Poultry and egg situation

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Poultry and egg situation
Physical Description:
v. : ; 26 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
United States -- Bureau of Agricultural Economics
United States -- Agricultural Marketing Service
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Economic Research Service
United States -- Dept. of Agriculture. -- Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service
Publisher:
The Bureau
Place of Publication:
Washington, D.C
Creation Date:
August 1937
Frequency:
quarterly
regular

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Poultry industry -- Statistics -- Periodicals -- United States   ( lcsh )
Egg trade -- Statistics -- Periodicals -- United States   ( lcsh )
Genre:
federal government publication   ( marcgt )
statistics   ( marcgt )
serial   ( sobekcm )

Notes

Citation/Reference:
Bibliography of agriculture
Citation/Reference:
Predicasts
Citation/Reference:
American statistics index
Citation/Reference:
Index to U.S. government periodicals
Statement of Responsibility:
Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Dates or Sequential Designation:
Began with PES 1 (Jan. 1937); ceased with PES-308 (Dec. 1980).
Issuing Body:
Issued by: Agricultural Marketing Service, Dec. 1953-Mar. 1961; Economic Research Service, May 1961-Dec. 1977; and: Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, Mar. 1978-Dec. 1980.
General Note:
Cover title.
General Note:
Description based on: PES-301 (Mar. 1979).
General Note:
Previously classed: A 93.20: and A 88.15/2:

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000502977
oclc - 04506769
notis - ACS2711
lccn - 79643440 //r81
issn - 0032-5708
sobekcm - AA00005304_00011
Classification:
lcc - HD9437.U6 A33
ddc - 338.1/7/6500973
System ID:
AA00005304:00018

Related Items

Succeeded by:
Poultry and egg outlook & situation

Full Text





UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICa
WASHINGTON


AUGUST 9, 1937


THE POULTRY AND EGG S I T UAT I ON
------------------------- --m----------------m---- --






U. S. COLD STORAGE STOCKS OF EGGS ON AUGUST 1. 1916-37
CASES
I MILLIONS .

SFrozen eggs
'12 fEggs in shell

0 --- --- --




6 --

4 -- --- --
6 -- -


I DEpRTaTENT OF AGRICULTuIIE


*ESTIMATED FROM STORAGE HOLDINGS OF RS CITIES
NiG 3JBis BUREAU or AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


FROZEN EGGS AS PERCENTAGE OF U.S. TOTAL STORAGE
STOCKS ON AUGUST 1. 1916 TO DATE


OF TOTAL
STOCKS




30



20



10

I0

O


1916 '18 '2(


0 "22 '24 '26 '28 '30 '32 '34 '36 '38
*ESTIMATED FROM STORAGE HOLDINGS OF S CITIES
ESG 1I576 2UIUEAU OF AGICULTUNsAL CtCO IICS


PES-8


U. DIMPAEFNI Or fAsRICULTUOR


L














I I I. -0l0











THE POULTRY AND EGG SITUATION AT A GLANCE
I AVERAGE OF CORRESPONDING PERIODS. 1925-34.100)
rF-1--- PERCENT- [- ---


NONAGRICULTURAL INCOME

110 197 --


JAN. APR.
U. SE DPARTMIIEN OF AGRICULTURE


JULY OCT. DEC


CHICAGO FEED-EGG RATIO
I I 3
- ... 1 -9
19/


JAN. APR. JULY OCT. DEC.
Nh& 2176 BUIfEAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECOlNOICS


FIGURE I.- WITH INCOMES ABOVE 1936 AND WITH RECEIPTS OF
POULTRY EXPECTED TO BE LESS THAN IN 1936, THE FARM PRICE OF
CHICKENS DURING THE REST OF 1937 18 LIKELY TO BE ABOVE THAT
OF 1936. LARGE STORAGE STOCKS OF EGGS ARE EXPECTED TO
COUNTER-BALANCE THE EFFECT OF INCOME ON THE FARM PRICE OF
EGGS. EGG PRICES WILL PROBABLY FOLLOW MUCH THE SAME COURSE
DURING THE REST OF 1937 AS IN 1936. EVEN THOUGH THE FEEB-
EGG RATIO MAY BE MORE FAVORABLE THIS FALL THAN IN 1936 THE
LIGHT HATCH WILL RESULT IN A SMALLER LAYING FLOCK IN 1938
THAN IN 1937, SO THAT PRICES THEN MAY BE EXPECTED TO BE
HIGHER.





