ffi. 'YU’ ' 161‘??qu as ‘ '1 > LEVEL/3L“: W”: ‘.’ Rhett": L-K' EQUQP uifilfi CONEENTH’JE 3‘s; r‘x Erma-us:- .c fixesés for Hm Ban-c: 65 hi. 5. MtCifl‘SAN S‘i'zf‘a‘i‘é CGLLE-‘l‘sf‘: («f r f :1 a. 1L n- '13: : mam-awe: (:E'EG’S'LihC, .35. to :T-(' 1w, 3 2‘2 Ltd? Thisistooertifgthatthe thesis entitled Relative Values of Roughage and Concentrate forefllk Production present I] Clarence Chesnutt, Jr. has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for LEI—degree m_mmc__ ajor professor \x...‘ \‘ RELATIVE VALUES OF ROUGHAGE AND CONCENTRATE FOR MILK PRODUCTION by Clarence Chesnutt, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for_the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Dairy 1953 THESIS ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express his sincere apprecia— tion to Dr. George M. Ward for his tireless efforts and con- structive suggestions throughout this study and for his aid in the preparation and critically reading of this manuscript. Appreciation is also extended to Dr. C. F. Huffman for making the records available for this study; for his aid in compiling the data and for his critical reading of the manuscript. Thanks are due Dr. R. H. Nelson for his suggestions in the statistical analysis of the data. Thanks are also due Miss Bicknell for her aid in the preparation and typing of the manuscript and to those anonymous individuals who over the period of years covered by this study aided in the collec- tion and recording of the data. 3 3.7504 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS gage INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-10 PROCEDURE. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-13 RESULTS.................... 14-16 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22-25 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26-27 LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28-32 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33-52 iv LIST OF TABLES Page TABLE 1. Pasture vs. No Pasture for Milk Production .................. 17 TABLE 2. Effect of Age at Calving on Milk PrOdUCtion 0.0000000000000000. 18 TABLE 3. Effect of Season of Calving On Milk Production ................... 19 TABLE A. Effect of Year of Lactation on 15111: PrOdllCtion OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 20 TABLE 5. Effect of Length of Dry Period on Milk Production ................... 21 APPENDIX TABLE 1. Individual Data by Lactations .... 33 APPENDIX TABLE 2. Total Digestible Nutrient Values for Feeding Stuffs ........ A9 INTRODUCTION It has long been known that supplementation of the ration of dairy cows with concentrates was necessary if maxi- mum milk production was to be attained. The feeding of rough- age as the entire ration usually resulted in low levels of milk production. The feeding of concentrates concurrently with good roughages -- whether hay, pasture or silage -- re- sulted in greatly improved production. This improved produc- tion due to concentrate feeding was explained on the basis of increased intake Of total digestible nutrients. More recently experiments have been performed in which roughage was compared with concentrate on the basis of total digestible nutrient content. Replacement of a portion of the roughage ration of a cow with the same amount of total digestible nutrients in the form of grain resulted in higher level milk production. Attempts have been made to explain this on the basis of insufficiency of the "total digestible nutrient" system for the evaluation of feeds with concurrent attempts to substitute the "calculated net energy" system of feed evaluation to account for variation in milk production in the cases of ration change. Neither system of feed evalua- tion seems to hold the answer to the question since there Oh- viously are complementary effects amoung certain feedstuffs which affect the "balance of the ration." 2 This investigation was initiated in an attempt to evaluate mathematically the value of total digestible nutrients in the form of concentrates relative to the value of total digestible nutrients in the form of roughages. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Factors known to affect milk production are easily divided into 2 categories -- inherent and environmental. The inherent factors affect milk production through efficiencyof feed conversion and level of maximum.productive capacity. The environmental factors may be classed as climatic, geo- graphical and.managerial. Climatic variations are uncontrollable and influ- ence milk production through variations in quality and quanti- ty of feed available for consumption as well as the comfort of the animals. The geographical variations can not be separated from climatic variations because the latter are an essential causative agent in both. Variables such as plane of nutri- tion, season of calving, age at calving, length of dry period are managerial in nature and may be controlled. Several investigators have not agreed on the effect of season on.milk production. Ragsdale and Brody (1922) at- tributed responsibility for seasonal fluctuations to tempera- ture variations. High temperature greatly reduced.milk pro- duction. Cannon (1933) working with data from 68000 Iowa Cow Testing Association records found that cows calving in November produced more milk than those calving in June. WOOdward (lQhS) analyzing lSth Dairy Herd Improvement Asso- ciation records essentially agreed with Cannon differing only in the low month -- July in this case. Contrary to the findings of Cannon and of WOodward, wylie (1925) using 2900 h Register of Merit records made in one year found that cows calving in June had the highest production. Woodward explain- ed this inconsistency on the basis of conditions under which the records were made. All of wylic's data came from records made by cows on unusually high planes of nutrition and con- centrate consumption. Arnold and Becker (1935) working with 319 records made in Florida found no significant differences in season of calving. They attributed the lack of significant variation in season to small changes in climatic conditions throughout the entire year. Oloufa and Jones (l9h8) in a study of 2690 records made in western Oregon found no signifi- cant differences in season of calving. The effect of age at first calving was shown by Reed 33.21, (l92h) to affect milk production. Heifers calving at 2 years of age produced less milk than heifers with similar inherent abilities and environmental conditions calving at 2 1/2 years of age. Length of gestation during a lactation has been shown to exert a decided effect on production. Gavin (1913) found that lactation curves started drOpping off very slightly from normal A months after conception. The maximum.decline was reached during the fifth and sixth months following conception. Brody‘gg'gl. (1923) found that cows in America took more