• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Overview
 Summary
 List of Tables














Group Title: Department of Animal Science mimeograph series - University of Florida Department of Animal Science ; no. AN70-4
Title: The growth and development of the beef cattle industry in the Southeast
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00073020/00001
 Material Information
Title: The growth and development of the beef cattle industry in the Southeast
Series Title: Department of Animal Science mimeograph series
Physical Description: 13 p. : ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Cunha, T. J ( Tony Joseph ), 1916-
McPherson, W. K ( William Kenneth ), 1914-
University of Florida -- Dept. of Animal Science
University of Florida -- Agricultural Experiment Station
Publisher: Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
Place of Publication: Gainesville Fla
Publication Date: 1969
 Subjects
Subject: Cattle trade -- Southern States   ( lcsh )
Cattle trade -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Beef cattle -- Growth -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Statement of Responsibility: T.J. Cunha and W.K. McPherson.
General Note: Caption title.
General Note: "September, 1969."
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00073020
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 79628485

Table of Contents
    Overview
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
    Summary
        Page 5
    List of Tables
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
Full Text
IOO



Department of Animal Science Florida Agricultural
Mimeograph Series No. AN70-4 Experiment Station
September, 1969 Gainesville, Florida



The Growth and Development of
the Beef Cattle Industry in the Southeast

by
T. J. Cunha and W. K. McPherson
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida


It is generally believed that the beef cattle industry has been expanding
more rapidly in the Southeast than in the United States as a whole. From time
to time, this conclusion is supported by data describing one or more of the
economically significant characteristics of the industry. The purpose of this
paper is to identify several of the characteristics of the industry that do have
economic significance, determine the trends in these characteristics for the past
40 years and use these data to evaluate the growth that has taken place in the
industry during this period.

The number of beef cattle on farms is the conventional measure of the size
of.the beef cattle industry. Eight of the ten Southeastern states had over
1,400,000 head of beef cattle each in 1969 (see Table 1). Seven of them had
over 1,500,000 head each. The leading state in beef cattle numbers was Kentucky
with 2,149,000 head followed by Mississippi with 2,046,000 and Tennessee with
1,786,000. Between 1929 and 1969, beef cattle numbers increased 1,812,000
head in Kentucky, followed by Mississippi with an increase of 1,693,000 and
Tennessee with an increase of 1,477,000. Seven of the ten Southeastern states
increased their beef cattle numbers over 1,100,000 head since 1929.

In the ten Southeastern states, beef cattle numbers increased 452 per cent
while the U.S. increase was 205 per cent. Thus, the Southeastern states have
increased beef cattle numbers at over twice the rate of the U.S. average since
1929.

The percentage of all beef cattle in the U.S. which are located in the ten
Southeastern states has increased from 10.5 in 1929 to 18.3 per cent in 1969.
This is an approximate 74 per cent increase during the 40 year period. This per-
centage should continue to increase in the future because of the great and
undeveloped potential for expansion of the beef cattle industry in this part of
the nation.

In the Southeast as a whole, the value of beef cattle has increased an
average of $93.09 per head which is an approximate 240 per cent increase (see
Table 2). During the same period, the value of cattle on farms in the U.S.




Professor and Chairman, Department of Animal Science and Professor of Agricul-
tural Economics, respectively.







-2-


increased $99.53 per head, $6.44 per head more than in the Southeast, even though
the percentage increase was smaller. A more detailed examination of the data
indicates that the value of Florida cattle increased more rapidly than in other
Southeastern states, followed by Mississippi and Georgia.

In 1929, the average value of cattle-in the'Southeastern states was 67 per
cent of the national average. By 1969, th average value of cattle in the
Southeast had increased to 82 per cent of the national average. The fact that
cattle in the Southeast are worth only 82 per cent of the value of those in the
nation as a whole, indicates how much progress the cattle industry in this region
can make by improving the quality of their animals.

The number of cattle on farms and the value of these cattle are the data con-
ventionally used to measure the rate at which the cattle industry is growing but
the following characteristics provide much more insight into the progress that is
being made.

