33
Figuring Cattle
Feeding Profits
For Eastern Oregon
L T. Wallace
Emery Castle
41.101NOREMININI10
Miscellaneous Paper 33
Agricultural Experiment Station
December 1956
■
Oregon State College
•
Corvallis
FIGURING CATTLE FEEDIIAG PROFITS
FOR EASTERN OREGON
L. T. Wallace and E. N. Castle *
ummary
This publication presents a method of figuring cattle feeding profits.
Because of the increase in feed grains in eastern Oregon, ranchers are
giving more thought to feeding possibilities. The construction of budgets
permits a rancher to estimate how much feeding will affect his income, as
well as the resources required for feeding.
To illustrate how the metnod works, three counties were selected in
eastern Oregon -- Baker, Grant, and Umatilla. They were selected because
their feed potential is high,
The profitability of cow-calf, cow-yearling, and cow-feedlot systems
were compared in each county. The cattle systems are defined as follows;
Cow-calf—calves are sold in the fall as reaners; Cow-yearling--offspring
are sold as yearlings; Cow-feedlot—calves are put into the feedlot in
the fall as weaners, fed for a maximum rate of gain, and sold as slaughter
animals at 800 to 1100 pounds.
Figures used in this report are averages. Consequently, the results
are examples of what might be expected under similar conditions. The three
cattle systems are practiced in all three areas, and the counties
provide a wide range in conditions. In Grant County, cattle are the main
source of income. In Umatilla, wheat is more important. Baker is more
diversified, producing both wheat and cattle.
* Authors are formerly Research Assistant and Assistant Agricultural
Economist, respectively, Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station. Special
credit is due t. B. Back, formerly Assistant Agricultural Economist, for
assistance in planning and developing the study. Ranchers and Extension
personnel also were helpful in supplying information and advice.
The cow-feedlot system was the most profitable in all three areas,
However, the feeder system also increased expenses ,and capital investments.
Little difference in income was found between the cow-calf and cow-yearling system. Probably the most profitable system would varyfrom year to
year depending on the relative prices of calves and yearlings. A cow-feedlot operation is not practical for every rancher. Some may not like to
feed cattle, others will not want to take on additional risk. Not everyone can feed cattle to a market finish well, and some would have to go
into debt to establish a feeding operation. But, for those who can meet
the requirements, it may be a profitable means of increasing the size of
farm or ranch business.
Practices and Resources
Baker County has mountain range, desert, forest, and small, highly
productive valleys. The county is high in elevation and comparatively
dry. Winters are cold and summers are warm.
Baker raises hay and grain and has access to range. The range consists of privately owned land, as well as public land under the control
of both the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service.
Hay usually is stacked loose or baled. Irrigation is common. Calving
dates vary from ranch to ranch and depend partly on the ranch's geographic
location. Home-grown feeds usually are used. Winter feeding dates vary
within the county depending on ranch location.
Much of this description of Baker County also applies to Grant.
Umatilla is mainly a grain-producing area. Irrigation in the wheat area
is much less common than in either Baker or Grant Counties. Since cattle
are less important than in Baker and Grant, investment in livestock
facilities is lower. On the other hand, machinery investment is considerably greater.
The Budgets
In building budgets it is necessary to make certain assumptions about
ranching operations. Certain things are held constant while cattle operations are studied. Many of the assumptions, however, will not greatly
affect the comparison between cattle systems. Some of these assumptions
used in the following budgets are:
1.
A 20 per cent cow replacement.
2.
A
3.
Additional grazing permits usually are not available, so they
2 per cent death loss.
were considered to limit further increases in herd size. The
permits used were Baker, 135 head; Grant, 250 head; Umatilla,
40 head.
t. 1954 prices and costs.
5. Current management practices in the three
counties.
When these assumptions are used, there is a definite income advantage
in favor of the cow-feedlot operation. This comparison is shown in figure
1. There is little difference between the income of the cow-calf and cowyearling operation. A small change in price could easily reverse this
relationship.
The increased income from feeding is impressive. It is large in all
counties, but much greater in Grant than in others. Feeding will require
more capital, more labor, and better management. These increases in requirements are shown in table 1. In Grant County, 168 acres of additional
cropland would be needed to provide feed. More capital would be required
in all counties, ranging from about
24 000 in Grant to Ol 665 in Umatilla.