time to reach the same point in decline than those in England. They noted that gestation exerted its maximum.effect during the latter part of the fifth and the sixth months. Gowen (1924) stated that the amount of energy needed by the developing fetus was equivalent to 400 to 600 pounds of milk. He also found that gestation exerted the greatest drain on the dam's energy as she approached 5 years Of age. Lower nutritive requirements attributable to gestation were found as the cow aged beyond this point. Another variable which can be controlled to some extent by management is dry period. Klein and Woodward (1943) reported that a 55-day dry period was optimum for cows calving at 12-month intervals. Longer period had much less effect on production. Hammond and Sanders (1923) in earlier work found 80 to 119 days to be the optimum interval. They re— ported a 13 per cent reduction in milk production following a O to 39—day dry period; 2.5 per cent reduction for A0 to 70 days; and over 120-day dry period resulted in a 2 per cent increase in milk production over that of their Optimum. Rations fed to dairy animals vary from an all rough- age regime to one nearly devoid of roughage. In the heavily populated sections of the United States heavy concentrate feeding is practiced while in the western section of the coun- try all roughage feeding programs are used by many farmers. Reed 33 El. (1924) reported that heifers raised on roughage alone were slower maturing than heifers raised on a combina- tion of roughage and concentrates. Such heifers not only matured later but produced less milk in subsequent lactations. Numerous investigators have worked with rations composed entirely of roughages. Willard (193h) reported cows fed only roughage declined from peak production faster than cows fed some concentrates. In an experiment with high quality roughages, alfalfa hay and irrigated pastures, Wood- 'ward (19h5) found production equivalent to that of cows fed concentrates at the rate of 2 to 12 pounds per day. Haag gt_gl, (1929) studying the physiological effect of an all alfalfa ration noted that cows produced only half as much milk as ex- pected. These workers attributed this to a probable insuffi- ciency of total digestible nutrients. Lindsey and Archibald (1932) comparing low roughage rations with high roughage rations found greater consumption of total digestible nutrients on the former. The low roughage group produced more milk and were in better general physical condition. Efficiency of production was in favor of the low roughage group. Graves _e_t_:_ g1. (1938) working with an all alfalfa ration and with a full-feed ration found that the alfalfa fed group produced only 57 per cent as much.milk and 60 per cent as much butter- fat as when fed under a full-feed program. Cows fed alfalfa for 2 consecutive lactations produced 10 per cent less the second lactation than was produced during the first lactation. They found little difference in the efficiency between the 2 rations but that little difference was in favor of the alfalfa. Reed (1937) reported essentially the same results. Cows on roughage produced only 67 per cent as much.milk and 62 per cent as much butterfat as when they were fed grain in addition 7 to roughage. Jensen 23 31. (19h2) in a report compiled from 10 cooperating experiment station herds in a feeding pro- gram.found that cows fed roughage alone produced only 80 per cent as much.milk as comparable cows fed grain at the rate of one pound to 6 pounds of milk. This study in covering 10 states eliminated sectional variations. Graves 22,21, (19h0) experimenting with A different rations found that full grain~ feeding produced approximately 16 per cent more milk than a ration in which barley was the sole concentrate. The barley ration was superior to an all roughage ration. Jones ggigl, (193E) reported that cows on a low-grain ration had very low production while similar cows on a similar ration but with more grain consumed more total digestible nutrients with greater efficiency of production and with less gain in weight. Smith.g£‘g£. (1945) at the same station found that replacement of 13 to 25 per cent of the alfalfa total diges- tible nutrients with concentrate allowed cows to produce nor- mally. W011 (1918) working with alfalfa as a sole feed for dairy cattle found that cows produced ES per cent more butter- fat on a mixed ration during the first lactation and 23 per cent more butterfat during the second lactation than When fed an all-alfalfa ration. Haag (1931) reported that alfalfa crude protein was deficient in cystine. Huffman and Duncan (19h2, 19hh, 19h7, 19h9, 1950) in a series of experiments indicated that cystine was not a limiting factor in alfalfa for milk 8 productiOn. They found in nearly all instances that concen- trate in addition to alfalfa increased milk production. To compare different feeding stuffs cows were depleted on alfalfa until milk production leveled off. The feedstuff in question was then added to the ration. They found that cystine corn starch and sugar were all inactive in this regard since these feedstuffs did not increase production of 4 per cent fat corrected milk but iso-caloric amounts of corn and wheat in- creased milk production significantly. Davis and Kemmerer (1948) in paired feeding eXperiments found that milk produc- tion could be maintained when near iso-caloric amounts of dried citrus ne’l Taft Substitutnd for corn. Headley (1930) indicated that alfalfa hay and grain were equally efficient for butterfat production on the basis of total digestible nutrient content. Redman (1952) conclu- ded that roughages and concentrates are not freely substitut- able but are complimentary. Milk was produced more effi- ciently when some grain was fed. He agreed with Jensen et 31. (19A2) that milk production was a curvilinear function of feed consumed. Increasing increments of feed were required to produce the same amount of four per cent fat corrected milk at higher levels of production. Headley (1943) indicated that a logarithmic function existed between total digestible nutrients and 4 per cent fat corrected milk. Baker and Tomhave (1944) found a straight-line relationship between total digeStible nutrient intake and milk production. Borland .gt‘al. (19A2) found that the milk yield per pound of grain decreased as the amount Of grain increased. Tennant and Fowler (1941) noted that annual production of 4 per cent fat corrected milk increased approximately 90 pounds for each 100 pounds increase in grain. Autrey (1941) reported significant differences in milk production when cows were fed roughage alone, limited grain and full grain. Saarinen 22.2l0 (1951) reviewed work of other investigators and found that iso- caloric amounts of grain substituted for roughage were not equivalent "calculated net energy" values. They designed an experiment using "calculated net