.uilzl.

 

«.an .uvb.“

rank

1.
rill...

x “.1! it“.
A . .

 

 

 

.uv cwwmwgn

 

Date

0-7639

FiSITY U

iiiiiijﬂ’rjiiﬂﬂi unuwiiii:

74 007

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
THE EFFECT OF EARLY WEANDIG BEEF CALVES
ON FEEDLDT PERFORMANCE, CARCASS GIARACI'E’RISTICS,
COW PERFORMANCE, AND ECDNOMIC RETURN

presented by

JENNIFER M. BARKER

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Master of_Science__ degree in .mnninanLNutz-ition

90/ ﬁg»?!

Major professor

 

10-1 5-99

MS U is an Aﬂirrnativc Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

L’tiigi Q 493001
T3- rv v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11/00 animus-p.“

THE EFFECT OF EARLY WEANING BEEF CALVES ON FEEDLOT
PERFORMANCE, CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS, COW PERFORMANCE, AND
ECONOMIC RETURN

By

Jennifer Marie Barker

A THESIS

Submitted'to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Animal Science

1999

ABSTRACT
THE EFFECT OF EARLY WEANING BEEF CALVES ON FEEDLOT
PERFORMANCE, CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS, cow PERFORMANCE, AND
ECONOMIC RETURN
By

Jennifer M. Barker

As the beef industry evolves ﬁ'om a segmented to a vertically coordinated
industry, early weaning calves may be a viable management strategy for cow-calf
producers that retain ownership of calves through harvest. Over two years, effects of
early weaning beef calves on feedlot performance, carcass characteristics, economic
return to the cow-calf enterprise, and cow performance were determined. Calves were
assigned to one of two weaning treatments: 1) weaned at an average age of 100 d (EW),
or 2) weaned at an average age of 200 d (NW). Early weaned steers tended to have lower
average daily gain for the ﬁnishing period than NW steers. However EW steers were
more feed efﬁcient, had lower daily dry matter intake, and consumed less total feed
during the ﬁnishing period than NW steers. Early weaning resulted in a lower cost of
gain, however, EW steers had lighter carcass weights than NW steers when harvested at a
constant fat thickness. This resulted in less return to the cow-calf enterprise by early
weaning than normal weaning. Early weaning decreased feed consumption and improved
feed efﬁciency during the ﬁnishing period. However, return to the cow-calf enterprise
was decreased due to lighter weight carcasses. Early weaning resulted in greater weight
gain of cows during the summer grazing period and higher cow body condition scores

prior to the winter feeding period relative to normal weaning.

To new beginnings . . .

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere thanks to Drs. Black, Doumit, Hawkins, and Rust for
serving on my graduate committee. Their guidance is greatly appreciated. Special thanks
, are extended to Dr. Dan Buskirk for serving as my major advisor. Not only do I
appreciate his assistance in completion of this research and thesis, but also his ﬂexibility
in allowing me teaching opportunities, involvement in extension activities, and leadership
roles in youth livestock programs throughout my graduate program.

I would like to thank Paul Naasz and the crew at the Upper Peninsula Experiment
Station in Chatham, MI. Without their assistance in data collection, I would have made
several more long trips across the bridge to the “Northland”. I am forever indebted to
Ken Metz and the crew at the Beef Cattle Teaching and Research Center. They were
always there to lend a helping hand.

The people at Michigan State University set it apart from many other academic
institutions. I have had the opportunity to work with leaders within academia, research,
and the livestock industry. For that, I am eternally grateful.

I thank Justin Ransom and Brett and Nicole Barber for their friendship. I want to
thank my parents for their love and support. They have taught me to set high
expectations and that through hard work and dedication those expectations can be met.
Finally, I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Mike Neef for his unconditional love
and friendship. As I close this chapter of my life and start a new one with him as my

husband, I am ready to face whatever may lie ahead.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ..................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................... ix
INTRODUCTION ....................................................... 1
CHAPTER 1
Review of Literature
Impact of cow body weight and condition on reproductive performance ....... 4
Impact of the suckling stimulus on reproductive performance ............... 6
Impact of early weaning on reproductive performance ..................... 7
Impact of early weaning on dam body weight and condition ................ 8
Impact of postweaning management strategies on growth performance and
feed efﬁciency ................................................... 10
Impact of postweaning management strategies on carcass characteristics
and meat palatability .............................................. 13
Impact of early weaning on postweaning performance and efficiency ........ 17
Impact of of early weaning on carcass characteristics .................... 22
Literature Cited .................................................. 24
CHAPTER 2
F eedlot pejarntance, carcass characteristics, and economic return of early
weaned beef steers
Abstract ........................................................ 32
Introduction ..................................................... 33
Materials and Methods ............................................. 34
Results and Discussion ............................................ 41
Implications ..................................................... 46
Literature Cited .................................................. 56
CHAPTER 3
Performance of beef cows after early weaning calves
Abstract ........................................................ 58
Introduction ..................................................... 59
Materials and Methods ............................................. 60
Results and Discussion ............................................ 61
Implications ..................................................... 63
Literature Cited .................................................. 65

CHAPTER 4
Interpretive Summary ................................................... 67

APPENDIX ........................................................... 7 1

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1. Composition of ﬁnishing diets fed to steers ......................... 47

Table 2-2. Performance, feed efﬁciency, and dry matter consumption of early
weaned (EW; 100 d) and normal weaned (NW; 200 d) steers ............ 48

Table 2-3. Carcass characteristics of early weaned (EW; 100 d) and normal weaned
(NW; 200 d) steers ............................................. 49

Table 2-4. Color, tenderness, and composition of rib steaks from early
weaned (EW; 100 d) and normal weaned (NW; 200 d) steers ............ 50

Table 2-5. Input costs, adjusted carcass price, total carcass revenue, return
to the cow-calf enterprise, and feeder calf breakeven price of early
weaned (EW; 100 d) and normal weaned (NW; 200 d) steers using
four different carcass pricing schemes .............................. 51

Table 2-6. Least squares means for signiﬁcant treatment x year interactions ........ 53
Table 3-1. Weight, body condition scores, and reproductive performance of

dams having calves early weaned (EW; 100 d) or normal

weaned (NW; 200 d) ........................................... 64

Table A-1. Vaccination and medication schedule and product listing for early
weaned and normal weaned steers ................................ 72

Table A-2. Description of costs used to calculate feed and operating costs
during the ﬁnishing period ....................................... 73

Table A-3. Description of four pricing schemes used to calculate revenue

generated by early weaned (EW; 100 d) and normal weaned

(NW 200 d) steers ............................................. 74
Table A-4. Sires of early weaned (100 d) and normal weaned (200 d) steers ........ 75

Table A-5. Performance data of cows with early weaned (EW; 100 d)
or normal weaned (NW; 200 d) calves ............................. 76

Table A-6. Feedlot performance of early weaned (EW; 100 d) or normal
weaned (NW; 200 d) steers ...................................... 86

vii

Table A-7. Carcass data for early weaned (EW; 100 d) and normal
weaned (NW; 200 d) steers ...................................... 91

Table A-8. Rib steak characteristics of early weaned (EW; 100 d) and
normal weaned (NW; 200 d) steers ................................ 96

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1. Average annual base carcass prices ﬁom 1985 to 1999 (USDA,
Agricultural Marketing Service) .................................. 54

Figure 2-2. Average seasonal base carcass price from 1985 to 1998 (USDA,
Agricultural Marketing Service) .................................. 55

ix

INTRODUCTION

Traditionally, the beef industry has been divided into several independent
production enterprises which include cow-calf operations, backgrounders, and feeders.
Economic return to each of these segments has been governed by different production
traits and has been independent of return to other segments. For example, reproductive
efﬁciency is the most economically important trait in cow-calf enterprises, while feed
efficiency and rate of gain are two of the most economically important traits in fed-cattle
enterprises (Melton, 1995). Antagonism often exists between traits that improve return to
different segments. Cundiff et al. (1986) stated that selection for increased postweaning
growth rate and feed efficiency decreases reproductive performance of females.
Therefore, management practices in segmented production systems are often
implemented for the beneﬁt of a particular segment with little regard to other segments.

Traditionally, calves are weaned at approximately seven months of age to
maximize gross return to cow-calf enterprises which market calves at weaning. As the
beef industry progresses toward coordinated production systems, entities within
coordinated systems may retain ownership of the live animal or product beyond their
segment. If ownership is retained, economic return to multiple segments or the entire
system take precedence over that of any single segment. In coordinated production
systems in which cow-calf enterprises retain ownership of calves, weaning calves at
younger ages may increase production efﬁciency through the entire system resulting in

greater return.

When early weaning precedes or coincides with the breeding season, reproductive
performance may be improved (Laster et al., 1973; Lusby et al., 1981). In order to
maintain a 365 d calving interval, beef cows must rebreed within approximately 80 d
postpartum. Failure to become pregnant within this ﬁnite period is the primary reason
that females fail to wean a calf annually (Dziuk and Bellows, 1983). Weaning eliminates
energy demands of lactation allowing for reallocation of energy to reproductive functions.
As well, the inhibitory effect of the suckling stimulus on estrus is removed at weaning
and allows for resumption of normal estrous cycles (Short et al., 1990; Williams et al.,
1990).

Early weaning allows for quicker recovery of body energy reserves that are lost
due to large energy demands during early lactation (Purvis et al., 1995; Myers et al.,
1999a and 1999b). If energy reserves are recovered during the grazing season prior to the
winter feeding period, less harvested feed will be required for females to reach adequate
condition by the subsequent parturition. This may have signiﬁcant economic impact
because feed costs account for at least 50% of all costs incurred by cow-calf enterprises
(Strohbehn, 1997).

Early weaning improves postweaning feed efﬁciency without sacriﬁcing
performance. Results of previous studies have shown that early weaned calves are more
feed efﬁcient than those weaned at a traditional age of 200 d (Gill et al., 1993a; Myers et
al., 1999a and 1999b). Early weaned calves are likely to have lighter average body
weights during the ﬁnishing period and therefore, have lower maintenance requirements

relative to normal weaned calves. Early weaned calves may have lower daily dry matter

intake (DMI) during the ﬁnishing period than normal weaned calves (Gill et al., 1993a;
Myers et al., 1999a and 1999b). However, this may not result in decreased total feed
consumption because early weaned calves have longer ﬁnishing periods than calves
normal weaned at approximately seven months of age.

The National Beef Quality Audit (N CBA, 1995) stated that decreasing harvest age
and increasing marbling will enhance product palatability and better meet demand of
consumers. Early weaning will decrease harvest age if calves are fed a ﬁnishing diet
immediately following weaning. It has also been reported that early weaning increases
marbling and quality grades (Myers et al., 1999a). Implementation of management
schemes that increase carcass quality, without sacriﬁcing carcass weight or yield grade,
may result in more economic return in value-based carcass pricing structures.

Therefore, the objectives of this research were to:

1) Determine effects of early weaning (100 d of age) beef steers with
high marbling potential on feedlot performance and carcass
characteristics.

2) Compare economic return to the cow-calf enterprise of beef steers
early weaned at 100 d of age to that of beef steers normal weaned
beef at 200 d of age.

3) Determine effect of early weaning beef calves at 100 d of age on

cow weight, body condition and subsequent reproductive
performance.

CHAPTER 1

Review of Literature

Impact of cow body weight and condition on reproductive performance

The highest energy demand in the production cycle of beef cows is during early
lactation. When energy requirements are not met by the diet, body energy reserves will
be mobilized (NRC, 1996). When females experience postpartum negative energy
balance, reproductive performance suffers (Rutter and Randel, 1984; Perry et al., 1991).
Houghton et al. (1990) reported that pregnancy rate was 31% lower for females that had
calved in moderate condition and then lost condition from parturition through the
breeding season relative to those that had maintained or gained condition during the same
time period.

Prevention of negative energy balance by manipulation of postpartum dietary
energy may improve reproductive performance. Richards et al. (1986) examined effects
of varying energy in postpartum diets on reproductive performance of multiparous
females. Dietary treatments that varied in energy level to achieve body weight gain (.30
kg/d), weight maintenance, or weight loss (-.56 kg/d) were assigned at parturition. Body
condition score (BCS) of the females ranged from 4 to 7 (l to 9 scale; 1 = extremely thin,
9 = obese) at parturition. Reproductive performance was not affected by postpartum
weight change when females had a BCS 2 5 at parturition, however, weight gain or
weight maintenance improved reproductive performance of females that had a BCS s 4 at

parturition. Weight gain and weight maintenance increased the percentage of females

exhibiting estrus by d 40 of the breeding season relative to those females that lost weight
(96 versus 79%, respectively). Pregnancy rate increased by 35 or 21 percentage units at d
40 of the breeding season when weight was gained or maintained, respectively, by
females having a BCS s 4 at parturition. Overall pregnancy rate also increased by 24
percentage units aﬁer a 60 d breeding season when females with a BCS s 4 at parturition
had gained or maintained weight relative to those that had lost weight during the
postpartum period.

Several researchers have reported that body condition of females at parturition
affects reproductive performance (Dziuk and Bellows, 1983; Selk et al., 1988; Osoro and
Wright, 1992). Richards et al. (1986) reported that cows with a BCS s 4 at parturition
were likely to have longer intervals from calving to ﬁrst estrus and ﬁom calving to I
pregnancy relative to females calving with a BCS 2 5 (61 versus 49 d and 90 versus 84 d,
respectively). Spitzer et al. (1995) reported that as BCS at parturition of primiparous
females increased from 4 to 5, pregnancy rate improved by 24 percentage units after a 60
d breeding season. Lalman et al. (1997) reported that body condition at parturition had
more inﬂuence on length of the postpartum interval than did body condition change from
parturition to 90 d postpartum (R2 = .37 versus R2 = .27, respectively).

Poor body condition may be more detrimental to the reproductive performance of
young females than mature cows because young females have additional energy
requirements for growth. Rae et al. (1993) examined effects of BCS and BCS x parity on
reproductive performance of 3734 beef cows ﬁ'om eight commercial herds in Florida. In

agreement with the aforementioned studies, BCS was positively related to pregnancy rate

(BCS s 3, 4, or 2 5; pregnancy rate = 30.9, 60.4, and 89.1%, respectively). The BCS ><
parity interaction was also statistically signiﬁcant. When the BCS of young females
(parity s 3) was s 3, pregnancy rate was lower than that of mature females (parity 4 - 7)
in the same condition (23.1 versus 47.5%, respectively). When BCS was 4, pregnancy
rate of young females was also lower than that of mature females in the same condition
(53.9 versus 71.6%, respectively). When BCS was 2 5, pregnancy rate of females was

similar among parities.

Impact of the suckling stimulus on reproductive performance

The act of suckling, independent of energy required for lactation, has an inhibitory
effect on resumption of estrous cycles of postpartum beef cows. Wiltbank and Cook
(1958) reported that the postpartum anestrus interval was 30 d longer in females that were
suckled twice daily relative to those being milked twice daily. Increased frequency of
suckling bouts may also prolong the postpartum anestrus period (Wyatt et al., 1977;
Wettemann et al., 1978).

Ovulation is controlled by a complex cascade of hormonal signals from the
pituitary, hypothalamus, and ovary. The act of suckling interferes with release of
hormones, primarily Iuteinizing hormone (LH) and gonadotropin releasing hormone,
required for resumption of normal estrus cycles (Short et al., 1990; Williams, 1990).
Ovulation is preceded by pulsatile release of LH. This release of LH is suppressed in
postpartum, suckled cows (Carruthers and Hafs, 1980; Williams etal., 1983; Williams,

1990). Removal of the suckling stimulus increases LH concentration in blood (Short et

al., 1972; Walters et al., 1982; Edwards, 1985; Faltys et al., 1987) and shortens the
postpartum anestrous period (Short et al., 1972; Smith and Vincent, 1972; Carter et al.,
1980; Faltys et al., 1987). Concentration of LH in blood increases linearly from 24
through 96 h after calf removal (Walters et al., 1982). Edwards (1985) reported that
removal of calves ﬁ'om acyclic cows (35 d postpartum) for 56 h increases the frequency
of LH release and LH concentration in blood to that of cyclic cows.

Energy status of females may also affect ovarian activity following removal of the
suckling stimulus. Bishop et al. (1994) reported that the magnitude of reproductive
response due to removal of the suckling stimulus was contingent upon body condition of
females. A greater percentage of acyclic females in good condition (BCS 2 5) had Iuteal
activity within 25 d after calf removal compared to cows in poorer condition (BCS < 5;

100 vs 43%, respectively).

Impact of early weaning on reproductive performance

When early weaning precedes or coincides with the breeding season, reduced
energy demand and removal of the suckling stimulus may collectively enhance
reproductive performance. Laster et al. (1973) examined effects of early weaning (67 d)
eight days prior to the breeding season on reproductive performance of 308 females.
Reproductive performance of females 24 years old was not affected by early weaning,
however, early weaning improved reproductive performance of younger females. The
percentage of 2- and.3-year-old females with early weaned (EW) calves exhibiting estrus

during the 42 d breeding season increased by 29 and 27 percentage units, respectively,

over that of their contemporaries that were still nursing calves. Early weaning also
improved pregnancy rate of 2- and 3-year old females by 26 and 16 percentage units,
respectively, compared to females with normal weaned (NW) calves. Lusby et al. (1981)
also reported that reproductive performance was enhanced by early weaning. Primiparous
dams of EW calves (50 (I) had higher pregnancy rates (96.8 versus 59.4%) and shorter
calving intervals (353 versus 370.5 d) than primiparous dams of NW calves (215 d).
Myers et al. (1999a) reported that early weaning tended to improve pregnancy rate of
dams of EW calves (168 (I) over dams of NW calves (223 d) (78 versus 67%,
respectively; P = .10). The breeding season had ended before early weaning, therefore
early weaning had no inﬂuence on conception rate. If this treatment difference was
biologically real, embryonic death was reduced in dams of EW calves relative to dams of
NW calves. Myers and coworkers did not report age of dams. In contrast, Purvis et al.
(1995) reported similar pregnancy rates for dams of EW (65 d) or NW (210 d) calves.
Age of these dams was not reported, but they were in good condition at parturition (BCS

= 5).

Impact of early weaning on dam body weight and condition

Early weaning eliminates energy demands of lactation, resulting in body weight
gain (Lusby et al., 1981; Peterson et al., 1987; Knabel et al., 1989; Purvis et al., 1995) and
increased body condition relative to lactating females (Purvis et al., 1995; Myers et al.,
1999a and 1999b). Neville and M‘Cormick (1981) reported that dams of EW calves (67

d) experienced greater ADG from time of early weaning to normal weaning relative to

those females with suckling NW calves (228 d) (.63 versus .29 kg/d, respectively). The
advantage in ADG due to early weaning was 44 % greater for primiparous females than
for mature females (23 parities). This suggests that early weaning has more inﬂuence on
postpartum weight gain of young females than mature cows. Purvis et al. (1995) reported
that dams of EW calves (70 (I) had higher condition scores than dams of NW calves at
time of normal weaning (BCS = 6.1 versus 5.5, respectively). Myers et al. (1999b)
reported a linear increase in BCS of dams as weaning age decreased. At 215 d
postpartum, BCS was 4.2, 4.5, and 4.9 for dams whose calves were weaned at 215 d, 152
d and 90 d, respectively. Body weight of dams also increased linearly as weaning age
decreased (432, 439, and 459 kg for weaning ages of 215, 152, and 90 d, respectively). In
contrast, Grimes and Turner (1991a) reported similar BCS at time of normal weaning for
dams of EW (110 d) and NW (220 d) calves (3.20 versus 3.09). Dams of NW calves
consumed 4.5 kg/d more DM from time of early weaning to normal weaning than dams of
EW calves. Therefore, energy required for continued lactation may have been obtained
by greater DM consumption by dams of NW calves rather than mobilization of body
energy reserves.

Quicker recovery of body condition will reduce energy required during the winter
feeding period to attain an acceptable BCS by the subsequent parturition. According to
the 1996 NRC for beef cattle, 186 Mcal of additional energy is required to increase the
BCS of a 450 kg female from 4 to 5 (NRC, 1996). If cows receive bromegrass hay (mid-
bloom; NE, = .61 Mcal/kg ), 305 additional kg (DM) of hay would be required to meet

energy demands for increasing BCS from 4 to 5.

Impact of postweaning management strategies on growth performance and feed
efﬁciency

When animal growth is regressed against time, the resulting curve is sigrnoidal in
shape. Relatively slow fetal and neonatal growth is followed by a period of rapid growth
which is represented by the steep portion of the sigrnoidal curve. During this period of
rapid growth, rate of muscle accretion is faster than that of fat accretion. Efficiency of
gain is also maximized during this period because lean tissue gain is four times more
efficient than that of adipose tissue (Owens et al., 1995). As an animal nears maturity,
rate of weight gain declines while muscle growth slows and fat accretion increases
resulting in decreased efficiency of gain. Economic return is highly inﬂuenced by rate
and efﬁciency of gain (Melton, 1995).

Several postweaning management strategies exist that affect growth and feed
efficiency. Backgrounding' is one strategy that is often utilized to increase weight with a
low cost of gain. Growth during the backgrounding period allows for protein accretion
while restricting fat accretion (Byers, 1980; Carstens et al., 1991; Coleman et al., 1993).
Backgrounding results in heavier carcasses at a constant 12“l rib fat thickness (Rompala
and Jones, 1984; Lewis et al., 1990; Gill et al., 1993b) or leaner carcasses at a constant
weight (Lancaster et al., 1973; Danner et al., 1980) relative to carcasses from

non-backgrounded cattle. Gill et al. (1993c) compared carcass composition of

 

' For the purposes of this thesis, backgrounding refers to either a grazing period or a
growing period in the feedlot during which cattle receive a high roughage diet. This
period immediately follows weaning and is prior to a ﬁnishing period during which cattle
receive a high concentrate diet.