In the first place, the liveweight of beef produced is a much more accurate
measure of the output of the industry than the number of cattle on-farms. The
proportion of the nation's beef supply that was produced in the ten Southeastern
states increased from 8.3 per cent in 1929 to 13.6 per cent, in 1968, an Increase
of approximately 64 per cent. Together, the ten Southeastern states produced
almost 5 billion pounds of beef in 1968 (see Table 3). Kentucky produced the
largest quantity, followed by Mississippi and Tennessee. Each of these states
produced over 660 million pounds.

The greatest increase in the number of pounds of beef produced took.place in
Kentucky followed by Mississippi and Tennessee. Kentucky increased in beef pro-
duction 613 million pounds. Eight Southeastern states increased their beef pro-
duction over 350 million pounds each. In all ten Southeastern states, beef pro-
duction has increased more rapidly than the U.S. average. The greatest percentage
increase in beef production occurred in Florida with 864 per cent, followed by
Alabama and Georgia with increases of 506 and 438 per cent respectively. These
increases clearly show that beef production has been expanding much more rapidly
than indicated by the increases in the number of cattle on farms.

Secondly, the number of pounds of beef produced per animal on farms is a good
measure of the quality of the breeding stock and how it is.managed. Assuming that
the number of beef cattle on farms January 1 is an accurate measure of the size of
the breeding herds utilized by the industry, the liveweight of beef produced per
animal on farms January 1 is a measure of the productivity of these herds. In
1968, Kentucky beef cattle herds produced the most beef per animal of any other
Southeastern state. They were followed by Arkansas and Alabama (see Table 4).
The greatest increase in beef production per animal since 1929, however, has
occurred in Florida. Even so, Florida is second to North Carolina in producing.
the fewest pounds of beef per animal in the Southeast. This is further evidence.,
that Florida cattlemen need to work even harder to further improve the quality
of their animals if Florida is to compete more successfully in the national
market.








-3-


The production of beef per animal in the Southeast has increased from 69.6
to 82.3 per cent that of the U.S. production level since 1939. This is a rela-
tively small increase and indicates the need for greatly increasing the quality
of cattle throughout the Southeast.

Thirdly, the efficiency with which the cow herd produces calves is still
another measure of the output of the industry. Mississippi leads the Southeastern
states in the total number of cows, followed by Kentucky and Tennessee (see Table
5). The ten Southeastern states have increased their share of the nation's cow
herd from 13.5 per cent in 1929 to 20 per cent in 1968, an increase of approxi-
mately 50 per cent.

In 1968, there were 7,334,000 calves produced in the Southeast. Mississippi
led the Southeast with 1,203,000 calves, followed by Tennessee and Louisiana
with 1,087,000 and 904,000 calves, respectively. The number of calves born in
the Southeast has increased from 11 per cent of the national total in 1929 to 17
per cent in 1968, an increase of approximately 54 per cent. The increase of 54
per cent in calves with an increase of 50 per cent in cows reflects the increase
in the percentage of cows bearing calves which has occurred in the Southeast.

During the 39 year period, the percentage calf crop has increased from 65 to
84 per cent in the Southeast since 1929. However, the percentage of cows giving
birth to calves is still below the U.S. average of 88 per cent. The calf crop
percentage is the highest in Kentucky, followed by Tennessee and South Carolina.
The lowest calf crop is in Florida. Florida has been making rapid strides in in-
creasint its calf crop percentage but still has a lonr way to go in this respect.

The value of any given industry to the economy as a whole is best measured
in terms of the value of the product. Cash receipts from the sale of cattle and
calves is an acceptable measure of the value of beef marketed in any given year
(see Table 6). Kentucky farmers received the largest income from the sale of
cattle and calves in 1968, followed by Tennessee and Mississippi.

The greatest increase in total cash receipts from cattle and calves from
1929 to 1968 occurred in Kentucky, Mississippi and Tennessee, in that order.
However, the greatest percentage increase in receipts occurred in Florida, fol-
lowed by Alabama and Mississippi. In all ten Southeastern states the percentage
increase in cash receipts from cattle and calves increased more rapidly than in
the nation as a whole. The average increase in the U.S. was 601 per cent,
whereas the average percentage increase in cash receipts from cattle and calves
in the ten Southeastern states was 1115 per cent. Here it must be pointed out
18.3 per cent of the beef cattle in the United States produced but 9.8 per cent
of the nation's total income from the sale of beef, a clear cut illustration of
how much more productive the cattle industry for the Southeast might be.