energy" as the basis for substitution of concentrates for roughages. Results of their eXperiment indicated corn was not superior to roughage on the "calculated net energy" basis formilk production. moors 33 a1. (1952) studied the relationship between the "total digestible nutrient” system and "calculated net energy" system for feed evaluation. They found that the difference between the two systems became progressively greater as the feedstuff total digestible nutrient value lowered and that variations "up to 100 % difference in the energy value of 1 lb. of TDN, depend- ing on the feed" could be expected. Huffman and Duncan (1952), in rebuttal to the pro- ponents of the ”calculated net energy" system of feed evalua- tion for the solution of this problem, showed that the in- clusion of abnormally large amounts Of indigestible organic matter, "ballast", in the ration did not cause a depression 10 in milk production as long as the balance of the ration was maintained. This group of workers (Huffman at 31., 1952a) further substantiated their position by demonstrating that the inclusion of oakwood meal, wheat straw or peanut hulls in a balanced ration did not depress milk production. They demonstrated further that immature alfalfa and timothy hays had milk producing power not accounted for on the basis of coefficients of digestibility, starch equivalent, total diges- tible nutrient, or calculated net energy content (Huffman g§_§l. 1952b). These workers indicated that the values of feeds were not necessarily additive in all cases, especially in the case of grain supplementation of a hay ration. Davis 32 El° (1953) indicated there are no uniden- tified factors in concentrates for milk production. They ex- plained the increased production on increases in productive energy consumed and "balance of the ration." ll PROCEDURE The data used in this study were those accumulated from 1934 to 1953 in the Michigan State College Experiment Station dairy nutrition herd. The study was made on 323 lac- tation records from 78 cows; 285 records made by 63 Holsteins, 26 by 6 Jerseys, and 12 by 9 scrubs. Lactations of less than 250 days were not included in this study and those of more than 305 days were terminated at the 305-day point. The monthly fat test used was an aver- age Of 3-day composite tests for the month. Four per cent fat corrected milk was computed for each month by the use of Gaines' (1928) formula. The records were neither corrected for age of cow at calvingnor for length if less than 305 days in duration. June 1 to May 31 was selected as the feeding year. The year was divided into the seasons suggested by Cranek (1952). These were December, January and February in Group 1; MarCh, April and May in Group 2; June, July and August in Group 3; and September, October and November in Group 4. Lactations were grouped for age-at-calving analysis by 6-month intervals. The first group included all cows which calved prior to 2 years of age. Cows 12 years old and over were grouped in the last group. The procedure of drop- ping 15 days or less and adding a month to the age for 16 days or more was followed. Weight changes were calculated for each lactation 12 of each cow. Three patterns were followed for obtaining cow weights during the time covered by this study. For periods when cows were weighed on three consecutive days each month, the first such weighing after calving was taken as the init- ial weight. The final weight was the weighing closest to the end Of the lactation period. In cases where daily weigh- ings were made, the initial weight was an average of the weights for the first month after calving and the final weight of the weighings for the last month of the lactation period. For records where weighings were made every third day, the fourth, fifth and sixth weighings after calving were aver- aged and used as the initial weight. The final weight was an average of the last 3 weighings before the end of the lac- tation. Daily feed records were totaled for each lactation. The total digestible nutrient values for feed consumed were calculated using the values for each feed listed in the Appen- dix Table 2. The table was compiled from data compiled by Huffman (1953), Morrison (1948) and Schnieder (1947). Corn silage was separated into roughage equivalent and concentrate equivalent by using 1b3- cogn silage X 80.1 for total diges— tible nutrients of corn grain and corn silage total digestible nutrients minus corn total digestible nutrients for hay value of the corn stalk-pnrtion of the silage. Bartlett's test of homogeneity of variance (1937) indicated that the data were sufficiently homogenous to be 13 analyzed. Statistical analyses for the effect of pasture, age at calving, season of calving, year of lactation and length of dry period were carried out according to patterns set forth by Snedecor (1946). Analysis of variance for each variable with 4 per cent fat corrected milk production was run without taking into account any other variable. Correlation coefficients and regression equations were calculated for: 1. FCM vs. total TDN 2. FCM vs. Roughage TDN and Concentrate TDN 3. FCM vs. Roughage TDN, Concentrate TDN and Weight Change. Since it was necessary to know the entire total digestible nutrient consumption during each lactation, 42 lactations during which the cows were on pasture for 2 or more days were eliminated from the analysis. 114. RESULTS Three hundred-twenty-three records made by 78 cows were analyzed. The average number of lactations per cow was h.lh. The mean lactation, the 3.69th, indicated a predomi- nance of first lactations as well as cows with unusually large numbers of lactations. First lactations comprised 22.3 per cent of the total. Seventy-five per cent of the lacta- tions were 300 days or more in length with the average being 298 days. Individual records ranged from less than #000 pounds to more than 15000 pounds of h per cent fat correCted milk. Bartlett's test was employed and indicated that the population was homogenous. An analysis of variance for the effect of pasture on milk production (Table 1) indicated no significant dif- ference between the averages of the 2 groups. The analysis of variance for the effect of age at calving on milk production may be found in Table 2. The F test indicated significance at the 5 per cent level of probability. The analysis of variance for the effect of the sea- son of calving on.milk production is recorded in Table 3. The seasonal differences were significant at the 5 per cent level of probability. The season of calving for maximum milk production was September, October, and November. The year in which the lactation took place had a highly significant effect on the milk production level 15 (Table 4). The P value Of 4.281 was highly significant at the one per cent level of probability. The average yearly production was significantly larger during