mum cALomc DENSITY AND GALomc unuzmow m THE PIG - - Thais for the Degree of M. S. I MICRIGAN. STATE UNWERSIIY .SOMSAK VATBAM 1.93M ? Emilee: BY "‘ "MB 8: 301W 300K WT INC“ LIBRARY BINDfiRS‘ w 01 “ ABSTRACT ‘ DIETARY CALORIC DENSITY AND CALORIC UTILIZATION IN THE PIG BY Somsak Vathana The study consisted of two experiments, one an energy and nitrogen balance trial and the other a feeding trial. To evaluate feed energy density upon the perfor- mance of growth (starter, grower and finisher) rations were formulated to meet the nutrient requirements but were either high or low in energy. The low energy density rations contained 40% oats along with corn and dehulled soybean meal to meet limiting amino acid requirements. The high energy density rations contained 2% tallow along with corn and dehulled soybean meal to also meet limiting_amino acid requirements. Adequate levels of minerals and vitamins were included in all rations. Energy values which were determined for the high and low energy density grower rations (kcal/kg), respectively, were 3517 and 3260 for DE, 3473 and 3220 for ME and 3381 and 3117 for N corrected ME. Similar values (kcal/kg) for high and low energy finishing rations,respectiVely, were 3430 and 3093 for DE, 3389 and 3049 for ME and 3330 and 7”" v. 1.... v'. _ .. Somsak Vathana 2978 for N corrected ME. Diet energy density did not appreciably influence nitrogen balance. The feeding trial was a 23 factorial of a high and low energy density ration in each of the starting, growing and finishing periods. Since the starter period was only two weeks and there was no statistically significant effect of starter diet energy density upon subsequent grower per- formance, the overall data were treated as a 22 factorial of high and low energy density rations during a 6 week growing and ten week finishing period. Dietary energy density during the growing period did not significantly influence pig performance during the growing period. Dietary energy density during this period did, however, influence subsequent performance during the finishing period which was sufficiently significant to affect overall growing and finishing performance. Pigs consuming the low energy density ration during the growing period consumed more feed and energy and tended to gain faster during the finishing period. However, they tended to be less efficient in feed and energy utilization than those pigs which consumed the high energy density ration during the growing period. Pigs which consumed the high energy density ration during the growing period followed by the low energy density ration during the finishing period were the most efficient converters of energy to gain. Furthermore, the ham plus loin weight of these pigs as a percent of their carcass weight was significantly Somsak Vathana greater than that of the other diet energy density combina- tions. Dietary energy density did not significantly influence dressing percentage or the incidence of gastric ulcers. DIETARY CALORIC DENSITY AND CALORIC UTILIZATION IN THE PIG BY Somsak Vathana A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Animal Husbandry 1975 To my beloved country, Thailand and to my parents ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere appreciation and thanks to Dr. E. R. Miller for his expert guidance and encouragement throughout this course of study. His extremely helpful assistance, interest and wisdom will always be remembered. Appreciation is extended to Dr. D. E. Ullrey and Dr. J. R. Black for serving on the thesis committee. Special thanks are due to Dr. W. T. Magee for his assistance in the statistical analysis and to Drs. I. H. Zeitoun and P. K. Ku who assisted in the use of laboratory facilities and in analytical procedures. The assistance of F. F. Green, fellow graduate students, laboratory staff and departmental secretaries will be always remembered. Special thanks are also extended to Irene Orr for her efficient and skillful tyPing of this manuscript. Above all, the author is indebted to his father and mother, whose sacrifices and encouragement have made this study worthwhile. iii VITA SOMSAK VATHANA CANDIDATE FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE DIETARY CALORIC DENSITY AND CALORIC DISSERTATION: UTILIZATION IN THE PIG OUTLINE OF STUDIES: Main Area: Swine Nutrition Minor Area: Swine Management BIOGRAPHICAL ITEMS: April 15, 1949, Denchai, Thailand Born: Education: Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand 1968-1972. Animal Husbandry (B.S.) Michigan State University, 1973-1975. . Animal Husbandry (M.S.) MEMBER: Alpha Zeta Beta Beta Beta iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Vi I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Methods of Determining Energy Values . . . . 3 Energy Values of Diet Ingredients . . . . . 7 Factors Affecting the Energy Values . . . . 7 Physical Factors . . . . . . . . . 7 The Effect of Fiber Content . . . . . . 15 The Effect of Pelleting . . . . . . . 17 Physiological Factors . . . . . . . . 19 Energy x Mineral Interaction . . . . . . . 23 Requirements for Vitamins . . . . . . .. . 26 III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE . . . . . . ‘. . . 32 Experiments . . . . . . . . . Experiment 1. Feeding trial: Effect of Energy Density of Diets During Starting-Growing-Finishing Period on the Performance of Pigs . . . . . 32 -Experiment 2. Balance Trial . . . . . 37 Analytical Procedures . . . . . . . . . 39 Feed and Feces . . . . . . . . . . 39 Urine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . 40 IV 0 RESULTS 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 1 Experiment 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Experiment 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 v. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . .‘ . . 57 VI I CONCLUS IONS . O C O O O . C . . C C . . 6 3 BIBLImMPHY . . C O O . . . O . . . . . . 66 APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O 77 Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. LIST OF TABLES Energy Values of Diet Ingredients for Swine . . . . . . . . . . . . . Requirements for Vitamins of Young Pigs . . MSU Corn-Soy Rations . . . . . . . . MSU VTM Premix . . . . . . . . . . Nutrient Values of MSU 16 Compared to Requirements . . . . . . . . . . Composition of Starter Rations . . . . . Composition of Grower Rations . . . . . Composition of Finisher Rations . . . . . Design of Experiment 1 . . . . . . . . Summary of Pig Performance on Starting Period_ Summary of Pig Performance on Growing Period Summary of Pig Performance on Low Energy Finishing Ration . . . . . . . . . Summary of Pig Performance on High Energy Finishing Ration . . . . . . . . . Summary of Pig Performance of Finishing Period Summary of Overall Pig Performance . . . . Summary of Balance Trial of Growing Rations . Summary of Balance Trial of Finishing Rations O O O O O O O O O O O 0 vi Page 28 29 29 30 34 35 36 37 43 43 45 45 47 50 52 54 Table . Page 18. Determined Energy Values of Growing and Finishing Rations . . . . . . . . . . 55 19. Metabolizable Energy Values of Feed Ingredients (AS‘fEd BaSiS) o o o o o o o o o o. o 55 A-l Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, Low-High-Low . . . . . . . . 77 A-2 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, High—High-Low . . . . . . . 78 A-3 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, Low-High-High . . . . . . . 79 A-4 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, High—Low—Low . . . . . . . . 80 A—S Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, High-Low-Low . . . . . . . . 81 A-6 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, High-Low-High . . . . . . . 82 A-7 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, Low—Low-High . . . . . . . . 83 A-8 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, High-Low—Low . . . . . . . . 84 A-9 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, Low-Low-High . . . . . . . . 85 A-10 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, High-High-High . . . . . . . 86 A-ll Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, Low—High-High . . . . . . . 87 A-12 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, High-High-Low . . . . . . . 88 A-l3 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy SCth‘UleS ’ ( o o o ) "LOW'LOW o o o . o o o o 89 A-l4 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, (...)-Low-High . . . . . . . 90 vii Table Page A-15 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, (...)—High-Low . . . . . . . 91 A—l6 Performance Data, Experiment 1, Energy Schedules, (...)—High—High . . . . . . . 92 A-17 Balance Trial, Experiment 2 . . . . . . . 93 A-18 Balance Trial, Experiment 2 . . . . . . . 94 viii I . INTRODUCTION Feed costs represent the largest portion of the expenses of producing swine. Feed ingredients which pro- vide energy account for the largest portion of feed costs. Swine producers have become acutely aware of this with the world energy shortage raising the cost of feed energy. They are caloric cost conscious. Feed energy is essential in all aspects of the maintenance, growth and development of swine including the operation of the vital functions to sustain life as well as the productive functions of the synthesis of a high quality product for human food. The efficient utilization of feed energy has today become economically the single most important aspect of swine nutrition, taking on even greater significance than efficient utilization of dietary protein. Nutrition now and for years to come will emphasize nutritional balance to maximize the efficiency of feed energy utilization for product synthesis. Modern production of meat type swine has advanced in the United States in spite of little premium to the producer because he has recognized that this type is a more efficient converter of feed energy to product than strains of pigs predisposed to the production of more body fat. The selection of pigs which produce a lean carcass under full feeding conditions also minimizes maintenance energy needs and further contributes to maximum conversion of feed energy to product synthesis. There are a wide variety of energyingredients which may be incorporated into the swine diet. These may differ greatly in their digestible or metabolizable energy value. Since cellulose is largely undigested by swine, feed ingredients which contain a considerable amount of cellulose or other indigestible compounds add bulk to the diet and lower its digestible and metabolizable energy density. If dietary energy is sufficiently lowered energy intake capacity is reduced and growth rate is also reduced. This generally results in a lowered efficiency of energy utilization because a greater percent of dietary energy intake is spent on maintenance. The efficiency of dietary energy density upon energy utilization for product synthesis is the subject of the present study. How dietary energy density in one phase of growth influences later performance and overall energy utilization was of special interest. II. LITERATURE REVIEW Methods of Determining Energy Values Among the measures of energy used to evaluate feed ingredients, total digestible nutrient (TDN) has been widely used in North America. The term TDN is only an approximate measure of the food energy available to an animal after the digestion losses have been deducted and it is assumed that energy yield per gram of digested car- bohydrate and protein are equal. Schneider (1947) summarized the data on total digestible nutrient (TDN) content of swine feeds. Later, the disadvantage in expressing value of feeds and diets in terms of total digestible nutrients has been discussed by various workers (Lofgreen, 1951; Maynard, 1953; Schneider, 1954; Crampton et_21., 1956). The main criticism of determination of TDN was the number of chemical analyses required and the inaccuracy of some of the methods, especially in the methods of determining the carbohydrate portion. Maynard (1947) pointed out that some of the uncer— tainties of the measurement of total digeStible nutrients could be overcome by measuring digestible energy. With the development of technology, the direct determination of total energy content of feed, feces and urine by means of the bomb calorimeter affords a simple, direct and accurate measure of the digestible energy and metabolizable energy values of feeds for animals. The term digestible energy is the total food energy minus total energy lost in the feces. The desirability of adopting digestible energy in place of TDN has been expressed by various workers (Lofgreen, 1951; Maynard, 1953; Schneider, 1954; Crampton gt_§l., 1956). Swift (1957) demonstrated that one pound of TDN of roughage for sheep and cattle or mixed rations for cattle was equivalent to 2000 kilo calories of digestible energy. The termmetabolizable ' energy refers to the measurement of energy which allows a more complete accounting for energy losses, namely the loss in urine, feces and gaSes. Gaseous losses in swine have been ignored in determining metzbolizable energy, even though by definition they are deducted. -However, this loss is minimal and rather constant. Bowland et_§l: (1970) reported a methane production in swine of 1.1% of the digestible energy and they also used this value to correct metabolizable energy. Both digestible energy and meta~ bolizable energy values in energetic terms (calories) rather than percentage as in total digestible nutrients. ' Some of the values of digestible energy of the feedstuffs reported by the National Research Council (NRC, 1973) were unavailable and were calculated from the determined total digestible nutrients as follows: TND% 1—0-6— X 4409.2 DE (kcal/kg) = And most of the metabolizable energy (ME) values were calcu- lated from the digestible energy values as follows: ME (kcal/kg) for swine = DE (kcal/kg) x [.96 — .00202 (crude protein%)] In the tables of feed composition of Atlas NAB (1971) the digestible energy of feed ingredients for each kind of animal was calculated from: a. DE in kcal/kg = GE (kcal/kg) x GE digestion coefficient b. The mean digestible energy in kcal/kg TDN% T66— X 4409 c. gTDN as: DE in kcal/kg = Metabolizable energy was calculated as follows: a. For each kind of animal except chickens and turkeys From the average metabolizable energy (ME) . b. For chickens and turkeys From nitrogen corrected metabolizable energy c. For finishing cattle, sheep and horses From DE as follows: ME in Mcal/kg = DE (Meal/kg) x 0.82 d. For swine From DE as follows: ME in kcal/kg = DE (kcal/kg) x [.96 - .00202 (crude protein%)] In the determination of metabolizable energy for swine, Diggs gt_al. (1965) suggested that it is essential to correct the urinary energy for