c' D c ^liä^ltmiis SUMER PREFERENCE AND COOKING YIELDS OF THREE AND FIVE POUND PORK SPARERIBS RVED WITH AND WITHOUT RIB BONES -5i i by I r?

Transcription

1 AD TECHNICAL REPORT Fl ^ SUMER PREFERENCE AND COOKING YIELDS OF THREE AND FIVE POUND PORK SPARERIBS RVED WITH AND WITHOUT RIB BONES c' D c r?rf\ * *,T "92! by I Dexter R. Bell«I John L. Secrst I and I Kenneth A. Von Ruden LJ Approved { or publc release; dstrbuton unlmted. February 972 I : v : ''-; -5 I.STATES AJRMYT ^lä^ltms Food Laboratory FL-55

2 Unclassfed "~ DOCUMENT COHTtOL DATA -RID (3+ *rtr ci *UU*tt*m mt tttm. W*> / rtft»d an^ IB<II>^ mnmf «MM«W! * < JltlHAT'Na ACTIVITY (CopWX* a-rt*-,««-; US Arsgr Katck Laboratores Natck, Massachusetts OI76O I«ctoMl 2ÖL IfcMPOIIT MCUMTT CL*U«rC«TIOM Unclassfed»X «ftou» ^OUT TITLE Consumer Preference and Cooklag Yelds of Three and Fve Pound Pork Sparerlbs Served vth and wthout Rb Bones. xscm»tvc MOTctfTyp«#wpwf fc a h>» utwow) ^WKTSSSS 553BB C335c KS»» ) Dexter R. Bells, John L. Secrlst aad Kenneth A* Ton Ruden :»o«t OAT«February 972 lomthact OH «ftaht MO. TOTAV MO. 9*. MO. or n<tr» 7 2 M. OM«m<TOn f»kp*ont HUKltm) 'WJICT *K» KITMIUTtON «TATIMlNT *. OTMIH M»ORT MOW» (* > *» FL-55 (Ml» * 6* 0*4 Approved for publc release; dstrbuton unllsdted. UMl.U*IWT*«r NOTCt. MOMMRIM«MIUITAHV ACTIVITY US Amy Hatlck laboratores Hatck, Massachusetts OI76O. TMACT The overall consumer acceptance of three pound and fve pound sparerlbs was not sgnfcantly dfferent. When consderng tenderness alone, however, the three pound sparerlbs vere consdered sgnfcantly (5^ level)»ore tender than the fve pound sparerlbs. The acceptance dfferences among anatomcal postons vthn three and fve pound sparerlbs vere found to be nsgnfcant. It s nterestng to note that vhen the rb bones are removed fror the sparerlbs pror to servng, the sensory scores tend to be hgher than the sensory scores of the sparerlbs served vth the bones n the customary manner. Boneless yeld of cooked sparerlbs vas H6.6 percent for the three pound sparerlbs and *2.8 percent for the fve pound sparerbs. Total cookng losses for three and fve pound sparerlbs vere Ö5.5 and 3. percent respectvely. Fat drp loss of cooked sparerlbs vas 0.6 percent hgher far the fve pound sparerlbs. Bone yeld vas.8 percent greater for the three pound sparerlbs. The results of ths study ndcate that mltary nterest n the procurement of pork sparerlbs veghng three to fve pounds should be based prmarly on economc and aval ablty consderatons» MIPLCII DO romm 49«. JAM «4. WHICH IB ) \S7M473 OMO t IT«r«.»-tMlt Unclassfed Socurlty Cl«a«nc«3öä"

3 DISCLAIMER NOTICE THIS DOCUMENT IS BEST QUALITY PRACTICABLE. THE COPY FURNISHED TO DTIC CONTAINED A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF PAGES WHICH DO NOT REPRODUCE LEGIBLY.

4 KOPKXB oc-» 4. Unclassfed Securty Clascflcatlon KEY WORDS ROLE WT ROLE WT Weght (mass) Age Tenderness Flavor Odors Acceptablty Sparerb8 Taste tests Mltary feedng Unclassfed Securty Claotftcatlon

5 Approved for publc release; dstrbuton unlmted. AD TECHNICAL REPORT FL CONSUMER PREFERENCE AND COOKING YIELDS OF THREE AND FIVE POUND PORK SPARERIBS SERVED WITH AND WITHOUT RIB BONES By Dexter R. Bells, John L. Serrst and Kenneth A. Von Ruden Project/ reference; FE February 972 Food Laboratory U. S. ARMY NATICK LABORATORIES Natck, Massachusetts OI760 rr* r D trov ' "^l/tel -U LalüJ.

