1 :1 ......Iaa . 109—1. 0 n. t '0; ...: a. .. ..o — . . . .1. 4 ... ... u .1 1. ._ . . . I. . .v 1. o o. . . o 1 .1 . a... v ..1- -’.1.... ...! g 3. O o n of a Q 0 Q . . .. o.<~ o. . out .0. ... .o t ... .Q t. - . . . o .1. . p l o A as 1 .. . . ‘ 1. u p . . 1 1 O 1..‘..v.au%.\% C‘.Q¢O.V.O.“‘51:d o s 011‘. o oUW.I.. v V p o . . c1...ooo-'.ooo.o.1.1. . 1 . . 1 1 . 1.. o 1 . . . . . .. 1 . . 1 . . . J . .1 1 o. .. .01. .01 ..aorgv. -. 1. v ...». ..a .0... ....o¢.¢..¢ ~..\..os.o . .. 1.... 1. ..1 . 1... 1. . . 1 ...11 1.1.11.1.-.1na..:3 1e») no: v....¢o ooos’..v'4..t4—1110......v.oo..91”§o..-.. o. _ .11 . . . . .....1..~111._‘.1.11..1«_ . 1. .1 .1 11' . 1 . 1 1 . . .... ...... .... 1.. :5 .quo-x1.ova1ov1c.’1..0a ..(.4O.1o. :1 1 I V L :‘L: F.L¢&Ln eaCh 0f n.. 9. ~-.' . Lu 13.; Lb. ) . It}; ‘- fi‘ V: I. nab H'I‘CLLESS u/d 1 :A‘E T. .. _ ”add‘slon >‘4 ‘4' fat thicmq “E British br‘ . vet; Aims-L . bu and E. dr'r'i i1 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOME OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS TO BEEF CARCASS CUTABILITY by Michael E. Dikeman The right side of 120 steer carcasses of the three major British beef breeds were selected for chilled carcass weight and 12th rib fat thickness (average of three measurements). Sixty carcasses were selected within each of two weight ranges (light, 500 to 550 lb. and heavy, 700 to 750 1b.). The two weight ranges were further subdivided into four fat thickness groups; 0.26 to 0.50 in., 0.51 to 0.75 15., 0.76 to 1.00 in. and 1.01 to 1.25 in. with 15 carcasses selected.within each group. In addition, 15 Holstein carcasses were selected within the 0.26 to 0.50 in. fat thickness group and 700 to 750 lb. weight range for comparison to the British breeds. All carcasses were subjectively scored for each grade factor and carcass length, round length and circumference, brisket depth and l. g2£§1:muscle area were measured. Subcutaneous fat thickness probes were made 4, 8 and 12 in. from.the dorsal midline perpendicular to the anterior edge of the 5th, 8th and.11th thoracic vertebrae, the lst, 4th and 6th lumbar vertebrae and the 3rd and 5th sacral vertebrae. Boneless, closely trimmed (approximately 0.3 in.) retail cuts were made by wholesale cut. The roasts and steaks from.each of the four major wholesale cuts were weighed separately from.the total retail cuts. Carcass weight and fat thickness significantly (P < .01) affected 'weight and percent retail and fat trim.yields. Fat thickness also signi- ‘ficantly (P < .01) affected both weight and percent bone yield but right and fat thi. Retail yield i 52:55 {ran the U. m each other (2‘ “ § “ Field, Fat ”(1 ‘2 1’32? ' area 53 f ..Qll \jel frr . J'h Q “r 5.956 of t it». he 1 A“qte d ( / . $- .0. I 45.51 f 0r rm Ike 1. (V Cia - la: tlonsr Michael E. Dikeman carcass weight significantly affected only weight of bone. Percent retail and fat trim.yie1ds were significantly (P < .01) affected by carcass weight and fat thickness interaction. Retail yield from.the round, loin, rib and chuck (RLRC), roasts and steaks from.the RURC, and total carcass retail yield were highly correlated with each other (ranges, 0.96 to 1.00 and 0.96 to 0.99 for weight and percent, respectively). Retail yields were negatively correlated (P < .01) with fat trim.yie1ds within weight groups but in the combined weight group the correlations for weights of these components were low. subjective carcass conformation and grade scores were poorly corre- lated with carcass retail yields. Fat measurements B and C (12th rib) and the average of fat measurements A, B and C were highly related to retail and.fat trim.yie1ds. Brisket depth was also significantly (P'< .01) correlated with fat trim. 0f the wholesale cuts the retail yield of the round was consistently the most highly related to carcass retail yields (range, 0.91 to 0.97). The chuck retail yield was nearly as highly related to total carcass re- tail yield. Fat trim from.the wholesale flank was the most highly related to total carcass fat trim.(range, 0.78 to 0.95) while correlations of :retail yield from.the flank with carcass retail yields were much lower 'than those of the round or chuck. Since round fat trim.was also highly correlated (P‘< .01) with carcass fat trim, this wholesale cut would be ‘very'useful for predictive purposes. The relationship of predicted carcass retail yields from.severa1 existing regression equations to actual retail yields were more accurate Michael E. Dikeman within the light weight than the heavy weight group. An equation by Murphey accounted for 67% to 85% of the variation in actual retail yields within weight groups and.was consistently the most accurate equation. An equation by Breidenstein accounted for 64% to 79% while an equation by Brungardt and Bray accounted for 56% to 83% of the variation in actual retail yields. Several equations developed by Allen accounted for only approximately 50% of the variation in actual percent retail yields. The affect of beef type (Holstein versus the three major British beef breeds) upon retail, fat trim.and bone yields showed that the light weight group of British breeds had significantly (P < .01) greater per- centages of retail yield than the Holstein carcasses, but the differences in retail yields between the Holsteins and heavy weight group of British breeds were nonsignificant. THE RELATIONSHIP OF SOME OBJECTIVE AND SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS TO BEEF CARCASS CUTABILITY by Michael E. Dikeman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Animal Husbandry 1968 GL’f"7Q.\é S»Dor43 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is very appreciative and grateful to Dr. R. A. Merkel for his sincere interest, guidance and encouragement during this study and to Dr. W. T. Magee for his interest and assistance in the statistical analysis. Special thanks is also expressed to Mrs. Bea Eichelberger for her excellent cooperation shown throughout the authors graduate program. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. H. D. Ritchie for his interest and encouragement and to Dr. D. M. Allen for his assistance in the planning and initiation of this study. The author also wishes to thank the Allen Packing Company of Charlotte, Michigan, and'Van Alstine Packing Company'of Okemos, Michigan, for their cooperation in the selection of the carcasses for this study. The author wishes to extend a special gratitude to his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Delbert Dikeman, for their understanding and encouragement throughout his lifetime. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page MODUCTI ON 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 REVEWWLITERATUR-Eooo00000000000000...coo4 GrowthandDevelopment ................... 4 Bone O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 ms Cle O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 6 7 Fat 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Methods Used to Evaluate Growth, Development and Subsequent Carcass Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Live Weight gain a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 8 Live SUbjeCtive appraisal o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 meSSing percent 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 10 Ultrasonics and live probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll Biopsy o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 12 SPeCifiC graVity o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 12 Fat measurements 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 14 £0 dorSi muSCle area a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 15 MISCle E0 bone relationShips o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 16 :MUSCle and ImJSCIG groups 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 l7 Wh0193ale flank o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 17 “110138319 round 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 18 WhOlesale rib and rib 011155 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 19 Antipy‘rine o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 20 Endogenous Radioactive Isotopes . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 13110130ngth 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 22 Retail Yield Studies 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 22 Variability 0f retail yield 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 22 Influence of fat upon retail yield . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Subjective conformation and retail yield . . . . . . . . 25 Carcass weight and retail yield . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 L. dorsi muscle area and retail yield . . . . . . . . . 31 Trimmed round and retail yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Carcass length and retail yield and carcass composition 34 Prediction equations and retail yield . . . . . . . . . 35 iii EEEEIEXIAL PE Source of E: Grouping Subjective 1 Linear Car:- Linear Fat prx‘ Length _ EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . Source of Material Grouping subjective Carcass Evaluation . . . . . linear Carcass Measurements . . . . . . Linear fat measurements at 12th rib FatPrObeSooooooooooooo Length and circumference of round Length of carcass . Depth of brisket . . Cutting Procedure . . . . Statistical Analysis . . RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . Effect of Carcass Weight upon Weight and Percent of Fat Trim and Bone Yields Effect of Fat Thickness upon weight and Percent Carcass Retail, Retail, Fat Trim and Bone Yields .0 o o o o o o o o o o o o Carcass Weight and Fat Thickness Interactions upon Weight and Percent Carcass Retail, Fat Trim.and Bone Yields Relationships Between Weight and Percent Retail, Fat Trim. and mne Yields 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Relationships Between Linear Fat Measurements and Retail and.Fat Yields Relationships Between some Linear and Area Carcass Measure- ments and Retail, Bone and.Fat Trim.Yie1ds Relationships of Wholesale Cut Retail, Fat Trim.and Bone Yields to Total Carcass Retail, Fat Trim.and Bone Yields Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Retail Yield and Carcass Retail and Fat Trim.and Bone Yields . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 3 3 3 E 38 fifififiE 44 46 46 47 54 59 68 72 76 Page Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Fat Yield and Total Carcass RBtail, Fat Trim.and Bone Yields 0 o o o o o o o o 78 Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Bone Yield and Total Carcass Retail, Bone and Fat Trim.Yields o o o o o o o o o 83 Relationships Between Certain Bones and Bone Groups and Total Carcass Retail, Bone and Fat Trim.Yields . . . . . . 87 Relationship Between Subjective Carcass Scores and Total carcass Retail and Fat Trim.Yields o o o o o o o o o o o o 90 Effect of Conformation upon Retail, Fat Trim.and Bone Yields for Individual Fat Groups Within Each Weight Group . . . . 95 Relationship of Predicted Carcass Retail Yields from Several Existing Regression Equations to Actual Retail Yields 97 The Effects of Beef-Type (Holsteins versus the Three Major British Beef Breeds) upon Retail, Fat Trim.and Bone Yields 102 SUMY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 10 9 LITERATURE CITED 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 114 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 123 Table 10 10a LIST OF TABLES Distribution of carcasses within weight and fat thickness groups 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 0 Characteristics and scores used in the subjective carcass evaluation...ooooooooooooooooooooo Means and error mean squares of weights of retail, roast and steak, fat trim.and bone yields, carcass length, 1. dorsi muscle area and 12th rib fat thickness for the - combined and individual weight groups and fat thickness ranges O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Means of weights of retail, roast and steak, fat trim.and bone yields; carcass length, l. dorsi muscle area and 12th rib fat thickness for the individuaI fat thickness ranges Withineachweightgroup................. Means and error mean squares of percent retail, roast and steak, fat trim and bone yields for the combined and indi- vidual weight groups and fat thickness ranges . . . . . . Means of percent retail, roast and steak, fat trim.and bone yields for the individual fat thickness ranges within eaChWeightgroup00000000000000.0000. Simple correlation coefficients of carcass weight, weight and percents retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds with retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for the combined weight group . . Simple correlation coefficients of weights and.percents retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for the light weight group O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Simple correlation coefficients of weight and percents retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for the heavy weight group O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Simple correlation coefficients of linear fat measurements with retail, bone and fat trim yields for the combined weightgroupooooo000000000000coo... Simple correlation coefficients of linear fat measurements with retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for the combined weight group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi Page 51 52 55 56 57 61 Table 12 12a 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Simple correlation coefficients of linear fat measurements with retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for the light weight group......................... Simple correlation coefficients of linear fat measurements with retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for the light weight group..............oo........o Simple correlation coefficients of linear fat measurements with retail, bone and fat trim yields for the heavy weight groupso.00000000000000.0000... Simple correlation coefficients of linear fat measurements with retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for the heavy weight group........o................ Simple correlation coefficients of some linear and area carcass measurements with retail, bone and.fat trim.yie1ds for the combined and individual weight groups . . . . . Simple correlation coefficients of wholesale cut retail yield with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim yields for the combined weight group . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simple correlation coefficients of wholesale cut retail yield with total carcass retail, bone and.fat trim yields fortheligh‘tweigh‘tgroup............... Simple correlation coefficients of wholesale cut retail yield with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim yields fortheheavyweightgroup........oooo... Simple correlation coefficients of wholesale cut fat trim with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for thecombinedweightg'roups............... Simple correlation coefficients of wholesale cut fat trim with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for thelightweigh'tgroup.......o.....o.o. Simple correlation coefficients of wholesale cut fat trim with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim yields for theheavyweightgroupo0000000000000... Page 63 64 65 66 69 73 74 75 79 8O 81 Simple correlation coefficients of wholesale cut bone yield with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim yields for thecombinedweightgroup............... vii 84 Table 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 29 Page Simple correlation coefficients of wholesale cut bone yield with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim yields for the lightweightgroupoococo-0000000000000 Simple correlation coefficients of wholesale cut bone yield with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds intheheavyweigh‘tgroup................ Simple correlation coefficients of certain bones and bone groups with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim yields for the combined and individual weight groups . . . . . . Simple correlation coefficients of subjective carcass scores with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim yields for the Combined Weight group 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Simple correlation coefficients of subjective carcass scores with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim yields fortheligh'tweigh‘tgroup..‘.............. Simple correlation coefficients of subjective carcass scores with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds fortheheavyweightgrOUPo0.0.0.0000...0.0 Some existing multiple regression equations for estimating percent retail yield in the combined and individual weightgroups......o.......o.....o. Simple correlation coefficients of predicted retail yields (percent) from several existing regression equations with the actual percent retail yields for the individual and CombinedweightgrOUPSoooooocoo...coo... Means of some linear and area measurements and subjective carcass scores for steer carcasses of Holsteins and the combined.means of the three major British beef breeds . . Mean weights and percents retail, fat trim.and bone yields for steer carcasses of Holsteins and the combined means of the three major British beef breeds . . . . . . . . . . . viii 85 88 91 92 93 98 99 103 105 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Illustration showing fat thickness measurements at the 12th rib O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C 40 2 Illustration showing the pattern of fat probes taken 4, 8 and 12 in. from.the dorsal midline on the carcass . . . . 42 3 Illustration showing the measurement of brisket depth . . 43 Appendix IB IC IIA IIB IIC IIIA IIIB IVA IVB IVC LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Carcass evaluation - subjective scores . . . . . . Carcass evaluation - objective fat measures . . . Carcass evaluation - objective measurements . . . Wholesale cut yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Retail cutout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bone weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holstein carcass evaluation-subjective scores . . Holstein carcass evaluation-objective fat measures Holstein carcass evaluation-objective measurements Holstein carcass wholesale cut yield . . . . . . . Holstein retail cutout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Holstein bone weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 123 127 143 147 155 167 171 171 173 174 175 176 INTRODUCTION The efficiency of domestic animals in converting plant nutrients to meat proteins is being challenged by scientists and segments of the food industry. Synthetic products pose a threat as a substitute for meat since a unit of these proteins can be produced more efficiently than meat proteins, and furthermore, product composition can be more accurately controlled. Present consumer demand indicates that Americans select meat for maximum quantity of muscle with a minimum.amount of fat and/or bone. In turn the retailer reflects consumer demand for well muscled, trim.retail cuts in his purchase of carcasses and/or wholesale cuts. Overfat and light muscled cattle are inefficient in this respect; however, the affect of the latter trait upon retail yield or carcass composition has has not been thoroughly elucidated. The beef carcass commensurate with present consumer demands should have at least minimum U. S. Choice quality, external fat thickness 'between 0.25 and 0.5 in. and yield a minumum.of 65% boneless closely trinmed.retail cuts. Cattle that meet the above specifications exist, tnrt many carcasses have excess fat or deficient muscling and combina- tions of these two factors. It is anticipated that when practical object- ive: :measures become available, they would also provide mpre objective criteria for selection of breeding stock to improve the cutability of beef cattle. E I The qualit. m»; beef grad: m those for 0 these methods as ‘l cass. In adéi+n ‘ - Various 0b: We ' . Hie ~ 5: mthgds an (hi-SE .- 4 ‘Je so, :30va En C (. have Cflhlc :09 \ .«.:2t 0 n CarcaQ< S‘- “1 ac -2- The qualitative factors of the present U. S. Department of Agricul- ture beef grading standards are more widely used throughout the industry than those for evaluating the quantitative differences in beef carcasses. The retail yield grade is an optional feature in the present beef grading specifications. Physical separation and chemical analyses provide the most accurate methods,to date, for measuring carcass quantitative differences. However, these methods necessitate destruction of at least a portion of the car- cass. In addition, these methods generally have no practical application to selection in live animals. Various objective and subjective factors and combinations of these two criteria are used to evaluate quantitative differences and/or value. These methods are generally non-destructive but none accurately measures these differences. Value differences as great as $10.00 per hundredweight are commonly encountered within the same carcass grade.l Composition studies have consistently shown that degree of fatness has a marked effect on carcass retail yield. Yet fat thickness measured at the 12th rib, as is commonly done, accounts for only about 40% of the variation in total carcass fat. The area of the $°.225§i muscle is also commonly measured but again accounts for less than 40% of the variation in bone- less retail yield. Thus, this study was designed to determine the relationship of objective measurements to retail yield. The effects of carcass weight, 12th rib fat thickness and the interaction of these two criteria upon retail yield were studied. Conformation was scored with a conscious -3- effort to evaluate degree of muscling irrespective of quantity of fat and the relationship of conformation to retail yield and quantity of roast and steaks was studied. The effect of conformation upon retail yield and quantity of roast and steaks was also observed between carcasses of three British beef breeds and the Holstein-Friesian breed for carcasses of approximately the same degree of fatness and carcass weight. In addition the experiment was designed to study the variation in actual boneless trimmed retail yield among steer carcasses of approximately the same weight and degree of fatness from several existing regression equations. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Growth and Development Animals change form.(composition) during growth and development. Although the nature of such growth and development processes cannot be clearly distinguished from.each other, nor adequately defined, these phenomena are the most important processes in animal agriculture and consist of more than a simple increase in size or weight. Growth has been defined in many ways. Maynard and Loosli (1962) maintained that "true" growth involves an increase in the structural tissues (muscle, bone and organs) and should be distinguished from.the increase that results from.fat deposition in the reserve tissues. Brody (1945) defined growth as the production of new biochemical units brought about by cell division, cell enlargement or the incorporation of materials from the environment. Hammond (1952) indicated that growth is an increase in weight until a mature size is reached. Development has been defined as changes in body shape and/or con- fermation until the body structure and its various facilities come into being (Hammond, 1952). Some researchers,therefore, define growth to include development, whereas others use the term "development" to include both growth and development. The distinction between growth and fattening is an arbi- ‘hmuy’one and therefore the deposition of fat is usually considered as Paftcfi‘growth. Brody (1945) stated that the deposition of fat should -5- not be considered as "true" growth, yet from.the standpoint of quanti- tative measurement of growth, one must consider fat as part of the growth process. According to Brody (1945), the shape of the growth curve is similar in all species. Hammond (1960) reported that the order in which the various parts and tissues develop is much the same in all species, as it is based on the relative importance of the functions of the parts or tissues for survival of the animal. Luitingh (1962) studied developmental changes in beef steers based on slaughter data from control and fattened groups of steers of differ- ent ages. He found that developmental patterns within age groups were similar. The shoulder constituted the slowest growing part in every age group followed (in ascending order) by the round, chuck, loin, plate, neck, brisket and finally by the fat depots, flank, cod and kidney fat. There was a decline in percent hindquarter with increasing age. He also stated that the loin was not the latest developing part in the older groups of steers. Luitingh (1962) reported that fat deposition is a function of age and physiological maturity. When beef steers are fattened, the most rapid weight gain takes place in those parts of the animal body which command the lowest price and least demand. The proportion of dorsal parts was higher in unfattened steers cf every age group. The parts where fat is deposited, kidney and pelvic fat, flank and cod, brisket, pflate and neck formed a significantly (P < .01) larger percent of fattened than unfattened steers. The round and chuck formed a signifi- mufifly lower percentage (P < .01) of fattened than unfattened steers. -6- Bone Bone completes a greater portion of its growth early in post-natal life (Palsson and Verges, 1952) and the ribs are apparently the latest developing bones of the body. Luitingh (1962) also indicated that the rib bones represent the latest maturing bones in the body. Cuthbertson and Pomeroy (1962) reported that the bones of lighter weight swine car- casses grew relatively more in length than in thickness, and changes in - the bone of heavier carcasses was characterized by thickening and ossi- fication. Tulloh (1963) presented data to suggest that there is a constant differential growth ratio between weight of carcass bone and empty body weight. The slopes of the lines of a logarithmic plot are all similar and range between 0.7 and 0.8 and, being less than 1.0, indicate that the percentage of bone decreases as body weight increases. Muscle Muscle by weight is the major body tissue. Post-natal increase in size results from.cell hypertrophy (Joubert, 1956a). Hammond (1960) reported that while an increase in post-natal weight of muscle is by muscle fiber diameter, the maximum adult size of the animal has been fixed at birth since differences in size between breeds within a species are due to differences in muscle cell number and not to cell size. The limit to muscle cell size cannot be exceeded by a high plane of nutri- tion. However, hexoestrol implantation of steers was shown to increase nuscle fiber diameter (Everitt and Carter, 1961). -7- Joubert (1956a) reported muscle fiber diameter was more closely correlated with muscle weight (0.86) than age of animal (0.75), live weight (0.83) or carcass weight (0.76). Significant differences in.l. Eggsi muscle cell size were found among animals of the same weight and grade (Joubert, 1956a). He also reported that width of this muscle is earlier maturing than depth and the depth responded more to level of nutrition. Luitingh (1962) reported that the l, gggsi muscle was later maturing (both depth and width) in the 12 to 13th rib and 8 to 11th rib section than in the anterior thora- cic region. Width of the l. dgggi muscle increased more in calves than in 2 or 3 year old steers and was less in 3 year old steers than in 2 year old steers. However, the depth of the l. Eggsi muscle increased mpre in 2 year old steers followed by calves. The increase in area of the l. Qgggi.muscle in the 2 year olds was attributed to increased muscle depth. After maximum development of Specific muscles has been attained, additional gain in weight must, therefore, be due to fat deposition. ESE The extent and distribution of fat plays an important role in the composition of the meat animal and subsequent carcass. The major change in composition of the animal body depends on the level of fatness (Callow, 1948). Fat depots appear in young animals around the viscera and kidney, and with increasing age and adequate caloric intake between the muscles (intermuscular fat), beneath the skin (subcutaneous fat), and lastly in ‘Hmeform of marbling (intramuscular fat) (Callow, 1948). Methods to Evaluate Growth, Development and Subsequent Carcass Composition Live weight gain Mbst beef cattle experiments use some measure of growth, but live weight is unequivocally the most widely used. Growth as measured by weight can be expressed in one of several ways. The most common proce- dure is the absolute gain in weight per unit of time. However, this method gives no indications of the changes occurring in body or carcass composi- tion. It is generally thought that animals with a higher daily gain will have more muscle than slow gaining cattle. Hedrick 31 El' (1963) re- ported a significant correlation coefficient (0.41) between daily gain and trimmed primal cuts among Hereford steers slaughtered at a constant weight. A correlation coefficient of -.26 was obtained between fat thicke ness and daily gain suggesting that faster growing cattle, when fed to a constant weight, have more lean and less fat. When cattle are fed for a standard period of time, there is an in- verse relationship between daily gain and muscle development (Rollins, 1962). Fattening is a function of a physiological age-weight relation- ship (Luitingh, 1962) and not of chronological age. Therefore, faster gaining animals (cattle of the three British breeds), fed the same period of time as slow gaining animals, will deposit a greater amount of fat, which when expressed on a part-to-whole relationship will show a positive correlation to rate of gain. Tulloh (1963) reported that the relation between each of the three body components (muscle, fat and bone) and empty body weight can be -9.- described by linear regression equations using logarithnic values for the variables. Carcass composition appeared to be primarily dependent on body weight and largely independent of age and nutritional history. The differential growth ratios in these equations indicated that as empty body weight increased, the weight of each of the dissected carcass components also increased. In addition, the proportion of carcass bone decreased, proportion of fat increased, and muscle remained almost constant. Use of relative growth rate and instantaneous growth rate was described by Brody (1945) and suggested as an alternative to average daily gain. Apparently neither of these methods .has f0und widespread use in the meat industry since very little mention is made of them.in literature. Live subjective appraisal Subjective measures or appraisal are used when beef cattle are sold alive to estimate the expected quantitative and qualitative characteris- tics of the carcass. Obviously, live weight is also important in considering the value of a beef animal. Gregory gt 3}. (1966) indicated that trained personnel can estimate group means for cutability of live cattle more accurately than for qualitative differences. Live estimated cutability accounted for approximately one-half of the variation in actual cutability of groups of cattle determined by a regression equation using carcass weight, rib eye area, fat thickness at the 12th rib, and -1o- estimated percent kidney knob. When individual cattle were evaluated, subjective measurements accounted for less of the variation (20 to 25%) in carcass traits. Stringer g: 21. (1963) indicated that estimates of retail yield in the live animal were associated with approximately 15% of the variation in actual retail yield. However, carcass estimates were associated with approximately 50% of the variation in actual retail yield. These data suggest that the percentage of actual variation in re- tail cuts which can be accounted for by live estimation is not high. However, these estimates do appear at least as reliable, if not more so, as the traditional estimates of dressing percent and carcass grade. Dressinggpercent Dressing percent gives no indication of composition or quantity of edible or saleable portion. A higher dressing percent in most cases is associated with fatter animals whose carcasses will yield a lower per- cent of edible portion (Cole 21 31., 1960a). However, sex, breed, type, fill and individual variation influence this value (Lush, 1926). Thus, it appears that the only contribution of dressing percent to the beef industry is to the packer and only then when he is determining the mar- gin he must receive between the price of live cattle and the price received for dressed beef. Ultrasonics and live probe Superior carcass composition among cattle that possess optimum growth potential should be the goal of the beef industry. A more accur- ate measure of the changes in composition associated with growth and development, and fattening than that of live weight gain would be an invaluable tool for the beef industry. Research conducted by Hedrick 33 21. (1963) and Brackelsberg (1967) suggest possible methods of measur- ing beef carcass composition at various intervals of the growth and development period. Hedrick 33 El‘ (1963) used an ultrasonic instrument to measure the l. dgggi:muscle area of beef steers and bulls at various intervals prior to slaughter. The latter authors reported significant correlation coefficients ranging from 0.59 to 0.71 between estimated 1.