‘— AN ANALYSIS OF INTERMARKET PRICE RELATIONSHIPS FOR POTATOES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1951-1953 Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Robert H. Moore 1955 [all 11ka 1 IIIIIIWIMII ’ 3 3293 10.752 97 This is to certify that the thesis entitled An Analysis of Intermarket Price Relationships for Potatoes in the United States, 1951-1953 presented by RObert H. Moore has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for 1.1.3. degree in Agicultural Economics Major professor Date May 20: 1955 0-169 'MSU ‘ LIBRARIES “ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. AN ANALYSIS OF INTERMARKET PRICE RELATIONSHIPS FOR POTATOES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1951-1953 by Robert H. Neore AN ABSTRACT submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfill- ment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1955 Approved by Ava/I @/ RObert H. Moore ARSTRACT An Analysis of Intermarket Price Relationships for Potatoes in the United States, 1951—1953 The purpose of this study was to determine if potato shippers were sending large volumes of potatoes to markets where they were _not maximizing their profits. This was analyzed during the years 1951 through 1953. The United States was divided up into seven separate production regions on the basis of differences between the marketing seasons for potatoes in different sections of the country, geographical considerations, patterns of potato production within states and consumers preference as measured by price. A central market was chosen in each production region on the basis of size and its proximity to the pOpulation center and land area center of the region. Next, representative potato prices had to be obtained both in the principal shipping points of the production regions and in the central markets over the 1951-1953 time period. A sample show— ing market prices on the fifteenth of each month and average ship- ping point prices for each month was drawn up. All potatoes compared in this study were U.S. No. 1 potatoes which were size A,Ieshed and quoted on a hundredweight basis; these were used in the sample as much as possible. Railroad charges for potatoes between the shipping points and the central markets were next determined. A range of wholesale Robert H. Mbore charges for potatoes from each shipping point, on each central market was estimated. Transportation charges were added to the range of estimated wholesale charges to obtain ranges of estimated price differences for potatoes between the shipping points and the central markets. henthly shipping point prices from the sample were subtracted from the monthly market prices to obtain actual monthly price differences. These actual monthly price differences for the months in each marketing season were weighted by the total volumes of shipments by months, between the shipping points and the central markets to obtain actual season average price differences. The actual season average price differences were then com- pared in tabular analysis with the correSponding ranges of estimated price differences to determine average profits or losses sustained by shippers in sending potatoes to each of the central markets. If a given season average price difference was higher than its correSponding estimated price difference range, profits were made, and if it was lower, losses were made. If a given season average price difference falls within its corresponding estimated price difference range, no appreciable profits or losses were made. The season average profits or losses were compared with the correSponding total seasonal volumes of unloadsfixmmthe shipping points to the central markets. In general, shippers in each pro— duction region tended to ship the majority of their potatoes to the markets where they maximized their profits or minimized their Robert H. Moore losses during the 1951-1953 time period. However, in a few cases, shippers were sending some potatoes to markets where they were sustaining considerable average losses. AN ANALYSIS OF INTERMARKET PRICE RELATIONSHIPS FOR FOTATOES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1951-1953 by Rdbert H. Moore A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfill— ment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Agricultural Economics 1955 AC KTLI OI‘ILED CINE N TS The author wishes to express his gratitude to the many people who helped with the development and completion of this study and the preparation of the manuscript. Special thanks are expressed by the author to Dr. Vernon L. Sorenson for providing much of the incentive and inSpiration necessary in completing the study and for the constant supervision and interest which he has given to this study. The helpful suggestions given by the members of the Department of Agricultural Economics are deeply appreciated. Dr. G. N. Motts was eSpecially helpful. The author wishes to thank the personnel of the Agricultural Marketing Service whose splendid cooperation made this study possible. Financial assistance provided by Dr. L. L. Boger, head of the Agricultural Economics Department, made it possible for the author to complete this study. Thanks are due for the assistance given by Mrs. Arlene King and others of the secretarial staff of the Department of Agri- cultural Economics for typing the original manuscript. Thanks are also expressed to Mrs. Fay Tengelsen and Miss Phyllis Jagger for their assistance with the typing of the final manuscript. The author assumes full reSponsibility for any errors which may still be present in this manuscript. CO CH 133 .‘H '3 m, ,J r t- (“”0 l“: TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I Introduction Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . Chapter II The Determination of Production Regions and the Selection of Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . Techniques of Determining the Separate Potato Pro— duction Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Final Delineation of the Potato Producing Regions - The Selection of Central Markets - - - - - . Seasonal Potato Unloads in the Central Markets from Each Production Center - . . - . . . . - - Chapter III The Sampling Technique and the Selection of the Sample of Potato Prices in the Production Regions and the Central Markets . . . . . . . The Necessity of Selecting Representative Potato Prices in the Production Regions, and in the Central Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Appraisal and Rejection of Average Prices Re- ceived by Farmers as the Production Region Potato Prices Used in this Study . . The Technique Used in Determining Base Potato Prices in Each Production Region . . . The Sampling Technique Used in Determining Repre— sentative Potato Prices in Each Central Market- '10 'll 19 20 -21 Problems Involved in Comparing Shipping Point and Central Market Potato Prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Chapter IV Transportation Charges, Estimated Wholesaling Charges and Actual Price Differences from the Sample, with an Estimate as to the Reliability of the Sample . - - - - - 25 Cost of Shipping Potatoes by Rail and Motor Truck from Shipping Points to Central Markets .. . . . . . . . 25 The Relative Importance of Rail and Motortruck Ship— ments from the Shipping Points to the Central Markets - .28 Unapplicability of Available Truck Rate Data . . . . . . 28 Additional Costs Sometimes Included in Rail Trans— portation Charges 32 Estimates of Wholesaling Charges for Potatoes in the central Markets 0 o o o o o o o o o o 0 o 0 o 0 ° ° . . 32 The Comparison of Actual Price Differences, as Derived - from the Sample with Estinmted Price Differences . . . .37 The Reliability of the Actual Price Differences in the Chicago and New York Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Chapter V An Analysis of the Sample Results to Determine Producers Efficiency in Selecting the Most Profitable Markets. . . 46 The Comparison of Theoretical Profits and Losses Re- ceived by Producers in Shipping to Different Markets with Volumes of Unloads in These Markets by Seasons. . . 46 Chapter VI Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Table II III VI VII VIII IX LIST OF TABLES Carlot Unloads in each Central Market from each Production Region, 1951 . . . . . . . . . . . . Carlot Unloads in each Central Market from each Production Region, 1952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carlot Unloads in each Central Market from each Production Region, 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Total Unloads of Potatoes, in each Central Market from each Shipping Point State, Broken Down by Percentage of Rail and Truck Unloads 1951 . . . . . . Total Unloads of Potatoes, in each Central Market from each Shipping Point State, Broken Down by Percentage of Rail and Truck Unloads 1952 . . . . . . Total Unloads of Potatoes, in each Central Market from each Shipping Point State, Broken Down by Percentage of Rail and Truck Unloads 1953 . . . . . . Average Differences of Potato Prices on the Fifteenth of each Month as Compared with Average Monthly Price Differences on the Chicago Market, by Comparable Menths, 1951—1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Differences of Potato Prices on the Fifteenth of each Month as Compared with Average Monthly Price Differences on the New York Market, by Comparable Months, 1951-1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Comparison of Estimated Profits and Losses with Total Shipments of Potatoes Between Maine and the Central Markets, by Marketing Seasons, 1951—1953 . . A Comparison of Estimated Profits and Losses with Total Shipments of Potatoes Between Florida and the Central Markets, by Marketing Seasons, 1951-1953 . . A Comparison of Estimated Profits and Losses with Total Shipments of Potatoes Between Minnesota and the Central Markets, by Marketing Seasons, 1951—1953 Page 15 16 17 29 30 . 43 47 48 . 49 Table XII XIII Page A Comparison of Profits and Losses with Total Shipments Between Colorado and the Central Markets by Marketing Seasons, 1951-1953 . . . . . . . . . . . 50 A Comparison of Estimated Profits and Losses with Total Shipments Between California and the Central Markets, by Marketing Season, 1951-1953 . . . . . . . 51 A Comparison of Estimated Profits and Losses with Total Shipments Between Idaho and the Central Markets by Marketing Seasons, 1951-1953 . . . . . . . . . .52 A Comparison of Estimated Profits and Losses with Total Shipments Between washington and the Central Markets, by Marketing Seasons, 1951-1953 . . . . . . 53 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. 2. Classification of States by Potato Marketing Season, 1951 through 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 The Final Delineation of the Potato Production Re— gi ODS O o 0 o O o o O o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 Arbitrary Land Area and Population Centers in each Potato Production Region and the Selected Central Wholesale Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Wholesale Prices and Freight Rates of Potatoes, in the United States, 1947—53 . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 LIST OF TABLES, APPENDIX A Table Page XVI Potatoes (Irish): Production and Amounts Sold by States 1951 through 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Figure 5. Average 15th for Potatoes 6. Average 15th for Potatoes 7. Average 15th for Potatoes 8. Average 15th for Potatoes 9. Average 15th for Potatoes 10. Average 15th for Potatoes 11. Average 15th for Potatoes 12. Average 15th for Potatoes 13. Average 15th for Potatoes 14. Average 15th for Potatoes 15. Average 15th for Potatoes LIST OF FIGURES, APPENDIX B of of in of in of in of in of in of in of in of in of _in of in the Month Prices Received by Farmers Region I, 1951 through 1953 the Month Prices Received by Farmers Region I, 1951 through 1953 the Month Prices Received by Farmers Region I, 1951 through 1953 the Month Prices Received by Farmers Region II, 1951 through 1953 the Month Prices Received by Farmers Region II, 1951 through 1953 the Month Prices Received by Farmers Region III, 1951 through 1953 the Month Prices Received by Farmers Region III, 1951 through 1953 the Month Prices Received by Farmers Region IV, 1951 through 1953 the Menth Prices Received by Farmers Region V, 1951 through 1953 the Month Prices Received by Farmers Region VI, 1951 through 1953 the Month Prices Received by Farmers Region VII, 1951 through 1953 Page 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 8b 85 86 87 LIST OF TABLES, APPENDIX C Table Page XVII Potatoes, White, Carloads 89 XVIII Potatoes, White 90 XIX Potatoes, White, Carloads 91 XX Potatoes, White 92 XXI Potatoes, White, Carloads 93 XXII Potatoes, White, Carloads 94 XXIII Potatoes, White 95 XXIV Potatoes, White, Carloads 96 XXV Potatoes, White, Carloads 97 XXVI Potatoes, White 98 XXVII Potatoes, White, Carloads 99 Table XXVIII XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII XXXIV XXXV XXXVI LIST OF TABLES, APPENDIX D Estimated and Actual Price Difference Per Hundred— weight of Potatoes from Minnesota, Production Region III in the Central Markets, January 1, 1951 to end of 1950—51 Marketing Season and 1951—52 Marketing Season Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred- weight of Potatoes from Florida, Production Region II, in the Central Markets, 1951 Marketing Season Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred- weight of Potatoes from Maine, Production Region I in the Central Markets, 1952—1953 Marketing Season and 1953-1954 Marketing Season Until December 31, 1953 Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred— weight of Potatoes from Maine, Production Region I, in the Central Markets, 1951-52 Marketing Season Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred— weight of Potatoes from Maine, Production Region I, in the Central Markets, January 1, 1951 to end of 1950-51 Marketing Season Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred— weight