6 ? ' : FOREWORD The Mltary Servces presently serve pork sparerbs weghng three pounds or less n ther dnng facltes. Ths weght range s the most commonly sold commercally n the retal trade. It provdes a satsfactory means for obtanng porton control due to the relatve unform shape and smallness of the rb bones. Four rbs per mltary man s a most satsfactory servng sze. At the request of the Defense Personnel Support Center, the subsstence procurement arm for the Mltary Servces, ths study was made to determne whether sparerbs weghng more than three pounds would be as acceptable n mltary food servce as those presently beng served. Sparerbs weghng n the range two pounds to eght pounds were evaluated n terms of both consumer acceptance and edble yeld. I I Precedng page blank

7 ma., U'"!"\JP ^ <y Abstract Introducton Materals and Methods Results and Dscusson Summary References TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No, v v

8 TW nn w LIST OF TABLES Table Vo. Mean Tenderness, Flavor and Odor Scores Obtaned from three and fve pound Sparerbs from Three Dfferent Anatomcal Postons Mean Tenderness, Flavor, Odor and Overall Preference Scores of three and fve pound Sparerbs Served wth and wthout Rb Bones Page No«0 l 3 Cookng Yelds and Losses of three and fve pound Pork 2 Sparerbs ' k Raw Weght (lbs.) Versus (a) Cooked Weght (lbs.) at 3 70 F.; (b) Bone Weght (lbs.); (c) Fat Cookng Loss, (lbs.); (d) Total Cookng Loss (lbs.).

9 LIST OF FIGURES Fgurc No. Method of Sectonng Wholesale Pork Sparerbs nto Anteror, Medal and Posteror Portons Correlaton of Raw Sparerb Weghts (lb.) wth Cooked Weghts (lbs) at 70 F. Correlaton of Raw Sparerb Weghts (lbs.) wth Bone Weghts (lbs.) Correlatons of Raw Sparerb Weghts (lbs.) wth Fat Cookng Losses (lbs.). Correlaton of Raw Sparerb Weghts (lbs.) wth Total Cookng Losses (lbs.) Page No. k Ik N- v

10 ää! P ABSTRACT The overall consumer acceptance of three pound and fve pound sparerbs was not sgnfcantly dfferent. When consderng tenderness alone, however, the three pound sparerbs were consdered sgnfcantly (jf> level) more tender than the fve pound sparerbs. The acceptance dfferences among anatomcal postons wthn three and fve pound sparerbs were found to be nsgnfcant. It s nterestng to note that when the rb bones are removed from the sparerbs pror to servng, that the sensory scores tend tc be hgher than the sensory scores of the sparerbs served wth the bones n the customary manner. Boneless yeld of cooked sparerbs was k6.6 percent for the three pound sparerbs and *2.8 percent for the fve pound sparerbs. Total cookng losses for three and fve pound sparerbs were 25*5 and 3» percent respectvely. Fat drp loss of cooked sparerbs was 0.6 percent larger for the fve pound sparerbs. Bone yeld was.8 percent greater for the three pound sparerbs. The results of ths study ndcate that mltary nterest n the procurement of pork sparerbs weghng three to fve pounds should be based prmarly on economc and avalablty consderatons. v

