xt7t7659fc32 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7t7659fc32/data/mets.xml   Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station. 1964 journals 145 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.145 text Progress report (Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station) n.145 1964 2014 true xt7t7659fc32 section xt7t7659fc32 `   ]€é’5’Zl/ff of the
1,         HYBRID CORN  
      TEST- 1964 A
lf     9 .,A_` by
  ·   Di 'Eé**E?;f‘§;:€
V       J- FCin$h¤¤€
"    ? A
 (fi    i l   M   _ ""*x(`;/} `
Lf};     P'ZiiE$§S!Ei§°2'.S,45
1 6 _ NM.,  ..._, , W, _, __,._ __ .. ..
  umvansnrv or Kzmucxv

.   * °`
 @@@*@   ° A
E  J @a=¤2=#®@ &
9% @ @w @¢?$@‘°‘%
E E¢%@s @%mQ ¤  w .  
'$%`¤? ”  M¤W¤@ Q ` ‘@’&*’
Area Location Cooperator
Western l. Wickliffe James Wilson
2. Owensboro Beverly Gregory A
3. Hopkinsville Graham Duncan
Eastern 4. Lexington Ky. Agr. Exp. Sta. I
5. Quicksand Robinson Agr. Exp.
Substation, Charles
M. Martin
Acknowledgment is made to Gary Hicks, Department of
Agronomy, and to the University of Kentucky Computing
Center for assistance in summarizing the results reporte• -
in this progress report.

F. A. Loeffel, D. E. Thorndale and J. F. Shane
The objective of the Kentucky Hybrid Corn
Performance Test is to provide an unbiased estimate
of the relative performance of corn hybrids being
sold in Kentucky. This information may be used
by farmers, seedsmen, and research and extension
personnel to determine which hybrid most nearly
possesses the characteristics which are desired
or required for a specific situation. The need
r for the University of Kentucky Agricultural Ex-
- periment Station to obtain this information is
indicated by the continuing shift to hybrids by
‘ Kentucky farmers. In recent years, much more seed
_ of sing1e—cross hybrids is being planted in Kentucky.
This is a part of a continuing search by corn pro-
ducers in the state to improve their efficiency
. ? of production.
Kentucky failed to establish a new efficiency
record for corn production for the first time since
1961. This year the average yield per acre for the
state was 57 bushels per acre. This yield level
· has been exceeded in Kentucky only in 1962 and 1963
when record yields of 58 and 66 bushels per acre
were obtained. The achievement of farm operators
in Kentucky to maintain the efficiency of corn pro- i
duction under the adverse weather conditions of 1964
points out the remarkable progress being made to
_ utilize improved products and cultural practices.
The rate of increasing the efficiency of corn pro-
duction in the state in terms of bushels per acre
is encouraging. A comparison of the five-year period
‘ 1960-64 with that of 1940-44 shows that the yield
of corn has more than doubled, having increased
by 113 percent. The reduced corn acreage in Kentucky
since 1955, however, is not encouraging to a sound
. (3)

 expansion of livestock feeding and breeding operations
so necessary for agricultural progress.
The estimated corn production for Kentucky
in 1964 is 62.3 million bushels. This is l2.l million
bushels less than the 1963 production and the third
lowest production since 1955. A reduction of 3
percent in acres harvested and a marked cut in yield .
from the 1963 record yield of 66 bushels per acre
accounted for the decline in production.
Despite adverse weather conditions during various
parts of the growing season, the yield of corn turned
out as well as or better than average. There were
very few general rains over the state during the
growing season. Most of the precipitation resulted ·
from local showers which were very spotty. Yield ·
was reduced by drought conditions which developed A
over the state in areas not obtaining showers regu-
larly. Cool weather continuing into June also retarded
plant development. However, the hot, dry weather
the first week of August was the most damaging of the U
season. ° ,
Rainfall was about normal through April but
corn was needing moisture before the late May rains.
These rains brought some record-breaking low temper- ‘
atures with them in early June. Unseasonal low
temperatures also occurred in early July. July rain-
fall was extremely spotty, with most areas getting
dry by the end of the month. The extremely high
temperatures with no precipitation during early August
then seriously reduced corn prospects. The drought
conditions matured early corn faster than normal,
permitting early harvesting. A dry fall also per- ·
mitted rapid harvesting of the corn crop.
Corn planting was getting started over the state .
during the week ending April 28. Nearly half of
the crop was reported planted in some of the southern
counties. Sixty percent of the corn crop was planted