10

backgrounded and non-backgrounded cattle that were harvested at a constant fat thickness
(1.1 cm). When compared to carcasses of non-backgrounded cattle, those of
backgrounded cattle had less fat (32.1 versus 25.7%, respectively) and more protein (14.3
versus 15.4%, respectively) as a percentage of empty body weight. Carstens et al. (1991)
also reported that carcasses of backgrounded cattle contained less fat than those of
non-backgrounded cattle (27.2 versus 34.3%, respectively, as a percentage of carcass
weight). Ridenour et al. (1982) and Dubeski et al. (1997) reported less kidney, pelvic,
and heart fat (KPH) in carcasses of backgrounded cattle relative to those of non-
backgrounded cattle.

Although ADG of backgrounded cattle is limited by dietary energy during the
backgrounding period, they generally have greater ADG during the ﬁnishing period than
non-backgrounded cattle. Average daily gain of backgrounded cattle during the ﬁnishing
period has been reported to be 10 to 37% greater than that of non-backgrounded cattle
(Dikeman et al., 1985a and 1985b; Lewis et al., 1990; Carstens et al., 1991). Following a
period of energy restricted gain, cattle often have accelerated gain (Carstens et al., 1991;
Owens, 1993).

Enhanced ADG of backgrounded cattle during the ﬁnishing period may or may
not compensate for lower ADG during the backgrounding period. Ridenour et al. (1982),
Dikeman et al. (1985b), and Carstens et al. (1991) reported lower ADG for the entire
postweaning period (weaning through harvest) of backgrounded cattle relative to those
not backgrounded (.99 verus 1.22 kg/d; 1.08 versus 1.30 kg/d; .83 versus 1.23 kg/d,

respectively for each trial). In contrast, Dikeman et al. (1985a) reported no difference in

11

postweaning ADG between backgrounded and non-backgrounded cattle (1.14 versus 1.21
kg/d, respectively).

Backgrounded cattle have increased daily DMI during the ﬁnishing period relative
to non-backgrounded cattle. Lewis et al. (1990) and Gill et al. (1993a) reported
increased daily DMI of backgrounded cattle during the ﬁnishing period when compared
to non-backgrounded cattle (12.39 versus 8.53 kg/d; 11.17 versus 8.26 kg/d, respectively
for each trial). Differences in DMI still existed in both studies when daily DMI was
expressed as a percentage of body weight. In contrast, others have reported that
backgrounded and non-backgrounded cattle have similar daily DMI (Carstens et al.,
1991) or similar energy intake (Dikeman et al., 1985b) during the ﬁnishing period.

Backgrounded cattle are less feed efﬁcient during the ﬁnishing period than
non-backgrounded cattle. Backgrounded cattle have a heavier average body weight
during the ﬁnishing period relative to non-backgrounded cattle and therefore, would be
expected to have higher maintenance requirements. Lewis et al. (1990) reported that
backgrounded cattle were 11% less efﬁcient during the ﬁnishing period than
non-backgrounded cattle. Gill et al. (1993a) reported a 24% decrease in efﬁciency during
the ﬁnishing period for backgrounded cattle relative to those not backgrounded.

The relative difference in feed efficiency between backgrounded and
non-backgrounded cattle appears to be dependent upon length of the backgrounding
period. Length of the backgrounding period is positively related to average body weight
during the ﬁnishing period and therefore is also positively related to maintenance

requirements. Ridenour et al. (1982) reported that non-backgrounded cattle were more

12

feed efﬁcient during the ﬁnishing period than cattle that were backgrounded for 173 or
201 d (.129 versus .108 and .104, respectively). However, feed efﬁciency was similar
between non-backgrounded cattle and those that were backgrounded for only 79 or 133 d
(.129 versus .130 and .125, respectively). Gill et al. (1993a) also observed that feed
efficiency during ﬁnishing decreased as length of the backgrounding period increased.
Dikeman et al. (1985a) examined feed efficiency of backgrounded and non-backgrounded
cattle independent of body weight. Feed efﬁciency of backgrounded cattle during the
entire ﬁnishing period (d 0 through d 174 of the ﬁnishing period; average weight = 476
kg) was compared to that of non-backgrounded cattle over approximately the last
one-third of the ﬁnishing period (d 139 through d 242 of the ﬁnishing period; average
weight = 495 kg). Feed efficiency was similar between backgrounded and
non-backgrounded cattle (.137 versus .145, respectively). This suggests that differences
in feed efficiency between backgrounded and non-backgrounded cattle is at least partially

body weight dependent.

Impact of postweaning management strategies on carcass characteristics and meat
palatability

Carcass characteristics and meat palatability attributes (tenderness, juiciness, and
ﬂavor) may also be affected by postweaning management schemes. As stated previously,
restricted fat accretion during the backgrounding period allows for heavier carcasses at a
constant 12th rib fat thickness (Rompala and Jones, 1984; Lewis et al., 1990; Gill et al.,

1993b) or leaner carcasses at a constant weight (Lancaster et al., 1973; Danner et al.,

13

1980). The effect of backgrounding on carcass quality (marbling) is difﬁcult to assess
because harvest endpoints vary among studies. Ideally, carcass quality differences should
be compared at a constant 12"I rib subcutaneous fat thicknesses because 12‘h rib
subcutaneous fat thickness and marbling are positively correlated (Marshall, 1994).
Previously, 12"I rib fat thickness was selected as the common harvest endpoint in only a
few studies. In these instances, it was usually determined by a subjective visual
estimation that was not always accurate. In studies by Aberle et al. (1981) and Gill et al.
(1993b), 12m rib fat thickness at harvest was similar for backgrounded and
non-backgrounded cattle (1.07 versus .97 cm and 1.41 versus 1.42 cm, respectively for
each trial). Marbling scores and quality grades were not different between treatments in
either study. These studies suggest that implementation of a backgrounding period does
not affect marbling scores or quality grades. A
Implementation of a backgrounding period increases chronological age at which
cattle are harvested and may have detrimental effects on meat tenderness. Decreased beef
tenderness associated with increased harvest age is due to changing physical properties of
connective tissue within muscle. The amount and state of collagen are major determining
factors of meat tenderness (Locker, 1960; Cover et al., 1962; Ritchey et al., 1963). The
amount of collagen in bovine muscle varies among muscles. Generally, muscles that are
more tender, such as the longissimus dorsi and psoas major, have lower collagen content
relative to less tender muscles, such as the stemomandibularis in the neck (Ritchey et al.,
1963; Dutson et al., 1976). Even though the amount of collagen varies from muscle to

muscle, the amount remains relatively unchanged within a speciﬁc muscle, especially

14

after cattle are one year of age (Goll et al., 1963; Carmichael and Lawrie, 1967; Kim et
al., 1967; Cross et al., 1973). However, the state of collagen within a speciﬁc muscle
changes over time (Bailey, 1969). Solubility of collagen decreases as cattle age
(Carmichael and Lawrie, 1967; Cross et al., 1973) due to an increase in intermolecular
crosslinking (Hill, 1966; Bailey, 1969; Shimokomaki et al., 1972). Cross et al. (1973)
reported that age was negatively correlated to collagen solubility in bovine muscle (-.57).
Herring et al. (1967) reported that collagen solubility decreased as USDA carcass
maturity increased from A (9 to 30 months of age) to B (31 to 42 months of age) (10.48
versus 9.40%, respectively) and from B to E (> 96 months of age) (9.40 versus 4.21%,
respectively). Husaini (1950) reported a high negative correlation (-.87) between
insoluble connective tissue and beef tenderness.

Relatively few studies have reported effects of increased harvest age due to
postweaning management strategies on meat palatability. Simone et al. (1959) examined
effects of increased harvest age due to backgrounding on meat palatability attributes.
Steers were either backgrounded for 365 d after weaning and then were ﬁnished as
yearlings, or they received a ﬁnishing diet immediately after weaning. This resulted in
average harvest ages of 30 and 18 months. Harvest endpoint was determined by visual
estimation of fat thickness. Taste panel scores for tenderness were less desirable for
steaks from backgrounded cattle relative to those ﬁ'om non-backgrounded cattle. There
was no difference in taste panel scores for juiciness or ﬂavor due to treatment. Dikeman
et al. (1985b) reported that when compared to non-backgrounded cattle, the longissimus

dorsi and semirnembranosus of backgrounded cattle had higher Warner-Bratzler shear

15

force (WBS) values (2.69 versus 3.11 kg and 3.63 versus 4.08 kg, respectively for each
muscle). Backgrounded cattle were 140 d older at harvest than non-backgrounded cattle
in that trial. Dikeman et al. (1985a) also reported that backgrounding had detrimental
effects on palatability and tenderness even when backgrounded cattle were only 42 (1
older at harvest than non-backgrounded cattle. When compared to non-backgrounded
cattle, the semimembranosus from backgrounded cattle had higher WBS values (4.6
versus 5.2 kg, respectively) and less desirable taste panel scores for overall tenderness.
Collagen solubility was not analyzed in these studies by Dikeman and coworkers.
However, it has been reported that backgrounding results in decreased collagen solubility
(Rompala and Jones, 1984).

In disagreement with the aforementioned studies, others have reported that
increased harvest age due to backgrounding does not affect meat palatability. Aberle et
al. (1981) reported that longissimus dorsi muscles from backgrounded and
non-backgrounded cattle had similar WBS values (3.44 versus 3.31 kg, respectively),
collagen solubility (19.2 versus 19.3%, respectively) and taste panel scores. Berry et al.
(1974) examined effects of carcass maturity (USDA matruity grade ranging from A to E)
on meat palatability. Palatability and WBS values of A and B maturity carcasses were
superior to those with advanced maturity (E). However, within A and B maturity classes,
WBS values and taste panel scores were similar.

‘ Following backgrounding, length of the ﬁnishing period affects meat tenderness
and palatability. Dolezal et al. (1982) examined effects of varying the length of the

ﬁnishing period of previously backgrounded steers on meat palatability. Length of the

16

ﬁnishing period for backgrounded steers ranged from 30 to 160 (1. Following harvest, rib
steaks were removed and aged 14 to 16 d postmortem before WBS values and taste panel
scores were obtained. Taste panel scores and WBS values were similar between steaks
from non-backgrounded and backgrounded cattle that had been ﬁnished for at least 100 d
(3.70 versus 4.28 kg, respectively, for WBS values). However, when the ﬁnishing period
of previously backgrounded steers was < 100 d, steaks ﬁom backgrounded cattle had
higher WBS values (6.58 versus 3.70 kg) and less desirable taste panel scores for
tenderness and overall palatability relative to those for steaks from non-backgrounded
cattle. Marbling scores for carcasses of backgrounded cattle that were ﬁnished < 100 d
were signiﬁcantly lower than those from non-backgrounded cattle. This may have
resulted in poorer taste panel scores for overall palatability of steaks from backgrounded
cattle, but would not be expected to signiﬁcantly contribute to less desirable WBS values.
Taste panel scores for palatability may be inﬂuenced by marbling, but tenderness at 14 d
postmortem as determined by WBS in not highly correlated with marbling (Shackelford

et al., 1991).

Impact of early weaning on postweaning performance and efﬁciency

Performance of EW calves and the relative difference in performance between
EW and NW calves is highly dependent upon the plane of nutrition of both groups after
the time of early weaning. Early weaned calves may receive a high concentrate ﬁnishing
diet immediately following weaning, or they may be backgrounded prior to ﬁnishing.

Grazing conditions and availability of supplemental feed offered to suckling NW calves

l7

affect their performance from time of early weaning to that of normal weaning. In a two
year study, Myers et al. (1999a) compared the growth performance of EW calves (177
and 158 d of age for year 1 and 2, respectively) and NW calves (231 and 213 d of age for
year 1 and 2, respectively) that were or were not offered creep feed from time of early
weaning to time of normal weaning. After early weaning, EW calves received a high
concentrate diet. In both years, EW calves experienced greater ADG over both creep-fed
and non-creep-fed NW calves (yr 1 = 1.44 versus .82 and .62 kg/d, respectively; yr 2 =
1.04 versus .80 and .61 kg/d, respectively) ﬁ‘om time of early weaning to that of normal
weaning. This suggests that EW calves receiving a ﬁnishing diet will outperform
suckling NW calves from time early weaning to normal weaning, regardless of
supplementation of NW calves.

When EW calves are grazed after weaning, the relative difference in ADG ﬁ'om
time of early weaning to normal weaning between grazing EW calves and suckling NW
calves is highly dependent on forage quality and availability, and supplementation of both
EW and NW calves. Neville and M‘Cormick (1981) compared growth performance of
EW (67 d) and NW (230 d) calves ﬁ'om early weaning to normal weaning. Immediately
after early weaning, half of the EW calves were backgrounded, while the other half
received a high concentrate diet. The backgrounded EW calves were grazed and offered
supplemental feed primarily consisting of rolled corn. The suckling NW calves were not
offered supplemental feed. The EW calves that received a high concentrate diet had
greater ADG than backgrounded EW calves (1.04 versus .96 kg/d, respectively), and

backgrounded EW calves had greater ADG than suckling NW calves (.96 versus .85 kg/d,

l8

respectively). In agreement with Neville and M‘Connick (1981), Harvey et al. (1975)
reported that EW calves (150 d) with access to supplemental grain while grazing
experienced greater ADG over non-supplemented, suckling NW calves (234 d) (1.86
versus 1.23 kg/d, respectively) from the time of early weaning to that of normal weaning.

In the previously mentioned studies, additional energy was provided to grazing
EW calves through grain supplementation that likely enhanced their ADG. Early weaned
calves that are grazed require energy supplementation at least equivalent to the energy
supplied by milk to suckling NW calves from time of early weaning to normal weaning in
order to achieve the same performance level of their suckling NW contemporaries.
Purvis et al. (1995) early weaned calves (65 d) and allowed them to graze native range
with only protein supplementation. Suckling NW calves (185 (1) did not have access to
supplemental feed. Grazing EW calves had lower ADG from time of early weaning to
normal weaning when compared to that of suckling NW calves (.97 versus 1.16 kg/d,
respectively). This resulted in NW calves being 28 kg heavier than EW calves at normal
weaning.

It has been reported that by nine weeks of age energy from milk only meets
maintenance requirements of calves (Bartle et al., 1984). Calf growth may be limited if
other energy resources are not available. Therefore, if growth of suckling NW calves is
limited from the time early weaning to that of normal weaning, NW calves may
experience accelerated gain immediately after weaning. Although NW calves may
experience accelerated gain following weaning, ADG of NW calves for the entire

ﬁnishing period (weaning to harvest) will not likely exceed that of EW calves. Lusby et

19

al. (1990) reported that NW calves (225 d) had greater ADG than EW calves (120 d) from
time of normal weaning to harvest (1.42 versus 1.11 kg/d, respectively), however ADG
for the entire ﬁnishing period (time of early weaning to harvest for EW calves; time of
normal weaning to harvest for NW calves) was numerically similar for NW and EW
calves (1.42 versus 1.32 kg/d, respectively). Myers et al. (1999a) also reported greater
ADG of NW calves (231) than EW calves (177 d) from normal weaning to harvest (1.38
versus 1.28 kg/d, respectively), but ADG for the ﬁnishing period was numerically similar
for NW and EW calves (1.38 versus 1.31 kg/d, respectively). Myers et al. (1999b)
reported no difference in ADG between NW (215 d) and EW (90 d) calves for the
ﬁnishing period. In contrast, Gill et al. (1993a) reported that EW calves had lower ADG
for the ﬁnishing period than NW calves (1.33 versus 1.46 kg/d, respectively).

When EW calves outperform NW calves from time of early weaning to normal
weaning, they will also likely have greater ADG from time of early weaning to harvest. It
has been reported that ADG of EW calves from time of early weaning to harvest is 10-
15% greater than that of NW calves (Myers et al., 1999b; Schoonmaker et al., 1999a;
Lusby et al., 1990).

Early weaned calves have decreased daily DMI and increased feed efﬁciency
during the ﬁnishing period relative to NW calves. The advantage in feed efﬁciency is
largely due to lower maintenance requirements of EW calves because they have lighter
average body weights during the ﬁnishing period. Myers et al. (1999b) reported daily
DMI was lower for EW calves (90 (1) relative to NW calves (215 d) (5.90 versus 7.19

kg/d, respectively), and EW calves were 22% more feed efﬁcient than NW calves.

20

Average body weights of EW calves during the feeding period was 283 kg compared to
324 kg for NW calves. Schoonmaker et al. (1999a) reported that EW calves had lower
daily DMI and improved feed efﬁciency during the ﬁnishing period relative to NW
calves (daily DMI, 7.49 versus 8.44 kg/d, respectively; gainzfeed, .219 versus .209,
respectively). Others have also reported that early weaning decreased daily DMI and
improved feed efficiency of EW calves during the ﬁnishing period relative to NW calves
(Gill et al., 1993a; Myers et al., 1999a). In contrast, Pritchard et al. (1988) reported that
although EW calves (164 d) had decreased daily DMI relative to NW calves (203 d) (8.56
versus 8.95 kg/d, respectively), feed efﬁciency was similar for EW and NW calves. In
their study, there was only 39 days between time of early and normal weaning resulting in
relatively similar average body weights for EW and NW calves during the feeding period
(381 versus 402 kg, respectively). Therefore, maintenance requirements were similar and
potential differences in feed efﬁciency were mitigated.

Even though EW calves may have lower daily DMI than NW calves, their total
DMI for the ﬁnishing period is oﬁen greater than that of NW calves because EW calves
have longer ﬁnishing periods. Myers et al. (1999b) reported that EW calves (90 d)
consumed more DM during the ﬁnishing period than NW calves (215 d) (1984 versus
1758 kg, respectively). The ﬁnishing period of EW calves was 93 (1 longer than that of
NW calves. Schoonmaker et al. (1999a) reported that EW calves (113 d) consumed
341.13 more kg of DM during the ﬁnishing period relative to NW calves (205 d). The

ﬁnishing period of EW calves was 67 d longer than that of NW calves.

21

Relatively few researchers that have studied early weaning production systems
have reported effects of early weaning on postweaning morbidity and mortality. Myers et
al. (1999b) reported that incidence of respiratory morbidity of EW (90 d) and NW calves
(215 d) was similar (25 versus 22%, respectively). In contrast, Myers et al. (1999a)
reported decreased respiratory morbidity of EW calves (177 d) relative to NW calves (231
d) (1.2 versus 15.2%, respectively). There was no difference in digestive morbidity or

mortality between EW and NW calves in either study.

Impact of of early weaning on carcass characteristics

Feeding EW calves a high concentrate diet will promote fat accretion at lighter
weights. Therefore, EW calves may have lighter weight carcasses than NW calves when
harvested at a constant fat thickness or have fatter carcasses than NW calves when
harvested at a constant weight. Gill et al. (1993c) compared composition of EW (105 d)
and NW calves (235 d) when harvested at a constant fat thickness (1.1 cm). The calves
utilized in that study were sired by Angus bulls, and their dams were Angus crossbred
females. There was no difference in composition of EW and NW calves (34.8 versus
32.1% fat and 34.8 versus 32.1% protein as a percentage of empty body weight,
respectively), however EW calves had lighter carcass weights relative to NW calves (335
versus 342 kg, respectively). This is in contrast with Lusby et a1. (1990) and Myers et al.
(1999a). They reported that EW and NW calves had similar carcass weights when
harvested at a constant fat thickness. Angus X Hereford crossbred calves were utilized in

both studies. Myers et al. (1999b), and Schoonmaker et al. (1999b) also reported no

22

difference in carcass weight due to age of weaning when British X Continental crossbred
cattle were harvested at a constant fat thickness. It appears that hybrid vigor and
inﬂuence of Continental genetics may affect the difference in carcass weight between EW
and NW calves.

The effect of early weaning on carcass quality varies among studies. Myers et al.
(1999a) reported that carcasses from EW calves (165 d) had higher marbling scores than
those from NW calves (222 d) when harvested at the same fat thickness (yr 1 = Mt98
versus Mt”, respectively; yr 2 = Mt68 versus Mt”, respectively). In both years, a greater
percentage of carcasses from EW calves graded Mid-Choice or greater than those from
NW calves (yr 1 = 93 versus 68%, respectively; yr 2 = 81 versus 58%, respectively). In
contrast, Grimes and Turner (1991b) reported that EW calves (110 d) had lower quality
grades than NW calves (220 d) when harvested at a constant fat thickness (.90 cm).
Lusby et al. (1990), Gill et al. (1993b), Myers et al. (1999b), and Schoonmaker et al.
(1999b) found that EW and NW calves had similar marbling scores or quality grades
when harvested at a constant fat thickness.

Meat palatability may be improved by early weaning. Schoonmaker et al. (1999b)
reported that rib steaks from EW calves (113 d) tended to have lower WBS values than
rib steaks from NW calves (204 d) (5.02 versus 5.39 kg, respectively). Taste panel scores
for juiciness (1 to 10 scale; 1 = dry, 10 = juicy) also tended to be higher for rib steaks
from EW calves when compared to those from NW calves. Taste panel scores for ﬂavor

and tenderness were similar between steaks from EW and NW calves.

23

Literature Cited

Aberle, E. D., E. S. Reeves, M. D. Judge, R. E. Hunsley, and T. W. Perry. 1981.
Palatability and muscle characteristics of cattle with controlled weight gain: Time
on a high energy diet. J. Anim. Sci. 52:757-763.

Bailey, A. J. 1969. The stabilization of the intermolecular crosslinks of collagen with
aging. Gerontologia. 15:65-76.

Bartle, S. J., J. R. Males, R. L. Preston. 1984. Effect of energy intake on the postpartum
interval in beef cows and the adequacy of the cow’s milk production for calf
growth. J. Anim. Sci. 58:1068-1074.

Berry, B. W., G. C. Smith, Z. L. Carpenter. 1974. Beef carcass maturity indicators and
palatability attributes. J. Anim. Sci. 38:507-514.

Bishop, D. K., R. P. Wettemann, and L. J. Spicer. 1994. Body energy reserves inﬂuence
the onset of Iuteal activity after early weaning of beef cows. J. Anim. Sci.
72:2703-2708.