11 INTRODUCTION The mltary servces presently serve pork sparerbs weghng three pounds or less n ther dnng facltes«ths weght has provded an acceptable menu tem from both the preparaton and consumpton standponts. The contnued relance on ths weght range for sparerbs could result n lmtatons n terms of avalablty and cost- If heaver weght sparerbs, on the other hand, prove to be acceptable for troop feedng, the effect would, n all probablty, be to reduce raw materal costs by provdng a broader supply base» Ths study was undertaken at the request of the Defense Personnel Support Center to determne consumer acceptance, edble yeld and cookng losses of three and fve pound sparerbs. Addtonal meat yeld and cookng loss nformaton was obtaned from sparerbs n the weght range two to eght pounds <> The effects of physochemcal and processng varables on the eatng qualtes of dfferent skeletal muscles from dfferent speces of meat anmals have been the subject of extensve study 0 However, the major muscles of the wholesale sparerb (external and nternal ntercostal muscles) have receved lmted study. Hammond et al. (932), McMeekan (9^0 a,b) and Carpenter et al. (963) reported that older anmals produced muscle fbers of larger dameter. Wth an ncrease n the muscle fber dameter of pork, Carpenter et al. (9^3) observed a decrease n the tenderness of the cooked longssmus dors. Porcne tenderness was found by Kauffman et al. (96^) to" decrease as the age of anmals ncreased from 32 to 282 days. Palmer (I963) reported that age accounted for only k percent of the varaton n the tenderness of cattle rangng between 5 and 99 months of age. Alsmeyer et al. (959) found that chronologcal age and tenderness were postvely correlated. Zegler (958) wrote that as carcass weght ncreased from 39 to 97 pounds, the percent of edble meat from sparerbs ncreased. Usborne et al. (968) found no sgnfcant dfference n tenderness of the longssmus dors muscle as the lve weght of hogs ncreased from 73 kg. to 27 kg. Flavor, jucness, and overall acceptance showed hgher panel scores for ths rausele from the lghter weght hogs. Tuomy et al. (966) reported that the longssmus dors muscle from pork lons n weght ranges twelve pounds and down to twenty pounds and up showed less tenderness as the lon weght ncreased. Flavor dfferences were not observed n the dfferent weght lons. Tenderness varatons found wthn dfferent p.; rene muscles have been reported by Wer (l953)> Batcher et al. (960), Rupnow et al. (96) and Alsmeyer et al. (965)0 Saffle et al. Tl959) and Murphy et al. X96) concluded that drp loss was drectly related to backfat thckness. Feld et al. (96) reported a sgnfcantly lower cookng loss from lons of lghter weght hogs whch was attrbuted to less renderng of fat.

12 am MATERIALS AND METHODS A prelmnary study was made to determne whether varatons n tenderness, flavor and odor exst wthn the wholesale sparerb due to dfferences n anatomcal locaton. For ths work ten three pound and ten fve pound (- t pound) frozen sparerbs were utlzed. The sparerbs were thawed at 50 F. for kq hours. The sparerbs were then trmmed free of surface fat exceedng $ nch, and the dense connectve tssue (Centrum tendneus) was separated from the fleshy daphragm muscle (Pars costals). All sparerbs were dvded nto anteror., medal and posteror portons (Fgure l). The anteror porton was separated from the medal porton between the thrd and fourth rbs whle the medal and posteror portons were dvded between the seventh and eghth rbs. The anatomcal separatons of the three portons were cut wth reference to the number of rb bones n the wholes le sparerb. Each porton *ras dentfed as to ts orgnal sparerb weght and anatomcal poston. The sparerb portons were brased n "square-head" cookng par.s measurng approxmately 20 nches x l6 nches x 6 nches to whch one quart of water was added. Portons were brased at 375 F» to an nternal temperature of 75 F» The three anatomcal portons of both three and fve pound sparerbs were cut nto one rb servngs for preference scorng. Seventeen panelsts, usng the hedonc scale outlned by Peryam et al. (l957)> evaluated tenderness, flavor and odor for each anatomcal locaton wthn each weght group. A second study was made to nvestgate consumer preference, cookng yeld, and cookng loss dfferences between three and fve pound sparerbs. The sparerbs were thawed, trmmed and cooked n the same manner reported n the prelmnary study, except that the sparerbs were not cut nto anatomcal portons. Thrty-two three pound and sxteen fve pound sparerbs were cooked n all. At the end of the brasng perod, weghts of the cooked sparerbs, fa drppngs, and bone from each weght group were separately measured and recorded. Snce the vsual effect of bone present n the larger sparerbs was suspected to be a psychologcal nfluence on the preference evaluaton, the sparerb meat of each weght category was sensory evaluated wth and wthout the rb and sternum bones. When served to the taste panel wth bone-n, the sparerbs were dvded nto the customary servng weght (2 ounces) recommended by the U.S. Army-Ar Force Master Menu Board. Ths amounted to a k rb servng for the three pound sparerbs and a 2 rb servng for the fve pound sparerbs. For an evaluaton of the boneless three and fve pound sparerb meat, 2 ounce portons were served to each panelst. The taste panel conssted of 30 members. Bone-n three and fve pound sparerbs were evaluated on one day whle the boneless sparerbs were evaluated on the followng day. Product characterstcs whch panel members evaluated were: (l) tenderness, (2) flavor, (3) odor and (^)overall preference of the product. Preference data were analyzed by a test of sgnfcance usng the t-test as dscussed by Snedecor (956).