In Umatilla County, the enterprise was so small that no important increase
u labor would be required Additional labor of about 430 hours in Baker
and over 1,000 hours in Grant mould be needed. Many ranchers might be
able to use their existing labor supply more intensively if they would take
on a feeding operation. Additional feed would be needed in all counties
to produce the increased pounds of salable beef. Some ranches already
have some of the needed equipment for a feedlot operation, while others
must start from scratch. Some ranchers, of course, are not in a position
to acquire the necessary additional resources for feeding. Others would
not be willing to take on the increased risk that comes with the larger
cattle operation. On the basis of the figures used, it appears that an
opportunity may exist for expanded cattle production by feeding in the
area. In addition, utilization of byproduct feeds, such as peavine silage
and wheat straw and chaff, may provide feeding opportunities in an area
such as Umatilla County.
In tables 2 through 7, a detailed breakdown of the budgets will be
found. Since the budgets probably will not fit most ranches exactly,
they can be used as a guide. Just substitute your figures for those shown.
How Budgets Were Develoml
A budget is a financial p lan for a ranch or farm. To "build" the
budgets in this report, management practices and resource information were
obtained from typical ranchers in the three areas. Detailed production
requirements, costs, and income are available from the Department of
Agricultural Economics, Oregon State College. Particular emphasis was
focused on changes that would occur in going from one beef system to
another; less emphasis was given to those items that remained constant
for all systems.
Those who are not familiar with budgets and how they are constructed
should study tables 2 and 3. Building a budget consists of a number of
steps. First, decide what it is you wish to compare. (In this case,
cattle systems.) Next, list the resources at your disposal. (Take an
inventory.) Then decide just haw much land, capital, labor, etc., each
system will take. By applying prices and costs to these items, you can
arrive at an estimated expense and income. The top half of table 2 is
devoted to the land, buildings, livestock, labor, machinery, and produc
tion that might be expected for the different systems. The bottom half
shows income and expenses.
0,5
•I■
C
0
o
U
411
a)
-"0
0
E
D
0
V
c 0
0 .13
0
C
0
'"6
U
ti
••■
C
3 0
0
•
2
cs
LL. c
•
o
Z
a)
a.
0
ye
0
SID/100 JO
spuosnoui
-6-
911100U/ 111.10j ,ION
Table 1. Increase in Resources Required for Changing from a Cow-Calf to
a Cow-Feeder Operation
Resource
Baker County
Grant County
Umatilla County
16 8
Cropland (acres)----
1,66 5
13,945
24,002
432
1,026
57
75
28
Barley (bushels) 1,500
2,542
240
Oats (bushels) 1,870
2,924
400
Capital (dollars)--Labor (hours) Home-grown Feed
Hay (tons) Wheat (bushels)
Livestock
Number 91
173
20
Animal units
55
lo4
11
Pounds
53,100
96,750
8,150
Table
Item
Baker Ccuntj Budget .
------7— Cow-calf
Land Use
Rangeland:
Owned (acres) Leased (acres) Hay: Irrigated (acres) Nonirrigated (acres) Pasture: Irrigated (acres) Nonirrigated (acres) Other cro pland: Nonirrigated
Barley (acres) Oats (acres) Wheat (acres) Other (idle, waste, homestead)(acres)
Total acres Cow-yearling Cow-feedlot
1,500
3,000
225
100
100
200
110
20
5,665
20
5,665
20
5,665
2
2!.
2
30
-
24
2,000
130
80
130
220
600
Buildings
Sheds (No.) Fences (miles) Feeding facilities (dollars) Livestock
Beef cows (No.) Beef calves (No.) Yearling steers (No.) Yearling heifers (No.) Bulls (No.) Miscellaneous (horses, cows) (No.) Total animals ( N o.) Labor
Hired (hours) Operator (hours) Total labor (hours) 1,500
3,000
225
220
1,500
3,000
225
220
600
118
2
25
5
72
36
36
3
390
4
118
59
59
5
7
287
7
234
7
378
3,564
3,564
3, 996
6,26!
6,264
2,700
6,696
8,653.66
8,653.66
9 613.66
715
715
772
1,550
1,550
3,100
50, 150
48,600
103,250
2,700
2,700
Machinery
Present value (dollars) Production
Hay (tons) Grain
Barley (bushels) Oats (bushels) Wheat (bushels) Beef (pounds) 1,870
Table
. (Continued).