nitrogen stored in or lost from the body during the balance trial. They found that the energy per gram of urinary nitrogen of pigs fed diets containing at least 35% protein was 6.77 kcal per gram and this value was used to adjust urinary nitrogen energy to nitrogen equilibrium. Furthermore, they showed the advantage in using metabolizable energy over digestible energy as an indicator of available energy. They showed that for all feeds the unadjusted metabolizable energy and metabolizable energy value adjusted for nitrogen retention averaged 94.7 i 5.3 and 91.6 i 6.3% of the digestible energy, respectively, but that for the high protein feeds, such as the slaughter-house by-products, fish-meal and soybean meal (50% CP), metabolizable energy was only 81.5% of the diges- tible energy value. Using the pig, May and Bell (1971) suggested that the determination of metabolizable energy by conventional methods (DE x 0.98) overestimated the metabolizable energy of high protein feeds such as fish meal. They also pro- posed the alternative of simply multiplying the digestible energy by about 0.98 since this would correspond with the values expected when normal feeding levels of protein were used. Energy Values of Diet Ingredients It is generally agreed that the expression of avail- able energy for nonruminant nutrition in terms of digestible energy and metabolizable energy are more precise than total digestible nutrients. The acceptance of metabolizable energy is also indicated by the number of swine nutrition studies now being reported in which nutrient allowances are related to units of metabolizable energy. Mitchell and Hamilton (1933) reported that the meta— bolizable energy value of alfalfa meal was 1624 kcal per kg of dry matter for swine. Using the pig, Garrigus and -Mitchell (1935) reported that whole and finely ground yellow corn contained 3662 and 3791 kcal of metabolizable energy per kg of dry matter, respectively. Table 1 contains the 'experimentally determined energy values including energy values of some feedstuffs reported by NRC (1968, 1973). Factors Affecting the Energy Values Physical Factors According to NRC (1968), the specification for energy requirements of grOWing-finishing swine full-fed on corn and full-fed on wheat, barley, oats were 3,300 and 3,100 kcal of DE per kg of diets, respectively. Owusug Domfeh and Bell (1971) indicated that the energy Table 1. Energy Values of Diet Ingredients for Swine. kcal/gm dry matter Ingredients and reference DE1 ME2 MEn3 Soybean meal 50% Diggs et a1. (1965) 4.39 3.88 3.72 NRC (1973) 4.46 3.98 Young and Forshaw (1969) 4.02 3.57 May and Bell (1971) 3.73 3.56 3.30 Saben et al. (1971a) 4.21 3.92 3.64 Saben et al. (1971b) 4.48 4.26 3.70 Soybean meal 44% NRC (1973) 3.75 3.70 Saben et al. (1971b) 4.37 4.16 3.72 Rapeseed meal NRC (1973) 3.32 2.90 May and Bell (1971) 3.34 3.11 2.98 Saben et a1. (1971a) 3.21 2.89 2.64 Saben et al. (1971b) 3.37 3.13 2.76 Cottonseed meal NRC (1968) 3.57 3.11 Husby and Kroening (1971) 3.01 2.74 2.56 Herring fish meat NRC (1968) 3.96 3.19 May and Bell (1971) 4.64 4.07 3.86 Distillers dried grains with solubles Peter et a1. (1971) 3.39 Brewers dried grain Kornegay (1973) 2.65- 2.50 2.38 Brewers dried grains containing yeast. 2.84 2.63 2.50 Kornegay (1973) Table 1. Continued. kcal/gm dry matter Ingredients and reference DE1 ME2 MEn3 Corn gluten feed Yen et a1. (1974) 2.77 2.60 Wheat shorts . _ May and Bell (1971) 3.10 3.01 2.95 NRC (1973) 3.25 3.00 Corn Diggs et a1. (1965) 3.67 3.64 3.55 NRC (1973) 4.05 3.81 Young and Forshaw (1969) 4.04 3.87 Grain sorghum Diggs et a1. (1965) 3.76 3.76 3.55 ,NRC (1973) 3.89 3.66 Wheat . Diggs et a1. (1965) 3.77 3.63 3.55 NRC (1973) 4.16 3.86 May and Bell (1971) 4.04 3.92 3.87 Oats Diggs et a1. (1965) 3.10 3.05 2.97 NRC (1973) 3.08 2.88 May and Bell (1971) 2.96 ~2.90 2.85 Barley NRC (1973) ~3.51‘ 3.27 Young and Forshaw (1969) 3.41 3.21 Barley, heavy May and Bell (1971) 3.27 3.22 3.15 10 Table 1. Continued. kcal/gm dry matter Ingredients and reference I ‘ DE1 ME2 MEn3 Coconut meat (sol-extd grnd) NRC (1973) ' 3.63 3.31 Creswell and Brooks (1971) 3.6 Coconut oil Creswell and Brooks (1971) 8.9 Tallow (bleachable stabilized, fancy grade, 100) Diggs et a1. (1965) 8.13 7.90 7.83 lDigestible energy 2Metabolizable energy 3Metabolizable energy corrected for N retention specification in the NRC (1968) diets could be reduced by about 10% without any significant decrease in performance of the pigs. This agreed well with the findings of Robin and Lewis (1964) who fed pigs on diets containing 68 or 76% total digestible nutrients. Although the feed conversion was slightly poorer on the low energy diet than on the high energy diet, the difference was not statistically signifi- cant. In addition, they also pointed out that the NRC (1968) protein level appeared to be inadequate to permit the most-efficient utilization of high energy diets. This idea is well in agreement with Seerley gE_§1. (1964) who reported that the energy efficiency in swine was decreased 11 as the level of energy increased (from 1825 to 2036 kcal of GE/lb diet) in low protein rations (12.5% crude protein). The availability of fats for animal feeding has made it more practical to increase the energy density in animal 'rations. Many research workers have reported that poultry performance was influenced by the ratio of protein to energy in the diet (Baldini and Rosenberg, 1955; Leong §E_§1., 1955; Matterson et_§1,, 1955; Scott and Staheli, 1955; Lockhart and Thayer, 1955). Some researchers have demonstrated that the addi- tion of fat to increase energy in the basal swine diets improved rate and efficiency of gains (Day gt_§1,, 1953; Sewell gt_§1., 1958; Brooks and Thomas, 1959; Pond §E_al,, 1960; Clawson §t_31., 1962; Greeley g£_§l., 1964; Hale §t_§l., 1968). In other trials, efficiency of gain was inoreased without an increase in rate of gain (Kropf gt_§1., 1954; Seerley gt_§1., 1964; Brooks 1967a). Reports by Sewell et_§1, (1957), Abernathy et_§l: (1958), Clawson et_al.(l962), Brooks and Thomas (1959), Boenker and Tribble (1960) and Pond et;§1, (1960) indi— cated that there was a required relationship between energy level and crude protein level in corn-protein supplement rations for optimum performance. Wagner gt_a1,~(1963) fed growing—finishing pigs corn—soy diets containing 0 or 10% fat (choice white grease) with 3 different protein levels (25, 19 and 13% crude protein). They found that there were no significant 12 interactions between energy and protein for average daily gain, feed efficiency, carcass backfat, dressing percent, percent yield of lean cuts and intramuscular fat. The same group of workers was unable to demonstrate a consis- tent improvement in daily gain due to the additional 10% fat. However, a significant improvement in feed efficiency due to the addition of 10% fat was demonstrated in their study. Feeding growing pigs 16% protein diets containing 0, 5, 10 or 15% stabilized lard, stabilized animal tallow or crude corn oil, Greeley §t_§1. (1964) found that neither source nor level of dietary fat significantly affected apparent digestibility of protein or dry matter. Zivkovic and Bowland (1963) fed gilts diets containing 15% fat (stabilized tallow). They found that the digestibilities of dry matter, crude protein and crude fat were improved and the digestibility of nitrogen free extract depressed. Another report by Boenker §t_§1, (1969) revealed that the addition of 7% fat (stabilized animal grease) to increase the gross energy of a corn-soy meal diet of 3870 kcal/kg to 4210 kcal/kg had very little effect on the digestibility of various components. They also indicated that if one assumed that the differences in the ratio of corn and soy- bean meal did not seriously alter the digestibility of the components of the feedstuff, it could be estimated from their data that the digestibility of added fat was about 88% and that of the added energy was 87.5%. 13 Cooke et_§l, (1972c) fed gilts diets containing four protein levels (15%, 18%, 21% and 24% CP) at each of four energy levels (2850, 3075, 3300 and 3525 kcal DE/kg air dry basis) and the daily feed allowance was limited according to a scale which increased linearly with live weight from 1.14 kg/day at 20 kg to 2.43 kg/day at 59 kg. They found no significant interactions between the effects of dietary energy and protein on growth rate, efficiency of feed con- version or carcass characteristics. However, there was a tendency for maximum growth rate and best efficiency of feed conversion with 18% crude protein level on two lower energy diets (2830 and 3100 kcal DE/kg air dry basis). The only significant interaction betweenenergy and protein effects was the killing-out percentage, which was signifi- cantly lower on the combination of lowest energy and lowest protein than on any other diet. This result disagrees with the findings of Lodge §t_a1, (1972b) who showed no signifi- cant influence of a low energy and low protein combination on killing-out percentage and of Cooke gt_§13 (1972a) who reported a nonsignificant increased killing-out percentage in pigs fed a high energy diet (3500 kcal/kg DE) with a low protein level (15% CP). Waterman 23121: (1973) demonstrated that 3% tallow supplementation to a corn-soy meal finisher diet resulted in reduction in time to market weight by about 4 days. Metabolizable energy consumed per unit gain was reduced by approximately 4%. Carcass backfat thickness was 14 reduced by about 4% and fat trim was approximately 2% less in pigs fed diets containing 3% tallow. Brooks (1972) fed growing-finishing swine a molasses- soy diet, sugar-soy diet or corn-soy diet containing 0, 10 or 20% soybean oil, tallow or mixed (food waste fats) fat. They found that with the exception of the low energy molasses diet, the source of basal energy affected rate of gain to a greater extent than energy level. Pigs fed high Sucrose diets gained faster than pigs fed corn diets, while pigs fed high corn diets gained at a faster rate than pigs fed high molasses diets. The addition of 10 or 20% fat increased rate of gain only when added to the low energy molasses diet. They found that feed/gain was negatively correlated (r = -.95) to energy concentration. As regard to the source of fats, they concluded that the three fats appeared equal as energy sources for pigs. According to the review of A.R.C. (1967) fats varied in perCent digesti— bility. The digestibility coefficients for pigs of a hydrolyzed fat mixture or beef tallow added as 5% of the diet were 76% and 86% respectively, and that of stabilized white grease added as 10-20% of the diet was 87-90%. There was also an inverse relation between the mean molecular weights of the fatty acids in fats and oils and their digestibility. For 7-week old pigs the aVerage coefficients were 78%, 90% and 96% for fats with long, medium and short chain lengths, respectively. 15 Recently, Hanke et_al, (1974-75) fed growing pigs diets containing 25% rolled oats substituted for corn. The diets were formulated to contain 16, 20 or 24% crude pro- tein with 0, 3 or 6% supplemental tallow. They concluded that there were no protein level x supplemental tallow interactions for either rate of gain or feed/gain ratio. Another observation on the use of fat as a source of energy has been reported by Moser (1975) who fed growing-finishing pigs normal corn diets (16—14% protein) or high lysine corn diets (14-12% protein) with or without 5% added fat. They found that 5% added fat to growing-finishing diets increased average daily gain of the pigs by 7.5%, decreased feed required per pound of gain by 13%, increased backfat thick- ness by 6.2% and slightly decreased, but not significantly, percent hamfiand loin. The Effect of Fiber Content The inhibitory effect of high levels of dietary fiber on growth rate of growing-finishing swine has been demonstrated by many workers (Hochstetler §t_313, 1959; Jensen gt_a1., 1959 a, b; Larsen and Oldfield, 1961; Pond §£_31,, 1962;and Seerley gt_§1,, 1962). Seerley et_al. (1964) fed growing—finishing pigs a corn-soy meal ration and a ration with 40% finely ground oats replacing corn and each of the rations contained 0, 4 or 8% fat (yellow grease). They found that the average .daily gains of pigs fed all the corn rations with or' 16 without added fat showed faster gains than those which received all corn-oat ration with or withOut added fat. Pigs fed corn rations without added fat required 0.22 lb less feed per pound of gain than was required by pigs fed corn-oat rations with no additional fat. They also found ’that feed efficiency of pigs fed corn-oat rations was improved by 0.22 and 0.39 1b with supplemental fat at 4 and 8% levels, respectively, as compared with those fed the no added fat ration. About the same amount of feed was required to produce a pound of gain with the no—fat corn ration as with the corn oat ration to which 4% fat had been added and the addition of 8% fat to the corn—oat ration improved feed efficiency 5% over the nOn—fat corn ration. This was primarily due to the difference in fiber content of the diets because the gross calorie content of the corn and Corn-oat rations was similar with each of the energy levels fed. The fiber Content of the corn rations was only 2.7%, while the corn-oat rations contained about 6.2% fiber. This report agrees with the work of Becker (1960) who demonstrated that the metabolizable energy content of corn and corn-oat rations could be made equal with the addition of fat to the corn-oat rations at the rate of 1% fat to 10% oats. Replacing 10% of corn in a corn—soy diet with ground corn cobs, Boenker (1969) found that the coefficient of digestibility of cride fiber, nitrogen free extract and dry matter were significantly lower than in the basal diet and 17 the basal diet containing 7% fat. Likewise, Pond §E_al. (1962) reported that apparent digestibilities of dry matter, crude fiber and nitrogen free extract were significantly reduced by the addition of 12.4% corn cobs to low protein rations. In more recent work, Baird et_§1, (1974) reported that crude protein digestibility was significantly depressed with the addition of citrus pulp to the diet but there was no significant difference in dry matter digestibility due to the level of citrus pulp in the diet. The depression of protein digestibility was 1.6% for each 1% increase in crude fiber content of the diet and an 0.75% decrease for each 1% increase in cellulose contained in the diet. The Effect of Pelleting Jensen (1956) reported that pelleting usually improved gain/feed of pigs fed corn—soybean meal diets. Troelsen and Bell (1962) indicated that pelleting resulted in increased intake of digestible energy which.was due to improved