13 tmm MrtNWMna.^. Cookng yelds and losses were more extensvely nvestgated "by a thrd study. For ths study forty-eght sparerbs rangng n raw weght from two to eght pounds were cooked. Agan, the sparerbs were thawed, trmmed and cooked n the same manner reported n the prelmnary study. Pror to cookng, the raw weght of each sparerb was recorded. Alumnum fol contaners, each holdng one sparerb, were placed n "square head" pans and brased at an oven temperature of 375 F. Upon reachng an nternal temperature of 70 F., the sparerbs were removed from the oven and weghed. Cooked sparerbs were then cooled to 40 F, and the drp loss and bone weghts were recorded. All weghts were made to the nearest whole gram.

14 IF m "N I o P I b -p CO o P4 > <^ -V 3 8 U O H & O $ CO CD ä P* CO 0) Q '3 S 8 CD 0 *H O -P

15 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results of the prelmnary study contanng preferences scores of seventeen panelsts are presented n Table «An analyss of ths data, from the three and fve pound sparerbs ndcated no sgnfcant dfference for tenderness, flavor and odor exsted between the dfferent anatomcal locatonso Based on these results, the entre sparerb was utlzed n the second study, Table 2 contans the mean preference scores from the second study. The overall consumer preference of three pound and fve pound sparerbs was not sgnfcantly dfferent. However, the tenderness scores of the three pound sparerbs were sgnfcantly {$% level) greater than the tenderness scores of the fve pound sparerbs. Flavor a^d odor scores were not sgnfcantly dfferent. All mean preference scores were above the mnmum acceptable level of 6.0, except for the tenderness scores of fve pound sparerbs whch was borderlned at 5.8 and 6., Durng the study, the nvestgators noted that the rb bones of the fve pound sparerbs were much larger n sze than those of the three pound sparerbs and were thought to be objectonable from an aesthetc standpont» Thus the sparerb meat was presented to panelsts wth and wthout rb bone. The panel results show that the sensory scores tend to be hgher when the rb bones are removed before servng. Ths s academc at ths tme however, snce sparerbs are customarly served wth rb bones. Presented n Table 3 are the cookng yelds and losses of three and fve pound sparerbs«the yeld of edble meat from the cooked three pound sparerb was 3.8$ greater than that from the fve pound sparerbs, Tne bone yeld was.8$ greater for the bhree pound sparerbs. These fndngs agree wth those of Cuthfeertson et al. (962) who found that the percent of total carcass weght represented by the skeleton decreased as the anmal weght ncreasedo The total cookng losses were 5.6$ greater for the fve pound sparerbs, although the fat drp loss was only 0 o 6 percent greater for the fve pound sparerbs. The closeness of the fat loss comparatve results may be explaned by the fact that both weght groups of sparerbs were trmmed to the same \ nch maxmum fat thckness and the greater losses were attrbuted to mosture losses durng cookng and coolng of the sparerbs. In Table * and Fgures -U nclusve, are presented the relatonshps between the raw, bone-n weghts of sparerbs n the range two to eght pounds and the weghts of the sparerbs cooked to 70 F ä, bone weghts, fat cookng loss weghts and total cookng loss weghts respectvely. The correlaton cooeffcent (r) of each of the above relatonshps was found to be hgbly sgnfcant at the percent level of confdence. Ths ndcates

16 mmmmt that reasonably accurate estmates of the dependent varables can be made when the weghts of the raw, bone-n sparerbs are known. I

17 L^ *9» SUMMARY The meat from three pound sparerbs was found to be sgnfcantly (p O.OfO more tender than that of fve pound sparerbs. Ths was the case whether the sparerb meat was served wth or wthout the rbs attached. On the other hand, the overall consumer preference of the three and fve v pound bone-n sparerbs was not sgnfcantly dfferent. Nether were the* flavor or the odor scores sgnfcantly dfferent In each of the three and fve pound sparerb weght groups, there were no sgnfcant dfferences n tenderness, odor or flavor attrbutable to any partcular sparerb area from whch the samples were taken. Edble meat yeld from cooked three pound sparerbs was 3.8^ larger than < A :at of fve pound sparerbs,. The three pound sparerbs also had.8$ greater bone yeld. Fve pound sparerbs showed a 0,6% greater fat cookng loss and a $.6% greater total cookng loss. Regresson equatons and correlaton coeffcents were calculated comparng raw weght of sparerbs wth cooked weght, bone weght, fat cookng losses and total cookng losses. Correlaton coeffcents were 0.99, 0.95, 0.72 and 0.86 respectvely (p 0.0). f>