the early years of this study. The analysis of variance for the effect Of length of previous dry period on milk production did not approach significance in this study (Table 5). The dry periods ranged in length from one day to nearly a year. Only 2 lactations were preceded by dry periods of 30 days or less. The amount Of concentrate total digestible nutrients received by cows in this study ranged from one to more than 6000 pounds. Roughage total digestible nutrient intake ranged from approximately 2000 pounds to approximately 7000 pounds. The total digestible nutrient intake ranged from approximately 4000 pounds to approximately 9000 pounds. Age at calving, season of calving and year of lac- tation, variables which exerted barely significant effects on 4 per cent fat corrected milk production, lost their iden- tity with redistribution Of data and were not included as variables in the correlation analyses. Necessarily lactations during which the cows were on pasture were not included in these analyses, leaving 281 lactations available with complete feed data. The correlation coefficient, 0.817 3: 0.020, between 4 per cent fat corrected milk and total digestible nutrients was highly significant. The predicting equation for the 16 relationship between these two variables was found to be FCM - 1.716 TDN - 2272-1 1316 pounds. The multiple correlation coefficient, 0.845.: 0.017, between fat corrected milk and roughage total digestible nu- trients and concentrate total digestible nutrients was highly significant. The predicting equation for this relationship was found to be FCM - 1.783 conc. TDN + 0.858 rough. TDN 4 1858 i 905 pounds. An analysis of variance in the regression showed that both regression coefficients were highly significant as well as being highly significantly different from each other. The multiple correlation coefficient, 0.844 1 0.017, between 4 per cent fat corrected milk and roughage total diges- tible nutrients, concentrate total digestible nutrients and weight change was highly significant. Since the inclusion of the fourth variable, weight change, had practically no effect on the multiple correlation coefficient it was assumed that any relationship between weight change and 4 per cent fat corrected milk was not significant. 17 TABLE 1 Pasture vs. NO Pasture for Milk Production A. Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Groups 1 2340796 2340796 0.414 Individuals 321 1702101451 5302497 Total 322 1704442247 B. Comparison of Groups Groups Cows Records Average (no.) (no.) (1b.) Pasture 23 42 7176 NO Pasture 65 281 7483 Standard Deviation = 2302 pounds of 4% FCM. TABLE 2 Effect of Age at Calving on Milk Production A. Analysis of Variance l8 Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Groups 21 191324662 9110698 1.812* Individuals 301 1513117585 5026968 Totals 322 1704442247 E. Averages for Each Age Group Age Group Records Average g Age Group Records Average (yr.) (no.) (1b.) i (yr.) (no.) (1b.) under 2 5 5425 g 7-7 1/2 18 7153 2-2 1/2 35 6782 E 7 1/2-8 15 8627 2 1/2-3 28 6532 S 8-8 1/2 9 7808 3-3 1/2 22 7748 g 8 1/2-9 13 8475 3 1/2-4 29 7233 5 9-9 1/2 4 7095 4-4 1/2 21 8119 g 9 1/2-10 10 7205 4 1/2-5 21 7283 E 10-10 1/2 5 7297 5-5 1/2 17 8198 E 10 1/2-11 3 9377 5 1/2-6 20 8260 E 11-11 1/2 7 6524 6-6 1/2 16 7744 E 11 1/2-12 4 6290 6 1/2-7 12 8194 g 12 and over 9 5730 *Significant at the 5 per cent level of probability. Standard Deviation = 2242 pounds of 4 per cent FCM. TABLE 3 19 Effect of Season Of Calving on Milk Production A. Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Seasons 3 58995789 Individuals 319 1645446458 Total 322 1704442247 19665263 3.8l3* 5158139 fi" B. Season Averages for Production Season Average (1b.) Dec., Jan., Feb. 7585 Mar., Apr., May 7323 June, July, Aug. 6852 Sept., Oct., Nov. 8120 *Significant at the 5 per cent level of probability. Standard Deviation = 2271 pounds of 4 per cent FCM. 20 TABLE 4 Effect of Year of Lactation on Milk Production A. Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Years 18 360745018 20041390 4.5342** Individuals 304 1343697229 4420057 Total 322 1704442247 E. Average Lactation by Years I Year Records Average E Year Records Average (50.)7 (1b.)? (no.)fi (1b.)1 1934 8 8733 g 1944 18 8181 1935 7 10030 E 1945 19 7799 1936 5 10821 E 1946 22 8025 1937 11 6601 g 1947 26 6113 1938 11 7892 E 1948 25 6695 1939 17 9653 g 1949 17 6598 1940 15 7963 E 1950 25 6272 I 1941 23 7131 : 1951 20 6729 1942 27 7144 E 1952 6 7130 1943 21 7865 g u **Significant at the l per cent level of probability. Standard Deviation = 2106 pounds of 4 per cent FCM. TABLE 5 21 Effect of Length of Dry Period on Milk Production A. Analysis of Variance Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Periods 4 15733773 3933443 0.695 Individuals 247 1397109229 5656312 Total 251 1412843002 E. Averages for Dry Period Length Period Records Average (day) (no.) (1b.) 0-59 71 7828 60-89 101 7510 90-119 51 8125 120-149 15 6835 150 and over 13 7281 Standard Deviation = 2378 pounds of 4 per cent FCM. 22 DISCUSSION In the process of evaluating the effect of total digestible nutrients in the form of concentrate separate from that of total digestible nutrients in the form of roughage it was necessary to establish that the data were homogenous in nature. The use of Bartlett's test established this point and opened the way for further analysis of the data. It was deemed necessary to determine significant environmental sources of variation in milk production other than those connected with feed intake in the barn. Lack of significant variance due to the effect of pasture and to length of dry period eliminated these as factors to be con- sidered. Variance due to age at calving and season of calv- ing was barely significant. The year in which the lactation was made exerted a highly significant effect on milk produc- tion with the early years of the study having the higher level of milk production. Inspection of the feed intake data indicated that this effect was largely due to the level of concentrate intake during those early years and would be in- cluded in the analysis of nutrient intake. Separation of the total digestible nutrient intake into 2 catagories, roughage and concentrate, increased the correlation coefficient between nutrient intake and milk pro- duction from 0.817 to 0.843. This indicated that roughage and concentrate total digestible nutrients did not exert equal effects on milk production in the group of lactations studied since a greater portion of the variance was accounted for by regression when the nutrient intake was separated into the 2 categories. The addition of a fourth variable, weight change, to the analysis resulted in no increase in the cor- relation coefficient indicating the insignificance of weight change as a factoraffecting milk production in this study. The simple regression equation calculated from the data indicated that when the total digestible nutrient intake was used as a single criterion that a pound of total diges- tible nutrients would produce 1.716 pounds of 4 per cent fat corrected milk after the constant for the equation was sat- isfied. Since no attempt was made to Correct the feed intake for it, the maintenance nutrient requirement appeared in the form of the constant, -2272 i 1316 pounds of 4 per cent fat corrected milk or its equivalent in total digestible nutrients. This indicated theoritically that the cow had to eat nut- rients equivalent to this amount of milk before milk could be produced. It is entirely possible that the relationship might be more curvilinear if zero milk.production were app- roached. Insufficient data were available in this study in the very low levels of production to make any definite pre- diction regarding the maintenance total digestible nutrient requirement of the cows. The relationship between nutrient intake and milk production has been reported to be curvilinear (Headley, 1943: Jensen 32 31., 1942: and Redman, 1952). The data used in 24 this study were not analyzed for curvilinearity. However, it is highly improbable that the relationship is more than slightly curvilinear since 66 per cent of the variance is accounted for by linear regression. The range of points from which this regression equation for these 2 variates was calculated was so narrow that curvilinearity might well be masked. The multiple regression equation showing the rela- tionship between h per cent fat corrected milk and the sepa- rated categories of total digestible nutrients, roughage and concentrate, indicated that total digestible nutrients in the form of concentrate were approximately twice as efficient for milk production as were those in the form of roughage. It is probable that roughage total digestible nutrients were penalized for milk production by the maintenance requirement of the cows. The fact remains, however, that the regression coefficients fer roughage nutrients and concentrate nutrients were highly significantly different from each other, 0.838 and 1.783, respectively. A 6 The results of this study, that concentrate total digestible nutrients are more efficient for milk production than are roughage total digestible nutrients, are in agree- ment with those of Huffman and Duncan (l9h7, 19h9, 1950, 1952, 19522), Lindsey and Archibald (1932) and Smith _e_t_ 9;. (19h5). All of these studies were made with the roughage concentrate ratio greater than 1/1. In each investigation the substitution of concentrate for rOughage on the basis 25 of total digestible nutrients resulted in more efficient milk production. It is entirely possible that this relationship might not continue to hold if the above ratio were much smaller than 1/1. It is well known that cows are unable to tolerate very small roughage/concentrate ratios, very little roughage and the remainder of the nutrients as concentrate. Redman (1952) has attempted to explain the apparent inconsistencies in the results obtained from the feeding of equal amounts of total digestible nutrients from different nutrient sources with varying results in lactation experi- ments. His explanation recognizes the need for a "balanced ration" including optimum quantities of all nutrients for maximum production and proposes that "roughages and grain are not perfect substitutes for each other, but possess a degree of complementarity." Davis gt El. (1953) attributed the increased productivity of rations after the addition of grain on better "balance" in the ration and on greater in- take of "productive energy". The need for concentrate to complement or balance roughage is indicated by the results of this study and agrees with the results of Huffman and coworkers (Huffman and Duncan, 1952; Huffman gt g1., 1952a). A study ncs made on 325 lactation records accumu- lated from 1934 to 1953 made by 78 cows oredoulnrntly of the holstein breed. Variance of 4 per cent fat corrected milk due to the effect of pasture, length of dry period, age at calving, season of calving and the year in which the lactation wa.s made wss inelanliica nt, insignificant, significant, signifi- i—l ¢< U) Po 9 ('3 l... H) H. O (J :3 (‘1‘ H (D U) C CD O (‘1' H <2 CD I“ <2 . H U U1 3 (I C d (:3 U ,3 O *‘b cent, and high feed intake data indicat ed that tr .6 si ificance Of the year in which the lactation was made was largely due to the level of concentrate intake during the early years Of the study. The 281 lactation records with complete feed data (no pasture) were subjected to correlation and regression analyses. The correlation between 4 per cent fat corrected milk production and tota di we tible nutrient inta as was 0.817 with the corresponding regression equation FCM - 1.716 TDN - 2272 :_1316 pounds. The correlation coefficient be.tween 4 per cent fat corrected milk production and roughage total digestible nutrients was 0.843, indicating advantage in the separation of the 2 catego rise of nutrients fa? the analvsis. The regression equation for this relationship was FCM - 1.783 conc. '1‘DN’+ 0. 888 roug gh. TDN + 13 58 + 905 pounds. A analysis of variance of t; 18 regression inciica ted that both coeffi— Cle nts of regression were highly significanta 8 well as being highly significantly different from each other. This 27 equation indicated that total digestible nutrients in the form of concentrate were more efficiently used for milk pro- duction than were those in the form of roughage. The possi- bility that roughage total digestible nutrients were penalized by the maintenance nutrient requirement of the cows was dis- cussed. The addition of a fourth variable, weight change, added nothing to the multiple correlation. The need for a "balanced ration" for milk produc- tion and the complementarity of concentrate and roughage were discussed. 28 LITERATURE CITED Arnold, P. T., and R. B. Becker. 1935 The Effect of Season of the Year and Advanced Lacta- tion Upon Milk Yield of Jersey Cows. J. Dairy Sci., 18. 621- 627. Autrey, Kenneth. 1941 The Physiologic and Economic Efficiency of Rations Containing Different Amounts of Grain when fed to Dairy Cattle. Ia. State 001., J. Sci., 16:10-14. Baker T. A., and A. E. Tomhave. 191$ The Intensity of Feeding as Related to Milk Produc- tion. Del. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 248:1- 15. Bartlett, M. S. 1937 Some examples of Statistical Methods of Research in Agriculture and Applied Biology. Suppl. J. Royal Stat. 800., 4:137-170. Borland, A. A., A. L. Beam and P. D. Jones. 1942 The Relation of Grain Feeding to Milk Production. Penn. State Col. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 424:1- 9. Brody, Samuel, A. G. Ragsdale and Charles W. Turner. 