‘dg£§i muscle area (5 months prior to slaughter) and actual muscle area in the carcass. Brown 21 El. (1964) and Davis 23 21. (1965) have also shown that the ultrasonic technique is a relatively accurate method for the determination of l. 925E; muscle area and fat thickness of cattle. Other muscles have also been as accurately measured by this technique as the l. 2933i muscle. Brackelsberg (1967) used a probe to determine fatness of live ani- mals. He made probes 5, 9 and 13 cm. lateral to the midline of the back at the 12 to 13th rib. He also probed 8 cm. lateral to the thoracic vertebrae at the posterior edge cf the scapula, and in addition, lateral to the sacral vertebrae anterior to the os coxae. He used a 16 guage thermister needle probe and reported correlations between live probes -12.... and carcass probes ranging from.0.21 to 0.90. However, the live probe had a correlation of 0.67 with percent carcass fat trim. Bio s Biopsy techniques have been developed which facilitate the study of live body composition without sacrifice of the animal. Bray (1953) suggested that there were limitations to using this technique such as obtaining a representative sample of an individual muscle or of the entire animal. Also, some muscles cannot be used without affecting the normal function of the animal. Bray (1953) discussed the use of the biopsy technique for study of muscle fiber growth, muscle development and fat deposition. Everitt and Carter (1961) used the biopsy method to determine muscle fiber changes in two and six year old steers as affected by hexestrol implants. They chose the semitendinosus muscle because it was of suffi- cient size to withstand sampling as well as being readily identified in the live animal. This muscle also is late developing (post-natal) and highly correlated with total muscle mass. Specific ggaziiy Carcass density is determined by dividing the carcass weight in air by the total carcass volume. Since the density of fat is considerably less than that of other components (muscle and.bone) of the carcass, fatter carcasses will have lower density. Estimation of volume can be made from.the Archimedean principle which states that a body immersed in rater loses F21- cass specific 373‘” of the water, at 9- lationship between mistue, nitrogen a and chemical fat an; Kropf (1959) r gravity nee surety;- at of the rib. 0mm: g as a measure of m a? correlation of -..5; 9'10‘11 rib and per I. y .0. . . QD‘Thlc graYILty 131.; Content -13- in water loses weight by an amount equal to the displaced water. Car- cass specific gravity then is the ratio of carcass density to the density of the water, at a specified temperature. Garrett 33.2l' (1959) used 20 sheep carcasses to determine the re- lationship between percent carcass fat and carcass specific gravity. Each carcass was ground and chemically analyzed for ether extract, moisture, nitrogen and ash. The correlation between the specific gravity and chemical fat analysis was -.90. KrOpf (1959) reported significant correlations between specific gravity measurements of the 9-10-11 rib section and separable components of the rib. Orme st 31. (1958) found that specific gravity can be used as a measure of marbling in the 1. ggggi muscle or wholesale rib. A correlation of -.81 between specific gravity of l. dgggi muscle of the 9-10-11 rib and percent fat was found. Bieber (1961) observed that specific gravity measurements could be used to estimate fat and:muscle content of beef cuts or muscles, but not for ground beef because of in- corporated air. Iwanaga and Cobb (1963) reported that specific gravity of the car- cass was highly correlated.with yield of trimmed retail cuts (0.75). Specific gravity has been used to measure the fatness of humans, but Pearson (1955) reported that trying to measure specific gravity of farm.animals is cumbersome and controlling breathing is a problem. -l4- Fat measurements Most all research involving beef carcass composition or retail yield studies report that fat is the most variable component of the beef carcass. These reports clearly show that as fat thickness increased, the yield of separable muscle or retail cuts decreased. Gottsch.gt El. (1961) reported a correlation coefficient of -.91 between retail lean and fat trim of the carcass. Fat thickness is conventionally measured at the 12th rib and is usually an average of three measurements. However, recent work shows that one measurement taken over the l. dggsi three-fourths of the distance from.the medial to lateral edges of the muscle is as reliable as the average of three measurements (Ramsey st 31., 1962). Allen (1966) found that the fat measurements most highly related to percent separable components and retail yields were the single measurement at the 12th rib (three-fourths measurement); an average of three measurements over the 1. ggggi muscle; and a fat probe 4 in. off the dorsal midline at the 5th thoracic vertebra. Brungardt and Bray (1963a) found that body wall thickness (a measure- ment taken along the 12-l3th rib separation at 7 1/2 in. laterally from the ventral end of the l. 2233; muscle) was negatively associated with percent retail cuts (-.64). This measures an area where excess fat is deposited. Lewis 2: 31. (1964) and Allen (1966) took numerous subcutaneous fat measurements at various locations on the carcass and reported that fat thickness measurements taken in the lumbar and thoracic area are more highly related to carcass composition than other fat measurements. -15.. L. dorsi muscle area s._:====— A procedure for determining the l. dggsi muscle area was proposed by Mackintosh (1937). Measuring the area of the cross section of the l. QEEEi muscle has been used as extensively as any measurement as an index of muscling in the carcass. The area of this muscle has been reported to vary from.right to left side. Hedrick 23 El. (1965) measured the right and left 1. Egggi muscles from.295 steer carcasses ribbed in the conventional manner. The average area of the right muscle was significantly larger (0.65 sq. in.) than the left. However, in this same study, 47 steer carcasses were chilled unsplit. Intact shortloins and ribs were cut into steaks one-half vertebrae in thickness, beginning at the center of the 11th thoracic vertebrae and continuing in sequence to the juncture of the 13th thoracic and first lumbar vertebrae. Bilateral tracings were made of the 1. gaggi muscle at 6 locations. There were no significant differ- ences between right and left side in this study. Several studies have been conducted to determine the relationship between 1. 2252i:muscle area and carcass lean, fat and bone. In a report by Cole 3.1:. .a_1_. (1960a) the area of this muscle was associated with only 18% of the variation of separable lean of individual wholesale cuts. Similar results were shown by Gottsch 33 Si‘ (1961) and Hedrick st 31. (1963). Cole 33 21. (1962) found simple correlations of 0.58, 0.59, 0.39 and 0.63 between total separable lean and 1. £232; area at the 5th rib, 12th rib, last lumbar vertebrae and an average of the three -16- measurements, respectively. An average of the three area measurements multiplied by carcass length increased the accuracy of estimating separ- able lean (0.73). 6019.22.31' (1962) reported that there was a tendency for l. ggggi muscle area to decrease and total pounds of separable lean to increase as carcass length increased. Muscle to bone relationships Carcass composition has been determined by using muscle to bone relationships. Callow (1961) reported that the ratio of the weight of muscular tissue to the weight of bone in a carcass was a useful measure of carcass composition; a high ratio being more desirable than a low one. G°°d.2£.2i° (1961) reported significant correlations for circumference of cannon bone with.muscling score (-.32), circumference of round (0.30) and l. Egggi muscle area (0.13). Miller 33 Ei' (1965) found that percent bone removed from the left side of the carcass was positively associated (P'< .01) with yield of boneless and partially boneless retail cuts of the left and right side, respectively. McMeekan (1940a) found a positive relationship between bone weight and weight of muscle. In a study by Cole 3: 2i! (1960a) the weight of separable carcass lean and separable bone was positively related (0.75). Orme 31 El. (1959) reported that the weight-length ratio, length and thickness of the fore or hind cannon bones of beef were significantly related to carcass lean. -17- Muscles and muscle groups Butterfield (1963a) and Miller E: El“ (1965) reported significant relationships between several individual muscles and total carcass muscle. A correlation of approximately 0.90 was found between 1. daggi:muscle weight and total carcass separable muscle. Butterfield (1963a) found a correlation coefficient between weight of the Eiggpg fgmgpig muscle and total carcass muscle of 0.96. Other researchers (Orme g: 21., 1960; Allen, 1966) have found similar highly significant correlations between weights of certain individual muscles and total carcass muscle. Wholesale flank In the report of Hankins and Howe (1946), data were presented which indicated the fatness of the flank was more highly related to fatness of the entire carcass (0.95) than that of the extensively used 9-10-11 rib section (0.93). Allen (1966) observed correlation coefficients of 0.91, 0.91 and 0.32 between percent separable muscle, fat and bone, respectively, from the wholesale cut flank and percent separable compon- ents of the entire carcass. When comparisons were made within weight and fat thickness groups, relationships were consistently higher for percent separable fat and.muscle of the flank with the separable comp ponents of the carcass than similar comparisons for components of the round. In addition, the latter author found the correlations of the flank and 9-10-11 rib section with carcass separable components were essentially'comparable. -18.. Miller et al. (1965) reported that percent retail yield of the flank was significantly related to percent boneless cuts (0.78) and per- cent partially boneless retail cuts (0.81) of the carcass. With car- casses of similar weight, the quantity of muscle in the flank is similar; however, since the flank is a fat depot, it is indicative of total fat in the carcass. Wholesale round Research reports to date consistently indicate that the trimmed round or boneless closely trimmed cuts from.the round are highly related to the retail yield and separable muscle of the entire carcass. Cole 32 Si' (19603):reported that the separable muscle in the round was asso- ciated with 90% of the variation in total separable muscle in the carcass. Allen (1966) reported correlation coefficients of 0.83, 0.91 and 0.83 for percent separable muscle, fat and bone, respectively, of the round and percent of the corresponding separable components of the carcass. Brungardt and Bray (1963a) used percent trimmed round and a single 12th rib fat measurement and accounted for 81% of the variation in percent retail yield. Miller S: 21. (1965) observed that percent trimmed round was highly related to percent boneless (0.79) and partially boneless (0.84) retail yield of the primal cuts and percent boneless (0.80) and partially boneless (0.88) retail yield of the entire side. _19- Wholesale rib and rib cuts The wholesale rib or its parts has been used more extensively than any other method to estimate composition of the entire carcass. Hankins and Howe (1946) analyzed data from steer and heifer carcasses and found that the physical components (muscle, fat and bone) of the 9-10-11 rib section were highly associated with the corresponding components of the carcass. H0pper (1944) earlier found similar results in his study. The correlations for heifers were not as high as those for the steer carcasses. This difference, according to Hankins and Howe (1946), raises some doubt as to the usefulness of applying the reported estimating equations to estimate fat or lean content of carcasses that differ in age, carcass weight, sex or nutritional treatment. The prediction equa- tion of the 9-10-11 rib section has been used to estimate carcass composition of cattle from.varied nutritional regimens as well as those of different types and breeds. Yet no additional work has been done since that reported by Hankins and Howe (1946) to compare the separable components of the 9—10-11 rib with separable components of the entire carcass from cattle of varying types, weights, ages, degrees of fatness and nutritional regimens. Allen (1966) used two weight groups of steer carcasses (carcasses 500 to 550 1b. and 700 to 750 lb.) and related percent separable comp ponents of the 9-10-11 rib section with percent separable components of the carcass. The correlation coefficients were lower in the heavy weight group than the light weight group. The correlations for the heavy group were 0.90, 0.91 and 0.75 for muscle, fat and bone, respect- ively, and 0.94, 0.95 and 0.78 for muscle, fat and bone, respectively, for the light group. This study indicates that total fat deposition and muscle growth may not proceed proportionately from.0ne part of the body to another. Crown and Damon (1960) compared the 12th rib section of 24 car- casses with the 9-10-11 rib for predicting separable components of the entire carcass. They found correlation coefficients of 0.96, 0.82 and 0.75 between separable fat, lean and bone, respectively, of the 12th rib section and the corresponding separable components of the carcass. These authors also observed correlations of 0.98, 0.94 and 0.73 between separable fat, lean and bone, respectively, of the 9-10-11 rib section and the corresponding separable components of the carcass. A core device was used by Kennick and England (1960) to obtain probe samples from the 8-9th rib and the 9-10th rib section. They con- cluded that such cores could be useful in studying composition of beef carcasses. Antipyrine Soberman g: 3l° (1950) presented a method for measuring the total water content of the body 22.2122 based on the dilution of antipyrine after its intravenous injection. Kraybill g: 31. (1951) estimated body fat in 30 beef cattle from the measurement of i2 zizp body water by use of the antipyrine method. The fat values derived from.body water values -21.. by the antipyrine and specific gravity methods were in close agreement with body fat content determined from chemical analyses of samples from the 9-10-11 rib section. However, to date only limited use has been made of this procedure for estimation of body fat in cattle. Endogenous radioactive isotopes The naturally occurring endogenous isotope potassiume40 has been investigated as an index of body composition. Anderson and Langham (1959) reported that potassiump40 comprised 0.011% of the natural potassium. Kulwich EI.El° (1961) reported a significant negative correlation coefficient (-.87) between percent separable fat and disintegrations per minute from.potassiumr40 per pound of intact beef round, and a signi- ficant positive correlation coefficient (0.80) between separable lean and potassiume40 disintegrations per minute. Lohman 22.2i' (1964) observed that the fat-free lean tissues from 29 steers were signifi- cantly related to live weight and potassiumr40 count (0.95 and 0.95). The latter authors also showed that the fat-free lean tissues could be predicted from.the potassiums40 count of the carcass. Lohman 23,21. (1966) suggested use of the potassiume40 method for determining muscle mass in live steers and in the carcass since body potassium.can be measured with considerable accuracy. Gillett ‘gilal. (1967) found var- iations as high as 12.91% occurred in the potassium concentration of muscles when means were compared. Variation in the potassium content -22- of different muscles indicated that constancy does not exist in the potassiumpmuscle relationship, and therefore suggests that this may be an important source of error in the potassiump40 method for estimating composition. Photogrammetgy Armour and Company (1962) adapted a technique known as photograme metry to measure body composition which is reliable and nondestructive. Results indicate that this method is promising to accurately evaluate live animal size, shape, and surface area characteristics; however, evaluation of marbling and fat thickness did not give as high a degree of accuracy. Recently Brinks st 21. (1964) reported a higher degree of accuracy for predicting pounds of untrimmed wholesale cuts by the photo- grammetric method than percent. Retail Yield Studies Variability of retail yield Research data reported by numerous workers have shown that great variability occurs in the retail yield of beef carcasses. These data indicate that carcass value differences exist within as well as between grades. The use of retail yield has the advantage of measuring the saleable portion of the beef carcass and should accurately reflect imr portant quantitative differences in beef. Breidenstein (1962) presented a range of 19% in retail yield and $13.55 per hundredweight value difference among 105 steer sides and for -23- both sides of 94 heifer carcasses within the U.S. Good and Choice grades. He eliminated the extremes from.the study, thus leaving a range of 14.4% between the low and high yielding carcasses which still included 95% of the original sample. This represents a value difference between the low and high yielding carcasses of $10.32 per hundredweight or approxi- mately $60.00 for a 600 lb. carcass. Brungardt and Bray (1963a) studied retail yield of the left sides of 99 U.S. Choice steer carcasses. They studied three weight groups (260 to 288 1b., 300 to 325 lb. and 332 to 360 1b.). The average per- cent boneless, trimmed retail cuts from the round, loin, rib and chuck was 50.8%, 49.7% and 48.5%, respectively, for the three weight groups. The range included only 22 of 33 in each group closest to the average for the group. The ranges were 47.0 to 54.6%, 46.3 to 53.0% and 45.5 to 51.5%, respectively, for the three groups. The value differences per hundredweight were $6.56, $5.52 and $5.25, respectively, for the light, middle and heavyweight groups. Kropf and Graf (1959) studied U.S. Choice, Good, Commercial (Stan- dard) grade steer, heifer and cow carcasses from 400 to 900 lb. and they observed total carcass boneless, retail yield varied from.68.1 to 57.3%. Influence of fat upon retail yield Ramsey 23 El. (1962) reported that the external fat thickness at the 12th rib of Choice, Good and Standard grade cattle varied from 0.1 to 1.1 in., while kidney fat ranged from 1.8 to 8.9% and separable car- cass fat from 14.3 to 42.8%. Brungardt and Bray (1963b) found the fat ~24- thickness of Good and Choice grade cattle varied from 0.35 to 1.60 in. kidney fat from 2.4 to 7.8% and calculated carcass fat (using 9-10-11 rib separable fat) from 28.5 to 40.5%. Since the quantity of fat varies widely, it becomes obvious that fat is one of the important, if not the most important factor contributing to the variation in the value of beef carcasses. Zinn g: Ei' (1963) reported a negative correlation (-.81) between percent fat trim and boneless round, loin, rib and chuck in beef car— casses. With multiple regression analysis, they found that each 1% increase in carcass fat trim, resulted in a corresponding decrease of 0.34% of boneless round, loin, rib and chuck. Miller 33 El? (1965) reported negative and significant correlation coefficients (P < .01) for fat trim from.the right and left sides with retail yield of the round, loin, rib and chuck and with total carcass retail yield. The latter workers presented data to show that an increase of approximately 1.10% in fat trim decreased partially boneless retail yield 1%. They concluded that variation in percent fat trim accounted for more of the variation in retail yield than any other variable studied. Brungardt and Bray (1963a) found correlations of external fat thick- ness measurements taken at various points on the carcass with percent retail yield from.the round, loin, rib and chuck ranging from.-.63 to -.73. Retail yield was also negatively correlated (-.54) with percent kidney and pelvic fat. Hedrick g: Ei' (1963) and Miller 33 El. (1965) reported significant (P < .01) negative correlations of fat thickness -25- at the 12th rib, and several other carcass fat measurements with retail yield. Higher correlations were found by Miller 3: El. (1965) for sub- cutaneous fat thickness measurements with percent retail cuts than with weight of retail cuts. These authors observed subcutaneous fat probes were nonsignificantly correlated with weight of retail cuts except those probes over the 11th to 12th thoracic vertebrae which were significant (P‘< .05). The latter authors reported all correlations of fat thick- ness with percent retail cuts were negative and highly significant (P«< .01). Miller 32 Ei' (1965) also stated that probes taken adjacent to the 11th to 12th thoracic vertebrae were more closely related to retail yield than fat thickness measurements at the 12th thoracic verte- bra. Degree of fatness had a greater influence upon retail yield than 1.'dg£§i_muscle area according to these workers. An increase of 0.16 in. in fat at the 12th rib resulted in a 1% decrease in partially bone- less retail cuts. Murphey'gt‘gl. (1960) found high, negative correlations of a single fat thickness measurement at the 12th rib and percent kidney knob with percent retail yield (-.83 and -.66, respectively). These research studies indicate that the amount of carcass fat is a major factor in determining the quantity of trimmed retail cuts. Subjective conformation and retai1_yield Beef cattle breeders have placed emphasis upon conformation in selection for many years. Conformation has been emphasized to improve the distribution of muscling in the high priced regions of the beef -26— carcass. Considerable emphasis was also directed toward improvement in qualitative traits and efficiency of meat production. Unfortunately, the idea of many producers of superior conformation was not reflected in superior muscling but in fact by greater fatness. In addition, the idea that cattle of beef type or supposedly of superior conformation and con- comitant superiority in efficiency of meat production has been seriously questioned by researchers and livestock producers. Further, the idea of superior eating quality of beef cattle compared with other breeds of cattle has also been challenged by researchers. The beef cattle industry has recently emerged from.a period when ideal beef type was thought to be a low set, compact, blocky animal that was thick topped and would have a high proportion of its weight in the high priced cuts. Research studies conducted in this period of time have shown little advantage to this type of animal. Knox and Kroger (1946) pointed out that type affects only size and dressing percent. Butler 21.3i° (1956) expressed some doubt concerning the importance of compact- ness as a desirable conformation factor in beef cattle. Pierce (1957) found a small but significant positive relationship between conformation grade and yield of closely trimmed retail cuts from.the round, loin, rib and chuck. He reported that the relationship between amount of finish and yield of retail cuts was negative and accounted fer considerably more of the variation in retail yield than conformation. The data of Everitt (1963) suggested that conformation and.va1ue improved until the stage is reached where fat is rapidly deposited in the carcass. He observed that the more expensive parts of the carcass become proportionately greater with an increase in muscle to bone ratio, but as fattening proceeds, the advantages of conformation is overcompen- sated by the depressing effect of fat. Butterfield (1963a) stated that it is generally believed that what is regarded as good conformation is a high proportion of the most valuable meat. However, the differences in carcass confbrmation are observations of the amount and distribution of fat. Butterfield (1963a) conducted a study with cattle from wide sources including several breeds and crosses as well as"unimproved Shorthorns". His data indicated that there was little doubt that the effect of differences in muscle weight distribution upon the economic value of the carcass is small. He suggested that efforts by breeders to improve the distribution of muscle weight over the carcass have been unproductive. He concluded it would be easier to control the level of finish. Recent research has not caused any less emphasis to be placed on the extent that fat plays in retail yield in beef carcasses. The question that still remains is how important is the effect of confor- mation upon retail yield. Selection and breeding of cattle for length and scale with more muscling and less fat so as to yield higher cuta- bility carcasses has been emphasized by all segments of the beef industry. However, a unanimous definition of superior conformation and ideal beef type does not exist among all segments of the industry. Bray (1964) stated that few recent research reports are available which -28- establish the degree of relationship between carcass conformation and retail yield. Zinn.g£ El. (1961), in a study involving 96 carcasses, reported significant (P < .01) correlations between conformation score and carpass fat thickness at the 12th rib (0.50) and with percent trims mable fat (0.69). .Briskey and Bray (1964) suggested it is difficult to determine muscular development in heavily fatted carcasses since a heavily finished carcass is more likely to be scored higher in confor- mation. Allen (1966) observed that conformation scores were more highly related to measurements of fatness than to those of muscle, even though a deliberate attempt was made to score conformation by mentally defatting the carcass. Breidenstein (1962) reported a low relationship between conformation score and yield of retail cuts in steers grading primarily Good and Choice. However, in heifer carcasses, they'observed that a one-third increase in conformation score was accompanied by an increase of 0.34% in partially boneless retail yield. Tyler 3: 21. (1964) compared high Choice conformation and low Good grade conformation carcasses. The average yields of boneless retail cuts from the round, loin, rib and chuck were essentially the same for the two groups. However, in this study the choice conformation carcasses were fatter, suggesting that if fat thickness had been the same the higher conformation carcasses would have yielded slightly higher than the lower conformation scores. How- ever, Stringer‘einal, (1965) conducted a similar experiment to study the effects of conformation on retail yield of cattle with equal fat -29- thickness ranges. There were no significant differences in total bone- less retail yield or in retail yield of the round, loin, rib and chuck attributable to conformation. Pearson (1966) concluded from.reported research that beef and dairy cattle finished on the same type of ration, under similar environments and the same length of feeding period had similar retail cut-out. Cole 33 31. (1964) worked with British, Zebu and dairy breeds of cattle. They reported that Holstein steers had the highest percent separable muscle in all wholesale cuts except chuck and plate, and the lowest per- cent of total separable carcass fat. The British breeds yielded the highest percent of total carcass separable fat. They concluded that any effect conformation might exert upon yield of separable muscle was over- come by the depressing effect of fat. Hedrick g: 31. (1963) concluded that it is difficult for superior muscle development to compensate for excess fat deposition. Martin _e_t_ 31. (1966) used ten low Choice and ten high Standard con- formation steer carcasses paired on carcass weight, 1. EflEfii muscle area, and fat thickness at the 12th rib to study the yield of closely trimmed boneless thick and thin muscles. The thick muscles of the hindquarter were 5.1 cm. or more in thickness and those of the forequarter were 7.6 cm. Thin muscles were those not meeting the requirements for thick muscles. The most striking advantage of Choice conformation was in the ratio of total muscle to bone and thick, high value muscle to bone. Choice conformation carcasses yielded an average of 0.93% more thick muscles, 0.82% less thin muscles and 0.11% more total muscle than Standard grade conformation carcasses.(significant, P < .05). It appears from.the literature that the definition of conformation varies. However, most studies indicate that muscling contributes much less to conformation scores than fat. It is obvious that high conforma- tion scores that include excess external fat are not highly related to retail yield. Whether high conformation carcasses, with similar amounts of fat to those of lower conformation carcasses, differ in retail yield or edible portion is a question that needs further research. Carcass weight and retail yield Many research studies have shown that carcass weight is negatively related to retail yield. According to Everitt (1963), development until the stage when the deposition of fatty tissue in the carcass predominates, carcass weight is one of the most accurate determinants of composition and cutability. Also, Tulloh (1964) reported that the muscle to bone ratio increases as cattle grow heavier. Kropf and Graf (1959) observed that increased carcass weight had a significant depressing effect upon total carcass retail yield. Cole 23 El. (1962) showed that the average percent of steaks decreased and the percent waste increased as carcass weight increased. Brungardt and Bray (1963) reported that heavier carcasses contained significantly more fat per unit of carcass weight than lighter carcasses. Briedenstein (1962) found that a 100 lb. increase in carcass weight resulted in a 1.42% reduction in retail yield. Murphey g: 31. (1960) reported a similar relationship. -31- Swiger _e_t_ 31. (1964) found a simple correlation coefficient between carcass weight and percent retail yield of -.48. DuB'ose 31: al_. (1967 ) found a simple correlation coefficient between carcass weight and weight of boneless roast and steak meat of 0.94 and they indicated that car- cass weight was the most accurate single indicator of boneless roast and steaks. However, the correlation for percent roasts and steaks was much lower. Allen (1966) reported that carcass weight had a highly significant (P < .01) effect upon pounds of all the carcass separable components, retail and fat trim yields. Carcass weight also had a highly signifi- cant (P < .01) effect upon percent retail and fat trim yields but not on the percent separable carcass fat, muscle and bone. L. dorsi muscle area and retail yield -——_ Significant, positive correlation coefficients (0.40 to 0.60) be- tween 1. $9535; muscle area and retail yield have been reported (Cole 31. 1.1., 19609.; Brungardt and Bray, 1963a; Hedrick 31: 31;, 1963; Breiden- stein, 1962; Gottsch 3:5 11., 1961; Butler gt 2.1., 1961). These authors suggested that there is a 1. 31233; muscle area to weight relationship. Even though this is a nonlinear relationship, these authors showed that on a carcass weight and fat constant basis the correlations of 1. 931211. muscle area and retail yield were significantly reduced. In a study by Cole 31: al. (196033.. when carcass weight was held constant, _1_. 2932i muscle area was associated with only 5% of the variation in the pounds -32.. of separable lean. Fat thickness was more closely associated with car- cass leanness than 1. 51232 muscle area. Brungardt and Bray (1963a) reported that 20% of the variation in retail yield could be accounted for by differences in area of the l. gppgizmuscle. With carcass weight, percent kidney fat and a single fat thickness measurement at the 12th rib held constant, the standard par- tial regression coefficient of boneless, closely trimmed retail yield from.the round, loin, rib and chuck on area of the l. dgpsi muscle was only 0.16. Miller E£.§i° (1965) measured the areas of the 1. 92521 muscle at six different locations from.the left and right sides. They observed that the.i°.22£§i muscle areas were more highly associated with weight than with percent of retail cuts from.the primal cuts as well as those of the entire side. With the exception of the left 13th thoracic-first lumbar vertebrae position, 1. 225E; muscle area was more highly correlated with the percent retail yield from the primal cuts than with that of the entire side. The various 1. dgggi muscle area measurements accounted for 5 to 19% and 6 to 25% of the variation in retail yield of the par- tially boneless and boneless sides, respectively. When correlated with weight, area of the i‘.22£§i muscle accounted for 49 to 69% of the varia- tion in weight of boneless retail cuts and 47 to 62% of the variation in partially boneless retail cuts from.the side. Miller 33 3;. (1955) showed that ;. 