xt75hq3rw973 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt75hq3rw973/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1968 journals 175 English Lexington : Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Kentucky Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection. Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.175 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.175 1968 2014 true xt75hq3rw973 section xt75hq3rw973 ;,~,§}`l<~KQ*§;IA   mg:          I   Riggs     ¢*;·:7·II      .»II,{·€*`* I q :   Vw   r· `· I · · ~ \
·                         ~;»,—   »   `     I   A ‘ A
                »·v¢         »~`4         —        
By J .H .SmiIey, W .O .ArI:l - :4.. .-%,3 ,..*5; `.’_—;r. ·¤. §’_.‘EI’  wiz-{:{:&.'§i.¤’·Iffg»%;:§ :—x‘£?•??·j·»i?;u·:?z’·¢.Ir—T~z`=§`
I '§%—$~ ‘$’2·€”Q2·;~:  5**-!%»§~‘-—,;;.··»4*"fv~g@*<¤.··»#2: ¥j§j»·;.<*‘ ?·.,¥¢"l·¢¢T2”1»‘= 4%* ?;;L?;j; @$2%. *3;gI·gu="·=; 7* ·3.‘ -;L»§.'g;:?=¢v§`·¥;"&,?*IILI‘e·i‘Q·*,
··,;`j_-1. ,,~·;LI   .  ,;_,..·; je]. ]I;;_[     _?_JZ*'. k·;*II·_,g`{ I_I‘éIj.j~:_,I‘I· ‘;§2·E.4.*?»E&3·?‘€*T* "%f *   *‘;.*5~Eg#¤?;;’?}  %3¥?‘··;;{¢ié‘T~T?¤;g¤‘ 7.1%, TJ} Q   *  ’7;‘f;*‘{4  
  yr  -» ——   »‘* ‘ ‘I ·"v· ’I·?_· y,. vgiyj   ‘;f·=•·l V   "-T·3.<. v_ » I ,. ,. ,;‘•· ‘I ".4;j"¤I·   .··¤j2.I;·  Eq *i;·§>·   ‘F»j'j‘;;`*_.· ,, _; ,:·_'t‘€ ‘_3¤,,4~§ 4 I. g, -.I.j., 41.% ,' #4},-¤~;.» w' gx
  \' Ig    AII  tg   "       I;, : ·’_  (* 5} - r $:5    I I `.I   _ ~ •;   I     I III II L   I
*"· .~;,2>~~;1%<,··‘* I- ~·I ‘:;»s-»‘·s.,··¥,·.%au- .*.;.4.. .§...._~4w `~    _; ·¢w Lg2p ;II  if  »·.,5= ,;;’I:¤;_;*.,I»e—;·p;» ig rg».·r,.;
 -     *  {  shu Im;     P7} - ‘_,. -gh;  ', ng ¢   ,~.I  \ _~_ .IF 4 · ‘ .  Ijxs
 VI IILI I ‘ _ ` [ I ._. , I   I I` `I ||  ` _ ‘ Ir,. yl  I.  _·  \·\I\_ II (X I II I 4 I —· `~
 I_q_\I_  I, -.  4. I _ _ _ ' {II  \ I; IM , I I V. _ · .» ,I Ig   _, ,_ _ _<-• A
 V " ·»; }· rn V;-e . . · ·~— .  \-` _·.  ‘,· .· ,_· ,’{.# ` ,T· _ ‘f’ ·- 1, T9 *;` ‘· * ., _\ ,r
 `t `     ··;:£2L;—  ._ .· * '   - ` I , if - ·-    , . I  .     ."·€T>¤. ~,   '{ ·?¤~,,.!
  "     Q ?  RK-7 ‘q*¥  N -W ?? `  {3 `·" Y    Ir    » Q QI I  { ITA  * "‘ A ·) rx;   ‘ I
* ’    4 ‘   I    wl   {  `.\ »'     *  ii I ` F  an . . · .   N  `T
I II III. ·r!I    _II ·   __ { I    gif QI p  ' ·  · I I  gi     KL " - 4 III   III‘I I ‘ atl Il ` I j   
~   _. \,_     ·  ‘ ;. ‘   _ - ,4, . ' g  » ‘· j: , ' ‘; * g, . ,   ’
`a·x;·  , . ‘°"·»~_ `.   , · -_   Il -
' "Y’!·   `$j . .A,\_  . "  '    '___ "_ -• ~¤ _ I * — / .`
"   » ` ‘ »  . V  . *—.Q~:! ‘ ·   ·   ’°\ *   "    I2]? ’   ‘
   _. I·L . ¤·  _· _·} I · . . *· ~ · .I! . % ·— ,·.`
` _ r    S I_i_.L'iI II   .   , "€t\ "I_{/( ‘ ; _, .,   `  P , ‘ `gg  '  Q ·· ` ‘ `_  ‘ g   I " ,  ,
“   ~`·  wl y   ‘ ' I hq ‘  . T ’,’  »  ·• r , .   ig "  *’  
L? V   II I I! I —,4 _ .` III gt II   ·. .1 I I I    . »  
I *'|{    '· - g I "  'I II I I       I   I I il   ` I' ` ` II 2II  I I I I;  III l y" I I
{Q  ,     _ .. I ¢'*· · · ‘ gr A ‘ ’ I ' AI-.? _   lf ,4  
· 2 ’ · ‘ _ I   ,: · I . ·.‘¢ ·.* _ "·— _ .  ·’
I ' J. .'   Q"*  "   Q v` ly si  ~# »:' "   ` `   I .  2 ` A`  ·* l T" l
‘  S`), Ig  ‘r\4 ' ; l( _ `   g _ ¤    I    - ’ .  ‘· . L
Q 1; ;-·· ’·/. LL -,-x. E- » ‘· =N #% ;i*¢•. J. I jr . ·   .; ‘   .. o . · ‘