Byers, F. M. 1980. Systems of beef cattle feeding and management to regulate
composition of growth to produce beef carcasses of desired composition. Beef
Cattle Nutrition and Growth-1980: A Summary of Research. Ohio Agric. Res.
and Devlop. Ctr, Research circular 258, Columbus, OH. pp. 1-18.

Carmichael, D. J., and R. A. Lawrie. 1967. Bovine collagen. 1. Changes in collagen
solubility with animal age. J. Food Tech. 2:299-311.

Carruthers, T. D. and H. D. Hafs. 1980. Suckling and four-times daily milking:
Inﬂuence on ovulation, estrus, and serum luteinizing hormone, glucocorticoids,
and prolactin in postpartum Holsteins. J. Anim. Sci. 50:919-925.

Carter, M. L., D. J. Dierschke, J. J. Rutledge, and E. R. Hauser. 1980. Effect of
gonadotropin-releasing hormone and calf removal on pituitary-ovarian function
and reproductive performance in postpartum beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 51 :903-
910.

Carstens, G. E., D. E. Johnson, M. A. Ellenberger, and J. D. Tatum. 1991. Physical and

chemical components of the empty body during compensatory growth in beef
steers. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3251-3264.

24

Coleman, S. W., B. C. Evans, and J. J. Guenther. 1993. Body and carcass composition
of Angus and Charolais steers as affected by age and nutrition. J. Anim. Sci.
71:86-95.

Cover, 8., S. J. Ritchey, and R. L. Hostetler. 1962. Tenderness of beef. I. The
connective-tissue component of tenderness. J. Food Sci. 27:469-475.

Cross, H. R., Z. L. Carpenter, and G. C. Smith. 1973. Effects of intramuscular collagen
and elastin on bovine muscle tenderness. J. Food Sci. 38:998-1003.

Cundiff, L. V., K. E. Gregory, R. M. Koch, G. E. Dickerson. 1986. Genetic diversity
among cattle breeds and its use to increase beef production efﬁciency in a
temperate environment. Proc. 3rd World Cong. On Genet. Appl. to Livest. Prod.
9:271 -282.

Danner, M. L., D. G. Fox, and J. R. Black. .1980. Effect of feeding system on
performance and carcass characteristics of yearling steers, steer calves, and heifer
calves. J. Anim. Sci. 50:394-404.

Dikeman, M. E., A. D. Dayton, M. C. Hunt, C. L. Kastner, J. B. Axe, and H. J. Ilg.
1985a. Conventional versus accelerated beef production with carcass electrical
stimulation. J. Anim. Sci. 61:573-583.

Dikeman, M. E., K. N. Nagele, S. M. Myers, R. R. Schalles, D. H. Kropf, C. L. Kastner,
and F. A. Russo. 1985b. Accelerated versus conventional beef production and
processing. J. Anim. Sci. 61:137-150.

Dolezal, H. G., G. C. Smith, J. W. Savell, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1982. Effect of time-on-
feed on the palatability of rib steaks from steers and heifers. J. Food Sci. 47:368-
373.

Dubeski, P. L., J. A. Aalhus, S. D. M. Jones, A. K. W., Tong, W. M. Robertson. 1997.
Fattening heifers to heavy weights to enhance marbling: Efficiency of gain. Can.
J. Anim. Sci. 77:625-633.

Dutson, T. R., R. L. Hostetler, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1976. Effect of collagen levels and
sarcomere shortening on muscle tenderness. J. Food Sci. 41:863-866.

Dziuk, P. J. and R A. Bellows. 1983. Management of reproduction of beef cattle, sheep,
and pigs. J. Anim. Sci. 57(supp12):355-379.

Edwards, S. 1985. The effects of short-tenn calf removal on pulsatile LH secretion in
the postpartum beef cow. Theriogenology. 23:777-785.

25

Faltys, G. L., E. M. Convey, R. E. Short, C. A. Keech, and R. L. Fogwell. 1987.
Relationship between weaning and secretion of luteinizing hormone, cortisol, and
transcortin in beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 64:1498-1505.

Gill, D. R., M. C. King, H. G. Dolezal, J. J. Martin, and C. A. Strasia. 1993a. Starting
age and background: Effects on feedlot performance of steers. Anim. Sci. Res.
Rep., P-933. Okla. Ag. Exp. Sta., Stillwater, OK. pp. 197-203.

Gill, D. R., M. C. King, D. S. Peel, H. G. Dolezal, J. J. Martin, and C. A. Strasia. 1993b.
‘ Starting age: Effects on economics and feedlot carcass characteristics of steers.
Anim. Sci. Res. Rep., P-933. Okla. Ag. Exp Sta., Stillwater, OK. pp. 204-209.

Gill, D. R., F. N. Owens, M. C. King, H. G. Dolezal. 1993c. Body composition of
grazing or feedlot steers differing in age and background. Anim. Sci. Res. Rep.,
P-933. Okla. Ag. Exp. Sta., Stillwater, OK. pp. 185-191.

Goll, D. E., R. W. Bray, and W. G. Hoekstra. 1963. Age-associated changes in muscle
composition. The isolation and properties of a collagenous residue from bovine
muscle. J. Food Sci. 28:503-509.

Grimes, J. F., and T. B. Turner. 1991a. Early weaning of fall-bom beef calves: I.
Preweaning calf and cow performance. J. Prod. Agric. 4:464-468.

Grimes, J ; F ., and T. B. Turner. 1991b. Early weaning of fall-bom beef calves: II.
Postweaning performance of early- and normal-weaned calves. J. Prod. Agric.
4:468-471.

Harvey, R. W., J. C. Burns, T. N. Blumer, and A. C. Linnerud. 1975. Inﬂuence of early
weaning on calf and pasture productivity. J. Anim. Sci. 41:740-746.

Herring, H. K., R. G. Cassens, and E. J. Briskey. 1967. Factors affecting collagen
solubility in bovine muscles. J. Food Sci. 32:534-538.

Hill, F. 1966. The solubility of intramuscular collagen in meat animals of various ages.
J. Food Sci. 31:161-166.

Houghton, P. L., R. P. Lemenager, L. A. Hortsman, K. S. Hendrix, and G. E. Moss.
1990. Effects of body condition, pre- and postpartum energy level and early
weaning on reproductive performance of beef cows and preweaning calf gain. J.
Anim. Sci. 68:1438-1446.

Husaini, S. A., F . E. Deatherage, L. E. Kunkle, and H. N. Draudt. 1950. Studies on meat
I. The biochemistry of beef as related to tenderness. Food Tech. 4:313-316.

26

Kim. C. W., G. P. Ho, and S. J. Ritchey. 1967. Collagen content and subjective scores
for tenderness of connective tissue in animals of different ages. J. Food Sci.
32:586-588.

Knabel, K. M., T. B. Turner, and M. A. Watson. 1989. Effects of early weaning on
growth rate of spring-hem calves and an economic comparison with those weaned
at normal ages. Appl. Agric. Res. 4:73-75.

Lalman, D. L., D. H. Keisler, J. E. Williams, E. J. Scholljegerdes, and D. M. Mallet.
1997. Influence of postpartum weight and body condition change on the duration
of anestrus by undernourished suckled beef heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 75:2003-2008.

Lancaster, L. R., R. R. Frahm, D. R. Gill. 1973. Comparative feedlot performance and
carcass traits between steers allowed a postweaning growing period and steers
placed on a ﬁnishing ration at weaning. J. Anim. Sci. 37:632-636.

Laster, D. B., H. A. Glirnp, and K. E. Gregory. 1973. Effects of early weaning on
postpartum reproduction of cows. J. Anim. Sci. 36:734-740.

Lewis, J. M., T. J. Klopfenstein, R. A. Stock, ans M. K. Nielsen. 1990. Evaluation of
intensive versus extensive systems of beef production and the effect of level of
beef cow milk production on postweaning performance. J. Anim. Sci. 68:2517-
2524.

Locker, R. H. 1960. Degree of muscular contration as a factor in tenderness of beef.
Food Res. 25:304-307.

Lusby, K. S., D. R. Gill, D. M. Anderson, T. L. Gardner, and H. G. Dolezal. 1990. Limit
feeding versus full feeding high concentrate diets to early weaned calves-Effects
on performance to slaughter. Anim. Sci. Res. Rep., MP-129. Okla. Ag. Exp. Sta,
Stillwater, OK. pp. 128-134.

Lusby, K. S., R. P. Wettemann, and E. J. Tunnan. 1981. Effects of early weaning calves
from ﬁrst-calf heifers on calf and heifer performance. J. Anim. Sci. 53:1193-1197

Marshall, D. M. 1994. Breed differences and genetic parameters for body composition
traits in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 72:2745-2755.

Melton, B. 1995. Proﬁting from change in the U. S. beef industry: Genetic balance for

economic gains. Paper presented at the Natl. Cattleman’s Assoc. annu. meetg.
Jan. 25-27, Nashville, TN.

27

Myers, S. E., D. B. Faulkner, F. A. Ireland, L. L. Berger, and D. F. Parrett. 1999a. Beef
production systems comparing early weaning to normal weaning with or without
creep feeding for beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 77:300-310.

Myers S. E., D. B. Faulkner, F. A. Ireland, and D. F. Parrett. 1999b. Comparison of
three weaning ages on cow-calf performance and steer carcass traits. J. Anim.
Sci. 77:323-329.

National Beef Quality Audit. 1995. Executive Summary. National Cattleman’s Beef
Association, Englewood, CO.

Neville, Jr., W. E. and W. C. M‘Cormick. 1981. Performance of early- and nonnal-
weaned beef calves and their dams. J. Anim. Sci. 52:715-724.

NRC. 1996. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle (7‘h Ed.). National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.

Osoro, K. and I. A. Wright. 1992. The effect of body condition, live weight, breed, age,
calf performance, and calving date on reproductive performance of spring-calving
beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 70:1661-1666.

Owens, F. N., P. Dubeski, and C. F. Hanson. 1993. Factors that alter growth and
development in ruminants. J. Anim. Sci. 71:3138—3150.

Owens, F. N., D. R. Gill, D. S. Secrist, and S. W. Coleman. 1995. Review of some
aspects of growth and development of feedlot cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 73:3152-3172.

Perry, R. C., L. R. Corah, R. C. Cochran, W. E. Beal, J. S. Stevenson, J. E. Minton, D. D.
Sims, and J. R. Brethour. 1991 . Inﬂuence of dietary energy on follicular
development, serum gonadotropins, and ﬁrst postpartum ovulation in suckled beef
cows. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3762-3773.

Peterson, G. A., T. B. Turner, K. M. Irvin, M. E. Davis, H. W. Newland, and W. R.
Harvey. 1987. Cow and calf performance and economic considerations of early
weaning of fall-bom beef calves. J. Anim. Sci. 64:15-22.

Pritchard, R. H., M. A. Robbins, D. H. Gee, and R. J. Pruitt. 1988. Effect of early
weaning on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of high growth
potential feeder calves. South Dakota Beef Rep., Cattle 88-10. South Dakota
State Univ., Brookings, SD. pp. 36-39.

Purvis, 11, H. T., C. R. Floyd, K. S. Lusby, and R. P. Wettemann. 1995. Effects of early
weaning and body condition score (BCS) at calving on performance of spring

28

calving cows. Animal Science Research Report, Okla. Ag. Exp. Sta., Stillwater,
OK. pp.68-74.

Rae, D. 0., W. E. Kunkle, P. J. Chenoweth, R. S. Sand, and T. Tran. 1993. Relationship
of parity and body condition score to pregnancy rate in Florida beef cattle.
Theriogenology. 39:1 143-1 152.

Richards, M. W., J. C. Spitzer, and M. B. Warner. 1986. Effect of varying levels of
postpartum nutrition and body condition at calving on subsequent reproductive
performance in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 62:300-306.

Ridenour, K. W., H. E. Kiesling, G. P. Lofgreen, and D. M. Stiffler. 1982. F eedlot
performance and carcass characteristics of beef steers grown and ﬁnished under
different nutrition and management programs. J. Anim. Sci. 54:1115-1119.

Ritchey, S. J ., S. Cover, R. L. Hostetler. 1963. Collagen content and its relation to
. tenderness of connective tissue in two beef muscles. Food Tech. 17:194-197.

Rompala, R. E. and S. D. M. Jones. 1984. Changes in the solubility of bovine
intramuscular collagen due to nutritional regime. Growth. 48:466-472.

Rutter, L. M. and R. D. Randel. 1984. Postpartum nutrient intake and body condition:
Effect on pituitary function and onset of estrus in beef cattle. J. Anim Sci.
58:265-274.

Schoonmaker, J. P., F. L. Fluharty, T. B. Turner. S. J. Moeller, and S. C. Loerch. 1999a.
Effect of weaning age and implant regime: I. Steer performance. Research and
Reviews: Beef. Ohio Agric. Res. and Development Center, Special Circular 162,
Columbus, OH. pp. 44-49.

Schoonmaker, J. P., F. L. Fluharty, T. B. Turner, D. M. Wulf, S. J. Moeller, and S. C.
Loerch. 1999b. Effect of weaning age and implant regime: II. Carcass
characteristics of steers. Research and Reviews: Beef. Ohio Agric. Res. and
Development Center, Special Circular 162, Columbus, OH. pp. 75-77.

Selk, G. E., R. P. Wettemann, K. S. Lusby, J. W. Oltjen, S. L. Mobley, R J. Rasby, and J.
C. Garmendia. 1988. Relationships among weight change, body condition, and
reproductive performance of range beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 66:3153-3159.

Shackelford, S. D., M. Koohmaraie, G. Whipple, T. L. Wheeler, M. F. Miller, J. D.

Crouse, and J. O. Reagan. 1991. Predictors of beef tenderness: Development and
veriﬁcation. J. Food. Sci. 56:1130-1135.

29

Shimokomaki, M, D. F. Elsden, and A. J. Bailey. 1972. Meat tenderness: Age related
changes in bovine intramuscular collagen. J. Food Sci. 37:892-896.

Short, R. E., R. A. Bellows, E. L. Moody, and B. E. Howland. 1972. Effects of suckling
and mastectomy on bovine postpartum reproductiOn. J. Anim. Sci. 34:70-74.

Short, R. E., R. A. Bellows, R. B. Staigmiller, J. G. Berardinelli, and E. E. Custer. 1990.
Physiological mechanisms controlling anestrus and infertility in postpartum beef
cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 68:799-816.

Simone, M., F. Carroll, and C. O. Chichester. 1959. Differences in eating quality factors
of beef from 18- and 30-month steers. Food Tech. 13:337-340.

Smith, Jr., L. E. and C. K. Vincent. 1972. Effects of early weaning and exogenous
hormone treatment on bovine postpartum reproduction. J. Anim. Sci. 35: 1228-
1232. .

Spitzer, J. C., D. G. Morrison, R. P. Wettemann, and L. C. Faulkner. 1995.
Reproductive responses and calf birth and weaning weights as affected by body
condition at parturition and postpartum weight gain in primiparous beef cows. J.
Anim. Sci. 73:1251-1257.

Strohbehn, D. R. 1997. A 13-year summary of the Iowa State University beef cow
business record. Beef Res. Rep. AS-632. Iowa Coop. Ext. Serv., Ames, IA. pp.
66-70.

Walters, D. L., R. E. Short, E. M. Convey, R B. Staigrniller, T. G. Dunn, and C. C.
Kaltenbach. 1982. Pituitary and ovarian function in postpartum beef cows. 11.
Endocrine changes prior to ovulation in suckled and nonsuckled postpartum cows
compared to cycling cows. Biol. Reprod. 26:647-654.

Wettemann, R. P., E. J. Turman, R. D. Wyatt, and R. Totusek. 1978. Inﬂuence of
suckling intensity on reproductive performance of range cows. J. Anim Sci.
47:342-346.

Williams, G. L., F. Talavera, B. J. Petersen, J. D. Kirsch, and J. E. Tilton. 1983.
Coincident secretion of follicle-stirnulating hormone in early postpartum beef
cows: Effects of suckling and low-level increases of systemic progesterone. Biol.

Reprod. 29:362-363.

Williams, G. L. 1990. Suckling as a regulator of postpartum rebreeding in cattle: A
review. J. Anim. Sci. 68:831-852.

30

Wiltbank, J. N. and A. C. Cook. 1958. The comparative reproductive performance of
nursed cows and milk cows. J. Anim. Sci. 17:640-648.

Wyatt, R. D., M. B. Gould, and R. Totusek. 1977. Effects of single versus simulated
twin rearing on cow and calf performance. J. Anim. Sci. 45: 1409-1414.

31

CHAPTER 2
F eedlot performance, carcass characteristics, and economic return of early weaned
beef steers
Abstract
Over two years, forty-ﬁve Angus-sired steer offspring of Angus and Angus

crossbred females were used to determine the effects of early weaning on feedlot
performance, carcass characteristics, and economic return to the cow-calf enterprise.
Steers were assigned by birth date to one of two weaning treatments: 1) weaned at an
average age of 100 d (EW), or 2) weaned at an average age of 200 (1 (NW). Within 36 d
of weaning, steers were given ad libitum access to a high concentrate diet (90% dry,
whole-shelled corn). Steers were harvested when 12‘“ rib fat thickness averaged 1.27 cm
within treatment as estimated by ultrasound. Carcass measurements were taken 48 h
postmortem. In year 1, rib steak tenderness was determined at 14 d postmortem by
Warner-Bratzler shear force and myoﬁbril fragmentation index (MFI). The EW steers
had greater ADG from time of early weaning to normal weaning than suckling NW steers
(1.27 vs .86 kg/d, respectively; P < .001). However, EW steers tended to have lower
ADG for the entire ﬁnishing period than NW steers (1.33 vs 1.39 kg/d, respectively; P =
.08). When compared to NW steers, EW steers had lower daily DMI (7.40 vs 5.95 kg/d,
respectively; P < .001) and lower total DMI for the ﬁnishing period (1618 vs 1537 kg,
respectively; P = .04). The EW steers had better feed efﬁciency for the ﬁnishing period
than NW steers (.223 vs .189, respectively; P < .001). Carcass weights were lighter for

EW steers relative to NW steers (277.9 vs 311.2 kg, respectively; P < .001). There was

32

no difference in yield grade (2.9 vs 3.0; P = .54) between treatments. All carcasses
graded Low-Choice or greater and there was no difference in percentage of carcasses
grading Mid-Choice or greater (94.5 vs 83.9% for EW and NW, respectively; P = .30).
Warner-Bratzler shear force and MF I values were not different between treatments (P >
.10). The EW steers had a lower cost of gain than NW steers (.905 vs 1.01 S/kg,
respectively; P < .001), however due to lighter carcass weights, EW steers generated less
return to the cow-calf enterprise than NW steers (358.56 vs 455.90 $/steer; P < .001).
Early weaning steers at 100 d of age decreased total DMI, improved feed efﬁciency, and

lowered cost of gain, however return to the cow-calf enterprise was decreased due to

lighter carcass weights.

Introduction
Traditionally, beef calves are weaned at approximately seven months of age to
maximize gross return to cow-calf enterprises which market calves at weaning. As the
beef industry progresses toward coordinated production systems, ownership of calves
may be retained by cow-calf enterprises through harvest. If ownership is retained,
weaning calves at younger ages may increase production efﬁciency and therefore,
increase return to cow-calf enterprises.
Recent reports have shown that early weaned calves have comparable ADG
(Myers et al., 1999a and 1999b; Schoonmaker et al., 1999a) and improved feed efﬁciency
during the ﬁnishing period relative to calves weaned at traditional ages (Gill et al., 1993a;

Myers et al., 1999a and 1999b). Early weaned calves have lighter average body weights

33

during the ﬁnishing period and therefore, have lower maintenance requirements relative
to normal weaned calves. Daily dry matter intake of early weaned calves is also lower
than that of normal weaned calves (Gill et al., 1993a; Myers et al., 1999a and 1999b).

The National Beef Quality Audit (NCBA, 1995) stated that decreasing harvest age
and improving marbling will enhance product palatability and better meet demand of
consumers. If early weaned calves are placed on a ﬁnishing diet immediately following
weaning, they will be younger at harvest relative to calves weaned at traditional ages. It
has been reported that early weaning increases marbling and quality grades (Myers, eta1.,
1999a). Implementation of management schemes that increase carcass quality, without
sacriﬁcing carcass weight or yield grade, may result in more economic return in value-
based carcass pricing structures.

Therefore, the objectives of this research were to determine effects of early
weaning beef steers with high marbling potential on feedlot performance and carcass

characteristics and secondly, to determine economic return to the cow-calf enterprise.

Materials and Methods
Over two years, forty-ﬁve, spring-born, Angus-sired steer offspring of Angus and
Angus crossbred 2- and 3- year-old cows were allotted by birth date and randomly
assigned to one of two weaning treatments: 1) weaned at an average age of 100 t 14 d
(EW); 2) weaned at an average age of 200 i 15 d (NW). Steers were sired by six
different bulls in year 1, and ﬁve bulls in year 2. One bull was represented in both years.

Therefore, ten sires were represented in the data set. In general, sires of these steers had

34

high marbling and moderate birth weight, weaning weight, and yearling weight expected
progeny differences. The dams of these steers were maintained at the Michigan State
University Upper Peninsula Experiment Station, Chatham, Michigan.

Calves were weighed at birth and knife-castrated. Approximately, two weeks
prior to time of weaning, steers were vaccinated against Clostridial infections (UltraBac
7, Pﬁzer, New York, NY or Vision 7, Bayer, Pittsburgh, PA) and common respiratory
diseases (CattleMaster 4 plus L5 or Bovashield 4 plus L5, Pﬁzer, New York, NY). At
weaning (June for EW steers and September for NW steers), steers were weighed and
transported 650 km to the Beef Cattle Teaching and Research Center, Michigan State
University. Upon arrival, steers received booster vaccinations, were treated for internal
and external parasites (IvomecPlus, Merial, Whitehouse Station, NJ), and were treated
with an antibiotic (Micotil, Elanco, Indianapolis, IN). Steers with rectal temperatures
over 40°C (103.5 °F) during the trial were considered morbid and were treated with
Micotil or Nuﬂor (Schering—Plough, Union, NJ) per label instructions.