18 REFERENCES Alsmeyer, R. H., A. Z. Palmer, M. Koger and W. G. Krk The sgnfcance of factors nfluencng and/or assocated wth "beef tenderness. Proc. th Res. Conf. Amercan Meat Insttute Foundaton, p. 85. Alsmeyer, R. H., J. W. Thornton and R. L. Hner Some dorsal-lateral locaton tenderness dfferences n the longssmus dors muscle of beef and pork. J. Anmal Se., 2k, 526. Batcher, 0. M. and E. H. Dawson Consumer qualty of selected muscles of raw and cooked pork. Food Te^hnol., l{j-, 69«Bate-Smth, E. C. 9^2. The Naton's Food. V. Meat as food. The chemcal composton of mammalan and avan meat. J. Soc. Chem. Ind., 6l, 373» Carpenter, Z. L., R. G. Kauffman, R. W. Bray, E. J. Brskey and K. G. Weckel Factors nfluencng qualty of pork. A. Hstologcal Observatons. J. Food Se., 28, U67. Cuthbertson, A. and R. W. Pomeroy Quanttatve anatomcal studes of the composton of the pg at 50, 68, and 92 kg. carcass weght. II. Gross composton and skeletal composton. J, Agr. Se., j»9, 25. Feld, R. A., W. Y. Varney and J. D. Kemp. 96. Processng costs, market values and consumer acceptance of lght and normal weght hogs. J. Anmal Se., 20, 7te. Hammond, J. and A. B. Apple ton Growth and the development of mutton qualtes n the sheep. Olver and Boyd. Edrburg, Scotland. Kauffman, R. G., Z. L. Carpenter, R. W. Bray and W. G. Hockstra. 96^. Interrelatons of tenderness, chronologcal age and connectve tssue fractons of porcne musculature. J. Agr. Food Chem., 2, 50^. McMeekan, C. F. lyhoa» Growth and development n the pg wth «pedal reference to carcass qualty characterstcs. I. J. Agr. Se., 30, 276. McMeekan, C. P. 9^0b. Growth and development n the pg wth specal reference to carcass qualty characterstcs. II. The nfluence of the plane of nutrton on growth and development. J. Agr. Se., 30, 387. Murphy, M. C. and A. F. Carlln. 96. Relaton of marblng, cookng yeld, and eatng qualty of pork chops to backfat thckness on hog carcasses. Food Tech., 5, 57. Palmer, A. Z Relaton of age, breed, sex, and feedng practces on beef and pork tenderness. Proceedngs Meat Tenderness Symposum, Campbell Soup Co., Camden, N. J., p. l6l. 8

19 A? Peryam, D. R. and F< J. Plgrm. 957«Hedonc scale method of measurng food preferences. Food Technol.,,. Rupnow, E.H. and M. Weler. 96. Tenderness of pork as affected by "breed, raton and cookng method. J. Anmal Se., 20, 683. Saffle, R. L. and L. J. Bratzler. 959«The effect of fatness on some processng and palatablty characterstcs of pork carcasses. Food Technol., 3> 236. Snedecor, G. W Statstcal Methods. 5th ed. Iowa State College Press. Ames, Iowa. Tuomy, J. M., J. Felder and R. L. Helmer Relatons of pork lon weght to shear-force values, panel scores, fat n lean meat and cut out percentages. Food Technol., 20, 256. Ü8borne, W. R., J. D. Kemp and W. G. Moody Effect of lve weght on qualty, proxmate composton, certan proten components and free amno acds of pcrcne muscle. J. Anmal Se., 27, 58k. Wer, C. E The varaton n tenderness n the longssmus dors muscle of pork. Food Technol., 7, 500. Zegler, P. T. 95S. The Meat We Eat. 5th ed. Interstate Publshers, Danvlle, Illnos. ' C