 by May l9, which is later than the last couple of
» years but ahead of normal. Corn planting was 90
percent completed by June 2. Yellowing occurred in
someareas during the week ending June 9 owing to
cool weather. On July 21, nearly 60 percent of the
· crop was tasselling, with some early planted corn
in southern counties, severely damaged by drought,
being salvaged as silage. By August 25, 60 percent
= of the crop was reported to be mature or in dent stage
M with only 10 percent still in the milk stage. Over
65 percent of the corn was mature by September 22,
with 7 percent of it harvested primarily in western
counties. Harvesting throughout the state was more
uniform than normal, with 81 percent of the crop
t harvested by November 3.
` The average yield for all hybrids grown at
five locations in 1964 was 4,179 pounds of shelled
_ corn per acre or 74.6 bushels. The highest test
4 average was 5,908 pounds per acre (105.5 bu) at
Quicksand. The lowest test average was 2,895 pounds
¢ per acre (51.7 bu) at one western location.
The performance test was conducted at five
locations which represent corn—producing areas typ-
ical of the state. These locations together with
H the name of the cooperator are listed on the inside
of the front cover. These testing sites were grouped
by geographical location into western and eastern I
areas for convenience in presenting the results.
Yields from Wickliffe, Owensboro, and Hopkinsville
A were averaged for the western area. Similarly, the
yields from Lexington and Quicksand were averaged
for the eastern Kentucky area.
Seventy—two hybrids which are available to
the farmers of Kentucky through commercial trade
channels were compared. These hybrids, developed
by state and federal research agencies and by private
' (5)

seed companies, are listed in Table l. Information (
concerning the seed source of the hybrid, the kernel
color and the type of cross is presented. The type *
of hybrid is designated as follows: double cross, °
4X; three—way cross, 3X; single cross, 2X; and a _
multiple cross, MK. Seed of a single cross hybrid
sells at a premium owing to increased costs of pro- '
ducing seed. The following material was evaluated
in l964: 49 double crosses, 2 three—way crosses, '
20 single crosses and a multiple cross.
The pedigrees of hybrids developed by state
and federal agencies are listed in Table 2. Agronomic
information pertaining to the testing locations is
presented in Table 3. Results of the Kentucky Hybrid
Corn Performance Test are summarized for periods _
of 3 years, 2 years and l year and are presented ·. V
in Tables 4-6 respectively. The hybrids are grouped p
in the tables on the basis of kernel color. Within
groups the hybrids are listed in order of increasing i
moisture content. The reaction of the hybrids to
northern and southern corn leaf blight are summarized ·
in Table 7. The hybrids in Table 7 are listed in
alphabetical order. A
Field Design.
Each hybrid was planted in four plots at each .
of the five locations with individual plots being
two hills wide and the equivalent of five hills
long in 1962 and 1963. In l964,each hybrid was planted
in three plots per location. Corn was hand planted
simulating hill dropping. These plots were located
in different parts of the testing field to minimize
cultural and soil differences. All tests were planted
at an increased rate and the resulting plants thinned p
to comparable stands at each location.
Yield. {
The corn from each plot was harvested and weighed '
individually. The yield of the hybrids was determined
and is reported on the basis of pounds of shelled

 corn per acre and bushels of shelled corn per acre
with a moisture content of 15.5 percent. Adjustments
e x were made.for missing hills but not for other variation
in stand. Therefore, the yields at each location
- reported in this progress report constitute an average
j yield of 3 or 4 plots after all adjustments were made.
L The moisture content at harvest is the best
measure of relative maturity of hybrids which is
· available. A hybrid may be considered to be earlier
than a second hybrid if its moisture content at
harvest is consistently lower. Maturity thus de-
termined is not absolute but is relative to the
hybrids being compared.
` In 1962 and 1963, two moisture samples were taken
V at each location for each hybrid by taking a composite
sample from replication l and 2 and from replication
‘ 3 and 4. The moisture content in the grain was de-
termined at harvest by removing 2 rows of kernels
from each of 10 ears selected at random from each
¥ of 2 replications. The grain from the 20 ears was
thoroughly mixed and the moisture content of a 100-
gram sample was determined with a Steinlite moisture
meter. In 1964, moisture samples were taken on an
individual plot basis at each of the five locations
and moisture individually determined.
Erect Plants.
The percentage of erect plants is considered
to be an estimate of the resistance of a hybrid to ,
the total insect and disease complex affecting standing
ability. This value is obtained by counting plants
· with stalks broken between the ear-bearing node and
ground level and those which lean from the base at
an angle of more than 30 degrees from the vertical.
This sum is subtracted from the plants present and
the difference divided by the total plants present
to give the percentage of erect plants.
, (7)