Steers were initially pen-fed for 21 d before they were housed individually in 2.1
X 1.8 m stalls with slatted ﬂoors. Steers were adapted to a ﬁnishing diet (diet B; Table 2-
1) consisting of whole-shelled corn and a pelleted protein supplement within 36 d of
weaning. Steers were switched from a diet containing 12.6% CP (diet B) to one
containing 10.6% CP (diet C) when they weighed approximately 340 kg. Steers were
given ad libitum access to diets. Orts were removed, and ﬂesh feed was offered daily to
each steer. One EW steer in yr 1 and two EW steers in yr 2 had chronic bloat, therefore

20 g of Poloxalene (BloatGuard, Pﬁzer, New York, NY) was added to their diet daily.

35

Feedstuffs were sampled approximately every 28 d for determination of CP, NDF,
and ADF. Samples were ground through a Wiley mill (Arthur H. Thomas, Philadelphia,
PA) ﬁtted with a 5 mm screen and then ground with a Cyclotec sample mill (Model 1093,
Tecator, Inc., Herndon, VA) ﬁtted with a 1 mm screen. Dry matter was determined by
drying samples in a forced air oven for 24 hr at 102°C. Combustion method 990.03
(AOAC, 1995; Leco F P-2000, Leco Corp., St. Joseph, MI) was used to determine CP.
The Van Soest et al. (1991) method was performed to determine NDF and ADF on an
organic matter basis.

The weight of both EW and NW calves at the time of early weaning and the
weight of NW calves at the time of normal weaning was a single weight. The weight of
EW calves at the time of normal weaning and live weight at harvest were calculated by
averaging two weights taken on consecutive days. Interim weights were taken
approximately every 28 d throughout the ﬁnishing period. Twelfth-rib subcutaneous fat
accretion was monitored by real-time ultrasound (Pie 200 SLC, Pie Medical, Tequesta,
FL). Steers were harvested when 12‘h rib fat thickness averaged 1.27 cm within
treatment. None of the steers received anabolic implants during their lifetime.
Experimental procedures were conducted according to those approved by the Michigan
State University All University Committee on Animal Use and Care.

Early weaned steers were harvested in February, and NW steers were harvested in
April. In year 1 cattle were harvested at Ada Beef, Ada, Michigan, and in year 2, they
were harvested at Packerland, Plainwell, Michigan. Carcass data were collected 48 h

postmortem. Carcass measurements collected were pre- and post-trim hot carcass weight

36

(HCW), longissimus muscle area (LMA), adjusted 12th rib subcutaneous fat thickness,
marbling score, quality grade, and bone maturity. Post-trim HCW was taken after hot-fat
trimming kidney, pelvic, and heart fat (KPH) from the carcass. The percentage of KPH
was calculated as the difference in pre- and post-trim HCW divided by pre-trim HCW.
Dressing percentage was calculated as pre-trim HCW divided by live weight at harvest
less a 4% shrink.

In year 1, the entire rib section (IMPS-107; IMPS, 1988) and in year 2, only the
section corresponding to the 11"I and 12th rib were removed ﬁom the left side of each
carcass and transported to Michigan State University Meats Laboratory for further
analysis. A 2.5 cm thick steak was removed ﬁ'om the posterior end of the rib section
(Steak #1). The remainder of the rib section was aged at 2°C for 14 d and then frozen.
After Steak #1 was removed, colorimeter (Minolta Chroma Meter CR-310, Minolta
Corp., Ramsey, NJ) readings were taken on the rib-face in the L‘b*a* (luminance, L“;
redness, a“; yellowness, b‘) colorspace (Wulf et al., 1997). The measuring area was 50
mm in diameter. The face of the rib was allowed to bloom for 15 minutes before muscle
color was measured. This process (blooming) allows for oxygenation of myoglobin
causing the bright red color of beef. Only the longissimus muscle was scanned for color;
intennuscular fat and spinalis dorsi muscle area were excluded.

After colorimeter readings were taken, Steak #1 was aged for 14 d at 2°C and
myoﬁbril fragmentation index (MFI) analysis was performed according to Culler et al.

(1 978) in year 1. In contrast to Culler et al. (1978), the procedure was performed on fresh

meat samples, not frozen samples.

37

The frozen rib section was fabricated into 2.5 cm thick steaks. Each steak was
numbered sequentially starting from the posterior end of the remaining rib section (Steak
#2, Steak #3, etc.). In year 1, Steak #2 was used for Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBS)
determination (Wheeler et al., 1995). Six 1.27 cm (diameter) cores were removed the
longissimus dorsi muscle of each steak and sheared perpendicular to the longitudinal axis
of muscle ﬁbers with a Salter shearing device (G-R Electric, Manhattan, KS). The WBS
value for each steak was the average value of the six cores. In year 1, moisture, CP, and
lipid were determined in duplicate ﬁ'orn powdered samples of Steak #3. Powdered
samples were prepared by denuding frozen Steak #3 of the spinalis dorsi muscle, external
fat and connective tissue, so that only the longissimus dorsi muscle remained. Then, the
frozen longissimus dorsi was sliced (.5 cm thick) and chopped with a knife into small
pieces. Pieces of chopped muscle, along with dry ice, were powdered using a Tecmar
grinder (Tecmar Company, Cincinnati, OH). Dry ice was allowed to evaporate before
powdered samples were stored at -20°C. Moisture was determined by drying powdered
muscle samples in a forced air oven for 18 h at 102°C (method 950.46; AOAC, 1995).
Combustion method 992.15 (AOAC, 1995; Leco FP-2000, Leco Corp., St. Joseph, MI)
was used to determine crude protein. Lipid was determined by solvent extraction method
991.36 (AOAC, 1995; Tecator Soxtec System HT 1046 service unit and Tecator Soxtec
System HT 1043 extraction unit, Tecator, Inc., Hemdon, VA).

Performance data were used to calculate and compare the cost of gain of EW and
NW steers. When the steers were pen-fed (initial 21 d of the ﬁnishing period), individual

feed intake was considered the mean DMI for the pen. Feed and other operating costs

38

(medication, chute charge, yardage, transportation, and interest; Appendix A-2) were
determined. Cost of gain was calculated by summing feed and operating costs and
dividing by total gain during the ﬁnishing period. Total gain was calculated by
subtracting live weight at harvest from weaning weight (both weights were shrunk 4%).

Carcass data and four different carcass pricing schemes were used to calculate
gross return to the cow-calf enterprise. Average monthly base carcass prices (yield grade
1 to 3, choice quality grade, 250 to 340 kg) from 1986 through 1998 were calculated from
weekly carcass prices obtained from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service
(U .S.D.A., 1999). The period of 1986 to 1998 was chosen because it was representative
of an entire cattle price cycle (Figure 2-1). Depending upon the pricing scheme, base
carcass price was adjusted by adding a premium of $6.61/100 kg for carcasses with Prime
quality grades or meeting speciﬁcations of a generic branded beef program (2 Mid-
Choice quality grade, yield grade 1 to 3, and > 275 kg HCW). Yield grade 4 carcasses or
those weighing < 250 kg were discounted $26.43/ 100 kg, as required by the pricing
scheme. Total carcass revenue was calculated by multiplying the adjusted carcass price
by HCW. Gross return to the cow-calf enterprise was the difference between total carcass
revenue and total input cost from time of weaning to harvest. Feeder calf breakeven price
was calculated as gross return to the cow-calf enterprise divided by weaning weight
(shrunk 4%).

In pricing scheme-l (PS-1), base carcass prices in February and April were used
for EW and NW steers, respectively, which is representative of the trial. Carcasses

having quality grades of Prime received a premium and those having yield grades of 4 or

39

weighing < 250 kg were discounted. Pricing scheme-2 (PS-2) simulated selling carcasses
into a generic branded beef program. February and April base carcass prices were used
for EW and NW steers, respectively. Carcasses that met program speciﬁcations did not
receive an additional quality grade premium if they graded Prime. Carcasses that graded
Prime but did not meet other program speciﬁcations received a quality grade premium.
Carcasses with yield grades of 4 and those weighing < 250 kg were discounted. Pricing
scheme-3 (PS-3) was similar to PS-l, except carcasses weighing < 250 kg were not
discounted. The cattle used in this trial may have been predisposed to light carcass
weights due to their genotype. Therefore, the weaning system was not penalized for
underweight carcasses in PS-3. May and July base carcass prices are used for EW and
NW steers, respectively, in pricing scheme 4 (PS-4). These would be approximate selling
dates if the calving season was 90 d later than in this trial. With a later calving season,
EW cattle would have been sold at the peak base carcass price in the seasonal price cycle
(Figure 2-2).

The GLM procedures of SAS (1990) were used to analyze feedlot performance,
carcass data, meat characteristics, cost of gain and economic return. Steer served as the
experimental unit. The model included weaning treatment, year, sire, and the weaning
treatment X year interaction as independent variables in the statistical analysis of all data
with the exception of morbidity rate. The GLM procedure over-adjusted for the effect of
sire on morbidity rate resulting in negative least squares means. Therefore, sire was
removed from the model when analyzing binomial morbidity rate data. The level of

probability at which effects were considered signiﬁcant was P < .05. In year 2, one EW

40

steer was removed from the trial due to chronic morbidity. In year 2, one NW steer died

due to bloat 16 d after weaning.

Results and Discussion

The EW steers had greater ADG from time of early weaning to normal weaning
and were 18% heavier at time of normal weaning than NW calves (Table 2-2). There was
a Signiﬁcant treatment X year interaction (P < .10) for ADG from time of early to normal
weaning and weight at normal weaning. The difference in weight between EW and NW
calves at normal weaning was 52.7 kg in year 1 and 24.3 kg in year 2 (Table 2-6). The
smaller weight difference at normal weaning in year 2 can be attributed to increased ADG
from time of early to normal weaning of NW steers in year 2 relative to year 1 (.94 versus
.78 kg/d, respectively) and decreased ADG during the same period for EW steers in year
2 relative to year 1 (1.19 versus 1.34 kg/d, respectively). Increased ADG of NW steers in
year 2 from early to normal weaning was likely due to increased milk production of their
dams. 1n year 1, all dams were ﬁrst-calf heifers. In year 2, only one quarter of the dams
were ﬁrst-calf females and the remainder were in their second parity. These results agree
with these of Neville and McCormick (1981), Myers et al. (1999a), and Schoonmaker et
al. (1999a) in which EW calves receiving a high concentrate diet had greater ADG than
NW calves from time of early weaning to normal weaning.

The NW steers tended to have greater ADG for the ﬁnishing period (weaning to
harvest) than EW calves (P = .08). The tendency for NW steers to have higher ADG for

the ﬁnishing period resulted from accelerated gain early in the ﬁnishing period. The NW

41

steers gained .14 kg/d more than EW steers during the initial 100 d of the ﬁnishing
period. Growth of NW calves had been limited prior to weaning, therefore they
experienced compensatory growth when dietary energy increased after weaning. Daily
gain for the ﬁnal 60 d of the ﬁnishing period was not different between EW and NW
calves. Gill et al. (1993a) reported that ﬁnishing period ADG of NW calves was 10%
greater than that of EW calves.

The EW steers had 19.6 % lower daily DMI during the ﬁnishing period than NW
steers. Even though the ﬁnishing period of EW steers was 40 (1 longer than that of NW
steers, EW steers consumed 81.5 less kg of DM than NW steers. It has been reported
that EW calves have lower daily DMI than NW calves (Gill et al., 1993a; Myers et al.,
1999a and 1999b; Schoonmaker et al., 1999a). However, in contrast to this study, others
have observed that total DMI for the ﬁnishing period was greater for EW calves due to
their longer ﬁnishing period (Schoonmaker et al., 1999a; Myers et al., 1999b).

Early weaning improved feed efficiency by 18% for the ﬁnishing period. The EW
steers had lower maintenance requirements due to a lower average body weight during the
ﬁnishing period compared to NW steers. There was a 69 kg difference in the average
body weights of EW and NW steers during the ﬁnishing period. The largest difference in
feed efﬁciency between EW and NW steers was during the initial 100 d of the ﬁnishing
period. From d 0 through d 100 of the ﬁnishing period, EW steers were 27.7% more
efficient than NW steers. The advantage in feed efﬁciency of EW calves over NW calves

has ranged ﬁ'om 5 to 22% in previous research (Gill et al., 1993a; Myers et al., 1999a and

1999b; Schoonmaker et al., 1999a). In contrast, Pritchard et al. (1988) reported that EW

42

 

and NW calves had similar feed efﬁciency. Their EW calves were weaned at 165 d, and
NW calves were only 39 d older at time of normal weaning.

There was a signiﬁcant treatment X year interaction for morbidity rate (Table 2-6).
In year 1, EW steers had a higher morbidity rate than EW steers in year 2 and NW steers
in either year. When averaged over both years, a greater percentage of EW steers had at
least one incidence of morbidity than NW steers. There was no difference in the
percentage of EW and NW steers having two or more incidences of morbidity. These
results are in contrast with Myers et al. (1999a). They reported that EW calves (165 d of
age) had a lower incidence of respiratory morbidity than NW calves (222 d of age). The
EW calves in their study were 65 (1 older at weaning than the EW calves in this study
which may have affected morbidity rate.

Carcass characteristics of EW and NW steers are displayed in Table 2-3. Hot
carcass weight of EW steers was 33.3 kg lighter than that of NW steers when harvested at
a constant fat thickness. Placing EW calves on a high concentrate diet likely promoted
fat accretion at lighter weights relative to NW steers. The genotype (predominately
Angus) of steers utilized in this study may have predisposed them to light carcass
weights. Gill et al. (1993b) also reported that early weaning predominately Angus calves
resulted in lighter weight carcasses than those of NW calves. However, others have
reported similar carcass weights for EW and NW crossbred calves when harvested at a
constant fat thickness (Lusby, et al., 1990; Myers et al., 1999a and 1999b; Schoonmaker
et al., 1999b). The Crossbred calves likely had more growth potential than Angus calves

due to hybrid vigor and inﬂuence of Continental genetics. Marbling scores were similar

43

for carcasses from EW and NW steers when averaged over both years, however, the
treatment X year interaction was signiﬁcant. In year 1, carcasses from EW steers had
numerically higher marbling scores, and in year 2, they had numerically lower marbling
scores than those from NW steers (Table 2-6). All carcasses graded Low-Choice or
greater and there were no differences in the percentage of carcasses grading at least Mid-
Choice or those grading at least High-Choice when averaged over both years. High
quality grades can be attributed to the genotype of the steers; the average marbling
expected progeny difference for the sires of these steers ranked in the top 20% of the
Angus breed (American Angus Association, 1999). Yield grade and bone maturity were
similar for carcasses from both treatments.

Rib steak color, tenderness, and composition are shown in Table 2-4. Steaks ﬁ'om
NW steers had higher L" (whiter; greater reﬂectance) color values than those from EW
steers. There was no difference in a" and b"‘ values between steaks from EW and NW
steers. Wulf et al. (1997) reported that L" value was negatively correlated (-.36) to WBS
value. Although L‘ values were signiﬁcantly higher for steaks from NW steers than for
EW steers in this study, WBS values were similar for rib steaks from EW and NW steers.
Schoonmaker et al. (1999b) reported that steaks from EW calves (113 d of age) tended to
have lower WBS values than steaks from NW calves (204 d of age). Steaks from NW
steers had a higher protein content than those ﬁom EW steers. Percentage of moisture
and lipid were similar between treatments.

Economic return to the cow-calf enterprise of EW steers is compared to that of

NW steers in Table 2-5. The treatment X year interaction was signiﬁcant for feed cost,

44

total input cost, and cost of gain (Table 2-6). The interaction resulted from numerically
higher feed costs for EW steers relative to NW steers in year 1, but in year 2, EW steers
had numerically lower feed costs than NW steers. Even though EW steers consumed
less total feed than NW steers, feed costs were similar for EW and NW steers when
averaged over both years. The pelleted protein supplement, which was the most
expensive component of the diet, accounted for a larger proportion of total feed
consumed by EW steers relative to NW steers (7.2 versus 5.7%, respectively). Operating
costs were higher for EW steers than NW steers. This can be primarily attributed to
greater yardage fees charged to EW steers because they had a 40 (1 longer ﬁnishing period
than NW steers. Even though total input costs were similar for EW and NW steers when
averaged over both years, cost of gain was lower for EW steers than for NW steers. The
EW steers had more total gain over the ﬁnishing period than did NW steers, therefore
total cost was divided over more kg of gain, resulting in a lower cost of gain. Under PS-
1, adjusted carcass price was lower for EW steers relative to NW steers. This was
primarily due to the seasonal cattle price cycle (Figure 2-2). Also two EW steers were
discounted for underweight carcasses (< 250 kg) which decreased the average adjusted
carcass price paid for EW steers. Pricing scheme-2 simulated carcasses being sold into a
generic branded beef program. A greater number of carcasses ﬁ'om NW steers met
program speciﬁcations, therefore, average adjusted carcass price for NW steers was
greater than that for EW steers. In general, carcasses from EW steers were too light to
meet program speciﬁcations. When the early weaning management system was not

penalized for light weight carcasses in PS-3, adjusted carcass prices were similar for EW

45

and NW steers. If the calving season had been 90 (1 later, EW steers would have been
sold at peak base carcass prices due to the seasonal price cycle. Under this assumption in
PS-4, adjusted carcass price was higher for EW steers than for NW steers. Under all four
pricing schemes, early weaning resulted in less return to the cow-calf enterprise because
carcasses from EW steers were lighter weight than those from NW steers.
Implications

Early weaning beef steers at 100 d of age resulted in lower daily DMI and lower
total feed consumption for the ﬁnishing period relative to normal weaning at 200 d of
age. Early weaning improved feed efficiency and lowered cost of gain. However, EW
steers had lighter carcass weights than NW steers. This would result in less return to the

cow-calf enterprise if ownership of calves was retained through harvest.

46

Table 2-1. Composition of ﬁnishinédiets fed to steers

 

 

 

Diet‘

Ingredient A B C

% of diet (DM basis)
Hay, %b 60 0 0
Whole-shelled corn, % 30 90.4 95.1
Pelleted supplement, %c 10 9.6 4.9
CP, % 16.2 12.6 10.6
NDF, % 39.9 14.2 14.5
ADF, % 23.7 4.0 3.9
NEm, Meal/kg 1.48 2.08 2.13
NEE, Meal/kg .90 1.43 1.47

 

' Steers were progressively stepped up from diet A to diet B within 36 d of weaning;
cattle were switched from diet B to diet C when they weighed approximately 340
kg.

" NRC (1996) table composition.

° Soybean meal, 45.8%; wheat middlings, 12.0%; salt, 4.25%; urea, 9.1%; calcium
carbonate, 18.9%; potassium chloride, 7.8%; selenium, .011%; Vitamin A,
25,000 IU/lb; Vitamin D, 2500 IU/lb; Vitamin E, 180 IU/lb; cobalt carbonate,
.033%; copper sulfate, 2.9%; ferrous sulfate, 8.9%; magnesium sulfate, 9.8%;
calcium iodate, .11%; zinc sulfate, 8.0%; fat 1.0%; Bovatec 68, .53 %.

47

Table 2-2. Performance, feed efﬁciency, and dry matter consumption of early weaned
(EW; 100 d) and normal weaned (NW; 200 d) steers

 

 

Treatment
Item EW NW SEM' P-value
Number of steers 22 23 - -
Days on feed 258 218 O -
Weight at early weaning, kg 122.7 124.6 3.6 .65
Weight at normal weaning, kgb 249.4 211.0 5.0 .01
Live weight at harvest, kg 465.8 514.6 7.9 .01
ADG, kg/d
Early to normal weaningb 1.27 .86 .03 .01
Initial 100 d of ﬁnishing period 1.31 1.45 .04 .01
Final 60 d of ﬁnishing period 1.28 1.16 .07 .13
Entire ﬁnishing period 1.33 1.39 .03 .08
Early weaning through harvest 1.33 1.23 .03 .01
Feed efficiency, gainzfeed
Initial 100 d of ﬁnishing period .281 .220 .006 .01
Final 60 d of ﬁnishing period .177 .144 .008 .01
Entire ﬁnishing period .223 .189 .005 .01
Daily DMI, kg
Initial 100 d of ﬁnishing period 4.68 6.60 .13 .01
Final 60 d of ﬁnishing period 7.15 8.02 .22 .01
Entire ﬁnishing period 5.95 7.40 .14 .01
Total DMI for the ﬁnishing period, kg 1536.8 1618.3 34.0 .04
Morbidity rate, %
2 1 incidence of morbidity" 55.3 27.3 9.5 .04
2 2 incidences of morbidity” 27.3 9.1 7.2 .12

 

“ Standard error of the LS means.
b Treatment X year interaction (P < .10).

48

 

Table 2-3. Carcass characteristics of early weaned (EW; 100 d) and normal weaned

 

 

 

(NW; 200 d) steers
Treatment

Item EW NW SEMII P-value
Number of carcasses 22 23 - -
Hot carcass weight, kg 277.9 311.2 4.8 .01
Post-trim hot carcass weight, kgb 269.2 300.5 4.5 .01
Dressing percentagec 62.1 63.0 .4 .03
Longissimus muscle area, cm2 76.3 79.4 2.0 .19
Adjusted subcutaneous fat thickness, cm 1.4 1.4 .1 .81
Kidney, pelvic, and heart fat, %°° 3.2 3.5 .2 .16
Yield grade 3.1 3.2 .2 .36
Marbling score"f 711 722 23 .68
2 Low-Choice, % 100.0 100.0 0 1.0
2 Mid-Choice, %c 94.5 83.9 8.7 .30
2 High-Choice, %° 57.1 73.3 12.6 27
2 Prime, % 32.8 26.7 11.6 .65
Bone maturity“ 129 132 3 .46

 

‘ Standard error of the LS means.

b Hot carcass weight after hot-fat-trimming kidney, pelvic, and heart area.