Item
1
Sales
Hay
Grain
Beef
Cull cows
Calves $
Cow-calf
4
Cow-yearling Cow-feedlot
6, 300.00
$ 6,400.00
999.00
999.00
$ 2,400.00
675.00
2, 5 92.00
3,168.00
Yearling steers
41536.00
1,768.00
252.00
Yearling heifers Bulls Gross Farm Income
Direct Expenses
Hired labor Equipment operations
Veterinary
Feed '
Salt, Minerals
. Grain
Livestock
Bulls
Constant cash costs Total Direct Expenses Indirect Expenses
Taxes
Depreciation
Interest
--
$ 1,000.00
$ 1 060.00
3,769.85
3,604.85
91.00
Feed----
Livestock
Machinery
Buildings-
50.00
250,00
Total Indirect Expense $ 4,604.85
$ 4,307.26
$ 5 220.85
Total Expenses
$12,082.88
$11,210.39
$14 965.66
6,200.71
$ 5,336.61
$11,650.84
Comparative Net Farm Income
4)
0
0 I
0_ ••I
0
-P
r1
'0
0
a)
c■-1
I
0
CD
0
0 1
1-1
0
03 0
P0
F-■
fr .1
/-1
H
0
0
0
0
. .,
111
0
...o crstr. 0
Is- 0 0
IA H 141
.o
"I-r(
(‘--
ON
0
IA
..
H
1..n 0 c— I
H
r.
c,'N
It \
41%
0
0
CIS
a)
O
ct
0
0
LA c0
41..
0
(N
c\J
n
•
0
1-r\
.'
H r--I
0 M \O 0
CO 1.41 C(.1 It's
....7 I I IP%
..
0-,1
f-7
I
I
00
UN CO
N00
ts-- 0 Cs- 1
t--- H co
*.,
•s
r1H
I
I
sso
co
4.)
0
r_4
1:5
0
0
I
•
0
V)
•r-I
$-1
Cd
P4
0
›.•
9
\O
IA
■0
\ID
es
.
0
0
8
0
1.11
CeN
41.
0
4-1
H
F-1
cif
+3
in
(41
to
•.0
i
0
0
0
IA
'0
\0
'LA
H‘
erN
‘.0 0
CO r-- H liN
H (4.-■ cv (NI
•• at
en
ON
CV
0
H
H
.c.
.
s's .
ON
\O
c-.)
r'l
\0
oo
0 -"I' tr\0
,
HC\I
CO
-CO
1-4
In. 0
H
r-- In.
0
H0
C\1 CO .0 1-r\
VDNHH
H
0
C\
U'. 0
H Is\
Cs- 111
H
0
CscoON
H
0
..../..•
H
r.4.%
•0
ON
s..o
V)
1.,
4'
cv
•■
'0
-
0
'UN
...o
..,
H
H
H
1/40
\O
cfl
.%
'LA
P1/40
cd
-p (-I
0
E-t
p
0
•
0
0
CO
0
('Y'N
tr \
'0
\O
1.11
rrl
V\
\0
CD
I
•
0
-.
\O
0
0
H
\Oft
\d''
0
I-4
a)
cu
cc)
0
a)
•/-1
-P
-1-1
H
.1-i
0
tt/
4-1
to
-■-■
^0
a)
a)
tH
or\
5
••••
ul
a)
r-t
0
0
..
V.;%
a)
0
Z
a)
CH
...---.
..
CO
a) 7-1
clo Qs
H
-ri t-I
'10 0
f--.1 '0
•r.i .....-.
1
1
i
I
I1
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
..---.
co
-P
.1-I I
-...... ....",
9 I
. --%
COu
;-4
r--I V)
C5
ct
'CI
H
H •••••.• 5 g
H
r- • •-1 0
0
0000
.0
'V
0 f:).
.......
.............,..............,
;-t
a)
•r-I
.4
0
..
c.)
0
-1--)
(1)
a)
cd
..--,..
co ..--...
H "--... v)
I 0 CO H
f ,.i-1 co
I 0 0 ..0
•--. 0 .0 u)
Cfl C) (a 0
Z ,../ 0 ,0
0
,0 `---.'