29.1.2.1. muscle area in combina- tion with other carcass measurements gave lower multiple correlation -33- coefficients than similar combinations which included percent trimmed round. Briskey and Bray (1964) suggested that even though the influence of area of l. dgggi muscle upon retail yield is small compared to that of fat, emphasis upon size of this muscle may be justified because it represents one of the most tender muscles in the carcass and comprises 10% of the weight of the total muscle in the carcass as well as a large proportion of two of the high priced cuts (loin and rib) of the beef carcass. Trimmed round and retail yield The yield of trimmed wholesale round has been studied as an indicator of carcass retail yield. Miller‘s: 31. (1965) reported that the percent trimmed round was significantly correlated with total carcass percent boneless retail yield (0.79), partially boneless (0.84) yield of the primal cuts and percent boneless (0.80) and partially boneless (0.88) retail cuts of the entire side. The correlations for retail yield of the round were followed closely by that of the flank in their study. This supports work of Hedrick g: 21. (1963) and Brungardt and Bray (1963a). Miller 31,31. (1965) showed that an increase of approximately 0.55% in trimmed round was associated with a 1% increase in percent partially boneless retail yield. Brungardt and Bray (1963a) reported that percent trimmed round and a single 12th rib fat measurement accounted for 81% of the variation in percent retail yield. —34— Allen (1966) reported correlations of 0.83, 0.91 and 0.83 between percent separable muscle, fat and bone of the round and percent of the corresponding separable components of the entire carcass. Carcass length and retail yield and carcass comppsition The relationship of carcass length to retail yield or separable components of the carcass has been studied by Cole 33 al. (1960a). They found that carcass length measurements were more closely associated with weight of separable lean than carcass thickness measurements such as round width, chuck width or depth of body. The latter authors re— ported that linear measurements were more highly related to weight than percent of carcass separable components. They observed that weight of carcass separable lean was significantly (P‘< .01) correlated (0.39) with carcass length. Cole 23 al. (1960a) also found that length of car- cass was negatively associated.with external fat thickness and 1. $2321 muscle area. Cole 33.3i' (1962) found correlation coefficients of 0.58, 0.59, 0.39 and 0.63 for total separable lean with l.‘gg£§ilmuscle area at the 5th, 12th and last lumbar vertebrae and an average of the three site measurements, respectively. When an average of the three site measurements was multiplied by carcass length, the accuracy of estimat- ing separable lean was increased (0.75). Hedrick g: 21. (1965) found carcass length to be highly significantly correlated (0.60) with weight of trimmed.wholesale round, loin, rib and chuck. However, the correla- tion of carcass length with percent trimmed wholesale round, loin, rib -35... and chuck was negative (-.10) and non significant. DuBose 32 a1. (1967) found that carcass weight was the most accurate single indicator of boneless roast and steak meat. They reported that carcass weight was followed by carcass length. Prediction equations and retailgyield Lush (1926) and Hankins and Howe (1946) developed estimating equations based on the separable components of wholesale cuts to esti- mate carcass composition. Murphey 21 ii“ (1960) developed an equation to estimate the percent boneless retail cuts from.the round, loin, rib and chuck which is as follows: percent boneless retail cuts = 51.34 - 5.784 (fat thickness over the ribeye, inches) - .0093 (carcass weight, pounds) - .462 (kidney fat, percent of carcass) + .740 (area of ribeye, square inches). This equation was modified and is now util- ized in the Official Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef (1965) to estimate cutability of beef carcasses. Cole gt 31. (1962) found the most valuable prediction equations to estimate retail yield utilized only fat thickness at the 12th rib and carcass weight [Y = 7.12 - 1.15 (fat thickness) + 0.2967 (carcass weight)]. These two measurements were associated with over 70% of the variation in separable lean and were comparable in accuracy to values obtained with the Hankins and Howe (1946) equation of the 9-10-11 rib section. -36- Another prediction equation for retail yield [Y = 16.64 + 1.67 (percent trimmed round) - 4.94 (single fat measurement at 12th rib)] developed by Brungardt and Bray (1963a) was shown to account for 81% of the variation in retail yield of the round, loin, rib and chuck. The latter equation accounted for more of the variation in yield of retail cuts than application of the equation of Murphey g: 31. (1960), which accounted for only 67% of the variation in this study. Allen (1966) developed several prediction equations from data obtained from.80 steer carcasses. The prediction equations that accounted for 94% of the variation in total carcass retail yield or of the round, loin, rib and chudk included carcass weight; fat probe at the 5th thoracic vertebra, 4 in. off the carcass dorsal midline or a fat measure- nent at the 12th rib one-fourth the distance from the medial to lateral edges of the l. dgpgi muscle; length of round; and percent flank retail yield. Kropf and Graf (1959) and Breidenstein (1962) reported marked retail yield differences between steer and heifer carcasses and the latter author developed separate regression equations for each sex. He was able to account for 72% of the variatidn in retail yield of steer carcasses but that for heifers, although similar, was slightly less accurate. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE Source of Material: The right side of one hundred and twenty steer carcasses of the three major British beef breeds were purchased from several beef packing companies in central Michigan. Carcass selection involved the following two criteria: 1) chilled carcass weight and 2) average fat thickness (average of three measurements at the 12th rib) (Naumann, 1952). Sixty carcasses were selected within each of two weight ranges; 500 to 550 lb. (light) and 700 to 750 lb. (heavy). The two weight ranges were further subdivided into four fat thickness (12th rib) groups; .26 to .50 in., .51 to .75 in., .76 to 1.0 in., and 1.01 to 1.25 in. with 15 carcasses being selected within each group as shown in table 1. In addition, fifteen Holstein steer carcasses were selected Table 1. Distribution of carcasses within weight and fat thickness groups. Average fat thickness (12th rib) .26 to .51 to .76 to 1.01 to Carcass weight .50 in. .75 in. 1.0 in. 1.25 in. 500 to 550 lb. Group I Group II Group III Group IV (light) 15 carcasses 15 carcasses 15 carcasses 15 carcasses 700 to 750 lb. Groups V & IX Group VI Group VII Group VIII (heavy) 30 carcasses 15 carcasses 15 carcasses 15 carcasses .‘r'dk: " ‘- 1 ‘ .3fi -‘ ‘-_- —. -38- within the .26 to .50 in. fat thickness group and the heavy weight range (Group IX) for comparison to the comparable group of the British breeds (Group V). This combination of fat thickness and carcass weight was chosen since it represents the most readily available supply of Holstein carcasses. Subjective Carcass Evaluation. Each carcass was subjectively scored for the characteristics shown in table 2. Conformation was scored with a conscious attempt made to evaluate degree of muscling irrespective of quantity of fat. Linear Carcass Measurements Linear fat measurements at the 12th rib. The fat thickness measurements obtained at the 12th rib included measurements A, B and C, an average of the three (Naumann, 1952) and four other fat thickness measurements D, E, F and G as described by Allen (1966) and shown in figure 1. These latter four measurements were ob- tained by determining the perpendicular distance from the outer edge of the subcutaneous fat to points located at the fat seam.at the lateral end of the l. Egggi:muscle (D), at one-fourth (E), one-half (F), and three-fourths (G) the length of the line Yez extended from the lateral end of the l. Egggi equivalent to the width (medial to lateral edge) of this muscle (line W—X). .. 39.. Table 2. Characteristics and scores used in the subjective carcass evaluation. Characteristic Score Carcass conformation a Hindquarter conformation a Forequarter conformation a Round conformation a Maturity score b Marbling score 0 Final grade a Estimated kidney knob weight d aConformation and/or U.S.D.A. grade Low Avg. High Standard 1 2 3 Good 4 5 6 Choice 7 8 9 Prime 10 ll 12 b . Maturity - Avg. + A l 2 3 B 4 5 6 cMarbling - Avg. + Devoid 1 2 3 Practically devoid 4 5 6 Traces ‘ 7 8 9 Slight 10 ll 12 Small 13 14 15 Mbdest l6 17 18 Moderate 19 20 21 Slightly abundant 22 23 24 Moderately abundant 25 26 27 .Abundant 28 29 30 dEstimated kidney knob weight Weight in pounds -40- G3 ‘ & Figure 1. Illustration showing fat thickness measurements taken at the 12th rib. carcass z lst, 4:1». skeletal The prob the ante ally fro: recorded Iénzth a: x ThES -41- Fat Probes Probes of subcutaneous fat were made on the right side of each carcass as described by Allen (1966). The 5th, 8th and 11th thoracic; lst, 4th and 6th lumbar and 3rd and 5th sacral vertebrae were used as skeletal reference points for these fat probes as shown in figure 2. The probes were made with a scalpel and metal ruler, perpendicular to the anterior edge of these reference vertebrae, 4, 8 and 12 in. later- ally from.the dorsal tip of the vertebral cartilage. All probes were recorded to the nearest millimeter. Length and circumference of round These measurements were made with a flexible steel tape as described by Naumann (1952). Length of carcass This measurement was made with a flexible steel tape from.the anterior edge of the first rib (medial to the vertebral column) to the anterior edge of the symphasis pubis. Depth of Brisket. This measurement was taken with a sliding T-square, perpendicular to the first sternebra as described by Allen (1966) and shown in figure 3. ‘0 Figure 2. Illustration showing the pattern of the fat probes taken 4, 8 and 12 in. from the dorsal midline on the carcass. _43- Figure 3. Illustration showing the measurement of brisket depth. I} mts ac aseptic its-Zesal vertebra] and ream- brisket we shank was The f were trip amitfinn “Wu (3 “med 1 399 StEa P145 f1; Ana to Sthy -44- Cutting Procedure The right side of each carcass was cut into conventional wholesale cuts according to the procedure described by Wellington (1953), with two exceptions outlined by Allen (1966). The plate was removed from the wholesale rib by measuring 10 in. from the ventral tip of the thoracic vertebral column, at both the anterior and posterior ends of the rib, and removing the plate along a line connecting these two points. The brisket was removed from.the chuck by extending the out where the fore- shank was removed along a line parallel with the dorsal side of the chuck. The four major cuts from the right side (round, loin, rib and chuck) were trimmed to approximately 0.3 in. of external fat. Weight of untrimmed and trimmed wholesale cuts and fat trim.from each was recorded to the nearest 0.1 lb. All wholesale cuts were then separated into closely trimmed (approximately 0.3 in. fat) boneless retail cuts. The roasts and steaks from the round, loin, rib and chuck (RLRC) were weighed separ- ately from the total retail portion of each of these wholesale cuts to obtain roast and steak yield or yield of thick retail cuts. Weight of all retail cuts, fat trim and bone was recorded for each wholesale cut. The weights of the scapula, humerus, radius plus ulna, femur and tibia plus fibula were also recorded. Statistical Analysis Analysis of variance for factorial with replicates design was used to study treatment and interaction effects on several measures of carcass -45.. cutability. The statistical procedures followed were described by Steele and Torrie (1960). One-way analysis of variance (Steele and Torrie, 1960) was used to study the effect of conformation within fat ranges. Simple correlation coefficients were calculated on a combined and within weight group basis. Simple correlation coefficients of predicted retail yields of several existing regression equations and actual boneless retail yield. ' l r - ... .—+~ .Cr‘ «'71 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The means and error mean squares of the carcass traits which were correlated with all objective and subjective measurements are presented in tables 3, 4, 5 and 6. These means are presented for the combined and individual weight groups, within fat thickness ranges and.within weight and fat thickness groups. Boneless closely trimmed retail yields include total carcass retail yield, retail yield from the RLRC and roasts and steaks from the RLRC. Fat trim.yie1ds include total carcass fat trim and external fat trim from the RIRC. Effect of Carcass Weight upon Weight and Percent of Retail, Fat Trim.and Bone Yields. Carcass weight had a highly significant (P < .01) affect upon weight of retail, fat trim and bone yields (table 3). Carcass weight also had a highly significant (P < .01) affect upon percent re- tail and.fat trim.yie1ds but not on percent bone yield (table 5). The light weight group had significantly (P < .01) greater percentages of retail yields and lower percentages of fat trim.yie1ds than carcasses in the heavy weight group. Similar findings were reported by Brown.g£ 31; (1961), Cole 33 3;. (1952), Kropf and Graf (1959), Brungardt and Bray (1963a)., Swiger gt 31: (1964) and Allen (1966). The light weight carcasses had approximately 0.32 lb. of total re- tail yield and 0.11 lb. of total fat trim.per pound of carcass; whereas, the heavy weight group had corresponding values of approximately 0.30 -46.. -47.. and 0.12 lb., respectively. These data indicate that the light weight group had more retail cuts and less fat trim.per pound of carcass than the heavy weight group, even though fat thickness ranges were identical between the two weight groups. The average fat thickness for correspond- ing fat groups between the two weight groups was identical except for that of groups I and IV (0.38 and 0.44, respectively). These results concur with those reported by Brungardt and Bray C1963a)and Allen (1966). Carcasses from.the light weight group were obtained from.steer carcasses weighing approximately 850 1b. alive and the heavy weight group from 1150 lb. steers. Approximately 52% of the 187 lb. carcass weight difference or approximately 34% of the 280 1b. live weight difference was due to total retail yield. Bone accounted for approximately 10% of the carcass weight difference and fat accounted for the remaining portion of the difference. Effect of Fat Thickness upon Weight and Percent Carcass Retail, Fat Trim and Bone Yields. Fat thickness (12th rib) had a highly significant (P < .01) influence upon weight (table 3) and percent (table 5) of retail, fat trim and bone yields. Similar results were reported by Cole 31,33, (1962), Ramsey 33 2}.- (1962), Brungardt and Bray (1963a),Hedrick 33 3_1_. (1963), Lewis 32 Ei‘ (1964), Butterfield (1965), Fitzhughugi‘gl. (1965), Miller 33 3_1_. (1965) and Allen (1966). As expected, the carcasses with the greater fat thicknesses had more fat trim and lower retail yields than trimmer carcasses. Retail yields expressed as either weight or -43- percent showed a more pronounced change between the first two fat groups (0.26 to 0.50 in. and 0.51 to 0.75 in.) and the last two groups (0.76 to 1.00 in. and 1.01 to 1.25 in.) than between the second and third groups (0.51 to 0.75 in. and 0.76 to 1.0 in., respectively). The difference between the last two fat groups (0.75 to 1.0 in. and 1.01 to 1.25 in.) for both percent and weight of bone and fat trim.yie1ds was greater than in the other fat groups. However, the average fat thickness between these two fat groups differed more than between the other fat groups. These data agree with those reported by Allen (1966). It is interesting to note that carcass length decreased as fat thickness increased in the combined weight groups (table 3) as well as within both weight groups (table 4). There was less difference in car- cass length between the middle fat groups (0.51 to 0.75 and 0.76 to 1.0) than the other groups. .§°‘92£§i muscle area also decreased as fat thickness increased within as well as between weight groups, except little difference was found between the last two fat groups (0.76 to 1.0 and 1.01 to 1.25). These findings are in contrast to those of Cole 33 21. (1962) who reported that‘l, gggsi muscle area tended to decrease as carcass length increased. Carcass Weight and Fat Thickness Interactions upon Weight and Percent Carcass Retail, Fat Trim and Bone Yields. Percent retail and fat trim yields were significantly (P < .01) affected by carcass weight and fat thickness interaction (table 6). Percent bone was less marked but also .mmonxofinp yam mo mvoomMo one ow 05v waohogmac Ado. v.mv hasncoamanwflm hanwfl: mes mpmflnomhogsm psohoMMHc mqfibc: mafia seam one no masmzm.o.u.o . .wnwaok cascade mo mvoommo one op osu econoQMHv Ado. v.mv mavasofiMfinwfim magma: ohm mvmfihomnomsm vnonommfiu mna>ss mafia mash one no mnsm23.s .xsszc ens sea .ceca .ccscm n magma .aomwochowqm muonxowsv schnwnwmcs and mmonxwmsp yam mwnmmo: hohtbhssum uses hogWMH mm.eme sN.HNe em.ome mo.efle m~.mfis ma.m~m we.HNe .sfl ..es cheeses HH.H em.o No.0 as.o he.o ee.o es.o .ce .ccccseeee ecu ass sews me.OH ee.oa mm.HH oo.mfi eH.NH em.m so.HH .se .ec .ccsc I oaomsa fiance .A me.me me.se mo.ss cH.we sm.me cause we.ee .ce .eemecH cheeses em.m mmc.am cem.mm ema.mm cmm.oe coe.fle ssm.am be.em .eH .csce fleece mm.OH emm.am ceH.mH csH.NH cue.» eme.ca sco.HH ma.efi .sa .ueqm_scsm sacs ecu Hecacexm A» so.ms me.sm em.ms mm.ee oe.sm mm.cw mm.mm mm.es .na passe ecu fleece A. m o c o n d _ me.ae mam.osa cm~.HmH eoc.ocH cso.mom hflm.oam sme.~sa em.sma .eH .eflcea assess Hesse mo.se mmm.sHH cme.mmH emH.omH cam.mmH sem.eea saw.oHH em.smfl .ca .umqm_scsm mxdovm cad mvmaom se.mm cea.mea cmm.oma cow.wma cam.mefi nes.eea cmH.mmH ms.emH .sa .momqm scam cases assess Haze ~.H- o. .o- .o assc m eases p: we: confinaoov .nH .momasa mmonxommmxmsnwt «a as: .mownsu mmonxowsv sum was deohw pnwack Haze ufi>wvafl was confinaoo on» 90% mmonxofinv 9mm pen spud can moss oHomza fiance .H .spmaoa mmcohco "moflowh omen und.aaue yam .Mdopm was emcee .Hfisvon mo mvswfio3.mo monusvm name nouns was made: .m canes deals 28 a? .ficH cause u can .m canny as covmwa omonp we mean one one monwswm aces schema om.se ms.we sm.ms mm.om ec.ms mm.ee me.ee so.ee .se .semsca cheeses ms.mas oe.mos we.ees sm.ame oo.emm «H.4mm sm.cmm em.omm .ea ..93 cheeses HH.H mm.o Ho.o ee.o HH.H mw.o me.o mm.o .se .mccsecase she has ssmfl Hm.HH H¢.HH om.~a NH.mH mm.e be.m mm.m mm.oH .ce .ec .ccsc I oHomsa «choc .A cH.sm oe.oe me.me Ne.ee os.em ms.om em.mm ww.mm V .sa .cscn fleece mm .8 R .5 mm .2 $5 9.5 8.3 8.3 86 A: Game scam cease see accscexm em.wOH mH.mm oe.om mm.me mm.om ss.eo mm.mm sm.mm .ha passe ecu fleece em.emH se.eom ee.cam mm.mmm mm.eea am.sma ms.scfi cm.msa .na .eaces Hecscs asses ms.mma mm.mmfi em.weH mm.ema ma.oo~ HH.wOH se.HHH mm.mmH .sH .omum Scam mxdovm was mvqum sm.HcH oe.mea oo.omH sm.emfl as.mmfi ee.HmH oe.sma om.weH .nH .momqm .scam eases Hececm .ce mN.H .ce oo.H .ce he.o .se om.o .es mm.a .se oo.H .se we.o .se om.o passe -Ho.H -es.o -Hm.o -m~.o -Ho.m -ms.o -Hm.o -mm.o HHHe HH> H> > sH HHH HH H msoeult macho macaw macaw; mmo vswflos Memo: .Hmsohm eswfioz memo :stms nomads mmonxownp yam Hmsvw>fluafl one pom mmoqxoflne 9mm awe svma and dogs oHowna fiance .H .nvmsoa mucoumo “meaofih econ can sane 9cm .xdopm was smack .Hfidpok mo mwswfios he made: .s manna -51- .vnmwos mmdohdo mo mvooMMo oz» ow ode econommwc Aao. v_mv hHdeofiMfiqmwm edema: one mpmwhomnomsm waohommwu waa>dn mafia case one no m:dm2£.¢ .xcssc use has .cecfi .esscm u umqmu .aofiwocnopufl mmoQHOfinp pdhuw:Mflo3 was amonxoasv Pam .pnwmoe.hom ogdsvm mama hohnma mm.o om.oe we.HH mm.~H em.ma smm.HH csm.HH me.HH a .cscs fleece 8.0 8.0 was no.» 23 eggs cams. mmé a .25 scam sflefimfififié em.c sm.om cH.mm Ne.am em.sa scm.e~ cem.m~ we.mm e cases see Hesse mc.e ee.em cs.mm mm.Hc ea.mc hem.mm cma.ac ma.mm x .eacea assess fleece mo.m Hs.sm mm.mm oo.me mo.ee esm.oe ems.ae mo.fie e .osnm scam mesovm cud meadow so.e mm.me mm.me mm.fim ma.em sma.we cmm.om om.me a .mumum .acsm cases Heaven Hmzm mm. -Ho.H co. - .o .o- .o- .o eases Am :0 p: fies confinaoov .am .mowasa mmoqmomap wmn .mowssu amonxcaep sum was mmaouw enmwoa_assua>fluafl was uoaanaoo one hem mcaofih once was sane 9cm .xdowm was emcee .Hficvou «sconce Mo mopduum name nohno end memo: .m manna -52- 4250 08 8a .804 .088 u 238 .m oHnmp QM covmfifl omonv on oaow one ohm mohdsvm duos hohhmH ImwohMImswflos h>mmm . msflm 28 0: Emfl 8.04 4444 8.84 8.84 8.0 844 8.84 8.8 a Jeep 488 88 84 88 8.8 8.0 8.0 004 8.8 R .25 .88 88 0.8 88080. 3.8 80.8 8 .8 80.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 R .88 88 488 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 R .0438 Hflwpoh H8909 8.8 8.8 840 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 a .08 scam mxdovm was myomom 8.8 40.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 «4.8 x .825 08.8 88a 4888 .8 8 4 .8 004 .8 8.0 .8 8.0 .8 84 .8 004 .8 8.0 .8 8.0 889 -40.H -mn.0 -4m.0 -mm.0 -H0.H -mb.0 -Hm.0 -mm.0 E: HE E > 8 HH H H macho macaw @3099 macaw macaw muogo macaw mnohu .Hmsohw asmflos nodo cflnwwz mowndh mmoquflnv yum Hcsfifi>fiuqfl onp Mom mvflofim onon qu_eahv vow .xsovo was vouch .Hfidwoh vGoohom mo undo: .m oansa -53- significantly (P < .05) affected by carcass weight and fat thickness interaction (table 6). The results of this study show that the weight of retail, fat trim and bone yields was greater in the heavy weight group than corresponding means for the light weight group. The weight of retail and bone yields decreased and fat trim.increased from the lowest (groups I and.V, respect- ively) to the highest (groups IV and'VIII, respectively) fat thickness ranges within weight groups. However, the rate of change among adjacent fat ranges was greater for the heavy carcasses than for the light weight group. These results agree with those reported by Allen (1966). More variation was observed between fat thickness groups I to IV (light weight group) for percent total retail, fat trim.and bone yields (approximately 12.7%, 15.3% and 3.6%, resPectively) than corresponding values (groups V to VIII) in the heavy weight group (approximately 7.9%, 9.6% and 1.9%, respectively). However, percent total retail yield was greater and percent fat trim.less in the light weight group than in the heavy group. The greatest difference in percent total retail yield occurred between the first two fat thickness ranges in each weight group (I and II, and V and'VI). These findings support the work of Allen (1966). Percent retail and fat trim.yie1ds were nearly identical between fat groups IV and VIII. Percent bone was less in group IV than group VIII, but greater in group I than group V. A significant (P < .01) interaction between fat thickness and carcass weight indicates that the average change in retail, fat trim.and bone -54- yields was not the same within the light group as it was within the heavy weight group as fat thickness increased from.the lowest (groups I and'V, respectively) to the highest (groups IV and.VIII, respectively) fat thickness. Relationships Between Weight and Percent Retail, Fat Trim.and Bone Yields. Simple correlation coefficients for weight and percent between the retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for the combined and individual weight groups are presented in tables 7, 8 and 9. It should be emphasized that the correlations were calculated for weights between each of the yield come ponents or for percents between each of those same components, but not between weight and percent. Correlations of carcass weight with retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds for the combined weight groups are presented in table 7. Carcass weight was positively and highly correlated (0.84 to 0.85) with weight of retail yields but negatively and poorly correlated (-.20 to -.26) with percent retail yields. Cole gt 3.1: (1960a) and Butterfield (1963) reported that carcass weight was more highly related to weight of separable muscle than any other single variable. Swiger 33.2l° (1964) found that carcass weight accounted for 93% of the variation in weight of retail yield. Weight of fat trim.yie1ds and carcass weight were positively correlated (0.38 for external fat trim and 0.67 for total fat trim). Correlations of carcass weight with percent fat yields were also positive but lower (0.09 and 0.24 for external and total fat trim, respectively). -55- .AHO. v my vasowaaMfim oas wmm. A oaofipsfiohaoo .Amo. v my vasofiMflawfim oas 00H. A maowpsaoahoo .Moano was nah .aon .waaom u omfima 004 004 888 seen 488 05.: NH.: 00.H 00.H omqm.E6hm away «sm asahopxm 00.: NH.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.H _awhp psm Hsvoa 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.H 00.H wHoah Hfisvoa Hsvoe 05.0 00.0 H0.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.H omnm_fiohm mxsovo was season 05.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00.H 00.H OMAN 20.8 88» 888 0H.: 0b.0 00.0 00.0 am.0 b0.0 00.: 00.0 00.: #0.0 0N.: #0.0 .93 mmsohso R .93 R .93 R .93 R .93 R .93 R .93 ovaoaomaoo wHofiw 808 080 88 808 0a:- 4080 s08 08. .t. 8880 oaon Hsvoa .aoam .afiav vsm aspos Hfisvoa asses _anm mxsopm waoah Hflsvom wsm asaaopmm was mvmsom .maaoaw pnwfioa.woafinaoo one new mwflowh_aaap vsm was oaon .Hfisvoa as“: owHowh_aHhv vsm was oaon .Haswoh opaoohoa was wawflos .vamwok mmsohso mo opaofloMMMooo aoflvsfioaaoo oHaaHm .0 oansa .Afio. v my wasoflmwawwa ons H00. A aaowvsflohaou .A00. V my pasofimwaMfim ohs 00m. A aaofivsfioahoo .Moaao was man .afloH .waaom u omnma -56- 00.4 00.H wHowh oaon aspos 8.- 8.- 004 00.4 044m :58 88 9.8 88080 8: 8.- 8.0 8.0 004 00.4 88 0.8 488 8.0 8.0 40.- 2..- 8.- 8: 00.4 00.4 88.» 4488 488 8.0 40.0 00: 08.- 8: 40.- 8.0 8.0 00.4 00.4 00444 058 axsowm was owosom 8.0 8.0 E: E..- 00... 8.- 00.0 00.0 8.0 8.0 004 00.4 08- 88 048a 4488 R .t. a .fi. 8 .t- R .t- a .t- a .t. 8889-8 0408 048» 0a:- 88 048» 08a 40a:- :58 sec-- 488 scam 8b 9.8 488 4480.- 488 aca- 0880 048.4 4488 08 8838 08 888 .maoam wamfloz 9:004 oas Mom mw4o05_aah+ vsm was oaon .stvoa ovaoonom was upsmao: mo avaowOfimmooo aoflwsdoaaoo oflaawm .0 oHnsa filia- “CWT“... .440. v.40 40004440040 040 400. A 000440400000 .400. v 40 40004440040 040 000. A 000440404400 , .00000 000 044 .0404 .00000 - 00404 00.H 00.H w4o4z oaon stos 00.: 00.: 00.4 oo.fi omnm_aohm 0-444 404 40040404 _ 7 .0 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 0444 404 40404 00.0 00.0 40.- 04.- 00.- 00.- 00.4 00.4 04044 440404 40404 00.- 40.0 00.- 04.- 00.- 40.- 00.0 40.0 00.4 00.4 0040.0044 mxsopm was upmsom 00.0 00.0 00.- 04.- 40.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 0040 a044 04040 440400 R .93 R .93 R .93 R .93 R .93 R .93 #aoaommoo wHo4h 04044 0040 a444 04044 0040 40040 0044 0000 40404 _aca4_s444 404 40404 440404 40404 .0044 000040 404 4080400 04044 440400 was owmsmm- .maoaw 4am4oa hbsoa on4 pom mw4o4z.a444 ps4 was oaon .44s4o4 mpaoonoa was «aw4o3 40 ovao4o444ooo a044s4o44oo oHQEHm .0 04004 -58- Carcass weight was highly significantly (P < .01) correlated with weight of carcass bone (0.73) but negatively and nonsignificantly (P < .05) correlated with percent carcass bone (-.l3). These results are similar to those of Cole 33 E}: 119600), Brown §_t_ 0;. (1961), Cole 33 0;. (1962), Kropf and Graf (1959) and Brungardt and Bray (1963). These authors observed that increased carcass weight had a significant depressing effect upon percent retail yields. These data show that retail yield from.the RLRC, roasts and steaks from.the RLRC, and total carcass retail yield were highly correlated with each other (ranges, 0.96 to 1.00 and 0.96 to 0.99 for weight and percent, respectively). Correlations of percent retail yields with percent fat trim.yie1ds were highly significant (range, -.77 to —.98, P < .01) for the individual and combined weight groups. Highly significant (P‘< .01) correlations were also found between weight of retail yields and weight of fat trim yields within weight groups (range, -.72 to -.86). In the combined weight group, the correlations between weight of retail and fat yields were low (-.05 and 0.25, for external fat trim and total fat trim, respectively). Retail yields were positively correlated with percent (range, 0.76 to 0.84, P < .01) and weight (range, 0.80 to 0.90, P < .01) of bone yield. Fat trim.yie1ds were negatively correlated.with percent bone yield (range, -.74 to -.94, P < .01). These data support results reported by Cole 23.2l' (1960a), Brown .EI.E$' (1962), Brungardt and Bray (1963a),Hedrick 23.2%“ (1963), Miller -59.. 33 it- (1965), Allen (1966) and Hedrick gt 3;. (1967). These authors reported high positive correlations for bone yield with retail yields and carcass muscle and high negative correlations for fat trim.yie1ds with bone yield, retail yields and carcass muscle. It is interesting to note that the muscle to bone ratio was almost identical between the light and heavy weight groups. These results disagree with those of Zinn (1967) who reported that the muscle to bone ratio increased with increased weight. Tulloh (1964) also found that bone increased but at a decreasing rate as body weight increased. Relationships Between Linear Fat Measurements and Retail and Fat Yields Simple correlation coefficients of linear fat measurements with weight and percent retail and fat trim.yie1ds for the individual and combined weight groups are shown in tables 10, 10a, 11, 11a, 12 and 12a. Correlations of fat measurements with percent retail yields (range, -.04 to -.86) were higher than with weight of retail yields (range, -.03 to -.46) in the combined weight group. However, the within weight group correlations between fat linear measurements and either weight or percent retail yields were similar. The correlations of linear fat measurements with weight or percent fat trim.yie1ds were quite similar for the indivi- dual and combined weight groups. These data suggest that linear fat measurements, within comparable fat thickness ranges but among different weight groups, were similar in magnitude, although the pounds of retail yields were markedly different between weight groups (table 3). Orme -60- (1958), Allen (1966),Hedrick 31 3:5. (1963), Miller 9.13 3;. (1965) and Hedridk (1967) found similar differences for correlations of fat measure- ments and either weight or percent retail yields on a combined weight group basis. The fat measurements most highly related to percent retail yields for the combined weight groups were: fat measurements B and C (12th rib) and the average of fat measurements A, B, and C (ranges, -.73 to -.75, -.80 to -.83, and -.83 to -.86, respectively). 0f the fat probes (sites shown in figure 2), the 6th lumbar probe at 4 in. and the 5th sacral probe at 4 in. were the most highly related to percent retail yields (range, -.50 to -.69). However, these probes were no more highly related to percent retail yields than 12th rib fat measurements A, D, E and F. The latter measurements are more easily obtained than the fat probes. Of the fat measurements, fat measurement C and the average of measurements A, B and C were most highly correlated with both weight and percent fat trim.yie1ds (range, 0.63 to 0.88) in the combined weight group. In addition, correlations of fat measurements B and C and those of the average of A, B and C were most highly related to weight and per- cent retail yields (range, -.72 to -.86). Of the fat probes in the com4 bined weight groups, the 6th lumbar probe at 8 in. was most highly correlated with weight of retail yields (range, -.45 to -.46) and the correlations were slightly higher than those of fat measurement C and the average of fat measurements A, B and C with weight of retail yields (range, -.39 to -.42). .A4o. v_mv 4aao444aw4m 000 0mm. A mao4404o0hoo .Amo. v.4v 4a00444aw4m 000 044. A ao4404000oo .40520 was n40 .a4o4 .waaom n 04:44 -61- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 40.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 40.- 00.- .04 04 40.0 00.0 40.0 00.0 00.- .00.- 00.- 00.- 40.- 00.- .04 0 00.0 00.0 40.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .04 0 004004 000 44.0 04.0 04.0 04.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .04 04 40.0 00.0 40.0 00.0 40.- 40.- 00.- 40.- 00.- 00.- .04 0 04.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 04.- 00.- 04.- 04.- 04.- .04 0 000004 404 04.0 00.0 04.0 00.0 44.- 04.- 00.- 44.- 04.- 04.- .04 04 00.0 04.0 44.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .04 0 00.0 00.0 40.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 40.- 00.- 00.- .04 0 04000004 0044 00.0 40.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 04.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .04 04 00.0 00.0 40.0 00.0 00.- 04.- 40.- 04.- 04.- 04.- .04 0 00.0 00.0 40.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .04 0 04000004 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 40.- 40.- 40.- .04 04 40.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .04 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 40.0 40.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 40.- .04 0 04000004 040 IE IF .40 . . 0 l-Rf Ian .4 sh 000004 404 0040 0404 040 0040 40040 0004 .0004_0404 404 40404 04040 40004 .0004 000040 04040 440400 mam Haahmexm rmaa mesom .maao0w vam4osowoa4neoo 0:4 004 mw4040_a404 404 was mace .440400 :44: 00a0000500ma 404 000a44 mo 04a04o444000 a04404o00oo 04aa4w .04 04404 -62- .440. v 40 4:004440M4m 040 000. A 040440404000 .400. v 40 40004440040 000 044. A 000440400000 .00000 000 040 .0404 .00000 - 00404 40.0 00.0 40.0 04.0 00.- 04.0 00.- 04.0 00.- 04.0 4000400 04000 40.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 .0 .0 .40 44.0 44.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 04.- 00.- 04.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 44.0 04.0 00.0 00.- 40.- 00.- 04.- 00.- 40.- 4 04.0 44.0 00.0 40.0 00.- 04.- 00.- 04.- 00.