° Calculated as pre-trim hot carcass weight divided by shrunk live weight at harvest

(4% shrink).

° Calculated as the difference between pre- and post-trim hot carcass weight divided

by pre-trim hot carcass weight.

° Treatment X year interaction (P < .10).

I Small°° = 500, Modest°° = 600, Moderate00 = 700, Slightly Abundant°° =

800.
3 A00 = 100, 800 = 200.

49

 

Table 2-4. Color, tenderness, and composition of rib steaks ﬁom early weaned (EW;

100 d) and normal weaned @l W; 200 d) steers

 

 

Treatment
Item EW NW SEM‘ P-value
Color
Number of steaks 22 23 - -
L"'b 41.5 43.0 .5 .01
a“ 24.0 23.9 .3 .96
b"'d 11.4 11.6 .3 .61
Tenderness
Number of steaks 11 12 - -
Warner-Bratzler shear force, kg‘ 2.9 2.8 .2 .77
Myoﬁbril Fragmentation Indexe 87.4 95.3 5.6 .32
Composition
Number of steaks 1 1 12 - -
Moisture, % 71.6 70.8 .4 .14
Ether extract, %f 6.1 6.6 .6 .47
Protein, %f 20.9 21.6 .3 .05

 

' Standard error of the LS means.
b O = black; 100 = white.

° Negative numbers = green; positive numbers = red.

° Negative numbers = blue; positive numbers = yellow.

° Measured 14 d postmortem.
I Wet basis.

50

Table 2-5. Input costs, adjusted carcass price, total carcass revenue, return to the cow-
calf enterprise, and feeder calf breakeven price of early weaned (EW; 100 d) and
normal weaned (NW; 200 d) steers using four different carcass pricing schemes

 

 

Treatment
Item EW NW SEM‘ P-value
Number of steers 22 23 -
Weaning wt, kgb 118.9 202.4 3.8 .01
Total input costs, $lsteer“ 280.89 275.60 1.65 .24
Feed cost, $/steer‘ 184.74 187.87 4.07 .51
Operating cost, $/steerCf 96.15 87.74 1.43 .01
Cost of gain, $/kg°‘ .855 .952 .021 .01
Carcass weight, kg 277.9 311.2 4.8 .01
Pricing scheme 1 - priced as per trial with
premiums for quality grade and discounts for
weight and yield gradeh
Adjusted carcass price, $/ 100 kg 237.71 242.73 2.13 .05
Total carcass revenue, S/steer 661.78 755.69 14.57 .01
Return to cow-calf enterprise, $/steer 380.89 480.08 13.21 .01
Feeder calf breakeven price, $/ 100 kg 321.51 220.82 1 1.36 .01
Pricing scheme 2 - priced as per trial with
premiums for certiﬁed program, and discounts
for weight and yield grade'
Adjusted carcass price, $/ 100 kg 238.39 245.71 2.43 .01
Total carcass revenue, S/steer 663.37 764.80 15.60 .01
Return to cow-calf enterprise, $/steer 382.49 489.20 14.16 .01
Feeder calf breakeven price, $/ 100 kg 324.48 245.42 12.11 .01

 

51

Table 2-5 (cont’d)

 

Pricing scheme 3 - priced as per trial with

premiums for quality grade and discounts for

yield grade’.
Adjusted carcass price, $/ 100 kg 239.31 241.97 1.71 18
Total carcass revenue, $/steer 665.64 753.84 12.66 .01
Return to cow-calf enterprise, $/steer 384.74 478.24 11.53 .01
Feeder calf breakeven price, $/ 100 kg 325.40 238.96 10.50 .01

Pricing scheme 4 - priced 90d later than trial

with premiums for quality grade and discounts

for weight and yield grade“
Adjusted carcass price, $/ 100 kg 244.25 236.25 2.13 .01
Total carcass revenue, S/steer 679.22 735.60 14.65 .01
Return to cow-calf enterprise, $/steer 378.66 435.53 12.54 .01
Feeder calf breakeven price, $/ 100 kg 320.61 218.77 10.93 .01

 

' Standard error of the LS means.

b 4% shrunk weaning wt.

° Treatment X year interaction.

° Sum of feed and Operating cost.

° Feed cost plus interest accrued on feed.

‘ Sum of health, transportation, yardage, and chute charges and the interest accrued
on said costs.

8 Calculated by dividing total cost by the difference in shrunk live wt at harvest and

shrunk weaning wt (4% shrink).

“ Feb. and Apr. base carcass price for EW and NW, respectively; premium for Prime '
quality grade = $6.61/ 100 kg; discount for < 250 kg = $26.43/ 100 kg; discount
for yield grade 4 = $26.43/ 100 kg.

‘ Feb. and Apr. base carcass price for EW and NW, respectively; premium for
meeting certiﬁed program speciﬁcations of 2Mid-Choice, > 275 kg, and yield
grade 1 to 3 = $6.61/ 100 kg; discount for < 250 kg = $26.43/ 100 kg; discount for
yield grade 4 = $26.43/ 100 kg.

1 Feb. and Apr. base carcass prices for EW and NW, respectively; premium for Prime
quality grade = $6.61/ 100 kg; discount for yield grade 4 = $26.43/ 100 kg.

" May and July base carcass price for EW and NW, respectively; premium for Prime
quality grade = $6.61/ 100 kg; discount for < 250 kg = $26.43/ 100 kg; discount
for yield grade 4 = $26.43/ 100 kg.

52

Table 2-6. Least squares means for signiﬁcant treatmenthear interactions

 

 

 

 

Treatment

Year 1 Year 2
Item EW NW EW NW SEM‘
Weight at normal weaning, kg 237.8y 185.1" 261.12 236.9y 7.1
ADG, early to normal 134" .78w 1.19y .942 .04
weaning, kg/d
Kidney, pelvic, heart fat, %b 3.9y 4.7" 2.42 2.22 .28
Marbling scorec 731 681 692 763 33
Z Mid-Choice, % 97.4y 60.8" 91 .5"y 107.0y 12.4
2 High-Choice, % 73.2"y 37.1" 41 .0" 109.6y 18.0
Total Input Cost, $/steerd 273.31y 254.15" 288.47" 297.052 5.46
Operating cost, $/steer° 96.11y 80.99" 96.20y 94.49’ 2.34
Cost of gain, S/kgI .807" .849xy .904’ 1.06’ .02

 

° Standard error of the LS means.

° Calculated as the difference in pre- and post-trim hot carcass weight divided by
pre-trim hot carcass weight.

° Small°° = 500, Modest"0 = 600, Moderate°° = 700, Slightly Abundant°° = 800.

° Sum of feed cost, interest on feed cost and operating costs.

° Sum of health, transportation, yardage, and chute charges and the interest accrued
on said costs.

I Calculated by dividing total cost by the difference in shrunk live weight at harvest
and shrunk weaning weight (4% shrink).

“J" Within a row, means lacking a common superscript letter differ (P < .05).

Ur
b)

 

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

280

 

 

26o ‘

 

 

 

 

240 +—

3/100 kg

  

-‘IWF--ID--I.

 

.u-u-n-IItp-nu

 

 

 

 

220 ‘

 

I

 

 

 

200 :e . . . . A p
1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
Year

Year Price, $/ 100 kg Year Price, $/ 100 kg
1985 215.81 1993 261.75
1986 208.49 1994 239.08
1987 228.58 1995 235.25
1988 243.05 1996 226.76
1989 253.03 1997 227.15
1990 271.33 1998 219.44
1991 260.86 1999 229.1 1
1992 256.79

 

Figure 2-1. Average annual base carcass prices from 1985 to 1999 (USDA,
Agricultural Marketing Service).

54

 

250 . eﬁy—w

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

245 —
3° .
8 240 %
235
230 l‘ . e
J F M A M J A s N D
Month
Month Price, S/IOO kg Month Price, S/lOO kg
January 239.10 July . 233.94
February 237.19 August 236.10
March 238.90 September 236.07
April 240.20 October 237.70
May 243.72 November 242.78
June 239.50 December 240.14

 

Figure 2-2. Average seasonal base carcass price from 1985 to 1998 (U .S.D.A.,

Agricultural Marketing Service).

55

Literature Cited

American Angus Association. 1999. American Angus Association Sire Evaluation
Report. Spring 1999, vol. 20, No. 8. Kansas City, MO.

AOAC. 1995. Official Methods of Analysis (16Ih Ed.). Association of Official
Analytical Chemists, Inc., Arlington, VA.

Culler, R. D., F. C. Parrish, Jr., G. C. Smith, and H. R. Cross. 1978. Relationship of
myoﬁbril ﬁagmentation index to certain chemical, physical and sensory
characteristics of bovine longissimus muscle. J. Food Sci. 43:1177-1180.

Gill, D. R., M. C. King, H. G. Dolezal, J. J. Martin, and C. A. Strasia. 1993a. Starting
age and background: Effects on feedlot performance of steers. Anim. Sci. Res.
Rep., P-933. Okla. Ag. Exp. Sta., Stillwater, OK. pp. 197-203.

Gill, D. R., M. C. King, D. S. Peel, H. G. Dolezal, J. J. Martin, and C. A. Strasia. 1993b.
Starting age: Effects on economics and feedlot carcass characteristics of steers.
Anim. Sci. Res. Rep., P-933. Okla. Ag. Exp Sta., Stillwater, OK. pp. 204-209.

IMPS. 1988. Institutional Meat Purchase Speciﬁcations. The Meat Buyers Guide.
National Association of Meat Purveyors, M‘Lean, VA.

Lusby, K. S., D. R. Gill, D. M. Anderson, T. L. Gardner, and H. G. Dolezal. 1990. Limit
feeding versus full feeding high concentrate diets to early weaned calves-Effects
on performance to slaughter. Anim. Sci. Res. Rep., MP-129. Okla. Ag. Exp. Sta,
Stillwater, OK. pp. 128-134.

Myers, S. E., D. B. Faulkner, F. A. Ireland, L. L. Berger, and D. F. Parrett. 1999a. Beef
production systems comparing early weaning to normal weaning with or without
creep feeding for beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 77:300-310.

Myers S. E., D. B. Faulkner, F. A. Ireland, and D. F. Parrett. 1999b. Comparison of
three weaning ages on cow-calf performance and steer carcass traits. J. Anim.

Sci. 77:323-329.

National Beef Quality Audit. 1995. Executive Summary. National Cattleman’s Beef
Association, Englewood, CO.

Neville, Jr., W. E. and W. C. M°Cormick. 1981. Performance of early- and nonnal-
weaned beef calves and their dams. J. Anim. Sci. 52:715-724.

Pritchard, R. H., M. A. Robbins, D. H. Gee, and R. J. Pruitt. 1988. Effect of early
weaning on feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of high growth

56

potential feeder calves. South Dakota Beef Rep., Cattle 88-10. South Dakota
State Univ., Brookings, SD. pp. 36-39.

SAS. 1990. SAS/STAT User’s Guide (version 6, 4th Ed.). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Schoonmaker, J. P., F. L. Fluharty, T. B. Turner. S. J. Moeller, and S. C. Loerch. 1999a.
Effect of weaning age and implant regime: I. Steer performance. Research and
Reviews: Beef. Ohio Agric. Res. and Development Center, Special Circular 162,
Columbus, OH. pp. 44-49.

Schoonmaker, J. P., F . L. Fluharty, T. B. Turner, D. M. Wulf, S. J. Moeller, and S. C.
Loerch. 1999b. Effect of weaning age and implant regime: H. Carcass
characteristics of steers. Research and Reviews: Beef. Ohio Agric. Res. and
Development Center, Special Circular 162, Columbus, OH. pp. 75-77.

Van Soest, P. J ., J. B. Robertson, and B. A. Lewis. 1991. Symposium: Carbohydrate
methodology metabolism, and nutritional implications in dairy cattle. J. Dairy
Sci. 74:3583-3597.

Wheeler, T. L., M Koohmararie, and S. D. Shackelford. 1995. Standardized Wamer-
Bratzler shear force procedures for meat tenderness measurement. [online].
Available at: http:\\meats.marc,usda,gov\MRU_www\protocol\WBS.pdf

Wulf, D. M., S. F. O’Connor, J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith. 1997. Using objective
measures of muscle color to predict beef longissimus tenderness. J. Anim. Sci.
75:684-692.

U.S.D.A. Agricultural Marketing Service. Wholesale Meat Quotations. Choice
fabricated beef cuts and all beef cutouts. Des Moines, IA.

57

CHAPTER 3

Performance of beef cows after early weaning calves

Abstract

Over two years, ﬁfty-six Angus and Angus crossbred 2- and 3-year-old cows were
used to determine the effect of early weaning calves at 100 d on body weight, body
condition, and reproductive performance. Cows were allotted by date of parturition and
assigned to one of two treatments: 1) calves weaned at an average age of 100 (1 (EW); 2)
calves weaned at an average age of 200 d (NW). Cow weight and body condition score
(BCS; 1 to 9 scale; 1 = extremely thin, 9 = obese) were taken at parturition, time of early
weaning, time of normal weaning, and at the subsequent parturition. The breeding season
began 14 (1 prior to time of early weaning and extended for 58 d. Calving dates were used
to estimate calving rates to artiﬁcial insemination (283 :t 8 d). From time of early
weaning to normal weaning, dams of EW calves had greater ADG than dams of NW
calves (.45 vs .19 kg/d, respectively; P < .001). This resulted in dams of EW calves being
21.4 kg heavier than dams of NW calves at time of normal weaning. Body condition of
dams with EW calves also improved by .7 BCS from time of early weaning to normal
weaning, whereas BCS of dams with NW calves was unchanged during the same period.
From time of normal weaning to the subsequent parturition, dams of NW calves gained
more condition than dams of EW calves (1 .27 vs .80 change in BCS, respectively; P <
.01). This resulted in similar body condition scores for dams with EW and NW calves at

the subsequent parturition. Calving rate to artiﬁcial insemination and overall pregnancy

58

rate were similar for dams with EW and NW calves (P >.10). Early weaning resulted in
greater weight gain from time of early weaning to that of normal weaning and quicker

recovery of body energy reserves. Reproductive performance was unaffected by early

weaning calves at 100 d of age.

Introduction

Failure to become pregnant within 80 d postpartum is the primary reason that
females fail to wean a calf annually. Weaning eliminates energy demands of lactation
and allows for reallocation of energy to reproductive ﬁrnctions. As well, the inhibitory
effect of the suckling stimulus on estrus is removed at weaning. Removal of the suckling
stimulus results in shortened postpartum anestrus periods (Short et al., 1972; Carter et al.,
1980; Faltys et al., 1987). If calves are weaned prior to the breeding season, reproductive
performance may be improved (Laster et al., 1973; Lusby et al., 1981).

Feed costs account for at least 50% of all costs incurred by cow-calf enterprises
(Strohbehn, 1997). Early weaning allows for quicker recovery of body energy reserves
that are lost due to large energy demands during early lactation. If energy reserves are
recovered prior to the winter feeding season, less harvested feed may be required for
females to reach optimum body condition by the subsequent parturition. Therefore,
winter feed costs may be reduced by early weaning.

The objectives of this research were to determine the effect of early weaning beef

calves at 100 d of age on cow weight, body condition, and reproductive performance.

59

Materials and Methods

Over 2 years, ﬁﬁy—six Angus and Angus crossbred 2- and 3-year-old cows were
used to determine the effect of early weaning calves on body weight, body condition and
reproductive performance. Cows were allotted by date of parturition and assigned to one
of two treatments: 1) calves weaned at an average age of 100 (1 (EW); 2) calves weaned
at an average age of 200 d (NW). Cows were maintained at the Michigan State
University Upper Peninsula Experiment Station, Chatham, MI.

Cows were weighed and body condition scores (BCS; 1 to 9 scale; 1 = extremely
thin, 9 = obese) were recorded at parturition, at time of early weaning, at time of normal
weaning, and at the subsequent parturition. Body condition scores were assigned by two
experienced evaluators and then averaged. Estrus was synchronized with gonadotropin
releasing hormone and prostaglandin so that ovulation occurred approximately two weeks
prior to time of early weaning. Cows were artiﬁcially inseminated at a timed breeding 14
d prior to time of early weaning. Artiﬁcial insemination (AI) was performed by one of
three experienced inseminators. Inseminator and service sire were randomly assigned at
the AI. Cows were then exposed to fertile bulls for the remainder of the 58 d breeding
season. Cows were palpated at the time of normal weaning for determination of
pregnancy. Open cows were culled and removed from the study at time of normal
weaning. Calving dates were used to estimate calving rates to the timed AI (283 :l: 8 d).

Winter feeding consisted of ad libitum access to mixed grass hay. In year 1, cows
were supplemented with approximately 2.6 kg/d (DM) of barley for 146 d and in year 2

they were supplemented with 5.6 kg/d (DM) of either alfalfa silage or corn silage.

6O

Experimental procedures were conducted according to those approved by the
Michigan State University All University Committee on Animal Use and Care.

The GLM procedures of SAS (1990) were used to analyze body weight, BCS, and
reproductive performance. Cow served as the experimental unit. The model included
weaning treatment and year as independent variables. The treatment X year interaction
did not account for signiﬁcant variation in the model, therefore it was removed. Any
female that was not pregnant at time of normal weaning was culled and removed from the
study. For the 2 year study, four females with EW calves and eight females with NW
calves were culled because they were not pregnant at time of normal weaning. The level

of probability at which effects were considered signiﬁcant was P < .05.

Results and Discussion

Weight and BCS of dams did not differ at time of early weaning. From time of
early weaning to normal weaning, dams of EW calves had greater ADG than dams of NW
calves (Table 3-1). This resulted in dams of EW calves being 21.4 kg heavier than dams
of NW calves at time of normal weaning. Also, dams with EW calves gained body
condition ﬁom time of early weaning to normal weaning whereas BCS of dams with NW
calves was unchanged. This resulted in dams of EW calves having a greater BCS than
dams of NW calves prior to the winter feeding period. It has been well-documented that
early weaning results in weight gain and quicker recovery of body energy reserves (Purvis
et al., 1995; Myers et al., 1999a and 1999b). From time of normal weaning to the

subsequent parturition, dams of NW calves experienced greater improvement in BCS

61

than dams of EW calves. This resulted in similar condition scores for dams of EW and
NW calves by the subsequent parturition. According to NRC (1996) equations, dams of
NW calves would have required 45% more energy above maintenance (317.4 versus
219.4 Mcal of NEE) than dams of EW calves ﬁom normal weaning to achieve the change
BCS that was observed.

Early weaning did not improve calving rate to artiﬁcial insemination and there
was also no difference in overall pregnancy rate between dams of EW and NW calves.
However, early weaning tended to improve calving rate to natural service. It was not
expected that early weaning would improve calving rate to artiﬁcial insemination in this
study because initial insemination occurred prior to time of early weaning. Laster et a1.
(1973) and Lusby et al. (1981) reported that early weaning improved reproductive
performance of young females (5 2 parities). In both studies, early weaning occurred
prior to the breeding season. Therefore, energy requirements for lactation were
eliminated and the suckling stimulus had been removed before the breeding season. The
potential positive impact of early weaning on reproductive performance in the present
study may have been diminished because dams of EW and NW calves were in good
condition (average BCS > 5) prior to the breeding season and were not in negative energy
balance. Richards et al. (1986) reported that reproductive performance of females in

good condition (BCS 2 5) is unaffected when body weight is gained.

62

Implications
The cessation of lactation by early weaning allowed for body weight gain and
recovery of body condition. Increased body condition of dams of EW calves relative to
dams of NW calves prior to the winter feeding period may result in less energy required

over the winter feeding period.

63

Table 3-1. Weight, body condition scores, and reproductive performance of dams
having calves early weaned (EW; 100 d) or normal weaned (NW; 200 d)

 

 

 

Treatment
Item n EW 11 NW SEMll P-value
Postpartum weight, kg 44 464.4 42 466.9 7.9 .82
Postpartum BCSb 44 4.7 42 4.7 .1 .78
Weight at early weaning, kg 44 455.2 42 457.4 5.7 .79
BCS at early weaning" 44 5.2 42 5.1 .1 .62
Weight at normal weaning, kg 44 499.3 41 477.9 6.1 .01
BCS at normal weaning" 44 5.8 41 5.1 .1 .01
ADG from early weaning to 44 45 41 .19 .02 .01
normal weaning, kg
BCS change from early weaning 44 .69 41 .00 .09 .01
to normal weaningb
Overall pregnancy rate, %° 44 91.4 42 81.5 5.3 .41
Calving rate to AI, %° 44 41.0 42 50.1 7.8 .18
Calving rate to natural service, %° 44 50.5 42 31.4 7.5 .07
Weight at subsequent calving, kg 40 588.1 33 563.7 8.5 .03
BCS at subsequent parturition” 40 6.6 34 6.4 .l .23
ADG from normal weaning to 40 .48 32 .44 .02 .15
subsequent parturition, kg
BCS change ﬁom normal 40 .80 33 1.27 .11 .Ol
weaning to subsequent
parturitionb

 

" Standard error of the LS means.

I Body condition score (1 to 9 scale; 1 = extemely thin, 9 = obese).

° Percentage of cows palpated as pregnant of those that were bred.

‘I Percentage of cows that calved 283 :l: 8 d following artiﬁcial insemination.

° Percentage of cows that calved > 283 :h 8 d following artiﬁcial insemination.

Literature Cited

Carter, M. L., D. J. Dierschke, J. J. Rutledge, and E. R. Hauser. 1980. Effect of
gonadotropin-releasing hormone and calf removal on pituitary-ovarian function
and reproductive performance in postpartum beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 51 :903-
910.