Whether or not the industry continues to expand in the future depends partly
upon the availability of a market for the beef produced in the area and partly on
the ability of farmers in the area to produce beef profitably in competition with
producers living in other parts of the nation. These factors will be examined in
order.








-4-


Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Louisiana residents
consume more beef than is produced in the state (Table 7). On the other hand,
in the remaining five states, production exceeds consumption, often by substan-
tial amounts. The data upon which this statement is based does not include the
beef which tourists eat while in the state. This would be a relatively large
amount in Florida, a state that is visited by more than sixteen million tourists
annually.

Although the consumption of beef exceeds production in only five Southeastern
states, the quantity of beef consumed in every state exceeds the quantity of beef
slaughtered in,.the state. This means that farmers in the ten Southeastern states
are specializing in the production of calves and feeder cattle and shipping.a high
percentage of them outside of their respective states for finishing.' Consequently,
a very large percentage of the beef consumed in the Southeast was slaughtered out-
side the region. For the feeder cattle and calves shipped out of the region,
farmers in the Southeastern states receive the price comparable animals would
sell for in the areas in which they are finished minus the transportation cost.
On the other hand, however, the price consumers pay for beef in the Southeast is
the price prevailing in the surplus finished beef producing areas plus the cost
of transporting it into the region. Cattlemen in the Southeast are now beginning
to wonder whether it would be more profitable to finish the feeder cattle they are.
now shipping out of the region and sell them to local packers, who are unable to
satisfy the local demand for beef. In short, there is a large local demand for
beef that could be filled by farmers in the Southeast if they can do it profit-
ably.

Whether or not cattlemen will find it profitable to fulfill the demand for
beef in the Southeastern region depends upon such things as the amount and kind .
of feed available, the quality of animals produced, the skill with which they are .,
managed and the relationship between the profit they can make in comparison with
the profit that can be earned in producing other commodities.

At the present time, thete is an ample supply of land available to beef
cattle producers. This land is fully stocked on the basis of the amount of
forage it produces. Any expansion that takes place in the production of feeder
cattle and calves will be the result of pasture improvement, i.e., the planting
of better forage plants, the application of more fertilizer, better pasture man-
agement, the use of better quality cattle and:production practices and in many
instances, controlling the height of the water table. In Florida there is ample
opportunity to do this since (1) pasture and range land (about 12.5 million acres)
is producing about 40 pounds of beef per acre and (2) it has been clearly demon-
strated that it is profitable to improve the pasture and range land and raise the
level of production to at least 200 and more pounds of beef per acre. The
University of Florida Beef Research Unit and a few top producers are obtaining
about 400 pounds of beef per acre with cow-calf programs.

Likewise, it has been demonstrated that some feedlot operators find it
profitable to finish cattle on concentrated rations in "dry lot" in the Southeast.
The rate at which this segment of the industry will expand depends upon (1) the
extent to which the production of feedstuffs can be expanded in the South or (2)








-5-


the existence of a favorable relationship between the Cost of shipping feed
ingredients and the cost of shipping beef into the region. The expansion of
the number of cattle which have been fed out in the Southeast in the past five
years suggest that either one or both of these conditions may exist in certain
localities.

Summary

Kentucky is the leader among the ten Southeastern states in numbers of total
beef cattle, value of cattle, liveweight production of cattle, percentage calf
crop, and cash receipts fromcattle (See Table 8). Tennessee and Mississippi'
followed in most of these categories and Mississippi led in total cows and total
calves born. Florida led in the percentage increase which has occurred since
1929 in value of cattle, in liveweight production of beef, in cash receipts from
cattle and calves and in the increase of pounds of beef produced per animal on
the farm. Thus, Florida has increased the most percentage-wise in a number ;of
important categories although it is not leading in them at the present time.
Taking all categories into consideration, Florida has made the greatest percen-
tage improvement since 1929. However, it still has a long way to go to get.near
the top in many aspects of beef cattle production in the Southeast.