- 04.- 0 00.0 04.0 44.0 40.0 40.- 00.- 00.- 40.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 40.- 00.- 0 04.0 00.0 44.0 00.0 04.- 00.- 04.- 00.- 04.- 00.- 0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 mvnmaoASmdoS 404 040 0404 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 40.- 00.- . 40.- 00.- 00.- 40.- .04 04 04.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .04 0 04.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 04.- 40.- 00.- 40.- 44.- .04 0 400000 040 00.0 00.0 40.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .04 04 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 40.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 40.- .04 0 04.0 04.0 40.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 40.- 00.- 40.- 00.- .04 0 Hdhodw “Yum 00.0 04.0 40.0 00.0 00.- 00.0 40.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 .04 04 04.0 40.0 04.0 40.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .04 0 00.0 00.0 40.0 40.0 00.- 04.- 00.- 04.- 00.- 04.- .04 0 000004 040 . .44 4 .44 R .40. R .40 . .40. 000004 404 0040 .0404 040. 0040 40040.0004 .0000 0404 404 40404 440400 40404 .0004 000040 04040 440400 404 Hmnhovxm cad 04004m, .000000 400400 00040000 004 004 004040.0404 404 000 0004 .440400 444: 0400000500ma 404 000044 40 040040444000 00440404000 04ga4m .004 04404 -63- .000. v 00 00000000000 000 000. A 000000000000 .000. v 00 00000000000 000 000. A 000000000000 00000 000 000 .0000 .00000 a 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 000000 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 000000 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00000000 0000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00090005 0.3-m 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 OfiOGHOFH 0.3m . .00 . .00 . .00 . .00 .0 .00 000000 000 0000 00.00 000. 00.00 000.00 00.00 .0000.0000 000 00000 000000 00000 .0000 000000 00000 000000 wmm quhowmm and 0000mm .00000 000000 00000 000 000 000000.0000 000 000 «con 0000000 :00: quothsmmos 000 000200 00 m0qm0o0mmooo ao0pmflohhoo mHQEHm .00 ofinme -64- .000. v 5 00000000000 0.00 000. A 00000000008 A00. v .5 0:000m0nmwm 000 mmm. A mcow0mfimhnoo 00000 000 000 .0000 .00000 n 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0000000 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 .0 .0..>< 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.-. 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 qumaonumaoa 000 000 0000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 000000 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 HMHOMW Chm 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 000000 000 am 0mm 0 at 0“ 0mm 0» am” am 0mm mango-HW- Pam—H 00.00 00.00 000. 00.00 00000 08.0.0 .0000_a000 000 00000 000000 00000 .2000 000000 00000 000000 000 00000000 000 00mmmm .00000 000000000000 000 000000.0000 000 000 0:09 .000000 2003 00:050050008 00m 000000 Mo m0uo0o0mmooo a000waohhoo mama0m .0HH 00009 fl!" 4 -65.. .000. v 00 00000000000 000 000. A 000000000000 .000. v 00 00000000000 000 000. A 000000000000 .00000 000 000 .0000 .00000 - 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 000000 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 000000 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00000000 0000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00000000 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 .- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00000000 000 . .00 . .00 0 .00 . .00 R .00 000000 000 0000 .0000 0000 0000 00000 0000 _0000 0000 000 00000 000000.00000 .0000 000000 00000 000000 0.0.0 0000.00va was 000.com .msonw 000M003 brawn 05. 00.0 00.000.» 000.00 0.00 000.0 00009 0.2.0090 :00: 300008.050me 0.0.0 0.00003” .00 00000000000000 00.00.000.008 0000003 .NH manna -66.. .000. v 00 00000000000 000 000. A 000000000000 .000. v 00 00000000000 000 000. A 000000000000 .00000 000 000 .0000 .00000 - 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 .- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0000000 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 .0 .0 .00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0 mwdoSmnflmmmS 000 000 0000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 000000 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 000000 000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- .00 0 000000 000 -0 .00 . .00 m .00 . .00 m .00 000000 000 00.00 0000 000. 00.00 00000 0000 0000 0000 000 00000 00000 00000 .0000 000000 0000.0 000000 mm H0983 0.00.0 mymmom .msohw 0030.003 .900: 00:. no.0 00003.00 00.0.00 0.0.0 00000 20000 40000.0 5.0.03 00050000500000 0.0% 0.0200,.” Mo 0.000.000.3000 08.00.000.008 magnum .mmH 0.00.0.0. -67- Within the light weight group, fat measurement 0 and the average of measurements A, B and C were the most highly correlated with weight (range, -.78 to -.83 and -.78 to -.83, respectively) and percent (range, -.86 to -.91 and -.87 to -.91, respectively) retail yields and weight (range, 0.86 to 0.91 and 0.87 to 0.92, respectively) and percent (range, 0.86 to 0.91 and 0.88 to 0.93, respectively) fat trim.yie1ds. The fat probes most highly related to weight and percent fat trim.yie1ds were: the 11th thoracic probe at 8 in., the 6th lumbar probe at 8 in., the 3rd sacral probe at 4 in. and the 5th sacral probe at 8 in. These corre- lations ranged from.0.73 to 0.81 and 0.72 to 0.80 for weight and percent fat trim.yie1ds, respectively. All probes and measurements within the light weight group were significantly (P < .01) correlated with weight and percent retail and fat trim yields. Within the heavy weight group, the correlations of fat probes and measurements with weight and percent retail and.fat trim.yie1ds were lower than in the light weight group. Fat measurements B and C and the average of measurements A, B and C were the mostly highly related to weight and percent retail (range, -.72 to -.86) and fat trim.yie1ds (range, 0.74 to 0.88). All probes and measurements were significantly (P<< .01) correlated with the retail and fat trim yields. These results support the findings of Lewis 23 El‘ (1964), Allen (1966) and Allen 33 El. (1966). Brisket depth was negatively (P < .01) correlated with percent re- tail yields in the individual and combined weight groups and with weight -68— of retail yields in the individual weight groups. Correlations of brisket depth with weight and percent fat trim.yie1ds were highly (range, 0.48 to 0.72 and 0.49 to 0.71 for weight and percent, respectively, P < .01) significant for the individual and combined.weight groups. These data also Show the correlation of brisket depth with percent bone to be negative and highly significant (P < .01) in all weight groups and significant (P‘< .01) with weight of bone within the individual weight groups but not in the combined weight groups. These data Show that the fat probes and 12th rib fat measurements are generally more highly related to weight and.percent external fat trim.from.the RLRC than to total fat trim. The correlations of these fat measures with retail and fat trim yields were higher in the light group than in the heavy weight group. The data also show that fat V measurement C and the average of measurements A, B and C are consistently more highly related to retail and fat trim.yie1ds than any of the probes or other (12th rib) measurements. While the magnitude of the correla- tions of fat measurement C and those of the average of measurements A, B and C with retail and fat trim.yie1ds were usually greater for the latter fat measurement, the dififerences were small. Relationships Between some Linear and Area Carcass Measurements and Retail, Bone and Fat Trim.Yields. Simple correlation coefficients of some linear and area carcass measurements with retail, bone and.fat trim.yie1ds are presented in table 13. Correlation coefficients of circumference of -69— .AHo. v my «aaofimeamflm one Hmm. A maoepaaoguoo .Amo. v.mv pneoflmeumum one mam. A mnofipmamgnoom .Aao. v my yaeoumeqmflm was emu. A maoflaaamnnoo .Amo. v mv pedoumflnmnm was mea. A mqoapafioanoom £020 and flu .fioa 635m u 03f Ha.o mH.o om.- em.- o¢.- Hw.- mm.o No.0 Hm.o mm.o Hm.o mm.o awed fiance .m. mm.- wH.- Hm.o mm.o mm.o om.o eH.- eo.- eo.- No.o NH.- mo.- canon mo .ogao mo.o ee.o Hm.- om.- vo.- oo.- Hm.o om.o mm.o em.o mm.o em.o ease“ mo nqumq em.o oe.o so.. we.. we.. we.. em.o em.o em.o em.o mm.o mm.o equoa mmaopao mmsomw vnmwoz Mmeom Hm.o em.o mm.- mm.- om.- No.- so.o me.o «v.0 me.o mo.o «v.0 «was “when em Hm.- «H.- oa.o NH.o OH.o eH.o Ho.- oa.o OH.- Ho.o #0.- eo.o canon no .onflo we.o mm.o Ho.- am.- me.u mm.- eo.o om.o mo.o oe.o eo.o wo.o ease» no spaces no.0 oe.o em.- Hm.- H©.- om.- mm.o eo.o mm.o $0.0 em.o wo.o neuqoa mmmouao mmsomm “swam: wanna mH.o mo.o m~.- eo.- mm.- ma.o sm.o Hw.o om.o om.o mm.o om.o «one fiance .m mm.- om.o mH.o me.o mm.o oo.o m~.- mm.o H~.- «o.o mm.- mm.o canon mo .ouflo we.o mm.o mm.- wo.s mm.- eH.o Hm.o Hm.o e~.o mm.o mm.o mm.o canon «0 season mm.o mw.o mm.u Ho.- mH.- om.o oH.o mm.o mH.o mw.o oH.o ww.o swmemfi ammogdo «museum panama emquneoo R .93 R .93 K .93 fi .93 R .9: fi .93 HGQSouummoa 2:5 H309 $5 3.5 Em. and H25 a8.“ 8.8 .8 .823 .Hfidpou nee: mwamSohsmwos monohdo noun can haoufid oficm we quowofiMMQoo uoflwmflohhoo oHQEHm Scum_awnp yam Haaumpxm yam Haves Hfidpmn fleece .aonm undone use mpmmmm came» Henson .mmsohw wsmwoz Hasua>wcqa and uoaflnaco one you muaoflh_aanv yam end omen .mH manna -70- round with weight and percent retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds were generally lower and less consistent between weight groups than correla- tions of other linear measurements. Carcass length was significantly (P < .01) correlated with weight (range, 0.57 to 0.64) and percent (range, 0.54 to 0.58) retail yields within weight groups. In the combined weight group, these same correla- tions were high with weight (0.88) but low and nonsignificant with per- cent (range, 0.10 to 0.15) retail yields. Correlations of carcass length with weight and percent fat trim.yie1ds ranged from -.51 to -.68 and -.54 to -.69, respectively, for the individual weight groups. In the combined weight group these correlations were low. Carcass length was also highly correlated with weight (0.70 and 0.70) and percent (0.63 to 0.67) bone yield within the light and heavy weight groups. In the come bined weight group, the correlation with weight of bone yield was high (0.88) while that with percent was much lower (0.28). These data indicate that the relationship of round length to retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds was very similar to the relationship of carcass length to these components. Round length was highly correlated with weight and percent retail yields within the light and heavy weight groups (range, 0.56 to 0.70 and 0.51 to 0.69, respectively). These correlations were higher with weight (0.82 to 0.83) and lower with percent (0.21 to 0.27) retail yields in the combined weight group. The correlations of round length with pounds and percent fat trim.yie1ds were very similar to those of carcass length with fat trim.yie1ds. Round length was more -71.. highly correlated with weight and percent bone yields (range, 0.74 to 0.89 and 0.44 to 0.78, respectively) than carcass length. These findings are similar to those of Cble 23 El. (1962) who reported that carcass length was negatively related to fat trim and positively related to weight of carcass lean. Orme (1963) reported measurements of carcass length and length of hind leg in lamb carcasses were negatively related to measures of carcass fat. Du 3039.23.21' (1967) also found that with the exception of carcass weight, carcass length was the most accurate single indicator of weight of boneless roast and steak yield in beef carcasses. _L_. mi; muscle area was significantly (P < .01) correlated with weight and percent retail yields for the individual and combined weight groups. Although the correlations of l. ggggi muscle area with percent retail yields was significant (P < .01) in the combined weight group, the relationship was markedly lower than for the individual weight groups (range, 0.67 to 0.72, 0.51 to 0.53, and 0.25 to 0.30 for the light, heavy and combined weight groups, respectively). The correlations with weight and percent fat trim.yie1ds were negative and highly significant (P < .01) for the individual weight groups, but not for the combined.weight group. These correlations were greater in the light weight group than in the heavy group. ‘L.‘gg£§i area was significantly (P < .01) related to both pounds and percent bone in the light weight group but only to pounds of bone in the heavy and combined weight groups. Cole 33 3;. (1962), Allen (1966) and Henderson gt El' (1966) found similar relation- ships between l. g2£§i_muscle area and weight and percent of carcass yields. -72- Round circumference was negatively correlated with percent retail yields in the combined weight group and most correlations were non- significant. The correlations with weight of retail yields were highly significant (P < .01) (range, 0.64 to 0.65) in the combined weight group but nonsignificant (range, 0.01 to 0.10, Pi) .05) within the individual weight groups. Round circumference was positively correlated with pounds and percent fat trim.yie1ds. This relationship was higher for pounds than percent and higher in the combined weight group than in the individual weight groups. Round circumference was negatively correlated with both weight and percent bone within weight groups and with percent bone in the combined weight groups. Relationships of Wholesale Cut Retail, Fat Trim.and Bone Yields to Total Carcass Retail, Fat Trim.and Bone Yields. Correlation coefficients of wholesale cut retail yield with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim yields for the combined and individual weight groups are presented in tables 14, 15 and 16. The corresponding correlations of wholesale cut fat trim.yield with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds are presented in tables 17, 18 and 19, while the correlation coefficients for wholesale cut bone yield with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim. yields appear in tables 20, 21 and 22. The correlations were calculated for weight of wholesale cut retail, bone and fat trim yields with weight of total carcass retail, bone and fat trim.yie1ds. Similarly correlations for each of the components were calculated between percents of these same characteristics. ..73- .AHo. v mv endofimw:Mfim one wmm. A mqoflpaaohuoo .Amo. v my vemOflMflamem one aka. A necessaonnoo £35 28 a? .53 .285 u 05H em.o em.o mm.n $0.0 mw.u mm.o o¢.o mb.o hm.o db.o >m.c wb.o madam Hm.o mm.o mm. mo.o Ho.u Hm.o mm.o om.o mm.o bm.o om.o bw.o sedan mm.o He.o Ho.n em.n ob.c oH.n m>.o mb.o oo.o mo.o mb.o Hb.o neenmohoh mm.o mm.o >m.u eo.u Hm. HH.o em.o bo.o be.o em.o b¢.o mm.o «oxnwnm me.o mm.o Hw.u Ho.o ew.u mm.o mm.o mm.o em.o bm.o ow.o mm.o Mcsno em.o Hm.o om.| mo.o be.n om.o em.o cw.o me.o mb.o mm.o me.o nflm mo.o ww.o 0b.: mo.u ow.u em.o mm.o em.o mb.o mm.o om.o mm.o sac; «v.0 mm.o ow.| mH.n mm.n NH.o mm.o hm.o mm.o mm.o mm.o em.o venom e .93 a .93 e o 3 e 0P? e at am out.» #50 neon fleece exam ewes vac. omum Homqm_achm oHdmoHonz _Eoum_aanv yam Haves Heaven Hopes _aohm unseen eaowh Hameom «an Heqhoexm and meadow) .mmsonm pnwaok eonflnaoo one Mom meaoflz_awnv 9am can once .Hawvon mmaohdo fleece spas caofih Heaven #50 madmofiosz Mo manofioammooo nowadaohuoo mamaam .eH manna ~74- .000. v 00 00000000000 000 000. A 000000000000 .A00. v.00 00000000000 000 000. A 000000000000 .3350 0:00 @000 .3000 .00ch u cad-n 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 0 .00 . .00 . .00 . .00 0 .00 m .00 000 0000 00000 0000 00.0. 000 00.00 00000 000.0 000000005 .000010000 000 00000 000000 00000 .0000 000000 00000 000000 000 00000000 000 000000 .00000 000000 00000 000 000 000000.000» 000 000 0000 .000..on 0.006.000 0.3.3 0300.0 0000.5 0.0.30.0 ”.08 00.00.0005» Mo mwaofifimmooo 08.00.030.000 oflgm .3 030.0. Ink 7.1-1.3. in. ‘1 -7 5.. .000. v.00 00000000000 000 000. .000. v 00 00000000000 000 000. A m=00vwaohhoo A quHPdfimhhoo .0800 000 .000 .0000 .00000 ... 000.00 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00. 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 °m CHI: QM 0mm Q 0? Q 0 3. QM cm” a 0: 9.50 0000 00000 00.00 0000 0000 00.00 000.00 000.0 000000000 0000 0000 000 00000 000000 00000 .0000 000000 00000 000000 wnm Hmdhovmm- mud m0quw .msonw 0:M003.0>mm: 0:0 000 muamfih.a000 000 0:0 0009 0000000 0000000 H0000 :00: @0000 000000 030 mfiamofioaz mo manowofimMmoo :0000000000 odmfifim .mH wands ~76- Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Retail Yield and Carcass Retail, Fat Trim and Bone Yields. The simple correlation coefficients of each whole- sale cut retail yield with retail, fat trim and bone yields are presented in tables 14, 15 and 16. With the exception of the flank retail yield within the heavy weight group, the retail yield of each wholesale cut was highly significantly (P < .01) correlated with both weight and percent retail yields for the individual and combined weight groups. Wholesale cut retail yield was slightly more highly related to total carcass retail yield and retail yield from the RLRC than to roasts and steaks from the RLRC. 0f the wholesale cuts, the retail yield of the round and chuck had the highest correlations with both weight and percent retail and bone yields in the individual and combined weight groups. Retail yields of these two wholesale cuts were also the most highly correlated.with both weight and.percent fat trim yields within weight groups; however; in the combined weight group the correlations with weight of fat trim.yie1ds were much lower than for percents of these fat trim.yie1ds. Correlations of round retail yield with weight and percent of total carcass retail yields ranged from 0.91 to 0.97 and 0.91 to 0.95, respect- ively, among the combined and.individual weight groups. The correlations ranged from.-.79 to -.93 between round retail yield and percent fat trim yields among all weight groups. Within weight ranges, the correlations with weight of fat trim.yie1ds were slightly lower and ranged from.-.73 to -.87. In addition, correlations of round retail yield.with weight and.percent bone yields among all weight groups were slightly lower (0.65 -77- to 0.88 and 0.63 to 0.81, respectively, P‘< .01) than with retail yields. These findings are similar to those reported by Brungardt and Bray (1963a) who observed that among the wholesale cuts round retail yield was the most highly related to carcass retail yields. Tuma £3 21. (1967) observed a correlation coefficient of 0.89 between weight of round retail cuts and weight of carcass trimmed retail cuts. Allen (1966) reported correla- tions ranging from.0.66 to 0.88 for percent and 0.74 to 0.95 for weight of round retail yield with total carcass retail yields which were among the highest of all the wholesale cuts. The wholesale chuck retail yield.was also highly correlated with total carcass retail yields. Correlations ranged from 0.85 to 0.90 for percent and 0.90 to 0.98 for weight of retail yields, from.0.69 to 0.76 for percent and 0.74 to 0.89 for weight of bone yields, and from.-.81 to -.89 for percent fat trim yields. The wholesale loin retail yield was the next most highly related to carcass retail yields. These results for the chuck and loin agree with those reported by Cole 22 21° (1960a), 0019.22.21. (1964) and Allen (1966). Allen found that of the wholesale cuts the chuck showed the highest relationship to carcass retail yield. Hankins and Howe (1946), Hedrick g: 2;. (1963), Miller 31 2;. (1965) and Allen (1966) found high relationships between retail yield of the wholesale flank and total carcass retail yields. The correlations in the present study for the wholesale flank retail yield with percent carcass retail yields range from 0.19 to 0.52 for the combined and indi- vidual weight groups. Within weight ranges, retail yield of the flank -78- accounted for the least variation in carcass retail yields of all the wholesale cuts. The differences between these observations and the high correlations previously observed by others cannot be explained. These results indicate that either the round or chuck retail yield should be used to predict total carcass retail yields. The wholesale round would be the most practical for such predictive purposes since it is much easier and faster to separate into boneless retail cuts and it also accounts for more of the variation than the chuck. Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Fat Yield and Total Carcass Retail, Fat Trim and Bone Yields. Correlation coefficients ofwholesale cut fat trim yield with total carcass retail, fat trim and bone yields for the combined and individual weight groups are presented in tables 17, 18 and 19. The correlations of wholesale cut fat trim.with either weight or percent total carcass fat trim.yie1ds were significant (P < .01) for the combined and individual weight groups. With the exception of the whole- sale loin fat trim in the heavy weight group, the correlations of whole- sale cut fat trim.yie1ds with both weight and percent retail yields were highly significant (P < .01) and all were negative within the individual weight groups. However, in the combined weight group the correlations of wholesale cut fat trim.yield with weight of retail yields were positive and.most were significant (P < .01). In the individual weight groups, the correlations of wholesale cut fat trim.with both weight and percent bone yields and with percent bone in the combined.weight group were negative -79.. .AHo. v my yeaoamfiamfim mod «mm. A maoaemaoncoo .Amo. v av pauoamflamfim was mea. A mechaaaoauoo .uosso end can .nuoa .uqsqm n caged ss.- ma.o as.o ow.c ma.o mm.o mm.- s~.o aw.- o~.o mm.- ou.o madam Hm.- so.o bm.o as.o mm.o mm.o om.- mm.o mm.- mm.o mm.- mm.o owaam mm.- mm.o mm.o me.o ms.o mm.o mm.- me.o mm.- me.o om.- m¢.o xaasmoooe mm.- no.0 mm.o so.o ss.o em.o me.- mH.o es.- «H.o ms.- efi.o ammmflgm ms.- mo.o mm.o mo.o ms.o sm.o me.- mm.o ms.- sN.o os.- mm.o gonzo m@.- om.o mm.o eo.o ss.o mm.o we.- m¢.o mo.- woe.o ms.- oe.o gum om.- Hm.o mm.o oe.o sm.o as.o mm.- me.o me.- m¢.o Hm.- me.o cues mm.- He.o om.o mo.o ms.o mm.o as.- om.o mo.- ae.o os.- om.o usage §& 093 QM 0m B Q 0: § 0; Q 0; QM O; ”—.50 anon Haves cane _aau¢ eaofl umqm Homnm.aogm mammoaoez _aoum_aaa¢ yam dupes Hudson Hayes .soum madman came» Hudson as.“ gamma: and meadow. .mmsonw ”£98.: defiance on... ham 3ng 5.3 «am ES 989 .330.“ mmdohmo H33 53.3 5.3 an.“ v50 manages: mo mvnowofimmmcoo noflwfiohoo 393m .bfi manna -80.. .Aao. vvmv pndoflmH:Mfim was Hmm. A mnofivmaophoo .30. v n: 28$“qu 23 mmm. A maofifiohoo £35 23 3.. .53 .anm u and.“ Hw.u 5b.: ww.o mw.o Na.o mm.o mm.l Hw.| . mm.n vb.l mm.n mm.l kuddh mw.| mm.| ob.o mb.o Hm.o ma.o mm.| ow.| mm.u $5.: mm.| ow.n madam we.: 05.: mb.o mb.o ab.o om.o mb.u mm.l mw.l bm.n mb.| 0b.: xndnmohoh mb.n mm.| mb.o vb.o ab.o om.o m>.I mo.| vb.| mw.| ab.| mo.| aoxmflhm be.n mb.u mm.o «5.0 mm.o mm.o Hm.| Nb.| Hw.n He.n ab.l m>.| M0526 mm.| om.u «v.0 mb.o mm.o mm.o mm.| ob.a om.n Hb.| Nw.u 0b.: nfim wb.n 55.: hm.o mm.o $5.0 mb.o 05.: mo.l wo.u H©.I Hb.| mw.u ado; 0b.: om.| mb.o ob.o Hw.o mm.o mb.| mc.n bb.n bo.u ob.u bo.| vcaqm QM 0; Q a: Q 0; Q 0: QM 0t QM our: ”—.50 88 3.09 SE 5.3 So. 25 flog a8,“ 3332: as:n 3.3 Em 3.3 $38. Hfloa a8.“ £8... Sol 33% wag qunowmm was cannon deem 2&2. 2m: 23 .8.“ 33% fit Sm can ocon .Hfiapop ammondo H6909 nafis.afihv yam «so oawmoaoss Mo mpqofiOfimmooo uofiwmfimhnoo camaflm .wH manna —81- .30. v .0 28223,“ 2.. Em. A 8033938 .0 .Amo. v pedo«Mfimwwm mud 00m. A maofiwoflohuoo £25. 93 fig .53 .anm u Had H5.: 00.: 05.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 05.: 50.: 05.: 00.: 55.: addfih 05.: H5.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 05.: 50.: 05.: 00.: wwdfim 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 H0.: 00.: 0%.: 50.: 5%.: 00.: fiddSmohoh H0.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 55.0 55.0 #5.: H0.: N5.: H0.: 05.: N0.: vmxmfihm #5.: H5.: H0.0 H0w0 05.0 05.0 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: #0530 N0.: 50.: 00.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 H0.: H0.: 00.: 00.: 00.: H0.: 30m «0.: $N.: $0.: 00.: 0H.0 0H.0 00.: 0H.: #0.: 00.: 00.: 50.: :flQQ NN.: HN.: H0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 56.: #0.: 50.: 00.: 0%.: 0:300 QM 09.3 Q 0: Q 0? Q 0t QM Ow mm Q 0: 95° 88 H33 and 5.5. 30. 2.5 H25 59¢ «383:: .aonm_aflap yam Hayes afiapmn Haves .aoum mxdmpm eamfis Hanson 9am Haanmpxm was meadom .gsohm vnwaoz.h>mos onv.uom muaoaz_aahv 9mm and weep .Hfldpoh ammohmo Have» £903.2ng 9mm ago madmoH053 Mo mpevfiofihfiooo nowpmflounoo magawm .mH manna -82- and most were significant (P < .01); however, in the combined.weight group the correlations with weight of bone were positive and low. The correlations between all wholesale cut and carcass components within the light weight group were significant (P < .01) and higher than those for the heavy group. These findings agree with those reported by Allen (1966). ,Among the wholesale cuts, wholesale flank fat trim was consistently most highly correlated with total carcass fat trim.yie1ds (ranges, 0.80 to 0.95 and 0.78 to 0.92 for weight and percent, respectively) for all weight groups. Within weight groups, flank fat trim was more highly related to weight and percent retail yields (ranges, -.76 to -.82 and -.87 to -.93, respectively) than the fat trim.from..the other wholesale cuts. The corresponding correlations with weight of retail yields were much lower in the combined weight group. Fat trim.yield of the wholesale plate was the second most highly correlated with total carcass percent retail (range, -.78 to -.89), bone (range, -.73 to -.85), and fat yields (range, -.79 to -.89). The whole- sale loin fat trim.yield was highly related (P < .01) to total carcass retail, bone and.fat yields in the light weight group, but in the heavy group the correlations were low and.most were nonsignificant. Allen (1966) reported similar relationships between the wholesale cuts and carcass retail, fat trim.and bone yields. The difference in magnitude of the correlations between the two weight groups indicate that the site and quantity of fat deposition differs between weight groups. Allen (1966) found similar differences between these two weight groups. -83- Relationships Between Wholesale Cut Bone Yield and Total Carcass Retail, Bone and Fat Trim.Yields. Tables 20, 21 and 22 present simple correla- tion coefficients of wholesale cut bone yields with total carcass retail, bone and fat trim yields for the combined, light and heavy weight groups, respectively. With the exception of the wholesale flank and rib, the bone yield of each wholesale cut was significantly (P < .01) correlated with both weight and percent total carcass retail yields and with percent total carcass bone and fat trim.yie1ds in all weight groups. Chuck and round bone yields were mpre highly correlated with both weight and per- cent of total carcass bone and retail yields, and with percent fat trim yields in all weight groups than any of the other wholesale cuts. Correlations of wholesale chuck bone yield with weight of total carcass bone ranged from.0.90 to 0.95 and with percent bone from 0.90 to 0.95. Corresponding correlations for wholesale round bone yield with weight and percent total carcass bone ranged from 0.89 to 0.96 and 0.89 to 0.93, respectively. The wholesale round bone yield was slightly more highly correlated with weight and percent retail yields than wholesale chuck bone yield. The bone yield of the wholesale foreshank was highly correlated (range, 0.85 to 0.88 and 0.85 to 0.89 for weight and percent, respectively) with total carcass bone yield. The correlations for the wholesale loin bone yield with total carcass bone yield were similar to those for the foreshank. These results concur with those reported by Cole gt al. (1960a) and Brungardt and Bray (1963a). These results indicate that separation of the wholesale round into retail, fat trim and bone yields would be the most useful wholesale cut -84.. .AHO. v mv Padowmfinmflm ohm wmm. A mqowvdaoahoo .A00. v.0v vasowMflQMfim on“ 05H. A mcowpwaouhoo gonzo 28 a? £03 .325 u 29m mH.o oo.o HH.- eo.o sa.- efi.o ea.o om.o oa.o m~.o «H.o om.o sedan as.o mp.o mo.- oa.- mm.- o~.o Hm.o em.o om.o mm.o me.o mm.o meaam sm.o mm.o em.. as.. as.- ma.o «v.0 sm.o mm.o ow.o as.o sm.o endsmmaom mm.o as.o He.- wo.- sm.- oH.- mm.o Hm.o om.o Hm.o we.o m¢.o poxmflhm mm.o mm.o eo.- ma.- se.- oa.o os.o em.o os.o em.o os.o em.o guano ss.o Hm.o ee.- mo.- mm.- NH.o mm.o ms.o mm.o ms.o mm.o ms.o nflm 3.0 3.0 E... mo... 3... 3.0 86 $5 $5 $5 85 3.0 53 Hm.o mm.o mo.- mH.- ow.- HH.o me.o sm.o ms.o mm.o ms.o mm.o venom QM a: Q a: Q 0a.; 0 QM cm B Q 0? ”—.50 econ Haves exam .sacp efloww omnm Homqm.aogm maemoaogs _aopmpaflg« yam Hayes afiapmu Hayes .aoum «away. eamu» Hflapmm yam Haaummxm (was mammmmx .masopw «swam: emqflnsoo on» you meflmus_aflcy “cm was omen .Hfimvmh mmmoado Havow £903 uaofih 0:09 9:0 madmoflonk.m° mvuowoaMMooo nonMHonhoo cagaaw .om manna -85.. .A00. v.00 00000000000 000 H00. A 000000000000 .A00. v.00 00000000000 000 000. A 000000000000 .00000 000 000 .0000 .00000 - 00.00H 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 0H.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000000000 00.0 00.0 00.- H0.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 -I Q 0; Q“ Cum MM 0; 0: R 0mm QM O: “.50 :00 0300 030 5b 3 m. 00.40 000.00 59¢ 20030:: aanm_a000 000 H0000 Haapou 00009 _a000 000000 0H000 H00000 «mm-Hwnumwmm-l, 000 00000m- .00000 00000: 00000 000 000 00H000_0000 000 000 0:00 .3090.“ 3.00.30 H.309 «3,03 0H3...» 2.80. 0.30 mgr-macs? mo mvaofiofiwmmoo :Ofivdaohoo mam—50 .HN 03.05 -86- .000. v 0W 00000-000000 0.00 000. A 000000000000 0 .000. v 0:00000qm0m 000 000. A 000000000000 .0020 000 00.0 .0000 00000 - 0000.0 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 50.0 00.0 00000 05.0 05.0 00.: m0.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 50.: mm.- 05.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 50.0 0:0:00000 00.0 00.0 00.: 50.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 50.0 00.0 0N.0 00.0 0000000 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00:00 «5.0 05.0 mm.: 00.: 00.: 50.: mm.0 00.0 «0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000 00.0 05.0 00.- 00.: 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 05.: 05.: «0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00:00 . .00 . .00 . .00 . .t. . .t. m .00 000 0000 00000 0000“ .0000 000 0000 00000.0000 000000000 .0000za000 000 00000 000000 00000 .0000 000000 00000 000000 000 qupwexm 0nd 000090 .00000 000000.00000 000 00 000000.0000 000 000 0000 .000000 0000000 00000 :00: 00000 0:00 050 00000003: Mo 000000000000 00000000000 000000 .mm @0000 -87.. for prediction of these same components in the carcass. Retail and bone yields of the round were consistently the most highly related to carcass retail and bone yields. Round fat trim.yie1ds were also highly signifi- cantly (P < .01) correlated with carcass fat trim.yie1ds. The correla- tions for retail and bone yields for the wholesale chuck with corres- ponding carcass components were quite similar, although slightly lower than those for the round. However, the round is much easier to separate and would be more useful as a measure of carcass retail and bone yields. This concurs with the findings of Brungardt and Bray (1963a). Carcass fat trim.yie1ds were most accurately predicted by the fat yield of the flank for both the individual and combined weight groups. Wholesale plate fat yield was also highly related to carcass fat trim yields. How; ever, the flank is much easier and more rapidly separated than the plate or round and with less economic loss to the carcass. Thus, since the flank is essentially a "fat" wholesale cut, it is recommended.for pre- dicting carcass fat yield. These findings for the flank agree with those reported by Hankins and Howe (1946), Hedrick 31 El. (1963), Miller 31 21. (1965) and Allen (1966). Relationships Between Certain Bones and Bone Groups and Total Carcass Retail, Bone and Fat Trim.Yields. Highly significant correlation coeffi- cients for the radius plus ulna, femur, tibia plus fibula, scapula and humerus with total carcass bone for the combined and individual weight groups are shown in table 23. Correlations for the individual bones and -88- .000. v .3 00000000000 0.00 000. A 000000000000 .30. v .0 00000000000 000 00«. A 080000000000 0 .000. v mv 05000005000 000 ¢0«. A 050000000000 .A00. v my 00000000000 000 05H. A 0:0000000000« .0005 000 000 .0000 .000000 05000 05.0 05.0 00.: 00.: «5.: 05.: 00.0 H0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 005000 + 0000s 00.0 00.0 «0.: «0.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 00.0 05800 00.0 00.0 «0.: «0.: «0.: 00.: 50.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0050000 05.0 05.0 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 «0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 0500850 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.: 50.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 «0.0 00.0 00.0 0:05 + 050000 mmomm 0sm0mz_wwwm= 00.0 00.0 50.: 00.: 05.: 05.: 05.0 05.0 05.0 05.0 «5.0 05.0 005000 + 00009 00.0 00.0 00.: 50.: «0.: 00.: 05.0 55.0 55.0 05.0 05.0 55.0 05800 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: «0.: 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0050000 00.0 «0.0 00.: 00.: 00.: 55.: 05.0 55.0 05.0 05.0 05.0 05.0 050085: 00.0 00.0 50.: 00.: 00.: 55.: 05.0 05.0 05.0 05.0 05.0 05.0 0:05 + 050000 m5mmm 0nm00= 0cm0q 00.0 00.0 «0.: 5 .: 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 005900 + 00n0e 00.