digestibility of the energy components in pelleted diets. Chamberlain §t_§1_(1967) also reported the same result that there was an improvement in feed effiCiency in pigs fed with the diet in pelleted form but Gamble 95931. (1967) were unable to demonstrate such a benefit. The NCR—42 Committee on Swine Nutrition (1969) did not demonstrate a consistent benefit to rate of gain or gain/feed due to pelleting corn-soybean meal diets for 18 growing pigs. They found that the average daily gain and gain/feed were 0-77 vs. 0.78 kg and 0.31 vs. 0-32, respec- tively for pigs fed the meal and pelleted diets. Similar results have been reported by Owusu-Demfeh and Bell (1971) who demonstrated that the NRC (1968) and ARC (1967) diets in pelleted form did not produce better growth than the diets in the meal form. Although, the growth rates and feed intakes of pigs fed the pelleted diets improved during the finishing period, the feed efficiency was still below that obtained with the meal type diets. The same group of workers also gave an explanation for the relatively poor performance of the pigs fed the pelleted diet during the grower period suggesting that may be the pellets may have been too hard for young pigs to utilize. . .The.effect of form of diet on the performance of finishing pigs has been studied by Hanke gt;§1, (1972) who reported that pelleting of cornesoybean meal diets resulted in a significant (P‘< .01) increase in daily gainwhile regrinding of the pelleted diets apparently exerted a deleterious effect on rate of gain. Likewise, pelleting of the diets resulted in a significant (P < .05) improve- ment in gain/feed compared with that resulting from feeding the diet in meal form. JenSen and Becker (1965) evaluated the effects of pelleting a diet and its cereal Component upon its utiliza- tion and concluded that there were no significant effects on rate of gain and that daily feed intake was variably affected, 19 with no definite trend established. In contrast, Hintz and Garrett (1967) demonstrated that the pelleting of barley fOr growing and finishing swine increased the rates of gain and intake and seemed to improve feed efficiency. Substituting corn with corn gluten feed up to 30% in a 16% protein ration, Yen gt_§l, (1971) found that pigs fed pellets had daily gain and gain/feed significantly (P < .05) greater than those fed meal. They also noticed that, pelleting of corn gluten feed significantly (P < .01) improved nitrogen absorption from 4.9 to 5.1 gm/day in growing pigs. Baird §E_§l: (1974) reported that the replacement of corn with either 10 or 20% citrus pulp in the diet with adding energy caused a slight reduction in daily gain with the reduction at the 20% level being signi— ficant (P <,.01) in finishing swine. They also found that simply pelleting the diet would not Compensate for the loss of energy when corn was replaced with citrus pulp and no other energy made to replace the energy loss due to less corn in the diet. Physiological Factors The effects of protein level, energy level and sex on growth, feed efficiency and carcass characteristics of swine have been reported by Wagner et_§13 (1963). They reported that increasing the energy level in basal diet by the addition of 9-10% choice white grease had no signifi- cant effect on rate of gain but did significantly improve 20 feed efficienCy. However, barrows gained significantly faster and contained significantly more intramuscular fat than gilts. This finding is in agreement with Mulholland §E_31. (1960) who reported that barrows grew significantly faster than gilts and pigs marketed at 195 lb. grew faster than those slaughtered at 145 1b. of body weight. In the second trial of Wagner gt_§1, (1963), the pigs were fed with diets of two different levels of metabolizable energy (1310 and 1640 kcal/1b of diet). They found that gilts fed to 200 1b. gained slightly faster than boars and had a significant higher dressing percent. However, boars were significantly more efficient in feed conversion and had significantly less carcass backfat. They also noted that boars yielded a higher percent of lean cuts and slightly less intramuscular fat but neither were statistically significant. Owusu-Domfeh and Bell (1971) demonstrated that feed consumption of barrows was significantly higher than that of the gilts during the grower period. The barrows reached market weight faster than the gilts, as their growth rate was significantly faster than that of the gilts for overall test. Allee gt_al. (1972) evaluated the effect of sex on performance, body composition and lipogenesis. The con- cluded that females gained at a slower rate and were more efficient in feed utilization than castrated males. Females had a lower rate of glucose-U-14C incorporation into fatty 21 acids and oxidation to 14CO2 than castrated males. The activities of malic enzyme and citrate cleavage enzyme were also lower in females.‘ Carcass analysis revealed that castrated males had more backfat, perirenal fat and fat brim and a lesser percent of carcass as lean cuts than females. Maintaining a constant ratio of each nutrient in the diet to the metabolizable energy concentration, Allee §t_al, (1971a) found that young pigs 6 weeks of age were capable of utilizing the fat of corn oil as effectively as carbohydrates, which is in agreement with Sewell and Miller (1965) who reported a higher efficiency in pigs weaned at 21-26 days fed corn oil, beef tallow and lard as source of dietary fat. Feeding a high fat diet has been shown to depress fatty acid synthesis in liver and adipose tissue of the laboratory rat (Whitney and Roberts, 1955; Hill §t_§1., 1958; Marsoro, 1962; Diller and Harvey, 1964; Leveille, 1967 a, b) and in hepatic tissue of the chiCken (Weiss gt_§1., 1967; Yeh and Leveille, 1969; Yeh.gt_§l., 1970). Korchak and Mosoro (1964) fOund that saturated long chain fatty acids decreased the degree of incorporation of acetyl CoA and malonyl CoA into fatty acids in rat-liver homo- genates, with myristic acid being the most inhibitory. Allee gt_al. (1971, a, b, c) reported that increasing of the level of dietary fat in the swine diet resulted in a linear depression of glucose-U-14C incorporation into fatty l4 acid and oxidation to C02. They also found that the 22 activities of malic enzyme and citrate cleavage enzyme also decreased linearly as dietary fat level increased. O'Hea and Leveille (1969) demonstrated that fatty acid synthesis and 14CO2 production from glucose—U-14C were virtually abolished in biopsy adipose tissue samples obtained from pigs subjected to a 4— or 7-day fast. Refeeding the animals ' for 2 days fully restored lipogenesis to the prefasting level, and refeeding for 4 days was associated with a two— fold overshoot in the capacity for glyceride-glycerol synthesis. No overshoot in fatty acid synthesis could be detected after 4, 6’or 12 days of refeeding. They also notiCed that in pigs refed diets high in-protein or fat after a 4-day fast, the restoration of the lipogenic capacity of the adipose tissue was limited to about 50% of that observed in animal refed a high carbohydrate diet. The investigation of the effect of source of dietary fat on the capacity of pig adipose tissue to synthesize fat, and the influence of source of dietary fat on the activities of malic enzyme and citrate cleavage enzyme have been demonstrated by Allee gt_§l. (1972) who found that the addition of 10% dietary fat as corn oil, lard, tallow or coconut oil, resulted in a marked depression in the con- version of g1ucose-U-14C into fatty acids. They also found that the activities of malic enzyme and citrate cleavage enzyme were depressed in adipose tissue homogenates of pigs fed diets containing 10% dietary fat, regardless of source. From these findings, the same group of workers suggested 23 that all dietary fats, saturated and unsaturated, were equally effective in inhibiting fatty acid synthesis. Energy x Mineral Interaction The relationship of dietary fat to calcium and magnesium in the rat has been reported by some investigators (French, 1942 and Cheng gt_al,, 1949). The effect of fat on calcium and phosphorus metabolism has been studied by Calverley and Kennedy (1949) who fed rats an egg albumin (cooked) -dextrinized starch ration containing 5% of com- pletely hydrogenated cottonseed oil, peanut oil or coconut oil. They found that the inclusion of 5% of fat in the diet increased fecal excretion of calcium when compared to those fed no supplemental fat. Fecal calcium increased with the increase in the melting point of the fat used. The excretion of fecal phosphorus showed no constant rela- tionship either to the characteristics of the fat used or to the presence of fat in the diet. They also noted that the excretion of calcium and phOSphorus in the urine was affected only indirectly by the presence of fat in the diet. When the fecal excretion of calcium was considerably increased, there was a decrease in the urinary excretion of calcium but a marked increase in the urinary excretion of phosphorus. Using the pig, Newman‘gt_§1, (1967) studied the effects of added animal fat (tallow) on the utilization of calcium and phosphorus. The animals were fed diets 24 containing various level of calcium (0.20, 0.40, 0.60 or 0.80% dietary calcium) and phosphorus (0.35, 0.45, 0.55 or 0.65% dietary phosphorus) with or without 10% tallow. They found that feed intake and average daily gain increased linearly (P < .01) up to 0.6% dietary calCium and 0.45% dietary phosphorus. The addition of tallow had no effect on rate of gain but significantly decreased feed intake and improved feed efficiency and significantly decreased break- ing strength of femurs but had no effect on femur moisture, percent ether extract or calcium when compared to pigs fed no supplemental fat. In their digestibility study, they found that added tallow had no consistent effect on cal- cium digestibility, but depressed the apparent digesti- bility of dietary phosphorus. The endogenous fecal calcium loss was greater in pigs fed the high calcium diets, but was not affected by the level of dietary tallow. Study of the influence of added fat (graded lard) in the basal diet on the utilization of zinc has been reported by Babatunde (1972). The diets used consisted of corn, groundnut cake, 3.0% blood meal, 3.2% fish meal, 2.0% rice bran, 1.5% bone meal and 0.75% oyster shell con- taining four levels of zinc (0, 100, 200 or 300 ppm in the form of zinc oxide powder) and three levels of fat (0, 2.5 or 5.0% lard). This worker found that pigs receiving the basal diet without the additional fat or supplemental zinc (estimated to contain 0.8% calcium and 50 ppm zinc) pro- vided.the best growth rate when compared to those fed no 25 (fat diets with supplemental zinc. Pigs fed a basal diet containing 2.5 or 5.0% fat without supplemental zinc developed signs of zinc deficiency after a 17-week feeding trial. However, it was concluded that supplementation with about 100 ppm zinc to the basal diet containing 2.5% lard appeared to give the best performance, while with 5.0% added lard, 200-300 ppm of zinc supplementation appeared to give the best results in growing pigs. Maust et_al, (1972) evaluated the feeding value of diets consisting of cassava flour and rice bran (approxi- mate 29.0 and 40.0% of the diet, respectively) as major sources of energy compared with a diet consisting of corn as the major source of energy for growing pigs. They found that pigs fed the corn diet gained more weight and had a higher efficiency of feed utilization than pigs fed the cassava-rice bran diet. Pigs fed the cassava-rice bran diet developed zinc deficiency signs including parakeratosis and depressed serum alkaline phosphatase levels, despite the similar zinc content of the two diets (40 and 48 ppm for the cassava-rice bran diet and corn diet, respectively). With the supplemental zinc (52 ppm of Zn as ZnCOB), pigs showed improvement in both daily gain and feed efficiency and serum alkaline phosphatase was restored to a level not significantly different from the pigs fed the corn diet. The same group of workers also explained that the poor performance and the occurrence of parakeratosis in pigs fed the cassava-rice bran diet were primarily due to free 26 phytic acid in the rice bran which was reported to contain 5.1% free phytic acid by Nelson et_§l, (1968). Phytic acid is known to chelate cations such as zinc. I In the report of Babatunde (1972) there is no indi— cation of the effect of phytic acid in the rice bran on the ‘utilization of zinc (50 ppm of the basal diet) which is the minimum requirement according to the recommendation of NRC (1968). The possible explanation could be that the amount of rice bran(2% rice of the diet) is too small to affect the utilization of zinc by pigs. Even though the level of calcium of the basal diet (0.8% Ca) was higher than that (0.65% Ca) recommended by NRC (1968), the pigs still performed well with no sign of parakeratosis. Requirements for Vitamins The requirements for vitamins of young pigs (Table 2) are presented in the review of Lucas and Lodge (1961). The requirement for vitamin A of young 10 1b. pigs is 220 ug of vitamin A acetate or 550 ug of B-carotene, per pound of dry matter of the diet. For older pigs over 40 1b. liveweight the requirements per pound feed dry matter are about 60 ug vitamin A acetate or about five times as much B-carotene. The rest of the vitamin requirements reported in Table 2 indicate the amount of each vitamin per unit of energy digested feed (EDF). The values of EDF have been calculated from the gross energy of mixed diets. The same group of workers reported that the EDF of sow's 27 milk was 97% of gross energy. Synthetic or semi-synthetic liquid milk substitutes for pigs under 20 1b. liveweight and synthetic meal mixtures for pigs over 20 1b. liveweight have EDF of 90% of gross energy. Two trials at Michigan State University (Miller gt_a1., 1971) indicated that half the supplemental levels in MSU 16 ration (Table 3) provided by the premix (Table 4) were adequate to support maximum gains of pigs weaned at 30 lb. and fed for 16 weeks. The MSU l6 ration contains about 3450 kcal per kg of diet. The nutrient composition of MSU 16 ration and the requirements (NRC—recommendations) are shown in Table 5. Recently, some swine nutrition studies were reported in which nutrient allowances were related to units of metabolizable energy. In studies on the effects of fat as a source of energy for young pigs, Allee §E_§13 (1971 a, b) and Allee et_al. (1972) formulated rations which.maintained a constant ratio of each nutrient in the diet to the con- centration of metabolizable energy. 