4-,
-....•---, a)
-1-'
H Cf) a:1
..
$4 -P (1)
,0 . 0
.0
a) = al 0 C-4:
izi
— 10 —
0
v)
S.-4
ci
H
r-I
0
"CI
N../
to
Cl)
9-4
H
04
0.
,--...
u)
...-...
f.4
0
.0
ca
Table
Grant County Budgets,
Item
Cow-calf
ow-yearling Cow-feedlot
Land Use
Rangeland:
Owned (acres) Leased (acres) Hay: Irrigated (acres) Nonirrigated (acres) Pasture: Irrigated (acres) Nonirrigated (acres) Other cropland: Nonirrigated
Barley (acres) Oats (acres) Wheat (acres) Other(idlelAmste,homestead)(acres) Total acres
1,000
1,000
7,5 00
7,500
1,000
7,500
400
400
400
100
100
100
50
50
132
0
20
9,170
20
9,170
9,338
86
20
Buildings
Sheds (No.) Fences (miles) Feeding facilities (dollars) 3
40
3
46
7
40
3,000
Livestock
Beef cows (No.)
Beef calves (No.) Yearling steers (No.) Yearling heifers (No.) Beef bulls (No.)- Miscellaneous(horsetl mi1k cowsjtIo,)
Total animals (No.) Labor
Hired (hours) Operator (hours) Total labor (hours) 238
215
2
128
115
238
215
108
4u
57
58
7
514
7
372
7
687
3,672
2,700
6,372
3,672
4,69&
12
7
2,700
6,372
107
12
2,700
7,398
Machinery
Present value (dollars) Production
Hay (tons)
Grain
Barley (bushels) Oats (bushels) Wheat (bushels) Beef (pounds) 11,386.16
11 386.16
12,346.16
800
800
875
1,500
1,500
4,092
2,924
9 1, 37 5
77 ,6 25
188,125
Table
4.
Contimie .
Cow-calf
Item
Sales
Hay-
$
Grain
Beef
Cull Caws
Calves
Yearling steers
Yearling heifers
675
Cow yearling Cow-feedlot
$ 4,740
-
3,312
6,048
13,131.21
-
7,056
3,536
23,593.50
12,286.75
$20,862.21
;:e19,148.00
$42,936.25
$ 3,780
$ 3,780
$ )4,770
299
257
472
504
1,008
Bulls
Gross Farm Income Direct Expenses
Hired labor Equipment operations
Veterinary
763.57
Feed
Salt minerals-
Grain
763.57
Bulls
Constant cash costs
Indirect Expenses
Taxes Depreciation
Interest
Feed
Livestock
Machinery
Buildings
2,132.96
64
75
2,400
2,000
1,000
2,904
2,000
3,744
$ 9,921.57
5 8,843.57
$15,636.96
5 1,500
$ 1,475
4.0 1,900
2,904
Total Direct Expenses 1,008
75
100
Livestock
$ 6,048
5,496.54
4,700.69
+
-
2.52
+ 175
75
118
5,736.54
164.01
50
400
Total Indirect Expense
$ 6,996.54
$ 6,073.17
5 8,250.55
Total Expenses $16,918.11
$14,916.74
$23,887.51
Comparative Net Farm Income $ 3,944.10
$ 4, 231.26
519,048.74
-12-
.
■
■
,
I
I
••
0
-1.3
CH
•
iHd
0
H
10
(1)
a)
4-4
•wO
co
NO
H
0
0
0w
OD
0
0
..0
0-,
C.)
0 co\ ,..• C)
1,-- t*-- 0 In,
(n H H N-
..
ft
‘0
0‘
1.1 CV -I'
N• ..d0.1 I
u a.
. w w
CV CV
CM
I"—
'0
NO
Is\
0w, CMw
‘.0
M)
01
o to
0
.rI I ..ri
0 H
0) 0
5 p
0
/4
H
$.-1
CI--t
IA C‘I
0
)
tr \
es
H
o
C3
+-I
o
H
-0
0
O
4-)
N
(I)
P
0
.1-i
H
cd
0
E-I
H•
0 \0
0.....1'
0
('`'N
w
w,
CNJ
co
0
rr‘
CH
I• w
Cr\
0
0
taG
.49
r.4
F•4
cd
0
M
C--H
I
PON.