1923 The Effect of Gestation on the Rate of Decline of Milk Secretion with Advance of the Period of Lac- tation. J. Gen. Physiol., 5:#41-777. Cannon, C.Y. 1933 Seasonal Effect on Yield of Dairy Cows. J. Dairy Sci., 16:11-15 Cranek, L. J. Sr. .1952 Genetic and Environmental Factors Affecting the Red Danish Cattle in Michigan. Ph. D. Thesis. Michigan State College, East Lansing, Mich. Davis, R. F., J. K. Loosli and R. G. Warner. 1953 Are there "Unidentified Lactation Factors" for Cows? J. Dairy Sci., 36:581. Davis, R. N., and A. R. Kemmerer. . 1948 Lactating Factors for Dairy Cows in Dried Grapefruit Peel. J. Dairy Sci., 31:973-975. Gaines, W. L. 1928 The Energy Basis of Measuring Milk Yield in Dairy Cows. Ill. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 308:1-33. 29 Gavin, William. 1913 Studies in Milk Records: The Influence of Foetal Growth on Yield. J. Agr. Sci., 5:309-319. Gowen, John W. 1924 Intrauterine Development of the Bovine Fetus in Re- lation to Milk Yield in Guernsey Cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 7:311-317. Graves, R. R., G. Q. Bateman, J. B. Shepard and G. B. Caine. 1940 Milk and Butterfat Production by Dairy Cows on Four Different Planes of Feeding. U. 3. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul., 724:1-36. Graves, R. R., J. R. Dawson, D. V. Kopland, A. L. Watt, and A. G. Van Horn. 1938 Feeding Dairy Cows on Alfalfa Hay Alone. U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul., 610:1-47. Haag, J. R. 1931 The Physiological Effect of Rations Restricted Prin- cipally or Solely to the Alfalfa Plant. II. Cys- tine as a Limiting Factor in the Nutritive Value of Alfalfa Proteins. J. Nutrition, 4:363-370. Haag, J. R., J. S. Jones, I. R. Jones, and P. M. Brandt. 1929 The Physiological Effect of Rations Restricted Prin- cipally or Solely to the Alfalfa Plant. I. The Ca1- cium, Phosphorous and Nitrogen Metabolism of Dairy Cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 12:445-455. Hammond, J., and H. G. Sanders. 1923 Some Factors Affecting Milk Yield. J. Agr. Sci., 13:74-119. Headley, F. B. 1930 Feeding Experiments with Dairy Cows. Nevada Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 119:1-21. Headley, F. B. 1943 Mathematical Relationship between Production of Dairy Cows and Nutrients Consumed. Mimeo. Nevada Agr. Exp. Sta. Huffman, C. F. 1953 Personal Communication. Huffman, C. F., and C. W. Duncan. 1942 The Nutritive Value of Alfalfa Hay. I. Cystine as a Supplement to an All Alfalfa Hay Ration for Milk Production. J. Dairy Sci., 25:507-515. 30 Huffman, C. F. and C. W. Duncan. 1944 The Nutritive Value of Alfalfa Hay. II. Starch and Glucose as Supplements to an All Alfalfa Hay Ration. J. Dairy Sci., 27:821-833. Huffman, C. F., and C. W. Duncan. 1947 Unknown Dietary Factor or Factors needed by Lactating Cows Depleted on Legume Hay Alone. Federation Proc., 6:409-410. Huffman, C. F., and C. W. Duncan. 1949 The Nutritive Value of Alfalfa Hay. III. Corn as a Supplement to an All Alfalfa Hay Ration for Milk Pro- duction. J. Dairy Sci;, 32:465-474. Huffman, C. F., and C. W. Duncan. 1950 The Nutritive Value of Alfalfa Hay. IV. Beet Pulp, Corn Gluten Meal and Soybean Oil Meal as Supplements to an All Alfalfa Hay Ration for Milk Production. J. Dairy Sci., 33:710-720. Huffman, C. F., and C. W. Duncan. 1952 Unidentified Dietary Factors in Dairy Cattle Nutri- tion. I. Digestibility of Peanut Hulls and Their Use in "Ballast" Studies with Milking Cows Depleted on Hay Alone. J. Dairy Sci., 35:30-40. Huffman, C. F., C. W. Duncan and C. M. Chance. 1952a Unidentified Dietary Factors in Dairy Cattle Nutri- tion. II. Further Evidence of an Unidentified Fac- tor (s) in Grain Needed to Balance Roughage for Milk Production. J. Dairy Sci., 35:41-50. Huffman, C. F., S. T. Dexter and C. W. Duncan. 1952b Unidentified Dietary Factors in Dairy Cattle Nutri- tion. III. The Nutritive Value of Immature Alfalfa and Timothy Hay for Milk Production. J. Dairy Sci., 35:1001-1009. Jensen, E., J. W. Klein, E. Rauchenstein, T. E. Woodward and R. H. Smith. 1942 Input-Output Relationships in Milk Production. U. S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul., 815:1-88. Jones I. R., P. M. Brandt, and J. R. Haag. 1934 Studies with Alfalfa Hay for Milk Production. Oregon. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 328:1-30. Klein, John W., and T. E. Woodward. 1943 Influence of Length of Dry Period upon the Quantity of Milk Produced in the Subsequent Lactation. J. Dairy Sci., 26:705-713. 31 Lindsey, J. B., and J. G. Archibald. 1932 Two Systems of Feeding Dairy Cows. Mass. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 291:1-15. Moore, L. A., H. M. Irwin and J. C. Shaw. 1952 Relationship between TDN and Energy Values of Feeds. Morrison, F. B. 1948 Feeds and Feeding. The Morrison Publishing Company, Ithaca, New York. Oloufa, Mohamed M., and I. R. Jones. 1948 The Relation between the Month of Calving and Yearly Butterfat Production. J. Dairy Sci., 31:1029-1031. Ragsdale, A. C., and S. Brody. 1922 Seasonal Variations in Percentage of Fat in Cows Milk. J. Dairy Sci., 5:544-554. Redman, John C. 1952 Economic Aspects of Feeding for Milk Production. J. Farm Economics, 34:333-345. Reed, 0. E. 1937 Report of the Bureau of Dairy Industry. U. S. Dept. Agr. 17-34 0 Reed, 0. E., J. B. Fitch, and H. W. Care. 1924 The Relation of Feeding and Age of Calving to the Development of Dairy Heifers. Kan. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 233:1-38. Saarinen, P., M. A. Sami and J. C. Shaw. 1951 The Adequacy of an All-Alfalfa Hay Ration for Milk Secretion. J. Dairy Sci., 34:287-294. Schneider, B. H. 1947 Feeds 23 the World. Their Digestibility and Compo- sItIon. West Va. Agr. Exp. Sta., Morgantown, W.Va. Smith, V. R., I. R. Jones and J. R. Haag. 1945 Alfalfa With and Without Concentrates for Milk Pro- duction. J. Dairy Sci., 28:343-354. Snedecor, George W. 1946 Statistical Methods. Iowa State College Press, Ames,710wa. Tennant, J. L., and H. C. Fowler. 1941 The Economic Relationship Between Feeding and Milk Production in Rhode Island. State Col. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 279:1-23. Willard, H. S. 1934 Grain vs. No Grain for Dairy Cows. Wyo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 202:1-24. Willard, H. S. 1940 Roughage Feeding of Dairy Cattle. Wyo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul., 237:1-25. W011, F. W. 1918 Alfalfa as a Sole Feed For Dairy Cattle. J. Dairy Sci., 1:447-461. Woodward, T. E. 1945 Some Studies of Lactation Records. J. Dairy Sci., 28:209-218. Wylie, C. E. 1925 The Effect of Season on the Milk and Fat Production of Jersey Cows. J. Dairy Sci., 8:127-131. APPENDIX .coapmpoma tapas o 0 ma m-m mm maumum 0mm: Homa mama some mom m.: 0mm: mom s o o mum mm mzumuma ssmm sown 04mm msmm mmm 4.: omom mom m 0 am- 0.» m: m:-ma-m mmm: mmm smoa Hmmm mmm m.: mmom mom m o mma Hum m: H:-mmum osmm Hmmm mmo: mmmm mmm m.: omms mom a o mma- Hum am canomnoa as»: mom ass: .smmm 0mm m.: maam :mm m o On an: mam mmusauoH; mama aaom med: momoH mm: m.: :msm mom m 0 mm m-m o smuaauma mmam mmsa Haam mmam cam m.: :smm mom a a m 0 mm m.» mm m:u:-m 0mm: meow 40mm maam mam m.a mamm mom m 0 0H mum om m:-m-m mmsm mos smom mmma Ham m.: Ham: mam m 0 NH mum am Hauma-m momm omam mamm mmam mo: m.m mama mom a 0 ma- mnm mm mm-m-ma mmmm mam mmmm Hamm 0mm m.m msmm mom m 0 0H- m- Hm mm-H-mH «mom mama msom same mmm H.m mamm :om m o m m-m o sm-aasma mad: smm mmmm mmom mam m.: mmaa mmm a as 0 am- Ha-» mm maummum mmmm ommm msom mmms Ham m.: mmms mom m 0 mm- 0.» mm usuamum mamm mas maam msmm mmm m.a mmmm mom m 0 mm o-m as Ha-aaum somm mama Hmmm mamm mm: m.: mmom mom a o :. Oum Hod 0:-omum cam: mm: somm :mmm mmm z.: mamm :om m 0 am- m-m sod mmnma-m mamm saam mmam Hmmm mmm m.: mmms mom m 0 mm- m-m o smuma-ma «mm: mmma osam mmmm mmm m.: Hmmm mom H me 0 mm- mus mum. mauaum 0mm: mam scam momm ::m m.: ammm mom m 0 mm- HH-: ms maumuaa mmom Hmam momm ago» sam a.m 40mm oom m .o om oaum am H:-Hm-oH omsm puma mmmm same omm H.m Hmam smm m mm Images x.nav A.oe-.tsv Inseam A.nav A.pav 1.9HV 1.9Hv A.nav lav 1.9HV Inseam waspmmm manage zoo eoanom om>aso Hmpoe .ocoo.cwsmm 20m use paws sad: sad: .pomq unwamz no mw< and moms zoa use cH zoo mcoapmpomq an span Hmsea>aecH a mamas anzmmm< o mma oa-a - u H; o o o *o o o o o o o o o mom m a) o o o *o o o o o o o o o Emu m o :m m-m mm m:-am-a mmm: amm mm:: aomm mam m.m omam mom m 0 mm- mum mm ::-m-ma amom mmma mm»: mamm mam :.m mo:m oom m o m:m- mum mm m:-:a-ma maamx amp: mmmm m:ama mm: m.m mmm:a mom : om ma- mum ooa m:-ma-oa mmmm :m:m m:mm aa:m mmm m.m maom mom m o mma :u: m: a:-m-m mmmm momm mmam mmmm mmm m.m mmmm aom m o m: mum o mm-m-aa m:mm mmm: ammm mmmaa mm: m.: mmmaa mom a m mm o :m 0-: mm a:-am-m mmmm mmm: :mmm mmmma mm: m.m mmmma mom m o mam mum o mm-m-0a moom mmm: o:mm mamaa mm: :.m mmmma mom a :mm 0 mm mum mm ::-am-m m:mm mmma mmmm :m:m oom o.m mmmm mom m 0 mm mum mm m:-am-ma omam omma 0mm: m:mm amw m.m m:mm mom m o om mum :m a:-mm-ma momm :om mmmm :omm :mm m.m omom mom : o :- aau: mm o:-m-m a>:m a o>:m mmmm mmm :.m mmmm mom m o m m-m m:a mm-:-m mmmm a mmmm mmmm amm :.m mmmm mom m 0 mm m-m o mm-om-ma mamm :moa «ma: :mmm amw m.m m:mm mom a m mm 0 :ma- m-aa moa >:-mm-m ammm a:mm 0mm: mmaoa oo: p.m mmmoa mom m o a: muoa maa m:-mm-m mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm «mm :.m ammoa mmm m o o m-m mOa m:-om-m ammm m:am mmmm aOOOa mmm m.m ommoa 0mm » 0 mm m-m maa ::-0a-m m:mm a m:mm mmmm aom a.m mo:m Opm m 0 mm m-> maa m:-mm-ma mamm m:m m:mm a:mm mmm m.m mm:m oom m o m: a-m maa a:-mm-m ammm mm: mmom mmmm mam m.m mmmm mom : 0 mm aau: mm o:-:m-m mmom mm mmom comm mmm :.m :mmm mom m 0 mm 0-: mma mmuom-m m:mm m:m mm:m mmmm mmm m.m «0:» :mm m o m wnm o mmumu: :mmm mam mmmm maom aom m.m momm mom a mmm Amamcv A.nav a.os-.phv amhmcv a.nav a.pav a.nav a.nav A.nav amv A.pav Amamnv mgspmmm mmcmso zoo moapmm cm>amo Hmpoe,.ocoonmwsom 20m . mam paws xaaz xaaz .poma unmams mo mm: mpg mpmn zoe pan ca :00 mcoapmpoma mp mama amsua>aoca acmssapcoov a mama-m moam mmm mm:: amm: mma m.m aomm mom m o mm :-m moa m:-am-m mamm mmaa a:m: mom: mmm :.m mmmm mom : o :m- a-m mm m:-ma-: moom mmma ommm mmom mom m.m mmmm mom m o mm- m-m mm m:->-ma amom :m:a m:mm mmam mom :.m omom mom m o mm oa-m o m:-ma-ma mamm mm:a mmam aaam mmm m.m mmmm mom a ma: o m:- m-: up ::-:a-a :mmm ama mmam ommm :ma a.m o:mm mmm m mma mm- m-m o m:-a-a mmm: mmam omam ammm omm :.m mamoa aom a mo: o mm :-m o o:-ma-m :m:m ooam :mmm mmmaa am: 0.: mmmaa mom a m mm o ma- m-m mm m:-ma-: mmmm mmom m:mm a:mma mmm m.m mamma mom : o :ma mu: :m m:-m-: mm:m mum aam: mm:m mom m.m mmam :om m o o :o-o *o a:-mm-: o o o o o o o oma m mmm amamcv A.nav A.os-.pav amamuv a.pav a.pav a.nav a.nav a.pao ARV a.nav Anamov manpmmm mmcmoo zoo ooanmm om>amo Hmpoe .ocoo.mm=om Eom pmm paws xaaz xaaz .poma unmamz mo mm: mpg mpmo zoe pmm ca zoo mcoapapoma mp mama awsoa>aoca Aomzcapcoov a mamas xaozmmm< o oma o-m maa mm-mm-m mmmm omm mo:: ammm oom o.m aomm mmm m mm o mam o-m :m mmummum mmmm m:ma mamm mmam >:m m.m ammm mmm : o moa oaum mm mm-m-m mm:> mmmm om»: mmmoa amm a.m am:ma mom m o :ma aaum :aa mmummnm :mmm mmma mmmm :mmm mmm m.m mmmm :om m :-< o o:- m-: mma amuaum :mom a mmom m:mm mom m.m m:mm mom m o mm m-m mm omummnm mo:: mm: mmmm ammm mam m.m mmmm mmm m o mma m-m o m:-mm-m mmom :mma m:a: ommm mmm m.m mmom mom a mm : o oma oa-m am m:-ma-m m:mm :mom mom: mmmm mam a.m m:ooa amm m 0 :ma m-m o m:-m-m mmam mmam mmmm mmmm oom m.m om:m mom a m m: o am :nm maa omnmmum mmom mmm mm:: :omm amm m.m mmmm :om : o m: aa-: :m. m:-mm-a momm mmm :mm: :omm mmm :.m mmmm mom m mm ma m-m :m ~:-mauoa moo: o moo: oo:m mmm :.m mmo: mom m o am m-m o m:-maum mmm: mam omo: mmmm mam m.m ommm mom a . am: 0 m m-m mm mmumua mmmm amm aamm :mmm :mm m.m mmmm oom m o mm mum mm omnauma mamm mma mmmm mmmm mmm :.m mm:m mom m m mm m-» om m:-oa-ma mmmm mm: o:>: ammm mma m.m mmmm omm m o mm- mum am m:-mm-ma m:m: mm amm: momm mmm m.m mmam mmm m mm mm m-m mm >:-ma-aa mmom om:m mmmm mmaaa om: :.m momma mom : o m:a :-: mm m:-maum ammm :om mmmm a:mm omm :.m mmmm mom m . m:: am am. m-m moa omuoanma mmmm mmm mmam m::: mma >.m mmm:. :mm 5 ma mm- m-m ama m:-maum mmmm moma m:mm amom mam m.m ammm mom m o :m mum mma ~:-:mum mm:: m:: mmo: :ao: ama m.m mmm: mmm m mm: Amamov A.nav A.oe-.pav Amawcv a.nav a.nav a.nav a.nav A.nav amv A.nav Anamov waspmmm mmcmno zoo ooapmm om>amo ammoe,.ocoo.nmsom gum mam paws xaaz xaaz .poma pnwamz mo mm: moo momm Zoe mam ca zoo mcoapmpoma mp mama.awsoa>aoca AUmSCflpcoOv a BBB xHszEm< o om :u: mm mmumaum ammm mmmm mmmm mmmoa mm: m.: momm mom m go o moa :-m m: mmumaum m:mm ammm aamm mm:0a am: m.m momm mom m a) 0 mm mum o :m-mm-m mm:m :mmm a:mm mamm ma: o.m mmmm mom a : wU o :m- oa-> :m o:-a-m mmmm m:mm moa: :maoa «mm a.m momaa mmm m o moa aaum aoa mm-mm-m ammm :mm mmm: mmom omw a.m mmmm mmm m o ma mum mm mmummua mmmm m:m amm: ::mm ama a.m :mmm mom : o mma m-: mma mmummuma mmmm :mma am:m mmom mam m.m mmmoa mom m o m- m-m mma mm-ma-oa mmom :mma :mm: mm:m mom m.m ammm mom m o mm- mum o :m-mm-m mmmm mama omm: ommm mmm m.m mmmm mom a m u: 0 mm- m-m omm a:-m-ma am:m mam: mamm :mo:a mm: o.m mmmma mmm m o :m :u» mm mm-am-m mmmm mom: mmm: ommma mmm o.m mmmma mom m 0 :mm mum mm mmumm-m oamm mama mm»: mm:oa mmm m.m mmmma mom : o mma m-m mma mmumaum momm mmm :mam mmm» mmm m.m m:mm mom m o aoa oaum mm mmummua mam: omam mm:: mmmaa mo: m.m :amma mom m o m- m-m o :m-:m-m ma:m :oaa mam: mm:m mmm m.m moam mom a m-: o ::- muma am m:-mm-ma mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mom mam :m:m amm oa o :m- muma ama ::-ma-ma mmmm mmoa mmm: mm:m mmm m.m :mmm «mm m o ma ouaa :m m:-mm-m mmmm mmom ommm mmaoa ::m m.m mmmaa mom m o om- >-m mm a:-:a-aa mmmm amm mmmm mm:: mmm :.m :mam mom m o ma mum am o:-a-aa mmom mm mmom mmom mmm m.m :omm mom m o mm m-» moa mm-aa-oa ommm mmm: mmm: m:mma m:m m.m mmmma mom m o mm oaum mm mmumum mmmm mmma ommm mmooa mmm m.m am:aa mom : o mma oau: mm mm-ma-m aaom ommm a:m: m:maa ao: m.m ooa:a mom m o am o-m mm mmumau: mmom mmma mm:m :amm m:m a.m mmaaa mom m 0 mm o-m o :mumu: m:mm mmma mmm: aamm awm m.m maaoa mom a m .