of Potatoes from Florida, Production Region II, in the Central Markets, 1952 and 1953 Marketing Seasons Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred— weight of Potatoes from Minnesota, Production Region III, 1952—1953 Marketing Season, and 1953—1954 Marketing Season Until December 31, 1953 Estimated and Actual Price Differences oer Hundred- weight of Potatoes from Colorado, Production Region IV, January 1, 1951 to end of 1950—51 Marketing Season Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred— weight of Potatoes from Colorado, Production Region IV, 1951—52 Marketing Season Page 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 Table XXXVII XXXVIII XXXIX XLI XLII XLIII XLIV Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred— weight of Potatoes from Coloardo, Production Region IV, 1952—1953 Marketing Season and 1953-1954 Market- ing Season Until December 31, 1953 Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred- Weight of Potatoes from Southern California, Pro- duction Region V, 1951 Marketing Season Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred— weight of Potatoes from Southern California, Pro- duction Region V, 1952 and 1953 Marketing Season Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred— weight of Potatoes from Idaho, Production Region VI, 1951-52 Marketing Season Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred- weight of Potatoes from Idaho, Production Region VI, January 1, 1951 to end of 1950-51 Marketing Season Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred— weight of Potatoes from Idaho, Production Region VI, 1952-53 Marketing Season, and 1953-Sh Marketing Season Until December 31, 1953 Estimated and Actual Price Difference Per Hundred- weight of Potatoes from washington, Production Region VII, 1951-52 Marketing Season Estimated and Actual Price Differences Per Hundred- weight of Potatoes from washington, Production Region VII, 1952-53 Marketing Season, and 1953—54 Market— ing Season, Until December 31, 1953 Page 110 111 113 114 115 116 117 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Stwix very few attempts have been made to analyse inter- market price relationships for potatoes in the United States. This thesis is primarily concerned with variation in po- tato prices from the shipping point level to the wholesale level. The purpose of this thesis is to provide an in— sight into the degree to which imperfect price knowledge exists in major shipping areas. In adiition, quantitative knowledge is provided as to the geographic structure of potato prices, and the volume and direction of potato shipments between regions. In developing the analysis, the United States was first divided into seven potato producing regions, each region having a production center. Next central wholesale markets were selected. Representative market prices both at the shipping point and at the central wholesale markets were obtained, together with tranSportation rates between each shipping point and central market. The actual Spread between average shipping point prices and fifteenth of the month wholesale prices are compared with the estimated price Spread, computed by adding estimated wholesale costs to the tranSportation charges in order to determine if producers were shipping to the markets where they could obtain the greatest return. Theoretical Background In theory, it would be logical to assume that the price of a given variety and grade of potatoes at one market, cannot differ from the price of the same product at a second market by more than the cost of transportation between the two places, plus any differences in marketing charges, ex— cept where imperfect knowledge exists or temporarily before shipments between the two places can be made.1 This maximum difference should exist only if the first market lies directly between the production area and the second market. However most markets are scattered in different directions from producing areas, and therefore this theory will have to be modified to assume that the price of a given variety and grade of potatoes in any market cannot differ from the price of the same product at any other market by more than the difference in the transportation and marketing charges between the production area and the two markets except where price differences are not known, or temporarily before shipments can be made to equalize the net price received lSee Fox, Karl A. "A Spatial Equilibrium Model of the Livestock-Feed Economy in the United States." Econometrica 21, No. b (Oct. 1953) pp 554—557. by producers in each market. If imperfections exist, shippers selling potatoes f.o.b.lcan make profits by increasing sales in certain markets and by reducing sales in others. Shippers will tend to sell in markets where they can maximize returns. In many cases however, they may be selling in markets where they are not maximizing returns. It is the purpose of this study to determine the nature and extent of these imperfections, during the years 1951 through 1953. Organization of the Thesis Chapter II discusses the delineation of the potato pro— duction regions and the selection of the central wholesale markets. In addition, tables indicating seasonal potato un- loads in the central markets from each production region are included. The sampling technique used to derive the sample of potato prices in the production regions and in the central wholesale markets is discussed in Chapter III. Costs of shipping potatoes by rail and motortruck from shipping points to central markets are analyzed in Chapter IV. In addition, the relative importance of rail and motor- truck shipments from the shipping point to the central markets lAbbreviation for free-on-board. This term indicates that a buyer buys goods at the shipping point and pays the cost of transportation to the market. h are indicated. Estimates of wholesaling charges for potatoes in the central markets are made. The actual price differences for potatoes between the shipping points and the central markets are compared with estimated price differences. A check is made on the reliability of the actual price differences on the New York and Chicago markets. Chapter V analyzes the efficiency of producers selection of markets in order to obtain maximum returns. The volumes of unloads are compared with the amounts by which the season average price differences were above the high or below the low of the estimated price difference range. A general summary is presented in Chapter VI. CHAPTER II THE DETERMINATION OF PRODUCTION REGIONS AND THE SELECTION OF MARKETS Techniques of Determining the Separate Potato Production Regions The first step in delineating potato production regions was to determine the seasonal production pattern of potatoes as measured by the marketing seasons. Most marketing statisticians classify seasonal production of potatoes into three categories, Early, Inter- mediate and Late.1 The classification proceeds as follows.2 Those states where the crOp marketing season begins from December of one year through May of the next year, and ends from June through December, or sometimes extending through April of the year follow— ing, are classified as Early states. Intermediate states are those where the crOp marketing season usually begins in June or early July and ends in March or April of the next calendar year. The marketing season in the Late states usually begins in July or August and extends through May or June of the next year. These relation— ships are more clearly seen in the charts included in Appendix A. 1This follows the general system for classification of potato production in states as outlined in the following U.S.D.A. publications, Agricultural StatisticsL Crops, and Markets, and Agricultural Prices. 2U.S.D.A. Potato Prices, 1909—1952, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C. Statistical Bulletin No. 140, March, 195M. 6 For the purpose of this study, states, classified as Intermediate and Late are grouped together in the same production regions be- cause the marketing seasons are quite similar. Late and Inter- mediate states are not grouped with Early states because of the dissimilar market seasons. Figure 1 shows the classification of each state. It will be noted that California is divided into a late section and an early section. This is done because most of the potatoes grown in the northern part of the state are marketed during the above considered late period and most of the southern potatoes are marketed during the early period. After classification of the states as to seasonal production, several other factors had to be considered before the final pro- duction regions were determined. hese factors included 1) geo- graphical considerations, 2) patterns of potato production within certain states and 3) consumer price differentiation as to potatoes produced in certain areas. These factorp varied in their relative importance and their influence upon the drawing of the regional boundary lines through the Early, Intermediate and the Late potato states. Geographical considerations prompted the drawing of a regional boundary line between the Late state of Ohio and the Intermediate state of Kentucky, on one side and the Late states of Ohio and west Virginia, and the Intermediate state of Virginia on the other. This will be noted in Figure 2. Marketing statisticians have classified the Late states lying to the east of this line into the Eastern Late Potato States, and the Late states to the west of this 0-. ........ .3 .c 3&3 Hm 40> .od coaegflmaa .924 .4565 .Smea 25 £95 .<.a.m.p .m .ammummm ch 33$ .05 copwacwma 4.9.0.6 .39“ .mofimflfim 383.823 .<.n.m.p A .. $0.38 .99“ amwmtfiamfi-..mommmm 33me 338.3 mBSm mo Eapmoafimmflo .H magma qt a _ a J .. 8» com 8a 8. o 3.52 .0 3(3 (023»? “_O 33.5 09:23 33m 33 n A 8.3m 3385.8an u H a 33m 33m n m .3 V. O m . ... w w 8 1 line into the Central and Western Late Potato States. The boundary line was extended south, between the Virginias and Kentucky in order to provide a more uniform geographic relationship between regions.. Another regional boundary line was drawn between the Late states of North Dakota, South Dakota and Iowa on one side and the Late states of Mbntana, wyoming and Nebraska and the Intermediate state of Kansas on the other, for similar geographical reasons. Marketing statisticians have considered the Late states lving to the east of this line as Central Late Potato States and the Late states lying to the west of this line as western Late Potato States.2 Potato production in North and South Dakota closely approximates production in Minnesota, whereas Nebraska potato pro- duction closely approximates that in Colorado. The boundary line was continued on between Kansas and Missouri to obtain geographic homogeneity between regions. The state of Idaho was set up as a separate production region. This was done because the average consumer has a tendency to think of potatoes coming from Idaho as being set off in a class by them- selves, due to their various unique qualities. Premium prices are paid for Idaho potatoes on most markets. 1See the section dealing with potatoes in the following U.S.D.A. publication, Agricultural Statistics, CrOps and Markets, and Agricultural Prices. 2 Ibid. o. nnnnnnn . aaaaaaa D unh.|'..0"tl.lo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo .mfioflwmm Soapodpopm ovmpom 05. mo Cowpmmfiuaon Hmcam one .N madman at a _ a J o9. o8 8a 8. o 34:2“.031‘3 (0.357. “.0 $25 9.22: “ ta 10 A regional boundary line was drawn between the Late state of Oregon and northern California and the Late state of Nevada, and the early producing region of southern California. Appendix A,Tab1e XVI, indicates that potato production in Nevada is negligible, whereas production in northern California, Oregon and washington is relatively heavy. Therefore, these areas are set aside in a separate region from the other western Late States. The last regional boundary line was drawn between the Early state of Oklahoma and Texas on one side and the Early states of Arkansas and Louisiana on the other. Texas and Oklahoma were in- cluded in the western Early producing region to provide geographic homogeneity and because this area represents a market for large quantities of western late production. New Mexico, a Late state, lying between Texas and Arizona is included in the region. Potato production in New Mexico is relatively negligible, therefore New Mexico is included in this region to provide more geographic homogeneity. Final Delineation of the Potato ProducinggRegions The final delineation of the potato producing region is shown in Figure 2. Region I includes the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, west Virginia, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. This region is the most important region in terms of total production of potatoes and potatoes sold. (See Appendix A.) 11 Region II includes the states of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas and Louisiana. The states of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Kentucky and Missouri are included in Region III. Region IV includes the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, wyoming, Montana, Utah and Nevada. Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona and the southern part of California make up Region V. The state of Idaho is set aside by itself as Region VI. Region VII includes washington, Oregon and northern California. The Selection of the Central Markets The central markets were chosen by the following procedure. One central market was chosen for each production region. Each central market was chosen on the basis of size and its proximity to the geographical land area center and pOpulation center of the region. Regional pOpulation centers were determined by checking the pOpulation of each state as determined in the 1950 census.1 Land area centers for each region were determined by placing a point in the approximate geographic center of the region. The size of the market was important, because the larger the market, 1See any world atlas, published after 1950, for United States census data for 1950. 