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 00.: 00.0 0«.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 5«.0 00.0 05800 00.0 00.0 «0.: 00.: 0«.: 50.0 0«.0 00.0 H«.0 00.0 0«.0 00.0 0050000 50.0 00.0 00.: 00.: 0«.: 00.0 0«.0 00.0 0«.0 «0.0 ««.0 «0.0 050085: 00.0 00.0 «0.: 00.: 5«.: 00.0 ««.0 50.0 0«.0 00.0 0«.0 50.0 0005 + 050000 «005000 0smww3 00000800 : IE :0 t : IE 00000 0000 00000 0000.0 00000 000.0 000.0 0000 00.000 00000 0000.00 00000 000.00 000000 0000.0 000000 000 HMGAo0MM: 000 000000 .005000 020003 Hd500>0000 000 00000800 0:0 000 000000 8000 000 000 0000 .000000 0000000 00000 £003.0m5ohw macs 050.00000 5000000 00 008000000000 80000000000 000800 .0« 00000 -89... bone groups with total carcass bone for all weight groups ranged.from 0.64 to 0.95 for weight and 0.64 to 0.89 for percent. Within weight groups, these bones and bone groups were significantly and positively (P < .01) correlated with both weight and percent of total carcass retail yields and negatively correlated with weight and percent fat trim yields. Most of these correlations were higher within the light weight group than the heavy group. In the combined.weight group, weight and percent radius plus ulna and that for the femur were more highly related.to weight and percent total carcass bone (0.95 and 0.94, respectively, for weight, and 0.46 and 0.50, respectively, for percent) than any of the other bones or bone groups. Within the light weight group, both weight and percent humerus and femur were the most highly correlated with weight (0.92 and 0.90, respectively) and percent (0.89 and 0.89, respectively) of total carcass bone. In the heavy weight group, correlations for radius plus ulna and that for the femur were 0.86 and 0.84, respectively, for weight and 0.83 and 0.83, respectively, with percent total carcass bone. These results indicate that the femur was consistently more highly correlated with weight and percent total carcass bone than the other bones or bone groups. Similar results for individual bone and bone groups were reported by Allen (1966). Correlation coefficients for the individual bones and bone groups with weight of total carcass retail yields ranged from.0.4l to 0.87 within as well as for the combined weight groups. The corresponding -90- correlations with percent total carcass retail yields, within weight groups, were markedly similar to the correlations with weight of retail yields; whereas, the correlations for the combined weight group were much lower for percent than for those between weight of retail yields. These data indicate that individual bone and bone groups could be useful for predicting total carcass bone yield, but they would not be good predictors of carcass retail or fat trim yields. Butterfield (1963) developed several prediction equations for estimating carcass bone yield from weights of various bones as the independent variables. Allen (1966) also reported prediction equations for the combined weight groups for estimating total carcass bone yield from.individua1 bone and bone group weights and accounted for over 90% of the total variation. Relationship_Between subjective Carcass Scores and Total Carcass Retail and Fat Trim.Yields. Simple correlation coefficients of subjective carcass scores with total carcass retail and fat trim yields for the combined and individual weight groups appear in tables 24, 25 and 26. Carcass, hind- quarter, forequarter and round conformation scores (see table 2 for scor- ing procedure) were low, but significantly (P < .05) correlated with weight of retail yields for the combined weight group (range, 0.18 to 0.21). Carcass, hindquarter and round conformation scores were positively, but nonsignificantly, correlated.with percent retail yields in the comp bined and individual weight groups. In contrast to the combined and heavy weight groups, hindquarter and round conformation scores in the .30. v .3 pgoflmwdwwm 0&0 0mm. A 000330.008 .Amo. v.00 00000000000 000 00H. A 000000000000 £0530 00.0 flu." .50..” .0880 n can H s0.0 00.0 H«.0 00.0 00.- Hm.- 00.- 00.- 00.- H~.- 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- mafianuaz 00.- 00.0 00.- 0H.0 «0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000500: "00000.00 L Aw HH.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 0H.0 Hm.0 0H.0 0H.0 0H.0 HN.0 00:00 HH.0 0H.0 00.0 00.0 0a.- Hm.0 0a.- 0H.0 0H.- Hm.0 00000500000 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 0H.0 00.0 HH.0 0H.0 0H.0 HN.0 0000000000: 00.- H0.- H0.0 00.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 0H.0 HH.0 0H.0 0000000 ”00300509000 IE . I: . I IR .K .m .m .m .wh 0.0000 030 fit. 03. 030 0050 08.0 2.300.300 0000.000» 000 H0000 H00000 H0000 0000 000000 0H000 afiaymm 000 Hmnpoexm 000 mwmamm .mmsoum ”£3.03 0038000 0%. 00m 0300.» 5.5 90m 00.0 0000 .330.“ 00.00900 H.093. "3.; 00.300 00.00.30 00,0900350 M0 09000002000 003.0H0h00 0H§m ém 00509 .000. v 00 00000000000 .30. v .3 00000000000 000 000. A 000000000000 000 mmm. A 000000000000 .00000 000 000 .0000 .00000 - 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0m.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0000000: 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000: "0000000 .0 . n0 0 .- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 0 .- 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 0m.- 00.- 00.- 0m.- 00000000000 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000000: 00.- 00.- 00.- N0.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000 . ”000008000000 . .93 0 .9: 0 .93 . .03 R .#3 00000 0000 0000 00000 0000 00000.0000 0>00000000 0000.0000 000 00000 000000 00000 .0000 000000 0000.0 000000 00% 00000vmm 0:0 00000m .00000 000000 00000 000 000 000000.0000 0 0000.000 00000 :00: 00.0000 0000.000 0000000350 .00 3533.38 0 00 00 .000 deflwmfl0hh00 0Hmaflw .mm ofinwe .AHo. v mv #:000m0qw0m 000 Hmm. A 000000000000 .Amo. v my pqdowquwwm 000 mmm. A 000000000000 .00000 000 000 .0000 .00000 0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00000000 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000: 00000000 .0 .0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000000 00.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00000000000 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000 “defipdauomaoo 0 .03 0 .93 0 .03 0 .93 m .03 00000 0000 0000 000. 0000 00000.0000 0000000000 .0000.0000 000 00000. 000000 00000 .0000 000000 00000 000000 00m Haa0myxm . can mvmsnmw- .mzohw «smfim3.z>0ms 0:0 000 mwam0h.awnp #0 . 0000000 H0000 £003 000000 0000000 m>wpomwn=m mo mpdowoammooo WOWMMHWMWQ HHMWWR 00009 . . oo 00 .m .mm -94- light weight group were significantly (P < .05) correlated with percent retail yield from.the RLRI2(O.24 and 0.26, respectively) and round con- formation score was significantly (P < .05) correlated with percent total retail yield (0.25). Most correlations were low and many were negative between the con- formation scores and either weight or percent fat trim.yie1ds in the individual and combined.weight groups (range, -.24 to -.30). Carcass, hindquarter and round conformation scores were more highly related to weight and percent retail and fat trim yields in the light weight group than in the heavy group. Forequarter conformation score was negatively correlated with weight and percent of retail yields in the light weight group. Correlations between these same characteristics were essentially zero but positive in the heavy weight group, while those in the combined weight group were positive and significant (P < .05) for weight and negative for percent retail yields. These results support the work of Breidenstein (1962) and Branaman 23 El. (1962) who found no significant correlation between con- formation score and yield of retail cuts in steers grading primarily Good and Choice. Pierce (1957), 6011 3: al. (1961a), Hedrick 33.3%,.(1963), Bray (1964), Briskey and Bray (1964), Cole _e_jc_ 31_. (1964) and Allen (1966) reported that conformation affects retail yield to a far lesser extent than degree of fatness. Maturity scores were positively correlated with weight (range, 0.08 to 0.36) and percent (range, 0.02 to 0.18) retail yields and negatively -95.. correlated.with percent (range, -.06 to -.23) fat trim yields. These correlations were highest in the heavy weight group. Marbling score was negatively (P < .05) correlated with weight (range, -.24 to -.48) and percent (range, -.38 to -.51) retail yields and positively (P < .05) correlated.with weight (range, 0.29 to 0.52) and.percent (range, 0.31 to 0.54) fat trim.yie1ds in the individual and combined.weight groups. The correlations of marbling score with retail and fat trim.yie1ds are very similar to those for carcass grade with retail and fat trim.yie1ds. This relationship would be expected since marbling score was highly related to carcass grade (0.86, 0.87 and 0.84 for the combined, light and heavy weight groups, respectively). Carcass grade was negatively (most were significant, Pr< .05) correlated.with weight (range, -.20 to -.40) and percent (range, -.31 to -.40) retail yields and positively (P‘< .05) correlated.with weight (range, 0.24 to 0.44) and percent (range, 0.27 to 0.45) fat trim yields for the combined and individual weight groups. These correlations were higher in the light weight group than in the combined or heavy groups. Carcass grade was more highly correlated (P < .01) with weight and percent total fat trim.from.the carcass than with external fat trim.from.the RLRC (P < .05). Effect of Conformation upon RetaillpFat Trim.and Bone Yields for Indivi- dual Fat Groups Within Each Weight Group. Carcasses within individual fat groups for each weight group were approximately equally divided on -96- conformation (5 low Choice and}: high Choice). Conformation scores (see table 2 for scoring procedure) ranged from.low Good to average Prime. One-way analysis of variance (Steel and Torrie, 1960) was used to deter- mine the effect of conformation upon carcass retail, fat trim.and bone yields within each fat group (I to VIII). Although the tabular data are not presented, the results showed that higher conformation carcasses had slightly greater retail yields (percent) while lower conformation carcasses had slightly higher percent of bone. However, none of these differences were significant (P‘< .05). Lower conformation carcasses also had slightly greater percents of fat trim yields; however the differences were nonsignificant (P‘< .05). Even though an attempt was made to evaluate that proportion of con- formation attributable to muscling by mentally defatting the carcass in the processing of determining conformation score, these results indicated that superior muscling is insignificant in comparison to the depressing effect of fat upon retail yieldl. Carcasses with similar muscling but with differences in degree of fatness had significant differences in percent retail yields. These relationships were applicable irrespective of the portion of the carcass scored for conformation by this procedure. Also, it is difficult to accurately evaluate muscling when carcasses have large external fat deposits. These findings further support those of Pierce (1957), Goll gt al. (1961a), Breidenstein (1962), Brungardt and Bray (1963a)., Hedrick 33 3;. (1963), Bray (1964), Briskey and Bray (1964), Cole EI.El° (1964), Butterfield (1965), Stringer 33 El“ (1965), Miller 33 3;. (1965) and Allen (1966). Relationship of Predicted Carcass Retail Yields from Several Existing Regression Equations to Actual Retail Yield. Several existing regression equations were used to predict percent carcass retail yields (table 27). These equations were selected since they have been shown (Breidenstein, 1965; Allen, 1966) to account for much of the total variation in retail yield. Equations developed by Murphey 22 El. (1960), Brungardt and Bray (1963a), Breidenstein (1962) and several equations developed by Allen (1966) were used to predict percent carcass retail yields. The correlation coefficients between predicted percent retail yields and the actual percent retail yields for each of these equations are presented in table 28 for the combined and individual weight groups. Only those equations that had correlations of 0.70 or greater were in- cluded in these results. Percent roasts and steaks from the RLRC, RLR and RL are shown in additinn to total carcass retail yield and retail yield from.the RLRC. The equation of Murphey st 31. (1960) was consistently the most accur- ate in predicting percent carcass retail yields and.was followed closely by the equation of Breidenstein (1962) and then by the equation by Brun- gardt and Bray (1963a). The three equations developed by Allen (1966) were not as highly related to actual retail yields as those of the other authors. In the combined.weight group, the equation of Murphey st 21. (1960) accounted for 74% of the variation in total carcass retail yield and 72% -98- Table 27. Some existing multiple regression equations for estimating percent retail yield in the combined and individual weight groups. A . Murphey Y = 51.34 — 5.784 (x1) - 0.0093 (x2) - 0.462 (x3) + 0.74 (X4 ) A Breidenstein Y = 67. 99 - 0.0142 ( ) - 6. 39 (X6 ) - 0.38 (X8 ) +0.37(X4)+0.1(X9) Brungardt and Bray I? 16.64 + 1.67 (X5 ) - 4.94 (X6 ) Allen (Equation 3) 9': 40.969 - 0.014 ( ) - 0.049 (X10) - 0.128 (X11) + 0. 407 (x12) + 0. 235 (x13) Allen (Equation 4) Q: 40. 614 — 0.014 (x7) - 0.129 (x11) - 0. 031 (X14) + 0.429 (X12) + 0.235 (X13) Allen (Equation 8) /Y\= 45. 402 - 0.014 (X7) - 0.1 (X11) - 0.03 (X14) + 0. 436 (x12) + 0. 388 (x13) Estimated % retail yield X1 = Fat thickness at 12th rib, in. X2 = Hot carcass wt., 1b. X3 = Kidney fat, % of carcass. X4 = L. dorsi muscle area, sq. in. X5 = 7étr1mmed round. X6 = Single fat measurement at 12th rib. X7 = Carcass wt., lb. X8 = Kidney fat wt., 1b. X9 = Conformation grade. X10 = Fat probe 5th thoracic vertebra, 4 in. off the carcass dorsal midline (m. ). X11 = Fat probe 3rd sacral vertebra, 12 in. off the carcass dorsal midline (mo). X12 = Round length, in. X13 = % flank retail yield. X14 Fat measurement A at 12th rib. -99.. .emna one ensem u non .mma one need .0aseo u one» AHO. v on «noeeooeoao nan neenoeeoooee Hone Boson one .5 .33 653 n E no.0 oo.0 no.0 eo.0 oo.0 Ao nonessoov swoon oo.0 0n.0 no.0 oo.0 oo.0 A0 noneesomv condo oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 no.0 An nonpoeomv enafio Ho.0 no.0 no.0 no.0 oo.0 seen one enanoasam oe.0 oo.0 no.0 no.0 no.0 aeopoanennam oo.0 ne.0 oo.0 oo.0 no.0 manage: wmsonm pnwflo=.z>No= oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 Ao seneosomv eoHHo oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 os.0 oo.0 A0 neeeesoov mason no.0 oo.0 oo.0 0s.0. 05.0 An neeeoamov aosao oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 Ho.0 seam 00o enaeoasam no.0 oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 nonpoeonooao oo.0 oo.0 eo.0 Ho.0 oo.0 annoys: 0% “Bone: 3mm no.0 oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 Ao aeneneomv canon oo.0 no.0 oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 A0 aeneesomv aefiao oo.0 oo.0 0e.0 05.0 0e.0 Ao aeeeesoov sedan no.0 oo.0 0o.0 Ho.0 oo.0 mono nan enanoaaeo oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 no.0 no.0 aeoeneonaoao oo.0 oo.0 oo.0 no.0 oo.0 ooaaanz wmmSOHM pswaoz conflnaoo oqo ofio H25 Hood seam 33%. :38 .EOhm madopm .Echm mxdopm .eOum mxnowm damn» Hfinvom mononno Hopes man mvmnom mud mpmoom> mud mwmoom . .mmsonw p:maoz unconsco can Honcfi>flunfl one pom ocaofih Henson paoonom Hanson one new: mscfivnsvo aoaomonmon mufivmaxo Hoho>0m.aonm Avcoopomv ouaofih Hfinpon covofiuohm mo ovaowoflMMooo nofiwnflounoo magswm .mm manna -100- of the variation in percent retail yield from.the RLRC. This equation, as well as the other equations used, was less accurate in predicting roasts and steaks from.the RLRC, RLR and RL than for retail yields. The equation by Breidenstein (1962) was similarly related to actual retail yields. This equation accounted for 72% of the variation in total retail yield and retail yield from.the RLRC and 64% to 71% of the variation in roasts and steaks (RLRC, RLR and RL) in the combined weight group. The equation of Brungardt and Bray (1963a) accounted for 69% of the variation in total retail yield and 66% of the variation in RLRC retail yield. From 54% to 64% of the variation in roasts and steaks (RLRC, RLR and RL) was accounted for by this same equation. The equations of Allen (1966) accounted for only approximately 50% of the variation in retail yields. The equations of Murphey 33 El‘ (1960), Brungardt and-Bray (1963a) and Breidenstein (1962) were more accurate in predicting percent retail yields within the individual weight groups than for the combined weight group. The equation of Murphengt 31. (1960) accounted for 85% and 83% of the variation in total carcass retail yield and RLRC retail yield, respectively, in the light weight group, while Breidenstein's (1962) equation accounted for 79% and 79% and the equation of Brungardt and Bray (1963a) accounted for 83% and 79% of the variation in these same components, respectively. The equations of Murphey 23 El. (1960), Brun- gardt and Bray (1963a), and Breidenstein (1962) were almost identical in their predictive values of roasts and steaks from.the RLRC, R1R.and RL (range, 71% to 79%). The equations of Allen (1966)) were nearly identical in their predictive value for the light and combined weight groups. -101- In the heavy weight group the equations of Breidenstein (1962) and Murphey'gt.gl. (1960) were essentially similar in predicting percent retail yields and roasts and steaks (range, 0.78 to 0.86 and 0.76 to 0.86, re- spectively) and they were more accurate than the equation of Brungardt and Bray (1963a) (range, 0.66 to 0.79). The equation of Brungardt and Bray (1963a) accounted for 62% of total retail yield and 58% of RLRC retail yield while the equations of Murphey 31 El' (1960) and Breiden- stein (1962) accounted for 71% to 74% of these same components. Although the correlations were lower, similar relationships were found among these three equations for prediction of roasts and steaks. The equations of Allen (1966) were less accurate in the heavy group than in the light and combined.weight groups. These equations accounted for 38% to 48% of the variation in retail yields and roasts and steaks from the RLRC. Breidenstein (1965) reported that 77.26% of the variation in retail yield from the RLRC was accounted for by the equation of Murphey £1: 31. (1960) and 67% by the Brungardt and Bray (1963a) equation, while only 60.22% of the variation was accounted for by the equation of Breidenstein (1962). Brungardt and Bray (1963a) reported that their equation accounted for 81% while that of Murphey 21 El. (1960) accounted.for only 67% of the variation in percent retail yield. These results indicate that certain of these equations are useful for prediction of percent retail yields. The equations most accurate for the combined weight group were even more accurate within weight.groups. -102- The Effects of Beef-Type (Holsteins versus the Three Major British Beef Breeds) upon Retail, Fat Trim and Bone Yields. The means of some linear and area measurements and subjective carcass scores for steer carcasses of Holsteins (within 0.26 to 0.50 in. fat thickness range and heavy weight group) and the combined means of the three major British beef breeds (within the 0.26 to 0.50 in. fat thidkness range in both the light and heavy weight groups) are presented in table 29. Although all of the carcasses were within the same fat thickness range (0.26 to 0.50 in.) the British breeds had more fat at the 12th rib than Holsteins. This differ- ence was most marked between the Holsteins (0.32 in.) and British breeds (0.44 in.) within the same weight (heavy) group. The average carcass conformation and grade scores for the British breeds in the light and heavy weight groups were low Choice; whereas, the Holsteins had corresponding scores of high Standard. In addition, the carcass grades reflect the differences in degree of marbling. The British breeds had marbling scores of modest- and small+ (adjacent degrees) for the heavy and light weight groups, respectively; while the Holstein marbling scores averaged slight+. The light weight British breed carcasses were the shortest (46.1 in.) and had the smallest l. gg£§11muscles (11.00 sq. in.) but the area of the Holsteins (11.52 sq. in.) was quite similar. However, the heavy weight British breeds (same weight as the Holsteins) had considerably larger (13.12 sq. in.) 1.‘§§E§i muscle areas. As expected, the Holstein car- casses were the longest (53.3 in.) and the heavy weight British breeds were intermediate (50.3 in.) in length of carcass. .dem vqnunsnn u om nwsounp ..owo .0woeoc N .m=:HE vao>ou H mo oncom N . .oswhm swan n NH smooHSp ..opo .Uhneedvm .>n n N .vanvnnvm 30H u H ho 0.30mH 3 0 11 _ A+HHdEmv Aoofiono soav Aooflono onv Agsonw enwva m.mH m.o m.b oo.HH H.w¢ mm.o N.omm apnoea :mwvwnm Anymovgfiv Aocfiono soHv AoOfiozo scHV Amuohw hbmonv o.oH m.o N.b NH.mH m.om 00.0 m.HNb muooan :mfipfinm A+pnwwflmv Achdundem Achnundpm “macaw h>nosv o.oH gonzo 0.o sonny o.o on.HH o.on oo.0 n.nae neeoenfleo Nohoom Honoom ocnhmww oncom .nH .wm .nfildnvwaofi .nw .na 4.93 msohw wnwfios quHnndS .>< .<.Q.w.b .>< .msoo .>< noun oHooae monouno .>< .mmonxownp monohno can woman fiance .A 90% non neNH .>« .muoohn Moon nmflvfinm homes mouse one he muses confinaco one can mnflovmaom Mo mommoohno noopm hem mohoom monohno obfipoonnsm use medafiohzmnoe «who can hdoqflfl ofiom mo mono: .mN manna —lO4- The means for weight and percent retail, fat trim and bone yields comparing the Holstein steer carcasses with the combined means of the three major British beef breeds are presented in table 30. The light weight group of British breeds had significantly (P‘< .01) greater per- centages of retail yields than the Holstein carcasses, while within the heavy group there were essentially no differences in retail yields. In the heavy weight group, the British breeds yielded a slightly higher percent and weight of roasts and steaks from.the round, loin and rib but this difference was nonsignificant. Although nonsignificant, the Holsteins had a slightly higher percent and weight of total retail yield (64.22% vs. 62.45% and 229.65 lb. vs. 225.35 lb.) and slightly more retail yield from the RLRC (53.19% vs. 52.07% and 190.21 1b. vs. 187.87 lb.) than the British breeds. These results agree with those reported by Branaman et a1. (1962) comparing dairy and beef-type carcasses. When comparing the heavy weight group, the results show that the British breeds had significantly (P < .01) more external fat trim.from the RLRC (9.63 lb. vs. 3.99 lb. and 2.66% vs. 1.12%) and more total car- cass fat trim (75.52 1b. vs. 58.15 lb. and 20.92% vs. 16.26%) than the Holsteins even though both groups were within the same fat thickness range (0.26 to 0.50 in.). The Holsteins had significantly (P < .01) more bone (54.21 lb. vs. 44.62 lb. and 15.16% vs. 12.37%) than the British breeds. When comparing the Holsteins with the light weight group of British cattle, the latter had significantly (P < .01) greater percentages of nun assaoo osnm on» an meannonhomsm econommwu sea: madman neon uqn_snnp vnm .Hwnpou mo vnmnos new menu: .055 u o MESH .naseo ... no “one nan find .058 u a “sense one no." .33 .083 u 25 .20. v .3 3.50333... nan assaoo osnm one an mwmflnomhomsn econoymfln sees mnaowz neon usn.&auv enm .Hnnvoh mo pqoouom Mom menu: .30. v .3 28323.0 N N H Ansonw «smofiv O O O O O O O O O m 0H m.“ .H new NH UHH N on 0H UNH ma new 0N woo wN new on Una mm 0mm so too 3 s .v.nm Andcum h>nonv nbm.NH 0no.N 0No.8 owm.mH omo.NN on.oN onm.Nw obo.Nm omn.No meoonn :oflefinm AQSOQM h>nosv . onH.mH ONH.H onN.nH obt.mH oom.NN oon.mN omo.mw oma.mm oNN.¢n nonvofiom % oanaomm $8 0.8 5.3 ennlqfinpoa .6 Banana 1 _ AQSOMN h>no£v nNo.nn pmo.m nNm.mb nHH.om nN>.Hw nmm.em nmm.¢ma nbm.>wfi nmm.mNN meoohn nonpwnm AQSOMM h>no£v nHN.¢m nmm.m an.mm nmN.mn nvb.mb nb>.Hm nom.mmH naNoomH nmo.mNN afloemflom onnfiorn mean can 5.0. one .538 .6 Boone 260 Hood 5.0. Ho seem in sea Hg seen Hog Home Sore sewn Boone an09 _soum vnm mxnovn oxnopm manowo .Eoum Baopm Hfinvoe van women is. «on 0309 0.3 0.8 one 833m Born H309 anchovxm mvmnom memnom mwmnom van .Hflneom mvmnom .mvoOhn Moon :mnvwnm gowns noon» one Mo manna nonwnaoo one can mafiopmflom mo mommnohno hooem Mom mcaofi» neon van sane vnm .Hfinvoh masoohom can mpnwfioz.ano= .om manna -106- retail yields (67.89% vs. 64.22%, 56.17% vs. 53.19% and 46.36% vs. 43.05% for total carcass retail yield, retail yield from.RLRC and roasts and steaks from.RLRC, resPectively). The Holsteins had a significantly (P‘< .01) greater percentage of bone (15.16% vs. 13.54%), while the British breeds had a higher (P‘< .01) percent of external fat trim.(2.ll% vs. 1.12%). However, it is interesting to note that the Holsteins had slightly more total fat trim (16.26% vs. 14.81%) but this difference was nonsignificant. The Holstein carcasses had more fat in the body cavity including kidney knob and more intermuscular fat which compensated for the difference in external fat trim from.the RLRC. These data suggest that there is a difference between Holsteins and the British breeds in their composition-weight relationship or stage of development. There was a difference in the distribution and amount of fat deposited. The heavy British group had significantly (P < .01) more external and total carcass fat trim (percent) than the Holsteins; however, when comparing percents of the light British group to the Holsteins, they had significantly more external fat but less total carcass fat trim.than the Holsteins. This would indicate that the British breeds deposit most of their fat as subcutaneous fat initially and as fattening proceeds, fat is deposited in the belly cuts, between the muscles and then in the body cavity. Such findings were reported by Callow (1948) and Zinn (1967) for beef cattle. Holstein carcasses have a higher proportion of fat in the body cavity and between muscles (intermuscular fat) and a smaller proportion of subcutaneous fat than British breeds. This supports con- clusions of Callow (1961). -107- The data show that British breeds which had the higher conformation scores also had a higher muscle to bone ratio. Martin 23 21. (1966) re- ported similar results for conformation scores and muscle to bone ratio. The effect that muscle development has upon retail yields is less marked then the influence of the amount and distribution of the fat within the carcass as evidenced by the comparison of these three groups of cattle. Although the muscle to bone ratio for the two British groups was nearly identical and higher than that for the Holsteins, the light British group was superior in retail yields to that of the Holsteins because fatness was quite similar between these two groups. Additionally there was no significant difference in retail yields between the heavy British group and the Holsteins because the British group had more fat trim which com- pensated for their superior muscle.development (muscle to bone ratio). These results indicate that the stage of fattening and muscle devel- opment at the time of slaughter was different for these three groups of cattle. The light weight British group was slaughtered during the period when muscular tissue was increasing at a greater rate than adipose tissue. At this stage, fat was deposited primarily as subcutaneous fat (hence the identical 12th rib fat thickness measurement with that of the heavy British group) with minimal amounts of body cavity and intermuscular fat. In contrast, the heavy weight British group was slaughtered when adipose tissue was being deposited in greater proportions in the belly cuts, as intermuscular and kidney and pelvic fat since more total fat trim.was obtained but 12th rib fat thickness was almost identical to the light -108- weight British group. The Holstein carcasses were intermediate in the stage of fat development and deposition. Holstein cattle do not have the inherent capacity to develop a high muscle to bone ratio but they more closely approximated the light British group in muscle to fat ratio than the heavy weight British group. It should be pointed out that the interaction between type and carcass weight was not obtained since a light weight group of Holsteins was not included in this experiment; primarily because Holstein carcasses in this weight group with 0.26 to 0.50 in. of fat thickness are very difficult to obtain. It should be recognized that the possibility of an interaction between type and carcass weight exists, since lighter weight carcasses yield a higher percent of retail yields (less total fat) than heavier car- casses, at least within the British breeds. Therefore the inferences drawn from these comparisons may not be completely valid. SUMMARY The right side of 120 steer carcasses of the three major British beef breeds were selected for chilled carcass weight and 12th rib fat thickness (average of three measurements). Sixty carcasses were selected within each of two weight ranges (light, 500 to 550 lb. and heavy, 700 to 750 1b.). The two weight ranges were further subdivided into four fat thickness groups; 0.26 to 0.50 in., 0.51 to 0.75 in., 0.76 to 1.00 in. and 1.01 to 1.25 in. with 15 carcasses selected within each group. In addition, 15 Holstein carcasses were selected within the 0.26 to 0.50 in. fat thickness group and 700 to 750 lb. weight range for comparison to the British breeds. All carcasses were subjectively scored for each grade factor and carcass length, round length and circumference, brisket depth and 1. 223E; muscle area were measured. subcutaneous fat thickness probes were made 4, 8 and 12 in. from.the dorsal midline perpendicular to the anterior edge of the 5th, 8th and 11th thoracic vertebrae, the lst, 4th and 6th lumbar vertebrae and the 3rd and 5th sacral vertebrae. Boneless, closely trimmed (approximately 0.3 in.) retail cuts were made by wholesale cut. The roasts and steaks from each of the four major wholesale cuts were weighed separately from.the total retail cuts. Carcass weight and fat thickness significantly (P < .01) affected retail and fat trim yields. Fat thickness also had a highly significant (P‘< .01) affect upon both weight and percent bone yield but carcass weight significantly affect only weight of bone. Percent retail and —109- -110- and fat trim.yields were significantly (P < .01) affected by carcass weight-fat thickness interaction, while percent bone was less affected (P < .05). Retail yield from the RLRC, roasts and steaks from.the RLRC, and total carcass retail yield were very highly correlated with each other (ranges, 0.96 to 1.00 and 0.96 to 0.99 for weight and percent, respect- ively). Correlations of weight and percent retail yields with weight and percent fat trim.yields, respectively, were highly significant (P‘< .01) within weight groups. In the combined weight group, correlations between percent retail and percent fat trim yields were also highly sig- nificant while those between weights of these same components were low. Retail yields were highly correlated with weight and percent bone yield. Fat probes and several linear fat measurements were positively correlated with fat trim yields. Within weight groups, correlations of fat measurements with either weight or percent retail yields were negative and most were significant (P < .01). In the combined.weight group, correlations with percent retail yields were higher than those for weight. Fat measurements B and C (12th rib) and the average of fat measurements A, B and C were the most highly related to retail and fat trim yields in all weight groups. Brisket depth was negatively (P‘< .01) correlated with percent retail yields in the individual and combined.weight groups and with weight of retail yields in the individual weight groups. Correla- tions of brisket depth with fat trim yields were positive and highly significant (P < .01). -111- Carcass length and round length were highly significantly (P < .01) correlated with weight and percent retail and bone yields within weight groups. In the combined weight group, the correlations with percent retail and bone yields were low and nonsignificant, while those with weight were high. Carcass length and round length were highly related to fat trim yields within weight ranges but the correlations in the combined weight group were low. 9. Eggs; muscle area was significantly (P < .01) related to retail yields. The correlations with fat trim yields were negative and highly significant (P < .01) within weight groups but not for the combined weight group. Of the wholesale cuts, the retail yield of the round was consis- tently the most highly related to total retail yields of the carcass (ranges of 0.91 to 0.97 and 0.91 to 0.95 for weight and percent, respect- ively). Round and chuck bone yields were the most highly related to carcass bone yield (ranges of 0.89 to 0.96 and 0.89 to 0.95 for weight and percent, respectively). Fat trim yields of the round and chuck were also highly significantly (P < .01) correlated with carcass fat trim. However, the fat trim from the wholesale flank was the most highly related to total carcass fat trim (ranges, 0.80 to 0.95 and 0.78 to 0.92 for weight and percent, respectively). These data indicate that the retail, fat trim and bone yields of the round would be the most useful wholesale cut for prediction of these same components in the carcass. Correlations of subjective carcass conformation and grade scores with retail yields were positive but they were negative with fat trim -112- and most were nonsignificant (P'> .05). Carcasses with higher conforma- tion scores had slightly greater retail yields (percent) while lower c0nf0rmation carcasses had slightly greater yields of percent fat trim and bone. Even though an attempt was made to evaluate that proportion of conformation associated.with muscling by mentally defatting the car- cass during the process of determining conformation score, these results indicated that superior muscling was insignificant in comparison to the depressing effect of fat upon retail yields. The relationship of predicted carcass retail yields from.several existing regression equations to actual retail yield were more accurate within the light weight group than for the heavy and.combined weight groups. The equation of Murphey was consistently the most accurate in predicting percent total carcass retail yield, RLRC retail yield and roasts and steaks from the 12ch (range, 67% to 85% of the variation in actual retail yields). An equation by Breidenstein followed closely in predictive value (range, 64% to 79% of the variation in actual retail yields), while the equation by Brungardt and Bray was less accurate and accounted for 56% to 83% of the variation in actual retail yields. Several equations developed by Allen accounted for only approximately 50% of the variation in actual retail yields. The effects of beef-type (Holsteins versus the three major British beef breeds) upon retail, fat trim.and bone yields showed that the light weight group of British breeds had significantly (P < .01) greater per- centages of retail yields than the Holstein carcasses, but differences ~113- in retail yields between the Holsteins and heavy weight group of British breeds were nonsignificant. These data reflect a difference between Holsteins and the British breeds in their composition-weight relation- ship or stage of development. There was a difference in muscle to bone ratio and the distribution and amount of fat deposited. Although the muscle to bone ratio for the two British groups was nearly identical and higher than that for the Holsteins, the light British group was superior in retail yields to that of the Holsteins because fatness was quite similar between these two groups. Additionally there were no significant differences in retail yields between the heavy British group and the Holsteins because the British group had more fat trim.which offset their superior muscle to bone ratio. LITERATURE CITED Allen. Deloran.M. 1966. The relationship of some linear and physical measurements to beef carcass composition. Ph.D. Thesis. Michigan State University. East Lansing. Michigan. Allen. D. M.. R. A. Merkel and W. T. Hagee. 