 ۤ@
ar ¤¥*%  E
@e ·`”· · %
@ ._ .@, » Q .
 avér F »• mon   
v a· l ’ ~ > I _,_
¢·¢   m i  
 Q l , _ .,,6*    _ v W
am  Wl ~
num tocimons warm; Tai; BURLEY romcco vAR1mY-MANAGEMENT sruoy wAs coanucrm in 1967. 4
Location County Cooperator
l Hardin Ray Mackey \
2 Boyle William Balden `
3 Adair Charles Cole
¤l Fayette Robert Woods
5 Fleming Roy Gray
6 Shelby Louis Payne
7 Caldwell Homer Mitchell y
Acknowlcdvnient; I
Appreciation is expressed to the American Tobacco Co. , Brown and Williamson b
Tobacco Corp., Liggett and Myers Tobacco Co., Philip Morris, Inc., P. Lorillard Co. ,
and R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., for their interest in this study and for cooperating in
the evaluation and analysis of the tobacco produced.
Appreciation is also expressed to the following Extension Tobacco Specialists
who cooperated in this study; Burris Rardin, Paul Gray, John Ewing, J. B. Hockensmith,
Bert Collins, James Prcwitt, A. \\'. Rowland and George Everette.

 A BURLEY TOBACCO VARIETY—MANAGEMENT STUDY
ON SEVEN KENTUCKY FARMS IN 1967
By J. H. Smiley, A. M. Wallace, W. O. Atkinson and I. E. Massie
l The small price differential in respect to quality of burley tobacco has given
growers little incentive to produce leaf of the best quality. Instead, they have
emphasized yield, apparently believing that the value of their increased poundage will
more than compensate for any possible reduction in value per pound. A number of
cultural practices generally accepted as being favorable for the production of good
quality tobacco have, therefore, been changed. Nitrogen fertilization and plant popula-
tions have been increased, topping and harvesting times have been advanced, and ~
sucker growth has been eliminated by chemical treatments.
l OBJECTIVES AND METHODS
, The objectives of this study were:
(1) To investigate the desirability of two management systems emphasizing I
. a) yield and b) quality, and a third system c) aimed at achieving an acceptable level
of both yield and quality. (These are hereafter referred to as the "high yield, "
"quality, " and "yield and quality" systems, respectively.)
/
(2) To determine the effects of these management systems on the chemical
and physical characteristics of the cured leaf and its usefulness to the tobacco industry.
Two varieties, Burley 21 and Ky 10, were grown under the three management
_ systems, outlined in Table 1 (page 5), in 1/4 acre non—replicated plots at seven
locations in Kentucky. Phosphorus and potassium were applied in all systems at rates
based on soil tests. Applications were sufficiently large that these elements would
not be limiting factors in plant growth.
‘ Leaf produced under each management system was stripped into four or five I
farm grades which were displayed, under code, at a Lexington market in January
1968. Before sale of the tobacco, personnel from each of the six cooperating tobacco
companies evaluated it, using a numerical rating of O-4 with 0 Z very poor and -i = very
good. Samples for determining filling values and for cigarette manufacture and
chemical analysis were taken by randomly selecting five hands from each grade of
each treatment. The five hands were kept in plastic bags until stemmed, alter which
the samples for chemical analysis were dried and ground to pass a l millimeter
screen, then split into six 50—gram samples for mailing to the cooperating
laboratories. The tobacco was then graded and sold in the normal way. The per
acre values were computed using the actual selling price of each lot of tobacco. The
per acre values and yields, values per hundred pounds, chemical data, and other
measurements are shown in the tables, beginning on page 6.