12 the larger the total volume of potato unloads which could be analyzed. Also if the market is close to the geographic land area center and population center of the region, it will be more closelv representative of the shipments into the market of potatoes coming from within the region and from the other production regions. A rough estimate as to where the pOpulation centers and geographic centers lay were plotted in Figure 3, together with the central markets. Jew York City was chosen to be the central market in Region I. It is the largest city in the region, and it lies close to the land area and pOpulation centers of the region. Atlanta was chosen to be the central market in Region II. Although Atlanta is slightly smaller in size than New Orleans, it is much closer to the pOpulation and land area centers of the region. Although the total volume of potato unloads in Atlanta might be slightly smaller than those in New Orleans, these unloads are probably more representative of the total unloads in the region as a whole. Chicago was chosen to be the central market in Region III. It is the largest city in the region and has close promixity to the land area and population centers of the region. Denver was chosen as the central market in Region IV, for the same reason that Chicago was chosen in Region III. Dallas was chosen over Los Angeles as the central market in Region V. These two cities are the only cities in this region on which unload records are available. Los Angeles, the larger of mpmxhdz onmmHonz HmppSmo pmpomamm map pow COHmmm COHposponm evapom some GH mumpsmo qOHvMHddom paw mmn<.pcdq.po€maHumH .m mHaMHh _ ........ . ................................ I. Oz. I... I ~ fi H _ is Id 8». 08 RN 8. o $4.25 35m .«mvzam<‘¢eanu $2.5 9:2: umHHmmw > if ...... /,-i_.l....i:/, m thCmo K XI, 2; hopcmm 20H adopm ./ : $2 and . a I a. l a . .\ pmpfl.o \x TN‘.‘ .. .. CHOHPQHHJ AH .0 hopcmo mmh< xno hmpqmo comwr.x . oomHocm u 0"" J «a: . . a OHpNgO IMHO: .H- GOO a... 3. f?::::=::ec:::a:=::a:::a 1b the two lies in a state which is a heavy potato producer, while Dallas lies in a state which must import many potatoes. No central market was chosen in Region VI. No market unload reports are available for any city in Idaho. Also, since Idaho is a heavy potato producing state, it is assumed that imports from other production regions are negligible. San Francisco was chosen to be the central market in Region VII. Its size as a consumption market probably outweighs any advantages that Portland, Oregon might have in being close to the land area center of the region. Seasonal Potato Unloads in the Central Markets from Each Production Center Total carlotsl’2 of potatoes unloaded in the central markets for each production region by seasons were calculated from the unloads of Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Reports which are compiled yearly for each central market. This data are shown in tabular form in Tables ,I, II and III. It will be noted from these tables that the majority of the unloads in the New York, Denver and San Francisco markets came from the production regions for which these cities are the central markets. The largest prOportion of the potatoes in the Atlanta market came from Region I. The largest Rail and motor truck unloads are totaled together. 2 A carlot is the equivalent of one fully loaded standard sized railroad car. Both rail and truck shipments are expressed in terms of carlots. 15 .HWmH aoomHocmpm cmm paw mmHHmQ upm>com MOMmOHnu «macmHHd prow 3oz pm mmHflmpmwoP rcm mpHSLm mepm mo mUGOHCD :¢.Q.m.b "mombom moonmnoa .HH> COHmmm CH pmdeOCH mH :onz opmum one up ppmm cpmzppoc mnp Eopm mcHEoo mmowmpom mpmH mp op pmfidmmm mam common mCHpoMme opmpom mpmH map mchzp popmxpms .> EOHmom CH meSHocH mH £0H£3 weapm may mo pawn phonesom opp Scam mCHEoo moppmuoo thmm on OH poESmmm mam Common wCHpmxme 0pmHoQ kappa may mcHASp pmpmaamE moowdpog mHCLOMHHmom .HmmH wcHhop mmHHmQ Eopm oHQmHHw>m dump xozpp oz H know: ocom ammm spam mampa mamm wmmom ampoa mafia Haom maa as mmma moa ma: NHH> coaamm poms moa smma com momm saw amma H> coammm Homm mmk map 0mm ammm mma mmoa m> scammm Hosm so mmm mama mmaa mm maa sH scammm mmmp a pH a mmpp mmm m HHH coammm ammm s m mm maoa mmm mama HH coawmm mmoaa I- I- I- oma Hmpa ammma H scammm I I I I I I I I I ImmeHCD HOHpmoI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Hapoe oomHOCMpm Cmm HmmHHmm po>com omeHno mpcwde xhow_3oz COmem mpoxpmz prpcmo COHHosp0hm HWmH .ZOHmmm ZOHBQDQOmm modm 20mm emxmCoQ HomooHConoHCoHp< meoN.3oz Co moHflopoMo> pCo mpHCCm Cmohm mo opoOHCD .<.Q.m.b "mombom .HH> COHmom CH popCHoCH mH COHCB .opmpm on mo puma CCoCPCOC one Eopm wCHEoo moopoCOC opoH on Op poECmmo ohm Common wCHpoxCoE oomeOQ opoH one wCHCCp popoxCoE moowopom .> COHwom CH popCHoCH mH COHCS .opoam one mo puma CConCom one Scam wCHEoo moOHoCOQ hHCoo on ow poECmoo oCo Common wCHpoxCoE Opopom thoo on wCHhsp popoxCoE moOHoHoa oHCCOMHHoo a mmmpa masm kamm mmnm ommaa mmsm mamma Hmpoe omen mama mm mm mafia pea am: HHHp scammm mooa pma maaa ama moan Ham Hmma H> coawmm mmam cos New Ham moam ama moaa > scammm man: as mead mama maaa ama an MC scamma oaom m we II mamm mom a HHH noawmm mamm ma Ho mm oma akaa mama HH soammm mmapa a: mm In mma amma Hmmma H coawmm I I I I I I I I I I I ImmeHCD COHCooI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Hmpoe oomHoCmCm Com wmmHHoQ Co>CoQ omooHCo mpCoHHC xCOM.3oz COHwom mpoxpoz HmeCoo COHpoCUOCm Nwma AEOHmmm ZOHBUDQOmm muam 20mm Hmmmdz Hamezmo moam 2H mQCOQED BOdmdo HH mumde l7 .mmmH rCm mmme .HmmH .oowHoCoCm Com pCo mmHHmQ .Co>CoQ .ommOHCD .mHCoHH¢ .atoH amz tom aHtmms emSmHprm .mmewatmme Ham maHzta among mo memOHce..a.m.m.m "mmomeom .HH> CCHmom CH popCHoCH mH COHCB opmwm opp Ho HCmQ CCoCHCoC oLH Eopm wCHEoo mopHmHoC onH on 0H poECmmm oCm Commoo MCHHoXCoE OHmHoQ oHoH oCH mCHCCp roHomeE moppowom .> CCHmom CH porCHoCH mH Lons .opmum oCH mo HCmC CCoCHCom oCH Eopm wCHEoo moppmpoo kHCmo on 0H poECmmo oCo Commom mCHHomeE OHoHrC heCoo one mCHCCp popoxpofi mooonOQ mHCComHHoo H aHoom mmkm moan Hmmm HmmmH maHa mmmHm Hmaoa ommm aamH OOH an mpmH HoH can HHH> cOHmmm memo mm ppmH HmH mmmm mHm mamH H> cOHmmm HaHm mom mmHH posH maom omm oomH H> scammm Hmmm am mmoH mmmH ms Hm ms . >H QOHmmm mmsm o Hm I: Hmmm 23H m HHH cOHmmm mmmm am am mm ponH mmmH mpom HH cOHmmm maka H m I- no pmmH maHoH H cOHmmm I I I I I I I I I I I ImpoOHCD HOHCooI I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Hmpoe oomHoCmCm :om mmHHoQ Co>CoQ owoOHCo oHCoHH< xhow 3oz COHmom mpoxnmz HoCHCoo COHHoCUOCm mmma .ZOHUmm ZOHHUDQOmm modm 20mm Bmmmdz qddemo mo nonmm HH ,HbmHHocH mH SCHE... .mchm 2.3 .Ho Em A qnmgpdpm pi gonna oHHaoo ¢mooPsHoa .mHHao on, 0H mos : mm m8... meadow “.539?an 93 .Ho p89... mine 93 mHHHpHc poppies moOHcHoo chfiomHHoo m .Hde wHHHDm mmHHdQ Sam oHoerHpbe .mpmc “Heap 02 H mHo m.w Ho 0 OOH H: a. mom. v.0: mm o 00H 5H0 o OOH QOH o 00H mm .335. 0.5a o.mm moa o ooa smma a com com H. m.om momm a. 0.09 mam o ooa smoa o..eH m.mm p.02 mms o ooa mam m.m a.am man 0 ooa omma o ooa mma o ooa mmoa m.pHaao .m o ooa m o ooa mum a.ma com mmma H. o.mo Ham 0 ooa m o ooa a .oaoo o ooa H o ooa m o ooa a m. a.am mmsa m.a mtmm mm o ooa a .nnHa o ooa s o ooa m s.m m.Hm mm N.m p.20 son m.sm .a.m ca: m.om p.05 was seawoaa o o o o o o o o o o ooa on m.oa H.mm sma a mo ommm mnHas “Hoar“... HHcHH H8 “Moshe HHHHH Ho #95. HHm... 4.0 Mega HHdm _ .Ho “Hog HHmm H0 Hoops HHHHm Ho 3.3m m m... H.309 mm mm Hmpom m m“ Happy v. m H.309 w. mm Hmpoa w. m. Haven. “3um oowHocmHaH Hem H mmHHdR Hobmcm owmpHno mun: Hp... Mao» 39H wsHponm mam... 5.3...“ HHt... .6 RS 8565 .89.... 8... ads. no mass Henna Hm EB Beam Hue Hfiom spawns .85 use...“ :H, n; .3... Ho - 9H L mnbeacom as 3655 fiaoa PH mama... 3O . mmOH .oomHonHm .8... .omdoHno .dpqm Hg .Maow :pm How theom onmHdem moHHmHomob cap mHHsHh ammah wad .deHsQ .ambcom .Ho 350 Hub 3.2 Q. m .9. "ma. HHDom .wHOHHmo waded Ho fl .HHH HOHmmm HHH .moHEHoHH mH :oHE... .opdpu can .Ho Hard cpoapaoq 93 no.5 maHapo .moouppom 3.....H on. pp $8.33.. on...» meadow wcHHouina cpmpom oHeH pap qunsm coppxnns moppnpom .> HOHmpm HH mmmaHqu mH HOHHB mumps pap Ho Hang Humanopm 0:» spam quspo moppmuom .3pr on 0» ppfifiwmm ppm. gamma mgHHpuHHna 93 .Ho when“ HHHHmo on» quadw monouiea moppmpoo chnomHHmo H 3.00 o.m mm o ooa mm o ooa OH 0 ooa cam N no on m.m H.mm mmm noseeHamaa p.0s m.mm oma N.n c.pm wsaa H.m o.ao msH o ooa moan o.H a.mo mom 0 ooa Hana onweH Hm. on New m..NH nib. :9. m.o p.00 Ham H. 900 ouwH m. Wow NmH H. 0.3 wwOH H..HHHdo .m. m.sm m.ma H mm mm mmoa m.ma snow mmma a. m.mm mas m as NNH o o o ceawoaoo o ooa m a.s H.mo mm o o o H. m.mm Hmma a.H m.wa op o o o apomogaH: o ooa ma m.ms m.om we m.mm m.ms Hm m.m m.om was m.om atm mam m.om H.mw Ham aeHwoaa o ooa as o ooa mm o ooa a o ooa maa H.0m one mmm w. 3.0m memo amass Hoops HHmm Ho Hoth HHmm Ho Hodge HHmm Ho Moshe HHmm Ho Moshe HHmm Ho #0599 HHmm HU opmpm a .H Happy 3. n” .dmpoa .\ a HmHoa aa a Hmpoe a. .a Hence a. a proa quom” V. .- E s so 2 V .L t a. t .3 . oowHondah Ham mdemQ Hopqmm oveooHaHo H3834 Mao» 32H qumpHnm mmma modes Havana and. and... .8 raga .Efim EH8 333% H 5 mm. Eoiham .HHHHB HMO n. 4.1 “Hum .n‘ E. J!“ 5.1.... «HS 6.1mm. ”mo mo > EH99 .3... tr.»- fiworimm hm. 2:0 Q HEOHHNH HH .mmomaaom Ho mmaoqmb.aamoa 31 .mmmH .oomHognrH Gum g5... .mcHdmmH .mobfioc .omCOH£0 .cpnade_. anoh 3mm Mom bHHcc\ coanHofim mmHadpou Ob mam OHth SOOHH mo OOOOHGD...<.:.. m. D. "mmumbom :OOHHOO Ozdoa n0 .w .HHb qOHmmm nH OocsHoaH OH SOHQE .mpwum ms» mo puma uncappon amp scum mcHEoo .OmOOOJOQ m. cH OH on cmEdmmd was domdmm wdemMpma 0pc épo 0H..H an» wdHnfiO Ompmxnc c.e amour pom .> nOHMOM nH OmcsHqu mH QOHma mpmpm map Mo uncm :Hmnpdow map scum quBoo mm0pmpog OHawo on on mmCfimwO and meadow mqumxhwa map mo pnwm OHHOO map quHSO Ompmxnwa mmopdpom qunomHHdo H O .OO O.HH O: O OOH O: O OOH OH O OOH ONO O OOH mHH O OOH ONO .OOOO O.OO N.OO OO O.m 0.00 OONH O HO HOH O OOH OOON O. 0.00 OHO m. O.OO OOOH oOOOH O.OO H.HO HON 5.: 0.00 OHO O.O N.HO OOO O OOH OHON O OOH ONO N. O.OO OONH H.HHHOO .m m.OO O.OO OH 0.00 H.OH :OOH H. O: .m- OOOH O OOH OO 0.0H O.OO On O OOH m .OHOO O O O 0.00 O.OO HO O O O H. OOO OOO O OOH OO O O O .qOH: O.Hm O.OO HO OH OO oO H. HO O.m. Om 0.0 0.00 ONO O.OO O.O OOO H.OO 0.00 NOOH OOHOOHO O OOH H O OOH O O O O O OOH OO O.Om 0.00 OOH n. 0.00 NOON quOz Hogan HHOm HO Hanna HHOm HO Moshe HHum HO Hodge HHOm HO Moshe HHmm HO Hodge HHOO HO OOOHO O O HOOOO O O Hmpom O O HOHOO O O Hmpoa O O HOOOO O O HOOOO Oqum oomHothm nan mmHHmn hmbnmn oQOOon OHQ.QHO. Much 3mm mnHmmHnw ggfia Hams... :Ho OOOH OBOHOS HOP... c 5.2 HH H. .HOn 0...... m... 09.5” mm .269 swarm .fiHH...m..:.w EHHOnH 0HHHnHmHMw mob.” £099 RENAULH 44.9.10 M50. EHH :mrs 097.50% Eb Widdfifi 94.1805 H> Maud. 3.2 Additional Costs Sometimes Included in Rail Transportation Charggs Sometimes various charges for seasonal items and protective services are added on to the basic freight rate. A three-percent federal transportation tax is added onto the basic freight rate. In addition, charges for various accessorial services are some- times included. These accessorial services include storage, demurrage, drayage, lighterage, reconsignment and diversion, icing and heating, inSpecting and grading. It is difficult to correctly ascertain these additional charges, however, the freight rates make up an overwhelming percentage of the total transportation charges. Therefore, it is assumed that freight rates are repre— sentative of total transportation charges. Estimates of Wholesaling Charges for Potatoes in the Central Markets No information is available on wholesaling charges for potatoes on the New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Dallas and San Francisco markets during the 1951 through 1953 time period. The studies conducted by Garrott offer the most positive indications of the wholesaling costs for potatoes from different sections of the country. 9 Garrott, in his Pittsburg study,“ stated that the average 1 This follows the same procedure outlined by Snitzler in his study. See Snitzler, 2Q. cit., p. 20. 2Garrott, W. M.,'Marketing Changes for Potatoes Sold in Pittsburg, Pa., Dec. 1949_June 1950. U.S.D.A., B.A.E., Washington, D.C. marketing Research Report No. 5, May, 1952. 33 wholesale margin for all potatoes sold in that city was 44 cents per hundredweight. Wholesale margins of potatoes from Idaho, Maine, Florida, California, Arizona and Alabama were established at .59, .36, .47 and .56 cents per hundredweight reSpectively. No other areas were considered in this study. When initial carlot receivers sold to retail stores, an average of .38 cents per hundredweight was charged. ‘When they sold to secondary handlers, the charge averaged .31 cents per hundred pounds. When secondary handlers sold to re— tail stores, an additional charge of .34 cents per hundredweight was made. Most of the sales were made direct to retailers. Garrott's Cleveland study1 indicated that the average whole— sale margin for all potatoes sold in Cleveland was 54 cents per hundredweight. Wholesale margins forpotatoes from Maine, Idaho and Florida were established at .43, .8“ and .75 cents per hundredweight respectively. No other areas were considered in this study. When initial carlot receivers sold to retail stores, an average of .46 cents per hundredweight was charged. When they sold to secondary handlers, this charge averaged .38 cents per hundredweight. When secondary handlers sold to retail stores, an additional average charge of .34 cents per hundredweight was made. As in the Pittsburgistudy, most of the sales were made direct to retailers. Since no other data is available, it was assumed that whole— saling charges on potatoes in the Pittsburgh and Cleveland markets 1Garrott,W. N., "Marketing Charges for Potatoes Sold in Cleveland, Ohio, Feb.—June, 1950", U.S.D.A., B.A.E., Washington, D.C. Marketing Research Report No. 21, 1952. 