National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Limitations and Uncertainties
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Food and Feed Uses." National Research Council. 1988. Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18563.
×
Page 56

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

6 Food and Feed Uses As noted, both common maize and quality-protein maize (QPM) have roughly the same amount of protein. They differ only in the types of protein each contains. In QPM, the balance is shifted to emphasize the most nutritious types. MAIZE PROTEIN The proteins in the endosperm of maize come in four types: • Prolamines (soluble in alcohol solution); • Glutelins (soluble in dilute alkali); • Albumins (soluble in water); and • Globulins (soluble in saline solutions). In normal-maize kernels, prolamines predominate, accounting for 50-60 percent of the total protein (figure 6.1). This is unfortunate because prolamines (which are made up of two subfractions, called zein and zein-like), are low in lysine, tryptophan, and biological value. In QPM kernels, on the other hand, prolamines are a smaller part of the total protein—only about 30 percent. In QPM kernels, it is the glutelins that predominate, making up about 40 percent of the total protein. This is the crucial nutritional advantage because glutelins are 18 times richer in both lysine and tryptophan than are prolamines (figure 6.2). They are also highly digestible and have a high biological value (table 6.1). Opposite, top. An ear of QPM (right) appears identical to an ear of normal commercial maize (left), therefore, consumers will probably accept it readily. (CIMMYT) Opposite, bottom. In creating QPM, the crucial step was to give the kernels of opaque-2 maize (left) the •e of common maize (center). This transformation has been so successful that, Alfh clo,se up'com,mon-maize kernels are indistinguishable from QPM kernels (right). Although QPM no longer has the dull look and soft texture of opaque-2 maize, it still nas the nutritional superiority. (CIMMYT) 46

FOOD AND FEED USES 47 Normal Maize QPM 45 - 40- 35- 30- 25 - 20 - 15 - 10- 5 - Albumin Glutelin Glutelin-llke Prolamines and Globulins ENDOSPERM PROTEIN FRACTIONS FIGURE 6.1 Maize protein is made up of several different types of subfractions. QPM has roughly the same overall amount of protein as common maize; however, the relative amounts of the four subfractions are very different. In QPM, the albumins, globulins, glutelins, and glutelin-like fractions are increased. On the other hand, the prolamines fraction is greatly reduced. This is the key to the increased nutritive quality because albumins, globulins, and glutelins are high in lysine, tryptophan, and digestibility, whereas prolamines are low in all three. (E.I. Ortega and E. Villegas, Protein Quality Laboratory, CIMMYT. The graph is based on endosperm protein fractions obtained by the Landry-Moureaux procedure; the samples were Tuxpeno-1 and Tuxpeno-1 QPM.) TABLE 6.1 Nutritional Evaluation in Rats of Normal, Opaque-2, and QPM Maize. Response Criteria Sample Lysinea True Digestibility Biological Value (percent) Net Protein Utilization (percent) Normal Maizeb 2.6 98.1 62.7 61.5 Opaque-2 Maize' 4.2 96.0 77.6 74.5 QPMd 4.1 95.8 74.5 71.4 QPM' 4.0 96.6 76.2 73.6 " grams per 100 grams of protein b Tuxpeno Crema-1 e Tuxpeno 02 (soft endosperm) d Amarillo Dentado HEo2 ' Ant. X Ver. 181 HEo2 SOURCE: Villegas et al., 1980. With the proportion of glutelins increasing at the expense of prola- mines, the overall lysine content in the endosperm protein rises from 2.6 percent in common maize to about 4 percent in QPM. Additionally, another amino acid, tryptophan, also increases substantially—an im- portant factor because, as noted, tryptophan is both an essential amino acid and the biological precursor of the B-vitamin, niacin. The human body converts tryptophan into niacin, and any increase in tryptophan