 RESULTS
The "yield and quality" system resulted in the production of 21 pounds of leaf
per acre less than from the "high-yield" system, and the yield from the "quality" ~
system was much lower (Table 2). For the two—year average, the "yield and quality"
system resulted in the production of 50 pounds of leaf per acre more than from the
"high yield" system, and 512 pounds of leaf per acre more than from the "quality"  
system (Table 3). In 1967 Ky 10 out-yielded Bur 21 by 283, 373, and 298 pounds per
acre for the "quality, " "yield and quality" and "high yield" systems, respectively.
For the two—year average, Ky 10 out-yielded Bur 21 by 295, 303, and 232 pounds per _
acre for the three systems, respectively. Values, expressed as dollars per 100
f pounds, were slightly, but consistently, higher for variety Bur 21 and differed very
slightly between management systems (Tables 4 and 5). Acre values were in the same `
order as were yields and were always higher for Ky 10 (Tables 6-7).
Average leaf appraisal values show that the "quality" system produced tobacco ‘
considered to be of better quality than did either the "high yield" or the "yield and (
quality" system, and Bur 21 was rated higher than Ky 10 in each of the three manage- A
ment systems (Table 8). Wide variations in quality of leaf were noted for locations
and among companies (Table 9).
With the exception of total alkaloids, nitrogenous constituents were highest in _
cured leaf from the "high-yield" system and lowest in the "quality" system. Total
alkaloids differed in that the highest concentration of alkaloids occurred in the "yield
and quality" system (Tables 10-15). There appeared to be a tendency for nitrogenous
constituents to be higher in Ky 10 than in Bur 21.
Water-soluble acids were lower in leaf from the "quality" system and differed
little between the others (Table 16). Potassium concentration was lowest in the leaf
from the "high yield" system, and differed little between the others; potassium
concentration was higher in Bur 21 than in Ky 10 (Table 17). Calcium concentration
was lowest in the leaf from the "yield and quality" system and highest in leaf from the
"quality" system, and there was no real varietal effect apparent (Table 18).
Magnesium concentration was lowest in the leaf from the "quality" system and highest
in the "high yield" system; magnesium concentration was higher in Ky 10 than in .
Bur 21 (Table 19). Phosphorus concentration was highest in the leaf from the
"quality" system and lowest in the "high yield" system, with no differences between
varieties (Table 20). Manganese was present in higher amounts from the "high yield"
system (Table 21) which undoubtedly was related to lower soil pH resulting from the
high nitrogen fertilization.
Filling values, expressed as the volume occupied by a standard weight of
shredded tobacco at a specified moisture content and under a standard pressure,
were highest for leaf from the "quality" system and nearly the same for the other
treatments. There was a tendency for Bur 21 to have the highest filling value
(Table 22). Moisture equilibrium was not greatly affected by any variable in the
study (Table 23).