0
0
CH
H
0
o
j
r-
O
0
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I
I
I
I
rvI
..0
E-1
H
0
NH
w
0
0
1-e■
...
-1
111
\O
r--3•
•0
co
en
4.,
H
H
0
0
0
w
cf \
IA
‘C)
H
•
NO
CO
Cr1
H
H
0
0
-1-4
-P
-ri
H
-r-4
0
M
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
4S
).-i
I
I
(f)
a)
r-ro
0
M
'.....
0
V3
1-1
•d -----
I
0.,1r‘
ON
0
I
rt. ‘
-.1
...
I
H
-0.
0 N- • It \
0\ CO ON CV
H .0 &N. H
, w
•
-1
CC)
If \
c0
H
If \ CM -.1
C"..- 0\ 04
op 0 ••ONw,
-.1 CV
•u CV ..4' 1-C1
CO N- H CV
\C) en 0,1 NO
....
..
0 \
N-
C \ I
C"•-
Q0
U v1 1
co tr.
....
0 -110 111
CV H CO N.-
CO 1-11 CV rr 00
0 151 I
CO .I.S1
.4,
I
..--..
0
+3
•
0
P4
QS
H
H
0
'0
,...,....
0)
.---..
F-1 I H En
crI I
"0
0
r•
H- •H 0
0000
'0
et$ Q.
......0,-.0....-..• ........
$.1
M
0
•H
0
M
:::.1
--
0
0
-P
0.1
0
•ri
4-1
w
1
0
0
C*---
OS
H
H
I
I
I I
1
I t
I
I 1
1
t i
I
1 1
I I
I
I I
I
1 I
I
I 1
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I I
I
f 1
I
I I
I
1
1
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I 1I
I
I ..---..
1 (/) ...---..
1 H e•-.. to
I 0) cri 4-1
I0
I000
"'-', . 0 . - q V)
to ,o 0 i
g .....• 0 .0
0
,0 1.--'
+3
.,,..-....
----..- m
-P
ri CO M
* 0 >3 I-I +.1 (1)
'0 M cLI M r0
0 = 10:1 0 .;=.
0
44
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
.--..I
U)
IN.,
cr1
H
H
0\
I
I
I
C\I
r•-•
en
. w
CV
I
"
H
ON
cr1
I
H
"
I
0
P
PQ
H
I
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
II
1
I
I
-rt
10
0
0
cfrt
•,
m
0
0 1I
i-1 I
01
c+-I 1
...-s.
. . to
(s) P-4
t2.0 cti
0 H
•r-I r-1
"0 0
r-I
•N
bD
I
I
•
N 0
c•-,t ....- .
I---4 H i N•
.., I
....
0
Cfl
0
— 13 —
o
-0
CO
ON
en
w
r--
r-.
CO
--/
0
w
ON.
CV
C--
(-,-N
.
1-0
•
H
en
...,
......1
CV
N-
er1
r-I•
CM
cr•
Nft
CV
..,
\O
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to
M
H
0
15
s.....0
.0-,
co
‘,......
to
a)
....-•
0
$4
0
,O
q
.1-1
H
04
04
Cr)
0
0
i---1
■--4
El
$_,
0
44
-P
(I)
Z
Table 6. Umatilla County Budgets.
Item
Cow-calf
Land Use
Rangeland:
Owned (acres) Leased (acres)
Hay: Irrigated (acres) Nonirrigated (acres)------ - Pasture: Irrigated (acres) Nonirrigated (acres) Other cropland: Nonirrigated
Barley (acres) Oats (acres) Wheat (acres) Other(idle,waste,homestead)(aores)-Total acres 1,500
-
1,500
44
Cow-feedlot
1,500
-
-
-
424
424
404
702
110
2,780
Buildings
4
Sheds (No.) Fences (miles) Feeding facilities (dollars) Cow- yearling
702
110
2,780
4
20
702
110
2,780
5
20
20
20
1,000
29
26
-
22
20
10
1
29
26
13
13
1
66
67
86
1,782
2,700
1,782
2,700
1,782
2,700
Livestock
Beef cows (No.) Beef calves (No.) Yearling steers (No.) Yearling heifers (No.) Bulls (No.) Miscellaneous(horses,milk cows)(No.)