48 QUALITY-PROTEIN MAIZE 6.0-1 5.0- 4.0- O o 111 z CO Albumin Globulin Glutelin Prolamines PROTEIN FRACTION FIGURE 6.2 Whereas albumin, globulin, and glutelin are rich in lysine, prolamines are extremely low in lysine. Thus, in creating QPM by shifting the balance of the protein fractions away from prolamines and towards albumins and glutelins, the levels of lysine (and tryptophan) in the kernels increase. In addition, the effectiveness of this essential aniino acid is enhanced because albumins and glutelins are much more digestible than prolamines. (Protein Quality Laboratory, CIMMYT. Measured in g per 100 g of protein.) helps prevent pellagra almost as though the same amount of niacin were being added. (In this respect, QPM is like milk and eggs: both are low in niacin, but afford protection from pellagra because their proteins contain high levels of tryptophan.) Moreover, as glutelins replace prolamines there are changes in amounts of yet other amino acids. For example, QPM has less leucine and more isoleucine than common maize, which reduces the prepon- derance of leucine. The more equal balance between these two amino acids is of possible nutritional benefit: some researchers believe that it boosts the production of niacin, thereby also helping to overcome pellagra. Further, the change from prolamines to glutelins raises the amount of usable protein. Nutritionists often express usable protein as a percent of energy. QPM has a value of "usable protein as energy" of 8.3-9.6 percent—well above the currently accepted estimates of protein and energy needs for a 1-year-old child, for whom a value of 8 percent is considered adequate.1 On the other hand, normal maize has a usable Bressani et al., 1969a.

FOOD AND FEED USES 49 TABLE 6.2 Effect of Protein Quality of Corn on Liver Retinol Reserves, Food Intake, Weight Gain, and Feed Efficiency in Rats. Feed Liver Retinol Reserves Efficiency jig/Total Liver Food Intake Weight g food/g Liver Weight g Gain g weight gain Yellow corn QPM 11.60 ± 2.88* 107.21 ± 37.16 162.0 ± 29.1 26.5 ± 9.2 7.0 ± 2.3 Yellow corn 9.3 ± 3.15 71.86 ± 16.26 130.5 ± 24.4 14.6 ± 3.1 9.4 ± 2.0 *X ± D. E. SOURCE: Bosque and Bressani, 1987. protein-as-energy value of 4.7 percent, which makes it unable to fulfill the requirements of a 1-year-old. VITAMINS QPM's niacin content is no higher than that of common maize, but, as just discussed, it has more tryptophan, a compound that the human body converts into niacin for itself. Also, its lower ratio of leucine to isoleucine (see figure 3.8) may further increase the bioavailability of niacin.2 Yellow maize has high levels of carotenoids—the colored plant pigments that give rise to vitamin A in the body. Recent experiments suggest that animals utilize these vitamin A precursors in QPM better than in normal maize (table 6.2). This is not unexpected because previous research on other foods has shown that improving protein quality increases the efficiency of carotenoid conversion and utiliza- tion.3 Thus, with QPM vitamin A deficiency should not be aggravated, as happened previously with some skim-milk-based supplements. Indeed, yellow QPM may prove valuable in combating this insidious deficiency that causes blindness in children. OTHER CONSTITUENTS The minerals, carbohydrates, and lipids in QPM have essentially the same composition and are present in essentially the same quantities as those in common maize. QPM has the same energy content—about 360 calories per g—as its normal-maize counterparts. 2 In recent years, the role of leucine and isoleucine has been a matter of hot debate among nutritionists. The thrust of current thought is that the ratio between the two is meaningful and that when leucine greatly outweighs isoleucine, pellagra is more likely to develop. 3 Information from R. Bressani.

50 QUALITY-PROTEIN MAIZE FIGURE 6.3 Comparison of pigs, 33-165 days old, fed either opaque-2 or normal maize. During the experiment, the pig fed the opaque-2 maize diet gained 256 g per day, while the animal fed common maize gained an average of only 21 g per day. The diets were provided free choice and were supplemented with vitamins and minerals. When used as the only source of protein, nutritionally improved maize was almost four times more productive than normal maize. (J. Maner) ANIMAL TRIALS WITH OPAQUE-2 MAIZE In the 1960s and 1970s, nutritional research with rats, pigs, and chicks showed that opaque-2 maize was a dramatically better feed than ordinary maize. The results are generally transferable to QPM because opaque-2 and QPM differ mainly in kernel texture and field performance; nutritional compositions are essentially identical. In summary, the many early tests on animals showed the following: • For young rats, opaque-2-maize proteins are well balanced. If used as the sole source of protein they show only a minor deficiency in lysine. Opaque-2 maize showed a protein efficiency ratio (PER) of