28 Table 2. Requirements for Vitamins of Young Pigs. Liveweight Vitamin A aCetate B carotene Vitamins of pig (lb) ug/lb dry matter ug/lb dry matter A 10 220 550 20 60 300 40 60 300 Per Mcal EDF (energy of digested feed) D 10 100 IU 20 100 IU 40 100 IU Thiamin <20 0.35 mg 20-45 0.35 mg Riboflavin <20 0.55 mg 20-45 0.40 mg ‘ Nicotinic <20 4.5 ‘mg acid 20-45 4.5 mg Pantothenic <20 2.9 mg acid 20-45 1.7 mg Pyridoxine <20 0.2 mg 20-45 0.2 mg 312 <20 4.0 pg 20-45 3.0 ug' 29 Table 3. MSU Corn-Soy Rations. Grower Finisher Ingredients MSU 16 MSU 13 Ground shelled corn 1560 1710 Soybean meal 380 230 Ground Limestone 20 20 Dicalcium phosphate 20 20 Salt , 10 10 MSU VTM premix 10 10 2000 2000 Table 4. MSU VTM premix. Nutrient Amount in 10 lb. of premix Vitamin A, million Vitamin D, million Vitamin E, thousand Riboflavin Niacin D—pantothenic acid Choline chloride Vitamin 812 Zinc Manganese Iodine Copper Iron Antioxidant (BHA and/or BHT) Carrier (ground yellow corn) 3.0 IU 0.6 IU 10.0 IU 3.0 9 16.0.9 12.0.9 100.0 18.0 mg 68.0 34.0 2.5 9.0 54.0 45.0 To bring total to 10 1b. ’ LQ QLQ‘QLQLQQ 30 Table 5. Nutrient Values of MSU 16 Compared to Requirements. Nutrient , MSU 16a Requirementsb Digestible energy, kcal/kgc 3450 3300 Crude protein % 16.0 16.0 Arginine 0.99 0.20 Histidine 0.36 0.20 Isoleucine 0.76 0.50 Leucine 1.32 0.60 Lysine 0.73 0.70 Methionine + Cystine 0.51 0.50 Phenylalanine 0.93 0.50 Threonine 0.56 0.45 .Tryptophan 0.16 0.13 Valine 0.69 0.50 Vitamins A, IU/kg 480* (3780)9 1300 D, IU/kg 0* (660) 200 E, IU/kg ‘ 9* (20) 11 . ,Thiamin, ppmd 4 I 1.1 Riboflavin, ppm 1.6* (4.9) 2.6 Niacin, ppme 5.4* (23) 14.0 Pantothenic acid, ppm 5.4* (18) 11.0 Pyridoxine, ppm 6.4 1.1 Choline, ppm 850* (960) 900 312, ppbf 0* (19) 11 Minerals Calcium, % 0.68 0.65 PhOSphorus, % 0.52 0.50 Sodium, % 0.26 0.10 Chlorine, % 0.36 0.13 31 Table 5. Continued. Nutrient MSU l6a Requirementsb Potassium, % 0.58 0.30 Magnesium, ppm 1150 400 Iron, ppm 39* (98) 80 Zinc, ppm 20* (100) 50 Manganese, ppm 7* (44) 20 Copper, ppm 4* (14) I 6 Iodine, ppm A <0.2* (2.7) 0.2 0.1 Selenium, ppm 0.04* (.14) aExcluding nutrients supplied by MSU VTM premix. ‘bNational Research Council listed requirement for 40 1b. pig. CKilocalories per kilogram. dParts per million. eAvailable niacin. fparts per billion. 9Values with 10 lb/ton supplemental VTM premix. *Inadequate to meet requirement. II I . EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE A feeding trial through the entire swine feeding period and one balance trial withgrowing-finishing swine were conducted to evaluate low and high energy density rations. Corn and 2% stabilized tallow were used as the main source of energy for the high energy rations and corn with 40% oats wereused as the main source of energy for the low energy rations. Animals used in the studies were Yorkshire, Hamp- shire and crossbred Yorkshire—Hampshire pigs obtained from the Michigan State University swine research center. Experiments Experiment 1. Feeding trial: Effect of Energy Density_of Diets During Starting-Growing-Finishing Period on the Performance of Pigs In this experiment, all pigs were randomly alloted from weight, sex and litter outcome groups to experimental treatments. The design of experiment was a 23 factorial with replication (Table 9). Eight possible treatment combinations were obtained: Low-Low-Low, Low-Low-High, 32 33 Low-High-Low, Low-High-High, High-Low—Low, High-High-Low, High-Low—High, and High—High-High in which each treatment combination represents energy density in the starter, grower and finisher diets, respectively. The compositions of all the rations used in this experiment are shown in Tables 6, 7 and 8. During the starting period, all the pigs were housed in pens with aluminum slatted floors. After this period, they were moved to pens with cement slatted floors until the end of the experiment. Feed was provided §g_1ibitum in self feeders, and water was con- tinuously available from automatic waterers. All housing had thermostatically controlled temperature and ventilation. The animals were weighed individually at the begin- ning of the experiment and at'biweekly intervals thereafter. Following each weighing,feed remaining in the self feeders were measured. Feed consumption for the period was recorded and then average daily gain, average daily feed consumption and feed/gain were calculated and recorded. The length of the experiment was 126 days with 1 period (2 wk) for starter, 3 periods (6 wk) for grower and 5 periods (10 wk) for finisher. After the end of the experiment the animals were kept on the same finishing diets for a few days until they reached market weight of _ approximately 100 kilograms. Some animals from each treat- ment were slaughteredat either a commercial slaughtering plant or the meats laboratory of Michigan State University. Dressing percentage and percent ham + loin were measured. 34 Table 6. Composition of Starter Rations. Energy Density Ingredients Low High Corn 769 1527 Oats 800 0 SBM 49 360 360 Limestone 15 15 Dicalcium phosphate 30 30 Salt 5 5 Vit-TM 15 15 Lysine (50%) 6 8 Tallow _ 0 . 40 2000 2000 Nutrient Composition* ME, kcal/kg 2962 3387 Crude protein, % 17.0 15.8 Calcium, % .72 .70 Phosphorus, % .60 .58 Lysine, % ’.95 .95 Methionine + Cystine, % .53 .52 Tryptophan .20 .17 *Estimated. 35 Table 7. Composition of Grower Rations. Energy Density Ingredients Low High Corn 881, 1639 Oats 800 0' SBM 49 260 260 Limestone 15 15 Dicalcium phosphate 20 20 Salt 5 5 Vit-TM 15 15 Lysine (50%) 4 6 Tallow 0 ..40 2000 2000 Nutrient Composition* ME, kcal/kg. 2975 3400 Crude, protein,% ~15.0 13.8 Calcium, % .60 .58 Phosphorus, %‘ .50 .48 Lysine, % .75 .75 Methionine + Cystine .46 .47 Tryptophan .17 .14 *Estimated. 36 Table 8. Composition of Finisher Rations. .Energy Density Ingredients Low High Corn 983 1741 Oats 800 0 SBM 49 160 160 Limestone 15 15 Dicalcium phosphate 20 20 Salt 5 5 Vit-TM 15 15 Lysine (50%) 2 4 Tallow 0 .40 2000 2000 Nutrients Composition* Metabolizable energy kcal/kg 2971 3396 Crude protein, % 13.0 11.7 Calcium, % .58 .56 Phosphorus, % .48 .46 Lysine, % .55 .55 Methionine + Cystine, % .42 .42 Tryptophan, % .14 .11 *Estimated. 37 Table 9. Design of Experiment 1. Period - Treatment Combination Length Energy Energy Density - Density Starter Low High 2 wk i>< i Grower Low High 6 wk (24—54 kg) l>< Finisher Low High 10_wk (54-94 kg) At the same time the animals were checked for the incidence cf stomach ulcer. Experiment 2. Balance Trial The balance trial was conducted in the metabolism area at the Michigan State University swine farm. Eight crossbred growing pigs obtained from one litter averaging 46.1 kg bodyweight were involved in the experiment. They were randomly assigned within sex to two lots of 4 pigs each. The same diets used for growing and finishing swine in Experiment 1 (Tables 7 and 8) were used in this experi- ment- The diets were provided ad libitum using self feeders. The pigs and feeders were weighed individually at the beginning and at the end of each period and recorded. 38 The average daily gain and feed consumption were calculated on the basis of the period of collection (3 days). 'Feces and feed wastage were collected on a metal plate beneath the fully slotted floor, urine was collected in plastic containers through a fine mesh metal screen. Approximately 100 ml of 50% hydrochloric acid was added to the trine container prior to collection. Feces, urine and feed wastage were collected daily and weighed. A feces sample was taken daily and kept in a well sealed plastic container and a few drops of 50% HCl was added before storing in a cool room. A urine sample was also taken daily and stored in a plastic vial in the same loca- tion. At the end of each period, feces samples for the period (3 days)were put together in an aluminum pan and dried at 502C for approximately 12 hours. The feces were weighed prior to and after drying and perCent dry matter was calculated. Dried feces were ground with a hand meat grinder and samples were taken and stored in air tight polyethylene bags at room temperature. Each collection period was 3 days long and all the pigs were provided at least a 2 day adjustment period prior to the 3 day collection period. In the growing period each .group of animals was on both high and low energy ration with a 2 day adjustment period prior to and between the collection periods. In the finishing period both pens were kept on the finishing rations of the same energy density which they had received for the second growing 39 period balance trial and then were switched to the alterna- tive energy density of the finishing diets for the final energy balance. These pigs were also provided the same' adjustment period as the growing period balance trials. Analytical Procedures Feed and Feces Feed samples were ground twice through a screen with 2 mm diameter openings. The feed samples were stored in air-tight polyethylene bags before and aftergrinding. The feces samples were reground again through a 2 mm dia- meter screen in a Wiley mill.1 All the feed and feces samples were stored at room temperature. Crude protein of feed and feces samples was deter- mined by the semi—micro Kjeldahl technique, using a Sargent Spectro-Electro Titrator.2 Gross energy was determined by the use of a Parr adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter.3 .Approximately 0.5 gm each of feed and feces samples was digested in concentrated sulphuric acid in the deter- mination of crude protein (duplicates for each sample). Approximately 1ygm of each feed and feces sample (in duplicate) was made into pellets and used for gross energy determination in the Parr adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter. 1Arthur H. Thomas Co., PA. 2E. H. Sargent and Co., IL. 3Parr Corp., Moline, IL. 40 Urine Daily urine samples were stored in well-sealed vials at 4°C and each of them was analyzed for crude protein and gross energy in duplicate. Approximately 0.5 gm of each urine samples was used in the determination of crude protein and the general pro- cedure was the same as for determination of fecal crude protein. For gross energy determination of urine samples, the general procedure and instrument were the same as the determination of feed or fecal gross energy with the exception of the preparation of the samples. A urine sample of approximately 5 ml was absorbed on cotton dried at 45°C for about 12 hours and incinerated in the Parr adiabatic oxygen bomb calorimeter for gross energy determination. Statistical Analysis All the data were subjected to analysis of variance by the use of a CDC 65004 computer at the Michigan State University computer laboratory with the exception of the summary data of pig performance in the starting period. The performance of pigs in the starting period were analyzed by the student t-test through the use of a Hewlett‘ Packard calculator.5 The individual treatment values were compared by Duncan's (1955) multiple range test. 4Control Data Corp., Minneapolis, Minn. 5Hewlett-Packard hp 9100 A. IV . RESULTS In experiments 1 and 2, average daily gain, average daily feed, feed efficiency, average daily energy and energy (efficiency were considered on the lot basis for each group of animals of all experimental treatments. A Nitrogen corrected metabolizable energy values for both grower and finisher low and high energy density rations determined during the balance trial in the experi— ment 2 were used to evaluate the utilization of energy in the experiment 1 during both growing and finishing periods. Due to the limitation ofthe number of young pigs, only 12 lots of pigs were available for assignment to the starting rations, instead of the 16 lots called for by the design of the experiment. The numbers of lots of experi- mental animals were equally subjected to low and high energy starting rations with 6 lots on each.treatment. On the study of the interaction of age and treatments due to the starting period, the data were testedby the use of analysis of variance. The results indicated that there was no effect of treatments during the starting period on the performance of the following period (growing period). 41 42 Based on these results, the starting period was studied separately and was not included in the overall performance, which included only the growing and finishing periods. At this point, the design of experiment turned into a 22 factorial. Experiment 1 Starter: The performance of the pigs on the start- ing diets is shown in Table 10. There were no significant differences due to treatments between any parameters reported herein. Even though young pigs on the high.energy starting diet showed a slightly better daily gain (590 vs. 550 9) this was primarily due to the higher feed consumption by the high energy group. Meanwhile, the efficiency of feed conversion was slightly better (1.93 vs. 1.97) in groups receiving the high energy ration as expected. Feed energy conversion to gain, however, was more efficient by pigs on the low energy starter ration. Grower: In this period, animals on both low and high energy growing rations showed almost the same average daily gain (653 vs. 644 g, for low vs. high energy ration, Table 11). The average daily feed consumption for pigs fed the low energy diet was somewhat higher than for those fed the high energy ration (1701 vs. 1599 g for low energy vs. high energy). Feed/gain was thus less for pigs.fed the high energy growing ration. Nitrogen corrected metaboliz- able energy consumed per day was almost equal in both 43 Table 10. Summary of Pig Performance on Starting Period.1 Low Energy High Energy Signi-' Item I Ration Ration 'ficance No. of Lots 6 6 Average daily gain, g 550(113.2) 590(il7.0) NS Average daily feed, 9 1083(i40.1) ll36(i38.7) NS Feed/gain. 1.97(:.04) 1.93(i.06) NS 1Values represent i t SE Table 11. Summary of Pig Performance on GrOwing Period. Low Energy High Energy Item . Ration Ration No. of Lots 8 8 . iSEl Average daily gain, g 653 644 20.5 Average daily feed, g 1701 1599 66.6 Feed/gain 2.60 2.47 0.38 Av. daily energy cous.,2 . kcal 5302 . 5406 217.7 Energy2 eff. kcal/kg gain 8092 ’ 8357 122.8 1Standard error of the mean. 2Nitrogen corrected metabolizable energy. 44 treatments. In contrast to feed/gain, the efficiency in utilizing energy for gain was slightly better for pigs on the low energy growing ration (8092 vs. 8357 kcal/kg of gain for low and high energy diets, respectively). However, the differences among the treatments reported in this period were statistically non-significant.