< amamuv a.nav a.oa-.nav anamoo a.pav a.nav a.pav a.pav a.pav amv a.nav amamcv mgspmmm mmcmso zoo ooapmm om>amo Hmpoa,.ocoo.cwsom zom pom name xaaz xaaz .powa unmams mo mm: mun mpmo zoa pmm ca zoo «coapMpoaa an mama awzoa>aoca aomscapcoov a mamda xaozmmm< o :m auma mm m:-ma-m mm:: mmm maa: mmo: oma m.m amm: mom oa o mm- m-ma mm m:-oaum mmom mm: mam: omam mma m.m mmmm mmm m o mm osaa mm m:-m-m momm mmm mmm: mmom a:m :.m :oooa mom m 0 am- mum mm m:-m-m aamm mmm mmam :mmm mmm :.m mmmm mom 5 o m-. m-m mm m:-aauaa ommm mmam mm:: :omaa mm: >.m mmmma mom m o mm- o-m om «:-mum m:mm mmm mom: m:mm mmm m.m oomm mom m o F» aaum mm a:-ma-: mm:: mmmm :am: «mmm mmm m.m :mmoa mom : o om aau: mm o:-oa-: mmm: maa :mm: >::> mmm :.m m:am mom m 0 mm m-m mm mmumm-ma mmmm mma mmmm mmom mmm :.m aamm mom m o am mum o mm->-ma ooam amma mmmm m:mm mmm m.m m:am mmm a man: o mma- mum om a:-oa-a mo:m moam mom: mm:aa :a: a.m mmama mom m o oma o-m am mmuom-m mmom :ma m:mm mmm» mmm m.m aomm mom m o m:m aa-m moa mm-am-m om:: :mmm mmam mmmma ‘mm: o.m mmama mom : o :ma :-: maa mmumum mamm :mm: mmm: :mmma mmm m.m mamma mom m o mm m-m om mm-m-m mmmm :mmm mmm: mmm:a mam o.m mmoma mom m o ama aum o :m-omuoa mmmm maam ::mm m:mm mmm m.m mmmma mom a \ :a-< o o o-o *o o o o o o o o mma m o , :m m-m o mmummum ammm moaa :ma: :m:m mmm :.: maam mom am a-: o o o-o *o o o o o o o o oaa m 0 :ma m-m mm mm-mm-m mmmm mama om:: amm: mmm m.m a:om omm m o mma m-m o :mumaum ommm mmmm mmmm mmmm :om m.m .mmmoa mom a m -4 amamuv a.nav a.oe-.nav amamnv a.pav a.pav a.nav a.pav a.nav amv a.nav anamov mgspmmm mmcmco zoo ooaamm om>amo ampom,.ocoo.mmsom zom mmm paws xaaz xaaz .poma pomamz mo mm: mum momm zoe pom ca zoo mGOHpMpUQH he. .3me HMfiUfi>dUCH aomscapcoov a mam:- aauoa mm >:-:-m mmmm a:mm a:m: m::m mmm o.m mooaa mmm m o am oaum oma m:-mm-a mamm :moa mam: mmmm ::m m.m mmmm mom m m:a mm mum mm ::nmaaaa mmm: mmmm moom mmmma >:: m.m ammma mom m moa mm m-» mm m::m-m «mmm :aoa mmmm :m:m mom a.m mmmm mom m aoa :aa :-m mm «:-aaum :mmm aooa mmmm mmmm :mm a.m mm:m mom : maa mmm mum :m a:-:m-m mmmm mmm m:mm mo:m mmm m.m mmooa mom m mma mma m-: am o:-ma-m mmmm :mm maam mmmm m:m m.m ommm mom m o mma o-m o mmumu: oo:: aa:a mm:m m:om :mm m.m mmmm mom a am-¢ o :m aum mm «:-:-aa mmmm :omm amm: mmmm mmm m.m mmmm mom m o mm oaum mm a:-mmum mmmm amm mamm oomm :mm m.m mmm» mom : o moa oa-: mm o:-m-m mmmm moa mmam ommm amm :.m mam: mom m o mm mum mm mm:mmum mmmm oaa m:am mm:m mmm m.m mma» mom m o mma m-m o mm-a-: mm:m mam :mm: mmmm mam m.m mmmm mom a . man: o maa :-: mm mm-mm-oa moom ::a: mmmm momma am: m.m mmm:a mom m o mma mum o mmuaanm ammm m:mm mmmm m:mm m:m m.m mmmaa mom am an: $33 :3 62.7.5 $53 33 has hm: hp: :5 33 Raw $33 waspmwm mmcmno zoo ooapmm om>amo Hmpoe .ocoo.:msom zom pom puma xaaz. :aa: .poma unmaoz no mm: man mama zoa mmm :a zoo mcoapapoma mp momm amsoa>aoca aomsnapcoov a mamm-> mmam mmm mmmm mmmm mmm m.m mmmm mmm m o mma ouoa mm m:umum mmm: : amm: a:mm mma m.m a:o: mmm m o a:- aaum mm m:->-> aamm a»: o:om, m:am om :.m a:mm mom m o am m-» mm m:-mm-: mmmm mmmm mm:m mamoa mm m.m mmama mom m o mm- mum mm ::uaum mmm: mmma m:mm o>:m mmm :.m momm mom m 0 mm m-m mm m::maum mm:m m:oa mom: ammm mmm m.m m:mm mom : o oaa m-: mm N:-a-m aam: mm m m :o:m oam m.m m:mm ama m o :a >-m m: a:-ma-m mmm: mm m mm paom mam m.m :amm mmm m o :: mum o o:-a-: :mm: mm: mmmm mm:m a:m m.m mma» mom am m-: o o o-o *o o o. o o o o o :m m o om mum om m::mmum ammm mmm mo:m ammoa :mm. m.m omoma mom m oma mm aa-» mm m:-mm-: mmom mmaa amma mmmma amm a.m amoma mom m :ma om- mum mm ::uamum mmmm mm mmmm :omm mmm m.m mmom mom m ama a: m-m mm m:-m-mo ommm mmm m:om mmpm mm :.m mmmoa mom : oma ama m-m m: «:-aaum m:mm m:m mama m mm mm m.m ommm mom m maa m- m- :m o:-:-aa mmmm maaa mmmm mmom omm m.m mmaoa mom N am m- m-w o mm:m-oa mmmm omm mmmm m:mm mmm >.m m:mm mom a :m:m mma m- mum o o:-mm-:, mamm m:~ o>:m aamm mmm >.m mamm mom amm 4 buts :5 foetus base :5 3p :5 35 :6 E L5: :33 waspmam owcmso zoo ooanam om>auo Humoa .oaoo.mwsom mom pum puma :aa: :aa: .poaa unwams mo ow¢ man ooam zns pan :a too mcoapMpoma an open amsoa>aoca Aconcapaoov a mam:-mmum m:mm amma :mmm maom omm m.m momm mmm m o mm mum moa m:-m-m mm:m ::om m:mm mamaa ao: m.m omwma .mmm m o :a aa-m mm ::ummuma ,mmom m:mm mm:m «mmaa mm: m.m mm::a mom m o mma 0a-m am m:-ma-aa ommm omma ommm mmmm aom a.m m:mm mom : o mma oaum mm. m:- m:aa m:mm amoa :mm: aamm mmm m.m mom» aom m o mm m- m: a:-mm-oa mmam ::m m::: am:m mmm a.m m::m mom m o m- mum o o:-m-oa mmom omaa momm m:mm m:a m.m mmmm mom a smu< o m:a oanaa :m .m:-m-m m:m: mma m:m: oomm :ma :.m ommm omm m o :: muoa mm m::mm-m :omm :omm oom: :mmm omm m.m mmmm mom m o mm mum mm m:-m-m mm:m mmm :mm: momm mom :.m mmom mmm m o mm m-m mm m::mum mmom mmm mm:: mmmm mam m.m mmam omw m o mma m-» o: m:-aa-m mamm mm:m m:mm m:mm mmm m.m :omm m m m o m: >-m mm ::uma-: mmmm omma mmmm momm mmm m.m ma:m mom : o a: mnm maa m::muma :mmm moaa mmm: mamm mmm m.m :mmm mom m o a- a.: mm a:-:-oa aomm am» omam :mmm mmm m.m :mmm mom m o m aaum o o:-m-m omom mmaa momm mmm» omm m.m a:mm mom a < mm- anamov a.pav a.oe-.pav anamoo a.pav a.pav a.nav a.pav a.pav Amy a.nav amamuv waspmam awomco zoo ooapmm om>awo ampoem.ocoo.nmsom zom 9mm amoa :aa: :aa: .poma unwamz ho ow: man momm zoe own :a zoo mcoapwpoma an sumo amsoa>aoca aomscapcoov a mam:-m-m o o o o o o o :m m 0 mm m-m mma m:-ma-: m:mm aamm mmmm oamm omm :.m mm:m mmm m o o o-o *o m:-mm-: o o o o o o o mmm : o o o-o *o ::-:a-: o o o o o o o mmm m ama mma m-m maa m:-mm-: mmma m:m mmaa mmm: mma :.m momm mmm m ama aam m-m o m:-mm-m omma mom mmma m:mm mom :.m m:om mom a m m -< m: mma m-m mm m:-mm-m mmmm mma mmmm mmm: mma m.m mmam mmm m mm am m-m om m:-:a-m mmmm o m:mm mmm: ama :.m mmmm mmm p o mm a-m mm m:-:a-m mmm: m:m mom: ommm mam m.m m:am mmm m o ama m-m mm m:-ma-a omm: mom. m:m: mm:m o:m :.m m:mm mom m o ma m-m om m:-ma-a moam mam mmm: a:mm omm m.m momm mom : o ma m-: m: m:-m-ma mmm: a: :wm: mmom oma :.m ommm mom m o m» m-m om m:-aa-aa :om: a mom: :am: mma m.m :omm mom m o mm :-m o a:-a-m amm: mma mmm: ao:m mom :.m mmmm mom a m a -: o mm m-m mm ::-am-a mmom a amom mmmm mmm o.m mm:m mom m o mma :-: mma m:-ma-a amam a omam mmam mam a.m mmam mom m o moa m-m o a:-aa-m mmm: a :mm: mamm mmm o.m mo:m mom a m o -: o m:- m-oa moa m:-mm-m mmm: mm:a ommm m:am mmm m.m ommm mmm m o mm m-m moa m:-mm-oa. m:mm Fm» opp: mmm» omm m.m m:mm mom m o m: m- mm m:-ma-m oomm mmma aom: mmmm mma a.m amom mom : mma :ma- a-m mm ::-ma-: mmmm mmaa mm:a m:mm mmm a.m mmmm mom m oma am a-m mmm m:-m-: mamm m:ma :m:a mmmm mmm m.m oomm aom m o mm :-m o a:-a-m mmmm mmma mmm: mmmm mmm o.m mmm» mom am m-¢ 333 TE foe-ppm $me 3: TE :5 :a:.p: Q: :5 $me mpspmmg mwcmgo zoo ooapmg ompamo ammoa .ocoo.gmsom zom pug amoa :aa: :aa: .pomg ppmamz go mm: mpg opmg zga nag ca :00 mooapmpomg pg mumg amsoapaoca Aconcapcoov a gam