1966. Relation- ship of some linear carcass fat measurements to total physically separable fat and retail beef yield. J. Animal Sci. 25:1279. (Abstr.). Anderson. E. C. and W. H. Langham. 1959. Average potassium concentration of the human body as a function of age. Science 130:713. Armour and Company. 1962. Photogrammetric systems for evaluating live cattle. National Provisioner 146:54. Bieber. D. D.. R. L. Saffle and L. D. Kamstra. 1961. Cal- culations of fat and protein content of beef from specific gravity and moisture. J. Animal Sci. 20:239. Brackelsberg. P. 0.. N. S. Hale. W. A. Cowan and D. M. Kinsman. 1968. Relationship of sectional character- istics to beef carcass composition. J. Animal Sci. 273390 Brackelsberg. P. 0. and R. L. Willham. 1968. Relationships among some common live and carcass measurements and beef carcass composition. J. Animal Sci. 27:53. Brackelsberg. P. 0.. R. L. Willham and L. E. Walters. 1967. Probing beef cattle to predict carcass fatness. J. Animal Sci. 26:713. Branaman. G. A.. A. M. Pearson. W. T. Magee. Ruth M. Griswold and G. A. Brown. 1962. Comparison of the cutability and eatability of beef cna dairy-type cattle. J. Animal Sci. 21:321. Bray. B. W. 1953. Biopsy techniques. Proc. Becip. Meat Confo 63980 Bray. B. W. 1964. A study of beef carcass grading criteria. Proc. Recip. Heat Conf. 17:9. Breidenstein. B. C. 1962. More definite system is needed to predict retail yield of beef carcass. National Pro- visioner. 174:77. -114- -115- Brinks. J. 8.. R. T. Clark. N. M. Kieffer and J. J. Urick. 1964. Predicting wholesale cuts of beef from linear measurements obtained by photogrammetry. J. Animal Sci. 2333650 Briskey. E. J. and R. W. Bray. 1964. A special study of the beef grade standards for the American National Cattle- men's Association. University of Wisconsin. Madison. Wisconsin. (Himsegraph). Brody. S. 1945. Bioenergetics and Growth. Reinhold Pub- lishing Corp.. New York. N. X. Brown. C. J.. J. D. Bartree and P. K. Lewis. Jr. 1962. Relationships among performance records. carcass cutout data. and eating quality of bulls and steers. Ark. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 655. Brown. C. J.. R. S. Temple. C. B. Ramsey and P. K. Lewis. Jr. 1964. Ultrasonic and carcass measurements of young bulls. Jo Animal 8010 23:847. (AbStro)O Brungardt. V. H. and R. W. Bray. 1963a. Estimate of retail yield of the four major cuts in the beef carcass. J. Animal Sci. 22:177. Brungardt. V. H. and R. W. Bray. 1963b. variation between sides in the beef carcass for certain wholesale and re- tail yields and linear carcass measurements. J. Animal 301. 2237460 Butler. 0. D. 1957. The relation of conformation to carcass traits. J. Animal Sci. 16:227. Butler. 0. D.. M. J. Garber and R. L. Smith. 1956. Beef carcass composition and yield of wholesale cuts as esti- mated from left to right sides. J. Animal Sci. 15:891. Butler. 0. D.. L. E. Kunkle. F. A. Orts. G. T. King and T. C. Cartwright. 1961. Important beef carcass traits easily obtained. J. Animal Sci. 20:914. (Abstr.). Butterfield. R. M. 1963a. Estimation of carcass composition: The anatomical approach. Proc. Symp. Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals. (D. E. Tribe. ed.). The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organiza- tion. Victoria. Australia. 4:1. Butterfield. R. M. 1963b. Relative growth of the musculature of the ox. Proc. Symp. Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals. (D. E. Tribe. ed.). The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Victoria. Australia. 7:1. -116- Butterfield. R. M. 1965. The relationship of carcass measurements and dissection data to beef carcass compo- sition. Research Vet. Sci. 6:24. Callow. E. H. 1948. Comparative studies of meat. II. The changes in the carcass during growth and fattening. and their relation to the chemical composition of the fatty and muscular tissues. J. Agr. Sci. 38:174. Callow. E. H. 1961. Comparative studies of meat. VII. A comparison between Hereford, dairy Shorthorn and Friesian steers on four levels of nutrition. J. Agr. Sci. 56:265. Carroll. F. D.. M. T. Clegg and D. Kroger. 1964. Carcass characteristics of Holstein and Hereford steers. J. Agr. Sci. 62:1. Cole. J. W.. L. E. Orme and C. M. Kincaid. 1960a. Relation- ship of loin eye area. separable lean of various beef cuts and carcass measurements to total carcass lean in beef. J. Animal Sci. 19:89. Cole, J. W.. L. E. Orme and R. N. Terrell. 1960b. Influence of certain beef grades upon carcass composition and yieldSo Jo Animal 5010 19:656. (AbStI‘.). Cole. J. W.. C. B. Ramsey. C. S. Hobbs and R. S. Temple. 1964. Effects of type and breed of British. Zebu and dairy cattle on production. palatability and composition. III. Percent wholesale cuts and yield of edible portion as determined by physical and chemical analysis. J. Animal Sci. 23:71. Cole. J. W.. C. B. Ramsey and R. H. Epley. 1962. Simplified methods for predicting pounds of lean in beef carcasses. Jo Animal 5010 21:355. Crown. R. M. and R. A. Damon. Jr. 1960. The value of the 12th rib out for measuring beef carcass yields and meat quality. J. Animal Sci. 19:109. Cuthbertson. A. and R. W. Pomeroy. 1962. Quantitative anatomical studies of the composition of the pig at 50. 58, 92 kg. carcass weight. J. Agr. Sci. 58:207. Davis. D. L.. C. F. Parker. E. W. Klosterman and H. W. Ockerman. 1965. Ultrasonic and visual appraisal for estimating carcass value of beef cattle. J. Animal Sci. 24:861. (Abstr.). -111. DuBose. L. E.. T. C. Cartwright and R. J. CooPer. 1967. Predicting steak and roast meat from production and car- cass traits. J. Animal Sci. 26:688. Everitt. G. C. 1963a. Component analysis of meat production using biopsy techniques. Proc. Symp. Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals. (D. E. Tribe. ed.). The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organiza- tion. Victoria. Australia. 10:1. Everitt. G. C. 1963b. Beef carcass appraisal by Jointing. Proc. Symp. Carcass Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals. (D. E. Tribe. ed.). The Commonwealth Scientific agd Industrial Research Organization. Victoria. Australia. 1 :1. Everitt. G. C. and A. H. Carter. 1961. Growth and muscle development of steers implanted with hexoesterol. J. Agr. 3C1. 57:213. Fitzhugh. H. A.. Jr.. C. T. King. F. A. Orts. Z. L. Carpenter and 0. D. Butler. 1965. Methods of predicting the weight of boneless roast and steak meat from easily ob- tained beef carcass measurements. J. Animal Sci. 24:168. Garrett, We Ne. Jo He Meyer and. G. P. LOfgreeno 19590 The comparative energy requirements of sheep and cattle for maintenance and gain. J. Animal Sci. 18:528. Gillet. T. A.. A. M. Pearson, D. M. Allen and R. A. Merkel. 1967. Variation in potassium and sodium content of bovine muscles. J. Animal Sci. 26:922. G011. D. E.. E. A. Kline. and L. N. Hazel. 1961a. Influence of beef carcass grade and weight on yield of wholesale cuts and carcass measurements. J. Animal Sci. 20:260. 0011. D. E.. L. N. Hazel and E. A. Kline. 1961b. Relation- ships between some beef carcass measurements and yields of wholesale cuts. J. Animal Sci. 20:264. Good. D. L.. G. M. Dahl. S. Wearden and D. J. Weseli. 1961. Relationships among live and carcass characteristics of selected slaughter steers. J. Animal Sci. 20:698. Gottsch. A. Harold. R. A. Merkel and D. L. Mackintosh. 1961. Relationship of muscle. fat bone and some physical measurements of beef carcass cutability. J. Animal Sci. 203917. (AbStro)e Gregory. K. E.. L. A. Swiger. V. H. Arthaud. R. B. Warren. D. K. Hallet and R. H. Koch. 1962. Relationships among certain live and carcass characteristics of beef cattle. J. Animal Sci. 21:720. -118- Gregory. K. E.. L. A. Swiger. L. J. Sumption. R. M. Koch. J. E. Ingalls. W. W. Rowden and J. A. Rothlesberger. 1966. Heterosis effects on carcass traits of beer steers. J. Animal Sci. 25:311. Hammond. J. H. 1952. Farm animals. their breeding. growth, and inheritance. (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold and Co.. London. England. Hammond. J. H. 1960. Growth in Living Systems. Basic Books. Inc.. New York, N. Y. Hammond. J. H. and A. B. Appleton. 1932. Growth and develop- ment of mutton qualities in sheep. Oliver and Boyd. Edinburgh. Scotland. Hankins. O. G. and P. E. Howe. 1946. Estimation of the compo- sigion of beef carcasses and cuts. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bul. 92 . Hedrick. H. B. 1967. Bovine Growth and Composition. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 928. Hedrick. H. B.. W. E. Meyer. M. A. Alexander. J. F. Lesley. J. E. Comfort. A. J. Dyer and H. D. Naumann. 1963. Indices of meatiness in beef. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 820. Hedrick. H. B.. John C. Miller. G. E. Thompson and R. R. Freitag. 1965. Factors affecting longissimus dorsi area and fat thickness of beef and relation between these measurements and retail yield. J. Animal Sci. 24:333. Henderson. D. W.. D. E. G011 and E. A. Kline. 1966. Rela- tionships of muscling and finish measurements from three different groups of beef carcasses with carcass yield. J. Animal Sci. 25:323. Herold. A. and G. E. Nelms. 1964. Relationship of striated muscle nuclei numbers and growth in beef cattle. J. Animal Sci. 23:592. (Abstr.). Hopper. T. H. 1944. Methods of estimating the physical and chemical composition of cattle. J. Agr. Res. 68:239. Iwanaga. I. I.. and E. H. Cobb. 1963. Relationship between yield of trimmed retail cuts and certain carcass characteristics of beef cattle. J. Animal Sci. 22:827. Joubert. D. M. 1956a. An analyses of factors influencing post-natal growth and development of the muscle fiber. J. Agr; Sci. 47:59{ -119- Joubert. D. M; 1956b. A study of pre-natal growth and develop- ment in the sheep. J. Agr. Sci. 47:382. Kennick. W. H. and D. C. England. 1960. A method of esti- mating the percentage of protein and fat in the edible portion of steer carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 19:1190. Knox. J. H. and M. KrOger. 1946. A comparison of gains and carcasses produced by three types of feeder calves. J. Animal Sci. 5:331. Kraybill. H. F.. 0. G. Hankins and H. L. Bitter. 1951. Body composition of cattle. I. Estimation of body fat from measurement 12 vivo of body water by use of antipyrine. J. Appl. Physiol. 3:681. Kropf. D. H. 1959. Relationships of certain muscle and bone characteristics in beef carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 18: 1154. (AbStro)o Kropf. D. H. and R. L. Graf. 1959. The effect of carcass grade. weight and classification upon boneless beef yield. J. Animal Sci. 18:95. Kulwich. R.. L. Feinstein. C. Golumbic. W. R. Seymour. W. R. Kauffman and R. L. Hiner. 1961. Relation of gamma-ray emizsion to the lean content of beef rounds. Food Tech. 15: 11. L9WiS. Be W.. Va He Brungardt and B. We Bray. 1964. In‘ fluence of subcutaneous fat contours in estimating trimmable fat and retail yield of heifer carcasses. J. Mirna]. 801. 23312030 (AbStro)o Lofgreen. G. P. and W. N. Garrett. 1954. Creatinine excre- tion and specific gravity as related to the composition of the 9, 10. 11th rib cut of Hereford steers. J. Animal Sci. 13:496. Lohman. T. G.. B. C. Breidenstein. A. R. Twardock. G. S. Smith and H.W. Norton. 1966. Symposium on atomic energy in animal science.KgI. Estimation of carcass lean musclesmass in steers by 0 measurement. J. Animal Sci. 253121 e Lohman. T. G.. O. B. Ross. B. C. Breidenstein. A. R. Twardock. A. L. Newmann and G. S. Smith. 1964. Estimation of fat free lean tissue in live cattle and carcasses by measure- ment of K40. J. Animal Sci. 23:862. Luitingh. H. C. 1962. Developmental changes in beef steers as influenced by fattening. age and type of ration. J. Agr. $010 58310 ~120- Lush. J. L. 1926. Practical methods of estimating the proportions of fat and bone in cattle slaughtered in commercial packing plants. J. Agr. Res. 32:727. Mackintosh. D. L. 1937. A system of linear measurements for estimating area of the ribeye. Report to review committee of the Conference on Cooperative Meat In- vestigations. Vol. I. Martin. Everett L.. Lowell E. Walters and J. V. Whiteman. 1966. Association of beef carcass conformation with thick and thin muscle yields. J. Animal Sci. 25:682. Maynard. L. A. and J. K. Loosli. 1962. Animal Nutrition. (5th ed.). McGraw Hill Book Co.. Inc.. New York. N. 1.. McMeekan. C. P. 1940. Growth and development in the pig. with special reference to carcass quality character. Jo Agr. 801. 3032760 Meyer. W. E.. W. G. Moody. G. D. Hunziger. T. P. Ringkob, M. A. Alexander. S. E. Zobrisky and H. B. Hedrick. 1966. Application of ultrasonic techniques in live animal and carcass evaluation. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. 905. Miller. J. C.. H. B. Hedrick. G. E. Thompson. R. R. Frietag. W. E. Meyer. A. J. Dyer and H.D. Naumann. 1965. Factors affecting longissimus dorsi and subcutaneous fat measurements and indices of beef carcass cut-out. Mo. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 880. Murphy. C. E.. D. K. Hallet. W. E. Tyler and J.C. Pierce. Jr. 1960. Estimating yields of retail cuts from beef carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 19:1240. (Abstr.). Naumann. H. D. 1952. A recommended procedure for measuring and grading beef for carcass evaluation. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 5:108. Orme. L. E. 1963. Estimating composition from linear measurements, live probe and body weight. Ann. N. Y. ACE-do Of 8C1. 10:307. Orme. L. E.. A. M. Pearson. L. J. Bratzler and W. T. Magee. 1958. Specific gravity as an objective measure of marbling. Jo Animal SCI. 17:693. Orme, L. E.. A. M. Pearson. L. J. Bratzler. W. T. Magee and A. C. Wheeler. 1959. The muscle-bone relationship in beef. J. Animal Sci. 18:1271. -121- Palmer. A. 2., J. W. Carpenter. R. L. Reddish. C. E. Murphy and D. K. Hallet. 1961. Estimated and actual yields of boneless retail cuts from Brahman crossbred cattle and carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 20:919. (Abstr.). Palsson. H. and J. B. Verges. 1952. Effects of the plane of nutrition on growth and the development of carcass quality in lambs. Part II. Effects on lambs of 30 pound carcass weight. J. Agr. Sci. 42:93. Pearson. A. M. 1955. Techniques for determining specific gravity of live animals. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 831330 Pearson. A. M. 1966. Desirability of beef - its character- istics and their measurement. J. Animal Sci. 25:843. Pierce. J. C. 1957. The influence of conformation. finish and carcass weight on the percentage yield of wholesale and retail cuts of beef. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 10:119. Ramsey. C. B.. J. W. Cole and C. S. Hobbs. 1962. Relation of beef carcass grades, proposed yield grades and fat thickness to separable lean. fat and bone. J. Animal 801. 2131930 Rollins, W. C.. F. D. Carroll. J. W. T. Pollock and M. N. Kudoda. 1962. Beef cattle performance and progeny tests for gain. efficiency. carcass conformation and earliness of maturity. J. Animal Sci. 21:200. Snedecor. G. W. 1956. Statistical Methods (5th ed.). Iowa State College Press. Ames. Iowa. Soberman. R. J. 1950. Use of antipyrine in measurements of total body water in animals. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 7&37890 Soberman. R. J.. B. B. Brodie, Betty B. Levy. J. Axelroad. V. Hollander and J. Murray Steele. 1949. The use of antipyrine in the measurement of total body water in man. J. Biol. Chem. 179:31. Steel. R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co.. New York. Stringer. W. C.. C. L. Cramer. K. O. Zoellner. V. J. Rhodes and H. D. Naumann. 1963. Retail yield esti- mates of market steers and carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 22:829. (Abstr.). -122- Sizzringer. W. C.. H. B. Hedrick. and M. A. Alexander. 1965. Effect of conformation on cutability of beef. J. Animal 3C1. 2u3868. (AbStre)o Swiger. L. A.. K. E. Gregory. L. J. Sumption and B. C. Breidenstein. 1964. The importance of measuring cut- out in cattle. J. Animal Sci. 23:854. (Abstr.). Trulloh. N. M. 1963. The carcase compositions of sheep. cattle and pigs as functions of body weight. Proc. Symp. Carcase Composition and Appraisal of Meat Animals; (D. E. Tribe. ed.). The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization. Victoria. Australia. 5:1. Thalloh. N. M. 1964. Comparative breed studies of beef cattle. III. Carcass composition. Australian J. Agr. Res. 15:333. thma, H. J.. C. A. Dinkel. J. A. Mingard and B. C. Breiden- stein. 1967. Methods of predicting kilograms of retail cuts in beef carcasses. J. Agr. Sci. 68:301. T.‘fler. W. E.. D. K. Hallett. C. E. Murphy. K. E. Hoke and B. C. Breidenstein. 1964. Effects of variation in conformation on cutability and palatability of beef. J. Animal Sci. 23:864. (Abstr.). U.. S. D. A. 1965. Official standards for grades of car- cass beef. Consumer and Marketing Service. Washington, D. C. Viellington. G. H. 1953. Recommended procedure for cutting beef. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 6:73. ilythe. L. D.. Jr.. F. A. Orts and G. T. King. 1961. Bone- muscle relationships in beef carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 2033. Zinn. Dale W.. R. M. Durham and Robert Stovall. 1963. Muscle growth and development in the beef animal during the feeding period. J. Animal Sci 22:829. (Abstr.). Zinn. D. W.. H. Elliott. D. Burnett and R. M. Durham. 1961. Evaluation of U. S. D. A. beef grading methods. J. Animal Sci. 20:922. A PPENDIX -123— s.n s.nH 0.N n.o H.A m.s n.s soon oHsooa a. to“ on n. he wk MK. so... .oso 0 sH run: on o0 n0 no N nH so 0H m 0H 0H 0H 0H H NH o0 oH o oo 50 no no H H o0 H o no o0 oo oo H NH .0 me o on so so an o HH no on N oo oo oo on H 0H on oH o no no o0 A0 m o no nH m o0 no no on m o o0 nH n no no no no N a n0 H N no oo oo no N n on oH o oo oo oo on H n o0 H o o0 on on on H a :0 NH m 00 m0 m0 m0 m m o0 H N no on on on H u so 5H m o0 n0 n0 on H H .sH nu. op Hm. HH noose 3 n. on on n n fate a. O NON N. O O I I on H 1M: .mm: mm: Nd: .mmn m «H oo 3 H o0 o0 o0 00 H 0H o0 S m o0 no on on H H mo 3 H so no no no N NH o0 3 H o0 o0 on no H HH on 3 H on oo oo oo H 0H on “H N no so no so H m o0 H o no so no an o o o0 3 o on so A0 A0 H N. mo 3 n no no no no H o 00 0H a no s0 s0 50 m n :0 HH o no n0 n0 n0 H 0 n0 9 s 00 n0 m0 no N o no o0 a no no no n0 H o oo H N on o0 oo oo H H an: .soycn. on on. H ozone oodno oncom oncom ..Hsoo ..wdoo .hnoo 0.30m Iwooam .oz HUM-Hum gnflhdfi human-596! .HOHHGSUOHOM “wwngGH-m HHMh-Obb 30m Roman amoom MBBOWHMDM I ZOHB‘DA‘E maoanv ‘ H NHnHZMnMAH‘ -124—- N.m o.oN H.N M.m M.o M.o M.@ can: OHHWMM N. as ho. . ....o Lo . .3... . Nam ..NlN N on no no an H 3 no “H N mo mo mo mo H :H mo MN N mo no no no H nH mo HN N no no no no H NH mo 0N N mo 00 oo oo H HH mo NH N no mo mo mo .H oH mo NN N mo no no no H m mo 0N N mo no no no H o no mH N no oo oo mo H N. no mH N no no no no H o on H N no no so so H n no :H N mo no No no N m mo mN N mo no no no H oo MN N no co no no H N no NH m mo wo wo no H H .sH mN.H on H0.H 0H asono N.N o.oH n.N n.o s.N s.s s.N soon oHaooa E lone H on. no E. E. on ...... is No: 0N N oo oo oo on H 3 no 0H N mo mo mo no H 3H mo mH N 0H mo mo mo H NH mo +-N N 00 no no no H NH mo 0N N mo no no no H HH oH NN N oH mo mo mo H oH mo mH m mo no no no H o no nH N mo mo mo mo H m :0 0H m mo no no no N N. no 3H m mo mo mo mo N o no H o oo oo oo oo H m mo 3N m mo no no no .H m mo oN m mo no no no H 0H N n no N0 N0 N0 H N no oH N oo oo oo mo .H H .GH Db.m 0» mm. HHH macho . [010de ._ ohoom 0.30m. ..Hnoo .. H80 .380 0.30m ooohm .oz Emma-H MMHHHHMME. Hopgdommm Hangman-Hm HHGHObO gem Hooum. House-H9203 4 H NHRzmmmd -125- an a H. ..H ..H a .... an H. O H H. 0 O O O a”: 0 an H .N. am woo. woo. no H 3 oo H N 0H 0H 0H 0H H 3 oo H N 0H 00 00 no H 3 oo 0N o oo oo oo oo H NH no NH H oo 00 00 00 H HH o0 H N o0 N0 N0 N0 m 0H so H m 3 no no on H o oo H o HH 0H 0H 0H H o oo HH 0 0H 0H 0H 0H H N no 3 m o0 n0 no no N o oo 0N o no N0 N0 no N n “O OH .2 m0 mo “0 “O N .3 oo 0H o no no no no N o oo 3 o oo N0 N0 N0 N N .sH on. on Ho. He aeoao a.o s.oH 0.H n.o N.N N.N H.N soon oHHooa who No.3 on o. wk. who .Hk. soon is 0 NH In: no o0 n0 n0 H 3 N0 3 N N0 no no no H .HH 00 HN o N0 N0 N0 N0 H H no mH n no no no no N HH n0 9 o 00 oo oo oo N 0H N0 3 o oo N0 N0 no N o oo NH N oo oo oo oo H o oo H N 00 N0 N0 N0 H N. no 0H N HH mo mo mo H 0 N0 3 oo oo oo o0 N o no HH N o0 oo oo oo N o no NH N no N0 N0 n0 H n no 3 m no N0 N0 no N N 00 0H mo mo mo mo H H llllluluullllnnwl .5 on. on N. > 30.5 OUGHU 0900” 0900” o O o , o Hue-Hm wnHHans thHSPHd-H HoehmdeUWHom Howhwmo Hm HHWNMBU Echowm 600.5 Hem-Mm Homezmtezooo 4 H 0002934 -126- o.N m.oH n.N 0.0 n.N n.N N.N can: oHHpoz o; .0 Mom mum n.N n.N N; 08: .NHHH Nd: H 0 N11. .Nmu .NI: N nH no mH N no mo no no H :H N0 0H N no n0 n0 n0 H mH N0 nH m 00 no no 00 H NH mo 2N m 0H mo mo mo H HH no 0H N HH mo mo mo N oH mo mH N mo no no no H m mo HN m 0H no no no H w mo mH N mo mo mo mo N N. no ...HH N mo mo mo mo N o no “H N mo no no no N m mo HN +H mo no no so N NH mo 3N m 50 wo 00 mo N m 0H n.N m 0H oo mo mo H N mo 0N m mo wo oo 00 N H .qH nN.H 0» H0.H HHH> ozono mm H.“ HH 3 m g 3 :HH 0 0 ON 0 o o 0 “a”: 0 9... H IN... 30 No. NH... mo. H 2 mo 0H m mo mo mo mo N :H no HHH N mo no no no N mH mo NH N mo mo mo mo H NH no mH m 00 m0 m0 m0 .H HH mo HN N mo no no mo H oH mo 0N N HH mo mo mo H m 0H MN N HH HH HH HH H m m0 0N m 00 no N0 N0 H N 00 NH ..H no mo mo 0o H 0 mo NN N mo mo mo mo H n no NN m mo do do :0 N N no NH 3 oH oH oH HH H mo mH m mo mo mo mo H N no 0H m mo no no no H H F MP .5 oo.H o N. HH> 93km 30th 0.30m 0.30m ..Hnoo fifmfloo ..Huoo 0.30m 30.5 .oz HdfiHm wnHHanz thhfiudz HflmHG§UOHom.HOWHdednHm HHGHObO Ufiflom Hooom “QWDZHBZOUV ‘ H NHQZNMM‘ -127- 0.NH N.0H 0.0H 0.0H 0.0H 0.N N.0H 0.nH 0.nH 0.0 N.HON ommmnpoz _. . . . . H . . mm. mm. mm. N.mon ado: mdm N InwuN MHIIH . InulH 1qu0 III mm I H H H |_o.|H.- 10.0w: 0 H NM NM 0m.mw 0M 0% Wm 0m.ww “N NN m0 mmm MM 0 H o 0H 00 Nn.0 00 HH no 00.0H mm MN 0H H00 NH NH 0H 00.NH 0H nH HH 00.0H NH 0H N00 HH N0 0H 00.0 00 n0 0H Nn.NH nw N 0H 0H0 0H 0H 0H 00.nH NH HN 0H 00.0H 0 NH N0 an 0 NH 0H 00.0H 0H HH 00 00.0H MH 0N N0 nNn 0 0H NH 00.nH HN 0N No Nn 0H H 00 N . .NH NH NN NH H 3 0H 00 .HH NH 0H NH mm. NH 0H N0 0H0 0 NH 0H 00.0 00 HH n0 .HH H 0H 00 000 0 NH 00 00.0 00 0H 0H 00.0H 0 HH 00 000 0 0H 00 Nn.n no 00 00 00 0H NH H no 000 0 0H 0H 00.0 N0 HH n0 00.0 mm mo No HHn , N 00 00 Nn.0 00 00 N0 00.0 0 H N0 N0 00.0 0H HH 00 00 :H 0N NH .0H0MN. 000N0. HH ozono O O O O O O “60: 0.0 0.0 0.N 0.0 H.o 0 n 0 0H 0 HH H 0H 0 n 0 HoN oHHHoz . . . . . . N. N.H00 0000.000 ...HH... .0... H...H. .HH. .0: ....H 0...... H. .HH... IN .0... H40. 0 . . HH 0N 00 0H 0H 00 N 00 00 00 mo.mH 0H HN N0 n00 0H 00 N0 00.0 00 0H n0 n. H NH nH no 000 NH 00 0H Nn.0 00 NH 00 00 HH N N0 HH . Nn.0H 0H NH 0 0 no 00 00 N N0 no 00 .0 NH N0 00 0N0 0H 0H 00 00.0 00 00 00 00.N N0 NH 00 non 0 00 N0 00.0 no 0H 00 mm. NH 00 00 000 0 no 00 00.n no 00 00 oo.m N0 0H N0 000 N no N0 Nn.n 00 no 00 . 00 000 n g g .. 0 H 0.0 0 HH .. . MW mw mm.m HnHw 0m .NHo 00.0 00 no 00 00m M . 0 HH 00 nN 0H 0H Nn.N 00 00 no 00.0 m H No 000 N 00 HH Nn.0 00 HH N0 00 NH H 0 0H 00 00.nH 0N 0H 0H Nn NH NH NN .anon. owmmN. H wooao O o Ow 4 JAN.“ IIJQfiHH I”? In.“ N." on.“ m .HH." 3 09.3 .02 .MMnm .mwsm .Ho:B>MHw mwomw .Hosm .Honm .8039 can .Hoss .Hose .Hosa .OHmo Hoopm :HHH :HHH sum gum :mm‘ can sum :00 agaz Baum NBBUHthO l ZOHHHdabibm mgvfio m H NHQZflanHd. 1" H.0H H.0H 0.nH 0.0H 0.0H 0.nH N.0H 0.NN 0.0N H.NH 0.00N 000: 0H0000 HN. 00. . 00. NN. 0 . N. 00. mm. mm. . 00 0000.000 0H 0H mn.0H 0H 0H 0H mmumN mm 0N 0H _mwa 0H 0H 0H 00.0H nH 0N 0H 00.NN nN 0N 0H NNO 0H 0H 0H Nn.nH 0N nH HH Nn.0H 0N nN 0H 00: 0H 0N 0H 00.NH nH 0N nH 00.NH 0N nH HH 000 NH HH 0H 00.nH 0H 0H 0H 00.NH nH HH 0H 0H0 HH 0H 0H 00.NH HH 0N nH 00.0N 00 NN 0H on0 0H 0H 0H Nn. HN 0H 0N NN Nn.0N NN 0N nH NHO 0 NN 0H Nn. NN NN 0N 0N Nn.N0 00. N0 0H 000 0 0H 0H 00. 0H 0H 0H 0H Nn.HH 0H NH 00 000 N HN 0H Nn. 0H HH 0H 0H 00.0N nN n0 0H N00 n NH nH 00.NH HH HH H 00.0H NH 0H HH 000 0 NN 0N 00.nH 0H 0H H 00.0H 00 NN 0H NH0 0 0H 0H 00. nH nH NH 0H 00.0H 0H 0N NH N00 0 0N 0H Nn. 0H NH NH NH Nn.0H 0H 0H HH 000 N 0N NH 00. NH HH HN 0H 00.HN 0N 0N NH 000 H .0H 0N.H 0» H0.H >0 00000 m N.0H n.HH 0.NH 0.HH 0.0H 0.0 H.0H 0.0H H.NH 0.0 N. N0N 00ww0000 0. . N . 0 . 0 . N0. 00. NN. Nm. 00. 0.000 0000.000 NH WH mmumH 0H 0H 0H _0..0J.0..N. .wH NN -.0N. ___n_ww 0H 0H 00 00.NH NH nH 00 00.0H NH 0H 00 H00 0H HH HH Nn.0H 0H 0H N0 00.nH 0H 0N HH 0N0 0H 0H 0H Nn.0H 00 HN NH 00.0H 0N NH 00 000 NH HH 0H 00.0H NH 0H 0H 00.0H 0N NH NH H00 HH HH HH 00.0H NH NH 00 00.0H 0N 0N HH 000 0H 0H 00 00.HH 00 nH 00 Nn.NH HN NH 00 nN0 0 NH 00 Nn.0 00 HH 0H Nn.0H nH HN 0H 000 0 0N 0H Nn.0H 0H HN 00 00.0H 0N nH HH 000 N mH 0H M0.0H 0H H 00 mm.MH HN HN HH mmm m H NH n.0H NH mo . H 0N 0N 00 OH HH mm.© Mo mo N .NH AH mH mo 00“. a o co m NH NH Nn.0 HH 00 00. 0 no HH N0 N00 NH 0H mom: 2 0H 00 Nn.0H WM NM mw .Hhm NH NH 0H 0 0 N0 0H no 00.0 . 00000 .0H 0 .0H 0 .0>0 .0H. NH .0H 0 .0H 0 .0H 0 .0009 .0009 .0009 000 .0009 .0009 .0009 .0009 0pm .0009 .0009 .0009 .0000 0000a 03H 03H 000 000 000 } terHM 000 000 AQszH9zooo m H XHszmmd -129- H.mH n.0H N.oH n.0H m.mH N.N N.mH H.0H N.mH 0.0 0.0mm 0000 0H0000 N0. H . N . H . 00. 00. N0. 00. N . 00. 0.0HN 0000.000 .Nm. .qum. ..0. ..HH. _.... 00.0H ..... ...0. ..... 10H: NH 00 nH HN .0H 00n 0H 0H 0H 00.0 00 00 HH 00.0H HH 0N NH 00N 0H HH 00 Nn.N N0 00 00 00.NH nH 0H no 0HN 0H HH HH Nn.HH HH 0H 00 Nn.NH 0H HH 00 00N NH nH HH Nn.0H 0H 0H 00 00.NH 0H 0H 00 00N HH 0H 0H 00.NH 0H nH 00 00.nH NH HN 0H HON 0H 0H 0H Nn.0 00 0H 00 00.NH NN N0 N0 NNN 0 HH 00 00.0 N0 NH n0 00.0H nH 0H 0H 0HN 0 0H N0 00.NH 0H nH 0H 00.NH 0H 0H N0 H0N N 0H 0H 00.NH 0H nH N0 00.0H 0H 0H 00 NON n 0H 0H 00.HH NH 0H N0 Nn.0H 0H nN NH 00N 0 0H NH Nn.0 NH NH 00 Nn.N 00 00 N0 0HN 0 0H N0 00.0H N0 0H 00 00.0 0H 0H No NNN 0 NH HH 00.0H N0 0H 00 00.0H 00 0N 00 n0N N NH HH 00.NH HH nH 0H 00.0H 0H 0H HH 00N H .0H 0N. 0» H0. 0> 00000 0.0H n.0 0.0 0.0 0.NH N.N N.HH n.HH H.0H 0.N 0.NN0 0000 0H0000 00. 00. N0. N0. N . 0N. . 00. 00. H0. 0.NNN 0000.000 0H n0 00.n no N0 no mnH0 0H 0H no H 0H 00 n0 00.0H 00 0H N0 00.0H 00 0H 00 00n 0H 00 nH 00.0 00 0H n0 Nn.0 0H 00 00 00n 0H no 00 . 00.0 00 00 N0 00.NH HH nH 0H n0N NH 0H 0H Nn.0 0H 0H n0 00.0 0H 0H N0 NNN HH HH 0H Nn.0 NH 0H N0 00.0H HH HH 00 H0N 0H 00 0H Nn.HH HH NH NH Nn.0H 0H 0H HH 0HN 0 0H 00 00.0H HH 0H 00 00.0H 0N 0N 0H NON 0 0H 00 00.0 00 00 N0 00.0H 0H 00 00 00N N NH N0 M0.MH mo NH HH 00.NH mH MN mo 0MN m 00 00 n. 0 0H mo 00. 0 0 0 0 n HH 2 H2 0 a H N 0 0 HH 0 H0 0 n N HH 00 00.0 00 HH 00 Nn.0H 0H NN 00 00 NH HH NnHNH NH 0H 0H 00.NH m“ m“ m” MN» m 0H 0H 00 HH 0H 0H No mm HH .0Hlbn. op 0N. > 05000 .0H 0 .0H 0 .000 . 33.5 0 .0H 0 .00 .00 .0009 .0009 .0009 000 .0009 .0009 .0009 .0009 000 00009 .0009 .0009 .0060 00000 0090 0009 00m 00 .t1000 00m, 000 -130- 9.0N m.©9 m.w9 o.ma 0.0m :.NH 0.0N ©.mm #.mm 9.99 m.mmm 360: 009902 0N. . . HN. 0N. 0 . 0N. 00. 0.H . .0HN 0000.000 0N mo oo.0H NN NN 0H 00.HN NN 0N mH NNN 0H NH 0H 00.0H 0H 0H 00 00.NH NN nH 0H 00N 0H 0H 0H oo.0H 0H HN 0H Nn.0N 0N 0N 0H 00n 0H NN 0H oo.0H 0H 0H NH Nn.0N 0N 0N NH 0HN NH 0N 0H 00.0N NN NN NH 00.NN o0 0N 0o nHN HH NH 0H 00.NH 0H 0H 0H Nn.HN 0N N0 0H 00N 0H 0H 0N Nn.HH 0H 00 0o oo.0N 0N 0N HH NoN 0 0H 0H Nn.0H 0H 0H 0H 00.NN NN 00 o NoN 0 0N NN 00.HN NN 0N HH Nn.HN 0N NN H ooN N oN 0H 00.NH NN nH 0H 00.0H NH 00 HH n0N n 0N oN oo.0H 0H 0H 00 00.0H NN 0N oH n0n 0 0N 0H 00.HN 0N NN 0H 00.0H 0N 0N 00 NHN 0 NN NN Nn.0H 0H 00 0H Nn.0N 0N :0 0H 00N 0 HH 0H Nn.0H 0H 0H no oo.0H 0H 0H no HON N 0H 00 00.0H 0H NN 00 Nn.NH 0N 0H HH 00N H .0H 0N.H op H0.H 9990 00000 N.0H 0.HH H.0H N.0H 0.nH N.0H 0.0H H.0H 0.NH 0.0 N.HNO 00wwap0n 00. mm. mm. om. 0m. NH. 00. HN. mm. N0. 0.00N 0000.000 nH HH n.HH NH HH NH oo.0H 0H nH 0o Nmn 0H 0N 0H 00.0H 0H 0N HH Nn.0H 0H 0N 0H 00n 0H NN NH 00.NH 0H 0N 0o Nn.0H 0N 0N No 00N 0H nH NH 00.NH 0o 0H 0H 00.HH 0H 00 HH 0HN NH NH HH 00.NH NN 0N oH 00.NH 0H 0H 0H 0HN HH 00 NH Nn.NH nH HH HH oo.0H nH NH HH 0NN 0H 0H 0H 00.N 00 N0 no 00.0H 0o 0H 00 00N 0 0H 0H 00.nH 0H NH 0H oo.0H 0N HH 0o 00N 0 0H 00 00.HN 0N nN NH 00.NH 0N NH oH 00n N 0H HH Nn.0H 0H 0H HH 00.NH 0H 0N 0H 0HN n 0H NH Nn.0H 0H nH 0H 00.0H HN 0N oH HON 0 0H 0H oo.0H 0N 0N 0o oo.0H 0H NH No noN 0 0o 00 00.0H HH nH 0H oo.0H NN 0N NH 00n 0 HH No oo.0H 0H 00 0o 00.0H 00 0H 00 H0N N 0H 00 Nn.N no NH 00 Nn.0H oN 0o 00 HoN H Juli ax. .0H 00. N. 99> 00000 00H 0 .0H 0 .05 1.5 NH .5 0 00H 0 .05 45 NH 5 0 .0H 0 .03 .00 .9039. .9039. .9039. 3pm .9039 .9039 .9039 .9039 3pm. .9039 .9039 .9039 .0960 90005 0099 00H9r 000 00 00 000 .000 300 Hngmllqllmllioo m H 0032.00.00. 0.0 :00: 099003 3002 g -131— @90an. a. NH N 00 mmunH NN nH HH n HH HH H 0H 00 NN HN 00 0H N .NH 0N NN HH 00.nH 0H NH N0 00.NH 0H 0H 00 0 .0H NH 0H 00 00.0 N0 H 00 00.0H 00 HN HH Nn.0H nH NH HH 00. 0H HH NH 0H 00.0H 0H 0N N0 00.0H NH 0H 0H 00. 0 00 HH 00 00. 0H 0H 0N 00 Nn.0H NH 0N 0H Nn. HH NH 0H 0H Nn. 0H 00 NN 0H Nn.0N 0N 0N 00 00.0H 00 0 00 00. 0H 0H 0N NH 00.0H 0H 0H 00 00. 0H 0H 0 0H Nn. 0H HN nN NH 00.0H HN 0N 00 Nn. 0H nH N no 00.HH N0 0H 00 Nn.HH no 0H No Nn. 0 No n N0 00.0H nH 0N 00 Nn.0H nH 0H N0 Nn. 0H NH 0 00 Nn.n N0 0H 00 00.NH 0H 0H 00 00. 0 n0 0 no Nn.0H 0H NN NH Nn.HH N0 0N 00 Nn.0 n0 0 N0 00.0H 00 0H HH 00.0 00 0H N0 00.N 00 N HH Nn.0 HH 00 00 00.NH nH 0H N0 00.0 00 H .0H 00 00 H0. 99 00090 NMN N0.NH 0.HH amnH mm0 0.HH N.HH H.nH NmN 0m.0 0mN 000: oHnwmm o O O H”. O O 0 w”. w. o O O N. ”do: ,0 0H 0muNH 00 0H 0H mm.0H 0H NN 0H 00.0 N0 0H HH 00.0H 0H 0H 00 00.0H 0H NH 00 00.0H N0 0H N0 00.0 00 0H n0 00.0H N0 NH no 00.N N0 0H 0H Nn.0H NH 0N 0H 00.nH HN 0H 00 00.0 00 NH 00 Nn.HH NH nH N0 00.HH HH 0H 00 00.N 00 HH 00 00.NH no HN 00 00.0H 0H 0H 0H 00.0H 00 0H N0 00.NH 0H NH n0 Nn.0H 0H NN no 00.0 0H 0 N0 00.0H 0H 0H n0 00.NH HH 0N n0 00.N 00 0 00 00.n N0 0H N0 Nn.0 :0 0H 00 N 00 00.0H HH NH 00 Nn.0 00 NH 00 n 00 00.0 00 0H N0 00.N N0 0H 00 0 00 Nn.n No NH n0 Nn.0 00 no 00 0 N0 Nn.0 N0 NH N0 00.HH 0H 0H N0 0 n0 00.0H N0 0H 00 Nn.HH NH 0H 00 N NH 00.0N 00 0N NH 00.nH 0N 0H HH H 0.HH.“ 0: cm“ 10'1“.“ NH 0% m 0:.“ AN Ombfll 0:.“ NH 0““? m .HH.“ .3 .3829 .3539 33: .3559 3859 .3309 .3909 909 .3309 .3859 .3339 .9039 .9039 9000m 000 000 000 pm 000 00H 00HH 009H -l32- 0.NH m.0N m.nN 0.0m, NmmH N.0N N.0N 0m00 0mmH N0.nH n.MH 000: ngwmm O u 0 OD.