3.4. would approximate those on the New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Dallas and San Francisco. Wholesaling charges are fairly stable over time1 and it was therefore assumed that average wholesaling charges during 1951 through 1953 would approximate the average wholesaling charges on the markets during the December,l949—June, 1950 period covered by Garrott in his studies. The average whole— saling charges for potatoes on the Cleveland market were somewhat higher than those on the Pittsburgh market. It was assumed that the wholesaling charges on the New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas and San Francisco markets would not be higher than the Cleveland charges nor lower than the Pittsburgh charges. However, the whole- sale prices used in this study generally represent sales made by the first seller in the terminal markets. Therefore, the wholesale market price for potatoes on the Pittsburgh and Cleveland markets generally represent the price to the retailer. Since the Atlanta, Dallas, Denver and San Francisco potato markets are comparable in Size to the Pittsburgh and Cleveland markets and there are re— latively few Specialized jobbing establishements, the wholesale potato prices quoted in these markets, are generally the prices to the retailer.2 However, New York and Chicago are the largest potato markets in the country and wholesalers sell potatoes almost exclusively to jobbers who then sell to the retailers.3 Hence, the lMotts, G. N., oral communication. 2Loc. cit; 3 Loc. cit, 35 wholesale potato prices for the New York and Chicago markets re— present the price to the jobber only. As stated above, the average wholesale margins for potatoes in the Pittsburgh and Cleveland markets were .44 and.54 cents per hundredweight resnectively, and that wholesale margins when selling to the secondary handlers, i.e., jobber, were .31 and .33 cents per hundredweight respectively. In each case, the wholesale margins when selling to jobbers amount to roughly 70.4 percent of the average wholesale margins. It will therefore be assumed that average wholesaling charges for potatoes on the New York and Chicago markets will be approximately 70.4 per- cent of the Atlanta, Dallas, Denver and San Francisco markets. The average wholesale charges for potatoes on the Atlanta, Denver, Dallas and San Francisco markets for potatoes from Idaho were thought to be within the range of .59 to .80 cents per hundred- weight. Fifty-nine point 5 cents per hundredweight was the mid- point of this range. The range for the New York and Chicago whole- saling charges was .42 to .56 cents per hundredweight, with .49 cents being the midpoint. In other words, these charges amounted to 70.4 percent of the wholesaling charges on the other central markets. The average wholesale charges in the Atlanta, Denver, Dallas and San Francisco markets for potatoes from Florida were estimated to be within the range of .56 to .75 cents per hundredweight as outlined in Garrott's study. Sixty-five and one-half cents per hundredweight was the midpoint of their range. Wholesaling charges for potatoes in the New York and Chicago markets were thought to 36 “ d be within the range of .39 to .53 cents per hwrwndredwei‘ght, with .45 cents being the midpoint of the range. Average wholesale charges for potatoes in the Atlanta, Denver, Dallas and San Francisco markets for potatoes from Maine were estimated to be within the range of .35 to .43 cents per hundred- weight. Thirty—nine and one—half cents was the midpoint of this range. The range of New York and Chicago wholesaling charges were estimated between 25.3 cents to 30.2 cents per hundredweight, 70.4 percent of the wholesaling charges levied at the other central markets. Twenty—seven and eight-tenths cents was the midpoint of the range. An average wholesaling charge of .47 cents per hundredweight for California potatoes was estimated by Garrott for the Pittsburgh market. Garrott gave no estimate for the Cleveland market. An estimate for California potatoes on the Cleveland market was derived by comparing the average wholesale price of potatoes from all states in the Pittsburgh market, whith was .44 cents per hundred— weight as estimated by Garrott with the .47 cents per hundredweight average for California. The wholesaling charges for California potatoes were three cents above the average. It was therefore estimated that the wholesaling charges for California potatoes on the Cleveland market were approximately three cents above the average wholesaling charge of .54 cents per hundredweight for all potatoes in the Cleveland market or .57 cents. Therefore, the range was estimated to be within .47 to .57 cents per hundredweight of potatoes on the Atlanta, Denver, Dallas and San Francisco markets, 37 with .52 cents being the midpoint of the range. The range of New York and Chicago wholesaling charges was estimated at between 33.1 and 40.1 cents per hundredweight, 70.4 percent of the wholesaling charges levied at the other central markets. Thirty—six and six- tenths cents was the midpoint of the range. Since no wholesale charges were stated for potatoes coming from Colorado, washington or Minnesota, the average wholesale charge for all potatoes at Pittsburgh, which was .44 cents per hundredweight, was taken as the low end of the range, with .54 cents per hundredweight the average wholesaling charge for all potatoes at Cleveland as the high end of the range. Forty—nine cents was the midpoint of the range. This range applied to the Atlanta, Denver, Dallas and San Francisco markets. .The range of New York and Chicago wholesaling charges for potatoes from Colorado, Washington and Minnesota was estimated at between approximately .31 and .38 cents per hundredweight,,i.e., 70.4 percent of the wholesaling charges levied at the other central markets. Thirty- five and one—half cents per hundredweight was the midpoint of the range. The Comparison of Actual Price Differences, as Derived from the Sample with Estimated Price Differences Tables XXVIII through XLIV in Appendix D show the final estimated potato price differences between all regional shipping points and all central markets by marketing season. These estimated price differences were derived by adding the freight rate per hundredweight 3.8 of potatoes between any given shipping point and any given central market to the estimated wholesaling charges per hundredweight of potatoes on that market for potatoes coming from the state where the shipping point is located. The estimated price differences are compared in tabular analysis with the actual price differences per hundredweight of potatoes. The actual price differences were derived from the sample by subtracting the average monthly shipping point prices for each month from the central market price as shown for the fifteenth of that month. The actual season average price differences for each marketing season were computed tw’ multiplying the actual monthly price differences by the volumes of unloads for that month, from the state where the regional shipping point was located.1 It will be noted that the appendix tables indicate the estimated price differences only during the months that actual price differences are available. These tables also show the amounts by which the acutal season average price difference exceeded the high price of the estimated price difference range, or the amount by which the actual season average price differences were lower than the low price of the estimated price difference range. Wherever the actual season average potato prices between any given shipping point and any given central market were greater than the price differences as expressed in the range of estimated price differences, it was assumed that shippers were making The sources of these monthly volumes of unloads are to be found in the Unloads of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables, op. cit. substantial profits by shipping to that market. If the actual season average price differences fell within the range of the estimated price differences, the potato shippers at that shipping point were breaking even without making any appreciable profit or sustaining any appreciable losses. It then follows that wherever the actual season average price differences were less than the estimated price differences, potato shippers were losing money by shipping to that market. These relationships will be more clearly seen with numerical examples. It will be assumed that the season average price received per hundredweight of potatoes at shipping point X is three dollars. The season average wholesale price of potatoes at market A is five dollars. Therefore, the actual season average price difference, which is calculated by subtracting the actual season average price at the shipping point from the actual season average wholesale price, will be two dollars. Next, it will be assumed that trans— portation charges between shipping point X and market A are one dollar per hundredweight and that wholesaling charges for potatoes from shipping point X on market A vary between forty and fifty cents per hundredweight.l These charges are added together to obtain an estimated price difference range of between $1.40 and $1.50 per hundredweight. Since the actual season average price difference was two dollars, this is fifty cents above the high of the estimated 1It will be recalled that a range for estimated wholesaling charges was set up for each central market in an earlier portion of this chapter. It was assumed that the actual wholesaling charges would fall within this range. 40 price difference range, and shippers at shipping point X received $3.50 per hundredweight in the average by shipping to market A. Therefore, these shippers made a profit of .50 cents. It will now be assumed that the actual season average price difference between shipping point X and market B is also two dollars. However, the estimated price difference range for potatoes from shipping point X is between $1.98 and $2.05 per hundredweight of potatoes. It will be seen that the two dollars falls within the estimated price difference range. Therefore shippers at shipping point X will not be making any substantial profits or losses by shipping to market B. It will now be assumed that the actual season average price difference between shipping point X and market C is again two dollars. The estimated price difference range for potatoes from shipping point X is between $2.50 and $2.60. Since the actual season average price difference was $2.00, this is .50 cents below the low of the estim ted price difference range, and shippers at shipping point X will be sustaining a loss of .50 cents per hundredweight by shipping to market C. It will be noted that in the case of the shipping point state of Minnesota, during the early 1951, 1951—1952 and 1952—1953 marketing seasons, Wisconsin potatoes were substituted for Minnesota potatoes. This was done because there was no shipping point prices available for Minnesota potatoes. In addition, there were no potatoes from any other state in Production Region III that were of the same variety and grade as the Minnesota potatoes 41 on any of the central markets. Since Madison, Wisconsin, the center of Wisconsin potato production, lies quite close to Minneapolis, Minnesota, it was assuned that there was no large difference in the tranSportation charges to the central markets. No shipping point prices for Minnesota potatoes were available during the beginning of the 1953—1954 marketing season. However, Wisconsin potatoes at the shipping point were similar to the Minnesota potatoes on the central markets in terms of variety and grade. Therefore, it was assumed that the shipping point prices for Minnesota potatoes were similar to the Wisconsin shipping point prices and the Wisconsin prices were used as the Minnesota shipping point prices. The Reliability of the Actual Price Differences in the Chicago and New York Markets Before the actual price differences from the sample were compared with the estimated price differences, the author felt that someestimate must be made as to the reliability of the actual price differences. This was done by comparing the actual differences of the prices on the fifteenth of each month, which were used in the sample, with the actual differences of the average monthly prices. From these comparisons, qualitative estimates as to the reliability of the actual price differences derived from the sample were made. These average monthly price differences were obtained by taking the difference between the shipping point prices as used in the sample and average monthly prices for potatoes on the central 42 markets. However, average monthly potato prices by state of origin were available only for the New York and Chicago markets,1 and no estimate as to the reliability of the prices quoted by the Atlanta, Dallas, Denver and San Francisco markets could be made. Prices were compared only for the months where both actual differences of monthly shipping point prices and the market prices quoted in the 15th of the month and actual differences of average monthly shipping point and average monthly market prices were available. Months falling within the same marketing season were grouped into time periods. Price differences for the 15th of each month and average monthly price differences, during each time period were weighted with the volumes of unloads during the respective month to obtain weighted average actual differences of shipping point prices and central market prices quoted on the 15th of each month, and weighted average differences of the average monthly shipping point and wholesale market prices during each time period. These relationships are seen in Tables IV and VII. It will be noted in Table VII that average differences of prices on the fifteenth of each month on the New York market can be considered as being fairly reliable. In most cases the actual differences of prices on the fifteenth of each month compared favorably with the actual differences of average prices for each month. "lThe sources of these average monthly pdtato prices by state of origin were: U.S.D.A. "Wholesale Prices of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables and Auction Prices of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables at New York City and Chicago and F.O.B. Prices at Leading Shipping Points by Months". 