- Finisher: The results of the finishing period are reported en the basis of the consequence of the effects of the diet during the growing period. .The performance of pigs on the low energy finishing ration is shown in Table 12. The data show that there were slight effects of energy density of the growing rations on the performance of pigs fed the low finishing energy ration. NOne of the effects were statistically significant. Pigs which were fed the low energy finishing ration and had been on the low energy grow— 4 ing ration gained slightly faster (645 vs. 626 gm) and con- sumed approximately 211 gm.more feed per day but feed conversion (feed/gain) was slightly poorer (3.85 vs. 3.62) than those fed the low energy finishing ration after being fed the high energy growing ration. The nitrogen corrected metabolizable energy consumption per day was also higher in 'the groups of pigs which had been on the low energy grower ration. These groups of pigs also had a lower ability to utilize calories of low energy finishing ration (11,495 vs. 10, 775 kcal/kg). ' w I: i The performanCe data of pigs on the high energy finishing ration are shown in Table 13. The energy density 45 Table 12. Summary of Pig Performance on Low Energy Finishing Ration.1 Low Energy High Energy Item Grower Grower‘ 2 No. of 4 4 ESE Average daily gain, g 645 626 25.6 Average daily feed, 9 2480 2268 99.6 Feed/gain ’ 3.85 3.62 0.10 Av. daily energy cons.3 kcal . 7385 6755 295.6 Energy eff., kcal/kg gain 11495 10775 289.4 1On the basis of type of ration during growing period. 2Standard error of the mean. Nitrogen corrected metabolizable energy. Table 13. Summary of Pig Performance on High Energy Finishing Ration.1 Low Energy High Energy Item Grower Grower 2 No. of, 4 4 ESE Average daily gain, g 655 627 =19.7 Average daily feed, 9 2374* 2050 78.7 Feed/gain 3.62 3.29 0.12 Av. daily energy cons. kcal 7904* 6826 262.1 Energy eff., kcal/kg gain 12055 10964 A 397.6 1 2Standard error of the mean. *Significantly higher than the value in the same line (P < .05) On the basis of type of ration during growing period. 46 of the growing ration had a slight effect on the average daily gain of pigs fed the high energy finishing diet. Pigs receiving the low energy ration during the growing period gained slightly faster (655 vs. 627 gm) on the high energy finishing ration. Both average daily feed and average daily energy consumption were greater (P < .05) in pigs which had been on the low energy growing ration before being placed on the high energy finishing ration. Even though the efficiency in feed and energy conversion tended to be poorer for those pigs which had been on the low energy ration during the growing period this effect was not statis- tically significant. ‘Finishing period: The effects of both low and high energy finishing rations on the performance of pigs are shown in Table 14. Pigs during the finishing period did not show a consistent effect on average daily gain due to energy level in the ration being more dependent on the type of ration received during the growing period. Energy den- sity in the rations had a great impact on the amount of feed consumption. Pigs fed the low energy ration which had been on the low energy growing ration consumed a signifi- cantly (P < .05) greater amount of feed per day than those which were on the same low energy finishing ration but 4 which had been on the high energy growing ration. The _groups which were on the high energy ration during both periods as expected, consumed the least feed. Pigs fed the high energy finishing ration which had been on the high 47 .Ho. v man 4 .Ho. v mom .Amo. v my msam> ummoa on uch can» “museum maucmowmacmwm, .Amo. v my msHm> “mama con» Hmumonm maucmowmwsmwm .cmme on» no Honum oumocmum .QOADMH mswnmflsflm mmumsm swam u 3 en v u: m a .cowumu mcwgmflcwm mmumcm 30A u A .powumm mcwsoum mcflhso sowumu mo mean u A...v N .COAHOQ mcfi30um maanso soaumn no mean no manna on» Goa. a.mem «mace muses an.mmmmoma mmsHH seam mxxamox ..mmm smumcm a.smfl swam mmsm an.6840mh mmmms Hmox .mmumam manna .>a mo.o a~.m amm.m mam.m mamm.m cemmxemma m.mm omom Mammm maesmm n.66msem m .ommu seams .54 m.wa saw was ems mew m .cnmm.anme .>a mam“ e v a . s when mo .02 ET may .25 emav mqmfiv DH H .UOHHOm msflnmfisflh mo mosmauomumm mam mo mumafism .wa mHnma 48 energy ration during the growing period showed significantly better feed efficiency than those which received the low energy finishing ration regardless of the energy density ‘ received during the growing period as well as those which were on the high energy finishing ration but which.had been on the low energy growing ration. The efficiency of feed conversion for (H)L and (L)H groups was identical. For the consumption of nitrogen corrected metabolizable energy, pigs on the high energy finishing ration which had received the low energy grower ration consumed significantly (P < .01) more calories per day than those which had received the high energy grower ration and received either a low or high energy finishing ration. Meanwhile, pigs fed the low energy finishing ration and the low energy growing ration consumed more (P < .05) calories per day than those fed the low energy finishing ration which had been on the high energy growing ration. Pigs which had received the high energy growing ration and then received either low or high.energy rations during the finishing period utilized energy for gain significantly (P < .01) more efficiently than those fed the high energy finishing ration which had been on the low energy growing ration. Overall feed trial (growing-finishing period): Pigs which received the low energy growing ration and continued with either low or high energy finishing ration (LL and LH) tended to produce a faster gain than.those which received the high energy ration during the growing 49 period and continued with either 10w or high energy ration during finishing period (HL or HH). Feed consumption of pigs fed the low energy rations during both the growing and finishing period (LL) was significantly higher than those fed the high energy ration during the growing period and continued With either low or high energy finishing rations (HL or HH). Pigs on the LH treatment also consumed a significantly higher (P < .05)amount of feed per day than the HH group. Pigs fed the high energy growing ration and continued with either the low or high energy finishing ration required significantly less feed per pound ofgain. Feed efficiency of pigs fed high energy rations for both‘ the growing and finishing period was greater (P < .05) than that of pigs on the combinations of low and high energy rations forgeither thegrowing or finishing period. The average daily consumption of nitrogen corrected metaboliz— able energy in the groups of pigs fed low energy rations for both growing and finishing period was greater than that of pigs receiving the high energy ration during the growing period. However, the differences were not statistically significant. Pigs fed the low energy ration during the growing period and continued with the high energy finishing ration (LH) consumed a significantly (P < .01) higher amount of calories per day than the two groups which received the high energy ration during the growing period with either the low or high energy finishing ration. The calories con- sumed by pigs fed the high energy growing ration with the 50 .Aao. v my mosam> m ummma can» Hmummnm MHDCMOHmwsmHmUO .Amo. v my msam> ummma on pch.smsu umummum hHDGMOAMHsmww n .Amo. v my msam> ummma swap Hmummnm maucmowmwsmwmm .cmma may no Houum tumocmumm .oowumm mswnmwswm ma oncomm one towumm mswsoum ma Hopped umufim .coaumu Monaco swam u m .Ho. v man sowumu mmnmsm 3oq u AN .Ho. V was .Uowumm mswunmum mcwosaoxma ... m\H HH\H NH\m NH\m Honda nooEouw SDHS .oz mm.o ms.oe ooom.mv oa.o¢ oh.o¢ neon + Sam A oe.o ow.es mm.ms H~.eh om.ms m onsmmmun ... ma ma ma ma mama mo uwnssz mowumaumuomumno mmmoumo 8.4ma HmooH moma n.86momoa pesos. asmm mxxamox ..mmm smumcm m.mma Nome Home na.mmaamm same Hmox .saumam Seams .54 mo.o oo.m mea.m_ 6mm.m n.mmhm.m cammxwmmm e.me mama mmaom mameem n.68Hmam 6 .800m Seems .>¢ ~.0H one one mmm Hmm m .cnmm maeme .>a mam“ e s v 3 upon mo .oz mm nu «ma an EmuH .mocmfiuomumm mam HHMHT>O mo mumEEsm H .mH manna 51 low energy finishing ration (HL) and that of those fed high energy rations for both growing and finishing periods (HH) were almost the same. Efficiency in utilizing calories by pigs fed the high energy grower and-continued with either low or high energy finishing ration (HL or HH) was significantly greater than for pigs fed the treatment combination of the low energygrowing ration and the high energy finishing ration (LH). Energy efficiency of pigs fed low energy rations for the growing-finishing period (LL) was similar to that of pigs fed high energy all the way (HH). Carcass characteristics: Dressing percents of pigs were similar among the four treatment combinations. However, pigs fed the high energy finishing ration with the low or high.energy growing ration appeared to produce slightly higher dressing percent but it was not statisti— cally significant. Pigs on the high energy growing ration with low energy ration during the finishing period had a significantly (P < .01) higher percent of ham + loin than animals from any other treatment combinations. Stomach ulcers occurred in pigs of every treatment combination and the incidence was not related to treatment.- Experiment 2 The results of the balance trial for the growing period are shown in Table 16. From the results of daily energy balance the digestible energy and metabolizable Table 16. Summary of Balance Trial of Growing Rations. High Energy Low Energy Item Ration Ration Daily energy balance Feed intake, 9 2333 2391 Gross energy intake, kcal 9202 9268 Fecal energy, kcal 996 1473 Digestible energy, kcal 8206 7795 Urine energy, kcal 104 95 Metabolizable energy, kcal 8102 7700 Daily N Balance Intake N, g 47.45 54.18 . Fecal N, g 8.08 10.56 Net N, absorbed 39.37 43.62 Apparent N dig. % 83 81 Urine N, g 7.77 7.31 N retention, 9 31.60 36.31 Apparent BV 80 83 Apparent NPU 67 67 53 energy concentration of low and high energy rations were obtained. ‘In a determination of metabolizable energy, Diggs et_al. (1965) indicated that it was necessary to correct the urinary energy for nitrogen stored in or lost from the body during the balance trial and reported the energy for urinary nitrogen to be 6.77 kcal/gm. This value was used to adjust metabolizable energy and nitrogen corrected meta- bolizable energy was obtained. The determined energy values of the low energy growing ration were 3260, 3220 and 3117 dcal/kg for digestible energy (DE), metabolizable energy (ME), and nitrogen corrected metabolizable energy (N-cor ME), respectively, on the as—fed basis (Table 18). The determined energy values of the high energy growing ration were 3517, 3473 and 3381 kcal/kg for DE, ME and N-cor ME, respectively, on the as-fed basis. The results of the balance trial for pigs on the finishing ration are shown in Table 17. The determined energy values for the low energy finishing ration were 3093, 3049 and 2978 for DE, ME and N-cor ME, respectively, and for the high energy finiShing ration were 3430, 3389 and 3330 kcal/kg for DE, ME-and N-cor ME, respectively, on the as-fed basis. Apparent biological value (ABV) and apparent net protein utilization (ANPU) reported in Tables 16 and 17 for daily nitrogen balance were calculated as follows: N intake - (fecal N + urinary N) ABV = N intake - fecal N Table 17. Summary of Balance Trial of Finishing Rations. Low Energy High Energy Item Ration Ration Daily energy balance Feed intake, 9 2163 2031 Gross energy intake, kcal 8828 8228 Fecal energy, kcal 1407 1946 Digestible energy, kcal 7421 6282 Urine energy, kcal 88 90 'Metabolizable energy, kcal 7332 6192 Daily N Balance Intake N, g 35.50 38.81 Fecal N, g 10.01 10.41 Net N absorbed, g' 25.49 28.40 Apparent N dig., % 72 73 Urine N,wg 6.84 7.17 N retention, g 18.65 21.23 Apparent BV 73 74 Apparent NPU 52 54 55 Table 18. Determined Energy Values of Growing and Finishing Rations. GEl DE2 ME3 N coreME4 Item . kcal/kg kcal/kg kcal/kg. kcal/kg Grower (as-fed basis) Low energy ration 3881 3260 3220 3117 High energy ration 3969 3517 3473 3381 Finisher. (as-fed basis) Low energy ration 4052 3093 3049 2978 High energy ration 4081 3430 . 3389 3330 1 Gross energy. 2Digestible energy. 3Metabolizable energy. 4 Nitrogen corrected metabolizable energy. Table 19. Metabolizable Energy Values of Feed Ingredients (As—fed Basis).* Calculated (balance data) Ingredients Est. Grower Finisher Tallow ‘ 7920 7920 7920 Corn + SBM 49 3500 3491 3399 Oats 2548 . 3070 2588 *kcal/kg. 56 N intake - (fecal N + urinary N) ANPU = N intake Assuming that metabolizable energy of stabilized tallow to be 7920 kcal/kg (Diggs et_ai., 1965) in both high energy grower and finisher rations, calculated ME values of corn + SBM 49 and oats were obtained for each growing and finishing period. The calculated ME values of corn + SBM 49 and oats were 3491, 3070 and 3399 and 2588 kcal/kg on ' as-fed basis, respectively, for the growing and finishing rations. ' r V. DISCUSSION Starter: The performance of pigs during the starting period did not significantly respond to different dietary energy density. Feed consumed per unit of gain by pigs fed the high energy starting ration was slightly less than that of those fed the low energy starting ration. Using the estimated metabolizable energy values, pigs fed the high energy starting ration consumed more calories per day- (3845 vs. 3205 kcal) but were less efficient in energy con- version (6521 vs. 5831 kcal ME/kg of gain) than pigs fed the low energy starting ration. It appears that incorporat- ing 2% of stabilized tallow into the corn-soy starting ration depressed energy utilization efficiency by young pigs, perhaps due to poor digestibility of the added fat. These results differ from the findings of Allee et;ai3 (1971a) who reported that young pigs 6 weeks of age were capable of utilizing fat as corn oil as efficiently as carbohydrates. Grower: None of the results of the growing period were significantly different between treatments but several trends were apparent. The incorporation of 2% of stabilized 57 58 tallow into a corn-soy growing ration resulted in the limiting of feed (but not energy) consumption with a slight reduction in gain per day in growing pigs when compared to pigs fed the corn-oats ration. Pigs fed the high energy growing ration required approximately 5% less feed per unit of gain. Nitrogen corrected metabolizable energy consumption per day was approximately 2% higher in pigs fed the high energy growing ration but they were less efficient I in energy utilization. Finisher: Treatments of the growing period appeared to effect the performance of pigs during the finishing period. Pigs with the influence of a low energy growing' ration tended toIgain faster in the finishing period than those under the influence of a high energy growing ration, regardless of the energy density during the finishing period. However, the differences in gain were not statis- tically significant. Pigs fed a low energy_growing ration. consumed significantly more feed during the finishing period. Feed required per unit of gain was significantly higher in pigs which received the low energy finishing or high energy finishing ration under the influence of low energy growing ration than the animals fed the high energy finishing ration under the influence of the high energy ration during the growing period. It also appeared that the treatment of low-energy during the growing period encouraged animals to consume more energy during the finishing period. 59 Pigs which consumed a higher amount of calories were less efficient than those groups that consumed less energy per day. Overall performance (growing-finishing period): Pigs fed low energy during the growing period with.low or high energy during the finishing period (LL or LH) gained slightly better than the other two treatment combinations HL and HH. Different results for gain of pigs which received similar types of ration has been demonstrated by Seerley et_21, (1964) who reported that pigs_fed an all corn ration with or without added fat showed faster gains ‘than thosewhich received a corn-oats ration with or without fat. Waterman et_§1, (1973) and Moser (1975) indicated that pigs showed better gains when fed high energy rations during the growingnfinishing period. Improvement in feed effici- ency in pigs fed high energy ration has been reported by several workers (Clawson et_§1., 1962; Greeley'et_al,, 1964; Seerley et_§1,, 1964; Brooks, l967a;and Hale‘eg;gi., 1968). The same results for feed efficiency has been estab— lished in this experiment. waterman §E_El: (1973) indicated that metabolizable energy consumed per unit of gain was reduced by approximately 4% when pigs received a basal diet with 3% added fat. In this study, pigs fed HH treatment combination consumed approximately 1% less (non-significant) N-cor ME per unit of gain when compared with pigs fed LL treatment combination. The highest N-cor ME/gain reported herein was among the pigs which received the low energy 60 ration during the growing period and the high energy ration during the finishing period, approximately 5.7% higher than the HH treatment combination. Dressing percents of pigs were not significantly different among the treatment combinations. Percent ham + loin was highest in pigstreated by the HL treatment com- bination and significantly (P < .01) higher than any other treatment combination. Waterman et_ali (1973) reported the addition of 3% tallow to the basal diet did not adversely affect the percent ham and loin. The HL combina- tion was also the treatment which utilized energy forIgain most efficiently. ‘ I The incidence of stomach ulcer of pigs was variable among the 4 treatment combinations and no specific trend was apparent from the results. On the LL treatment combina- tion there were three out of twelve pigs which showed the incidence of stomach ulcer and only one out of eight pigs which received the HH combination showed the Sign of stomach ulcer. The feeding of the low energy (high fiber) diet containing 40% oats appeared to have no effect in pre— venting the incidence of stomach ulcer as claimed by Riker III et_§1. (1967) who reported that oats had a protective property for stomach ulcer which was primarily due to the increase in particle size (Mahan et_al,, 1964) and fiber content (Rease et_al., 1966b). In the current study finely ground oats were used. 61* Balance trial: For the growing rations, ME and N—cor ME values were 98.77, 95.61% and 98.75, 96.13% of DE, respectively, for the low and high energy rations. Meta- Ibolizable energy and N-cor ME for the low and high energy rations were 98.58, 96.28% and 98.80 and 97.08% of DE, respectively, during the finishing period. Diggs et_al. (1965) reported that the unadjusted metabolizable energy and the metabolizable energy adjusted for nitrogen balance averaged 94.7 i 5.3% and 91.6 i 6.3% of the digestible energy, respectively, in young pigs fed with rations con— taining at least 35% protein. For the normal levels of protein feeding (11 to 16% protein), Bowland‘et_§1, (1970). estimated ME to be 96.5% of DE. May and Bell (1971) sug- gested 0.98 as a factor to convert DE to ME values.‘ The experimentally determineanE values for low energy rations of bothIgrower and finisher were higher than the estimated values due to the actual energy value of cats being somewhat higher than the expected value (NRC, 1973). Calculations were based on the assumption that tallow was equally utilized during both the growing and finishing period by pigs fed the high energy ration and that energy values of corn and soybean meal 49 were equal.' Younger pigs apparently utilized feed energy more efficiently than at an older age.’ The energy values of oats were reported to be 2730 kcal/kg (Diggs fl” 1965) and 2596 kcal/kg (Young and Bell, 1971) on the as-fed basis. There appears to be more variation in the energy values of cats between 62 grower and finisher in the balance trial (3070 vs. 2588 kcal/kg for grower and finisher, respectively). VI. CONCLUSIONS Two experiments were conducted to evaluate the feed- I ing values of low and high dietary caloric density in pigs. The first experiment was a feeding trial in which the response of the pigs to the treatments were measured. The other experiment was a balance trial in which the.metabo- lizable energy values of the low and high energy rations of both grower and finisher were experimentally determined. The results of the experiments led to the following cone clusions: 1. The performance of the pigs during the starting period did not significantly respond to widely different _dietary energy densities. I 2. Dietary energy density during the starting period had no effect on the performance of the pigs in the following period (growing period). 3. The incorporation of 2% stabilized tallow into a corn—soy growing ration resulted in the limiting of feed consumption with a slight reduction in gain in the growing pigs but approximately 6.4% higher feed efficiency than pigs on a 40% oat ration. 63 64 4. Nitrogen corrected metabolizable energy consump- tion per day was approximately 2% higher in pigs fed the high energy diet but they were less efficient in energy utilization. 5. Treatments of the growing period appeared to affect the performance of pigs during the finishing period. With the influence of low energy growing ration, pigs tended to gain faster and consumed significantly more feed per unit of gain during the finishing period when compared to that of those which were under the influence of the high energy growing ration. 6. It appeared that the treatments of the low energy ration during the growing period encourage pigs to consume more nitrogen-corrected metabolizable energy during the finishing period but they were less efficient in energy utilization. ‘7. The overall (grower-finisher) average daily gain was not improved by increasing the energy density in the ration. Pigs fed the high energy rations for the growing- finishing period consumed significantly less feed per day but were more efficient in feed conversion than those which received any of the other treatment combinations. 8. The energy density in the diets had no effect on dressing percentage of swine. Percent ham and loin was significantly improved in the pigs receiving the high. energy grower and low energy finisher treatment combination. 65 9. The incorporation of finely ground 40% oats in a corn-soy ration appeared to have no effect in preventing the incidence of stomach ulcer. BIBLIOGRAPHY B IBLIOGRAPHY Abernathy, R. P., R. F. Sewell and R. L. Tarpley. 1958. Intercorrelationships of protein, lysine and energy in diets for growing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 17:635. Allee, G. L., D. H. Baker and G. A. Leveille. 1971a. Fat utilization and lipogenesis in young pigs. J. Nutr. 101:1415. Allee, G. L., D. H. Baker and G. A. Leveille. 1971b. Influence of level of dietary‘fat on adipose tissue lipogenesis and enzymatic activity in the pig. J. Anim. Sci. 33:1248. ‘ Allee, G. L., E. K. O'Hea, G. A. Leveille and D. H. Baker. 1971c. Influence of dietary protein and fat on lipogenesis and enzymatic activity in pig adipose tissue. J. Nutr. 101:869. Allee, G. L., D. R. Romsos, G. A. Leveille and D. H. Baker. 1972. Lipogenesis and enzymatic activity in pig adipose tissue as influenced by source of dietary fat. J. Anim. Sci. 35:41. A.R.C. 1967. The nitrient requirements of farm livestock. No. 3., Figs. London. Babatunde, G. M. 1972. Optimum levels of zinc in the diets of pigs in the trOpics as influenced by the addition of graded levels of lard. J. Sci. Fd. Agric. 23:113. - Baird, D. M., J. R. Allison and E. K. Heaton. 1974. The energy value for and influence of citrus pulp in finishing diets for swine. J. Anim. Sci. 38:545. Baldini, J. T. and H. R. Rosenberg. 1955.. The effect of productive energy level of the diet on the methionine requirement of the chick. Poul. Sci. 34:1301. 66 .‘ 1-73: 91'. sins-2’4 s. MAO—*1 Iii-eta J_ _ _ 67 Becker, D. E. 1960. _Recent advances in swine nutrition. Proc. 8th Ann. Agr. Res. Conf., Chas. Pfizer and Co., Inc., p. 35. ' Boenker, D. E. and L. F. Tribble. 1960. Protein-energy interrelationship in swine rations. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 751. Boenker, D. E., L. F. Tribble and W. H. Pfander. 1969. Energy and nitrogen evaluation of swine diets containing added fat or corn cobs. J. Anim. Sci. 28:615. ' Bowland, J. P., H. Bickel, H. P. Pfirter, C. P. Wenk and A. Schurch. 1970. Respiration calorimetry studies with growing pigs fed diets containing from 3 to 12% crude fiber. J. Anim. Sci. 31:495. Brooks, C. C. and H. R. Thomas. 1959. Inedible lard in swine rations. Va. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 506. Brooks, C. C. 1967a. Effect of fat, fiber, molasses and thyroprotein on digestibility of nutrients and . I performance of growing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 26:495. Brooks, C. C. 1972. Molasses, sugar (sucrose), corn, tallow, soybean oil and mixed fats as sources of energy for growing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 34:217. Bruner, W. H., V. R. Cahill, W. L. Robinson and R. F. Wilson. 1958. Performance of barrow and gilt littermate pairs at the Ohio Evaluation Station. J. Anim. Sci. 17:875. Cahill, V. R., H. S. Teague, L. E. Kunkle, A. L. Moxon and C. A. Rutledge. 1960. Measurement of and ways of affecting sex—influenced performance of growing— finishing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 19:1036. Calverley, C. E. and C. Kennedy. 1949. The effect of fat on calcium and phosphorus metabolism in normal growing rats under a normal dietary regime. J. Nutr. 38:165. Chamberlain, C. C., G. M. Merriman, E. R. Lidvall and E. T. Gamble. 1967. Effects of feed processing method and diet form on the incidence of eSOphago- gastric ulcers in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 26:72. Cheng, A. L. S., M. G. Morehouse and H. J. Deuel, Jr. 1949. The effect of dietary calcium and magnesium on the digestibility of fatty acids, simple triglyceride and some natural hydrogenated fats. N. Nutr. 37:237. 68 Clawson, A. J., T. N. Blumer, W. W. G. Smart, Jr. and E. R. Barrick. 1962. Influence of energy-protein ratio on performance and carcass characteristics of swine. J. Anim. Sci. 21:62. Cooke, R., G. A. Lodge and D. Lewis. 1972. Influence of energy and protein concentration in the diet on the performance of growing pigs. A. Response to protein intake on a high energy diet. Anim. Prod. 14:35. Cooke, R., G. A. Lodge and D. Lewis. 1972. Influence of energy and protein concentration in the diet on the performance of growing pigs. C. Response to differences in levels of both energy and protein. Anim. Prod. 14:219. - Cooke, R., G. A. Lodge and D. Lewis. 1972. Influence of energy and protein concentration in the diet on the performance of growing pigs. D. Effect of sex on re3ponse to dietary protein level. Anim. Prod. 14:229. ' Crampton, E. W., E. L. Lloyd and V. G. Mackay. 1956. The calorie value of TDN: Swine studies. J. Anim. Sci. 15:1229 (Abstr.) Creswell, D. C. and C. C. Brooks. 1971. Composition, apparent digestibility and energy evaluation of coconut oil and coconut meal. J. Anim. Sci. 33:366. Day, B. N., G. C. Anderson, V. K. Johnson and W. L. Lewis. 1953. The effect of a high fat ration on swine gains and carcass quality. J. Anim. Sci. 12:944. Diggs, B. G., D. E. Becker, A. H. Jensen and H. W. Norton. 1965. Energy value of various feeds for the young pig. J. Anim. Sci. '24:555. Diller, E. F. and O. A. Harvey. 1964. Interrelationship of sterol and fatty acid biosynthesis in rat liver slices as related to dietary lipid. Biochem. Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 11:1. ' French, C. E. 1942. The interrelationship of calcium and fat utilization in the growing albino rat. J. Nutr. 23:375. 69 Gamble, C. T., C. C. Chamberlain, G. M. Merriman and E. R. - Lidvall. 1967. Effects of pelleting, pasture and selected diet ingredients on the incidence of esophagogastric ulcer in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 26:1054. - Garrigus, W. P. and H. H. Mitchell. 1935. The effect of grinding on the digestibility of corn by pigs and on its content of metabolizable energy. J. Agr. Res. 50:731. Greeley, M. G., R. J. Meade and L. E. Hanson. 1964. Energy and protein intake by growing swine. I. _ Effects On rate and efficiency of gain and nutrient digestibility. J. Anim. Sci. 23:808.- Greeley, M. G., R. J. Meade, L. E. Hanson and J} Nor. 1964. Energy and protein intakes by growing swine. II. Effects on rate and efficiency of gain and carcass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 23:816. 'pwmmm Mann-or. - .s '—9" Hale, O. M. and B. L. Southwell. 1967. Differences in swine performance and carcass characteristics because of dietary protein level, sex and breed. J. Anim. Sci. 26:341. ' Hale, O. M., J. C. Johnson, Jr. and E. D. Warren. 1968. Influence of season, sex and dietary energy concen- tration on performance and carcass characteristics of swine. J. Anim. Sci. 27:1577. Hanke, H. E., J. W. Rust, R. J. Meade and L. E. Hanson. 1972. Influence of source of soybean protein, and of pelleting, on rate of gain and gain/feed of growing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 35:958. ‘ Hanke, H. E., Gonsalo Castro and R. J. Meade. 1974-75. Influence of level of dietary protein and of supplemental tallow on rate ofgain and feed/gain of pigs weaned at an early age. .Minn. Swine. Res. Rep ts. T Hansard, S. L. and M. P. PlumLee. 