“ 0N.H O O H0.H OH O m. 0 “$2 a .umm: 00.nN INw. .00- .0H: .qunm .00. N0: 0H 00.nH 0H 0H NH 00.00 00 N0 0N 00.0N 0N 00 0H 00.NH 0H 0H 0H 00.0H 0H 0N 0H 00.HN HN H0 NH 00.nH NH 0H 09 00.00 00 00 0N 00.0N nN 0N 00 Nn.NH 0H NH 0H 00.0N nH 0N 0H 00.NN 0H 00 0H Nn.HH HH HH HH 00.0H 0H 0H HH 00.0H 0N 0N 0H 00.0H 0H 0H 0H Nn.0H 0N 0N 0H 00.0H nH 0H HH Nn.0H 00 0 0H 00.0N H0 00 HH 00.N0 00 N0 0H 00.HN NN 0 HN Nn.0N 0N 00 HN 00.0N 0N 00 nH 00.0H nH N 0N Nn.NN H0 H0 HH 00.00 N0 00 0H 00.0H 09 n nH Nn.NN NN 00 nH Nn.0H nH nN 0H Nn.nH NH 0 0H 00.NN nN 0N NH 00.nN N0 N0 0H 00.0N 0N 0 0N Nn.0H NH 0H HH Nn.NN 0N H0 0H 00.0H 0H 0 HH Nn.0N N0 00 0H 00.H0 00 00 0H Nn.NH 0H N N0 00.nN 0N 00 nH 00.0N NN 0N 0H 00.NH HH H .0H 0N.H 00 H0.H >9 00090 0moH H.0H HmmH 0.MN oMNH M.NH 0.MH 0.MN 0me 00.NH 0.NH 000: 0H9wmm I O O N O O o o O N I O O n. ““02 0 HM mm.nN N0 0N 0H mn.0N mH N0 0H Nn.nH nH 0H 0H 00.NH NH 0N 0H 00.0H 0H nH NH 00.0H NH 0H No Nn.0H NN 0N 00 00.0H 0N 0N HH Nn.0H 0H 0H HH 00.0H HH 0H HH Nn.nH 0N 0H NH 00.0H HH NH 00 Nn.0H 0H 0N 00 00.0H nH nH HH Nn.HH 0H HH 00 Nn.NN 0N 0N NH 00.0H NN 09 00 Nn.0H 0H 0H 00 Nn.NH N0 NN 00 Nn.0H NH 0N HH 00.0 0H 0 N0 00.NH 0H 0N 0H 00.NH 0N 0N 00 00.0H 0H 0 HH 00.0H 0N 0H nH 00.0H 0N HN HH 00.nH nH N 0H 00.0N NN 0N 0H 00.NH HN 0N HH Nn.0H 0H n 0N Nn.0N N0 nN HH 00.0N 00 0N NH 00.0H nH 0 0H Nn.0H 00 0N NN Nn.NH 0H 0N 00 Nn.0H HH 0 00 Nn.NH 00 HN NH 00.0H NN 0H no 00.NH 0o 0 00 00.0H HN nN 0H 00.NN 0N N0 0H 00.HH NH N N0 00.0H 0H 0H N0 00.NH 0H NH N0 00.0H 00 H 0 .0H 00. on N. 999 00090 .09 0 .090 .0H NH .0H 0 .0H 0 .0>< .0H NH .0H 0 .0H 0 .0>< .0H NH .02 .3859 .3859 333 .3859 .3859 .3859 .3859 309 .3859 .3859 .3859 .9039 .9039 9003M 330 339 333 LEV 3mm! 309 309 3399 3399 NQWDZHBZOUW m H umHQZNnna -133- . . 0.NH 0002 09930: . 0.NH 0.NH 0 0 0.NH 0 . 0000 .000 . . 09 N. 0N 0. 09 0009 . 0N. 00. N H0 NN.nH nNIIN... H . H9. 00. 1qu 40.0.. IloH $.09 IMHHP fl IWMI Awmde HN MH 0% ow.0w mm mm 00 wwuww 0M 09 no mm.mw MM 09 no Gonna mm “M We nm.mH M9 WM N0 Nn 0 NH HH HH 00.0H NH NH 0H 00.NH HH 0 0 0.0 a 0 0 0.0 a 0 a 0.0 0 . NN 00 0H N0 .. N 00 00. NH NH 0H 00 00.HH NH NH Nn.HH 0H BO MM. “H 3N “H HH OOowH NN ON m0 OOoQH 0d Q 09 00.09 0m 0N NH 00.HN 0N 0N 99 00.09 NH 0 m0 00.NN W MN NH MMQQH NN MN 50 MMoNfi HH 3 00 00.nH 0% 0N 0H 00.0H 0H NH n0 Nn.N No 0 0H NanH mH 0H HH 00.NH 0H H N0 00.HH HH N mo M©.mw mm mm N9 no 99 H .39 mm 03 an H> 00 n 0 0.0H 0.0H 0.0 0.0 mm.00mmomHmwmm o B NH H OH H” fl 0 o o b o §%mfikk$u$$$%mw0 WW Nn.0 NH mm wm mm.0H 0H 0H mw ww.wH N0 NH mo oo.m no 99 no m©.m mo 99 no 00.09 09 «H No Nn.N HH N0 N0 00.NH 0N nH NH 00.0H 0H 0H mo m©.m n9 Nn.nH md 09 h .m 09 m 0H Nn.0H n NH 0H 00.nH N 00 Nn.0 09 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 .0 0 00 0 N o H o m.“ C n NO 00 3H NH OH 00 00 Hfi ad h 00 BO 0 0 H mo 0 +~ 00 00 HH MW NH HH Nn 0H NH 0 N0 00.0 No 0 0 w.“ n no Nn.0H H No 00 00 0H HH NH HH 00.0H 00 mo mn.HH No m9 OH 00.NH 09 n no 00.NH Md N 0 0.0 0 0 0 a a g 0. g mo . . . [Quart .099 .39 N9 .0 Ade .090 .0H NH 009 0 H09 0 .paLM>N0H «Mamw .mwsm .0009 .9009 .MMflw 90000 00n ~134— . . . . . 0. 00 9.0N 0.09 0. 09 n. 9N :aoz 09N902 0.09 0 0N 0 0N 9 mN 0 0m 0.0N 9 99. cams .000 NN. 0. 09.9 N0 9 .IMMI 00.9 ”NMI _INMH .ImmI .mIqmm ImmI 09 NN wquw .mN 00 NN mm.0N mm. .NH 0N 09 a .3 H. a a HH HH HH 0.: a a 0N mm.mm NM NM NM N0.0N N0 NN N9 N0.N9 MH m“ 0N . . 00 90 0N 00.NN N 0H N0.00 H: NN HN 00.N0 00 NN HH 00.0H ON 09 mm 000mm #N ON NN km. N n on 0H MMomH ON m 0H 00.0N 0N N0 09 00.00 NM NN 09 00.NH 09 0 09 N0.00 00 90 09 00.0N 0 09 N9 00.0N 00 N NN 00.0N 0N 0N NN 00.HN 00 0N 0N N0.0H HN 0 NN 00.0N NN 0N 0N 00.NN M0 N0 0H N0.0H 0H 0 m9 00.09 :m N9 M9 No.0m 9 N .mm in 3 MM mmumw wm mm mm mm.mm aw um mN mm.0N mm m . 00 .N9 00 00.NN 0N 0N 09 M0.NM mm mm 09 N0. 09 N9 9 0H N0.0N 00 NN 0H 0 .09 0N.H 0» 90.9 999> 0:090 o o o o o o NOON N.HH H.NH m. SH “603 OHWDOE N.N9 0 09 0 NN 0 NW N 0m 0.9N N MN .9 . NM. 000: 000 00. m “m m. mm mm mouon 0 000 ImMI .NmeI .IWMI 09 HH H. a a 3 .H H HH 0.HH .HH 0 0N 00.NN 0N 00 0N 00H0N 00 w 09 00.09 09 N9 N9 00.HN NN 0N 09 00.90 m N“ 99 00.09 0N 99 N9 00.0N 00 NN 09 00 N9 N N .0 99 09 . . 0N 9N 09 0 9 09 00 09 09 09 99 00.09 00 0N 99 00.NH 09 0 09 00.09 0N 09 00 N0.NN NN 9N 00 N0.NH 09 0 0H 00.0H 09 ON HH 00.NH 0 H0 HH 00.0H NH N NN 00.NH NH HN No 00.HN H NN 09 00.NH HH 0 N0 00.HH NH 0H 00 00.NH 0m 0N 0H 00.NH HH 0 09 N0.HN 0N NN N9 00.NN WN NN 0H N0.09 N9 0 0H 00.HN 09 0N 9N 00.09 0N 09 09 N0.0 09 0 N0 N0.09 00 0N 09 00.09 0 0N 00 00.09 09 N 00 No.09 0N N9 09 00.NH 0 0 00 9 00 00.09 09 0N 09 00 99 09 09 00 .MM. 00. 9‘0» 0N. 99> macaw . NI . INNMNI. N09 N9 .09 0 .nmImIIququ 09 NH .02 find 3 Qw>< fiH NH 3H m Gd 3 o o 0 Egg oflfigfl 0HO£B .HOSB H009” . . . . Egg .nasq nadn pm9 £359 9 mqu saga :00 “mun MNN :00 p09 #09 009 0099 0099 AmmazHazoo 0 m MIMHszmm4 i't\l.‘ I‘lllllmll. I! II‘ .NII.'§\II a II I nNI 0 h. -135— 0.0 m.: 0.0 N.09 n.0 m.N 0.0 0.99 9.09 0.n9 0.09 360$ 099902 N0. 9. NN. . 00. 90. 0N. N0. N0. 0 . 9m9 300: mum 00.0 . mo 00 MH 09.0 No 00 00 9090 0 09 N0.0 00 00 9N N0.0 00 00 09 00.0N 90 0N 09 No.0 00 00 99 N0.N 09 00 00 N0.0 0H 00 09 00.09 00 00 00 00.NH 00 99 09 00.09 09 0N N9 N0.N 00 00 09 00.0 00 00 00 00.09 99 09 99 00.09 00 N0 09 N0.0 00 .N0 99 00.09 09 N9 09 N0.0 00 N0 09 00.09 09 00 N9 00.09 09 0N 0 00.09 N0 00 0N 00.0 N0 00 N9 00.09 NN NN 0 00. 09 N0 09 00 N0.NH 09 09 09 00.09 0N 09 N N0.N 00 00 00 N0.09 N9 00 N9 00.09 00 09 0 00. 0 N0 N0 09 N0.N 00 00 09 00.09 N9 N9 0 00. 0 00 00 09 00.0 00 N0 N9 N0.0 99 09 0 N0.0 00 00 NN 00.N 00 00 09 00.NH NN 00 0 00.0 N0 00 N9 No.0 00 00 00 00. 0 00 N9 N N0.09 N0 N0 09 N0.0 00 00 99 00. N9 N9 9 .39 0N. op 90. 99 00090 9.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.N N.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.09 0.09 coo: 09390: N0. 09. NN. N0. 0N. NN. NN. N0. m0. mm. 99. mangmqm 00.NH 00 09 09 00.99 00 09 09 .NH 9 00 09 00.0 N0 00 09 00.0 N0 00 N9 No.09 00 N9 09 00.0 00 00 09 00.09 00 99 99 00.N 00 09 09 00.NH 09 00 9N N0.09 00 09 09 00.09 09 N9 N9 00.0 N0 00 09 N0.N 00 00 00 00.0 00 09 99 N0.0 00 00 00 00.0 00 00 00 N0.0 N0 00 09 00.09 00 00 09 00.N 00 00 99 N0.0 09 00 0 00.N 00 00 N9 00.0 00 00 00 00.0 00 09 0 N0.0 N0 N0 0N 00.N 00 N0 00 N0.N 00 N9 N 00.0 00 00 N9 N0.0 00 N0 N0 N0.0 00 NH 0 00.N 00 00 09 00.0 00 N0 00 N0.0 09 99 0 00.0 00 N0 09 00.0 00 N0 :0 00.0 00 00 0 00.0 N0 00 :9 00.0 00 00 00 00.0 99 00 0 00.0 00 00 00 00.0 00 N0 00 N0.N 00 00 N 00.99 N0 N9 09 00.09 N9 09 09 N0.9N 00 09 9 .39 0 . on N. 9 05°90 .0>< .39 N9 .09 0 .c9 0 .m>< .39 N9 .09 0 .39 a .w>< .:9 N9 .39 0 .02 909000 :90 909000 903000 9mnodm 959060 090 909060 9dnodm 9dnomm .9359 :90 .9359 .9359 Hmoum 90 090 090 :90 :90 NQQDZHBZOU m H NHQZQM :90 :90 :90 -136- 0.09 N.0 9.09 0.0N 0.N9 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.9N 0.NN 0.NN 0000 099000 0 . 0. 0. N0. N . NN. 0 . . n . N . 00.9 0000.000 9muN9 m0 W9 09 90.09 09 N9 m9 0m.0N wN= MN 09 00.09 09 99 0N 00.09 09 09 N9 00.9N NN 0N 09 00.09 00 00 0N 00.9N 09 N0 09 00.0N 0N NN 09 00.09 N9 09 NN 00.09 09 0N 0N 00.0N 00 00 N9 00.N9 00 00 09 N0.09 09 00 09 N0.N9 09 00 99 00.99 00 00 09 00.N9 09 09 09 00. 09 m9 0N 09 N0.09 09 09 0N N0.09 09 09 09 00. 09 0N 0N 0 00.0N 99 00 0N 00.N9 0N N9 09 00. 0N 00 00 0 N0.NN N9 0N NN 00.N9 09 N9 9N N0. 9N 0N 9N N 00.09 09 09 0N No.09 9N 09 09 N0. 0N 09 0N 0 00.9N 09 09 N0 00.0N 00 0N N9 00.0N 00 NN m 00.09 09 09 0N 00.NN 90 . 09 09 00.NN 0N NN 0 00.09 N0 09 0N 00.09 9 N9 09 00.9N 09 0N 0 N0.09 00 N9 NN 00.09 9 n9 0N 00.09 0N NN N 00.09 00 09 NN 00.09 N9 N9 09 00.9N 09 00 9 .09 0N.9 0» 90.9 >9 00090 0.N9 0.0 0.09 0.0N 0.N9 N.09 N.0 0.N9 0.09 0.09 0.09 0000 099002 m o N. H”. O o N. o no mo 0“. 0 NW. ”NN.. 9.95023 00009 mo 09 Nm mm009 m9 m9 m9 mounN 0N 09 00.09 00 N9 0N 00.09 09 00 9N N0.09 09 NN 09 00.99 N0 99 09 00.99 09 09 00 00.09 9N N9 09 00.99 00 09 09 N0.0 00 00 N9 00.09 09 N9 N9 N0.09 00 09 09 00.N9 0N 09 09 00.N9 99 N9 99 00.N9 N0 00 9N 00.N9 00 09 99 00.09 09 0N 09 00.09 00 00 09 00.99 99 09 N9 No.09 N9 NN 0 00.09 N0 09 0N N0.N9 09 99 N9 N0.09 NN 09 0 No.09 00 m9 9N N0.09 00 00 09 00.09 0N 0N N 00.N 00 00 N9 N0.N 00 00 N9 00.09 0N 0N 0 00.N 00 00 09 00.0 N9 00 N0 00.N9 09 n9 0 00.99 00 09 N9 N0.0 99 00 00 00.09 N9 9N 0 00.N9 00 09 0N No.99 09 00 09 00.N9 00 09 0 N0.09 N0 N0 00 00.99 09 09 09 00.09 0N 09 N N0.09 00 00 09 00.N9 99 N9 09 00.99 09 09 9 In Int .09 00. 00 N. 999 00090 qm>< .39 N9 .39 0 .439 0 .094 .39 N9 1039 0 .39 0 .0094 39 N9 39 0 .oz 909000 Sum 909000 909000 909000 909000 09m 909000 909000 969000 .9359 990 .9839 .9359 90090 090 390 390 09m 09m 300 390 ‘1)!‘3 ‘1‘ 1|] -13L- 0.0 INN.“ :H no 50 mo no oH go so we we no :0 no no no m.m NN. no so we no n0 #9“ m. m H.0H mo mN no NH mo HH mo NH NH “N :o NH :0 no mo mH mH NH HH mN no 0N No mH so 3H mo 3N n.N N.mH mm. N . HH _|nmn no HH mo mH No mH mo NH 3H NH mo mo mo mH oN oH so mH no mH no NH mo mH no mH HH nN UHHII'II'O'JI'II’ Hdnodm nun HdwomH nH .:H a an HUHO‘ «.mH Nn. mH «a «H “H ma mo 00 ma 3H 5H 0N mo m0 Na n.NH 0.HN N.NH mac: oHHHoz n. n . mu. smoswnm mo.NH Hm mo nH oo.oH NH mo 3H N0.NH nN mo mH mm.m HH mo NH mm.mH Nm mH HH N0.NH NN NH oH oo.HH HN no N mm.NH NH NH m NN.HN mm 0H N oo.mH Hm mH o Nw.mH NH NN m mm.mH NN NH : mm.m NH no m oo.o HH no N oo‘nH NH NH H .nH mm. on Hm. H> guano H.0H www.mm 50.5 mo mn.m dd 00.0“ Ha mn.HH mH mm.HH HH mw.mH 5H mm.0H HH «n.0 :« 00.0H NH 00.n mo ¢.NH «.0a :60: udnpoz . mum: mum o nH mo 3H ao mH 0H NH 50 HH mo 0H HH m HH 0 no m :H w No m d n N -138- N.NN N.HH N.NN N.NN N.0N N.NH N.0N N.NN 0.NN N.NN N.NN saw: Hypo: NN. Nw. N . H . o . mm. o . NN. No. NN. No. nmozgmnm Nw.MN HH NN mN nm.¢M NN om HN NNNMN Hm NH NN.HN NH ON ON NN.NH NH NH NH NN.:N N: NH NH oo.oN NH HN :: NN.NH No NH NN NN.NN NH NN NH NN.:N HH HN HN NNuNH No HH 0N NN.NN NN NN NH NN.:N NH NN NN 00.NN NN NN NN NN.NN N: :N HH NN.HN NH NN N: NN.NN NH NN NN NN.NN NM NH oH NN.NN HH NH NN NN.NH NH NH 0N NN.NN H NN N NN.NH 0H NH :N NN.NH NH NH NH NN.HN NN oN N NN.NN NH HN N: NN.0N NH NN NN NN.NN NN 3N N NN.NN No HN H: NN.NH 0H NH NN 00.NN 0N NN N NN.NH NH NH 0N oo.:H No oH NN NN.NH NN NH N NN.:N No NN Na NN.NN NN HN NN oo.HN N: NN N NN.NH NH NH NN NN.NH NH NH NH NN.NN H: NN N NN.NH NH HH :N NN.NH NH NH NH oo.NH NN NH N NN.HN No 0: N: NN.NN NH NN NN NN.:N N: o: H .:H NN.H op H0.H HHH> qsonu N.NH N.N N.NH N.NN N.NH H.HH N.NH H.NH N.NH N.NN N.NH cams OHHpoz & o OM. on. 0. o o “o mm. o 0&0 mm. 503 g . 0N o N H INN. Wflm Imwn IWHI |m.HI mmfl NN.. NH N H NN.HN H HN HN NN.NN NH NN NN NN.NN H: NN NH NN.NH HH ON NN NN.NH 0H NH NH 00.NN NN NN NH NN.NH No NH NN NNNHH do oH 0N NN.NH NH NH NH NN.NH No No NH NN.NH NH NH oH NN.NH NN NH HH NN.NH No No NN oo.NH NH HH NH oo.:H NH No oH NN.NH No NH NN NN.HH No H NH NN.NH NN NH N NN.NH HH NH NN NN.NH NH H NH NN.NH NN NH N oo.NH No NH NN NN.NH NH NH NH NN.NH NH NH N NN.NH No No NN oo.N do No NH NN.NH HN 0N N NN.NH No NH NN NN.HN NN ON NH NN.NH HN NH N NN.NH HH NH NH NN.NH No NH :H NN.NN NN oN a NN.HH No No HN oo.N oH No oH NN.N NH No N NN.N No No NH NN.N No No HH NN.HH NH No N NN.N no No NH NN.N Na No HH NN.HH NH NNH NH jfllj Ami! i .NH 8.. 3 . H; :98 Hanoam nun Hanan tho 3 k4 .2“ NH 14nd .0 . Nan-hm .H ”ADM” HUMNMM H806” .UHM Han—HOG” HQHOGM H 3 #4 “d N.“ on.“ w .02 9H -139 N.NH NmNH NmmH H.NH N.HH H.HH NMMH N.NH cams oHnwmm N I m. 0 mm. ”n. O O O cam; C MmdwN NH NO HH OH 1mm: INN. Immu NH OO.NH N NN NN NH NH NH NH NH NN.NH NO NO NO NO NO ON ON NH NN.NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH OO.NH HN NO NO NO NO NH NN HH NN.NH NH NH OH HH NH NN NH OH NN.NH NN HH NO NH NH HN NH N NN.NH NH NH NH NH NH NH NH N NN.NH NN NN NN NH NO NH NN N OO.NH ON ON NH OH OH NN NO N NN.NH NH NH NH NH NO NH NN N OO.NH NH NH HH NO NO NH NH N NN.NH NH NH NO OH NO NN NH N NN.NH NH NO NO NO OH NN HH N OO.NH NH OH NO OH OH NH NH H .:H NN. op HN. HH macaw mwN H.mH MmN MMN NMN N.N NWNH N.OH mama OHnwmz o N o o o N o N. n. o gamma 0 m mN.HH NH NH ON NH mo HH mH NH NN.HH ON NN ON NH NO NH HH H NN.HH NH NO NO NO NO NH NH H OO.OH HH NH NH HH OH OH OH NH OO.NO NH NO NO NO NO NH NO HH NN.NH NH NO NO NO OH ON NO OH NN.OH NO NH HH NO NO NH NO N NN.NO NH NO NO NO NO NO NO N NN.NO OH OH NH N NN.HH NO NN NO N NN.NO NO NH NO N OO.NO NO NO OH N 00.00 NH. mo ma m NOomO min 00 00.N0 NH .3 N .llmfl4m14dm1,iu 9 NO. NH H .w>< .29 mam m qH omx on NN. H msonu .63. Utah .58 Nam .02. mepm -14y. N.NN N.NN H.NN N.ON N.NH N.NN N.NN N.NN goo: oHHNo: NN NN. .NL N... NN. L N.N $3: NH NN.NN HN HN NN HN NN NN NN NH OO.NN NH NH NH NH HN NN NN H NN.HN HN HN NN HN N NN NN NH NN.NN NH ON NH NH N NN ON HH NN.NN NN NH NH NH NH HN NN OH NN.NN NN NN NH NH NN NN NN N O0.0N ON NN NN NN NN NN NN N O0.0N NH NH ON NH NN NN NN N NN.NN NN NN NN NN NN ON NH N NN.NN ON NN NN NH NN NN NN N NN.NN NN NN NN NN HN NN NN N NN.NN HN NN NH NH NN NN NN N NN.NN NN NN HN ON NN NN HN N NN.ON HN NN NN NN NN ON NN H .NH NN.H op HO.H >H guano NN.HN NNNH N.NH N.NH N.NH NWNH N.NN N.NH ado: OHnwmm o o 0 MM. NM. m. MOOH m o g: o OOHHN NH mH NH NH NN NN NH NH NN.NN NH NN NH NH NH NN HN NH NN.NH NH NH NH NH NH NN NH NH NN.HN NH NH NH NH NN NN NH NH O0.0N NN NO OH OH NH HN NH HH OO.NN HN NO NO HH NH HN NH OH NN.NN ON NO OH NH NH NN NH N O0.0N ON NO NO NH NH NN HN N NN.NH HN NN NH NH NH NN NH N NN.NN NH NN HN NH HN NN NN N NN.HN NN NH NH HH NH NN NN N NHN N N N g . a a. N M NN.NH NN Hm NM NM Mm Nu NH NN.ON HH 0H NH 3H MM mm ON N .n:n||«:|4|11 I Uowm4 4 U .m :N a -LQ, N.NH N.NH N.NH N.NH N.N N.OH H.NH H.NH smog oHNNoa 0 . mm. mm; on. mm. m o Mb. Mm. Swot OE OOMNH NH NH ON WH HH NH NH NH NN.NH OH NH NH NO NH NN NO NH NN.NH NH NO NO NO OH ON NN NH NN.NH ON OH OH NO HH NN NH NH OO.NH NH NH NH OH HH NH NN HH NN. NH NH NH NH OH NH NH NH OH NN. NH OH No No HH OH NH NH N NN. NH NH NH OH NO NH NN NH N NN. NH HN NH NH NH NH NN NO N NN.NH NN NH NH HH NH NN NH N OO.NH NH ON NH NH NH NH NN N OO.NH NH NH NH OH NO HH HN N NN.NH NH NH OH OH NO NH NN N OO.NH NH HH NH OH NO NH NH N NN.NH NO NO NO NO NO NN NO H .qH NN. on HN. H> macaw N.HH N.NH N.OH N.HH N.N N.N N.NH H. OH can: oHnNoz o o 0 MN. mm. N 0 0m. DH. gm: 0% mmNOH 0 mo OH oH o NH NN.NO NH NO OH NO NO NO NO NN.NH NO NO NO NO NO HN NO NH OO.NH NO NO NO NO NO NH OH NH NN.NO NH NH NH OH NO OH NO HH NN.OH NO NH NH NH NO. NH NO OH NN.NH NH NO NO OH NO NH HH N NN.NH NN NH NH NH NO NH NH N NN.NH NH NH NO OH NO NH NH N NN.HH NH NH NH NO OH NH NO N MNNH NH HN NH MH HH NH NH N N.HH NH NO 0H 0 NNHNH NH HH NH HH mw NH HH N 00.HH NH No NH N ma «a m MM Nd 0H $0 .HH 0 Q0 M." HH I 001m A..-«I! 00 OH m." N I'll . mp‘ H E w song .02 -142- n.mm u.om n.5m awmu o.o~ m.m~ H.mn m. omm can: oHapox 39H.“ «m Hm 4 L. .r mm, Lg? 0 am udl oo.om wm mm mm mH mm mm mm aH nn.om on mH om 5H om mm «m mH no.mm on an mH nH mm am am NH mm.m~ mm m: Hm om mm am am HH oo. om mH mm mm aH mm wm mm oH mm.m~ om am mH NH om on mm m mm. mm um mm 5H mH mH mm Hm m um. mm mm aw mm mm mm o um n oo.m~ um om om Hm mm mm mm m 5w.n~ om Hm :m cm mm mm nH m oo.~n Hm on mm on on om : no.om w: mm mm mm mm m mm m oo.m~ mm on wH NH nH Hm m N mo.n~ H: mm mH 5H am mm mm H .aH mm.H op H0.H HHH> macaw mm.H~ Hmmm ommH o.wH m.mH :.mH m.mm N.NH namuomHnwmm O I 0 mm. MM. mww O m 0 .0 “0.NN mm on Hm 0H mH :m 0H nH no. mH mm mm an on oH mH mm H co. mm Hm Hm HN mm mH am mm H oo. cu «N mm “H “H 5H mm nH «H mm. :m 3H 5H wH no Hm mm 5H HH no. «N oH mH mH NH pH mm «N oH mm. om mH mm 0H mH aH um om a me. am mm mm aH 0H Hm mm Hm m uw. mm “H aH oH mH aH an mH u no. mH om mH HH HH nH ma om o mm.~m mm cm «H mH nH m 5H m mm“ m a m Md 2 MN 3 u o HH m mm m m 0H sw.mH mm mm 5H 9 m..." m -143- m.HH m.nm 0 CNN emu: ‘m om.m a.om om.: :.Hm om.¢ o.mm om.m 3.3m om.: m.Hm om.: o.om 00.: m.Hm 05.: 3.3m 05.: m.mm om.: o.mm oo.m n.Hn om.a m.mm 0H.: o.Hn om.m m.Hm m.oH m.mm 0 ON 1 .TN 00.: m.mm 05.: 3.3m o:.¢ N.Nm 05.: H.mm om.a m.¢m oo.¢ n.Hn om.: m.mn om.m H.Hm oH.a m.mm fi 3 Em COMM Bod“ o: : n.:n SDQMQ :3D»? 0 o o o o (\O NNNNNN 141-4005- . o {\moocnm NN m1mm H o N L\®€DL\£\CO\OL\ NNNNNNNNNNB OHQéMQMs—INM O M ...; o O m H.om xn m r. H O “(W-I? “(02' 0mm (“NNN-1' 33S§9939§33$3§3 H mm mdn4§$ .3334? :3 mod-doomgxm O 03. O O O No.30 mm.mo am «a oo.oH om.mo mm.mo oH.mo mm.mo on.mo “H.0H mm.mo nN.oH 00.NH mw.mo om.oH o¢.mo om.HH Sam: OHHpoz ado: .wnm mH 2H nH NH HH oH fiNM-fimwfimm mm. on Hm. HH mzono Hm.om mm.om om.HH oo.HH om.oa nm.mo mo.HH ma.oH om.oH om.mo oo.0H o~.HH om.HH mm.OH m:.~a aqua OHHpoz macs .mnm -144- m 2N 3. x... mm. ...N o H O N o N .0 a n8: 0 00.n .nqnn N N m a o m mH om.¢ N.Nn H.mN .m: nN.OH :H oo.w N.Hm o. 0N ¢.H: om.N mH oH.w m.nm m. mN m.¢: mn.oH NH om.m N.Hm m.mN o.m: mo.oH HH oN.m N.mm H. NN N.N: om.a 0H 00.n o.mm “.mN N. : om.N N 0N.“ N.NN :.nN «.N: om.m m om.n H.Nm N.0N o.n: on.m N o:.: N.Hn m. mN N.na no.m o 0N.: n.Nn m. «N N.:: mm.m n 0N.n H.mm m .oN N.N: oH.N : on.m N.mm N. mN N.ma oN.m m 03.: o.Nm N.wN n.N: oa.m N om.n H.mm N.wN N.N: ow.m H .:H mN.H op H0.H >H guano N.NH N.NN n.Nm m.mHH oH.mo nae: oHnwmm . .N mumm .whnu mm. ado: . oH mdflm 0 mm Hnaa 0 MH om.n H.NM N.0N n.N: mn.m 3H om.¢ o.Nm N.NN 3.3: nH.HH nH om.¢ N.Hn N.NN m.n¢ mo.oH NH oN.: N.om N.NN “.m: “N.N HH om.m ¢.mm o.mN n.N: mN.N oH oN.: m.Hm n.mN o.¢: om.m m 03.: H.Nm N.0N 0.NN nm.m m oo.: o.mm namN Nag: o:.N N om.a N.Nm N.NN o.ma oN.mH m 0:.m N.nm o.oN H.NH m can 0.Hn N.NN H. : mwfi om.a N.NN N.0N 3.3: 3 o:.: N.Hn n. mm. M om m n.Hn ~.mm w.:: om.o m "HMMMMMWW oononohfiaona N .m: cm . N Nfifiom U 04. OH -145- 00000000300000 mNb-MNOCOOx \ONva-IOCD oo.0-00000.00 on MiéanJSWWWmd “N H .m 0 H mémmwmmmoo o o o o o o 0 mm: 3 {\mCOO mmmmmmmm N o o 7". ON oo.0-oo.0... mmmmmmmmmmmm N m m H a w Q N m H m H d dmom mm o 0 N0“ “N H rHDsdzrvavun anono 35m HH nm.:H om.mH mo.HH om.mH 00.nH 0:.HH ow.n« mN.NH mm.mH 3.3 02H 3.2 3.: Hné ado: oanoz ado: .wnm mH ‘ ‘x u‘. ‘ I!H:II‘H flit: u..- ~.Ivv.-.I.Induu.r.|I».I,' ltuln‘luJIWYQINI I .vl ..|,., ..I [IIJlJI , «I'll-lilllJl n... .1.. . . ..M . - D l O . v n ' O O I C l . D ' O I O U 4 . Y ‘ I . O C C O 1 C . o a n ‘ . v . - . . . . o . u c c . o n o . . o o o o u o o. N O . . O C I O O C ¢ . u I ’ . Q g . u u o o o c H . o a O A D Q C O o I J . . a . o . o . . . o ‘ I V ‘ O J O O o . o o v n . . 1 t a v ' . u n n H a o H U . C C {I ... ...Auai r... 4' 51' “TI—17‘. -146- 00000030 (“00be- MW 0 o o o o 0 ON a o vwnuwinumétnu>vun 0 UN 0 f... m 00000.0 00 MWO\CDL\\O\O\O 6‘ mm mmmmaomw (na\«uno\«ufi NN o o 0:? NB Nmmd'fixomNb-mmOxd'v-a O 000 000000 05009! NNMNNNNNNNNNNM .3 .3- [x '0. O\ N 0.000.000.0000 00000000000000 MNMNMNNNMNNNNN c>ounourvnc~onnc~rnoowoz om.¢N mm.oa o .HH 0 .HH “n.HH om.ma ou.oa mm.HH 0N.m mm.HH o:.mH om.oa “N.OH no.HH om.dH 0:.aa mmnmN oouoa mm.HH om.HH 00.HH 0:.HH mm.m 00.HH 0:.NH :3 00.NH 3.2 3.: 3.: 3.2 now: canvas duos .wnm mH :H mH HNM-‘J‘VMOB-00 .GH MN.H 0» Ho.d HHH> @3090 :60: oahpmz nmoz .wdm mH NH MH NH HH 0H -l47- wmm om.wm co. m mmqmw 2.. .3m oN. an om. Ho oN.Hm om.m3 om.nn o3.mm oN. ow oN.mm oN. mm oo. mm om.Nn on.oo om.mm wm.mm 0H. .Ho ow. ow o3.mHH oN. mN om.NoN om.oNN om. mmN oo.mmN oo.mNN om .onN ow.NmN co .mwN om .3oN om.mmN oN.moN oH.HMN om.NoN oH.nnN oH.HNN .nH mNu op onoomd om.mmm 0d 3 N Ohflowm ou.NuN OH. mom on. now owonwm on.NuN oo.amN omodmm omowwm omamém 00.35N om. NQN a 03 on. mNN can: oHHpos ado: .mdfl nH a Hm. HH macaw ado: OHHpox ado: .wzm mH -148. ow.Nm om.HN o3 m oN. HN on.3o on .3N oo. mN oN.NN oo.mo oN.oN oH.oN oN.mN oH .3N oN. Nw oN. Nm oo.mm ow.NN omnNm om.&~ om.wn ON,H o3.Nm om.ma om.wn omumm ”N.NH oo.nn om.Nn oN.3n om.mm om.Nn 0N.mn o~.mn om.Nn cwodufi :60: cannot oo.mmm ow wN on. new 03. mmm om. NmN o¢.wm~ om.mNm oH.mnN oN.NNm 03.NNN ow.nNm cw.ouN ow.mnm 03m0Nm oo .mcm oo .mmm can: .wfim H m rHN fir! 140QFH?V¥OC\¢JOHD '4 .nH mN. H on Ho.H >H macaw 00.nN o O oaumm on.mm om.mm om.nn om.mn ou.©n oo.3n om.3m oo.0w ON. on on. .Nn ofioamfi :60: cannot oH.NmN om N om.&w~ oo.:wm ow.mom oo.mw~ O3300N o:.N©N 0H.Nnm om.mNN 03.3wm o3.3NN ON. 3N OH.HNH 2. .02 :00: .3 “H 3H MH Nd an OH .... N (0.3-“0500‘ -l49— o¢.ma oH.ood oo.mm 0H.Noa ow. 00a om .mm 0N. mm 00. #oa om .mm OO.Nm oo.moa 0N.mm ow.aoa 02.non om.ma om.ooH on.w= . o mmqmmfl o~.ma oo.aofi oo.fioa om.mofl om.:oa o~.mo« oo. mod 0:. ma oo. mod oN.wm oo.0m om.noa ON3HOd avowed Op, ow.HH o cu on. co. m cm. .am om. :m om.n~ 00.nN om. mm ou.mm om.mm om.o~ 0N.n~ ON.WN ON.MN o«.~md .N m o .0: on.N m oH.N m oa.anm oH.¢Nn 3.0mm oe‘mom ofi.onm o~.oNn ofi.mmm oN.flmn om.mmn ON.omm 001mmn oN.Nam .nd “N. on oNHme omuomm o~.Nmm o~.m¢m oauNon om.oom oa.on oN.mnm on.mNn on.m:n 22% oo.o:m ea. 3.0Wm 3 o~.oom in ndom cannon ado: .wnm ma a a Na «a o« .aoa¢u&vmocsa>o~ an) up macaw ado: cannot an»: .mnm 150- om.o: om.m: on.m o~.mm ow.mm om.mm om.om om.mm om.mN om.mm ofi.mm 0:.mm oN.mm oH.Nm oH.om oN.mm 0:.mm om.mm on.mm om.mm 0N.mm om.mm 00.nN 0N.Nm oa.om ow.mm ON.om om.:m ofi.nm o~.mm 00.NN o:.mofi om.Nm 0N.HN n.NN om.mm O o O o . m oHuHm oo.mm oo.mm om.Nm o:.HN 00.00 om.ooa om.HN om.:m oo.Hofi on.moH oa.mm oo.HOH om.flm oo.nm om.om om.:m ow.Nm 0:.Hoa oo.:m om.mw 0N.wm 0m..ooa mum? omma ONONQ CMQHWW Mango oUEHH. .93 oo.:H o .om omumn oH.mm om.mm oH.om oH.mn oo.mm om.m~ oowmm om.om om.mm om.om oo~wm on.fim 0N.mm 00.Hm on. ma mm. mm o .o om.mm om.Nm om.mm OO.NN om.NN om.mm om.om om.om oN. Nm ow .mm o:. NN oN. mm oo.~m om.m~ 0N1Hofl duo: oanpmz . mm om.mmm om.mmm om.o:m oNummn om.Nnm oN‘flmm on.omm oo.omm on.m¢m om.mNm on.m:m om.mmm oa.Nmm 0N.:om 0N.Hmm ado: .wgm ma 3a n” ma HH oa Hmmdnxob-oom MN.H 0» fio.H HHH>_Q50HU 0N.owa cams canvas om. m o : o:.m:m on.mmm om.Nmm om.mmm ow.Hmm om.mmm om.:mm ow.m:m ON.omm cams .wnm ma 3H ma NH «H OH A‘OQH macho 0N.“ omHHH oH.:H 0H.NH om.m om.oH om.HH OH.HH om.HH on.HH 8.: 0qu 8.: 8.2 Ba om.m cam: oanoa oN.N awe: .wsm . om.N mH on.N :H 0N.N mH oo.m NH oo.m HH ow.m oH om.N m 0H.N m om.m N om.m o 0:. H 3;. 3 E H 02. N 93 H 0» 0N. HHH asomm uafl: O .33. I.VrN 13.... -153- NN.N ON.HHH oH.Hm om.MHH ON.w 0M.HH 00.NN Nn.0 ow.a :mox oHnwmm o . H 0N.mmN om.NHH o . MN oN.mH n .MN NN.N ON. oN.oH macs . 00.NH oo.mNN o N ow.HwN oN. ow. N OO.NN om.mH om.oH nH om.N 00.NNN 0H.OOH o¢.NwN 0N.NH oH.ON 0N.NN 0N.HH Nn.N NH om.oH 0:.NmN 0:.moH oo.NmN om.¢H oN.oN oN‘NN NN.HH om.N NH oN.HH 0N.N:N 0:.NOH oH.NNN oH.NH 0N.:N 0:.om NN.NH oo.0H NH NN.NH NN.OQN om.HHH oN.mNN 00.NH oo.0N OHaHN 0H.NH om.HH HH om.NH NN.NNN 0N.oHH NN.NNN omNNH oo.0N om. Hm 00.HH om.N oH oo.0H oo.m:N om.NNH oo.mnN ON.NH NH.NN ow .Nm 0N.:H om.oH N o:.NH NN.N:N 0N.mHH NN.NmN 0N.:H NN.NN 0:. NN 0N.mH on.N m NN.NH NN.NNN oo.0HH oH.NoN oN.aH 0N.NN oH.nn 0N.mH ON.oH N oH.NH om.HaN o¢.:NH oo.0wN 0N.oH om.NN NN.NN on.oH ow.oH o om.NN NN.NNN 0N.mHH ON.N:N NN.NH oH.mN om.mm om.mH 0N.N n 0N.:H o:.N:N om.NHH NN.NNN oo.NH oN.dN 0H. Nm oH.NH ow.N : 00.NH on.HnN 00.NHH Nn.an NN.NH on.NN om .NN 0H.NH om.oH N om.HH 0:.NNN 00.NHH oN.nmN om.NH on. N oH. Hm om. NH om.N N 00.NH NN.ONN om.OHH oH.NNN 00.NH on. N on. Nn oN. NH NN.OH H .:H mN. op Hm. H> macaw 0:.N om.mmH ON.NN oHNONH o¢.w oH.m 0N.: new: oHmem o . 0N. N oo.0H“ o . N o. om. H o . nae: . om.w 0:.woN oH.00H oWHomN NNHmH 0 .HH O OH NH oo.N 0N.¢:N o:.NN ON.HNN 0N.HH 0N.¢H 00.HH NH om.N 0N.H:N oH.oHH NN.N:N om.mH oN.NH oo.N NH 0N.m 0N.N:N 0N.omH om.NNN 0 .NH om.NH 0N.oH NH om.n OO.NQN oo.NOH om.oNN 0N.:H NN.NH om.HH HH om.oH om.NoN om.HoH o:.mNN oH.oH on.nH 0:.NH oH Nn.N NN.NNN oH.moH om.:mN OO.NH 0N.HH oo.0H N o:.oH 0:.NmN oo.HNH om.woN om.oH om.nH 0N.N m om.N oN.m:N 0N.HoH 0N.mnN oH.N oH.NH oH.oH N 0N. NH NN.NNN 00.HHH om.mNN on.NH om.NH 0H.oH m on. NH NN.HmN oN.HN oo.mwN 0N.m om.N oo.HH n oN. N 0N.omN NN.NNH oo.moN on.oH 00.NH om.HH m om. N oH.NmN oH.mNH on.NoN oN.HN oN.NH NN.NH om.oH om.HmN 00.nHH 00.N0N o¢.NH OO.NH oo.0H N 00.NH 0:.onN 0:.NHH 0:.NNN 03.:H om.nH 0N.oH H :5 bum. ombm. > 36.5 EHHB mPSU om cum .NH @950 Hgdhm 0M 0M POMmHHm figm .02 pan .pxm HuaHnm muse NHHmm .uaapnp .p: .p: 1»: yoopm .uana No .p: no . 3 AQMHDZHBZOU 4 HH figmmd -154- ONWHH om.moH om.mm oH.mmH oo. oN.Nm oH.mm om.e oNWNNnao: oHnwmm o .mN o . NN o . HH om. N o . H o .o oN. o . o . anon . 00 NN OO.NNN NN.NHH OO.NNN oo NH om.NN oo.H omumH oo.0H NH o¢.NN NN.HNN om.0NH om.oNN NN.NH oH.NN oN.NN 0N.:H ow.N :H NN.NN 0N.woN NN.NHH NN.NNN 0N.:H 0N.0N oN.:N 0:.wH ON.N NH ON.NN om.oNN 0N.HNH 0N.NNN oN.NH NN.HN oN.¢N. NN.NH NN.N NH NN.HN oo.NNN NN.NoH oNHooN 00.NH 00.NN oN.NN omwNH oN.m HH NN.ON 0N.H:N NN.HOH NN.NNN oo.NH oNuNN 0N.NN 0N.:H ON.oH 0H NN.ON NN.NNN NN.ONH om‘NaN oH.mH 0N.NN 0:.NN oN.NH ONHN N NN.NN NN.NHN NN.NNH oN.oNN ONuNH oa‘HN NN.NN 0N.oH om.N N NN.NN NN.NNN 0N.N0H oo.0NN oN.N NN.NN NN.NN oN.¢H oN.oH N ow.oN NN.NNN NN.NNH o:.ooN onnH NN.NN cN.NN oH.mH oN.oH w ON.NH NN.NNN 0N.NOH oN.NNN oH.aH NN.NN oN.NN NN.NH NN.N N 00.NN om.NHN NN.NHH oH.NNN oo.:H onaoN om.HN on.mH oN.N : on.NN NN.NHN oN.NNH mm.NNN oH.HN NN.NN NN.NN om. H oo.0H N NN.NH OH.N:N 00.NHH .NoN 0N.NH oo.NN NN.NN oo. H NN.N N NN.NN NN.NHN NN.HNH NN.N:N oH.NH oN.oN oH.NN 00.NH NN.N H .nH NN.H op H0.H HHH> macaw 0N.» om.NmH om.mn 0N.NHH NN.NH om.o onmaNnmmz oHnwmm o . H o . N o . noxHMN nNmNm . o . mam: . NN.NH ON.mNN oN.mNH o: NNN 00.N oHumH oH.oH NH NN.HN NN.NNN om.NoH NN.NNN oH.NH ow.NN oa.NN oouaH 0N.oH :H o:.NH NN.NNN 00.NHH NN.NNN NN.NH 0N.:N om.NN 0N.NH om.HH NH NN.NH OO.NNN ONnaHH ON.NNN NN.NH 00.NN oN.HN 0N.NH o:.oH NH NN.NH NN.NNN 0N.:NH ON.oNN ON.NH om.mN om.NN om.NH NH.oH HH 00.NH NN.:NN 0N.NoH oo.mmN oN.NH NN.NN 0N.NN oa.NH 00.NH oH NN.NH 00.::N NN.NOH NNNNNN 0N.NH om‘NN 00.NN ON.NH 0N.N N oH.NH NN.:NN 0N.oHH oo.:NN NN.NH NN.NN oH.NN oo.¢H NN.N m NN.NH om.mNN om.NHH NN.N:N oo.NH o:.mN oN.NN on.NH 00.N N oH.NH om.NNN NN.NHH NN.NNN on.NH oN.NN NN.NN ONJN oN.N m oo.:N 0N.NNN oH.o:H oN.N¢N om.NN oH.NN 0N.NN oN.mH om.N N oo.0H NN.NNN 0:.ONH om.NaN oowNH NN.NN oo.NN 0H.:H on.oH : NN.HH NN.NNN oN.ooH om.oNN ON.NH NN.NN oN.HN oo.NH oN.N N ON.HN NN.NNN 0N.on NN.NNN oH.NH oN.NN NN.NN oN.NH oN.N N NN.NH oHJNNN oN.oHH om.NNN oN.aH oN.mN ow.oN oo.NH oN.N H .:H oo.Ht0p 0N. HH> guano quwmm ammo.“ Hm 32.5 Hana ...uquw; Hang 233 p335 Hag; .oz .uaaa No .ww WMNmMm p: a: a: .23 .9: Hoopm HQMDZHazooH 4 HH xHszmmd :1 I. In. «.03 hi‘fu -155- . . . . . N.NH om.n mm.H oN‘mHnunz OHHpoz 0.0 onoi OfloMN 00 H omoo Omow @floN OMoH O o 0 am OMoN €302 owgm om.m NN.N NN.HN NN.N oH.N oo.NH om.u mm.N mmqmm w .mmqw .mmqwm NH mmuHH wHHN mw.MN wo.m mm.m mo.mw mm.“ NN.N oN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.N: NH . .. . . . . N.0N oo.m 0N.N 0N.¢: H NN.N ON.N oN :N oN N 0N N NN.NH oN.N om.m wN.NN oH.N NN.N 0:.HN NH NN.N oN.HH NN.N: 0:.N oN.N NN.NH NN.N o .N oN.NN NN.N NN.N oH.:: HH ow.oH NN.N NN.NN NN.N oouH oN.:H ON.: wN.N NN.NN NN.N 0N.H co. 0H NN.N oo.HH NN.HN oH.N 0N.H 0H.NH om. N.N NN.NN NN.N 0N.H NN.N N NN.N 0N.oH NN.N: NN.N oH.N NN.NH 0N.: 0N. oN. N NN.N NN.: oo.H: N 00.0 ONoHH 00.03 Odom OWOH omond ONO: 00.N CNOMN OWom omen omom: 0 oN.N NN.N NN.ON NN.N oN.H NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N 0H.N oH.N: N OH.m 00.HH onomé omom oon ON 0H on 3 00o o . cm ooomm d . . . . . . 0H m 0H NN on N cm 0000 00 HH CO H“ 00 m OWON OQOMH 0H0: 00.N OHomN CMom OWOH 00.33 m 0N.oH oo.N 0N.NN NN.N oo.H 0N.NH NN.: . . . o.N oo~Na N oH.HH 0N.m NN.ON NH”: 0N.H 0N.NH oN.m mm.N wm.mm wm.m w:.N oo.N: H oo.0 03.0H 0N.H“ ON 3 .ON N o: “H 0N ¢ .QH MN. on Hm. HH QSOHO . . . . . . . o .Hmnmmz oHHpoz 0N.: 00.N 0N.NN NNHH Na.o 0H. WN.N m:.H om.mw wN.N ”N.w W .N gums .mnm .{wz E? N: 0: NE N H f. NNN N N o o o o o o 00N 03.0 0 a: o 0N.oH oH.N oN HN 0N N o: H NN.NH NN.: NN.: mm.NN oo.N g.N NN.N: NH ON.N om.OH 0:.NN o:.N oo.H 0N.NH o¢.m om.a ONNHN 0N.oH 00.: 0N.Na NH NN.N NN.N 00.N: oo.N cane 0N.:H omyN mN.m oNHNN 00.N 0N.N NN.NN HH 030a omom Om.¢w ONom omoo OWNQH o . O“o& Oéoom OHo0 OHoM Chou: OH 000m 030% O3omm ONcm 0000 Gnomfi 030M 00. ONQON Ofiom OMQN OO.Né m ON.OH om.N OO.NN 00.N o: H 0N.NH om. .3 0N.NN 0N.N oN.H ON.N: N NN.HH 00.N oo.NN o¢.¢ oH.H oN.NH oN.N oN.m oN. N NN.N NN.N oN.N¢ N oN.N NN.N 0N.NN oH.N oo.H 0N.:H 0N.: 0H. o .WN oo.N o:.H NN.N: N oo.0H oH.N NN.NN oNHN ONHH NN.NH 0N.: NN.N N. .N NN.N oo. N mum WNW ”mm WK ”N.N WEN WE “fl ”mum “mi 03 N.NN 3 ow.HH 0N.N 0N.NN NN.N 0:.0 ON.NH o:.N oN.H OH.HN 0N.HH NHHH ONUN: m ON.NH NN.N 0:.No 0:.N 03.0 0N.NH 00.N 0N.H NN.NN NN.HH ON H NN.N: oH.HH NN.N oN.oN oN.N. o:.N NN.NH oN.N 0N.H NN.NN oN‘N o:.H ow.NNN. HHmaonu It “I . .gw,o . . 020m 9mm UHOHH oflom 9mm UH0HH 020m Hum UHOHH aflom 96m dHOHH oz Ir,xoamo Mezzo moawo nHm mammammHmwdemm m aHoq unzom unsom wnzom Hmopm x1 inn-Mi 3‘ L1 .1: -156- NN.M NN.NN NN.NN oN.H NN.N NN.N om.m NN.N NH.HH NN.M NN.N NN.NHmaoz oHnmmz o . 0 .HH 0 . NN.N o . NN. o x o . NN.HN NN. o . . :No: . mm omHN NN.HH NN.NN NN.N o NNHmH NN.N oH.N oN NN o .N oN N NNumm NH NN.N NN.N 0N.H o:.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.: NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.HN :H NN. NN.NH 0N.H: NN.N NN.N NN.NH o:.N NN.N NN.HN NN.N NN.: NN.NN NH NN.N NN.N NN.HN NN.N NN.: NN.NH NN.N NN.: oH.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN NH NN.N NH.HH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH oH.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN HH NN.N oH.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.: NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.HN NH NN.N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.: NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN N NN.N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N oH.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NNNN NN.N NN.NN N NN.N 0N.:H NH.NN NN.N oa.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN oH.N oH.N oN.NN N NN.N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.: NN.N oH.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN N NN.N NN.NH NN.N: NN.N NN.N o¢.NH oN.: NN.N oH.:N NN.N oN.N oN.NN N NN.N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN oH.N NN.N NN.NN N NN.N NN.HH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NH.N NN.NN N NN.N NN.NH NN.N: NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.: NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN N NN.N NN.HH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH oH.N NN.N oH.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN H .zHNN.H op H0.H NH macaw NM.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N Nm.H NN.N Nm.H om.H N .NH NN.N WH.N om.NmmwmwomHnwwm o .m O .NH o . o . o .N No. N . o .m o . N co. . . . NH N NN.HH NN.NN oHuN NN.N NH.NH o NN.N oNuNN NN.m om.N omumm NH NN.N NN.NH NH.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NH.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN NH NN.N NH.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NH.N on. NN.HN NN.N NN.N NN.N: NH NN.N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NH.oN NN.N NN.N NN.HN NH NN.N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N oH.:H No.3 NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN HH NN.N NN.NH oH.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.HN NH NN.N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH 03.: NN.: oH.NN NNNN NN.: NN.NN N NN.N NN.N NH.NN NN.N NN.H NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N 0N.N NN.NN N NH.N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.N: N NH.N NN.NH NN.N: NN.N NN.H NH.NH o:.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN N NN.N NN.HH oH.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN N NN.N NN.HH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN N NN.N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.: NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.: NN.NN N NNHNH NN.HH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NH.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN N oN N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N oH.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN H ‘ .nH oo. op N. HHH macaw wqom pom NHNHN ozom Nam NHNHN onom NNN NHNHN mcom NNN N NH» 02 M .950 #0530 NOELOIII DH m hum—”ME BMWWV CH. 01H CH 3 «.HH QH UQSOMH figom damn—Om H00 9 m m HH magma -157- NM.N NN.N NN.NM 00.N oH.N NN.» om.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N om.m NNmaNMNmz 0Huwmm O 0N.H 0N.H o OH E o 0 cm. H o O o O o O 0 OH.“ o ‘0 O 0 “mm: ‘0 NN.NH omuoH NN.NN NN.N NN m NN.NH oNuN omum NN.NN om.NH NN.N NNNNN NH NN.NH NN.HH NN.HN NN.N NN. NN.NH NN.N NN. NN.NN NN.HH 0:.N oH.NN NH NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.: NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.HH NN.N NN.NN NH NN.NH oH.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N o:.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.NN NH NN.NH NN.HH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN oH.NH NN.N NN.NN HHN NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N oH.NN NN.HH NN.N NN.HN NH NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.: NN.NH NN.N oH.: oNaNN NN.NH NN.N oo. N N NN.NH NN.NH NN.HN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N oH.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N oo. N N NN.HH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.: NN.NN NN.N oN.N NN.NN NH.HH oN.N onNN N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.: oN. NN.NH oHNN oN. NN.NN NN.HH oH.N NN.HN N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NH.N NN. NN.NH NN.N o3. NN.HN NN.HH oH.N NN.N: N NN.NH NN.HH NN.NN NN.N NH.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N om.NN NN.HH NN.N NN.NN N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.: o .NN NN.NH NN.N NN.NN N NN.NH NN.HH NN.HN NN.N NN.N oH.NH oH.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.NN N NN.NH NN.N NN.NN oH.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.: oN.NN oH.NH NN.N NN.HN H .:H NN. op HN. H> macho om.m mm.“ om.mm omoa mm.H “H.m nNom oa.n om.NH onmn om.m mamwmmmoammdnwmw O o H ON 0 0 Dm on DOOmH o O o o O o o o o 0 now . NN.NH NNHHH NNuoN oo 3 NN.N oH.NH omuN NN. o%uHN NN.NH NNuN om.mw NH NN.HH NN.N NN.NN 00.: NN.: NN.NH NN.N NN.N o:.NN NN.HH NN.N NN.NN NH NNNHH NN.NH NN.NN NN.: NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.HN NH NN.HH NN.NH NN.NN oH.: NN.N o¢.NH NN.N oN.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.NN NH NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.: oN. NN.NH NN.N oH.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.NN HH NN.NH NN.N NN.NN NN.: NN.N NN.NH NN.N 00.N NN.N: NN.NH NN.N NN.HN oH oH.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N .oN.¢ NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.NN N NN.HH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N 0N.NH NN.N NN.N oH.NN oo.0H Koa.N oH.NN N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.: NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.HH NN.N NN.NN N NN.HH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N oH.N oN.oN NN.N NN.N NHNNN NN.NH NN.N NN.HN N NN.NH NN.HH NN.HN NN.: NN.N oH.NH o:.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N oN.NN N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.NN a oH.NH NN.HH NN.NN oH.