PES-8 3

UITE'D STATES DEPART'TT OF AGRIiULTURE
Bureau of Agricultural Economics
Wa.shington
- -. .- - - - .--- - -
THE POULTRY AND EGG S I TUATI 0ON


Sumnarxy



Important features in the August poultry and egg situation, "as

reported b:, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics are (1) the large stocks

of storage eggs, and. (2) the prospect for a reduction in the size of the

laying flock for 1938. At the very end of July, the feed-egg price

situation, though still uinfavorable to the farmer, became much less so.

The farm price of chickens was not depressed, apparently, by the

relatively large storage stocks of poultry at the end of the out-ofistorage

season. The prospect for chicken prices therefore, is for a less than

average seasonal decline from now to December, and an advance is possible.

During the fall (see figure 1) prices are expected to exceed those of 1936.

This prospect is due largely to the probability of higher consumer incomes

and lower receipts than in 1936.

Farm prices of eggs this fall are expected to fluctuate near the

prices received in the fall of 1936. The larger storage stocks offset, in

their effect on egg prices, the higher incomes of last fall. Should in-

comes fail to be maintained, however, a lower price than in 1?36 is likely.

The great reduction in the number of young chickens this year points

to a reduction also in the size of the 1938 laying flock and hence to

smaller egg supplies. Therefore, it now seems probable that egg prices in

the first half of 1938 will be above those of the first half of 1937.




PES-8


Feed situation

The feed situation in July, as represented by the Chicago feed-
egg ratio, showed little change from June .until the last week of the
month& About 10 dozens of eggs were required to buy 100 pounds of poultry
feed, though at the end of July the amount required dropped to below 9
dozen. As figure 1 indicates, the feed-egg ratio has been from 30 to 50
percent above the 1925-34 average for June and July. It is not clear now
whether the fced-egg ratio during the rest of the ycar will more nearly
approach the 1925-34 averages of corresponding months, or whether it will
near the levels of 1936. While feed prices are expected to fall, egg
prices are not expected to rise by as nuch as usual, so that the ratio
itself will not decline as rapidly as feed prices. The ratio is quite
unlikely to go as low as its average.

The feed-egg ratio .t Chicago, by -eeks, average
1925-34, annual 1935-37

:_ Dozens of eggs required to buy 100 pounds of poultry ration
: Week ended as of 1937
Year : MUr.: Apr.: May :June :July :July :July :July :July :Sept.: Nov.
: 6 : 3 : 1 : 5 : 3 : 10 : 17 : 24 : 31 : 4 : 27
: Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz. Doz.
Average:
1925-34: 6.20 6.23 6.43 6.98 6.71 6.81 6.76 6.61 6.56 5.68 3.60

1935 : 7.30 7.10 6.77 6.34 6.22 6.15 6.16 6.16 6.35 5.14 4.32
1936 : 5.11 6.48 6.01 5.60 6.32 7.15 7.67 7.65 7.35 7.99 5.67
1937 : 9.17 9.72 10.20 11.23 10.18 9.94 10.64 9.50 8.77


Numnbcr of young chickens

The number of young chickens per farm flock on July 1 was estimated
at 19 percent less than in 1938 and the smallest in the 13 years for which
data are available. Partly this represents a smaller hatch and partly a
sale of a larger proportion of young poultry than is usual during June.

Poultry marketings

Receipts of dressed poultry at the four ..iarkets New York, Chicago,
Boston, and'Philadelphia in July,were 11 percent less than a year e-xlier
and 8 percent less than in June. The 1925-34 average decline from June to
July is 2 percent.

As seen in figure 1, this decline brings receipts below the 1925-34
average, and well below 1936. Because of the sr.iall hatch last spring it is
likely that the 1937 line in this receipts chart will continue to remain
below that of 1936.


- 4 -





PES- 8


Year :


Average :
1925-34 :

1935 ......
1936 ......
1937 ......


Total :
Jan.-June:
Mibl.
1k.


Jur.e
Mil.


: July : Aug.
Mil. Lil.
lbs. lbs.


120.7 21.0 20.6 22.4 24.8


94.9
101.6
113.3


18.3
21.7
21.4


18.2
22.3
19.3


16.5 21.3
26.0 27.0


: : Total : Total
Sep t. : Jul-SeOt.:0ct.-Dec.
Mil. Iil. Mil.
lbs. lbs. lbs.