Faltys, G. L., E. M. Convey, R. E. Short, C. A. Keech, and R. L. Fogwell. 1987.
Relationship between weaning and secretion of luteinizing hormone, cortisol, and
transcortin in beef cows. J. Anim. Sci. 64:1498-1505.

Laster, D. B., H. A. Glimp, and K. E. Gregory. 1973. Effects of early weaning on
postpartum reproduction of cows. J. Anim. Sci. 36:734-740.

Lusby, K. S., R. P. Wettemann, and E. J. Turman. 1981. Effects of early weaning calves
from ﬁrst-calf heifers on calf and heifer performance. J. Anim. Sci. 53:1193-
1197.

Myers, S. E., D. B. Faulkner, F. A. Ireland, L. L. Berger, and D. F. Parrett. 1999a. Beef
production systems comparing early weaning to normal weaning with or without
creep feeding for beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 77:300-310.

Myers S. E., D. B. Faulkner, F. A. Ireland, and D. F. Parrett. 1999b. Comparison of
three weaning ages on cow-calf performance and steer carcass traits. J. Anim.
Sci. 77:323-329.

NRC. 1996. Nutrient requirements of beef cattle (7“ Ed.). National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.

Purvis, H, H. T., C. R. Floyd, K. S. Lusby, and R. P. Wettemann. 1995. Effects of early
weaning and body condition score (BCS) at calving on performance of spring
calving cows. Animal Science Research Report, Okla. Ag. Exp. Sta, Stillwater,
OK. pp.68-74.

Richards, M. W., J. C. Spitzer, and M. B. Warner. 1986. Effect of varying levels of
postpartum nutrition and body condition at calving on subsequent reproductive
performance in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 62:300-306.

Short, R. E., R. A. Bellows, E. L. Moody, and B. E. Howland. 1972. Effects of suckling
and mastectomy on bovine postpartum reproduction. J. Anim. Sci. 34:70-74.

65

Strohbehn, D. R. 1997. A 13-year summary of the Iowa State University beef cow
business record. Beef Res. Rep. AS-632. Iowa Coop. Ext. Serv., Ames, IA. pp.
66-70.

SAS. 1990. SAS/STAT User’s Guide (version 6, 4th Ed.). SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

66

CHAPTER 4

Interpretive Summary

Traditionally, calves are weaned at approximately seven months of age to
maximize gross economic return to cow-calf enterprises which market calves at weaning.
As the beef industry evolves ﬁ'om a segmented to a vertically coordinated industry, early
weaning calves may be a viable management strategy for cow-calf enterprises that retain
ownership of calves through harvest. Over two years, the effect of early weaning (100 d
of age) beef steers with high marbling potential on feedlot performance, carcass
characteristics, cow performance, and economic return to cow-calf enterprises was
compared to that of steers normal weaned at a traditional age of 200 d.

Although EW steers experienced greater ADG than NW steers ﬁom time of early
weaning to harvest, they tended to have lower ADG for the entire ﬁnishing period relative
to NW steers. Early weaned steers had 20% lower daily dry matter intake. This resulted
in less total feed consumption for the ﬁnishing period even though the ﬁnishing period of
EW steers was 40 d longer than that of NW steers. Early weaned steers were also 23%
more feed efﬁcient than NW steers. The EW steers had lighter average body weights
during the ﬁnishing period which resulted in lower maintenance requirements.

When harvested at a constant fat thickness, EW steers had lighter carcass weights
than NW steers. Two carcasses from EW steers weighed less than 250 kg. There were
no differences in longissimus muscle area, percentage of kidney, pelvic, and heart fat,

yield grade, or bone maturity between carcasses ﬁom EW and NW steers. All carcasses

67

graded low Choice or greater, and there were no differences in the percentage of carcasses
grading at least Mid-Choice or grading at least High-Choice.

Due to a longer ﬁnishing period, yardage cost was greater for EW steers relative
to NW steers. However, EW steers gained more total weight and consumed less feed
than NW steers. This advantage in feed efﬁciency offset greater yardage cost resulting in
lower cost of gain for EW steers relative to NW steers. Even though EW steers had a
lower cost of gain than NW steers, they generated less economic return to the cow-calf
enterprise due to lighter weight carcasses than NW steers.

Early weaning resulted in body weight gain and body condition score
improvement of dams from time of early weaning to that of normal weaning. Dams of
EW calves were in better condition prior to the winter feeding period than dams of NW
calves. In order to achieve the change in BCS observed at the subsequent parturition, it
would be expected that dams of EW calves consumed less energy during the winter
feeding period than dams of NW calves

This study indicates that early weaning results in less economic return to the cow-
calf enterprise because EW steers had lighter carcass weights than NW steers. The cattle
used in this study may have been predisposed to light carcass weights due to their
genotype. Steers were sired by Angus bulls and their dams were Angus-based females. If
the steers had been sired by Continental bulls, carcass weight would have likely increased
due to the inﬂuence of growth oriented, Continental sires and hybrid vigor. Also, in year
1, steers were sired by calving ease bulls. In general, yearling weight may be sacriﬁced

when sires with a low birth weigh expected progeny difference are utilized because birth

68

weight and yearling weight expected progeny differences are positively correlated. Other
studies have shown that carcass weights of EW crossbred calves are comparable to NW
crossbred calves, however in those studies economic return was not determined. Further
research is needed to quantify the economic impact of early weaning calves with more
growth potential.

The steers utilized in this study did not receive anabolic implants. The use of
anabolic implants is a common management strategy that improves ADG and feed
efﬁciency, however, some implants have been shown to decrease carcass quality grades.
Further research is needed to determine the effects of an implant strategy on feedlot
performance and carcass characteristics of EW calves and the resulting impact on
economic return.

The effect of early weaning on health status and morbidity rate of calves needs to
be determined. This study also indicated that EW steers had higher morbidity rates than
NW steers, however, the sample size was small. Research is needed in order to establish
vaccination and medication programs that are appropriate for EW calves.

Further research and(or) additional economic analyses are required to thoroughly
compare the economic consequence of an early weaning production system to that of a
traditional production system with retained ownership in the Eastem Combelt. In this
study, input costs and economic return were calculated for only the postweaning period.
Pasture cost ﬁom time of early weaning to that of normal weaning was not charged to
NW steers. Winter feed costs and health costs for the cow herd were not included.

National average base carcass prices used in this study may not be representative of

69

carcass prices in the Eastern Combelt. As well, the seasonal cattle price cycle in the
Eastern Combelt may differ from the national average due to the number of farmer-
feeders in the Eastern Combelt. Demand for carcasses grading Mid-Choice or higher
may be greater in the Eastern Combelt than the national average due to the large
proportion of export beef trade from the East Coast. This may also affect base carcass
price, premiums paid for carcasses grading at least Mid-Choice, and the seasonal cattle
price.

As the beef industry progresses toward coordinated production systems and value-
based marketing, it is of upmost importance that management strategies implemented at
one point in the system do not adversely affect economic return to the entire system.
Production systems and management strategies that efﬁciently produce beef which is

demanded in the marketplace need to be identiﬁed.

70

APPENDIX

71

Table A-1. Vaccination and medication schedule and product listirg for early weaned and normal weaned steers

 

Item Date Booster date Product
Respiratory disease vaccination
Year 1
Early weaned steers 5-29-97 6-10-97' CattleMaster 4+5L; Pﬁzer, New York, NY
Normal weaned steers 8-21-97 9-18-97 BovaShield 4+5L; Pﬁzer, New York, NY
Year 2
Early weaned steers 5-28-98 6-12-98 CattleMaster 4+5L; Pﬁzer, New York, NY
Normal weaned steers 8-26-98 9-17-98 CattleMaster 4+5L; Pﬁzer, New York. NY
Clostridial vaccination
Year 1
Early weaned steers 5-29-97 6-10-97 UltraBac 7; Pﬁzer, New York, NY
Normal weaned steers 5-29-97 and 6-9-97 and UltraBac 7; Pﬁzer, New York, NY
8-21-97 9-18-97
Year 2
Early weaned steers 5-28-98 6—12-98 Vision 7; Bayer, Pittsburgh, PA
Normal weaned steers 5-28-98 and 6-11-98 and Vision 7; Bayer, Pittsburgh, PA
8-26-98 9-17-98
Parasite treatment
Year 1
Early weaned steers 6-10-97 - lvomecPlus; Merial, Whitehouse Station, NJ
Normal weaned steers 9-18-97 - lvomecPlus; Merial, Whitehouse Station. NJ
Year 2
Early weaned steers 6-12-98 -- lvomecPlus; Merial, Whitehouse Station, NJ
Normal weaned steers 9-17-98 - lvomecPlus; Merial, Whitehouse Station, NJ
Mass antibiotic treatment
Year 1
Early weaned steers 6-10-97 - Micotil; Elanco, Indianapolis, IN
Normal weaned steers 9-18-97 - Micotil; Elanco, Indianapolis, IN
Year 2
Early weaned steers 6-12-98 - Micotil; Elanco, Indianapolis, IN
Normal weaned steers 9-17-98 -- Micotil; Elanco, Indianapolis. IN

 

72

Table A-2. Description of costs used to calculate feed and operating costs during the ﬁnishing period

 

Item Cost Source Notes
Feed
Com $.101/kg DM ADM-Counn-ymark, Toledo, Averaged for only months that were
OH, 1986-1998 included in the ﬁnishing period (June-
Feb. for EW; Sept-Apr. for NW)
Pellets $.315/kg DM Purina Mills, Lansing, MI Converted from S320/ton (wet);
89.5% DM
Hay $.084/kg DM Morgan’s Weekly Hay Price Mixed hay from Northern IL;
converted from 365/ton (wet); 85%
DM
Interest on feed 5% -- Calculated on total cost of feed for
half of the ﬁnishing period ( 109 d for
EW; 129 d for NW)
Operating costs
Medication
lvomecPlus $.62/ml Valley Vet Supply, Merial, Whitehouse Station, NJ
Marysville, KS
Micotil $.97/ml Stoneman’s Cattle Elanco, Indianapolis, IN
Company, Brekenridge, MI
Nuﬂor $.40/ml Stoneman’s Cattle Schering-Plough, Union, NJ
Company, Brekenridge, MI
Yardage $.28/d Estimated industry charge
Chute charge $1 .00/animal Stoneman’s Cattle Each time a steer went through the
Company, Brekenridge, Ml chute, $1.00 fee was charged
Transportation 5.0000546/kg per Chatharn to East Lansing = 645 km;
loaded Inn East Lansing to puking plant = 130
km
Interest on 5% Calculated on total operating costs for
operating costs the entire ﬁnishing period

 

73

Table A-3. Description of four pricing schemes used to calculate revenue generated by early weaned (EW; 100 d)

and normal weaned ::W 200 d) steers

ltem

Value

 

Notes

 

Pricing scheme 1
Carcass base
pﬁce
Premium

Discount

Pricing scheme 2

Carcass base
price

Premium

Discount

Pricing scheme 3
Carcass base
price
Premium

Discount

Pricing scheme 4
Carcass base
price
Premium

Discount

$239.40/ 100 kg for EW; $242.86/100
kg for NW

“.6“ 100 kg for Prime quality grade

$26.43/ 100 kg for yield grade 4 or <
250 kg

$239.40/ 100 kg for EW; $242.86/ 100
kg for NW

$6.61/ 100 kg for Prime quality grade;
56.61/100 kg for mses grading at
least Mid-Choice, yield grade 1-3, and
weighing > 275 kg

$26.43/100 kg for yield grade 4 and <
250 kg

$239.40/ 100 kg for EW; $242.86/ 100
kg for NW

36.61/100 kg for Prime quality grade
$26.43/100 kg for yield grade 4

$245.94/ 100 kg for EW; $236.38/ 100
kg for NW

$6.61/ 100 kg for Prime quality grade

$26.43/100 kg for yield grade 4 and <
250 kg

74

Average price in February and April for EW and
NW, respectively; U.S.D.A. Agric. Marketing
Service, Des Moines, IA

Average price in Febmary and April for EW and
NW, respectively; U.S.D.A. Agric. Marketing
Service, Des Moines, IA

Prime carcasses that also qualiﬁed for the branded
program received only one premium; they did not
receive two premiums for being Prime and
meeting program speciﬁcations

Average price in February and April for EW and
NW, respectively; U.S.D.A. Agric. Marketing
Service, Des Moines, IA

The cattle used in the trial may have been
predisposed to underweight carcasses due to their
genotype, therefore under pricing scheme 3, the
management system is not liable for underweight
carcass

Average price in May and July for EW and NW,
respectively; U.S.D.A. Agric. Marketing Service,
Des Moines, IA

3o— metam .ceaom noses—gm 2% 8.8683 2.92. 50:22 .

 

 

 

8.. o n .. 8. as on on a.“ 3.882;. 82m
33 .2... 3.3 85 3a.. 33 33 33 m. 9.... $28
2. 8 a. R. a 8 am e... .3 5n 2:.
.85 a: 8.... $3 .2... 88.. 3.... .3. 8. o
2. 8.- on. 8. a R 8 m..- m 5.53.: to:
.8. £3 .3. 5... :3 .8. .88.. 8.... 8m
8.. 8.- 8... 2.. 8 z. :. a... 5.5.88 up
.3. $3 .8. .2... 33 8.... .5. .8. 8m
8. 8.- 8. 8. 2- Nb 8 an. 8.89 32 ma
.2... .8. 88.. .3. :3 E... .8. 83
8. 8.- 8. a... 2 2- 2. 3 2.5-88 9......
.8. .8. 38.. $8.. 8.... .2... .8. .8. Sn.
8.- 8. 8. 2. a 8 3 3 8.3.2.... am 2
.2... .2... .3: .2... .2... 88.. 83 .3. 33
o..- 8. 2 .- 8.- z a 8 an 93:2ch 5.
a... .8. 88.. .8. :3 .83 .23 .8. 8:
a- 8. 8.- R. 2 8 NM 5.- 3.25 55
$8.. .2... .3. 33 .3. .88 .88.. .83 88
a. 8.- .n. on. 2 2- 8 2 8.8a >.52 Em
$8.. .2... .2... 83 .3. 88.. .23 .23 22
8.- 8. 8.- 8.. n 8 8 8..- am 2 8.3.35
.83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83 .83
.2695 :33. o\.. $05.25 an. 8.8 283:. 35.83.54 MESS—2 .3 g0 25 w=__._8> es mac—33 E 5.5 382
.805550 .953...— @2985

 

3% e 82 3:33 .85.. 2a 8 8: .8533 83 .o we... ....< 03.:

75

.AOmDDO " O Jump—u h-O—Bohxo .II — ”038 G 3 —v mom -

 

Egg;

 

 

8.8 2.8 88.8 8.. 88.8 2.. 88.8 2... .88.... .8 2.... 8.. .88... 8....
3w.— .ceztsuaa 308333
8.8 8.8 88.8 8.8 88.8 8.8 8.8 .88 o. 88.5.... .28.... 2.... .8... 09.
82 8.8 88.8 88... 88.8 88... 88.8 8.8 8.8.3.... .8888... a 80..
8.8.8 2:. 8.88 8.8 8.8. 8.88 8.3.8 3.3 8.. 888...... 82.838... 8. 28...;
. . _ . . . 8 . . 32 .8 .858...
8 . 8 . . 8 8 8 . .< 3 82......
8... 8... 8n... n... 88... 2... 88.8 88.. 8... 8.8.... .88.. a 88
8. . 2. 8.88.. 8.82. 8.... 8.5. m. . 2. 8.83 m. . 2. 8...... 8.. 88.88.. 8.8.... 3 8.8.03
bingo? .868:
8.8 88. _. 88.8 8o? 88.. 8.8 8. .. 2.8. 88.8 2 8.8 .8 2.... .8... .88... 8..
Ea.— $55.83
8.8 2 .8 88.8 8.8 3.8 2.8 8.8. 8. .8 8.8 8.8.... o. 8.8... 2.... 8.. on...
88... 8.... 8n... 2.... 88.. 83. 88... 8.8 8... .8588... 8.8 a 88
8.8:. .88. 2.88 28.. 8.88 8.88.. 8.8... 8.5. 8.82. 8.. 88.883 8.8 a 8.8.2...
88... 88.8 88... 88... 8... 83. 8... 88... 8.8 888...... a 8....
8.88 8.8.. 8.8:. 8...... 2.8.. 8.88.. 8.82. 8.88 2...... 8.. 888...... a 28......
N N N N N N N 8 8 a8. .58... .8...
3... 32 32 3... 3... 3... 32 32 3.. 8.58.. 88.883
. _ . . . . . . . a...
82. 8.. la. .88 .8 82 82 a: 2
an...

 

 

 

76

.38.... n a .55 boa—0.5.8 n _ 8.88 a 8 C mom .

 

 

 

 

  

 

. . 8 8 . 3
88.8 88.. 88.. 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.. 88.8 88.8 8.8888 .8 28.. 8.8.. 8888... 8......
Eu.— .3....=Eaa 38:389....
88.8 88.8 .88 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8. 88.882 8.8888 .8 8.8.. .88.. oo<
88.8 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8.8.8... .8882... .8 8....
8.888 8.888 8.888 8.888 8.888 8.888 8.88.. 8.8.8 8.8..8 8.. 88.8.88... .5883... .8 8.8.83
_ _ _ . _ . . _ _ 32 .8 .5882...
8 8 . . . 8 . 8 . .< 8. 888.88
88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 .8588; .8882. .8 8....
8.888 8.88 8.888 8.888 8. . 88 8.8.8 ..8.8 8.88 8.888 8.. 88.882 8.888.. .8 8.88.3
.3539... .85....
88.8 88.8 88.8. 88..- 88.8. 88.8 88.8. 88.8 88. .- 8. 8...... .8 28.. .88.. 888888 808
8.8.. 88.88...
88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8 . .8 .8888. 8. 8.8.8.8 8.8.. .88.. .89.
88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.882. 8.88 .8 808
8.8.8 8.888 8.888 8.888 8.8.8 8.888 8.8: 8.888 8.888 8.. 88.88... 8...... .8 8.8.8....
8.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 88.8.8.8... .8 8....
.8... 8.888 .888 8.88 .888 8.8.8 8.888 8.888 8.888 8.. 888.588.. .8 8.8.83
8 8 8 8 8 N 8 8 8 8.8. 8.88.8 .8...
am . 32 32 32 3.. 3m. 3... 3.. 32 .8258... 88.8883
. . . . . . . . . 88>
88 j. 8: .8... .8. 888 888 38':
g 8.8...

 

 

77

.33...U u a .55 28.2.6 n _ was a 2 : mum .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . 8 _ 3

nmd. 3.. SN mm; 35 86 cm... 3.. 35.5: .«o 0E: 82.. omega mom

Emu. dear—.5; 52.333

and 36 mod and £6 wad 3.6 3.6 2 9:59: 38.5: .8 as: 52.. OQ<

mud cod and 3.0 aﬁn 86 mud and. 23:33: 253033 a mom

~30 92... 93.». 05% «NE ca: 2.3 .33 m4 32:55... 303838 a 2303

o _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ 323 532..
o _ _ a _ o o _ o _< 3 “also
and 86 2mm and 8.... and 86 nmé and 35:33 3E5: 3 mom
5. _ aw adﬁ :3 3.9. :3. v.23. ads «6.3. ”.3.” 9. $559: 35.5: a 2393
.9539: EEO:

ado 3.. 36. who. 8.: ad and and. 8. _- 3 5.30.8 0:5 88.. nuance mum
29. $55.03

33 mod and mad and Inc and and 36.. 38.6: 8 5.30 .3 98: 59c OQ<
and 2.... 86 36 8.». mad 3;. and and b.5303 :30 a mom
33. 3.2. 3.2m :63 9ch v6. 3 n6; ENS. v.62” ma $5583 38 a 2303
one 26 n~.m 8... can and 8d. and and 235:8 3 mom
”.03. >63. 9o? 93¢ «gm 98¢ 1ch 92¢ «6% ma £3352. a 3303
N N N N N N N N N 5% .58.... a?
32 3m 32 3m 3m 3m 3m 32 32 3253: 9:563
_ _ 2 _ _ _ _ _ _ 30>

mm: c:— 2: 3: gﬁ 22 «a a... 03
an 23:.
I E

 

 

 

 

78

.32... u a a... 852.5 u . .28. a 3 .. mom .

 

 

 

 

 

3
8.... 8... nN. 2... 8... “N... 3.. 2... .25.. .o 2.... .5... n8...... mom
3w.— .=c_._..=..aa 32.33:...
8... a... 8... x... 2... No... 2.... an... a. 8.533 .85.. .8 2.... .5... on...
8.. 8.. 8.. 8.. 8+ can “N.“ 8... 2.2.55... 88...... a 8..
N62 8.2 3...“ 32 8.2... ”.8“ .38 2.... N. 8:85.. 538...... a .883
. . _ . c . . . . 32 a .55.»...
. _ o c o . a o _ .< a. .825
8.. 8. “N... “N... 8.“ 8... «Na 8... «2 8.533 .25.. a 8..
3.2. $8 2.2. 2.3. 29 N..N.. 8...... 8.2.. E... m.. 8.52. .95.... a .883
.3383 38.5..
8.. “N... 8.... 2.... nN... 2.... nN... n3. 8..- a. 2.8... 2.... 52. 08......» mom
2.... 855...:
9.... R... _ 2. «N... o. .o 8N... 2... 8.... 8... .28.. 3 8.8 .5 2.... as. on...
8... n5. 2.... 8.“ n5. 2... 8.. n5. n: .8283 8.8 a mum
N.N:. 2.... 2.3. 3.3 5.... $8 2.... an: E... 9. 8.533 2.3 a .883
8... 8.. 8... 8... 8.. nN... «N... 2.... 8..” .8855... a mom
3% 8.8.. 3.3 2.2. 3.8 2.8 8.8.. 3N9 N. z. 9. £8.35... ... .883
N N N N N N N N N as. 5...... 0......
3m 3m 32 3m 3m 32 3... 32 32 .888: 8.503
. . . . _ . . . . a;
N8. .8. 3N. 2N. mNN. .NN. SN. 8: a:
4&3 man.