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.NN N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.: NN.: NN.NH oH.N oo.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.NN N NN.NH oN.HH NN.NN oH.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.oH oN.N NN.NN H ha! .5” on. on mN. > $6.8 anom Nam NHon onom Nam NHoHN onom HMMIJmmmwm onom Nam NHoHN .oz M028 M350 Mosmmw {ohm cam 93 53 53 53 65mm unsom venom nmmpm flQHDZHBZOOu m. HH Vanna/Hmong -158- NN.N NN.m NN.MN NN.m NN.N NN.M NN.N NN.N NN.NN NNWN NN.N O .NH oH. H o . om. o . NN. o . o . o .N . . NN oH NN.NH om.NN NN.N oo.w NN.NH oo. NN.m NN.NN om.oH oN. NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N om.m 0 .NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN oH.oH NN.N NN.NH NN.NH Nn.0N NN.N o . 0 .NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.HN NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.HN NN.N oH.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N oH.NN NN.N NN.N oH.NH NN.HH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.HH NN.N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.: NN.N NN.NN NN.N oH.N NN.HH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH 0N.: NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N oH.oH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.: NN.N oH.NN NN.N NN.N NN.HH NN.NH NN.NN No.3 NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH oo. NN.N NN.HN NN.N NN.N NN.HH oH.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN. NH.N NN.HN NN.HH NN.N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.: NN.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NH oH.N NN.HH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NH.N NN.NN NN.N NN.N .qH NN.H o NN.N MNmN om.oN NN.H NN.N NN.N NN.N Nm.N NN.NN NNmN wm.N 0.HH OCH 0. o. o. ONOMHOO O. O o. o om.N NN.NH NN.NN 0N o N NN NH on": on.m oHHNN oaum o N NN.HH NN.HH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NH.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.HH oH.NH NN.NN oH.N NN.N oN.NH NN.N NN.N oN.NN NN.HH NN.N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NH.¢ NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.HN NN.NH NN.N NH.HH NN.NH NN.NN 00.: NN.: NN.NH NN.N NN.N NH.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN 00.: NN.: NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN oH.NH NN.N NN.NH NN.NH NN.HN NN.N NH.N NN.NH oH.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NH oH.N NN.N NN.NH oH.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NH.N NN.NN NN.HH NN.N NN.HH NN.NH NN.NN oH.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NH.N NN.NN NN.N NNNN NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.: NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.HH NN.N NN.N oH.NH NN.NN oH.: NN.: NN.NH NN.N NN.N oH.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.N NN.NN NN.NH NN.N NN.NH NN.NH NN.NN NN.: NN.N NN.NH NN.N No.3 NN. N NN.NH NN.N NN.NH o:.NH NN.NN NN.N NN.N NN.NH NN.N NN.: NN. N NN.NH NN.N NN.NH NN.NH oH.NN NN.: NN.N NN.NH NN.N oH.N NN.NN NN.HH oH.N .. .cH oo. onom Nam NHoHN ocom pom NHoHH onom pmm NHNNM, ocom umm Illwwmmm xosso xossmal me nHoq 9 ON . HN :82 2.302 NN. cams .sz NN.Hm om.m: 00.n: oH.N: on.m¢ om.:m 0H.w¢ om.m: om.on NN.N: ow.md 00.N: 0N.:é ON.NN om.d¢ NH Mn N Na Ha 0N HNMd’WOme H0.H HHH> Nsonw 00 .NN 88: 33% 05.0% ado: .wnm NN.NN NH NN.N: NH NN.NN NH NN.NN NH 00.NN HH NN.NN oH NN.NN N NN.NN N NN.N N NN.N N NN.NN N NN.NN N o:.NN N NN.NN N NN.NN H on N. HH> macaw NNoHN .oz wuzom hoomm I I .JQI pl. ..‘i .1“ fair i ‘J M~|.A'i.. v i ... . ~ - ~_N\W‘Ix‘l.<. a I15 1* INN! lurk -159- o o c o o a £603 No.0 NN.N NN.N NN.H NH.N NN.N ON O NN H o: N on H NN O ON H oHapoz . . . . . NN.- ON. 0 .N NN.N NN.N 2N0: .NNN 14:36 NN.N .....1ON N ANION N ON.N IINIONNH INLON. INLH IPA IN...O O. ON N NH OH O NN.N ON m wN.m mm.w wm.oH MH.M mN.m mo.N wm.N ON.O NN.N NH OH.O O o om. o o o o o o .0 0&3: H OH.O NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.OH OM.“ mm.“ wm.m mw.m wM.O NN.N NH OH.O oH.H NN.N OH.N NN.NH NN.NO o . NNN: NN.N NN.N NN.N OH.N HH OH.O NN.N wo.m wm.m mm.m mw.ww mm.“ OH.N ON.N ON.N ON.O OO.: MH OH.O NN.N N. . . . . . . . ON. 2.0 N.NH NN.N mum mum 0%: m3 “N.N WK NN.N New 0% W. OH.O O . O . . . . ON.N NN.N NN.N NN.O ON. OH.O OH.NH OH.N OO.N ON OH ON N OO.H OO. NN.N OO.N NN.N NN.N N OH.O 00.0 0m.© 0m.H 0N.m 0m.0H 0N.H .3 0:.“ 00.n 03.0 0a.: m OH.O NN.OH OH.N ON.N NN.N ON.HH ON.O ON.N . . .O ON.N N OH.O NN.OH om.m wmnm mmnm wm.mH wm.m mw.m wm.u mm.m mu.o om.m m oH.o 0 .HH o . . . . . NN.N NN.N NN.N O . O to 0 00H ONQN ONQN OH m OM00.“ COO.“ 000$ O o 0 CO. H OH.O Ow.N NN.N ON.N NN.N OO HH ON H ON N ON N ON N.NHOMNm op Hm. HH NsoNN O o O o o O ““02 NN.N NN.N NN.N OH.H NN.N NN.N ON O o: H oN N ON H on 9 OH N OanNz o n o o o o o 0 £00: .3 LT N N.NN N t. E N.N L N NN £3 Ei N; N H. . . . . .N 00.N NN. o:.o . OH.O NN.N NN.N ON N O: N NN.HH NN.N 3. . . O .O NN.N NH OH.o NN.N O0.0H NN.N ONHN NN.NH om.o ww.m mm.m mm.m ow.o NN.N NH OH.O ON. . . . . . . .O O .N OH.O NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.HH NN.H mm.m mm.m ww.m wm.o OH.: N OH.O OH.OH NN.N NN.N ONHN NH.HH NN.H oH.N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N N OH.O ON.N ON.N NN.N ON N ON.OH OH.H .N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.N N OH.O ONNN ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.OH OO.H mm.N ON.N ON.N ON.O ON.N N CNN NN NHN N.N N.N i o: i i N OH.O OO. . . . . .N NN.N NN.N NN.N NN.: N 0H.0 0H.n 0«.0 00.n on w 00.NH 00.N 0:.m . 00.n 0N.0 on.: m OH.O ON.N OH.N ON.N ON.N ON HH ON.H OO. ON.N . . . OH.O ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.NH ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.m ON.w ”m.“ m OH.O om.N 0N.0H 0N.N 0N.N 0N.mH 0N N 0N N 0: N on 0: . o @5090 ‘Lnr. H NNNHNN poumHnm NHoHN mcmnm ananm NHNHN .oz IWMMMM ummmm “mmwm mmMmm uwmmm MHme p 020m Nam poMNHum ozom Nam McNNN nompm QHDZHBZOU m HH NHQZMNNd V Ra . I- n u. ‘u I.» «finkd HI 1&1». . .II: 7.3m! .mlrllllfl. ,i III!!!» . nn 3:... o.§ . In ..I , y . n.N...fi... v. . ‘1 Ian‘h‘ I *LI1IJ‘IIV I u «11‘ ‘.I‘IJIII [al.I-IITHr- 11. . .F .\ 5 HI. § .-P~V~N.\~q .I‘IIII'1IIIIIIII_ . , 11‘ I ‘ ‘w ‘. v, v 0: v I . I o v N D a 1 c I u I ‘ Q 9 I I I I I I D I a I 1 u I 9 I I I o 1 I I v I o o I a I I I Q J 1 o I I Q I I O I v I I a I I v I I I I u I O N v I u t s P . a v . I I I o I O I I I n v o I . I 0 v I . O I I I o O I n o I 1 I I O I I I u . o I O I 0 ~ I I n - y t. I a _ O a v I a I o o 2 o I I . O I I I I I v I I C A v u I . I O . c 1 I V . V . O I O 4 I I 4 v I I I o I - o o I l . V . O I I Q o I u 1 O I I I I 4 . I I I O I I I I I I O I 1 O 1 I l D I J r I B I I I I I I I o . n I I r O O I i 7 n V v 7 9 I o 9 I a I D D o J I O I N u . c 9 0» o I o o I n a I -160- N0.0 ON.N ON.N ON.O ON.N ON.N NN.O NN.N NH.N OH.O OO.NH ON.N OO.N O .NH ON. O .O ON.N ON.m OH.O oN.WH ON.N ON.H om.NH OH. O .O OH N ON. OH.O ON.NH oN.N ON.H ON.NH OH. ON.O ON.N OH. OH.O ON.NH OH.N OO.N ON.NH OH. ON.O ON.N ON.N OH.O ON.NH ON.N ON.H OO.NH ON. OH.H ON.N OO.N OH.O ON.NH ON.N OH.N OO.HH ON. ON.O ON. ON.N OH.O oN.NH ON.N OO.N ON.NH ON. H ON.O ON. ON.N OH.O ON.NH ON.N ON.H oN.NH ON.N ON.O OO.N ON.N OH.O ON.ON ON.N ON.H ON.NH ON.N ON.O ON.N OH.N OH.O OO.NH ON.N OH.N ON.NH ON.N ON.O OH.N ON.N OH.O ON.NH ON.N ON.N oN.NH ON.OH ON.H ON.N ON.N OH.O oN.NH ON.N ON.H ON.NH ON.N ON.O ON.N ON.N OH.O ON.HH ON.N ON.H ON.HH oN.N OO.H ON.N ON.N OH.O ON.NH OH.N OH.N ON.NH ON.OH ON.O ON.N OH.N OH.O OO.NH ON.N OH.N ON.HH O0.0H ON.O ON. ON.N OH.O ON.NH ON.N ON.N ON.NH ON.N ON.O ON.N ON.N N0.0 ON.N oN.N OO.H NO.N ON.N NN.O ON.N ON.N OH.O OO.NH ON.N ON.N ON.HH OH.OH OO. pm.m . OH.O OO NH ONqN O .N ON.NH OH.OH ON.O O om.N OH.O OO.NH ON.N OH.N ON.NH OH. OH.H ON.N ON.N OH.O ON.N ON.N OO.N ON.N ON.OH ON.H ON.N ON.N OH.O ON.NH ON.N ON.N ON.HH ON.N oN.O ON.N ON.N OH.O ON.HH ON.N OH.N ON.OH ON.N ON.O ON.N ON.N OH.O ON.NH ON.N ON.N ON.HH ON.OH ON.O OO.N ON.N OH.O ON.NH ON.N ON.N ON.NH ON.N ON.O ON.N ON.N OH.O OH.NH ON.N ON.H ON.N OH.HH OO.H OO.N ON.N OH.O ON.NH ON.N OO.N ON.NH OH.OH OO.H ON.N ON.N OH.O OO.HH ON.N OO.N ON.N ON.N OO.H OO.N OH.N OH.O ON.NH OO.N ON.H ON.N ON.OH ON.H ON.N ON.N OH.O ON.NH ON.N ON.N ON.HH ON.N OO.H ON.N ON.N OH.O ON.NH OH.N ON.N ON.OH ON.OH ON.H ON.N OO.N OH.O QN.NH ON.N ON.N ON.NH ON.N ON.N ON.N OH.N OH.O ON.NH NN.N ON.N ON.OH ON.N ON.N OO.N ON.N Mcwdm xflwdh UHOHH upwdm opmHm UHmHH 030m @dm Mflmwflllw onom 06m oudflm 020m 9mm no mahm ON.H NN.O ON.H NNN: OHHNNN O .N ON.H ON.N cams .Ngm om.N ON.H OO.N NH ON.N ON.O ON.N NH ON.N OO.H OH.N NH ON.N ON.H ON.N NH ON.N ON.O ON.N HH ON.N NN.H ON.N OH ON.N ON.H ON.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N N ON.N ON.H oN.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N N ON.N ON.H OO.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N N ON.N ON.O ON.N N ON.N OO.H ON.N N ON.N ON.O OH.N H .:H NN.H op HO.H NH NNOHN ON.H ON.O ON.H cam: OHnwmz ON.N ON.O OO. qu2 . m ON.N ON.H ONHM NH ON.N ON.O OO.N NH ON.N ON.O ON.N NH OH.N ON.O ON.N NH OO.N ON.O ON.N HH OH.N OO.H ON.N OH ON.N ON.O ON.N N ON.N oN.O ON.N N ON.N ON.O ON.N N ON.N ON.O ON.N N ON.N ON.O ON.N N ON.N ON.O ON.N N OO.N ON.O ON. N ON.N ON.O ON. N ON.N ON.O NN.N « on poMmHnm qumHnm NHNHH mnmnm sznm NHNHN 030m. \ .1 1.1.1. 1. -161- OH.O OH.O ON.O 00.N T2 To.“ .3." OO. ON.wH ON.NH OH.NH ON.NH ON.NH ON.NH ON.NH ON.NH 00.NH ON.NH ON.NH om.:H OH.NH mm.d 00.NN OH.N 03.0H 0:.OH oo.0 00.NH ON.N ON.OH ON.N oo.m ON.HH OH.OH ON.OH ON.N ON.N BE 00 m. cm. m ON.NH 00.NH oo.m ON.N ON.N om.NH 00.HH ON.HH ON.OH om.dH on.HH om.m OH.NH c> N1 tn oo 0 (flu—a 9:3. MOW-3' N MMMN MNNMMC‘N OOOOOOOOOOOO CDGJMCOOMOQHQBO 0000000 0 ooxommm \O .0... O O O «ufiwmdcn fix f4 00 ”B 0. NM om.w OH.N ON.NH OO.NH ON.NH ON.NH OH.NH 3;: ON.NH ON.NH OO.NH ON.NH ON.NH ON.NH ON.NH ON.NH ON.NH mn.o 0N.H ON.N ow.o ON.O ON.H 0N.H om.o 00.N 0N.H 0N.H 0N.H om.“ 0N.H 8. id'd’d’ mémmd M-fi'mN-fl' OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO O\HV\OO\HO\V\OO\HL\CDOH O O\ H ON.N ON.N ON.N O O m \0 o o H O 2383833838888 CJPHDCDthcdrdvhfiudvdrvH o \O o .nH nu. vx \0 O ON.N cam: OHHNNN o . c602 .mnm OO. NH ON.3 3H o:.3 NH ON.N NH ON.N HH O:.3 OH ON.N N ON.N N ON.N N ON.N N ON.N N ON.N 3 OO.N N ON.N N ON.N H O» HN. H> Nacho ON.N mama OHHNoz O .N mam: .Nnm OO.N NH ON.N 3H ON.N NH ON.N NH ON.N HH ON.N OH ON.N N ON.N N ON.N N OH.N N OO.N m 03 N ON.N N N H N w n unlvll In. s 3:. -162- ON.O NN.N om.om o .mfi om.mm O0.0N 0:.NN ON.ON om.NH oN.NH 00.HN 0N.mH ON.NN oo.wH OH.NN ON.NN ON.NH ON.NH ON.H O .H ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N OH.N ON.N ON.N OO.N ON.N ON.NH ON.NH OH.NH OH.NH ON.OH ON.NH ON.NH ON.NH ON.ON ON.NH ON.NH ON.NH ON.NH OO.NH O o n N O o o o 0 00000000 dOOChMfi-fib \O 0000 «nnbmfi . ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N NN.N ON.H ON.O O .N ON. ON. ONuH ON.N ON.H 30m omoH ON.N ON.H OH.N ON.H OH.N ON.H go ON.H ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.H ON.N OH.N OH.N OH.N ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.H .nH NN.H op ON.H NN.O O .N NN.H ONun ON.H ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.H ON.N o:.H OO.: ON.H ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.H 3N ON.H om.m om.H Odnm om.“ OHOJ ON.H om m om.H ON. N +~ 0N.H OH.H ON 3 ON. ON. ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N mama OHHpmz nmoz .wnm NH Na H Na Ha 0H HNMS’WQBCDO HO.H:HHH> macaw OH.N o 0 oo. CDCVOWE? ;N.:r:¥:id- 000 m 0 COO . O o _ £3VD\C>CV O O .d'dfizt :dmz OHHpoz cmvz .wsm NH 3H NH NH Ha 0H r4€V4F\:r‘¢T“3‘>'ODo~ NN.H op HO.H >H macho m:.mH dams OHHpmz cum: .wnm NH 3H NH NH HH oH udodru$UVOC\d)O\ Op.mm. HHH QSOHO NH.NH ON.NN ON.NN NN.NN ON.N: ON.NH ON.N ON.N O . N ON.N ON.NNH ON.NNH ON.OOH O . N ON.OH ON.ON ON.HN .3N .3. 0 00.:.“ WOWH.“ “com 0. H00." N.ON momN N.NN N.NN N.NNH N.NNH O.HHH N.N: N.HH N.ON N.NN N.NN N.ON N.NNH N.NOH N.NN N.NN N.N N.NH N.NN N.NN 3.3N N.NNH N.HNH N.OHH N.HN H.NH O.NN N.NN N.NN H.NN N.NNH N.NNH N.OOH H.NN O.OH H.HN O.ON N.NN N.NN N.HNH N.NNH N.NOH N.ON 0.0H N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NNH N.NHH N.NN N.NN N.OH N.ON N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NNH N.NHH N.NN N.NN N.N N.NH H.HN N.NN N.NN N.NNH O.NNH N.NOH N.ON N.N N.HN N.NN N.ON N.NN N.ONH N.NNH O.NOH N.HN H.HH H.NH N.ON N.NN N.NN N.NNH O.NNH N.NOH N.NN N.HH N.NH H.NN N.NN N.NN N.NNH N.NHH N.NN N.NN N.N N.ON N.NN N.NN O.NN N.NNH H.NHH N.NN N.NN H.HH N.NH 0.0N N.NN N.NN N.NNH N.NNH N.OOH O.ON N.N N.ON N.NN N.ON N.NN N.NNH N.NNH O.NN N.NN N.N N.HN N.NN in.“ OO.NH NN.NN ON.NN ON.NN OO.N: O:.NH ON.N Om.OH N ON.Om O . ON. mH Om.wmm OH.NOH OM.NN Om.OH O .NN O . N.NN .3N H.N H . NH N.NOH N.ON .OH N.HN .H N.NN N.NN N.HNH N.NNH N.NOH N.NN N.HH H.NH N.NN N.ON N.N: H.NNH N.NNH N.NHH O.NN N.HH O.NN N.NN H.NN N.N: N.NNH O.NNH N.NOH N.NN 0.0H N.NN O.NN N.NN N.N: N.NNH N.NNH N.NOH N.N: N.OH O.NN N.ON O.HN N.ON N.NNH N.NNH N.HHH N.HN N.OH N.NN N.NN N.ON N.NN N.NNH H.NNH O.NOH N.NN N.N N.NN N.NN 0.0N O.NN N.NNH O.NNH H.NOH H.NN N.OH N.ON N.NN N.NN N.NN N.NNH N.NNH N.NOH N.NN N.OH N.NN H.NN N.NN N.N: N.NNH N.HNH N.NOH N.NN H.HH N.NN N.NN N.ON H.ON O.NNH N.NNH N.HHH N.HN N.OH N.NN N.NN N.ON O.HN N.NNH O.NNH N.NOH N.N: N.N N.HN N.NN N.HN N.NN N.NNH N.NNH N.NOH N.NN N.OH N.HN O.NN N.NN N.NN N.NNH N.NNH N.NOH N.N: N.N O.NN N.NN N.NN N.NN N.HNH N.NNH N.NOH N.NN N.OH NumM OO.N O.NN mnom aHHe NHoHN ONHN NNHN xosno nHN :Hoq anom Hmuoe paw HHmpmm UHmHH mxmonm deoum axdoum mMGoum mammum 'i'-’ --.. l ..u” i, --.-‘1') \I“ 3 a) all”): 3 nix-nun): 8 ”303d 8 na— “33‘ 002 B mpmdon Hmonm -16 5— ON.ON :Noz OHHpoz Gama .wqm NH MH .NH NN. Op HN. H> mzono ON.NN cam: OHnNmz ON.NH O3.MN NH.NN NN.HN ON.NN OO.Mm NN.N ON.NN O . N OO. N O . HN 0.0 H ON.NmH O . O .HH O .H OH.mu N. 3 .HN .NHN .ONH N.N H .HN NH O.NN 3. 3 N.N: N.NN 0.0NN N.NNH N.NNH O.NN N.NH N.NN N.N: N.N: N.NN N.HHN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN H.NH N.HN N.NN N.HN N.NN N.NHN N.HNH N.NNH N.ON N.HH N.HN N.N: N.N: N.NN N.NNN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.NH N.NN N.N: N.HN N.NN N.NON N.ONH N.NNH N.NN N.OH N.NN N.N: N.ON 3.NN N.NNN N.NNH ON.ONH H.NN N.NH N.NN N.N: N.NN N.NN O.NHN N.ONH O.NNH N.NN N.OH H.NN N.N: N.HN H.ON N.NNN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.NH N.NN H.NN N.N: N.NN N.NON N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.HH 0.0N N.N: N.HN N.NN N.NNH N.NNH N.NNH N.NN H.OH N.NN N.N: N.N: N.NN N.NNN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.HH 3.NN H.N: O.N: N.NN N.NNN N.NNH H.NNH N.NN O.HH N.ON O.N: N.N: N.NN N.NHN N.NNH H.NNH N.NN N.NH N.NN N.HN N.NN O.NN H.OHN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.OH N.NN N.N: OM.ON OM.MN NN.NOH OM.MN ON.OM ON.NN OO.N ON.Nm N O . O . m . NN O . H O. H OO.Ow ON. H O . O .O .NN .HN muNNN O.N H .HNH N HN N.HH Numn .O H.HN N.ON N.NHN N.NNH N.NNH H.NN N.NH N.NN N.N: N.NN N.NN N.NHN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.NH O.NN N.N: N.N: H.NN N.NHN O.NNH O.NNH N.NN O.NH N.NN N.NN N.N: N.NN N.NNN N.NNH N.NNH N.HN N.NH N.NN N.NN N.N: N.NN O.NNN N.OON N.NNH H.NN N.NH N.NN N.HN N.N: N.NN N.NHN N.NNH N.ONH O.NN N.HH N.HN N.ON N.NN N.NN N.HNN N.NNH N.HNH N.NN N.NH N.NN N.N: N.N: N.NN N.NHN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN O.NH O.NN N.N: N.NN N.NN N.NNN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.NH N.NN 3.NN N.N: N.ON H.NHN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.HH N.NN H.N: N.N: N.NN N.NNN O.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.NH H.NN N.NN NHN: N.NN N.NNN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.NH N.NN N.N: m.mm wumw mummm MHNMH HHNNH N.NN N.NH N.NN N.NN O H m QMH N030 O.NH Nofim Mom: memm aHna NHmHH 2N0: .wsm NH -166- ON.Mm ON.NN ON.NN ON.NN ON.mm om.Nm OM.N Oa.MH OM.NH gums OHnwmz ON. O .N ON.N H O .H H ON. H O .N O .NH O . N O . . cams . N N.NN .N O.NON m.omH N.NNH H.NN O.NH N. N “.m: NH N.NN N.HN H.NNH N.NNH H.NNH N.N: O.NH N.NN N.HN 3H m.NN N. N N.NNH N.NNH H.NNH H.N N.HH O.NN N.NN NH .NN N. N N.NNH N.ONH N.HNH N.N N.NH N.NN N.NN NH N.NN N.NN N.HNH N.NNH O.NNH N.N: H.NH N.NN N.N: HH N.HN O.NN O.NON N.NNH N.HNH N.NN H.NH N.NN N.N: OH OO.NN N.HN N.NNH N.NNH H.NNH N.NN N.OH N.NN H.HN N N.NN N.ON O.NNH H.NNH O.NNH O.N: N.NH N.NN N.NN N N.NN N.NN 0.00N N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.NH O.NN N.NN N N.NN N.NN N.NNH H.HNH O.NNH H.NN N.OH N.NN N.ON N N.NN H.HN N.NNH N.NNH N.NNH N.NN O.NH O.NN H.N: N N.NN N.NN N.NNH N.NNH N.NNH N.N: N.NH N.NN N.HN 3 N.ON O.NN N.NNH N.ONH N.NNH N.N: N.OH N.NN N.NN N H.HN N.NN N.NHN O.NNH O.NNH N.NN N.NH H.ON N.N: N N.ON N.NN N.NNH N.NNH O.NNH N.NN H.HH O.NN ON.NN H .:H NN.H OH HO.H HHH> Nzonw Om.NH OM.3M NN.NN OO.NN ON.NN NN.Nm ON.N ON.NH ON.mH NNN: OHnwmz O .Om O . OW.mON ON. NH O . O . ON.NH O .NN Om. m mama . N 0N .3. m o H O.OWH OH H .3 WOW." .3N 0 “fl O.ON O.NN N.NNH N.NNH N.NNH N.NN N.HH N.NN N.NN 3H N.N: N.NN N.NON N.NNH N.NNH H.NN N.NH N.NN H.N: NH N.ON N.NN N.NON N.NNH N.NNH O.NN N.NH H.NN H.N: NH N.NN N.NN N.NON N.NNH N.NNH N.N: N.NH N.NN H.N: HH N.N: N.NN N.NHN N.HNH N.NNH H.NN N.NH H.NN O.N: OH N.HN N.NN N.NON N.NNH N.NNH N.HN N.NH N.NN N.N: N N.NN N.NN N.NON N.NNH N.ONH N.NN H.NH H.NN N.N: N N.NN N.NN N.NNH N.NNH N.NNH N.N: O.NH N.NN N.NN N N.N: N.NN N.OHN N.NNH N.NNH N.NN O.HH N.NN N.N: N N.NN N.NN N.NNH N.NNH N.HNH N.N: N.NH O.NN N.N: N N.N: NH.NN N.OON N.NNH N.HNH N.NN N.OH N.NN N.ON a m.m3 N.NN N.HHN N.NNH M.NmH m.MN M.HH m.Nm N.N: N H : N.NN N.NNN N.NNH .N H . N .HH .H N. N N a: N.NN N.HON N.NNH N.NNH O.NN N.N N.HN N.N“ H Onom H.HHH. 0 on.“ o O o HfiPOB 90m wauww Umqm Dmflm MOSSO Dam SHOA 00 a p 0% HH¢ QfiOHO HdflhvpfiH mmwohdv mmeHm mmmwom 02 pm NNN -167- ON.H ON.O OH.H ON.H OH.H cam: OHupoN O .N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N cams .Nnm ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N O .N NH ON.N OH.N ON.N ON.N ON.N 3H ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N NH ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N NH OO.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N HH ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N OH ON.N ON.H OH.N ON.N OH.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N OH.N ON.N N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N OH.N ON.H OO.N OH.N OO.N 3 ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N OO.N ON.N O:.N ON.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N H .NH NN. op HN. HH macaw ON.H ON.O ON.H ON.H ON.H cams OHHNNN ON.N ON.H O .N ON.N ON.N NNN: .Nnm ON.N ON.H O .N ON.N O .N NH ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N 3H ON.N ON.H ON.N O:.N ON.N NH ON.N ON.H ON.N o3.N ON.N NH ON.N ON.H ON.N OH.N ON.N HH ON.N ON.H ON.N O$.N ON.N OH ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N N OH.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N o:.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N N OO.m OH.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON. ON.N ON. OO. ON. Oinm OO.N ON.N om.“ OH.N : 0.3-n OH.N OH.” OH. m 00 M OO.N OmoN ON.N OMom N O .N warn—”03.5 II, m wflfindom dfifldm OCH om. OP cm. H -168- OO.H ON.O ON.O ON.H ON.O NNN: oHnNoz ON.N ON.H OH.N ON.N OH.N saws .Ngm OH.N On.H ON.H O .N OO.N NH ON.H Oa.H ON.H ON.N ON.H 3H ON.H ON.H OH.N ON.N ON.H NH o3.N ON.H OH.N ON.N OH.N NH OO.N ON.H OO.N ON.N ON.N HH ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N OH.N OH OO.N ON.H ON.H ON.N ON.H N OH.N Oa.H OO.N ON.N OH.N N OH.N ON.H ON.H ON.N OH.N N Om.N ON.H o:.N ON.N ON.N N O .N ON.H ON.H ON.N OO.N N ON.N ON.H Oa.N ON.N Oa.N 3 OH.N ON.H OO.N ON.N OO.N N ON.N ON.H OH.N ON.N OH.N N On.N ON.H ON.N ON.N OH.N H .NH NN.H on HO.H NH Nzonu ON.H Ow.O OH.H O:.m ON.H gum: OHnwmz O .N O . pN.N OH. O .N amoz . m ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ONuN NH ON.N ON.H O:.N ON.N ON.N 3H ON.N ON.H ON.N OH.N ON.N NH ON.N ON.H Oa.N ON.N Oa.N NH ON.N ON.H ON.N OO.N ON.N HH ON.N ON. ON.N ON.N ON.N OH ON.N ON.H ON.N OH.N ON.N N ON.N ON.H Oa.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N OO.N ON.N N OHHN ON.H ON.N OO.N OH.N : ON.N ON.H OH.N ON.N ON.N N mm.m ONHH ON.N OH.N ON.N N mfihofizm mgflmom .mHDHm .HHHEmm OH.HH 00 .PDOD. 0m . HHH @5090 032.. «:3 .oz + mzHNNm ammpm -169- Om.m OH.H ON.N Om.N ON.N cams oHnwmm O . O .N O . O .H O . mam: . ON.N O .N om.n ON.N ON.N NH ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N 3H ON.N ON.N OH.N O$.3 OH.N NH ON.N ON.N ON.N OH.N OO.N NH ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N HH ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N OH.N OH Oa.N ON.N ON.N OO.: OH.N N ON.N OO.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.N OH.N ON.N OO.N N ON.N ON.N ON.N o3.: ON.N N ON.N ON.N OO.N ON.N OH.N N ON.N OH.N OH.N ON.N ON.N 3 ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.N ON.N o:.N OO.: H .:H NN. Op HN. H> Nsonu ON.N OH.H ON.N OH.N ON.N cam: oHnwmm ON. ON.N O . O . . cams . OH.N ON.N O . OH.m ON.N NH ON.N ON.N OH.N ON.N ON.N 3H ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N OO.N NH ON. ON.N ON.N ON.N Oa.N NH ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N HH ON.N o:.N ON.N OO.N ON.N OH ON.N ON.N ON.N OO.N ON.N N ON.N ON.N ON.N OO.: ON.N N ON.N ON.N ON.N Oa.3 OH.N N OH.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N mw.m wm.m om.m ON.N ON.m N o o O o omod 0:. AN ON”: ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N O:.N ON.N OO.N ON.N N ON N ON.N OO.N ON.N ON.N H l 0C” o o msgmadm «Hammom mHth Hsamm «Wamm on em ¢omsohc LI 31:135.... .l’-i|. -l70- Q: H ON.O ON.H ON.H ON.H :Nm: OHapoz OH.N OH.N O .N ON.N ON.N 2mm: .sz OO. OH.N ON.N ON.N ON.N NH ON.N OO.N ON.N ON.N ON.N NH ON.N OO.N ON.N ON.N ON.N NH ON.N OO.N ON.N ON.N ON.N NH ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N HH ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N OH ON.N OO.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N OO.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N OO.N OH.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N OH.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N OH.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N OO.N OH.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.N OO.N ON.N OO.N N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N OO.N H .:H NN.H op HO.H HHH> NOOHO ON.H OO.H ON.H ON.H O:.m mama OHnwmm O . ON.N O .N OO. OH. NNN: . OO. ON.H O .N ON.m ON.N NH Oa.N Os.N ON.N OH.N OH.N NH ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N Oa.N NH OH.N ON.N ON.N OO. ON.N NH OH.N OH.N OO.N ON.N OH.N HH ON.N Oz.N ON.N ON.N ON.N OH ON.N o:.N OO.N ON.N OO.N N ON.N ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N OH.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N ON.N N wN.m ON.H ON.N ON.N ON.N N N” ON.N OO. OH.N O .N ON.N ON.N ON.N OO.: Om.N m on m OioN 000m 0 o o IIW5H085M MHSQdom ON 3 ofid owm.m H MMmMm “seem Nch on NN. HH> NsOHo 00.2 J‘ + mdavdm Hmmpn Hal" -' l'-'. 'a ... -171- N.N N.N N.N H.N N.N N.N N.N N.N N.N- N.N N.NNNnmms OHHNNN NN. NN. NN. NN. NN. NH. NN. ON. NN. NH. O.NHN ado: .Nsm NO NO NNMN NO NO NO NN.N NH NO NO HHN NH NO NO NN.N NO HH NO O0.0H HH NH NO NHN NH OH NO OO.N OH NO NO NN.N OH NH NO HON NH NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N OH NH NO NNN NH NO NO NN.N NO OH NO O0.0H HH NH NO NNN HH NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N HO OH NO NHN OH NO NO OO.N NO NO NO OO.N NO NO NO HHN N NO NO NN.N NO NO NO OO.N NO NO NO NON N NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NHN N NO NO OO.N NO NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NHN N NO NO NN.N nNO NO NO NN.N NO HH NO ONN N NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NHN N NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NNN N NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N HH NO NO NNN N NO NO NN.N NO NO HO NN.N NO NO NO NNN H xii an .r ti .1 .1 HIV .:a on. 0» mm. mQHmpmwom xH macho .NH N .:H N .N>¢ .quH NH .:H N wnH N .N>4 .NH NH .:H N .:H N .9029 .uoss .nosa NNN .nona .nosa .nosa .nosa NNN .nona .nona .nona up: .oz szN NNHN Npm sum Nam NNN NNN NNN .onmo noopm NNNONNm: NNN m>HaomNNo u onaNNqN>m Nm< .NH NH .:H N .oz Hanowm Hanoam. Hunoum HmHOdm Hanodm Pam Hgomm Hgoum Huhodm .955 «EN .nfisq .nazq Hoopm :pN .lmpm upN .MpN awn mmo N... .N. .... N. .... ..N. N. N... N. NN. N.NNN... O NN.OH NH NH NO N OH NO NO .N O NH NO NN.N OH NH NO NN.N NO OH NO NN.N NO NH NO NN.NH NH NH NO OO.NH NH NN NO OO.N NO NH NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N NO NH NO NN.N NH NO NO NN.N OH HH NO NN.N NO HH NO OO.N HH NO NO NN.N NO OH NO NN.N NO OH NO NN.OH HH NH NO NN.HH NH NH NO OO.N NO N NO NN.N HH OH NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N NO N NO OO.N NO OH NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N NO N NO OO.N NO NO NO NNaN NO NH NO NN.N NO N NO NN.N NO OH NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.N NO N NO NN.N NO NO NO NN.OH HH NH NO NN.N NO N mm ww.» Mm mH mo mm.N NO NO NO mm.m NO N H O O .N OH O O . O .30 mm .HH NH min no NH.N. mo mo W0 coon. Mo M ”H.HH 3 o . wbd and .N. HJIQ'HH m «Had . w LII! . d cg O o - “H.HH #845 Sn: .mgg .955. .Qfizuw .Q§J>Mn4 H.nmlmm .53 m on.“ d O Pd :3. a... .u - N.OH H.NN N.NN N.NNH NN.NN NNN: oHnNoz N.N .NN .NN .NN NN. NNN: .Nnm ON... 4TH. Imam. .mfl. 134$. 3 ON.N N.NN N.NN N.NN oN.NH NH OO.N N.NN N.NN N.HN ON.HH NH ON.N N.NN H.NN N.NN NN.HH NH ON. N.HN O.NN N.NN ON.NH HH ON. N.HN O.NN N.NN ON.NH OH ON.N N.NN O.NN N.NN NN.N N ON.N N.NN N.NN N.NN NN.OH N ON.N N.NN O.NN N.NN ON.HH N OO.N N.NN N.NN N.NN NO.HH N ON.N N.HN N.NN N.NN NN.N N ON.N N.NN N.NN N.NN ON.NH N ON.N N.NN H.NN N.NN NN.OH N ON.N N.NN N.NN N.NN ON.HH N OH.N N.NN N.NN N.NN ON.OH H .HH on. on NN. mQNOpmHom NH @3090 Spmmm mocwHNNHSOHHo nuwwoq spwnmq amhm .oz pmxmdnm unfiom unsom .onwo NNHON .m. nmopm -173- mazmsmmbmdmx MbHaombmo I ZOHBqDHdfim mm¢UMqo u HHH MHQZMNMQ NMN N.N N.N N.N N.N N.HH N.N new: oHawmm o No mm. N. Ho ”H. u 0 “mm: 0 MH wo NO NO NO NO NH NH NH NO NO NO NO NH NO NH NH NH NH NO NO NO NO NH NO NO NO NO NO NH NO NH NO NO NO NO NO NO NH HH NO NO NO NO NO NH HH OH NO NO NO NO NO NH OH N NO NO NO NO NO NO NH N NO NO NO NO NO NO NO N NO NO NO NO NO NH NO N NO NO NO NO NO NO NH N NH NO NO NO NO NH NO N NO NO NO NO NO NH NO N NH NO NO NO NO NH NO N NO NO NO NO NO mo NO H m .HH... 3 o 3) 3V . nHNADJ “p.433 44 33-45 ¢_..H~...-YM I. II I \ .... n I I ..I . . . n I...: N .. I_,.:-..~ .NONJ —v ... -—,u_...d.—-N~d I u .. .N. I . NH I . \J . ... . I . 3. I .. N. )3 1‘ .A. .. O N _ . v . u I ll 1'71"} . . V P ' N .. v » . y . . v. 9 u U . . o . , I x. x ' ‘ 1d \ . . o o y r .- .. . p r F 1 I a r I O Q , , O 1 s O . u _. . v a u . 3 r r a . .1 . v . u _ _ _ I'll v,.1...v. I DINI. ‘0. 1F. t a 11“ II -174- . . . . . . . 00.n om.n smog adapoz om H om NHN on H: oN ONN om m ON.N om.:fi . o .NH smog .mnm OO.: ON.NQN 0:.Hm om. N omHNH om.HN om.fim o .NH o .NH ma .... ...... .2. 4% N.N .....me JNN NN.NN -W N o 0N o o o a o “0.HH H . . N ofi Hm ow Na 0 0:.N ON.N:N N mm ON.onN ON.NH 0:.WN 0:.Nm OH.N“ ON.NH Na ON.N OH.NNN N.NN om.mNN ON.NH om. o .NN 0:.mfi ON.NH NH OH. OO.MBN Gomm OO mum OW.HH OH.NN w. o 0 OH ON.N mm.mmm MHWM ”WHWWW m%.mw mm.wm mm.mm wm.mw wm.ww N O 0.3 o o o o o o $.N w om.m wm.mmm w” mw.wwm wm.m# mm.MN 00.NN ON.N ON.NH m 0 ad Hos . o . N.ON OH.HM OO.NH om. H o . OH.NoN o. on moN ON.NN oo. . . . m N.NN N NNN N.N N.N “3m N.N N.NN N OH. 0 o o c o o o H OH.N OO.NNN N. ofl mNN co m on mN om.Mm ommmomeN. mmmopmaom xH macaw . . m .02 Edge mpso .m.m + mpsmm Mp” mmmwm ommmm nomeHm mmmm nompm G O - Hg.“ pan pmm mmwwmm mpDWOhmem.uanpcD mo .pz Jamafiezoov .4. B fieémfi . . . . .NN ON.NN ON.NN ON.NNH cams adapoz 00.n: 0H m: 0N NH 0: Ha ON.NN o:. m ON.H om.m o .Nmn cams .wgm 00.nofi oo. ON 0 . N ofi.mw ON.Om o .H . . ma J. i. t. NHN A... $me .31.... l; N.NN m. on. OH ON.N . . . . n.N m a \o o o o a m: cm QR C..—NNm O ‘3 00 30 CW om om HN 00 NN 05.53 ON. B.“ owomw Owowmm NH om.moH 0:.ofifi om.NN ON.NN o:.:m ofi.nm on. N oo.0m ON.HNm NH ON.NHN ON.NNN ON.NN om.:N om Hm om Nn o .:N . .Nmm OH o . o . boom 00 mm on Om OH ON.NON 0: NON ON mN om.oN om.g o . n ON.NN ON.HN om.mnm m 0N.Hofi ON.NOH oo.mN on mN ON.Hn on.N N.m om.oN oa.:mm N ON.mofi 0N.moH ON.NN on.mN ON.N: 00.N: o . N om.:m ON.Nnm N OO.NON ON.NON 03.:N ON.NN om on on an ON.NN . .mmm o o a o o o omd OW m5 ow Hm Ow om OOH oo Nod on 0N on NN ON.N: on. O.HN oo.mm oo.::m m o Ofi Ofi.WOH 00.NN Cmomm 00 on Odoflm O o o o mm.mofi om.m0H ON.NN on.oN oa.mn ow mm ou.mn om.am ou.mnm : om.N0fi ON.NOH 00.NN ON.NN oo.m¢ om.m: on mm ON om ow can m oa.nofi oo.00a ON.NN ON.NN ON.N: om.on OH.mm o:.mw ow.mom N om.m0H ON.OOH oH.mN om.mN om.on OO.Hn om.ow ON.Nm om.mom a .2“ N. mgfimpm om NH Nacho £0.90 0 .uaam .wammmp .mwma .umwmwa .Mqu :Noq ucsom unsom .pz .02 iflfiflJflwmmwaas «>«43imw- 52- 00.0 00.0 00.: 0m.N 0M.M 0M.5 0m.0 00.0 00.N 00.N 05.0 05.N use: o0nwmm 00.0 00.00 0N.00 0 .u 0 . 0 . 0 .H 0N. . . 0 .0 00. smog . 0000 00.00 00 00 00 a 00.00 00.m0 0N 0 00.: 0m.m 00.0 0 .0 0 . 00 0N.0 00.0 00.00 0N.: 00.N 00.50 00.0 05.0 0N.5 00.0 0N.0 0N.0 :0 0N.0 00.00 0N.00 0N.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.0 0N.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 00 00.0 00.00 0N.00 0N.m 05.0 00.N0 05.0 00.: 00.0 0N.0 00.0 00.0 N0 0N.0 0N.00 00.00 00. 00.N0 00.00 0N.0 05.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 0N.0 0N.00 00.00 0N.: 0N.00 0N.00 00.0 00.0 05.0 00.0 05.0 05.0 00 00.0 00.00 00.0 00.: 05.00 00.50 00.0 0N.: 0N.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 00.5 0N.0 0N.0 00.N 00.N0 00.N 00.: 0N.0 05.: 00.0 00.0 N 00.0 0N.0 0N.00 00.0 00.N 00.N0 00.N 00.: 05.5 0N.0 00.0 0N.0 5 0N.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.N0 00.0 00.0 0N.: 00.: 00.0 00.0 0 0N.0 00.00 00.0 00.0 0N.00 00.00 00.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0N.0 0 00.0 05.00 00.00 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.: 05.0 05. 00.0 05.0 0 0N.0 00.N 00.0 00.0 00.5 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 00.00 0N.00 00.: 05.00 00.00 00.0 00.: 0N.0 00.0 00.0 0N.0 N 00.0 00.00 05.00 00.0 00.N 00.00 00.0 00.: 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 .a .00 00. 00 N. mn0opm0om x0 0:000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 00000 0000000 poxm0nm 00000 madam 00000 00000 qoz :5 008m 9.0.001 00cm .0 2.8m 2.8m mm Madam 000mm m 00020004 00.5 05.: 0N.0m 00.N 00.N 00.5 00 M 00.N 00.00 0N.0 0N.M 05M0M0naoa o0nwmm 00.00 0m 00 0m.5 0 . 00. 0N. 0 . pm.mm 00. 00. 0 . cams . 00.00 0N 00 0N 0N 0 .0 00.0 0m.00 000“ 00 0 .0 0 00 0N.0 _00000 00 00.00 0N.0 05.55 00.0 05.N 00.00 0005 00.0 00.N0 0N.00 0N.5 0N.N0 0 00.00 00.00 00.05 00.0 00.N 00.00 00.0 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.5 00.50 0 00.00 00.00 00.NN 0N.: 00.0 00 :0 00 N 05.5 00.N0 05.00 0N.5 00.00 N0 00.50 05.N0 00.0N 05.0 00.0 00.00 00.5 00.5 00.00 00.00 00.0 00.N0 00 00.00 00.00 0N.00 00.0 00.0 00.N0 00.N 0N.0 05.00 0N.00 00.0 00.N0 00 00.50 00.00 00.05 00.: 05.N 00.00 00.5 05.0 00.00 00.00 0N. 00.50 0 05.00 00.0 00.N5 00.0 00.N 00.00 05.0 00.0 0N.00 00.00 0N.5 000N0 N 00.50 00.00 05.N5 00.0 05.N 00.50 0: 00.0 00.00 0N.00 00.5 00.00 5 05.00 00.0 00.05 05.0 0N.0 00.N0 00 00.: 0N.50 00.00 00.0 00.N0 0 00.50 00.00 00.05 00.: 00.0 00.00 0N. 00.0 00.00 00.00 00.5 00.5: 0 0N.00 00.00 00.05 00.0 00.: 00 50 0N. 0N.N 0N.50 0N.00 00.5 00.50 : 0N.00 00.0 0N.55 00.: 00.N 00.00 0N. 00.0 00.50 05.00 00.0 0N.00 0 0:”00 00.N0 0 .55 00.: 00.0 00.N0 00.0 05.0 00.00 00.00 00.5 00.00 N 00 50 00.00 0N.00 0N.0 00.N 00.50 00.N 00.0 0N.00 00.00 0N.5 00.N0 0 0:000 090 00.00000 ozom pom 00.00.; 00 . N. gaovaom M 0030.000 0 o 0 0:0 .0 Ixofino 009:8 “0250 @000 cam 0.20 00.00% 00wa mow» undom 0.“..me WMMMWF .00on BDOBDU QH‘HHN m >H NHQZHQN‘ -l76- 00.N 00.0 0m.N 00.N 00.0 0002 000wmm 0 .0 0N.N 0 .0 0N. 00.n 000: . 0 .0 00.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 0N.0 00.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 00.0 00.N 00.0 00.0 05.0 00 00.0 00.0 0N.0 00.0 00.0 N0 00.0 0N.0 0N.0 00.0 00.0 00 00.0 0N.N 0N.0 00.0 05.0 00 00.0 05.N 05.0 00.0 00.0 0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 N 00.0 05.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 5 00.0 05.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 0N.0 0N.N 00.0 00.0 00.0 0 0N.0 00.N 00.0 00.0 0N.0 0 00.0 0N.N 00.0 00.0 05.0 0 05.0 00.N 00.0 0N.0 00.0 N 05.0 0N.0 00.0 0N.0 00.0 0 .t. .1 .0H 00. 00 0N. mmwwwm0om x0 00000 m:kmafim wdsmwom 0090m asamm and: .02 .r1.1 00000 + 000000 00000 000000: 0200 0 >0 00020000 0N.0m 00.M0 0M.M00 00.0w 0N.0m 0N.NN 00.0 0m.0m 0.NN 00020000mmm 0 . 00. N 0 . NN 0N.0 00. 0N.N 00.NH 0 .0 0m. 0 :0 a . 00.m0 0N.0N 00.0NN 00.NN0 00.m00 00.00 00.N0 00.00 00 0 00 00.00 00.0N 00.N0N 00.N00 00.000 0N.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 0N.00 .00.5N 0N.00N 00.050 00.000 0N.00 00.00 00.00 00.50 00 00.00 05.NN 00.N0N 00.N00 0N.000 00.00 00.0 05.N0 00.00 N0 00.50 05.0N 00.00N 0N.500 00.000 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00 00.N0 05.5N 0N.00N 00.000 00.000 0N.00 00.00 0N.NN 00.00 00 00.50 00.0N 00.NNN 00.0N0 000N00 000N0 00000 00.0N 00.N 0 00.00 05.0N 0N.00N 00.000 00.000 00.00 05.00 00.00 0N.N N 00.00 00.5N 05.00N 00.000 00.000 00.50 00.00 00.00 00.00 5 05.N0 00.0N .0N.5NN 0N.NNO 00.000 00.00 00.N0 00.00 00.N0 0 00.N0 05.5N 05.00N 00.050 00.000 00.00 00.00 00.0N 00.00 0 00.00 0N.N0 00.0NN 00.0N0 00.000 00.00 00.00 00.00 05150 0 00.00 00.NN 00.00N 00.000 00.000 0N.00 00.00 0N.00 00.00 0 0N.00 00.0N 0N.00N 00.N00 00.500 05.00 00.00 0N.0N 0N.00 N 00.00 00.0N 05.00N 05.000 00.000 00.50 00.N0 00.0N 00.00 0 :LHILI. .UI .m0 om. opimm. mn0mpmfiom xH @3000 0000 0000 00000 0000 0000 00000 000 0000 00000 .02 dance Dam H0mpmm UHOHH mxmvpm mmeHm mxwopm mxmopm mxwopm hoopm HGSHOQQH mmGOHwO Hdwmom Q mpmwom Q m pmwom Q mpmwom Q mamwom Q mpmwom .4mszHHzoov m 5H uanHZandd HUI 'Krkla; 95'0“. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVER ITY HI HIIUH iUII filmlilfllililfl 1 J 4 8 l | 3 1293 03071