67.8

56.0
75.3


168.7

141.2
177.2


Poultry" storrie

Stocks of frozen poultry, while relatively high for this time of
year, are likely to have no further effect on the farm price of chickens.
Poultry storage reaches a minimram in the sunmer and, by September, the
into-storage movement is well started.

Chicken prices

Tne fzrm price of chickens advanced from June 15 to July 15 by 35
percent. The usual movencnt at this period is a decline of 1 percent.
Since the relatively larrc storage stock did not prevent this rise in
price, it will probably h-ve little effect during the rest of the surner.

With incomes above average rnd with receipts expected to be below
average, the farm price of chickens will probably not decline by as much
as it ordinarily does in the last 6 months of the ',ear; an advance is
possible. In other wvords, the 1937 chicken price line in figure 1 (-hich
elirnin.tes seasonal variation) is expected to continue the upward movement
began last March. If this advance is as much in the next 4 or 5 months
as it has been in the last 4 or 5 months, the Decenber price would be
about 10 percent below the 1925-34 avoraoe, or about 14- cents per pound.

Average United.States farm price of chickens per pound,
average 1925-34, annual 1935-37


Ye-r May Junie July A-g. Sept. : Oct. : Nov. Dec.
0: ents Cents Cents Cents Centc Cents Cents Cents
Average
1925-34 : 18.3 18.0 17.8 17.3 17.3 16.8 16.2 15.8

1935 .......: 15.7 15.6 14.0 14.1 15.4 15.7 15.9 1E.0
1936 ........: 16.6 16.4 16.1 15.1 14.9 14.0 13.2 12.6
1937 .......: 14.8 14.8 15.3


5 -

Receipts of dressed poultry at the four r~-rkets,
average 1925-34, annual 193L-37







Nonagricultural income, average 1925-34, annual 1935-37
(Seasonally corrected indexes, 1924-29 = 100)

Year : Jan. : Mar. May June: July Aug. Sept. : Oct. : Dec.

Average
1925-34 ..: 91.0 90.4 89.7 89.8 89.6 89.6 89.4 89.4 88.8

1935 .......: 75.4 75.8 75.8 75.7 75.5 76.7 77.3 78.4 81.5
1936 ....... : 81.5 82.5 84.1 85.1 86.8 87.4 87.9 89.8 100.9
1937 .......: 82.9 95.3 96.9 97.2


(This series on nonagricultural income has been revised again since
the last issue. Complete data will be found on the last page).

Laying flock size

The average number of hens and pullets of laying age per farm flock
fell sharply from June 1 to July 1 (see figure 1). The decline was 7.6 per-
cent; the 1925-34 average decline is only 5.2 percent. January 1 to September
1 is a period of steadily diminishing size of flock, as there are normally
about 25 percent fewer layers by September 1. Since the decline this year
will be greater than average already 24.8 percent as compared with an average
decline of 20.4 percent laying flocks this fall are expected to be smaller
than in 1936.

Average number of laying hens in farm flocks, average
1925-34, annual 1935-37

Year : Jan.: June : July : Aug. : Sept. : Oct. : Nov. : Dec.
1: : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1
:Number Number Number Numbcr Humber Number Number lumber
Average
1935-34 ...: 87.5 73.4 69.6 66.8 66.1 70.4 75.7 81.9

1935 ........: 7.3 65.1 61.4 59.2 58.5 65.1 70.5 76.6
1936 ........ : 80.6 66.5 62.3 60.0 59.9 66.9 72.4 78.9
1937 ........ : 84.2 68.5 63.3


The dominant factor influencing the change in the size of the laying
flock on January 1 from that of a year earlier is the change in the number of
young chickens on hand July 1. Figure 2 shows the estimated relationship be-
tween those two conditions. The solid line indicates that if the number of
young chickens on July 1 is less than it was a year before, the number of laying
birds on the following January 1 ought also to be smaller than a year before.
The line shows that an 11-percent reduction in January 1 flock size corresponds
to a 19-percent reduction in young chickens, such as occurred this year.


- 6 -


PES-8





.PES-8


The feed situation may be expected to affect the number of young
chickens to be saved for the laying flock an unfavorable feed-egg ratio
tends to encourage selling chickens rather than keeping& them. The chart
shows that a 30-percent increase in the average fecd-cgg ratio in July-
December of 19Z7 over the ratio of a year before corresponds to a decrease
of 1 percent in the January 1 size of laying flock. Similarly, a decrease
of 30 percent in the foed-egg ratio corresponds to an increase of 1 percent
in flock size.

With the 1937 feed-egg ratio likely, at least, to-be no higher than
in 193G and probably: a little below it, a 1 or 2 percent increase in the
January 1 flock cize would be the effect of the feed-egg ratio with no other
conditions considered. Since the effect of the change in number of yoting
chickens would indicate a reduction of 11 percent in flock size, a reduction
of 9 or 10 percent would be expected as the total effect of both the feed
situation and the hatch.

The extent to which other circumstances affect changes in the size of
the laying flock, however, is shown in figure 2 by the failure of most of the
points to lie exactly on the lines. Instead they occupy a band extending about
1 or 2 percent on each side of the lines.

Therefore, the decrease in flock size is not likely to be exactly 9 or
10 percent; it is more likely to be somewhere between 7 percent and 12 percent
unless some new and important condition arises which is not now foreseen.

Hate of gr production

The number of eggs laid per hen reported on July 1 was again the highest
on record for the month, though only slightly exceeding the July 1 ratio in
1935 and 1936. That the rate of production has been so high thus far in 1937,
regardless of an unfavorable feeding situation, has been due in part to the
larger than usual proportion of pullets in the flock. Since the feeding sit-
uation is likely to continue unfavorable into the fall, and since the effect of
the present proportion of pullets will be gone by then, the rate of -roduction
in early 1938 is not likely to be as high as in early 1937.

Eggs laid per 100 hens and pullets of laying age in farm
flocks, average 1925-34, annr.ul 1935-37

Year : Jan. : June : July : Aug. : Sept. : Oct. : Iov. t Dec.
: 1 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : 1
.I'tumber Niumher Nunmber Kumnber N-nmber Number Number Nu,.ber
Average
1925-34 ...: 16.5 49.5 42.2 36.9 32.4 25.0 17.0 13.9

1935 ........: 16.9 50.3 44.1 38.2 32.8 25.9 19.5 16.3
1936 ........: 19.1 51.2 44.2 35.8 31.4 25.1 18.1 16.0
1937 ........: 22.0 52.5 44.4

E& marketing
-eceipts of eggs at the four markets during July were 8 percent less
than a year before. The seasonal decrease from June, 32 percent, however, was
only slightly greater than the average (1925-34) decream of 30 percent.


- 7 -





PES- -


Receipts of


egs at the four markets,
1935-37


average 1925-3h, annual


Year


Average 1925-34 :

1935 ........ :
193b ........ :
19 7 ........ :


Jan. -
Mar.
1,000
cases

3,666

2,-91
3, 49
3,392


Apr. -
June
1,000
cases

6,185

5,079
5,571
5.597


June July
1,000 1,000
cases cases

1,684 1,182


1,429
1,646
1,599


1,101
1,173
1,079


Aug. : Sept.


1,000 1,000
cases cases


962

788
921


828

719
724


Egg storage stocks

Storage stocks of eggs, as measured at the 26 major storage centers,
reached a peak in late July about 24 percent above that of 1936. Stocks of
shell e-gs ?ere 15' percent above, and stocks of frozen eggs -vere 45 percent
above those of 1936.

Cold storage holdings of eggs at 26 markets, average 1925-34,
annual 1935-37


Week ended as of 1937


Shell eggs
July : July : July :
10 : 17 : 24 :
1,000 1,000 1,000
cases cases cases


:__ Frozen eggs
July :July :July :July :July :July
31 : : 10 : 17 : 24 : 31
1,000 Mil. Mil. Mil. Mil. Mil.
cases lbs. lbs. lbs. ibs. lbs.


0,268 6,351 6,4oo 6,41,4 6,434


.5,105
4,979
5,796


5,202
5,105
5,8S1


5,242
5,141
5,919


5,242
5,o67
5,917


67. 5
98. C


69.0 70.2 70.3 70.6
100.2 102.5 102.2 102.1


Dhiring the remainder of 1937 and for several weeks into 1938 these
stocks of eggs will provide a major source of supply. The chart on the cover
clearly shows how stocks this year compare with other years since 1910. Of
particular interest is the constantly increasing proportion of the total storage
holdings That is stored in frozen form. Though less than 3 percent in 1916,
more than a third of the storage stocks were frozen eggs in 1937. If this trend
continues, as seems likely, it must sooner or later bring about a reduction in
the seasonal movement of egg prices. While shell eggs in storage must ordinarily
be disposed of by the following spring, frozen eggs may be kept a longer time.
The importance of storage stocks on fall and winter egg prices is illustrated
in figure 3.


Year




Average
192P-34 :


July :
7 :
1,a000
cases


,,040
4, 63,
5,732


-


Week ended as of 1937


- g -











CHANGE IN SIZE OF LAYING FLOCK* ON JANUARY I RELATED TO
CHANGES IN JULY 1 NUMBER OF YOUNG CHICKENS AND
TO JULY-DECEMBER FEED-EGG RATIO. 1929-37


NUMBER OF
LAYERS ON
JANUARY
PERCENT
OF PREVIOUS
YEAR I


104






100






96


60 100 140 180 220
CHICAGO FEED-EGG RATIO.JULY-DECEMBER AVERAGE ( PERCENT OF PREVIOUS YEAR I
'NUMBER OF HENS AND PULLETS OF LAr ING ACE PER FARM FLOCK


U S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE


EC. 32s11 BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


FIGURE 2.- THE LAYING FLOCK ON JANUARY I 18 A FAIR INDI-
CATOR OF TOTAL PRODUCTION DURING THE FOLLOWING SIX MONTHS.
IT IS LARGELY BUILT UP OF PULLETS, 80 THAT A LIGHT HATCH WILL
TEND TO REDUCE FLOCK SIZE.


I I I I
SIZE OF LAYING FLOCK ON JANUARY 1 AND NUMBERS
OF YOUNG CHICKENS ON PREVIOUS JULY I
(ADJUSTED FOR ESTIMATED EFFECT 'a7
OF FEED-EGG RATIO)



'30
'3633


'31
*
r4 *3S









1929



32
.35

15 90 95 100 105 110 11!
NUMBER OF YOUNG CHICKENS I PERCENT OF PREVIOUS YEAR I

I I I
SIZE OF LAYING FLOCK ON JANUARY 1 AND IN AVERAGE
CHICAGO FEED-EGG RATIO.PREVIOUS JULY-DECEMBER
(ADJUSTED FOR ESTIMATED EFFECT OF NUMBER
I OF YOUNG CHICKENS)









CHANGE IN NOVEMBER FARM PRICE OF EGGS RELATED
TO CHANGES IN AUGUST NONAGRICULTURAL INCOME. AND TO
AUGUST 1 STORAGE STOCKS OF EGGS, 1920-36
FARM PRICE
OF EGGS
I PERCENT
OF PREVIOUS
YEAR! NOVEMBER FARM PRICE OF EGGS AND AUGUST '3a
120 -- NONAGRICULTURAL INCOME (ADJUSTED FOR ,


80 90 100 110
INDEX NUMBERS OF NONAGRICULTURAL INCOME I PERCENT OF PREVIOUS YEAR I


90 100 110 120
STORAGE STOCKS I PERCENT OF PREVIOUS YEAR )


NEG 32580 BUREAU or AGRICULTURAL ECOhOMICS


FIGURE 3.- CONSUMER'S INCOME AND STORAGE
TWO DOMINANT INFLUENCES ON FALL EGG PRICES.
ING TO AUGUST INDICATIONS, THESE TWO FACTORS
TO ABOUT OFFSET EACH OTHER.


STOCKS ARE THE
IN 1937, ACCORD-
MAY BE EXPECTED


U 5 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE








gg prices

The farm price of egg- roce 10.2 percent from June 15 to July 15.
The average (1925-94) seasonal rise between th_.ss dates is 7.5 percent. By
December, egg prices ordinarily double their March-June average. They are
not likely to go so hign thick --ear. It is expected that they rill follow
about the course of last yeir, In other -vords, turning back to figure 1,
prices during the remainder of the year are likel-1' to fall further and
further below the 1925-34 average for tn.- same months.