1954. Effects of dietary calcium and phosphorus levels upon the physiological behavior of calcium and phOsphorus in rats. J. Nutr. 54:17. Hill, R., J. M. Linozasoro, F. Chevallier and I. L. Chaikoff. Regulation of hepatic lipogenesis: The influence of dietary fats. J. Biol. Chem. 233:305. 70 Hill, F. W., D. L. Anderson, R. Renner and L.‘B. Carew, Jr. 1960. Studies of the metabolizable energy of grain and grain products for chickens. Poul. Sci. 39:573. Hintz, H. F. and W. N. Garrett. 1967. Steam pressure processing and pelleting of barley for growing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 26: 746. Hochstetler, L. N., J. A. Hoefer, A. M. Pearson and R. W. Luecke. 1959. Effect of varying levels of fiber of different sources upon growth and carcass char- acteristics of swine. JAS 18:1397. Husby, F. M. and G. H. Kroening. 1971. Energy value of cottonseed meal for swine. J. 'Anim. Sci. 33:592. Jensen, A. H. 1956. Pelleting rations for swine. Feed- stuffs. 38(31): 24. Jensen, A. H., D. E. Becker and S. W. Terrill. 1959a. Growth inhibitory effect of oat hulls in rations for growing-finishing swine. JAS. 18:1356. Jensen, A. H., D. E. Becker, and S. W. Terrill. .1959b. Oats as replacement for corn in complete mixed rations for growing-finishing swine. JAS. 18:701. Jensen, A. H. and D. E. Becker. 1965. Effect of pelleting diets and dietary components on performance of young pigs- J. Anim. Sci. 24: 392. Kick, D. E., A. M. Pearson, W. T. Magee, J. A. Hoefer and B. S. Schweigert. 1968. Effect of diet on the fatty acid composition of pork fat. J. Anim. Sci. 27:360. Korchak, H. M. and E. J. Masoro. 1964. Free fatty acid as lipogenic inhibitors. Biochem. Biophys. Acta. 84:750. Kornegay, E. T. 1973. Digestible and metabolizable energy and protein utilization values of brewers dried by-products for swine. J. Anim. Sci. 37:479. Kropf, D. H., A. M. Pearson and H. D. Wallace. 1954. Observations on the use of waste beef fat in swine rations. J. Anim. Sci. 13:630. . Kurivial, M. S. and J. P. Bowland. 1962. Supplemental fat as an energy source in the diets of swine and rats. II. Energy and nitrogen retention and carcass fat composition. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 42:33. 71 Larsen, L. M. and J. E. Oldfield. 1961. Improvement of barley rations for swine. III. Effect of fiber from barley hulls and purified cellulose in barley and corn rations. JAS. 20:440. Leong, K. C., M. L. Sunde, H. R. Bird and C. A. Elvehjem. 1955. Effect of energy: protein ratio on growth rate, efficiency, feathering and_fat deposition in chickens. Poul. Sci. 34:1206 (Abstr.) Leveille, G. A. 1967a. Influence of dietary fat and pro- tein on metabolic and enzymatic activities in adipose tissue of meal-fed rats. J. Nutr. 91:25. Leveille, G. A. 1967b. Influence of dietary fat level on the enzymatic and lipogenic adaptations in adipose tissue of meal-fed rats. J. Nutr. 91:267. Lockhart, W. C. and R. H. Thayer. 1955. Energy-protein -re1ation3hips in poult turkey starters. Poul. Sci. 34:1208 (Abstr.) Lodge, G. A., M. E. Cundy, R. Cooke, and D. Lewis. .1972. Influence of energy and protein concentration in the diet on the performance of growing pigs. b. Differing nutrient density at a constant ratio. Anim. Prod. 14:47. Lofgreen, G” P. 1951. The use of digestible energy in the evaluation of feeds. J. Anim. Sci. 10:344. Lowrey, R. S., W. G. Pond, J. K. Loosli and J. H. Maner. 1962. Effect of dietary fat level on apparent nutrient digestibility by growing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 21:746. Lucus, I. A. M. and G. A. Lodge. 1961. The nutrition of the young pig. The Rowett Res. Inst., Bucksburn, Aberdeen. Mahan, D. C., R. A. Pickett, T. W. Perry, T. M. Curtin, W. M. Beeson and W. R. Featherston. 1966. Influ- ence of ration particle size on the incidence of ulcers in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 25:1019. Masoro, E. J. 1962. Biochemical mechanisms related to the homeostatic regulation of lipogenesis in animals. J. Lipid Res. 3:149. ' Matterson, L. D., L. M. Potter, L. D. Stinson and E. P. Singsen. 1955. Studies on the effect of varying protein and energy levels in poultry rations on growth and feed efficiency. Poul. Sci. 34:1210 (Abstr.) 72 Maust, L. E., W. G. Pond and M. L. Scott. 1972. Energy value of a cassava-rice bran diet with and without supplemental zinc for growing swine. 35:953. Masson, D. W., G. R. Stanley, T. W. Perry, R. A. Pickett and T. M. Curtin. 1968. Influence of various ratios of raw and gelatized corn, oats, oat compo- nents and sand on the,incidence of esophagogastric lesions in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 27:1006. May, R. W. and J. M. Bell. 1971.. Digestible and meta- bolizable energy values of some feeds for the growing pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51:271. Maynard, L. A. 1947. Animal Nutrition. New York. 2nd Ed. p. 494. . I Maynard, L. A. 1953. Total digestible nutrients as a measure of feed energy. J. Nutr. 51:15. Meade, R. J., W. R. Dukelow and R. S. Grant. 1966. Influ- ence of percent oats in the diet, lysine and methionine supplementation and of pelleting of rate and efficiency of gain of growing pigs, and on carcass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 25:58. Miller, E. R., E. C. Miller and D. E. Ullrey. 1971. Vitamin and trace mineral levels in swine rations. Reports of swine research.AH—SW—718. Mitchell, H. H. and T. S. Hamilton. 1933. True and apparent digestibility of oat hulls and alfalfa meal by sWine, with special reference to the ability of swine to digest cellulose and crude fiber. J. Agr. Res. 47:425. ‘ Moser, B. D. 1975. Fat addition to swine diet. Neb. Swine Report. Muggenburg, B. A., S. H. McNutt and T. Kowalczyk, R. H. Grummer and W. G. Hoekstra. 1964b. Survey of the prevalence of gastric ulcers in swine. Am. J. Vet. Res. 25:1673. Mulholland, R., E. S. Erwin and R. S. Gordon. 1960. Protein energy ratios for barrows and gilts marketed at 145 and 195 pounds. J. Anim. Sci. 19:1278 (Abstr.) 73 NAS-NRC. 1971. Joint United States—Canadian Table of Feed Composition National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, washington, D. C. NCR-42 Committee on Swine Nutrition. 1969. Comparative regional studies with growing swine: Effects of source of ingredients, form of diet and location on rate and efficiency of gain of growing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 29:927. Nelson, T. S., L. W. Ferrara and N. L. Storer. 1968. Phytate phosphorus content of feed ingredients derived from plants. Poul. Sci. 47:1372. Newman, C. W., D. M. Thrasher, S. L. Hansard, A. M. Mullins and R. F. Boulware. 1967. Effect of tallow in swine rations on utilization of calcium and phos— phorus. JAS. 26:479. N.R.C. 1968. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. No. 2. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. Pub. 1599. National Research Council, Washington, D. C. N.R.C. 1973. Nutrient Requirements of Domestic Animals. No. 2. Nutrient Requirements of Swine. National Research Council, Washington, D. C. Nuwer, A. J., T. W. Perry, R. A. Pickett, T. M. Curtin, W. R. Featherstone and W. M. Beeson. 1965. Value of various additives to ulcer-producing gelationized corn diets fed to swine. J. Anim. Sci. 24:113. Nuwer, A. J. T. W. Perry,']t A. Pickett, and T. M. Curtin. 1967. Expounded processed fractions of corn and their relative ability to elicit esophagogastric ulcers in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 26:518. O'Hea, E. K. and G. A. Leveille. 1969. Significance of ‘ adipose tissue and liver as sites of fatty acid synthesis in the pig and the efficiency of utili- zation of various substrates for pilogenesis. J. Nutr. 99:338. Owusu-Domfeh, K. and J. M. Bell. 1971. Nutrient require- ment for growing and finishing pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51:601. Peter, R. A., J. E. Pettigrew, B. G. Harmon, A. H. Jensen ,and D. H. Baker. 1971. Metabolizable energy of distillers dried solubles with grains for swine. J. Anim. Sci. 33:1153. 74 Pond, W. G., E. Kwong and J. K. Loosli. 1960. Effect of level of dietary fat, pathothenic acid and protein on performance of growing fattening swine. J. .Anim. Sci. 19: 1115. Pond, W. G., R. S. Lowrey and J. H. Maner. 1962. Effect of crude fiber level on ration digestibility and performance in growing finishing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 21:692. Reese, N. A., B. A. Muggenburg, T. Kowalczyk, R. H. Grummer and W. G. Hoekstra. 1966a. Nutritional and environ- mental factors influencinggastric ulcers in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 25:14. Reese, N. A., B. A. Muggenburg, T. Kowalczyk, W. G. Hoekstra and R. H. Grummer. 1966b. Effects of corn, wheat, oats and alfalfa leaf meal on the development of gastric ulcers in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 25:21. Riker, J. T., III, T. W. Perry, R. A. Pickett and T. M. Curtin. 1967. Influence of various grains on the oesophagogastric ulcers in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 26:731. Robinson, D. W. and D. Lewis. 1964. Protein and energy nutrition of the bacon pig. 2. The effect of varying the protein and energy levels in the diets of finishing pigs. J. Agr. Sci. 63:185. Saben, H. S., J. P. Bowland and R. T. Hardin. 1971a. ‘Digestible and metabolizable energy values for rapeseed meals and soybean meal fed to growing pigs. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 51:419. Saben, H. S., J. P. Bowland and R. T. Hardin. 1971b. Effect of method of determination on digestible energy and nitrogen and on metabolizable energy values of rapeseed meal and soybean meals fed to growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 51:427. Schneider, B. H. 1947. Feeds of the world, their digesti— bility and composition. W. VA. Agr. Exp. Sta., Morgantown, W. VA. Schneider, B. H. 1954. The total digestible nutrient system of measuring nutritive_energy. Sci. Paper No. 1250, Wash. Agr. Exp. Sta., Pullman. Scott, L. C. and D. L. Staheli. 1955. The effect of vary- ing protein and energy on the performance of chicks. Poul. Sci. 34:1220 (Abstr.) 75 Seerley, R. W., E. R. Miller and J. A. Hoefer. 1962. Growth, energy and nitrogen studies on pigs fed meal and pellets. J. Anim. Sci. 21:829. Seerley, R. W., G. E. Poley and R. C. Wahlstrom. 1964. ' Energy and protein relationship studies with growing- finishing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 23:1016. Seether, K. A., T. S. Miya, T. W. Perry and P. N. Boehm. - 1971. Extraction of an ulcer—preventing principle from oat hulls. J. Anim. Sci. 32:1160. ' Sewell, R: F., T. E. Cotton, J. H. Mauser and J. L. Carmon. 1957. Relative value of tallow, corn and cob meal and various levels of cats in rations for swine. J. Anim. Sci. 16:1075. Sewell, R. F., R. L. Tarpley and R. P. Abernathy. 1958. Effect of adding cholagogue to rations for growing swine at three levels of dietary fat. J. Anim. Sci. 17:47. ’ Sewell, R. F. and I. L. Miller. 1965. Utilization of ‘ various dietary fats by baby pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 24:973. ' Swift, R. W. 1957. The caloric value of TDN. J. Anim. Sci. 16:753. Troelsen,-J. E. and J. M. Bell. 1962. Ingredient and processing interrelationships in swine feeds. IV. Effects of various levels of kinds of fibrous dilnents in finisher rations, fed as meal or pellets, on performance and carcass quality of swine. Can. J.‘Anim. Sci. 42:63. Waterman, R., D. R. Romsos, E. R. Miller and G. A. Leveille. 1973. Effects of low levels of supplemental tallow in the finishing rations of meat-type pigs. Feed- stuffs 45:45:33. . Wagner, G. R.,.A. J. Clark, V. W. Hays and V. C. Speer. 1963. EffeCt of protein—energy relationships on the performance and carcass quality of growing pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 22:202. ' ’ Weiss, J. F., E. C. Naber and R. M. Johnson. 1967. Effect of dietary fat and cholesterol on the in vitro incorporation of acetate-14C into hen liver and ovarian lipids. J. Nutr. 93:143. 76 Whitney, J. E. and S. Roberts. 1955. Influence of previous diet on hepatic glycogenesis and lipogenesis. Amer. J. Physiol. 181:446. Yeh, Y. Y. and G. A. Leveille. 1969. Effect of dietary protein on hepatic lipogenesis in growing chicks. J. Nutr. 98:356. Yeh, Y. Y., G. A. Leveille and J. H. Wiley. 1970. Influ— ence of dietary lipid on lipogenesis and on the activity of malic enzyme and citrate cleavage enzyme in liver of growing chicks. J. Nutr. 100:917. Yen, J. T., D. H. Bake, B. G. Harmon and A. H. Jensen. 1971. Corn gluten feed in swine diets and effect of pellet- ing on tryptophan availability to pigs and rats. J. Anim. Sci. 33:987. Yen, J. T., J. D. Brooks and A. H. Jensen. 1974. Meta- bolizable energy value of corn gluten feed. J. Anim. Sci. 39:335. Young, L. E. and R. P. Forshaw. 1969. Energy'values of corn, barley and soybean meal for swine. J. Anim. Sci. 29:150. Zivkovic, S. and J. P. Bowland. 1963. Nutrient digesti- bilities and comparison of measures of feed energy for gilts fed rations varying in energy and protein level during growth, gestation and lactation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 43:86. APPENDIX 77 mm.m Nm.v o¢.m .mm.m mm.m Mb.N om.N NN.N mo.N :Hmm\vmwm Hth mHmN HmNN mhma «mom mmom hmha omma mNOH Em .Ommm . . Sawmc .>¢ mm.mma~ ma.mqma Hm.ommH k~.~vma vo.mmoa oo.mom ma.mvm mm.amm mo.mma as .mumn on . .mcoo pooh Hmm mmm new man mmo use «mo mmo mom em .cnmm aawmc .>« 0.55 N.Mh H.Vh m.ww m.mm N.mm h.mv h.Nm N.mm m.mH z m INMH o.moa 03mm «.mm H.mb v.Hh m.mm m.hv o.mm H.vm. m.mH 2 H ImNH m.mm v.mm m.mh m.mm m.Ho w.Hm m.Nv w.Hm v.H~ o.va 2 H INNH m.mm «.mN «.mm m.mm N.mm v.Hm o.ov m.0m m.om m.MH h OHIBHH H.vm N.mm N.Mb w.vm w.mm h.mv N.mm H.mN m.mH N.ma z m Imma m.om m.mw h.Nh m.mm w.mm m.mv m.wm ¢.Hm N.m~ m.mH m CHIMNH m.mm v.mh 0.05 w.Hm 0.0m ¢.Hm v.av h.Nm m.NN H.¢H 2 v IONA m.mm m.mm m.mh H.vm m.hm N.m¢ n.5m m.hN N.ma m.HH z N coma h.hm 0.0m m.Hh o.¢m H.vm m.om N.mm m.mN m.o~ m.va m w Imoa mg .unmfioz .. .oz .mnm x3 ma x3 as x3 «H x3 «H x3 oH x3 m _ x3 m x3 q. x3 m Hafiuflcu coaumm umnmficwh uo3ouu Hmuumum . .3oqlsmfimlsoq .mmasvmsom kmumcm .H ucwsflummxm .mumo mocmauomumm .Hld canoe 78 mm.¢ m~.m mv.v mo.¢ mm.~ no.~ n>.~ mm.~ oo.~ chmxommm mmnm mva. mwvm SFGH Noam poem kth mmmH mmHH so .cmmm aHHmo .>¢ mo.qu~ h~.komH ~m.mmmH mo.m~mH mn.nHHH ms.~mm h~.~km Hm.mvm mo.mvH ox .oumu op . .mcoo pooh Hem mm» mem HHe hos was mam nmm omm as .chm sHHmu .>¢ m.mk m.mm m.sm m.mm «.mm H.44 ¢.mm 0.0m m.m~ m.mH m m -NmH 0.0m o.mm h.~n n.5m «.mo m.mm .m.mv s.~m m.m~ o.mH m HHummH n.5m n.5m o.mn m.mm 0.00 0.0m k.sm o.om m.o~ >.~H z p -nHH v.0m v.Hm m.om m.os m.om m.mm ~.mv m.mm m.m~ m.mH m m -mNH «.mm o.mm o.ms m.mm m.om o.om m.o¢ m.Hm s.