Ear Height.
Ear height, distance from the base of the plant
to the point of attachment of the upper ear, was *
measured visually using a scale with one-foot inter-
vals. Visual ratings were taken on four plots of
each hybrid at each location.
Disease, ‘
Visual ratings of hybrid reaction to northern
and southern corn leaf blight disease were taken _
on an artifically inoculated planting of the hybrids
at Lexington. Each hybrid was planted in a 1 x 5
hill plot replicated three times. A five class
rating scale was used: excellent, very good, good,
fair and poor.
The performance of hybrids varies with weather l A
conditions which change from season to season and
from testing location to testing location in the .
same season. Since the weather conditions cannot
be predicted at the time of planting, a farmer should 1
plant a hybrid which has been a good performer in
an "average“ season. The best estimate of hybrid
performance for an "average" season is obtained by .
combining the results obtained from a large number
of experiments grown in different years at a number
of locations.
The information presented in Table 4 is the
average of l5 individual experiments conducted
in 1962, 1963 and 1964. In Table 5 are summarized
the results obtained from 10 experiments in 1963
and 1964. Table 6 contains information obtained ‘
from five experiments in 1964 at different locations
in the state. For this reason, the information ,
contained in Table 4 is the best estimate available ‘
for comparing the performance of corn hybrids for
average growing conditions in Kentucky.

H Improvements in corn hybrids are constantly
‘ being made. An efficient corn producer will want
to keep informed on these improvements and to deter-
mine if they will produce well on his farm. For
A this reason, it is suggested that new hybrids be
grown frequently on a trial basis in comparison
with the hybrid or hybrids presently grown. If this
m suggestion is followed, a commonly made error can
be avoided. Frequently a farmer changes his entire
corn acreage to a different hybrid and then compares
the performance of the new hybrid with the old hybrid.
This is not a valid comparison since the hybrids
were not grown under similar conditions. Hybrids
being compared should be grown in the same field,
s using identical management practices. A good way
to do this is to plant seed of the new hybrid beside
,; currently used hybrids in a field, being sure to
, mark them at planting time. It is important to
observe the hybrids frequently during the growing
A season. At harvest, yield should be determined and
; other observational notes recorded. Consult your
county agent for procedure. If this suggestion
is followed, a corn grower will be able to select
hybrids which more nearly fit his production prac-
tices and personal preferences.
. The number of corn plants per acre in Kentucky
is generally too low for top production. It would
be well worth the time and effort to change the set- [
ting on the drill and compare yields at different
rates of planting. It should be kept in mind, how-
ever, that plant population and fertility level must
{ be kept in balance for efficient production. Con-
sideration should also be given to the use of chemical
weed killers, soil insecticides and some method of
. minimum tillage for preparation of land.

Table 1. Hybrids Tested in 1964 l
Hybrid Color Cross Source of Hybrids e
AES 809 Y Ax Agricultural Experiment
Station (North Central) I »
Crib Filler 55 Y 2X Mitchell Farms
66 Y 2X Wlndfall, Ind.
78 Y 3X ,
123 Y ax
183W W ax
Dekalb 633 Y 4X Dekalb Agricultural _ `
640 Y ax Association, Dekalb,
805 Y 2X Ill.
824 Y ax
1006 Y ax
XL—65 Y 2X
XL-385 Y 3X · V
XL-390 W ax
Dlxle's 99Y Y ax Dixie Stock Farm ‘
Sonora, Ky. ‘
Hagan H—2 W ax R. M. Hagan, Route 4
H-9 Y ax Owensboro, Ky. at ,
Hllllgoss 9X3L Y 2X Hllllgoss Corp., Route 1 ,
84M Y 4X McCordsvll1e, Ind.
Kamp 9l0B W ax Kamp's Farm Seed, Route 2, 7.
913BRK W ax Evansville, Ind.
Ken-Bred E-20YA Y 4X George Patmor, Marlon;
F—20W W ax Clyde Jackson, Danville;
SX-20Y Y 2X Louisville Seed Co., Louisville,
Ky. - Distributors
Ky 105 Y ax University of Kentucky
Ky 590lW W ax Agricultural Experiment ~
Ky 592lW W ax Station, Lexington
Ky 6001 Y ax 1
Meacham M—5 W ax Meacham's Hybrids
M-33YB Y ax Route 3, Morganfield, Ky.
MX-30Y Y 2X ,
MZX—50W W 2X

Table 1. Continued
. x Hybrid Co1.or Cross Source of Hybrids
P.A.G. SX19 Y 2X Pfister Associated Growers,
' SX29 Y 2X Inc., Aurora, I11. and
SX59 Y 2X Franklin, Ky.
SX63 Y 2X
_' 437 Y ax
Pioneer 309A Y 4X Pioneer Corn Company, Inc.
312A Y ax Tipton, Ind.
_ 310 Y 4X
. 321 Y ax
509 W ax
511 W ax
X228O Y 2X
3304 Y 2X
Princeton 8-A Y ax Princeton Farms
, 790—AA W ax Princeton, Ind.
840-A Y ax
. 888-A Y ax
V 890-AA Y ax
990-A W ax
8-X Y MX
- =;· SX—8OO Y 2X
Schenk $-73 Y ax Charles H. Schenk
S-73A Y ax and Son, Inc., Route 4
S—96W W ax Vincennes, Ind.
Southern States
775 Y ax Southern States Coop.,
" 82OS Y 2X Inc., Division of Seed
860 Y 4X and Farm Supply, Richmond ’
909E Y ax 20, Va.
979 Y ax
Catawba Y ax I
Matoaka Y 4X
Munsee Y ax
` Stu11 10OYB Y ax Stull Brothers, Inc.
10lYB Y ax Sebree, Ky.
400W W ax
. 444W W 2X
807Y Y 2X
807YA Y 2X
US 523W W 4X Experiment Station

Table 2. Pedigrees of Experiment Station and ,
U.S. Hybrids Tested in 1964
Hybrid Pedigree
AES 809 (WF9 x P8) (Oh 43 x C103)
Ky 105 (T8 x CI21E) (38-11 x Oh 7B)
Ky 5901W (Ky 211 tms x 33-16) (K55 x CI64) · 1.
Ky 5921W (0164 x 33-16) (CI66 x Ky 201) A
Ky 6001 (WF9 x Ky 36-11) (C103 x B14) _
US 523W (K55 x K64) (Ky 27 x Ky 49) _
* .

‘ cu
U) O v-1 I"} ® U`1
0 M N •:1 uw .-1 q nn nn
· (D FQ ~O lh U"• 0'\ (D
Ecu .-1
‘ (1}}-1 O UW *"* (\| (D
O·QJ xD cw 1- ¤.0 O
><:>,.¤ xo 00 O M 0x
I r.v.'1¢1J cw N cn nn nn
» >~. 1-1 >¤ >»
;· no ¤1·—1 cu ru :1. nu g_
5 ::1111 EI Z <; E A
, U1
QJ rn O O O O O
["' U C) O G G U`!
, C cu  m 0
JJ r—1Q)U xD nm q ¤\ 00
D-1D.< .-1 .-1 .-1 .-1 .-1
“ ‘§
'Y E M m O
$-1 E g Q} QJGJ
11} C as uu
411 m un -.4 zu mc¤¤
W5 rc Z1 $-1 J-11-1*0
O 1}-1 NM 1-1 1 -.-1 c·‘s·.-1·-1m
-1 $-1 U`1’¤ 1:3 *0 x0 Z 1zzm
4.1 QJ ·—1>» O >~.J.1>¢: #1% mw ¢::#><:-·¤
g C 1-1 OO OO OGJO OO OO1r1—.-1
»-1 1u OO Om NCO Om OONw
U p_4<} m.-1 gg.-1 .-1¤.N \-3-.-1 m-1.-V
E .
O Q)
L: .-1
O 11-1
}-1 GJ O —·-1 CZ ’U
OD *4-1 $-1 > O C
<; Lu O cn 1-J <¤
~·-1 ..¤ C tm an
·-1 vn -.-1 C ,z
· C x C x -.-1 LJ
M O 0 QJ D. >¢ -.-1
¢ -1 -.-1 3 0 w ::
G1 4-1 3 O ;¤ .-1 0*
1*-* YU
.-D U
[-1 A .-1 N M r\(*7»-4(X) t•‘)r\V‘•r\ m-1 xD
Wg.! 5 Ol¤'\Q'\Dr·| \OG\(Df\¤·* t\l<\|V\COO\ |h® N
·· A-4--4u an mm-•N¢~1 ·-4-lv-¤NN NN·-*N·-* NN N .
N !lJ}<·•-I »-4•—4»-lr-lv-4 •-lv-Iv-lv-lv-4 I-In-4»-4v4r-I r-Iv-1 r-I ·
\D WU:) Q
2 {dh-IO'
d ··* ,
H ’U MO:-* .
E $1;-,¢:.¤g ¥\ON~1‘Q‘ NN~· QJ
V; Y-4OcD\O0'\ ¢\l®*U3 \D U
M O·—4:>~ ~0 no
,:1 <2· n mmm ¤¤ 4: as
E-4 cn cov-eco xnm UNA cnc M
·-ann  '
• (/1®O»-40 ll-|’U Ch Gr-iu v-4 ~. §'€|JH$-ik §¤•¤DG1 ·>»·$·»· ··-4dZ mtaér/1Uv: FMD >-<

X ¤D\O0\CDl\ c¤r\¤0O ¤0 co
<'7i"$\"7<*7<"`t C'1<"'|¢"7 f\¤3COCIJ C!) w
" ¤;>Oq·L/ws.0 r\c~4q· r\ O
v-lv-in-lzxlbl <\1r—|¤—¢v—-( v-( gx]
»-¢»-4-4v-4»-4 ·-4»-l»—4»-4 .-1 ·-•
¤nOO»¤»¤ r\·—4O OOO\O~ O O
’ *-4,-4 -4.-4 »—-4 »-l
q»r\N»¤~¤ c0cx r—< O
:· |f\("$€X)¢'TO\ I-f'\c•1·—4c\ O M
’ <.*m\1·c¤r~ ¤o»¤<*1¤L¤N Q10 O¤
L:lO\N,1:‘. Ch UUE Q) CI
[-4v'\l·¤u..D\¤ C·C'·¤1D. U Z
»-4 ¤u··-4 0-AME »4 E
§>~.u2wn>~. ~4¤¢¤=¤ é
MDZOM ¤•¤d O

B4 O
*-’ ».
c0¤0¤0r\O¤~ :···»rI1 »-·4·-4-lr-4v-4 •-lr-·l»-l.-ll-4 v-Iv-in-Ir-Iv-| v-(¤—1•—lv-Iv-4 v—|r-l,-4v-4¤—4
¤ Emz
W .
FW `·
xD r: ‘
O\ L-; ChC!\¢*}C*lV\ |\f"7C)® —
In >:\m Ocwgxoqx
Pu CUQJ rl v-4 -4 v-lv-4 v-le-| v-4 v-4
H >%-J
=¤ · • ¤0 r
0 Z O <¤ ·-·:>• O ~¤ 0
3 ~¢ ‘*|..’£ $-4 GJ Om
v—4©¤·f'\<\1 \D K"} Q)ll\ F-GW QJ Qlq-v-1
><<¤ x:cr~ m -*21n O 0 -4 ummm;
· vzwcomw m0 Ol -4 m O*¤u -4 cnclqg 0
VW O ¥-’*·*U§EI }-•O\·r*E ··*-4 uoOu¤ moo ,¤¤ ·-4c¤ O .-41:;;
-4 M »-1·<¤¤¤··—< ·¤~0¤<·¤ ¤ .¤U<<2r-* <¤·-4 ~—4c0 Om--4¤¤,<: :1::w -4 vnw,x0...4
cu >~.[x.l·¤JQ)’·v·-* ·$-•:>»>-cm ··-4LrJ>-•¢1JuU<»·>»¤ •·q;-·-4;.4
[-4 :11 >•¤4¤¤¢~:¤ ¢1·¤4>d¤4:¤ ¤4<1UZv1 wbdvubdu mmqmm

!\®r·‘®C7\ FNQ (X) f\®O\©d) ®®OOd3 O'\C7\® Ch ®
`A ¤'\<"1v\0q·¤n c¤N m c~¤nmc¤·—+.-a¤\ mano N m
· 0O|\®|\C0 COCD K) ¥\|\C¤¥\® CDCDOOOOKJ wwf!) CD OO
®O\O'\<\lT\ V\|\ (*7 t"\U'\CDOv—¢ Q‘¤n»¤m wm nn ¤»Nv\NN =0r··»'*.DO\ O\~D $-4 \DV`•¥-4 O\ <7\ N E
:>+< MO > IEH Ov\¤3¤ N >
{ 00·»-cram p M3 E·-1 »-rqrp.-—o.¤ uw-4¤¤·¤ ¤.¤1-4 4.n z.
:1·A>C¤/l<] OAC ·—4 >—i ,C1¢:7·•-4 SOE-»-4 EGGS! --4 é
us-<~·—4·· -·-{GJ cu §P·uE/)UUJH :>»u··-lrvs-· www é
munmm MQ >-< >d::> Mmmhdm Mmm up

u } `
\Ol¤<'$~1’N\D OMUNQOO  T\®O¤0O Oc¤0O·-ics ·-400v-¢@q‘
In riv-4v-iv-4 •-4 •-Ir-in-I •-4 u-4 »-lv-€•—| r4r—4•-le-I,-( ·.
¤ va '
·.-4 *¤I=-1
3 --4:: -
O WH: Nt'>\¤r\v1O  Q ®I\Q‘€¤» JJ
*° E.
E (/J ¤'\¥\r-€€*')\D¢' U3l\lC7\(\lOT\ ¤O<*7€*'!\O\l’\<"7 v··*O\\Dr··*¤-JO ’
.¤ r\¤n¤n~cNr\ O¤·¤'·•"\©I\
ua -< 41
:1 an O n :>+
:3 O • N CJ QE >< »
ci co >< nn n < ¤O 100 MO ¤¤»-ico
·-*N N O nm:/1r~ § Mom >-•c~1 §
><7<<"¤ r··*<"7C'·O\©
· r/J Ot/10\D 0O'¤d .=¢.=<¤<1~»—~.E’·•-|••}·I¤} QJGJO)*H• ¤J·v-|>x0J·-•-( 4-J·»-4}-l¤U4J[x1
[- 31 mmmmmn ¤¤>d¤4¤4m >1`:¤><¤¤4¤4 u1¤4¤·¤:‘v¤<:

<·*¤0<.*¢\4® ®|!Wr\0¤~0~ Mchcocwxco O·-*¤0r\<:· -< EI mu co.-`I q, ,
4; .-4 wo O moo nm rm w
no: Nl Mm no >< ¤0 <¤ ¤¤<: w
com:-• <·1<1 nnxwmco nun nm O mmm >< .¤0¤~¤ y.,
'\mQ`Y\>'* wh-IWW! U QJ Y">‘*|V`|*‘* °‘ 3OC) Q)
¤¤.—+N¤r\ .-a ¤¤:•E¤ ::1.4;: .-em c··sv\»-1>
OC/)¤**®(/DC v—(’U·\J¤ O O\v-*O©r··|¤1 ©><{/D OWU y—4 (
1 4.: -.-1 oo —.-awgzau 0-.4a.:\o—.¢0 hw M mr\¤¤;.,
U.¥[l.4.D»é [AH EWG) G‘[&•¤}®P-ix U-YQ, ·-¤'w '°`(-)w.D 3
u¤ ·—* r—< ¤¤ JIU u -.4 041.-4.-euzv ru •u.-4 O
¤~.·.-44-iw--.-4 ~.-l••·,.4q;q)
mm ¤v>u: U>dmv:Z1¤4 rnU¤4v1O¤:‘ >4¤4u1¤¢1•¤4 ¤v¤v>¤.¤ ;»<

Q. I
\DQ‘U'\(D¤)¤D I\\D®f\Y\CD ¢DG)®®U'\¤JV} v—4v—4v—4w—|4—4r-4 4—|v—4v—44—4r—4v—4 r—4»—|v—44—|4-<:\](\| 4-i r-4
2222 ' ’.
E »4¤0wr\O Q Lr\~0~£>4—~~0mm¤'\ Nxomvww.--am O r\
’U r-] ~Df\T\¤O\.OLf\ (D(\J£Dl\f.\|© I'\\f'\OU`•\··'Wl\l© 4-4 v-(
cg mr—·wr•‘u<¤ ;>
~¤ 4-¤·-*3E ··-4 »-¤·—•·—<dLx.. wcwm >-4 mwwwn
cu ~4 L¤Juc¤N,C.¤ rum 4-4¤2¤ ¤Ju,¢::4-44-444 w Q
-4 M [-•¤·¤¤fsu¤J.0 ;:.‘¤n¤.4~¤¤¤ 0.¤c:<.a¤¤·-4.-4 4.4
.0 .0 >4~·—4 ¤¤.c:-4-a 0 E:¤¤c¤0 E0—.-a¤¤.sd:1:1 -.4
cu :>~.§»-·:>»:n~.r¤4-¤¤>=¤ ¤¤-anwwuu §
H :1: D-4b¢£DEU2L) ¤4:·d>4u>>¢:l: :¤4¤4¤4ZJ¤c/ann 0

. E
zi? U E
fb O O .-4 ¤J O m
~E 8 U 0 EW 3 >
\Dm (D {UX
>, 0
Ei is >·¤ E); m
J mg g tg M
» K1
,3; *6
,¤ 0
4.4 H O $1-4
J1 0
s-NU "4 cp
_ G ·¤ cu
V .3;* *0 8:3 Fr-4
mz M rg 3 www
. ·»4*;,’ *·' 0 cs
<¤O {V LD
Lim L"
·· U
wqrgvgg 333
*0 00000 (-°v—4'“‘
. ’¤ 0 U w*·'
*¤"°"g°g °¤°’°‘° >~‘”¤*‘
UT, Ogoow U >\>\>» pgéxm
.¤*¤ ::.3 gwwu ;>\;~,_,>-4;* gmmm
\ O0 zu >_:>» H q,
.-4I n: OO HU >~ $-4 wm Z>
·;· g*' UU '“‘>¤ iszwgzl-Jim ¥>>:>
$ m2 %»¤3~ ~~>>>
cn "‘,;_; Hwgxm >>
W l>·4 mw I-¤]>
‘ >¤°
rn UZ
H § U
· Q u *0*;;:
U nn Own:
I +4 ·¤ O__{r—4
cn rn U 0 UH.-4
,,, nu —¤'¤¤ 0 cu'U
id ’¤ OO U ¥>~m0O
QQ qv 0 002 ¤¤ ¤3><°
·= E 2 O3 S ¤°°~ ¤¤“€‘»¤8 §¤*¤“°
L4-4 0 q; O
cu ¤ ¤> wu F¤>¤i0 gmgww A
an -**0 —< >~O>-4 >< q_·,> cu
A **41; ·—·.¤>~>“ *-·O¤>“’¤n on
mrc ,¤(]_)O}_‘}·|   m
0 U Oucww l> Il
4.: *+*:3 O><;U>> I
· $0 UI-*1 4.:
'” Am ><
E 3
»¤ ¤
Q iv O
1 'O .U
- 2 €<¤5 0:3 ¤»
O _> O *_g'_‘,\O\O`_ Eq-O :1
C 3 5 1* @,0 ,:· O~i” ¤3:EE °’¤»¤E<» ¤”»=¤ 8
3 3~w@: ~S~;2 3¤5~i ~$m¤
* $-4 O (I}
M j'<:¤';\0¤   _2~.4;§m
, V4 mg: ¤. ¤ ~GJ·g4 ¢`~°"
·¤ r—i/`»»-4,;4
s ·\ .r4¥¤_¤<¤DDEm SEMMA
U gE;%~;¤
,-4 §O¤:¤
-¤ m
- (21)

< 0 >< >< O 411 rx: ru 0
{EZ O Ld O Ld Ld O §> Lv-• Ln O .
U #
FC 9
U *0 *0 U JJ ·L-J
·»·lC`· C O O LZ L: C}
···*)-4 OJ O O G) O) GJ
L¤» >. nu *0 *0 un ·0 zu
WZ! U O H $-4 U O O LJ O U
(UO >< O QJ GJ >< O O X O X
.-4:0 Ld O > > Lvl O O Ld O L¤J
Q ,
*0 *0*0 *0*0*0 *0 *0*0*0*0 "0*0 *04-1