20 & H CO ca o 05 e+ a> ü O 4 2 5» > e+ ft O T Ü CO c+ (D O 2 <T> PJ H- P H > rft H H- O 4 I PL 00 vo o -3 0> ON ON -3 ON -4 vo 03 ON ro VO IU r o\ a \o 3 ON ON --3 o LO 0

21 T3 0) u s ß SS V CO 0) CO X) K H h 2 ft H H -* % r\ t- & P VO vo VO CO ^ TJ <5 c 3 o ft IA <tf c 0 on ^ VO 0\ vo o o «VH T3 VO vo vo c- o o to s o (0 0) o u c o <u > t- H O o ^ 0) 5 vo c- t- t *H fr s ft H rh B t 0 co * > CO»d cu fc c^ * *. o\ <tf HI E t- co CO H H CU V^-* b T* vo t- IA vo o C HI 03 CC ID CÖ 0 <u 9n to CO ö <u CU \ o +*l c d a>! ^,f CQ o CQ o o «J x> CU x> s t> X> c C o 3 s o X> O x> c» ^ x> H XI H H <H JH )H cu -p XJ X) ft \ 3 H P H P CO o P fh 3 Vt 3»» to x: -C O o CU <y p bf X! X! X! H c H P 5 P P d o s* s s U S CO T3 TJ C C X> o cu CO H H p h C x: CQ CO o C -P X> XI tf 2 CO s CD 8 as en m LA <H H () X! s~^. P O H o CM tu t o ft t\ ft

22 " 9 H M U O^t*. ta H " s t IA H CVJ OO Is f,s ft to (0 o & (0,o 0 f 02 0»Ö!U H H 0) as H M IA ON c «d TJ «H -3" co ft H ) t- VD AS 0) o ft 'O o 5 88 O EH ü n H ft 0) H IA JH ON H /"*"» Sr o «CO % pp CO ft)^-s tu H*d*. to flw to H o fö -P H w gj a V a vo co a rö ft) 3 CO H M TJ ft) O H H Ü t) JH Ü H >» 2 3 5) 8 H o CD Pt to «fl,q ^> on E H a w H CO H IA 2

23 Table *. Raw Weght (lbs.) versus (a) Cooked Weght (lbs.) at 70 F< (b) Bone Weght (lbs.) (c) Fat Cookng Loss (lbs.) (d) Total Cookng LOBS (lbs 0 ) Pork Sparerbs Raw Weght Cooked Weght Bone Weght Fat Cookng Loss n (ID.) (lb.) (lb.) (».) * * h , ,* *7.* ,* ** O U O0I , H , Ho Ho H A5 2.* k O.I * *,08 0.*37 27 * *0 28 * k.26 3A **8 30 H * = 0 0.*80 32 *.92 3o H o ** 5^ * H *5 3o ,* o5U * , H ko 5.75 H * » k H.90.5U *3 6.* lolo OjtOO hk ol7 lo55 o.hoo >* U *97 I >* G.l*58 *8 7M6 5.5**,82 0.5* Total Cookng Loss (lb.) *5 0, * * OJ60 0, O.I7I* *0 0.**0 0.* *70 0.*52 0.* O065O ,600 0,830 O.VpO O.67O * ,*