FOOD AND FEED USES 51 2.79 as compared with 2.88 for milk protein (casein) at comparable levels of protein in the diet. The results also indicated that processing the maize into foods (masa and tortillas) does not alter its high protein quality, although slightly lower PER values were found. Evidence that the niacin in opaque-2 maize is available to the niacin-depleted rat, as opposed to its low availability in common maize, was also found.4 • For pigs, opaque-2 maize can be used as the only source of protein during the finishing, pregestation, and gestation periods of the life cycle without reducing growth. Compared to the normal-maize diet, the opaque-2 maize diet produced equal performance with less sup- plemental proteins. Opaque-2 maize alone is not adequate for piglets, growing pigs, or lactating sows. For them, it must be supplemented with protein or amino acids to produce maximum performance.5 In Colombian trials, piglets fed solely on opaque-2 maize remained healthy and vigorous, while piglets fed solely on common maize developed a protein-deficiency disease and, after 110 days, began to die. Also, they grew three-and-a-half times faster on opaque-2 maize than on normal maize when it was the sole protein source (figure 6.3). • For chicks, opaque-2 maize by itself did not produce normal growth. However, when supplemented with methionine, for which chicks have a high requirement, it produced better gains and feed conversion than did normal maize at below-optimal protein levels.6 In Guatemala, chick-feeding trials have shown a remarkable increase in feed efficiency when opaque-2 maize was substituted for common maize. In one trial, for example, chicks fed with opaque-2 maize from age 15 days to age 5 weeks had gained 446 g, whereas chicks fed with common maize or sorghum had gained only 223 g and 195 g, respec- tively. The corresponding ratios of feed to gain in body weight were 3.5:1 for opaque-2 maize, 8.2:1 for normal maize, and 11.3:1 for sorghum.7 Thus, QPM seems promising for feeding chickens, perhaps the most common livestock throughout the Third World. HUMAN TRIALS WITH OPAQUE-2 MAIZE In previous decades, nutritional tests on humans showed that opaque- 2 maize brought dramatic improvements in nutritional status (see, for instance, figure 6.4). In summary, the tests indicated the following: 1 Bressani et al., 1969b. 1 Maner, 1975. > Rogler, 1966. ' Jarquin et al., 1970.

52 QUALITY-PROTEIN MAIZE HI 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 O2 0.1 0 Milk v „—• Control 10 12 WEEKS 14 16 18 20 22 FIGURE 6.4 In India, the superiority of opaque-2 protein in comparison with normal maize protein has been shown in feeding tests carried out with children. The investigations were undertaken to determine the suitability of opaque-2 maize as a supplement to the home diet of 18- to 30-month-old children from low-income families. The figure shows the average cumulative weight gain. The study involved feeding one midday supplementary meal to the three experimental groups. One received milk, one normal maize, and one opaque-2 maize. There was also a control group that received no supplementary food. Each child in the experimental groups was fed at iso-protein and iso-calorie levels for 182 days. As shown, at the end of the feeding program, children fed on opaque-2 maize gained weight at a rate comparable to those of the milk group. In addition, their gains in height and chest measurement were comparable to those of the milk group. The children fed on normal maize gained better in head circumference than those fed on opaque-2 maize. Estimates of the chest to head circumference ratio and chest to arm circumference ratio also suggested better gains for the opaque-2 maize than normal maize. (Food and Nutrition Board, India, 1977) • For adult males, 300 g of opaque-2 maize provides 93 percent of the daily protein requirement (and 40 percent of the daily calorie requirement). By contrast, 500-600 g of common maize could provide only 70 percent of the protein requirement (but it did provide 80 percent of the required calories).8 • For children, a daily consumption of 175 g of opaque-2 maize 8 Clark, 1966.