 4
4-4
GJ
, 3
O
.-4
414
I>~. : :
*0 0 -4
:1 4.4 N .-4
4.4 -.-4 5 \
cn .-4 44 44-4 ml
QJ *0 QJ
4.4 :5 Z N E Q.
0 0 0 LO cu -.-4
QJ : 00 q- 4- I pd
E
QJ
00
cw
C'.
QJ
?
:>~. : \
4.4 N|
GJ 4.4 QJ
-.-4 cn -.-4 4-4
$-4 E 4-I H x\ 'J
0 GJ cv QJ <¤ 4.4
{> 4.4 33 3 \ GJ
m 0 .-4
i>» .-4 Qs
GJ cn *0 44-4 00 -.-4
.-4 4:: :
4-4 4.4 cu KO .-4 .-4 ¥>~.
. ZJ 0 -4 4-* *·’ -4 ·
4324 GJ "O D 4-4 3
5 .-4 bd 44-4 0 .0 O
i>~. QJ QJ M 00 .-4 .
.3 --4 0 : N 4 -.-4 .-4
0 QJ >-4 © 0 O E .-4 QJ
ZJ C2 I --4 0* LO 5} cn · >~.
4.4 cu 3
. 0 Z 0 QJ
QJ 4-4 4-4
M 0 2
4- Z>~.
xo cn
0 QJ QJ ·
4-I z\ \ $-4 P 3
4; .-4] QJ YU 0
G) \ (D 3 (D 4*-*
,4;: : 44 .-4 4-4 4-4 4-4
4.4 *0 QJ TU *,:4 rn QJ
.-4 3 00 4.4 QJ QJ l>~.
4: GJ : 0 KS :> .-4
-.-4 -.-4 N .-4 .-4 QJ *0 m
>-4 .-4 I3.4 V QJ *0 0
*0 -.-4 .-4 -.-4 3
QJ .0 44 r>» 0 E
:>~. .-4 M i>» E 4.4
0 -.-4 0 : 4.4 4 4-4 0 *0 0
4-4 I N 0 QJ QJ 4-4 0 QJ
0. : 0*4  4.4 cv .-4
E 0 0.
L:-4 .0 E
0 QJ ·
m :>-. 4.4 .-4
QJ .-4 4.4 O
0 0 0 .0
-.-4 0 .0 3
4.4
0 4-4 0 0 0
QS va QJ GJ QJ
4-4 QJ ,0 .0 .0
D-4 *0 Z> 3 3 3
0 4-4
E. .0 Qi *0 *0 *0
4-4 00 4.4 .0 QJ QJ QJ
0 E'. GJ 4.4 4.4 4.4
0.. -.-4 E 4.4 cn un 4.44
4 LJ C0 QJ QJ QJ
4 CG 4.4 00 l> Z> Z>
- QJ 0. Q4 0 >- 4. 4-4 4-4
.-4 0 QJ -.-4 4.4 cu Q: YG
-.-4 .I cx) r—I cn r\ I-I ON M x0  I
D OO OO OO OO · TJ I—I I I-I
Q) rj IU I Q)
u ,<: C\IC\1C\I cv: C\I®© D 0OO I—·I<"I<\l
IJ cu In M cm ch . {jjj A A A ,.4 A A A A I A A
76 KU I UW ("W VW (U CAI C') UW C\1 C\I C\1 I C\] OW C\I
LJ I-IVI ‘r·I I
O VI I
L) Z I
I
I
I—4 @ \O €\I {T kD G QD KO \O I (Y} \O GW
—». —I—4 CD OW OW \D OW @ O\ v—| UW I (D VW @
IE) CII OI  OICDO I\£`\I@ <"7 I <‘*'I<*1f")
;; I
Q I
{T. I
»‘ I
CI I
U) ·rI {T OO \O @ (D OO \O KO \O I I\ I\ I\
WI w C\l
if C'? A A A A A A A A I A A
~·I LT] f\I CAI (*1 OI Ol Ol I-I I—I I-—I I C\I OI (\I
FI I
I I
I I
· I
C"I Z` U Q) (1) I CU
1.I 00 DI) oi) I OO
—LI IU C] 75 G FJ C] CU I C) LTI
-4 --»I A-I ;..I ·-4 >-I r—I $.4 I .-4 I-I
,0 $-1 r—I Q) v~I Cl) I··I Cl) I A-I GJ
:1 It 01 >» > C\1 ’.>» > N L>» l> I N ;>~. >
:.I ;» m:».<(¤ CQ;4/ij ¤nM< I ¤0>4<

 Table 3.—Average Yields (pounds per acre) For 1966 and 1967
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::;:2:::::::;:::::
System Variety 1966 1967 Average
B 21 2,832 2,832 2,832
"Yie1d" Ky 10 2,998 3,130 3,06Q _
Av 2,915 2,981 2,9Q8
"Yield B 21 2,920 2,77Q 2,8&7
and Ky 10 3,152 3,1h7 3,150
Quality"
Av 3,036 2,960 2,998
B 21 2,320 2,357 2,338
"Qua1ity" Ky 10 2,626 2,6QO 2,633
Av 2,Q73 2,Q98 2,Q86
_ B 21 2,691 2,656 2,672
Average
Ky 10 2,925 2,972 2,9&8
Av 2,808 2,813 2,810
 
-7-

 I
'U I
@@4 mmm mNm <1*¤¤ '
.- OOGO€*7<"5
L I\I\I\ I\I\I\ I\I\I\ I I\I\I\
U) I
I
I
I
I
I
I
O I
C O\G\O\ ©€"U\D GDI-F\I!`Il <\|OO.—I
  4>I0O
[ja.) ·:·4 lXDC\l'—m C\1:—I—< \T:\m 00mm -.-4 :\r\©: xOm:\
(_)q) . . . rg . . . ,..I . . . I FU . . .
} J] C\I@.—4 C: <.\1.—I.—I (U C\I®:—I I CD —4 :
TJ ; :
E 4-4 mmr\ 000000 \`I'.—IOOI OO:\
Z}   :—4C)L¤ G\(""}\O .—II\OO I  Z> >: >
L~ #-4 --4 »-I Z1>»4-I ;$>¤4.4: 3>~.-I
1¤ IME: 2*..43 ”-'1.’:£3: O23
-5- 4

 Table 5.—Va1ues (dollars per hundred) For 1966 and 1967
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::Z:::::::::::::Z:::::::::::::::::::::::::
Weighted
System Variety 1966 1967 Average
B 21 68.36 72.49 70.41 `
"Yie1d" Ky 10 67.24 70.89 69.12
Wt°d Av 67.79 71.65 69.57
"Yie1d" B 21 67.88 72.35 70.04
and Ky 10 67.42 71.72 69.59
Qualityl
wt'd Av 67.65 72.03 69.81
B 21 68.92 71.94 70.44 ·
"Qua11ty" Ky 10 67.21 71.56 69.39
Wt'd Av 68.01 71.74 69.87
B 21 68.34 72.27 70.28
Wt'd Av
Ky 10 67.29 71.37 69.37
Wt'd Av 67.81 71.81 69.82
 
-9-

 I
GJ <"TG\\D I\|\C\I |·r\O\C\I I COr—lCD
O LfWv—IC`q @Lf\<"W O\%O\ I I-IC\Il\I ·
TU ©C\I¤-I @C\Ir-I \D I .
.-O I\dDCD COI\C\I \DlXDI\ I 4 ·r—I Im
ZJJJ CJOO "O I\·—IO\ »—I OOONOO IH L!'\I\\O
Ou re: m.—II\ I: I-I©w ns I-Imc Icu www
Um \—rr\w cv www :3 www I:> mm.-I
* .,.4 . ¤•~ Ann @* »`»~¤ |< ».»» A
YU III C\IC\IC\I "U v-IC\1C\I Z I-·|v—-II-I I r—IC\IOI
Lx.4 : r-I I
G.) I
-I-I I
>< I
I I
I
I
M CDC"}<\I <\|<.\II\ €"70\\O I (DI-O(\I
‘r·I ifWI\¢—I U`\\O|-0 C\I@® I ®I\O\
Fg wr\I\ www c\1w I
I I
I I
· I
M0 ` cu 0 0) I cu
1.1 I-I C1] »·—4 OD ¤—I OO I ¤—I OO
ILJ LJ c\10<‘J c¤IO¤T» <\1O<¤I NOG
..4 we r-as. »—a:.4 .-4;.41 »—4>-I
..0 $-4 $-4 Q) I-4 GJ $-4 CU I $-1 (1)
` Ci G Z3>¤> ;‘>»> D>~.>l :$>¤>
5-< > L`f1¥<1'. @>dd I I
34 I I
I I
I I
I I
I—I I I
I-I I I
Q) <200\.—IO I \DxOU’\\OOOxD uDCOxO<*’> xD I I.f'\lf\I¤ ¤—IxO<"\ O ¤D<\| > I L> Z> I
O O 4 4 I 4 4 I
.&··-I I I
UI ·-I4-) "U 'O I *:2 **0 I
·I-I €I$·•-·I r—IC\IC"I~. (/DO 3 3 I 3 3 I
.-4 D-I I I
I; I I
I I
4 I I
I I
I--4 I I
CU II.! I I
U Q) @ I @ I
—.-I ~.-I .-4 .-4 I .-I .-I I
E I-I C\1 I C\1 I
GJ GJ I * I I ,> I
JZ > ifi M I :13 LA I
L) I I
I I I
I I I
(D I L I
,-I I I L). I
E TJ I -:3; I.: I
CI) Q) .—r;*** I .-—I -.-4 I
··I 4-* *0.1 I 1J"CJlv—* I
.¤ In -.-4-.-+ I .,4;;:1 I
¤ IZ>—· I wm: I
E—I U? I I ; O' I
-13-

 ’U
QQ)
ucf -1 O F\ '-VW
gag; LIX 1\ GN :-4
.,.4,1; pq NU F5 
24
r—(
r—(
GJ L!`\C\|Lf`\UWOO©xO<"W Q)
·LJl.J
Cl-J \OO\ O<"'\O\O xD  mcmq 0 1\ .-1 ll
U <\1¥\\TCD 0 O\TG¤»——• nm <*'1 x0
;_1 . . ..| . ....| . . . Q
TU <\1<~1<*w<‘¤ 01 ¢’wr*‘¤<"'>-JQ)
Q > > .131-*
0 << <¤2
;z.-M II
··*$·’ "O "O
?J·1·· ·—*<`IF"¥\TL/W— -—4c\1r’\\1·1m— <"W
l.JU’) 4.1 J.)
C/UO [2 3
,-4 U)
DD
Z5
-\ 1-4
3 il ll
Z ~" O O
C   »—» F-1 »-1 1--1 N
-—· L 01 cu
.1   1 > 1
Q -1 Q Ld CQ M "`
I U)
,> ¤D
¤- C'.
; *1-*
. ;— I>x
C` -1 > ¤—4
fl   .- < U-1
,.; 4, T T, II
  l Y 5* .1.1 1-*
.. :,*2 ; {3
-1.1:-

 'U I 1
CIJQ) I I
.I.I qt <*'I I OO OI
,C.=\‘$ 0*1 UW I 0"I 001
UD}-I · • I • •I
·1-Iq) 07 F1 I 0*1 CGI
gg: 1 I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1-I I I
1-I I I
G.}  :>I > >»
II-I O <¤ » Q-I I I
1** I I
IU 1 I
C2 I I
 I I
r—* 4-I I I
IU G) ® I G I
U ··—I 1-I 1-I I 1-I .-4 I
‘r·I I-I C\I I (\I I
E FJ I 1 I ;,— I
CI) [> {JQ id I 11:1 M I
JZ I I
U I I
I I 1
I' I ; I
: 1 > I
I I U I
E "O I *0 ·»—I I
GJ U ,::.-4 I .-4 .-I I
0** U Q) I 'lJ’U?J I
D cn -V-I·.—< I -I-Ic;} I
2 U) Ile-I I ww I
. Z I Z I
-]-5-

 'U
EUG.)
11 r\ 0*1 O MH
JZCYJ »-4 x0 U`) xD `
GDM . . . .
-r-lq) K"} F') C'} F")
GJ>
’3 C\1 lf}
[3 r\<~’w00r¤0¤»0 \0Lnr\c\1¢*`»·—4 CL)
UU
::21.1 <‘¤©\·1·m O .——4f"7 C\1 c\1¤"’\<"7i"’W F7 C\1 WW G)
r-i
'U
CU
G.) $-4
»—• ¤O\‘TO\O\ lh L!'\f"`!O\¤D {T C\1 ¤.O
E r\»00~\T Mw O0¤»¤<\1 .0 q 00 II
. . . .| . . . . .| . . .
cn »4<"\<"5 I>
0 <¤:  ¤¤ :4 L20 x m
L) ¤D
‘· CZ
I .,.4
¤· : >~·
·*·* ¤—4
,-4 1.1 ;> U-4
E ·—4 4;
C.) QJ *·* H
»—¤ 1.1 FJ -5
D U1 D - r-4
<¤ LJ
E·* V7 I 3 U
-16-

 "CJ I I
GJCIJ I I
4-I C\I (*7 I O\ I\ I
,C‘.<"I > I > > I
LI-4 0 <¤ <¤ I <:: 4: I
O ,:d··-I I I
I—I·I.I "U "U I "U 'U I
I/I cI3·I-I .—Ic\I<"IQ·IfI— I-4<\I<*"I~, I1-I I I
I—I I I
CU I I
C1 I I
 I
cu > @2 M I FCI LA I
,.:1 I I
Lp I I
I I I
• I L I
N I > I
,.I Z I I.: I
E *1: I ·¤ ·I—I I
CU G) ..’;.‘I-I I ·—4 ,-4 I
I—* 4-* QJ I QJTJFJ I
,D U; ··—+·I—4 I ·I—I:5‘ I
<¤ ;¤>· I ;~¤O’ I
H UTI L I ; I
-1I-

 *0
<1J
3N.-1-4m .-1r\