99. cit. M” .mfimonp was» nu pmpddaoo weep hhsmsoomm scam panamoapqhw "mumbom mo.m mw.a No.m mw.a Hm. ease eoeeeeaeea ewe.a mmn.a em.a me.a mm.a om.a mm.a mm.a mm. eeaweoo oeeeH mm.a mm.a Hmm.a NN.H em.a Hm.a ea.a mom.a mm.a am.a ma.a mm.a mm.a mo.a om.a em.a mm.m mm. wearmm. seem oeeeH . om.a eam.a om.a wem.a wee.a em.a mm.a mma.a mes.a mm.a mm.a mm.a ea.m mm. eomuam. eeem oeeeH 3;. men; 3; mos; am. 34 SSH wNN.H mem.a wa.a mm.a mew.a mm.a em.a mmm.a am. newness oeaeH omee.a moo.m ma.a mm.a mm.a sm.a wo.m mm.m mm. saeeusez .mHaeo am.m :m.m am.m sm.m mm. mesa .mHaeo mm.a me.a em.a mm.a sm.a ma.a an. eqeenawa .maaeo oea.a mam.a mm. mm.a Hm.a Ha.a mm. em.a om.a mm.a mm. emerges oeeeoaeo mma.a mom.a mm.a mo.a ma.m mm. mm. nominee oeeeeaeo emo.a mo.a mo.a mo.a mo.a ea.a am. emerges oeeeoaoe was. esp. as. on. me. mm. mm. mm. oemweoon.omeeu.eeaa mom. was. mm. mm. me. mm. mm. eeoueeem .eeea eme.a eem.a ee.a mw.a aa.a ma.a mm. Hezupee eeeeeaa Hem.a mm.a mm.a mm.a mm.a mm.a mm. meaneea eeaeoam om.a mm.a om.a mm.a an. wee «canoes mote ewe. so.a mo.a mm. mm.a an. new seduces III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIImeHHoclllllIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII ,eeoeem apnea . haapnoz mmwnobw nope we spma moofinm Qpnox nose mo mama Munoz was no mmoemnommfin Hespod owenmh< on» no mmofihm mo .mwwm defined .hm hanpaoz owmuo><.mO mmenouommfim Heepoa as» no wovenm mo moodoymmman fleshed peace weaeeeem Samoa .mwoeaeom 68:3 0338 seems: eases: QZd.mHZUE Ema ho mama wszD.ocsing money on shipments to all of the central 63 markets except New York City where they made no appreciable profit or loss. It is possible that the estimated wholesaling charges for Idaho potatoes were too high. If it is assumed that conditions in all of the other markets were the same as these central markets, it can be said that the Idaho shippers were fairly efficient in the selection of markets. However, less total loss might have been made if Idaho shippers would have directed some shipments from Chicago to other markets during the 1952—1953 marketing season. Idaho shippers sent the largest prOportion of the potatoes that were shipped to the central markets, to the Chicago market and received the largest estimated losses per hundredweight. Idaho shippers made no appreciable profits or losses in their shipments to New York and Atlanta and only a slight loss on these shipments to Dallas. Substantial profits were made in the Denver and San Francisco shipments,however, these profits might have soon disappeared if Idaho producers shipped more potatoes to these markets. In general, Idaho shippers were not very efficient in selecting the most profitable markets during the 1952-53 marketing season in that they sent a surplus of potatoes to Chicago. Less total loss might have been sustained if they had shipped more potatoes to some other market, for example, New York City. During the beginning of the 1953—1954 marketing season, it appeared from Table XIVthat Idaho shippers were making more efficient market selection. Relatively more potatoes were sent to the Denver and San Francisco markets and Idaho shippers were not making any 6h appreciable profits or losses from the Denver shipments and were making a slight profit on the San Francisco shipments. There appeared to be a slight profit on the New York shipments and no appreciable profit or loss appeared to be made on the potato ship— ments to Dallas. Idaho shippers were apparently taking less of an average loss on their shipments to the Chicago market. In general, they should have sent a few less potatoes to the Chicago market and a few more to the New York market. washington was selected as the shipping point state in Pro- duction Region VI. It was previously eXplained in Chapter II that northern California, and not washington, was the largest producing area in the region. However, Washington was selected because more potato shipments were made to the central markets in the other production regions. Relatively few washington potatoes were sent to San Francisco because it was cheaper for San Francisco whole— salers to buy potatoes from nearby areas in northern Calfironia and in Oregon. No price information was available for washington potatoes in the central markets during the 1950—1951 marketing season, from January.l, 1951 on. TableXV indicates that washington shippers made substantial profits on their shipments to the New York,.Atlanta, Chicago and Denver markets. No substantial profits or losses appeared to be made on the shipments to Dallas. However, washington shippers suffered a substantial loss on the shipments to San Francisco. In general, washington producers were quite efficient in their selection of the most profitable markets, except that a large prOportion of the potatoes shipped to San Francisco should have been sent to the Chicago and New York markets. During the 1952—1953 marketing season, profits were made in all shipments to the central markets and apparently Washington producers were very efficient in their market selection. However, it is possible that more profits could have been made if ‘Washington shippers had sent more potatoes to the New York markets and less to the San Francisco and Chicago markets. During the beginning of the 1953—1954 marketing season, Washington shippers sent the majority of the potatoes that they shipped to the central markets outlined in this study, to the Chicago market. In general, here again, the washington shippers were quite efficient in their selection of the most profitable markets. However, it is again very probably that the washington shippers should have sent slightly more potatoes to the New York market and slightly less to the Chicago market in order to maximize their profits. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY In general,.potato shippers tend to ship to the most pro- fitable markets, however, in some cases, potato shippers may be shipping large volumes of potatoes to markets where they were not maximizing their profits. This was analyzed during the years 1951 through 1953. The United States was divided up into seven separate pro— duction regions on the basis of differences between the market- ing seasons for potatoes in different sectionsof the county, geographical considerations, patterns of potato production within states and consumer preference as measured by price. A central market was chosen in each production region on the basis of size and its proximity to the pOpulation center and land area center of the region. New York City was chosen as the central market in Production Region I. Atlanta and Chicago were chosen as the central markets in Production RegionsII and III reSpectiver. Denver was the central market selected in Production Region IV. Dallas and San Francisco were chosen as the central markets in Production Regions V and VII respectively. No central market was chosen in Production Region VI. Next, representative potato prices had to be obtained both in the production regions and in the central markets over the 1951— 1953 time period. These prices had to be accompanied with descrip— tions of the variety, grade, processing treatment and type, size O .67 and weight of potatoes in the container in which the potatoes were shipped to market. Average prices received by farmers did not have any accompaning descriptions of the above and did not take into consideration the various charges for processing and trans— portation, etc., before the potatoes reached the shipping points. Therefore, these prices could not be used in this study. However, the prices of potatoes at all leading shipping points were avail— able and their prices were accompanied by the necessarv descriptions. Shipping points were delineated for each production region on the basis of being in the area of heaviest potato production in the state having the heaviest potato production in the region during the 1951-1953 time period. Another criterion was that of having prices quoted for the largest total number of months during this time period. On the baSis of this, Presque Isle, Maine was selected as the shipping point in Production Region 1.. Miami, Florida and Minneapolis, Minnesota were selected as the shipping points in Regions II and III reSpectively. Denven,Colorado and Bakersfield, California were selected as the shipping points in Regions IV and V respectively. Twin Falls, Idaho and Ellensburg, washington were resoectively chosen as the shipping points in Regions VI and VII. Prices on the fifteenth of each month were available from all of the central markets. These potato prices were accompanied by descriptions of the variety, grade, processing treatment, if any, and weight of potatoes in the containers. A sample showing market prices on the fifteenth of each month and average shipping point prices for each month was drawn up. All 678 potatoes compared in this study were U.S. No. l;potatoes which were size A washed and quoted on a hundredweight basis were used in the sample as much as possible. Transportation charges between the shipping points and the central markets were next determined. Both rail and truck data were obtained. However, the truck data was not completely accurate and therefore was not used in the study. The majority of the potatoes shipped to the central markets from the shipping points were rail shipments. A range of wholesale charges for potatoes from each shipping point, on each central market, was estimated. Transportation charges were added to the ranges of estimated whole- sale charges to obtain ranges of estimated price differences for potatoes between the shipping points and the central markets. Next the monthly shipping point prices from the sample were subtracted from the monthly market prices to obtain actual monthly price differences. These actual monthly price differences for the months in each marketing season, were weighted by the total volumes of shipments by months between the shipping points and the central markets to obtain actual season average price differences. The actual season average price differences were then compared in tabular analysis with the range of estimated price differences. If the actual season average price difference between any shipping point and central market was higher than the range of estimated price differences between the shipping point and central markets, it was assumed that shippers at that shipping point were making a profit by shipping to that market. If the actual season average .69 price difference was lower than the range of estimated price differences, it was assumed that shippers at that shipping point were taking a loss by shipping to that market. These season average profits or losses were also put in tabular form. The season average profits or losses were compared with the corresponding total seasonal volumes of unloads from the shipping points to the central markets. In general, shippers in each pro— duction region tended to ship the majority of their potatoes to the markets where they maximized their profits or minimized their losses, during the 1951-1953 time period. Maine shippers sent the majority of the potatoes that they shipped to the New York market, where, in general, they were making slight profits. Florida shippers sent the majority of their potatoes which they sent to the central markets, to the Atlanta and New York markets during the 1951—1953 time period, making slight profits on the average by shipping to New York and slight losses on the average by shipping to Atlanta. Minnesota shippers shipped the majority of potatoes that they shipped to the central markets to the Chicago market where they apparently suffered some losses. Colorado shippers shipped most of the potatoes that they shipped to central markets to the Denver and Chicago markets, where they also appeared to be taking losses. Southern California shippers shipped the majority of the potatoes that they shipped to the central markets to Chicago and New York, where they appeared to make high profits. Idaho shippers also shipped the majority of their potatoes shipped to the 7O central markets, to the Chicago and New York markets. The Idaho shippers apparently broke even on their shipments to New York and suffered losses on their shipments to Chicago over the 1951—1953 time period. washington shippers sent the majority of the ship- ments that they sent to the central markets to the Chicago market where they appeared to be making profits throughout the 1951—1953 time period. 10. ll. 71 BIBLIOGRAPHY Church, D. E., Effect of Increases in Freight Rates on Agri— cultural Products,. Circular No. 8&7, U.S.D.A., Washington, D. 0., April, 1950. Fox, K. A., "A Spatial Equilibrium Model of the Livestock- Feed Economy in the United States", Econometrica, 21 lo. 4 (Oct. 1953) Garrott, W} N., Marketing Charges for Potatoes Sold in Pittsburgh, Pa.,_DecemberL7l949-June, 1950, Marketing Research Report No. 5, U.S.D.A., B.A.E., Washington, D.C., May, 1952. Garrott, W} N., Marketing Charges for Potatoes Sold in Cleveland, Ohio, February—June, 1950, Marketing Research Report No. 5, U.S.D.A., B.A.E., Washington, D.C., 1952. Motts, G. N., oral communication. Snitzler, J. R., Movements, Freight Rates and Prices of Pota— toes, Recent Trends for Nine Major Markets, U.S.D.A., A.M.S., washington, D.C., November, 1953. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Statistics, 1953, U.S.D.A., washington, D.C., 1953. United States Department of Agriculture, Crops and Nbrkets, U.S.D.A., B.A.E., washington, D.C., Vols. 29 and 30, 1951 and 1952. United States Department of Agriculture, Crons and Markets, U.S.D.A., A.M.S., Washington, D.C., Vol. 31, 1953. United States Department of Agriculture, Potato Prices, anthlv and Season Average Prices Received by Farmersgby States and United States, 1909-1952. Statistical Bulletin No. 140, Revised Estimates, U.S.D.A., Agricultural Marketing Service, washington, D.C., March, 1954. United States Department of Agriculture, aily Fruit and Vege— table Report, U.S.D.A., P.M.A., Fruit and Vegetable Branch, Atlanta, Vols. 37; 38 and 39, 1951; 1952 and 1953. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 72 United States Department of Agriculture, Daily Fruit and Vegetable Report, U.S.D.A., P.M.A., Fruit ani Vegetable Branch, Chicago. Vols. 37; 38 and 39, 1951; 1952 and 1953. United States Department of Agriculture, Daily Fruit and Vegetable Report, U.S.D.A., P.M.A., Fruit and Vegetable Branch, Dallas. Vols. 1; 2 and 3, 1951; 1952 and 1953. United States Department of Agriculture, iiscellaneous Fruit and Vegetable Ronrt, U.S.D.A., P.M.A., Fruit and Vegetable Branch, New York City, Vols. 37; 38 and 39. l951; 1952 and 1953. United States Department of Agriculture, Federal State Market- ing News, Miscellaneous Fruit and Vegetable Report, U.S.D.A., P.M;A., Fruit and Vegetable Branch, Denver. Vols. 37; 38 and 39. 1951; 1952 and 1953. United States Department of Agriculture, Federal State Market News, Local Fruit and vegetable Report, San Francisco, Vols. 37; 33 and 39. 1951; 1952 and 1953- United States Department of Agriculture, Unloads of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables at New York City; Atlanta; Chicago and Dallas—Fort Worth, U.S.D.A., P.N-A., Fruit and Vegetable Branch, 1951 and 1952. United States Department of Agriculture, Unloads of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables at New York City; Atlantgi Chicago and Dallas—Forth Worth, U.S.D.A., A.M.S., Fruit and Vegetable Division, 1953. United States Department of Agriculture, Federal State Market News, Unloads of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables at Denver and San Francisco, U.S.D.A., P.M.A., Fruit and Vegetable Branch, 1951 and 1952. United States Department of Agriculture, Federal State Market News, UnlOads of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables at Denver and San Francisco, U.S.D.A., A.M.S., Fruit and Vegetable Division, 1953. United States Department of Agriculture, Wholesale Prices of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables and Auction Prices of Fresh Fruits at New York City and Chicagp, and F.O.B. Prices at Leading Shipping Points, 1951; 1952 and 1953. U.S.D.A., P.M;A.,Fruit and Vegetable Branch, Washington, D.C., Aug. 1952 and Aug. 1953. 22. 23. 73 United States Department of Agriculture, Wholesale Prices of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables and Auction Prices of Fresh Fruits at New YOrk City and ChicagoL and F.O.B. Prices at Leading ShippinggPoints, 1951; 1952 and 1953. U.S.D.A., A.M.S., Fruit and Vegetable Division, November, 1951. United States Department of Agriculture, U.S.D.A., A.M.S., Division of Marketing and Transportation Research, written communication. APPENDIX A SUPPLEMENTARY TABLE Fr” ta ‘. O -...- POTATOES (18188); TABLE XVI PRODUCTION AND AMOUNTS SOLD BY STATES 1951 THROUGH 1953 I, g 1952 1953 group and _ 1 1 2 State __ Prod Sold Prod Sold Prod Sold ’ ———————————————— 1000 bu. _ — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — LEARLY 3 North Carolina 0380 1164 5292‘ 3758 6120 South Carolina 1937 1553 i848 1562 105 Georgia 483 195 456, 201 456 Florida 6321 6195 75261 7533 10206 Tennessee 1539 413 1360, 292 1380 Alabama 4216 3606 41183 3610 6118 Mississippi 522 70 489 9% 881 Arkansas 3 1106 357 789 188 49” Louisiana 794 384 70? ”31 988 Oklahoma 526 150 490 291 299 Texas 2204 1711 20403 1639 2484 Arizona 1387 1319 1517 1451 2382 California 21805 21664 25300 35661 33333 Totals F5175 'Z1573 53448 46421 65548 INTERMEDIATE New Jersey 7476 6239 4866 4575 6519 6031 Delaware 940 808 862 771 1775 1473 Maryland 1230 882 1281 551 871 926 Virginia 6882 5656 4692 3834 6300 5433 Kentucky 1960 482 1558 533 1479 363 Missonri 1568 262 1080 308 682 76 Kansas 368 .___éi ._.229 __ 78 ——l22 —-4§§ Totals 20424 14392 14059 10500 17759 14035 LATE . Maine 44500 40439 54360 47295 57720 54853 New Hampshire 975 748 1046 844 1071 862 Vermont 738 437 374 476 779 404 Massachusetts 1886 1674 1702 1482 2088 1821 Rhode Island 1909 1000 1152 1081 1282 1218 Connecticut 2253 2003 2270 2001 2638 2443 1 7 New York L. 1. 1440 13962 13225 16669 17000 13020 /~ New York Upstate 13500 10891 13500 10058 13260 10356 7/’ Pennsylvania 16215 13644 19466 11608 13020 10482 / 'West Virginia _1575_ __3Qg 1350 .__152 ,_1359 _.21 Totals 97101 85120 107739 91666 110858 99789 Ohio 5750 4718 4800 3705 4800 3643 Indiana 3360 2497 2520 1965 3062 2437 Illinois 825 224 520 138 412 115 a Michigan 10800 7359 10360 7127 10730 7517 ”\ 'Wisconsin 9805 6966 12040 9360 14335 11037 ‘8 Minnesota 11900 8691 12240 9461 12480 9042 ‘ 1 Iowa 1040 421 1250 542 630 247 North Dakota 13320 11614 14400 11352 15510 13421 South Dakota _1659 1125 _143g __384 ._l§Zi 1g13 Totals 58450 43015 59560 44374 63834 48672 Nebraska 5890 4682 7050 6102 5852 4628 Montana 2150 1608 2300 2023 2258 1622 Idaho 36680 32378 42780 38403 45900 40435 Nyoming 1202 1020 1518 1242 1403 1105 Colorado 12240 10001 19250 16793 18090 15066 New Mexico 144 119 80 62 75 58 Utah 2214 1291 3162 2727 3430 2593 Nevada 364 395 527 428 544 435 ‘Washington 10920 9061 10400 9664 11200 9721 Oregon 10240 8786 11385 9668 11840 10496 California 13330 12449 16900 14844 15120 14510 Totals 95374 82190 115252 101960 115712 100669 Totals—Late 250925 210325 282591 238000 290404 249130 United States3205l8 266390 349098 294921 373211 _ _ - 1Consists of potatoes sold for all purposes, including food, seed processing and livestock feed. 2Volume of potatoes sold in the ear1y states not available. 3 North Carolina, Includes the following quantities of commerical early potatoes not marketed (1000 bushels): 105; Florida, 364; Alabama, 1288; Texas, 494; California, 2569. SOURCE: l. 1952 and 1953 information adapted from: U.S.D.A., "Merchantable Potato Stocks as of January 1, 1955 with Comparisons”, U.S.D.A.,.A.M.S., CrOp Reporting Board, Washington, D.C., January 19, 1955, pp 3—4. 2. 1951 information adapted from_U.S.D.A.,_Ag 0.0., (1954) pp 256—257. ricultural Statistics, U.S.D.A., Washington, APPENDIX B SUPPLETCENTARY FIGURES 77 .83 :08: aa: .62 fipoagm 8636336 .0 .8 8685266.: $6.24 33.6.: “$3.83 6865 338 43.6.: .mm .m «ammflv Hm .Ho> .o .8 «885.866: 26.2.4 $4.86.: .3282 one 68.5 333.: yhnmcflsflamna ma mpmxumz paw macho .vmpoxume mm: mono mo unmoumm m.o :mnp once :02: usages an tho J 33 8:85, $3 .H 888 5 66838 .N .H “mmonsom c.“ «pan mmmfi N aSOSm moofipm H pom mhmsnmmwma ©m>Hmomm mmofigm 59:0: 03p mo sumH mmmpm>< .m mhswflm a a a a a a 2.. 1a a a a 40 a ie 004 \\\‘\. \/ /. \.\ \\ // \ l/\ \ It’llcl/ \ \ / ,\\ x, //2 mean: \ a 1.84 \\/I.I/..latlltv .\ \\ .t\:.p.u ... ”7/ m mm: ommmma \a \\... ,,I .. ., . wwwamw wcozw \ ..\. A.... ,,Hs ny/z . :00 m 8521......2 4/ 82358 362.. /.\.\..., Hmnmdn hmaommmaaon .83 :98: .93 583328 8636368 .0 .n 8085862 :94: :«ddé .8483 $38 338 34.96.: .N .mm .a «smaav Hm .Hop .6 .n 885266: $224 .4585 .385: 68 396 4.9.6.: A ”660.88 .bofifiaoaa 2... 33.8: new 68.6 5 33 33 N .030ng was 993 HO #:00qu moo 5.5 one... son: 9356 5 .ano 8.52m mmowgm H N 4 mm? 2285 R3 .H 888 5 $338 you 395mm .3 ngmomm 33.5 5.8: 23 mo sumH 8225 .w mafim a z o ,w H m, n a H, _a nu , e ‘1 J {l o .w v 0 fioo H -. ..x :.:.;..: .o .H #3» 302 ........ :l, . ..... m chthmccmm / . \ I psoHpomccoo \ an X. . I 100.m \ it I. / \ \ II. 1...! \ I, 'I In. Oll- i.’ I '7 I ll / \ / I \\ / \-\\ . I I; mHaHmug 9mm: \ / om.m H3045 you mhmHHoa 79 Am? mass .9: .oz 3835 183333 .0 .m Spwfismmz «6.24 «4.9%: .mmmdéoma mmofium 3.30m 4.0.6.: .3 .a 3%: R is 00 on «GOQMGHSWNB acme—Lad no¢cQoW03 «$3.03sz Hug ”“80 0‘09 000: .N .H "muonsom .bmcfiswamnm mun 33.32 cam macho 5 3mm mmma m 630me5 mm: 90.3 mo #:8an m.o 55 982 :05 mnpcos 5 bane spasm mmowpm H nmma nmiohnp Hmma «H :ofimm 5 moofiwpom « how muggmhnacgfimomm amofinm 2.282 93 mo coma mmmnmfiw .m. 93mg a a o .m w n n a w a m. h. A “w o A -oo.H 10m.a \ \‘ \ \ \ \ \ \ // ammumh. 3m2\ \ x J 28mm§\\ : . /\/foo.m mumzmamm ........ :11. u ac...\\ unmahuws. mwfimpg om.m dogmas ham mnmflnon 80 .amma span: .oaa .oz cfipmaasm Hmofipmfipaam .o .q .coumcwsmma “.sz.< ..¢.n.m.= .Nmumoma moowum opmpom .<.n.m.= .a aflv Hm .Ho> .o .a “5&5”:ng ..m.£.< .éddfi «magma: can m 0.8 4706.: .hnmfifiamna m.“ magma: flaw macho 63¢th mm: 90.8 no 9:8qu m.o 85 0.35 man: 2208 5. ads N .H mmma nw=oazu Hmma .HH scammm :H moopmpom .m .H “moonsom 50am mooflm H pom magnum ha Ugwmomm $0.3m 5:02 05 Mo 5.3“ mwmuofiq .m mafia m" "Md 4 m 4 H. h M. d _ c . . . . w. .. "A- v...‘ mSHkoo ant—oz. II. .2 . x. \. x. «533.4 ,/ /\ mamaomc I .I .maonmu ”350% . SI .Itl m m a .l! r itlru imo Tm; roo.N m. acm.N N oo.m am: 25 uma mumaaon 81 3&3 can: «0.: 62 582.3 Hmofimflmvm .o .m aopwfifimz :méé $.99: .NmAmoS 33$ 330m 433.: .om .g flammfiv Hm .~o> .o .n .coomfifimz 292.4 336.: .333 Em «mayo 333.: A .huflhfiamha m.“ mpoxnmz U5 macho 5 3.5 mm." m .m «m8 .Bom .Umpmxams mm: no.8 mo 9:8an m.o :3» 0.82 5:: 93:05 5" his gonm $3.2m ._.. N ~ RS @585 Hmfl .HH 8&3" E mosfiom no.“ mhmcflmh o. Umbflmomm mmownm 5:02 93 mo gum.“ @9303» .m 0.9m?” @zomw m .4. a w z. «a. : 0 fl 'OmOH \ X \\ z w g? n . . I/\\ mwmcmxfi‘ x 1 312 x .\ \.\\\.‘\\J.// ‘.\\ ““3333“: \\ /\ 10m.m «€3.33 \\ 8A H0395 nmm mhflHon 4....-.- —a.-..o 43.3 5,32 .SH .02 £335 Hmofimflfim .o .m .aopmfifimz ..méé 335.: .mmumofi 33$ 830m 2.35.: .N .0m .9 Kammav Hm .Ho> .0 on «893.233 «5.24 34.96.: .mpmxumz Una amen $3ng .H 38.38 ..mhmcgamnn ma mp exam: cum macho 5. 3mm mmma N 633.35 aw: APB mo 950ng m5 can» 80.: :23 3.305 5 has :39? mmoflm .n m .M RS @585 $3 .HHH :3QO S.” 8333 now mhmfinmm n cobfloomm mmoflhm 39:02 23 no sum.” $394 .2 0.3m?“ a a w M 4 a h z A 2 uh. Tomé am m2 3: \ camcoomws \ . .... I..." O 0.30.... \ --- u|-/:I ; aco N \\ /.} -- 2053/. xx x , .5 , \x. / wadUCH\\II.\\..\\\ /‘ /., I. \.\ .\ . Ill hxosvcmu--tov X /... X2. ..III XX / Iii (\ ., / 0m.~ Amanda. 9mg and ...Hon 83 .ammH nouns .ofi .ozlmmpmflgm 303333 .0 .a .Samfinmma rmfié .4565 .3483 $3.5 33$ 4665 .N .8 .n ERG am .3, .o .n .Bpmfifiaz ..méé $33.: .30sz can 3&0 4.96.: ..n ”$0.38 .hhfifiamfi 3 39%: o8 396 fi 38 G3 N 633%.: mm: 90.3 no £80.89 m5 can» 938 8:3 «5:08 5 5:0 8.2m 33.5 H N . $3 @285 RS #3 comma 5 $338 you magnum umpfimowm monuflm spec: o5 Ho nama ounumpd 7? 93mg flamm-mwa¢4¢fiw hwo e loo...“ m o no \.-- p x8 fi 2‘ . ‘34 upon 233,1: . 30x8 fisomx. Hgommwz\ \. r..oo..m ilull.\\\ mSOH-s\ 11’ ........... Omow .3395 .52“ mthHon .amma :93,“ .9: .oz aflmflsm Hmoflmfimpm .o .n .Spmfifimz :33. .4565 .NmsmoS 83.5 338 .53.: .3 d 33b Hm Ag .9 .a .8932»? :33. 323.: Juana: cam macho .33.: .bmngamua ma mpmthz can 395 5 «and mm? m .N .H "mmonsom €33.85 mm: no.8 no #:00qu m6 35 938 :9? 9388 5 has 552m 305 H N .H $3 $82» $2 .fi Bums 5 833cm pom mnmEam hp cofimomm mmoflm 5.8x 23 mo :93” «$325.. .NH 953nm qaaflm h b. a N N N .0 II 'I I'll a .... '''''' ‘. Nxmwhnmz ........ , - l . . ovmnoaoo. .. . ._ .. 1.; I 10m4 :3; a .\ .\ 9:20»: \ mvmbmz.\ mcwpgz: , : x x . ..oo.N I If om.~ dogmas .39 my «.309 85 Emma 53: ..ofl 5: 8.333: Hmofimfifim .o .: .Spmfifimz rmié 34.99: .Nm..momH 83:: 830: .<.:.m.: .mPuamemd R 40: .o .: .copmfinmm: 292:... 34.3%: .333: Ea m .6 4.9:: .hhwcasaammq ma mpmxnmz Us: macho .vmpmxnwe mm: mono no pcwonmm m.o awn: mace ems: mnuccfi cfi_haco N .H mmma 2385 SE .: 830m 5 38.38 you mumenmm.hn Um>wmomm moowpm :pcoz on» mo :pmd ommnmbd .0H m z o m u... h. ._._. z a .N .H «moousom fi Sm: RS N axonm mmownm H mhsmwh - 5: ..e we .V w v . 100 H mmxoe //// /. /. c \I. I...“ 'Om.H flfiouflm: as: .. x .. x I -/ «.832... ., IIIIIII Doug 3®Z\\\\\\1/lx\\\\x rill” -. I. .1... I'll z .\ I .\ .I . I, t \ I \ «I. \D ’ .\ III In It... ..... I . mmmgxll-i.\. ..x .I lllll ...lt‘l Iii! ‘00 N x \\ \ x x \ 22mg: ...... om.w Hogans non mhwdaon 86 .ammH no.3: .ofl .oz Epdesm Hmofimfimpm. .: .: .ccpmcanunz_..mjz.4_..<.:.m.: .Nmaaoma mmw«:w.mmw:om .<.:.m.: .Nm .: w may am .No: 00 0Q ngpwfifiwz “(@0204 «oiamop anflmxmmz mam mu. 0H0 odogomoa 0H «ugh—om .hnmcweflHoun 3 33.9.2 can 396 5 .33 mmmH N 638.58 mm: 993 no $80an m5 can» 98.: :95 :53: 5" hHao 863m mmoflm H N .H mmma nmsoagw Hmma .H: scam»: a: moopu:o: you mumenmh .3 .3583: moofium €2.82 23 no :pmH owahg¢ .nH whfiam .pp. .nn 2 o m I», a a H i. w ¢ ¢ : :.o om ....a\\//\\\/> >\l1 r.om.H . 8pm H395 .83 nudHHon 87 .amma noun: .02H .oz aflgmwaam,aao:aagawom .: .: .copmadnmu:_..m.z.4 ..:.:.m.: .NmnmomH mmowpm o:m:o: .4.:.m.: .m:..:\::mmav Hm .Ho: .0 .: .83553: .55.... ......:.m.: .mpmfimz Ea 38: 333.: .N .H «amazon .hnmadeHHona mH «pagan: we: nacho 2H «own mmmH N 63825: was 90.8 no :50qu m6 55 0.3.: can: :55... 5 :5 E35 moownm H 33 $3.2: G3 .2: 83mm 5 3338 N a how mama—harm. Mn umpHmomm mooflm 530: 23 mo "~va $983: .mH Pang a a. o m A h .. .m A a .... a. .o Aw A" 18oH \/ \..\\.\. \ / \. ..... . \ .\ // \go \ \\I I/\\.\ I; .\x\\ .. //\ I nll:ll OOMQH \\\.. x z \ / Sfignmd3\\\ xx \ // \//Too.m W Omom Hogan 2mg an mHHoQ APPENDIX C FREIGHT RATES BETWEEN THE SELECTED SHIPPING POINTS AND CENTRAL KARKETS 89 .:0HpaoH§H880 r1339: £09.3me 83583939 mam “33823“ Mo moguflfim 39:7,”. $4.139: "Momem Hm Ham OH H .poo qusom ooo.om on .pmom 0» H mash magnum ooo.om m on .nmd OH H .Hoo mandom ooo.wm om .ummm 0» H as: qusom ooo.om H N mH.m mmmH page mH.N mmumum mo.m Hmnmmuw mo.m Hmnszs Ho.m HmuHuH .4HHdo .oomHoanm cam N Ha.H mmoH saga Hm.H mmsmum mw.H Hmnmmum Hm.H Hmunn: om.H HmuH-H .OHoo .po>gw2 m mw.H mmOH saga mm.H mmumum mn.H Hmummum mm.H Hmnan: Hm.H HmlHnH man a .maHHac ooo.om om.H mmmH saga om.H mmumum om.H Hmsmwnw om.H Hmndn: mH.H HmsHuH .HHH .omaOHzo m m¢.H mmmH sane w:.H mmnmum o¢.H Hnummuw om.H Hmnjnd am.H HmuHuH .mo .apqupH H 3.. 9.3 95. MR. Nmumum ammo. Hmummnw 3. H31: mm. Hm..H..H .w .m ins» 22H . flog pgmfimz m mm mum? mpmm mama mpam mums opam mpdp mpam mama qua: .meH mdUmon HEEHQHMH 36mm AmrmSDQ OOH 9mg wmpmm demv mpaoqmmu .maHm: .mmuaqeom HHPN Hana 90 s» c .QOdequdEEoo coppwpz .sohammmm mowpwpnomedna and mquoxpdfl Mo coflmfibfin ..m.:.4_..4.fi.m.b "Mofibom .qusom ooo.om psmHoz asaHaH: H ooo.mm wH.n mmmH suge wH.m mmumHum mm.m mmuHuH mm.w mmrmmuo mm.m mmsom:m mm.o HmaHnH .mHHwo .oowfloqcpm mam ooo.mm mm.m mmoH spga mm.m mmsHaH m:.m mmnmmum mm.m mmuomum mH.m HmuHuH .OHoo .nopgom ooo.mm mo.