- H.4H m m -HNH m.mm m.mm m.mn o.os m.mo m.¢m n.~v m.Hm s.- HaVH 2 H -omH 5.5m m.Hm m.Hh v.0o m.om v.Hm m.Hv «.mm ~.m~ m.mH m m nomH o.mHH m.NoH h.hm m.mm 0.0» m.mm H.vq m.~m h.- H.vH 2 H -vOH . u o.mn m.~k m.mm m.vm s.~¢ o.mm m.m~ m.mH 2 H -mOH ax .uamHms .oz .mHm x3 mH x3 oH x3 «H x3 «H H3 0H 33 m x3 m x3 e H3 N HmHuHcH voHuwm Hwnmwcflm “macho umuumum .3oqlnmdmlsmwm .moaoownom hmumcm .H usmswummxm .mumn mocmauomuom .N14 manna hm.m . mhww . vm.¢ mm.m Ho.m mo.m mm.~ ov.~ mo.~ camo\ummm hvmm mama mvmm HmmH mvom vmma Hmma omma mNHH so .Uomm hawmv .>¢ mH4mmHm oo.m>mH mH.mmmH mh.thH hm.>moa mm.m~m mm.mhm mm.mvm hm.mva ox .mumc on, . .mcoo comm omm Se 03 MHHV omo So m: Eb 03 so 5:5 mHHmc .>4 ,v.moa m.mm 5.5m m.mh m.Hh v.Hw m.Hm H.mm ~.m~ m.om h Imoa m.mb m.mm ~.mm v.0m h.~m m.mv c.0m w.m~ m.o~ m.MH m INMH m.mm h.mm >.~h m.mm m.Hm v.Hm m.av 0.0m m.o~ «.ma oaumwa m.>m m.mh m.ah «.mm m.mm m.m¢ o.mm v.Hm m.Hm o.mH w uwma v.m> m.mb v.0h H.mm n.5m m.om h.mv H.vm m.vm m.>H m IBHH m.mm v.Hh n.5m m.mo b.5m m.mv m.ov m.Hm h.- v.mH m m nmma o.mm m.bh w.mm m.oo ~.mm m.m¢ H.mm H.mm H.ma m.mH z n IMNH N.mm b.5m m.mh ~.mo m.Ho m.mm m.¢¢ m.vm m.¢~ m.ma m m nomH .mHmm .v.Hm _ «.mm m.>h 0.0» m.bm m.mv m.mm o.¢~ m.mH z m IONH mx .unmwot -. .oz .mwm x3 ma #3 ma . #3 ca x3 «H #3 oa x3 m x3 o x3 o x3 N HmHuHcH uoHuwm nonmacwm Hmzouu HouHMDm .nmwmncmwmlson .mmascmnom mmnmcm .H ucmsfiummxm .mumn mocmauomnmm .m14 magma 80 mm.m wm.m ~m.m Hk.m «H.m ,mm.~ nm.~ Ho.~ mo.~ chmxcmmm mesa mmvm mmmm msmH mmHm .mmom ohmH «HvH mowH em .ommm mHHmc .>4 Hm.mmHm mH.mmmH hm.mmmH oo.om~H e~.NBOH mm.omn wv.ovm 00.0mm mm.HmH ox .mumo on .mcoo comm mHm mmq mmo 5mm mam «on Hmo mos hem am .chm sHHmc .>< m.vm m.mm m.mh «.mm H.mm H.m¢ v.He s.mm «.mm m.mH m rmOH H.mm, «.mn m.mn m.mm m.vm m.vm ,o.vv o.mm v.m~ m.oH k -mmH «.mm m.mn m.so 5.5m e.~m m.me H.mm m.om n.~m o.vH m INMH m.mm o.os v.05 m.mo H.mm H.mv n.5m m.m~ m.mH m.~H m -mmH H.mm w.mm n.55 m.mo m.mm v.om m.m¢ m.mm m.m~ m.mH m -hHH m.mm h.~m «.ms m.o> «.mm m.mm m.m¢ m.nm v.w~ m.SH v -hHH m.Hm o.mm v.0» «.mw o.mmw m.qm m.mw «.mm n.- o.mH m IMMH m.Hm m.on 4.0m m.mm o.mm v.m¢ v.0m o.mm o.o~ N.MH HHuomH «.mm m.mm m.om m.ms o.mm H.mm m.mv «.mm m.h~ ~.mH OH-omH ms .unmwwz .oz mum x3 mH x3 mH x3.vH H3 NH x3 oH H3 m R H3 m H3 4 H; N , . HmHuHcH uoHumm Hmnmficfih HOSOMU HOHHMDm .3oauzoqlnmwm .moasomnom hmumcm .H usmswuomxm .uumo mosmeuomnmm .vua manna 81 mm.m m~.v A mH.¢ No.4 m~.m mo.m ~m.~ mH.~ hm.H :Hmm\vmom smsm Homm mmmm omom «mum moHN bth vaH NNHH am .mmmm . >HHmc .>¢ sm.omm~ ms.nvo~ mm.smoH mo.momH mm.mOHH mvzomm mk.evm mm.Hmm mm.HwH ox .mumu on ..mcoo comm mew com «on OHm «on «He mmo one Hem so .chm . mawmc .>¢ «.m0H H.4m o.mm m.on m.o> o.mm H.mv m.mm .m.m~ o.mH HummH «.mm 0.0m m.mn m.mo 4.Hm m.mm m.mv o.mm m.¢~ m.mH m-m~H H.vm m.ms 4.6m m.mm ~.mm m.mv o.mm s.- m.mH m.~H mummH H.mm m.mm ~.mm s.~s m.om m.om m.mm m.m~ o.mH h.~H hummH m.~0H ~.mm m.Hm s.~h «.mo m.nm m.mv m.mm o.m~ m.mH muhHH m.nm m.mm m.sp m.mo m.~o v.Hm m.mv s.~m s.mm m.mH «-mmH ¢.H0H m.om m.om m.mm o.mm «.mm ‘m.~¢ m.Hm ~.m~ m.vH muomH H.vm_ «.mm o.vu m.mm m.sm ”.54 o.mm m.m~ q.H~ m.MH n-40H o.mm 0.4m m.mn m.mo o.mm m.m¢ m.mm v.o~ m.mH m.OH manH mg .panoz .oz mHm x3 mH x3 wH x3 «H x3 «H . x3 oH x3 m x3 m x3 v x3 ~ 4 . HmHuHaH voHumm umnmwswm Hmzouw Hmuumum .3oql3oqlnmwm .mwasooaom hmumcm .H unmaflummxm .mumn mocmsuomumm .mu¢ mHnma 82 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 00.0 0H.0 00.H so .0000 mawmw .kfl 00.0000 00.000H 00.000H 00.HH0H 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.0H0 H0.00H 00 .0000 00 .mcoo town 000 000 000 000 000 0H0 000 000 H00 am .0000 aawmw .>4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.H0 0.0H 0-00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0-00H H.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 H.0H 0-00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0-00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0:0HH 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0.0H HHI00H 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.00 0.H0 0.00 0.0H 0-00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.0H 0-00H 0.00H 0.00 . 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 H.0H 0-00H 00 .000H0z . .oz 000 03 0H 03 0H 03 0H 03 0H 03 0H 03 0 03 0 x3 0 03 0 . HmHuHcH 000000 nonmflcwm Hm3ouw umuumum .00H0usoHnHmHm .00H000000 000000 .H 0002000000 .0000 00005000000 .0u0 0Hnma HH.¢ 0v.m mm.m NH.M mm.m mm.~ mh.N mm.N vm.H :Hmm\wmmm 0000 0000 0000 000H 000H 00H0 000H 000H 0H0 00 .0000 0HH00 .>0 00.00H0 00.000H 00.000H 00.0H0H 00.000H 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.0HH 0x .0000 00 . .mcoo comm 000 H00 000 000 H00 000 000 000 000 50 .0H00 . 0H000 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 . 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0.0H 0:00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 H.00. 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.0H 0.0H 0-00H 0.H0H 0.00 a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-0HH 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0-00H 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0-HOH 0.00 0.00 0.00 . 0.00 H.00 H.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0-H0H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.H0 0.0H 0-00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.H0 0.0H H-00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.0H 0-00H 0x .000H0s . . .oz .000 03 0H 03 0H 03 0H 03 0H 03 0H 03 0 03 0 x3 0 03 0 , . HmHuHcH 000000 Hmnmwcwm . 003000 Hmuumum .300masoqlaoq .mmaouwsom mmumcm .H ucmswummxm .mumo mocmsuomumm .0I¢ wands 84 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000x0000 0000 0000 0000 000H 00H0 0000 0H0H 000H 00HH 00 .0000 0HH00 .00 H0.0000 00.000H 00.000H 00.H00H 00.000H 00.000 00.000 00.000 H0.00H 00 .0000 on .mcoo @000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00 .0000 0HH00 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.0H 0Hu00H 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0.HH 0-00H 000HH 0.00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.H0 0.00 0.0H 0-00H 0.00H 0.H0H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0-H0H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.0H 0-00H H.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.H0 0.H0 H.0H 0-00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0H 0-00H 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.H0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0H H-00H ox .u£0003 .oz mam 03 0H 03 0H 03 0H 03 0H 03 0H 03 0 . 03 0 03 0 03 0 . H0Hu000 000000 umsmwcflm 003000 000009m .BQHIBQHInwwm .mmascmnom hmumsm .H usmfiwuwmxm .mumo wocmshomumm .mud manna 85 cwmm\©mwm 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000 00.0 00.0 0000 0000 0000 0000 MHON 0000 0000 000a 0000 am .0000 . 00000 .>¢ 00.H0om 00.000H 00.0000 00.00H0 00.000 00.000 «0.000 00.000 00.000 0x .0000 on .0000 0000 000 000 0H0 000 000 000 000 000 000 00 .0000 0HH00 .00 0.000 .m.H00 0.00 0.00 md00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 mnNNH 0.00 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.00 0.~0 N.mm 0.00 0.00 ,01000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.HH 0:000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 «.mm 0.00 0.00 0:000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~.m~ 0.00 HHINNH 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.00 01000 0.Hoa 0.00 0.00 0.00 m.~0 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~.m~ H.0H ml0ma . 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 mumma 0.. 500000 .00 000 x3 00 33 0H x3 0H #3 NH x3 0H x3 m #3 0 x3 v x3 N . . H0HuH0H 000000 00:00:00 003000 umuumum .nmaml3oql3oq .mmasownom mmnmam .H pcwswummxm .0000 wocmsuomumm .mlm 00300 86 r45 ..i..0l.lr.l fil- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0. 00.0 0000x0000 000m 0000 0000 0000. 0000 0000 0000 0000 ~00 a0 .0000 0 00000 .00 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.0000 00.000 00.000 00.000 00.000 0x .0000 00 , .0000 0000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 00 .0000 00000 .>0 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-000. 0.000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-mm0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-000 0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 «.00 0.00 00-000 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-000 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-000 00 .000003 .02 000 x3 00 x: 00 x3 00 03 m0 03 00 03 0 03 0 x: 0 03 m - 0000000 000000 00:00:00 003000 umuumum .0000-0000-0000 .000000000 000000 .0 0000000000 .0000 00005000000 .00-0 00000 vm.~ mm.m mm.~ .om.H vm.~ ,mh.m mv.~ mo.~ Ho.m cwmm\ommm mwvm 55mm mmma mmw maoa oama mama mova nmaa am .vmmm ‘ waflmv .>< mo.moma Hm.o>ma nm.~moa mv.oom om.aom mn.hmm oo.mmw ma.mmm mo.wma ox .wumu 0» .mcoo vmmm mmm «on omo «mm mvm mmm mmm huh mom so ~qamm maflmo .>< m.mm m.>m m.mh n.nm ¢.wm m.mv m.av n.~m h.mm m.qa oauvoa m.mm m.>m w.oh m.mo w.wm m.am H.mm H.mm m.o~ N.MH mumma m.mh o.oh h.mm m.mm m.om h.~v n.5m o.mm m.o~ N1ma muvva m.mm 0.0m m.vh m.mm m.om m.om h.hv h.>m m.m~ ¢.ma .vuaoa ¢.Hm N.mm vah «.mm H.mm H.vm m.oq m.am w.HN N.mH «Irma v.m> m.Hh ¢.Ho m.mm «.mv m.mv H.mm m.om ~.om m.~a HHIHOH m.om m.mm m.¢h n.5o m.wm H.vm m.mv o.mm o.mm m.mH oanhma ¢.moa o.mm m.mm o.mh m.mm o.mm «.mv mpmm o.m~ v.ma mnmma mg .unmflmz .oz .awm x3 ma 33 ma :3 va x3 NH :3 OH x3 m x3 m x3 v x3 N . . I HafiuwcH coaumm umnmwcam umzouu Hmuumum . .swwmlnmfimn3oa .wmaavonum hmumcm ~H unoafluwmxm .mumo mucmshomumm .Hand magma 88 mm.m mm.m mm.~ mm.~ hm.v vm.~ mv.~ mm.~ Nw.H cwmm\uwmm mmom mom” mhha woafl mmma mmva mwma wmma hmHH EU .ommm . magma .>m H0.0Vha mv.omma oo.mmmH mm.avoa hm.~om mm.vvh vm.mom Hm.mmm mm.mva mx .mqu on . .mcoo 60mm Hmm omo omm mam mum mam mom non «mm av .cfimo . magma .>4 m.mm v.0m m.hh «.mm v.0m m.om m.aw m.mm m.am N.ma. mumma m.mh h.~h o.mm m.om .v.Hm m.m¢ m.~¢ m.mm ~.mm H.¢H NHINNH H.vm o.v> ~.mm mem o.mm m.om H.mm 0.0m o.ma m.oa Hauhma 0.00 o.vm m.vh o.mm o.mm 0.0m m.m¢ v.9m m.mN m.mH Hanmma o.mb H.vh H.vm m.mm v.0w m.mv m.mm h.>m o.o~ m.oa muhma H.mm ¢.Hm m.om 0.05 H.mm v.0m ®.vv .H.vm ~.m~ «.ma mnaoa m.mm m.hm m.mh h.mm H.vm 0.0m m.o¢ mgam m.HN h.NH muaoa m.am m.mb ~.mm m.om m.~m m.mv m.mm o.m~ m.o~ m.HH hnhma m.mm w.am m.Nh m.mm v.mm ~.mm m.¢v m.mm m.mm m.oa humNH 0x .unmwwz .02 mam #3 ma x3 0H #3 wa x3 NH x3 OH x3 m x3 o x3 v x3.~ HmwuwcH vowumm umnmwnwm Hmzouu Hmuumum .3oqaamflmlnmwm .mwancwnom hmumcm .H ucmswuwmxm sauna mocmeuomnmm .NHI¢ manna 89 PC... J ....r.... :7...!&.”.‘F.«u.....tnt J {will mm.v , mn.m vm.m ~H.M mm.m mm.~ mm.~ om.~ qwmm\ummm nmwm momm onow vmvm msma mama mHoH mm¢a - so .owau , magma .>« Hm.mmna mm.HmmH , n~.hmma ma.mmm oo.oom mm.qu Hm.om~ mm.moH mg .mumn on .mcoo cmoh mmn an mmb was mmm. Nwo cow mom em .qflmm mawww .>¢ m.oaa o.moa m.om m.hh o.mo m.mm m.mv H.mm o.m~ Humma m.vm m.om «.mfi m.mmw o.mm m.mv H.mm m.mm m.nm vumma n.~m 0.0m m.mo H.mm «.mm «.mm o.me ~.mm m.Om ouvva o.mm p.55 m.mm o.mm m.mm n.5v o.ov m.mm ~.m~ mumma m.Hm m.mm o.om m.mo n.5m m.mm m.mv ~.mm m.m~ Haumoa m.ooa m.mm o.mm. m.~s m.am h.mm ¢.Hv m.mm H.m~ vumma m.¢oa m.ooa n.5m o.mp n.5m «.mm n.nv «.mm 0.0m H-m¢H H.mm m.Hm m.mm “.mh m.om m.Hm H.we m.mm v.Hm oaumOH ox .usmflmz .02 van x3 ma x3 «a x3 ma x3 oH x3 m x; o x3 w x3 N . HmfluflaH wofiumm umanCflh H030Hw .3OAI3QAIA...V .mmasvmcom hmumcm .H unmEkumxm .mumo mocuEhomumm ..MHI¢ wands 90 mv.n H~.m mn.m omjm mo.m mm.~ hn.~ mm.a cfimm\vmom mmmm mama moon «Hum whoa Hmma mova mmoH sh wommm . . uafimv .>¢ 00.0mmH mm.mov~ m».>maa mm.mmm ~m.avm ao.¢mv Hm.mhm ma.mHH mg .mumu ou . mGOU 8mm omm vmh mos Hum ohm Ham mom mum av .cwmm magma .>m m.oa~ o.¢oH 0.0m m.mh m.mo n.5m p.5v H.mm m.m~ «-mma m.o~a m.voa n.~m m.mp m.mm «lam o.om m.mm m.om muvoa ~.m> «.05 m.ou H.vm >.>¢ m.m¢ m.ov m.mm m.>~ oaunma m.mm m.Hm n.~> m.vo m.mm m.m¢ v.a¢ «.mm m.m~ 02-02 o.mm m.mm 0.0m m.o> o.om «.mm m.mv m.mm m.m~ m-moa >.nm m.am H.mm m.om ,m.om n.ne o.mm v.am o.v~ mumma «.mn w.a> m.om v.Hm o.mv m.m¢ H.mm h.>m H.m~ vufivfl ¢.Hm m.mn n.~o «.mm m.mq m.mv m.mm o.om h.- mumoa mg .unmwmz .oz mam x3 ma x3 vH x3 «H x3 ca x3 m x3 m x3 v x3 m . , HMfluHcH vowumm Nomads..." ”$308 .nwwmleHIA. . .v .mmasmvmnom hmumam 7m uzmfiflummxm .58 mocmfiuowumm .vald magma. 91 mm.m mm.m mm.m mm.v mm.m mo.~ Hq.~ oa.~ cfimmxcmmm momm mmnm ¢¢o~ mmmm mvmfl Hana mmoa «maa am .vmmu 4 aaflmu .>m mm.mHmH mh.hvma mo.mhoa mn.mam mH.mmm p~.~mm Hm.mam mo.qHH mg .oumo 0» .mGOO mvmmh mmm mmh omn mmm mmm mmm mmv mmm em .aflmo aafimc .>¢ 0.0m H.vm H.vp m.mo o.¢m m.mq H.mm m.mm H.a~ Hauhma v.om m.mh 0.0» H.vm o.vm m.Hm m.ov m.mm m.m~ muoqa m.om 0.0m «.oh m.mm m.m¢ m.ov m.vm o.om o.m~ vnmoa m.om m.mm o.vh s.~m «.mm m.mm m.ov «.mm m.m~ NumOH F.NOH «.mm v.mm m.vn m.mm m.mm m.m¢ n.5m 0.0m oaumma n.5m m.om m.om m.mo b.5m v.mv m.mm o.m~ m.- hlmma m.mm ~.mm H.vm m.mp m.mm «.mm m.h¢ «.mm o.m~ mumoa 9. 3:833 .02 3m x3 ma . x3 ea x3 NH x3 oH x3 m x3 m x3 v x3 N HmflufisH woflumm umnmwcwm Mm3ouw oss'nmflm' A. C 0v .mmaaumnom hmumcm .H unmaflummxm .mumn NUGMEHOMHmm .mdld manna 92 t‘i a“ - .1; ‘1 I ‘n 1» a..‘..nncl.u .~ 1‘. .I-lu ov.m «H.m mN.m qv.m Ho.m mo.N no.m oo.N aflmm\cmmm NNNN ONNN mvNN «ONN aqua mmNH mmoN NONN aw .vomu NNNmn .>m NN.N¢¢H Nm.HHmN Nm.mhoa Nm.mNm Nm.onm Hm.omm oo.o¢N mo.vNN wx .mumc 0» .mcoo 60mm HHN Hum 0mm ovm Hmm mam mmm oNv am ~cfimm Naflmo .pN H.mm N.Nm m.mm m.mn N.vm m.mm m.m¢ m.N¢ o.mm nnmoa o.mm m.mn v.ah m.No H.vm m.ov N.mm m.mN N.mN oauowN m.Hm m.mm m.mn m.mm ¢.mm N.nv m.mm n.5m o.om muova n.5m N.Nm m.Hm m.on m.mm n.5v v.mm m.mm m.mN N-ova N.Nu v.90 v.mm N.N¢ ¢.Nv «.mm m.om N.mN N.mN Numoa m.mm m.mm m.mh m.mm m.mm n.5v qum m.om o.mN NumNH N.¢h N.mm o.mm m.om m.mw o.o¢ m.Hm H.mN m.mN nuvva N.Nm H.mm o.mn o.mm 0.09 v.Nm m.ov m.om o.mN NH-N0H ox .unwamz .oz owm x3 ma x3 «a x3 NH x3 oH x3 m x3 m x3 v x3 N HNNuNcH . coauw umnmficflm Hmzouw . m [luynflill .nmwmlnmfimIQ...v .mmasvmnom amnocm .H unmfiwummxm .mumo mommauomumm .m~u¢ magma 93 F‘“'1 Hm.m mm.N oe.N vm.N qwmmxnwmm NmON .mmHN «NNN NNNN am .ommm maflmc .>« mas Nam mmm am» am .cfimm NNNmo .>m N.mm m.om N.Nm m.mm N.mm m.m¢ m.m¢ H.vq Numva m.mN m.on m.mo v.9m m.mm m.mm o.mw m.Nm oaumqa m.mm H.¢m N.Nm m.om m.me m.mv w.m¢ ¢.N¢ mumww m.mm N.¢m N.mm m.om m.m¢ m.m¢ N.mq m.o¢ wumqa mx .ucmwmz m.oz.mNm mafia won swam coNumm , coaumm Hmamwcwh . [any/[Iii .N ucmEflHmmxm .HMHHB mommamm .hH 94 NH.N mm.N NH.N wN.v cNmm\ummm NNmH mmNN mNeN ooqN em .wwmm NHNmu .>« mom Ncm mafia hem am .afimm.maflmw .>« H.mm m.mm m.mm N.No m.om m.mm- N.Nm m.om Narmea N.mN H.mm m.mm m.mm N.mm ‘N.Nm o.mm N.Nm mumefl N.vm m.Nm q.Hm m.mv m.n¢ H.¢¢ N.H¢ N.Nv mumfia 0.0m m.mm m.mm m.mm N.Nm N.m¢ N.¢¢ m.¢q Humwa ox .unmNmz .m.oz mflm 3cm swam swam coflumm nofiuwm .Hmnmwawm .N ucmfiwnmmxm .HMHHB mocmamm .malm magma