FOOD AND FEED USES 53 guaranteed nitrogen equilibrium, whereas 250 g of normal maize was required to achieve this.9 Beyond laboratory experiments of that kind, there were several comprehensive feeding trials with malnourished children. For instance, in 1966, Guatemalan children in a metabolic ward were fed diets based either on opaque-2 maize or milk. The children fed opaque-2 maize retained as much nitrogen as did those fed milk. The digestibility of opaque-2 maize was 83.8 percent. The nitrogen-balance index (a good estimate of the biological value of proteins) was 0.72 for opaque-2 maize, and 0.80 for milk, suggesting that the protein in opaque-2 maize had a biological value equivalent to 90 percent of that in milk.10 Nitrogen-balance studies conducted in Colombian children 24-29 months of age who were recuperating from calorie-protein malnutrition concluded that: fed common maize, the children lost 54 mg of nitrogen per kg per day; fed opaque-2 maize, they lost only 8 mg of nitrogen per kg per day; and fed milk, they gained 2 mg of nitrogen per kg per day. Thus, the nutritionally improved maize was not quite as good as milk, but it was far better than the unimproved maize. In this experiment, a casein diet was used as the protein of reference. Nitrogen retention of opaque-2 maize was 27 percent, and of casein 30 percent; absorption of nitrogen of opaque-2 maize was 65 percent, and of casein 87 percent. Pradilla and coauthors concluded, "When the responses between the proteins from opaque-2 maize and of casein are compared, at the same level, net protein utilization and biological value of maize fall within the range of 80-90 percent of the value of casein."" A 1983 dietary survey (24-hour recall) of 762 women and 292 children from rural Guatemala showed that lysine was the most limiting amino acid in 31 percent of the diets in women and in 36 percent of those in children. Tryptophan was the most limiting in 20 percent and 12 percent of the diets in women and children, respectively. (Methionine and cystine were the most limiting amino acids in about 45 percent of the diets.) If common maize (8.2 percent protein) was replaced by opaque- 2 maize (8.2 percent protein), all diets would become satisfactory in tryptophan, and the percent of diets limited by lysine would decrease to 11 percent and 18 percent, respectively, in women and children. The percentage of diets with a chemical score of less than 75 percent would decrease from 35 percent to 15 percent in women and from 38 percent to 17 percent in children.12 9 Viteri et al., 1972. 10 Bressani, 1966. " Pradilla, et al., 1975. 12Valverdeetal., 1983.

54 QUALITY-PROTEIN MAIZE FIELD NUTRITIONAL TRIALS WITH QPM Although the former nutritional trials with opaque-2 maize are applicable to QPM, most of the promising QPM materials have also been independently evaluated. They, too, show high performance (see table 6.1 and box page 33). Their true digestibility is slightly inferior to that of normal maize, but all surpass normal maize in biological value and net protein utilization. Experiments now under way in Peru are showing that in malnourished children, QPM can be the sole source of protein. The subjects are children from the slums of Lima who are recovering from malnutrition. They are largely from Indian families familiar with maize and its preparation, and have been carefully screened so as to be free of disease or other complicating factor. The children are fed for three months and the gains in weight, height, and muscle mass are compared with those of children whose only protein source is milk formula. The results show that on a gram-for-gram basis, children grow more slowly on QPM than on milk. This is explained by the fact that maize protein and maize carbohydrate (starch) are less digestible than milk protein (casein) and milk carbohydrate (sugars). Raising the QPM intake by 20 percent, to make up for this, provides equal growth rates. These trials indicate that only differences in protein and carbohydrate digestibilities separate QPM from milk as a food for catch-up growth in malnourished infants.13 FAMILY USE For all its newness, QPM should require no change in the family's habits. People already using common maize should find QPM indistin- guishable in appearance and feel. It has little or no differences in texture or flavor from normal maize. Moreover, QPM is as easy to prepare as common maize, and its cooking times are the same. Nor is there any difference in the flavor of breads, cookies, biscuits, tortillas, or other products made from it. COMMERCIAL USE QPM is as yet too new to have been used in commercial food products; however, baked goods have been made in the Centre Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maiz y Trigo (CIMMYT) laboratory using blends of whole QPM flour and wheat flour. 13 This is not to suggest that milk can be replaced by QPM, but it does show that QPM can be a nutritional backup to milk. (Information from G. Graham.)