24 l. 4

25 $t^m&k^ > ft Hl- ffl jlf I!: lt: 4.. tl ; h t:; tl. : llt tll $ ll! '{ ' \V:\ tu!' tn l; ' t jjl t: tt{ tn t;: ll; ;:. ll! (l : ll,! \::' I {': j ' :t! f ft " rt:: m I P t M H' ::::... '\ :::: tl; tt! :; ': ;; II rf I'll \;: : j; ; : : V :;: :t! lt I TTTr h tjt' l * "*!':! Il *! (T t T! '! Jll I H! jljj FT: Ml :.: *rrr t : : : ltlj Ul HI : ; lt! : tj tll!; '.; ;){!»l Ul!t.tl B '.. Ft! tff»n t > ll ;:f c '.. *: t:: ;* :; '.'ft t. ' ;: :; sj:!' f : tt; r; ' : lt t t* \ It' :'. :;:: ;,.: * : : - j ' : Il' Ul TtT...!;:: '; " w '.: ÜÜ..., lot th ttf lt: r Ü :t*.: r~ f ',' "!( ' * ' ' ;:! *S :..t» ::: -ff IT? ' :; l ; :H: : :: :; '.:.. ;:: ' '::' trt tjj ' lt* l: * J J *!:. '-'" : :::! ' ' : : ü :: Ill' t ' : ;.tl '. * I '! :: K : ' :;::... :- '. :. tltl l \H\ :: " : " ; o: :: :l: :» t* ',... ; ; # ; ^: T-T JH ;:; V' ' ' ; j* : ; If" :H ;:r, :,. \:»: ft ' :' ''. A rf" I... : ' jff! V ',N*t:. \ ü 'Ö'..., _ >H :*.. w\ *\!' :;!;!. t! ;; ' ';!\ I : :.!. \ : ü -rr ' HI,... %.! :;:: ;.: 'IT' j ;. : -^... P :;:! : '. :! T- IT * : :::: ' ;.. ". *;'.: ;:.' : '.: : 'ä ": : " ''. j. ::!! r \ '* * ' :!'. ' : ' ' ::^ 'f^;!:! :; : ::,: ' j -; :... :: : : '. crv :: ' ' ' '.,' : - : ' ; :' :ü :::;:...'. :. f : -..:: :: : '.': ~- ;~» T^ l f : rfr : -: m tr II ft tt ',, ; "II. "! ' \' l '<? '»»..;;! :*G,. '. I *!..»f- ;.:. '::" ':*:' ft,».. - rrf f* ~rr... -I.. :::. : :;. :::: ':. ::r... : r f"f ~- ::.! "... ::- JJ \ *.::: ' :::. ;:. ~'rf ; :; : : : I" I * ;:: :: ; c j':! t rf '»r : V'. c 3 r: r r tr 5:-- -U \ St \' II : '... ::! r It) H )a L Hf [09 ; j ;,, : ; ; ;... 5, I A '! I ö H '!.' ' : ' 'M f : - - ^

26 6

27 «v - ~ T^7! '?[T, WEST-* üf".***?$.* - -&*&&&% ^^f!f^ fc«rx r ', " r > ~.. : yr «^ $ ^; ^l -L q & ': P; t. t l:.r! SM,. ; 7T 4. ;!' ft cm 4;! th It I!»t t!!:! fjlj -!! [ 4. ÜÜ " ' < T tf% :;:' IW l.st. l It: ::: - - jf ';:; U'' ',:'' t:; ::. '. ;' ;... «r '::!' :' :«l ' *. : l\..*.'.. tn fj!',' k jjt t,': j T : >! R ]!j! '.p ;. -::.. (4 Jt HIT TT H[ ll! H:! l TT : : ;' nrfrj * J ' IH ff ' -t m l I j' 'ty'j : r :,:! ' s:. j - IÖ»H! t ll, 'r m ': '" : tn ü ft '.:' \ j ;.: ;.:' rjj [ ;:.. ' : ltt ll! :-, tl rt ' :!:.t lt. ".( j]}l [., tll ;n «' "TV T j! ;. L : ':6 '' : r... "' 4!...!.,,. :J: *' t * \\t\ [ll m l [^»!:;! l»^ : ':' :' < * * J I ' ' 4 ' N _;.:.., r <-r.'. : j'. f: : ::;.-::..! 'h ; : t '., * t S V :,:;. : «&' ^-' 'l J«. - I-,. \ ",,* *.. :''«::: ::? ^ A - T-4 ; [H j.. '"J7 \ ;:l- llül ll I TrrrtT:rtnTn Hrlf «ft Ut :t!" ::: - '-" :. * utf '. ::'.:. o.'- ^- ::'; ::«:::: j4',::: r<3 \\: " jn. : JTTl " \'. :N I*-...:~.,;..,:;:...;!:j ::.' >... 4 :.'.::'; ;:;::::! :]j t." :.! '.;: ;tt.;:;: :''. r ' -. I. '» lfe,. _. : l. \ W;;[ L j... -_! - ; - - J ] ' : ' j : _..-, \ - M.\~-... 'j... ; I ' j, - -,:* O 'N* I j I": 4- ü? _ -,. "-- \ ': \ t..); :/: r \ [ \ \ * j j : r *" t, t &4 t! - ' ' ~» t j -j-- p..« j-... " r _...,... I >? }- j 0 * : j... C:*) 0 ; *\ * * *] * P ssp QNBOO 3.TOC I! \ j - I >.. j,. j ^ :. ; j :':; : :- o :: ';' I c^ ::; : - Q..:': H ". * : 0! j...j, (. j 7