The beef cattle industry in the Southeast has been growing rapidly and all
indications are that it will continue to do so. The Southeastern area has
increased beef cattle numbers and beef produced at over twice the rate of the
U.S. average since 1929. The Southeast needs to especially work hard on increas-
ing the calf crop, the quality of its cattle and the production practices it
follows. There is no reason why this cannot be done since the Southeast already
has many fine cattle herds with excellent calf crops and with the quality and
productivity found anywhere else in the country. Its big problem is that there
are still too few of these quality herds. Much progress has been made in this
regard and it will continue to occur in the future.'

Florida is only in the beginning stages of developing the full potential
which it has for beef production. It is now producing about 40 pounds of beef
per acre, whereas many of its top producers are already getting 200 pounds of
beef per acre and a few obtain about 400 pounds of beef per acre. Florida and
the Southeast has an excellent future for the cattlemen who will use top quality
cattle and good production practices.










Table 1. Beef Cattle Population in Ten Southern States and United States in
1929, 1939, 1949, 1959, 1969 and Increase From 1929 to 1969.

(thousand head)


Increase from 1929-1969
Percentage
Increase increase
in in
State 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 Rank numbers Rank numbers Rank

Kentucky 337 452 674 1,083 2,149 1 1,812 1 538 5
Mississippi 353 492 637 1,368 2,046 2 1,693 2 480 6
Tennessee 309 385 497 944 1,786 3 1,477 7 478 7
Alabama 237 345 484 1,174 1,657 4 1,420 8 599 3
Georgia 301 360 427 988 1,636 5 1,335 3 444 8
Florida 449 623 926 1,294 1,564 6 1,115 4 248 9
Arkansas 214 340 408 984 1,559 7 1,345 6 629 2
Louisiana 459 639 772 1,266 1,426 8 967 5 211 10
N. Carolina 92 113 142 403 695 9 603 9 655 1
S. Carolina 80 75 104 343 515 10 435 10 544 4

Ten SE States 2,831 3,824 5,071 9,847 15,033 12,792 452

United States 26,975 30,403 41,560 62,614 82,355 55,360 205

Ten SE States as
Percentage of U.S. 10.5 12.6 12.2 15.7 18.3












Table 2. Value of Cattle in Ten Southern States and United States in
1929, 1939, 1949, 1959, 1969 and Increase From 1929 to 1969.


...- .Increase from 1929-1969
Increase Percentage
in increase
State 1929 1939 1949 1959 1969 value Rank in value Rank

Kentucky $51.40 $33.40 $121.00` $138.00 $148.00 $96.60 2 188 9
Mississippi 30.10 21.10 83.20Z 108.00 124.00 93.90 4 312 2
Tennessee .- 43.60 30.60 107.00, '128.00 138.00 94.40 3 217 7
Alabama 32.20 22.50 82,50 105.0Q 120.00 87.80 8 273 5
Georgia 31.00 21.50 80.60 100.00 124.30 93.00 5 300 3
Florida 23.40 20.50 74.20 106.00 142.00 118.60 1 507 1
Arkansas. 34.10 23.10 94.80. 113.00 124Q00 89.90 6 264 6
Louisiana 31.90 21.70 84.30 118.00 121,00 89.10 7 279 4
N. Carolina 48.10 31.20 104.00-..- 116.00 134.00 85.90 9 179 10
S. Carolina 39.30 27.10 90.60- 104.00 121.00 81.70 10 208 8

Ten SE States 39.30 27.10 90.60 104.00 126.90 93.09 240

United States 58.47 38.44 135.00 153.00 158.00 99.53 -170

Ten SE States as
Percentage of U.S. 67 70 71 70 82












Table 3. Live Weight Beef Production in U.S. and 10
Southeastern States (Millions of Pounds)


Increase from 1929-1968
Increase
in Percentage
State 1929 1939 1949 1959 1968 pounds increase Rank

Kentucky 191 275 358 505 804 613 321 10
Mississippi 140 193 240 518 704 564 403 4
Tennessee 182 239 300 463 660 478 263 8
Alabama 91 144 212 471 551 460 506 2
I Georgia 86 104 161 327 463 377 438 3
o Florida 45 71 154 341 434 389 864 1
SArkansas 107 192 223 358 499 392 366 5
Louisiana 102 172 218 384 471 369 362 6
N. Carolina 67 84 106 192 227 160 239 9
S. Carolina 44 50 54 126 165 121 275 7

Ten SE States 1,055 1,524 2,026 3,684 4,978 3,923 372

United States 12,754 15,177 19,274 28,280 36,486 23,732 186

Ten SE States as
Percentage of U.S. 8.3 10.4 10.5 13.1 13.6














Table 4. Liveweight of Beef Produced Per Animal on Farm, Jan. 1 in Ten Southeastern States and U.S. in
1939, 1949, 1959 and 1968 and Increase from 1939 to 1968.