¢ mmaH upsa 50.: mmumHn: NH.¢ HmummnH :m.m HuanH maxma .maHHan ooo.mm mm.H mmmH saga mo.H mmnHuH mw.H mmnmm:m wo.H HmuHIH .HHH .owango ooo.mm omwm mmOH saga om.m mmsmHus HNH.N mmruud Hoowm Hm-HnH .am .mpqupH coo.wm m.H mmmH sugm mm.H mm-0HIOH NJH NmnmuHH Hm.H mmrwum HHm.H Hmlmmnn Hms.H HmrHuH .w .z .Huow son “ "09 P m o H. . O .0} HflMEMcwz mpdm mpcfi mama mafia mpdm mp¢n_ 0pcm mum? mpmm mung mpam wpdm an .meH 09cmmhm ... "wfimm Ammndom 00H me mopwm Modhav mHHma .mmoadaom HHHPN mumdm 91 .noprOHchaoo smppfihz .nopmommm QOHpmppommcwhm mam maHpmxpa: we mOHquHm ..m.2.« ..H.n.m.p_ "Magnum ooo.om mQJH mmmH spgm mm.H mmumum om.H Hmrmmam Hmnan: Hm-H-H To .oomHoapr gum ooo.om mm.H mmOH dune mw.H mmnmam an.H Hmummum Hmuzns Hu-HuH .OHoo .pmpqom ooo.om mm.H mmoH saga mm.H mmumum mm.H Hmummsw Hmuaa: Hm‘HaH mwume.maHHmm ooo.om mm.H nmoH sham mm.H mmumnm mm.H Hmumzuw Hmujnn Hm-H-H .HHH .omQOHgo ooo.om mm. mmmH spam mm. mmumum wsw. Hmsow-w Hm-an: HnuHuH anpooc .a+quu< ooo.om Hm.H mmaH spam m.H mmamum :Hom.H Hnnwmum Hman: Hm.HaH .w .z .upow 30H flog panoz ovum ape: mpum mpam mpmm muag mpan was: acHHOHm .HewH: asaflqfifi "Ham Amundom OOH pom mmudm Hwamv deHmHa .HE... mp NHN Bdaom 92 .nowpacwquEoo qupHHB .nonwmmmm nowpdpnogmndpa mam mafipmxamz Ho qumH>Hn ..m.:.4 ..<.p.m.p "Hombum ooo.om 05.: mme spga 05.: mmrmHum mm.: mmaocum wo.: HmnH:H .HHHno .oomHoqanm gum ooo.om Hw.H mmmH snga He.H mmrmHu¢ mm.H HmrmHuHH m:.H HmrHuH .OHoo .nm>umg ooo.om Hm.m mmaH sage Hm.m mmann: Hn.m HmumHuHH uw.m Hmr u: :H.m Hm-H-H mwMoe .meHmp ooo.om Ho. mmmH snag Hm. mmumHu: om. HxanuHH mm. Hmernm om. HmrHuH .HHH .omeHgo ooo.mm mm.H mmOH snag mm.H mmrmu: mm.H Hmrmmum N:.H HmrHuH .dw .mpnaHpH ooo.om mH.m mmmH spga mH.m HmrmmaHH Ho.m Hmanm mm.H Hm-HnH .w .2 .Hyow 302 "ca .Szz.mfi8%$§:2 " zomrH ooo.om ao.m mmOH sham mo.m mmerum :m.m Nmromum mm.: HmsHaH .HHHuo .oomHonmpm gum ooo.mm 0H.m mmmH saga mHJm warms: mo.m Hmnmmum Hw.m HmaHuH .OHoo Jumpgmm ooo.mm mm.m mmmH sane mmwm mmrnHu: mm.m murmn: NH.N HmrHuH wdfimfi .mmHHam ooo.mm mm.H mmmH ahna mm.H mmuwam :5.H mmrmHuHH :H.m Nmrmnm No.m HmuHuH .HHH .ommngo ooo.mm 0H.H mmOH saga OH.H mmnmmum mH.H mman1: m:.H mmannH o:.H HmuHuH . .ma .wpanpH ooo.mm mH.N mmmH sham mH.N mmanu: uw.H mmrmaH om.H HmsHuH .» .z .Huow 3mm "ca panmH mpam opan opqm mama opam mpcn mpmm mama. mpqm mpmm QHHHOHH .HamHz ”aaanm "Hamh n Amcndom 00H pom mmpdm Hoshav BE; . mmoaéom NM Hands 93 .HHoEdoflHHFEoo mmpfig .nohwmmmm qoafiapnommfifia .28 “3383de Mo SOHmfibfiH ..m Hm Ha: op H .pmom mcsdom ooo.om Hm .msH 0p H 0:25 menacm ooo.om ..JcWCQOmOD a 33:08 Hmapo madden ooodm peranqfxndHHhuocsh. amazon 000. on m Hm max OH H .poo mmqsom ooo.om on .pamm 0p H mesa mmqsom ooo.on N Hm Hausa 0» H .pmo awasog ooo.mm on .pmom on H HHHQH acasom ooo.om H N mN.H mmOH saga mN.H NmnN1m N0.H Hmummnw mw.H Hmuauq Hm.H HmuHuH .NHon .oomHogwuH cam m mo.H mmOH spgm mo.H NmuNum wNHo.H HmumNuw mo. Hmusn: mm. HmuHuH .oHoo pmpcon : um. mmOH spay no. NmnNum Hoo. Hmuwmgm um. Hausa: mm. HmuHuH 3U8,”...3HHNHH m mom. mmaH spgm mom. NmaNum Hood. Hm-mN-w m3. HmnHI: 3:. HmuHuH .HHH .omango N HN.H mmmH spam :N.H Nmumum NH.H Hmuwan :H.H HmuHa: NH.H HmrHuH a.mgom¢ .mpnaHpH H Nm.H mmmH spam Nm. Nmumnm N.H HmumNuw NN.H Hmn:u: 0N.H HmsHuH .H .H .Huow 30m pgmfioh , .. ‘ ,. - :3 . 7 ‘ 4 3‘ , 1 3,] .53.. .w www.mrd a esanH; mpgr ape: many ape; mpcw may; opus opwp agar o+cp .: HH H; o .s "WON—W. Hmczsom OOH “mm mmpam HHnmv 1A... 1...‘ a ‘. WEUHKHO mg”. m .... . mfioeaom HNN Mama 91¢ ofio.p.m...m§rbo Coppfifié .SOaHammwQO GOfiQGuhOQmQQHB "OCH“ MWHHflu.OuTHCHA .HO GOflmflbfiQ oomomgod... ..Ha3hnomop "MOMHBM mnpnoa 99.30 wagon. OOO..wm .80meHHmmlperQETthhlogb qudom OO0.0m m mange .Hmnpo meHHSQ. OOO.wm pmgwamghlmgh wwHHHSm OO0.0m N Hm any on H .poo mcqsom ooo.om OH... .33 on H mash. meadow OO0.0m H SflH mmmH 5.39 N37... mmlmlm HH.H. Hmlwmum unfn Hmj mmH HmaHIH .de‘wO .oomHoHEuh Ram H m msm. mmOH sane mam. NmuNnm me. Hmsmmum Hm. Hmnaus on. HL'HuH .OHoo .popmmn H NH.H mmoH sage mH.H NmuNum HH.H HmumN-w NO.H Hmnaa: mo.H Hm-H-H maMme .mmHHmm N wo.H mmoH sums No.H NmuNnm mNHo.H HmrmNum mm. Hma:u: mm. Hm-H-H .HHH .omaoHno H m:.H mmoH suns m:.H NmuNum mm.H Hm-mNum mm.H Hm.:u: Hm.H HmuH-H .wa .wuanHH H 0H.H mmoH snga 0:.H NmuN-m :.H HmumNtm mm.H Hmusad mm.H HmuH-H .» .z .Hpow 20H "om pamHmB 0.5- 93. 97$ 3..» 33m mum, 3mm 35 mo. - on... .o 0 .onFS .. ascHnHz ..m p H c m. cm am cm H.@ :m cHH .3 CG. Auwndom OOH .HoHH moped HHmmV adamd .PH 5.... . HUB..._..,H.o.H HS Ema. 95 .mCHHOCHHSECOQ :OHHHHE .0.}. .aOpdommm sOdepnomnnapm and mngmHHdm mo GOHmeHfi ..m.m.d H P.m.D ”mumbum HmeaHHa>m Homv mawamHmBHH .HHHNO . o o u Hondurm .fiwm ooo.ON Hm.H mmoH sane :0.H mmamHnm mw.H NmumNuHH mm.H_ NmnzHuOH mw.H Nm:omsm Nw.H H.-H-H .OHoo .um>aon ooo.ON HH.H mmoH sham HH.H mmuwHum Nw.m NmIONum om.m HmuHuH magma .mmHHam ooo.om m¢.m mmoH saga m:.m mmannm Hm.: NmuONam um.n HmnHuH .HHH .owQOHao ooo.ON mu.m mmmH spgm mu.m mmumHam mo.m Nmuomum om.: HmuHuH .mo .mpquHH ooo.ON mo.m mmmH spam no.0 mmumHam mm.m NmaONnm mo.n HmanH .w .z .Hnow 30m "ca .HHHao .mHmHmmpoHam ":omm ooo.om :0.H mmOH saga Hm.H mmuwHum mm.H NmumNnHH mm.H_ NmIHH-OH mm.H NmuON-m Nw.H HmuH-H .HHHmo .oomHonwhm mm HOHHNHHa>a pozv mmHmmHmmmH .OHoo .nmhmmq coo.ON No.m mmoH sham mo.m mmumHum mm.N NmnONnm NQJN HmuHuH magma .maHHmm ooo.ON NN.N mmoH saga NN.N mmanum mm.N NmuONnm H¢.N HmuH:H .HHH .omQOHHo coo.ON mH.m mmmH snag m:.m mmannm NH.m NerNnm mm.N HmanH .ma .mpanHH coo.ON mm.m mmmH spna mm.m mmumHum Hm.m N.-ON-m NH.m HmanH .w .z .Hyow so: . Hoe HawHoh ofifim mean opam mpcm opam open mpmm mace mpam mpaa. mpam mpdm .OHoo .wmoaaHH asnflqHz "HUmH AwOQSOQ OOH Hmm mmpwm Hodhev mm Hm.» HHHNX .mmcawaom 5..an Hum... 96 .:0HHQOHcBEaao ampuHHB .SQHmomom :OprpHonqdhm was maHHmHHdE Ho HOHquHH ..m.z.q...H.m.w.p "HHOHHDU m m .pmz 0» H .Hoo qudog ooo.om on .Hmom 0» H HHH.H amazon ooo.om H ooo.om mwmm. mmoH muse 0mm. NmrNum momm. Hmummum mHm. Hmian: Hm. HmanH .HHHwo .oomHogaNH cam H HH.H mmoH spga HH.H NmnNum HH.H Hmummuw NO.H Hm-sua mo.H HmnHuH .OHoo .pm>qmm H mN.H mmOH gage mN.H Nmumn NH.H Hmummuw mH.H Hmu:n: HH.H HmuHuH maxma .meHaH H w:.H mmmH dune o:.H mmumum QH.H HmumNuw om.H Hmnsus Hm.H HmuHuH .HHH .omaoHHo H mN.H mmOH page mN.H Nmumum mm.H Hmurio mm.H Hmuan: mm.H HmrHuH .mw .dpnaHHH H Nw.H mmmH dung Nm.H NmuNu mm.H Hmummuw NN.H Hmrzn: ou.H HL-H-H .H .z .Hnow 30H pHmHm: mpmm opmn mpam mums mpmm mama mpam opwm ouam mpan .HHHmo .HHWWmemHum SEEHHH . 39E. Hqusom OOH Hog wopdm HmeO mmHOHmHu .HHHHH .m >U3H gag 109.30% pl: 97 .QOHpccwadfiaoo ampufipz .noudmmom QOHpappomwmanm mac wnwpmxpu: %o mowmwb Q ..m.z.< ..<.m.m.D "EQMDum mnpnoa Hoflpo I wmadom ooo.om HmpampmomlumdmdMImadfilwnSH mmqgom ooo.om mspuoa Hmnpo I mmqsOm ooo.mm umsmdfilmad%lqufi mcndom Hm Ham 0» H .poo ooo.om meadow ooo.om on .Hmom 0H H mafia mmasom ooo.om H H mon. mmOH sham mon. mmnm1m ommm. Hmrwmlw mu. Hmusa: Hm. HmrHuH .HHHwo .oomHoawpm mam m mmop. mm¢H :gga mama. mmumnm :Hmn. Hmrwmuw on. Hmrnn: mm. HmuHuH .OHoo .pmpqmm H mm.H mmOH :hgm m.H murmum Hm.H Hmummnm mm.H Hmndus mN.H HmrH:H magma .wwHHam N mm.H mmOH spas mm.H mum- Hm.H Hmummum NH.H Hanan: mH.H HmsHuH .HHH .oMango H mm.H mmoH spga mm.H mumum Hm.H Hmawmum 5:.H Hmrdn: m:.H HLnHuH .ac .apqupH H mm.H mmmH spas mm.H mmum- om.H Hn-mm-m mm.H Hmnsu: om.H HmrHuH .w .2 .xpo» am” Hoe pHmHo: mpam mpam mpwm and: mpam opap mHam mpmm ovum opan ogxcH .mHHmH gHza Edfificfiz "wbmm mcdoqmdo Amendem ooa pom mmpam HHamv bxxn HAMdH .maHma .mmoaHaom 98 .HHogcowggo c3393 .HHoHaommm 33.3.892th 28 mcSflEH :8 8325 ..m 0 (H. Au. . u ‘. ._ om}? w.D. ”WOMHBm 08.8 RH 33st EH 3qu 3H mmnmmum RH HmuHuH ..HHHuo 633qu saw 80.8 86 33 BE 88 mmnmmum mm.m mmanuHVH min HnanH .38 .858 80.8 En: mmmH aha... 8.: 9.2% 3.: mm'omn HH.H HmaHnH mwxma .maHHaHH 80.8 HH.m 9ng HH.m «mumHnm HE: mm. mum 3.: HmuHH .HHH 6.3020 80.8 9% mnoH gm. 9% mmgmHam H05 mmémum 3.: HmuHuH .3 .SéHp.....‘ 08.8 8% 335.3,“ $.m mmumHnm 3% mmuomum 9.4.4 HmanH H .z 520»:me "9H. Ame: .mHHHnmcoHHm HH.HEH ooo.om 8. 3ng mm. mmumum. on. mmnOHuw mm. mman-o mu. HmanH ..HHHwo .038qu Ham 08.8 3d mmOH gm. 3.,“ mmnmnm St.“ mm..mm..m wH.m thmHnm id HmnHaH .OHoo £33m... 08.8 0H5 $35.39 3...: mmanum 88 mmnomum mmwm HmuHuH $me .mxHHmHH 80.8 m:.m mmmH Ba. 92 mmanum mHé «muomrm oo.m HmanH .HHH 6.3020 80.8 NE: 9335 fin: mmanum mm; mmuomum 0H5 HmuHuH .8 .3533. 08.8 $6 mmmH E5 wtm mmanum 8.: manomum mm; HmanH .H. .HH J23. 3% - 3 as fimHé 3% mean 3am 33 88H 3am 8am 38 Sam 88 232 .mHHaH £3. 55g; " 5mm Am 380% 03.. Mom "6me Mogv mm. HH.H»... . mmoaficom Hag mafia 99 .mowpucquagoo :mppfina .nouwmmmm cowpcppommcmhe cam mqfipmxpa: mo qOHmH>HQ ..m.:.4 ..d.p.m.D "Hudson 1 Hm Hogs; 0» H .poo mmqsom ooo.om om .pmom OH H HHHQH mmqsom ooo.om m on HHHmH on H .900 acadom ooo.om om .Hgmm 0» H mg; maggom ooo.om H N mmmm. mmOH shag mmmw. mmumum mem. Hmnwmuw on. Hmuqns an. HmuHuH .HHHw .oomHosuhH mam H mo.H mmOH spge mo.H mmumnm mmmo.H Hmummnm ao. Hm:::¢ no. HnanH .OHoo .Hm>:mn H 0:.H mmOH saga o:.H mmumum 2m.H Hmnwmnw om.H Hmusns mm.H Hm-HnH maMme .maHHsn H HH.H mmOH spam HH.H mmnmum .mm.H Hm- mum Hm.H Hmuaaa. om.H HmuHuH .HHH .omaoHso H mm.H mmmH spge mm.H mmumwm mo.H Hmammam mm.H Hmus.a mm.H HmuHuH .ao .apsmHH« H mm.H mmOH sung mu.H mmnmnm Hn.H Hmsmmnm mo.H Hmuxua mm.H HmrHuH .w .z .Hpow awn - "09 panm: oprm mum? mpmm can? QHQm mpam mama. opun mama cusp .Smaz .mydpmquHm assHuH: "Hamm J Hmmqsom OOH pom mmpmm HHamv maWOHM¢U :3 $8 Hm; . momdaum Hbex” mgmde APPENDIX D ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL PRICE DIFFERENCES PER HUNDREDWEIGHT OF POTATOES FROM.EACH PRODUCTION REGION, IN THE CENTRAL MARKETS lOl .mHmmnv mflnp CH Umpzafioo mpmw kpwwcoomm 80pm Umwfimonpckm ”mumbom wH.I m:.I mm. om. mm. mm. om. wan. Haw. vim. mm. m.mm mm. ommoflzo IIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mpmaaou I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mmwmQHu Cowmmm H commwm " pmflowooIhmnEmuQmm " hhmscmh "zbq pcfionvflz swam SOQ pCHomvflz SMHEH ho « NM.IHmr « Hmulomwn Commmm wcflpmthz "commmm Hm;uNmHN thIHmHm w34 HmmH .d thIH add" pmthz mpfimopm” ” mo vcm " I I vimo flaw ca “HmHDCmU ~5me 3.330 0325 .39 cemmmw NmmH Hmma npcozmaf Tm HRH. . mocmpmmmflm moflpm Umpmsflpmm " IHpmm u monopmmmflm moanm Hmspo< " zomXN mqmm mpmv 02 I mmHHmQ ”mombom H o o m:.m mm.m mo.m om.m Hm.m mo:.m .om.m mm.m mmm.m m:.m gmpsma o o o:.m mm.m 3H.m mm.m Hm.m mo:.m om.m mm.m mmm.m m:.m oomHmmmpm :N.- NN.- 3H.H :N.H mm. mm.H. wo.m mm.H mm:.H mm.H mm.H mm:.H HH.H MpcmeH o o mm.H mm.H mm. mm.H mm.m :o.H Hu.H mn.H mw.H mo.H mu.H owmngo Hm.+ mm.+ mo.m am.m :B.H mN.H om.H mm.H :u.H mm.H mm.H mu.H xpoH :mz IIIIIIIIIIIII I I I I I I mLMHHOU I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I w ws¢ 3 pm¢u mocmpmMMHm " u m r I: HQ¢ IH awn“ moapm Mama .LQ< .pmz .Qmm .cww Bog #cfiomwaz nwflm " 39H pcaomuflz nwfim“ Hmvmxpmz mmmmoq ho " . mnpcoz H HmpHCmo mHHmopm UmpmsHHmmI .>¢ Commmm. mmocopmmmflm moflpm Hmnpo< o 0 o o b + O O HmmH .w m:<-: pad mmocmpommHQ mowpm Umpmafipmm HmmH .: pQHIH cmw O O O 11 zom4mm UZHBmmde HmmH .mammm02 poo” 39H HESQUQH nwflmmf is a .u $2 $19. Rim? 593% wcHmeEA commmm wzflofmz mmmHINmmH Mm. Hm 009mm N E): Hmfimz l u I . O omm u l . mmmwmmo.mm Nmmdu MQQCmMWMMHQ u dmwma mmmma mo u mspcoz u mmocmhmmma moHfimuamhwcmo . . GHHHHHH m a o " moahm .>< commmm mnpcdz m " Umpgapmm u 93:3an .pmmm mmocmpmmfia moflHm .2384 u . " mama Jun mmmzmomm AHBZD zomoz .909" 30A waaqmwfiz QMflm " £38m “ 82m .96 fine: Mm? .m mmzuamma .m we: perm: vmwmeflwmm commmm ampucmo mmocmpmMMHm moapm Hm5p0< zom¢mm UZHBmMm¢E NWIHmmH .memxmdz Qoz .poo ”.pmz .Dom .cmw .boz .poo .pmmm "30H 92HocUfiz swam" .pxa " .pxz ” :m.-mm. mm_lmma mmmfi rmmtmDEmwmq cemmmm meapmxtmz u mmma .Hm .666 " :mImmoa ”mmummmahmo .mmm . Haas: comwmm“ mmmalmmma u .Immmfi .N am: "mpmxpmz mo .mmm u u . -u wcflwmxpszdm." . " IIaHmpgcmo " mmocopmmmam mowpn" I- I “ :pcoz . mommoq Lo " mmmhm>< commmm " mmmfi 39:02 " u mozmhmMMHQ mOflpm" maamopm empmsapmm " mmocmpmmmam moapm H82p6< u vmpmsapmm . mmma .Hm,mmmzmoao aHez: 2064mm UZHBmamaz emmaummma 22¢ .zomaMm quemmmaz mmmHImmmH .HHH 20H6mm ZOHBQDQomm.4aommzsz 20mm mmoeaaom mo emmHmzmmmmzpm mam mmozmmmaaHa MOHmm aapao< 62¢ magazHemm befim mumde 108 .mHmmgp mHflp CH UmPSQEoo 0966 mumucoomm Scum anHmmnpchm ”mombom mHDmHHw>m mpww oz I mmHHwQ H fine]. go 3m. “44. A}. m“. om. ow. onbfiHOQ ma.I mo.a mo.H 6H.H am.a mom.a :m.a omaoaao I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIII mLmHHow I I I I I IIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I mmmmoH ho mocmhmwmfim mOHhm .pmz .Dmm .th 30H HCHOQUHZ Smwm mpHMOhm UmmeHpmm mwmpm>< commmm msgnoz HmmH .3 pdeH can pmthz prvao . moofimpmMMHQ moHpm HMdpo< H zomamm quemmmaz Hm-omma mo mam oe Hmma .a wmapzan .>H 20Hmmm ZQHBUDmomm.omNNN MHde 109 .mHmmnp mHSp CH 6mdeEoo 6966 hum6coomm Scam 6oNHmm£pchm "momsom mm.- mm.a mm.a mm.a om.a mm.aaoomaocmpa Cmm ma.- am.a 6H.H om.a ma.m am. om.a mm. mm.a om.a m6.H mmaamm mmH.I mm. mm. mm. H6. 6:. mm. on. mm. mm. mmm. mom. mmw. 66>ch o wm.a mw.m :6.H m86.H Hw.a anew 362 Ho.H+ mm.m ma.m mm. NH.H mm. mm.a 6m.a 6:.H owwoaao IIIII I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mpmHHo6 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mommoq " mocmhmmeQ .pmz .th .cmw .omm .boz .poo .pamm .ms4 " 30H pCH0Q6H2 £MHm " . “mm_.m aszHm_ .w 6:4 pmapmz no mpHmopm” mlom m>m mnpnoz "mmocmpmMMHQ mOHmm Hmppcmo ampmaaamm” Cowmmm mmocmpmMMHQ mOHMm Hmdpod “ empmsapmm mmOedeom mo zomdmm OZHHmmmdS NmIHmmH .>H onwmm ZOHHoDmomm.omamoaoo 20mm emuHmzomeZDm mam mmozmmmamHaflmonm aapaoa oza magazHamm H>NNN mqm¢e ESTIMATED AND ACTUAL PRICE DIFFERENCES PER HUNDREUEX 1952-1953 MARKETING SEASON AND 1953-13¥+I Estimated ; _ : Price Difference: MODth Central- . 1952-1953 Markets: May 2. 1952 ‘ : Marketing Season A Dec. 31, 1953 - :I :High Midpoint Low: Aug; Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.” —————————— _J-———_-_.—~~_—_——-_-—'—-‘.I New York Atlanta 1.97 1.92 1.87 2.31 2.23 ! Chicago 1.46 1.425 1.39 1.55 1.28 1.23 1.23 1.30 1.26 .9?1 Denver .885 .835 .785 ‘86 1,36 .91 .66 .85 .74 .72 .74 523 Dallas 1.77 1.66 1.61 1;%32.73 1.49 1.36 1.35 1.15 1.32 1.98 133 San 2.01 1.96 1.91 2.31 2.47 2.96 2.62 2.33 Francisco 44 N SOURCE: Syrmhesized..from secondary data computed in this thesis. 110 111 ES FROM COLORADO PRODUCTION REGION IV, fl}! UNTIL DECEMBERJI, 1953 :Estimated Profits Les . .13? =Season Average and Losses 9:4 =31? :5 D'f‘iiliiJJSES - : Beg. of ; Season : ‘ Beg. of '1952‘53 : 1953‘54 ember 31’ 1953 : 152_I53 : 153_I5L,, Mkt. ' Mkt. .SOCt. Nov. Dec.. Season ==Season ' Season = Season 2.27 +.30 1.10 1.29 1.10 —.10 -.29 .59 .70 .70 .84 .56 0 ...225 1.33 1.70 1.07 1.62 1.33 0 —.28 1.95 2.41 1.95 +.4O 0 111 o QHQQdesPG ..nuoud m «06.86.80 .306 5800500.... Eon.“ 60300:»an "101.43... Fr oU rt,' 0: I 0053.5 89$ 656m. 9.: an? .> 8 Hana 836285....Héohfla 8.6.6.80 Ema 8.8....80 .6 $65.50 2.952 mum $2522.63 86.0 .558... 9.2 9.685% HHHBOOH gm H mmo.I mm. mm. mm. :m. mmm. mmm. mew. oomaoqapa mam m.I oo.H mm.a ma.a am.a mm.a :6.H nopemn mo.+ mm.a mo.a 8:.a 60.H mn.a 08.H omaoaao ma.+ mm.m m .m NH.m AH.N 03.0 upscapq o:.+ H0.m on.m 52.0 06.6 no.0 60.0 NH.» Ago» mom IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIImH.I.HH06IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . 00:090.“...HHQ. . u H .ooapm H H " w0mmoH H 04208.6 H 05.6 6.0: H234 H 30H 6.2309032 nmflm " H 0p0MH§ no pamopm N 666660 N magmas H Hmoa .6 868054 I : Hanna " Hangman 609.0830m . . m0on0n0mmHfi 03.23 H4394 - 000q0n0mmHG moHHm 63083me . 112 .0H00H3 00.2.3 HHH 0005010000 .30.... 0.0.0.0503 89H.“ 000000£0Hrnm "100-300 000.+ 0H.+ 0H.H 00. 00.H 00.H 0H. H 000. 00. 00. 000. 00 . oomHoqapm 000 00.+ 00.+ 0H.0 00.0 0H.0 0H.0 00.0 000.0 H0.0 00.H 00.H 00.H maHHmm 00.+ 00.+ 00.H 00.0 :0.H H0.0 00.0 000.0 00.H 00.H 00.H :0.H 00>000 :0.+ 00.+ 0H.0 00.0 00.H 00.0 00.0 00H.0 00.0 H00.H 000.H H00.H 0000H00 00.+ 0H.H+ H0.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000H00 00.+ H0.+ 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0040 00.0 0H.0 00H.0 00.0 0000 :00 11111111....IIIII...11.111110003301113IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItIII ....HHow 0m 080.00." 000.000.. H 000000 H mm? "mmoa "03.0.0. 05:“. 0d“. "00.30. 05:”. 0.0“ ”00030033” H mcwpmxhflm “3 u H H mnefiHfiH mmma H NmmH H 000.5 "H8008 mHHHpmuHhSH "H8000m mchfiHszu 39H 03830.2 .amflm H H9308 000.03 .8 03.800 " .3. 80000 " 000H .0000: H 000H .0080 . 000H .H.0 .000 .. 000H 0 .0.. H H «00.08.0300 u 000n0hovmwfi 0.0.0.5.. H0455. H , u 0.00 10 0.HH....H..0.H. ......H 000H EH... ..n 0H .0.. .035 00500000.. .HHHHHH00H.H.,..0 0000.000 H000. 0001.600 r.0 an 0HH-.G.HHEHHHH HH.H 000 H0095 002. 6.30.... EH... 915.0300 MUOOH flay 113 00000000.“.39 00 HH.H $300.0. 0.00030 0003. H5.” 0002.060 00.00 000000000 00.H.“ 0030000900 "EH50 00.1 00.H 00H.H 000. H0.H 0004 00. 00.H 00.H 00.H 83quan :00 00.- 00.H 00.H H0.H H0.H 00.H 00.H 0.0H.H 000.H 00.H 000.0 HH.0 ......HHaHH 00.1 00.H 000.,H 00.... 00.H 000.H 00.H 00.H 00.H 00.500 00.- H0.H 00.H 0004 0H0.H 00.H 000.H 03.0 00.H 00.H 00.H 000300 0H? 00.H 00.0 0H.0 0H.0 00.H.H 00.H 000.H 0.00.0 0H.0 000.0 H0.0 85.30 0 00.H 00.H 00.H 0H.0 000.H 000.0 0H0.H 00.0 00.H 00.0 0H.0 0.30 .60 11......1111......Illnlllllllllmnmaaoelnl IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII H munchmm.flufi u .1 . 00025 .8 H 002m 0 .002 50.0 ..me .009 .002 .000 .0080“ 30A pdaomgm £00m” 0003.3: 3&000 03050.00 ...»... 80.80 H _ 0008: "000H .0 0% ... H00H .0 .020” H.228 0.00000 050.002: 00.H00H ...; H0800 0.0300800 ”Ada 0.0mm. mmoadmonw. _mo EmcHEEMmBEH mfim mm 1.00 Emma HmflfflmHm mo Ham H4301... ‘1.“ CHE .HHBmm 108 .000030 0009 CH 00PSQE00 0000 0u00c0000 80pm 000000Lpshm "momaom mHanHm>m 0000 oz 1 00HH00 H H0.1 0:. :0. 0:. 0:. 00. 00. 00. 00>000 0H.1 00.H 00.H 0H.H 00.H 000.H 00.H 0000H00 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111111 0000000 1 I 1 I 1 111111 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I I 1 00000A 00 00000000HQ 0000m .002 .900 .200 30g 00000002 Qme mpfimopm 00005000m 00000>< :0000m 050:0: Hmma .3 padna C00 00x00: Hmppcmo 000n0p0mmam mofipm Hmfipo< H 200000 00H000000 erommH 00 000 00 HO0H .H 0000000 .>H 20H000 20H0000000.00000H00 2000 00000000 00 000H030000000 000 000000000H0 00H00 000000 02< 00002H000 bkxun Mdmda 109 .000000 0030 00 00050500 0000 0000coomm €000 00000000c0w "mombom 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.00000000000 00m mH.I 0m.H 00.H om.H mH.N mm. 00.H mm. mm.a 00.H no.0 000000 mmH.I mm. mm. mm. am. 0:. mm. 00. mm. mm. mom. mom. wmw. 00>:0Q o mm.H mw.N :0.H m00.a Hw.H 000» 302 00.0+ 00.0 00.0 00. 00.0 00. 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000000 nnnnn I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 000HH00 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mmmmoq " mocmpmmmflfl .002 .900 .c00 .omm .>oz .000 .090m .000 n 304 psaog0flz £00m " . . “mm..0 000-00. .0 004 000002 00 000000m" mowpm m>0 030cc: "mmocmpmMMHQ 0000A H000000 000000000“ Com0®m 000:0000009 moflhm H0000< “ 000000000 zom¢mm UZHHMMMdE NmIHmmH .00 000000 0000000000.00000000 0000 00000000 00 0000000000000 000 00000000000fl00000 000000 000 000000000 H>MNN mqmfie ESIINAIED AND ACTUAL PRICE DIFFERENCES PER mm. 1952-1953 MARRETINC SEASON AND 1953—1951+ TmBLE U Estimated ; Let C 2 Price Difference: Menth entral. 1952_1953 Markets: May 2, 1952 — Dec. 31, 1953 :High Midpoint Low: Aug. Sept. Oct. New York Atlanta 1.97 1.92 1.87 2.31 Chicago 1.46 1.425 1.39 1.55 Denver .885 .835 .785 .86 1.36 .91 Dallas 1.77 1.66 1.61 1,35 2.73 1.49 San 2.01 1.96 1.91 2.31 Francisco Marketing Season Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mgr. 2.23 1.28 1.23 1.23 1.30 1.26 .66 .85 .74 .72 .7h .52‘. 1.36 1.35 1.15 1.32 1.98 1J3 k. 2.47 2.96 2.62 24% . .‘—-4~ SOURCE: Synthesized from secondary data computed in this thesis. I 110 EEIKES FROM COLORADO PRODUCTION REGION IV, V? SON UNTIL DECEMBER331, 1953 :Estimated Profits :zge _ A S . and Losses thLy =Season Average , 4954 :an9e Djfiezences ° : Beg. of :g Season : 3 Beg. of '1952-53 i 1953-54 :ember 31’ 1953 : :52_t53 : t53_15)4, Wt. : Mkt. RJQLLoct. Nov. Dec.. Season ==Season ‘ Season = Season 2.27 +.30 _. 1.10 1.29 1.10 -.10 -.29 7,25 .59 .70 .70 .84 .56 o -.225 3;;%1.33 1.70 1.07 1.62 1.33 o -.28 .4. 1.95 2.41 1.95 +.LLO 0 /¥ 111 5.?on was». 5.“ 600.9300 .5pr hadpcnooou scum -....emmfimmfimhm "Home .oanmaflmbd spam H mmo.u mm. mm. mm. am. mmm. mmm. new. oomaoaaam mam m.n 66.H m6.H sa.a am.a mm.a am.H Reason mo.+ mm.H sm.H 5:.H om.a ms.a ms.a omeoaao ma.+ m .m m .m ma.m ma.m mm.m aaaeaaa ma.+ Ho.m oa.m ma.m mo.a mo.m mo.m NH.N ago» 26m IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIllmhaHHowtllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . mesonommwm. . u H .mofipm H H “ mwmwom H mmesmhq H mafia he: Hfipm¢ H 309 pnflommfl: nmflm u H up Mada no pamoam H aoaemm H enemas H Hmoa .w amamaq . : Haaa< " Hmaaaao wepwafipwm H H mCQQCHCMMHQ mofihm Hcdpoé H mmoqonmmmfifi mafihm wmpdaflpmm u H. momaam ezmemmmza Hmma .> eoHema :oHaosaomm.eHmmoquao rARSHDUm mam mmopmddom mu BmemQ.pEflHE§H Em mm“: 2.44.4 . pr. 5.30.. 85mm ambaoaw 3.2 Pflflfimmm HHHE ad. 112 .mfiwmsp wage nfl wopdmeCo spam hudchomw scum moufiwmnpcsw .aofibom .ro aam.+ SH.+ RH.H :6. mo.a mm.H sH.H mmw. 66. 6mm. one. mm . cowaoqaas new mm.+ om.+ ma.m om.m oa.m ma.m wm.m mmm.m am.m om.H ou.a ow.a maaaam 6N.+ ms.+ :0.H ea.m am.a Ho.m mo.m mom.w 66.H ao.H aw.a as.a aaaaam am.+ 6m.+ 6H.m m.m sm.a mo.m mm.m mma.m om.m Hos.a 6mm.a wa.a omaoaao mm.+ sH.H+ Hw.m ma.m ow.m mo.m mo:.m 66.: mm.m sm.m mm.m Saaaaaa ma.+ E... $.m mo.m $.m mmé Ram amtm cod Bum mmdm mm.m ”Show 3% IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII......IIIIImHRHHo.©IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII u "flowflmm ..LO mcwmu u u nowdom " nommom u mmoa "mmma ".33. 0:2... be“. “51mph. 05%. brfi " n MWQHQOUHHHNE u mgfiwmuflhd: "3 u u u mwQVHHrWNH mama “ mmoa " moaam "nomamm maaaoaaa: "nomeam maapmaaazn Rog paaomeau seem " aanpaoo amaaon no aaaaoaa " .pm aoaeam " mmaa .apaoz “ mmma .aaaos " mmma .Hm .66m 1 mmma .m sax " copréfipwm u wooanCMMwfi 002m H.253. . . .. " Ramada 659% E 93 ea mama .5. SEQ 2656pr.. :Emeflfie Menage"... Meme. eggs .8 ameHBaaESa mama mnoafiamfim mama 8.2.0.... as... Endgame MUOQ Hanan. 113 .93..an woman mmoadaom aha P10 emeEmemBfifi Manna“ aneu .4’4. -. (rt J... pfirrvfer C an EBB mo Hmm 9480.1» 3d... Bafigamm .mfimmfip man» nun 63.3.50 want Afldmfiooow no.5 Conwwmflpm.fi " N» m. mo... 84 m3; mom. F H .684 26. an; 34 mm; 83651.5 new mm... mm; $4 E; SJ am; m6; 9;; man; om; moo?“ Adm 6398 8.- mm; mom; 8.... an; mom; mm; 34 mm; 3289 mm.- Ha.a 66.H mnm.a mam.a am.a mom.a maa.m mm.a on.a ss.a omeoaao 3.- .34 8:6. 3.6. SS no.1: mm; m8; mam: odm mom.m HON 85.34 6 mm; B; so; Nam mmmé mom.m mi...“ SS. moth mote. Ndw ”flow 262 III ....IIIIIIIIllulllltlnllmnaflaowlnl IIIAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII u mcdemMmfluG u 1. . mowmon no a 002m “ ..HRE .poh ..th .oon £62 3.50 Show « 39H pqaomefla awed. mpmxnnnfi 386.5 Reggae ".3. 836m a 326: ".663 .m sea .. $3 .w .95 H 3368 WI movemhmmmfifi 82m flanged. "moo: powfim 03.5 63.65me Hem 65988.2 mmuamma .2 55mm 1.656556% 114 .mfimoap wasp a“ mopdmsoo dame humanoomm Scum woufimmapmzw "m mama omedHfidbfi. #OHH $30.0 meHHdQ H mH... aHf wHH I mmH ...o.H mOHH HQH 334 RH omH moaH Hm.H 8368.26 new 9... NH... mHH mHH mm; H0.H mOHH 8H mmmH om.H mm; mom; SH .8225 Hm? 6H? me mom; SH SH mmmH SH SH SH RH $.H Hs.H 69826 6H? NH... 5H 8H om; 84 mowH 66.6. Sim Eta 1.3.6. manta. mmd 353.... o 6 SS so...“ Sta sea mom; 3; Hot.“ woé. N64 66; 66.6. ”26w .62 I I.I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mHmHHoe I I I I I I I I I I I I I I.I I I I I I I ..I I I " moamhomyflm." " n In m.m5fil: .nmd : .hmdla .nwh " moanm u.Hm4 .HRE .pmm .qwh "30H anommHE nwfim " 30H pduomewz swam” Hmuthdz $33 .8 n 5. 8.68m " mfino: "HmmH .w .34.: £33. Han :H .aaanH .963 H228 mpfimonm cmpeaflpmm " moonohmmmfim ooahm Heapo< “ moodmhommflfi mOHhm wopdafipmm " zomsHm smegma H....ommH so an on. HRH .H 2523. .E HERB ESSEX .ofifi some $838 .8 ESEEQESH mam ERNEEE SHE H.136... Em. assume HHx mdmam TABLE I 381311111130 All?) ILC'IUI'II PRICE DIN'S'REIEEGBS PE PRCEUCEICR REGION v1, 1952—5312 1121121131110 SEASCN L11: In: : Estimated L Ad Current LPrice Difference - Month 1 Markets : may 2, 1952 .. : 1952-1953 Dec. 31,1953 3 315211 Midnoint Low: SegtL Oct. IIovL‘Dec. JanL Feb. Hang New York 2.18 Atlanta. 2 .37 Chi 08.30 1 .83 Denver 1 .59 Dallas 2 .17 San Francisco 1 .62 2.11 2.08 2.265 2.16 1.76 1.69 1.49 1.38 2.065 1.96 1 .50 1 .41 O O 3 .30 3.25 2.25 2.62 3 .00 2.38 Marks ting Seas on 1.86 1.98 2.1a 2.26 2.08 1.822 1.99 1.98 2.11 2.09 1.96 2.091. 1.26 1.20 1.07 1.44 1.21 1.2 1. 1.73 1.56 1.75 1.69 1.60 1.05 l.‘ 2.11 1.85 1.88 1.76 1.6a 1.811 1.53 1.52 1.6u 1.52 1.51 1.071. SOURCE: Synthesized from secondary data computed in this thesis. TITEDWEIGHT ( IF POBRTOES FRGI IDI’LHO, 71, 3:1; 5113011, 115 .1111) 1953—54 31:27? 31, 195 ;3 _ : Est. Profits 113333 Diff} rences . or Losses ' Months, {1953-54 Season Av. :1952-53 Beg. of 1 I-farketir 1g Season : Price Difference Mar. ' 53- 511'» 2:: Until Dec 3. 31, 1951+ 3 1952-53 1953-543eason Mar. _ljfu Sept; )ct. Nov. Dec. : Season— Season; Season " - - (101 lars --------- ‘ ------------ ' 2:.27 2.19 2.16 2.14 2.20 0 +.02 ::.::‘l6 1.97 2.20 2.05 2.20 2.16 2.13 0 -.03 :,::.78 2.20 1 3.32 1.52 1.66 1.32 1.60 -.37 -.09 ”-124 1.66 1.54 1.72 1.40 +.34 0 .511 2 3.32 1.99 1.78 1.91? 2.01 -.02 0 :5 1..57 1.72 1.73 1.63 1.67 +.22 +.05 ”I; —-——. 116 5.393 mufip 5M -...VmuEHEoo spas .mHamaooom 6.on .woufimospnhm 5. “Bum ' 0r F mm.u no. wH.H Hm. NH.N m.H Hm.a om.a mm.a mm.H mm.H oomflogesm Ham 0 . mw.a mm.m am.H oo.m mu.a mwsa mm.a es.H mn.a em.a mmaaee Hm.+ mm.+ mm.a 00.H em.H oo.m me.a mm.H sm.a me.H w:.H mm.H smpewm NH.+ Hm.+ 00.H :o.m mm.H na.m mm.a mo.H moo.a nn.a mo.H mmo.a om.a omeOflno ne.+ om.m os.m mH.m wadm mm.m mo.m :a.m ma.m epqmape ms.+ :m.m mo.m 3:.m mo.m mmo.m mo.m mo.a mHo.m mo.m snow 30m lllllliltl...IIIIIIIIIIIIIIImHmHHOCIIIIIIIII:IIIIIIIII III NW.$GHJ wt Al . u u Hm..Wp<"h.n9hu mommnmmmfim u u n u .uammmmwstWL moasm ".qeh .ooc .pom .poo .pmom .wsa_sflse “20g pnsomefiz amfim " 20a pcfiomeflm seem " spouse; cpfleomw ".>< nomaom " mapeoz "mm..m seamen..m .mse " an. .w .wsmr: .nae " Happemo @368.“me .L moocmhmwmfifi 00.2% $300.... u moononomfinm mofinm cepUEflpmm " It 1 1|4 Eb ....erm GHHHBWV. a.” mmlammq. .HH.» ”BHUPM ”850,498.23 3699“ find? HOE mfiom..._-aom rmo Emu Epfimgfifi Mug HUMEHM.EHQ Mo Hmm .Hwbrdod EH... Eflfimm. HHHQH manna TIBET} XLIV 1:31.1115f1‘o... '11:: .01. L 11.110: 1 111.111. :1: J12: r1311 1. “1.61.. 1110 .1130-” ..m 195 -0733). 31, 1 1.; .A.. .LJ, 5 '. ~' «1 '5” 5 v17 :7 . W5 11* 1'“ .L.-.CDU’1X=.1L'L .-..LfA..L .. [I]; 19‘);3~j>) 11.112113? ’1" 31‘3“! 1'7“.” ("1 r1 7" :177‘ A~L¢J~J ....L..$Ll 1);. .'.')..‘C.-': , UWJ OI : Sabinitefl P1icc : Actual :3100 I TI)" 41‘30 54 37'.“ : ‘f 1 a Central ’ 111-0.ences L “Ontn, 19f? L-53 - . r-’ z T 7.1 1.. .'_.' I. A Merket ‘31 y 2 ,‘5? ~“ec.?1,'53 “grue.1nu Jeason - * 1 'Kifih ui“Doint Low’ #uF. 3093. CCU. Lov. 300. J n.‘ on. : : Ila-11$! S Eetimated Profit or Losses :1952~53 5;.{5-3 .lj3_lr[1 7113-0... A ..\ O ,_ a $121101“ $.13 ..1o .1? -.11 , ‘1 7‘ '1 ’ y r) 5 1 r3 _ fir: n/ C_]_‘-C"{: .L. {,9 ..7f)[ 1 .75. .Olr -.1") 1 .U) 1.,UD r’ ’z 0 , , (\ _. of. ’. 1.9 1‘) /\ r‘ (H of ”71'21112‘.S 1— 0913’ j- “-19 9 .‘J" 1' ‘ 0‘71“) ' - o 5 5‘ .50 I 09/) l oUb Or) v‘ ‘ '1 0 / (‘l \ -:’r7 Trhnc1sco 1.u3 1.3o 1.33 1.30 1.0; 1.19 1.5. }._l - ‘— U1. +.61 -+.54 +.O8 + 2’ +.18 _.-‘ — ..- ’f‘ "" 'r r- J C‘ 1 n (N, -- .5-) g _ i~L.;1..£}U.L:L-:i ).)(:L..SU11 "'TT 1(‘71 “7 1 . H A " ~n r n r51\~1“'(‘" ‘11’1 ’Lh’:r1 "11(3r‘1‘.c1 . ,‘ q - l— >‘ 1 “V r -- 1“} n fr ‘ {‘1 37f (" t,‘. , 4 .. 1 ._ y . , D.,IK.K/ -.|.\J.J-J. L)» )1 .1ch $14—31).— .L I‘C'i.» .-OCC‘II 1 (I L 4 . . 1-» C. ‘..' {xx—J 1 —-._~ J4»_~—- 1. \IJ-Jx)-- 1. .BGginning :Harket- :of 1952- :ing Sea“: 1953 n.1y 1‘1“.“751 USE 011L151 ‘\ "uJ. 9' Oct 23 ‘57 .° \J' . ‘1 § . g)