Total animals (No.) Labor
Hired (hours) Operator (hours) Total labor (hours) 6
10
4
4
1
4,482
4,482
It
4,482
Machinery
Present value (dollars) 12,685.64
12,685.61t
58
64
86
5,088
5,088
4,848
400
12 685.64
Production
Hay (tons) Grain
Barley (bushels) Oats (bushels)
Wheat (bushels) Beef (pounds)__-
7,020
9,500
—14—
7,020
10,200
7,020
17,650
Table 6. (Continued)
Item
Cow-calf
Cow-yearlin ICow-feedlot
Sales
Hay
Grain
Beef
Cull cows
Calves
Yearling steers
Yearling heifers
Bulls
Gross Farm Income $17,270.84
$17,243.40
720
576
1,572.60
-
$16 240.86
720
-
2,866.50
1 457.75
1,260
552
$19,563.44
$19,631.90
$21 285.11
$ 1,830
7,295.33
66
$ 1,830
7,302.13
67
$ 1,830
20
100
100
400
2 114.82
2,114.82
2,1114.82
$11,426.15
$11,438.95
$11 805.04
$ 1,390
$ 1,390
$ 1,1400
3,344.3)4
Direct Expenses
Hired labor
Equipment operations
Veterinary
Feed
Salt, minerals Grain
Livestock
Bulls
Constant cash costs Total Direct Expenses 25
7 334.22
86
40
_
Indirect Expenses
Taxes
Depreciation
Interest
Feed
Livestock
Machinery
Buildings
Total Indirect Expense $ 4,670.84
$ 4,671.19
75
$ 4 835.34
Total Expenses
$16,087 99
$16,101.14
$16 740.38
Comparative Net Farm Income $ 3 465.45
$ 3,520.76
$ 4 644.73
3,280.814
-
3,280.84
.35
_
16
0
tr% 0 1-4 0
cv H tr•
•0
r-4
H
es
•
ON.
0
eci
0
1
■0
0
IA
0 VD 0
0
0
co
CO
IA .0 .0
0
01 •
C\I .10 •
H
CO IA
.1
‘13
4)
•0
CO
'isN H H 00
CV
co 0 0 0
CV
C.—
M
‘0 0 1 0 0 0 1-r‘
If't
0
IA
\O
"
r•-•
H
cfN
NO CO 0 0 N"
CO --.1" 0 C \
CO
00
0 —1 —71.
r`"-
z
`,0
0
CO
•r4
H 0
cd C.)
CV
8 trN
CO
H
0C.—COO
0 10 M0
cr's
(\I
0
%.0
•
•
0 CV CV 0
CO I
CO CV
0
0
U-'
U cr‘
O
ri
CO
.-..1
‘0
•
0 IA VV..0 0‘, 0
0 00 0 VD cr1 0
IA
0
CO
0
.. "0•,. . 0■•■
_...1'
cv
IA
CV H
N—
..
cv
IA.,
0\
co CC)
1..CN
0
1.11.
--.1
.
0 NCV IIN
1.rN co 1 cv
c--- op '0
0
0 -f --1on
os
o'.
..4"▪
1.11
C.--
UN
U)
0)
•ri
0
4-4
to
•r-I
(0
r
+)
4-)1
"
ro
a)
a)
4-)
...-.....
U)
a)
P4
O
cli
n......
O
O
eH
AP."...
., co
co
40 d
21
O
0 H
•r-I r—i
rti 0
r--i '1:$
.H ,......
I-1
Pa
°
o...1
U)
f.4
......
(1)
9.
...."...
pi
(--1 to
(C-1 ,-,. N Is
1
H
H • •r-I
0 0000
'0
id
c'd 04
1.....,
S.., 1.. ./ 1.■.• NJ
-c....)
0
H
.0
0
.....1
co ,c) U) 0
0 "--• 0 ra
0
.0 •---.4.3 ...,..,......-
.....• CD
0
-P
4-)
4-1 (0 CC1
U).0
$.4 -4-' 0
0
10 cli sti ct
a) = rt:1 0
0
1-4
•ri
rt.,
1.6 •■•
......,
to I .•••••■
co
H .----- rf )
Pi
0 U] H
03
I .0 H 10
r--I
I (0 0 .0 H
...... 0 ,Z CO
0
PO
.....,...,
CO
0
•ri
H
04
P.
0
cn
er‘