8 88.045.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8 8.81 4.81 4.81 8.81 8 q 88848> 8.81 8.81 5.81 8.81 4 8 484050 8888800401008 404 80.040.08 48.048.88 80.048.88 88.048.08 004484>80 04800848\0880 0.08 0.08 8.88 5.08 8 4.08 8.88 0.88 0.48 8 0.08 0.08 8.88 8.08 8 88.048.88 8.08 8.08 5.88 8.08 8 8.88 8.88 8.88 8.08 8 88048> 0.08 8.88 8.88 8.08 4 A 484050 A00581880 08440 08440 08440 004484>8Q 108408 10840818800 1888840 088040 0480084m\0882 00448480840 0484850 04 08844440 8000 088880040 .080 404080 .40400 404 840888458888 48488440400 484050 404 8004484>80 04800848 008 .0058188 04 08084 80484850 404 80888 8880040 008 .888880040 008 404 880848>8 848044080 .08 84988 151 888880040 008 404 88.040.88 84.048.88 88.040.88 84.048.88 8004484>8Q 04800848\0882 8.88 8.88 4.88 8.88 8 8.48 8.88 8.88 0.88 8 0.88 8.88 8.88 8.88 8 88.048.88 8.88 8.88 4.88 8.88 8 8.48 8.88 8.48 8.88 8 A 88548> 8.48 8.48 8.48 8.88 4 Q 484050 8888800401008 404 88.048.81 58.048.81 88.045.81 48.048.81 8004484>8D 04800848\0888 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8 8.81 8.81 8.81 0.81 8 8.81 5.81 5.81 8.81 8 88.0458.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8.81 8 8.81 8.81 0.81 4.81 8 A 88548> moml OomI Ham-l mom- H m ngasm 888880040 008 404 84.044.88 48.044.88 88.040.48 08.048.88 8004484>80 04800848\0882 8.88 4.88 4.48 8.88 8 4.88 8.88 8.48 8.88 8 8.88 8.88 8.08 8.88 8 88.048.48 8.88 8.48 4.48 8.88 8 8.88 5.48 0.48 5.88 8 88548> 8.48 8.88 8.08 8.88 4 A 484050 A0058188V 08440 08440 08440 004484>80 108408 ..0840818800 1888840 088040 04800848\0882 00448480840 0484850 04 08844440 8000 088880040 .080 404080 .40400 404 840888458888 48488440400 484050 404 8004484>80 04800848 008 440844480 480580 0 58188 04 08089 88444548 404 80888 8880040 008 0 4888880040 008 404 880848>8 848044080 .48 84480 152 88548> An 484050 88.048.88 48.048.88 88.048.88 88.048.88 88.048.81 88.048.81 48.044.81 88.048.81 88548> A8 484050 44.484.48 84.480.48 84.488.88 04.488.48 m8848> 0 888888 4880v 8>450 m8.048.> 88.04>.> 84.448.8 88.048.8 80414800518848 88840 48808 48040 48.084.m mw.owm.m 88.040.m 48.088.8 m8848> 444 x880 88840 48888 48040 84.048.4 84.owm.4 88.048.m 84.088.N 88sA8> 44 x880 88840 48888 48040 84.088.m om.ow>.m 08.088.m 4N.OHN.m m8848> 4 4880 88848 48888 8888 8888 08440 8888 08440108408 10840818800 084401888840 8888 088040 "0443 08480840 80484850 400 004484>8D 04800848\088E 848488048000 404080 484050 008 8884 .0 88188 04 0848a 40844480 488580 88444548 400 840888458888 48488440400 0 0 48808 400 8004484>80 04800848 008 888848>8 848488048000 .88 84084 135 88548> A0 484050 88.048.88 88.048.88 88.048.88 88.048.88 88.048.81 88.040.81 88.048.81 88.048.81 88848> 88 484888 48.048.88 88.048.88 48.048.88 88.048.08 88848> 4 484888 48.840.88 80.848.88 08.848.88 40.840.88 88848> 88884848 8884888480 ®>HSU 88.448.8 88.448.8 8.848.8 84.448.8 188414888818848 88840 48888 48.044.m 88.044.N 8N.44N.8 48.048.8 88848> 444 8880 88840 48888 88.048.4 88.044.4 88.048.m 48.040.m 88848> 44 8880 88840 48888 48.048.4 88.040.m 80.444.8 88.048.m 88848> 4 8880 88840 48888 40>840 88.048.8 88.048.8 88.040.8 88.044.8 8o 88448848>8 0488888 88040404400008 88.048.8 m8.o4m.8 88.048.8 08.048.8 4o 80448848>8 0408888 848848008 08.048.8 88.040.8 88.048.8 48.044.8 00 00448548>8 0408088 04808448 488 88.048.8 84.448.8 84.44o.8 88.448.8 88 88448848>8 4488888 40400 804804 48.048.8 84.048.8 08.048.8 48.048.8 00 00448548>8 0408088 8880480084 48540 88.048.8 88.044.8 88.04o.8 48.044.8 4o 80448848>8 0408888 8888 8888 08440 8888 08440108408 10840818800 0844018N8840 8888 08N040 "0443 08480840 80484850 400 004484>8Q 04800848\0882 848488048000 404080 .0088188 008 0 88148 04 08089 80484850 400 840888458888 48488440400 484050 008 k88548> 88804840 888408048% 4840888458888 88840 48808 800448548>8 0408088 400 8004484>80 04800848 008 888848>8 848488048000 .88 84088 ' 1111111111111111111111111111111' 31293 01763 2690