FOOD AND FEED USES 55 TABLE 6.3 Amino Acid Content of Processed Foods Made with QPM. Tortilla Corn Chips Normal Maize QPM Normal Maize QPM Arginine 4.4 7.2 4.5 5.7 Histidine 3.2 4.3 3.1 4.2 Isoleucine 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.5 Leucine 12.9 9.6 14.3 9.7 Lysine 2.5 4.2 2.6 3.9 Methionine* 2.1 2.1 2.7 1.6 Phenylalanine 5.3 4.5 5.1 4.4 Threonine 3.7 4.2 3.7 3.7 Tryptophan 0.50 0.86 — — Valine 4.7 5.5 5.2 5.6 Alanine 7.9 6.6 8.1 6.2 Aspartic Acid 6.2 7.4 14.2 14.9 Cystine* 1.5 1.8 — — Glutamic Acid 18.3 16.4 20.4 16.9 Glycine 3.7 5.3 3.8 4.7 Proline 7.3 8.1 13.9 — Serine 5.2 5.5 4.8 4.5 Tyrosine 3.5 4.0 4.5 3.6 * Partially destroyed during acid hydrolysis. (Grams per 16 grams N) SOURCE: Sproule, 1985. As with any form of maize, QPM by itself has only a limited potential in leavened breads because it lacks gluten, the elastic protein needed to make dough rise. However, it shows promise for supplementing wheat flour. This is important because many maize-producing countries import wheat and find it necessary to dilute wheat flour with local flours to make it go further. As much as 20 percent QPM can be added to wheat flour without seriously affecting the loaf value and crumb quality of leavened breads. More than 25 percent, however, decreases the ease of rolling and reduces loaf volume.14 QPM has outstanding promise in unleavened foods such as tortillas and corn chips (table 6.3). The nutritional value of tortillas made with QPM was found to be superior to that of the normal-maize product.15 Thus, QPM could have a major impact in Mexico and Central America where tortillas are basic to the daily diet. In addition, the quantity of protein can be boosted even more by removing the starch from QPM kernels (without first eliminating the germ). This produces a food concentrate. A white and attractive product, it contains 36 percent protein and 14 percent oil and is nutritionally similar to soybean—a food that in Africa and Latin America is expensive and often unavailable because it is imported and 14 Information from Protein Quality Laboratory, CIMMYT. 15 Sproule, 1985.

56 QUALITY-PROTEIN MAIZE requires foreign exchange. In the future, locally produced QPM concentrate might become a worthy soybean substitute.16 Wet-milling QPM into a whole-kernel meal should make several products available: a protein of much higher nutritional value than the endosperm meal; a carbohydrate of high digestibility; and a lipid component that contributes energy and meets essential fatty acid and vitamin E requirements. Fortunately, wet-milling is the custom in nearly all developing societies. (Dry-milling removes most of the germ; therefore, the high-quality protein and oil are largely lost.) LIVESTOCK FEED People indirectly consume vast amounts of maize in the form of animal products such as meat and eggs. This is especially so in the industrialized nations where maize is used to feed poultry and pigs. Because of maize's nutritional deficiencies, poultry and pigs, like humans, suffer malnutrition in many parts of the world. Their diet, too, can be grossly deficient in the amino acids essential for normal growth, health, and reproduction. For both poultry and pigs, QPM has a bright future. 16 Development of QPM concentrate is being undertaken at INCAP in Guatemala (see chapter 4).

Next: Genetics »
Quality-Protein Maize: Report of an Ad Hoc Panel of the Advisory Committee on Technology Innovation Board on Science and Technology for International Development National Research Council, in Cooperation With the Board on Agriculture National Research Co Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF
  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!