 

 

 

79

.82... u a .5... 22.2...» n . 6.8. o o. a mom .

 

 

 

 

a?

8.. 8.. 8.. 8... SN 8.. 8... «N. .52.... .3 2.... 22. 2.5.... 8..

Eu.— ..BESEE .8533...“

8... a... 8... a... 3... 8... 8... 8... 2 mass: .25.... 8 2.... .8... on...

8... 8... 8... 8.8 8N... 8... 8.8 8.8 22.23.... .8888... ... 8..

28 ..N8 9.8 3.... N88 28 2.8 38 9. 22.55.. .5888. a .833

c . . . . . . _ . Bz ._. .582.

o . . . .. . . .. .. .< o. 828
8N8 8.... 8.8 8.8 8.8 8N... 8.8 8.8 8N... .8283 .25.. ... mom
N.N..... on... 2.3. 3.... 3.... .33 3.9. $2. 9N8 9. 8.583 .22.... a 23.3
.3283 EEG:

8N... 8.. R... 8... 8... 8...- 8. .. 8N... 8.... o. 2.8 .8 2.... .8... 2.5.... 8..
2...... .8283

.N... 8... NN... 8... oN... Na... .: .... 3.... 8... .23.. o. 2.8 .... 2.... 52.. on...
8.8 8.8 “N.“ 8.8 8... 8.8 8... «N... 8.8 been... 3...» ... 8..
N. . 3 33. 2:. N.NN.. 2.8 8.8.. 3.3 .an 98.. . a. 8.283 2.8 ... 5...»;
2... 8.8 8N... 8N... 8.8 8.8 n...“ 8... 2.... .8252... a mom
3.... :5. 3.3. 3.8 .88 N.Na. 2.3. 2:. $3. 3123.22.83.86;
N N N N N N N N N 28. .23.... a?
32 3... 3m 3m 32 32 32 3m 32 558281.83
N N N N . _ . . . 23>

8 2 z .. 3.... 3.. 8... NE .8.
am am...
.7

 

 

8O

.383 u a .55 32555 n _ 6.8» a 8 3 mum .

 

 

 

8.. n2 n8 n8 8.. 8.. 3.. Bee. 8 «a: 52. .855 mom
Ema dost-Eda 32.338
8.8 :8 and N3 N2 2.8 8.8 2 mass; .958 8 25. 52. on<
n: 8s RN 8.” 8.... n2. nNN 8.0 28:33.. .8385 a mom
2% a. :3 Na 3 3% SNn 2 No $8 3: 9. 5.858 .5883 a 2303
_ _ _ _ _ _ c _ _ 32 a .589...
_ o o o c _ a o _ _< 2 Bio
26 “NN “S «S . 8.“ n3 8.“ on.“ . .8282 .552. a mom
3% 3% SN“ 22 N.NN.. 32 2.2 NNS 9. 85:83 .952. a is»;
union; EEO:
nN._ 8.. n3 8.. n3 2.8 8.: n3 2 €88 2.... as. 855 mom
a} .8283
:8 8.8 8.8 N2 2... 36 8.8 8.8 3:2 3 €88 8.: 58 R?
8a 3.... one 8.0 “Na. 8.“ 8... (.3 n2. .8283 £8 a mom
3% «a: N._Nn 8.8“ N88 2.: 3N, 33. 38 a. 8.533 2.8 a 2%;
8.“ 8.“ 8.0 8.8 nNé 8... “N... 2:. «N... .8355; a mom
3% 5.3“ «in 3N“ .88 2mm 38 33 ENS . a“. £355.. a 2203
N N N N N N N N N e8» .52.. a?
32 32 32 3m 3m 32 32 Ba 32 .558: ”5:83
N N N N N N N N N 33,
SN 8N EN .NN jN m 3 NW

 

 

 

81

88.... u a a... 32.2.8 n . 8.8. a 2 .. mum .

 

 

 

 

 

833.824
8N... 8.. 8... 8N. 8... 2... .25.... .9 2.... as. 858 mum
2m.— ..8....=an 30:33.8
N2. 8... 2... 8... N2. NN... o. 8.583 .35.. .o B... .8... on...
8N 8s 8... 2... n: 8... 22.55.. 838...... a mom
a. . 8 :8 .38 23 «Na. N88 9. 52.55.. 8:888 a .883
. . . a o . c . . 32 a .588...
. . o c o c c c . .< o. .836
a... «N... 8... 2.. 8.8 8... 8.8 8.. 8N8 8.583 3...... a mom
3.8 .38 N88 :8 2.8 28 2:. 2.8 .3: 9. 85:83 .85.. a .883
35:83 35.8.
8.. 8.. 8... 8.. 8.... 8.. 8.. 8N 8.. 3 8.8... B... 5.... 858 8..
8.... 85:83
8... .2. NN... 9.... 8... 8... a. .8 N2. N2 .25.. s 2.8 .o 2.... 5.... on...
2..“ “N.“ 8... 8... 8.8 8.8 8.8 «Na 8N.“ .838; 2.8 a won
.38 28 28 28 8.8.. 8.8.. 32. 3.: 8.8.. 9. 85:83 £8 a .883
8.8 a; 2.... 8... 8N8 8.8 82 8... 8.8 .8235... a 8..
.88 .28 .88 38 SE .88 3:. 2.8 38 9. 8.83.8 a .883
m n m m n n n N n 88. .28... on...
32 .3... 3.. 3m. 3z 3... 32 3m. 32 .8§8.. 9....83
N N N N N N N N N .8>
m: .8 E. 8.. N2. mjjm &N
#3 48....
I

 

3H

 

82

.88.... u o .55 2.0.52.8 u _ 8.8. o a. _. mom .

 

 

 

 

a?
«S 8:. .2. 8... 8.. nNN 8... 8N. .25.... 2 2.... 2.... 2.2....0 mom
3».— .=o_._.:§a Eon—.038
8... 8... 8... 8... 8... .2. .2. 2 .2283 .25.... 2 2.... 2.... on...
8... 8... m: 8N... 8.. n: 8... 8... 2.2.2.5.. .8288... 2 82
28 8.8. «NS 2.8 . «.9... N8... 8...... 8.. 822...... .8288... 2 22.83
. . . . .. . . . . 32 2 22.8...
. . .. . .. . .. . o .< 2 828
8N... 8.. 8.. 8.... ﬂ... 8.. 8.8 8N8 n... .8283 22...... 2 8..
2.8 38.. N8. 8...... 2.8 .38 2.8 .38 3.8 m.. .8283 2.5.... 2 .823
b.2583 .25.:
2.. «N... «N. 2.. 2.... 8N... 8... 8.. 8N. 2 2.8... 2.... 2.... 2.5.... 82
Eng $5503
8... 8N... e... 3... 8... .. ... 8... 2... 8... .25.... 9 2.8... 2.... 22. c9.
8.. 8N 88 8.. 8.8 2... 8.8 “N.“ 8.8 .8283 .28 a 8..
.88 28 2.8 28.. 38 2.8 N. .8 3.8 2N8 3. .8283 .28 2 2283
8.8 8... .2 R... 8.8 2... 8.8 8.. a: .8225... a 8..
c... . n a. .8 2.8 8.8.. 2.8 .38 «.8. 28 38 M... 8.22:8 2 2.83
m n ... m m m m m m 28. .58... 8....
32 3.. 32 3... 3m 32 3... 32 3... 85.8.. 2.283
N N N N N N N N N .8>
N8 8.. a... .E. v8 28 NE EH .8
.83 J8...

 

 

 

83

88.... u 8 .2... 8852.8 u . 8.8.. 8 8. .. mum .

 

 

 

. .8. 8 m . 3
8.. 8.. 8.8. 8.. 2.8 8.8 8.N 8.8 5.5.... .8 85.. 5.... 8.5.5 88.
29. 52555.. 5382......
2 .8 88.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 88.8 88 8.8 2 9.282 5.5.... .8 85.. 5.... 09.
8.. 8.8 n: 8... 8.8 8... 8... «N... 2225...... .8888... 5 808
8N8 8.8.. .8... v. .8. 8.88 8.2.... 8.88 8.8.. 9. 52.5.5... .8882... 5 .853
. . . . . . . . 8 32 5 28.88...
8 . 8 . . . 8 8 8 .< 8. 8.5“.
8... 8.... 8.8 8... “N. 8... 8.8 8N... 8... .8828... 55.8.. 5 808
8.28 8.8. 8.88 8.88 3.8 I .8 8...... N88 8.88 9. .8828; 5.5.... 5 .853
b.2583 .552.
8N8 8.8 8.N 8.. 8N. 8.N 8.8 2... 8.N 8. 8.8... 28.. 58.. 8.5.5 8..
Ems $5583
88 8. .8 8.8 8.8 8.8 .88 8.8 88 N88 5.5.... 2 8.8... 28.. 5.... R2.
2.. 8N... 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8... 8.8 .8288; 8.8 5 88.
3. n 2... N28 8.88 8.8:. 8.8 8.8.. 2N: 8.8.8 9. .8828... 8.8 5 2983
8.8 8.8 8.8 8.. 8.8 a... 8.8 8N8 88.8 .8855... 5 8..
8.88 8. . 8 8.88 8.88 N. .88 N88 8...: 3.8 8.an 9. 52.2.5... 5 .853
8 8 m 8 8 8 8 8 n 28. .52.... 8<
32 32 3... 3m 3m. 3... 3m. 3m 3m .8885... 82883
N N N N N N N N N .8>
vnN. WMN. 8.N. 88.. 88.. 8... 8..., «888. 8.8.
8.8... l8...

 

 

 

 

84

.85.... u a .5... 85...... u . 5.8. 8 2 .. mum .

 

 

 

 

8N 8N. 8N... 8.. 8.. 5.5.... .o 05.. 5.... 85.... 8..
Em.— .co.._.......an 2.2.33.8

2.... 3.... 8.... 2 .o 8.... 2 858.. 5.58.... 95.. 5.... oa<
8N... n: 8... 8... 8.. 8.535.. .8585... 5 8..
.28 5N8 .28 N.. 8 38 m.. 8.5.5.... 588...... 5 .853
. o . . . . o 32 5 .88....

o .. . o . . o .< 2 82.5
«N... 8.5 8... 8... 8N 8.. “N.“ 8:58... 5.5.... 5 won
3.... .88 .38 N88 .88 8...: 8..... 8.. 85.83 5.5.... 5 .853
b.2583 88.5:

8N... 8... 8.... 8.. 8.. 8... 8N... 3 8.8 ... 2.... 5.... 8.5.5 8..
.8. .8583

a. .8 2 .o 8... 8... 8... 8... N. .c 55...... 2 8.8 ... 55.. 5c... on...
8... 8... 85 “Na 8.. 8.. 8.8 .8558... 2.8 5 8..
N52. 58.. 8.8.. 5N8 8.88 ..N.n 28 M... 9.58... 2.8 5 .853
8.8 «N... 8... 8.. 8.8 n: 8.8 ................. 5 mm...
.8. 28 2.8 38 N88 888 888 8.. 8.5.5.... 5 .853
n m m m m a m 58. .58... 8...
32 32 32 3.. 32 32 32 5258.. 9.583
N N N N N N N 55>

8... 8... 8: N8. 4N8. 83 ME
.588 4.43
I

 

 

85

.8. 85. $35.... 50... 9.x ......8 8.308 .325: n o. .8. U m :quthto: n a .3.” 58.8% U... n a ﬁzeémnn SE... n N. ....xm

8.8.35. 8m 2 u o .me. 5.8.2:”. 8m 2 n n 63.9 985.com ”a n v .3: 6.96.... ~75 u m 68 5.809 302 «a u N .33 3m Z 85.8.35”. n S 0.88 “Em .

 

 

 

 

 

8 8 8 8 8 8 8 a 8
8 . 8 8 8 . 8 8 8
8 . . _ 8 . 8 . 8 5.5.8.. 8.5.8.85 . N
53.85%
88 8NN.8 88.8 8. .8 8.. . .8 8NN.8 .8N.8 .8N.8 88.8 .88.... 85.5.5. 2.8 .... 8.558. ..8.
88.5.8
88. .8 88 . .8 8. .8 N... .8 88. .8 .... .8 88. .8 .NN.8 8.8 8...... 85.5.5. ... 8 8 5.... .... 8.8.2.8.. 88.
88.5.8 8.5..
88.8 8N8 8NN.8 88N8 8NN.8 88.8 88N.8 88.8 8N8 8.5.8.5.. ... .. 8. 5...... .... 8.85.... 88..
88.8 8.... 88.8 N... 88.8 8.... S... 8N... 8N8 .8. .88....58888 28 8.58.
8.8.... 8.8.8. 88.88. ... ...: 88.83.. 88.888. 8.8... 8588. 88.8.8. 8.. 88...... 8.8.5.8... 2...... .... ......858888 28.
8.. ......5.
N88 :8 88.8 8..... 88.8 88.8 8:. 88... 8.8 8.8.5.5.. ... .. 8 588 .... 5.885.588 28.
8.. 8......
8.... ...... 88.8 88.8 88... 88.8 88.8 8.8 8..... 8.5.8.8.. ... 8 8. 5...... .... 8.55.588 28.
88.. 88.. 8. .. 88.. N. ... 88.. 88.. 88.. ..N. 88.. .85.. ... 8.5.8... 8.8 5.... on...
N... 88.. 88.. 88.. 8.. 8.. 88.. 88.. 8.... 88.. 8.5.. 8.8.5.5.. 2...... .... 09.
88.. .... .... 8... 88.8 88.8 88.. ...... 8.8 88.. 88.5.5. ... .. 8 5.... .... 09.
8.. ...... 88.. 88.. 2... 88.. 2.. ...... 8.. .8. 8...... 85.5.8... ... .. 8. 5...... .... 09.
88.8 ...... .88 88.. 88.8 88.. 88.8 5... 88.8 .8. 8.5.8; 5.5.... ... 8.8 5.... on...
88.. 888 .... 888 N... 888 2.. 888 8... .. 8.. .85:
SN N8N 8N N8N 8N N8N 8N N8N SN ..8. .... .88
N8.8N8 8.88.. 8.88.. 8.8.... 88.8.... 88.8.... 88.888 N8... 8 88.88.. 8.. .85.. 5 .853
88.8. 88. . 8N $.8N NN.8N NN.8NN R88 88.88 . .88 SN... 8.. .8858... 5.5.... 5 .853
88.88. 88.88. 8.8: 888. 88. N88: .....8N. 88.8N. 88.8. 8.. .8858: 8.8 5.853
8 8 8 .. . 8 v 8 8 ....8
32 3.. 32 3.. 32 3.. 32 3... 32 5255.... 88.883
. . . . . . . . . .8.»
88.. 8N8 .N80 88.. 8.80 8.80 8.80 8880 880
8.8.8

 

......»J. ...-o. c 8.8. .

86

 

.8: 8..... .828 .8 58 8.... ...5 8..... 5.85.. n 8. .88. u 8 8.585.888: u 8 .888 8.5.8.8 B. u 8 .88.8.NN88 8...... u 8 ....a
8.55.... 58. z n 8 5.... 88.5.85... 58. z u 8 .8888 .8828... 5. u 8 .888. 55...... «<0 n 8 .888 88..... 3.2 8.8. u N .8N88 58. z 88.55:... n : .88 ...8 .

 

 

 

 

 

 

c o . o a a o . . 8... E. 283...... N

8 . . 8 . . . . . 85.55... 25.88.... N N
.8. .8 888.8 88N.8 88N.8 .8N.8 88 8.8.8 88N.8 88N.8 5.55... .8288... . N
53.5...»

88. .8 88.8 88. .8 88. .8 N8. .8 88N.8 88.8 8:8 88. .8 8...... 88.88.... 2...... .... 8.85.... 8...
30......»

.88 88N.8 888.8 88N.8 .8N.8 .8N.8 888.8 8N8.8 88N.8 8...... 88.8.58... 8 8 5.... .... 8.8.5.... 8...
83.558 8......

88.. 88.8 88.8 8... 88.8 88.. .... 8N.8 88.8 88.8.5... .8 8 8. 5...... .8. 8.8.5.... 8....
88.888. 88.888. 88.888. 88.888. 8.88. 8.8.8. ....888. 8.888. 8...N88. 8.... ................8. 28. 8.58.
8 . .8 .8... 88.8 .88 88.. 88.8 8N.8 ....8 8.... 8.. 8...... 8.8.5.... ...... .... ......5.....8 28.
8.. 8......

88.8 88.8 NN.8 88.8 88.8 8.8 88.8 88.8 88.8 8.8.5.... .. 8 8 5.... .... 82.85.58 28.
8.. 8......

8... N8.. .N.. .N.. 88.. 88.. 88.. N8.. .8. 8.8.5.8.. .. 8 8. 5...... .... 88.5.5... 8,...
88.. 88.. .N.. 88.. 88.. 8... N8.. N8.. .8. 8.8.. 5.5.. .. 88.88.; 8...... ...... 09.
88.. 88.. 88.. 88.. 88.. .... .N.. 8... N8.. 88... 8...... 8.8.5.8... ...... .... 09.
88.. 88.. 8N. 88.. 8... 88.. 88.. .8. .N.. 8.8.. 8.8.5.8.. .. 8 8 5.... .... .89..
88.8 88.. 8N. 88.8 8. .. 8.8 88.8 .8. .N.. 8.8.. 8...... 88.8.58... 8 8. 5...... .... 09.
.88 .88 .88 88 .88 88 88 .88 888 8.8.. .8858... 55.8.. .. 8...... ...... on...
88N 88N 88N 888 N88 88. 88N N8N N8N 8 ..88 52.5:
88.8.8 88.8.8 ...888 88.888 .8888 88.8.8 8.888 N. .8N8 88.888 8... .. .888.
88.8. 8.82 88.88 88.88. 8N.8.N 8.8. 8.8: 88.8NN 8...N8 8.. 5...... 5 ......3
88.8. _ :88. 88.8.. 828. 8.88 2 .88 ....8 88.88 88.88 8.. .8858; 5.8.... 5 .8853
:88 88.88 8.88 8N.8 8N.8 828 88.88 N888 8S8 8.. 8.8.5... 8..... 5 .8853
8 8 8 8 . 8 8 8 8 ....8
32 38 38. 32 3... 32 32 3... 3.. 5.552. 8.8.5.3
. _. . . . . . . . 5.>

.88 888.8 8880 888.8 N88 .88... 888.8 88888 8N8

888.88 . 8.8.8

 

 

3.8

87

 

Am. SE :29... 50m 25— .o.._n 3358 .832. u A: .8. U m ﬁEsthtc: u a Won 535.85 OH H a $39.39». 9.5". u h .HXm
coma—35m in Z n o ....Xm 832.55 3m 2 u n .935 .32—88m "E u v d”: 8.39:. ~20 u n 68 5.8a 302 S u N .Nmnn ....m 2 cog—sew. n S 88 BE .

 

 

 

 

 

. c c o a a o . q
. c o . o c o . c
8.... E... 8.... SN... SN... 8.... 8.... RN... 8.... .8582. 9.8.9.8. ~
v8...=_am
NN. ... 8 . ... 8.... 8.... 8. ... 8..... NN. ... SN... 8.... .88.. 9:82.. 2:8 8. 88.0.8 80..
82......»
8. ... a. ... ...N... EN... .NN.. ...NN... 8N... «NM... ..NN... .88.. 9.8.5.. ... .. 8 .2... a. 888...... 8....
822.8 .88..
.2 .....N .N... 8.“ NN.n 8... 2.“ ....n NS. 9.8.5. .o .. 8. 3...... a. 88.2.8 80.
8.38. N98: 8.88. 8.8... 8.2: m. .82 8.8“. 8.9.: 8N8. ...9. 8.82828 :o 2.5
8... 8... 8N... 8... :8 ..N... N3 ...... 8.. 9. .88.. 9.8:... 2:8 a. 8.8.888 2a
9. .88..
88 n. .N a... 8... 8... 8... 8.? n3 ...... 8.8.2.. ... .. 8 .2... .o. 8.2.2889 Zn
9. .88..
8.. .N.. N... NN.. NN. .N.. n... .2 ..N. 9.8:... .... .. 8. 8...... 8.. 8.2.5880 2o
8.. 8.. N... NN.. .N.. 8.. m... .2 N... 29. .85.. o. 9:82.. ...8 22. on...
N... N.N.. o... 8.. .N.. .N... 8... 8.. .... 29. 8.8.. 9.8.5. 2:8 8.. 09.
a... .... .N.. .N.. .N.. ...... ... .. .... 8.. ...9. 9.8.5.. ... .. 8 .2... a. on...
8... a... .2 .N.. .N.. 8... n... .... a... 29. .88.. 98...... ... a 8. 8...... 8.. on...
N9. N2. N8 8. 88 N8 3 a: 8.. ...9. 8.883 .88.. s ...8 22. 09.
..NN ..NN 8N 8N NnN 8N NnN NmN 8N a .2... .85:
when ....8. 8.8. ..N. .8 8.8.. 8.9... 2...... 8...... 8.2... ..8. 8 9.8
8.5 .22 No. SN ...NoN 8...: 3...... 8.5 3.3 8. .... 9. .85.. ... .883
8. . n. 2.8. :8. 8.8. 8..... 8.8. 8.8. .N. .... 3...: . 9. 9.2.83 .25.. ... .883
2.8 .....nN .08 8.8 8.8 2.: 8.8 ......N 8.8 9. 9.883 :8 ... 29...;
m N N N m N N e n .2...
32 32 3.. 3m 3m 32 3m 3m 32 .8582. 9.883
N N N N . . . . . 8..
:34 281: no... as: $3 $3 $3 9.3 .80
«ﬂaw aw...

 

J3.