Increase from 1939-1968
SIncrease
in Percentage
State 1939 1949 1959 1968 pounds ;.increase -Rank

Kentucky- 230 233 278 295 65 28 9
Mississippi 150 169 239' 286 136 91 4
Tennessee 206 218 258 286 80 39 8
Alabama 147 187 272 288 141 96 3
Georgia 113 164 231 253 140 124 2
Florida 86 133 189 239 153 178 1
Arkansas 178 211 263 290 112 63 6
Louisiana -. 150 178 232 271 121 81 10
N. Carolina 141 164 198 227 86 61 7
S. Carolina 155 .157 220 267 112 72 5

Ten SE States 160 186 241 275

United States 230 251 303 334

Ten SE States as
Percentage of U.S. 69.6 74.1 79.5 82.3






10 -
Table 5. Cows Two Years Old and Older, Calves Born, and Calves Born as Percentage
of Cows Two Years Old and Older in 1929, 1939, 1949, 1959 and 1968.

Number all cows two years old and older (1000 head)
State 1929 1939 1949 1959 1968 Rank in 1968

Florida 335 429 627 962 1,060 5
Mississippi 530 694 860 1,244 1,449 1
Louisiana 480 615 745 1,089 1,089 4
Alabama 456 495 650 934 1,029 6
Georgia 478 486 542 755 942 8
Arkansas 401 565 610 791 959 7
Kentucky 560 6,717 815 1,045 1,377 2
Tennessee 515 627 797 985 1,249 3
N. Carolina 303 361 406 512 541 9
S. Carolina 186 185 206 296 319 10

Ten SE States 4,244 5,065 6,258 8,613 10,014

United States 31,437 34,587 42,929 47,001 50,049

Ten SE States as
Percentage of U.S. 13.5 15 15 18 20
Number of Calves born (1000 head)
State 1929 1939 1949 1959 1968 Rank in 1968

Florida 188 249 401 645 774 7
Mississippi 340 465 628 921 1,203 2
Louisiana 297 430 581 839 904 4
Alabama 272 366 507 747 864 5
Georgia 304 335 417 604 772 8
Arkansas 260 458 500 633 815 6
Kentucky 416 524 709 951 1,253 1
Tennessee 379 508 709 867 1.087 3
N. Carolina 190 260 313 410 444 9
S. Carolina 117 115 157 234 271 10

Ten SE States 2,763 3,710 4,922 6,851 8,357

United States 24,355 28,879 34,643 41,046 44,026

Ten SE States as
Percentage of U.S. 11 13 14 17 17
Number of calves born as percent of cows two years old and older
State 1929 1939 1949 1959 1968 Rank in 1968

Florida 56 58 64 67 73 6
Mississippi 64 67 73 74 83 4
Louisiana 62 70 78 77 83 4
Alabama 60 74 78 80 83 4
Georgia 64 69 77 80 82 5
Arkansas 65 81 82 80 85 3
Kentucky 74 85 87 91 91 1
Tennessee 74 81 89 88 87 2
N. Carolina 63 72 77 80 82 5
S. Carolina 63 62 76 79 85 3

Ten SE States 65 73 79 80 84

United States 77 83 81 87 88








i':j
-. AA.


Table 6. Cash Receipts From Cattle and Calves
From 1929 to 1968 (Millions of Dollars)


Increase from,1929-1968
Increase
in Percentage
State 1929 1939 1949 1959 1968 receipts increase Rank

Kentucky 24 22 95 115 159 135 663 10
Tennessee 15 15 57 90 141 126 940 7
Mississippi 8 10 38 103 138 130 1625 3
Louisiana 8 8 39 79 103 95 1187 6
Alabama 5 7 31 100 107 102 2040 2
Florida 4 4 22 79 121 117 2925 1
Arkansas 7 10 39 79 94 87 1243 5
Georgia 6 5 24 62 84 78 1300 4
N. Carolina 5 5 19 36 44 39 780 9
S. Carolina 3 3 10 25 31 28 932 8

Total in 10 SE States 84 88 374 768 1,022 937 1115

Total in U.S. 1,495 1,290 4,849 7,834 10,478 8,983 601

Ten SE States as
Percent of U.S. 5.7 6.1 7.7 9.8 9.8


SI, -. .