Average United States farm price of eggs per dozen, average
1925-34, annual 1935-37


Year :Mar.-June: : : :
Year avera : June July Au'. Sept..: Cot.. No'v. .Dec.
Cents Cents Cents Cents Cents Cen s Cents Cents

Average
1925-34 : is.8 1.6 20.0 22.0 25.7 30.0 35.4 35.7

1935 ..... : 20.2 21.0 21.7 22.7 26.4 27.9 30.1 28.7
196 ..... : 17.l 18.9. 20.0 22.4 24.5 27.6 32.5 30.5
1937 ..... : 18.9 17.6 19.4



Firure 3 sho.rs the estimated ffrect of two important influences on
fall prices of eggs. In the upper chart the solid lin- indicates that e IL-
percent increase over 1936 tn .t.ft August index number of nonarricultural in-
come, such as prevailed in June, corresponds to about a lo-percent advance
in the November farm price ovar that of a .;ear earlier. The lo-.:cr chart shows
that a 24-pcrcent increase in storage stocks, such as occurred this year,
co:respond-. to a 12-percent de.ilinr in the November price from that of 1936.
Hence, if the effect of income and of storage stock:. iz about as surpgsted
by these charts, and if no other factors are ccnsidcred, November prices, and
those of other fall and early, winter months, may, be expected to exceed those
of the 1936 season by about 4 percent. It is to bs notL-d, however, that few
of the points lie exactly on the linc-sof relationship. On the nve.rage, they
depart from it by as much La 10 percent .and more of+en th-.ri not are belo-v it.
Tnis means that other circumstances often affect eg-j prices in th ee months
to an extent of about 10 percent. In other word.-, fell prices may be ex-
pected to fluctuate near those of 19436.

Prices in the spring of 1938, of course, in view of the probable re-
duction in the January 1 laying flock, are likely to b- above- those of
1937.


-11.


PES-_




3V1l262flI t09 8L6UIi4

l I 0 9IIIIII3illliI111 I M5lil 1liIII III
3 1262 08903 9654


PES-8


' or- o





CO Ci


ioic oo



N W ONt c


0 0 '0 '0 to

*0 S 03S CO
e U cit


Cu
fr
0









>-,
0
0




*
4-,


p.






H
H








0,
LQ
** *
p






"i-u
R


I-I
** *









0)
* *







a,
*



H







C,
0



*




0


LN 0 0
***
toC

CO












00 0 L-
* S S


o*ooo




00000)

rO NA O W- -
ooo000


toON
0 r- HO
000
H-H H-I --


* o
00

cH

Or o
0s
ON0
1O O 1


00 '0
000o
HH -


C0 Ci
* S
0 0




0 0
--i


WD "m N- e) rO
* S 5 0 5
0 Ca i' 0 01
0000001
r-i r-i

r-1OCJO
H l 0 c~ C
** 5

0 0000
r-l r-4



o CM .4 '3CM

* S *



M CE C0 0 to
00000


to to CD C'2 -It
* S S S

rlr-q r-l i-l i-q
[0 Ct] C0M C to
00000
HHHH r


0 C
OH
ca 11











VI -
' 0


0
SCJ




HO
0 -














o
0 '6














SC
m
C'


N W 1 NCNNWN
000 O~amm
Hr 01 'l HHH 0 H H
r-A l-A l-l l-q l-q r-1 l-l l-q


CC
a S



tN
cc'
O to
L- V)
**
NCM




N C
* S
N>CO



01 m
* C


00 00
* n 6 A
C N- N> cc



* S a

SHO
CO f3-!


L- 1- 01




C c;
L[- CO


co cnoo o
-i no A r1 c Er
H to to L-- tN r


to0 ml0




LIto to



tom
ONO

* *






c;a
NO CM H




00to o
C- 0 0b
* S S
00N 0
0 ** 0




00 t 0

CO l t

* O
CO*O
00 0 <

CU 0


r-1 L- %P

C- N- 0O







H- tc- CO







*Jin**
c?- o


02
N
*

!>


CM00
C 0
N- In


Ca
*
N
0


0
*
0
C-


Sr- toC

* 00




t CIO 0
W00
co n *c
* *
om c


0 N Cn r-N 0 c) 0
. a.0 0
r-i in "- n ,1
(31 Lor o oo


* S S
z C;


.4ino0
* *S*
Cnr40
NW0


0 H-4clatot 9 n oN
o ro to Y) in tor
0 00 04 0 00 0
H HHHHHHH


in inj a
* S *
-1 C1 Cl2



0 to
L'- cN



n C
Do '
- N


*4
M;E"


0 C
* *

c'- CO


'10 t
* S

L- tO




* O
'0 N
NW C


* S* S
or- r-i i to
r-i H-l r-H r-H



o to to
00000





00000
. .. .


0 00L









OD 00D t-


to co 0





000 c-
* 00
SCO to










'o o H-j


C00

0N
(S C


0
ft
n
A


HoH
0. 01D0a
1-1 I-l r-l


- 12---"