 

88

Am: SE 523.. 50m 2.x 6...: 3.38 .832. u o. .8. U m ..qﬁathto: n a ﬁg 525.8% 9.. u a £30.33 9.5... u n PX”.—

_a_a_§m 2.. z u : Em. 8.2.2... 2m z n n .32. 28:28: 5. u q .2: 2.25 2.5 u N .08 5.25 32 .5. u N .22 am 2 8.3.2: u .. 2.8 ea .

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

.. a o c o J. a a a . as.

c o c o c . o o c 28:22. 283:5 N N
E ... ....N... :2... SN... NE... EN... EN... 2.... :2... 2258: 283:5. N
.32...»

.N. ... 8. ... a: ... 3. ... S. ... 2. ... Na. ... 8. ... 8. ... 2:2. 2:25.. 2:8 .2 28.220 :3".
322.2

2. ... SN... 2.... EN... EN... 2N... .NN.: 8N... SN... .32.. 2.5.5.. ..o .. 8 .2: a. 25.220 :8“.
822.2. .822.

NE 82 2.: 3.: RN 3.“ N3 .N... ... ... 2:22: 2 .. 8. 3:2. 8. 25.2.2 .22.".
8.8: 232. MN. 82 ... .82 NSN: $.22 2.8: 8...... 8.8.: 22 2.2.2.28 in 3:5
2... 3... ...... N: No... 2.: an... 2.... 3... 2 3.2. 2.22:: 2:5 8.. 8:22:28 2o
2 .85..

N3 an a... N3 8.: 3.... 9... ...... Rd ”55...... .o u 8 .2: a. 8:228 2N.
2 2:2.

N... 2.. 2.. .N.. ..N. .N.. .... N... N... 2:25.. .o .. 8. .22. 3.. 8:22:28 2N.
.N.. N... :N. .N.. 3.. .N.. a... NN. N... 32 282232.283 €822.09.
2... 8.. ... .. .. ... z... 2.. :N. 8.. 2... E2 .822. 2.5:... 2:5 .2 oa<
2.. a... :N. 2.. x... NN. .... :2 8.. 22 2.5.9.. .o .. 8 .2: .2 09.
No... 8... a... 2.. No... NN. .... ...... 8.. 32 45:2. 2:25.. ... u 8. 3:2. 5.. 22
2.. 8m NN. N8 5. SN :2 .2. 8m 22 2.283 .25.. 2 2.8 22. on...
..NN EN ..NN 3N 2N EN 3N ..NN 3N .. .02 25:
3.8.. :32 2.2.. £23. 3N: 2...: 8.8.. 3.2: 8.3. :8. 8 2.8
N...NNN ....NNN :38 8...NN 8. ...N 2 .2N .....NoN 852 :35 a. 485.. a 2203
8.. N. 2.3. N3: 8...: 3...: 3.5 «in. N2: 3.8. 2 25:83 .828 a 225
2.2. 3.2 3.2 2.2 NN.8 NN.8 .3N ENN 2.2 9. 2.52; .28 a 22.3
a N a a N N N N N .25
32 3”,. 32 3m. 32 3”,. 3m 32 E. .8232. 2.583
N N N N N N N N N 23>

43.. NS: ado: .8: 394 j 0% 22.

2am. an

 

 

3H

89

.3. 35— :ango 50m o5. 6:: 33.5: .832. n o. .8. U m saEathbo: n a .3m 525.8% U... u a £30.33 ::.:E n h ....xw

5:235. 3m 2 u o ....xm acts—::.m 8m 2 u n deco 98.385 My. u v in: 8.39:. M<O .I. m .08 :wde 302 Em n N run? 3m 2 EVE—BE. n 3 080 25 .

 

 

 

 

 

: : : : . : : : : 38%
: : : . . . : : : 28582. 28...:8 : N
:2 .: : . :.: :2 .: :::.: :2 .: :: _ .: 8:: :2 .: 8:: .8582. 28...:8 . N
v8.3.8»
:_ ..: :2 .: ... ..: ::. .: 8..: ::. .: :2 .: :2 .: :3 .: .88.. 8.8.5,. 2:8 8. 888.8 :8:
822...:
8. .: 8:: 8. .: 8:: :2 .: :::.: :::.: 8:: :::.: .88.. 8225.. ... : :: .8: 8. 88.2.8 :8:
822...: .88..
:2 8.: ::.: 8.: .2: :2 ::.: ::.: ::.: ::.::.... .... : 8. 5:5. 8. 888.8 :3...
::.:::. ::.::. 5.8:. ... .:::. ::.::. :..:::. ::.:::. ::.::. ::.::.. :2. 885.88 2.. ::.::.
8.: :2 8.: :. .: :6: .5 2.: 8.: 8.: .... .88.. ::.::.... 2:8 8.. 885.88 2:.
.... .88..
::.: ::.: ::.: :3. 8.: .:.: :2. :2 8.: ::.::.... ... : :: .8: .2 88.828 2:.
m. .88..
:2 .2 :2 :2 :2 z. :2 :2 :2 ::.::.... ... : 8. 5:5. 8.. 8858...... 2:.
:2 .2 :2 :2 2.. :2 :2 :2 :2 :8. .85.. 5 :58»; :8: .8: on...
::.: :2 : . .. :2 5.: 8.: :2 :2 :2 :2. .88.. 8.8.5: 2:8 8. on...
:2 :2 :2 :2 8.. :2 8.. :2 :2 :2. 8.8.5.. 8 : :: .8: 8.. on...
8.. :2 8.. :2 8.: 3.: 8.. :3 :2 :2. .88.. 8.8.5.. ... : 8. ...:5. 8. on...
8: :2 :2. :3. :8 : ... 8: 2.. R: :8. :58»; .88: 5 :8: 58.. 09:
::: 8: ::: 8: ::: ::: 8: ::: 8: : .98 82::
8.8: ::.::.. :28: ::.::.. ::.:S :22: ::.:3 :22: ::.::: :8. 8 8.5
::.::: ::.::: ::.::: ::. .:: :. .:.: :. .::: .:.::: ::.::.: 8.8: 9. .88.. ... 5:83
::.:. . ::.::. ::.::. ::.::. ::.::. ::.::. ::.::. ::.::. ::.::. 9. :58»; .28.. ... 2:83
8:: m . .3. ::.8 :3... ::.:: :..:.. ::.::. 8:: 2:: 9. 8.8:; .8: ... 2:83
:. :. :. :. :. : n : m 2.:
Bz 3m. 32 3... 32 32 3... Bz am 8:82. :58»;
: : : : : : : : : 28>
J3: :8: :8... 8:... ::jnlg 8...? 9:2:
.38.: .8...

 

 

9O

.SN u so .8— H 8< o
.8» u 3.56.55. 22.8.5 .8. u 225.52 .88 u 3.882 8% u 3 =25. _.

.2393 88.3 .9. 83.2.. .3 32>... £303 «388 8: 85-82. 28 -95 8953 3:293.“ 05 8 38.330 u

35...... ...: ﬁt... a :30; 2.. 825 3 80...)... .3... ...».2. 383 .2. 58-2.. 8 83.83 ._
.88 :3: 9! .322. £055 .8 wEEEEé...8: .89. E303 88.8 8: .

 

3. 2.. on. 8,: on. on. o: a. 8: 3.94833
8 8 . c ... 8 . o o 2...... ~

8 . . . . . . . _ 8.2.3.5»... N
o . . . . . . . . 8.2.3.22 N
8% 82 8.. o . h 88 a: 88 88 8.. .28... 8:32
m . .N 2.... 82 3... NS. .3 can 8.. a...” QB.» 22>
8... 3.... ...... 8... 88 Ea 8.8 8+ 2 .n ..x .3. 52. ...... .222. .355.
8.. 8.. 8.. 8.. ...... 3.. 2.. 8.. 2.... so «85...... a. n... as 88......
:8 8.8 3.: ....8 8.3 8.8 8.2. 8.8. .5... ..8 .8... «.82.. 85.383
:8... 88... $8... 28... ~58 88... 88... 88... $3... .... 63522. 8.8.5
8.8.. 8.8.. 82:... .32 8. .8 8.88 8.8a 3.8% 8.33 .9. 45.03 2.28 .2. 5.5.8..
now . m 2...: 838 8.88 8.8” 88" 8.2 a 8.8a 8.8.. 9. .2903 3.85 .2. 25.2..
32 am 32 am 32 am 32 km 32 58.8.. 8.583
_ . . . . . . . . a;

83 83 83 J13 23 23 23 83 83

 

 

 

 

13...... ....

91

 

dam u an .8. u 8< .
68 u 8.53.55. .2295 .85 u 838032 68 n 8.8ch 6cm u 8 =35 .
.2325 8.8.8 .9. 85-8.. .3 32>... 2303 88.8 .2. 8:33.. 9... .0... .8052. 3:23.... 2.. 8 38.380 .

ﬁsts... $3 .85.. 8 23.03 o>= :55? .3 32>... 8%. 2903 88.8 8.. 5.3-2.. 8 38.330 ..
do... 58.. E... 6.22. 805.... ..o mag—.5839. .3... 2303 9.328 3: .

 

 

 

c... 8.... on. a... am. am. em. on. ...: 58:33

8 8 o o c 8 8 . . 2...... N

o c . 8 . c a . . 8.2.3.5.: N

8 . _ o . . . . . 8.2.3.2: N
8n 8.... ... b 8n 8. 8... 8... 8.. ...... .28. 923...:
8.. 2.. ....N 3... 8... 2.... 2a ...3 88 3.5 22>
8..... N...“ ta 8.. 8.. n... 88 88 :8 .... .2 52. ...... .222. 22......
.... .5 2.. 2.. 8.. 8.. 2.... 2.. 8.. ...... «85...... .... .... ..N. 8.3.2..
.2: ....8 8.8 e . .8 a. . b 8.8 8..... 8..: 8.2 .2. .8... 23...... 2.2.238.
..N . 2.. £8... 2 8... 88... 2.8... 88... 88... 3. ...... 88... .2. 6.268.... 9.285
83.9 8...... 8.5 .38 8. . a 8.29 8.88 8.3 8.88 .9. 2.92.. .828 .2. 2.2.8..
82.2 8.2 m 2...... 8.8” 8.8 8.... m 3.8.. 8.8 838 9. 2.92. 28.8 .2. 2.2.2..
32 .3. 3... 32 B... 32 32 3.. 3m. .8222. 9.2.8;
. . _ . . . . . _ 23>

:3 £3 33 3.3 83 :3 23 8.3 £3
2%.

 

 

 

.8N N am .8— ﬂ 8<u

.88.. u 3.82.5.2 22.8.... .88. n 2220822 .888 u 2.88: .88. u 2 =25 .

2.3.93 88.839 .9. 5.2.2.. .3 32>... ...».03 88.8 .2. 8.5.82. ....a .2.. 283.2. 8228...... o... 8.. 3.8.3.80 .
.25.... 2.... .85.. ... .28.... .2. .25... 2. 322.. .2... .222. 28.8 .2. 2.2-2.. 2. 82.3.5 ._

8.. 52. 2a .222. 22.2.. .8 ..222.......-.2. .2... 2.8.... .328 .2. .

 

 

8: 8N. 8... 8: 83 8.... 8.. 8N. 8N. 2.33.83...»
8 8 8 8 . 8 8 8 8 2...... N
. _ 8 8 _ . . 8 8 8.2.0.8»... N
_ . _ _ .. . . . 8 8.2.0.22 N
8. . 82. 8.8 888 88.. 82 888 888 88... .28. 823...:
8N.N 3.. N8.. ....N 8. .... ...... 88.N 8...N N8N 22:8 22>
.....N 8. .. SN EN N3. 2.. SN NNN 88.. .2. .8. ....2. ...... .222. 22.8...
8.... .N.. .N.. 88.8 N... 8.... N8.. N8.. 88.8 .5 2.852... .... .... ...N. 822...?
2.2 8. .... 88.8. 8...... 8. .n. ......K 828 8...: .2.. ....8 .8... 23...... 32.2.9.3
8.8.8 8. .28 8888.8 888.8 88.8.8 £888 3.8.8 8.8.8 :38 ..x. 68288.2. 82.8.8.
88.88N N282. p.88 No.82 x. . MN 8N.8..N $.NMN ......KN N888N .... 2.8.2.. 28.... .2. ........8..
3.88. 3.82 ......N 3.88 ..8....N 8N.N8N .N....N 8N.N..N 88.88. 9. 2.8.2.. 2828 .2. 2.2.2..
32 32 >6 3.. a... 32 3.. 3m. 32 .8288: N828...
N N N N . . . . . 83>
3881 21.8: A .82 8.8m $8 9.8 3.8 $3 1.8
.5...

 

 

 

am.

 

 

93

.Sﬂusm .8— "8<o

.8» u 8.5.5.? 2.5.5 .2... n 2358:. .8... u 2.8.52 .8. u 3 =25 ..
.2925 38.8 .2. 856.5 3 323—. :39: 38.8 .2. E539. v5 -9:— 5953 8:28.... 05 ms 33.3—nu ..

.35.... $3 .85.. ... ...».oa 2... ......L...m ... 82>... .2... ...».2. .828 8.. 5.5-2.. 8 3......in .
.88 52. Ea .03—on $262 .3 w=_EE_...-§-§_ .05. 3303 38.8 8: .

 

 

a. on. on 3. 8. 3. on. 8. cm. a

c o o o . c c o c 2...... N

. o . c . . c . o 8.9.0.5.: N

. . . . . . . . . 8.2.0.22 N
o: 23 SN 8.. 8.. on. 8.. 8.. 8.. .28... 2.33.2
...N 3N 2N SN 3.... EN 8N 8N ....N 8.5 22>
8N N...N ...... 3.. 3... SN 3N 8... N. .N ..x. .3. 58.. ...... .222. $2.3.
z .. N... No. a... .....N v... 2.. N... ..N. .5 .9052... 3. .... ..N. 833
N8.. ... ...N 3.... .N..... .5... no? G. .N 2.: .NN.. ...... .8... 23...... 85.3.33
“NS... Nn ...... 2.8... EB. 88... Rs... ”an... 88... SS... .... c3522. Newman
2.;N 2.5 “3% NN.8N N . a: 3N3 2.3 3.8.. N3: .N.. 4.32: .828 .2. 5.3.8..
323 ....SN mN. .2 SEN 3...? ....SN NNSN SSN 93R .... 43.93 328 .2. 53-2..
32 am 32 BM. 32 3m 3m 32 3.“. 2.258.. was;
N N N N N N N N N .8.»

N321 2:: NS- wNﬂ. NW: ... = . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

.SNHSQ .8— N8<o

.8» u 8.5852? 2.235 .85 n 8882.02 doe u 8.8.32 6% u 8 =dEm ..

...—903 $8.30 8.. 83-2.. 3 32>... £903 833.. .9. 55-3.... vs. .2.. 503.3 322.56 0.: ma 33.3.20 9
.22.... 2.... .85.. ... £22. 2.... .22.... ... 82...... .3... 2...»; 2.28 .2. 5.2.2.. 8 8.23.8 ..
8a 28.. ...... .222. 22.2.. ... 92553.82 .2... 2.29.. .828 .2. . .

 

 

 

..z ..z ..2 ..z ..z ..N. 3.. on. ..N. Magma.
.. .. .. .. .. . .. . . 22... N
.. .. . . .. . . . . . 8.2.0.22: ~
. . . .. . _ . . . 8.2.0.22 N
...... ...... ...: ....“ ...: ..NN ....N ...N .N.. .28. 92.32
2.... .....N ...... .N... ....N SN 3... a? a; 0......» 22>
8N .....N ....N .2.. 8.. 9... ...N 8N 2N ..x. ...... 28.. ...... .222. 22......
N... N... NE N... ...... .N.. N... N... NE .8 805.2... .... .... ...N. 8.22....
8..... 3.... 2.2 .....S 8..... .N..: 8..... NN.8 ...... ..8 .8... 28...... 85.8.2.3
2.8... 2N2. R .2.. .N..... SN... 33... 88... :8... 8.2.. .... 88.822. N288...
and... ......KN 2.8.. 8..: .N....N NN.8... .N.....N 8...: 2.02 .N.. .522. 88.8 .2. 2.5.8..
2.... N N32 .2.. . N 2...: ..SNN .N..: SEN .NNnN SXN .... ......2. .828 .2. 5.2.2..
32 3... 32 3.. 32 32 a... 32 3.. 2.2.3.... .2283
N N N N N N N N N 28>
3: .. e: .. o my...
33... am...

 

 

 

95

8.8.. .03 o
...—8.08%.... c v. @2382 ..

.32...» u 83:5: 25.8.. 6:... n 82.8.... 0332. u
.3. n 2.3.5... 0328.. 2.8.» u 838.... 03.32. ..

2...; u 8. 22.... u .. .

 

 

 

 

N.N..N ...»...N ....NN 2.... «SN 3.: ...: N....N NSN 8.2.3....

.....N . ... 2.... 3.. N2 8... .....N ....n N? .x. .22..

8.2 a. .5 .N... ... . .h 8.... on. ... 8.8 2.2. ...... ... 6.3.82
52.8.8.5

8.... . .2.. .2.... ...... 8.3 ....2 8..: 8..... 3.8 .82.. 8.3.8.5.... .3232

2... SN 3N ...... RN and N... ....N N...N .N.. .8... .8... 8.522.853
808033

...: NN... 2...: E... R... R... NM... ...... 8.... ....

N28 “SN NN...N .....nN ..NdN 8NN . ..mN NNeN 2.: ....

.N... 8.9. .N..... 8.3. “N... ....N.. 3.: 3.9. 8..: ....
.530
32 3.. 32 3... 32 3.. 32 3.. 32 285.82 2.283
. . . . . . . . . .2...

«Na NNB .NB 4.3 33 23 N30 8..... and

La...

 

 

 

96

 

...... ....B .
£055.... .. .. .25.: .

.32—9. u 838.... 2.28.. .2.... u 238.... 25%»: .
do. u «.2.—...... 2.38.. 2.8..» u 5E2: ozawo: ..

9...; u 8. 9.8... u c .

 

 

 

 

2.... N... ...... ...... 8a 2... ....~ .2.. ...... ﬂaﬂlll
.... ...... 2.. ...... ...... ...... 8.. ...... 8... ... 6......
...... R... N . . : ...... .2... 8..... 8.... .3. ...... .x. 6.3.62
5:38.55
8.... 8.... 8.... 8.8 8.8. 8...: 8.8 8.... 8...: .52.. 8.383.... =58...
N... .... .N.. 8.. ...... .... a... ...... a... .... .83. .3... 3.58....053
30506:“;
.... ...... ...... .2 .N.. . ...... 8... ...... .... ....
...... 8... 2.... 3...... ...... ...... S... ...... S... ....
...... 8... ...... ...... ...... a... ...... ...... ...... ...
.28
32 .3... a... 32 3.. 32 32 3.. 3.. .558. ......83
_ . . . . . . . . ...;
....d ...... ...o ...... .....o ...o ....o 83 a”...
an ......

 

97

...... .03 .
€5.58. .. .. 35.82 .

.32—9. u 838.... 9.28.. 8..... u 838.... 3.33: .

.3. n 838.... 96.8.. 2.8.» u 838.... gnaw"... .
.823 u 8. 383 u c .

 

 

 

 

 

 

:8 .N...N .....NN ..NNN ....NN .N.....anllu
a... ... .. 8... N. .. .... x .2....
a. .. 3.8 8.2 8N. ....N. .x. €5.02
83.8.58
8.... 8..... 8.... 8.8 8.8. .58. 8.3.3.5.... .58.:
.... .N.. SN .N.. 8.. .... .83.. .8... 8.52....253
amoeba—EDP
N. .N. ....N. 8N. ...... ...... 2 .... .... .N.. ...N. ....
....NN N...N N...N ....NN .. ...N .....N 8. .N ._ ..N 8.8 . ....
.N... No... ...... ...... 8.? ...N. ...... ... .N.. 8.... ....
.28
32 32 3.. 3m 3m. 32 3.. 3m 32 2.258.. 9....83
N N N N . . . . . a...
:2. .3: . S: 2.... $8 $8 :8 ...8 :8
«sum .5...
I I

1

98

 

...N. .NN. 2N.
. ..NN NEN 2.2
3.... No... .N...
32 3... 32

N N N

Ila: Re:

and.
v. ...N
86m

 

3...”.
ﬂag
3.3.

8.. .
ondm
v. .2”

....3 .03 .

89.9.82. 9 3 @2332 ..

56:9. u 838.... o>...8.. ”on... u 838.... 3.8%.... .
do. u 838.... 95.8.. 83.» u 838.... 9.8.8: .

3...». u 8. 3.8... u a .

 

.... 2:82
8:89.50
axon... 8.88%.. =3..an
...... .83.. .8... 5.35-5.5...
88029...
.0... ca... 3... 83
8.3 5.5 NuNN ....u
c. .5. 8.3. mndm 31.
....co
3... 32 3... .553“... 8.553
n N N 88>

 

 

ﬂu...

 

99

£93 .03 .

.5338 v 3 33392 a

.32—0» n £35.... 2568 ”2.3 n E382: 2:33: 0
62 n Eon—5.: 02:8: :8on u £353: £532. a
.223 u 8. 3.83 u c .

 

 

 

 

 

.x. “gull:
.\. «2.5
.x. 65%:
5:63:80
.53 83:23.8". E832
.9. .85. .85 3356.53
mmoEovcoh.
8.: NON. 3.2 2.: 3.: 2.: 2.2 a. .3 SN. ....
oNNN NEN NEN :NN 8. _ N NBN 8...N NN.8 8.2 ...a
N _ .NV z .3 8.3. N23 8..; 8% 8.8 2.3. 3.: ....
.530
32 3m 32 3m 32 32 3m 32 am .5532. 3:83
N N N N N N N N N 30>
“8: 8c: nwglﬂlﬂi 4%.: e3: 9%
a .53.

 

3H

 

100

"I7'1?ﬂiﬂ'ﬂﬂﬁﬂiﬂiﬂ‘lﬁwlﬁ'ﬂﬁﬂr