Table 7. Beef Production and Consumption in Southeastern States


Value of
surplus Total
or dollar value
Popu- Per Liveweight Total beef Surplus or deficit of surplus
nation capital equivalent Total beef production deficit in in beef or deficit
July, consumption per capital consumption in state beef produc- (cents beef in
1964 of beef consumption in state in in 1964 tion in per lb.) state, 1964
(1,000 in 1964** in 1964*** 1964 (1,000 1964**** 1964 (1,000
State persons) (pounds) (pounds) 0,000 pounds) pounds) (1,000 pounds) (dollars) dollars)

Florida 5,651 79.45 143.15 808,941 399,495 -409,445 16.30 -66,739.640
North Carolina 4,855 66.21 119.30 579,201 209,375 -369,826 14.60 -53,994,669
South Carolina 2,523 65.22 117.51 296,478 131,575 -164,903 15.20., -25,065,214
Georgia 4,295 71.42 128.68 552,681 370.200 -182,480 14.80 -27,007,040
Louisiana 3,487 73.20 131.89 459,918 456,785 : 3,133 14.60 457,392
Alabama 3,426 71.32 128.50 440,241 487,375 + 47,134 15.50 + 7,305,770
Tennessee 3,800 72.28 130.23 494,874 569,830 + 74,956 15.50 +11,618,180
Arkansas 1,939 68.65 123.69 239,835 393,110 +153,275 15.90 +24,370,739
Mississippi 2,298 63.88 115.10 264,500 546,700 .+282,201 14.50 +40,919,145
Kentucky 3,160 71.28 128.43 405,839 682,925 +277086 .16,50 .+45,719,223


U.S.D.C. Bureau of Census (annual estimates).
**Unpublished manuscript titled "A Prospectus on the Market for Fed Beef in the Southeast", by J. C. Purcell, Georgia
Agricultural Experiment Station.
***Per capital consumption in 1964
**Per capital cus t 55.5 = liveweight equivalent consumption per capital in 1964.
These figures assume that all beef produced is slaughtered or consumed in the state. This is not the case. Actually
all ten Southeastern states consume more than is slaughtered in the state. This means that the six states showing
surplus beef actually are not surplus beef areas since much of their beef produced is shipped out as feeder or
stocker calves to be finished in other states.



















Table 8. Ranking of Ten Southeastern States


0
-00
\0


0


0\
0 H

4.J


U41
CPi U


4-
0


c
r-0
> %D
0

r- 0

0
HO


014



O a)
J
m

a
O U
00


,-4
>
H-H -4

00 o
\0

H





(3 4)
VU "


O 0


Kentucky
Mississippi
Florida
Louisiana
Tennessee
Alabama
Georgia
Arkansas
N. Carolina
S. Carolina


TJC:lcb
150 copies


CO
>'D

0\

a 0





00
NH




0)
CO.
UN
0
o


(a


0
0
-H
41


0
w

pew
V4




0
.0


0

a
4-1



S00
0 H

r 0




0o
H 04
0U


El
o

(0

0
4-4

0o


0
PN
uo



0
0 0

mU


41


CO
0.







HN


0 cr>

U M
0 0

M-4-4


CI
41



P.
0

r-

(o



0

C4
A 4



(U l-


0

0 00
O 0

4
Oco
.0,-4
o r






0 0
a4


.0>


d o
t> n

T< B


0I



a 0







0 0
9M




a
H i


0 0
r-N 00
c?>0
4-4 i-4
(0 ) 0
raCO '-
L) -o
H ( 0


4-
0

* r
we


00
"-4

CO

0 O0
N 00

-H a)



COM
4 N 00

04-4
0) W3
0,4 n -4
u a r
co &-
uo t-


a
8


0

0
co



U



tM
0
00
O




0


O




..C


4-4
0
0



rl
0





O
0H


Ac
CM O
O r

00


__


_ ___ ___~I____ _I







University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs